[Ben Holmes]

R. Anderson Wrote:

Quote:Lane put no words in her mouth, that is balderdash too. Lane recorded that interview with the "screwball" Mrs Markham.

Why did he request immunity to appear before the WC on this point if he didn't? And yes, I've read the interview.....it's downright embarrassing to anyone with an ounce of integrity.

I note for the record that instead of merely citing what words Mark Lane had "put" in Helen Markham's mouth - Anderson demonstrated his cowardice by making a nonsensical argument. Indeed, had he merely read the testimony, it would be crystal clear why Mark Lane was asking for immunity... he was being asked to break the lawyer-client privilege, and could have been prosecuted for it.

Here's the relevant portion:

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any writing from Mrs. Markham in connection with the interview that you referred to in your testimony?
Mr. LANE. Any document which Mrs. Markham wrote? Is that the question?
Mr. RANKIN. Either that or anything that she signed which purports to be her statement or affidavit or other recording.
Mr. LANE. I have nothing that she signed or that she wrote.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have anything that you made up yourself from any interview with her?
Mr. LANE. Yes; I do.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have that with you?
Mr. LANE. No; I do not.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe that document? Is it a paper or a tape recording, or what form does it have?
Mr. LANE. It is a tape recording and a transcript of the tape recording in writing.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the tape recording made by you?
Mr. LANE. I think we are now moving into an area where I would prefer not to answer questions, quite frankly. I have given to the Commission the results of my investigation, and I think that the Commission are aware of the fact that I have an attorney-client relationship existing. The Commission is now asking for working papers of an attorney. The Supreme Court has been quite plain, I think, on the question of the sanctity of working documents of attorneys. And I think, therefore, that the questions are no longer in a proper area.I might also indicate to the Commission that when I was retained by Marguerite Oswald to represent the interests of her son before this Commission, and the Commission declined to permit me to so represent Lee Oswald, it made it impossible for me to conduct the kind of cross-examination before this Commission of witnesses that I would have ordinarily conducted, and that entire conversation would have been in the presence of the Commission, obviously, had I been permitted to function as counsel for my client.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe to the Commission the attorney and client relationship that you claim to exist?
Mr. LANE. Yes. I should think the Commission would be well aware of that since I wrote to the Commission on the very day that I was retained and sent, as I recall, an affidavit from my client, detailing the purpose, the purpose of my being retained. I think that was during the very early days of this year.
Mr. RANKIN. Who was the client?
Mr. LANE. Marguerite Oswald retained me to conduct an investigation in reference to the charges that were made against her son, then deceased, and to represent his interests before this Commission.
Mr. RANKIN. And do you claim that that attorney-client relationship is one that exists now?
Mr. LANE. It does exist at the present time in relationship to a matter peripheral to this investigation. It certainly did exist at the time of my discussion with Mrs. Markham, and my discussion with Mrs. Markham took place solely because of the existence of that relationship and to further that relationship.

Quite clearly, Mark Lane wasn't afraid of providing this tape recording because it would reveal that Helen Markham was testifying truthfully, and he wasn't... as Anderson would have you believe.

Indeed, everyone can read the transcript for themselves...

Anderson is a proven liar.