Suspicion in Plenty: An anthology of scepticism published in Britain 1963-1973

[Paul Rigby]

This is the first part of the publication; the second was devoted to the question and answer session which followed the lecture. I've split the pamphlet into two at this natural division to make posting more manageable.

Lane's pre-Rush To Judgment work is rarely read with the attentiveness it merits. Sprinkled throughout are leads which offer the potential to liberate understanding - not least from the drear orthodoxy of Lane's own grassy knoll advocacy.

The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 (Pamphlet, 32pp)

The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination [part 1 of 2]

By Mark Lane

[QUOTE]This is a transcript taken from a tape recording made of Mark Lane’s extemporaneous lecture. To the best of our knowledge, there are no errors in this transcript from the tape recording of Mr. Lane’s lecture, but as Mr. Lane did not proof-read this transcript, we wish to guard against any possibility of error being imputed to him by making clear that any error which may be found in this transcript must be ascribed to the process of transferring his remarks from tape to paper.

We emphasize that we have no reason to think such error exists, but the procedure wherein remarks are transferred from one medium to another is subject to error, and it is important that it should not be possible for anyone to impugn Mr. Lane’s scrupulous and meticulous accuracy because of this remote possibility of secretarial failure.

Text of Mark Lane’s Extemporaneous Lecture at University College, London, 10 December, 1964

This is the Warren Commission Report. The New York Times has described it as the most massive detective job in the history of the world. They said that some 25,000 separate interviews and re-interviews were conducted by agencies of the FBI alone when this document was being prepared, and concluded that it was unmatched in the annals of fact finding. President Johnson, in accepting this document before a nation-wide television audience in America, made precisely the same point, although in a somewhat less sophisticated fashion. “This document,” he said, “is very heavy”, as indeed it is, and perhaps history will conclude that that comment made by the President is the finest short analysis of the Report. For heavy though it is, it has been compiled by refusing to permit to testify before the Commission the vast majority of important witnesses to such events as the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Patrolman J.D. Tippit. And for good reason. For those who were not permitted to testify all had given stories, quite publicly, at complete variance with the conclusions reached by the Commission.

This is a rough approximation of the Dallas scene on November 22, with the Book Depository Building, and the President’s limousine, showing the route up Main Street and Houston Street taken by the car, which then made a sharp left turn down Elm Street. The vast majority of the witnesses to the assassination stated the shots did not come from the Book Depository Building, but the Commission said they did, and Oswald was up there on the sixth floor firing his rifle at the President. In fact, the vast majority of the witnesses said the shots came from high up on the grassy knoll, behind a wooden fence, where there were some bushes and some trees. Standing here (just below the grassy knoll) was a man named Abraham Zapruder, who is an amateur photographer, brandishing his amateur motion picture camera. He took the pictures which have been published in magazines throughout the world. Stills taken from the motion picture show the limousine here (part of the way down Elm Street) and show the President being struck by the bullet. Mr Zapruder was called before the Commission because it was essential to the Commission’s work that they have the film which he took, and while he was there he blurted out before the Commission that it was dangerous taking those pictures because “they were shooting right over my head, because the shots came from behind that fence and I was right in front of it. They were shooting right over my head when I took the pictures.” They had to have Mr. Zapruder, but the Commission did not call in order that he might testify as to the direction of the origin of the shots. He, nevertheless, gave them that information. Standing right with him were four employees of the Dallas Morning News, the local publication in Dallas, and they wrote an article which was published the very next day in the Dallas Morning News in terms of the shots which they heard. Those standing in this area – witnesses all over this area, including some who were standing right in front of the Book Depository Building – said the sounds of the rifle shot were as if it were a fire cracker, in fact many of those standing here thought they heard fire crackers, as they told reporters immediately after the shots were fired. Not so these four employees of the Dallas Morning News in front of the fence. They wrote an article which appeared the next day in the Morning News, which said: “We heard the shots. It was a horrible, ear-splitting roar coming from behind us and a little to our right: right behind the bushes, right behind the fence.” Now those four reporters are well-known. Their names were published all over America in the newspapers. But the Warren Commission never called them, never permitted them to testify, never took a statement from them, and they were – with Mr. Zapruder – four of the five persons closest to the origin of the shots.

Standing right over here (by the Presidential limousine at time of impact) was Mrs. Mary Moorman. The New York Times referred to her on the 23rd in the article written by the only New York Times reporter in Dallas that day, Tom Wicker, as one of the key witnesses to the assassination. She was standing so close to the limousine that when the first bullet was fired – the one that struck the President in his throat – Mrs. Moorman heard Jacqueline Kennedy address a remark to her wounded husband. She was that close to the limousine. She was quoted in every single newspaper in America. She was on radio and television all day long on November 22nd as a crucial witness, and on the very day the Warren Commission Report was released, some ten months after the assassination, a national network, C.B.S., presented a programme, a documentary programme, on the twenty-six key witnesses to the assassination, and there was Mrs. Moorman talking to the American people about what she heard. But the Warren Commission never found her, she never testified before the Warren Commission.

The most revealing aspect of the Warren Commission Report begins on page 483 of this document. It is the list of witnesses. Appendix V is a list of 552 witnesses, and that includes not only those who testified before the Commission, but those who gave statements to the Commission, or affidavits to the Commission, or from whom depositions were taken, and that is the entire source of information. The New York Times says 25,000 people were interviewed by the FBI. That may be, but the Commission was only told about 552 and only secured statements or testimony from the 552. The Commission called others before it who did testify in terms of the origin of the shots. It was essential for them to call the witnesses, for they were involved in other aspects of the case.

One of the major questions of the day was in reference to the weapon found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building by a police officer. It was first referred to as a German Mauser, 7.65 mm. It was so referred to by the officer who found it at 1.22pm on November 22nd. He said it was a German Mauser, 7.65mm., and he went on to describe the telescopic sights, colour of the sling and the material of which the sling is made. Now one of the distinguished members of the Warren Commission, Congressman Ford, one of the seven members of the Commission, wrote an article which he sold to Life magazine. He talked about the inner workings of the Warren Commission. This was published in Life magazine on October 2nd. He said one of the major problems of the Commission was in reference to this rumour about the rifle. They did, indeed, have a problem with reference to that, because after the story was given out all over Dallas that it was a German Mauser, 7.65 mm, the following day the FBI announced in its first public statement in reference to the case: “Our records show that Oswald purchased a rifle back in March of 1963 and the weapon he purchased, according to our records, was an Italian carbine, calibre 6.5.” Immediately, the Dallas District Attorney, Henry Wade, jumped in front of the first live camera he could find to proclaim that a miracle had taken place in that holy city of Dallas overnight. The weapon which they had in their hands overnight had been transformed. It had changed both its nationality and its size, and it had become by the afternoon of November 23 no longer German, now Italian, no longer a Mauser, now a carbine, and no longer 7.65 mm., but now calibre 6.5. It matched in every single respect the weapon that Oswald allegedly purchased, according to the FBI, back in March, and matched exactly the description of the weapon which the FBI, moments before, for the first time, had made reference to.

Congressman Ford, in seeking to explain it to the American people (many more of whom will read or have read Life magazine, since it goes to 12 million homes in America, than will read the Warren Commission Report) said that this story got out because a reporter, who was facing an immediate deadline for his newspaper, saw an officer standing nearby and said to the officer: “What kind of rifle do you think that might possibly be?”, and the officer said: “It might be a Mauser”, and thus, in that fashion, an incorrect story was broadcast throughout the world, according to this distinguished member of the Warren Commission. That statement is an absolute falsehood, and Congressman Ford knows it is an absolute falsehood. That is, he knows it if he has read the Warren Commission Report, which he signed. For the officer who said it was a German Mauser did not say this to a reporter facing an immediate deadline. He, in fact, signed an affidavit for the Dallas Police Department 24 hours thereafter on November 23. The Commission knows that, because we submitted a photostatic copy of that original affidavit to the Commission when we testified before them, and they said it was an authentic document, and they deal with that. So it is untrue that it was not described in that fashion. The Commission had to make an explanation, and the Commission does. The Commission implies that Officer Weitzman, who signed the affidavit, is some kind of a ‘boob,’ and does not know about rifles and signed an affidavit without even examining the weapon, and would not even know, if he examined the weapon, what it was.

When I testified before the Commission, I asked if I might see the alleged assassination weapon, and they showed it to me, and I read into the record, and it is now part of the Warren Commission document, that inscription, which was printed in large clear letters, deeply etched into the metal portion of the rifle, and consisted of these words: “Made in Italy. Calibre 6.5.” How could anyone pick up that weapon and say it was a German Mauser, 7.65mm.? Officer Weitzman is an idiot, obviously, implies the Commission’s Report. Let us read now from the 26 volumes of testimony before the Commission. In Volume III, page 105, Seymour Weitzman describes his background. He is a rather unusual Dallas police officer. He is a graduate engineer. He owned a sporting goods shop for years and he sold rifles at that sporting goods shop and considers himself to be familiar with weapons. While he was there, he also testified (page 108 and 109 of Volume III) that he was standing at the corner of Elm and Houston. He heard the shots fired and he ran to the place from which the shots came. He ran to the origin of the sound. He climbed over the wooden fence, he said, behind the bushes, and: “There I saw a railroad yardman, standing near the overpass, a little bit to the north of the fence,” he said. “I said to the railroad yardman: ‘Where did the noise come from?’ The railroad yardman pointed to the shrubbery at the fence and said: ‘It came from there.’” The Weitzman said: “I asked the yardman: ‘Did you see anything as the shots were fired at the President, I thought I saw someone throw something into those bushes’.” Well now, we may be talking about the most important witness in the entire assassination investigation – that railroad yardman – and obviously the Commission is going to want to find out from Officer Weitzman the name of that railroad yardman, and if he does not have the name, his description and who he worked for, so they can bring him down as a key witness. After Weitzman testified that he pointed to the shrubbery and said: “I thought I saw somebody throw something there,” the Attorney for the Commission, Mr. Ball, said: “I think that is all. That is enough testimony.” That was the end of Officer Weitzman’s testimony, and you can look through the 26 volumes of evidence and exhibits and you will see that the Commission never called the railroad yardman, nor did they make any effort to procure his name or to procure his presence before the Commission.

One of the major questions unanswered by the Commission is why Oswald was wanted in the first place. We know that Oswald was arrested on November 22, early in the afternoon, and shortly after his arrest the Dallas police said: “We wanted Oswald only for one matter: in connection with the murder of Officer Tippit. He killed Patrolman Tippit a little while ago, we believe.” The FBI said the same thing. The Dallas police said the same thing through their Homicide Chief and through the Dallas Chief of Police, Jesse Curry. Oswald was wanted, they said, solely in connection with the murder of Officer Tippit, not for anything else. They said that when he was arrested, they said it subsequent to his arrest and they said it for three days thereafter: he was wanted solely for the murder of Patrolman Tippit. In fact, after Oswald was arrested, late in the evening of November 22, he was paraded before the television cameras, broadcast throughout all America, on every radio and television channel. A reporter walked up to him and said: “Did you kill the President?” and he replied: “The President? They haven’t even asked me about that. They said I killed a police officer.” The reporter said: “Did you kill the police officer?”, and he said: “It’s just ridiculous, I didn’t kill anyone. I don’t know what they are talking about.” The reporter said: “When did you first hear about the President?” He said: “A reporter just yelled it out to me in the hallway as I was coming in here. The police never even asked me about killing the President.” It was late in the evening of November 22 when the reporter said: “How did you get that bleeding gash across your forehead?”, and Oswald replied: “A police officer struck me,” at which point two Dallas police officers dragged Oswald away from the camera. That was the end of the interview. But what Oswald said totally confirmed that which the Dallas authorities, the FBI and the Secret Service had been saying all along: he was not wanted for the assassination; he was wanted solely in connection with the murder of Patrolman Tippit, and there is something strange about that because the Commission concedes, quite accurately, that Oswald’s description was despatched at 12.45 p.m. on November 22. They so concede on page 144 of the Report, and they concede, quite accurately, that Officer Tippit was shot at 1.15 or 1.16p.m. So Oswald was wanted ostensibly for the murder of Officer Tippit at 12.45p.m., some 30 to 31 minutes before Officer Tippit was shot. That raises a rather curious question and the Commission is anxious to fob us off. Now one does not have to conduct the greatest examination in the history of the world – the most massive detective hunt in the history of the world – in order to find out why the Dallas Police sent out this description at 12.45p.m. as the Commission states they did. They wanted a man who was white, slender, weighing 165 lbs and 5’10” tall. Why did they send that out at 12.45p.m.? It was sent out over the Dallas police radio, the Commission states, and the Commission states, however, that it is unable to determine the basis on which that description was despatched – now why should it be unable to do that? All they have to do is call the Dallas Police Officers who sent out the description and say “Why did you sent out that?” and then they would know the basis. The Commission merely states on page 144 of the Report that it is unable to determine the basis on which the description was despatched.

Well, the Commission, however, is willing to hazard a guess as to why the description was sent out. The Commission does this throughout the report – it deals with speculation from beginning to end – apparently this happened, likely this happened, possibly this happened, probably this happened and the highest order of speculation awarded by the Commission to an important area: “most probably”. This is a “most probably” area. This description – 5’10” tall, 165 lbs, white and slender “most probably” was sent out because a witness named Brennan “most probably” gave that description to a Dallas Police Officer. And now we have Mr. Brennan who makes a rather tardy appearance on the scene.

It is now 10 months after the assassination and the Commission has come up with an eyewitness. He is over here (on a wall before the Depository Building) – that’s Mr. Brennan – he is leaning on the concrete wall, near which there is a pool of water and he is looking in this direction. The shots were fired and Mr. Brennan was 107’ from the place of the Book Depository Building – 107’. And he glanced up, says the Commission, he glanced up after the second shot was fired and saw a man, says Brennan before the Commission: “I saw a man standing in the window with a rifle in his hand.” That was that German-Italian carbine-mauser 6.5/7.65 that he saw there. “And I saw him aim and fire the third shot as he stood in the window and then he walked away from the window.”

We have another problem now for the Commission – the windows in the Book Depository are 18’ off the floor, that is where they begin. The window was half-closed and if Oswald was indeed firing out of this window, then he was firing through the panes of glass, but none of the glass panes were broken. Of all the miracles that took place in Dallas that day, that was the most remarkable. The Commission solved that by stating that “most probably” Oswald was not standing, he was sitting on the floor, or kneeling, and Brennan was wrong when he said he was standing. Page 144 of the Report: “Although Brennan testified that the man in the window was standing when he fired the shot, most probably he was either sitting or kneeling.” Now we have it. Oswald was seated on the floor, poking his rifle out of the window as he sits on the floor, firing down the third shot and Brennan was 107’ away from the base of the building – six storeys beneath the building – he looks up and he sees Oswald seated on the floor. He thinks he is standing and he gives this description to the Dallas Police “most probably”(!): “white, slender, weighing 165 lbs and 5’10” tall.” Well the Commission is concerned about that and they handle it in one pithy sentence, page 145: “Brennan could have seen enough of the body of a kneeling or squatting person to estimate his height.” That’s it! They said it, so it is so.

Now Brennan is brought down to Dallas Police Station to view Oswald in a Police Line-up. We know how these line-ups are conducted – we are indebted to a Dallas taxi driver named William Whaley – he testified before the Commission about his appearance before the line-up. He sums up how such line-ups are conducted. He said to the Commission – that is his testimony – He said “When I was brought to that line-up, I picked out Oswald like that. I could have picked out Oswald with my eyes closed.” The Commission Attorney said: “You don’t mean literally with your eyes closed?” “Yes,” he said, “I mean with my eyes closed.” He said “There he was on one side of the stage wearing a ‘tee’ shirt, handcuffed with both hands together, on the other side,” he said, “there were five young teenagers, young teenagers, 14, 15, 16 years old, handcuffed together.” And he said: “There was Oswald, he was saying out loud, we all heard it, he said, ‘You call this a fair line-up, this is not a fair line-up.’” He said: “I could have picked him out with my eyes closed. He was the only one that was complaining about the line-up.” Well, they brought Mr. Brennan down to one of these line-ups. Incidentally, with that testimony before the Commission, the Commission concludes that the Dallas police line-ups were conducted with scrupulous fairness – that was what they concluded after hearing Mr. Whaley’s testimony. Well, they brought Mr. Brennan down to the Dallas Police line-up and there were four people then – most of the day there were just four and Oswald occupied position number two almost all of the day. “And Brennan,” the Commission sadly states on page 145, “was unable to make an identification of Oswald as the man he saw in the window.” But then Mr. Brennan was talked to by agents of the FBI and the Dallas Police for a period of three weeks and after Oswald’s death, on December 17th, three weeks after his death, the FBI said that Brennan told us he was then able to say that the person in the window definitely was Oswald. However, on January 7th, the Commission states, Mr. Brennan went back to the FBI to state: “I can no longer say it was Oswald in the window, I don’t know if it was Oswald or not.” That’s page 145. Then we turn to page 250. 105 pages later the Commission begins to sum up this section. “One witness, Howard L. Brennan, made a positive identification of Oswald being the person at the window.” That is the Commission’s conclusion in reference to Mr. Brennan.

Now, of course, Oswald was arrested in connection with the Tippit killing and the Commission asserts – in fact, there is a publication which is published here called Peace News, I think is its name, which discusses some of the aspects of the case as seen by the American Establishment. In this current issue, they take the position, which is taken widely by establishment publications in America as well, that there were 12 witnesses to the Tippit killing, and over and over and over we hear that there were 12 witnesses to the Tippit killing. Well, if one reads the Warren Commission’s Report carefully, while they do use that language rather loosely, when you come right down to it, there were only two who actually saw Tippit killed. There are some people who saw one or more persons in the vicinity some time thereafter, some of them as far away as two or three blocks, later, 10 or 15 minutes later. But there were two, the Commission says, who actually saw Tippit killed, just two.

One is the man called Domingo Benevedes and Mr. Benevedes said “I saw the man kill Tippit, but I do not have any idea what the man looked like. He might have been a midget. He might have been 8’ tall. I don’t know. All I can tell you is I was so upset I did not see anything. I could not identify anyone” and he did not even go the Dallas Police line-up and when he testified before the Commission he said: “I don’t know if it was Oswald or anyone else. I haven’t the faintest idea who did it.” Well, while there are two eye witnesses to the Tippit killing, one is a witness who cannot identify anyone and is valueless as a witness against Oswald or against anyone else.

Then we come down to the sole eye-witness who can make an identification and her name is Helen Louise Markham. Mrs. Markham heard the shots she said and then she saw Officer Tippit shot to death in the street and she ran over to him and stayed with him for 20 minutes while he was there dying and then dead on the street – for 20 minutes and there was not another soul around; and finally, 20 minutes later, an ambulance came and took him away. Now that story, strange, indubitably, even in Dallas where there are murders conducted on a rather regular basis, unfortunately, (Dallas leads America in murders every year), even in Dallas, women are not expected to be so sophisticated that they would allow a dead Police officer to remain on the street for 20 minutes, without anyone seeking to remove him. It did not happen that way at all, as the Commission states.

Tippit was shot at 1.16 and when he was shot, a couple by the name of Mary and Frank Wright, living on that very same street, heard the shots, ran to the window and called the nearest ambulance station. The despatchers received a ‘phone call and sent out an ambulance driven by Clayton Butler, and the assistant ambulance driver there, and they arrived on the scene and they picked up Tippit’s body and they took it to the hospital. Now, all one would have to do to establish this fact, would be to call Mary and Frank Wright, and ask them when they made the ‘phone call – the Commission never called them. They never called the despatchers to ask them when the call in. They could have called the ambulance driver Clayton Butler, or the assistant ambulance driver – if they had done any of those things they would have found a very consistent story and that is, the shots were fired at Officer Tippit at about 1.16 or 1.17 and before 1.19, the ambulance, which was not more than 200 yards away, arrived on the scene and removed Officer Tippit. But all those key witnesses were not called by the Commission, because if they had called them, the Commission would have had a record showing that Tippit was removed between 2 or 3 minutes after the shot, and here is their only witness to the murder of Officer Tippit who claimed she was with Tippit for 20 minutes in the street and so they never called the other key witnesses because they would contradict what the star witness said.

Well, they called her and she testified and then I made a ‘phone call to her, many, many months ago, in March. I called her because I had read in the Dallas newspaper that a star Dallas reporter by the name of Hugh Aynesworth was present when Mrs. Markham was being questioned by the Dallas Police. (They have a rather informal method of investigating crimes in Dallas.) The reporters were right there listening – and she said “Yes, I saw the man who killed Tippit. I saw him very clearly. He was short, he was stocky, he was on the heavy side and he had brown bushy hair, a lot of bushy hair.” So this story appeared in the Dallas newspapers, and as well we heard on radio and television that day that the man who killed Tippit was identified by the one eye-witness as a man who was short, stocky, a man who had a lot of bushy hair. Now since Oswald was medium height or a little taller, extremely thin, and he had hair which was receding, and thin hair, the description hardly seems to be consistent of Lee Harvey Oswald. So I called Mrs. Markham to discuss the matter with her and she finally agreed to talk with me, first saying that she was not permitted to talk with me. The FBI had warned her, the Dallas Police had warned her that she should never talk with anybody about the facts in this case. I said: “Well, Mrs. Markham, even way down there in Dallas you have probably heard this expression which we repeat rather broadly throughout the United States, and that it that this is a free country, and that means in essence, if you want to boil it down to one sentence, that the police, local or federal, cannot tell a citizen of our country what to say or what not to say. That’s really what it means.” And finally she agreed to speak with me and said: “What do you want to know?” and I said “What did you see?” And she said: “Well, I saw the man who killed Tippit you know.” And I said: “Yes, what did he look like?” She said: “He was short, absolutely, he was short, no question about that.” “How about his build?” “He was a little on the heavy side – yes, a little on the heavy side.” “How about his hair?” “His hair was somewhat bushy. No question about that,” she said, “his hair was somewhat bushy.” Well, I testified before the Commission two days afterwards and I told them about having a surprise for them regarding their star witness in the Tippit case. I said she had identified a man who did not seem to me to be Lee Harvey Oswald. She said he was shot, somewhat stocky and with somewhat bushy hair. Well, the FBI went out to see Mrs. Markham, to talk with her. “Did you tell Lane that? We ordered you not to talk with anyone.” She said: “No, I swear I never told him that.” “Why did you talk with him at all after we ordered you not to talk with him?” She said, “I never talked with him at all, he made it all up; I never talked with him.”

Mrs. Markham is not the best witness in general, for a number of reasons. First of all, after Officer Tippit’s body was removed Mrs. Markham passed out on the scene. She was taken to the Parkland hospital in a state of hysteria. She was treated for hysteria at the hospital and then taken by the Dallas Police to the police line-up to pick out Oswald and we are told that she picked out the magic number two man in the line-up, the place that Oswald had occupied almost all of the day. Of course on the way to the hospital and on the way from the hospital she was in the company of the Dallas authorities, the Dallas Police, who were talking to her all the time, and we are told by the Commission that she picked out Oswald as being the person who did the firing.

Well they called Mrs. Markham before the Commission and they asked her if she had ever talked with me and she said she had not. On 16 separate occasions (Volume III) she was asked if she had talked with me. Had she ever talked with any lawyers? Had she ever talked with anybody on the telephone and given that description to him, and on and on and on. The man who was most interested in that was Allen Dulles one of the Directors of the CIA, a member of the Warren Commission. Of course he was fired from that position in the CIA by John F. Kennedy. The seven distinguished members of the Warren Commission was made up of five Republicans, and two Southern Democrats. The whole seven-man Commission did not have a single Kennedy supporter on it.

They asked Mrs. Markham: “Did you ever talk with Lane? Did you ever talk to anyone after leaving us?” and then Mr. Ball, Counsel for the Commission, began to question her about having picked out No. 2 man in the line-up because he wanted to get this fact into the record. (Volume III, page 310.) “Now when you went into the Police line-up room and you looked these people over, these four men?” “Yes Sir.” “Did you recognise anyone in that line-up?” “No Sir.” “You did not. Did you see anybody - now I have asked you this question before – did you recognise anybody from their face?” “From their face, no.” “Did you identify anybody in these four people?” “I didn’t know nobody.” “I know you didn’t know anybody, but did anybody in that line-up look like anybody you had ever seen before?” “No, I have never seen none of them, none of these men.” “Not one of the four?” “Not one of them.” “No one of all four?” “No Sir.” And now the magic question: “Was there a number two man in there?” Her answer: “Number two was the one I picked.” Not leaving well enough alone, Mr. Ball decided he would plunge a little further and get the basis for the recognition. “How did you recognise him?” “Well, when I looked at this man, I was not sure. I was not sure, but then I had cold chills run all over me.” The Commission’s conclusion: “We conclude, addressing ourselves solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham’s contemporaneous description of the gunman and her positive identification of Oswald at a Police line-up,” the Commission concludes that “her testimony is reliable.” I told the Commission thereafter about the telephone conversation with Mrs. Markham, as I had told them before and told them again after Mrs. Markham had been called back and denied that she ever spoke with me. I was in London in June and the Commission called me back to testify before them again – they said. In fact, the purpose of my return was not so that I could testify, but so I could be present at a public Press conference run by the Commission, so that the Chief Justice could say to me in the presence of the Press: “We believe Mrs. Markham, not you. We have every reason to doubt the truthfulness of your statement.” They believed this woman, who passed out on the scene, was hysterical, who contradicted herself a dozen times – they said: “We believe her and not you.” I said: “Very well, Mr. Chief Justice, then I shall make this one request that you take my testimony and you submit it to the United States Supreme Court with a prosecution for perjury, and take Mrs. Markham’s testimony as well, and I shall be happy to allow an American Jury to determine which one of us committed perjury.” Of course they declined that challenge, as they had declined every challenge which might elicit facts in this case. The Commission indicated that they thought I was being somewhat confident in making this request and I said: “Yes, you see I have a tape-recording if my telephone conversation with Mrs. Markham.” Well, I stunned them and this made them decide to have a conference to discuss what they were going to do about that. The tape recording of Mrs. Markham was produced and they heard it. She was their only witness and they were very unhappy about that thought.

I should tell you that in America, it is a crime to make a tape recording without procuring the permission of the other party and divulge it, that is to play it. It is not a crime to make a recording without permission and not a crime to divulge it without permission, but it is a crime to make it and to divulge it without permission. If the Commission wanted that recording, all they had to at that conference when they discussed that matter, was to conclude that they were going to direct me to make the recording available, and if they directed me to make the recording available, I would have given it to them, and the divulgence would have been theirs and not mine. They would have divulged it, I would have made it, they would have had the recording and no crime would have been committed. The Commission came back into the room after exploring the legal possibilities and said: “Mr. Lane, did you have permission from Mrs. Markham to make this recording?” And I said: “No, I did not.” They said “Mr. Lane, would you like to give us that recording voluntarily?” I said: “You know I can’t do that. That’s a crime. I would go to jail for 5 years.” The question was whether or not the Commission would direct me to give them the recording and there need be no crime and they would have the recording. The Commission decided to decline to direct me. They refused to direct me. Instead, they gave out a handout to the press saying that “Lane claims he has a recording. We do not believe he has a recording because he refuses to give it to us,” without explaining the legal questions involved. This story, of course, was published all over America, that I had refused to give them the recording and this was commented on by learned journals that were writing about the case, so I went back to my office that day, considered the personal problems involved and also the overriding considerations that went beyond the considerations of any one person, and I voluntarily mailed the tape recording to the Commission with a letter to the Chief Justice which said: “You said that I do not have a recording, that you believe that I have made up the whole story, that I committed perjury before you, and this has been published in every newspaper in America and many abroad as well. I now ask you, not for an apology, but to send a letter to me, saying that now you have the recording, you no longer have any reason to doubt the truthfulness of my testimony.” That was on July 7th and I have not yet received acknowledgement from the Chief Justice or any member of the Commission.

But they did call back Mrs. Markham. Mrs. Markham was called back and she was asked, (Volume VII page 499) if she had ever had this conversation with me and they only asked her 12 different times and each time she said no. And then the Counsel for the Commission said (page 500, Volume VII): “I must tell you frankly that we have a tape recording of a conversation which purports to be a conversation between you and Mark Lane on the telephone. I want to play it for you.” But then he explained that unfortunately he could not play it for her because he did not have a tape recorder. (I really did feel that I should take the responsibility for that. I just sent them the tape, I didn’t send a recorder.) However, the full power of the Government was harnessed and within four hours a tape recorder was located. Mrs. Markham was brought back and the recording was played for her. On page 501, she made her first comment. Mr. Liebeler said: “I see you are shaking your head. Do you want to say something?” This was her answer: “I never talked to that man.” “Is that not your voice on the tape?” “I cannot tell about my voice, but that man I never talked to, no woman or man like that.” So they said: “Alright, we will play the recording some more for you” and they played it some more. In the recording she was saying he was short, his hair was somewhat bushy, he was a little on the heavy side. Then there was a question on the recording – I asked if she could see what colour shirt he had on. And she said: “No, I could not. He had his jacket on and it was zipped up and I could not see his shirt.” In Volume 3, she had sworn before the Commission that Oswald was wearing a light coloured shirt, and then they showed her the shirt taken from Oswald and she said: “Yes, that’s the shirt he was wearing.” But months before that she told me she couldn’t see the shirt. The Commission saw no contradiction there at all. Then the recording goes on and then again he says “I see you are shaking your head; what do you mean by that?” And Mrs. Markham comments: “This man I have never talked with. This lady was never on the telephone.” Now ponder that for a moment. “This lady was never on the telephone.” If that is her voice she knows that she was involved in a telephone conversation.

If it was not her voice, how did she know whether or not this lady was on the telephone? “A man called me, he told me he was from the City Hall. Yes he said he was Captain Fritz of the Police Department.” (Actually, the tape begins: “Hello Mrs. Markham. My name is Mark Lane, I am conducting an independent investigation.”) “He said he was Captain Fritz of the Police Department.” “Well now, do you remember having a conversation with somebody?” “Yes, I do, but he told me he was from the Police Department at City Hall and had to get some information.” “But this man on the tape, he keeps on saying did the Police do this, did they do that, did they take an affidavit. He is talking about the Police. Does that sound to you like someone who says he is from the Police Department?” She said: “Well, I know what you mean.” “Do you recognise this as the voice of the man you talked with?” “No, it is not.” “It is not the same voice?” “No.” “How do you explain the fact that the woman’s voice on this tape recording is your voice?” “I never heard that.” “You never heard the man’s voice before?” “And I never heard the lady’s voice before. This is the first time. This lady never talked to me.” “Which lady was that?” “On the tape.” “Which lady on the tape?” “Well, there was a woman talking.” “The lady’s voice that was talking on the tape here just now?” “Yes.” “I thought that was your voice?” “It is my voice.” The Commission concludes, on page 168, that Mrs. Markham is a reliable witness. Now, she was questioned first by Mr. Ball, Counsel for the Commission. I debated with Mr. Ball in Los Angeles about a week ago at a public meeting which was taped and played over one of the radio stations there. I read this testimony to him and I said: “This is your only witness. What do you have to say about Mrs. Markham?” And he said: “Mrs. Markham is an utter screwball; there is no question about that.” That is his consideration and he is the only one who questioned her for a day and not in the presence of the Commission. The Commission therefore had to rely upon the Attorney’s view as to the credibility of the witness. He says she is an utter screwball, but the Commission concludes, because she is the only witness of the murder of Tippit, that Mrs. Markham is a reliable witness.

If the weapon was not capable of the performance that the Commission claims it gave that day, then obviously the whole case against Oswald as the lone assassin must fall. In the words of the great American humorist Mark Twain, “Whoso hanging from a rope by his hands severeth the rope above his hands shall fall, it being no defence to claim that the rest of the rope is sound.” Well, let us see if the weapon is capable of this performance. The world’s greatest rifle shot could not fire that weapon as Oswald allegedly did with those results. That statement was made by Hugo Hammerer the world’s greatest rifle shot, the world’s rifle Olympic champion. He said, “In my hands, the weapon is not capable of that performance.” Well now, we are going to see what Oswald’s score with a rifle was. Oswald was a rather poor shot as a matter of fact, but after his death, the one kind thing the Commission did on his behalf was to escalate his abilities with the weapon. They brought before them a Major Anderson of the Marine Corps. Major Anderson testified: “When compared with the entire American population, Oswald must be considered a good to excellent rifle shot.” That is compared with the entire American population. Of course that includes two year old children, 98 year old grandmothers, and it includes the vast majority of Americans who have never picked up a rifle in their lives. Perhaps compared to them, Oswald was a good to excellent shot. We don’t have any statistics on that. Let us compare him in a more constructive fashion with the entire tests of those who have passed through the armed services of the United States in the last ten years, to see what a good shot he was. He fired twice before the Marine Corps – the first time he fired 212, the second time he hit 191. 191, which was his last firing score in the Marine Corps, is one point above the minimum qualifying score for the United States armed forces and the United States Marine Corps describes those in that category and those who fire several points above that as being “a poor shot.” So first the Commission escalates Oswald from a poor shot, the marking given to him by the United States armed services when he last fired for score, to a good to excellent shot by comparison with others, many of whom never fired a rifle at all.

After having done that, the Commission then decides it is going to examine the rifle’s ability. Well, we made a suggestion to the Commission. We said: “Take that rifle up on the 6th floor of the Book Depository Building (that is the alleged assassination weapon). Bring in 100 Marines, each of whom, on his score, fired considerably better than Oswald did. Give them 3 shells, have the car turn around and when the car reaches this point where the first shot was fired at this point where the last shot was fired, have the Marine fire three shots. If two of them can hit a sandbag in the back seat – the seat previously occupied by the President in this now radio-controlled car – if two of them can hit that sandbag target, that is, if one can hit it twice, out of 100 Marines, if one can emulate what Oswald allegedly did, we will concede that you proven that the rifle is capable of the performance. Whether or not it is likely that Oswald, who was a poor shot, could have done it if only 1 of a 100 Marines who are better shots, could do it, is another matter but at least you will certainly have proven that the rifle is capable of the performance. Well the Commission did not accept that challenge. On page 193 of the Report, they said they were going to have tests of their own. In an effort to test the rifle under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory had riflemen fire the rifle at distances of 175, 240 and 265 feet. Now let’s see who they chose first.

They chose three men, certified as masters by the National Rifle Association. They don’t really go into great detail to tell you what that means, but that is the highest level of expertise with a weapon on an international level. They secured three of the best rifle shots in all of America to test the weapon. They took them out to a target range which they developed into a laboratory by building a tower 30’ above the ground and that tower was equipped with a chair and with a 2 x 4 wooden arm for the rifle – a rifle rest. Now Oswald allegedly was sitting on the floor, maybe perhaps on a wooden carton. 30’ above the ground was this tower. The 6th floor of the Book Depository Building is 54-55’ above the ground. They chose these three great experts and they had them fire at three stationary targets. That portion of the President’s body which would be visible to one on the 6th floor of the Book Depository Building would be an area just below the shoulders, as he was seated up against the back seat, to the top of this head. These three experts fired at 3 stationary targets, each of which was a little more than twice as large as the target allegedly facing Oswald and these are the conditions which the Commission said simulated those which prevailed during the assassination.

Oswald allegedly fired the first shot. The Commission took pictures from the window of the Book Depository Building and said that until the limousine reached this point (on Elm Street) the limousine was not visible from the Book Depository Building because of the trees and it became visible here at this point (further along Elm Street). The President, said the Commission, began to grasp his throat, reacting to the first bullet which struck him and that was, the Commission says, 8/10ths of a second after the car became visible for the first time. In other words, not allowing for some time for reaction to take place, at the very most Oswald had 8/10ths of a second from the time the car was visible until the time the first shot was fired. At the very most, 8/10ths of a second according to the Commission’s own findings. Of the three shots fired that day, allegedly by Oswald, that one required the greatest skill for that one was the one which required the shortest period of time.

How does the Commission allow its marksmen to take the test (page 193 of the Report): “The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target and all hit the target.” The three marksmen each fired groups of three shots twice, so six shots were fired at the first target. A stationary target twice as large, more than twice as large, as the target Oswald allegedly fired at and they fired from half the height and they hit six out of six. But now they have to move their rifle a bit. The target is stationary, but the rifle has to be moved and they have to work the bolt and fire again. The majority of those who tried in their efforts were unsuccessful, were unable to fire shots as quickly as Oswald allegedly did in that six second period, even firing at a still target. Of the next twelve shots that were fired by those three great rifle experts, seven hit the target and five missed. Oswald allegedly hit at least two out of three, says the Commission, perhaps three out of three, but at least two out of three. Now what did this test prove, according to the Commission? The Commission proves through this test, it states, that Oswald had the capability and the weapon had the capability to do that which the Commission claims he did: fire two accurate shots out of three shots at the President.

That test is a fraud, as this document is a fraud from the first paged to the last page. It is a fraud in this particular respect because it seeks to state to those who read it quickly, that the test which they conducted was a comparable test, when in fact it was comparable in no way and even these experts under these conditions were unable to emulate the shooting ability that Oswald, who was a poor shot, allegedly was capable of on November 22nd. This report is a fraud from the first page to the last page, because in presenting its conclusions, it has first suppressed the facts, and secondly it takes out of context or distorts the facts which were brought before it.

The vast majority of those who testified before the Commission said that the shots came from there (the grassy knoll, behind the wooden fence). Over here on the Railroad overpass there was a Railroad employee. He said, “I heard the shots, they all came from over here,” (the grassy knoll) and he testified before the Commission, “I looked behind the bushes and I saw smoke coming as if a rifle had been fired.” Also present was a man named S.M. Holland, a Railroad Supervisor, who said: “I saw the shots. I heard the shots come from there (the grassy knoll) and I looked up, and I saw from behind the trees near the bushes smoke coming up in the air.” Weitzman who testified that he ran over here (the grassy knoll) said: “After I jumped over the fence that place was then swarming with Dallas Police Officers, FBI Agents and Secret Service Agents, all of whom were back there (behind the wooden fence) looking for the assassins, scores of them.” Two people testified before the Commission, including a Dallas Officer, that when they arrived back behind there (behind the wooden fence) they smelled gunpowder, and they knew the shots had been fired from there. What does the Commission conclude? Without any of that evidence before them filtering through their 888 page, one million-dollar tranquilliser which they had imposed on the American people, what do they state? They state: “There is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the theory that shots came from this area.” “No one saw the shots come from that area.” Well very likely that’s because the bullets were travelling at too rapid a rate of speed to be seen. But the vast majority of the testimony of eyewitnesses before the Commission leads one to the inescapable conclusion that some shots were fired from behind that area.

Well let’s look at the medical testimony, because the medical testimony will tell us how. When that first bullet struck the President and he grasped his throat with both hands, all one has to do is examine the wound and find out if it was an entrance wound indicating the shot came from the front, or an exit wound. The doctors at the Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22nd held a Press Conference after they pronounced the President dead, and at that Press Conference, which was widely televised and broadcast by radio throughout America, the doctors made these comments. Dr. Malcolm Perry, the physician who performed the tracheotomy on the President’s throat so that a tube could be inserted in the throat said: “I followed the path of the bullet which entered at the Adam’s apple and ranged downward into the chest. The bullet did not exit, and that is the path I followed with the tube when I performed the tracheotomy.” Dr. Kemp Clark, the physician who signed the death certificate said: “The bullet entered the President’s throat at the Adam’s apple and ranged downward into the chest and did not exit.” Dr. Robert N. McClelland, Senior Physician at the Parkland Hospital, said: “Down here in Dallas we have an opportunity to examine and treat bullet wounds every single day. As a result we know the difference between entrance wounds and exit wounds, and the wound in the President’s throat was an entrance wound. The bullet entered from the front.”

Based upon that information, the FBI and the Dallas Police issued a statement saying that the limousine was right here (on Houston Street, facing the Book Depository Building) when the first shot was fired and Oswald took that rifle, fired down Houston Street, the first bullet striking the President in the front of the throat. Well that testimony then totally confirms the medical statement that the bullet entered the throat from the front and from above and ranged downward into the chest. But there was a problem with that story.

The problem is that it’s totally false and not only that, the witnesses agreed that it was false, that the car was here, moving away from the Book Depository Building in this direction before the first shot was fired. Now among the witnesses who said that the car was on Elm Street, not on Houston Street, were such witnesses as Jacqueline Kennedy, Governor Connolly, Mrs. Connolly, and all the films that were taken showing the car there. Just before it was announced, however, just before the story was changed to version number two, the Dallas District Attorney said: “We have a map found in Oswald’s possession. He circled the Book Depository Building, and he had drawn a dotted line on the map down Houston Street, showing the trajectory which he had planned, and he drew that dotted line in his own handwriting.” However, now that the witnesses have all said publicly: “The car was here” (on Elm Street) and the films show the car was there, the FBI and the Secret Service and the Dallas Police are nothing if not absolutely flexible, and so version number one was forever erased, and we now reach version number two. Now version number two is presented with two new problems. Number one: what about that dotted line that Oswald drew down Houston Street? New York Times, November 29th: “The Dallas authorities said today there never was such a map. Any reference to it was an error.” That takes care of the map.

However, there’s another problem, how did Oswald shoot the President in the front of his throat, how did he shoot him from the front, from the back? That’s a more weighty problem. The autopsy was conducted on November 22nd from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on the very day of the assassination, and agents of the FBI were there when the autopsy was being conducted and got reports on the progress of the autopsy and immediately thereafter. After that autopsy had been completed, thirteen days later, the Federal Authorities re-enacted and reconstructed the crime, with an FBI Agent sitting in the back seat playing the role of President Kennedy, and the New York Times which observed the re-enactment reported that as the limousine came to this point, the officer of the FBI who was playing the role of the President turned completely around to face the Book Depository Building to expose his throat, seeking to explain how that first bullet entered the President’s throat from above, and from the front. “But,” mused the New York Times, then, “that’s rather curious because the pictures which have already been published widely show that the President was looking in this direction, to the front and to the right when the first bullet entered his throat.” Well, the Times, throwing its hands up at that point, said: “There is one document that will answer these questions for us: the statements made by Dr. Humes, the medical Corps Commander of the Navy who performed the autopsy on the President’s body at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, for Dr. Humes is the expert,” said the New York Times, “on the angle of entry of the bullet, so we must wait for his report.” And those preliminary statements prepared by Dr. Humes would be of great value, obviously, which show exactly what Dr. Humes thought when he conducted that autopsy, and so we waited eagerly the release of this most massive document in the history of detective work in the world. But no reference was made to those important and vital preliminary statements prepared by Dr. Humes, not a word, and then we waited for the twenty-six volumes.

They arrived and there is no index to those twenty-six volumes. Hundreds and thousands of words and exhibits, but no index to indicate what they are. It’s very difficult to find anything in these twenty-six volumes. You may recall the Chief Justice, Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Warren, was asked by a reporter, just after he was appointed Chairman, and after he began to take testimony. The reporter said: “Mr. Chief Justice, when will we get the facts in this case?” and Earl Warren replied: “You may never get the facts in your lifetime, and I mean that seriously.” I wonder if he was making reference to the fact that they were not going to publish and index. But we looked through the twenty-six volumes, page after page after page, to see if we could find that most vital document, the preliminary notes of Dr. Humes who conducted the autopsy, and in Volume XVII page 48 (it’s Commission Exhibit 397) we came across the only reference to it in the twenty-six volumes.

On the stationery of the United States Naval Medical School, National Naval Medical Centre, Bethesda, Maryland, November 24th, 1963, Certificate. “I, James J. Humes, certify that I have destroyed by burning preliminary draft notes relating to the autopsy I conducted on the body of President Kennedy.” He burned the papers, now why do you suppose he did that? I’m sure that if any of you were a member of the Warren Commission, and Dr. Humes testified before you as he did before the Commission, your curiosity would get the better of you, and you would say: “Dr. Humes, why did you burn the notes?” But the question did not occur, believe it or not, to a single member of the Warren Commission, nor to Counsel, and he was never asked the question, and he never volunteered the information.

Now that’s rather curious because Dr. Humes is a Commander of the Marine Corps, the Navy, and he was given an official assignment on November 22nd. He was on Government business, and acting in his capacity as a doctor or Commander for the Navy when he conducted that examination, and therefore the work product of that examination did not belong to him. It belonged to the American people and to the United States Government, and it belonged to everyone in this world who wants to know what happened in Dallas on November 22nd. When he burned those notes, he burned documents belonging to the United States Government, and if there is anyone who is naïve enough to believe that he did that without order, without authorisation, then I think he underestimates the efforts that have been made to suppress the vital facts in this case. There’s no Marine Corps Commander who goes around burning vital documents and then signing certificates saying that he did it. Dr. Humes was, in fact, in a somewhat complaining mood when he appeared before the Commission. He said: “You know, when we conducted the autopsy we had photographs taken, of President Kennedy’s body, and we had X-rays taken of the President.” The Commission says, “Why, is that routine?” and he said “Yes, it is routine, in every single case involving an autopsy related to violent death. In every case, as a matter of routine, we have photographs and X-rays taken, because they are of great value in assisting the doctors in making their diagnosis in terms of the direction of the missiles that coursed through the body.” But Dr. Humes said: “Unfortunately though, before the photographs, before the X-rays were developed, they were taken from us by agents of the FBI, and we have never been able to see them.” Although they were prepared so that Dr. Humes could prepare a report, the documents were taken from him. He said: “I want to explain to you gentlemen exactly where the wounds were that we discovered, but of course medical language is not generally understood by lay people, and I want to have the pictures to show you, but I did not know,” said this Marine Corps Commander to the Commission appointed by the President of the United States which was charged with the responsibility of getting all the facts, “I did not know whether or not you would ever be able to have photographs or the X-rays which have been taken from us by the FBI.” So he said: “I had an artist brought in and I dictated to the artist. I verbalised that which I remembered in terms of the wounds, and he drew three pictures based upon this which may be of assistance to you.” You can look through these twenty-six volumes and you will see the only pictorial depiction of the wounds consists of those three pictures drawn by an artist after Dr. Humes tried to explain to him what he saw. No photographs, no X-rays, and the New York Times says when the twenty-six volumes come out: “These twenty-six volumes sustain the position taken by the Warren Commission”, and the British press here in London takes precisely the same position, and I doubt there’s a single editorial writer in London or in New York or in Washington or Los Angeles or San Francisco who has written his words of praise about this document, how it represents everything in the twenty-six volumes, who has bothered to even leaf through one of the twenty-six volumes. Oh, there is much praise for this document by those who have neither the time nor the courage nor the intellectual honesty to read these documents upon which it is allegedly based. But when we hear these comments and we invite those who take these strenuous positions here in England and in the United States to participate with us in an open and free debate, to support the Warren Commission Report, we cannot find any one associated with these words of praise for the Commission Report who has the intellectual courage to get up at a public meeting in debate to try to defend anything that this Commission has done.

Let’s take the question of how Oswald carried the weapon into the Book Depository Building. I’ll just skip around taking various points. I’ll tell you this, time does not permit of course an adequate XXX which would take many, many hours, let me just conclude on this one point, I can assure you that there is not a single, not a single area in the Commission’s report where their conclusions can be reasonably based upon the testimony which they adduced, not a single important area. How did Oswald carry the rifle into the Book Depository Building? The Commission is able to present the testimony of only one person who saw Oswald enter the Book Depository Building, in addition to two witnesses who saw Oswald holding a brown paper package some time in the morning of November 22nd.

First we take the testimony of the one person who saw Oswald enter the building so far as the Commission was able to find witnesses. Here’s what the Commission says of one witness (page 133 of the Report): “One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to work”, but does not remember that Oswald had anything in his hands.” Well that sounds rather vague testimony. Let’s now look to the Report of the Commission itself and see the testimony of the Commission itself, and see what Mr. Dougherty actually told the Commission, see if it was quite that vague. Volume VI, page 376: “Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?” “Yes”. “Did he come in with anybody?” “No”. “He was alone?” “Yes, he was alone”. “Do you recall him having anything in his hands when he came into the building?” “Well I did not see anything if he did”. “Did you pay enough attention to him do you think, that you would remember whether he did or did not?” “Well, I believe I can, yes, sir, I’ll put it this way, I did not see anything in his hands at that time.” “In other words your memory is definite on that?” “Yes, sir”. “In other words you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?” “I would say that, yes, sir”.

How does the Commission sum up? “One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed he saw Oswald c