Chapter III: Part 3

Mr. REDLICH. Do you recall to whom that letter was written?

Mr. MARTIN. She originally wrote the letter to Melvin Belli.

Mr. REDLICH. By "she" you mean Marina Oswald?

Mr. MARTIN. Marina. I advised her against----

Mr. REDLICH. Melvin Belli?

Mr. MARTIN. Is the attorney for Jack Ruby. I advised her against such an action, because of the possibility of the letter itself in translating from Russian to English being misinterpreted and used in a manner that might be derogatory to Marina Oswald. I suggested that she send this letter to Henry Wade who would be the prosecutor in the case. Now whether she changed the salutation on the letter I don't know. I can't read Russian. And the salutation was not translated in the translation. The translation was made by Katya Ford.

Mr. REDLICH. To the best of your knowledge has this letter ever been sent to anyone?

Mr. MARTIN. No sir, it hasn't.

Mr. DULLES. You say it has not been?

Mr. MARTIN. It has not been.

Mr. DULLES. That is your belief or you have knowledge that it has not been?

Mr. MARTIN. I have the original. Now if a letter has been sent, it would be a different letter.

Mr. REDLICH. On the basis of your knowledge of Marina Oswald's handwriting, would you tell the Commission whether you believe that this letter is in her handwriting?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, it is. I also observed her writing the letter.

Mr. REDLICH. Are you aware of the fact that Marina Oswald discussed this letter when she appeared before this Commission?

Mr. MARTIN. I believe you mentioned it sometime today.

Mr. REDLICH. Were you aware of it prior to your coming here?

Mr. MARTIN. No.

Mr. REDLICH. Do you know why it has not been sent?

Mr. MARTIN. She decided that it was best not to be sent unless she actually thought that Ruby was going to get the death penalty. Actually a letter like that should go to the Governor of the State.

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Martin, do you have any additional information concerning the assassination of President Kennedy, Marina Oswald, or the assassination of her husband Lee Harvey Oswald which you would like to present before this Commission at this time?

Mr. MARTIN. No, I don't think so. Nothing.

Mr. REDLICH. If it would be helpful for the work of this Commission for you to return to Washington and appear again before this Commission, would you be willing to do so?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of this witness, unless Mr. Rankin does or you do.

Mr. DULLES. I would just like to ask a question about this letter I am just glancing over. Where did this letter paper come from? Is that some personal paper with a tree on it?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. I bought that.

Mr. DULLES. You bought it for her?

Mr. MARTIN. At a drug store, yes, sir, at a drug store in Arlington.

Mr. DULLES. Is this another draft or is this just a copy?

Mr. MARTIN. This is the original of the copy.

Mr. REDLICH. We have photographed what is now Commission Exhibit No. 333 and we are keeping the photostat. Mr. Martin, you will recall that at the start of today's proceedings Chief Justice Warren read into the record a copy of the letter which you received requesting certain notes, records, documents in connection with today's hearing. Have you made available to the Commission all of the material which was requested in that letter?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; I went through everything I had at home, and could find nothing else.

Mr. REDLICH. If you should find anything else which you inadvertently failed to bring before this Commission, will you mail it to us for examination and we will return it to you.

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; there is a Worker that I have.

Mr. REDLICH. You mean by Worker the Daily Worker?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. I think they dropped the "Daily."

Mr. DULLES. They are no longer daily.

Mr. MARTIN. It is called the Worker now. It has quite a lengthy article about Marina in it, and I will send that to you.

Mr. REDLICH. And you will send anything that you may come across which you may have inadvertently failed to produce before this Commission?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. REDLICH. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. There were some questions that Senator Cooper had suggested. I don't know, have you looked those over? Have they been covered?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. REDLICH. Those have been covered.

Mr. DULLES. All been covered?

Mr. REDLICH. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Did Marina ever express to you her opinion as to the guilt or innocence of her husband in connection with the assassination of the President?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. What did she say?

Mr. MARTIN. She believes he was guilty. She believes he did it, and the first time she said it I questioned her as to why she thought he did it, and she said she just felt it. It was a woman's intuition. She didn't know the word intuition at that time. I had to look it up in the Russian-English Dictionary.

Mr. DULLES. Did she indicate any view as to whether he did it alone or had an accomplice or accomplices?

Mr. MARTIN. She remarked about the Walker incident, that that was definitely done alone, and that he always was alone. He never did anything with anyone else. I don't recall that she mentioned that specifically in the case of the assassination of the President. But she had made that remark before or during the interim about Walker.

Mr. DULLES. Did she ever at any time express to you any interest in returning to the Soviet Union or her desire to stay in the United States?

Mr. MARTIN. Well, she has always said that she wanted to stay in the United States. One time she said that she thought she would go back to Russia, and I asked her why and she said, well, she was just joking.

Mr. DULLES. Did she ever refer to you any letters she wrote to the Soviet Embassy with regard to a desire to return?

Mr. MARTIN. No. There was only one incident that she told me about was a letter to a friend in Russia.

Mr. DULLES. You mentioned that I think.

Mr. MARTIN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. The one that she didn't put enough stamps on, enough postage on.

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, it came back "insufficient postage."

Mr. DULLES. Did she ever mention to you any names of any friends or associates of her husband that had not been discussed here at one time or another in this testimony, including the list of names that was read out to you?

Mr. MARTIN. No.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know any other friends that Marina has other than those that have been discussed in this testimony?

Mr. MARTIN. No. I was trying to think a while ago about that, and I can't think of anyone else.

Mr. DULLES. That is all I have.

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Leech, would you like to ask Mr. Martin any questions at this time?

Mr. LEECH. Not a word.

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Rhyne? Mr. Rankin, have you any further questions?

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to thank him for appearing voluntarily.

Mr. DULLES. I do thank you for coming and responding so fully to our questions.

Mr. MARTIN. Anything I can do.

Mr. DULLES. And if anything occurs to you or to your counsel as sometimes happens later, we will be very glad if you or your counsel will bring it to our attention.

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; I certainly will.

Mr. REDLICH. May I before we adjourn ask another question?

Mr. DULLES. Certainly.

Mr. REDLICH. Have you ever discussed with Mrs. Marguerite Oswald the question of the guilt or innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. MARTIN. No. The only time I was in contact with Marguerite Oswald was at the Inn of the Six Flags in Arlington, Tex., and I don't believe I really discussed anything with her. I was more on the sidelines and didn't enter into any discussions with her at all.

Mr. REDLICH. And have you discussed with Robert Oswald the question of the guilt or innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. Let's see, on one occasion the article by Mark Lane, I think it was in the National Observer, was printed in the National Observer, and I called Robert's attention to that. I believe he cited 15 points where he believed that Lee Oswald was innocent, and I remarked to Robert that in nearly 100 percent of those points they were just completely out of line. The brief I believe was taken from newspaper accounts, from various newspaper accounts of the assassination, and a number of them contradicted each other.

Mr. REDLICH. Did Robert Oswald comment on this?

Mr. MARTIN. No.

Mr. REDLICH. For the record I believe the publication you are referring to is the National Guardian.

Mr. MARTIN. The National Guardian, yes.

Mr. REDLICH. Is that your recollection now?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, National Guardian.

Mr. REDLICH. And Robert Oswald had no comment on this?

Mr. MARTIN. No.

Mr. REDLICH. We have no further questions.

Mr. DULLES. The Commission will stand adjourned, subject to call.

(Whereupon, at 10:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

_Wednesday, March 4, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF MARK LANE

The President's Commission met at 2:30 p.m., on March 4, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper and Representative Gerald R. Ford, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, assistants to Walter E. Craig.

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.

The Commission has been informed that Mr. Lane has collected numerous materials relevant to the Commission's work.

The Commission proposes to question Mr. Lane on all matters of which he has knowledge concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, and to request of Mr. Lane that he make available to the Commission any documentary material in his possession which can assist the Commission in its work.

In accordance with the rules of this Commission, Mr. Lane has been furnished with a copy of this statement.

Mr. Lane, would please rise and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. LANE. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please.

Mr. Rankin, would you proceed with the examination, please?

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, will you state your name?

Mr. LANE. My name is Mark Lane.

Mr. RANKIN. Where do you live?

Mr. LANE. 164 West 79th Street, New York City, New York State.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you a practicing lawyer?

Mr. LANE. Yes; I am.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you state your age, please?

Mr. LANE. I am 37 years old.

Mr. RANKIN. How long have you been practicing law?

Mr. LANE. Thirteen years.

Mr. RANKIN. You have qualified in the State of New York?

Mr. LANE. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you qualified in any other Jurisdiction?

Mr. LANE. Just in the Federal court.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have some information concerning the matters being investigated by the Commission that you would like to present to the Commission?

Mr. LANE. Yes; I do.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you proceed to do so?

Mr. LANE. Yes.

I wonder if I might ask at the outset if I will be able to secure a copy of the transcript of my testimony tomorrow, or is that going to be rushing things?

The CHAIRMAN. You will be able to obtain it. I don't know whether we can promise it to you tomorrow morning or not. But we will do it just as quickly as it can be transcribed by the reporter.

Mr. LANE. Thank you, sir.

At the outset, I would like to request that this portion of the hearing, in any event, be opened to the public. I think that there are matters here of grave concern to all the people of our country, and that it would, therefore, be fruitful and constructive for the sessions to be conducted in a public fashion, open to the public and to the press.

Accordingly, I request that this session at least involving my testimony be so opened to the public.

The CHAIRMAN. You would have a right, as any witness would have, to request that, Mr. Lane. We will conduct this in an open hearing. We will adjourn at this time to the auditorium downstairs, and we will conduct the hearing there. It will be open to the public. I saw a good many members of the press around, so it will really be a public affair.

(Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the Commission recessed and then reconvened in the auditorium in open session.)

TESTIMONY OF MARK LANE RESUMED IN OPEN SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.

The Commission convened in our committee room on the fourth floor.

A reporter has been appointed.

Mr. Lane has been sworn.

Mr. Lane has stated that he would like to give his testimony at a public hearing. I explained to him that that was thoroughly agreeable to the Commission. The Commission does not operate in a secret way. Any witness who desires to have his--give his testimony in public may do so.

We have done it in the quiet of our rooms for the convenience of witnesses, and in order to accelerate the program. But any witness who desires to have his testimony recorded at a public hearing may do so.

The purpose of this Commission is, of course, eventually to make known to the President, and to the American public everything that has transpired before this Commission. All of it will be made available at the appropriate time. The records of the work of the Commission will be preserved for the public. So, Mr. Lane, we will be happy to accommodate you, and to proceed with our hearing.

Now, Mr. Rankin will conduct the examination.

(Having been previously duly sworn.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, will you proceed to tell the Commission whatever you have that would bear upon this investigation? Start item by item, and give us whatever you have in support.

Mr. LANE. Yes, sir.

At the outset, I would like to call to the Commission's attention a matter which is somewhat peripheral, perhaps, and should the Commission determine it does not wish to hear my testimony in that regard, I will understand that. But I would like to call it to your attention, because although it is peripheral I think it is related to both the assassination and the investigation into the assassination of the President.

That is in relationship to a picture which has been widely publicized, probably in every single community of our country, allegedly showing Lee Harvey Oswald holding in his hand a rifle which has been described in at least one publication, Life magazine, as the weapon with which he assassinated President Kennedy.

I would like to indicate to the Commission at this time that the pictures which have been distributed throughout the country included doctored and forged photographs. I would like to present evidence to the Commission at this time in that regard.

I ask the Commission if it does conclude that the photographs have been doctored, whether it will consider determining whether or not a crime has been committed, or an effort has been made to submit evidence to the Commission members, though not directly through the press, from magazines, which evidence----

The CHAIRMAN. I didn't get that last sentence--something about the Commission?

Mr. LANE. I am asking the Commission if it does conclude that the pictures have been doctored, to consider investigating the method by which the doctoring took place, who was responsible, and whether or not an effort has been made to influence the members of the Commission, while not directly, through the publication of this picture, which certainly has been circulated very widely throughout our country.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be sure, Mr. Lane, that anything you present in that regard will be thoroughly considered by the Commission.

Mr. LANE. Thank you, sir.

I would like to offer the February 21, 1964 issue of Life magazine.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you mark that, Mr. Reporter, please, the next number.

Mr. LANE. A picture appears on the entire cover of Life magazine, and an identical picture appears in the interior pages, at page 80. The caption on the cover reads, "Lee Oswald with the weapons he used to kill President Kennedy and Officer Tippit."

I think it is quite plain from looking at both of the pictures that there appears on the rifle, what appears to be a rifle in the left hand of Lee Harvey Oswald, a telescopic sight.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, we will mark that Exhibit No. 334.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 334, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. Next I would like to offer a picture which is a glossy 8-1/2-by-11 picture, of a photograph published in the New York Times, secured by the New York Times from the Associated Press.

Representative FORD. Is there any verification of the fact that that is as you have identified it?

Mr. LANE. That is what--a picture secured----

Representative FORD. From the New York Times, which in turn had acquired it from the Associated Press?

Mr. LANE. Well, that is a statement which I have made under oath, and it can be verified with the New York Times.

Mr. RANKIN. That is Exhibit 335 that you are just referring to, Mr. Lane.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 335, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. I suggest that is the identical picture with the one published on the cover of Life magazine, Exhibit 334, in every respect, including the creases in the trousers, the background, with the exception of the rifle in the hands of Oswald, which appears to have no telescopic scope in Exhibit 335.

In addition, there clearly has been some other doctoring of the photograph around the head of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the trees and other background material over his left shoulder have been removed from the Associated Press picture, but are present in the Life magazine picture.

Shadows and fenceposts which can be observed between the legs of Lee Harvey Oswald in Exhibit 335 have been removed in the Life magazine picture. I would like to offer this picture as the next exhibit.

Mr. RANKIN. That will be marked Exhibit 336.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 336 for identification.)

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what that is, Mr. Lane?

Mr. LANE. Yes; 336 is an 8-1/2-by-11 glossy photograph of a picture appearing in Newsweek magazine, March 2, 1964, credited by Newsweek magazine to the Detroit Free Press. I would suggest that that is an identical picture with the other two pictures in every respect, except that it has no telescopic sight on the rifle, and there is a great deal of metallic materials present on that rifle clearly not present in the other two pictures.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you say metallics?

Mr. LANE. Metallics.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what you mean by that, Mr. Lane?

Mr. LANE. Yes. Just below the hand, the left hand of Lee Harvey Oswald, there is clearly visible a series of pieces of metal, allegedly part of the rifle, which are in no way clear--which are in no way present in the other pictures.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. LANE. To make that clearer, I would like to offer Exhibit 337, which is an enlargement of the picture 335, the New York Times picture.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 337, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. This enlarges the area on the rifle just below what is allegedly Oswald's left hand. It clearly shows an absolute absence of all of the metallic material present in the Newsweek photo, 336.

This is a front page of the New York Journal American dated February 18, 1964, which is an identical picture with the one published in Life magazine, Exhibit 334, and the credit lines appearing on that publication indicate that the picture has been secured from the Associated Press through the Detroit Free Press.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 338, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. That picture has a telescopic sight, and is not the picture in terms of the metal material on the rifle which Newsweek stated they secured through the Detroit Free Press, and is not the picture without the telescopic sight which the New York Times states that it secured through the Associated Press. In any event, I would like to submit a picture procured from Worldwide Photos.

Mr. RANKIN. 339.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 339, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. This is allegedly a picture taken in the Dallas Police Station, showing the alleged murder weapon.

The CHAIRMAN. That is No. 339, Mr. Lane?

Mr. LANE. Yes, sir, and I would call the Commission's attention to the curved line of the stock present in Exhibit 339, and obviously absent from every other picture, indicating that in no event is the rifle allegedly in the hands of Lee Oswald, in Exhibits 334 through 338 comparable to the alleged murder weapon as shown in the Dallas police station.

And should the Commission decide to investigate the obviously doctored pictures that have been circulated so widely in our country, I would refer the Commission investigators to the Times Picayune of New Orleans, published on November 24, 1963, in which an Associated Press story indicated that the Dallas police chief, Jesse Curry, stated that he had in his possession photographs found in the home of Lee Harvey Oswald's Russian-born wife which linked Oswald with the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy. Curry said in the article attributed to Curry----

Mr. RANKIN. Do you wish to make that a part of the record?

Mr. LANE. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. That will be Exhibit 340.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 340 for identification.)

Mr. LANE. The article attributes a statement to Curry indicating that he, the Dallas Police Chief, found the pictures in the suburban Irving, Tex., home in which Marina Oswald lived, and stated that Mr. Curry had said that the pictures will be used in evidence in Oswald's murder trial. This was published, I assume, prior to the time that Oswald was himself killed on that day.

Representative FORD. Would the date of the paper be on the back side?

The CHAIRMAN. It is on the front. November 24th.

Mr. LANE. I would like to offer this as an exhibit.

Mr. RANKIN. This is marked Commission Exhibit 341.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 341, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. Exhibit 341 is a page or portion of a page of the New York Times, on Sunday, December 8, with a picture of the alleged murder weapon, secured, according to the credit line under the picture, from the United Press International, indicating clearly that that rifle is not the rifle allegedly being held by Mr. Oswald in any of the pictures so widely circulated throughout our country.

Mr. RANKIN. On what do you base that last conclusion, Mr. Lane? Would you point out to the Commission the differences as you see them?

Mr. LANE. Yes; the reference of the stock. The stock has a clearly curved and bent line in this picture.

Mr. RANKIN. That is in Exhibit 341?

Mr. LANE. Yes, and it is present in none of the pictures of Oswald holding the rifle; 336, for example, in Newsweek magazine shows almost a straight stock. Some of them show even an absolutely straight stock.

Exhibit 335 from the New York Times shows a perfectly straight stock--which is not only a stock unlike this particular Italian 6.5 millimeter carbine, but is a stock I believe unlike any rifle stock produced during the 20th century, and possibly the 19th century, anywhere. Rifle experts seem to agree that every stock must have in it some break, so that it is possible to place your hand around the rifle while your finger holds the trigger. And there is no break in the doctored photographs, in the stock portrayed on the doctored photographs.

I have checked many rifle catalogs. This is not my field, and I don't qualify as an expert. But I have checked many rifle catalogs, and have only seen rifles with a break where the stock becomes narrow enough for one's hand to grasp it while pulling the trigger.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that the basis of your opinion that you have just given, that it doesn't have a break in it, and that other rifles for any period later than you have described do?

Mr. LANE. Well, several persons who have described themselves as rifle experts have made that statement to me.

Mr. RANKIN. Who are those?

Mr. LANE. I believe I have some of their names here. I don't have the names of those who have called, but I can secure that at our first break by a telephone call to my office.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you furnish that then?

Mr. LANE. Surely. In any event, whether there was another rifle or not, the rifle portrayed in the picture is clearly--in the picture in which Oswald is allegedly holding the rifle--clearly is not the rifle allegedly claimed to be the murder weapon. I wonder if I might ask the Commission if it might produce the rifle now, so that we might compare the actual rifle with the pictures.

The CHAIRMAN. We will do that in due course. But we don't have the rifle here now, Mr. Lane. We will make the proper comparisons, you may be sure, with experts.

Mr. LANE. Now, on another peripheral matter--unless there are any further questions in relation to this matter----

Mr. RANKIN. No, you may proceed. Do you have negatives of these pictures you have produced?

Mr. LANE. No. I am glad you asked that question, because I can now relate to you about a conversation that I had 2 or 3 days ago with a Mr. Dirksen, who is on the photo desk of the Associated Press. I called Mr. Dirksen and asked him for a glossy of the picture which the Associated Press sent out over the wire service.

Mr. RANKIN. Could you identify Mr. Dirksen a little more clearly?

Mr. LANE. He just told me he was employed. I called the Associated Press in New York City and asked for the photo desk, Mr. Dirksen answered and said he was employed there. I asked him what his specific position was there, and he declined to give me that information. He said he didn't think it was relevant.

In any event, I asked him if he could secure for me a glossy, a glossy copy of the picture sent by the Associated Press over the wires. And I described the picture as the one of Oswald allegedly holding the murder weapon in his left hand, and having on his right hip a pistol, allegedly the pistol with which he slew Officer Tippit.

Mr. Dirksen stated to me that he could not make a glossy of that picture available to me and I pointed out to him that in the past the Associated Press had been most cooperative when I asked for pictures, and he said, "Yes, we sent a whole batch up to you last week, didn't we?" I said, "Yes, you did, I appreciated that. I wonder why this picture is being treated differently from other pictures." He said, "This is not a normal picture and this is not the normal situation."

I asked him what he meant by that. He explained that there was a special contract--he did not have all the details, he said, because he is not one of the persons who was involved in drafting the contract--but there was a special contract between the Associated Press and the source of this picture, and they agreed, the Associated Press agreed in this contract that they would not make a glossy available to anyone, that they would send the pictures out only to their subscribers, and that no one else would be allowed to see the picture.

I said if that was the understanding, I certainly would not wish to have them breach their agreement, and asked if instead he would make the name of the source known to me, so that I might go directly to the source and see if I might secure the picture in that fashion. He stated he could not do that, because one of the other stipulations in the contract would be that they could not reveal the name of the source of the picture.

I discussed this with an employee of the New York Times thereafter, since I knew that the New York Times was a subscriber to the services made available by the Associated Press.

Mr. RANKIN. Could you identify that employee, please?

Mr. LANE. No, I am not going to be able to discuss sources, obviously, here, I am sorry.

But this employee indicated to me thereafter that an inquiry had been made by the New York Times to the Associated Press along the same lines as the inquiry which I had made, in terms of trying to determine the source of the Associated Press picture. And I was informed by this employee of the New York Times that the Associated Press declined to name the source of the picture, even when the New York Times made a request. Therefore, I do not have the negative, and I do not know the source of the picture.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that true with regard to all of the pictures that you produced?

Mr. LANE. My office called Life magazine, and asked someone at Life magazine on the photo desk, the editorial department, if a picture could be made available and they stated that they would not make a glossy available--it was their policy in reference to all pictures in their possession.

Those are the only inquiries I made with reference to the source of the pictures.

Mr. RANKIN. Now you may proceed.

Mr. LANE. Yes. I would like to raise one other peripheral matter before going into the evidence, if I might. That is, I would like to call to the attention of the Commission this article, and ask that it be marked as an exhibit.

Mr. RANKIN. That has been marked Commission Exhibit 342.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 342, for identification.)

Mr. LANE. Thank you.

This is an article appearing in the New York Journal American Sunday, February 23.

Mr. RANKIN. This consists of two separate pages, does it not?

Mr. LANE. It does--the first page being a masthead and front page, headline from the Journal American, dated Sunday, February 23, 1964, and the second page containing a portion of the front page of the Journal American on that date, and a portion of page 15, the continued story of the Journal American on the same date.

This is an article written by Bob Considine, who enjoys a reputation for being an excellent reporter. Mr. Considine states in his article that an eyewitness to the shooting of Officer Tippit by the name of Warren Reynolds was himself recently shot through the head by a man with a rifle.

Now, I don't believe that it is alleged that Reynolds actually saw the person pull the trigger which sent the bullets at Officer Tippit. As I understand it, Mr. Reynolds has stated that he, Reynolds, heard the shot, the shooting, left his office and saw a man running away, placing new shells into a pistol as he ran away. And Mr. Considine indicates that Reynolds thereafter identified Oswald as the person who was running from the scene.

This article indicated that during January, Mr. Reynolds was himself shot through the head with a rifle, and that he is in the hospital--I believe he was in the hospital at that time. I don't know what the state of his health is at the present time.

Mr. Considine indicates that a person was picked up in the Dallas area and charged with the shooting, but that someone who Mr. Considine refers to as "his girl"--I assume he is making reference to the gentleman who was charged with the attack upon Reynolds--testified in such a fashion, and took a lie detector test, so that the person charged with the crime was released.

This person, Betty Mooney MacDonald, who helped to free her friend, according to Mr. Considine, herself had worked as a stripper in the Carousel Club in Dallas, owned by Jack Ruby.

Two weeks before this article was written, Miss MacDonald was herself arrested for a fight with her roommate, and the week before the article was written, Mr. Considine states she hanged herself in her cell.

I would request the Commission to investigate into these series of most unusual coincidences, to see if they have any bearing upon the basic matter pending before the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be introduced as are all of these pictures, admitted.

(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits Nos. 334 to 342, were received in evidence.)

Mr. LANE. In the course of my investigation, I have come across some material which would be relevant only if I was first able to examine the rifle, quite frankly. I wonder if that might be able to be accomplished sometime during the day?

The CHAIRMAN. During the day?

Mr. LANE. Today, if possible.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think not, because we don't have it. But we will make it available to you, though, at the very first opportunity, Mr. Lane.

Mr. LANE. Fine. Then I will reserve my comment in reference to the rifle for that occasion.

The CHAIRMAN. You may.

Mr. LANE. Thank you. I would like to, on behalf of Lee Harvey Oswald, make this information available to the Commission.

It, of course, has been alleged by the chief of police of Dallas, and by the district attorney of Dallas that Oswald was present on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building during the very early afternoon of November 22, 1963, and that from that area he fired an Italian carbine, 6.5 millimeters, three times, twice striking the President of the United States, wounding him fatally, and injuring the Governor of Texas by striking him with a bullet, on one occasion.

The physician who signed the death certificate of the President pronouncing him dead was Dr. Kemp Clark, whose name appeared on the official homicide report filed by the Dallas Police Department, and attested to by two police officers.

On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported, "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, 'It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit' the surgeon said."

On the same day the New York Herald Tribune stated, "On the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."

According to Richard Dudman--Mr. Dudman is the Washington correspondent, as I am sure you all know better than I, for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch--according to him, the surgeons who attended the President while he was at the Parkland Memorial Hospital, described the wound--were in agreement in describing the wound in the throat as an entrance wound. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch on December 1 carried a rather long and involved story by Mr. Dudman, recounting his conversations with the physicians who were treating the President on the 22d at the Parkland Memorial Hospital.

Dr. Perry explained that he began to open an air passage in the President's throat in an effort to restore his breathing, and he explained that the incision had been made through the bullet wound in the President's throat--since that was in the correct place for the operation, in any event. Dr. Perry, according to Mr. Dudman, described to him the bullet hole as an entrance wound.

Dr. Robert N. McClelland, who was one of the three physicians who participated in that operation, later stated to Mr. Dudman, "It certainly did look like an entrance wound."

He went on to say that he saw bullet wounds every day in Dallas, sometimes several times a day, and that this did appear to be an entrance wound.

One doctor made reference to the frothing of blood in the neck wound. The doctor said, "He is bubbling air." Two of the doctors, Drs. Peters and Baxter, inserted a tube into the right upper part of the President's chest, just below the shoulder, to reexpand the lungs, and to keep them from collapsing.

Dr. Jones and Dr. Perry inserted a similar tube on the left portion of the President's chest.

The activity was necessitated because the bubbling air was the first clue that they had that the President's lung had been punctured.

The prosecuting authorities, confronted with what seemed then to be evidence that the President had been shot from the front, in the throat----

The CHAIRMAN. Are you reading now, Mr. Lane?

Mr. LANE. No, I am just making reference to this. That is not a quote.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not a quote. You are just paraphrasing what was in this article of Mr. Dudman's?

Mr. LANE. No, I am leaving Mr. Dudman now, and going on to statements made by the prosecuting authorities. I will submit quotations--I will try to remember to place quotation marks when I have a quotation.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, all right.

Mr. LANE. The authorities who were confronted with what seemed to be irrefutable evidence that the President had been shot in the front of the throat, concluded that the Presidential limousine was approaching the Book Depository Building when the first shot was fired, because it seems at the very outset a theory was developed by the prosecuting authorities that Oswald was on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building, that he was the assassin, and that he acted alone.

I think that the record and an examination of the activities of the Dallas police, and the Dallas district attorney's office, will show that the only area where they have been consistent from the outset was once this theory was enunciated, they stayed with the theory, and they were devoted to the theory, regardless of the discovery of new evidence and new facts.

For example, the New York Times stated on November 26, 1963, "The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President's car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180°, and fired at least twice more." At that time, the prosecution case had already been developed in terms of the theory that Oswald was the assassin and that Oswald acted alone.

There were newspaper pictures published in many portions of the country showing the Textbook Depository Building on Houston Street where the Presidential limousine approached the Book Depository Building, and Elm Street, where after the limousine made a sharp left turn it continued until it reached the underpass directly ahead.

And in these newspapers, there were superimposed dotted lines showing the trajectory of the three bullets, showing that the first bullet was fired while the Presidential car was still on Houston Street, still approaching the Book Depository Building.

However, it soon became essential for the prosecution to abandon that theory, because the eyewitnesses present, including Governor Connally, and Mrs. Connally, stated that the limousine had already made a left turn, had passed the Book Depository Building at the time that the first shot was fired.

In essence, then, the prosecution remained with the theory that Oswald, while acting alone, shot the President from the front from the back.

However,----

Mr. RANKIN. I don't understand that.

Mr. LANE. I don't understand that either, but this was the theory of the prosecution--that the President had--it had been conceded at that time that the President had been shot in the front of the throat. However, the evidence then developed indicated that the Presidential limousine had already passed the Book Depository Building, and the President was not facing the Book Depository Building when the first shot was fired. At that time, Life magazine explains it all in a full page article entitled, "An End to Nagging Rumors, the 6 Crucial Seconds."

And Life conceded that the limousine was some 50 yards past Oswald when the first shot was fired, and that the shot entered the President's throat from the front, but explained that the President had turned completely around and was facing the Book Depository Building when the shot was fired.

But that theory, however, could not----

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have the date of that article?

Mr. LANE. That was December 6, Life magazine. The full page article was entitled "End to Nagging Rumors, the Six Critical Seconds."

The problem----

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there--just to clarify? Did you say that in this article that Life said that the late President had turned around and was facing the Book Depository Building when the shot was fired?

Mr. LANE. Yes, Senator. The trouble with that theory, however, which was enunciated by Life, and from where they secured it I do not know, but they certainly were in Dallas very much in evidence on the scene--was that the week prior to then Life magazine itself printed the stills of the motion pictures, and in those stills, with Life's own captions, it was quite plain that the President was looking almost completely forward, just slightly to the right, but almost forward, and certainly not turned around when the first shot was fired. And so the stills printed in Life's own publication a week before they enunciated this theory proved that the Life theory was false.

In addition to this, persons present on the scene, such witnesses as Mrs. Connally and the Governor of Texas, indicated that the President was looking almost straight ahead. And I believe that Mrs. Connally stated that she had just made a statement to the President, tragically enough, something about, "You cannot say the people of Dallas have not given you a warm welcome today," and he was about to respond when the first bullet struck him.

In order for the prosecution to remain with the theory in the light of the new evidence that Oswald was the assassin and he acted alone, something would have to give, and it became plain that the third try would have to result in a new examination of the medical testimony.

Mr. Dudman stated that the doctors at Parkland Hospital, who had, of course, this vital evidence to offer, were never questioned about the vital evidence by the FBI or by the Secret Service, and that it was not until after an autopsy had been performed at Bethesda, that two Secret Service agents, armed with that report, journeyed down to the Parkland Hospital and talked to the doctors, for the purpose of explaining to them that the new medical testimony and evidence indicated they were all in error at the outset. And, eventually, that was the position agreed to by the physicians, that they all had been in error when they stated that it was an entrance wound in the throat.

Physicians seem to agree that a short period of time after death, as a result of the deterioration of tissue, it is much more difficult to examine wounds to determine if they are entrance wounds or exit wounds.

In addition to this, according to Mr. Dudman in the Post Dispatch there had been an operation performed on what the doctors thought then was an entrance wound; therefore, it would seem altering the wound in the throat so that it would probably be more difficult to determine if it were an entrance or an exit wound, after the operation had been completed.

However, I do not know, of course, what is in the autopsy report--very likely you have seen that report--but portions of it, whether accurately or inaccurately, have been leaked to the public through the press. And the portion which has been leaked to the press, to the public through the press, in reference to the wound in the President's throat, indicated that the bullet struck the back of the President's head, and either a fragment of the bullet or a fragment of bone from the President's head exited at the throat.

If this were so, while it could explain perhaps the wound in the throat, it would be difficult to understand why this was not apparent to the doctors in the Parkland Hospital, particularly in view of the fact that it would indicate that the path of the bullet ran from the top of the head down to the throat, not from the throat down to the back of the chest, a very different path entirely.

And since Dr. Perry indicated that he inserted a tube into the President's throat following the bullet wound, it would be difficult to understand how he was not aware of the path of the bullet, when it was absolutely in the opposite direction from the one he thought it was in when he inserted the tube.

Most remarkable of all, though, is that if the bullet entered the top of the head, and a portion of it or a portion of bone exited from the throat, the collapse of the lungs and the frothing of air at the throat are both indications of a punctured lung--it would be difficult to explain by that particular bullet's path.

I think that an openminded investigating and prosecuting agency would have found, at the outset, in view of the medical evidence available at the outset, that the President was shot from the front while facing slightly to the right, and after passing the book depository building--an openminded investigating body in Dallas, the district attorney's office or the police, or others who were associated in that investigation, might have considered abandoning their theory that Oswald was the assassin and that he acted alone, and might have been led by the factual data to investigate in other areas as well--clearly something that they did not do.

I have been informed by reporters, for example, that--reporters from foreign countries covering the trial, that some of them were very concerned about the fact that they would now not be able to leave Dallas, that clearly the airports would be closed, there would be roadblocks placed on many of the streets, the trains would be stopped or searched, in order that the assassin or those who assisted him, or those who assisted the assassins, might be prevented from readily leaving the entire area.

I am informed by the reporters in the area that there were no such roadblocks, that planes continued to leave, trains continued to leave, and that the prosecution continued with its theory that Oswald was the assassin, that he acted alone, and they had secured his arrest, and there was nothing more to be done other than to prove as conclusively as possible, utilizing the press as we know, and the television, and the radio media for that purpose.

And while I am on this question, I wonder if I might ask the Commission to give consideration to--although I don't believe that it is present in any of the six panels which have been established by the Commission--but to give consideration nevertheless to the 48 hours in which Oswald was in custody, in reference to what happened to his rights as an American citizen, charged with a crime in this country.

The statement by the National Board of the American Civil Liberties Union, that had Oswald lived he could not have secured a fair trial anywhere in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be sure, Mr. Lane, that that will be given most serious consideration by the Commission, and the Commission has already appointed as an act in that direction the President of the American Bar Association, with such help as he may wish to have, to make an investigation of that very thing. I assure you it will be done by the Commission.

Mr. LANE. Getting back to the evidence, Mr. Chief Justice, the spectator closest to President Kennedy, a Mrs. Hill, who was a substitute teacher in the Dallas public school system, stated to me that she was in her view the closest spectator to the President, and was standing alongside a Mary Moorman, who resides in Dallas.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have the date of this interview, Mr. Lane?

Mr. LANE. It was within the last week. She stated to me that she was the closest spectator to the President, she and her friend, when the President was struck by a bullet. She said that she heard some four to six shots fired.

Now, she was standing on the grass across the--across Elm Street, across from the Texas Book Depository Building. She said that in her--it is her feeling that all of the shots, the four to six shots, came from the grassy knoll near the triple overpass which was at that time directly in front and slightly to the right of the Presidential limousine, and that in her view none of the shots were fired from the Book Depository Building which was directly across the street from her, and which was to the rear of the Presidential limousine.

She said further that after the last shot was fired, she saw a man run from behind the general area of a concrete facade on that grassy knoll, and that he ran on to the triple overpass.

She told me that standing alongside of her was Mary Moorman, who took a picture of the President just a brief moment before the first shot was fired, and that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation took the film from Miss Moorman, and gave her a receipt, which she still has in her possession, but that she has not been able to see the picture, and that it is possible that the picture included the entire Book Depository Building, taken just precisely a second or less before the shots were fired.

Tom Wicker, who is a member of the New York Times White House staff, who was the only New York Times reporter in Dallas when the President was shot, stated in an article which appeared in the Saturday Review, on January 11, 1964, "As we came out of the overpass, I saw a motorcycle policeman drive over the curb, cross an open area, a few feet up a railroad bank, dismount, and start scrambling up the bank." Ronnie Dugger, who is the editor of the Texas Observer, a statewide publication in Texas, stated in his publication on November 29, 1963, and later stated to me in two different interviews material of the same nature.

I am now quoting from the publication:

"On the other side of the overpass a motorcycle policeman was roughriding across some grass to the trestle for the railroad tracks, across the overpass. He brought his cycle to a halt and leapt from it and was running up the base of the trestle when I lost sight of him."

Mr. RANKIN. Can you give us the date of the paper that came from?

Mr. LANE. Yes. That was the Texas Observer, November 29, 1963. That statement has been confirmed by Mr. Dugger to me in two interviews in Dallas.

James Vachule, who is a reporter for the Fort Worth Star Telegram, said, "I heard the shots, several, at the triple overpass."

And Jerry Flemmons, reporting also for the Fort Worth Star Telegram, on November 22, 1963, stated, "Kennedy was gunned down by an assassin, apparently standing on the overpass above the freeway."

Now, I spoke to a Mary Woodward, who is an employee of the Dallas Morning News, and she stated that she was present with three coworkers, all employees of the Dallas Morning News, and they were standing near the--the base of the grassy knoll, perhaps 50 feet or so from the overpass, with the overpass to their right, and the book depository building to their left. And on November 23, 1963, the Dallas Morning News ran a story by Miss Woodward, and I have since that time spoken with Miss Woodward by telephone, and she has confirmed portions--the entire portion which I will quote from now--in her conversation with me.

That is, that as she and her three coworkers waited for the President to pass, on the grassy slope just east of the triple overpass, she explained that the President approached and acknowledged their cheers and the cheers of others, "he faced forward again, and suddenly there was an ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right."

Here we have a statement, then, by an employee of the Dallas Morning News, evidently speaking--she indicated to me that she was speaking on behalf of all four employees, all of whom stated that the shots came from the direction of the overpass, which was to their right, and not at all from the Book Depository Building, which was to their left.