Articles-The Second Oswald: the Case for a Conspiracy Theory

Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.

a review of Epstein's book stated July 3, "but no other explanation as any sense." If we are to give up official explanation, what can we in its place? A two-assassin the- A conspiracy? If so, what did en? What role did Oswald play? can the hard facts be accounted As Knebel quotes Allen Dulles, they've found another assassin, let name names and produce their ence."

fortunately one has only the twenty volumes of data to work with. most of this was collected either reference to the theory that Oswald

the lone assassin, or in distress theory. Clues that might help specimen are few and far between. For instance, there are indications in the materials supplied by the Dallas police that other suspects were arrested on November 22, 1963, but except for Molina, or was not involved, they are never identified. We learn that shortly before assassination someone had an epineic fit in front of the Book Depository, and that this caused much confusion and commotion. Right after the voting, the Dallas Police rushed someone over to Parkland Hospital to tell out about this. But we don't learn whether it was a diversion or a genuin illness, whether it was significant in coincidence (17:465, 22:599 and 11). A postage-due parcel arrived for Oswalds in Irving on November 20, 21, but we never find out what it is, and if it is a clue (23:420).

AT THE PRESENT STAGE, any counterplanation has to rest almost entirely the material available in the twenty volumes and these are extremely difficult to work with. Fifteen of the volumes consist of testimony, deposi-

discrepancies that are never explained or accounted for. Having been through the twenty-six volumes twice, I think enough discrepancies exist to provide the bare bones of a counter-theory based on two sort of materials: first, evidence that some of the "official evidence" is not what it seems to be; and second, unexplained evidence suggesting that some sort of conspiracy involving or relating to Oswald existed as far back as Oswald's departure for Mexico, and was intensified from early November until at least November 22.

That something more was going on than the Commission believed is, I think, indicated by two crucial pieces of evidence, bullet No. 399 and the brown paper bag. Bullet No. 399 is distinctly odd and unusual. If it cannot have done the damage that occurred to Connally, what is it? It may have come from Kennedy's body (if the rat's report of what the doctors originally thought is true). But it has no signs even of that. The rat expert said, "it wasn't neces-

ing. But, certainly, the pristine bullet, definitely traceable to Oswald's Carcano, would have started a chase for and pursuit of Oswald if nothing else had, and would have made him a prime suspect.

Another piece of evidence that seems to be something different from what the Commission supposed is the brown paper bag found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository. This is the bag that, according to the Commission, was made by Oswald on the night of November 21-22 at Irving, and used by him to bring the rifle into the Book Depository. As Weisberg neatly shows (Whitewash, pp. 15-23), there are problems with all the information about the bag. First of all, both Marina Oswald and Wesley Frazier (who drove Oswald to Irving) report that he had nothing with him on the evening of the 21st (24:408 and Marina's interview on November 23). The Commission was sufficiently worried on this point to recall Frazier and to ask him if at some earlier time Oswald had paper with him, to which he answered, "No." (7:531).

stated that he carried nothing, although a long bag should have been noticeable (p.176-77).

Next. the only two people who

THE NEXT THING KNOWN is that a bag 38 inches long was found near the notorious sixth-floor window. This bag was made from paper and gummed tape, in the building. It has four very noticeable folds, but no indication of having been held on the top, as Frazier's sister saw it. It has one identifiable fingerprint and one identifiable palm print, both Oswald's. Also, as the art expert, Cadigan, testified, it contained no chemical or physical evidence of ever having contained a rifle. No oil or rifle debris, no distinctive marks of the rifle's location in it (4:97). Asked to comment on the absence of marks, Cadigan said, "... if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much." But the Frazier-Randle descriptions show it had been moved a good deal. Besides being carried, it was bounced around on the back seat of Frazier's car.

The final problem, which only Weisberg seems to have noticed, is that, according to expert testimony, the found bag is put together with tape from the Book Depository's dispenser, cut by this machine. The machine operator, Mr. West (6:356-63), indicated he was always at the machine and never saw Oswald use it. But, and this is crucial, tape could only be removed from and cut by the dispenser if it were wet. The tape came out of the dispenser dampened by a sponge. Oswald could only have gotten dry tape out of it by dismantling the machine, but then it would not have been cut by the machine. So the conclusion seems to be that Oswald removed a

The New York Review