Letter to The New York Times

Mark Lane
Washington DC

November 22, 2007

The New York Times
Op-Ed Submission

To the Editor:

Either I have grown too mellow in my later years or The New York Times has improved in significant ways. I subscribe and daily rush to the editorial page and the Op- Ed page for views about the war, our justice system and to read Frank Rich, among others. Perhaps that is why I was so disappointed to see that on the anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination you published an article by Max Holland and a television photographer, stating that Oswald was the lone assassin. You should have identified Mr. Holland for your readers. He is the official writer for the CIA on the question of the assassination and his articles, almost exclusively comprise the CIA position. To see Mr. Holland and the JFK assassination, his specific defense of the CIA and his defamation of those who do not share the views of the CIA, click on to the official CIA website as follows -- cia.gov + Max Holland. Of course, just because Mr. Holland is the voice for the CIA on this question, an agency, according to traditional national polls, which more Americans believe to have been involved in the assassination than believe that Oswald acted alone, is no reason to reject his odd views. The fact that he is demonstrably wrong is the reason.

In the article (“J.F.K.’s Death, Re-Framed” Op-Ed, Nov. 22) only the title appears to be accurate. Holland cites only one eyewitness and states of him that Amos L. Euins, “a ninth grader,” spoke to the Dallas County sheriff and that, according to Holland, “No one’s recollection about the first shot was more precise [than Euins]”

Here are some facts Mr. Holland failed to report to your readers:

Amos L. Euins, a 15-year-old boy, said on November 22 that he saw man in the window of the Book Depository with a rifle. James Underwood, assistant news director at KRLD-TV in Dallas testified that he heard Euins tell a motorcycle officer he “had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle. Underwood said that he interviewed Euins on the spot, asking the boy if the man he saw had been “white or black”. Euins replied," It was a colored man.” “Are you sure it was a colored man?” Underwood asked. Euins answered, “Yes, sir.”

After Euins had described the man in the building as a Negro to both a motorcycle policeman and a newsman, he was taken to the Dallas Sheriff’s office, where an affidavit was prepared for him. That affidavit stated that the man he saw was a “white man”.

Before Euins testified, according to his mother, the family received threatening telephone calls. When he appeared before the Warren Commission, Euins said that he had not told the Sheriff’s office that the man in the window was white: They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head.” However, he was willing to alter his original statement, and he told the Commission, that he no longer knew whether the man was white or black.”

Of course, Mr. Holland knew the facts set forth above. They were published in 1966 in a book I had written, Rush To Judgment, at page 281. In the book each assertion was cited to documents published by the Warren Commission or testimony before the Commission. For those few words quoted above there were thirteen citations to the official government record, citations 147 through 159. That book was not a well kept secret. It was The New York Times number one best selling book in hardcover that year and the next year as well in paperback. And of course, the CIA, an agency that had reviewed Rush To Judgment, even before its publication date (and could cite no errors but offered many suggestions to the news media about how to discredit me and suppress the book) was familiar with the text. Euins’ testimony has been available in Volume II , pages 201-210 of the 26 volumes published by the Warren Commission more than four decades ago. It is now relevant to review the testimony of the young man Holland claims to have had a “precise” recollection of the events. He was interrogated by Arlen Specter, an innovative creator of the Magic Bullet Theory which was adopted by the Warren Commission, is central to its findings and asserts that only three shots were fired. If another shot was fired there could have been no lone assassin. Earl Warren was present during the sworn interview. Specter asked Euins: “The question I have for you is where were you when the fourth shot was fired”. Euins told Specter where he had been. Specter, (not yet the father of the only three shots were fired theory) continued: “You were still at point B when he fired the fourth time?” and later “Did you see him pull the gun (sic) back in the window after the fourth shot?”

Specter asked Euins to describe the man who had fired four shots. “I wouldn’t know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot (on his head) and his hand.” When Specter asked if the man was “slender or fat”, Euins replied “I didn’t get to see him.”

Euins is the only eye-witness referred to by Holland in his op-ed piece. If Euins was the “precise” witness Holland said he was then perhaps four shots had been fired. If so the Commission, Specter and the CIA and Holland (if I am not being redundant) were again proven to be inaccurate.

The first officer to talk to Euins was Sergeant D.V. Harkness of the Dallas Police Department. The Warren Commission conceded that Sgt. Harkness “radioed to headquarters at 12:36 p.m. that I have a witness that says it came from the fifth floor of the Texas Scholl Depository.” Warren Commission Report, page 64. The CIA, Holland and the Warren Commission contend that all shots were fired from the sixth floor. Efforts by the defenders of the official view to explain away discrepancy after discrepancy do not enhance their credibility and tend to encourage the serious doubts of almost all of the American people.

Mark Lane

Former member of the New York State Legislature
Practicing attorney for 56 years and author of several books on contemporary legal issues