The President's Commission met at 2 p.m., on July 2, 1964, at 200
Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.
Present were: Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; and Representative
Gerald R. Ford, member.
Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Norman Redlich,
assistant counsel.
The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.
Mr. Lane, the last time you were here, we excused you as a witness. You
should be sworn again as a witness.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give before this
Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Mr. LANE. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, please. Mr. Rankin will ask you some
questions that were not entirely cleared up when you were here last
time. Would you proceed?
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, you testified before the Commission the last time
on March 4, did you?
Mr. LANE. Yes; I did.
Mr. RANKIN. And you recall your testimony at that time?
Mr. LANE. Well, it was rather long testimony. I recall portions of it;
yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Do you recall that you were asked about an interview
with Helen Markham?
Mr. LANE. I recall testifying to that; yes. I don't know if I was asked
about it specifically, but I do recall testifying in reference to that
interview.
Mr. RANKIN. If you would care to refer to your testimony at any time,
you are free to do so.
Mr. LANE. Thank you.
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.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you state what the peripheral matter is that you
referred to?
Mr. LANE. It is the matter that Mrs. Oswald called you and spoke with
you on the telephone about yesterday, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. What is that?
Mr. LANE. It is in reference to a matter regarding the son of Mrs.
Markham.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell whatever else there is in regard to that?
Mr. LANE. Mrs. Oswald has specifically requested that--in fact, has
specifically directed me not to discuss that matter publicly--inasmuch
as you have that information--because she talked with me only after she
spoke with you, Mr. Rankin. And when she did speak with me, she told
me what she had told you precisely early in the day she had told me. I
think that the Commission does have that information.
Mr. RANKIN. Are you refusing to disclose it, then?
Mr. LANE. I have a specific direction from Mrs. Oswald, who retained me
in this peripheral matter just yesterday, not to discuss this matter
publicly, sir. She is presently herself involved in investigating this
matter, and told me specifically that any publicity in reference to
this matter would be harmful to her investigation. I would otherwise
be very happy to discuss the matter with you, as I have discussed
everything else quite publicly.
Mr. RANKIN. And that is your reason for not disclosing it at this time?
Mr. LANE. Yes; coupled with the fact that the Commission has this
information, because I assume that Mrs. Oswald did speak with you
yesterday. She told me that she did, and she gave you all the
information she had in this regard. I believe she gave you more
information than she gave to me, as a matter of fact, judging from what
she said to me.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you claim to be acting for Mrs. Oswald on any other
matter than that in connection with her son? That is Helen Markham's
son?
Mr. LANE. At the present time?
Mr. RANKIN. At the present time.
Mr. LANE. No; I am not.
Mr. RANKIN. When did that relationship terminate?
Mr. LANE. I don't recall the exact date, but it was sometime after my
testimony here, which was, I believe, on the 4th of March of this year.
Mr. RANKIN. Can you fix it more precisely?
Mr. LANE. I believe it was within 2 weeks after that date. I did
not bring with me the letter that I wrote to Mrs. Oswald explaining
that I could not function before the Commission as counsel because
the Commission would not permit me to function as counsel, and that
I agreed to serve on a citizen's committee which would conduct an
independent inquiry. And, therefore, since it seemed that there
was nothing further I could do on behalf of the original purpose
of our retainer, that we should probably conclude our professional
relationship as of that time had ended. I believe that is the substance
of the letter that I sent to Mrs. Oswald. And that is within 2 weeks of
March 4.
Representative FORD. Mr. Rankin, may I raise a question about the
language which Mr. Lane uses to the effect that the Commission declined
to permit Mr. Lane to represent Mrs. Oswald?
I think the record before the Commission on this matter will speak for
itself. I think to have the record clear, we ought to have that part of
the Commission proceedings inserted in the record at this point.
Mr. LANE. I would like to correct a mistake that you made, Congressman.
I did not say that I was not permitted to serve as counsel for Mrs.
Oswald before the Commission. I said, I thought quite precisely, that
I had not been permitted by the Commission to serve as counsel to
represent the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald at the request of his
mother, Marguerite Oswald.
Representative FORD. I think we should let the record speak for itself
at the time that this matter was raised before the Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. That portion of the record may be incorporated in this
record at this particular time.
Mr. LANE. 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 Commissioners' 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 the 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. LANE. Well, then I ask also, Mr. Chief Justice, at this point the
letters, exchange of letters between Mr. Rankin and myself, where I
made the request to appear as counsel for the interests of Lee Harvey
Oswald, and where counsel for this Commission said that, Oswald was not
entitled to counsel, or that I could not represent him----
The CHAIRMAN. Let the record speak for itself in that respect, too. The
exchange of letters will be in the record. [See Commission Exhibit No.
1053.]
Mr. LANE. Thank you, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mr. Lane, regarding this tape recording of Helen
Markham, and your interview with her, will you tell the Commission when
you made this?
Mr. LANE. I had a conversation with Mrs. Markham on the 2d day of March
of this year.
Mr. RANKIN. Where was that?
Mr. LANE. I have given the Commission the results of that investigation
to the best of my ability. I think that, again, Mr. Rankin, your
question delves into the functioning of an attorney on behalf of a
client, and, therefore, is not proper, and, therefore, I decline to
answer it.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell the Commission when you made the tape
recording that you referred to?
Mr. LANE. I just answered that question, Mr. Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. And do you refuse to tell, then, anything about that
interview with Helen Markham, how you recorded it?
Mr. LANE. I beg your pardon?
Mr. RANKIN. And how you recorded it?
Mr. LANE. I should think that since this Commission has been appointed
by the President of the United States to secure all of the information
regarding the assassination of President Kennedy and other matters
peripheral to that, the questions asked of me should be related to
information which can be of assistance to the Commission, and should
not be the kind of questions, Mr. Rankin, that you have put to me.
I am happy to tell you every bit of information that I have been able
to secure as a private citizen in trying to discover what took place on
November 22 and the days that followed November 22, but I think that
the very questions that you are putting to me indicates that you are
not interested solely in securing that information, but in placing me,
Mr. Rankin, in a position which is not a good one. And I see this quite
frankly as part of many things that have happened to me since November
22--not November 22, but since I expressed some interest in this case.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, could you tell us whether there was anyone else
present at this interview with Helen Markham that you recorded?
Mr. LANE. I don't believe that I said I recorded it. I believe I said
it was recorded.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it recorded by someone else?
Mr. LANE. I decline to answer any questions, because the questions you
are asking clearly are not for the purpose for which this Commission
has been established. And I tell you that I am amazed, quite frankly,
Mr. Rankin, that the kind of harassment to which I have been subjected
since I became involved in this case continues here in this room--I am
amazed by that.
As you know, and I don't know if this has been placed on the record by
the Commission--in the letter that I wrote to you on May 18, 1964, I
told you that I had been accosted by two agents of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation in front of my own house, and ordered to give to them,
by them--their names being William E. Folkner, his serial number being
5954, and John P. Dimarchi, his serial number being 4256--and ordered
to give to those gentlemen documents in my possession, relating to my
testimony before this Commission.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you do that?
Mr. LANE. I did not give them those documents; no.
Mr. RANKIN. Why not?
Mr. LANE. Does your tone and your question indicate you think I should
have given those documents to agents of the FBI?
Mr. RANKIN. I would like to have you answer the question, if you would.
Mr. LANE. You decline to answer my question?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes; I am examining you.
Mr. LANE. Of course, I did not give them any documents in my
possession. When I deal with any agencies of the Government, I expect
that they will write to me, and if they wish to secure information from
me they will do that in a dignified manner. I am an attorney with an
office in New York. I don't expect to be accosted in front of my house
by agents of the police, Federal, State, or local authorities. Those
are the actions not of a democratic society, but of a police state,
and I decline to believe for one moment that we live in a society
where that behavior is going to be countenanced by any members of this
Commission or by counsel to this Commission.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you offer to furnish them copies if they would write to
you in the manner you suggested?
Mr. LANE. I suggested to those two agents that someone in the office of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation might write to me and that I would
respond courteously, and make available whatever information I could. I
told them, also, as I told you, since I wrote a letter to you covering
this entire matter on May 18th--I told them also that I had testified
fully before this Commission. If they wanted to secure any information
I had, they might contact the Commission. They indicated they were not
interested in the Warren Commission.