In Defense of a Theory
By Thomas G. Buchanan
The New Leader,
9 November 1964, pages 8–11
To the Editor:
In my capacity as criminal investigator, there has come to
my attention a distressing crime of which you are the luckless victim. I refer
to the long article about me (“Thomas Buchanan, Detective”) in your issue of
September 28. This article was published—in good faith, I’m sure—under the
name of a French writer named Leo Sauvage.
The article, my research has convinced me, was not written by Leo
Sauvage, but by his brother, K. O. Leo is, as everybody knows, the U.S.
correspondent of Le Figaro, and he is one of France’s most
distinguished journalists. His brother, a retired ex-pugilist, now makes a
humble living as a stringer for the U.S. Information Service.
Articles by Leo cost a lot of money, but they are well worth it. He has
done a great of original investigation of the Kennedy assassination and, since I
am totally dependent on such sources and have always said so, I have quoted him
in the French edition of my book which Putnam will bring out this month,
evaluating the report the President’s Commission has just issued. Articles by
Leo’s brother K. O., on the other hand, are relatively inexpensive and indeed
I think, if you will make the proper inquiries, you will discover that no fee is
needed.
We must not accuse K. O. Sauvage of fraud in selling you an article which
he has written on a subject with which he is less familiar than his brother. But
I do accuse him of unethical procedure when he charges you the fee which you
would normally have paid to Leo.
That the author of this article has misappropriated Leo’s byline will
be instantly apparent to you, if you will compare the article you published with
authentic work of this distinguished writer. The respected correspondent of Le
Figaro, for instance, has a certain subtlety of style. He can be witty and
ironic. He does not go swatting gnats with baseball bats like the reporter who
prepared your article. On style alone, the substitution is apparent.
In regard to content, one has only to compare the views expressed by the
authentic correspondent of Le Figaro with the position of his imitator. The
impression given by the article you used is that I am no credit to the human
race and ought to be exterminated. I am rather sensitive on this point, since I
am now 45 years old, and I have never seen the Orioles win the World Series. I
was hoping that I might live long enough to see it happen.
But Leo Sauvage himself is one of the outstanding critics of America’s
official version of the Kennedy assassination, and would be among the first
reporters to be liquidated, if a purge were started. In Le Figaro of
September 28, he wrote as follows:
“No doubt the American authorities, who have been largely concerned
with the criticism and sarcasm which their previous statements have provoked in
other countries, hope that the large amount of documentation which the Warren
Commission has gathered in support of its conclusions will finally crush the
skeptics and reduce them to silence. I am very much afraid this hope is doomed
to disappointment. This is not only because some forces hostile to the United
States have no intention of halting their sarcastic comments. Unfortunately, it
is chiefly because the voluminous documentation of the Commission provides no
decisive refutation of the serious objections which have been raised against the
official theory. In some respects, one may even say that the Warren Report
increases the existing doubts about the investigation in Dallas, either by
offering interpretations which are even less believable than the official
version, or by making additional statements for which there is no proof, or
finally by relying on key factors which rest upon a base which is too fragile to
support them.”
Leo Sauvage goes on to name these weak points:
1. That many readers will have trouble trying to imagine Oswald,
in the last few minutes before Kennedy came into range on Elm Street, patiently
assembling his dismantled rifle, wrapped up in a package witnesses insist was
too short to have been the murder weapon unless it was disassembled. Sauvage
notes that this was in addition to the time he sent building walls of book
cartons to hide him.
2. That the Commission has relied too heavily upon the testimony
of Marina Oswald that her husband fired at General Walker.
3. The chief objection: “One is rather surprised to read that
the Warren Commission attaches any significance at all to the fact that Oswald
was identified by witnesses late that night, or the following morning, after
television programs had repeatedly carried his picture and all the newspapers
had published numerous photographs of him.” Sauvage adds that recognition of
the man who had just been arrested, after offering resistance, had been further
simplified by the fact that when the police put Oswald in the lineup, he was
quite conspicuous because he had a swollen eye and a fresh cut where the police
had struck him.
I am in agreement with Sauvage on each point that he mentions, and I have
some other reasons for suspecting that the President’s Commission has not
given us convincing answers to the questions both of us are asking. But before I
name them, let me first plead guilty to the charge that my original report in L’Express
in February did contain some errors and—worse still—I cannot even claim to
have produced these errors from my own imagination. I did no original research
in Dallas. I have never claimed to. The material I studied was the work of
hundreds of reporters, some of whom occasionally were mistaken. None of us is
better than our sources, as Mr. Sauvage himself will best appreciate if he will
read the article attributed to him in the New Leader, in which he is
quoted:
“The only version that can be considered official since November 23
states that the description of Oswald was transmitted to police cars after Roy
Truly, head of the Depository, had noticed—and had informed one of the
detectives—that the employe seen in the second-floor lunchroom a few minutes
after the attack had disappeared. Buchanan mentions this version elsewhere in
charging against his windmill, but without stopping and without telling us why
he does not pause there. To me, the Truly explanation appears completely
plausible, and I thus have no need of Buchanan’s Accomplice Number 3.”
Unfortunately for our poor friend K. O., Truly’s explanation, which
seemed plausible to him, did not seem plausible to the Commission and the very
week your magazine appeared, the President’s Commission came out with a new
official version: “Howard L. Brennan was an eyewitness to the
shooting.…Brennan described the man to the police. This description most
probably led to the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45 p.m.…The
police never mentioned Oswald’s name in the broadcast descriptions before his
arrest.…His absence was not noticed until at least one-half hour later.…It
was probably no earlier than 1:22 p.m.,
the time when the rifle was found.”
I should be more sympathetic to K. O. Sauvage and pass discreetly over
his misfortune, had he not accused me of one error I consider just a bit
insulting. He insinuates that I mistook the town of Irving for a private
residence. I did not. That mistake was made by one of my translators. It will
not be found in the Italian, German, Dutch, or any of the other simultaneous
editions of the series. I need scarcely add that the unfortunate young man who
made this blunder is no longer working at L’Express; there are some
limits, even to the patience of Françoise Giroud.
We are now better placed to analyze official findings,
since they have been irretrievably committed to official paper and cannot be
modified and shifted to meet each new criticism. I suggest the theory of the
lone assassin rests upon a series of official speculations appearing in the
Warren Report, variously labeled “probable” or “possible” or sometimes
just “conceivable.” Here are some of the most important, (italics mine):
Speculation: “Two bullets probably caused all the wounds
suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally.…One shot passed through
the Presidents neck and then most probably passed through the
Governor’s body.…The alinement of the points of entry was only indicative
and not conclusive that one bullet hit both men.…The evidence indicated
that the President was not hit until at least frame 210 and that he was probably
hit by frame 225.”
Fact: Refer to Commission Exhibit 893 (frame 210). Observe
location of the crosshairs, showing where the President was shot. Note that a
shot that passed through Kennedy at the position indicated would have struck the
Governor in the lower portion of his back or hip, after first penetrating the
car seat on which the Governor was sitting. Now refer to Commission Exhibit 895
(frame 225). Note that the car has turned toward the right, and that a shot
fired at the point shown at the intersection of the crosshairs, after passing
through the President, not only would have hit the car seat but would then have
hit the Governor at the extreme left lower portion of his body or, if he were
turning at that time, would have missed the Governor completely. Thus at no time
between these two points could a shot have passed through Kennedy and then,
while falling at an angle the Commission estimates at more than 17 degrees,
“traversed the Governor’s chest at a downward angle…and exited below the
right nipple,” as reported in the section dealing with the wounds. The
evidence shows that two bullets hit the President, and that a third one hit the
Governor of Texas.
Speculation: “Eyewitness testimony…supports the conclusion
that the first of the shots fired hit the President.…If the first shot did not
miss, there must be an explanation for Governor Connally’s recollection
that he was not hit by it. There was, conceivably, a delayed reaction
between the time the bullet struck him and the time he realized that he was
hit.…”
Fact: The Commission has provided its own answer to this
speculation. The remainder of the sentence I have cited totally invalidates the
first part: “—a delayed reaction…despite the fact that the bullet struck a
glancing blow to a rib and penetrated his wrist bone.” Flesh wounds can, of
course, remain unnoticed for a certain time; a bone wound would produce an
instant shock. The evidence shows that the shot which hit the Governor of Texas
took place after Kennedy was hit.
Speculation: “It was entirely possible” for one shot to
have been fired between Kennedy’s two wounds, although “the gunman would
have been shooting at very near the minimum allowable time to have fired the
three shots within 4.8 to 5.6 seconds.”
Fact: “A minimum of 2. 3 seconds must elapse between shots,”
the report has stated. It must be remembered that this minimum is based on the
best possible performance of the greatest rifle experts in the world; an
ordinary shot like Oswald, barely qualifying with 191 out of 250 the last time
he fired in the Marines, would take much longer. One shot in the interval
between the President’s two wounds would have to have occurred “almost
exactly midway in this period.…On the other hand, a substantial majority of
the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced.” Two shots between
the ones producing Kennedy’s two wounds would mean the speed with which one
man could fire these shots had been exceeded. Testimony of the Governor of Texas
indicates that he heard shots before and after he was hit. His wife confirms
this. Testimony of the witness injured by the wild shot indicated he also heard
shots both before and after he was hit. He cannot have been struck by any
fragment of the bullet that hit Connally, since it was found intact. The
evidence shows there were four or more shots, two of which were fired between
the ones by which the President was wounded.
Speculation: “Based on the known facts of the assassination, the
Marine marksmanship experts, Major Anderson and Sergeant Zahm, concurred in the
opinion that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots, with two hits,
within 4.8 to 5.6 seconds.…On the basis of Oswald’s training and the
accuracy of the weapon as established by the tests, the Commission concluded
that Oswald was capable of accomplishing the second hit even if there was an
intervening shot which missed.”
Fact: The Report states that six “expert riflemen” attempted
to repeat the feat of the assassin. It appears that they fired at a stationary
target, not one that was moving; the report, however, is ambiguous on this
point. “Three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle
Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the
firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75 and 8.25 seconds respectively. On the
second series they required 5.15, 6.45 and 7 seconds.” Subsequently, “three fbi
firearms experts tested the rifle in order to determine the speed with which it
could be fired. The purpose of this experiment was not to test the rifle under
conditions which prevailed at the time of the assassination but to determine the
maximum speed at which it could be fired. The three fbi experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15
yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds.” The evidence shows that in 7 cases out of 9,
these experts took longer than the maximum time which has been attributed to
Oswald; that their average for three shots was 6.75 seconds and they would,
accordingly, have needed three more seconds to have fired a fourth shot.
Speculation: “Constable Deputy Sheriff Weitzman, who only saw
the rifle and did not handle it, thought the weapon looked like a 7.65 Mauser
bolt-action rifle.…After review of standard reference works and markings on
the rifle, it was identified by the fbi
as a 6.5 millimeter model 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.…[District Attorney
Henry Wade] repeated the error that the murder weapon had been a Mauser.”
Fact: The Commission notes the murder weapon “is inscribed with
various markings, including ‘MADE ITALY,’ ‘CAL. 6.5,’” etc. No
consultation of the “standard reference works” was required to exclude the
possibility that it was (a) a Mauser, which is German-made, or (b) a caliber
other than 6.5. The error which has been attributed to Weitzman, therefore,
could have gone no farther. It would necessarily have been corrected minutes
later at the first inspection of the rifle. The report states, “The rifle was
identified by Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day, who were the first to actually
handle it.” The evidence shows that the statement of District Attorney Wade
was made after this first inspection of the rifle by the chief of homicide, a
man who certainly can read the writing on a weapon.
The authorities in Dallas have informed us solemnly that Kennedy was
murdered by a Mauser. The men who made this first statement did so after an
examination of the weapon. I believe them. They informed us later that the
President was killed by a Carcano. I believe that, also. I am forced to conclude
that there were two weapons. I deduce that there were two assassins.
That, Mr. Sauvage, is mathematics.
I assure, you, my dear sir, of my distinguished sentiments.
Thomas
G. Buchanan
Detective
Back to Buchanan
Back to Pre-WCR Reactions of the Left
Back
to Pre-WCR Reactions
Back to WC Period