Mr. Jenner. At the bottom of page 22, right-hand column, you say: “In summary then, there is not a single indication that the conspiracy did not plan and carry out the assassination of President Kennedy. On the other hand, there is evidence which very strongly suggests that it did.”
Would you please relate what evidence there was at the time you published the article which “very strongly suggests that it did.”
Mr. Oliver. You begin with the fact that the assassin was a Communist and added the strong probability, in my judgment, that he must have had accomplices, very, very probably including Rubenstein.
Then the results which would have occurred but for the mischance of Oswald’s apprehension would have been very strongly in their favor. It is the old doctrine of Sui Bono. In substance the considerations that I have stated in the earlier part of the article indicating that (a) there undoubtedly was Communist participation and (b) that the act was to their advantage.
Mr. Jenner. Here again then I take it that your use of the word “evidence” in the portion I have quoted from your paper, at the bottom of the right-hand column of page 22 is the use of the word in the loose sense or the broad sense.
Mr. Oliver. That is right.
Mr. Jenner. The broad sense meaning deductions from the sources you have indicated in your testimony?
Mr. Oliver. That is right.
Mr. Jenner. Would you glance at page 23 with a view in mind of my inquiring of you as to whether the statements made on that page likewise are deductions based on the sources you have indicated heretofore in your testimony?
Mr. Oliver. That is right.