(PART 810)


Hank clearly demonstrated [Mark] Lane's dishonesty in the Potter issue. Ben was too busy pulling unconnected and unrelated factoids from his junk drawer of nonsense to understand the issue. Hank reminds me of the aircraft used to carpet bomb areas in war - the area is decimated, the aircraft leaves the area for its next assignment and the enemy wonders what the hell happened - in this case, Ben deludes himself into thinking Hank leaves because of cowardice - the reality is, Ben is no competition for Hank - or DVP, for that matter.


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

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


A good example of Mark Lane's tactic of not telling his audience the whole story can be heard from Lane's own lips--RIGHT HERE.

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

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

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

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


Davy, bringing up an instance where Mark Lane may have said something ambiguously, is like a 20-minute YouTube [video] ONLY showing Babe Ruth striking out, while never mentioning his accomplishments.

Must you really be that disingenuous, or has your over-zealousness taken over whatever honesty you may have once possessed??


The Markham example isn't the ONLY time Lane did that sort of thing. And you surely know that.

He pulled the same thing with Jack Ruby's testimony. And he has pulled the same type of "half truth" with respect to the Liberty Lobby (E. Howard Hunt) trial. He wants people to think that the verdict in that trial PROVES that the jury thought the CIA killed JFK. But, of course, that verdict means no such thing--and many (or most) of the jurors have even gone on record saying so. But Lane persists anyway.

And Lane's handling of the Tippit murder in his book is shameful too. He just loves Acquilla Clemmons, of course, but pretty much just ignores the dozen or so OTHER witnesses near the scene who said it was positively Oswald.

And I could go on and on. Such as Lane's silly snide remarks when he talks about Vincent Bugliosi's small error of getting an address wrong in Vince's book. (As if an incorrect address suddenly makes all of the evidence against Oswald just vanish into a puff of Skinny Holland's Grassy Knoll smoke.)

Now, what was it you were saying about somebody here being "disingenuous"?


*ANYONE* can point out omissions in a talk... which isn't a place where you can speak the ENTIRE truth and cite for it.

So tell us DVP... is your failure to meet my challenge an admission on your part that you can't show any "lies" by Mark Lane in Rush to Judgment?


As many people have said (and it's likely quite true), a snake-like attorney like Mark Lane is very careful with his wording when he writes a book. He knows the JFK case backwards and forwards. And therefore he's careful to craft his falsehoods and misrepresentations in ways that can't really be classified as "outright lies". And Lane knows this very well.

That's one of the big reasons he has been able to pull the wool over so many people's eyes since 1964. He's a smart and cunning evidence manipulator.

But the evidence against his "client" (Lee Harvey Oswald) isn't going to change--and it never has changed in the last fifty years. And that evidence is telling the world (as long as you aren't listening to the sneaky Mark Lanes of the world) that Lee Oswald murdered two people in Dallas in 1963.

And there is nothing that even a veteran wordsmith like Mark Lane can do to change that basic of all facts.


You're lying again, DVP.

I was quite specific about QUOTING a lie in his [Mark Lane's] book, Rush to Judgment.


You're lying again, Holmes.

You said this to Dale on October 6, 2014, at 6:59:16 AM PDT:

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

I don't see anything there about any Lane quote having to come ONLY from Lane's book. Or was I just supposed to assume you meant "Only Quote Lane's Dishonesty From His Book--Nothing Else Counts"?

BTW, I wouldn't be at all surprised if I could, indeed, find the very same kind of shady half-truths about Helen Markham in Lane's book too. Why wouldn't the same sneaky tactics be in his book too? They probably are.


I'm just going to label you a liar for claiming that there are dozens of eyewitnesses who "positively" identified Oswald.


Ben lies again. I never once said there were "dozens [plural] of eyewitnesses" who said Oswald was at or near the J.D. Tippit murder scene. Let's see what I really did say:

"And Lane's handling of the Tippit murder in his book is shameful too. He just loves Acquilla Clemmons, of course, but pretty much just ignores the dozen or so OTHER witnesses near the scene who said it was positively Oswald." -- DVP

The post written by conspiracy clown Ben Holmes that I was responding to (re: Lane's "dishonesty") said NOTHING about utilizing ONLY Mark Lane's book "Rush To Judgment".

Plus, it only goes to show how desperate you [Holmes] are to keep Mr. Lane's skirts clean. You KNOW he was a tad bit dishonest on December 4, 1964, in front of a huge crowd at Beverly Hills High School in California, but that particular hunk of "dishonesty" just rolls right off the back of Ben Holmes because it's a piece of "dishonesty" that didn't come specifically from the pages of Lane's 1966 best-seller.

Such amazing pot/kettle-ism you display on a daily basis, Holmes. Why is that?


A Mark Lane Follow-Up....

I decided to have another look at parts of Mr. Lane's book "Rush To Judgment", and when searching for the word "Markham", it took me only two seconds to find an absolutely blatant falsehood told by Lane concerning the murder of policeman J.D. Tippit. Let's just look at the incredible misrepresentation made by Lane on pages 178 and 179 of his 1966 publication:

"The failure of [Domingo] Benavides to identify Oswald left the whole of the Commission's case in the hands of Helen Louise Markham. .... The case against Oswald for the murder of Tippit depended on her—there was no one else."
-- Pages 178-179 of "Rush To Judgment" by Mark Lane

How about that for completely skewing and misrepresenting the true facts concerning the witnesses connected with the Tippit shooting?

With these words--"there was no one else"--Mark Lane has decided to completely ignore and sweep into the gutter the statements and the testimony of witnesses like William Scoggins, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Ted Callaway, Sam Guinyard, Pat Patterson, Harold Russell, and others.

But conspiracy theorists will, of course, still claim that Lane's quote--"there was no one else"--is entirely accurate. Because those conspiracy theorists will claim that witnesses like Scoggins, B. Davis, V. Davis, and Callaway (et al) weren't really in a position to identify Oswald as the man who actually shot Tippit.

But such treatment of those witnesses by crafty conspiracists like Mark Lane (and many other CTers too) only illustrates how totally desperate and anxious those conspiracy theorists are to ignore the obvious facts concerning what those witnesses had to say.

And each one of those witnesses I just mentioned, without exception, positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the one and only man they saw fleeing the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder with a gun in his hand.

But the CTers want to split hairs. They want to toss aside those witnesses who merely saw Oswald "fleeing" the scene AFTER the shooting. Those CTers don't want to face the obvious truth--with that truth, of course, being: Those witnesses saw J.D. Tippit's killer fleeing the scene of the officer's murder.

And it's quite obvious, via the quote from pages 178 and 179 of his book that I cited above, that Mr. Mark Lane is one of those conspiracy theorists who refuses to face that truth about Lee Harvey Oswald. Instead, he tells his readers something that is wholly misleading when any reasonable and sensible person takes the sum total of witness testimony in the Tippit case into account -- he shamelessly tells his readers that "there is no one else" [besides Helen Louise Markham].

A sickening distortion of the facts, isn't it? Yes, it is.

That, then, is Mark Lane. A man considered by many people to be the God of all truth-tellers when it comes to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

And I found that chunk of Lane's distortions by way of merely a two-second PDF file search of his book. Goodness knows how many more examples of Lane's willingness to distort things I could find by searching more than just two seconds.


I remember when I first discovered this [Amazon.com] forum a few years ago and how the conspiracy kooks ALL mentioned David Von Pein in a similar manner as they would Dracula.

I suspected it was because Mr. Von Pein really KNEW the evidence of this case and was very effective in refuting the silly claims of the theorists -- he makes them very uncomfortable and I see why.

They look at facts and evidence like Superman looked at Kryptonite -- how dare Mr. Von Pein bother us with these cold hard facts and evidence -- he forces us out of our fantasy world where we have convinced ourselves we are right, so we'll just attack him personally, call him names and hope he goes away. It's fascinating to watch.


Still waiting for you to produce a "lie" on Mark Lane's part... not merely your claims.


I just did. In black-and-white. Here it is again....

"The failure of [Domingo] Benavides to identify Oswald left the whole of the Commission's case in the hands of Helen Louise Markham. .... The case against Oswald for the murder of Tippit depended on her--there was no one else." -- Mark Lane; Pages 178-179 of "Rush To Judgment"

The above quote is definitely not true. Ergo, it IS a lie. Because the whole Commission's case against Oswald most certainly did not rely on JUST Helen Markham. There were the other witnesses, plus (let's not forget) those pesky bullet shells from OSWALD'S GUN that littered Tenth & Patton after the shooting.

And Lane wants his gullible readers to think that "the whole of the Commission's case [rested] in the hands of Helen Louise Markham". That's a completely false statement and everybody knows it. Even you know it, Ben.

But keep trying to clean Lane's soiled skirts. That's what a good CTer always does best. Right, Ben?

And there's a nice list of distortions and misrepresentations associated with Mark Lane's 1967 "Rush To Judgment" movie too. As I lay out HERE.


Still not a single name - with citation to their testimony.

One would think that you'd be able to list a dozen of them... right?


Why Ben wants to play the silly game called "I'LL PRETEND TO BE IGNORANT OF THE 12 OR SO WITNESSES WHO ALL IDENTIFIED LEE OSWALD IN CONNECTION WITH THE TIPPIT MURDER CASE" is anyone's guess. But he does want to play it.

List of witnesses can be found HERE.

Citations/affidavits/testimony of those witnesses can be located HERE and HERE.

The two most damaging affidavits were written by Barbara and Virginia Davis. Ben, naturally, will totally ignore these sworn statements....HERE and HERE.


Here's another distortion of the facts as told by Mr. Lane on page 180 of his book:

"On March 2, 1964, three weeks before she testified, Mrs. Markham and I talked on the long-distance telephone. She stated that Tippit's killer was a short man, somewhat on the heavy side, with slightly bushy hair." -- Page 180 of "Rush To Judgment"

Via the above words, Lane is most certainly implying that Mrs. Markham TOLD MARK LANE HIMSELF on the telephone that J.D. Tippit's killer was "somewhat on the heavy side, with slightly bushy hair."

But when we actually read ALL of Mrs. Markham's remarks that she made to Mark Lane during that tape recorded telephone interview, can anyone possibly really think that Markham HERSELF was of the opinion (during the phone call with Lane) that Tippit's killer was "heavy" and had "bushy hair"? Hardly.

Let's see what Mrs. Markham really did say to Mark Lane during that phone call [via Markham Exhibit No. 1]:

MARK LANE -- "I read that you told some of the reporters that he was short, stocky, and had bushy hair."

HELEN MARKHAM -- "No, no. I did not say this."

LANE -- "You did not say that?"

MARKHAM -- "No, sir."

LANE -- "Well, would you say that he was stocky?"

MARKHAM -- "Uh, he was short."

LANE -- "He was short."

MARKHAM -- "Yes."

LANE -- "And was he a little bit on the heavy side?"

MARKHAM -- "Uh, not too heavy."

LANE -- "Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?"

MARKHAM -- "Oh, well, he was, no he wasn't, didn't look too heavy, uh-uh."

LANE -- "He wasn't too heavy, and would you say that he had rather bushy hair, kind of hair?"

MARKHAM -- "Yeah, just a little bit bushy, uh huh."

LANE -- "It was a little bit bushy."

MARKHAM -- "Yes."


LANE -- "And they asked if he was thin or heavy, and you said he was a little on the heavy side?"

MARKHAM -- "And he was, uh, uh, well not too heavy. Uh, say around 160, maybe 150."

LANE -- "Well, did you say he wasn't too heavy, but he was a little heavy?"

MARKHAM -- "Uh-huh."

LANE -- "You did say that?"

MARKHAM -- "I did identify him in the lineup."

LANE -- "Yes, and...did you tell the officers that the man who shot Tippit had bushy hair?"

MARKHAM -- "Uh, no, I did not."

LANE -- "But, but he did have bushy hair you said, just a little bushy?"

MARKHAM -- "Well, you wouldn't say it hadn't been combed you know or anything."

LANE -- "Yes."

MARKHAM -- "Of course, he probably had been through a lot, and was kinda tore up a little."


LANE -- "Did you tell any reporter that the person that shot Tippit was short, stocky, and had bushy hair?"

MARKHAM -- "I did not."

LANE -- "You don't remember telling it? Because one of the reporters reported that in the newspaper."

MARKHAM -- "Yes, I read that."

LANE -- "You read that. What paper was that, you recall?"

MARKHAM -- "Uh, I believe it was in the Herald."

LANE -- "The Herald?"

MARKHAM -- "I believe, it might have been the News."

LANE -- "It was one of the Dallas papers, uh?"

MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir."

LANE -- "And, do you know what day that was?"

MARKHAM -- "No, sir."

LANE -- "That was shortly after, though, wasn't it?"

MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir. They gave my address, name, and everything."

LANE -- "Yeh, and they had you quoted as saying that he was short, stocky, and had bushy hair."

MARKHAM -- "Well, they're just not right."

LANE -- "But that's what they said though."

MARKHAM -- "I know it. They can put anything in papers."

[---------- End Quotes ----------]

Now, it's true that Helen Markham only saw Tippit's killer (whom she later positively identified as being Lee Harvey Oswald) prior to the time when Oswald had a scuffle with police officers in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63. And that altercation in the theater might very well have had a lot to do with Oswald's disheveled appearance that we see in the photograph below (which was taken very shortly after Oswald was taken to the Dallas Police Headquarters).

But it's also true that November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, was a fairly windy day. And we know that Oswald was, in fact, walking the streets for several minutes following the assassination of the President.

Therefore, Oswald (and his hair) were being subjected to any gusts of wind that might have been blowing throughout downtown Dallas and the suburb of Oak Cliff between approximately 12:33 PM and 1:40 PM CST on 11/22/63 (with the exception of the few minutes he spent riding on Cecil McWatters' bus and in William Whaley's taxicab; plus the very few moments when he was inside his roominghouse at 1026 North Beckley that day).

And, therefore, I contend that it's quite possible that Lee Oswald's hair could have possibly been in a similar "messed up" condition when Mrs. Markham saw Oswald shoot Officer J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street at approximately 1:14 or 1:15 PM CST on November 22nd. Which, if true, would make these words spoken by Mrs. Markham to Mark Lane just about spot-on accurate:

"It [the hair of the person who shot Officer Tippit] hadn't been combed you know or anything."


I don't know why folks bother with the clown [namely: Benjamin Holmes].


Occasionally I'll engage a mega-kook like Benjamin H.

And I do it for one reason, and one reason only -- to add some more articles and pages to my growing "Assorted JFK Assassination Arguments" file.

I enjoy finding CTers like Holmes and exposing them on my own sites for what they are---complete and utter clowns who will do and say anything to take the TWO guns out of Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on 11/22/63.

Building an archive of such "Battles With The Kooks" only helps me illustrate the bankrupt nature of virtually every JFK conspiracy theorist. And I have illustrated that fact over and over again via my "Assorted Arguments" archive, utilizing a variety of different CT clowns, including Ben Holmes.

Footnote --- And if I didn't "archive" all of my online posts and articles at my own sites, absolutely nobody, other than the handful of regular visitors to any of the many online forums I frequent, would ever see anything I've ever written.

And even with a huge archive on my own sites, I'm not fooling myself into thinking that such an archive is being seen by a large number of people whatsoever. In fact, very few people visit my sites--and even fewer see the posts in Kennedy-related forums like this one--even though it's being hosted by a site (Amazon.com) that gets millions of visitors per day. But these JFK discussion boards, for the most part, are desolate areas of tumbleweeds. But I like to archive the stuff I write at my sites anyway, even though I know that a very small number of people will ever lay their eyes on it.


Mark Lane was absolutely correct in his statement, as he states:

"for, with the exception of Mrs. Markham, the witnesses either did not see the murder, or, if they did, failed to identify Oswald as the gunman. Only two witnesses, again excluding Mrs Markham, saw the killing - and neither Domingo Benavides nor Acquilla Clemons identified Oswald. The remaining witnesses saw the alleged killer at various other times and distances removed from the murder scene, and often the relevant aspect of their testimony placed the Commission's explanation of the event in doubt."

You can't refute that statement - nor will you dare to even try.


Mark Lane's ridiculous statement that I cited earlier -- "the case against Oswald for the murder of Tippit depended on her [Helen Markham]" -- is, of course, total bunk.

And it's total bunk even if we examine the Tippit murder case from just a "WITNESSES ONLY" standpoint -- and Lane knows it.

William Scoggins was only a few feet from Oswald after Scoggins heard shots, saw Tippit fall to the ground, and then saw a man he identified as OSWALD coming toward him WITH A GUN.

And yet people like Mark Lane (and most other conspiracy-happy clowns) don't consider Scoggins to be a "Tippit murder witness" at all. That's absurd.

And, once more, it only shows the desperation reached by CTers who (for some incredibly silly reason) have a desire to exonerate Oswald for the SECOND murder he committed too.

What a strange hobby you JFK conspiracists have. Why not try chess instead? At least you won't look as silly when you lose.

David Von Pein
October 6-7, 2014