[Sample B: Approval/Signature Sheet] - George Mason University

money off the tragedy in Dallas. Certainly, he presented a one-sided case on behalf of
Oswald to counterbalance the perceived one-sidedness of the official report. As the
British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote in his introduction to Rush to Judgment, If the
Warren Commission had allowed Mr. Lane to contest their evidence before judgment,
there would have been no need of his book.” 492
Richard Popkin, a history and philosophy professor, was another advocate of the
double Oswald theory. His study first published in 1966 was simply titled The Second
Oswald. Popkin rejected the quick solution of the crime that “one lonely alienated man
had done the deed all by himself.” 493 While he acknowledged that some of the evidence
against Oswald was convincing, he stated the official theory of the assassination was
“implausible” and involved a “fantastic amount of luck.” 494 Popkin sought to demolish
key evidence in the Warren Commission’s case against Oswald (i.e. the “magic bullet”)
and to advance his own theory of the second Oswald that he believed better explained the
problems, inconsistencies, and discrepancies in the evidence.
Popkin summarized much of the testimony of the double Oswald as related in
Lane’s book. Popkin wrote that: “people report that they dealt with Oswald under odd or
suggestive circumstances,” including witnesses who saw him “at a rifle range hitting
bull’s eyes,” and that “he and two Latin types tried to get financing for illegal activities
492
Hugh Trevor-Roper, “Introduction,” Rush to Judgment, 17.
493
Richard H. Popkin, The Second Oswald, (Raleigh, NC: Boson Books, 2006 (1966), 1.
494
Popkin, 3.
219