Assassinations Books

Moldea's study is a valuable contribution to the dialogue surrounding the RFK murder. Prodigiously researched and devoid of ludicrous speculation, the book possesses an extra layer of credibility, written as it was by someone who revisited the subject after initially subscribing to a conspiracy scenario. He supports his conclusions with extensive interviews of relevant subjects and a clear-eyed examination of the record. He's genuinely fascinated by the murder and it shows in his balanced, careful approach.

My complaints are relatively minor. The prose, while generally spare and reportorial, is stilted and clumsy in places. The unfortunate selection of the footnoting system disrupts the narrative flow, with many pages consumed almost entirely by the footnotes themselves. There are too many photographs of secondary figures in the event (police officers, officials, researchers) which don't add anything of importance to the reader's experience - additional photos of the crime scene and the immediate aftermath of the assassination would have been more compelling. I think in the end he devotes perhaps too much energy to convincing us of what we already know - the LAPD's sloppy handling of and destruction of evidence.

Definitely worth reading for anyone who can accept the possibility that unanswered questions and lingering discrepancies don't always have to be interpreted in a paranoid and sinister fashion.

I read this book after reading and being favorably impressed with Dan Moldea's book "The Hoffa Wars".

This book is a result of Moldea's lengthy investigation and the research of many individuals.

"The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy" is composed of three sections.
Part 1 concerns the official police investigation. Part 2 explains the controversy arising from the official probe. Part 3 is Mr. Moldea's own investigation.

He interviewed Sirhan Sirhan and Thane Cesar many times.

The most troubling aspect of the Robert Kennedy murder investigation was that the controversy was self inflicted.
The crime scene wasn't properly secured, the disposal of possible evidence, the controversy surrounding DeWayne Wolfer, and numerous "clerical errors" in related documents are just some of the factors that helped fuel conspiracy theories.

Were there bullet holes in the center divider of the pantry? That's a question which a second gunman theory hinges on and Mr.Moldea hasn't convinced me that they weren't there.
The girl with the polka-dot dress is another theme that was addressed.

I do agree that the conclusion that he arrived at with the aid of Thomas Noguchi is correct. Especially after reading "Whoever Fights Monsters" by Robert Ressler ,his interviews with Sirhan Sirhan seem to confirm Moldea's theory.
This is a good book and it reads like a novel with different twists and turns in the investigation.

As with the death of his brother, Robert F. Kennedy's assassination sparked immense controversy that provided a field day for conspiracy theorists everywhere. While not quite reaching the magnitude of the grassy knoll, the evidence suggesting that Sirhan Sirhan may not have acted alone provides plenty of fodder for debate. Dan E. Moldea's investigative look into the case as it was handled, or mishandled by the LAPD and thus resulting in such a fervor, covers every possible angle with great detail.

Starting with a captivating recount of the lead up to that fateful walk through the Ambassador hotel kitchen and continuing through the years that eventually see Moldea himself get involved (and actually conduct a stunning polygraph of the person most often accused of being that second shooter), this book manages to balance a wealth of information with the ability to remain interesting. Too often these types of tomes can veer off into the textbook arena and become overly dry as they bog you down in minutiae. Moldea avoids that trap and keeps the book at a breezy 326 pages when it could've easily surpassed 600 had he let himself get carried away. Laced with detailed footnotes and a handful of revealing photos, "Killing" leaves no stone unturned before offering Moldea's closing arguments with a comprehensive review of the preceding 304 pages.

As part of my favorite time period in American History, I was immediately drawn to this book when I saw it in the store a few weeks back. Both of the Kennedy assassinations have provided volumes of literature, but this was my first deep-dive into the RFK's plight. I learned a lot about the details surrounding the RFK case and was able to gain a better understanding of what went on in June of 1968. I'd offer a favorable recommendation on this book, especially for history buffs looking for a clear view on the jumbled mess that was made of the investigation.

The author of this very readable book has specialized in reporting on organized crime since 1974. He re-investigated the assassination in 1987, and began to accumulate evidence from the police investigators. Robert Francis Kennedy earned a reputation as an enemy of mobsters and labor racketeers while chief counsel of the Senate Rackets Committee (p.17). No one has ever prosecuted organized crime more than RFK did while Attorney General.

June 4, 1968 was primary day in California. At first RFK was trailing, then he and his friends went to the Ambassador Hotel to await results. When the results showed RFK ahead, he went to the Embassy Room to make his victory speech. They then retraced the same route to return to the hotel suite. Sirhan was able to get into the kitchen although he didn't belong there. When RFK walked there, Sirhan opened fire. None of those shot admitted to seeing the gunman (p.43)!

Pages 85-89 discuss the 8 shots, and the other five victims. RFK was shot from a gun at his right rear side angled upwards, not from his front at 1 to 3 feet away. The fatal wound behind his right ear came from a one inch distance. There are discrepancies between the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the coroner's analysis from the autopsy (p.91). This is critical evidence (pp.95-98). The history of Sirhan is on pages 101-109. Two weeks after the shooting Sirhan was represented by a lawyer who formerly represented mobsters (p.116). The Defense and the Prosecution agreed to a guilty plea and a life sentence (p.120). The judge wouldn't allow this. Sirhan was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death (p.123).

The next month the 'Los Angeles Free Press' printed an article that cast doubt on the official theory (p.13). Extra bullet holes suggested a second gunman. There was a discrepancy between eyewitness testimony and the muzzle distance. A criminalist and firearms expert disputed the claim of a lone gunman (pp.138-9). The Coroner said there was no eyewitness to testify Sirhan fired at point-blank range (p.159). The American Academy of Forensic Sciences recommended a re-examination of the physical evidence (p.170). A court-authorized study concluded the original bullets were matches, but could not be matched to Sirhan's gun (p.175)! Note 123 tells about the traces of wood found on spent bullets in Sirhan's car (p.176). Chapter 19 says the case was badly mishandled by the LAPD in regard to physical evidence (p.192). There was a report of removing two bullets from a strip of molding (p.263). A former FBI special agent said he saw two bullet holes in the center divider (p.269).

A polygraph test was administered to the guard; he passed and could not have been involved (p.290). DEM interviewed Sirhan" he doesn't remember the shooting, only what happened after (p.299).

What really happened? "Complicated investigations sometimes have very simple solutions" (p.305). DEM thinks the LAPD and FBI erred in not thoroughly investigating organized crime as a possibility; they had the strongest motive, means, and opportunity (p.307). Chapter 30 provides his answer: Sirhan alone did it. DEM acknowledges the LAPD's error of omissions, and tries to explain the discrepancies between the eyewitnesses and the physical evidence. Sirhan's story of drinking and of amnesia are just a way to escape responsibility.

Page 313 claims there were no bullet holes in the door frames; those who say different were mistaken. But earlier DEM wrote of bullets with traces of wood on them (p.176); could the many police officers there have all been mistaken?

As a 10 year student of the RFK assassination,I was eager to get ahold of Dan Moldea`s work on the case.A prior magazine article of his had been primarily responsible for the release of the long witheld LAPD files on the case.
The book does not dissapoint.Moldea carefully and articulately moves through the entire case and looks under every stone in the search for answers.NO other researcher has interviewed so many personnel connected with the case.He is not biased to any side,as the reader can easily see in Moldea`s scathing comments on LAPD,and in his meetings with Sirhan.
Moldea`s thoroughness had me enthralled and by the time the dramatic end arrived I realised that I simply had to read it again...it was that good...and most of all,it closed the door on my research into the case.This account of the RFK case cannot be bettered,in my opinion.

The book is an enthralling read. It captures the reader and transports her/him into the world of covert operations and war. Fast and entertaining with some hooks into German WWII mythology.

Felt like a cheap WWII tv movie.

I recommend Peter Temple's Identity Theory, The Broken Shore........

This book has an excellent plot summarized above by other reviewers so I won't go into detail here. There is one character who is too much of a stereotype of a new York City detective and his lines can be irritating because of this. Also, the main bad guy's systematic killing of virtually everyone he runs into is almost comical. If someone once said "I never met a man I didn't like", this guy could have said "I never met a person I didn't kill" Also, although I know there is a lot of action going on, it's hard to follow how Mr. Bad Guy comes up with every tool he needs at the exact moment: wire cutters, syringes, attache cases. For a guy who's on the run and traveling lightly, he seems to have an amzing ability to accomplish this. Perhaps Mary Poppins was a Nazi sympathizer.

It still an interesting read, and it does motivate me to investigate further the Battle of the Bulge and other historical events included in the novel. However, I suspect there are more solid WWII suspense tales out there.

You may note from other reviews, my thing for historical fiction. This book suffers from the same malady as other weak historical fiction novels do; The story line (in this case Hitler's plot to kill General Eisenhower), has been done too many times before, one dimensional characters whose escapes are too cute by half, and the feeling two thirds of the way through that you just can't wait for the book to end. This is the first book by Mark Frost I've read. Unless I am stuck in an airport book store just prior to a lengthy flight to Asia, I doubt I will read another.

The first half of this book was five star WWII material all the way. Frost has a knack for writing easy-breezy prose and in building up sympathetic characters. The story starts off just prior to the outbreak of the battle of the bulge where Hitler makes a winter-time counter offensive. We follow Bernie, a kid from Brooklyn who's parents moved back to Germany during the Great Depression. Now Bernie is in the German army and because he can speak English fluently, he is drafted into a top-secret mission.

The story follows Bernie's training and how he becomes partnered with Erich Von Reinsdorf, the son of a former diplomat and a psycho killer. The odd thing is that Erich starts off as a decent character, gets squished into a very two-dimensional parody of a serial killer and then is weakly fleshed out again towards the end, but by then it is too late to make us care about him again. Frost adds a third character, an American MP chasing the two across Europe.

I just want to put out there that the crescendo of this book for myself, and where I found a definitive high water mark, was just about half way through. Bernie sneaks back to an early rendezvous point and an altercation occurs in the basement there. If Frost had had the balls to either end it here or continue on with a series of disjointed observations, his writing could have stood up as classic. Instead from this point onwards, it is pretty much Frost wrapping up all the loose ends.

Guttridge and Neff have done a meticulous job of exposing the power elite operating in Washington and New York in 1865 and why they had decided that Lincoln had to go! Lincoln wanted reconciliation with the South with full citizen rights just as before the Civil war. He did not want the South looted and plundered. Wealthy and powerful people in the North had other ideas. Great fortunes were to be made by stealing the cotton in the South and selling it in Europe for large sums of money to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. In today's dollars that would be billions of dollars. The Power Elite got it their way. John Wilkes Booth, who really did escape, was just an instrument used to attain the Power Elite's goals.

There has always been a Power Elite operating behind the scenes through out history. Kings, Presidents, Prime Ministers, call them what you like, are mostly puppets. The puppet masters operate behind the scenes and pull the strings. You don't have to look far to find out who they are. Who has all the gold? The power players who control the money supply have the real power and the politicians have to dance to the tune the Power Elite plays. One only has to study the JFK assassination to see how this all plays out. They got rid of Kennedy just like they got rid of Lincoln.

For those who do not believe there is a Power Elite operating behind the scenes, I'm reminded what Senator Meachum says to Swagger in the film Shooter (2007). "Oh you poor dumb fool. You still don't get it. There are no Republicans or Democrats. There is no left or right. There are only haves and have not's. It's all about the money. Now which side do you want to be on son? Are you in or out?" That sums it up pretty good.

For all the reviewers who said Guttridge and Neff did not document their sources, you must not have read the notes on pages 244-273. It's all there. And yes, be leery of establishment historians who owe their livelihood to perpetuating a false history which protects the Power Elite from being exposed.

This book is hard to believe. There are some elemental truths in this book, like the black market trade in cotton, which some in the government sanctioned. Other things, like the two groups of fugitives going across the Potomic and the attack on Seward supposedly by his eldest is just unbelieveable. The authors roll out some sketchy facts, but not sufficient proof that an actual conspiracy took place. The alleged conspiracy itself is kind of hard to believe. The authors would have us believe that greedy businessmen, along with radical Republicans and Southern government officials combined to rid the government of Abraham Lincoln. I am not sure you could get all those people in the same room, lest agree.

This is a poor book in revisionist history. I liked the review of the clandestine business deals that took place with the South. Much of the rest of the book was not very believeable.

I have mixed thoughts on this book as it does bring to light the possibility of an early war conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln. I did like how Guttridge brought ideas to the table about how the food for cotton program started, but a lot of this book is full of "could be" situations. I found it a bit confusing as to how Booth came involved with the early war plot or how he came into the fold with the profiteers and their connection. I did like reading about the chase to find Booth at the end of the book and how questions arised from whether or not Booth was actually captured.

I found this book covering a few topics that at times didn't seem to mix well or flow with each other. At the end of the book, it seemed more like a Booth biography, but didn't really match the original content. The Lincoln assassination does bring up a lot of possibilities though I think Guttridge needed to focus on one and kept it simple versus jumping on a lot of different ideas and making me wonder how some related to others.

A fascinating read. While not a historian myself, I do have a problem with critics here who find alliances between North and South brewing a conspiracy to be "unbelievable" because the 2 sides would ever agree on anything.

This is why black-ops against leaders always succeed - we are too conditioned to accept the power that large sums of money truly has over individuals. (You can find examples of Arabs and Isrealis who mutually profit from businesses.) It's time we wake up and realize the control that banks and bankers have over world societies, by way of war-created debt and their media ownership.

The plot detailed in this book is simply a result of that - and I think that's why this book has been raked over the coals. It's simply more evidence of that centuries of increasing control.

I came across "Dark Union" the other evening in a late-night visit to a bookstore and was immediately intrigued by its premise. However, I am, like President Lincoln, "vacillating"...vacillating between continuing to read this book or returning it to the bookstore.

Why?

To begin with, while I don't doubt the integrity of Mr. Guttridge, a very good historian, there are too many things here - unresolved issues, unconnected dots, that don't hold water. The authors claim that Lincoln authorized a "meat-for-cotton" deal to save the Union financial structure. Fine, if one considers that if Lincoln truly needed the cotton, he would have authorized another "Red River" expedition headed by someone more militarily astute than Nathaniel Commissary Banks. He would not have agreed on a financial deal to save the Union based on Confederate cotton.

Secondly, Andrew Johnson's chief aide? Relations were already bad between Johnson and some of the other alledged co-conspirators (Edwin Stanton, et. al.,) that why would they want someone affiliated with the detested Johnson to run the show. And bringing in John Wilkes Booth, a blatant Confederate symp and hater of Lincoln to be part of the team? C'mon.

John Wilkes Booth was, according to nearly every account that I've read, never married. If he was, where's the proof. On the other hand, women like the relative of Senator Sumner who tried to distance herself from any association with him, or the poor beautiful actress who tried to kill herself after her lover murdered the President are much more numerous and much more known.

As for Lafayette Baker and Stanton, sure, these were very powerful and yes, very despicable men. But this deal to kidnap Lincoln when he vacillated on the deal, preferring, according to the book a decisive military victory, simply is too unwieldly - and there would have been too many people who would have spilled the beans, no matter who might have been involved. General Grant allowing Lincoln to be kidnapped or murdered - and Lew Wallace described as being close to Grant??? Anyone who has read about Grant's anger towards Wallace after Shiloh would have known better, even if Wallace did get back into Grant's good graces after his valiant one-day stand at Monocacy against Jubal Early.

Finally, John Wilkes Booth being smuggled out of the country to India, courtesy of Stanton. This is just too rich for me.

A good conspiracy call, - but just too unwieldly, too unbelieveable, even if Stanton was involved up to his armpits. I'll leave it to some of my friends who are Lincoln experts to sort this thing out.

Were Leonard Guttridge and Ray Neff playing a joke on all of us??

Has the DNA been checked yet???

SANTOS TRAFFICANTE DIED OF NATURAL CAUSES!HE WAS NOT SHOT!
HELMS WAS NOT IN THE PICTURE WITH LYNDON JOHNSON WHEN HE WAS SWORN IN ON THE AIRPLANE.
TO THINK THAT SUCH A MAJOR HIT CAN BE DECIDED,ORGANIZED AND CARRIED OUT WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AS A ACT OF REVENGE IS NONSENSE.THE FACT THAT WE STIL DONT NOW EVERYTHING IS THE RESULT OF PARTICIPATION AND COVER-UP ACTIVITIES OF THE FBI,CIA,LYNDON JOHNSON AND SEVERAL OTHER GOVERMENT OFFICIALS.EVERYBODY IN THE ADMINISTRATION WAS INVOLVED AND THATS WHY EVERTHING TO THIS DAY IS UNDERWRAPS.

...enjoyed this book alot. sad what happened to JFK, but also shows the left was not a bunch of political virgins either. He made one to many enemies, and this book explains why.

fast read too, considering the amount of backup material. so JFKs brain was never found huh? very strange indeed.

read the book and find out another angle on who did what and why to "Camelot's King."

As a group, JFK conspiracy theorists are the lesser breed.

JFK conspiracy theorists are almost, to an individual, sexually dysfunctional far left-wing grassy knoll flyboys routinely distorting evidence incriminating the Marxist Oswald and otherwise looking for the missing fascist under every bed. Hunters of fascists - ha ha!

Their own assassination scenarios invariably contradict one another, and they never stop to consider that since only one of those scenarios (at most) could possibly be right, then the others must obviously be wrong and that this impugns them as a group. And if 99.9% of JFK conspiracy theory is bilge, as it must be, why should one assume that there is anything to the remainder?

JFK conspiracy theorists only agree among themselves on a handful of things: 1) historical study is to be used as a tool of leftist political activism, not as a means of discovering the truth; 2) the Marxist assassin Oswald must necessarily be regarded not as an assassin but as a martyr; and 3) JFK was a leftist saint who was murdered by the forces of reaction that he opposed.

Conspiracy theorists want you to look at the evidence through their own specially-convexed glasses in order to exonerate Oswald and implicate The Right. And after you've done that, they want you to join them in avenging JFK by liquidating The Right and making America once again into a groovy Woodstock nation where long hair (facial and cranial), psychedelic drugs, and casual sex with far-out hippie chicks can once again run wild - all without cost or consequence.

Yes, I know that Woodstock took place six years after Dallas, but still, that's what grassy knoll lefties have in mind. If you doubt this, go find a photograph on the Internet of the long-haired Martin Shackelford, his face permanently frozen in a tantrum of Sixties dissent. If they can kill a president, how come the forces of reaction can't step forward again and shut these hippies up?

OK, but I picked up "Triangle of Death" and read it - not because I expected to be convinced of anything but because I recognized from the jacket cover that this would be a different type of JFK conspiracy book.

And to their credit, the authors, Brad O'Leary and L.E. Seymour, don't seek to portray JFK as a leftist saint or as any sort of saint. They disdain the Stone/Prouty view of history, including the notion that Kennedy had any intentions of withdrawing American troops from Vietnam or that speculation to this effect had any part in his death, admirably placing the documentary evidence of a proposal to reduce American troop involvement in its proper context.

Also, they disdain the notion, popular in leftist circles, that JFK's botched Bay of Pigs invasion played any role in his death.

This is all to the good, and O'Leary and Seymour also remain largely inoculated from the disease of terminal leftism, though they do insist that Ho Chinh Minh was a political reformer mistreated by the colonial powers, instead of a genuine Commie - echoing leftist Castro apologia.

The authors acknowledge the recklessness of JFK's actions in Vietnam - particularly with regard to his role in the coup of the Diem brothers. Indeed, they suggest that JFK had a hand in their assassination, not just their overthrow. If E. Howard Hunt had access to this material, he wouldn't have needed to forge anything.

An informative account of the "triangle of death" involving the French heroin syndicate, the American Mafia, and the South Vietnamese government is included. JFK was killed, they say, because his secret campaign against the Diem brothers (actualized three weeks before his own death) threatened the heroin-based profits enjoyed by this network.

By the way, the idea is not an original one. A version of it first surfaced in 1975 or so in a work of FICTION; i.e., Charles McCarry's "Tears of Autumn" from his "Paul Christopher" series of novels. History imitates art!

What the authors haven't done, of course, is prove their theory of a connection between this triangle and JFK`s death. It largely rests on speculation plus a declassified CIA document, dated April 1, 1964, that noted that a French assassin was in Dallas on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 and was whisked away afterwards.

But how is this factoid to be distinguished as genuine history, as opposed to any one of a number of rumors that swirled and continue to swirl around JFK's death? The source of this information, according to the memo, was a "Mr. Papich". The authors of this book acknowledge that they don't know who he is and dismiss the issue as unimportant.

This betokens a lack of thoroughness on their part, since a quick Google search discloses the identity of one Sam Papich, who was the FBI's liasion with the CIA, and whose name is connected in other such memos with CIA plots against Castro and post-assassination investigations by American intelligence. Papich passed away only recently and was alive while this book was being written. He would have been available (if not necessarily cooperative) for an interview with the authors, if they had only discovered him, but there's nothing in any other memo in which Papich is mentioned to suggest that he maintained any continuing interest in a possible "French connection".

The sheer accumulation of happenstance involved in the homicide itself renders the possibility of conspiracy extremely unlikely. But the authors don't get around to discussing ballistics until the end of the book, and I'd already put the book down because its dry treatment of an interesting but already-overcovered topic exhausted me.

Until the end, they blandly accept the conspiracists' version of ballistics as the defining one and they refer all discussion to Robert Groden - a waxy-mustachioed leftist who couldn't catch a cold, let alone a Presidential assassin.

Notwithstanding these criticisms, I'm awarding as much as 3 stars to O'Leary and Seymour as a reward for a certain amount of originality and independence.

While I thought this book was worthwhile in many respects, especially with regard to the info. on Mertz/ Soetre, ULTIMATE SACRIFICE is simply the best book ever on the JFK assassination.Still, worth your time.

Vince Palamara-JFK/ Secret Service expert (History Channel, author of two books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.)
Pittsburgh, PA

Plenty of interesting ideas and some new takes on old information but otherwise a very badly written book in serious need of editing and counseling. Material is repeated and re-examined endlessly throughout the book giving the impression the authors initially finished at 88 pages and realized they desperately needed to pad the thing to get it published.

I'm still stuck on "Mortal Error"--the book that gives a whole different take on part of the assassination, that the last shot was an accident. That book, right or wrong, has very interesting explanations of a lot of material and the author is a ballistics expert.

The Kennedy Assassination was not an isolated event--as the public and even conspiracy theorists like to view it--but a "systems" event of astonishing complexity. This book, despite its huge flaws, is one of the best to tap into that mentality. There explanations of French politics of those years in regard to Algeria and Viet Nam and subsequently the assassination are cogent. I just think a systems approach was a bit beyond the authors.

We need to understand, especially today, that an assassin, or anyone else, can be a terrorist, a double-agent, a patriot, a mobster, a politician, a drug dealer, a compassionate and loving parent, and a number of other things somewhat simultaneously. There is a front office world and a deep dark back office world and unfortunately that back office world, especially since WWII, is really what's now driving the modern world. One can find a straightforward conspiracy or two behind Lincoln's assassination or simple motives behind Garfield's or McKinley's but Kennedy's will always be elusive. It gnaws at us, whether we realize it or not, because it was the first major global event to publicly, even if for a few moments, reveal the workings of that hidden world.

The assassination did not go off as planned. As the authors state, Officer Tippet was certainly supposed to have killed Oswald and Oswald would have been yet another kook killer in the history books. Case closed. Jack Ruby was pure desperation and subliminally we all caught that. That single moment in the basement was the point of ignition for doubt. It looked and smelled so wrong. If the last shot was also a dumb mistake then this one probably had even the insiders panicked for a few days until the information got sorted out. No triangulation--one shooter, one patsy.

Don't blame the Warren Commission--all nice guys who weren't about to rock the boat. They looked at all the info, realized what it meant, and did the best PR patch job they could. Nobody had to say boo to them, they just all had to be individuals who knew how the system worked, not even active participants in that system. What was to be gained by the truth? Nothing but disruption, nothing but wearing on the nerves of a lot of content and sleeping people. What was to be gained by letting Kennedy live? Less than nothing--the man was a major liability on too many fronts alive and a major asset to too many people--even his own party--dead. This wasn't about anti-communism or oil or even heroin, as the authors speculate. All that is linear-think. This was about the maintainence of a smoothly functioning global system.

Good, but ULTIMATE SACRIFICE the best book ever

While I thought this book was worthwhile in many respects, ULTIMATE SACRIFICE is simply the best book ever on the JFK assassination.Still, worth your time.

Vince Palamara-JFK/ Secret Service expert (History Channel, author of two books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.)
Pittsburgh, PA

BEST JFK ASSASSINATION BOOK: ULTIMATE SACRIFICE
BEST JFK SECRET SERVICE BOOK: SURVIVOR'S GUILT BY YOURS TRULY :)

Since writing my review of JFK: THE LAST DISSENTING WITNESS in 1998, I have been able to have my 35-page article - "Jean Hill -The Lady in Red" - included in Clint Bradford's JFK Assassination website. The address is: http://www.jfk-info.com/sitemap1.htm (scroll down for title).

Just some thoughts on Jean Hill and her book.
The only book I've purchased and read so far regarding the JFK assassination that gives you an insight on how (in this case) one of the witnesses life was affected by being in Dealy Plaza on that fateful day.
She like most of the witnesses in Dealy Plaza said that she thought the shots came from the 'Grassy knoll'. She was man handled by so-called 'secret agents' 'Magic bullet man' also grilled her about her affair with a Dallas motorcycle Cop. He also goaded her about the `White dog she saw' which turned out to be White toy given to Jackie.
Jean and her young daughter were involved in a car crash, her Lover and a mechanic friend of his checked out the car and found that the track rod ends had come loose. They like any mechanical minded person came to the conclusion that the car had been tampered with. Track rod ends just don't come loose so easily, if they did cars by necessity would have radically different steering assemblies.
If you believe as I do that the witnesses in the Plaza were correct in their recollections of where the shots came from and also in their contact with (according to the official report NON EXISTANT) Dallas cops and Federal \ secret officials just minutes after the tragedy, then there must have been a conspiracy.
Some reviewers have described this book as nothing more than a novel, so I looked up the words definition in the 'Collins English dictionary'
Novel: An extended work in prose, either fictitious or partly so.
I see, it's a novel because some reviewers disagree with Jeans recollections or because her recollections changed over the years. SO WHAT. Most peoples recollections of their life experiences change over the years, does this mean all our memories can only be fit for a Novel rather than a autobiography No.
Now to why I titled this 'So Jean Hill is no John Dean' (I could have replaced John Dean with Harold Weisberg or Cyril Wecht)
During the Watergate scandal John Dean being Nixons Legal counsel was set up for a big fall however because he had a photographic memory he could recall incidents and conversations in great detail without wavering under cross examination he deflected the blame to Nixon's Front line and eventually to Nixon himself.
Most of us (including Jean) haven't got that type of memory or fortitude.
Jean Hill passed away in 2000, she was a primary school teacher. Whenever her young students asked her to tell her story of the assassination, which in their young eyes was a part of American social history, she was always struck by their reactions.
Her story will have left an indelible memory on a good percentage of them. I am sure some of the students will continue the search for the truth.
Jean Hill was just an ordinary mother and schoolteacher.
Arlen Specter is a Senator & highflying lawyer.
Only one of them is a great American in my book: Jean Hill R.I.P.

This is a great eyewitness account of the events that day, and provides more proof that the assassination of JFK was an inside job. The objective reader can only conclude that our own government not only killed JFK, but also did everything possible to cover it up. Should be added to any JFK buff's library.

"JFK: The Last Dissenting Witness", published in 1992, was co-authored by Jean Hill, the famous "lady in the red raincoat" who witnessed the last seconds of President John Kennedy's life as Lee Harvey Oswald was firing three rifle shots at the President from the Texas School Book Depository in downtown Dallas, Texas, which resulted in JFK's death.

Within this book is the following passage.....

"Hill saw the shadowy figure of a man fire at President Kennedy from behind a picket fence atop the now-famous grassy knoll."

Anyone who owns a lot of archival TV footage of those four bleak days following JFK's assassination in November of 1963 will easily be able to verify what I have verified via just such an archive of video material. And that is the fact that, on November 22nd, 1963 (the exact day of the event, within less than two hours of the assassination itself), Jean Hill appeared on television (via a WBAP-TV tape-recorded interview), where she explicitly says she never saw anyone firing any weapon at the President. .......

QUESTION: "Did you see the person who fired the weapon?"
JEAN HILL: "No, I didn't see any person fire the weapon."
QUESTION: "You only heard it?"
JEAN HILL: "I only heard it."

What is a person to make of this flip-flop in Hill's testimony regarding the events of 11-22-63? In my view, her EARLIEST account of the shooting (which has been recorded on videotape for all to watch and listen to over and over again) should be looked upon as the BEST account of what she saw that Friday afternoon back in '63.

But nearly thirty years later -- after having served just months earlier as an official (but uncredited) "technical adviser" to Oliver Stone during the making of Stone's 1991 film "JFK" (coincidence?) -- Hill came out with this book, which claims she "saw a man fire at President Kennedy from the grassy knoll".

Did Jean's memory suddenly improve greatly in the intervening years? Everyone reading this publication should at least pause for a few moments to consider that question.

Another major piece of Jean Hill-created "evidence" that is easily knocked down is her ridiculous claim of having seen Oswald's murderer, Jack Ruby, racing across the grassy knoll at the exact time of JFK's assassination.

Multiple witnesses can place Jack Ruby in the Dallas Morning News building at the precise time the President was being murdered. Ruby HIMSELF, in fact, admits to having been in the DMN building at the time of the assassination.

Below is a portion of the verbatim testimony given by Jack Ruby to the Warren Commission on June 7th, 1964 (from the Dallas County Jail, where Ruby was being held after having been convicted on March 14, 1964, of murdering JFK's assassin, Lee Oswald):

----------

"I picked up the brochure that Friday morning {November 22, 1963}, and I also had business at the {Dallas Morning} News Building on Friday, because that is the start of the weekend, which is very lucrative, the weekend.

"So I went down there Friday morning to Tony Zoppi's office, and they said he went to New Orleans for a couple of days. I picked up the brochure. I believe I got downtown there at 10:30 or 11 o'clock that morning. And I took the brochure and then went into the main room where we compose our ads. That is the sales room where we placed our ads. And I remained there for a while. I started to write the copy of my ad.

"Well, John Newnam comes in, and evidently he took it for granted I finished my ad, and I don't recall if he paid for his ad, and suddenly there is some milling around. I think it was 12, or 15 minutes after 12, I don't recall what, but John Newnam said someone had been shot. And I am sorry, I got carried away. It is the first time I got carried away, because I had been under pressure. And someone else came running over and he said a Secret Service man was shot, or something to that effect. And I am here in the middle with John Newnam, because Newnam isn't paying any attention to anyone else, and there is a lot of going back and forth. So someone must have made a statement that Governor Connally was shot. I don't recall what was said. And I was in a state of hysteria."

----------

Therefore, how is it even remotely possible for Jean Hill to have seen Jack Ruby on the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza at 12:30 PM when President Kennedy was being shot? Quite obviously, this is not possible.

But Jean Hill and Oliver Stone (in his movie) would like to have people believe that Ruby was running around Dealey Plaza's grassy slopes at 12:30 PM on November 22, instead of where even Ruby himself admits he was at the time of the assassination (with gobs of witnesses to verify his story) -- and that's on the second floor of the Dallas Morning News building.

Since this book came out in 1992, Jean Hill has passed away. She died in Dallas on November 7, 2000, at the age of 69.

---------------------

This book's subject matter can get you to thinking about other eyewitness accounts of the events in Dallas' Dealey Plaza (and the shooting of police officer J.D. Tippit in nearby Oak Cliff, a suburb of Dallas, a mere 45 minutes after President Kennedy was gunned down).

I'm guessing that in a conspiracy theorist's fantasy world the only people with bad eyesight, or the only people capable of making an error, are those witnesses who gave testimony damning to "Saint Oswald" -- E.G.: Howard Brennan, Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham, Ted Callaway, Jack Tatum, Virginia Davis, Barbara Davis, William Scoggins, Johnny Brewer, Warren Reynolds, L.J. Lewis, Pat Patterson, Harold Russell, Robert Edwards, Ronald Fischer, etc.

But, if we're to believe the "CTers", those conspiracy-favoring witnesses like Jean Hill and S.M. Holland and Acquilla Clemmons, et al, were somehow born with unimpeachable "Conspiracy-Noticing" skills.

Acquilla Clemmons' account of the J.D. Tippit murder is taken as Gospel by many a-CTer, despite the wholly-ILLOGICAL "plot" that she supposedly witnessed on Tenth Street that day.....

I.E.:

Having TWO killers conspire to commit the Tippit murder, even though the conspirators' #1 goal here is to FRAME JUST ONE SINGLE "PATSY" FOR THIS MURDER (namely someone called "Lee Harvey Oswald").

Smart, huh?

Let's use TWO killers (needlessly, of course, for a practically point-blank killing of a policeman, who was just inches from the gun of the killer), instead of just using our trusty, present-at-every-murder-Oswald-supposedly-ever-committed-in-his-life "LHO Imposter" to do the job.

From what school for covert acts did these plotters graduate -- "The Academy For Brain-Dead Conspirators"?

Nobody could be as stupid and reckless as these November 22nd Plotters/Conspirators were said to have been (per CT-slanted versions of events). Not possible. And this recklessness extends far beyond just the Tippit murder scene as well. In fact, it applies ever more so to the JFK killing in Dealey Plaza.

Example:

WHY in the world would these professional killers even WANT to utilize THREE teams of assassins (as Oliver Stone claims in his movie), firing six bullets potentially into their one target (JFK) from a variety of different shooting locations, when the whole idea of this intricate, supposedly-well-planned "plot" is to frame just a single "Patsy" who is supposed to be located in the Book Depository? Did these conspirators deliberately TRY to make their assassination scheme as complicated and implausible as they possibly could? Seems like it.

And yet Oliver Stone actually has people buying this stuff. Kinda sad, huh? I think so anyway.

Well, anyhow, whatever you do, take the contents of this book with a very large-sized grain of salt. (That advice goes double, make that triple, for viewers of Oliver Stone's motion picture as well.)

I ordered this over two months ago - - - haven't even received it yet! Can't review!!!

A whole bunch of conspiracy theorists ("CTers"), including "High Treason 2" author Harrison E. Livingstone, believe that President John Kennedy was killed as a result of a multiple-shooter ambush on November 22nd, 1963, in Dallas, Texas.

The main problem that these conspiracy theorists need to overcome, of course, is the fact that absolutely NONE of the physical evidence supports the idea that JFK was hit by bullets from more than just a single rifle in Dealey Plaza.

But the fact that there are no guns, or bullets, or bullet shells other than Lee Harvey Oswald's doesn't seem to dissuade the hardline conspiracy promoters one bit. They're going to believe in that multi-shooter conspiracy despite all the evidence that says they are 100% wrong.

"It must have all been 'planted' to frame only Oswald" is the proverbial response by CTers when confronted with the total lack of physical evidence to support the idea of multiple assassins. A nice and convenient "blanket" cover-up that neatly explains everything for the theorists.

I just wonder, though, in what court of law such logic could be taken (and believed by a jury)? CT logic that is essentially saying: "Since All Of The Evidence Says Oswald Did It; It MUST Mean Just The Opposite; And Oswald, Therefore, Is Innocent". That's turning logic and common sense totally upside-down.

Many conspiracists think Oswald was "set up" as a dupe or a "Patsy" by evil forces prior to the assassination. But this "Patsy" business is always spoken of by the "Let's Free Oswald" CT Brigade in very vague terms, with little to no thought given to the actual "mechanics" of just exactly HOW Oswald was set up to take the fall in the JFK murder (and in the killing of policeman J.D. Tippit as well, per many theorists, which only elevates the "Patsy" plot to insanely-difficult-to-pull-off levels of complexity, in that the plotters would need to frame him for not just one murder on 11/22/63 -- but TWO).

But ask a CTer to actually look at the ridiculously-reckless "Patsy Frame-Up" plot from a Pre-November 22nd point-of-view, and you're likely to get the brush-off. No conspiracy buff wants to talk about that aspect of the Patsy plan (because the plot sounds so hopelessly-harebrained and implausible from that POV).

If a theorist were to actually perform that little bit of time travel in their pro-CT heads, they would have no choice but to realize that such a loony "Patsy Plot" was, is, and always shall be a totally-unworkable and untenable assassination plan.

And, even if (somehow) such a stupid Multi-Shooter, One-Patsy plot was to miraculously succeed, it still would not make that silly scheme any MORE secure and non-reckless from a pre-11/22 standpoint. (If it succeeded, it would only mean that the Lord Jesus Christ intervened for some reason and helped out these inane people who wanted to frame just one guy but used a plethora of guns all over Dealey Plaza to kill the one almost-stationary target.)

Conspiracy theorists refuse to discuss any of the pre-planning aspects from the "Why on Earth would they have planned it THIS silly way?" POV. Because to do that would mean for CTers to readily admit what has been obvious to me for many years -- i.e.:

You don't try to frame a lone Patsy by shooting up the joint with 2 to 5 gunmen! And, moreover, you don't attempt to frame a guy with his own gun and then NOT USE SAID GUN AT ALL IN THE MURDER ATTEMPT! That's yet another layer of stupidity exhibited by these so-called plotters (a layer of the PRE-PLANNED PATSY PLOT that is widely believed to be "fact" by many a-CTer; when, in reality, it's just plain dumb).

And, furthermore, you don't NEED to frame a lone gunman by using multiple shooters. A "professional hit man" is just that -- a PRO -- he doesn't need back-ups all over the friggin' place. It's just flat-out stupid. And, in the type of "Frame The One Patsy" plot believed in by most CTers, it's not just stupid....it's a suicidal plot....which is bound to collapse the moment JFK is wheeled into Parkland Hospital...or possibly even sooner.

CTers, in short, don't seem to want to realize that if a multi-gun patsy plot did occur on November 22nd, then some group of conspirators (who are never named by conspiracy buffs of course...their identities are as murky as "Badge Man") had to have sat themselves down prior to 11/22 and mapped out the best way to frame Lee Oswald. And, incredibly, CTers think that these pre-planners came up with this brainstorm of a plan.......

"Hey, guys....why don't we put three or maybe even FOUR riflemen in Dealey Plaza, in the front and the rear of JFK's vehicle, and then start popping away at the exact same time at the one target.....all the while we'll just let our one Patsy run around loose on the first or second floor of the Depository Building (even though he's supposed to be upstairs with a gun).....or, maybe, we'll even let him GO OUTSIDE THE BUILDING WHERE HE'S SURE TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED BY CAMERAMEN! Yeah....that's what we'll do on 11/22. Anybody object to this plan??"

And, per CTers, evidently there wasn't a single person in this "Mystery Group Of 11/22 Pre-Planners" who thought that that Patsy frame-up idea was not an excellent one.


Three simple questions for Conspiracy Believers:

1.) Where does ALL of the physical evidence lead in the JFK and Tippit murder cases?

2.) Is it even remotely possible (or doable) -- in the "real" world where girls named Jeannie don't simply fold their arms and blink to accomplish the impossible tasks that CTers want to have accomplished -- that EVERY single piece of physical evidence in both the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder investigations could have been "Faked" so that all of it became neatly (and immediately) stacked up into a perfect "It Was Oswald" pile?

3.) Who amongst the current "CTer population" of millions and millions of people worldwide would have actually "set up" Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy by utilizing a MULTI-GUN frame-up plot on 11/22/63?

The only conceivable answers to the above inquiries are, of course:

1.) To Lee Harvey Oswald.
2.) No, it is not.
3.) Nobody.

I'd thoroughly enjoy seeing just one conspiracist answer the above three questions in a pro-CT fashion, and do so in a BELIEVABLE manner, while using common sense and reasoned thinking along the way. However, I fear that being able to do that would be even more problematic than the task that was facing the after-the-shooting "Fake Everything In Sight" conspiracy crew on November 22nd.


More on the "Absurdities Of The Patsy Plot"........

www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=30215

While I thought this book was worthwhile in many respects, ULTIMATE SACRIFICE is simply the best book ever on the JFK assassination.Still, worth your time.

Vince Palamara-JFK/ Secret Service expert (History Channel, author of two books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.)
Pittsburgh, PA

BEST JFK ASSASSINATION BOOK: ULTIMATE SACRIFICE
BEST JFK SECRET SERVICE BOOK: SURVIVOR'S GUILT BY YOURS TRULY :)

Harrison Livingstone is one of the assassination investigators who only write books to stabilize his cash flow. His new work High Treason 2, does not stay on the track and is a dead end. I will not recommend this book to anyone...Instead buy HIS FORMER co-author Robert Groden's book THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT. ...

I felt that the first "High Treason" book, which Livingstone co-authored with Robert Groden, was moderately interesting. At least, the tone and writing kind of held together, even if all the arguments didn't. This second installment shows just how much Livingstone needed Groden's skills. The tone here is at times shrill, at other times non-chalant. The arguments do not flow; they announce themselves and then go away. I don't know how much Groden was involved in the editing of the first book, but this book is screaming for an editor, a proofreader, and someone to check some of Livingstone's "facts".

High Treason 2 basically covers the same ground as other conspiracy books, including High Treason One. There is absolutely nothing new here. Let me repeat that: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW HERE. The only surprises you might find are some vague comments (what the Warren Report would call "Rumors and Innuendoes") that seem to suggest things, and then are quickly dropped once the feeble evidence crumbles. There was a conspiracy to kill JFK. This book will not help anyone solve it.

This is a compellingly written book that brings together data from a wide variety of primary and secondary sources to paint a vivid, well-realized portrait of Mary Surratt.

That said, the other reviewers who have complained about historical, factual, and typographical errors have quite a bit of justification. I was disappointed by the sloppiness of the book.

But Kate Clifford Larson's prose style is engaging, and although not an authoritative text by any means, this was a fascinating read.

It seems Kate Clifford Larson has "borrowed" her research for this work from more thorough and accomplished authors than herself, though she has no problem disparaging their conclusions in her acknowledgments. The only difference in this treatise is her own distorted, twenty first century, feminist, liberal, white apologist twist to the history of the Surratt family!
It is a shame her political and cynical views of the history of the time are interfering with her objectivity. Ms. Larson was in such a rush to publish her slanted view of Mrs. Surratt's supposed guilt, she didn't get Miss Anna Surratt's husband's surname right, among many other details(see other comments; I don't need to rehash)! And her undisguised hatred of John H. Surratt Jr. is a main character in this book!
Mrs. Elizabeth Steger Trindal's fifteen years of reseach and ultimate publication of Mary Surratt: An American Tragedy is a more truthful and precise portrayal of sentiments, politics and facts associated with the entire population of the United States before, during and after the assassination of President Lincoln.
I found it in no way skewed of Southern leaning and I think it's appalling Ms. Larson is trying to start another war between the North and South by suggesting Mrs. Trindal is less than objective.
When Ms. Larson has spent as much time researching the subject and is used as a source for someone else's text as much as she has referenced Mrs. Trindal and others, maybe I'll look twice at what she has to say.
Until then, I say real research is done in the field, not on the internet, Ms. Kate Clifford Larson!
I was warned of this less than flattering portrayal of Mrs. Surratt before publication and now that I have read it, I say, "Save the Trees!".

I was disappointed that this book offered no new insight into the tragic events of 1865. It is so heavily weighted with the authors opinions-she is quick in many cases to draw or infer the wrong conclusion because she is unfamilier with the society and manners of time.
I found the book written by Elizabeth Trindal on the same subject much more interesting.

At last, we have a judicious and thoroughly unbiased account of Mary Surratt's involvement in the assassination of Lincoln. Professor Larson goes to great lengths to give Mary the benefit of the doubt. Court records and trial transcripts are gone over with a fine tooth comb proving what many have surmised for years: Mary was a willing co-conspirator who allowed all of the conspirators, including Booth, to use her boarding house and tavern at Surrattsville, as a meeting place for planning the death of Lincoln. There are new tidbits of information concerning Mary's inept lawyers, if you can call what they did, practicing law. Yet, even with their obvious stupidity, what was revealed by the witnesses, indicate that Mary was not the pious, innocent boarding house keeper she pretended. Even the Catholic clergy brought in as character witnesses, couldn't vouch for much; many didn't even know her that well.

The evidence exists that President Johnson did receive information regarding a stay of execution for Mary, but with all the evidence, it is obvious that he had no choice but to let the matter proceed.

It is only in the afterglow of the hangings, that public furor over the execution of the first woman by the federal government, increased to a rising crescendo, egged on by Southern sympathizers.

Highly recommended, I would only suggest that the author, in a revised edition, include an extensive bibliography that would better assist those who are new to this area of Civil War study.

A book of this nature must have a bibliography. This is a college professor? Mary Surratt, nee Jenkins was from a family of Catholics,not Espicopalian, Another famous St Marys parishener was Admiral Raphael Semmes CSA (but one would have to know something about the civil war to know that name)
The Jenkins family of southern MD is listed by the Catholic Church as one of the colonies founding catholic families. The author is unfamilar with Catholicism, Mary called for a priest before her execution, not because she didnt want to see her family, but because as a devout Catholic, she wanted to receive Last Rites one of the seven sacraments. It didnt matter she didnt know the priest. Mary was "fair, fat and forty" by all eyewitnesses, not the sleek temptress the author put on the cover. A misrepresentation of Surratts' physique serves the authors purpose when she hints at a flirtation with JWB.
Oxen Run (marys former Mill)is by the present day Naylor Road and Suitland Parkway in SE DC., NOT OXON HILL in suburban Maryland where the new National Harbor Center is located. The auther is not familiar with the common civil war era practice of collecting CDVs. Annas collection was not note worthy.
The authors presentation of an hysterical Mary contradicts all eyewitness versions, it was Anna who was beyond hysterical.Marys illness in prison was not intestional as the author states , but female , and its horrific nature was descibed in detail by male prisoners in neighboring cells.
The author ignores one of the most astounding facts of this whole event. The number of persons involved in Marys execution who later committed suicide...why did they?

". . . . this book will appeal to . . . true crime fans."

Does it ever stop!?

Imagine: if it weren't for crimes, "true crime" "fans" -- fans of crimes and criminals -- would have to find something constructive -- healthy --to do with their lives.

But they won't, so long as there's profit to be made by exploiting crimes committed by others against others. So long as the lives, and deaths, of others can be treated so cavalierly -- as entertainment:

"Hi! I'm a fan of John Lennon's death! Did you see the photos of him in the morgue!? And the photos of him being cremated!? Isn't it exciting!"

Chapman is far from alone in being sick, spiritually and otherwise.

By his own admission, Chapman was a self-professed nobody, upset with his lot in life, and was looking to lash out at somebody famous. By killing Lennon, Chapman attained status as somebody (namely, "the guy who killed John Lennon"). In an odd way, reading this book only feeds into the attention Chapman craves. I wouldn't say this book is necessarily "pro-Chapman". Using Chapmans own words via interviews and in print form, the material within the book portrays Chapman (to me) to be every inch of the nobody he felt himself to be. There's really no deeper explanation to be found behind the assassination of John Lennon and the reasons why it happened are made abundantly clear; Chapman was exactly what he thought of himself as. A loser. The in-depth probings of the voices inside his head that drove him to do it just illustrate that point in detail, and after reading the book I felt that I was (in an odd way) just giving Chapman a degree of satisfaction, as he was and is little more than a child in a man's body content with receiving negative attention rather than none at all.

never got this book

It hurts me a bit to read that Chapman was a nice guy, appreciated for some of the things he did. A picture even shows him playing a "guitar during a meeting of his prayer group from the Chapel Woods Presbyterian Church in Decatur, Georgia." Someone who was six years old when Chapman shot John Lennon in 1980 would have been 18 in 1992, when this book was published, and decided to remain a nobody in American society, could have been 25 in 1999 and taken part in the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. A real nobody wouldn't have known that the bombs were falling on an embassy, and nobody would really be held responsible, either, because everybody wants to maintain their rights to be nobody. The frightening thing about this book is its consideration of options for anyone to be somebody in a global society which encompasses millions of people in the United States and billions in the world. There are pages in this book about drug use. Is this book the reason that so many more people in our prisons are serving time for drugs than back in 1980, when some people were surprised that John Lennon was shot?

This book was nothing more than an attempt to capitalize on John Lennon's death. The man who killed John Lennon wanted this book to try and further his spotlight.

I started to read this book and realized this after I realized it was telling me nothing. I suggest turning you back on this kind of gross attempt at fame and fortune.

Although this book pulls in some unrelated items and stretches to maintain its thesis, it is at least worthy of as much consideration as ANY of the "The CIA did it" tomes. There are five points that stand out in this book & its surounding issues:

1) All assassinations in history have either been committed by a dedicated, suicidal assassin, or were the product of dumb luck. For example, no writer could have come up with a more improbable story than the murder of Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife.

2) There is no worse organization to achieve an assassination than a large, fractured governmental bureaucracy, constantly fighting turf wars and concerned with betrayal and oversight from exogenous personnel. The KGB did not qualify at the time as such an organization but the CIA did (and does today to an even greater extent.)

3) Only the PP department in the Agency (& only a few individuals within it) were severely impacted by the Bay of Pigs. Most of the ill-feelings in the Agency during the remainder of Kennedy's time as President were directed at Robert Kennedy, the inexperienced loose cannon bent on murdering Castro and who was micro-managing Agency operations to that effect.

4) The Cuban Missile Crisis eventually brought about Khruschev's fall, and as he was losing power, could readily have sought to assassinate the individual he blamed for his decline. Whether he did so and how, is central to this book.

5) For the benefit of other reviewers, it should be noted that the firing of the three shots have been reliably replicated, including the "magic bullet" shot. There remains no technical question as of this writing that those shots, although lucky, could have been made by Oswald from his putative firing point.

This books adds a valid point of discussion to the ever-lasting analysis of the Kennedy assassination. Like all such books, one must read it carefully and critically. Obviously, the criticisms are many and highly charged, and I leave them to the reader as affected by his own political viewpoint.

I have read a great deal about the Kenendy assassination, but I have never seen anything with such a unique perspective about Oswald's motives. No one has bothered to look at the situation from his viewpoint, which is odd, considering that Oswald is the only one to date who has been formally accused of the crime.

Of course it is based on existing evidence, but Pacepa's position inside the Soviet intelligence machine gives him far more credibility than your average conspiracy researcher. This book does not end the debate, of course, but it competently addresses the most seldom-investigated theory in the canon -- that of Soviet involvement.

The CIA is the organization everyone loves to hate in this conspiracy, but isn't it possible that this was deliberate