The man accused of ordering the Paris murder is the same man who, nineteen days later, assassinated the president. The government investigation attributes both acts to this single individual. But consider: if the Paris killing was ordered by the president himself — not by his intelligence chief — then attributing it to the intelligence chief after both men are dead serves a specific institutional purpose. What is that purpose, and why would the successor intelligence agency have a powerful motive to attribute the killing to the intelligence chief rather than to the president?