As to the meetings he was supposed to have attended later that morning Was a sad rendition of the stand-by-your-man theme. In contrast to other witnesses, who are quoted a length, Lane offers oneĬonnie Mazerov offered the most pathetic testimony I had encountered in some time. Witness?” Lane then nitpicks Kuzmuk’s testimony, attempting to convince readers that minorĭiscrepancies are the tip-off that Kuzmuk is indeed lying.Īnother witness to Hunt being in Washington, indeed at the CIA, on the day of the assassination Happily accept that he was a liar, so Lane asks rhetorically, “Was Kuzmuk a CIA-arranged Since Kuzmuk worked for the CIA, Lane can assume that conspiracy-oriented readers will Kuzmuk repeated this testimony at the second trial. According to Kuzmuk, HuntĪnd his wife had driven by in the early afternoon of November 22 as he exited from a
Washington just as the president was being shot in Dallas. Noveman experienced, ranking officer of the CIA had seen him in Testimony may have seemed dispositive of the question of Hunt’s whereabouts on Kuzmuk was a CIA officer who had worked with Hunt.
Of course, Lane has to admit that Hunt’s fellow CIA employees said he was in Washington, DC.,īut he strongly implies that they must have been lying. Lane’s first tactic to convict Hunt is to claim that the latter had no alibi for November 22, 1963. To hear Lane tell it, he convinced the jury that there was a conspiracy in the KennedyĪssassination, and that Hunt was a part of that conspiracy.
Hunt won a libel judgmentĪgainst The Spotlight in 1981, but it was thrown out on appeal, and the case was retried in 1985 November 22, 1963, and having a role in the Kennedy assassination. In 1976, The Spotlight ran an article accusing Hunt of being in Dallas on The Liberty Lobby was a rather nasty anti-Semitic operation that published a magazine called Howard Hunt sued the Liberty Lobby for libel. The book isĪ hodgepodge of conspiracy arguments and conspiracy claims, but the central focus is on a trial Which brings us to Plausible Denial, Lane’s conspiracy volume published in 1991. Where both sides have competent legal counsel, this is the way an adversarial system of justice They are free to – indeedĪre expected to – spin any piece of information to benefit their clients. Present only that information that serves the interests of their clients. Lawyers can get in trouble for telling outright lies, but they are free to – indeed are expected to – That’s a good starting point for understanding his approach to the Howard Hunt was a Kennedy Assassination Conspirator? Implausible Assertions Howard Hunt, and the Liberty Lobby Trial Did Mark Lane Convince a Jury that E.
0 kommentar(er)
