Luck of the draw or deliberate frameup?

As we have seen above, eyewitness observation leads ineluctably to the conclusion that those who conspired to assassinate President Kennedy had placed two men on the sixth floor of the Depository, one black and one white. This had apparently been done deliberately to create the possibility of either individual being identified afterwards as ‘the’ assassin.
There is evidence that the conspirators had long been keeping their options open as to whether a ‘Communist’ or a negro would finally take the blame. In the course of his work, PFC Eugene B. Dinkin, a U.S. army cryptographic code operator stationed in France with access to materials of the utmost sensitivity, had learned by about September 1963 that the military was planning to assassinate the president, probably acting in cahoots with an extreme rightwing group. Dinkin’s story was first revealed by Robert Mitchell in YIPster Times in 1977. Dinkin told Mitchell that he had sent cablegrams alerting the CIA on November 6 and November 7, 1963, but that the army had attempted to silence him by detaining him in Walter Reed military hospital and treating his allegations as the delusions of a mentally unbalanced individual. Mitchell not only verified Dinkin’s story but also uncovered evidence that the Warren Commission had known about it.
Dinkin subsequently told researcher Dick Russell that his effort to prevent the assassination began on October 22, 1963, when he sent a letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy disclosing what he had learned about the plot. In this letter he showed considerable awareness of the conspirators’ intentions:

I did offer in this letter a warning than an attempt to assassinate President Kennedy would occur on November 18th, 1963; that if it were to succeed, blame would then be placed upon a Communist or a Negro, who would be designated the assassin.

As we have seen in preceding pages, a negro somehow become an active participant in a plot to assassinate the country’s pro-civil rights leader. How a negro was prevailed upon to become involved, we can only guess, but the evidence suggests the possibility that it was not until a few minutes before the assassination - when he left his position in the southeast window - that he even knew that he had been selected to fire the shots. Of course, chance could have played a role. It is not absurd to suggest, for example, that shortly before the arrival of the motorcade, the two men tossed a coin to decide which man would fire the shots. In such a case, this would mean that it was simply left up to fate whether, in the end, the assassin would be a black man or a 'Communist.' But a more plausible scenario is that the negro was subjected to last minute pressure to be the assassin. If this was the case, the conspirators must have decided by November 22 that they wanted the assassination blamed on a negro rather than a Communist.
If this is way events unfolded, the decision to use a negro shooter offers powerful insight into the nature of the conspirators' motives for wanting to do away with Kennedy. If the assassin had been identified, by the evening of November 22, as a negro rather than alleged ‘Communist’ Lee Harvey Oswald, the South would surely have erupted in a giant wave of anti-black violence that the federal government might have taken weeks to bring under control. When one takes into account the extreme volatility of the South at the time when conventional race relations began being challenged by the civil rights movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there can be no reason to doubt that such a catastrophe would have been regarded by the most intransigent southern racists as a desirable outcome, one paving the way towards the complete restoration of Jim Crow - possibly even with the tacit consent of most Kennedy liberals.
Is there any evidence to support the suggestion that the assassination was intended by its perpetrators to ignite a racial conflagration? Surprisingly, there is, and comes from someone who actively endorsed the coverup. In Plausible Denial, Mark Lane recounts the following, striking exchange he had with the ACLU’s A.L. Wirin:

On December 4, 1964, when I debated in Southern California with Joseph A. Ball ... [of the Warren Commission and] A. L. Wirin. ...Wirin made an impassioned plea for support for the findings of the commission.... He said, his voice rising in an earnest plea:

‘I say thank God for Earl Warren. He saved us from a pogrom. He saved our nation. God bless him for what he has done in establishing that Oswald was the lone assassin.’

The audience remained silent. I asked but one question: ‘If Oswald was innocent, Mr. Wirin, would you still say, “Thank God for Earl Warren” and bless him for establishing him as the lone murderer?’ Wirin thought for but an instant. He responded, ‘Yes. I still would say so.’ (p. 52)

Mark Lane assumes that Wirin was alluding to the outbreak of hostilities with either the USSR or Cuba. (p. 53) But the word ‘pogrom’ is an inappropriate one to refer to an event of this order. Since pogroms are large-scale outbursts of violence against Jews or other minorities, the only real conclusion one can draw from Wirin’s choice of words is that he was alluding to the prevention of a domestic catastrophe. Wirin’s remarks, which clearly defy justice, can be interpreted as a de facto admission that Lee Harvey Oswald had to be fingered as Kennedy’s assassin in order to avoid the identification of the real assassin. If the identification of the real assassin would have triggered a ‘pogrom,’ then the assassin obviously had to have been a member of a minority group.
It is to be greatly regretted that Lane did not ask Wirin who the victims of such a pogrom would have been. The word ‘pogrom’ normally refers to outbreaks of violence directed at Jews, and there is at least one Jewish figure – Jack Ruby – who might well have been one of Kennedy’s assassins. However, the overall political environment in Texas and the other southern states in 1963 was fuelled by racist opposition to Kennedy’s civil rights policies rather than antisemitism. When one factors in what PFC Dinkin had learned, the most reasonable conclusion is that the TSBD shooter had been a black man and that an outbreak of anti-negro violence, rather than war with the Soviet Union, was the actual catastrophe that Hoover, LBJ and the Warren Commission were seeking to avert at all costs.
My conclusion, therefore, is that the group that actually plotted and carried out the assassination was the Dallas branch of a radical rightwing group (such as the Ku Klux Klan, the John Birch Society, Conservatism USA, Young Americans for Freedom, or the Minutemen) which was even more opposed to Kennedy’s civil rights policies than it was to Communism. As D-Day loomed, the plotters had decided to lay the blame on a negro precisely in the expectation that the revelation of his identity would trigger massive racial violence. In my judgment, the evidence suggests that the identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin was a sudden turnaround that almost certainly came as a great surprise to most people involved in the assassination itself. Once the assassination had achieved its goal and a dying president was rushed to Parkland Hospital, decisive intervention by the U.S. military that had nurtured the local racist conspiracy was required to ensure that a black man was not blamed. Beginning at 12.45, when the first description of a suspect was given out over police radio, therefore, the hunt was on for a white suspect.