The opinions of witnesses

[Joe Mannix]

People who viewed the assassination prior to the Warren Report.  These are the opinions I value. Not a lawyers interpretation of their opinion. Thank God for Mark Lane.

[Ted Shields]

Mark Lane. Urgh. Coached and handpicked witnesses, selectively chosen for his own agenda.

He has blood on his hands in Jonestown too but thats for another day.

[Martin Weidmann]

Mark Lane. Urgh. Coached and handpicked witnesses, selectively chosen for his own agenda.

He has blood on his hands in Jonestown too but thats for another day.

Coached and handpicked witnesses, selectively chosen for his own agenda.

How is that any different from what the WC did?

Lane was a defense attorney, much like the WC was a prosecutorial body!

Important is what the witnesses have to say. You can hear them speak directly, rather than having to accept the WC's version of what their witnesses said....

[Ted Shields]

Coached and handpicked witnesses, selectively chosen for his own agenda.

How is that any different from what the WC did?

Lane was a defense attorney, much like the WC was a prosecutorial body!

Important is what the witnesses have to say. You can hear them speak directly, rather than having to accept the WC's version of what their witnesses said....

Heavily edited though.

Look at this an example on how to lead a witness.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

Rush to Judgement was the first book I ever read on the subject years ago. And its a crock.

Of all the researchers, Mark Lane is the worst.

His behaviour in Jonestown is unforgivable.

[Gary Craig]

People who viewed the assassination prior to the Warren Report.  These are the opinions I value. Not a lawyers interpretation of their opinion. Thank God for Mark Lane.

~snip~

 

[John Iacoletti]

Look at this an example on how to lead a witness.

Here’s another example on how to lead a witness:

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.

[Martin Weidmann]

Heavily edited though.

Look at this an example on how to lead a witness.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

Rush to Judgement was the first book I ever read on the subject years ago. And its a crock.

Of all the researchers, Mark Lane is the worst.

His behaviour in Jonestown is unforgivable.

Heavily edited though.

What's your point? The WC also edited Day's testimony and discussed the need to edit Oswald's history to make it fit.

Regardless of the editing, you can listen to the witnesses speaking freely.

Your dislike and opinion of Mark Lane doesn't alter that one bit.

[Walt Cakebread]

Heavily edited though.

What's your point? The WC also edited Day's testimony and discussed the need to edit Oswald's history to make it fit.

Regardless of the editing, you can listen to the witnesses speaking freely.

Your dislike and opinion of Mark Lane doesn't alter that one bit.

you can listen to the witnesses speaking freely.  Your dislike and opinion of Mark Lane doesn't alter that one bit.

Amen...  I found Sam Holland to be particularly compelling and convincing....  The man was clearly troubled by the official tale handed us by LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Venerated and Honorable Men" (Like Alan Dulles  )