Post by Rob Caprio on Apr 21, 2022 15:55:05 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
murderpedia.org/male.R/images/ruby_jack_leon/ruby_136.jpg
img.fold3.com/img/thumbnail/416491549/320/400/210_0_320_401.jpg
4.bp.blogspot.com/-G9VQlJ5MHUg/TnxfiGYLU8I/AAAAAAAAAD0/vUKwuZqtcKE/s1600/weissmanB2.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed NO one involved in this case knew each other. This means Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) did NOT know Jack Ruby. Ruby did NOT know Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT), etc…
As we have seen previously in other posts, there is strong evidence showing LHO and Ruby did know each other to some extent, and we have seen the same for Ruby and JDT. Let’s look deeper at this latter connection and look at what Mr. Mark Lane said before the WC regarding a meeting between Ruby and JDT at the Carousel Club on the night of November 14, 1963.
***************************************
Mark Lane testified before the WC and he gave details of a meeting between Jack Ruby, JDT and Bernard Weissman. Weissman was the person who placed an advertisement in the Dallas Morning News on November 22, 1963, asking a series of questions about President John F. Kennedy (JFK). The banner of the advertisement read, "Welcome to Dallas, President Kennedy. Why have you traded the Monroe Doctrine for spirit of Moscow. Why has Gus Hall and the Communist Party endorsed your 1964 election?"
i.ibb.co/LvS9Vmd/Weissman-Welcome-to-Dallas-ad.jpg
Let’s look at Mr. Lane’s testimony regarding this.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, I understand at one time you referred to some meeting in the Carousel Club a week or so before the assassination. Do you have any material on that or any information?
Mr. LANE. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Is there anything you would care to present to the Commission?
Mr. LANE. Yes. I have been informed--and this is the source I will have to check with again in order to secure his testimony.
Mr. RANKIN. You will advise us if you are permitted to.
Mr. LANE. Yes. But I can tell you the substance that a meeting took place on November 14, 1963, in the Carousel Club between Officer Tippit and Bernard Weissman, Mr. Weissman being the gentleman who placed a full-page advertisement in the Dallas Morning News which was printed on November 22, asking a series of questions of President Kennedy. It was addressed "Welcome to Dallas, President Kennedy. Why have you traded the Monroe Doctrine for spirit of Moscow. Why has Gus Hall and the Communist Party endorsed your 1964 election" and such matter. I think these two give a rather clear indication of the kind of advertisement that it was. And I have been informed that Mr. Weissman and Officer Tippit and a third person were present there. I have been given the name of the third person. But for matters which I will make plain to the Commission, I will be pleased to give you the name of the third person as given to me, but not in the presence of the press. I would rather do that in executive session--that one piece of testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. That is satisfactory to do that, if you wish.
Mr. LANE. Thank you, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Is there anything else about that incident that you know and want to tell the Commission at this time?
Mr. LANE. No.
This was it for the first part of Mr. Lane’s testimony. The third person he did NOT want to divulge at that time was Jack Ruby. The WC granted Lane his request and they picked up the event in an Executive Session.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you proceed, Mr. Lane, in executive session now, to describe the names?
Mr. LANE. The third name that I was informed--the person that I was informed was there, the third person, is named Jack Ruby. It was my feeling, of course, while his case was pending it would not be proper to comment on that in the presence of the press.
Mr. RANKIN. You mean the third person in the group apparently conferring?
Mr. LANE. Yes. Tippit, Weissman, and Ruby.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you made any public statement of this kind before on this subject--about this meeting?
Mr. LANE. Not about Ruby--about a meeting between Weissman and Tippit, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. But you never named Ruby publicly?
Mr. LANE. No; I have not. I shall not.
Mark Lane was cooperating and NOT naming Jack Ruby in public. He was getting his information from an informant and he promised to try and get that person to come before the WC’s session as well. Mark Lane said the informant was reliable and responsible person.
Representative FORD. Do you consider the informant a reliable, responsible person?
Mr. LANE. Yes. I cannot vouch, of course, for the information personally, but I believe the informant is a reliable and a responsible person.
Representative FORD. Would your informant be willing, as far as you know--be willing to testify and give the Commission this information directly?
Mr. LANE. I am going to try to arrange that this evening. The Chief Justice has indicated that his name would not be known if he did that, and that I did not know that I could make-that statement to him before now. I hope that will be decisive.
Lane would be called back in September and would NOT give the name of the informant because that person said not to and he had made an oath to him. Look at this exchange by him and then tell me if he is a liar like the WC defenders claim.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, the Commission has asked you a number of times to disclose to it the name of the informant that you said told you about having seen certain persons in the Carousel Club. Are you ready to disclose the name of that informant now?
Mr. LANE. I am ready, but as I told you when I gave you that information at the outset, I gave my word of honor to that person that I would not disclose his name unless he gave me permission to. I have gone to Dallas on two separate occasions to try to secure that permission. I have not been able to secure that permission. Nothing would make me happier than giving you the name of that person; but I have given my word of honor and, therefore, I am unable to give you that name.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you claim any attorney and client relationship with regard to the name of that informant?
Mr. LANE. I think there clearly exists an attorney-client relationship, but that is not the motivating factor in my telling you that I will not disclose the name.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that the basis for your refusal to disclose the name?
Mr. LANE. Obviously if I say yes, you cannot pursue this, but I must tell you honestly that is not the reason.
Mr. Lane could have LIED and said the informant’s name was protected by attorney-client privilege and there would have been nothing the WC could have done, but he did NOT lie and told the truth. Does this sound like the liar the WC defenders claim he is?
He also tells them he could have stayed in Europe until the WC’s work was done to avoid them, but he left Europe and came to them despite them NOT being able to supoena him while he was in Europe. Does this sound like a dishonest man?
Mr. RANKIN. Then I ask you to disclose the name of the informant.
Mr. LANE. I cannot. I have given my word to that person that I would not disclose his name.
Mr. RANKIN. You know that is no legal justification, do you not?
Mr. LANE. I know that is true. There is no legal justification. I know that I am not here under subpoena. I know that you wrote to me while I was in Europe, although you have the power of subpoena--you do not have the power to subpoena me while I was in Europe. I know the Commission will complete its work very likely within the next 2 weeks. I could have easily remained in Europe until the Commission had completed its work.
I knew you were calling me here today in reference to that specific matter because you said so in your letter to we. So I have come here voluntarily to cooperate with the Commission to the very best of my ability, and not to rely upon any legal superstructure to protect my answers.
I told this Commission at the outset that I had given my word to this person, and I would not reveal his name. The Commission led me to believe at that time that it would honor that understanding, and the record, I think, so reveals that. If the Commission is prepared.
Mr. Lane stood his ground and refused to give the informant’s name despite the WC demanding him to. Does this sound like a man of NO integrity like the WC defenders claim? Also, look at this great answer to a very insulting attack by the WC’s lawyer Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. The Commission has a number of times asked you by correspondence to disclose the name of that informant, and it now asks you in this proceeding, while you are under oath, to make that disclosure.
Mr. LANE. I will not do so, Mr. Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you realize that the information you gave in closed session could have an unfavorable effect upon your country's interests in connection with this assassination and your failure to disclose the name of your informant would do further injury?
Mr. LANE. Mr. Rankin, I am astonished to hear that statement from you. There are 180 million Americans in this country. I am perhaps the only one who is a private citizen who has taken off the last 6 months to devote all of his efforts to securing whatever information can be found, and to making that known to this Commission, and publicly to the people of this country at great personal cost in terms of the harassment that I have suffered, in terms of the terrible financial losses that I have suffered. And to sit here today, after 6 months of this work, which I have given all to this Commission, voluntarily, and again have come here again today voluntarily to give you this information, and to hear you say that I am not cooperating with the Commission, and I am going to do harm to the country by not making information available to you astonishes me.
You have hundreds of agents of the FBI running all over the Dallas area--agents of the Secret Service, Dallas policemen. Are you telling me that in one trip to Dallas where I spent something like 2 days, I uncovered information which the whole police force of this Nation has not yet in 6 months been able to secure? I cannot believe that is a valid assessment of this situation. I cannot, Mr. Rankin.
Here, here Mr. Lane! He found this informant in TWO DAYS, but the WC with all of their assets at their disposal cannot find the person in six months! Sure. They did NOT want to find him obviously as this lead to areas they did NOT want to go to.
The WC of course took this as an excuse NOT to pursue the whole matter (which is what they wanted anyway), but can anyone really think they would have done anything even if he broke his oath and given them the name given their horrible track record in this area? Mark Lane got this final jab in too.
Mr. LANE. …Frankly, quite frankly, matters which have been given to this Commission in utmost confidence have appeared in the daily newspapers, and one cannot feel with great security that giving information to this Commission, even at secret hearings, means that the information will not be broadcast, and this is the problem which confronts us at the present time.
The WC was not trustworthy on many levels. Mr. Lane also tells us what happened to people who questioned the Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) did all by himself theory too.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you have it in any kind of a written form; the additional testimony or evidence that you refer to?
Mr. LANE. I cannot tell you that until Monday. In addition to that, as I told you when we spoke on the phone 2 days ago, and you suggested that I raise this matter before the Commission, I am deeply concerned about the fact that since I have become involved in this matter, and since I testified before this Commission, the U.S. Department of Immigration has placed my name in their immigration book, on the proscribed list, and that when I returned to this country, in response to your invitation to come here and testify before this Commission, I was halted by the immigration authorities because my name appeared in that proscribed list.
Mr. RANKIN. And I told you at that time on the telephone, didn't I, that the Commission had nothing to do with that? Is that right?
Mr. LANE. You did tell me that, and I ask you if you would be good enough to find out, since I did not accuse the Commission of having my name listed there, of course to find out if my name was listed in relationship to the inquiry which I have conducted, and the testimony that I have given to this Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. Were you prevented from entering the United States?
Mr. LANE. No; I am here now. Mr. Chief Justice, but I was stopped.
The CHAIRMAN. How long were you detained? Were you detained?
Mr. LANE. Oh, just for a few minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. How many minutes?
Mr. LANE. Oh, perhaps 5. My objection is not to the period of time.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the question asked of you?
Mr. LANE. Just to wait.
This is a minor example of what happened to people who criticized the early claims of the WC and the authorities. Bernard Weissman was called before the WC and he denied ever going to the Carousel Club when in Dallas.
Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted with the Carousel Club when you were in Dallas?
Mr. WEISSMAN. I was never in it, and I still don't know where it is.
He would also deny knowing Jack Ruby.
Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein?
Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.
Ditto JDT or the meeting Mr. Lane mentioned.
Mr. JENNER. Had you ever heard of the name Officer Tippit?
Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.
Mr. JENNER. Did you at anytime while you were in Dallas ever have a meeting with or sit in the Carousel Club with Officer Tippit?
Mr. WEISSMAN. No.
Weissman’s testimony then goes into a long attack on Mr. Lane that the WC was only happy to foster. We would learn more from Mr. Lane when his book Rush To Judgment came out in 1966. In chapter 20 titled “The Meeting” he goes into more details about this alleged meeting. He states the following in his book about this event.
Quote on
The information came to me from a witness to the alleged meeting. The Commission was right in asserting that I declined to give witness’s name because of my promise not to do so without his permission. I was unable to obtain his permission. But if the Commission had wanted his name, it need only have asked one of its witnesses, Thayer Waldo, a reputable journalist on the staff of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, who was questioned by counsel in Dallas on June 27, 1964. Waldo, from whom I originally had heard of the meeting, was well acquainted with the witness and was probably the first person to be told of the circumstances under which it occurred. Counsel, however, did NOT ask Waldo about the meeting. (Mark Lane, Rush To Judgment, p. 249) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
Mr. Lane added a footnote that contained the following:
Quote on
Waldo’s informant, widely known and respected in Dallas, knew Jack Ruby well. He was a frequent visitor to Ruby’s Club—not because of the strip show, but because of his involvement with one of the dancers. He understandably did not want his visits to the Carousel to attract excessive attention: he was a married man and his girlfriend had become pregnant. Ruby was sympathetic to his patron’s problem, buying him a beer or two on each occasion he came to the club. But on Thursday night, November 14, Ruby was not so solicitous. Ruby, according to Waldo’s informant, sat down at a table with J.D. Tippit and Bernard Weissman. The three engaged in what appeared to be a serious discussion and were still huddled around the table when he left the club about two hours later. (Ibid.)
Quote off
If you look at Waldo’s WC testimony you will not find the names Weissman or Tippit anywhere. They simply ignored this alleged meeting with him. By the time the WC got around to asking Ruby they added a fourth “rich oil man” to the meeting.
Mr. RANKIN. There was a story that you were seen sitting in your Carousel Club with Mr. Weissman, Officer Tippit, and another who has been called a rich oil man, at one time shortly before the assassination. Can you tell us anything about that?
Mr. RUBY. Who was the rich oil man?
I think Ruby’s initial reaction is very telling. It seems he remembers a meeting, but NOT a rich oil man being present. Chief Warren then says this.
Chief Justice WARREN. This story was given by a lawyer by the name of Mark Lane, who is representing Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, the mother of Lee Harvey Oswald, and it was in the paper, so we subpenaed him, and he testified that someone had given him information to the effect that a week or two before President Kennedy was assassinated, that in your Carousel Club you and Weissman and Tippit, Officer Tippit, the one who was killed, and a rich oil man had an interview or conversation for an hour or two.
And we asked him who it was that told him, and he said that it was confidential and he couldn't tell at the moment, but that he would find out for us if whether he could be released or not from his confidential relationship.
He has never done it, and we have written him several letters asking him to disclose the name of that person, and he has never complied.
Mr. Lane wrote this in his book about the above comment.
Quote on
The Chief Justice made six errors in his statement:
One, I gave no such story to the Commission, as the transcript of my testimony clearly indicates;
Two, I did not represent Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, but was retained by her to represent the interests of her son before the Commission and affidavit I filed with the Commission stated the nature of that legal relationship with painstaking clarity;
Three, the story of the meeting with Ruby, which I reported first to the Commission on March 4, 1964, was NOT published in any newspaper prior to that date;
Four, I was NOT supoenaed to appear before the Commission but testified voluntarily;
Five, I did NOT state that the meeting occurred “a week or two before President Kennedy was assassinated” but specifically cited November 14;
Six, I did NOT testify that a “rich oil man”—a creature of the Commission—was present at the meeting, a fact fully confirmed by the Commission’s discussion of my testimony in its Report. (Ibid., pp. 255-256) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
I would recommend this to anyone to read as the WC tried to brush this off as hearsay, but Ruby kept asking questions about this meeting like this.
Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Ruby, I am not questioning your story at all. I wanted you to know the background of this thing, and to know that it was with us only hearsay. But I did feel that our record should show that we would ask you the question and that you would answer it, and you have answered it.
Mr. RUBY. How many days prior to the assassination was that?
Chief Justice WARREN. My recollection is that it was a week or two. Is that correct?
Mr. RUBY. Did anyone have any knowledge that their beloved President was going to visit here prior to that time, or what is the definite time that they knew he was coming to Dallas?
Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I don't know just what those dates are.
Mr. RUBY. I see.
We can see the WC used chicanery to try and bury this story given to them by a man who spent six months investigating this event (something we wish the Dallas Police Department and the FBI did). The WC used falsehoods and tricks to distort what was said to them in an effort to try and get it explained away.
We have some more evidence to weigh. Bruce Carlin, husband of Karen Carlin who was a Ruby entertainer, testified before the WC about Weissman.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you know a man by the name of Bernard Weissman?
Mr. CARLIN. No; I didn't know him. I had heard of him and recalled it after an FBI agent asked me about him.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I show you two pictures also marked--I had marked them "Dallas" first and have scratched that out and have marked them "Fort Worth, Tex., August 24, 1964, Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4, Deposition of Bruce Carlin", and to which I have signed my name. These pictures, of course, purport to be various views of Bernard Weissman, also being FBI pictures, and I ask you if you have ever seen that man before?
Mr. CARLIN. This man does look familiar as I told the FBI agent, but I cannot say if I've seen him or where I've seen him, if I had.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you ever see him in connection with Ruby?
Mr. CARLIN. I can't say--it just seems as though I have seen this man before.
Mr. HUBERT. You don't remember where?
Mr. CARLIN. No; I don't even remember if I've seen him. I just know he looks familiar.
Mr. HUBERT. All right, sir. I thank you. That's all.
Mr. CARLIN. Very good.
True, he couldn’t say he definitely saw Weissman at the club, but he did say he looked familiar several times and added, “it just seems as though I have seen this man before.” Why would he look so familiar IF he had never seen him before? Where else do you think he would have seen him if NOT at Ruby's club?
We see he did NOT say he had recognized JDT from the photographs he was shown.
Mr. HUBERT. I do mean Fort Worth, and I am scratching "Dallas" out and putting "Fort Worth" there, and I have previously marked "Dallas" on all of these pictures, but I have scratched it out and entered above it "Fort Worth, Tex., August 24, 1964, Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, Deposition of Bruce Carlin", and to which I have signed my name.
These are FBI pictures of J. D. Tippit and I ask you whether or not you recognize that man?
Mr. CARLIN (examining instruments referred to). No; I do not recognize him.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you think you've ever seen him before?
Mr. CARLIN. I couldn't say. I've been shown these pictures once before.
So we can’t say he just identified every picture shown to him.
This meeting, if it occurred, and we can’t say it didn’t based on the evidence we have, could be vital to the solving of the case. Who could Weissman have been representing at that meeting? As we have seen previously in other posts, there was some evidence tying Ruby and JDT together that cannot just be explained away. Since JDT’s murder occurred close to Ruby’s apartment that causes more questions to be asked.
We can also clearly see that Waldo could have provided the WC with a clearer picture of this event and they chose to avoid that all costs. The answer to the question why has only one answer.
murderpedia.org/male.R/images/ruby_jack_leon/ruby_136.jpg
img.fold3.com/img/thumbnail/416491549/320/400/210_0_320_401.jpg
4.bp.blogspot.com/-G9VQlJ5MHUg/TnxfiGYLU8I/AAAAAAAAAD0/vUKwuZqtcKE/s1600/weissmanB2.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed NO one involved in this case knew each other. This means Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) did NOT know Jack Ruby. Ruby did NOT know Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT), etc…
As we have seen previously in other posts, there is strong evidence showing LHO and Ruby did know each other to some extent, and we have seen the same for Ruby and JDT. Let’s look deeper at this latter connection and look at what Mr. Mark Lane said before the WC regarding a meeting between Ruby and JDT at the Carousel Club on the night of November 14, 1963.
***************************************
Mark Lane testified before the WC and he gave details of a meeting between Jack Ruby, JDT and Bernard Weissman. Weissman was the person who placed an advertisement in the Dallas Morning News on November 22, 1963, asking a series of questions about President John F. Kennedy (JFK). The banner of the advertisement read, "Welcome to Dallas, President Kennedy. Why have you traded the Monroe Doctrine for spirit of Moscow. Why has Gus Hall and the Communist Party endorsed your 1964 election?"
i.ibb.co/LvS9Vmd/Weissman-Welcome-to-Dallas-ad.jpg
Let’s look at Mr. Lane’s testimony regarding this.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, I understand at one time you referred to some meeting in the Carousel Club a week or so before the assassination. Do you have any material on that or any information?
Mr. LANE. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Is there anything you would care to present to the Commission?
Mr. LANE. Yes. I have been informed--and this is the source I will have to check with again in order to secure his testimony.
Mr. RANKIN. You will advise us if you are permitted to.
Mr. LANE. Yes. But I can tell you the substance that a meeting took place on November 14, 1963, in the Carousel Club between Officer Tippit and Bernard Weissman, Mr. Weissman being the gentleman who placed a full-page advertisement in the Dallas Morning News which was printed on November 22, asking a series of questions of President Kennedy. It was addressed "Welcome to Dallas, President Kennedy. Why have you traded the Monroe Doctrine for spirit of Moscow. Why has Gus Hall and the Communist Party endorsed your 1964 election" and such matter. I think these two give a rather clear indication of the kind of advertisement that it was. And I have been informed that Mr. Weissman and Officer Tippit and a third person were present there. I have been given the name of the third person. But for matters which I will make plain to the Commission, I will be pleased to give you the name of the third person as given to me, but not in the presence of the press. I would rather do that in executive session--that one piece of testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. That is satisfactory to do that, if you wish.
Mr. LANE. Thank you, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Is there anything else about that incident that you know and want to tell the Commission at this time?
Mr. LANE. No.
This was it for the first part of Mr. Lane’s testimony. The third person he did NOT want to divulge at that time was Jack Ruby. The WC granted Lane his request and they picked up the event in an Executive Session.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you proceed, Mr. Lane, in executive session now, to describe the names?
Mr. LANE. The third name that I was informed--the person that I was informed was there, the third person, is named Jack Ruby. It was my feeling, of course, while his case was pending it would not be proper to comment on that in the presence of the press.
Mr. RANKIN. You mean the third person in the group apparently conferring?
Mr. LANE. Yes. Tippit, Weissman, and Ruby.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you made any public statement of this kind before on this subject--about this meeting?
Mr. LANE. Not about Ruby--about a meeting between Weissman and Tippit, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. But you never named Ruby publicly?
Mr. LANE. No; I have not. I shall not.
Mark Lane was cooperating and NOT naming Jack Ruby in public. He was getting his information from an informant and he promised to try and get that person to come before the WC’s session as well. Mark Lane said the informant was reliable and responsible person.
Representative FORD. Do you consider the informant a reliable, responsible person?
Mr. LANE. Yes. I cannot vouch, of course, for the information personally, but I believe the informant is a reliable and a responsible person.
Representative FORD. Would your informant be willing, as far as you know--be willing to testify and give the Commission this information directly?
Mr. LANE. I am going to try to arrange that this evening. The Chief Justice has indicated that his name would not be known if he did that, and that I did not know that I could make-that statement to him before now. I hope that will be decisive.
Lane would be called back in September and would NOT give the name of the informant because that person said not to and he had made an oath to him. Look at this exchange by him and then tell me if he is a liar like the WC defenders claim.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, the Commission has asked you a number of times to disclose to it the name of the informant that you said told you about having seen certain persons in the Carousel Club. Are you ready to disclose the name of that informant now?
Mr. LANE. I am ready, but as I told you when I gave you that information at the outset, I gave my word of honor to that person that I would not disclose his name unless he gave me permission to. I have gone to Dallas on two separate occasions to try to secure that permission. I have not been able to secure that permission. Nothing would make me happier than giving you the name of that person; but I have given my word of honor and, therefore, I am unable to give you that name.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you claim any attorney and client relationship with regard to the name of that informant?
Mr. LANE. I think there clearly exists an attorney-client relationship, but that is not the motivating factor in my telling you that I will not disclose the name.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that the basis for your refusal to disclose the name?
Mr. LANE. Obviously if I say yes, you cannot pursue this, but I must tell you honestly that is not the reason.
Mr. Lane could have LIED and said the informant’s name was protected by attorney-client privilege and there would have been nothing the WC could have done, but he did NOT lie and told the truth. Does this sound like the liar the WC defenders claim he is?
He also tells them he could have stayed in Europe until the WC’s work was done to avoid them, but he left Europe and came to them despite them NOT being able to supoena him while he was in Europe. Does this sound like a dishonest man?
Mr. RANKIN. Then I ask you to disclose the name of the informant.
Mr. LANE. I cannot. I have given my word to that person that I would not disclose his name.
Mr. RANKIN. You know that is no legal justification, do you not?
Mr. LANE. I know that is true. There is no legal justification. I know that I am not here under subpoena. I know that you wrote to me while I was in Europe, although you have the power of subpoena--you do not have the power to subpoena me while I was in Europe. I know the Commission will complete its work very likely within the next 2 weeks. I could have easily remained in Europe until the Commission had completed its work.
I knew you were calling me here today in reference to that specific matter because you said so in your letter to we. So I have come here voluntarily to cooperate with the Commission to the very best of my ability, and not to rely upon any legal superstructure to protect my answers.
I told this Commission at the outset that I had given my word to this person, and I would not reveal his name. The Commission led me to believe at that time that it would honor that understanding, and the record, I think, so reveals that. If the Commission is prepared.
Mr. Lane stood his ground and refused to give the informant’s name despite the WC demanding him to. Does this sound like a man of NO integrity like the WC defenders claim? Also, look at this great answer to a very insulting attack by the WC’s lawyer Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. The Commission has a number of times asked you by correspondence to disclose the name of that informant, and it now asks you in this proceeding, while you are under oath, to make that disclosure.
Mr. LANE. I will not do so, Mr. Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you realize that the information you gave in closed session could have an unfavorable effect upon your country's interests in connection with this assassination and your failure to disclose the name of your informant would do further injury?
Mr. LANE. Mr. Rankin, I am astonished to hear that statement from you. There are 180 million Americans in this country. I am perhaps the only one who is a private citizen who has taken off the last 6 months to devote all of his efforts to securing whatever information can be found, and to making that known to this Commission, and publicly to the people of this country at great personal cost in terms of the harassment that I have suffered, in terms of the terrible financial losses that I have suffered. And to sit here today, after 6 months of this work, which I have given all to this Commission, voluntarily, and again have come here again today voluntarily to give you this information, and to hear you say that I am not cooperating with the Commission, and I am going to do harm to the country by not making information available to you astonishes me.
You have hundreds of agents of the FBI running all over the Dallas area--agents of the Secret Service, Dallas policemen. Are you telling me that in one trip to Dallas where I spent something like 2 days, I uncovered information which the whole police force of this Nation has not yet in 6 months been able to secure? I cannot believe that is a valid assessment of this situation. I cannot, Mr. Rankin.
Here, here Mr. Lane! He found this informant in TWO DAYS, but the WC with all of their assets at their disposal cannot find the person in six months! Sure. They did NOT want to find him obviously as this lead to areas they did NOT want to go to.
The WC of course took this as an excuse NOT to pursue the whole matter (which is what they wanted anyway), but can anyone really think they would have done anything even if he broke his oath and given them the name given their horrible track record in this area? Mark Lane got this final jab in too.
Mr. LANE. …Frankly, quite frankly, matters which have been given to this Commission in utmost confidence have appeared in the daily newspapers, and one cannot feel with great security that giving information to this Commission, even at secret hearings, means that the information will not be broadcast, and this is the problem which confronts us at the present time.
The WC was not trustworthy on many levels. Mr. Lane also tells us what happened to people who questioned the Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) did all by himself theory too.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you have it in any kind of a written form; the additional testimony or evidence that you refer to?
Mr. LANE. I cannot tell you that until Monday. In addition to that, as I told you when we spoke on the phone 2 days ago, and you suggested that I raise this matter before the Commission, I am deeply concerned about the fact that since I have become involved in this matter, and since I testified before this Commission, the U.S. Department of Immigration has placed my name in their immigration book, on the proscribed list, and that when I returned to this country, in response to your invitation to come here and testify before this Commission, I was halted by the immigration authorities because my name appeared in that proscribed list.
Mr. RANKIN. And I told you at that time on the telephone, didn't I, that the Commission had nothing to do with that? Is that right?
Mr. LANE. You did tell me that, and I ask you if you would be good enough to find out, since I did not accuse the Commission of having my name listed there, of course to find out if my name was listed in relationship to the inquiry which I have conducted, and the testimony that I have given to this Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. Were you prevented from entering the United States?
Mr. LANE. No; I am here now. Mr. Chief Justice, but I was stopped.
The CHAIRMAN. How long were you detained? Were you detained?
Mr. LANE. Oh, just for a few minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. How many minutes?
Mr. LANE. Oh, perhaps 5. My objection is not to the period of time.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the question asked of you?
Mr. LANE. Just to wait.
This is a minor example of what happened to people who criticized the early claims of the WC and the authorities. Bernard Weissman was called before the WC and he denied ever going to the Carousel Club when in Dallas.
Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted with the Carousel Club when you were in Dallas?
Mr. WEISSMAN. I was never in it, and I still don't know where it is.
He would also deny knowing Jack Ruby.
Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein?
Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.
Ditto JDT or the meeting Mr. Lane mentioned.
Mr. JENNER. Had you ever heard of the name Officer Tippit?
Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.
Mr. JENNER. Did you at anytime while you were in Dallas ever have a meeting with or sit in the Carousel Club with Officer Tippit?
Mr. WEISSMAN. No.
Weissman’s testimony then goes into a long attack on Mr. Lane that the WC was only happy to foster. We would learn more from Mr. Lane when his book Rush To Judgment came out in 1966. In chapter 20 titled “The Meeting” he goes into more details about this alleged meeting. He states the following in his book about this event.
Quote on
The information came to me from a witness to the alleged meeting. The Commission was right in asserting that I declined to give witness’s name because of my promise not to do so without his permission. I was unable to obtain his permission. But if the Commission had wanted his name, it need only have asked one of its witnesses, Thayer Waldo, a reputable journalist on the staff of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, who was questioned by counsel in Dallas on June 27, 1964. Waldo, from whom I originally had heard of the meeting, was well acquainted with the witness and was probably the first person to be told of the circumstances under which it occurred. Counsel, however, did NOT ask Waldo about the meeting. (Mark Lane, Rush To Judgment, p. 249) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
Mr. Lane added a footnote that contained the following:
Quote on
Waldo’s informant, widely known and respected in Dallas, knew Jack Ruby well. He was a frequent visitor to Ruby’s Club—not because of the strip show, but because of his involvement with one of the dancers. He understandably did not want his visits to the Carousel to attract excessive attention: he was a married man and his girlfriend had become pregnant. Ruby was sympathetic to his patron’s problem, buying him a beer or two on each occasion he came to the club. But on Thursday night, November 14, Ruby was not so solicitous. Ruby, according to Waldo’s informant, sat down at a table with J.D. Tippit and Bernard Weissman. The three engaged in what appeared to be a serious discussion and were still huddled around the table when he left the club about two hours later. (Ibid.)
Quote off
If you look at Waldo’s WC testimony you will not find the names Weissman or Tippit anywhere. They simply ignored this alleged meeting with him. By the time the WC got around to asking Ruby they added a fourth “rich oil man” to the meeting.
Mr. RANKIN. There was a story that you were seen sitting in your Carousel Club with Mr. Weissman, Officer Tippit, and another who has been called a rich oil man, at one time shortly before the assassination. Can you tell us anything about that?
Mr. RUBY. Who was the rich oil man?
I think Ruby’s initial reaction is very telling. It seems he remembers a meeting, but NOT a rich oil man being present. Chief Warren then says this.
Chief Justice WARREN. This story was given by a lawyer by the name of Mark Lane, who is representing Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, the mother of Lee Harvey Oswald, and it was in the paper, so we subpenaed him, and he testified that someone had given him information to the effect that a week or two before President Kennedy was assassinated, that in your Carousel Club you and Weissman and Tippit, Officer Tippit, the one who was killed, and a rich oil man had an interview or conversation for an hour or two.
And we asked him who it was that told him, and he said that it was confidential and he couldn't tell at the moment, but that he would find out for us if whether he could be released or not from his confidential relationship.
He has never done it, and we have written him several letters asking him to disclose the name of that person, and he has never complied.
Mr. Lane wrote this in his book about the above comment.
Quote on
The Chief Justice made six errors in his statement:
One, I gave no such story to the Commission, as the transcript of my testimony clearly indicates;
Two, I did not represent Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, but was retained by her to represent the interests of her son before the Commission and affidavit I filed with the Commission stated the nature of that legal relationship with painstaking clarity;
Three, the story of the meeting with Ruby, which I reported first to the Commission on March 4, 1964, was NOT published in any newspaper prior to that date;
Four, I was NOT supoenaed to appear before the Commission but testified voluntarily;
Five, I did NOT state that the meeting occurred “a week or two before President Kennedy was assassinated” but specifically cited November 14;
Six, I did NOT testify that a “rich oil man”—a creature of the Commission—was present at the meeting, a fact fully confirmed by the Commission’s discussion of my testimony in its Report. (Ibid., pp. 255-256) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
I would recommend this to anyone to read as the WC tried to brush this off as hearsay, but Ruby kept asking questions about this meeting like this.
Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Ruby, I am not questioning your story at all. I wanted you to know the background of this thing, and to know that it was with us only hearsay. But I did feel that our record should show that we would ask you the question and that you would answer it, and you have answered it.
Mr. RUBY. How many days prior to the assassination was that?
Chief Justice WARREN. My recollection is that it was a week or two. Is that correct?
Mr. RUBY. Did anyone have any knowledge that their beloved President was going to visit here prior to that time, or what is the definite time that they knew he was coming to Dallas?
Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I don't know just what those dates are.
Mr. RUBY. I see.
We can see the WC used chicanery to try and bury this story given to them by a man who spent six months investigating this event (something we wish the Dallas Police Department and the FBI did). The WC used falsehoods and tricks to distort what was said to them in an effort to try and get it explained away.
We have some more evidence to weigh. Bruce Carlin, husband of Karen Carlin who was a Ruby entertainer, testified before the WC about Weissman.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you know a man by the name of Bernard Weissman?
Mr. CARLIN. No; I didn't know him. I had heard of him and recalled it after an FBI agent asked me about him.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I show you two pictures also marked--I had marked them "Dallas" first and have scratched that out and have marked them "Fort Worth, Tex., August 24, 1964, Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4, Deposition of Bruce Carlin", and to which I have signed my name. These pictures, of course, purport to be various views of Bernard Weissman, also being FBI pictures, and I ask you if you have ever seen that man before?
Mr. CARLIN. This man does look familiar as I told the FBI agent, but I cannot say if I've seen him or where I've seen him, if I had.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you ever see him in connection with Ruby?
Mr. CARLIN. I can't say--it just seems as though I have seen this man before.
Mr. HUBERT. You don't remember where?
Mr. CARLIN. No; I don't even remember if I've seen him. I just know he looks familiar.
Mr. HUBERT. All right, sir. I thank you. That's all.
Mr. CARLIN. Very good.
True, he couldn’t say he definitely saw Weissman at the club, but he did say he looked familiar several times and added, “it just seems as though I have seen this man before.” Why would he look so familiar IF he had never seen him before? Where else do you think he would have seen him if NOT at Ruby's club?
We see he did NOT say he had recognized JDT from the photographs he was shown.
Mr. HUBERT. I do mean Fort Worth, and I am scratching "Dallas" out and putting "Fort Worth" there, and I have previously marked "Dallas" on all of these pictures, but I have scratched it out and entered above it "Fort Worth, Tex., August 24, 1964, Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, Deposition of Bruce Carlin", and to which I have signed my name.
These are FBI pictures of J. D. Tippit and I ask you whether or not you recognize that man?
Mr. CARLIN (examining instruments referred to). No; I do not recognize him.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you think you've ever seen him before?
Mr. CARLIN. I couldn't say. I've been shown these pictures once before.
So we can’t say he just identified every picture shown to him.
This meeting, if it occurred, and we can’t say it didn’t based on the evidence we have, could be vital to the solving of the case. Who could Weissman have been representing at that meeting? As we have seen previously in other posts, there was some evidence tying Ruby and JDT together that cannot just be explained away. Since JDT’s murder occurred close to Ruby’s apartment that causes more questions to be asked.
We can also clearly see that Waldo could have provided the WC with a clearer picture of this event and they chose to avoid that all costs. The answer to the question why has only one answer.