Here is an article from the Biloxi Daily Herald from April 29, 1967:
The article says that "In accordance with the Louisiana Bar's wishes, Lane was forced not to comment on the current Garrison investigation," while at the hotel, but he had no problem telling the Biloxi Daily Herald that "David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, and Oswald were together at meetings in New Orleans to plan the assassination."
"I never saw credible evidence which convinced me that he [Clay Shaw] had ever used the alias. [of Bertrand]"
"In the film David Ferrie is questioned by Jim Garrison. Garrison is suspicious, but Ferrie denies any complicity in the murder. In the film Ferrie has a second meeting with Garrison at which members of his staff are also present. In an unforgettable scene, which becomes the linchpin of the film and establishes Shaw's guilt, the actor portraying Ferrie has a nervous breakdown before the eyes of the audience, confesses his own guilt and implicates Shaw in the murder as well. If you are not as yet convinced, Stone, in a rather heavy-handed scene, resorts to a flashback in which we actually see Shaw and Ferrie plotting the crime. It is impressive. It is conclusive. It is a fabrication."
Why was Lane so certain in 1967 that Shaw was guilty?
In fact, here is an excerpt from an interview from April 3, 1967 on WYES New Orleans:
Update
Lane had earlier made similar comments in New Orleans and there was some controversy:
New Orleans Times-Picayune, April 2, 1967
Previous Relevant Posts on Mark Lane