Early article defending Warren Commission.

sing primary research (his own interviews with Commission staff), prof challenges views of same as presented in Epstein’s Inquest. Ball says quotes attributed to him by Epstein were “wrong or false.” Liebeler says his criticism was “directed not at the investigation—which he believes was thorough—but at the writing of the Report.” Redlich disputes Epstein’s use of his comments on the Single-Bullet Theory. Goodhart notes that when Rankin’s “dirty rumors” comment is seen in full context (as in Portrait of the Assassin), it dissolves Epstein’s charge that a desire to kill the rumor overrode the truth. Guess Eppie’s editor didn’t check the footnotes.

ubtitle: “The Tichborne Case; The Dreyfus Affair; The Alleged Conspiracy to Assassinate President Kennedy.” Mark Lane claims Goodhart’s critique of Rush to Judgment contained thirty-six errors. Goodhart examined Lane’s treatment of witnesses Julia Ann Mercer, Lee Bowers (Goodhart: “This is nonsense because a puff of smoke and a flash of light cannot be confused.”), J.C. Price (“over-precise”), S.M. Holland, James L. Simmons and Seymour Weitzman. On Inquest, Goodhart “made enquiries” of some of the attorneys interviewed, finding quotations were “repudiated as being false.”

LA attorney (born same year as Oswald), who served as a Commission staff member speaks unfavorably of Warren Commission critics. In 1975, Mosk co-wrote a similar article with W. David Slawson, reprinted in Skeptic.

ontemptuous title refers to Kennedy conspiracy book writers. Kaplan purports they transcend the “excesses of the McCarthy era.” Claims “there may well be no evidence that the Commission failed to consider.” Critiques books including Whitewash and Rush to Judgment (Lane faulty on “Ruby” in Plaza photo; this claim later confirmed by Trask), “Corrected” revised article of same title published in Stanford Law Review, XIX (1967).

Review of Rush to Judgment.