interesting piece and the hyperlink to the FBI document is fascinating. How quaint that witnesses to the assassination felt obligated to contact the FBI when they were approached by the documentary team.

Expand full comment
Nov 17·edited Nov 17Liked by Steve Byrne

Then there's the new doc, "JFK: What the Doctors Saw," announced in this CBS (!) clip:


The corporate media seem to be abandoning the Lone Nut theory. Why, after 60 years of pushing it? What's the deep state up to? A limited hangout?

If CBS wants to report on something, they should ask Dan Rather why he lied about what he saw in the Zapruder film.

Expand full comment

In the spring of 1968 I saw this film at the Michigan State University auditorium along with a couple thousand others. Lee Bowers shook me to my core. I took my date home and went to Paramount News and bought the book Rush To Judgment. I continually drank coffee and finished the book that night. I married my date.. I have the record album and a copy of the film.

Expand full comment

I recall somewhere Mark Lane said that Paul McCarthy offered to write music for the film. I forget why it didn't happen. I've never been able to see that again. wait I just found this, it was Lane who discouraged it.



In this account, it was De Antonio that nixed it and I think that was what Mark Lane said in the article I first read.


Posting this being the completist that I am. From a site called The Pessimist:

Paul McCartney . So much has been written about the man who casts one of the largest shadows over 20th-century pop culture that it might seem there’s nothing left to discover or say about the man. He was/is The Cute Beatle. The Most Successful Musician of All Time. The Tireless Animal Rights Activist. The Walrus, too.

And now, according to former New York state legislator, civil rights activist, and early Warren Commission critic Mark Lane, you can add yet another title to the already overloaded Sir Paul: JFK Conspiracy Theorist.

I happened upon the surprising account of the young McCartney’s interest in JFK’s murder quite unexpectedly, while doing research for a satirical Choose Your Own Adventureparody our company was creating. (Free ebook for Gawker readers here.)



Lane recounts his first encounter with the then 24-year-old McCartney at a small, private party in London in 1966.

While living in London during that time I attended a small party of about a dozen people. One of the was Paul McCartney . He walked up to me, offered his hand, and told me his name. The introduction was hardly necessary as he was one of the most famous people in the world…

He said, “I understand you have written a book about Kennedy’s assassination. I would like to read it.”

When Lane explained to McCartney that his was still in manuscript form, and that he had only two mimeographed copies, McCartney replied, “If I could just borrow your copy I would keep it safe and get it back to you in a few days.”

Lane obliged his request. A few days later, McCartney returned the manuscript without comment, much to Lane’s disappointment. But that night, as he was editing it, his phone rang, and a voice began, “Well he could’na done it, could he?”

Lane, not recognizing the voice and annoyed at the interruption, brusquely replied, “Who is this? And who couldn’t have done what?”

“Sorry. Paul, Paul McCartney , we met the other night. And I meant that Oswald could not have killed President Kennedy.”

Lane soon learned that his as-yet-unpublished book had profoundly moved McCartney, who wished to discuss it further over dinner. When their dinner at an obscure Polish restaurant was interrupted by a nonagenarian fan seeking an autograph for her granddaughter, McCartney signed her menu, “Happy dinner, Paul McCartney , friend of Mark Lane.” Their conversation about Kennedy’s murder, and Oswald’s possible innocence, continued past closing hours. Yet inevitably, word of McCartney’s presence in the restaurant spread quickly, and soon, a crowd of 200 people waited out front for their chance to mob him.

The two escaped by the back door, rushed to McCartney’s car, and parted ways at Lane’s London apartment. Yet Paul McCartney was not yet done with Mark Lane.


It was while editing the film version of Rush to Judgment in London that Lane once again crossed paths with Paul McCartney . McCartney had learned of the upcoming documentary, and, as Lane recounts:

(McCartney) asked if there was going to be any music, and I said that the director and I had not even thought about that yet.

“Well,” he said, “I would like to write a musical score for the film, as a present for you.”

I was astonished by that generous offer and speechless for a moment, but then I cautioned him that the subject matter was very controversial in the United States and that he might be jeopardizing his future.

He added, “One day my children are going to ask me what I did with my life, and I can’t just answer that I was a Beatle.”

The generosity of McCartney’s offer can hardly be overstated. Here was perhaps the world’s most popular entertainer, at the very peak of his creative powers, offering to lend his talent and star power (and risk his own standing with many fans) to help infuse Lane’s deeply troubling documentary with his trademark emotional songcraft.


Unfortunately, despite McCartney’s insistence, it was not to be. Lane’s director, Emile de Antonio, ultimately vetoed the Cute Beatle‘s involvement. De Antonio believed a score by Paul McCartney wouldn’t likely boost its popularity, and would prevent it from being “stark and didactic.”

In June of 1967, the documentary version of Rush to Judgment opened in select theaters to only modest box office success. That same month, McCartney fared slightly better with his band’s release of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Nearly 50 years later, we can only wonder what might have ultimately been created had the skeptical McCartney been allowed to lend his talents to a film about the possible conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination.


Expand full comment

A wonderful recap of this film.

Expand full comment

As a Claims Rep for the Social Security Administration the rules I followed always placed the greatest probative value on the earliest available documents. If there was any discrepancy such as date of birth, they were considered more reliable than later established documents. That is why Lane and the other earliest JFK assassination pioneers have provided us with a gold mine of eyewitness testimony produced not very long after the big event. It is stunning to see the confidence and clarity of witnesses to both the JFK and Tippet murders. I look forward to revisiting Rush to Judgment and revisiting my appreciation of Mark Lane.

Expand full comment

I have a question. Is there any current legislation to put a time cap on ability of intell agencies to keep docs, evidence etc classified? If not there should be. Reading the story today about the exonerations in the Malcom X assasination, after listening to your podcast in CIA/Kennedy, along with personal experience trying to get meaningful access to my own surveillance files, prompts the question. It’s all an outrage, particularly when most or all sources are dead and methods antiquated. Seems there is a direct correlation between time secrets are kept and intelligence agency coverups and other shennanigans.

Expand full comment