A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
I don't know where they got that tobacco-chewing hayseed Gerry Spence [who served as Lee Harvey Oswald's defense attorney at the 1986 TV trial in London, England], but anyone who thinks Bugliosi would stand a snowball's chance in hell against Mark Lane needs to contact me immediately about a bridge I got in Brooklyn I'll let them have at below wholesale.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Vincent T. Bugliosi would have been able to rip Mark Lane to shreds in
a courtroom in ONE day's time.
[The "simulated" trial transcript below (written by myself) assumes
that Mark Lane had replaced Gerry Spence as Lee Harvey Oswald's
defense attorney at some type of "Mock Trial" proceeding (similar in
nature to the Showtime Cable-TV presentation that was done in 1986),
and it also assumes that Vincent Bugliosi, as prosecuting attorney,
had been able to secure Helen Markham as a witness at such a court
First witness for the prosecution -- Mrs. Helen Markham.....
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mrs. Markham, did you provide verbal testimony before
the Warren Commission panel in the year 1964, telling them what you
saw on Tenth Street in Oak Cliff/Dallas on November 22nd, 1963, as a
police officer was shot dead before your eyes?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And did you tell the Commission at that time, in
1964, that the man you saw shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit in Oak
Cliff had "bushy" hair and was "stocky" in build?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "No, sir...I did not say those things."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did you positively identify Officer Tippit's killer
as a man named Lee Harvey Oswald?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir. I did."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "I now offer for this court's approval, as an exhibit,
a tape recording containing a telephone conversation said to have been
recorded by Mr. Mark Lane on March 2nd, 1964, just a little more than
three months after the assassination of President Kennedy and the
murder of Officer Tippit. I'd like to have that tape marked as an
official exhibit and I'd also like to play that tape for the jury, if
it pleases the court?"
THE COURT -- "The exhibit will be so marked. You may play the tape,
[Playing tape...A transcript of the tape recording can be found HERE.]
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, Mrs. Markham, after just now having heard that
taped telephone conversation, do you recognize the female voice on the
recording as being your own voice?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, that is me."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, does the playing of this recording here in the
courtroom today refresh in your own mind that taped conversation that
you had in early March of 1964 with the lead defense attorney in this
case--Mr. Mark Lane--who is currently seated in front of you at the
defense counsel table?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, I can recall the conversation now."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, to reiterate a key point brought out on that
tape, did you at any time EVER say to any reporters who might have
interviewed you following November 22nd, 1963, that Officer Tippit's
killer was "stocky", "heavy", or a person who possessed "bushy hair"?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "No, sir. I do not ever recall having used those words
to describe the man I saw shoot the policeman."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mrs. Markham. No further questions at this
[End Courtroom Simulation.]
After the above exchange (or something very similar to it), the jury
would have a nice, clear picture of Mr. Lane's obvious pro-conspiracy
bias. I.E.: Lane was so WANTING some OTHER killer to have murdered
Officer J.D. Tippit that he was willing to go to great lengths (via
trying to place certain words in a witness' mouth) in order to
accomplish his "Pro-CT" task.
Every witness who followed Markham to the stand would be incidental to
the jury when it comes to Lane's OVERALL CREDIBILITY AND HONESTY.
And in Mr. Bugliosi's Final Summation to the jury, Vince would have no
doubt torn into Lane mercilessly regarding the "bushy hair"
incident....as VB would paint him as a manipulator and a rather
dishonest character, and as a person who had been more than willing to
twist a key witness' own words in order to serve his own pro-
Footnote concerning Mr. Lane --- This is a link containing Mark Lane's
second day's worth of Warren Commission testimony (from July 2, 1964;
his first day of testimony had been months earlier, on March 4, 1964).
When reading the remarks of Mr. Lane, you can tell that he desperately
does not want to turn over that tape recording with the Markham
interview on it. He's trying every "lawyer" trick in the book to try
and wangle out of having that tape get into the hands of the Warren
Lane finally relented and allowed the Commission to hear the contents
of that tape recording, but only after a good deal of protest. .....
J. LEE RANKIN. And if other people were present at the time of any
such matters and disclosures, does that make any difference under the
law, do you think?
MARK LANE. Present where?
Mr. RANKIN. At the time of the tape recording and the interview. That
is what I am asking you.
Mr. LANE. No one else was present.
Mr. RANKIN. And who did the tape recording?
Mr. LANE. Again you are delving into an area which is an improper one
for you to delve into.
GERALD R. FORD. Did you know about the tape recording being made?
Mr. LANE. I beg your pardon?
Representative FORD. Did you know about the tape recording being made?
Mr. LANE. I decline to answer that question. Am I a defendant before
this Commission, or is the Commission trying to find out who
assassinated the President?
Representative FORD. We are trying to find out information about a
witness before this Commission----
Mr. LANE. Well, then, call the witness before the Commission and ask
the witness questions. And if the witness has testified contrary to
what I say the witness has said, then I would suggest you do what I
invited the Commission to do when this matter arose. Submit my
testimony and Mrs. Markham's testimony to the U.S. attorney's office,
and bring an action against both of us for perjury. And then at that
trial I will present documents in possession, and we will see who is
Representative FORD. Do you believe Mrs. Markham is an important
witness in this overall matter?
Mr. LANE. I would think so.
Representative FORD. I am sure you know what she has told you.
Mr. LANE. I know what she has told me, that is correct.
Representative FORD. If there is any difference between what she told
you and told this Commission? Is that important?
Mr. LANE. Of course it is important. And if there was someone
representing the interests of Oswald before this Commission there
could be cross-examination, you sitting as judges could then base your
decision upon the cross-examination. But you have decided instead to
sit as judges and jurors and defense attorneys and prosecuting
attorneys, and you are faced with a dilemma. I cannot solve that
dilemma for you.
Representative FORD. In order for us to evaluate the testimony she has
given us and what you allege she has given you, we must see the
information which you have at your disposal.
Mr. LANE. I have told you precisely under oath what Mrs. Markham has
said to me.
Mr. RANKIN. Are you unwilling to verify that with the tape recording
that you claim to have?
Mr. LANE. I am unable to verify that because of an existing attorney-
client relationship, and you know that it would be improper and
unethical for me to give the answers to the questions which you are
asking. And that is why I am amazed that you persist in asking
questions which you know are improper and which would be unethical for
me to answer.
Mr. RANKIN. And where was this tape recording made?
Mr. LANE. You have my answer to questions about that already, Mr.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you, yourself, have any conversation with Helen
Markham at anytime?
Mr. LANE. Yes; I testified to that on March 4, and again today.
Representative FORD. Is this tape recording of that conversation?
Mr. LANE. Precisely.
Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us where the tape recording was made?
Mr. LANE. I can tell you, but I will not tell you.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any other reasons for not disclosing this
information to the Commission except your statement about the attorney
and client relationship that you describe?
Mr. LANE. And the sanctity of working documents of an attorney. I have
no other reason whatsoever.
[Later in Lane's Testimony....]
EARL WARREN. Mr. Lane, you have manifested a great interest in Lee
Harvey Oswald and his relationship to this entire affair. According to
you, Mrs. Markham made a statement that would bear upon the
probability of his guilt or innocence in connection with the
assassination. Mrs. Markham has definitely contradicted what you have
said, and do you not believe that it is in your own interest and in
the interests of this country for you to give whatever corroboration
you have to this Commission so that we may determine whether you or
she is telling the truth?
Mr. LANE. I have given you all the information that I am permitted to
give to you and to members of the Commission. I understand from Mr.
Rankin that Mrs. Markham denies that she ever talked with me. Is that
Mr. WARREN. You needn't ask Mr. Rankin any questions. You won't answer
the questions of this Commission, and he is not under examination by
you at the present time.
Mr. LANE. I have answered questions. I spoke for about 85 pages,
without a single question being put to me, because I was anxious to
give to this Commission all the information in my possession.
Mr. WARREN. Yes, but you did not give us all the information. You did
not tell us that you had a recording of what Mrs. Markham said to you.
Now, we ask you for verification of that conversation, because she has
contradicted you. You say that you have a recording, but you refuse to
give it to this Commission.
Mr. LANE. I am not in a position to give you that recording. I have
made that quite plain. Because of a matter which has arisen in the
last 3 or 4 days, which I was made aware of yesterday for the first
time, I am not in a position to do that. Hopefully, I will be in a day
CONSPIRACY THEORIST ("Ric") -- "[Lane] doesn't need to resort to
courtroom theatrics or witness badgering to win over a jury."
the taped phone conversation between Lane and Mrs. Markham.
Talk about "witness badgering" -- Lane's got the patent.
RIC -- "Lane is arguably the best lawyer in the country, a guy in a
class so far above Bugliosi and Spence that these two money-grabbing
rock star wannabees shouldn't [be] mentioned in the same breath."
DVP -- And just how much cash did Spence and Bugliosi rake in while
working for 5 months on "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"?
I'm sure you must have the detailed figures handy re. those
sums....given the fact you just opened your big yap about both of
those lawyers being "money-grabbing rock-star wannabes".
For the record, Spence (the "tobacco-chewing hayseed") had not lost a
"civil" case in 17 years prior to his 1986 loss to Bugliosi in the TV
Docu-Trial. (One source said it had been 19 years since Spence's last
loss. I'm not sure which figure is exactly correct; but either one is
I guess the "hayseed", Mr. Spence, must have accepted only open-and-
shut cases during all those many years, huh?
RIC -- "Bugliosi's claim to fame is the no-brainer Charlie Manson
case, a case that was impossible to lose."
DVP -- Yeah, even though Manson never actually killed anyone in August
1969. And yet you, being a kook, think that putting the noose around
the neck of someone who physically DIDN'T KILL ANYONE AT ALL IN AUGUST
1969 was a case that was "impossible to lose" for Mr. Bugliosi.
Crazy thinking there.
David Von Pein