Mark Lane vs Bugliosi
RICLAND
I don't know where they got that tobacco chewing hayseed Gerry Spence,
but anyone who thinks Bugliosi would stand a snowball's chance in hell
against Mark Lane needs to contact me immediately about a bridge I got
in Brooklyn I'll let them have at below wholesale.
Lane is not only one of the foremost authorities on the Assassination in
the world, he's also the lawyer the Warren Commission fought to keep out
of the hearings.
And with good cause. Lane had been an advocate for the little man for
years. He worked hand-in-hand with Kennedy's in NYC to wrest control of
the Democratic Party Machine (Tammany Hall) from the shitheelers and
mobsters who had long kept the poor and minorities out of the political
process.
Lane was the lawyer Oswald's mother chose to represent her son before
the WC. And, of course, Lane was the lawyer who represented Spotlight
Magazine in the defamation suit brought by Howard Hunt.
Spotlight had published an article that accused Hunt of being a
conspirator in the Kennedy assassination. Hunt won the first trial
bought lost the second when Spotlight hired Mark Lane.
In other words, the jury decided that there WAS a conspiracy and Hunt
WAS part of it.
Lane's lawyering in the Spotlight case was nothing short of brilliant.
The CIA sent their best legal men to try to get Hunt off the hook, but
Lane out-lawyered them all again and again.
Slowly but surely, the lie Hunt had told for 20 years -- "I was in
Washington, DC the day Kennedy was shot" -- came crumbling down around
his ears. One by one, Lane exposed each of Hunt's witnesses as a
perjurer so that by the time of summation everyone knew without question
Hunt was indeed in Dallas on 2 Nov. 1963.
But it goes much deeper than that.
Lane wrote a book about Hunt's perfidy and activities, a 375 page tome
bristling with details of his and the CIA's black bag work during the
Kennedy Era.
This book shows in no uncertain terms precisely how and why the CIA
sanctioned Kennedy's assassination, as well as how it set-up Oswald as
the patsy.
But to get back to Bugliosi. The first problem Bugliosi would have had
is that he was facing a man of integrity, not some rhinestone cowboy on
loan from the Pondorosa.
The second problem Bugliosi would have faced is that Lane has forgot
more Assassination stuff than the bug man will ever know.
The third problem Bugliosi would face is that Lane, writer of the 1963
Best Seller, "Rush to Judgment" doesn't need to resort to courtroom
theatrics or witness badgering to win over a jury. Lane gives other
lawyers enough rope to hang themselves, then he sits back as platform
springs open and the fool does his dance of death into eternity.
Excuse me for getting carried a way, but if you read the book about the
Hunt case -- "Plausible Denial" -- you'll know what I mean.
Finally, Lane is arguably the best lawyer in the country, a guy in a
class so far above Bugliosi and Spence that these two money-grabbing
rock star wannabees shouldn't mentioned in the same breath. Lane took
the Oswald case pro bono. Moreover, his resume is filled with cases he's
done pro bono.
And to this, Neither Bugliosi nor Spence have Lane's long history of
out-litigating the highest reaches of government-- the Warren
Commission, FBI, CIA, an assortment of cabinet members, and DC
politicians, et al.
Bulgiosi's claim to fame is the no-brainer Charlie Manson case, a case
that was impossible to lose. Spence won the Karen Silkwood case, a case
that pitted him against big business. Impressive, but small potatoes
compared to the cases Lane has been doing over the past 50 years.
And that's 50 years, mark it well. As I wrote, Lane started out with
John F. Kennedy in NYC about 50 years ago. Lane took on the NYC
Democratic Machine (Tammany Hall) and left it dead in the water.
To sum up, facing Lane in court would be Bugliosi's worst nightmare.
Imagine Bugliosi trying to make the case that Oswald wasn't a CIA
operative then Lane coming behind him and parading cast of characters
who all knew the name Oswald before November 22 -- Frank Stugis, Hunt,
Marita Lorenz, Helms, David Atlee Phillps, Victor Marchetti, William
Corson, et al. ...
It would be Custer at the Little Big Horn all over again.
ricland
--
David Von Pein's explanation for why every one ran towards the grassy
knoll (away from the TSBD)
" If you just heard gunshots from a certain location, would you want to
immediately RUN TOWARD A PLACE WHERE A KILLER MIGHT BE LOCATED?
If you answer 'yes', please tell me why?? "
-- David Von Pein
cdddraftsman
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
autobiographical account
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane2.txt
Julia Ann Mercer
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane3.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#mercer
Journalist Hugh Aynesworth
http://web.archive.org/web/20031219051029/http://www.jfkbook.com/chapter_fifteen.htm
Conversations With Americans ?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htm
Biography
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/Lane/Lanebio.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lame was only good for one thing . Writing lurid
conspiracy yarns that no one could debunk in the same
book . Had Lame met the bug , the bug would of tugged
the rug and dropped that slug on his mug ! That's the good
news , the bad news is that Gerry Spence happens to be
one of the best criminal defense lawyers in the world , which might
indicate how little of a defense the real LHO had going
in his favor . The next time Rickety , you think up a con-spiracy
yarn , don't forget to flush the toilet , that was a real
stinker ! .........tl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2zzj3lz
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=47n1v1y
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2vi1jyo
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misleading the House Select Committee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lane has been a purveyor or Martin Luther King conspiracy
theories too, and he represented King's killer, James Earl Ray, before
the House Select Committee on Assassinations. After investigating
Lane's claims, the Committee chastised him :
Many of the allegations of conspiracy the committee investigated were
first raised by Mark Lane, the attorney who represented James Earl Ray
at the committee's public hearings. As has been noted, the facts were
often at variance with Lane's assertions. . . . In many instances, the
committee found that Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories
publicly without having checked the factual basis for them. In other
instances, Lane proclaimed conspiracy based on little more than
inference and innuendo. Lane's conduct resulted in public
misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be
condemned.
(House Select Committee Report, Page 424, footnote 16)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to have to burst Riclands bubble , but Lame was phony , a con-
artist and a notorious liar . A man who converted , what was at best ,
a man smoking a cigarette behind a fence , into a sinister plot to
overthrow the USG , using the most lurid deductive
skills ever known to man !
aeffects
> Plausible Denialhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
> autobiographical accounthttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane2.txt
> Julia Ann Mercerhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane3.txthttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#mercer
> Journalist Hugh Aynesworthhttp://web.archive.org/web/20031219051029/http://www.jfkbook.com/chap...
> Conversations With Americans ?http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htm
> Biographyhttp://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/Lane/Lanebio.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark Lame was only good for one thing . Writing lurid
> conspiracy yarns that no one could debunk in the same
> book . Had Lame met the bug , the bug would of tugged
> the rug and dropped that slug on his mug ! That's the good
> news , the bad news is that Gerry Spence happens to be
> one of the best criminal defense lawyers in the world , which might
> indicate how little of a defense the real LHO had going
> in his favor . The next time Rickety , you think up a con-spiracy
> yarn , don't forget to flush the toilet , that was a real
> stinker ! .........tl
>
Gerry Spence is a nice guy - they ALWAYS are when their around those
that sign their paychecks....
He should of tagged along with Geraldo Riveria when Geraldo went with
Roger Ailes in his attempt at making news; enter-info-tainment or more
commonly called FOX NEWS. Spence should of consulted with Lane when it
comes to WCR issues. He looked like a complete fool on Showtime.....
Seriously doubt daBugliosi would of taken the stage roll of
'prosecutor' had his counterpart that day been Mark Lane. Bugliosi may
be a WCR advocate, but he's not THAT stupid.
Changing the subject won't help ya Lower_y so:
<sniperoo>
RICLAND
Gad, CD, even your sources -- like you -- present erroneous information.
For example, your first link states Howard Hunt's friend and co-worker
Walter Kuzmuk gave testimony at Hunt's second trial.
This is a flat-out lie.
Walter Kuzmuk didn't appear at the second trial. Worse still, the reason
he didn't appear at the second-trial is because Mark Lane so discredited
his testimony during deposition, Hunt's lawyer (Snyder) withdrew Kuzmuk
as a witness because he knew the man would perjure himself.
See Page 199, "Plausible Denial."
And that's it for you, CD. We may disagree, that's one thing, but when
you stoop to posting sources that contain erroneous information, that
means you simply can't be trusted.
In other words, I and everyone else here, must now assume all your
sources are as falsified as the referrenced one, the key except which I
include directly below.
ricland
Start reading CD's falsified source info here:
Laneโs first tactic to convict Hunt is to claim that the latter had no
alibi for November 22, 1963. Of course, Lane has to admit that Huntโs
fellow CIA employees said he was in Washington, DC., but he strongly
implies that they must have been lying. First, Lane discusses one Walter
Kuzmuk.
Kuzmuk was a CIA officer who had worked with Hunt. To the jurors at the
first trial, his testimony may have seemed dispositive of the question
of Huntโs whereabouts on November 22, 1963; an experienced, ranking
officer of the CIA had seen him in Washington just as the president was
being shot in Dallas. According to Kuzmuk, Hunt and his wife had driven
by in the early afternoon of November 22 as he exited from a downtown
Washington restaurant. Endnote
Kuzmuk repeated this testimony at the second trial.
(Kuzmuk did not appear at the second trial!!!)
Since Kuzmuk worked for the CIA, Lane can assume that
conspiracy-oriented readers will happily accept that he was a liar, so
Lane asks rhetorically, โWas Kuzmuk a CIA-arranged witness?โ Lane then
nitpicks Kuzmukโs testimony, attempting to convince readers that minor
discrepancies are the tip-off that Kuzmuk is indeed lying.
End Source here.
--
David Von Pein's explanation for why everyone ran towards the grassy
aeffects
> On Mar 21, 10:22 am, "cdddraftsman" <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Plausible Denialhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
> > autobiographical accounthttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane2.txt
> > Journalist Hugh Aynesworthhttp://web.archive.org/web/20031219051029/http://www.jfkbook.com/chap...
> > Biographyhttp://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/Lane/Lanebio.html
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------ยญ-------------------
> > Mark Lame was only good for one thing . Writing lurid
> > conspiracy yarns that no one could debunk in the same
> > book . Had Lame met the bug , the bug would of tugged
> > the rug and dropped that slug on his mug ! That's the good
> > news , the bad news is that Gerry Spence happens to be
> > one of the best criminal defense lawyers in the world , which might
> > indicate how little of a defense the real LHO had going
> > in his favor . The next time Rickety , you think up a con-spiracy
> > yarn , don't forget to flush the toilet , that was a real
> > stinker ! .........tl
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------ยญ------------------
> > Misleading the House Select Committee
> > Mark Lane has been a purveyor or Martin Luther King conspiracy
> > theories too, and he represented King's killer, James Earl Ray, before
> > the House Select Committee on Assassinations. After investigating
> > Lane's claims, the Committee chastised him :
>
> > Many of the allegations of conspiracy the committee investigated were
> > first raised by Mark Lane, the attorney who represented James Earl Ray
> > at the committee's public hearings. As has been noted, the facts were
> > often at variance with Lane's assertions. . . . In many instances, the
> > committee found that Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories
> > publicly without having checked the factual basis for them. In other
> > instances, Lane proclaimed conspiracy based on little more than
> > inference and innuendo. Lane's conduct resulted in public
> > misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be
> > condemned.
>
> > (House Select Committee Report, Page 424, footnote 16)
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> TL:
>
> Good post, right on the money.
>
> Lane is a liar.
fold your tents Chuckie daShoe said Lane is a liar.... ROTFLMFAO!
Sitdown little guy, just watch, you may learn something.
Btw, if you're one of the ones picked to debate *pro* daBugliosi's new
issue - best bring Mom along, it's will be ugly for your family....
c'mon Lower_y aka Chuckie 'daShoe' Schuler.
How is the way-up-north, mortgage business?
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> I don't know where they got that tobacco chewing hayseed Gerry Spence,
> but anyone who thinks Bugliosi would stand a snowball's chance in hell
> against Mark Lane needs to contact me immediately about a bridge I got
> in Brooklyn I'll let them have at below wholesale.
>
> Lane is not only one of the foremost authorities on the Assassination in
> the world, he's also the lawyer the Warren Commission fought to keep out
> of the hearings.
>
> And with good cause. Lane had been an advocate for the little man for
> years. He worked hand-in-hand with Kennedy's in NYC to wrest control of
> the Democratic Party Machine (Tammany Hall) from the shitheelers and
> mobsters who had long kept the poor and minorities out of the political
> process.
>
> Lane was the lawyer Oswald's mother chose to represent her son before
> the WC. And, of course, Lane was the lawyer who represented Spotlight
> Magazine in the defamation suit brought by Howard Hunt.
>
> Spotlight had published an article that accused Hunt of being a
> conspirator in the Kennedy assassination. Hunt won the first trial
> bought lost the second when Spotlight hired Mark Lane.
>
> In other words, the jury decided that there WAS a conspiracy and Hunt
> WAS part of it.
<snicker> Is that what it means? I say it means the jury didn`t
find a conspiracy, or grounds for libel.
David Von Pein
=======================================================
A CONSPIRACY THEORIST WROTE:
>>> "I don't know where they got that tobacco chewing hayseed Gerry Spence, but anyone who thinks Bugliosi would stand a snowball's chance in hell against Mark Lane needs to contact me immediately about a bridge I got in Brooklyn I'll let them have at below wholesale." <<<
DVP REPLIES:
<belly-laugh>
Vincent T. Bugliosi would have been able to rip Mark Lane to shreds in
a courtroom in ONE day's time.
[The "simulated" trial transcript below (written by myself) assumes
that Mark Lane had replaced Gerry Spence as Lee Harvey Oswald's
defense attorney at some type of "Mock Trial" proceeding (similar in
nature to the Showtime Cable-TV presentation that was done in 1986),
and it also assumes that Vincent Bugliosi, as prosecuting attorney,
had been able to secure Helen Markham as a witness at such a court
proceeding.....]
First witness for the prosecution -- Mrs. Helen Markham.....
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mrs. Markham, did you provide verbal testimony before
the Warren Commission panel in the year 1964, telling them what you
saw on Tenth Street in Oak Cliff/Dallas on November 22nd, 1963, as a
police officer was shot dead before your eyes?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/markham1.htm
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And did you tell the Commission at that time, in
1964, that the man you saw shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit in Oak
Cliff had "bushy" hair and was "stocky" in build?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "No, sir...I did not say those things."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did you positively identify Officer Tippit's killer
as a man named Lee Harvey Oswald?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir. I did."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "I now offer for this court's approval, as an exhibit,
a tape recording containing a telephone conversation said to have been
recorded by Mr. Mark Lane on March 2nd, 1964, just a little more than
three months after the assassination of President Kennedy and the
murder of Officer Tippit. I'd like to have that tape marked as an
official exhibit and I'd also like to play that tape for the jury, if
it pleases the court?"
THE COURT -- "The exhibit will be so marked. You may play the tape,
Mr. Bugliosi."
[Playing tape...Transcript of tape recording linked below...]
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, Mrs. Markham, after just now having heard that
taped telephone conversation, do you recognize the female voice on the
recording as being your own voice?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, that it me."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, does the playing of this recording here in the
courtroom today refresh in your own mind that taped conversation that
you had in early March of 1964 with the lead defense attorney in this
case--Mr. Mark Lane--who is currently seated in front of you at the
defense counsel table?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, I can recall the conversation now."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, to reiterate a key point brought out on that
tape, did you at any time EVER say to any reporters who might have
interviewed you following November 22nd, 1963, that Officer Tippit's
killer was "stocky", "heavy", or a person who possessed "bushy hair"?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "No, sir. I do not ever recall having used those words
to describe the man I saw shoot the policeman."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mrs. Markham. No further questions at this
time."
~~~~~~
After the above exchange (or something very similar to it), the jury
would have a nice, clear picture of Mr. Lane's obvious pro-conspiracy
bias. I.E.: Lane was so WANTING some OTHER killer to have murdered
Officer J.D. Tippit that he was willing to go to great lengths (via
trying to place certain words in a witness' mouth) in order to
accomplish his "Pro-CT" task.
Every witness who followed Markham to the stand would be incidental to
the jury when it comes to Lane's OVERALL CREDIBILITY AND HONESTY.
And in Mr. Bugliosi's Final Summation to the jury, Vince would have no
doubt torn into Lane mercilessly regarding the "bushy hair"
incident....as VB would paint him as a manipulator and a rather
dishonest character, and as a person who had been more than willing to
twist a key witness' own words in order to serve his own pro-
conspiracy needs.
~Mark VII~
~~~~~~
Footnote re. Mr. Lane --- Below is a link containing Mark Lane's
second day's worth of Warren Commission testimony (dated July 2, 1964;
his first day of testimony had been months earlier, on March 4, 1964).
When reading the remarks of Mr. Lane, you can tell that he desperately
does not want to turn over that tape recording with the Markham
interview on it. He's trying every "lawyer" trick in the book to try
and wangle out of having that tape get into the hands of the Warren
Commission.
Lane finally relented and allowed the Commission to hear the contents
of that tape recording, but only after a good deal of protest. ......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lane_m2.htm
J. LEE RANKIN. And if other people were present at the time of any
such matters and disclosures, does that make any difference under the
law, do you think?
MARK LANE. Present where?
Mr. RANKIN. At the time of the tape recording and the interview. That
is what I am asking you.
Mr. LANE. No one else was present.
Mr. RANKIN. And who did the tape recording?
Mr. LANE. Again you are delving into an area which is an improper one
for you to delve into.
GERALD R. FORD. Did you know about the tape recording being made?
Mr. LANE. I beg your pardon?
Representative FORD. Did you know about the tape recording being made?
Mr. LANE. I decline to answer that question. Am I a defendant before
this Commission, or is the Commission trying to find out who
assassinated the President?
Representative FORD. We are trying to find out information about a
witness before this Commission----
Mr. LANE. Well, then, call the witness before the Commission and ask
the witness questions. And if the witness has testified contrary to
what I say the witness has said, then I would suggest you do what I
invited the Commission to do when this matter arose. Submit my
testimony and Mrs. Markham's testimony to the U.S. attorney's office,
and bring an action against both of us for perjury. And then at that
trial I will present documents in possession, and we will see who is
convicted.
Representative FORD. Do you believe Mrs. Markham is an important
witness in this overall matter?
Mr. LANE. I would think so.
Representative FORD. I am sure you know what she has told you.
Mr. LANE. I know what she has told me, that is correct.
Representative FORD. If there is any difference between what she told
you and told this Commission? Is that important?
Mr. LANE. Of course it is important. And if there was someone
representing the interests of Oswald before this Commission there
could be cross-examination, you sitting as judges could then base your
decision upon the cross-examination. But you have decided instead to
sit as judges and jurors and defense attorneys and prosecuting
attorneys, and you are faced with a dilemma. I cannot solve that
dilemma for you.
Representative FORD. In order for us to evaluate the testimony she has
given us and what you allege she has given you, we must see the
information which you have at your disposal.
Mr. LANE. I have told you precisely under oath what Mrs. Markham has
said to me.
Mr. RANKIN. Are you unwilling to verify that with the tape recording
that you claim to have?
Mr. LANE. I am unable to verify that because of an existing attorney-
client relationship, and you know that it would be improper and
unethical for me to give the answers to the questions which you are
asking. And that is why I am amazed that you persist in asking
questions which you know are improper and which would be unethical for
me to answer.
Mr. RANKIN. And where was this tape recording made?
Mr. LANE. You have my answer to questions about that already, Mr.
Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you, yourself, have any conversation with Helen
Markham at anytime?
Mr. LANE. Yes; I testified to that on March 4, and again today.
Representative FORD. Is this tape recording of that conversation?
Mr. LANE. Precisely.
Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us where the tape recording was made?
Mr. LANE. I can tell you, but I will not tell you.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any other reasons for not disclosing this
information to the Commission except your statement about the attorney
and client relationship that you describe?
Mr. LANE. And the sanctity of working documents of an attorney. I have
no other reason whatsoever.
========
[Later in Lane's Testimony....]
EARL WARREN. Mr. Lane, you have manifested a great interest in Lee
Harvey Oswald and his relationship to this entire affair. According to
you, Mrs. Markham made a statement that would bear upon the
probability of his guilt or innocence in connection with the
assassination. Mrs. Markham has definitely contradicted what you have
said, and do you not believe that it is in your own interest and in
the interests of this country for you to give whatever corroboration
you have to this Commission so that we may determine whether you or
she is telling the truth?
Mr. LANE. I have given you all the information that I am permitted to
give to you and to members of the Commission. I understand from Mr.
Rankin that Mrs. Markham denies that she ever talked with me. Is that
correct?
Mr. WARREN. You needn't ask Mr. Rankin any questions. You won't answer
the questions of this Commission, and he is not under examination by
you at the present time.
Mr. LANE. I have answered questions. I spoke for about 85 pages,
without a single question being put to me, because I was anxious to
give to this Commission all the information in my possession.
Mr. WARREN. Yes, but you did not give us all the information. You did
not tell us that you had a recording of what Mrs. Markham said to you.
Now, we ask you for verification of that conversation, because she has
contradicted you. You say that you have a recording, but you refuse to
give it to this Commission.
Mr. LANE. I am not in a position to give you that recording. I have
made that quite plain. Because of a matter which has arisen in the
last 3 or 4 days, which I was made aware of yesterday for the first
time, I am not in a position to do that. Hopefully, I will be in a day
or two.
=======================================================
CONSPIRACY THEORIST ("Ric") -- "{Lane} doesn't need to resort to
courtroom theatrics or witness badgering to win over a jury."
DVP -- <belly-laugh #2> I suggest Ric read the link provided above re.
the taped phone conversation between Lane and Mrs. Markham.
Talk about "witness badgering" -- Lane's got the patent.
=======================================================
RIC -- "Lane is arguably the best lawyer in the country, a guy in a
class so far above Bugliosi and Spence that these two money-grabbing
rock star wannabees shouldn't {be} mentioned in the same breath."
DVP -- And just how much cash did Spence and Bugliosi rake in while
working for 5 months on "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"?
I'm sure you must have the detailed figures handy re. those
sums....given the fact you just opened your big yap about both of
those lawyers being "money-grabbing rock-star wannabes".
For the record, Spence (the "tobacco-chewing hayseed") had not lost a
"civil" case in 17 years prior to his 1986 loss to Bugliosi in the TV
Docu-Trial. (One source said it had been 19 years since Spence's last
loss. I'm not sure which figure is exactly correct; but either one is
impressive enough.)
I guess the "hayseed", Mr. Spence, must have accepted only open-and-
shut cases during all those many years, huh?
=======================================================
RIC -- "Bugliosi's claim to fame is the no-brainer Charlie Manson
case, a case that was impossible to lose."
DVP -- Yeah, even though Manson never actually killed anyone in August
1969. And yet you, being a kook, think that putting the noose around
the neck of someone who physically DIDN'T KILL ANYONE AT ALL IN AUGUST
1969 was a case that was "impossible to lose" for Mr. Bugliosi.
Crazy thinking there.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
eca...@tx.rr.com
that about you/your posts every week I
suppose..
Unlike some others I *read* your
excellent posts and I strongly encourage
newcomers and independents to do the
same.. We are blessed to have you.
I was thoroughly impressed with both
Gerald Ford and Chairman Earl Warren..
Not hard to see how they became
respectively President of the US and
Supreme Court Chief Justice btw.. And
Mark Lane can be described in the eyes
of this observer anyway, as either grossly
incompetent or an attorney who lacks even
the slightest hint of legal ethics
standards.. Or more likely, a large portion
of both of these highly undesirable
characteristics.. Oh, and I almost left out,
Lane's more distinguishing trait: IMO Mark
Lane was driven by money and ego to the
point that he put integrity aside..
Ric since you frequently lament that
explanations to your nutty frequently
*UNSUBSTANTIATED* assertions are too
lengthy, I have no doubt you simply
skipped DVP's brilliant post. Here's what
he said and revealed thru documentation
in his post below (in a nutshell) as you
so commonly demand:
**************
Mark Lane was a phony
as were his bogus assertions.
VB would have BBQ'd him.
**************
Sincere thanks again David.. I suspect
I'll get zapped again for repeatedly
praising you but so what if it's
justified?
Ed Cage 0518Mar2207
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
aeffects
> DVP one of your finest posts, but I say
> that about you/your posts every week I
> suppose..
[...]
I can read it in a movie made for television script now....
.
Mark Lane: Gerald Ford, did you or did you NOT, whilst a member of the
WC, move the entrance 'bullet' wound on the back of JFK, to a
different location?
.
President Ford: I moved the wound, thus averting a Third World War...
.
Mark Lane: that aside Mr. Ford, have you ever heard of the Single
Bullet Theory (SBT)?
...
> ...
>
> read more ยป
David Von Pein
Ed, I see we definitely have like-minded thinking on many (most)
occasions. This is one of them. Because I also took note of that EXACT
same thing you took note of -- i.e., the impressive questioning done
by both Gerald Ford and Earl Warren during Mark Lane's session "on the
stand" (so to speak).
When reading through the various testimonies given by the many
witnesses who gave testimony in front of the WC (and 552 people in
total were interviewed or gave transcribed testimony), we don't often
get to hear very much verbiage from Earl Warren, and not too much, but
a little more though, from Representative Ford either.
Those WC members usually stay in the background more, leaving the
questioning to Ball, Specter, Belin, Liebeler, et al.
So it was nice to see some lengthier comments made by Ford and Warren
during Lane's testimony (filled with composure and restraint too,
which was probably a little hard to maintain, considering who they
were dealing with in Mr. Lane). ;)
>>> "Here's what he {DVP} said and revealed thru documentation in his post (in a nutshell) as you so commonly demand: Mark Lane was a phony as were his bogus assertions." <<<
That's a good "nutshell" breakdown indeed. ;)
And for additional examples of Mr. Lane's built-in "I NEED A
CONSPIRACY" mindset, all anyone needs to do is watch the 1967 film
version of Lane's first book ("Rush To Judgment"). Multiple already-
debunked CT theories are presented by Lane in that film as if they are
worthy of serious consideration -- which is just exactly the same kind
of worn-out tactic that Jim Garrison would begin using during his
"investigation" of the JFK case right about that very same time
(1966-1967).
(Wonder where Jim got some of these notions? Not hard to figure out,
huh?)
More on "Rush To Judgment" (the movie):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85d4d330812f3728
And more on Lane's clone, a Mr. Jim Garrison:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d4772fbe4df0bcd
And (for good measure) here are several more reasons for disliking Mr.
Garrison, via his Johnny Carson interview in 1968:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7e730615fc2a0a14