Jump to content
The Education Forum


Recommended Posts

Then DVP goes off on his blog about every reference to even cigarette smoke in the plaza, prodigiously quoting his idol VB. He seems to say it was obviously a fake because Groden processed it.

Vince B. never said the "smoke" photo was a fake. Why are you even implying that Bugliosi said such a thing? He didn't. Vince merely said that WHATEVER it is that Groden thinks is "gunsmoke" in the Wiegman frame is really something else. And anyone with any sense would agree with that assessment as well.

Now, let's get back to idolizing Mr. Lane.

Barry Ryder said it very well, I think....

"My sincere condolences go to the friends and family of Mark Lane. However, I will not mourn his passing or pay tribute to him. To do so would be hypocritical. I had a low regard of the man.

His writings, talks and broadcasts about the assassination of President Kennedy have done irreparable harm to the general understanding of the murder.

In the half century since the events of Dallas, Lane earned big money peddling paranoia and half-truth. His writings were all characterised by strategic omissions of evidence and witness testimony. His showboating before the Warren Commission (and later the HSCA) earned him public rebukes from both bodies.

Witnesses who were 'interviewed' by him often slammed him for misrepresenting what they had said (eg. Charles Brehm) or denied ever being interviewed by him at all (eg. Mary Woodward). Lane's disgraceful telephone conversation with Helen Markham showed him to be willing to stoop to any depth to advance his arguments.

Lane had no regard for 'the whole truth'. His books and pronouncements are characterised by wilful withholding of crucial information.

'Rush To Judgment' has no mention of Johnny Brewer or Julia Postal. These two witnesses were the sole reason why the DPD went to the Texas theatre to search for a man who was acting suspiciously. Lane omitted all mention of them so as to create an air of suspicion about the actions of the DPD.

His treatment of Jack Ruby's testimony was disgraceful. Whole swathes of Ruby's statements were ignored and the essential meaning of Ruby's protestations were turned on their head because of it. Ruby denied all foreknowledge of the assassination or of Oswald. Lane's duplicity painted a very different picture.

'Plausible Denial' features the Marita Lorenz deposition which was given for the Hunt v. Liberty Lobby appeal. In his usual fashion however, Lane omitted the parts of the testimony which proved that Lorenz was lying. Lane knew that she was lying but he cut-and-pasted her words to suit his purpose.

Finally, should any reader feel that I'm being unfair to a deceased man who cannot respond to my accusations, it should be noted that I have negatively reviewed the two books previously mentioned (on amazon). Firstly, my accusations were made whilst Lane was alive and as the author of the books in question he would have been advised of the existence of the reviews. Secondly, saying bad things about the deceased is something that never seemed to bother Lane himself.

He had no qualms at all when it came to insinuating the deceased J. D. Tippit into a nefarious 'plot' with Jack Ruby. The whole, shabby 'Carousel meeting' garbage that Lane peddled to the Warren Commission and the reading public was an utter disgrace.

Lane is gone but all of the poison that he injected into the public consciousness still circulates and will doubtless continue to do so.

That's not much of an epitaph." -- Barry Ryder; May 13, 2016



Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He didn't. Vince merely said that WHATEVER it is that Groden thinks is "gunsmoke" in the Wiegman frame is really something else. And anyone with any sense would agree with that assessment as well.

I was just about to leave. "Anybody with any sense" can see through that pompous declaration, that you're faking it because you have no evidence.The question is, do you have any hard evidence that that photo is tampered. A simple yes and citing of sources or "no" is sufficient. Since your answer is reluctant no, and you're sure it's not smoke, that of course begs the question, what is it, Dave?

And what obvious theory "that anyone with any sense" would hold, do you subscribe to as to the accounts of the railway workers with the front row seats and the best acoustics? 1)The conspiracy theory that they are all liars?, that begs the question, why?? or 2)They are the victims of some smoky mass hysteria?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all righty then... click.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez did Barry Ryder notice any of this? What Ryder leaves out of course is exactly the above.

Between the FBI and the Secret Service and the WC, they completely fouled the evidence and the case. Because it was quite simply a runaway, rogue prosecution. That could not have happened if Rankin had let Oswald have a defense counsel.

So please show me where Ryder noted any of that?

What Lane was doing was simply this: He understood that the WC had been nothing but a kangaroo court. So he was going to be an advocate for the defense.

BTW, does Ryder note that the FBI rigged Ruby's polygraph? No? Neither did Bugliosi. This was after VB said he would present the facts as the critics wanted them presented. Which as I proved in Reclaiming Parkland, he almost never did.

Nice job Jim and Gil.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, what WC zealots like DVP say to the above is this: Well the WC was not really a court proceeding, It was a fact finding mission.

Which leaves out two things:

1.) In fact finding proceedings you still have opposing counsels e.g. Watergate Senate Committtee. Which issued a majority and minority report.

2.) The WC did not at all act like a fact finding committee. I mean just look at what Specter did with the medical evidence. He never asked any of the three pathologists why the back wound was not dissected. We understood why after Finck's testimony in New Orleans at the trial of Clay Shaw.

The WC was really more like a "cover up the facts" commission. One reason being that there was no opposing check on what they could and could not do.

BTW, in VB's 2,646 page door jam, see how much he explores this topic, that is of no defense representation. Or that Oswald was killed in the Dallas Police HQ and never had a chance to testify in his own behalf. Its shocking that an attorney would treat this subject so cavalierly. At one point VB actually tries to insinuate that it was better for the cause of justice that Oswald was murdered.

That is really all one needs to know about Reclaiming History.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, what WC zealots like DVP say to the above is this: Well the WC was not really a court proceeding, It was a fact finding mission.

And do you, Jim, think Mark Lane was on a "fact finding mission" when he became the unofficial "defense counsel" for Lee Oswald?

Let's have a look at just one small example of how Mr. Lane handled the facts concerning Helen Markham and the phone call Lane had with her in 1964....


Go ahead and QUOTE any "dishonesty" on Mark Lane's part... be ready to cite...

But, of course... you won't. YOU WON'T!!! And *that* fact tells the tale.


A good example of Mark Lane's tactic of not telling his audience the whole story can be heard from Lane's own lips, right here....


Ben Holmes, of course, will unquestionably still defend Lane's above behavior, even though we can be 100% certain that Lane himself had to know that he was misleading his large audience that night. And the reason we can know that Mark Lane himself knew he was being misleading is because Lane HIMSELF was reading directly from Helen Markham's Warren Commission testimony in the above audio clip.

And even more importantly, Lane had to have known that the transcript of his telephone call with Mrs. Markham clearly indicates that another "Female Voice" was talking just prior to Markham getting on the phone. And therefore, Lane KNEW that he was not telling his audience everything relating to the topic at hand.

Lane was, of course, desperately attempting to make Mrs. Markham look like an even bigger screwball (much bigger) than she had already been painted by Lane (and others).

The above audio excerpt might seem like just a small drop of water in this ocean we know as "The JFK Assassination Case", but I think it is a fabulous example of how a conspiracy theorist named Mark Lane has been more than willing (in front of hundreds or even thousands of audience members who have gathered to hear him speak or debate somebody) to bend the true facts and shade the "gray" areas in his favor when he discusses the JFK murder case. And I don't see how anyone can possibly deny that Mr. Lane did JUST THAT (i.e., bend the facts) in the audio sample presented above.


October 2014


Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Liebeler, or whoever was questioning Markham, was also confused by her not recognizing the operator's voice.

You are going to compare that with what Gil Jesus and myself brought up above?


BTW Jim, Ryder is one of these WC zealots of the fanatical stripe, He actually thinks the 2013 Cold Case Nova, the Koch sponsored propaganda piece that was ripped to shreds by Mantik and Martin Hay, was a good show.

In other words he buys the Single Bullet Fantasy. Which Lane tore apart in his book.

And its really that which got in the throat of the Oswald did it crowd. Lane destructing the fantasy they all bought into without reading,. See Chapter Four of Rush to Judgment.

BTW, my favorite part of the book is the very ending:

As long as we rely for information upon men blinded by the fear of what they might see, the precedent of the Warren Commission Report will continue to imperil the life of the law, and dishonor those were wrote it little more than those who praise it.

So true, considering what happened later with Malcolm X, King and RFK. And how CBS cowered in front of the image of John McCloy, and became active agents of the cover up.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryder...buys the Single Bullet Fantasy.

And that comes as something of a surprise to you? (Even slightly?) Why?

Virtually ALL LNers "buy" the Single-Bullet Theory.

Only Mark Fuhrman (and perhaps one or two other lone-assassin believers on planet Earth) do not accept the SBT....and that's because the SBT is, of course, by far the best explanation to explain the double-man wounding of Kennedy and Connally.

No conspiracy proponent has ever even come close to explaining the shooting in a reasonable and believable "anti-SBT" manner. And they never will. Because the Single-Bullet Theory is true, as the Zapruder Film (and a bunch of other evidence) so vividly demonstrates.


Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I had not read Rush to Judgment in decades.

Last night, I opened the first few pages. Lane begins with a quote from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland: "Call the first witness" said the king; and the white rabbit blew three blasts on the trumpet, and called out "First witness!"

But unlike the WC who first called a thoroughly rehearsed, and frightened, and intimidated Marina Oswald, who completely reversed important aspects of her initial testimony, Lane uses as his first witness someone who the Warren Report does not mention: Julia Ann Mercer. Therefore telling the reader two things:

1.) The Warren Report was a carefully screened and edited "fact finding" document and

2.) Jack Ruby was a bit more than a patriotic Dallas saloon owner who was full of pity for Jackie Kennedy

He then goes to Bowers, the crane operator behind the picket fence with the best view of what went on back there. Here, again, Lane adds a masterful touch, because he has interviewed Bowers himself after he appeared before the WC. And Bowers adds information which he could not give the Commission. Why? Because, as Bowers said, he got the feeling they did not want him to elaborate on certain elements. (p. 32)

Very deft. Because now, not only do we see that the WR was not only pre-screened in advance, but it held back certain key bits of information that its deposed witnesses had to offer. (BTW, I think we all know today that Bowers even held back from Lane. He later told his boss that he saw one of the men toss something metallic at the other, and then the second man threw it in the trunk of the car.)

He then goes to J. C. Price, the man who said he saw somebody running behind the fence toward the TSBD with something in his hand. The author adds, that again, Price is not mentioned in the WR. But Lane talked to him. (pgs. 32-33)

Next up is S. M. Holland, who I do not need to elaborate upon. Except to say that Thompson used him at even greater length and to even more dramatic effect that Lane does here. But what Lane does is to add how the Commission tried to discount Holland as a witness, and how that peeved him. Again, the author is showing us that, at the very least, the Warren Commission had an agenda.,

He closes off the "Prologue" with Seymour Weitzman, but its not about the MC vs. the Mauser. When Weitzman heard the shots, he ran up to the grassy knoll area--something which literally scores of people did instantly-and he encountered a railroad employee. He asked him if he had seen anything suspicious. The man replied he thought he saw someone throw something into the bushes. Then Lane adds that after this info was given, "the Commission counsel said to Bowers, "I think that's all", and Weitzman was dismissed. He was not asked for the name or description of the employee. He was not asked if he looked into the bushes or if he had found anything there. Nothing in the 26 volumes of evidence or in the Report indicates that the Commission or its investigators made any effort to locate or identify the railroad employee." (p. 35)

Now, back in 1966, if you read a Prologue like that about the murder of President Kennedy, after the MSM had previously spent months telling you how great the WR was, wouldn't you buy the book? I sure as heck would.

So yep, I can see why Barry Ryder, and many other Single Bullet Fantasists really don't like Mark Lane.

And let us add J. Edgar Hoover and Wesley Liebeler. He was showing them up for the dishonest fraudsters they were.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the SBT is, of course, by far the best explanation to explain the double-man wounding of Kennedy and Connally...

Didn't the FBI initially conclude that three bullets hit the two men?

Yes they did Denny, Most researchers will state that it was not until the James Tague wounding was discovered, that the Warren commission invented it.

And the FBI Report did not change to sync with the Warren Commission's SBT in 1964 when the Report became public.

A lot of members here like Jim Di Eugenio and Pat Speer are really knowledgeable of this. And so is Gil Jesus, but I don't think he visits here much, but has a great website also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You actually pinpointed why Lane is so controversial, Jim. In presenting his defense brief, he emulated the Warren Commission's prosecutor's brief, and frequently misrepresented the statements of his witnesses.

Bowers actually said the people he saw were in front of the fence, i.e. on the street side of the fence. He was probably talking about Emmett Hudson and F. Lee Mudd.

Price actually said the man he saw running behind the fence started out on the overpass.

The reality of their statements, moreover, was buried for a long time. It is fortunate, then, that the director of Lane's Rush to Judgement movie held onto the transcripts of their interviews with Bowers and Price, and that these transcripts were later made available via the Wisconsin Historical Archives.

Lee Bowers was working in a railroad tower in the train yard north of the grassy knoll. (11-22-63 Affidavit to the County of Dallas, box 2 folder 1 file 15 of the Dallas JFK Archives) “I heard at least three shots very close together.” (11-22-63 report of the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, 19H510) "He said he heard what sounded like three shots from a rifle." (4-2-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H 284-289) (When asked if he saw any men between his own location and Elm Street) "Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket...They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew...They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down." (When asked if he could see the corner of Houston and Elm from his location) “after they passed the corner of Elm and Houston the car came in sight again…I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots…The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass...At the moment I heard the sound, I was looking directly towards the area---at the moment of the first shot, as close as my recollection serves, the car was out of sight behind this decorative masonry wall in the area…. It came in sight immediately following the last shot...At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion…I just am unable to describe it rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.” (6-28-66 UPI article, found in the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner) "He observed two men in the area between the fence and the colonnade before the shooting but did not notice them later. Had an automobile been wedged in that area, he could not have missed it. Bowers says he saw a 'flash' or 'some kind of disturbance' under the trees atop the knoll at the time of the shooting. He saw no individual firing or anyone rushing from the scene but he thinks there is 'at least a 50-50 chance that something happened there' and it could have been a second gunman."

(Interview with Mark Lane in Rush to Judgment, 1966) “At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I described were, there was a flash of light or—there was something which occurred that caught my eye. What this was I couldn’t say at the time and at this time I couldn’t identify it, other than that there was some unusual occurrence, a flash of light or smoke or something, which caused me to feel that something out of the ordinary had occurred there…There were three shots.These were spaced with one shot, then a pause, and then two shots in very close order, such as perhaps (He raps on table with his hand “rap…raprap"). Almost on top of each other, while there was some pause between the first and second shots.” (When asked if he told this to the FBI) “When I stated that I felt like the second and third shots could not have been fired from the same rifle, they reminded me that I wasn’t an expert, and I had to agree.” (Unreleased segments of Bowers' 1966 interview with Mark Lane, from a transcript of the interview found in the papers of Rush to Judgment director Emilo de Antonio at the Wisconsin Historical Archives, and published online by Dale Myers, 2004)) (When asked if there were any pedestrians between his location and Elm Street) "Directly in line - uh - there - of course is - uh - there leading toward the Triple Underpass there is a curved decorative wall - I guess you'd call it - it's not a solid wall but it is part of the - uh - park....And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area...And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, uh - disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that. Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting...Ah - one of them, as I recall, was a middle-aged man, fairly heavy-set with - what looked like a white shirt. Uh - he remained in sight practically all of the time. The other individual was uh - slighter build and had either a plaid jacket or a plaid shirt on and he - uh -is walking back and forth was in and out of sight, so that I could not state for sure whether he was standing there at the time of the shots or not..." (When asked if he saw anyone suspicious in the area) "Other than these two and the people who were over on the top of the Underpass who - that were, for the most part, were railroad employees or were employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, uh - there were no strangers out in this area." (When returning to the question of whether or not anyone was shooting from behind the fence) "Now I could see back or the South side [Note: here MYERS adds "BOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."

J.C. Price watched the motorcade from the roof of the Terminal Annex Building. (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department) “The cars had proceeded west on Elm and was just a short distance from the triple underpass, when I saw Gov. Connally slump over. I did not see the President as his car had gotten out of my view under the underpass. There was a volley of shots, I think five and then much later, maybe as much as five minutes later another one. I saw one man run towards the passenger cars on the railroad siding after the volley of shots….He had something in his hand. I couldn’t be sure but it may have been a head piece.” (Interview with Mark Lane in Rush to Judgment, filmed 3-27-66) (When asked where the shots came from) “From behind the overpass over there, triple overpass, that’s where I thought the shots were coming from.” (When asked where he saw the man run) “Over behind that wooden fence past the cars and over behind the Texas Depository Building.” (When asked to mark a map showing where he thought the shots came from, and then asked if he has marked the map “just behind the wooden fence where it joins the overpass.”) “That is correct.” (From the transcript of Lane's interview with Price, 3-27-66, found in the Wisconsin Historical Archives) (When asked about the man he saw running) "After about the second shot, he started from above the Triple Underpass and ran around the wooden fence and behind two passenger cars, railroad passenger cars, behind the Texas Book Depository Building." (When asked about the shots) "I'd seen Governor Connally slump--of course, I didn't--I wasn't watching the President, but he positively slumped first. And I saw them both fall alright." (When asked if he'd heard any shots) "Yes, I heard five shots. I counted them, and I think I counted them accurately. Three shots in one volley, and in about two seconds, two more from the same gun and they were not echoes." (When asked if he is certain there were five) "I am certain." (Lane then repeatedly asks Price about the running man. Lane seems annoyed that Price keeps saying that the man started out on the overpass, when Lane had assumed he'd started out from behind the fence.) (When asked to describe the man for the fourth or fifth time) "Well, he had on khaki trousers, a white shirt, and no hat, or no head-piece, and uh I think that he had light-colored hair. And he ran from the west side of the wooden fence round to the north side of the Texas Depository--Book depository Building." (When asked if he had anything in his hand) "Yes, he had something in his hand. It could have been a hand-piece, it could have been a gun, it could have been most anything, but he was carrying something in his right hand." (When asked where he thought the shots were fired) "Well, at that time, I thought the shots came from the overpass." (When asked where he now believes the shots were fired) "I really think that they came from the Texas Book Depository Building at this time, but I still think there was five shots fired."

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...