[Ben Holmes]

R. Anderson Wrote:

Quote:AGAIN! Lane wanted immunity because it is illegal for an attorney to record a telephone call without advising the person called that he was recording it.

Nope.

And yet, it's quite clear in his testimony... Mark Lane felt he had a right to tape record it because he was acting within the lawyer-client relationship... but he knew that the Warren Commission could prosecute him - BUT NOT FOR PERJURY - A TOPIC NEVER RAISED IN HIS TESTIMONY.

Quote:"Former Assemblyman Mark Lane asked yesterday that his testimony before the Warren Commission be sent to the At­torney General's office "for prosecution for perjury" so that he might be allowed to prove "the absolute accuracy of my testimony."

Mr. Lane, a lawyer, testified last Thursday before the com­mission investigating the as­sassination of President Ken­nedy. Chief Justice Earl War­ren told him that the commis­sion had "every reason to doubt the truthfulness" of some of Mr. Lane's testimony. Mr. Lane has been making lecture tours here and abroad on the theme that Lee H. Oswald was not the assassin.

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

Yesterday, the lawyer said in a statement that "I shall play the tape recording during this month at a public meeting to which members of the press and members of the commission will be invited." He did not give the time or place of the meeting.

He also said that he had told the commission that "if I am in­formed no prosecution will re­sult, I will make the recording available to them." He said the commission had not responded, "indicating that it is they who are seeking to suppress the facts and the tape recording, not I."

---'Warren Committee Challenged by Lane', NY Times 7/8/1964

I find it amusing that Anderson can't figure it out. Mark Lane was VERY CLEAR in his testimony why he was refusing to hand over the tape - he didn't want to be prosecuted for it - yet was willing to hand it over if the Commission would grant immunity.

LATER - when the Warren Commission insinuated that Mark Lane had lied - THAT is the time when he challenged them to back up their insinuation with prosecution - which he KNEW he would beat. He was telling the Warren Commission to put their money where their mouth was.

And, of course, there was no prosecution... nor was there any perjury that Anderson can point to...

No wonder Anderson isn't interested in facing a knowledgeable critic...