Mr. LANE. And that is one of the working documents in my possession.
The CHAIRMAN. How does that become a peripheral matter--the
conversation that you had with Mrs. Markham? What does that have to do
with Mrs. Oswald?
Mr. LANE. I secured that information on behalf of an attorney-client
relationship when I was serving my client, Mrs. Oswald.
The CHAIRMAN. But, Mr. Lane, you at that very time, when you claimed to
be, and when you were, the attorney for Mrs. Oswald, you did come here
and testify concerning that conversation with Mrs. Markham.
Mr. LANE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. NOW, if you testified concerning it then, why can't
you now tell us all the circumstances surrounding that? Why is your
privilege any different now than it was then?
Mr. LANE. I explained to Mrs. Oswald that I had been called to testify
before the Commission as a witness, and that the information which I
had secured I had secured on her behalf, and discussed with her what
it is I was going to tell the Commission, and she agreed and gave me
permission to testify before the Commission as I did.
The CHAIRMAN. And since that time she instructed you not to testify?
Mr. LANE. Since that time, just actually 2 days ago--or perhaps it
was yesterday--she instructed me not to discuss the entire Markham
situation at all, quite specifically, and quite strongly, and
insistently, over my objection.
Mr. RANKIN. Is it your position, then, that you have a right to
disclose part of the information about the Helen Markham matter to the
Commission and you don't have a duty to disclose all of it?
Mr. LANE. I think that when one has a client, one has the right, if
one secures the permission of the client, to release the results
of investigation while retaining the sanctity of working documents
belonging to an attorney; yes.