Episode 16: JFK - Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgment" Documentary Film

Mark Lane was one of the first with access to a major audience to question the Warren Commission Report. He released the book version of Rush to Judgment in 1966 and the subsequent documentary film the year after.

Lane sets up the film as a sort of "defense counsel," i.e., had Oswald lived, he would have been entitled to an attorney and a defense strategy. In watching the witnesses, it's clear to see how people trusted the government more in the 1960s than they do today. One conspiracy theory around Lane's book is that it was partially funded by the KGB. (Oh that good old Cold War propaganda game.) Lane denies this claim, of course.

So what do we think of Rush to Judgment?

Links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_to_Judgment

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8flmyo

https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/objects/john-f-kennedys-foot-extending-over-side-of-presidential-limousine-after

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orville_Nix

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Brehm

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKlovelady.htm

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKrobertsE2.htm

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKreynolds.htm

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKclemons.htm

https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/woke-jfk-racism-and-november-22

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/11/acquilla-clemons-and-murder-of-jd-tippit.html

https://www.jfk-online.com/mark-lane-the-left's-leading-hearse-chaser.pdf

Need more? You can visit the website at: https://consaracytheories.com/ or my own site at: https://saracausey.com/. Don't forget to check out the blog at: https://consaracytheories.com/blog. 

Transcript

Transcription by Otter.ai.  Please forgive any typos!

Welcome to con-sara-cy theories. Are you ready to ask questions you shouldn't and find information you're not supposed to know? Well, you're in the right place. Here is your host, Sara Causey.

Hello, Hello, and thanks for tuning in. In tonight's episode, I want to talk about Mark lanes documentary film rush to judgment. It was released in 1967. And it's a follow up to his book of the same title that was released in 1966. It would be hyperbolic to say that Mark Lane was the first person to be critical of the Warren Commission Report. That's not true. But it has been said that he's really the first person with a major audience to be critical, openly critical of the Warren Commission Report. And he more or less kicks the door open for other people to follow suit, whether it's writing books, making movies, making documentaries, we can thank Mark lane for saying, hey, wait a minute, none of this makes any sense. So pour yourself up a frosty beverage of choice. And let's settle up and take this ride. The first few moments of the film begin with the chaos that ensued after the death of JFK, more specifically, when Oswald is apprehended and he's giving the interview to the media where he's like, I don't even know what I've been charged with. Maybe somebody can tell me I need legal representation. And we're tossed back in time to that moment where the facts and I'm using big air quotes here. The facts of what actually happened are still being sorted out. Who is Oswald, why did he do this thing? Did he do this thing? Why is he not aware that he's been charged with doing it? And why does he not have an attorney? We see the officials telling the media that Oswald comes across as arrogant. He denies that he did anything. That's like, Okay, well, just because somebody denies that they've done this horrible deed, does that automatically make them arrogant? But maybe he did have a terrible attitude when he went back for questioning? I mean, surely that's not the highlight of somebody's day. There also seems to be a fair amount of speculation, like leading the witness and speculating in front of the media, because we're told also by officials, well, it seems like he's been plotting this for a while this was a man who for weeks or maybe even months had a plan to do this. And then he finally did it. But we're not really told, where's the evidence of that? Has he confessed to doing that? I mean, we're told that he's arrogant. And he denies doing all of it. But then we're also told, yeah, he's he's spent weeks or even months doing this? Well, that seems pretty speculative, like in a court of law, that would surely surely the defense attorney would pop up out of the chair and say, Objection for hearsay. The media asks if anybody has been an eyewitness. Did anybody actually see Oswald pull the trigger? And the officials admit that no, they don't have any witnesses that can say that, when they're asked about the ballistics report, however, oh, we imagine it's going to be favorable. So again, it seems to me like there's a lot of speculation a lot of let's get out ahead of this, and try to cross our fingers and predict that what we hope is going to happen will actually happen. And the officials also just simply say, there's no doubt he was the killer.

There's been no trial. There's really not even that much evidence at this point in time, but it's like Nope, there's no doubt in my mind, I've met a moral certitude that this guy is the killer. We're told that the authorities plan to seek the death penalty in this case. We're also told allegedly that Dallas police were not aware that Oswald was in the area. But allegedly, the Foxtrot Bravo India was aware that Oswald was in Dallas. In an interview dated February 11 1964. Mark Lane speaking about Oswald says, if he had lived, he would be entitled to counsel. So that's really what rush to judgment the documentary becomes. It's set up like a defense counsel, if Mark Lane were to have been Lee Harvey Oswald's attorney, and he wanted to interview witnesses and take a look at the evidence. How would he have put on a defense for this person? What do the witnesses say? What does the evidence seem to suggest? If we went into it with more of an open mind, unlike the officials were like, there's no doubt in our minds, he was guilty. We're just gonna fry the sandwich. If we went into it like okay, well wait a minute, everybody's entitled to their day in court and to put on a defense for themselves. How might we approach the subject then? Was there in fact a rush to judgment when when you look If the collection of clips that lane provides for you definitely seems that there was a rush to judgment. Even though we're told by the officials that they expect, the evidence will show that Oswald is guilty. When asked about the nitrate test, which means has somebody fired a Boomstick? What we actually find out is that the test shows no powder, and no nitrates on the face. So we know that Oswald could not have fired an R i f L. II mean, if he did, he wasn't able to actually put it up to his face. So how would you use the scope? How would you actually be able to get your target in the sights? I mean, was he just like holding it down low, like a different kind of Boomstick. And using it that way, and then somehow miraculously managed with only three rounds to do that kind of damage. It makes no sense. According to lane, the way that the Warren Commission resolves, again, we're using resolves and big air quotes here resolves this discrepancy is to just simply say, well, the test is unreliable. It had to have been him. couldn't have been that the test is showing he didn't actually fire and ri fle that day, no test must have been flawed. We're also told by the officials that Oswald was the only employee of the Texas School Book Depository that was missing. But then mark Lane says this isn't true. There were 48 employees who were missing, which makes sense, because you're so close to the motorcade route that why would employees not want to go outside? Plus Kennedy was going by at around 1230. That's the lunch hour at most places of business. I mean, somebody would have to really be a complete and total Scrooge to tell their employees. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to go wave at the President as he drives by, it's your lunch hour, go do what you want. It makes sense that 48 People would be out on the sidewalk or somewhere to go watch the motorcade go by. Whereas it doesn't really make any sense that Oswald would be the only person that was unaccounted for at that present moment. Except we know that he was accounted for because he was in the lunchroom drinking a soda pop. The district attorney alleges that Oswald took a bus. And he made mentioned to someone on the bus that the President had been shot. And then he laughed about it. It's worth noting that Mark Lane also points out that at the point in time that these officials are saying they had Oswald's description. They actually didn't have his description yet. So this is another fly in the ointment. Well, how did they know what he looked like? How did they know who they were looking for at that point in time? That's weird. In terms of saying he got on the bus and laughed, oh, the President's been shot. Hahaha. Man, that's just part I think of making the case that this guy was a cold hearted bastard. And he thought the whole thing was funny. Now whether it's true or not, you're laying your groundwork to make the case that he's guilty period. Oh, and by the way, is some kind of sociopath who thinks it's funny what he's done. Mark Lane says that the bus driver in question. Actually, it wasn't Oswald, who made the comment and laughed. It was somebody else. And when asked, Could you identify Oswald? The person says no, I could not. So we're getting again into the territory of something that is very sketchy, something here is not right. And if this were a different case, if this were John Doe down the street, who was murdered, and the police were looking to apprehend his killer, this is the kind of stuff that would cause the case to get thrown out in a court of law. Mark Lane points out that what Oswald did, in trying to recreate just the marksmanship of it, it was not possible to do that. Using the same kind of our ifl II and getting off the same number of rounds. It just wasn't possible to do what we're told that Oswald did. So perhaps the argument is maybe he was just one hell of a shot. Maybe he was just that incredible and once in a lifetime, once in a century person who could pull off the seemingly impossible. So Mark Lane sits down with Nelson Delgado who had served in the military with Oswald, and he attests that Oswald was no masterclass marksman in the service, and frequently would get kind of picked on kind of made fun of for his inability to hit a target. So does that sound like a guy who Suddenly is a master class who manages to pull off the absolutely impossible, then on top of that he doesn't have the nitrates on his cheek that you would need to be able to aim appropriately. Huh? We're getting further and further into the territory of this makes no freaking since we're also told that Connelly's reaction, the fragments, the bullet fragments that are found in his wrist, things are just not adding up with what we find on the Zapruder film, the order of operations, so to speak, which shot hits which person isn't lining up with what the evidence should show? If it really is one person, ie Oswald, who manages to get three shots. And they all hit Kennedy. And then they do so in a way that's sequential. Something here is not making sense based on the way that Connolly is reacting and what he describes that he feels in the motorcade. Now the next bit I actually had professionally transcribed because I wanted to make sure that what I was hearing was the same thing that somebody else would hear. And when I hired the person to do this, I didn't lead the witness in any way. I didn't say here's what I think I heard. Oh my god, this is big. I want to see if you heard the same thing. No, I just hired a professional transcriptionist and said I want you to take from x timestamp to why timestamp and type everything that you hear in the interviews between Mark lane and S. M. Holland, the railroad supervisor, Lane says The Commission also stated as you know, Mr. Holland that the same bullet which hit Governor Conley first struck President Kennedy, based upon what you observed from that position just above the street on the overpass, is that possible? And Hollen says no. That Warren Commission is an error on that because I was a eyewitness to that. And I know that the same bullet that hit President Kennedy did not hit Governor Connally. The first bullet, the president slumped over and Governor Conley made his turn to the right, and then back to the left. And that's when the second shot was fired and knocked him down in the floorboard. And it would have been impossible for him to turn and have the same bullet hit him that went through the President's neck. Lane then asks, and did you see the effect of the next bullet which struck Kennedy? Holland replies, I saw the effects of the next bullet that struck the president because it flipped him over almost on his stomach, and his side of his head, and his head was laying on the edge of the seat. He was laying more on his stomach and his foot was hanging out over the edge of the car upside down and quote, and I thought, wait a minute. I don't ever remember hearing anything about that. How would he even get into that kind of a position? Lo and behold, there is a photograph, I will drop a link to it. You can check it out for yourself and see what you think. And it is a photograph of Kennedy's foot allegedly, okay. Allegedly Kennedy's foot extending over the side of the Presidential limousine after he's been hit. This was not a photograph that I had seen before that I had ever even heard of before. I just remember thinking, Okay, so in the Zapruder film, we see him and he does go over to the side. And Jackie is there. You know, she talks about having his head in her lap and I'm like, How did his foot get out? If that is his foot, and this is genuine, How did his foot get over the side of the vehicle like that? This is another area where I would just simply say, I feel like something fishy is going on. This is weird. Holland goes on to say that from his vantage point around the triple Overpass, he saw a puff of smoke around the wooden fence. So if you're thinking about the geography there have what's called the grassy knoll there was a wooden fence that theoretically if you believe somebody was there, or more than one somebody was there that day, the wooden fence could help to obstruct that person and potentially give them an opportunity to fire off around and then quickly get away. So according to Holland, he saw a puff of smoke in that area. He tells the story of two police officers like one of them just abandons his motorcycle in the street and makes a beeline for the grassy knoll. Another officer tries to ride up on the on the knoll but loses traction and then he too, is trying to get to the grassy knoll. So there's something that happens in there, He further says that there is no doubt in his mind that at least one of the shots came from behind that fence in the grassy knoll area. He also states that a group of six or eight men who were part of the Union terminal, all saw and heard the same thing and they went rushing over to the grassy knoll because they all believe that that's where a pop popper had been. Another witness named Richard Dodd confirms that he and three other railroad workers who were with him also saw a puff of smoke in the same area that Hollins said that he saw the puff of smoke confirms that there were police officers that just abandoned motorcycles to run up the grassy knoll, also that there had been the presence of cigarette butts as though somebody had been standing there waiting and watching and smoking. James Simmons is another witness who says that he did give testimony to the Dallas police but he was never called to give any kind of testimony to the Warren Commission. He confirms that he also heard a report and saw a puff of smoke in the wooden fence area on the grassy knoll, and that he saw police officers running to that area. He also confirmed the presence of footprints in the mud like a trail of tracks around the fence suggesting that somebody had been there previously.

Another witness James Tang, recounts his story of standing by the east end of the triple Overpass, and he's hit in the cheek and cut in the cheek by a small piece of cement. an errant bullet strikes the curb, and a small piece of cement or concrete breaks off of that, and it cuts him in the cheek when Mark Lane asks about his impression of where did that shot come from? Take admits that he initially believed that it was from the grassy knoll wooden fence area. But he has since changed his mind. Because the must have come from the School Book Depository because that's what was said in the Warren report and in the newspapers. Unfortunately, this is a sad, depressing theme that we will find throughout rush to judgment, people saying here's what I saw, here's what I heard. Here's where I believe the shot came from. But I must be wrong. Because the government says it came from the School Book Depository. And so they must be right. For one thing. Nowadays, it's a bit laughable because people wouldn't be well, I say that, you know, let me let me back that up. I say people wouldn't be as willing to just automatically go well, I know what I saw. I know what I heard. But the official report is something different. Therefore, the official report must be the one that's correct. You would have people who would disagree with the official report. But honestly, when we think back to that, and the way that people behaved, the mass panic, that set in, people might still just go right along with it. It's like there is a greater sense of cynicism now than there was then. But there's also a high level of compliance. And I think that we can't it's easy for us to sort of sit in judgment of these witnesses all of these years later and be like, Well, if you know what you saw, and you know what you heard, why would you walk it back and say, but I must be wrong. Don't underestimate the fear factor. They might have been scared. In some cases, they might have been scared for their lives. We don't know if some of them were threatened or intimidated in some way. That factors into the decision as well. Mark Lane also interviews or whole mix. Now we tend to think of the Zapruder film as being the film, as in the only film. But technically, that's not true. Orville Nicks made a film that day as well. And he allegedly gives the film to the Foxtrot Bravo India somewhere on or about December 1 1963. And it's returned to him a few days later. And I think at some point, United Press International buys a copyright for it and they take possession of the film. Now Nick says that whenever the film is returned to him, it's not the same film that he submitted, that according to him, there are frames missing from the film that he turned in versus the film that he received back. He believes that the shots came from the grassy knoll area, the wooden fence area, and he was not looking at the School Book Depository like as he's making his film because more McLean asks him, when did you at any point, look over there? Did you think shots had come from there? And he very clearly and definitively says no, just as we see with James take, we see the same thing play out here with Orville mix. When he's asked, he says, well, the shots must have come from the Texas School Book Depository because I believe the Warren Commission Report. Again, I would say don't people people like to say, well, back in the early to mid 60s, citizens were a lot more trustful of the government than they are now. But I still wonder how much of it could have been fear and intimidation. I mean, if a sitting president never forget this, okay. I understand that there are people who feel like this is morbid and McCobb we should all just forget about it. Nothing can be done. Now. The man is deceased. Even if he had lived a long, full life, he'd be over 100 years old now was born in 1917. Let it freakin go. I get it. Never forget this one point, if the powers that be, are powerful enough to kill a sitting president in broad daylight in front of God and everybody, the man's own wife and kids who were there spectating. They can do whatever the hell they want. So I think it would be naive and foolish to rule out the possibility that some of these people were just scared shitless seriously.

Now here's an addendum to the story when we go to the Orville next page on Wikipedia, we find in 2015, Nick's his granddaughter Gail Nix, Jackson initiated a lawsuit against the US government for the return of the original film or compensation seeking $10 million. Next, Jackson said that it was incomprehensible authorities would lose an important piece of historical evidence, I can understand little clerical issues. I don't understand the loss of evidence like this, she said. In 2017, Nick's Jackson's lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice from proceeding in that court type venue. Subsequently next, Jackson filed a similar lawsuit in a different court tight venue. Now, Nick's his family who claimed to have owned the rights to the film since he died in 1972, are suing the country's National Archives and Records Administration, they want the return of the original and all copies as well as the $29.7 million in compensatory damages. nixes descendants intend to have the original closely re examined using AI and other new tech developments, if it is returned intact, in quote, imagine that. When do you think the odds are that we will ever have access to something like that? I mean, maybe you know, further into the future, you already talking about generations of people, myself included, I'm an XOR. Our generation didn't even start until after Kennedy's death. So you have entire generations of people who were not even alive, they have no memory from their own firsthand life experience of Kennedy being elected Kennedy's presidency, Kennedy's death and the subsequent fallout. We're all learning about it as a matter of history. So maybe at some point down the road decades from now, somebody will get a copy of that, restore it using AI and be able to see clear details. But for the time being, I would not hold my breath. Mark Lane interviews another witness Jessie Price, who was actually on a rooftop. So it's it's interesting because he has a larger bird's eye view of the whole scene than somebody that's on the ground level. He was on the rooftop, I believe, of the terminal annex building. And so when he's asked about the shots, he two points out the grassy knoll and the picket fence and also claims that he saw a man running away from that area. Mark Lane asks if he was ever called to give his testimony to the Warren Commission, and he laughs a little bit nervously and says that no, he wasn't. As we see with other witnesses in this documentary film, whenever push comes to shove, it's like, I guess I must have been wrong. I saw what I saw. I heard what I heard. But it must be that my recollection is incorrect because it doesn't fit in with what the Warren Commission found. There's another witness William Newman, who was interviewed by the press immediately after the death of JFK. And he recounts seeing a bullet hit Kennedy in the temple and believing that the shot came from the grassy knoll area. Mark Lane interviews a witness Charles brim, who had taken his then five year old son to Dealey Plaza to wave at the president. This is a really horrible thing to imagine a young five year old child bearing witness to this. He says that his son is waving at Kennedy Kennedy goes to wave back and then that's When the shots start, according to brim, he sees like a bit of the President's hair fly up, and then some bits of brain and bone come out. And then Kennedy slumps over and he feels that Kennedy you know leans over and in the direction you know that Kennedy is leaning it would be highly unlikely that the shot is coming to him from the backside. So brim has this ringside seat so to speak for a really horrendous event. In a subsequent interview later, in 1967, Mark Lane talks to Playboy magazine and he says of brim brim told me in a filmed interview that a portion of the President's goal was driven back and sharply to the left over the rear of the President's car. Unless the laws of physics were temporarily suspended. This offers impressive corroboration for those who say the shot came from the right front of the car in substantially the opposite direction from the Depository in quote, Mark Lane interviews leave hours and he says that as the motorcade passed, there was either a flash of light or a big puff of smoke. Something happened over there in that fence area of the grassy knoll that caught his attention. And that struck him as being out of the ordinary, it was attention getting whatever it was. Lee says that he gave his testimony to Dallas police as well as the Foxtrot Bravo, India. And he says that because two of the shots basically came right on top of one another, he did not feel there was any way possible. They could have been deployed from the same Boomstick. And he's then told well, you're not an expert on the subject. What a response. Holland is one of the few witnesses or participants in this documentary, who says what most people nowadays are thinking, which is, the Warren Commission had to make the evidence fit their narrative. They had to make it so that Oswald acted alone from the School Book Depository. And so whatever they needed to do to fit this conclusion, that's what they did. Holland and Lane go to the grassy knoll, and the wooden fence and he shows in so not just looking at pictures, not talking about it, but shows lane. In reality. This is where I saw the smoke. This is where I believe someone was standing. But yet, we're supposed to think that even though this wide variety of witnesses throughout Dealey Plaza, all saying the same basic thing, somehow they're all wrong. None of those people was considered credible. But we have to believe what the Warren Commission tells us that it was Oswald. He was alone. And he was in the School Book Depository. He shows a picture that reportedly is Oswald or it could be Oswald, standing downstairs outside watching the motorcade. So it's like, if that really is a picture of Oswald, then how could he have been downstairs outside watching the motorcade, but then simultaneously have also been upstairs on the sixth floor? In the School Book Depository, performing the deed? Do we know for sure that that's Oswald standing outside? Maybe, maybe not? We don't know for sure. But why wasn't that evidence ever explored? If that really is him standing outdoors, you have a giant problem with your theory that he's upstairs doing the Pop Pop. Okay, not to worry, not to worry. Supposedly it's not Oswald. It's a man named Billy Lovelady and whenever he was identified in the photograph, he agreed that it was him in the photograph. He said that he was wearing a red and white striped sports shirt that was buttoned all the way to the neck, which is different from the shirt that the man in the doorway of the Book Depository is wearing and the shirt that this other man potentially Lovelady, potentially Oswald, potentially some other person, we don't know, that shirt is definitely not buttoned all the way to the neck because you clearly see the man's white undershirt. So this brings up a whole other can of worms. So who is this guy really? Isn't Oswald? Maybe? Maybe not. Is it this love Lady guy? Maybe? Maybe not. Is it some third person? Could be? We don't know. We segue from there into the presence of Jack Ruby at the time when Oswald is killed. And there's a witness named Napoleon Daniels who talks about seeing Ruby but obviously before he murders Oswald, and he paints this picture of like Ruby just being allowed to come in as though it happened every day. It was normal. He was cleared personnel and it's no big deal. Mark Lane interviews a woman named Nancy Hamilton, who says that she worked as a bartender for one of Jack Ruby's clubs. And she said when she was new to Dallas, she went to the police station, which, I don't know, do people do that back in the 50s? And 60s? Was that a thing? I don't know. I'm not sure. If I were to move to a new town, I don't think my very first stop would be the police station, especially in terms of finding a job. Can you imagine if you walked into a police station now and sat down at a cop's desk and Hey, buddy, I'm new to town. I was just wondering if you know, anybody that's hiring, probably tell you to get the hell out in coarser language than that. Anyway, Nancy Hamilton claims that she goes to the police station, and lets them know that she's new to town looking for work. And so they set her up with Jack Ruby so that she can get a job working for him. Whether this is true or not, it's certainly is a another item of weirdness here who goes to a police station to say they're new in town and they need a job. And then why would the cops immediately refer you to somebody like Jack Ruby and say, why don't you go be bartender at one of his clubs?

She paints this picture that the Dallas Police are frequent customers of Jack rubies, clubs, and that they even have their own special liquor, just house brand or rail liquor, no, not for them. They needed to get the premium spirits. And it was just an understood thing. You take good care of them. You don't present them with a bill you don't give them any hassle, whatever it is that they want. You provide it and you do so with no backtalk Mark Lane interviews a man identified as Mr. Johnson, who for my money is one of the coolest dudes I've ever freakin seen in a documentary ever. Forget about just JFK related documentaries, any documentaries because he's sitting there it looks like maybe they're in a club or something. He's just TINKERING AWAY on the piano saying what he's got to say. And he corroborate that. Yes, he knew Jack Ruby and that Yes, Jack Ruby was in tight with the police force. Now the official line that we're given is that a very small number of Dallas police officers knew Jack Ruby, and the ones who did it was because they had been called to one of his establishments. At some point. Somebody got rowdy, somebody got out of hand, they needed to investigate something. So they only knew him on the periphery because they had had to go to one of his establishments but like, No, it's not like we knew the guy personally. And we were buddies with him or drank in one of his bars. No, no, no, no, not that. Supposedly only four police officers had ever gone to one of Jack Ruby's establishments, after hours, not on duty to just have a drink and have a little fun only for meanwhile, we cut back to Mr. Johnson, the piano player, and he's like, No, cops were in there on duty and off duty. And they were treated like royalty when they came in lane interviews, pin Jones, Jr, who was a reporter, like an editor and reporter for the Midlothian mirror. And he is one of the earliest critics or maybe one of the earliest outspoken critics of the Warren report. In fact, he tells Mark lane, that in his opinion, the only way somebody would believe the Warren Commission report is if they didn't read it. I also admire the fact that he's just open with his bias. He starts out the interview that we see with Mark lane by saying that he loved President Kennedy. So I admire the fact that he's putting that out on Front Street and saying that he had this bias. He's coming to this from a place of love, which I think more people should do. Pin reports that there are witnesses who will not come forward because they've been scared. They've been intimidated by as he says, quote, federal authorities, not to say anything, which that's the point that I made earlier. We don't need to discount or dismiss the fear factor. In this. It's easy for us to attribute it to people's naivete. Well, back then people were more trusting. They really believe the government whatever. Report or document had the word official stamped on it, it was like the word of God, the inerrant Word of God. Okay, but at the same time, let's don't forget that if somebody is telling you, I will kill you, I will kill your family, or your entire life will go up in flames. If you say anything. That's a pretty clear reason to keep your mouth shut. Both lane and pin bring up the witness Earlene Roberts, who actually did testify before the Warren Commission. I'm gonna go now to Spartacus educational. I'll drop a link to her profile page there so you can read this for yourself. We read as a diabetic Roberts was forced to give up this work and instead began to take in lodgers on October 14th Roberts rented a room to Lee Harvey Oswald. Roberts testified before the Warren Commission that Oswald arrived home at around 1pm on November 22 1963, he stayed only a few minutes but while he was in the house, a Dallas Police Department car parked in front of the house in the car where two uniformed policemen. Roberts described how the driver sounded the horn twice before driving off. Soon afterwards, Oswald left the house. Roberts also testified that she thought the police cars number was 106 Some researchers have suggested that it might have been the car being driven by JD Tippit. However, the Dallas Police denied that they had any cars in that area at 1pm on November 22. In an article published in ramparts, David Welsh claims that Roberts was subjected to intense police harassment. They visited her at all hours of the day and night contacted her employers and identified her as the Oswald rooming house lady. As a result she was dismissed from three housekeeping and nursing jobs in April May and June of 1964. Alone, no telling how many jobs she lost after that. Arlene Roberts died of a heart attack in Parkland Hospital on January 9 1966, and quote, regarding suspicious deaths because at that point in time when rush to judgment is made, there had already been some weird suspicious conveniently timed deaths of people that may have witnessed something that they shouldn't have. And pin brings up the whole Betty McDonald slash Nancy Mooney, whatever her real name was situation. And Mark Lane actually interviewed Warren Reynolds because Warren was involved in this weird tangled web. So I'm gonna go back to Spartacus educational and read Warren Reynolds tap here, drop a link to it so you can check it out for yourself. Warren Reynolds was born in Dallas on June 22 1935. After leaving forest Avenue high school he found work in his brother's company Reynolds Motor Company. On November 22 1963, Reynolds was in the Oak Cliff area. When officer JD Tippit was killed. He did not see the shooting but saw the gunman running from the scene of the crime. Robert J. Groden later claimed that Reynolds stated that the man he saw was not we Harvey Oswald. On January 23 1964, Reynolds was himself the victim of a violent attack. Daryl Garner was arrested but Betty Mooney McDonald, who had worked for Jack Ruby gave Garner an alibi. McDonald was then arrested for fighting with her roommate. Soon afterwards, McDonald committed suicide in her police cell. Where have we heard that before? Ha a convenient hanging inside a jail cell who couldn't be temporary Trump screen member. Despite being shot in the head, Reynolds survived and after making a full recovery gave evidence to the Warren Commission. He had now changed his mind and identified Oswald as the man he had seen running from the scene of the crime and quote, yeah, I'd say that's pretty damn suspicious. A woman alibis. Daryl Garner after he has allegedly attacked this Warren Reynolds. But then McDonald is arrested. And when she goes into a jail cell, she's found hanging.

Reynold survives being shot in the head, and after making a recovery, he decides that in fact, Oswald was the man that he saw running from the scene of the crime, ie, the shooting of JD Tippit. Hmm, nothing sketchy about that at all happens every day totally normal. Mark Lane interviews Aquila Clemens, who was on the on the scene when JD Tippit was murdered and her testimony doesn't exactly comport with the idea that it must have been Lee Harvey Oswald. I will go back to Spartacus educational and read her page for you here. I'll drop a link to it of course please check it out for yourselves. Aquila. Clemens lived on the north side of 10th Street in Dallas on 22nd November 1963. Clements was sitting on the porch of her house when she saw officer JD Tibbett killed. Afterwards, she claimed that there were two men involved in the attack on tippet. She later testified in a television documentary which of course this would be rushed to judgment that the gunman was a short guy and kind of heavy The other man was tall and thin and khaki trousers and a white shirt. She also claimed that Dallas police warned her not to repeat this story to others or she might get hurt. Anthony summers, the author of the Kennedy conspiracy in 1980. He writes, obviously Mrs. Clemens should have been questioned more thoroughly than in a television interview. She said she had been visited by the Foxtrot Bravo India, who decided not to take a statement because of her poor health. Mrs. Clemens suffered from diabetes, hardly a condition to deter efficient investigators from taking a statement. According to two reporters who visited Mrs. Clinton several years after the Pop Pop she and her family still spoke with conviction of seeing two men at the scene of the Tibbett pop up. Mrs. Clemens story finds corroboration from another witness and he too was ignored and quote. Yeah, I remember hearing that for the first time that her she was dismissed because she had diabetes. And I thought, well just wait a few years and like half the country is diabetic. Now that wouldn't be a reason for somebody to not be considered a reliable witness to a crime. How completely bizarre. We also have to think about racism. Because this is a woman of color, her testimony is going to be discounted for that reason. It's also worth noting, I think that shortly after his interview with rush to judgment leave hours died. And this mark Lane actually flashes that information up in this documentary. When we go to Wikipedia, we find Bowers died in August 1966 When his car left an empty road and struck a concrete bridge abutment near Midlothian, Texas and quote. So I think it's worth adding to the list of weird deaths, not necessarily to say that there was anything suspicious involved in that, that there was some part of some kind of conspiracy against Lee Bowers, just saying it seems awfully weird that somebody would have a car accident on an empty road. It does happen. Just not all that often. If we go over for a brief moment to Jefferson Morley substack JFK facts, he has a blog post titled how racism affects our understanding of November 22. And in this post, I mean, we do hit a paywall, but before we get there, he talks about David Vaughn pain or pain, pine, I don't I don't actually know how it's pronounced. So I will just call this person DVP because it's easier than saying a name I'm not sure how to pronounce. But on this man's JFK channel, which has 48,000 subscribers on YouTube, we learn that he is a believer in the government's beleaguered theory what Jefferson Morley calls the government's beleaguered theory of a magic bullet fired by a lone gunman. He is well informed and influential in many ways he is also profoundly ignorant in one important way. In a recent chat group discussion among JFK researchers Vaughn Payne Vaughn Payne Vaughn pine, you decide who objected to the argument that Aquila Clemens and African American eyewitness who disputed that Dallas police officer JD Tippit was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald was treated in a racist manner. Yeah, I would also say that that sorry, especially when we think about the time this woman's testimony is trying to be discounted over diabetes. It's kind of like why don't we just call a thing a thing? There? Surely there was some racism involved there. I mean, it was Dallas in the 1960s. To use the phrase does your Come on man. I think we just have to be real about these things. Pin Jones before the documentary ends, pin Joan pin Jones makes the comment. Like I wish the computer would come up with the odds of this actually happening. And I was like, Well, hey, all these years later, that that has been done. When I was rewatching rush to judgment to be able to speak about it for this podcast episode. I immediately thought of Richard Belters book hitlist. Whenever pin Jones makes that comment, I wish the computer would calculate the odds. It's like, well, if you live long enough technology will oblige you. So in hitlist, Richard Belzer talks about how an actuary engaged by the London Times calculated out the probability that at least 18 witnesses would die of any cause within three years of the JFK pop pop. And it was calculated out as one in 100,000 trillion. So he does get into exactly that type of scenario. What are the odds that things played out in the official way that we're told? What are the odds that these witnesses are people that had a contrary opinion and some amount of proof to back it up? What are the odds that they would just die of natural causes of whatever? What are the odds of that happening? And we're talking about in the multitude of trillions. So he concludes, it must be a mathematical impossibility. The odds are so far fetched and so absurd, that we have to rule it's a mathematical impossibility. So look, in fairness to the argument here, Mark lane is not without his critics. And speaking of this DVP guy David Vaughn pain fine pain said however, you will meet he has an article on his DBPs JFK archives titled Aquila Clemens and the murder of Officer JD Tippit. And in this he writes the tape recorded interview with Clemens was conducted by Shirley Martin in July of 1964, eight months after the JFK and Tibbett murders, and it's an interview that should make conspiracy theorists especially all of Mark Lane supporters think twice before they ever again try to prop up Mrs. Clemens as a person who witnessed a conspiracy in progress and Oakcliff on November 22 1963, because after reading all of Miss Mr. Meyers excellent 11 117 blog article there can be no doubt about the following two facts number one Mrs. Aquila Clemens when her statements are not edited and trimmed and molded by conspiracy theorists such as the late Mark lane, definitely was not and he has capitalized in bold type not was definitely not the type of bombshell conspiracy witness that she has been portrayed to be by conspiracies for the last 50 plus years. Number two Mark Lane was a deceitful, unscrupulous and manipulative person with respect to the observations of the witness Aquila Clements and quote, that's one hell of an indictment right? deceitful, unscrupulous and manipulative. We also when you go to the Wikipedia page for rush to judgment, we read about the accusations of the KGB. According to former KGB officer Vasili Mitrokhin in his 1999 book, The sword and the shield the KGB helped finance LNS research on rush to judgment without the author's knowledge. The KGB allegedly used a journalist as a contact who provided lane with $2,000 for research and travel in 1964. Mark Lane called the allegation an outright lie and wrote neither the KGB nor any person or organization associated with it ever made any contribution to my work and quote? So what would be their motivation? Is it because Oswald had been portrayed as a communist sympathizer? Oswald had defected to the USSR for a period of time he had been on television saying he was a Marxist. He had handed out at some point literature that was fairplay for Cuba. I mean, is it to distance the Soviet Union from Oswald? Is it to make sure that somebody else gets fingered for the Pop Pop? Because they just don't want to take any chances that somebody would say it was backed by the Soviet Union, or the Kremlin? I mean, I don't know. I guess that's a possibility. You know, if we're, if we're sitting here and we're asking the questions that we're not supposed to ask, contemplating the things that we shouldn't, that should go on the list. I mean, is that possible that he was given money by the cog a bay and he didn't even know that it was happening? Man, I don't know. He denied it. So let's be clear, he denied it and said the allegation was an outright lie. I don't know. I do have a copy somewhere. I think of the sword and the shield, I would have to read it to determine if this seems legit or not. But for the time being, it's worth putting in here that there were critics of rush to judgment. There are also critics of Mark lane for that matter. There's an article that was published and Mother Jones I'll drop a link so you can read this for yourself, accusing Mark lane of being quote the left's leading hearse chaser.

Definitely not something you'd want to be labeled as. But what do you think? If you've seen the documentary rush to judgment, you've read the book, rush to judgment? What did you think? What conclusion did you come to? Did you think that the witnesses that were interviewed were full of it? Did you think that Mark Lane was a Soviet operative who was using fake information to try to get the USSR as far away from the Kennedy pop pop as possible? Did he seem like an ambulance chaser to you? Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Maybe it is. To me, I struggled with this idea that every witness was a liar. Every witness had an agenda. Every conspiracy theorist must be a moron. To me when we get into those always, never everyone, no one dimensions. I think we're getting further away from the truth. I just don't think it's possible that every witness that had a story different from the official Warren Commission report is a liar a grifter and opportunists, and some people might genuinely be mistaken. We know that memory is not foolproof. Think back to the episode I recorded about Satan wants you with this the so called repressed memories of people saying that, Oh, these devil worshippers abducted me and they killed cats and they had babies on purpose. They were breeders for Satan. And then later it comes out that is not even true. Maybe an unscrupulous therapist or somebody planted these memories in their heads. So no, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that everyone's memory is 100% foolproof. I just don't think they're all liars either. I think there's real merit to rush to judgment, if nothing else, because it kicks the door open. It's someone with a larger audience saying hold the EFF up. I don't believe the official narrative. I don't think what we've been told officially could even be possible. Stay a little crazy, and I'll see you in the next episode.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to this podcast and share it with others.