French correspondent Leo Sauvage's book comes as a part of ""the new wave of doubt"" described in Look (July 12 issue) and there referring to two books on the findings of the Warren Commission on President Kennedy's assassination not seen here: New York lawyer Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, due August 15) and Harvard PhD candidate Edward Jay Epstein's Inquest (Viking, published). In his ""Examination of the Contradictions and Omission of the Warren Report,"" Sauvage appears incensed by the indications that Oswald's rights were consistently unconsidered in favor of those of the prosecution: he finds himself in a position of defending the accused. There was the question of the time factor (did Oswald have time to shoot and be seen when he was in the lunchroom), of his ability to shoot (and lack of practice), of ammunition, of smuggling in the gun in a bag two witnesses described as too short for the longest gun component, the problem of perjury in the testimony of Mrs. Markham, witness to the Tippitt killing, and the testimony of Marina Oswald, fresh from twenty years under Stalin and Khrushchev, now under the protection of the Secret Service, who decided to ""cooperate,"" etc. M. Sauvage riddles the department and performance of the Commission, his voice rising (""The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy was no more afraid of the sin of pride than it was of injustice"")--his most telling shot is his assertion that the Commission's existence depended on its finding Oswald guilty, that even Chief Justice Warren had historical precedent for a finding in accordance with Raisons d'Etat. Still, he does not build another case. However he does raise questions that will not rest both about the case and its lessons for law in America.