MARK LANE IS INTERVIEWED

[Peter McGuire]

Mr. Lane simply asks for an open investigation.

The debate ends on a cordial note.

THank you for posting this series, Peter. It is MOST interesting.

I have MANY criticisms of Mark Lane, but I will mention only one:

I think Lane shows his lack of CAHONES when he tells Buckley that

Earl Warren should NOT be impeached.

These early researchers and critics had to watch what they said - heck, Prouty even defended Johnson.

What I find interesting is that DVP posted this! Mr. Lane clearly prevails.

No one is perfect and in this arena, no one is going to come out clean.

You see, when the United States Government decides to take out its own Commander in Chief , things are going to get complicated.

And they are going to deny their regicide until the last man.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Peter McGuire

[Michael Hogan]

Mr. Lane simply asks for an open investigation.

The debate ends on a cordial note.

THank you for posting this series, Peter. It is MOST interesting.

I have MANY criticisms of Mark Lane, but I will mention only one:

I think Lane shows his lack of CAHONES when he tells Buckley that

Earl Warren should NOT be impeached.

These early researchers and critics had to watch what they said - heck, Prouty even defended Johnson.

What I find interesting is that DVP posted this! Mr. Lane clearly prevails.

No one is perfect and in this arena, no one is going to come out clean.

You see, when the United States Government decides to take out its own Commander in Chief , things are going to get complicated.

And they are going to deny their regicide until the last man.

The fact remains that Carroll purposefully distorted the meaning of what Lane told Buckley in order to make his invalid criticism. It's the same trick

he repeatedly pulls with members of this forum.

The fact remains that Mark Lane's track record is one of courage, while Carroll demonstrates little more than his propensity to make ugly charges

about people that he can't back up with evidence.

It takes no courage to do that - just a mean spirit and an internet-connected computer.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The fact remains that Carroll purposefully distorted the meaning of what Lane told Buckley in order to make his invalid criticism.

The meaning of what Lane told Buckley is clear and unambiguous.

Lane told Buckley that Earl Warren SHOULD NOT BE IMPEACHED for his handling of the JFK inquiry.

I am one who disagrees.

[Michael Hogan]

The fact remains that Carroll purposefully distorted the meaning of what Lane told Buckley in order to make his invalid criticism.

It's the same trick he repeatedly pulls with members of this forum.

The meaning of what Lane told Buckley is clear and unambiguous.

Lane told Buckley that Earl Warren SHOULD NOT BE IMPEACHED for his handling of the JFK inquiry.

Carroll listened to Lane's answer. Had he wanted it to be clear and unambiguous, Carroll could have reproduced Lane's statement in its entirety.

Just seven more words. That would be the fair thing to do when you are accusing a forum member of having a "lack of CAHONES."

In 1966, Mark Lane was the most outspoken and effective advocate that the late Lee Oswald had.

In 1966, the most effective denigrator of Earl Warren and the Commission that bore his name was Mark Lane.

In 1966, there was no braver critic of the official story than Mark Lane.

Lane told Buckley, " I THINK his (Warren's) report SHOULD BE IMPEACHED."

The meaning of that is CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS. I use CAPS to aid Carroll in his comprehension.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[J. Raymond Carroll]

In 1966, Mark Lane was the most outspoken and effective advocate that the late Lee Oswald had.

except Lane joined the ranks of his clients accusers, when he failed to argue that his client was innocent.

Lane told Buckley, " I THINK his (Warren's) report SHOULD BE IMPEACHED."

THe constitution provides that Warren could be impeached, but makes no provision for impeaching

Warren's report.

Mark Lane knew that, and he CHICKENED OUT!

[Don Jeffries]

Ray Carroll is once again playing with words, and persists in espousing a theory only he understands.

Mark Lane was the very first public advocate Oswald had in America (other than Marguerite). To maintain that he was "against" Oswald in any way, shape or form is even more ridiculous than claiming Garrison was.

Since both Lane and Garrison thought Oswald fired no shots at JFK (and didn't kill Tippit, either), and most every other CTer I can think of reflects those views, I'd be interested in knowing just who Ray thinks DID believe Oswald was innocent?

What CTers do you think are FOR Oswald?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray Carroll is once again playing with words, and persists in espousing a theory only he understands.

I am NOT the only one who understands my theory of the case. Pat Speer has a clear understanding, as has Bill Kelly and, I have no doubt, quite a few other members as well.

Mark Lane was the very first public advocate Oswald had in America

with all due respect, sir, this is UNMITIGATED BS! Lane ACCUSED his OWN CLIENT

of involvement in the conspiracy. See Michael Hogan's earlier post. Lane betrayed his own client, hence he will

never be generally admired.

Leo Sauvage was the FIRST AND ONLY advocate Lee Oswald had among the early Warren Commission critics.

But Sauvage was a Frenchman, and I doubt if ANYONE ON THIS FORUM has ever even read his book.

Sauvage's book, THE OSWALD AFFAIR was published in France before Lane's book appeared.

Unlike the SO-CALLED defense lawyer Mark Lane, Sauvage presented a powerful case

for Lee Oswald's innocence.

Edited May 30, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray C:

Please post a wave file of your audiotape of you accusing Lane of not serving his client well.

I was at that conference and recall no such event.

JIM D

THe reason you do not recall the event is because you were not present during my encounter with Mark Lane

I do have an audio of the event,

which is stored among a pile of clutter in my garage.

I will post it here in due course, when I straighten out the clutter and figure out how to post

an audiotape. But for now lets just accept that you ask everyone to accept your bona fides, while you ask everyone

to treat me as a xxxx!

Something I do not appreciate, so I feel no obligation to you.

[Michael Hogan]

Ray Carroll is once again playing with words, and persists in espousing a theory only he understands.

Mark Lane was the very first public advocate Oswald had in America (other than Marguerite). To maintain that he was "against" Oswald in any way, shape or form is even more ridiculous than claiming Garrison was.

with all due respect, sir, this is UNMITIGATED BS! Lane ACCUSED his OWN CLIENT

of involvement in the conspiracy. See Michael Hogan's earlier post. Lane betrayed his own client, hence he will always be despised.

Leo Sauvage was the FIRST AND ONLY advocate Lee Oswald had among the early Warren Commission critics.

But Sauvage was a Frenchman, and I doubt if ANYONE ON THIS FORUM has ever even read his book.

Sauvage's book, THE OSWALD AFFAIR was published in France before Lane's book appeared.

Mark Lane was a true friend of the Oswald family, not someone that pretends to be.

It had been less than a month since the murders of President Kennedy and Oswald when Lane's brief appeared in the Guardian on December 19, 1963. The article was so popular the issue quickly sold out, and the Guardian published Oswald Innocent? A Lawyer's Brief in the form of a pamphlet, which received worldwide distribution.

Lane concluded his powerful brief this way:

Our national conscience must reject the massive media conviction of Oswald—presumed to be innocent—and begin to examine and to analyze the evidence. We must recognize that the same reckless disregard for human life and decency that resulted in the death of our President resulted also in the death of Oswald while in police custody. And, before that, it resulted in the destruction of every right belonging to an American accused of a crime. The press, the radio and the television stations share that guilt. The law enforcement officials, however, beginning with District Attorney Wade, who falsely stated evidence to the entire world repeatedly and who gave leadership to the development of a carnival atmosphere, must bear history’s harshest judgment.

You are the jury. You are the only jury that Lee Harvey Oswald will ever have.

A terrible crime has been committed. A young, vital and energetic leader of perhaps the world’s most powerful nation has been killed by the cowardly act of a hidden assassin. The murderer or murderers were motivated by diseased minds or by such depths of malice as to approach that state. We will perhaps never know their motives. We must, however, know and approve of our own conduct and our own motives. We begin with a return to an old American tradition—the presumption of innocence. We begin with you. Let those who would deny a fair consideration of the evidence to Oswald because of a rage inspired, they say, by their devotion to the late President, ponder this thought: If Oswald is innocent—and that is a possibility that cannot now be denied—then the assassin of President Kennedy remains at large.

Carroll wrote: "..... except Lane joined the ranks of his clients accusers, when he failed to argue that his client was innocent." What does Carroll think Lane is arguing above?

Carroll makes the claim that Lane betrayed his client and will always be despised for it, yet offers nothing to support the notion. Carroll simply fails to understand the role of a defense attorney. A reading of all of Carroll's posts on this thread give no indication he has read anything Lane or Sauvage wrote.

Sauvage is to be commended for his efforts. His book, The Oswald Affair, was sub-titled An Examination of the Contradictions and Omissions of the Warren Report. Like Mark Lane, Leo Sauvage was UNABLE and UNWILLING to demonstrate or claim that Lee Oswald had NO involvement in the President's murder. He wrote: "I feel no personal sympathy for Oswald or his family.

Much like Mark Lane (see above), Sauvage concluded: "Since the Commission did not establish Oswald's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Oswald was to be considered innocent."

Carroll claims Lane was cowardly because he favored impeaching the Warren Report, instead of Earl Warren. Here is what Sauvage wrote: "A commission headed by the Chief Justice of the United States must be treated with respect...."

Carroll has repeatedly ridiculed EF members for suggesting that Lee Oswald may have had intelligence connections. Sauvage wrote: "Lee Oswald, of course, could well have worked for both Moscow and Washington, successively or at the same time, and he might have decided one day to pull away from these two in favor of Havana."

Sauvage wrote this about Oswald and the Tippit slaying: "And if he really had a revolver in his pocket as he wandered through the streets of Oak Cliff, he might well have been capable of slaying an officer who stopped him for jaywalking."

Some of Carroll's most erratic outbusts have been triggered toward EF members that doubt that everything Marina Oswald spoke was the truth. Sauvage writes: "Unlike Earl Warren, I am not inclined to accept Marina Oswald's word as sacred."

Both Mark Lane and Leo Sauvage wrote books that were severely critical of the WARREN REPORT. Because they were both intelligent men, both refrained from insisting that Oswald could have no involvement in a conspiracy of any kind, something that is not provable. Both believed that for whatever reasons, there was an attempt to frame Oswald for the President's murder as demonstrated by the government's refusal to examine evidence that might have been exculpatory. Some of their arguments were the same and some were different, but their conclusions were remarkably similar.

It's little wonder that Carroll told David Von Pein in a private message that he (DVP) is closer to the truth than most forum members.

And finally, what Don Jeffries wrote (before Carroll chopped it up) above is essentially true. People that have studied this case carefully know that. Carroll's claim that "Leo Sauvage was the FIRST AND ONLY advocate Lee Oswald had among the early Warren Commission critics," is demonstrably false. The fact that Sauvage's book appeared in France before Rush to Judgment appeared here is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[Greg Burnham]

How is it that Ray is allowed to refer to another forum member as someone who will always be despised? Is this not an ad hom? Is it not tantamount to calling Mark despicable?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Carroll's claim that "Leo Sauvage was the FIRST AND ONLY advocate Lee Oswald had among the early Warren Commission critics," is demonstrably false. The fact that Sauvage's book appeared in France before Rush to Judgment appeared here is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

I should have said the only CONSISTENT advocate. Sauvage said so from the beginning

in his earliest reports in Le Figaro, and Lane also said so at first, in his lawyer's brief,

But Lane shifted ground in RUSH TO JUDGMENT, when he claimed that Oz may have been part of the plot,

and of Course Lane joined forces with Jim Garrison, who accused Oz in open court.

Meanwhile Sylvia Meagher's views were evolving during the writing of Accessories. Sylvia initially took the same position

as Harold Weisberg, arguing that the assassination could not have been the work of one man, not that Oz was necessarily innocent.

So her book is not a defense brief, though I believe John Kelin's book shows that Sylvia was fast reaching the conclusion that Oz was completely

innocent of involvement, and she invited Sauvage to write the intoduction to her book.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

How is it that Ray is allowed to refer to another forum member as someone who will always be despised?

By this logic the surviving staff of the Warren Commission

could go through the motions of signing up here as a member,

posting one or two insignificant posts,

and then sit back in the knowledge that, as "members",

they are exempt from criticism for their role in the case.

Mark Lane was retained to defend Lee Oswald, which gave him

an OFFICIAL status in the case unlike any private researcher.

But I will tone down my criticism of Mr. Lane:

Lawyers who betray their clients are not generally admired.

[Michael Hogan]

How is it that Ray is allowed to refer to another forum member as someone who will always be despised?

By this logic the surviving staff of the Warren Commission could go through the motions of signing up here as a member,

posting one or two insignificant posts, and then sit back in the knowledge that, as "members", they are exempt from criticism for their role in the case.

They would NOT be exempt from CRITICISM, as Carroll's faulty logic states. They would be exempt from UGLY and MALICIOUS attacks, such as Carroll has made on Lane.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

They would NOT be exempt from CRITICISM, as Carroll's faulty logic states. They would be exempt from UGLY and MALICIOUS attacks, such as Carroll has made on Lane.

My "ugly and malicious attack"

[now] goes like this:

Lawyers who betray their clients are not generally admired.

If the shoe fits Mark Lane,

whose fault is that?

All of which is not to deny that Lane is,

in the words of Harold Weisburg,

"a very able man."

Everyone who knew Weisberg surely encountered

his reaction to the mere mention of Mark Lane's name.

Weisberg despised Lane

and became virtually apoplectic at the mention of Lane's name.

[Michael Hogan]

Everyone who knew Weisberg surely encountered his reaction to the mere mention of Mark Lane's name.

Weisberg despised Lane and became virtually apoplectic at the mention of Lane's name.

Where is Carroll's evidence for such claims? His responses to the evidence presented in these threads consist mainly

of irrelevant and inflammatory statements like the one above. He routinely ignores facts that he finds uncomfortable to discuss.

Many of the early researchers had differences. The fact that they did has nothing to do with Carroll's claims about Mark Lane.

Like Lane and Sauvage and others, Weisberg was unable to publicly claim that Oswald had no involvement in any conspiracy. Like them, he was not foolish.

In 1966 Weisberg told an interviewer: "There is only one explicit conclusion in Whitewash. That is that the job (an honest investigation)

hasn't been done, and must be done -- and entirely in public."

That is essentially the same conclusion that Lane and Sauvage reached in their books.

In September 1967, Weisberg wrote to Sylvia Meagher that "Garrison did not believe Oswald was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK."

And let me remind Carroll that Sauvage referred to Marina as an OSWALD ACCUSER. If Carroll has really read The Oswald Affair, he should know this.

He should also know that, like Mark Lane, Sauvage was UNWILLING and UNABLE to claim that Oswald was not a part of any conspiracy.

Sauvage allowed that Oswald may have worked for Washington, Moscow, or even Cuba. Carroll ignores stuff like this because it runs counter to

his earlier statements about what Sauvage believed and by extension, to Carroll's personal theories.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Michael Hogan