Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission's Inquiry Into the Murder of President John F. Kennedy

For readers who are not familiar at all with the 40 years of the JFK assassination debate, Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement" is probably, in my view, the second book to read. The first would be the Warren Commission Report. As this is an 888-page tome, designed to appear to be "thorough" or "exhaustive" in its research, I would suggest, if the reader has acquired the technique of skimming, to quickly go through this book to locate its major ideas. You will then find out how good a job you've done by carefully reading RTJ. Then go back to the WCR, keeping the objections and questions of Mark Lane in mind. After a careful reading of the WCR, the reader will then be in a position to understand, unlike the reader from Maryland, why some people have a problem with the WCR.By all means read Posner's "Case Closed". It's probably the best apology for the WCR on the market. But be sure to find the Harrison Livingstone book (can't remember the title) which devotes a whole chapter to a discussion of Posner's book, and follow that with Harold Weisberg's "Case Open", which devotes the whole book to debunking Posner. But there are many serious researchers who have problems with Posner.There are at least three 1960's books, all eminently readable, whose reason for being is simply to point out to the person with an open mind and average intelligence that the WCR, as it stands, can't possibly be the truth behind the Kennedy assassination. To attack them for being something other than they were meant to be strikes me as highly irrational. As Mark Lane points out, the WCR is really a brief for the prosecution. If Mark Lane had been allowed to be Lee Harvey Oswald's lawyer, there would have been no need for his book.For those who can stomach the truth, you might also want to read Sylvia Meagher's "Accessories After the Fact" and Harold Weisberg's "Whitewash" series.If you are like the reader from Maryland, stick with your Posner.

Maybe this book will not tell who pulled the trigger. But Mark Lane shows two very important things. First, Oswald COULDN'T have been involved in the assassination of President JFK. Secondly, he shows that there were more people who participated in the assassination of Pres JFK.This book has the historical consequence that the Warren Commission can't be trusted. As a reader of the Warren Commission Volumes, I testify to the fact that that investigation was a joke. Mark Lane shows conclusively, the failure of investigating who the real murderers were, and their failure in explaining why Oswald was the "murderer".

Mark Lane asked a simple question well over 30 years ago: how can a man who was never tried for a murder, a man who was himself murdered just days after the crime in question took place, a man who never had a chance to present his defense -- how can that man be declared a killer for all eternity? I have never understood how the conventional wisdom assumes that the right and proper position is to presume the man guilty when he was never and could never be accorded anything resembling due process. Once he was killed while in custody of law enforcement, it would seem right and proper under our system to presume the man's innocence -- or at least to leave the matter an open question. But for these past decades, the "proper" position, the "serious" position has been to simply say that John F. Kennedy was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald. That no court of law ever adjudicated the matter of his guilt or innocence seems irrelevent to many. To suggest anything else, to suggest that reasonable doubt exists because the man never had a fair hearing and that the man was never convicted of anything, is to invite being labeled "a kook" or a "conspiracy theorist" or some other equally disturbing pejorative. I have enough respect for our system to tell future generations that the President's killer, whoever he was, was never tried and convicted. Seems reasonable, doesn't it?

A lot of people have spent years of their lives trying to discredit Lane.The fact remains that in open debate on this topic he is unsurpassed and cannot be challenged.The fact that Lane attempted to represent Oswald's interests to the commission should not detract from this piece of work.Admittedly it is a defence's brief and does not consider that some of the commission's assertions may be correct, this is perhaps the only flaw of the book.That aside, without giving anything away it is an exceptional work, easy to follow and well written and should be considered the first stop for any would-be commission critic. The facts don't appear dated even though this book was originally published in 1966, although seasoned Kennedy killing followers may feel that they have already covered a lot of the ground already.This book is a must have.

When I interviewed Mr. Lane for my TV show,(over two hours) I got a chance to see an American Hero up close.It was from this book that all the original questions about the Warren Report were rasied, an upon these facts that JKF the film leaned heavily.This book should be read by every American.