Mark Lane Question

First topic message reminder :

Is he a disinformation mole?

Discuss...

Was Lane complicit in setting Waldo up with those two so they could get this into the papers? It clouded the whole issue of Piper, the black man seen running off after the assassination, and the black man seen by Rowland.

Greg,

Not sure if you were already aware of this, but the black man seen running off after the assassination was "Wilfied Daetz"

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/33389/rec/59

Lee David Farley wrote:

Martin Hay wrote:Lee, I understand what you're saying but I disagree with your belief that anything more than what the critics did was actually possible. What is it you feel the likes of Ferrell, Lane, Thompson etc could or should have done with the information they had but did not do?

 Martin,

I have no problems with anybody disagreeing with any beliefs that I espouse.  However I was commenting upon what some of the early critics did do and not what they should or could have done.  I don't believe me saying that Mark Lane should not have gotten involved with Jim Jones helps clarify matters because the fact is he did and his involvement and actions at Jonestown are pretty bizarre to say the least and they forever stain his reputation as far as I'm concerned.

Over the next few days (when I have time) I will detail some specific areas/topics where I believe Lane may have led everybody down the garden path regarding the JFK case and we can discuss - - the Helen Markham shitstorm would be one.  I am not here to win/lose an argument (that is not why I come to Greg's site) - - I am here to shine light on issues that I believe are important. 

On the subject of some of the other early critics I certainly hold favourable impressions of some of them and deem others to be nothing more than shit-stirrers.  Sylvia Meagher would be someone that I completely respect.  Some of them though, IMO, involved themselves in this case to craftily sow discord and divide individuals on particular issues to the point that the overall objective of dismantling the Warren Commission was ultimately lost through a fractured community, self-interest and mixing bullshit with facts to the point that the only way to make sense of this case is to dedicate your whole fucking life to it.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say. I always respect your opinions even if I don't necessarily agree.

Martin Hay wrote:

Lee David Farley wrote:

Martin Hay wrote:Lee, I understand what you're saying but I disagree with your belief that anything more than what the critics did was actually possible. What is it you feel the likes of Ferrell, Lane, Thompson etc could or should have done with the information they had but did not do?

 Martin,

I have no problems with anybody disagreeing with any beliefs that I espouse.  However I was commenting upon what some of the early critics did do and not what they should or could have done.  I don't believe me saying that Mark Lane should not have gotten involved with Jim Jones helps clarify matters because the fact is he did and his involvement and actions at Jonestown are pretty bizarre to say the least and they forever stain his reputation as far as I'm concerned.

Over the next few days (when I have time) I will detail some specific areas/topics where I believe Lane may have led everybody down the garden path regarding the JFK case and we can discuss - - the Helen Markham shitstorm would be one.  I am not here to win/lose an argument (that is not why I come to Greg's site) - - I am here to shine light on issues that I believe are important. 

On the subject of some of the other early critics I certainly hold favourable impressions of some of them and deem others to be nothing more than shit-stirrers.  Sylvia Meagher would be someone that I completely respect.  Some of them though, IMO, involved themselves in this case to craftily sow discord and divide individuals on particular issues to the point that the overall objective of dismantling the Warren Commission was ultimately lost through a fractured community, self-interest and mixing bullshit with facts to the point that the only way to make sense of this case is to dedicate your whole fucking life to it.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say. I always respect your opinions even if I don't necessarily agree.

 No problem, Martin.

Out of interest, do you have an opinion on Lane's strange involvement with The People's Temple and are there no aspects of it that bother you?

 http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lane%20Mark/Lane%20Mark%20Peoples%20Temple%20Massacre/Item%20005.pdf 

 Does Mark Lane's initial proclamations of conspiracy against Jim Jones and The People's Temple not have any impact upon his proclamations of conspiracy in the JFK case?

Lee David wrote:
Over the next few days (when I have time) I will detail some specific areas/topics where I believe Lane may have led everybody down the garden path regarding the JFK case and we can discuss - - the Helen Markham shitstorm would be one.  I am not here to win/lose an argument (that is not why I come to Greg's site) - - I am here to shine light on issues that I believe are important. 

On the subject of some of the other early critics I certainly hold favourable impressions of some of them and deem others to be nothing more than shit-stirrers.  Sylvia Meagher would be someone that I completely respect.  Some of them though, IMO, involved themselves in this case to craftily sow discord and divide individuals on particular issues to the point that the overall objective of dismantling the Warren Commission was ultimately lost through a fractured community, self-interest and mixing bullshit with facts to the point that the only way to make sense of this case is to dedicate your whole fucking life to it.

Having dedicated far too much of the past 50 years - literally - to precisely that, I would welcome chapter and verse - as I suspect Martin does as well - of why Mark Lane strikes you as particularly hinky.  And if it is specifically relevant to his work against the Commission's conclusions, that would be a big bonus, as whatever subsequent clients he chose may reflect any number of flaws, but are irrelevant to what he did in the mid-1960s, unless proved otherwise.  That I robbed a bank in 1990 doesn't automatically mean I robbed banks 30 years prior.  

I suspect I am the oldest participant here, and can tell you from personal experience stretching waaaaay back that not all first generation researchers were equally skilled, and many of them disliked or were jealous of each other.  It shouldn't be shocking, given human nature, that it was virtually impossible for them to reach a/ny consensus conclusion.  They also approached the case from different angles, depending on their specialties of interest and experience.  Some thought others to be pursuing frivolous issues, and almost all suspected at least one of the others of being a plant.

Re: Mary Ferrell, I was told several decades ago that she was precisely the opposite of what she appeared, and was used to monitor the areas of interest and progress being made by various researchers who confided in her in order to obtain the documents she had amassed.  I was told this by someone who has impeccable credentials and it took me by surprise. 

I suspect the identical motives led to Gordon Winslow organizing his "group" and requiring them to itemize their areas of interest.  That he is so rabid a cheerleader for the anti-Castro cause exposes his partisan views, and - I would say - his motives.  Ditto Lifton, a gadly of vagrant means of support for decades, who has sown more confusion and discord than any other up to the time of Best Evidence.  (Fetzer and others may have superceded him since.)

It is hard for us to recall - with the benefit of decades of hindsight and access to things that first generation researchers didn't necessarily even know existed - the enormous disadvantage at which they found themselves.  I share Lee's admiration for Sylvia Meagher, because she tore the Warren Report to shreds using nothing more than its own volumes of evidence and what was reported contemporaneously in the press.    

Weisberg, Lane, Meagher, Thompson, Marcus, Scott and others may have each thought the others wrong on important aspects of the case, and may well have been correct.  Is that any different, really, from what transpires between us today?  Despite the demonstrable affinity and mutual respect among the participants here, we will never agree entirely on everything.  PD Scott is my preferred mentor, yet I disagree with him on several important aspects of the case.  He doesn't need my approval in order to be correct.  Nor does my admiration for him require me to accept anything and everything he contends at face value. 

Penn Jones Jr. compiled a list of persons connected to the case who had died under disproportionately sinister circumstances, and publicized his list from Day One.  While on the one hand, it may have demonstrated that a conspiracy was cleaning up after itself, it also may have had the effect of persuading people possessed of important knowledge o keep their mouths shut lest they also end up on the list.  If so, was that an unintentional side-effect, or precisely what the former Brigadier General intended to do?

Jack White and other Z-film alterationists may have found evidence of alteration to the most central film in the case.  Is that a step forward in demonstrating a massive conspiracy manipulated the evidence, or does it leave us uncertain of how much credence to place in what it depicts as evidence?  If so, was that an unintentional side-effect, or precisely what the former advertising man intended to do?

Bottom line for me is that finding fault with somebody - Lane in this instance - a half century later only sows additional discord unless there is incontrovertable smoking gun evidence to do so.  And even finding legitimate fault with his efforts doesn't necessarily equate to his being a "disinformation mole" unless one can discern the hidden hand behind those efforts, or illustrate how he contributed to deliberate chaos.  And in the end, does doing either of those things bring us closer to finding the killers or their paymasters?

I await your hypothesis with much interest, as I always do, Lee.

Lee David Farley wrote:

Martin Hay wrote:

Lee David Farley wrote:

Martin Hay wrote:Lee, I understand what you're saying but I disagree with your belief that anything more than what the critics did was actually possible. What is it you feel the likes of Ferrell, Lane, Thompson etc could or should have done with the information they had but did not do?

 Martin,

I have no problems with anybody disagreeing with any beliefs that I espouse.  However I was commenting upon what some of the early critics did do and not what they should or could have done.  I don't believe me saying that Mark Lane should not have gotten involved with Jim Jones helps clarify matters because the fact is he did and his involvement and actions at Jonestown are pretty bizarre to say the least and they forever stain his reputation as far as I'm concerned.

Over the next few days (when I have time) I will detail some specific areas/topics where I believe Lane may have led everybody down the garden path regarding the JFK case and we can discuss - - the Helen Markham shitstorm would be one.  I am not here to win/lose an argument (that is not why I come to Greg's site) - - I am here to shine light on issues that I believe are important. 

On the subject of some of the other early critics I certainly hold favourable impressions of some of them and deem others to be nothing more than shit-stirrers.  Sylvia Meagher would be someone that I completely respect.  Some of them though, IMO, involved themselves in this case to craftily sow discord and divide individuals on particular issues to the point that the overall objective of dismantling the Warren Commission was ultimately lost through a fractured community, self-interest and mixing bullshit with facts to the point that the only way to make sense of this case is to dedicate your whole fucking life to it.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say. I always respect your opinions even if I don't necessarily agree.

 No problem, Martin.

Out of interest, do you have an opinion on Lane's strange involvement with The People's Temple and are there no aspects of it that bother you?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lane%20Mark/Lane%20Mark%20Peoples%20Temple%20Massacre/Item%20005.pdf

 Does Mark Lane's initial proclamations of conspiracy against Jim Jones and The People's Temple not have any impact upon his proclamations of conspiracy in the JFK case?

 
I'm not going to lie, I know next to nothing about Jonestown and the People's Temple. Not a subject I've ever felt the need to read up on. So I really can't offer any informed comment on Lane's involvement.

That link doesn't appear to work BTW

Martin Hay wrote:

Lee David Farley wrote:

Martin Hay wrote:

Lee David Farley wrote:

Martin Hay wrote:Lee, I understand what you're saying but I disagree with your belief that anything more than what the critics did was actually possible. What is it you feel the likes of Ferrell, Lane, Thompson etc could or should have done with the information they had but did not do?

 Martin,

I have no problems with anybody disagreeing with any beliefs that I espouse.  However I was commenting upon what some of the early critics did do and not what they should or could have done.  I don't believe me saying that Mark Lane should not have gotten involved with Jim Jones helps clarify matters because the fact is he did and his involvement and actions at Jonestown are pretty bizarre to say the least and they forever stain his reputation as far as I'm concerned.

Over the next few days (when I have time) I will detail some specific areas/topics where I believe Lane may have led everybody down the garden path regarding the JFK case and we can discuss - - the Helen Markham shitstorm would be one.  I am not here to win/lose an argument (that is not why I come to Greg's site) - - I am here to shine light on issues that I believe are important. 

On the subject of some of the other early critics I certainly hold favourable impressions of some of them and deem others to be nothing more than shit-stirrers.  Sylvia Meagher would be someone that I completely respect.  Some of them though, IMO, involved themselves in this case to craftily sow discord and divide individuals on particular issues to the point that the overall objective of dismantling the Warren Commission was ultimately lost through a fractured community, self-interest and mixing bullshit with facts to the point that the only way to make sense of this case is to dedicate your whole fucking life to it.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say. I always respect your opinions even if I don't necessarily agree.

 No problem, Martin.

Out of interest, do you have an opinion on Lane's strange involvement with The People's Temple and are there no aspects of it that bother you?

 http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lane%20Mark/Lane%20Mark%20Peoples%20Temple%20Massacre/Item%20005.pdf 

 Does Mark Lane's initial proclamations of conspiracy against Jim Jones and The People's Temple not have any impact upon his proclamations of conspiracy in the JFK case?

 
I'm not going to lie, I know next to nothing about Jonestown and the People's Temple. Not a subject I've ever felt the need to read up on. So I really can't offer any informed comment on Lane's involvement.

That link doesn't appear to work BTW

 Martin, copy the http link but then delete the [/url] bit off the end.  Don't know what has happened there

Martin, copy the http link but then delete the [/url] bit off the end.  Don't know what has happened there

It's a bug in the new editor, but only crops up in some links, not others. Hopefully, all these bugs will be ironed out by forumation soon.


In the meantime... if wanting to post a link, check it in preview mode. If the formatting seems odd, turn "html" off and repaste by right clicking and using "paste in plain text".

Hasan Yusuf wrote:

Was Lane complicit in setting Waldo up with those two so they could get this into the papers? It clouded the whole issue of Piper, the black man seen running off after the assassination, and the black man seen by Rowland.

Greg,

Not sure if you were already aware of this, but the black man seen running off after the assassination was "Wilfied Daetz"

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/33389/rec/59

Thanks Hasan, no I wasn't aware anyone had "outed" themselves. The incident had been discussed at the forum without anyone seeming to know about Wilfred. Well found! It's just as beneficial to rule things out as well as in...

No worries, Greg. Pat Speer actually discusses this guy a bit on his website.

"Back to Thayer. He went to print with the story on the basis that neither brother said they were talking "off the record". His version, if believed, gives little doubt that they wanted him to have the information.
Thayer also told Lane of the episode and was livid when Lane published the story because he believed what he was telling Lane was "privileged" information to a lawyer involved in the case."

This reminds of the joke about the doctor chatting with the lawyer at a party until they were interrupted by another guest asking the doc for medical advice.  After this, the doc asks the lawyer whether he should bill advice seekers... the lawyer quickly answers, absolutely. So the doctor sends a bill and the lawyer sends a bill.

Maybe Waldo did ID himself as a reporter or maybe he didn't but he was sailing pretty close to the wind ethically not to spell out to the Howard brothers and Sorrels that their seemingly private social conversation was on the record.  Its unclear whether he identified them by name or on background "SS Agent Pat Howard said" vs. "a Secret Service agent said") but when a source is telling you things that could screw up their career saying publicly, you really should make sure they knows "the camera is rolling", figuratively or otherwise.

By way of contrast, Waldo knew Lane was a lawyer but wasn't his lawyer, he was representing Marguerite. Attorney-client privilege, as you'd surmise, is between an attorney and a client.  There's no reason Waldo should have expected Lane to keep what he told him privileged.  Of course, I'm biased because I'm a lawyer and not a reporter. )

beowulf wrote:<i>"Back to Thayer. He went to print with the story on the basis that neither brother said they were talking "off the record". His version, if believed, gives little doubt that they wanted him to have the information.
Thayer also told Lane of the episode and was livid when Lane published the story because he believed what he was telling Lane was "privileged" information to a lawyer involved in the case."</i>

This reminds of the joke about the doctor chatting with the lawyer at a party until they were interrupted by another guest asking the doc for medical advice.  After this, the doc asks the lawyer whether he should bill advice seekers... the lawyer quickly answers, absolutely. So the doctor sends a bill and the lawyer sends a bill.

Maybe Waldo did ID himself as a reporter or maybe he didn't but he was sailing pretty close to the wind ethically not to spell out to the Howard brothers and Sorrels that their seemingly private social conversation was on the record.  Its unclear whether he identified them by name or on background "SS Agent Pat Howard said" vs. "a Secret Service agent said") but when a source is telling you things that could screw up their career saying publicly, you really should make sure they knows "the camera is rolling", figuratively or otherwise.

By way of contrast, Waldo knew Lane was a lawyer but wasn't his lawyer, he was representing Marguerite. Attorney-client privilege, as you'd surmise, is between an attorney and a client.  There's no reason Waldo should have expected Lane to keep what he told him privileged.  Of course, I'm biased because I'm a lawyer and not a reporter. )

I agree that Waldo was employing something akin to a double-standard here... 

but I remain convinced that the Howard bros. were feeding Waldo classic disinfo (which includes elements of the truth). My only area of doubt is whether or not Lane set the meeting up with the passing of disinfo in mind.

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Lee David wrote:
Over the next few days (when I have time) I will detail some specific areas/topics where I believe Lane may have led everybody down the garden path regarding the JFK case and we can discuss - - the Helen Markham shitstorm would be one.  I am not here to win/lose an argument (that is not why I come to Greg's site) - - I am here to shine light on issues that I believe are important. 

On the subject of some of the other early critics I certainly hold favourable impressions of some of them and deem others to be nothing more than shit-stirrers.  Sylvia Meagher would be someone that I completely respect.  Some of them though, IMO, involved themselves in this case to craftily sow discord and divide individuals on particular issues to the point that the overall objective of dismantling the Warren Commission was ultimately lost through a fractured community, self-interest and mixing bullshit with facts to the point that the only way to make sense of this case is to dedicate your whole fucking life to it.

Having dedicated far too much of the past 50 years - literally - to precisely that, I would welcome chapter and verse - as I suspect Martin does as well - of why Mark Lane strikes you as particularly hinky.  And if it is specifically relevant to his work against the Commission's conclusions, that would be a big bonus, as whatever subsequent clients he chose may reflect any number of flaws, but are irrelevant to what he did in the mid-1960s, unless proved otherwise.  That I robbed a bank in 1990 doesn't automatically mean I robbed banks 30 years prior.  

I suspect I am the oldest participant here, and can tell you from personal experience stretching waaaaay back that not all first generation researchers were equally skilled, and many of them disliked or were jealous of each other.  It shouldn't be shocking, given human nature, that it was virtually impossible for them to reach a/ny consensus conclusion.  They also approached the case from different angles, depending on their specialties of interest and experience.  Some thought others to be pursuing frivolous issues, and almost all suspected at least one of the others of being a plant.

Re: Mary Ferrell, I was told several decades ago that she was precisely the opposite of what she appeared, and was used to monitor the areas of interest and progress being made by various researchers who confided in her in order to obtain the documents she had amassed.  I was told this by someone who has impeccable credentials and it took me by surprise. 

I suspect the identical motives led to Gordon Winslow organizing his "group" and requiring them to itemize their areas of interest.  That he is so rabid a cheerleader for the anti-Castro cause exposes his partisan views, and - I would say - his motives.  Ditto Lifton, a gadly of vagrant means of support for decades, who has sown more confusion and discord than any other up to the time of Best Evidence.  (Fetzer and others may have superceded him since.)

It is hard for us to recall - with the benefit of decades of hindsight and access to things that first generation researchers didn't necessarily even know existed - the enormous disadvantage at which they found themselves.  I share Lee's admiration for Sylvia Meagher, because she tore the Warren Report to shreds using nothing more than its own volumes of evidence and what was reported contemporaneously in the press.    

Weisberg, Lane, Meagher, Thompson, Marcus, Scott and others may have each thought the others wrong on important aspects of the case, and may well have been correct.  Is that any different, really, from what transpires between us today?  Despite the demonstrable affinity and mutual respect among the participants here, we will never agree entirely on everything.  PD Scott is my preferred mentor, yet I disagree with him on several important aspects of the case.  He doesn't need my approval in order to be correct.  Nor does my admiration for him require me to accept anything and everything he contends at face value. 

Penn Jones Jr. compiled a list of persons connected to the case who had died under disproportionately sinister circumstances, and publicized his list from Day One.  While on the one hand, it may have demonstrated that a conspiracy was cleaning up after itself, it also may have had the effect of persuading people possessed of important knowledge o keep their mouths shut lest they also end up on the list.  If so, was that an unintentional side-effect, or precisely what the former Brigadier General intended to do?

Jack White and other Z-film alterationists may have found evidence of alteration to the most central film in the case.  Is that a step forward in demonstrating a massive conspiracy manipulated the evidence, or does it leave us uncertain of how much credence to place in what it depicts as evidence?  If so, was that an unintentional side-effect, or precisely what the former advertising man intended to do?

Bottom line for me is that finding fault with somebody - Lane in this instance - a half century later only sows additional discord unless there is incontrovertable smoking gun evidence to do so.  And even finding legitimate fault with his efforts doesn't necessarily equate to his being a "disinformation mole" unless one can discern the hidden hand behind those efforts, or illustrate how he contributed to deliberate chaos.  And in the end, does doing either of those things bring us closer to finding the killers or their paymasters?

I await your hypothesis with much interest, as I always do, Lee.

Your expectations of me on this topic are much too high, Robert.  I have no smoking gun and what I do have are suspicions driven by my gut instinct backed up by bits and pieces of evidence that support the instinct.  I am quite an intuitive person and sometimes cannot describe what or how I feel in a logical way.  Language fails me on occasion when trying to articulate what I see in my head.

However, I've never been one to shirk stating what I see and hear and it has brought upon me a far higher degree of criticism from a wide variety of people than many other contemporary researchers.  No one person owns this case and no one person is so perfectly aligned to the truth that they should be disbarred from criticism should the need arise and no one should be given sacred cow status.  This is what I believe has been afforded Mark Lane from some people.

The history of the critical community is rife with infighting to be sure and I can fully appreciate how tough it must have been to dedicate yourself to all this as it was happening.  But let's not forget what Harold Weisberg thought of Mark Lane.  Harold despised Lane and before we all begin to apply the "Harold eventually despised everybody" label to him we must remember that Harold was very close to this guy and distrusted him for very specific reasons.  Some of it may have been an innate jealously that Harold harboured for anybody whom he believed got more attention than he did which is another criticism levelled at him but some of it may have been that he sincerely believed that Lane was wilfully laying breadcrumbs down blind alleys.

Weisberg had no smoking gun on Lane.  What he had were suspicions that Lane was subtly and systematically sabotaging the case.  One of Weisberg's main gripes was Lane's involvement in the announcement, and subsequent damage limitation exercise, of the Hosty note in 1975.  Weisberg laid out how the focus and brouhaha surrounding the Hosty note took attention away from the fact that Hosty actually destroyed everything he had on Oswald - - the entire file went into Room 101 - - but this was forgotten about due to the narrow focus on Jimmy P. and the solitary note getting flushed down the john.  Weisberg said that the "FBI had all of this [cover story and defense against perjury] prefabricated, awaiting the foundations that Lane built for it."  He further stated that "The FBI was not about to go into its destruction of evidence any other way.  Lane's way assured that nobody in the FBI had to confront any of its other significant destructions of evidence, like all Hosty's notes and other records."

Bearing in mind my own interest in the FBI's possible involvement in setting up employment opportunities through the TEC for Oswald in Dallas, up to and including his job in the TSBD, I share Weisberg's sentiments concerning the sleight of hand employed in diverting attention away from something far more important to instead focus on something else that had a multitude of contradictory stories attached to it.  The "non-story", as Weisberg described it, floated to the media with Lane's backing on the heels of Gordon Shanklin securing his retirement got everyone following yet another story that would have them all arguing for the next three decades whilst the far more important story got buried.

Is this evidence that Lane is a mole?  No, of course not.  Is it something that I think litters the career of Mark Lane and could be characteristic of an MO?  IMO, yes.

I will present further issues that I have with Mark Lane (there are many) over the coming days but I have no hypothesis, no smoking gun, no documents stating he directly worked for any intelligence agencies...

...I simply find the guy dodgy.  Much the same way I find David Lifton dodgy.  Questioning aspects of Lane's involvement in the JFK case should not sow discord - - it should be used as an opportunity to see whether looking at areas where he was integrally involved in promoting messages and evidence opens up insights into the way the cover up was managed.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to Mark Lane, in my opinion. He remains head & shoulders above the other early researchers, and is still sharp as can be for a man in his 80s. Not that he was perfect. What he and Sylvia missed was the importance of the missing ammo clip never found on the 6th floor. Lane and Meagher weren't gun experts. This lacuna was a BIG smoking gun that had the potential to bust the case back in the mid-60s. They also missed out on the Frazier/Randle deception regarding Oswald's alleged paper bag. But this JFK assassination was a very clever crime and the perpetrators anticipated the investigative tendencies very well, in advance. 

Here's Mark Lane tete-a-tete with William F. Buckley, one of the leading establishment intellectuals of the 60s. Winner of the debate is Mark Lane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwG0V-TmOo

The earlier information Greg posted re: timing of Waldo's article matching Givens' cigarette story is incorrect. The Waldo meeting with the Howard brothers took place on February 9, his Star-Telegram news story was the following day, and on the 13th Lt. Jack Revill received info concerning a press rumor that a Negro was held in protective custody after the assassination, and Revill learned that that was Charles Givens, who'd been in before on a marijuana charge, and "would change his story for money". Givens never mentioned returning to the 6th for his cigarettes until his April 8th testimony. ("The Curious Case of Mr. Givens"- Meagher)

That's a nice find on Wilfied Daetz (perhaps Wilfred?) by Hasan, and motivates me to repost something Robert Howard posted to the Ed Forum a couple years ago and he may be this guy from an SS agent after-action report (I think Hill's) concerning what Clint Hill witnessed during his sprint to the limo:

ADMIN FOLDER Y-11; HSCA ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER, US SECRET SERVICE FOLDER

page 167 climbing on the back of the President's car. When he heard the second shot, he saw it hit the President's head and the President slumped out of sight toward Mrs. Kennedy. He estimates the time-lapse between the first and second report at about 4 or 5 seconds. He thought that the shot had come from somewhere toward the front right-hand side of the road. When he looked in that direction, he saw the only person he can recall clearly who was a Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt running from Landis left to right, up the slope, across the grass, along the sidewalk, bending over while running. Landis started to point towards him, but he didn't notice anything in his hands...


Robert Howard then opines that "There is a larger context to this story in CD 1168, if you read the entire document, they are perhaps accurately showing how Thayer Waldo misconstrues a conversation between Deputies Howard and Bryan, to mean that the Dallas Police were hiding a "suspect" in the Kennedy assassination, but even so, the account re: the Negro male suspect below in my estimation is accurate and, on the next page there are denials, denials, denials by James Howard. Waldo did goof up, but I believe he picked up accurate re: the significance of the "Negro janitor" "

and from page 9: Deputy Howard and I were discussing an incident which Det. JACK BRYAN of the Dallas P.D. had told me on January 1, 1964 concerning a Negro male who was being questioned in connection with his being in the Texas School Book Depository on the day of the assassination and having hurriedly left sometime afterwards. <Waldo was in the car> When questioned as to why he left in such a hurry, the suspect stated since he had a police record he would probably be suspected of involvement in the shooting. At no time did I state that a rifle had been found on the roof of the Texas Book Depository which had been dropped by a Dallas police officer " typed signature JAMES M HOWARD special agent


And from Oswald 201 Files Box 29 page 2 we have

ARTICLE IN FORT WORTH STAR BY THAYER WALDO ON 2/10/64 CONCERNING ALLEGATION WITNESS  HELD IN PROTECTIVE CUSTODY

"man, you don't know how fast is fast unless you saw me run"        

Richard Gilbride wrote:The earlier information Greg posted re: timing of Waldo's article matching Givens' cigarette story is incorrect. The Waldo meeting with the Howard brothers took place on February 9, his Star-Telegram news story was the following day, and on the 13th Lt. Jack Revill received info concerning a press rumor that a Negro was held in protective custody after the assassination, and Revill learned that that was Charles Givens, who'd been in before on a marijuana charge, and "would change his story for money". Givens never mentioned returning to the 6th for his cigarettes until his April 8th testimony. ("The Curious Case of Mr. Givens"- Meagher)

Richard, here is what I said...

I think (so I could be wrong!) that it was around this time that Givens suddenly remembered going back to the 6th for cigarettes.

Yes, I was wrong... it was a little under 2 months later. But I honestly don't see how that matters. Everyone was waiting to see if any such witness would be produced - and he was - in the form of Givens. He made the 6th floor statement in the only place it mattered: at the Warren Commission.

Re Givens doing anything for money - unfortunately this is one of those quotes that has been taken out of context and given a life of its own.

In context, Revill was saying that Givens would give Waldo the story he wanted if he was being paid for it. It was by no means an admission that the police could/would bribe him to give an incriminating story against Oswald.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1007435

You'll note that Revill is actually the source for entering Givens' name into the Waldo-Howard story.  But it wasn't Givens they (Special Services) pulled in and interviewed after the story broke - it was Piper.

That's a nice find on Wilfied Daetz (perhaps Wilfred?) by Hasan,

Yes, it was a nice find - but the man himself was not a witness as he claimed. Or I at least, I don't believe he was.  

Lee David Farley wrote:
Your expectations of me on this topic are much too high, Robert.  I have no smoking gun and what I do have are suspicions driven by my gut instinct backed up by bits and pieces of evidence that support the instinct.  I am quite an intuitive person and sometimes cannot describe what or how I feel in a logical way.  Language fails me on occasion when trying to articulate what I see in my head.

.......................................

I will present further issues that I have with Mark Lane (there are many) over the coming days but I have no hypothesis, no smoking gun, no documents stating he directly worked for any intelligence agencies...

...I simply find the guy dodgy.  Much the same way I find David Lifton dodgy.  Questioning aspects of Lane's involvement in the JFK case should not sow discord - - it should be used as an opportunity to see whether looking at areas where he was integrally involved in promoting messages and evidence opens up insights into the way the cover up was managed.

No problems from me, mate.  Intuition can be an extremely precise tool.  And just to ensure that I don't give the wrong impression, when Lane's involvement in Jonestown surfaced, a did a triple-take.... wha? wha? what? 

Yet, it fits into a broader pattern of providing legal representation to the permanent underclass of US life.  That he represented the ravingly right wing anti-Semitic Spotlight is another case in point.  However, in that instance, he used a distasteful client to achieve a higher purpose: fight a libel case for one CIA functionary in order to put another CIA functionary on trial for the President's murder.  And he succeeded in convincing a jury that CIA had killed the President.  To me, it was a bookend to match Garrison's attempts in a similar direction.

I would think that if "my expectations of you are too high," perhaps your own expectations of Lane might be as well. 

I don't know a single author on this topic whose book(s) contain(s) no errors.  As I tried to indicate above, we have access to evidence and documentation that first generation critics couldn't even know existed.  I believe that Lane did the best with what he had at the time, and he was certainly the most active of the early skeptics in delivering speeches wherever there was an audience interested in what he had to say. 

If there were continuing, nagging doubts about Oswald being a sole gunman, a good portion of that doubt can be attributed to Lane having the guts to say his own government was lying, and perhaps complicit, at a time when most citizens couldn't even imagine that such a thing could be true.   Pre-JFK/Malcom/MLK/RFK, Viet Nam and Watergate, the US citizenry was a bizarrely credulous lot. The straight-jacket of one-sided press coverage kept the citizenry docile.  Meanwhile, aparatchiks of that government mocked anyone who dared even ask questions with broadsides such as "So the entire US government is in on it?"  Or my personal favorite: "Somebody would have talked," which presumes that dead men CAN tell tales.  Or that an honest reporter, upon hearing of conspiracy, would have reported that news. 

All that said, I nevertheless am most interested in what you'll offer up, Lee.  No matter the topic, you are always worth a careful read.

Lee,

Just to share a thought I had, similar things to what you say about Lane could just as easily be said about Weisberg. It would be very easy, in fact, to characterise Weisberg as some type of deliberate obstructionist who has resisted and actively attempted to diminish the impact and acceptance of new or important work on the case.

For example, Weisberg spent decades bashing Jim Garrison, saying that "he couldn't find a pubic hair in a whore house." More than that, he tried hard to convince others that Garrison uncovered nothing of significance and IIRC maintained that the likes of Ferrie, Shaw, and Bannister had nothing to do with the assassination and we should be concentrating on an unnamed Mexican Oswald was seen with in New Orleans instead.

Weisberg is the guy who wrote a whole book trashing John Newman's Oswald and the CIA, falsely claiming that Newman was trying to lay the blame for the assassination at Castro's door.

Weisberg is the guy who handed an early draft of the script to Oliver Stone's movie JFK over to George Lardner of the Washington Post and kicked off the massive media campaign against the movie before filming had even begun.

Weisberg is the only guy I know of to bad mouth the original head of the HSCA, Dick Sprague, saying something along the lines that Sprague had no idea what he was doing and didn't really intend to find the truth. Conversely, Weisberg called Gary Mack and Dave Perry his friends.

And Weisberg, who worked for the OSS, is the guy who said that there was no proof that Oswald was somebody's agent.

I'm sure I could think of more examples of what could easily be seen as "disturbing" behaviour on Weisberg's part if I really wanted to but hopefully you see my point. I'm not in any way suggesting that there was anything dodgy about him - besides his being a grumpy old git who was very jealous of others in the field who received the attention he felt he deserved himself - just that it's easy to paint that type of picture if you really want to.

"And Weisberg, who worked for the OSS, is the guy who said that there was no proof that Oswald was somebody's agent."

Just as an aside,  a lot of post-war heavy hitters in America (both in and outside the CIA) spent WWII in the OSS but for the life of me I haven't read of anything the agency did --excepting Wassily Leontief's economic research--  that was very useful or added value to the war effort.  

Wisely, US and British codebreakers mistrusted the OSS and didn't read them into the successful decryption programs against Germany Japan or Russia.  I guess I don't have a very high opinion of people who spent the war in the OSS instead of, you know, actually fighting in the war.

Martin Hay wrote:Lee,

Just to share a thought I had, similar things to what you say about Lane could just as easily be said about Weisberg. It would be very easy, in fact, to characterise Weisberg as some type of deliberate obstructionist who has resisted and actively attempted to diminish the impact and acceptance of new or important work on the case.

For example, Weisberg spent decades bashing Jim Garrison, saying that "he couldn't find a pubic hair in a whore house." More than that, he tried hard to convince others that Garrison uncovered nothing of significance and IIRC maintained that the likes of Ferrie, Shaw, and Bannister had nothing to do with the assassination and we should be concentrating on an unnamed Mexican Oswald was seen with in New Orleans instead.

Weisberg is the guy who wrote a whole book trashing John Newman's Oswald and the CIA, falsely claiming that Newman was trying to lay the blame for the assassination at Castro's door.

Weisberg is the guy who handed an early draft of the script to Oliver Stone's movie JFK over to George Lardner of the Washington Post and kicked off the massive media campaign against the movie before filming had even begun.

Weisberg is the only guy I know of to bad mouth the original head of the HSCA, Dick Sprague, saying something along the lines that Sprague had no idea what he was doing and didn't really intend to find the truth. Conversely, Weisberg called Gary Mack and Dave Perry his friends.

And Weisberg, who worked for the OSS, is the guy who said that there was no proof that Oswald was somebody's agent.

I'm sure I could think of more examples of what could easily be seen as "disturbing" behaviour on Weisberg's part if I really wanted to but hopefully you see my point. I'm not in any way suggesting that there was anything dodgy about him - besides his being a grumpy old git who was very jealous of others in the field who received the attention he felt he deserved himself - just that it's easy to paint that type of picture if you really want to.

Martin,

The problem here is that you raise these objections about Harold rather than address the specific issue that he raised about Lane in connection with a very specific aspect of the case.  I agree with you that this sort of stuff can be attributed to many of the critics which is why I said that I was interested in what McBride had to say about Mary Ferrell and I was going to review what he has to say with an open mind. Your objection was that McBride believed something contrary to you about the medical evidence so therefore why should we believe him about anything.  Isn't this my point?  That once fiction is merged with fact, and the fiction is identified and reported on, then most people turn off to the facts associated with the fiction as well as the fiction itself?  Isn't this the type of stuff that Karl Rove spent his entire career doing?

I'm absolutely fascinated by what Harold had to say on the issue of the Hosty note - not because it's Harold Weiseberg versus Mark Lane and most certainly not because I'm a Mark Lane hater who wants to piss off all of the Mark Lane worshipers out there - no, it's because it bloody makes sense.  With everything I know about this case I am very much intrigued by the cover-up more than I am the mechanics of the assassination itself and this Hosty note being used as a perjury protection device as well as a diversion from the destruction of ALL of the Hosty material has to be something we all take notice of.  Whether we like it or not Mark Lane was at the heart of promoting the Hosty note story through Edwards whilst Weisberg was banging the drum that all the evidence had gone down the lavatory and not this one slip of paper.

I totally respect the work you do and the time you dedicate to it.  I would never dismiss something you say out of hand because you disagree with me on a particular issue but feel this may be happening here in much the same way you have dismissed McBride out of hand because you claim he buys into Horne and Lifton.  Each to their own I suppose and we all have different methods of trying to evaluate aspects of this case.  Even I find value in Dale Myers work in the Tippit case even if I completely disagree with his conclusions.

On the subject of Harold dismissing Newman's book all I can say is that I disagree with Harold but he was in good company when he tried to pull Newman's work to pieces because he was joined by Vince Salandria.  This sort of stuff is essentially why we shouldn't trust any one person and let our "like or dislike" of personalities cloud our judgment - - we should evaluate what they have to say impartially, rationally and with an open mind.

I suspect Lane may have been feeding BS into Waldo's story and if he was then it certainly builds a more serious picture of the information concerning the Hosty note and there are other aspects of the information Lane supported that eventually turned out blowing up in the critics faces.

I suppose what I'm getting at is I'm not one for backing somebody 100% just because I like them and that includes the early critics.  I've also taken Jim DiEugenio to task before today - - I've had some mild tete-a-tetes with Greg - - I completely disagree with some of Richard Gilbride's conclusions - - but ultimately it has been about the evidence and we all look at it through different filters.

I will admit that upon reflection I could have been less accusatory in my initial post.  Perhaps we may have benefited more from a thread asking whether some of the information that Lane promoted can be trusted?

Regards

Lee

I've also taken Jim DiEugenio to task before today - - I've had some mild tete-a-tetes with Greg - - I completely disagree with some of Richard Gilbride's conclusions -

Jimbo seems to suck it up without too much drama - and Richard remains a thorough gentleman regardless of the bouquets or brickbats being thrown. 

Greg however says he has a recording of the Beatles talking and messing around in which Ringo starts a riff on the latest American band - "The Mootherfookers" (pretend that's a Liverpudlian accent, okay. C'mon. Work with me here). 

Well, Greg wants to know - were you one of the original Mootherfookers? You know -- the token Pom in a Yank band like Davy Jones?

H

greg parker wrote:

I've also taken Jim DiEugenio to task before today - - I've had some mild tete-a-tetes with Greg - - I completely disagree with some of Richard Gilbride's conclusions -

Jimbo seems to suck it up without too much drama - and Richard remains a thorough gentleman regardless of the bouquets or brickbats being thrown. 

Greg however says he has a recording of the Beatles talking and messing around in which Ringo starts a riff on the latest American band - "The Mootherfookers" (pretend that's a Liverpudlian accent, okay. C'mon. Work with me here). 

Well, Greg wants to know - were you one of the original Mootherfookers? You know -- the token Pom in a Yank band like Davy Jones?

Ah, Richard Starkey, the only real scouser in the band.

Tell Greg unfortunately not but I have been called that from time to time so he isn't the only one making the same mistake.

Lee David Farley wrote:

Martin,

The problem here is that you raise these objections about Harold rather than address the specific issue that he raised about Lane in connection with a very specific aspect of the case.  I agree with you that this sort of stuff can be attributed to many of the critics which is why I said that I was interested in what McBride had to say about Mary Ferrell and I was going to review what he has to say with an open mind. Your objection was that McBride believed something contrary to you about the medical evidence so therefore why should we believe him about anything.  Isn't this my point?  That once fiction is merged with fact, and the fiction is identified and reported on, then most people turn off to the facts associated with the fiction as well as the fiction itself?  Isn't this the type of stuff that Karl Rove spent his entire career doing?

I'm absolutely fascinated by what Harold had to say on the issue of the Hosty note - not because it's Harold Weiseberg versus Mark Lane and most certainly not because I'm a Mark Lane hater who wants to piss off all of the Mark Lane worshipers out there - no, it's because it bloody makes sense.  With everything I know about this case I am very much intrigued by the cover-up more than I am the mechanics of the assassination itself and this Hosty note being used as a perjury protection device as well as a diversion from the destruction of ALL of the Hosty material has to be something we all take notice of.  Whether we like it or not Mark Lane was at the heart of promoting the Hosty note story through Edwards whilst Weisberg was banging the drum that all the evidence had gone down the lavatory and not this one slip of paper.

I totally respect the work you do and the time you dedicate to it.  I would never dismiss something you say out of hand because you disagree with me on a particular issue but feel this may be happening here in much the same way you have dismissed McBride out of hand because you claim he buys into Horne and Lifton.  Each to their own I suppose and we all have different methods of trying to evaluate aspects of this case.  Even I find value in Dale Myers work in the Tippit case even if I completely disagree with his conclusions.

On the subject of Harold dismissing Newman's book all I can say is that I disagree with Harold but he was in good company when he tried to pull Newman's work to pieces because he was joined by Vince Salandria.  This sort of stuff is essentially why we shouldn't trust any one person and let our "like or dislike" of personalities cloud our judgment - - we should evaluate what they have to say impartially, rationally and with an open mind.

I suspect Lane may have been feeding BS into Waldo's story and if he was then it certainly builds a more serious picture of the information concerning the Hosty note and there are other aspects of the information Lane supported that eventually turned out blowing up in the critics faces.

I suppose what I'm getting at is I'm not one for backing somebody 100% just because I like them and that includes the early critics.  I've also taken Jim DiEugenio to task before today - - I've had some mild tete-a-tetes with Greg - - I completely disagree with some of Richard Gilbride's conclusions - - but ultimately it has been about the evidence and we all look at it through different filters.

I will admit that upon reflection I could have been less accusatory in my initial post.  Perhaps we may have benefited more from a thread asking whether some of the information that Lane promoted can be trusted?

Regards

Lee

 Lee,

As always, you make fair points. You are of course correct that it would be wrong to dismiss everything McBride has to say simply because he apparently buys into the whole body alteration/pre-autopsy thing. I actually didn't mean to suggest that but I can see how it came across that way. I have personally found useful information in all sorts of nutty books including Mortal Error, Case Closed, and Reclaiming History. What I meant to say is that I personally would approach the work of anyone who buys into alteration theories with more caution because I believe that stuff makes us all look like tin foil hatters and, therefore, harms any chance we may ever have of changing attitudes in the media and the general public.

Do you have a link to Weisberg's writing on this whole Hosty/Lane thing? Does he explain how he knows that all of Hosty's files were supposedly destroyed? I don't recall coming across this before. All I can say right now is that given the fact that Lane was an outspoken critic of the FBI, who even wrote a book alleging they were behind the MLK assassination, I think the idea that he colluded with the Bureau on anything is pretty far-fetched.

In no way am I saying that Lane is some kind of saint. I reviewed his last book for CTKA and took him to task for continuing to use Marita Lorenz and for other stuff related to Mexico city. Lane's biggest flaw is that he uses information and witness testimony in a highly selective manner to support his views. In that sense, he behaves like a lawyer which is not really a surprise considering that's his job. Jim Garrison was the same, if not worse. But I still have massive amounts of respect for them both and would need to see some pretty strong evidence before I could believe either man was somebody's mole.

BTW Weisberg was guilty of something similar to what he accused Lane of (but in the MLK case). It was claimed that a map of Atlanta was found among James Earl Ray's possessions with marks on it around Dr. King's home and place of work etc. which was taken as proof that Ray was stalking King. Weisberg focussed attention on the fact that this map didn't have Ray's prints on it and was found after the FBI illegally raided his rented room. So he stipulated to the basic truth of the allegation when it was actually completely false - the marks on the map were in no way related to Dr. King. So Weisberg focussed attention on completely the wrong thing, essentially just a side-issue, and helped obscure the truth about the map.

Martin Hay wrote:

Lee David Farley wrote:

Martin,

The problem here is that you raise these objections about Harold rather than address the specific issue that he raised about Lane in connection with a very specific aspect of the case.  I agree with you that this sort of stuff can be attributed to many of the critics which is why I said that I was interested in what McBride had to say about Mary Ferrell and I was going to review what he has to say with an open mind. Your objection was that McBride believed something contrary to you about the medical evidence so therefore why should we believe him about anything.  Isn't this my point?  That once fiction is merged with fact, and the fiction is identified and reported on, then most people turn off to the facts associated with the fiction as well as the fiction itself?  Isn't this the type of stuff that Karl Rove spent his entire career doing?

I'm absolutely fascinated by what Harold had to say on the issue of the Hosty note - not because it's Harold Weiseberg versus Mark Lane and most certainly not because I'm a Mark Lane hater who wants to piss off all of the Mark Lane worshipers out there - no, it's because it bloody makes sense.  With everything I know about this case I am very much intrigued by the cover-up more than I am the mechanics of the assassination itself and this Hosty note being used as a perjury protection device as well as a diversion from the destruction of ALL of the Hosty material has to be something we all take notice of.  Whether we like it or not Mark Lane was at the heart of promoting the Hosty note story through Edwards whilst Weisberg was banging the drum that all the evidence had gone down the lavatory and not this one slip of paper.

I totally respect the work you do and the time you dedicate to it.  I would never dismiss something you say out of hand because you disagree with me on a particular issue but feel this may be happening here in much the same way you have dismissed McBride out of hand because you claim he buys into Horne and Lifton.  Each to their own I suppose and we all have different methods of trying to evaluate aspects of this case.  Even I find value in Dale Myers work in the Tippit case even if I completely disagree with his conclusions.

On the subject of Harold dismissing Newman's book all I can say is that I disagree with Harold but he was in good company when he tried to pull Newman's work to pieces because he was joined by Vince Salandria.  This sort of stuff is essentially why we shouldn't trust any one person and let our "like or dislike" of personalities cloud our judgment - - we should evaluate what they have to say impartially, rationally and with an open mind.

I suspect Lane may have been feeding BS into Waldo's story and if he was then it certainly builds a more serious picture of the information concerning the Hosty note and there are other aspects of the information Lane supported that eventually turned out blowing up in the critics faces.

I suppose what I'm getting at is I'm not one for backing somebody 100% just because I like them and that includes the early critics.  I've also taken Jim DiEugenio to task before today - - I've had some mild tete-a-tetes with Greg - - I completely disagree with some of Richard Gilbride's conclusions - - but ultimately it has been about the evidence and we all look at it through different filters.

I will admit that upon reflection I could have been less accusatory in my initial post.  Perhaps we may have benefited more from a thread asking whether some of the information that Lane promoted can be trusted?

Regards

Lee

 Lee,


Do you have a link to Weisberg's writing on this whole Hosty/Lane thing? Does he explain how he knows that all of Hosty's files were supposedly destroyed? I don't recall coming across this before. All I can say right now is that given the fact that Lane was an outspoken critic of the FBI, who even wrote a book alleging they were behind the MLK assassination, I think the idea that he colluded with the Bureau on anything is pretty far-fetched.

Hi Martin,

I'll start a new thread on the Hosty note later this evening because its subject matter extends way beyond Mark Lane although he is part of the story.

I've been harbouring suspicions over the last few months that I may know who left the Hosty note - - and it wasn't Lee Oswald.

Concerning your other points I will ensure from this point forward I post from the angle of whether the information Lane pursued, propagated and promoted is trustworthy or worthy of pursuit. Based upon the discussions other members can then make their mind up about Mark Lane.

Lee

I'll start a new thread on the Hosty note later this evening because its subject matter extends way beyond Mark Lane although he is part of the story.

I've been harbouring suspicions over the last few months that I may know who left the Hosty note - - and it wasn't Lee Oswald.

Look forward to reading who you think it was, Lee.

Thanks for your feedback, Lee.