TESTIMONY OF MARK LANE RESUMED IN OPEN SESSION (continued 2)

I would just like to conclude on this note.

I hope the Commission will give consideration to my request, which the Commission has answered, but which again I would like at this time to renew. That is, that I be permitted, at the request of Mrs. Oswald, the mother of the accused defendant, really, before this Commission's hearing, to represent his interests here, to have access to the material which you have access to, and the right to present witnesses.

It is not usual for an attorney representing a party to be given an opportunity to testify, which is quite unusual—but rather to be given the opportunity to present witnesses and to cross-examine them. It has generally been my role in criminal cases. Never before have I testified in behalf of a client.

If it is the Commission's position that this is not a trial in any respect, and therefore Oswald is not entitled to counsel, that is the position with which I would like to respectfully offer a dissent.

The fact that Oswald is not going to have a real trial flows only from his death, and he is not responsible with that having taken place. Every right belonging to an American citizen charged with a crime was taken from him up to and including his life.

I think now that that episode is completed, hopefully never to reappear ever again in our history, or anything close to it—I think it would be proper to permit him to have counsel before the Commission, counsel who can function on his behalf in terms of cross-examining evidence and presenting witnesses. If it is the Commission's position now that he is entitled to counsel, and the Commission will appoint counsel, then I ask the Commission to consider that the Constitutional right to counsel involves the right to counsel of one's choice, or in the event of the death of a party, to counsel of the choice of the surviving members of the family.

If Marina Oswald, the widow, sought to have counsel represent her husband I would think—here—I would think that would cause a conflict and a problem, if the widow and also the mother made the same request. But as I understand it no request has been made by the widow, who has indicated to the press that she believes her husband is guilty, and through her former business agent, Mr. Martin, who I am told was secured for her by the Secret Service as a business agent, she indicated that even a trial which might prove he was innocent, she would still be sure he was guilty, and has indicated since that time no desire to my knowledge to secure counsel for her husband, her late husband, before the Commission.

I think, then, the mother would, in almost any jurisdiction, be the next person to make a decision in this area, and the mother has made a decision, as you know. She has retained me to represent the rights and interests of her son.

I think under those circumstances it would be proper for the Commission to permit me to participate.

This, of course, is not a jury trial. With all due respect to the integrity and background of each of the members of the Commission, I suggest that it is not the function of the trying body to appoint counsel, or the jury to appoint counsel, but in our society it is just the reverse; it is the function of defense counsel to participate in determining who the jury should be.

Many criminal lawyers, very noted counsel, would probably seek to excuse certain—and again no disrespect at all is meant to the background of members of this Commission—but defense counsel generally seeks to excuse as jurors those who are in any way associated with the Government in a criminal case. And here we have the Government appointing the jury, and then the jury picking counsel, who also is Government connected at this time. I in no way wish to raise the question of the integrity of any of the members of the Commission or counsel or anyone else, or their ability. But that truism about equality has some meaning in terms of impartiality—everyone is impartial to some people, and more impartial to other people. And counsel, in order to function, I believe, must be totally independent and totally committed to the responsibility of representing his client.

But above all, he must be secured by someone who has the ability to speak for the deceased, in this case his mother and his wife. And under those circumstances, I renew my request that I be permitted to, at the request of Lee Oswald's mother, who survives him—to function before this Commission as counsel on his behalf.

The Chairman. Mr. Lane, I must advise you that the Commission, as you already know, has considered your request and has denied it. It does not consider you as the attorney for Lee Oswald. Now, this is not for any discussion. We are not going to argue it. You have had your say, and I will just answer.

Lee Oswald left a widow. She is his legal representative. She is represented by counsel. This Commission is cooperating with her in any way she may request. If anyone else wants to present any evidence to this Commission, they may do so. But it is the view and the wish—the will of the Commission—that no one else shall be entitled to participate in the work and the deliberations of the Commission.

We asked you to come here today because we understood that you did have evidence. We are happy to receive it. We want every bit of evidence that you have. You may present anything that you wish to us. But you are not to be a participant in the work of the Commission. I assume you have some questions you would like to ask Mr. Lane, Mr. Rankin?

Mr. Rankin. Yes, sir. Do you have any affidavits that you would like to submit to the Commission? I understood at one time you had some affidavits.

Mr. Lane. Well, I do have some affidavits. They are not originals—they are photostatic copies of affidavits taken by the Dallas police and on file in the Dallas district attorney's office. Now—including the paraffin test which I made reference to.

Now, if the Commission does not have copies of those, I would like to be so informed and I will see what I can do. I assume the Commission has copies of all those documents.

Mr. Rankin. Yes. Do you have anything beyond that that you care to submit?

Mr. Lane. I have the various statements which I have made reference to from Mrs. Hill and Mrs. Markham, Mr. Klein, Mr. Ryder. But I have given you the essence of those statements. If you are interested in pursuing that, I think it might be best to call them.

Mr. Rankin. I am interested if there was anything beyond what you have given us, Mr. Lane. And if you say you have given us the substance, then I take it that is complete as far as it could be of assistance to us, except our going directly to the witness. Is that what you have in mind?

Mr. Lane. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. Now, do you have any witnesses that you would like to present for the Commission?

Mr. Lane. Well, I would like—I do not know that I would be able to do that, frankly.

Mr. Rankin. Well, would you have any that you suggest that we should interview, bring before the Commission, that you have not presented up to this time in your testimony?

Mr. Lane. No; there is no one who I know of other than those names I have given, and two other persons whose permission I am going to have to secure in reference to other matters, and hopefully they will be willing to not only allow their names to be used, but to come forward and testify, if you wish to hear them.

Mr. Rankin. Now, is there any documentary evidence beyond which you have submitted that you would like to submit to the Commission?

Mr. Lane. Not beyond what I have submitted or made reference to.

Mr. Rankin. In regard to the paraffin that you have referred to, do you have any particular materials or anything you want to refer the Commission to?

Mr. Lane. To that particular test taken by Mr. Anderson on November 23d?

Mr. Rankin. Anything beyond that?

Mr. Lane. No; not at this time.

Mr. Rankin. Now, I understand at one time you referred to some meeting in the Carousel Club a week or so before the assassination. Do you have any material on that or any information?

Mr. Lane. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. Is there anything you would care to present to the Commission?

Mr. Lane. Yes. I have been informed—and this is the source I will have to check with again in order to secure his testimony——

Mr. Rankin. You will advise us if you are permitted to.

Mr. Lane. Yes. But I can tell you the substance—that a meeting took place on November 14, 1963, in the Carousel Club between Officer Tippit and Bernard Weissman, Mr. Weissman being the gentleman who placed a full-page advertisement in the Dallas Morning News which was printed on November 22, asking a series of questions of President Kennedy. It was addressed "Welcome to Dallas, President Kennedy. Why have you traded the Monroe Doctrine for spirit of Moscow. Why has Gus Hall and the Communist Party endorsed your 1964 election" and such matter. I think these two give a rather clear indication of the kind of advertisement that it was. And I have been informed that Mr. Weissman and Officer Tippit and a third person were present there. I have been given the name of the third person. But for matters which I will make plain to the Commission, I will be pleased to give you the name of the third person as given to me, but not in the presence of the press. I would rather do that in executive session—that one piece of testimony.

The Chairman. That is satisfactory to do that, if you wish.

Mr. Lane. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Is there anything else about that incident that you know and want to tell the Commission at this time?

Mr. Lane. No.

The Chairman. That is the entire story, is it?

Mr. Lane. That they were there for more than 2 hours conferring—these three persons.

The Chairman. Your information does not—is not to the effect as to what they were conferring on.

Mr. Lane. No; they did not hear that.

Mr. Rankin. I am not suggesting, Mr. Lane, that you have been selective about what you have told the Commission and what you have not told, but I do wish to make the inquiry as to whether there is any information you might have that the Commission should be informed of as to other people that you might have interviewed in regard to this matter.

Mr. Lane. I have given the Commission at this time everything that I know.

Mr. Rankin. Is there anything about the palm prints that you can tell us in addition to what you have given us?

Mr. Lane. Not in addition to what I have said.

Mr. Rankin. Well, I will ask you generally—is there anything in addition to what you have said that you would like to tell the Commission at this time that has any bearing upon this investigation?

Mr. Lane. All I can say in reference to that, Mr. Rankin, is that I am practically engaged in this project by myself, which means I am extremely limited. This is not my profession—investigator. I am an attorney. And there are many leads which I have followed, which have led me nowhere at all, obviously. Before finding Mrs. Markham or before finding Mrs. Hill, there were many other persons I talked to who were not even present, who I have heard were present. But there are still large numbers, probably at this point hundreds of leads which I have heard of, and which I have not yet been able to trace or to check through. I do not think it would be constructive just to tell you all of the things I have heard, because most of them are patently untrue, and they just require a great deal of work. But I will continue to do that, and should I come across any material which might in any way interest you, I will certainly either write to you for the purpose of presenting it to you through the mail in affidavit form, if you prefer, or indicate that I will be available to come and testify again if you prefer that.

The Chairman. Mr. Lane, your client, Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, when she was testifying before us, told us that she had sold some pictures to the press and she wanted the originals of all the pictures that she presented to us, because she said they were of great financial value to her. Do you know what sales she has made concerning pictures such as you have shown us?

Mr. Lane. In terms of the picture with the rifle, you mean, for example?

The Chairman. Well, we might start with that.

Mr. Lane. She has never seen such a picture, she has informed me, of Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle—except after they had been published. She never had any knowledge of such pictures, and had never seen them.

I do not really represent Marguerite Oswald. She has retained me to represent the interests of her son. And so in her business dealings in terms of her sale of pictures and articles, I have not represented her. I believe she has a literary agent or perhaps even another lawyer—I don't know. But she has retained me to represent her son's interests, not to represent her at all.

The Chairman. I see.

Mr. Lane. Of course, we have conferred. But I do not have that information.

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. Mr Lane, I have a further question. Have you ever been prevented by any law enforcement officer from interviewing anyone concerning this matter when you wished to?

Mr. Lane. Well, I would say that I have been prevented by the statements made by the law enforcement persons or agents to the individual, that he should not talk to anyone about this case, that it is a secret matter. As I have indicated, Mr. Klein——

Mr. Rankin. You have described those cases, have you?

Mr. Lane. I have also spoken to a reporter who is employed by a Dallas newspaper, who informed me that he sought to question more than 150 in the area, and that many of those persons informed him that they were ordered by the FBI not to talk to anyone about this case, and that almost none of the witnesses would talk with him about the case, and that some of them, when he asked the reason that they were not talking to him, it was "Was this because you have been told by the FBI?"—and he indicated they were not even allowed to answer that question. But many of them told him that the FBI or the Secret Service ordered them not to talk. In no other respect have I been interfered with to my knowledge.

Mr. Rankin. Do you have the name of that reporter—can you reveal that to us?

Mr. Lane. I cannot reveal it at this time, but I am hopeful you will permit me to. He is one of the reporters I referred to earlier.

Mr. Rankin. Thank you.

The Chairman. Senator, do you have any questions?

Senator Cooper. No; I have no questions.

The Chairman. Mr. Rhyne.

Mr. Rhyne. Mr. Chief Justice—I wanted to ask Mr. Lane, on his inquiry about what happened to Oswald during the 48 hours he was under detention—you suggested that the Commission make an inquiry into whether his civil rights were denied. Do you have any information on that subject?

Mr. Lane. Yes. I saw what happened—I read in the newspapers and heard on the radio.

Mr. Rhyne. It looked to me that most of the material presented here today was really in the newspapers. You are merely repeating what someone else has said.

Mr. Lane. I don't think that is an accurate characterization of my testimony at all, sir. For example, I told you before of conversations that I have had—I know you listened intently—I told you of conversations that I had with Mr. Klein. I told you of conversations I had with Miss Hill, who is probably the closest eyewitness to the assassination, with Miss Woodward, who is perhaps the second or third closest witness to the assassination, with Dial Ryder, with at least two or three other persons.

Mr. Rhyne. But on this one point, with respect to denial of any civil rights or protection of civil rights during this 48-hour period, you say that is all in the newspaper stories?

Mr. Lane. No. What I meant by that response was that the basic denial that I was discussing was the development of the case publicly against him, so that it would be impossible in securing a jury panel to secure 12 jurors probably anywhere in this country who had not reached a conclusion, first of all. And secondly, obviously the death of the accused, which I know is a matter for the Commission's inquiry already.

Mr. Rhyne. I notice that you said your investigation was incomplete. So I just wanted to be sure that I understood what you meant with respect to this 48-hour detention period.

Mr. Lane. No; I have no knowledge over and above that that I could give you in that area.

The Chairman. Mr. Murray, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

Mr. Murray. No; I have none, Mr. Chief Justice, at this time.

The Chairman. Well, Mr. Lane, if any evidence should come to your attention in the future, would you be willing to convey the information to the Commission?

Mr. Lane. Yes; I certainly would, sir.

The Chairman. We will appreciate it if you would. Thank you for your attendance.

We will adjourn at this time.

(Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned, and reconvened in executive session.)