The Early Mark Lane

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-early-mark-lane

The Early Mark Lane

Here is a document from 1962 about Mark Lane written by five residents in New York, including one of his former law partners.

"Any number of persons in the very community he represents are scathing in their denunciation of the quality of his legal representation and his preoccupation with self-glorification."

[Michael Capasse]

  It doesn't mean any more than this.
In fact, this is much worse...

Bitter ‘Milkman’ Issue Again Haunts Bugliosi
https://www.cielodrive.com/archive/bitter-milkman-issue-again-haunts-bugliosi/

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It doesn't mean any more than this.
In fact, this is much worse...

Bitter ‘Milkman’ Issue Again Haunts Bugliosi
https://www.cielodrive.com/archive/bitter-milkman-issue-again-haunts-bugliosi/

How is citing allegations against Bugliosi a response to the allegations against Lane? The post is about Lane not Bugliosi.

If someone posted allegations against Bugliosi and the response was to cite allegations against Lane or Garrison or Salandria would you think that's a response to the Bugliosi allegations? No, you would see it's a dodge, an attempt to change the topic. Which it would be. Just like what you are doing.

More important, Bugliosi was not going around the country for decades accusing people of murder and conspiracy. Very serious charges. Essentially treason. Lane was doing all of that. He spent decades screwing up college kids minds with his lies and falsehoods. It's Lane's credibility that is the question not Bugliosi's. And there's a long, long series of serious allegations - not just this one - that were made against Lane.

And despite your efforts, this *does* go to the credibility of a person, of their integrity and honesty. Do you think person "A" with a series of questions about their honesty is just as credible as person "B" with no questions about their integrity? Everyone is going to be more skeptical of person "A" then "B". Rightly so.

[Michael Capasse]

How is citing allegations against Bugliosi a response to the allegations against Lane? The post is about Lane not Bugliosi.

If someone posted allegations against Bugliosi and the response was to cite allegations against Lane or Garrison or Salandria would you think that's a response to the Bugliosi allegations? No, you would see it's a dodge, an attempt to change the topic. Which it would be. Just like what you are doing.

More important, Bugliosi was not going around the country for decades accusing people of murder and conspiracy. Very serious charges. Essentially treason. Lane was doing all of that. He spent decades screwing up college kids minds with his lies and falsehoods. It's Lane's credibility that is the question not Bugliosi's. And there's a long, long series of serious allegations - not just this one - that were made against Lane.

And despite your efforts, this *does* go to the credibility of a person, of their integrity and honesty. Do you think person "A" with a series of questions about their honesty is just as credible as person "B" with no questions about their integrity? Everyone is going to be more skeptical of person "A" then "B". Rightly so.

This thread is about unnecessary slander

[Tommy Shanks]

It's not unnecessary if it's true, which in this case it is. How about responding to the original post instead of trying to muddy the waters with unrelated comparisons?

[Michael Capasse]

It's not unnecessary if it's true, which in this case it is. How about responding to the original post instead of trying to muddy the waters with unrelated comparisons?

  it is completely related
...and no need to start yet another gas-lighted thread.

[Royell Storing]

How is citing allegations against Bugliosi a response to the allegations against Lane? The post is about Lane not Bugliosi.

If someone posted allegations against Bugliosi and the response was to cite allegations against Lane or Garrison or Salandria would you think that's a response to the Bugliosi allegations? No, you would see it's a dodge, an attempt to change the topic. Which it would be. Just like what you are doing.

More important, Bugliosi was not going around the country for decades accusing people of murder and conspiracy. Very serious charges. Essentially treason. Lane was doing all of that. He spent decades screwing up college kids minds with his lies and falsehoods. It's Lane's credibility that is the question not Bugliosi's. And there's a long, long series of serious allegations - not just this one - that were made against Lane.

And despite your efforts, this *does* go to the credibility of a person, of their integrity and honesty. Do you think person "A" with a series of questions about their honesty is just as credible as person "B" with no questions about their integrity? Everyone is going to be more skeptical of person "A" then "B". Rightly so.

 You need to remember the timelines of Lane vs Bugliosi. Bugliosi had a wide open "media" field to help proffer his claims. Mark Lane was extremely limited in that regard. Same goes for Josiah Thompson. You have lost all "context" here. This frequently happens with an almost 62 yr old case.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Mark Lane's 1970 book Conversations with Americans: Testimony from 32 Vietnam Veterans was exposed as fraudulent and grossly misleading. Even leading anti-war journalist Neil Sheehan excoriated Lane for his shoddy research and falsehoods in the book.