Alternative sourcing
Given that this is an article about Mark Lane, why don't we look for reliable secondary sources that discuss Lane and his views of the Warren Commission? For example, page 75 to 76 in Conspiracy Theory in Film, Television, and Politics by  Gordon B. Arnold (not the Gordon Arnold in Earl Golz's report, by the way) appears to present a neutrally worded discussion stating what Lane perceived the Warren Commission had done. While this source is not a history teacher, he is an academic who has been published in reliable sources and most importantly, he actually attributes Lane's views to Lane.