JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I already answered this in the post you quoted. Helen Markham's testimony under was that everything that Mark Lane claimed that she said was a lie by Mark Lane.


Mr. BALL. Mrs. Markham, do you know a man named Mark Lane?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I do not.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever hear of the name?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Did not.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever talk to a New York lawyer who says he was from New York?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever talk to a lawyer who was investigating the case in behalf of the deceased man, Lee Oswald?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever talk to a man who said he was representing the mother of Lee Oswald?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You don't remember ever talking to a man named Mark Lane?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. In an appearance before this Commission, a man named Mark Lane has testified this way. Let me read it to you. That was on Wednesday, March 4, 1964, Vol. II of a public hearing before this Commission, page 51. This is what he said:
"I spoke with the deponent"-he is talking about an affidavit that you made to the Dallas Police Department-"l spoke with the deponent, the eyewitness, Helen Louise Markham, and Mrs. Markham told me Miss or Mrs., I didn't ask her if she was married--told me she was 100 feet away from the police car, not the 50 feet which appears in the affidavit."
Do you recall ever stating that to Mr. Lane or anyone else?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir; no, sir.
Mr. BALL. He testified: "She gave me a more detailed description of the man who she said shot Officer Tippit. She said he was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy." Did you say that to Mark Lane?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir; I don't even know the man.
Mr. BALL. Or anybody else?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever tell anyone that the man who shot Tippit was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

I cannot think of a better example of the use of selective quotation to prove the opposite of what really happened.

You did such a good job that Herlock Shomes writes:


You (sic) bit on Helen Markham is a perfect example but I guarantee that she’ll continue to be quoted by conspiracy theorists. It’s called cherry-picking.
Excellent, balanced post with a proper use of evidence.



I wonder how many readers now believe that Mark Lane invented his conversation with Helen Markham and that I got it wrong because I am a supposedly-gullible conspiracy theorist.


Now take a look at testimony of Helen Markham that Fiver omitted.

When Helen Markham appeared before the Warren Commission, she was provided with a transcript of her telephone conversation with Mark Lane and an audio recording of the same conversation was played to her.

Here are some extracts from the court record:


Warren Commission Volume VII

Page 501


(At this point Mr. Howlett proceeded to play the tape recording of the telephone conversation heretofore referred to and when the witness, Mrs. Markham, began to indicate reactions to the recorded conversation, the reporter resumed recording same as hereinafter shown and the record here begins with the question and answer at the time Mrs. Markham began indicating her reactions.

Mr. LANE. I wonder if you would be good enough to tell me- I have your affidavit which you gave the police on that date.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. LANE. . And I have read that, of course, and I wonder if you would be
good enough to talk to me?
Mr. LIEBELER. You are shaking your head, as you listen to this tape recorder, Mrs. Markham.
John Joe, let’s stop the recorder for a moment. What do you mean to indicate by that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I never talked to that man.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is that not your voice on the tape?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I can’t tell about my voice, but that man - I never talked to no woman or no man like that.
Mr. LIEBELER Well, we will play the recording some more, and are you following it along, Mrs. Markham?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes ; I am right here.


Page 503


Mr. LANE. I see. Now, did you tell the officers at the police station when
they questioned you, the description of the man who shot Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I told them that at the scene of the murder.
Mr. LANE. You told the officers the description?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. LANE. Did you say that he was short and a little bit on the heavy
side and had slightly bushy hair?
Mrs. MARKHAM. So ; I did not. They didn’t ask me that.
Mr. LANE. They never asked you his description?
Mrs. MARKHAM Yes : they asked what he was wearing.
Mr. LANE. Just what he was wearing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. LANE. But they never asked you how he was built or anything like that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. So, sir.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, you went to the police station where they took your affidavit,
right?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now. you are shaking your head at this point.
Miss Reporter, you are taking the transcript down.
The REPORTER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now. at this point you were shaking your head, what do you
mean by that?
Mrs. MARKIIAM. This man - I have never talked with. This lady was never on the telephone. This man that called me like I told you, he told me he was from the city hall, the police department, the police department of the city hall.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well. now, do you remember having this conversation with
somebody?


Page 504


Mr. LIEBELER. How do you explain the fact that the woman’s voice on this
tape recording is your voice?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I never heard that.
Mr. LIEBELER. You never heard the man’s voice before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. And I never heard this lady’s voice before--this is the first
time.
Mr. LIEEIELER. Do you have any doubt in your mind at all that the lady’s voice
on the tape now is your voice?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is my voice, but this man told me he was from the city
police.





The Warren Commission accepted that the man's voice on the recording was that of Mark Lane and that the woman's voice was that of Helen Markham.

Eventually, in her testimony, Helen Markham agreed that the woman's voice on the recording was hers.

Consequently, it was proven beyond any doubt that the conversation between Mark Lane and Helen Markham did take place.

Consequently, what I reported is proven to be true and your assertion that I was wrong and that Mark Lane lied about his conversation with Helen Markham is proven to be false.

The Warren Commission accepted that Mark Lane had told the truth, as confirmed by the tape recording, the transcript of it, and the transcript of the Commission's proceedings.

I wonder whether you will accept that that is the truth and that what I have written is true.

[cobalt]

Here is a commentary on the CBS reconstruction of the shooting in 1967. The frequency of this type of Carcano rifle jamming was quite a problem.

Let's be clear. CBS initially approached a legendary marksman, Jim Crossman, and asked him to replicate Oswald’s purported shooting (2 hits in 3 tries in 5.6 seconds). In 6 attempts, he was unable to do so. CBS then brought in 11 experienced shooters and asked them to try and replicate the shooting on a mock-up of Dealey Plaza. Now, to be clear, the shots these men were asked to make were a bit easier than those supposedly made by Oswald, as their rifle's scope was in alignment, and as the target these men were aiming at was moving at a constant speed and in a constant direction. They were also provided some practice shots. Even so, the results were less than convincing. First of all, the men were unable to complete 17 of the 37 test runs due to the gun’s jamming or to the shooter’s inability to operate the bolt fast enough to fire rapidly. This left just 20 completed runs, 26 including Crossman’s earlier attempts. Let’s take a look, then, at these results (first attempts highlighted):

Sid Price: 4.10 seconds (1 hit, 2 complete misses) on his 4^th run of 4.
Sid Price: 4.30 seconds (not sure if any hits) on his 2^nd run of 4.
Ron George: 4.90 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 3^rd run of 3.
Al Sherman: 5.00 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1^st run of 5.
Al Sherman: 5.00 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 5^th run of 5.
Howard Donahue: 5.20 seconds (3 hits) on his 3^rd run of 3.
Al Sherman: 5.20 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 4^th run of 5.
John Concini: 5.40 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 2^nd run of 2.
Carl Holden: 5.40 seconds (0 hits, 3 near misses) on his 3^rd run of 3.
Somersett Fitchett: 5.50 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 3^rd run of 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somersett Fitchett: 5.90 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 2^nd run of 3.
Sid Price: 5.90 seconds (1 hit, 1 near miss, 1 complete miss) on his 1^st run of 4.
Al Sherman: 6.00 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 2^nd run of 5.
William Fitchett: 6.00 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 2^nd run of 3.
William Fitchett: 6.10 seconds (not sure if any hits) on his 3^rd run of 3.
Jim Crossman: 6.20 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 6^th run of 6.
Jim Crossman: 6.26 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 4^th run of 6.
John Concini: 6.30 seconds (no record of where shots went) on his 1^st run of 2.
Jim Crossman: 6.34 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 2^nd run of 6.
Jim Crossman: 6.44 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 3^rd run of 6.
William Fitchett: 6.50 seconds (3 borderline hits) on his 1^st run of 3.
Charles Hamby: 6.50 seconds (0 hits, 2 near misses, 1 complete miss) on his 3^rd run of 3.
John Bollendorf: 6.50 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 4^th run of 4;
Jim Crossman: 6.54 seconds (0 hits, 3 near misses) on his 1^st run of 6.
John Bollendorf: 6.80 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1^st run of 4.
Jim Crossman: 6.99 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 5^th run of 6.

It seems apparent that CBS knew full well these tests didn't demonstrate what they'd hoped they would. To wit, in his 1968 book on CBS' 1967 programs CBS Associate Producer Stephen White first claimed "many of the riflemen were quite capable of of firing three shots, as accurate as Oswald did or very nearly so, in times that were at or around five seconds" (which was not exactly true as but 4 of 12, to be generous, demonstrated such capability). He then followed this by admitting: "Oswald, an admittedly mediocre marksman, outperformed on this one occasion, experts against whom in competition he would not have had a ghost of a chance."

[FrankO]

Here are fifteen:




and it was like a double bang — bang, bang... This was instantaneous.

(KELLERMAN TESTIMONY)


The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other

(GREER TESTIMONY)

...

there was a slight pause after the first shot and then the next two was right close together

(BILLY LOVELADY AFFIDAVIT)



I heard one shot and then a pause and then this repetition-two shots right behind the other

(EDWARD SHIELDS TESTIMONY)

Thanks PI1

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here is a commentary on the CBS reconstruction of the shooting in 1967. The frequency of this type of Carcano rifle jamming was quite a problem.

Let's be clear. CBS initially approached a legendary marksman, Jim Crossman, and asked him to replicate Oswald’s purported shooting (2 hits in 3 tries in 5.6 seconds). In 6 attempts, he was unable to do so. CBS then brought in 11 experienced shooters and asked them to try and replicate the shooting on a mock-up of Dealey Plaza. Now, to be clear, the shots these men were asked to make were a bit easier than those supposedly made by Oswald, as their rifle's scope was in alignment, and as the target these men were aiming at was moving at a constant speed and in a constant direction. They were also provided some practice shots. Even so, the results were less than convincing. First of all, the men were unable to complete 17 of the 37 test runs due to the gun’s jamming or to the shooter’s inability to operate the bolt fast enough to fire rapidly. This left just 20 completed runs, 26 including Crossman’s earlier attempts. Let’s take a look, then, at these results (first attempts highlighted):

Sid Price: 4.10 seconds (1 hit, 2 complete misses) on his 4^th run of 4.
Sid Price: 4.30 seconds (not sure if any hits) on his 2^nd run of 4.
Ron George: 4.90 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 3^rd run of 3.
Al Sherman: 5.00 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1^st run of 5.
Al Sherman: 5.00 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 5^th run of 5.
Howard Donahue: 5.20 seconds (3 hits) on his 3^rd run of 3.
Al Sherman: 5.20 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 4^th run of 5.
John Concini: 5.40 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 2^nd run of 2.
Carl Holden: 5.40 seconds (0 hits, 3 near misses) on his 3^rd run of 3.
Somersett Fitchett: 5.50 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 3^rd run of 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somersett Fitchett: 5.90 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 2^nd run of 3.
Sid Price: 5.90 seconds (1 hit, 1 near miss, 1 complete miss) on his 1^st run of 4.
Al Sherman: 6.00 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 2^nd run of 5.
William Fitchett: 6.00 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 2^nd run of 3.
William Fitchett: 6.10 seconds (not sure if any hits) on his 3^rd run of 3.
Jim Crossman: 6.20 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 6^th run of 6.
Jim Crossman: 6.26 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 4^th run of 6.
John Concini: 6.30 seconds (no record of where shots went) on his 1^st run of 2.
Jim Crossman: 6.34 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 2^nd run of 6.
Jim Crossman: 6.44 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 3^rd run of 6.
William Fitchett: 6.50 seconds (3 borderline hits) on his 1^st run of 3.
Charles Hamby: 6.50 seconds (0 hits, 2 near misses, 1 complete miss) on his 3^rd run of 3.
John Bollendorf: 6.50 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 4^th run of 4;
Jim Crossman: 6.54 seconds (0 hits, 3 near misses) on his 1^st run of 6.
John Bollendorf: 6.80 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1^st run of 4.
Jim Crossman: 6.99 seconds (1 hit, 2 near misses) on his 5^th run of 6.

It seems apparent that CBS knew full well these tests didn't demonstrate what they'd hoped they would. To wit, in his 1968 book on CBS' 1967 programs CBS Associate Producer Stephen White first claimed "many of the riflemen were quite capable of of firing three shots, as accurate as Oswald did or very nearly so, in times that were at or around five seconds" (which was not exactly true as but 4 of 12, to be generous, demonstrated such capability). He then followed this by admitting: "Oswald, an admittedly mediocre marksman, outperformed on this one occasion, experts against whom in competition he would not have had a ghost of a chance."

So…..Oswald had something like 8+ seconds to make the 3 shots.


Every single shooter got off 3 shots in time ranging from 4.10 seconds to 6.99 seconds. So compared to the efforts of the marksman mentioned Oswald had around 2 seconds longer to do what he did which naturally would increase the chances of accuracy.

9 of them scored 2 hits equalling Oswald but in a shorter time.

2 of them scored 3 out of 3 hits beating Oswald and in a quicker time.

And Oswald was using his own rifle with which he’d have had more time to practice with and would perhaps have had greater familiarity as we don’t know how often those marksman would have fired that exact type of gun.


So out of 26….

All 26 were quicker than Oswald

9 were quicker than Oswald and equalled his score.

2 were quicker than Oswald and beat his score.


The only lie is when conspiracy theorists repeatedly claim that the shots were never equalled. They were equalled and beaten.

Plus, I notice that you made sure to add this as cover:

“The frequency of this type of Carcano rifle jamming was quite a problem.”

And you added this because you know that they didn’t use Oswald’s rifle. Oswald’s rifle clearly didn’t jam but the one that the marksmen used was clearly problematic. We know that rifles can perform differently from one example to another due to factors like age and levels of care and maintenance. So we have the marksman using a problem gun where Oswald’s clearly exhibited no such jamming issues.

If they had used Oswald’s actual rifle it’s therefore possible that performances would have been even better.

[Fiver]

Here are fifteen:




and it was like a double bang — bang, bang... This was instantaneous.

(KELLERMAN TESTIMONY)


The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other

(GREER TESTIMONY)

Those are the same two Secret Service agents that you suspected of helping kill Kennedy in Post #1353.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Those are the same two Secret Service agents that you suspected of helping kill Kennedy in Post #1353.

I stand by what I wrote - that Roberts, Kellerman and Greer were parties to the conspiracy and that Kellerman did his best to spill the beans, not only to the Warren Commission, but to his own family.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s another long posts which the CT contingent undoubtedly won’t read because it doesn’t tell the, what they want to hear.

Mark Lane is being quoted again. You never learn do you. It’s one thing when non-conspiracy theorists criticise him but when conspiracy theorists do the same it’s worth a mention don’t you think. Few CT’s are held in higher regard than Harold Weisberg and he said:

“I only wish,” speaking about Lane in Mother Jones, that Lane “were content to steal from others, but he has this urge to invent his own stuff.”



Lane is the guy that volunteered as a Lawyer for Jim Jones’s People’s Temple after the Jonestown massacre. He also represented James Earl Ray, who couldn’t have been guiltier if he’d tried of murdering Martin Luther King (he wrote a ludicrous, embarrassing book with Dick Gregory.) Don’t waste your cash.

Lane has become somewhat of an embarrassment to the Left. Mother Jones (which is a respected vehicle for leftist causes) referred to Lane as: “the left’s leading hearse chaser.” They added that he was a ‘huckster’ who unfortunately they couldn’t write off because: “he is, in some disturbing sense, on our side.” His story raises some troubling concerns for the Left.”

Lane is famous in this case for largely ignoring the important witnesses but devoting page after page on the minor ones trying to manipulate some form of conspiracy evidence out of them. He once devoted 11 pages to a woman who worked as a bartender for Jack Ruby over 2 years before the assassination whilst ignoring key witnesses.

For example, in his book Rush To Judgment, he never mentions Robert H. Jackson who was a photographer for the Dallas Times Herald, and who was in the motorcade. He to,d the WC that immediately after the shots he looked up and saw 2 black men in the 5th floor window Williams and Norman) then following his line of sight he looked up at the 6th floor window and saw a rifle being drawn back. He didn’t mention Johnnie Brewer or indeed Oswald’s arrest. He mentions 353 people in his book but no mention of Brewer or MacDonald, the officer that arrested Oswald.

In the section of his book on Tippit, he doesn’t mention Sam Guinyard who identified Oswald. He only mentions Barbara and Virginia Davis, who both identified Oswald, by the fact that they couldn’t identify the shells! He only mentions Calloway, who positively ID’d Oswald, because of the colour of Oswald’s jacket.

And just for PI, Lane excelled himself on Ruby. He quotes his favourite bit of the Warren Commission:


Ruby: But you (Warren) are the only one that can save me. I think you can.


Warren: Yes?


Ruby: But by delaying, you lose the chance. And all I want to do is tell the truth, and that is all.


Like PI, Lane is all over this as proof of him being ready to spill the beans about a conspiracy. But he ‘forgets’ to quote the very next line:


Ruby: There was no conspiracy.



Lane like all good conspiracy theorist isn’t shy about simply altering testimony. In his book he claimed that James W. Altgens and Charles Brehm supported the head shot as coming from the Knoll when neither said any such thing. James L. Simmons, who was on the overpass, to,d the FBI on March 17th 1964 that he though that the shots had come from the TSBD. Two years later, after talking to Liar Lane he said that he’d thought that the shots came from the fence and that he’d immediately ran there after the shooting.

Finally…..Helen Louise Markham, a waitress with an 8th grade education. She picked Oswald out of a Police line-up. Before the Commission Lane said that she’d given him a description of Tippit’s killer: “She said he was short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy.” Markham, when asked, said that she didn’t know Lane and hadn’t given that description.

She had talked to Lane on the phone where he’d identified himself as Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police. It was only after being pressed by the Commission did Lane admit that the call had been recorded. They asked for it but Lane vigorously resisted efforts to make it available but he eventually had to.


Rankin: Do you have any writing from Mrs. Markham in connection with the interview that you referred to in your testimony?


Lane: Any document which Mrs. Markham wrote?…..I have nothing that she signed or that she wrote.


Rankin: Do you have anything that you made up yourself from any interview with her?


Lane: Yes, I do.


Rankin: Do you have that with you?


Lane: No, I do not.


Rankin: Will you describe the document? Is it a paper or a tape recording, or what form does it have?


Lane: It is a tape recording.


Rankin: Was the tape recording made by you?


Lane: I think we are moving into an area where I would prefer not to answer questions, quite frankly……I think that the Commission [is] aware that I have a attorney-client relationship existing.



Lane had originally been retained by Oswald’s mother to represent the interests of her son at the Commission but as Oswald wasn’t a defendant in a criminal proceeding they declined to permit Lane to represent Oswald. He claimed that the recording was made Persians to an attorney-client relationship (with Marguerite Oswald) which prohibited him from turning over the tape - despite the fact that he’d testified as to the contents. He argued that the tape was the equivalent of ‘working papers of an attorney,’ and that they could be disclosed by law.


Rankin: Mr. Lane, could you tell us whether there was anyone else present at this interview with Helen Markham that you recorded?


Lane: I don’t believe that I said I recorded it.


Rankin: Was it recorded by someone else?


Lane: I decline to answer any questions because the questions you are asking clearly are not for the purpose for which the Commission has been established.


Rankin: Can you tell us who was present at the time of this tape recording of Helen Markham?


Lane: I am not going to discuss any working papers in my possession.


Representative Ford: Did you know about the tape recording being made?


Lane: I decline to answer that question.



This is a man who has been complaining for years about the Warren Commission not being open and frank!



Ford: Do you believe Mrs. Markham is an important witness in this overall matter?


Lane: I would think so.


Ford: In order for us to evaluate the testimony she has given to us and what you allege she has given you, we must see the information which you have at your disposal.


Lane: I have told you precisely under oath what Mrs. Markham has said to me.


Rankin: Are you willing to verify [what she has told you] with the tape recording that you claim you have?


Lane: I am unable to verify that because of an existing attorney-client relationship.


Rankin: Can you tell us where the tape recording was made?


Lane: I can tell you, but I will not tell you.



So if he was acting under Marguerite Oswald’s instruction why would she prevent evidence that a witness wasn’t describing her son. Lane’s position in law was legally indefensible. Lane eventually gave it up after being guaranteed immunity from prosecution.

And we can see why Lane didn’t want it revealed as it shows his desperate efforts to put words into her mouth.



Lane: I read that you told some of the reporters that he [Oswald] was short, stocky and had bushy hair.


Markham: No, no, I did not say this.


Lane: You did not say that?


Markham: No, sir.


Lane: Well would you say that he was stocky?


Markham: Uh, he was short [ he was 5 feet 9]


Lane: He was short?


Markham: Yes.


Lane: And he was a little bit on the heavy side?


Markham: Uh, not to heavy.


Lane: Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?


Markham: Uh, well, he was, no, he wasn’t, didn’t look too heavy, uh-uh.


Lane: He wasn’t too heavy. And would you say that he had rather bushy…..kind of hair?


Markham: Uh, yeah, uh just a little bit bushy, uh huh.



Then following a discussion of the line up where she’d picked out Oswald.



Lane: Did they [the police] ever ask you anything about Oswald, about whether he was tall or short?


Markham: Uh, yes sir. They asked me that.


Lane: And you said he was short, uh?


Markham: Yes sir, he is short. He was short.


Lane: He was short and they asked if he was thin or heavy, and you said he was a little on the heavy side?


Markham: He was, uh, well, not too heavy. Uh, say around 100, maybe 150 (the autopsy report said that Oswald weighed 150lbs.)


Lane: Well, did you say he wasn’t too heavy, but he was a little heavy?


Markham: Uh, huh.


Lane: You did say that?


Markham: I did identify him in the lineup.


Lane: Yeah, and did you tell the officers that the man who shot Tippit had bushy hair?


Markham: Uh, no. I did not.


Lane: But, he did have bushy hair you said, just a little bushy?


Markham: We’ll, you wouldn’t say it hadn’t been combed you know or anything.


Lane: Yeah.


Markham: Of course, he probably had been through a lot, and it was kinda tore up a little.



I think we can all see why Lane was reluctant to produce the tape. Nothing to do with Attorney-Client confidentiality…..he didn’t want anyone to hear this absolutely blatant and appalling badgering of a witness, trying to get her to say what he wanted her to.


It’s worth mention that in a debate with Lane, Vincent Bugliosi said that he was going to read out the above. Lane threatened to sue him for defamation because he knew how terrible it made him look. So he was actually saying that his own words defamed him.


Lane claimed at the WC that an ‘informer’ had told him that an anti-Kennedy right winger called Bernard Weissman had met with Jack Ruby and Tippit at Ruby’s club on November 14th. A furious Weissman called a radio show to ask Lane why he hadn’t contacted him first to see if it was true or not. When the Commission questioned him he said that the informant wouldn’t allow him to disclose his identity. Rankin rightly told him that there was no legal justification for this. Lane had to agree but still wouldn’t disclose.



Believe me, I could post more on Mark Lane. This is typically the type of person that conspiracy theorists like PI, George, Fish, Cobalt etc love quoting. Why? Because books by him and CT writers like him are the only ones that they are willing to read.



I’ll say it again……if Mark Lane told me my name I’d immediately check my birth certificate.

[cobalt]

FrankO,

There are 35 recorded statements by witnesses who described the last two shots as coming very close together.

'Oswald’s rifle clearly didn’t jam'
And how would anyone except the assassin know that? It might explain the gap between the first and second shots.
In fact jamming might explain something that has often puzzled JFK buffs: why the assassin did not take the easier option of shooting the president when he was turning from Houston Street into Elm.

[cobalt]

Fidel Castro handled a fair few rifles in his early days as a Cuban rebel and experienced problems with telescopic sights. Here are his comments on the JFK assassination.

To fire with speed one fires much better with that type of rifle[iron sights] than with a telescopic sight because one does not lose sight of the target. And according to the cables they were talking about a rifle with a 4 by 18 power (sight). That is a rifle that brings a target very close. The more powerful the sight the more sensitive it is to any movement and the target gets lost....

All this seems to indicate that the rifle may have appeared there as part of the plot, that they may have placed the rifle, which is not precisely the weapon for shooting 80 meters nor for firing three shots...A telescopic sight is a weapon used for firing 300, 400, 500, and even 600 meters and even more...It is the rifle of a marksman for distance firing. It is really strange that one who is going to make an 80 meter shot from a window would purchase a rifle with telescopic sight, when any other type of weapon without a telescopic sight would have been more appropriate for a shot at that distance.

Of course we don’t know which sights the assassin used for the shooting, although the telescopic sights were referred to by DPD on a number of occasions when Oswald was in custody. Castro also made the screamingly obvious point that no assassin would surely shoot a prominent political figure from his place of work where discovery would be inevitable.

[cobalt]

If you check my earlier post about the CBS reconstruction you will notice that no one was able to better two hits at the first time of asking. (The shooters, as reported, were given some time to practice beforehand at an indoor range.)The marksmen for CBS were shooting at a head and shoulders silhouette but there is no record of how accurately placed their shots were.

If the wounds to President Kennedy came from the rifle on the 6^th floor of the TSBD then the assassin placed his shots very well indeed, despite allegedly missing first time round. The second shot was presumably aimed at the body- obviously a bigger and easier target than the head- and inhibited the president’s ability to move. This made the head shot less difficult although Mrs. Kennedy being so close at this point must have served as some kind of distraction. It would be interesting to know how many of the CBS marksmen managed to target the head with their third shot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fidel Castro handled a fair few rifles in his early days as a Cuban rebel and experienced problems with telescopic sights. Here are his comments on the JFK assassination.

To fire with speed one fires much better with that type of rifle[iron sights] than with a telescopic sight because one does not lose sight of the target. And according to the cables they were talking about a rifle with a 4 by 18 power (sight). That is a rifle that brings a target very close. The more powerful the sight the more sensitive it is to any movement and the target gets lost....

All this seems to indicate that the rifle may have appeared there as part of the plot, that they may have placed the rifle, which is not precisely the weapon for shooting 80 meters nor for firing three shots...A telescopic sight is a weapon used for firing 300, 400, 500, and even 600 meters and even more...It is the rifle of a marksman for distance firing. It is really strange that one who is going to make an 80 meter shot from a window would purchase a rifle with telescopic sight, when any other type of weapon without a telescopic sight would have been more appropriate for a shot at that distance.

Of course we don’t know which sights the assassin used for the shooting, although the telescopic sights were referred to by DPD on a number of occasions when Oswald was in custody. Castro also made the screamingly obvious point that no assassin would surely shoot a prominent political figure from his place of work where discovery would be inevitable.

If it was screamingly obvious then an equally obvious question would have to be “why would our top level conspirators have been so stupid as to set up such an unbelievable patsy?

So who is more likely to have either made an error of judgment or to have cared little about being caught? A massive governmental conspiracy including CIA and military (who can plan things like invasions) or a single, disaffected little man?

Its obvious. The man who left his wedding ring and virtually every cent that he owned behind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you check my earlier post about the CBS reconstruction you will notice that no one was able to better two hits at the first time of asking. (The shooters, as reported, were given some time to practice beforehand at an indoor range.)The marksmen for CBS were shooting at a head and shoulders silhouette but there is no record of how accurately placed their shots were.

If the wounds to President Kennedy came from the rifle on the 6^th floor of the TSBD then the assassin placed his shots very well indeed, despite allegedly missing first time round. The second shot was presumably aimed at the body- obviously a bigger and easier target than the head- and inhibited the president’s ability to move. This made the head shot less difficult although Mrs. Kennedy being so close at this point must have served as some kind of distraction. It would be interesting to know how many of the CBS marksmen managed to target the head with their third shot.

Untrue. No assassin would aim at the back as there are too many chances of the victim surviving. A head shot will always be the shot. So the reality is that Oswald scored 1.5 out of 3.

Additionally, as you yourself posted, they had some issues with the rifle. This doesn’t mean that the same issues would have occurred with every single Mannlicher Carcano. Oswald’s might have been a better performer that the one used in the reconstruction. So we can’t know that they might not have performed better using Oswald’s actual weapon.

It also has to be pointed out that they were under a time pressure before they even fired a shot. Oswald wasn’t. He didn’t begin shooting with the thought “I’ve only got x seconds to do this.”

[Fiver]

There are 35 recorded statements by witnesses who described the last two shots as coming very close together.

As Wikipedia would say "citation needed".

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I cannot think of a better example of the use of selective quotation to prove the opposite of what really happened.

You did such a good job that Herlock Shomes writes:


You (sic) bit on Helen Markham is a perfect example but I guarantee that she’ll continue to be quoted by conspiracy theorists. It’s called cherry-picking.
Excellent, balanced post with a proper use of evidence.



I wonder how many readers now believe that Mark Lane invented his conversation with Helen Markham and that I got it wrong because I am a supposedly-gullible conspiracy theorist.


Now take a look at testimony of Helen Markham that Fiver omitted.

When Helen Markham appeared before the Warren Commission, she was provided with a transcript of her telephone conversation with Mark Lane and an audio recording of the same conversation was played to her.


The Warren Commission accepted that the man's voice on the recording was that of Mark Lane and that the woman's voice was that of Helen Markham.

Eventually, in her testimony, Helen Markham agreed that the woman's voice on the recording was hers.

Consequently, it was proven beyond any doubt that the conversation between Mark Lane and Helen Markham did take place.

Consequently, what I reported is proven to be true and your assertion that I was wrong and that Mark Lane lied about his conversation with Helen Markham is proven to be false.

The Warren Commission accepted that Mark Lane had told the truth, as confirmed by the tape recording, the transcript of it, and the transcript of the Commission's proceedings.

I wonder whether you will accept that that is the truth and that what I have written is true.

The silence is deafening.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The silence is deafening.

I’ve just made a long post about this very subject so where is this silence. Lane is a liar. The only silence is from you, George, Fishy and Cobalt refusing to answer questions.