MARK LANE IS INTERVIEWED

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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

That was what Weisberg thought in 1967,

but he found out the truth just before trial began,

and he immediately severed his association with Garrison,

as Weisberg himself describes in this letter from the Weisberg archives at Hood College:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/DiEugenio%20James/Item%2008.pdf

[Michael Hogan]

Nice Mike.

Again, has RC read the Sauvage book recently?

Carroll's claim that he is probably the ONLY Education Forum member that has read The Oswald Affair is a dead give as to his mindset.

His failure to address anything Sauvage actually wrote makes me wonder the same thing you did.

As does his failure to answer you.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Nice Mike.

Again, has RC read the Sauvage book recently?

It is a while since I last read Sauvage's book, but its basic thrust was that

there is no proof that Oz was guilty of any crime that day.

How, under these circumstances, can the Warren Commission unhesitatingly assert that

“Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President Kennedy”?

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/sauvage/WC_Case/WC_case_against_Oswald.html

I say Sauvage was the most consistent defender of Oz.

Sauvage stayed clear of Garrison, while Mark Lane moved to New Orleans

to help Garrison prove that Oz was a conspirator in the plot to kill JFK.

[Michael Hogan]

[it is a while since I last read Sauvage's book, but its basic thrust was that there is no proof that Oz was guilty of any crime that day.

That was the "basic thrust" of Lane's book as well. That is/was the "basic thrust" of most researchers that believe(d) in conspiracy.

Sauvage called Marina an OSWALD ACCUSER. He figured Oswald could have been employed by intelligence agencies.

Carroll has no hestitation in labeling forum members that agree with what he deems to be Sauvage's "basic thrust" as OSWALD ACCUSERS.

Mark Lane never offered proof that Oswald was guilty of any crime that day, either.

Now Carroll is amending and backtracking on his claims.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

To quote a letter from 1996 from an old man like Weisberg, who had become the epitomy of the word crotchety..

Weisberg had full command of all his faculties in 1996

As I can personally attest.

So too can Gerry McKnight, Harold's neighbor and close friend.

Whether Harold was crotchety or not is completely beside the point.

Harold was a highly intelligent man and like a number of perceptive researchers at the time,

he came to see right through Garrison.

[Don Jeffries]

Harold Weisberg was a personal hero of mine. He was an indefatigible researcher, and we owe him a great debt, particularly for his numerous FOIA battles and for producing Post Mortem, which in my view will wind up being his most enduring work. The evening I spent at his home back in the early 1980s was one of the highlights of my life. However, he was an extremely bitter, envious and cantakerous man.

Weisberg hated virtually all the other critics, except Harold Roffman, who he looked at as something of a surrogate son, and Jim Lesar, who helped him with his FOIA lawsuits. He lashed out at all of them during the evening I spent with him, and had a particular disdain for Mark Lane. I'd learned about this feud back in the mid-1970s, when I heard Mark Lane's side of it as a teenage volunteer with his Citizens Committee of Inquiry. I think Weisberg was jealous of Lane's media appearances and the fact his book had sold so many copies. Meanwhile, Weisberg's own sales were minimal in comparison, as were his media appearances. After an initial run by Dell with the first Whitewash, Weisberg was forced to self-publish the rest of his classic books on the JFK assassination.

Weisberg continued to become more alienated from the critical community in his last years, even as he was able to get a publisher for his final two books on the assassination. His leaking of the original script for JFK to longtime LN propagandist George Lardner, of the Washington Post, was inexcusable, imho. If Weisberg was envious over Lane's success with Rush to Judgment, I can only imagine how upset he was over Oliver Stone's film. But that was Weisberg; like so many high profile Warren Commission critics, he wanted to be "the star." He thought everyone should defer to him, and that he'd already done all the truly important research. I'm quite certain he would have loved Stone if the director had picked Harold Weisberg, instead of Jim Garrison, as the film's protagonist.

I have no doubt that, if he'd been a younger man, and thus joined forums like this one to discuss the case, that he would be bickering constantly with everyone, probably calling them names and questioning their motives and their capabilities. In other words, he'd fit right in.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

[it is a while since I last read Sauvage's book, but its basic thrust was that there is no proof that Oz was guilty of any crime that day.

That was the "basic thrust" of Lane's book as well. That is/was the "basic thrust" of most researchers that believe(d) in conspiracy.

Sauvage called Marina an OSWALD ACCUSER. He figured Oswald could have been employed by intelligence agencies.

Carroll has no hestitation in labeling forum members that agree with what he deems to be Sauvage's "basic thrust" as OSWALD ACCUSERS.

Mark Lane never offered proof that Oswald was guilty of any crime that day, either.

Now Carroll is amending and backtracking on his claims.

I am extremely suspicious of the posts of Raymond Carroll. Ditto Team Colby, even if I agree with Team Colby on 9/11.

If Raymond Carroll were a poker player he would be classified a "jackel." That is random, outrageous gibberish to throw you off your game. The inconsistency of Carroll is in fact his only consistency and I think it stinks to high heaven.

I never see Carroll post any links, analyze anything deeply, change his mind on something ... just hit and run posting with an agenda.

[Well, I take part of that back; I see he posted a link above...]

Edited May 31, 2011 by Robert Morrow

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So for Ray to trot out one of these cranky letters from Harold, and to use it as evidence, I mean come on.

On another thread I recently posted a link to the Shaw trial transcript. For those who missed it, here it is again.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1271&relPageId=3

And here again is a link to Weisberg's letter, for easy comparison.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/DiEugenio%20James/Item%2008.pdf

Anyone who studies the trial transcript will see that Weisberg

has one error in his letter characterizing Garrison's case.

Weisberg's letter states that Garrison tried to prove that Oz was a shooter.

In fact, Garrison tried to prove that Oz carried a rifle to the TSBD

in furtherance of the plot, as the trial transcript makes clear.

He did not claim that Oz actually fired the rifle, as Weisberg states.

Of course if Oz conspired to murder JFK, as Garrison claimed, then under the law he would have been just as guilty as if he did pull the trigger.

It was a smart move on Weisberg's part to refuse to take part in the trial.

Garrison's case was laughed out of court.

[Michael Hogan]

Lee Oswald was not on trial. More later.

[Greg Burnham]

Despite what Ray claims was true about Garrison's beliefs about Oswald, in this lecture we actually get to hear from Garrison's own mouth what he believed was true about Oswald. One should note that this lecture ocurred prior to the start of Clay Shaw's trial. It is a must hear, IMO:

LINK: Garrison Lecture

LINK: Questions & Answers

One should note the many examples Garrison offers to exonerate Oswald of ALL guilt in the crime. At one point, during the question & answer segment, he even characterizes Oswald as a patriot.

[Michael Hogan]

[quote name=J. Raymond Carroll' date='30 May 2011 - 03:01 PM'

timestamp='1306782080' post='227050]

[quote name=Michael Hogan' date='30 May 2011 - 02:29 PM'

timestamp='1306780164' post='227047]

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?

Carroll has amended his post, but it is still ugly and malicious for two reasons.

1) It is not true. Oswald was not Lane's client.

From Kelin:

On April 1, 1964, Marguerite Oswald announced that Mark Lane was no longer representing the interests of her murdered son. This news came

out on the same day Lane's new organization, the Citizens' Committee of Inquiry, was formally announced.

.....In its press material, the CCI described itself as an independent organization that would conduct it's own investigation into the circumstances

of JFK's assassination. It noted that Lane's work as Lee Oswald's attorney was completed and that his future association with the case would not

be in an attorney-client capacity but rather through the independent Citizens' Committee."

2) The charge that Mark Lane betrayed his client, despite being inaccurate as shown above, is one that Carroll has failed to sustain with any evidence.

His participation in this thread began like this:

[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.

Of course Carroll's abridgment of Lane's response to Buckley totally changed its meaning. It would have bad enough had Lane's words been in print, but in this case

anyone wanting to check what Carroll posted about what Lane said would have to listen to the interviews in their entirety. I did. Carroll would never acknowledge

that he misquoted Lane, preferring a response stating his belief that Mark Lane has a place in hell waiting for him.

During the course of this thread Carroll has not posted one bit of evidence that Mark Lane ever betrayed anyone. When I say not one bit of evidence, I mean NOTHING AT ALL.

Let him dispute this and I will go back and post every word he has said in this thread about Mark Lane. It won't take long and will consist of little more than unsubstantiated insults.

No evidence whatsoever.

Carroll will continue to ignore the mountain of evidence that shows what Mark Lane did on behalf of Lee Oswald, efforts that were sustained by Lane long after his representation

of Oswald ended. And he will somehow insist that Mark Lane remained Oswald's lawyer.

The charges tendered against Lane by Carroll are serious ones. They demand proof that Carroll is unable to provide. This says much more about Carroll than it does Mark Lane.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I am still waiting for Ray to find the audiotape and learn to do a Wave file so we can hear him make mincemeat of Mark and listen to Lane walk away with tail dragging.

And you can keep on waiting until I decide when and where to publish it.

[Michael Hogan]

The December 1966 issue of the highly-regarded American Bar Association Journal contained a review of Rush to Judgment, written by Arthur John Keeffe.

Keeffe concluded:

Nevertheless, being rebel enough to believe no man, alive or dead, should be convicted of crime without evidence proving him guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt and unless he has counsel. I rejoice that this book gives Oswald his day in court.

It goes without saying that Keeffe had a clear understanding of the exact role of a defense attorney. In order to get published in the ABA Journal, an attorney had to know what he or she was talking about.

Having said that, it was certainly journalistic license to state that Oswald ever had his day in court.

http://books.google.com/books?id=MEMeR3Rb_yYC&pg=PA1149&dq=inquest+whitewash+review+aba&hl=en&ei=YJzzTfvyLo34gAfC88nSCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I have a prediction about this post, which I'll reveal if it comes true.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The December 1966 issue of the highly-regarded American Bar Association Journal contained a review of Rush to Judgment, written by Arthur John Keefe.

Thank you for posting this book review.

The ABA journal may be highly -regarded among establishment & corporate lawyers,

who dominate the ABA.

(C.F. "participation" of the President of the ABA

in the Warren Commission,)

But the ABA Journal is not highly esteemed among criminal defense lawyers,

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/freeform/publicwelcome?opendocument

Criminal defense lawyers have a MUCH BETTER journal

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/freeform/championmag?OpenDocument

Edited June 12, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Michael Hogan]

I have a prediction about this post, which I'll reveal if it comes true.

My prediction was that Carroll would respond and that he would abridge what I posted, making its meaning less clear. I was right.

The ABA journal may be highly -regarded among establishment & corporate lawyers, who dominate the ABA. But the ABA Journal is not highly esteemed among criminal defense lawyers,

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/freeform/publicwelcome?opendocument

Where did Carroll read that? And what does it have to do with anything I posted? What does it have to do with anything Keeffe wrote?

Criminal defense lawyers have a MUCH BETTER journal

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/freeform/championmag?OpenDocument

What does that have to do with what Keeffe wrote?

This is their (NACDL's) Mission:

Ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime ...

Foster the integrity, independence and expertise of the criminal defense profession ...

Promote the proper and fair administration of criminal justice.

The exact same thing the ABA reviewer wanted: Justice and due process for Oswald, who was accused of crime.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Michael Hogan