1967 Debate: Mark Lane vs. Wesley Liebeler

[James DiEugenio]

DH: In case English is a problem, Tannebaum suggests early in his book, Oswald would have never been put on trial based on the 1964 Warren Commission findings and report. He goes even further stating the WCR reads like a prosecutor's brief, a BAD one.

​And here is the difference between Tanenbaum and VB: Tanenbaum was actually examining the record for an official investigation with government powers. Bugliosi was doing a TV show, and a poor one. One of the worst things about VInce's inflated and stilted book is his endless harping on how this trial was the equivalent of an actual trial. That is simply ludicrous. Not even close in reality. At one point, Spence and Bugliosi ended up sitting at the same table reading part of the HSCA together! That "trial" was a sideshow. And one of the worst aspects was Spence was not ready. (Tanenbaum told me, "Jim, that was predictable.")

For instance, Vince was reckless enough to put Harold Norman on the stand. Spence should have been salivating, because Norman was one of Elmer Moore's victims. (Moore was the Secret Service agent who got several witnesses to change their testimony after he decided they would not jibe with the official story. And he later admitted he had done so.) Spence should have demolished Norman, and Vince, with the difference between his first statement and his statement on the 26th: in the first one there is no mention of any hearing of three shells dropping above him (RP, p. 31)

​In other words, Dave is right here. Vince was being paid to do a TV show. And a bad one. Neither he nor Spence should have taken the job since what they did adulterated the legal profession and also history.

​BTW, every lawyer who has looked a this case in an official capacity disagrees with Vince. That is, they have grave and serious reservations about what the WC did. Why? Because Vince was not looking at the case in an official capacity. What he did was pure entertainment. And it should be looked upon in that way.

Nice to have you back Dave.

Edited July 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Burnham]

[...] Because Vince was not looking at the case in an official capacity. What he did was pure entertainment. And it should be look upon in that way.

[...]

Entertainment? I'd sooner watch Granny Clampett mud wrestling with Roy Clark on a deranged hybrid between The Beverly Hillbillies and Hee Haw!

[Glenn Nall]

you've never destroyed anyone with this doggerel you classify as "evidence."

And there's the rub. You don't consider ANYTHING "evidence". Nor does Jon G. "Counselor for Oswald" Tidd. Nor does Kenneth "There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle" Drew. Nor does anyone else who thinks Oswald didn't fire a shot at President Kennedy.

The physical evidence in this case all screams Oswald's guilt and everybody knows it. Hence, CTers in the ABO club are forced to pretend it's all fake. Because if it's not ALL FAKE, then Oswald is guilty. That is plainly--and simply--true.

I suggest that the ball is in the defense (CTers') court when it comes to the accusation that every last piece of evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murder cases is artificially crafted (i.e., fake) evidence.

Conspiracists are making the extraordinary allegation that all the evidence is phony. Not LNers. So wouldn't it be kind of nice--just for a change of pace--to have just one conspiracy theorist actually provide some kind of PROOF to back up the idea that the evidence (just ONE piece of it!) against Lee Harvey Oswald is fraudulent?

Or am I asking for the moon when I suggest that CTers actually prove something they say?

you're not well, are you Dave...

[James DiEugenio]

LOL

Well, Greg don't be too hard on me.

What I meant is that it was not meant as a forensic inquiry. But to get ratings.

BTW, in comparison, the TV trial of James Earl Ray was a lot closer to a real court case.

GN: you're not well, are you Dave...

​I think you may be on to something there.

Edited July 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

i just said the same thing in the Truly thread: there's no way on God's green earth (or Satan's, in deference to the LNers) that Henry Wade or any prosecutor would have considered this case for court in 1964, or ever, really. not a chance. reasonable doubt would have been order of the day.

[James DiEugenio]

DVP actually calls CE 399 evidence.

When any prosecutor in his right mind would be anathema to put that exhibit in play. It would blow up his whole case.

http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

Only the WC would do such a desperate act.

BTW, when Clay Shaw's lawyers were defending him in New Orleans, they actually tried to get Garrison's charge thrown out by presenting the WC volumes in court as evidence. They brought the 26 volumes into court in a wheelbarrow and put it in front of the judge.

The judge was aghast. He then started smiling. He said words to the effect: You are going to ask me to admit that pile of unchallenged testimony, and unvetted exhibits into evidence? He then started to giggle.

One of DVP's personal shortcomings is his lack of humor.

Edited July 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

[...] Because Vince was not looking at the case in an official capacity. What he did was pure entertainment. And it should be look upon in that way.

[...]

Entertainment? I'd sooner watch Granny Clampett mud wrestling with Roy Clark on a deranged hybrid between The Beverly Hillbillies and Hee Haw!

I enjoyed that episode, damnit.

do NOT make fun of Roy Clark — he was ill that day!

and besides, I think the film was altered before it made it to air. Granny had his arm pinned well above his shoulder, as EVERYONE knows, and on TV it appears that she only gets it to about 6 inches below his neck. I think it was faked.

and you'll note that WCW took off after that - a real ratings bonanza. all because Granny (a secret John Bircher and mistress of Senator Byrd) whupped Roy Clark's (a known Trotskyist/Castro supporter) a**.

So let's watch it with the Beverly Hills Hee Haw slurs. What would Nixon think???

[Glenn Nall]

DVP actually calls CE 399 evidence.

When any prosecutor in his right mind would be anathema to put that exhibit in play. It would blow up his whole case.

http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

Only the WC would do such a desperate act.

BTW, when Clay Shaw's lawyers were defending him in New Orleans, they actually tried to get Garrison's charge thrown out by presenting the WC volumes in court as evidence. They brought the 26 volumes into court in a wheelbarrow and put it in front of the judge.

The judge was aghast. He then started smiling. He said words to the effect: You are going to ask me to admit that pile of unchallenged testimony, and unvetted exhibits into evidence? He then started to giggle.

One of DVP's personal shortcomings is his lack of humor.

that's funny, i even mentioned that in the thread. CE 399 is evidence only in the sense that it was verbally testified to having been discovered during the "investigation" of the crime. And therein lies the entirety of its value as evidence. No blood evidence on the bullet, right? Not found IN the Governor, or even near him.

you're right, a prosecutor would not want it admitted, i'm willing to bet.

[James DiEugenio]

That is only the beginning of the problems with CE 399.

I mean, if I am a defense lawyer, I want the prosecutor to admit that exhibit since it would be the beginning of the end of his case. I would not even call a 402 hearing. Since I think it would be harder to prove the people's case with it than without it. In fact, if the prosecution tried to prove the case without it, I would then enter it myself.

Because not only would you prove it's bogus, you prove the whole unreliability of the handling of evidence in the state's case. Which is a very important plateau to cross. Once you have done that, its an uphill climb with the jury.

Tanenbaum once mentioned this to me. He said, once you lose the jury's trust in the efficacy of the people's case, then they begin to look at your case as not really factual, but theorizing.

Which, of course, is the giant problem with the Warren Commission. Its one big theory. (Which makes it so bizarrely ironic that DVP calls us conspiracy theorists.) The WR doesn't prove anything. Even Jesse Curry admitted that the DPD could never put Oswald in the window with that rifle. And then when you add in Vickie Adams?

In the last couple of years, I have tried to stress that the WC is an object lesson in what happens to our judiciary if the adversarial procedure breaks down. Oswald was not allowed a defense. And the guy sent by the ABA did not do his job at all. Since the rules of evidence were not even acknowledged, let alone followed. As Chris Sharrett once said, the Nazis at Nuremberg got a better defense than Oswald. I mean, does it get worse than that?

And with Dulles, McCloy and Ford running the show, the fix was in. I mean, Ford even admitted this later to the president of France.

http://ctka.net/2013/VGEonJFK.html

Edited July 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David G. Healy]

you've never destroyed anyone with this doggerel you classify as "evidence."

...

Or am I asking for the moon when I suggest that CTers actually prove something they say?

hell son, the 1963/64 WC was the prosecution, where have you been! The WC failed, the US public was skeptical from the very first instant, even before the reports 1964 release. We now know the WC did not make the case against Oswald.

The only thing CTer's need prove was that JFK was in Dallas 11/22/1963. I think that's beyond any shadow or reasonable doubt... do you agree, or would you like to "spin" that too?

Edited July 31, 2015 by David G. Healy

[James DiEugenio]

LOL, nice one Dave

Incredible how DVP completely reverses the standard of evidence. Which shows he has no comprehension of what the legal system is all about.

It was the job of the WC to prove their case against Oswald.

They did not do that. By any legal standard.

Our side does not have to prove what actually happened. They always say we should. But its simply not in the rule book.

What our side has to do is to show that their case is simply not credible.

Which we have done. A zillion times over. In every aspect.

http://www.ctka.net/2014/wr_anniv_00.html

Edited July 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, let me add, I could say certain things I believe actually happened.

In other words, how the plot was formulated and when, and how it was then handed down, and then how it was planned and then executed.

Anyone who knows me would understand that I think MC was crucial.

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JimDMexicoCity/Introduction.html

But i would have to label that as being simply my belief as to what happened. For the simple reason that the WC screwed up the evidence so much. I mean, for example, what they did on MC was simply a disgrace.

Then, when the HSCA did actually investigate MC, that report was sealed for about another fifteen years.

I mean it was not until the ARRB, over 30 years later, that the evidentiary record was largely declassified.

Edited July 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, from the link I made at No. 26 above, that series on the Warren Commission, this is one I really like:

9. When senior lawyers started leaving, Howard Willens hired law school graduates to finish the job.

As noted in Point 8, Howard Willens hired most of the counselors for the Commission. Surprisingly, many of these lawyers were not criminal attorneys. They had a business background or education e.g. David Belin, Melvin Eisenberg, Wesley Liebeler. But beyond that, by the summer of 1964, many of the senior counselors started to leave. Mainly because they were losing money being away from private practice. To replace them, Willens did a rather odd thing. He began to hire newly minted law school graduates. In other words, lawyers who had no experience in any kind of practice at all. In fact, one of these men, Murray Lauchlicht, had not even graduated from law school when Willens enlisted him. (Philip Shenon, A Cruel and Shocking Act, p. 404) His field of specialty was trusts and estates. When he got to the Commission's offices, Lauchlicht was assigned to complete the biography of Jack Ruby. Another recent law school graduate who had clerked for one year was Lloyd Weinreb. The 24 year old Weinreb was given the job of completing the biography of Oswald. (ibid, p. 405)

Needless to say, these two aspects of the report, the biographies of Oswald and Ruby have come to be suspect since they leave so much pertinent material out. In fact, Burt Griffin told the House Select Committee on Assassinations, that senior counsel Leon Hubert left because he did not feel he was getting any support from the Commission administrators, or the intelligence agencies, to understand who Ruby really was. (HSCA, Volume XI, pgs. 268-83) Obviously, someone who had not even graduated law school would not have those kinds of compunctions. Willens probably knew that.

Isn't that rich? That is what Willens thought of the Warren Commission. And the death of President Kennedy.

Edited July 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

That is only the beginning of the problems with CE 399.

I mean, if I am a defense lawyer, I want the prosecutor to admit that exhibit since it would be the beginning of the end of his case. I would not even call a 402 hearing. Since I think it would be harder to prove the people's case with it than without it. In fact, if the prosecution tried to prove the case without it, I would then enter it myself.

Because not only would you prove it's bogus, you prove the whole unreliability of the handling of evidence in the state's case. Which is a very important plateau to cross. Once you have done that, its an uphill climb with the jury.

Tanenbaum once mentioned this to me. He said, once you lose the jury's trust in the efficacy of the people's case, then they begin to look at your case as not really factual, but theorizing.

Which, of course, is the giant problem with the Warren Commission. Its one big theory. (Which makes it so bizarrely ironic that DVP calls us conspiracy theorists.) The WR doesn't prove anything. Even Jesse Curry admitted that the DPD could never put Oswald in the window with that rifle. And then when you add in Vickie Adams?

In the last couple of years, I have tried to stress that the WC is an object lesson in what happens to our judiciary if the adversarial procedure breaks down. Oswald was not allowed a defense. And the guy sent by the ABA did not do his job at all. Since the rules of evidence were not even acknowledged, let alone followed. As Chris Sharrett once said, the Nazis at Nuremberg got a better defense than Oswald. I mean, does it get worse than that?

And with Dulles, McCloy and Ford running the show, the fix was in. I mean, Ford even admitted this later to the president of France.

http://ctka.net/2013/VGEonJFK.html

399 creates more problems than it provides answers, no doubt - in and out of a court of law. that's why a prosecutor would fight its admission and why we (the defense) appreciate it for what it is (among many other like items). it opens the door to the chain of custody issue just for starters (they couldn't even decide who found it and who gave it to who in the elevator lobby), and from there it snowballs. that bullet really could have led to an awful lot of embarrassing questions.

the OJ case is a good example of your and Tannenbaum's point, James; the investigation even before the case was brought was such a shambles that the jury early on had lost the respect of the prosecution. a more efficient prosecution team might have saved it, but I don't think so.

[Glenn Nall]

LOL, nice one Dave

Incredible how DVP completely reverses the standard of evidence. Which shows he has no comprehension of what the legal system is all about.

It was the job of the WC to prove their case against Oswald.

They did not do that. By any legal standard.

Our side does not have to prove what actually happened. They always say we should. But its simply not in the rule book.

What our side has to do is to show that their case is simply not credible.

Which we have done. A zillion times over. In every aspect.

http://www.ctka.net/2014/wr_anniv_00.html

he really doesn't have a clue why it's the prosecution's obligation to prove its case and not the defense's. in my very few 'civil' (non-conflictive) chats with him it became clear to me that his understanding of the basic definition of "evidence" is not even close, much less the many kinds of it that exist in a complex charge (and counter-charge) like this one.

he could easily grasp it if he wanted to, but he's so adamant in disagreeing with a CTer that he argues the point with me by rote. he argues with his eyes closed.

also, he probably knows subconsciously that if he were to admit to understanding evidentiary procedure and the american justice system then he'd be painted into a corner of sunlight, from which there would be no escape.