What do you think?
Rate this book
Reclaiming History – The Assassination of John F Kennedy
This extraordinary and historic book required twenty years to research and write. The oft-challenged findings of the Warren Commission Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot and killed President John F. Kennedy are here confirmed beyond all doubt. But "Reclaiming History" does much more than that. In addition to providing a powerful and unprecedented narrative of events and a biography of the assassin, it confronts and destroys every one of the conspiracy theories that have grown up since the assassination, exposing their selective use of evidence, flawed logic, and outright deceptions. So thoroughly documented, so compellingly lucid in its conclusions, "Reclaiming History" is, in a sense, the investigation that completes the work of the Warren Commission. In it, Vincent Bugliosi, the nation's foremost prosecutor, takes on the most important murder in American history. At 1:00 p.m. on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was pronounced dead, the victim of a sniper attack during his motorcade through Dallas. That may be the only fact generally agreed upon in the vast literature spawned by the assassination. National polls reveal that an overwhelming majority of Americans (75%) believe that there was a high-level conspiracy behind Lee Harvey Oswald. Many even believe that Oswald was entirely innocent. In this continuously absorbing, powerful, ground-breaking book, Vincent Bugliosi shows how we have come to believe such lies about an event that changed the course of history. The brilliant prosecutor of Charles Manson and the man who forged an iron-clad case of circumstantial guilt around O. J. Simpson in his best-selling "Outrage "Bugliosi is perhaps the only man in America capable of writing the definitive book on the Kennedy assassination. This is an achievement that has for years seemed beyond reach. No one imagined that such a book would ever be written: a single volume that once and for all resolves, beyond any reasonable doubt, every lingering question as to what happened in Dallas and who was responsible. There have been hundreds of books about the assassination, but there has never been a book that covers "the entire case," including addressing each and every conspiracy theory and the facts, or alleged facts, on which they are based. In this monumental work, the author has raised scholarship on the assassination to a new and final level, one that far surpasses all other books on the subject. It adds resonance, depth, and closure to the admirable work of the Warren Commission. "Reclaiming History" is a narrative compendium of fact, forensic evidence, reexamination of key witnesses, and common sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud on the American public. Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the evidence, and ability to draw startling inferences shed fresh light on this American nightmare. At last it all makes sense.
1612 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
About the author
Vincent Bugliosi
41 books890 followersAmerican attorney and author, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and his followers for the murder of Sharon Tate and others.
In his books he claimed that O.J Simpson and Lee Harvey Oswald were guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
In his latest book he states that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder.
Bugliosi lived in Pasadena, CA.
In his books he claimed that O.J Simpson and Lee Harvey Oswald were guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
In his latest book he states that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder.
Bugliosi lived in Pasadena, CA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 192 reviews
July 31, 2016
Say my glory was I finished this book.
Reclaiming History, Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's mammoth work on the assassination of John F. Kennedy, is the biggest, longest single-volume book I have ever read. It is 1,510 pages long, which does not include a lengthy introduction that is paginated with Roman numerals, or the thousands and thousands of annotated endnotes that are available only on CD (because if you put those endnotes in the book, it would be the size of a child, rather than merely a daschund).
It's not just the number of pages, but the size of the print (tiny) and the mass of the book (it's a half-inch to an inch taller than normal hardcovers). The thing weighs about five pounds, so that I couldn't read it like a normal book. When I sat on a chair, my arms tired from lifting it; and when I put it on my lap, my thighs broke out in heat-rashes. Eventually, there were two places where I could comfortably read this tome: the kitchen table or propped on the exercise bike.
I bought Reclaiming History in December 2007. I let it sit on the shelf for awhile. When I finally tried to start, I was quickly disheartened by the long, dense introduction. So I gave up. Earlier this year, however, I read a fascinating Vanity Fair article about the Kennedy's suppression of William Manchester's Death of a President. I wanted to read it, badly. But then guilt set in. How could I go out and read a book on the Kennedy assassination when I had one already sitting on the floor (it was too heavy for the table) waiting to be perused?
So I decided to get through this cinder block of a book the dirty way: 50 pages at a time, on the exercise bike, every day. In the end, I learned a lot of Kennedy factoids, and I increased my cardiovascular health.
After 1,510 pages, thousands of endnotes, and hundreds of miles logged on the stationary bike, I finished this thing with a glass of wine in my hand. With a book this size, you might expect the conclusion to be complex, twisty, and earth shattering. Some combination of Freemasons in league with Templars taking orders from aliens based out of Reykjavic. Nope. Bugliosi is certain that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. And he wants you to be certain as well.
Truth be told, I didn't need my mind changed on this. I've always thought Oswald was the lone gunman. This is a function of my personality. Those who know me would say I'm a "realistic" person. They might even add some adjectives to that ("brutally" realistic, or "coldly" realistic, or "a jerk"). A realistic person looks at the situation and sees, right off, that a conspiracy is impossible. It would involve more than just the killers, but require the cooperation of hundreds of disparate witnesses, doctors, pathologists, FBI agents, lawyers, investigators, police officers, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Gerald Ford, Jack Ruby, etc., etc.
In April 1865, John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theater. Within a matter of hours and days, Booth's conspiracy unravelled. He was killed by Boston Corbett in a Virginia barn; his co-conspirators were hanged or imprisoned. And all this took place before fingerprints, DNA analysis, ballistics, and David Caruso.
I am doubtful of conspiracies, but as Booth showed, they do exist. However, they don't stay secret, especially not at the higher echelons of government. Nixon couldn't hide Watergate. Ollie North couldn't hide Iran-Contra. The most powerful man on Earth couldn't conceal extra-marital fellatio with an intern. As the Gospel of Luke so aptly states: there is nothing that is hidden that won't be revealed, nor any secret that will not come to light.
Reclaiming History is separated into two halves: what happened, and what didn't happen. The first half is by far the better. It is informative, impeccably sourced, and delivered in a clear, straightforward manner. Bugliosi is not a great writer; there is no eloquence, no evocation, no great human insight (you'll have to go to Manchester for that). He has the annoying habit of going off on long digressions and irrelevant tangents, which becomes less enjoyable after page 900. I also noticed that in the first half, he kept changing tenses.
However, despite some occasionally tortured syntax and uncomfortable sentence structure, he delivers his story like a prosecutor's brief: that is, he writes in a clear, active voice, in a bullet-point manner that connects all the dots (at times, he literally resorts to bullet points, and there are certain "summary" chapters in this book that you can print off to bring to parties if you, like me, enjoy going to parties and getting into arguments like this).
Two huge chapters in this first half deserve their own books. Indeed, the chapter "Four Days in November" is already available for sale by itself. This chapter starts on November 22, 1963, the day JFK is murdered. It gives you a minute by minute reconstruction of what happened. As I said above, this story is not thrillingly told, but rather, is delivered methodically, carefully (except for odd interjections of onomatopeia). This is not a living book, but something painstakingly constructed.
Bugliosi's reconstruction places everyone where they were that day. He's not only following the Kennedys and Oswald, but the important witnesses as well, chief among them, Abraham Zapruder, who made the most famous snuff film in history. This is important scene-setting for Bugliosi's later crusade against conspiracy theorists.
The other chapter of note, which was worth the price of the book, is the chapter entitled simply: "Lee Harvey Oswald." This is a tremendously detailed account of Oswald's life, from birth to Jack Ruby. Despite Bugliosi's terse, just-the-facts approach, this chapter managed to evoke a complex emotional response. You will find yourself conflicted as whether to feel sympathy or scorn for this man. Oswald comes off as deluded, paranoid, self-aggrandizing, isolating, pathetic, short-tempered and frustrated. By the time you've walked Oswald's path, you can see where that path is going to end.
The first half also features a hodgepodge of discussions. Some are interesting, some are not. I enjoyed the chapter on the various investigations, which should be required reading for those who have a kneejerk reaction to the Warren Commission (as Gerald Ford aptly noted, there was no conspiracy within the Commission because he and Earl Warren - the Great Liberal - would never have agreed upon such a thing). There is also a very good recounting of all the evidence against Oswald. And there is a lot. Eyewitnesses saw him on the 6th Floor. His gun was at the crime scene. His fingerprints were on the gun. The bullets found in Kennedy and Connolly were of the type fired by Oswald's gun (a Mannlicher-Carcano). Oswald was a Marine who'd qualified as a sharpshooter. He was seen by a number of witnesses killing a police officer. Before the JFK assassination, he attempted to kill right-wing nutter General Edwin Walker (bet you didn't know about that). The evidence is overwhelming and more than enough to have convicted Oswald beyond a reasonable doubt.
Other chapters, though, were less necessary, such as a "conversation" with Dr. Wecht, a conspiracy advocate, or the chapter in which Bugliosi details what "the zanies" think happened (this was really redundant, since the balance of the book is devoted to this subject).
The second half of Reclaiming History is devoted to describing each and every major conspiracy, and then demolishing it with facts and sneers.
The Kennedy assassination has spawned a thousand theories. Even before Nixon destroyed a Nation's trust, people were crawling out of the woodwork to disagree with the Warren Report. Perhaps this is because Oswald didn't have a great, unifiying motive behind his act. It was a combination of his personality, his beliefs, and his circumstances. Indeed, the evidence shows that the attack was rather spur of the moment - and Kennedy a target of opportunity. For whatever reason, Americans (heck, much of the world) needed a better explanation than the one Oswald presented (though Czolgosz and Guiteau were just as petty).
This half of the book dragged on forever. Bugliosi is a man on a mission. His mission is to prove irrefutably that Oswald acted alone. As he notes himself, he really doesn't need the second half of the book. It is a principle of criminal law that the prosecution doesn't have to disprove all theories; it only has to prove one. Bugliosi convincingly shows that Oswald killed Kennedy alone. Thus, ipso facto, no one else killed Kennedy. Hence, no conspiracy. I can break it down syllogistically for those with a philosphical bent:
1. Oswald killed Kennedy
2. Oswald acted alone.
3. Therefore, there was no conspiracy (conspiracy requiring, by definition, more than one person).
That's not enough for Bugliosi, though. Because he is "reclaiming history." For him, it's not enough to prove Oswald did it; he has to prove that no one else did. This requires him to destroy dozens of crackpot theories, many times using the same facts that have already been laid out. The repetition is annoying, and gets more annoying the further in you get. Moreoever, Bugliosi's digressions never stop. There are hundreds of footnotes that he stuffs with totally irrelevant facts. For instance, in the mob section, Bugliosi devotes half a dozen pages to the history of the American mob, before he even starts talking about conspiracy theories involving the mob. Then, just as if you weren't frustrated enough because you haven't been able to read another book for weeks, he gives you a huge footnote on the life of Lucky Luciano.
There's a saying in sports that you should never play down to your opponent. In the second half, though, Bugliosi can't seem to help it. His snarkiness and sneering reach a fever pitch. His temperament seems to rise and fall with the value he places on each theory. Near the start of the book, for example, he has a very lucid, very well-constructed argument as to why proponents of the "magic bullet" are liars and snake-oil salesmen (the infamous "magic bullet" sketch, which shows the alleged path of Oswald's bullet making a ninety degree right turn in midair, is based on incorrect placement of Kennedy and Connolly in the limousine; in reality, Connolly was not directly in front of Kennedy, but lower, and to the side, on a jump seat). When Bugliosi gets to other theories, though, such as KGB involvement or an Oswald "double," he starts in with the snide comments. Actually, I wouldn't have minded the snide comments (they are deserved) but they weren't funny. They just added to an already inflated word count.
Bugliosi saves the bulk of his anti-conspiracy ire for Oliver Stone's JFK. I was looking forward to this chapter and was quite disappointed. It is oddly structured, disjointed, and confusing. Bugliosi doesn't do a good job explaining the part of the movie he is discussing, so unless you watched the film five minutes ago, you're going to be lost. He also refers to everyone by their real names, and only seldom connects the real person to the actor (which definitely would've helped my recall of events). I also feel Bugliosi gives JFK way too much credit. Yes, 75% of Americans don't believe the Warren Report, but JFK didn't do that all by itself. It was an R-rated Oliver Stone movie that grossed $70,405,498 domestically (still only $109,000,000 when adjusted for inflation). Furthemore, Bugliosi is no film critic. The movie may be stew of lies, fabrications, and distortions, but it is also a grand work of art. Aesthetically, it is a marvel: great acting, great script, superb editing. It's worth s**t historically, but then again, so was John Wayne's The Green Berets, making the extended diatribe against the "liberal" director is a bit much.
The conclusion drawn by Bugliosi is airtight, and proved a number of ways. His main arguments are sourced, corroborated, and sound. Every once in awhile, however, he is forced into supposition, just like the people he criticizes. This occurs in places where there just isn't a lot of evidence. He also discusses the bullet striation and bullet lead analysis, without ever mentioning the recent controversy over the unreliabiilty of this evidence (in fact, the 60 Minutes news report on the many flaws of this technique state that the Kennedy assassination was the first case where this technique was used). I also didn't like how often Bugliosi referred back to a "docu-trial" put on by British television in which Bugliosi "prosecuted" Lee Harvey Oswald while Gerry Spence presented the defense. While it's an interesting concept, and certainly undertaken with great seriousness, it is not an actual court of law, and I think Bugliosi relies on it too heavily (and gives himself too many pats on the back for doing it).
Bugliosi knows he can't prove everything. And he also knows the mind of the conspiracy theorist. Even if he shows evidence saying something, the theorist will say that the evidence comes from a bad source, or from a lying witness. To combat this eventuality, Bugliosi lays out the epic scope that a conspiracy would have to encompass. There is a thousand pieces of evidence - eyewitness, forensic, pathological - that point to Oswald. Thus, in order for a conspiracy to have existed, every single bit of that evidence had to be fabricated by someone. Someone who could keep their mouth shut forever. The cops who found the gun had to lie; the FBI agent who did the ballistics had to lie; the doctors at Parkland had to lie; the pathologists at Bethesda had to lie; the investigators of the Warren Commission had to lie; Commission members Earl Warren (who ended segregation) and Richard B. Russell (who devoted his life to keeping segregation) had to both agree to lie; every reporter who followed the story had to lie. The list of lies keeps growing and expanding just like the universe after the Big Bang. And after all that, you have to wonder about those witnesses on the street who heard three shots coming from the Book Depository. Were they lying too? And if so, why? To set up Oswald? Instead of doing that, why not just do the job professionally? Why hire unstable nobodies like Oswald and Ruby who, if they really were hit men, would've squealed to high heaven under pressure.
Bugliosi wrote this book as a service. I read it in kind. As a duty, of sorts.
It's very easy to be skeptical. It's very easy to ask question. It's very easy to doubt. In any event, be it a crime, or a battle, or a car accident, there are going to be things that just can't be explained. Most of us accept that, chalking it up to human limitation. The conspiracy theorist doesn't.
The conspiracy theorist is a post-modernist who was raised in an environment in which he/she was taught that his opinions and beliefs had equal value as anyone else's. The conspiracy theorist believes that history is an opinion, rather than a factual occurrence.
The Kennedy assassination was only the beginning of the conspiracy movement. Today, along with those who believe the CIA killed JFK, we have the Truthers who think 9/11 was a government operation, and the Birthers who think our president was born in Kenya.
They all follow the same script. The computer savvy kids who made Loose Change were liars and charlatans and frauds, but they created an effective documentary by aping Oliver Stone. They knew that it only takes a few things to sow doubts in the minds of Americans:
1. Exploit any gaps in the official story
2. Ask rhetorical questions (these will suggest the answer, while helping to avoid the eventual slander/libel suit after you accuse someone of murder)
3. Use vague narration coupled with precise images (e.g., "Who benefited from the murder" while showing a picture of LBJ)
4. Quick edits
5. Kick ass music.
With these five steps, anyone can distort history into something that is meaningless (because it can never be shown to have any truth).
Bugliosi realized this. He saw that History itself was under attack. Its enemies are sly, intelligent, and know how to use editing software and YouTube. They have it easy: they force the legitimate historian to prove, beyond all shadow of a doubt, every single moment of an event. If the historian can't do this, the conspiracy theorist fills that gap like water in a rock. (See, e.g., the original Loose Change, which argued that a missile, not a plane, hit the Pentagon. Of course, they had to whistle a different tune when the Pentagon released security camera footage of, you know, the plane hitting the building. But of course, that footage must have been doctored...)
Bugliosi wrote this book, I believe, to squash these frauds in the only way possible: by filling every gap. The result is a book that is long, repetitive, and exhausting.
It is also a landmark (and reading it helped me lose ten pounds!)
Reclaiming History, Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's mammoth work on the assassination of John F. Kennedy, is the biggest, longest single-volume book I have ever read. It is 1,510 pages long, which does not include a lengthy introduction that is paginated with Roman numerals, or the thousands and thousands of annotated endnotes that are available only on CD (because if you put those endnotes in the book, it would be the size of a child, rather than merely a daschund).
It's not just the number of pages, but the size of the print (tiny) and the mass of the book (it's a half-inch to an inch taller than normal hardcovers). The thing weighs about five pounds, so that I couldn't read it like a normal book. When I sat on a chair, my arms tired from lifting it; and when I put it on my lap, my thighs broke out in heat-rashes. Eventually, there were two places where I could comfortably read this tome: the kitchen table or propped on the exercise bike.
I bought Reclaiming History in December 2007. I let it sit on the shelf for awhile. When I finally tried to start, I was quickly disheartened by the long, dense introduction. So I gave up. Earlier this year, however, I read a fascinating Vanity Fair article about the Kennedy's suppression of William Manchester's Death of a President. I wanted to read it, badly. But then guilt set in. How could I go out and read a book on the Kennedy assassination when I had one already sitting on the floor (it was too heavy for the table) waiting to be perused?
So I decided to get through this cinder block of a book the dirty way: 50 pages at a time, on the exercise bike, every day. In the end, I learned a lot of Kennedy factoids, and I increased my cardiovascular health.
After 1,510 pages, thousands of endnotes, and hundreds of miles logged on the stationary bike, I finished this thing with a glass of wine in my hand. With a book this size, you might expect the conclusion to be complex, twisty, and earth shattering. Some combination of Freemasons in league with Templars taking orders from aliens based out of Reykjavic. Nope. Bugliosi is certain that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. And he wants you to be certain as well.
Truth be told, I didn't need my mind changed on this. I've always thought Oswald was the lone gunman. This is a function of my personality. Those who know me would say I'm a "realistic" person. They might even add some adjectives to that ("brutally" realistic, or "coldly" realistic, or "a jerk"). A realistic person looks at the situation and sees, right off, that a conspiracy is impossible. It would involve more than just the killers, but require the cooperation of hundreds of disparate witnesses, doctors, pathologists, FBI agents, lawyers, investigators, police officers, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Gerald Ford, Jack Ruby, etc., etc.
In April 1865, John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theater. Within a matter of hours and days, Booth's conspiracy unravelled. He was killed by Boston Corbett in a Virginia barn; his co-conspirators were hanged or imprisoned. And all this took place before fingerprints, DNA analysis, ballistics, and David Caruso.
I am doubtful of conspiracies, but as Booth showed, they do exist. However, they don't stay secret, especially not at the higher echelons of government. Nixon couldn't hide Watergate. Ollie North couldn't hide Iran-Contra. The most powerful man on Earth couldn't conceal extra-marital fellatio with an intern. As the Gospel of Luke so aptly states: there is nothing that is hidden that won't be revealed, nor any secret that will not come to light.
Reclaiming History is separated into two halves: what happened, and what didn't happen. The first half is by far the better. It is informative, impeccably sourced, and delivered in a clear, straightforward manner. Bugliosi is not a great writer; there is no eloquence, no evocation, no great human insight (you'll have to go to Manchester for that). He has the annoying habit of going off on long digressions and irrelevant tangents, which becomes less enjoyable after page 900. I also noticed that in the first half, he kept changing tenses.
However, despite some occasionally tortured syntax and uncomfortable sentence structure, he delivers his story like a prosecutor's brief: that is, he writes in a clear, active voice, in a bullet-point manner that connects all the dots (at times, he literally resorts to bullet points, and there are certain "summary" chapters in this book that you can print off to bring to parties if you, like me, enjoy going to parties and getting into arguments like this).
Two huge chapters in this first half deserve their own books. Indeed, the chapter "Four Days in November" is already available for sale by itself. This chapter starts on November 22, 1963, the day JFK is murdered. It gives you a minute by minute reconstruction of what happened. As I said above, this story is not thrillingly told, but rather, is delivered methodically, carefully (except for odd interjections of onomatopeia). This is not a living book, but something painstakingly constructed.
Third Shot - :08.4 seconds BANG! - A final shot rings out...Mrs. Kennedy is six inches from her husband's face when the bullet strikes, driving pieces of skull into the air. His limp body bounces off the back of the seat and topples onto her shoulder in one horrifying, violent motion...In the front seat, Special Agent Roy Kellerman feels a sickening shower of brain matter blow into the air above his head and hears Mrs. Kennedy shout, "What are they doing to you?"
Bugliosi's reconstruction places everyone where they were that day. He's not only following the Kennedys and Oswald, but the important witnesses as well, chief among them, Abraham Zapruder, who made the most famous snuff film in history. This is important scene-setting for Bugliosi's later crusade against conspiracy theorists.
The other chapter of note, which was worth the price of the book, is the chapter entitled simply: "Lee Harvey Oswald." This is a tremendously detailed account of Oswald's life, from birth to Jack Ruby. Despite Bugliosi's terse, just-the-facts approach, this chapter managed to evoke a complex emotional response. You will find yourself conflicted as whether to feel sympathy or scorn for this man. Oswald comes off as deluded, paranoid, self-aggrandizing, isolating, pathetic, short-tempered and frustrated. By the time you've walked Oswald's path, you can see where that path is going to end.
The first half also features a hodgepodge of discussions. Some are interesting, some are not. I enjoyed the chapter on the various investigations, which should be required reading for those who have a kneejerk reaction to the Warren Commission (as Gerald Ford aptly noted, there was no conspiracy within the Commission because he and Earl Warren - the Great Liberal - would never have agreed upon such a thing). There is also a very good recounting of all the evidence against Oswald. And there is a lot. Eyewitnesses saw him on the 6th Floor. His gun was at the crime scene. His fingerprints were on the gun. The bullets found in Kennedy and Connolly were of the type fired by Oswald's gun (a Mannlicher-Carcano). Oswald was a Marine who'd qualified as a sharpshooter. He was seen by a number of witnesses killing a police officer. Before the JFK assassination, he attempted to kill right-wing nutter General Edwin Walker (bet you didn't know about that). The evidence is overwhelming and more than enough to have convicted Oswald beyond a reasonable doubt.
Other chapters, though, were less necessary, such as a "conversation" with Dr. Wecht, a conspiracy advocate, or the chapter in which Bugliosi details what "the zanies" think happened (this was really redundant, since the balance of the book is devoted to this subject).
The second half of Reclaiming History is devoted to describing each and every major conspiracy, and then demolishing it with facts and sneers.
The Kennedy assassination has spawned a thousand theories. Even before Nixon destroyed a Nation's trust, people were crawling out of the woodwork to disagree with the Warren Report. Perhaps this is because Oswald didn't have a great, unifiying motive behind his act. It was a combination of his personality, his beliefs, and his circumstances. Indeed, the evidence shows that the attack was rather spur of the moment - and Kennedy a target of opportunity. For whatever reason, Americans (heck, much of the world) needed a better explanation than the one Oswald presented (though Czolgosz and Guiteau were just as petty).
This half of the book dragged on forever. Bugliosi is a man on a mission. His mission is to prove irrefutably that Oswald acted alone. As he notes himself, he really doesn't need the second half of the book. It is a principle of criminal law that the prosecution doesn't have to disprove all theories; it only has to prove one. Bugliosi convincingly shows that Oswald killed Kennedy alone. Thus, ipso facto, no one else killed Kennedy. Hence, no conspiracy. I can break it down syllogistically for those with a philosphical bent:
1. Oswald killed Kennedy
2. Oswald acted alone.
3. Therefore, there was no conspiracy (conspiracy requiring, by definition, more than one person).
That's not enough for Bugliosi, though. Because he is "reclaiming history." For him, it's not enough to prove Oswald did it; he has to prove that no one else did. This requires him to destroy dozens of crackpot theories, many times using the same facts that have already been laid out. The repetition is annoying, and gets more annoying the further in you get. Moreoever, Bugliosi's digressions never stop. There are hundreds of footnotes that he stuffs with totally irrelevant facts. For instance, in the mob section, Bugliosi devotes half a dozen pages to the history of the American mob, before he even starts talking about conspiracy theories involving the mob. Then, just as if you weren't frustrated enough because you haven't been able to read another book for weeks, he gives you a huge footnote on the life of Lucky Luciano.
There's a saying in sports that you should never play down to your opponent. In the second half, though, Bugliosi can't seem to help it. His snarkiness and sneering reach a fever pitch. His temperament seems to rise and fall with the value he places on each theory. Near the start of the book, for example, he has a very lucid, very well-constructed argument as to why proponents of the "magic bullet" are liars and snake-oil salesmen (the infamous "magic bullet" sketch, which shows the alleged path of Oswald's bullet making a ninety degree right turn in midair, is based on incorrect placement of Kennedy and Connolly in the limousine; in reality, Connolly was not directly in front of Kennedy, but lower, and to the side, on a jump seat). When Bugliosi gets to other theories, though, such as KGB involvement or an Oswald "double," he starts in with the snide comments. Actually, I wouldn't have minded the snide comments (they are deserved) but they weren't funny. They just added to an already inflated word count.
Bugliosi saves the bulk of his anti-conspiracy ire for Oliver Stone's JFK. I was looking forward to this chapter and was quite disappointed. It is oddly structured, disjointed, and confusing. Bugliosi doesn't do a good job explaining the part of the movie he is discussing, so unless you watched the film five minutes ago, you're going to be lost. He also refers to everyone by their real names, and only seldom connects the real person to the actor (which definitely would've helped my recall of events). I also feel Bugliosi gives JFK way too much credit. Yes, 75% of Americans don't believe the Warren Report, but JFK didn't do that all by itself. It was an R-rated Oliver Stone movie that grossed $70,405,498 domestically (still only $109,000,000 when adjusted for inflation). Furthemore, Bugliosi is no film critic. The movie may be stew of lies, fabrications, and distortions, but it is also a grand work of art. Aesthetically, it is a marvel: great acting, great script, superb editing. It's worth s**t historically, but then again, so was John Wayne's The Green Berets, making the extended diatribe against the "liberal" director is a bit much.
The conclusion drawn by Bugliosi is airtight, and proved a number of ways. His main arguments are sourced, corroborated, and sound. Every once in awhile, however, he is forced into supposition, just like the people he criticizes. This occurs in places where there just isn't a lot of evidence. He also discusses the bullet striation and bullet lead analysis, without ever mentioning the recent controversy over the unreliabiilty of this evidence (in fact, the 60 Minutes news report on the many flaws of this technique state that the Kennedy assassination was the first case where this technique was used). I also didn't like how often Bugliosi referred back to a "docu-trial" put on by British television in which Bugliosi "prosecuted" Lee Harvey Oswald while Gerry Spence presented the defense. While it's an interesting concept, and certainly undertaken with great seriousness, it is not an actual court of law, and I think Bugliosi relies on it too heavily (and gives himself too many pats on the back for doing it).
Bugliosi knows he can't prove everything. And he also knows the mind of the conspiracy theorist. Even if he shows evidence saying something, the theorist will say that the evidence comes from a bad source, or from a lying witness. To combat this eventuality, Bugliosi lays out the epic scope that a conspiracy would have to encompass. There is a thousand pieces of evidence - eyewitness, forensic, pathological - that point to Oswald. Thus, in order for a conspiracy to have existed, every single bit of that evidence had to be fabricated by someone. Someone who could keep their mouth shut forever. The cops who found the gun had to lie; the FBI agent who did the ballistics had to lie; the doctors at Parkland had to lie; the pathologists at Bethesda had to lie; the investigators of the Warren Commission had to lie; Commission members Earl Warren (who ended segregation) and Richard B. Russell (who devoted his life to keeping segregation) had to both agree to lie; every reporter who followed the story had to lie. The list of lies keeps growing and expanding just like the universe after the Big Bang. And after all that, you have to wonder about those witnesses on the street who heard three shots coming from the Book Depository. Were they lying too? And if so, why? To set up Oswald? Instead of doing that, why not just do the job professionally? Why hire unstable nobodies like Oswald and Ruby who, if they really were hit men, would've squealed to high heaven under pressure.
Bugliosi wrote this book as a service. I read it in kind. As a duty, of sorts.
It's very easy to be skeptical. It's very easy to ask question. It's very easy to doubt. In any event, be it a crime, or a battle, or a car accident, there are going to be things that just can't be explained. Most of us accept that, chalking it up to human limitation. The conspiracy theorist doesn't.
The conspiracy theorist is a post-modernist who was raised in an environment in which he/she was taught that his opinions and beliefs had equal value as anyone else's. The conspiracy theorist believes that history is an opinion, rather than a factual occurrence.
The Kennedy assassination was only the beginning of the conspiracy movement. Today, along with those who believe the CIA killed JFK, we have the Truthers who think 9/11 was a government operation, and the Birthers who think our president was born in Kenya.
They all follow the same script. The computer savvy kids who made Loose Change were liars and charlatans and frauds, but they created an effective documentary by aping Oliver Stone. They knew that it only takes a few things to sow doubts in the minds of Americans:
1. Exploit any gaps in the official story
2. Ask rhetorical questions (these will suggest the answer, while helping to avoid the eventual slander/libel suit after you accuse someone of murder)
3. Use vague narration coupled with precise images (e.g., "Who benefited from the murder" while showing a picture of LBJ)
4. Quick edits
5. Kick ass music.
With these five steps, anyone can distort history into something that is meaningless (because it can never be shown to have any truth).
Bugliosi realized this. He saw that History itself was under attack. Its enemies are sly, intelligent, and know how to use editing software and YouTube. They have it easy: they force the legitimate historian to prove, beyond all shadow of a doubt, every single moment of an event. If the historian can't do this, the conspiracy theorist fills that gap like water in a rock. (See, e.g., the original Loose Change, which argued that a missile, not a plane, hit the Pentagon. Of course, they had to whistle a different tune when the Pentagon released security camera footage of, you know, the plane hitting the building. But of course, that footage must have been doctored...)
Bugliosi wrote this book, I believe, to squash these frauds in the only way possible: by filling every gap. The result is a book that is long, repetitive, and exhausting.
It is also a landmark (and reading it helped me lose ten pounds!)
Shelved as 'to-read-nonfiction'
March 20, 2018Update!
This fantastic gargantuan beast arrived today, and I am in awe. But I do have one question.... I wonder if anyone can answer it.
No, not who killed JFK.
I note that part one of this book is called "Matters of Fact - What Happened" and is 970 pages long. Part Two is called "Delusions of Conspiracy : what did Not Happen" and is 570 pages long. Now, all the conspiracy theorists that I've seen writing about this book go into automatic rage mode, saying that every single line is an outrageous provable lie and that Bugliosi was a vile government stooge and perverter of democracy.
Well, naturally. They would say that wouldn't they.
So here's the question. Has anyone in the history of the entire world ever read this book or any other book and said wow, I really thought there was a conspiracy but now I'm convinced it was Oswald all along. One lone gunman - who'da thought it!
Just looking for one single converted conspiracy theorist. One single example.
**********
I've marked this 1600 page book as "to read" but I really mean "to skim, goggle and laugh"
This fantastic gargantuan beast arrived today, and I am in awe. But I do have one question.... I wonder if anyone can answer it.
No, not who killed JFK.
I note that part one of this book is called "Matters of Fact - What Happened" and is 970 pages long. Part Two is called "Delusions of Conspiracy : what did Not Happen" and is 570 pages long. Now, all the conspiracy theorists that I've seen writing about this book go into automatic rage mode, saying that every single line is an outrageous provable lie and that Bugliosi was a vile government stooge and perverter of democracy.
Well, naturally. They would say that wouldn't they.
So here's the question. Has anyone in the history of the entire world ever read this book or any other book and said wow, I really thought there was a conspiracy but now I'm convinced it was Oswald all along. One lone gunman - who'da thought it!
Just looking for one single converted conspiracy theorist. One single example.
**********
I've marked this 1600 page book as "to read" but I really mean "to skim, goggle and laugh"
February 6, 2008
There's an old saying, never get in an argument with someone who can buy ink by the barrel. There should be a second: never get in an argument with Vincent Bugliosi. Former Manson prosecutor ("Helter Skelter") and scourge of OJ Simpson ("Outrage"), Bugliosi seemed to go into understandable seclusion after watching and raging about the insanity of the Clinton witchhunt ("No Island of Sanity") and the Bush-Gore debacle ("Betrayal of America").
Now we know what he was really up to: marshaling his outrage against the Kennedy conspiracy industry. The result is an absolutely brutal, 1600-page, prosecutorial takedown of very single Kennedy assassination conspiracy you've ever heard or read about. Beginning with an exhaustive, sometimes minute by minute account of Oswald's documented activities leading to Dealey Plaza, Bugliosi leaves absolutely no doubt that not only did Oswald kill Kennedy, but that he did so alone and unaided by anyone else.
Why should we care? For several reasons. One is intellectual hygiene; most Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and a cover-up of same, which if true would be a monstrous indictment of the US government. Simple self-respect, if not love of country, demands that one subject those beliefs to the test of evidence and reason.
Another reason is somewhat more sociological. Once you undertand how simply overwhelming is the evidence of Oswald's guilt (and his lack of accomplices), the question naturally arises: how did so many of us come to believe, as almost an article of faith, utter and complete horseshit? (I was one of those for many years.) It's tempting to call this a hoax, but as with the Bush Administration's lies about WMD, it's a blurry line when the liar believes his own lies, and it's clear that the cottage industry of conspiracy buffs largely believes the crap they peddle. So really, what emerges from Reclaiming History is a case study in mass popular self-delusion, one moreover that ignited and burns steadily even today without much help from the mass media (Oliver Stone's dishonest film JFK being a glaring exception). That so many can be so easily fooled by so few is a cautionary lesson in its own right.
Lastly, there is the sheer drama of the story. Like Mailer's Executioner's Song, there is a mysterious fascination in the life of a disturbed man with big ambitions trapped in a small, hopeless life, and Bugliosi does a great job of putting us in Oswald's shoes. There is also the car-wreck appeal of watching so many tragic contingencies line up to yield a nightmare we're still not yet awake from.
The main flaw in the book is Bugliosi's unconcealed contempt for the buffs. While justified, his contempt boils over at various places in the book in almost comical fashion, sometimes making him sound like the crank, rather than the buffs. (25 years of reading crackpot conspiracies will probably do that to one.) Something tells me that either he refused a professional editor, or more likely, a professional editor refused him. I can't imagine Vince is very easy to work with.
Still, even more than Posner's Case Closed (which Bugliosi also castigates for historical slipperiness), Reclaiming History is one of those rare books that challenges one's beliefs and in the end definitively answers them. Read the book so that we can all finally let JFK rest in peace.
Now we know what he was really up to: marshaling his outrage against the Kennedy conspiracy industry. The result is an absolutely brutal, 1600-page, prosecutorial takedown of very single Kennedy assassination conspiracy you've ever heard or read about. Beginning with an exhaustive, sometimes minute by minute account of Oswald's documented activities leading to Dealey Plaza, Bugliosi leaves absolutely no doubt that not only did Oswald kill Kennedy, but that he did so alone and unaided by anyone else.
Why should we care? For several reasons. One is intellectual hygiene; most Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and a cover-up of same, which if true would be a monstrous indictment of the US government. Simple self-respect, if not love of country, demands that one subject those beliefs to the test of evidence and reason.
Another reason is somewhat more sociological. Once you undertand how simply overwhelming is the evidence of Oswald's guilt (and his lack of accomplices), the question naturally arises: how did so many of us come to believe, as almost an article of faith, utter and complete horseshit? (I was one of those for many years.) It's tempting to call this a hoax, but as with the Bush Administration's lies about WMD, it's a blurry line when the liar believes his own lies, and it's clear that the cottage industry of conspiracy buffs largely believes the crap they peddle. So really, what emerges from Reclaiming History is a case study in mass popular self-delusion, one moreover that ignited and burns steadily even today without much help from the mass media (Oliver Stone's dishonest film JFK being a glaring exception). That so many can be so easily fooled by so few is a cautionary lesson in its own right.
Lastly, there is the sheer drama of the story. Like Mailer's Executioner's Song, there is a mysterious fascination in the life of a disturbed man with big ambitions trapped in a small, hopeless life, and Bugliosi does a great job of putting us in Oswald's shoes. There is also the car-wreck appeal of watching so many tragic contingencies line up to yield a nightmare we're still not yet awake from.
The main flaw in the book is Bugliosi's unconcealed contempt for the buffs. While justified, his contempt boils over at various places in the book in almost comical fashion, sometimes making him sound like the crank, rather than the buffs. (25 years of reading crackpot conspiracies will probably do that to one.) Something tells me that either he refused a professional editor, or more likely, a professional editor refused him. I can't imagine Vince is very easy to work with.
Still, even more than Posner's Case Closed (which Bugliosi also castigates for historical slipperiness), Reclaiming History is one of those rare books that challenges one's beliefs and in the end definitively answers them. Read the book so that we can all finally let JFK rest in peace.
March 24, 2018
A REVIEW OF THE INTRODUCTION
WHICH IS ONLY 45 PAGES LONG (BE THANKFUL FOR SMALL MERCIES).
Our manic author makes some very interesting points in his intro. Since very few of you will be reading this book, I'm guessing, it's worth listing them here.
1. JFK’s image, his popularity, is not based on what he accomplished but the promise of what he was going to accomplish. The grief and trauma of the assassination was because of the death of what America was going to be like, compared to what it became. Under LBJ and Nixon an undeclared low level civil war broke out in America; there were more assassinations; there was Vietnam and Watergate; it was a terrible time. The JFK myth implies that none of that would have happened if he had lived. So the assassination is the key sliding-door moment for America.
2. In 1964 70% of the American public agreed with the conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Now, around 75% of the American public thinks there was a conspiracy. At least 1000 books have been written about the assassination, but 95% of them have been from the pro-conspiracy/anti-Warren Commission side of the argument. The public has only heard one side.
3. The conspiracy theorists do not agree on who was behind the conspiracy but they all have to include the Warren Commission members, who not only covered up the conspiracy but framed Oswald as well. Members included Earl Warren and Gerald Ford and of course a bunch of top nobs. VB says this fact alone makes the idea of a conspiracy ridiculous. He swings with both fists from the get go and you can feel the pent-up frustration letting loose finally as he starts handing it out to those malicious fools who have been peddling their stupid theories for half a century. (You can tell that's what he's thinking because that's actually what he says, more or less.) But his belligerence will not make any converts. Not, as i already said, that there would be any converts. If you believe there was a conspiracy, nothing in heaven or earth will convince you that you're wrong. It's like a religious thing.
4. “A tenacious, indefatigable, and, in many cases, fraudulent group of conspiracy theorists” have transformed a relatively simple murder case “into its present form of the most complex murder case by far in world history.”
5. The anti-conspiracy argument is necessarily less interesting than the pro. The conspiracy theorists however are suffering from the fallacy whereby people think great events must have great causes, and so by extension great events can’t be caused by some miserable nobody like Oswald. It must have been some grand conspiracy…. That makes an emotional sense. Similarly, in movies, the big villain, say, the Sheriff of Nottingham, has to die at the hands of the big hero, Robin Hood, at the end of the movie, and not be killed by some random arrow shot by a nameless outlaw.
6. The source of 95% of the theorists’ arguments is “some document, affidavit or testimony” contained in…. the Warren Commission report or its ancillary 27 volumes of files. Yes, the very source they say was corrupted from the get go.
I must say I was rather jarred by finding out that this whole giant enterprise was based on a television reconstruction of the trial of Oswald which never happened. The tv show was shown in 1986. So that's where VB got going. It took him 20 years to produce his giant book and you can see where the time went.
When I'll get up the energy to tackle the whole thing I don't know.
WHICH IS ONLY 45 PAGES LONG (BE THANKFUL FOR SMALL MERCIES).
Our manic author makes some very interesting points in his intro. Since very few of you will be reading this book, I'm guessing, it's worth listing them here.
1. JFK’s image, his popularity, is not based on what he accomplished but the promise of what he was going to accomplish. The grief and trauma of the assassination was because of the death of what America was going to be like, compared to what it became. Under LBJ and Nixon an undeclared low level civil war broke out in America; there were more assassinations; there was Vietnam and Watergate; it was a terrible time. The JFK myth implies that none of that would have happened if he had lived. So the assassination is the key sliding-door moment for America.
2. In 1964 70% of the American public agreed with the conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Now, around 75% of the American public thinks there was a conspiracy. At least 1000 books have been written about the assassination, but 95% of them have been from the pro-conspiracy/anti-Warren Commission side of the argument. The public has only heard one side.
3. The conspiracy theorists do not agree on who was behind the conspiracy but they all have to include the Warren Commission members, who not only covered up the conspiracy but framed Oswald as well. Members included Earl Warren and Gerald Ford and of course a bunch of top nobs. VB says this fact alone makes the idea of a conspiracy ridiculous. He swings with both fists from the get go and you can feel the pent-up frustration letting loose finally as he starts handing it out to those malicious fools who have been peddling their stupid theories for half a century. (You can tell that's what he's thinking because that's actually what he says, more or less.) But his belligerence will not make any converts. Not, as i already said, that there would be any converts. If you believe there was a conspiracy, nothing in heaven or earth will convince you that you're wrong. It's like a religious thing.
4. “A tenacious, indefatigable, and, in many cases, fraudulent group of conspiracy theorists” have transformed a relatively simple murder case “into its present form of the most complex murder case by far in world history.”
5. The anti-conspiracy argument is necessarily less interesting than the pro. The conspiracy theorists however are suffering from the fallacy whereby people think great events must have great causes, and so by extension great events can’t be caused by some miserable nobody like Oswald. It must have been some grand conspiracy…. That makes an emotional sense. Similarly, in movies, the big villain, say, the Sheriff of Nottingham, has to die at the hands of the big hero, Robin Hood, at the end of the movie, and not be killed by some random arrow shot by a nameless outlaw.
6. The source of 95% of the theorists’ arguments is “some document, affidavit or testimony” contained in…. the Warren Commission report or its ancillary 27 volumes of files. Yes, the very source they say was corrupted from the get go.
I must say I was rather jarred by finding out that this whole giant enterprise was based on a television reconstruction of the trial of Oswald which never happened. The tv show was shown in 1986. So that's where VB got going. It took him 20 years to produce his giant book and you can see where the time went.
When I'll get up the energy to tackle the whole thing I don't know.
June 2, 2016
An Ass of You and of Me
or, Buyer Beware: Initial impressions, but not really a review, of Reclaiming History
One must assume that Vincent Bugliosi is honest, and that his book on the JFK assassination is likewise honest. Reclaiming History is Bugliosi's long awaited entry into the war of words over what really happened to John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
This is a massive book, so massive that the publisher, W.W. Norton, elected to put all of its end notes and other source notes onto an accompanying CD-ROM. At more than 1,600 pages, Reclaiming History gives the appearance of a comprehensive and minutely detailed study of the crime that shook the world four decades ago. Bugliosi says he devoted twenty years to his book. I'm devoting about twenty minutes to this essay.
Vincent Bugliosi, of course, is the former Deputy District Attorney from Los Angeles, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and members of his murderous "family" some thirty-five years ago. Bugliosi's resulting book Helter Skelter (written with Curt Gentry) became a best seller, and according to the press materials accompanying Reclaiming History is the best selling true crime book of all time. Bugliosi has since written several other true crime books that have also been best sellers.
Why did the former prosecutor decide to tackle the Kennedy assassination? "Over 95 percent of the books on the case happen to be pro-conspiracy and anti-Warren Commission," he says. "So certainly there is a need for far more books on the other side to give a much better balance to the debate."
Well, maybe. But what was the purpose of the Warren Report? Sylvia Meagher once observed that if the Report cannot stand on its own—if it requires additional books to prop it up—that in itself is "a total default" to its critics. In Bugliosi's case, it may be a double fault. For sheer bulk, Reclaiming History is nearly twice as long as the 888 page Warren Report it defends.
Taking Bugliosi's numbers at face value, there are still plenty of books attempting to legitimize the Warren Report, and they are typically welcomed with great praise by the mainstream media. To name just a few, Gerald Posner's Case Closed, which appeared at the time of the assassination's thirtieth anniversary, was featured prominently in U.S. News and World Report and Posner was all over the boob tube for months. Commission member Gerald Ford published a book on the case, Commission attorney David Belin published two, and Arlen Specter devoted many pages to defending the Report in his 2000 memoir. William Manchester was contracted by the Kennedy family to write a book on the assassination before the Warren Report was even published. Jim Bishop wrote a book that did not question the official story. Richard Warren Lewis and Lawrence Schiller proved two heads aren't always better than one in a book attacking the critics. And Jim Moore published a pro-Commission book in 1989. (Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler announced he was writing, but never completed, a book on the case. And former Yale University professor Jacob Cohen also announced but never published a book defending the Warren Report.)
And then there are the television networks. The electronic media convicted Oswald the weekend of the assassination and has never let up in the forty-something years since. CBS has produced multiple documentaries supporting the official story, as have NBC and ABC. Don't even get me started on Time-Life. Methinks Vince Bugliosi's protestations are without merit.
Spoiler alert! I'm going to give away the ending to Reclaiming History. Like the butler in a hackneyed murder mystery, Oswald did it. "Oswald," Bugliosi writes, was "an emotionally unhinged political malcontent who hated America [and] was as guilty as sin."
And that, really, is about all you need to know of Vincent Bugliosi's book. But I'll add that one of his objectives is to deconstruct and debunk every theory offering an explanation to the assassination—every one, that is, but the lone nut theory. If Bugliosi's comment on Lee Oswald intrigues you, or if you like to read everything on this case, then by all means spend the fifty dollars that is the book's suggested retail price. Otherwise, hang on to your money.
In spite of Bugliosi's explanation for why he wrote Reclaiming History—what he sees as a dearth of books supporting the official account of the assassination (again, why wasn't the Warren Report adequate?)—I can only understand his undertaking of a project such as this in the context of an ideological war. Oswald, after all, "hated America," Bugliosi says. In a section of his book describing the earliest Commission critics, he emphasizes their politics, which were mostly, but not exclusively, left-leaning. The first published book on the assassination, Bugliosi writes, was by "an expatriate American Communist living in Paris." Another early author was "a German Communist party member." The next two books were written by "leftists sympathetic to Marxist ideology." This is fifties-style red baiting, and if such criticisms are valid, then it is equally valid to argue that Vincent Bugliosi, as a former big city prosecutor, is a thoroughly entrenched Establishment figure who is parroting the party line, and summoning his considerable rhetorical skills in an effort to bully skeptical readers and reassure others.
As noted at the outset, this commentary is not really a review of Reclaiming History; I have not read the book in its entirety and do not intend to. Its point of view is plain as day, and taking the time to dissect and expose its fallacies is, for me, an errand of too few returns. I leave that necessary chore to others.
But in the interest of full disclosure, I must note that I am the author of a 2007 book related to these matters. Praise from a Future Generation is the story of the early, "first generation" Warren Commission critics. Documents released by the Assassination Records Review Board show that the activities of virtually every one of these critics were monitored to some degree. I will briefly describe just one example, and leave it to the reader to decide whether Bugliosi's characterization is fair and impartial.
The "German Communist party member" Bugliosi refers to is Joachim Joesten, the author of Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? Bugliosi happily acknowledges (on p. 990) that his sources on Joesten include, via the Congressional Record, Gestapo documents seized by British authorities at the end of World War Two. Copies of these Gestapo records were provided to the Warren Commission by then-CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard Helms. One of these Gestapo documents, translated by the CIA, was a memorandum from 1937 stating that while living in Copenhagen, Joesten published an article in a French newspaper warning of Germany's military threat to Denmark. So Joesten's life work includes opposing Hitler, and in Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi relies on documents prepared by Hitler's Nazi regime to pass judgment on his political reliability. This, I think, is just a little bit questionable.
But, one must assume that Vince Bugliosi is honest, and Reclaiming History represents his true feelings on the Kennedy assassination. His motives, surely, are pure as the driven snow.
or, Buyer Beware: Initial impressions, but not really a review, of Reclaiming History
One must assume that Vincent Bugliosi is honest, and that his book on the JFK assassination is likewise honest. Reclaiming History is Bugliosi's long awaited entry into the war of words over what really happened to John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
This is a massive book, so massive that the publisher, W.W. Norton, elected to put all of its end notes and other source notes onto an accompanying CD-ROM. At more than 1,600 pages, Reclaiming History gives the appearance of a comprehensive and minutely detailed study of the crime that shook the world four decades ago. Bugliosi says he devoted twenty years to his book. I'm devoting about twenty minutes to this essay.
Vincent Bugliosi, of course, is the former Deputy District Attorney from Los Angeles, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and members of his murderous "family" some thirty-five years ago. Bugliosi's resulting book Helter Skelter (written with Curt Gentry) became a best seller, and according to the press materials accompanying Reclaiming History is the best selling true crime book of all time. Bugliosi has since written several other true crime books that have also been best sellers.
Why did the former prosecutor decide to tackle the Kennedy assassination? "Over 95 percent of the books on the case happen to be pro-conspiracy and anti-Warren Commission," he says. "So certainly there is a need for far more books on the other side to give a much better balance to the debate."
Well, maybe. But what was the purpose of the Warren Report? Sylvia Meagher once observed that if the Report cannot stand on its own—if it requires additional books to prop it up—that in itself is "a total default" to its critics. In Bugliosi's case, it may be a double fault. For sheer bulk, Reclaiming History is nearly twice as long as the 888 page Warren Report it defends.
Taking Bugliosi's numbers at face value, there are still plenty of books attempting to legitimize the Warren Report, and they are typically welcomed with great praise by the mainstream media. To name just a few, Gerald Posner's Case Closed, which appeared at the time of the assassination's thirtieth anniversary, was featured prominently in U.S. News and World Report and Posner was all over the boob tube for months. Commission member Gerald Ford published a book on the case, Commission attorney David Belin published two, and Arlen Specter devoted many pages to defending the Report in his 2000 memoir. William Manchester was contracted by the Kennedy family to write a book on the assassination before the Warren Report was even published. Jim Bishop wrote a book that did not question the official story. Richard Warren Lewis and Lawrence Schiller proved two heads aren't always better than one in a book attacking the critics. And Jim Moore published a pro-Commission book in 1989. (Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler announced he was writing, but never completed, a book on the case. And former Yale University professor Jacob Cohen also announced but never published a book defending the Warren Report.)
And then there are the television networks. The electronic media convicted Oswald the weekend of the assassination and has never let up in the forty-something years since. CBS has produced multiple documentaries supporting the official story, as have NBC and ABC. Don't even get me started on Time-Life. Methinks Vince Bugliosi's protestations are without merit.
Spoiler alert! I'm going to give away the ending to Reclaiming History. Like the butler in a hackneyed murder mystery, Oswald did it. "Oswald," Bugliosi writes, was "an emotionally unhinged political malcontent who hated America [and] was as guilty as sin."
And that, really, is about all you need to know of Vincent Bugliosi's book. But I'll add that one of his objectives is to deconstruct and debunk every theory offering an explanation to the assassination—every one, that is, but the lone nut theory. If Bugliosi's comment on Lee Oswald intrigues you, or if you like to read everything on this case, then by all means spend the fifty dollars that is the book's suggested retail price. Otherwise, hang on to your money.
In spite of Bugliosi's explanation for why he wrote Reclaiming History—what he sees as a dearth of books supporting the official account of the assassination (again, why wasn't the Warren Report adequate?)—I can only understand his undertaking of a project such as this in the context of an ideological war. Oswald, after all, "hated America," Bugliosi says. In a section of his book describing the earliest Commission critics, he emphasizes their politics, which were mostly, but not exclusively, left-leaning. The first published book on the assassination, Bugliosi writes, was by "an expatriate American Communist living in Paris." Another early author was "a German Communist party member." The next two books were written by "leftists sympathetic to Marxist ideology." This is fifties-style red baiting, and if such criticisms are valid, then it is equally valid to argue that Vincent Bugliosi, as a former big city prosecutor, is a thoroughly entrenched Establishment figure who is parroting the party line, and summoning his considerable rhetorical skills in an effort to bully skeptical readers and reassure others.
As noted at the outset, this commentary is not really a review of Reclaiming History; I have not read the book in its entirety and do not intend to. Its point of view is plain as day, and taking the time to dissect and expose its fallacies is, for me, an errand of too few returns. I leave that necessary chore to others.
But in the interest of full disclosure, I must note that I am the author of a 2007 book related to these matters. Praise from a Future Generation is the story of the early, "first generation" Warren Commission critics. Documents released by the Assassination Records Review Board show that the activities of virtually every one of these critics were monitored to some degree. I will briefly describe just one example, and leave it to the reader to decide whether Bugliosi's characterization is fair and impartial.
The "German Communist party member" Bugliosi refers to is Joachim Joesten, the author of Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? Bugliosi happily acknowledges (on p. 990) that his sources on Joesten include, via the Congressional Record, Gestapo documents seized by British authorities at the end of World War Two. Copies of these Gestapo records were provided to the Warren Commission by then-CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard Helms. One of these Gestapo documents, translated by the CIA, was a memorandum from 1937 stating that while living in Copenhagen, Joesten published an article in a French newspaper warning of Germany's military threat to Denmark. So Joesten's life work includes opposing Hitler, and in Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi relies on documents prepared by Hitler's Nazi regime to pass judgment on his political reliability. This, I think, is just a little bit questionable.
But, one must assume that Vince Bugliosi is honest, and Reclaiming History represents his true feelings on the Kennedy assassination. His motives, surely, are pure as the driven snow.
December 2, 2008
(Warning: This book is giant. 1612 pages of content. Commitments be cautioned. Skeptics will be skeptical. CT's might (will) be embarrassed and criticized)
The Good: Reclaiming History is a clear, concise, deep, and logical book. It is easy to read, and very amusing. When completed (or skimmed, whichever seems more reasonable to you), the mystery will most certainly be solved, and any doubt surrounding the honesty of the Warren Commission, CIA, FBI, or mob will be wiped clear. Bugliosi uses simple, but undeniably effective strategies to uncover and absolutely annihilate all theories of conspiracy.
The Bad: The underlining tone is unnecessarily harsh, and Bugliosi appears bias (and is bias in some circumstances). However, Vincent undoubtedly succeeds in delivering the message: Oswald acted alone.
Case closed.
The Good: Reclaiming History is a clear, concise, deep, and logical book. It is easy to read, and very amusing. When completed (or skimmed, whichever seems more reasonable to you), the mystery will most certainly be solved, and any doubt surrounding the honesty of the Warren Commission, CIA, FBI, or mob will be wiped clear. Bugliosi uses simple, but undeniably effective strategies to uncover and absolutely annihilate all theories of conspiracy.
The Bad: The underlining tone is unnecessarily harsh, and Bugliosi appears bias (and is bias in some circumstances). However, Vincent undoubtedly succeeds in delivering the message: Oswald acted alone.
Case closed.
July 8, 2013
I have no doubt about Vincent Bugliosi's credentials, that he is certainly a talented prosecutor is apparent from the Manson trial as well as his other works. The Kennedy Assassination however is not his strength. What Bugliosi attempts to do with this book is to literally bury everything ever written on this particular day in November beneath his own literal mountain of research and high page count-included along with the 1,600 page work itself is over 900 pages of his own copious footnotes, pertinent documents on a separate CD-to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that Oswald did it and did it alone.
There are a huge amount of problems with this huge work, and so while exhaustive, and thorough it may appear its very page count is its undoing: let me explain. The goal of a good prosecutor is (as mentioned) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not only the guilty party, but that the evidence collected speaks to the effect that no one but the defendant could have possibly committed the crime for which they are being charged. That is all well and good but, before there gets to be a trial with prosecution and defendant evidence needs to be collected, and that evidence leads to the accused. What Bugliosi has assembled here is evidence certainly, but evidence that has been assembled by merely one side-the prosecution for the intention of accusing Lee Harvey Oswald. In other worlds Bugliosi has chosen his conclusion before the evidence ironically as the Warren Commission had done. 'Lee Harvey Oswald must have done it, and so I shall prove it to that effect.' How he proves it-the evidence that he uses is the second faulty portion of this work.
Bugliosi as a prosecutor, need not be an expert in all the evidence that he has presented-ballistics, autopsy, film processing, witness statements, history, so on and so forth. So, in typical fashion he calls his experts so to speak. There are thus portions of the book where Bugliosi is writing what has been presented by these experts, but not really speaking himself. He is hence riding upon their backs, and succeeds if they succeed and likewise fail if they fail. The latter is most common, where experts say that certain evidence does prove that President Kennedy and John Connally were both hit by two shots from Oswald's perch in the Texas Book Depository, other experts would disagree. For instance the dictabelt recording that Bugliosi dismisses offhandedly has been examined and re-examined many times with the evidence more strongly supporting that at least four shots were fired-well above the three that Oswald could have fired in the time allotted to him by the Zapruder film that the Warren Commission based its conclusions upon. Bugliosi's conclusions then can hardly be considered as concrete as he would have it. The same mistake is made in regards to the shot that supposedly killed Kennedy, and wounded Governor Connally-the magic bullet of JFK Lore. Bugliosi is honest enough to admit that he himself struggled to understand its trajectory, but finally got it enough to roughly chronicle its flight in this work. But again, other experts would disagree, and indeed would say that three bullets struck Kennedy and Connally-which interestingly enough was the Warren Commission's initial assumption until a man reported that he had been wounded by a stray bullet. This unfortunate fact forced the Warren Commission to state that only two bullets had hit Kennedy and Connally and forced the creation of this bizarre trajectory that Bugliosi endorses.
Another flaw is Bugliosi ignoring the fact that certain items that he places a huge amount of weight upon for his own analysis do not have complete records as to who handled them, and when. The most notable of these is the infamous 'magic bullet.' In any court case as Bugliosi is no doubt aware-any item without a clear chain of custody is subject to dismissal.
Though there are many flaws of this work perhaps the worst is Bugliosi's dismissal of those witnesses who reported hearing, seeing, or even possibly interacting with multiple gunmen. Granted eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, but where many unrelated eyewitnesses report much of the same happenings, and corroborate other eyewitnesses without queues, or interactions with one another, their testimony while perhaps not completely accurate ought to be testimony worth looking in to. That certain individuals have in ways confessed to their own knowledge and or involvement, and that this knowledge is plausible should also warrant investigation. Not so to Bugliosi who writes them all off as mistaken, or somehow intending to cash in on their association. Again, however this is Bugliosi's modus operandi to hammer the evidence into shape to fit his preconceived notion.
Does this book "reclaim history?" No. Does Bugliosi present any real concrete evidence that Oswald acted alone? No. Certainly there are some theories that are ridiculous on the part of those who would believe that Oswald did not act alone: for instance Jim Marrs' hypothesis that the Treasury Department somehow instigated JFK's assassination is terribly absurd, but in spite of this Bugliosi would have his audience believe that only lunatics would believe in anyone more than Oswald's involvement, which keeping in mind that Bertrand Russell the famous British mathematician, political theorist, and logician (amongst other talents) believed that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy further diminishes Bugliosi's thesis.
There are a huge amount of problems with this huge work, and so while exhaustive, and thorough it may appear its very page count is its undoing: let me explain. The goal of a good prosecutor is (as mentioned) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not only the guilty party, but that the evidence collected speaks to the effect that no one but the defendant could have possibly committed the crime for which they are being charged. That is all well and good but, before there gets to be a trial with prosecution and defendant evidence needs to be collected, and that evidence leads to the accused. What Bugliosi has assembled here is evidence certainly, but evidence that has been assembled by merely one side-the prosecution for the intention of accusing Lee Harvey Oswald. In other worlds Bugliosi has chosen his conclusion before the evidence ironically as the Warren Commission had done. 'Lee Harvey Oswald must have done it, and so I shall prove it to that effect.' How he proves it-the evidence that he uses is the second faulty portion of this work.
Bugliosi as a prosecutor, need not be an expert in all the evidence that he has presented-ballistics, autopsy, film processing, witness statements, history, so on and so forth. So, in typical fashion he calls his experts so to speak. There are thus portions of the book where Bugliosi is writing what has been presented by these experts, but not really speaking himself. He is hence riding upon their backs, and succeeds if they succeed and likewise fail if they fail. The latter is most common, where experts say that certain evidence does prove that President Kennedy and John Connally were both hit by two shots from Oswald's perch in the Texas Book Depository, other experts would disagree. For instance the dictabelt recording that Bugliosi dismisses offhandedly has been examined and re-examined many times with the evidence more strongly supporting that at least four shots were fired-well above the three that Oswald could have fired in the time allotted to him by the Zapruder film that the Warren Commission based its conclusions upon. Bugliosi's conclusions then can hardly be considered as concrete as he would have it. The same mistake is made in regards to the shot that supposedly killed Kennedy, and wounded Governor Connally-the magic bullet of JFK Lore. Bugliosi is honest enough to admit that he himself struggled to understand its trajectory, but finally got it enough to roughly chronicle its flight in this work. But again, other experts would disagree, and indeed would say that three bullets struck Kennedy and Connally-which interestingly enough was the Warren Commission's initial assumption until a man reported that he had been wounded by a stray bullet. This unfortunate fact forced the Warren Commission to state that only two bullets had hit Kennedy and Connally and forced the creation of this bizarre trajectory that Bugliosi endorses.
Another flaw is Bugliosi ignoring the fact that certain items that he places a huge amount of weight upon for his own analysis do not have complete records as to who handled them, and when. The most notable of these is the infamous 'magic bullet.' In any court case as Bugliosi is no doubt aware-any item without a clear chain of custody is subject to dismissal.
Though there are many flaws of this work perhaps the worst is Bugliosi's dismissal of those witnesses who reported hearing, seeing, or even possibly interacting with multiple gunmen. Granted eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, but where many unrelated eyewitnesses report much of the same happenings, and corroborate other eyewitnesses without queues, or interactions with one another, their testimony while perhaps not completely accurate ought to be testimony worth looking in to. That certain individuals have in ways confessed to their own knowledge and or involvement, and that this knowledge is plausible should also warrant investigation. Not so to Bugliosi who writes them all off as mistaken, or somehow intending to cash in on their association. Again, however this is Bugliosi's modus operandi to hammer the evidence into shape to fit his preconceived notion.
Does this book "reclaim history?" No. Does Bugliosi present any real concrete evidence that Oswald acted alone? No. Certainly there are some theories that are ridiculous on the part of those who would believe that Oswald did not act alone: for instance Jim Marrs' hypothesis that the Treasury Department somehow instigated JFK's assassination is terribly absurd, but in spite of this Bugliosi would have his audience believe that only lunatics would believe in anyone more than Oswald's involvement, which keeping in mind that Bertrand Russell the famous British mathematician, political theorist, and logician (amongst other talents) believed that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy further diminishes Bugliosi's thesis.
December 16, 2022
At the very beginning of this book, Bugliosi is giving a lecture to a to a group of lawyers. He asked them how many of them thought that there was some sort of conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. Most of the lawyers raised their hands. He told them that he could change their opinion about this in less than one minute. He then asked them how many had bothered to read the Warren Commission report. Only a few people raised their hands. Attention everyone, do the required reading before you offer an opinion. Case closed.
I honestly didn't have much of an opinion about the JFK assassination before reading this book, but I certainly wasn't a conspiracy theorist. Oliver Stone's movie made me laugh out loud. I probably wouldn't have bothered with this huge book had the author been anyone but Bugliosi whose book And The Sea Will Tell I found vastly entertaining. Now I'm completely convinced that there isn't any credence to a conspiracy in the JFK affair. LHO did it and it was an open and shut case. He also convinces me that the Warren Commission dealt with the issue in a conclusive and comprehensive manner. Bugliosi also convinces me that anyone saying anything to the contrary is a fucking nut job or a lair.
Bugliosi meticulously examines and disarms every single kooky claim by the conspiracy nuts. JFK was killed by a lone kook working alone. Period. More than 40 years after the murder it's time everyone realizes that these are the undisputed facts of the case.
RIP JFK and enough with the crazy theories. The Oliver Stone movie was laughably stupid.
I honestly didn't have much of an opinion about the JFK assassination before reading this book, but I certainly wasn't a conspiracy theorist. Oliver Stone's movie made me laugh out loud. I probably wouldn't have bothered with this huge book had the author been anyone but Bugliosi whose book And The Sea Will Tell I found vastly entertaining. Now I'm completely convinced that there isn't any credence to a conspiracy in the JFK affair. LHO did it and it was an open and shut case. He also convinces me that the Warren Commission dealt with the issue in a conclusive and comprehensive manner. Bugliosi also convinces me that anyone saying anything to the contrary is a fucking nut job or a lair.
Bugliosi meticulously examines and disarms every single kooky claim by the conspiracy nuts. JFK was killed by a lone kook working alone. Period. More than 40 years after the murder it's time everyone realizes that these are the undisputed facts of the case.
RIP JFK and enough with the crazy theories. The Oliver Stone movie was laughably stupid.
June 20, 2020
I did it! 1,600+ plus pages and I read them all. I find this hilarious for two reasons. 1) The pages in the book were like crepe paper to reduce size and weight and the type size was tiny. 2) There’s a load of reviews on GoodReads pertaining to this book where the person hasn’t even finished the introduction and they’ve rated and reviewed the book.
The amount of information in this book was colossal. And honestly if you buy into some conspiracy theory after reading the book then one of three things has occurred: 1) You’re an idiot. 2) You didn’t read the book (nor have you ever read the Warren Commission Report or the HSCA Report both of which come to over 40 volumes so I don’t blame you on that front). 3) You’re one of these people that is not open to the idea that facts speak to the truth or you just want everything to be a conspiracy.
Do you believe everything is a conspiracy? Is Elvis still alive? 9/11 was an “inside” job? Lizards dressed as humans rule the world? New World Order? Illuminati? Freemasons? Vaccines cause autism and are used by the government to poison the population? John Wilkes Booth was never actually captured? Mass school shootings are fake orchestrations by the government? HIV was released by the government on purpose? Etc.
Do you refuse to accept the evidence about other things? Religious holidays are placed on the calendar in an attempt eliminate “pagan” holidays? Ted Kaczynski was mailing explosive packages to agencies around the U.S.? The germ theory of diseases is correct? Watergate was perpetrated by Nixon and his cronies? The Big Bang was an actual event which occurred and resulted in the formation of the universe? Santa Claus isn’t real and doesn’t live at the North Pole? Kim Jong-un is not a deity? The U.S. war in Vietnam was a pointless waste of American lives? Etc.
The mind-numbing amount of forensic data that points directly to (and only to) Oswald is mammoth. The amount of investigative time that has been put into this case is unbelievable. The tracing of Oswald’s activities leading up to the murder are indescribable. The number of witnesses who were able to identify Oswald is jaw dropping. The incredible number of people and impossible circumstances, which would have to be involved in a cover up conspiracy and to have occurred is simply that, impossible. The number of corrupt individuals and assumed cooperation of other individuals that would need to occur (and occur tacitly and secretly) is unfathomable. Of course mistakes were made in the investigation. Of course there is information that appears weird or inconsistent, but those exist in any criminal case (ask any criminal attorney).
I don’t want to go into some sort of mission to try and convince you one way or the other; Bugliosi is responsible for that. But I will reiterate what Bugliosi says in the introduction to this book, albeit in a lot fewer words. He asked the following question at a conference of attorneys, “Who here believes that JFK’s murder was part of a conspiracy?” These lawyers responded by raising their hands to the tune of over 90%. His next question was, “Who here has read the Warren Commission Report?” Everyone’s hand dropped. How can you make a determination based on zero information?
How many people believe Jesus was executed and did a zombie resurrection 3-days later without reading the text (the Bible) that supports this story?
But that’s such a long book...I don’t want to read that.
People do it all the time.
The amount of information in this book was colossal. And honestly if you buy into some conspiracy theory after reading the book then one of three things has occurred: 1) You’re an idiot. 2) You didn’t read the book (nor have you ever read the Warren Commission Report or the HSCA Report both of which come to over 40 volumes so I don’t blame you on that front). 3) You’re one of these people that is not open to the idea that facts speak to the truth or you just want everything to be a conspiracy.
Do you believe everything is a conspiracy? Is Elvis still alive? 9/11 was an “inside” job? Lizards dressed as humans rule the world? New World Order? Illuminati? Freemasons? Vaccines cause autism and are used by the government to poison the population? John Wilkes Booth was never actually captured? Mass school shootings are fake orchestrations by the government? HIV was released by the government on purpose? Etc.
Do you refuse to accept the evidence about other things? Religious holidays are placed on the calendar in an attempt eliminate “pagan” holidays? Ted Kaczynski was mailing explosive packages to agencies around the U.S.? The germ theory of diseases is correct? Watergate was perpetrated by Nixon and his cronies? The Big Bang was an actual event which occurred and resulted in the formation of the universe? Santa Claus isn’t real and doesn’t live at the North Pole? Kim Jong-un is not a deity? The U.S. war in Vietnam was a pointless waste of American lives? Etc.
The mind-numbing amount of forensic data that points directly to (and only to) Oswald is mammoth. The amount of investigative time that has been put into this case is unbelievable. The tracing of Oswald’s activities leading up to the murder are indescribable. The number of witnesses who were able to identify Oswald is jaw dropping. The incredible number of people and impossible circumstances, which would have to be involved in a cover up conspiracy and to have occurred is simply that, impossible. The number of corrupt individuals and assumed cooperation of other individuals that would need to occur (and occur tacitly and secretly) is unfathomable. Of course mistakes were made in the investigation. Of course there is information that appears weird or inconsistent, but those exist in any criminal case (ask any criminal attorney).
I don’t want to go into some sort of mission to try and convince you one way or the other; Bugliosi is responsible for that. But I will reiterate what Bugliosi says in the introduction to this book, albeit in a lot fewer words. He asked the following question at a conference of attorneys, “Who here believes that JFK’s murder was part of a conspiracy?” These lawyers responded by raising their hands to the tune of over 90%. His next question was, “Who here has read the Warren Commission Report?” Everyone’s hand dropped. How can you make a determination based on zero information?
How many people believe Jesus was executed and did a zombie resurrection 3-days later without reading the text (the Bible) that supports this story?
But that’s such a long book...I don’t want to read that.
People do it all the time.
August 23, 2017
Wow! I finally finished this book! I am now adding it to my favorites list.
Vincent Bugliosi has written THE definitive book about the Kennedy assassination. Yes, it is well over 1500 pages (small margins, small font), but it is written in a very readable narrative style and I read it in chunks (over several months!)
First, if you do nothing else, you must read the first section "Four Days in November" just to get a feel for the minute by minute who was where, who did what, who said what, etc. This is so superbly written you will feel as if you were there yourself.
Then Bugliosi takes you piece by piece, step by step through each and every piece of evidence. In addition, you begin to understand Oswald, Ruby, members of the Warren Commission and their staff at a depth never before attempted.
Huge chunks of the book, which could be separate books in themselves, provide us with biographical information about Oswald and Ruby, and bring to life their families and friends.
Bugliosi spells out 53 (!) separate pieces of evidence which point to Oswald’s guilt (and to no one else’s!). And, believe me; he goes into great detail on the validity of each.
In "Book Two" every major conspiracy theory you can think of is dissected in great detail. Was it the mob, KGB, pro-Castro, anti-Castro, CIA, FBI, LBJ? Each is covered.
Did you see the movie JFK by Oliver Stone? Bugliosi totally rips it apart and explains the disservice Stone has done to our nation by pulling together a fantasy, and swearing it is truth and history.
Finally, what is the conclusion drawn by Bugliosi? "The purpose of this book has been twofold. One, to educate everyday Americans that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone, paying for his own bullets. And two, to expose, as never before, the conspiracy theorists and the abject worthlessness of all their allegations."
I am totally a believer. No other book I have read about the assassination and/or its aftermath has laid out such a compelling argument. No one else has notated every point, named names, quoted quotes, in such a way as to totally make their argument. This man spent 21 years on this book, completing almost all of the research himself. He has served his country well. Now, I, for one, can let JFK rest in peace.
Vincent Bugliosi has written THE definitive book about the Kennedy assassination. Yes, it is well over 1500 pages (small margins, small font), but it is written in a very readable narrative style and I read it in chunks (over several months!)
First, if you do nothing else, you must read the first section "Four Days in November" just to get a feel for the minute by minute who was where, who did what, who said what, etc. This is so superbly written you will feel as if you were there yourself.
Then Bugliosi takes you piece by piece, step by step through each and every piece of evidence. In addition, you begin to understand Oswald, Ruby, members of the Warren Commission and their staff at a depth never before attempted.
Huge chunks of the book, which could be separate books in themselves, provide us with biographical information about Oswald and Ruby, and bring to life their families and friends.
Bugliosi spells out 53 (!) separate pieces of evidence which point to Oswald’s guilt (and to no one else’s!). And, believe me; he goes into great detail on the validity of each.
In "Book Two" every major conspiracy theory you can think of is dissected in great detail. Was it the mob, KGB, pro-Castro, anti-Castro, CIA, FBI, LBJ? Each is covered.
Did you see the movie JFK by Oliver Stone? Bugliosi totally rips it apart and explains the disservice Stone has done to our nation by pulling together a fantasy, and swearing it is truth and history.
Finally, what is the conclusion drawn by Bugliosi? "The purpose of this book has been twofold. One, to educate everyday Americans that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone, paying for his own bullets. And two, to expose, as never before, the conspiracy theorists and the abject worthlessness of all their allegations."
I am totally a believer. No other book I have read about the assassination and/or its aftermath has laid out such a compelling argument. No one else has notated every point, named names, quoted quotes, in such a way as to totally make their argument. This man spent 21 years on this book, completing almost all of the research himself. He has served his country well. Now, I, for one, can let JFK rest in peace.
June 28, 2014
With 1518 pages of text, this was easily the longest book I have ever read. It was also, literally, the heaviest. The volume weighs five pounds, and during the nine weeks I spent reading it, I sometimes joked about having to register it as a deadly weapon, since throwing it at someone could cause death or serious injury. I probably will not read it a second time, but may purchase it as a reference volume, as it is on sale now at a nearby Borders for $9.99. (The copy I read was checked out of the library.)
Writing this book about the JFK assassination was, by his own admission, the author's obsession for some 20 years, which is very easy to believe. I have never subscribed to any of the conspiracy theories about the assassination, some of which I find downright ludicrous; thus, I am included in the relative minority of Americans who have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. (So also, in my view, did Jack Ruby.) Bugliosi, a former prosecutor, makes his case in mind-numbing detail; and while the book has its virtues, Gerald Posner makes the same argument in Case Closed, a very readable volume which has the additional virtue of being much shorter than Mr. Bugliosi's opus. (But for reasons unclear to me, Bugliosi actually devotes a bit of space in his own book to lambasting Posner's!)
While it is unlikely that many people will bother to read the entire book, two noteworthy segments of it are definitely well worth reading, and could be published as separate works by themselves. One is the first section, some 300 pages in length, titled "Four Days in November." The other is the chapter devoted to the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, which is compelling in part because it is difficult to believe that such a pathetic loser could change the course of history as he did, and do so single-handedly.
In my favorite review of this book, written by Bryan Burrough and published in The New York Times Book Review, Mr. Bugliosi's enormous volume is characterized as "the literary equivalent of World War I, a kind of trench warfare for the mind." I have to agree with that, but while I would not necessarily recommend reading the entire volume, I do believe it is worth at least a serious and thoughtful perusal.
Writing this book about the JFK assassination was, by his own admission, the author's obsession for some 20 years, which is very easy to believe. I have never subscribed to any of the conspiracy theories about the assassination, some of which I find downright ludicrous; thus, I am included in the relative minority of Americans who have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. (So also, in my view, did Jack Ruby.) Bugliosi, a former prosecutor, makes his case in mind-numbing detail; and while the book has its virtues, Gerald Posner makes the same argument in Case Closed, a very readable volume which has the additional virtue of being much shorter than Mr. Bugliosi's opus. (But for reasons unclear to me, Bugliosi actually devotes a bit of space in his own book to lambasting Posner's!)
While it is unlikely that many people will bother to read the entire book, two noteworthy segments of it are definitely well worth reading, and could be published as separate works by themselves. One is the first section, some 300 pages in length, titled "Four Days in November." The other is the chapter devoted to the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, which is compelling in part because it is difficult to believe that such a pathetic loser could change the course of history as he did, and do so single-handedly.
In my favorite review of this book, written by Bryan Burrough and published in The New York Times Book Review, Mr. Bugliosi's enormous volume is characterized as "the literary equivalent of World War I, a kind of trench warfare for the mind." I have to agree with that, but while I would not necessarily recommend reading the entire volume, I do believe it is worth at least a serious and thoughtful perusal.
July 19, 2010
Bugliosi has done something that conspiracy theorists have not, which is he named the killer. To my knowledge, no conspiracy theorist has ever named a shooter that was not quickly debunked.
Bugliosi asks why people would believe a story based on no evidence while ignoring the actual facts right in front of their face.
Bugliosi asks why people would believe a story based on no evidence while ignoring the actual facts right in front of their face.
August 22, 2014
136 days is what it took me to read this 1600 page monstrosity of lies and conjecture. The first part is good which is a just a fictional narrative of the way the story could have been, according to the Warren commision, but it has more holes in it than a screen door. The rest of the nonsense sections are just attacks on different conspiracy theories, most of which he chose are the weakest ones and he still doesn't do a good job at disproving them.
Oh yeah, and there's a cd-rom that comes attached with another 1000+ pages of end notes and source notes. I'm not reading them.
Oh yeah, and there's a cd-rom that comes attached with another 1000+ pages of end notes and source notes. I'm not reading them.
September 6, 2017
DNF.....If you want someone to read the Warren Report to you, here is your 'book.' Ugh. --Jen from Quebec :0)
December 4, 2013
Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History about the JFK assassination is truly a book for the ages. No one will ever attempt, I am sure, to do what this skilled prosecutor spent 20 years doing -- investigating not only the details of the assassination and the conclusions of the Warren Commission but also the endless conspiracy theories challenging those conclusions. I worked on the Warren Commission staff and believe that Bugliosi accurately portrays both the strengths of our work and the limitations under which we were operating because of the failures of the FBI and CIA to fully cooperate with the commission. I understand that the book will be republished this Fall when the 50th anniversary of the assassination is expected to result in many new books about President Kennedy -- his life and his assassination. I will be joining this group of authors with my new book History Will Prove Us Right, to be published by Overlook Press on November 1, 2013.
January 7, 2012
Having read The Official Warren Commission Report On The Assassination Of President John F. Kenedy years ago at the reccomendation of my father (a retired FBI Agent) I've never questioned the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the President and did so alone. But this more curent book does an excellent job presenting the facts in a very readable fashion. Bugliosi, who is a retired prosecutor, has the luxury of knowing what all the conspiracy theorists claim, and can therefore address all of them directly. Read both books and you'll be amazed how thoroughly the crime was investigated. No logical person who is honest can read either and still believe there was a conspiracy.
August 9, 2012
An essential book, but DANGEROUSLY misleading, as I show in my book IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD. It is too bad Bugliosi has cancer; we will now may never know his response to my challenge to him to prove his points before an arbitrator.
March 25, 2024
entering my fatherhood era and listening to an 18 hour audiobook about the jfk assassination. i promise i read this for normal reasons and not because i am doing research for a zine about lesbians i am writing (lie).
anyway, here's the review: this book may be drier than a mouthful of sand, but vincent bugliosi is the king of mock trial. obsessed with how in an 18 hour book about the jfk assassination, jfk dies by hour 2. slay (literally).
anyway, here's the review: this book may be drier than a mouthful of sand, but vincent bugliosi is the king of mock trial. obsessed with how in an 18 hour book about the jfk assassination, jfk dies by hour 2. slay (literally).
January 26, 2013
Let's be very clear about one thing. This is simply the best, most detailed analysis of the JFK assassination ever published, and will remain that for all of time. Vincent Bugliosi is a prosecutor by trade and as such this volume reads like a supremely researched prosecutorial argument. If you feel that his writing is biased on a pre-conceived notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, you're not wrong. However, as you read through this 1,518 page epic, you begin to understand why.
The first half of the book is a complete layout of the FACTS of the case. Everything Mr. Bugliosi presents as fact is backed by a collection of supporting citations so large they had to be put onto a companion CD, evidence of his decades of research. When you read through these first 969 pages, any person with a shred of intelligence and unbiased views can only come to a single conclusion, Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed John F. Kennedy. Every piece of physical evidence leads only to that conclusion and never allows for an alternate possibility. Only conjecture and eyewitness testimony, universally understood to be consistent only its unreliability, lead one astray from this conclusion.
The second half of the book is a delicious romp through nearly every conspiracy theory ever seriously put forward. Mr. Bugliosi presents the conspiracy theory, its origins and then lays out any "evidence" that appears to support the theory. What results is nothing short of embarrassing for the people who continue to push these conspiracy theories onto the American public as fact. If I can be critical of Mr. Bugliosi for one moment, it is to say that his writing in these sections is at times conceited and arrogant. His motivation is understandable. These conspiracy theories have NO evidence that support their claims, and all known evidence contradicts them soundly. Like Mr. Bugliosi, I am disgusted that people still fabricate claims and thus for 50 years have blotted this piece of sacred history. However, if these conspiracy theories were going to be addressed, more pains could have been made to take them as serious as possible in the mood of the writing because unfortunately people do take these theories seriously.
In the end, I'm thrilled that we have this book for history's sake. Every time someone tries to bring up conspiracy theories regarding JFK's assassination, I challenge them to read this book. In that effort, we are truly reclaiming history one reader at a time.
The first half of the book is a complete layout of the FACTS of the case. Everything Mr. Bugliosi presents as fact is backed by a collection of supporting citations so large they had to be put onto a companion CD, evidence of his decades of research. When you read through these first 969 pages, any person with a shred of intelligence and unbiased views can only come to a single conclusion, Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed John F. Kennedy. Every piece of physical evidence leads only to that conclusion and never allows for an alternate possibility. Only conjecture and eyewitness testimony, universally understood to be consistent only its unreliability, lead one astray from this conclusion.
The second half of the book is a delicious romp through nearly every conspiracy theory ever seriously put forward. Mr. Bugliosi presents the conspiracy theory, its origins and then lays out any "evidence" that appears to support the theory. What results is nothing short of embarrassing for the people who continue to push these conspiracy theories onto the American public as fact. If I can be critical of Mr. Bugliosi for one moment, it is to say that his writing in these sections is at times conceited and arrogant. His motivation is understandable. These conspiracy theories have NO evidence that support their claims, and all known evidence contradicts them soundly. Like Mr. Bugliosi, I am disgusted that people still fabricate claims and thus for 50 years have blotted this piece of sacred history. However, if these conspiracy theories were going to be addressed, more pains could have been made to take them as serious as possible in the mood of the writing because unfortunately people do take these theories seriously.
In the end, I'm thrilled that we have this book for history's sake. Every time someone tries to bring up conspiracy theories regarding JFK's assassination, I challenge them to read this book. In that effort, we are truly reclaiming history one reader at a time.
January 24, 2016
I listened to this on cd while driving, meaning I listened to it over a long period of time, sometimes in very short spurts and other times in long stretches. I really enjoyed it. The first part of the book is a chronological fact based story of many different threads of the JFK assassination and it's aftermath. It's easy to follow even though there a literally thousands of details. The second half is an analysis of different conspiracy theories, and the facts used to prove (or disprove) each theory. The author laid out each theory really nicely and did a great job of debunking nearly every single counterpoint to the "Oswald acted alone" notion.
After talks with family members and friends who lived through this or else studied it, it appears there are some small details that were left out (I.e. Ruby dying in jail of cancer is an important detail if someone is alleging a conspiracy to silence Oswald- getting a dying man to take part in a conspiracy probably isn't all that much of a leap, especially if he thinks he's doing something for God and country). But in laying out all the conspiracy theories and then butting them up against actual evidence, the author makes some excellent points- the conspiracy theories are all over the place. They conflict with each other and with the evidence. It's hard to make heads or tails of all the different ideas. Which makes the actual facts, and the authors debunk meant of the theories, much more reasonable.
My only complaint was that some of the minor conspiracy theories weren't given a lot of time, and even though they were minor, they were often quite complicated. Fleshing them out might have made it easier to understand them and separate the many characters involved. But they are minor conspiracies and the book is plenty long so it's reasonable to not give them much page time.
Otherwise it's a great book. If you're a conspiracy buff, it's worth a look since it so clearly debunks a lot of issues (of course, it's entirely possible that harmful facts were left out so as not to bolster the conspiracies. I'm not well versed enough to know that however). If you aren't very familiar with all the minute details and conspiracies, it's still an excellent read to form a strong foundation.
After talks with family members and friends who lived through this or else studied it, it appears there are some small details that were left out (I.e. Ruby dying in jail of cancer is an important detail if someone is alleging a conspiracy to silence Oswald- getting a dying man to take part in a conspiracy probably isn't all that much of a leap, especially if he thinks he's doing something for God and country). But in laying out all the conspiracy theories and then butting them up against actual evidence, the author makes some excellent points- the conspiracy theories are all over the place. They conflict with each other and with the evidence. It's hard to make heads or tails of all the different ideas. Which makes the actual facts, and the authors debunk meant of the theories, much more reasonable.
My only complaint was that some of the minor conspiracy theories weren't given a lot of time, and even though they were minor, they were often quite complicated. Fleshing them out might have made it easier to understand them and separate the many characters involved. But they are minor conspiracies and the book is plenty long so it's reasonable to not give them much page time.
Otherwise it's a great book. If you're a conspiracy buff, it's worth a look since it so clearly debunks a lot of issues (of course, it's entirely possible that harmful facts were left out so as not to bolster the conspiracies. I'm not well versed enough to know that however). If you aren't very familiar with all the minute details and conspiracies, it's still an excellent read to form a strong foundation.
October 31, 2009
For years I've believed that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. I've now changed my mind and the reason is this book. Bugliosi (author of "Helter Skelter") presents compelling evidence in horrific detail (the book is about 1,5000 pages long!). I challenge a reader to read this book and then argue that the assassination of John Kennedy was a conspiracy. There is no stone unturned and sometimes a reader may wish the author would not go into such morbid detail. That's why I give the book four stars rather than five stars. Still, it's worth reading, even if you get only halfway through.
March 23, 2023
This book rebuts exhaustively the various conspiracy theories around the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I have been interested in this issue for many years, and I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theory. However, Bugliosi's analysis, though exhaustive, is too dismissive of several possibilities and lapses into circular arguments. One worthy part of the book is the demolition of Oliver Stone's movie JFK, which is shown to be the work of fiction it is. In the end, this tragic event remains shrouded in some mystery, and, after all these years, is probably better left alone.
Want to read
August 14, 2012This book is a gazillion pages long, but with this lenght should provide the best coverage of this tragic and amazing event. Had to have it on my list!
January 27, 2014
One of the longest most detailed books I have read about the assassination - debunks all the conspiracy theories.
January 14, 2014
This book should lay all JFK conspiracy theories to rest. Unfortunately it hasn't got anywhere near the credit or publicity it deserves.
September 30, 2023
Vincent Bugliosi’s gargantuan tome on the Kennedy assassination chronicles everything that happened in the four days leading up to and following John Kennedy���s murder — and also, what didn’t, as alleged by conspiracy theorists.
The first book on what happened is an exhaustive — and completely enthralling — look at all events, starring all characters, connected to what happened that day. It was somewhere around page 382, the chapter that covers Kennedy’s autopsy and wounds to both he and Gov. Connally, that I said to myself ENOUGH! The case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Oswald shot Kennedy, he acted alone, *ALL* of the details say so: Eyewitness and expert testimony, tracking Oswald’s movements and the weight of evidence against him, more analysis than you’d ever want (bullet fragments, blood splatter, damage to Kennedy’s right head, how bullets react to soft tissue and bone impact, bullet trajectory, blah, blah-blah, blah BLAH!). It is conclusive.
Yet, this compulsively readable book is essential to any enthusiast … it must be consumed. The *only* thing that bugs me is that Bugliosi, near the end of book one, starts getting reeeeeeal sarcastic with his take on how conspiracy theorists have bastardized history to connect leaves and branches to trees that don’t exist in the same forest — his investigation speaks for itself, and suffering the loony tales are almost as insufferable as his unfunny and inappropriate comments.
This gets even more obnoxious in the first pages of book two, where he covers all the conspiracy theories. I was barely 10 pages into that section and my brain hurt simply from trying to make sense of *their* BS on top of his snarky commentary.
Book one is superior because it deals with facts and reconstructs the timeline of the day of the assassination and those following it, in addition to a lengthy bio of Oswald — a section I appreciated a lot more weeks afterward, rather than at the time I was sluggishly making my way through it.
ANYWAY, book two covers the conspiracies alleged by several theorists that connect the FBI, CIA, KGB, LBJ, Cuba, the military-industrial complex and the mob to Kennedy’s murder. There are also lengthy sections on Jack Ruby, his trial and debunking “second” Oswalds supposedly seen months leading up to Nov. 22, 1963, to frame the real Oswald.
Book two is less historical and more a prosecutorial takedown of evidence arguing against any conspiracy — some chapters, like the one taking apart Oliver Stone’s “JFK,” scene by scene, are particularly engaging. Yet so much of this second book is exhausting and not nearly as fascinating as the factual approach of book one — that is, if you are convinced of the facts presented in one, you may not need to trouble yourself with two … unless you’re just a really big f***ing nerd like ya boy.
A note about the length: At 1,518 pages of numbered text on top of a lengthy introduction, this is, of course, an extremely long book. I read most of “Reclaiming History” over the course of two summers, with long breaks in between — with as few as two pages read on some days and (once) as many as 50. The length really didn’t bother me until the final days leading up to completion, when I was trying to cross the finish line.
My recommendation to any would-be reader is that if you’re going to take the time to read every page, be patient and let yourself be absorbed by it. If you aren’t completely engrossed by the tragic topic, don’t bother trying to read it cover to cover! Scan the table of contents and read sections of interest — having read much over the years on the assassination, and having been to Dealey Plaza three times, personally the more technical chapters were more interesting.
The first book on what happened is an exhaustive — and completely enthralling — look at all events, starring all characters, connected to what happened that day. It was somewhere around page 382, the chapter that covers Kennedy’s autopsy and wounds to both he and Gov. Connally, that I said to myself ENOUGH! The case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Oswald shot Kennedy, he acted alone, *ALL* of the details say so: Eyewitness and expert testimony, tracking Oswald’s movements and the weight of evidence against him, more analysis than you’d ever want (bullet fragments, blood splatter, damage to Kennedy’s right head, how bullets react to soft tissue and bone impact, bullet trajectory, blah, blah-blah, blah BLAH!). It is conclusive.
Yet, this compulsively readable book is essential to any enthusiast … it must be consumed. The *only* thing that bugs me is that Bugliosi, near the end of book one, starts getting reeeeeeal sarcastic with his take on how conspiracy theorists have bastardized history to connect leaves and branches to trees that don’t exist in the same forest — his investigation speaks for itself, and suffering the loony tales are almost as insufferable as his unfunny and inappropriate comments.
This gets even more obnoxious in the first pages of book two, where he covers all the conspiracy theories. I was barely 10 pages into that section and my brain hurt simply from trying to make sense of *their* BS on top of his snarky commentary.
Book one is superior because it deals with facts and reconstructs the timeline of the day of the assassination and those following it, in addition to a lengthy bio of Oswald — a section I appreciated a lot more weeks afterward, rather than at the time I was sluggishly making my way through it.
ANYWAY, book two covers the conspiracies alleged by several theorists that connect the FBI, CIA, KGB, LBJ, Cuba, the military-industrial complex and the mob to Kennedy’s murder. There are also lengthy sections on Jack Ruby, his trial and debunking “second” Oswalds supposedly seen months leading up to Nov. 22, 1963, to frame the real Oswald.
Book two is less historical and more a prosecutorial takedown of evidence arguing against any conspiracy — some chapters, like the one taking apart Oliver Stone’s “JFK,” scene by scene, are particularly engaging. Yet so much of this second book is exhausting and not nearly as fascinating as the factual approach of book one — that is, if you are convinced of the facts presented in one, you may not need to trouble yourself with two … unless you’re just a really big f***ing nerd like ya boy.
A note about the length: At 1,518 pages of numbered text on top of a lengthy introduction, this is, of course, an extremely long book. I read most of “Reclaiming History” over the course of two summers, with long breaks in between — with as few as two pages read on some days and (once) as many as 50. The length really didn’t bother me until the final days leading up to completion, when I was trying to cross the finish line.
My recommendation to any would-be reader is that if you’re going to take the time to read every page, be patient and let yourself be absorbed by it. If you aren’t completely engrossed by the tragic topic, don’t bother trying to read it cover to cover! Scan the table of contents and read sections of interest — having read much over the years on the assassination, and having been to Dealey Plaza three times, personally the more technical chapters were more interesting.
January 3, 2018
This book is basically minute by minute telling of the assassination of Kennedy. It had a heavy goal of showing how ridiculously unfounded conspiracy theories are. Toward the end it got a bit tedious, but it did as it promised.
September 13, 2018
If you are looking for an in-depth look at the assassination of JFK this is the book for you from the minute by minute break down of the four days in November to a complete look at all the conspiracy theories. This is the one book for people who are into the assassination to buy.
July 19, 2022
Vincent Bugliosi wrote this 2007 book following his participation in a TV "trial" of Oswald (On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald). He explains in the Introduction, "over 95 percent of the books on the case happen to be pro-conspiracy and anti-Warren Commission, so certainly there is a need for far more books on the other side…” (Pg. xiv) He points out, “Don’t these conspiracy theorists know … That it’s almost impossible to keep a secret?... Yet here, with not one, but two massive conspiracies not one word… has leaked out in forty years.” (Pg. xx) But he acknowledges that “the Warren Commission perhaps should have considered the possibility of a conspiracy more than it did…” (Pg. xxx) He adds, "I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively savaged Gerald Posner: 'Case Closed,' that they're going to have a much, much more difficult time with me." (Pg. xxxviii)
He recounts witnesses to the shots fired: “James R. Worrell Jr. is standing right in front of the Book Depository… When he hears the first shot, Worrell… looks straight up, and sees six inches of gun barrel… sticking out a window high overhead… Amos Euins …spots a pipelike object sticking out of the southeasternmost window of the sixth floor… Howard Brennan… looks up. The man he saw earlier in the sixth-floor window is aiming a rifle … toward the presidential limousine… James Worrell … sees it fire again… A final shot rings out. Howard Brennan… [is] looking directly at the gunman as he fires…” (Pg. 39-41)
During questioning, Oswald claimed that he never owned a gun. When confronted with the infamous photo of him in his backyard holding a rifle, he said, “That’s a fake… Someone has taken my picture and put my face on a different body.” He is told, “We found this photo in Mrs. Paige’s garage, among your effects,” and he replies, “at the proper time I will show that they’re fakes.” (Pg. 234-235)
He reports that on November 25, 1963, Nicholas Katzenbach (then the deputy attorney general under Robert F. Kennedy) wrote a memo … that said, “‘the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large, that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.’ Conspiracy theorists have had a field day with Katzenbach’s choice of words, using the memorandum to support their claims that the Warren Commission was created to cover up the truth of the Kennedy assassination. As you’ll see later… nothing could be further from the truth.” (Pg. 321)
Of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), he notes, “a substantially divided HSCA, with three out of twelve members filing dissents (later followed by a fourth member’s dissent) released its final report concluding, with nearly a total reliance on the acoustical evidence, that President Kennedy was ‘probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.’ (The HSCA’s acoustical evidence has been totally discredited...) … the HSCA expressly exonerated every group (organized crime, CIA, FBI, KGB, anti-Castro exile groups, etc.) suspected by conspiracy theorists … of complicity in the assassination.” (Pg. 376-377) Of the acoustical evidence, he points out, “in 1982 a panel of twelve physicists and scientists under the aegis of the National Research Council … analyzed the subject Dictabelt and heard the same impulse sounds that the two Queens professors did. The only problem was that the ‘sounds’ … occurred ‘one minute after the assassination,’ when the presidential limousine was long gone… The HSCA conclusion was blatantly incorrect and unprofessional…” (Pg. 380-381)
He observes, “Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists never stop pointing out that that Warren Commission never viewed the autopsy X-rays and photographs… But nearly all of them fail to add that three other later groups DID … and unanimously reached the same conclusion as the Warren Commission.” (Pg. 393) He continues, “In concluding that the autopsy surgeons were wrong about the precise location of the entrance wound (as described in the autopsy report), the HSCA also noted… [what would be] an impossibility had the bullet entered the skull as low as the three autopsy pathologists contend. How have the three autopsy pathologists reacted to this apparent gaffe in their report? Not very well… most people don’t want to admit they made a mistake.” (Pg. 395)
He recounts, “THE main reason, why the Parkland doctors were clearly confused as to whether the throat wound was a wound of entry or exit… is the simple fact that none of them were aware at the time of the corresponding wound… in the president’s back… if the Parkland doctors had been aware … the very strong likelihood is that they all would have concluded that the throat wound was the exit wound every pathologist later found it to be.” (Pg. 414)
He summarizes, “There can be no escape from the simple fact that the wounds in the president’s body were the result of two bullets that had been fired from above and behind. ALL pathologists who examined the evidence… reached the same conclusion… And this group of pathologists includes… the leading forensic pathologist for the conspiracy community, Dr. Cyril H. Wecht.” (Pg. 427-428) Later, he adds, “Although the medical findings ALONE do not provide enough evidence to state with absolute certainty that the bullet that passed through the president’s body went on to hit the governor, the majority of the HSCA forensic panel members (with the exception of Dr. Cyril Wecht) felt that the medical evidence was ‘consistent with this hypothesis’ (i.e., the single-bullet theory)… when other nonmedical evidence is considered, there can be no reasonable doubt that both men were struck with the same, single bullet.” (Pg. 449)
He points out, “In a gross and brazen misrepresentation of the facts, sketches in conspiracy books … have consistently and falsely placed Connally seated directly in front of Kennedy… In fact, Connally’s jump seat … was situated a half foot inside and to the left… but was also three inches lower than the backseat---placing him to the left and below Kennedy’s position on the extreme right side of the limousine’s backseat… Moreover, at the moment Kennedy was hit [in] his back, Connally’s body was turned to his right, causing their bodies to be aligned in such a way that a bullet traveling on a downward trajectory … passing through soft tissue in a straight line, and exiting his throat, HAD to go on and hit the governor in the upper right part of his back.” (Pg. 468-459) He adds, “If, as the conspiracy theorists allege, the bullet… did not go on to hit Connally, it would have inevitably gone on to hit the driver or caused… some significant penetrating damage to the interior of the car. Yet no such damage was found…” (Pg. 461)
Of the infamous ‘head snap’ backward, he states, “Kennedy’s head dramatically being thrust to the rear would… be more powerful evidence of a shot from the front in the eyes of … jurors, probably enough… to raise a reasonable doubt… Fortunately, the HSCA did address itself to the issue… concluding that the sharp rearward movement … was probably caused by a neuromuscular reaction---that is, nerve damage caused by the bullet… which in turn caused his head to be thrust backward.” (Pg. 484)
He continues, “the Warren Commission [volumes] contain only one reference to the absolutely critical and paramount fact of the president’s head [first] being propelled forward… photographer James W. Altgens [testified], ‘What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because … just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward.’ … there is only one sentence and four addition words on the subject in the entire twelve volumes of the HSCA… Watching the Zapruder film… from Z312 to Z313 the forward movement, though slight, was distinct and mistakeable… I now had… clear, PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence… that Kennedy was struck by a bullet from the rear.” (Pg. 485)
He explains, “Early press reports ‘guesstimated,’ without the benefit of the Zapruder film, that the assassination occurred in a span of 5 seconds, which helped make the general public predisposed to accept the critics’ argument… This firing time was based on the premise (which I believe to be false… that Oswald MUST have used the telescopic sight. The HSCA later found that [for] Oswald’s rifle, using the iron sights rather than the scope… ‘it was possible for two shots to be fired within 1.66 seconds.” (Pg. 490) Later, he adds, “Oswald’s Marine Corps records do not show that he was a ‘rather poor shot’… To the contrary… during Oswald’s most important shooting for the record, he fired a 212 out of a possible 250, which qualified him as a sharpshooter… And in Dallas that year, [Oswald told Marina] he practiced firing the rifle at Love Field and at a shooting range.” (Pg. 494)
Of the photographs, he reports, “Lee surprised Marina, who was hanging out diapers in the backyard… carrying … his rifle and some recent issues of the ‘Worker’ and the ‘Militant.’ His pistol was tucked into his waistband… She snapped the shutter at least three times as Lee smugly brandished the carbine and newspapers. When Marina asked Lee what he planned to do with the photographs, he told her he was going to send them to the ‘Militant’ to show he was ‘ready for anything.’ … Sylvia Weinstein, who handled the Militant’s subscriptions… opened the envelope containing the pictures that Oswald had sent, and [thought] the man in black appeared ‘kooky.’” (Pg. 685)
Oswald unsuccessfully attempted to kill right-wing Gen. Edwin Walker, and three days later showed Marina “‘My plan… It contained all the details … of his effort to kill Walker. The snapshots were of Walker’s house… [Marina told him] ‘It’s evidence! For God’s sake, Alka, destroy it.’” (Pg. 690-693)
He says of the “nearly intact bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital… the notorious ‘magic’ bullet … [that] FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier (and later, independent expert Joseph Nicol) concluded that the bullet had been fired from Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The HSCA firearms panel came to the same conclusion… Though it has become an accepted part of the lore … that the stretcher bullet was pristine… Yet, it is almost impossible to see how damaged the bullet really is from the single-view photograph that does not show the base of the bullet… But the myth has long survived the public hearings… Dr. Michael Baden, the medical examiner who headed the forensic pathology panel for the HSCA, scoffed at the notion that the bullet was pristine…” (Pg. 808-809)\
He scoffs, “I guess the conspiracy theorists would want us to believe that Oswald was really having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the assassination while some stranger who had stolen his rifle was firing it on the sixth floor… if Oswald wasn’t the one who fired his [rifle] that day… why did he deny holding the rifle, or even owning a rifle, two blatant lies that showed an unmistakable consciousness of guilt? … Oswald told lie after another about his own rifle because he knew, of course, that it was the murder weapon.” (Pg. 815)
He observes, “Critics have argued … that NONE of this evidence---the fact that Oswald brought a mysterious package to work the morning of the assassination, and it was found in the sniper’s nest with his finger and palm prints on it; the fact that Oswald was seen on the sixth floor around thirty minutes before the shooting … the clipboard Oswald was carrying all morning was found on the sixth floor; the fact that … one of his fingerprints were found on two of the sniper’s nest boxes; even the fact that Oswald’s rifle… and the three expended rifle shells… were found on the sixth floor---PROVES that Oswald was the one who actually pulled the trigger.” (Pg. 826)
He states, “the cold hard fact remains that no witness saw any human, with or without a rifle, standing behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll… and although many people, ran to the knoll after the shooting to investigate, they didn’t see anyone … running or even walking away… Certainly no reasonable person would say that Virgin Hoffman and Jean Hill, who said … fifteen to twenty years after the assassination, they saw someone with a rifle behind the fence (and even in complete contradiction with their earlier statements that they saw nothing) should be considered as refuting…” (Pg. 852)
He argues that Oswald’s murder of Officer Tippit “bore the signature of a man… in desperate flight from some awful deed… [If] Oswald didn’t murder Officer Tippit, then who in the world did? The conspiracy community never says.” (Pg. 961)
He observes, “The belief among many in the conspiracy community is that Garrison’s fiasco in New Orleans actually set their movement back several years… conspiracy theorists … more often than not had Garrison’s misadventure thrown in their face.” (Pg. 1352) Of Oliver Stone’s film ‘JFK,’ he comments, “he had to know he was relying almost exclusively on the extreme fanatical fringe of the conspiracy community… Stone based his movie on Jim Garrison’s [book, and] … Jim Marr’s ‘Crossfire.’ But Marrs is a conspiracy theorist who has rarely met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like. In his only other book, ‘Alien Agenda,’ Marrs tells us that … our government … has conspired … to ‘hide away the alien presence’ and keep the truth from the American people… Garrison and Marrs also served as advisors to Stone on his movie.” (Pg. 1359) He adds, “Oliver Stone… never saw fit to present … one single piece of evidence of evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy!” (Pg. 1386)
Bugliosi’s book has now "raised the bar" of the discussion permanently, and will not be refuted except by a similarly detailed critique.
He recounts witnesses to the shots fired: “James R. Worrell Jr. is standing right in front of the Book Depository… When he hears the first shot, Worrell… looks straight up, and sees six inches of gun barrel… sticking out a window high overhead… Amos Euins …spots a pipelike object sticking out of the southeasternmost window of the sixth floor… Howard Brennan… looks up. The man he saw earlier in the sixth-floor window is aiming a rifle … toward the presidential limousine… James Worrell … sees it fire again… A final shot rings out. Howard Brennan… [is] looking directly at the gunman as he fires…” (Pg. 39-41)
During questioning, Oswald claimed that he never owned a gun. When confronted with the infamous photo of him in his backyard holding a rifle, he said, “That’s a fake… Someone has taken my picture and put my face on a different body.” He is told, “We found this photo in Mrs. Paige’s garage, among your effects,” and he replies, “at the proper time I will show that they’re fakes.” (Pg. 234-235)
He reports that on November 25, 1963, Nicholas Katzenbach (then the deputy attorney general under Robert F. Kennedy) wrote a memo … that said, “‘the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large, that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.’ Conspiracy theorists have had a field day with Katzenbach’s choice of words, using the memorandum to support their claims that the Warren Commission was created to cover up the truth of the Kennedy assassination. As you’ll see later… nothing could be further from the truth.” (Pg. 321)
Of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), he notes, “a substantially divided HSCA, with three out of twelve members filing dissents (later followed by a fourth member’s dissent) released its final report concluding, with nearly a total reliance on the acoustical evidence, that President Kennedy was ‘probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.’ (The HSCA’s acoustical evidence has been totally discredited...) … the HSCA expressly exonerated every group (organized crime, CIA, FBI, KGB, anti-Castro exile groups, etc.) suspected by conspiracy theorists … of complicity in the assassination.” (Pg. 376-377) Of the acoustical evidence, he points out, “in 1982 a panel of twelve physicists and scientists under the aegis of the National Research Council … analyzed the subject Dictabelt and heard the same impulse sounds that the two Queens professors did. The only problem was that the ‘sounds’ … occurred ‘one minute after the assassination,’ when the presidential limousine was long gone… The HSCA conclusion was blatantly incorrect and unprofessional…” (Pg. 380-381)
He observes, “Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists never stop pointing out that that Warren Commission never viewed the autopsy X-rays and photographs… But nearly all of them fail to add that three other later groups DID … and unanimously reached the same conclusion as the Warren Commission.” (Pg. 393) He continues, “In concluding that the autopsy surgeons were wrong about the precise location of the entrance wound (as described in the autopsy report), the HSCA also noted… [what would be] an impossibility had the bullet entered the skull as low as the three autopsy pathologists contend. How have the three autopsy pathologists reacted to this apparent gaffe in their report? Not very well… most people don’t want to admit they made a mistake.” (Pg. 395)
He recounts, “THE main reason, why the Parkland doctors were clearly confused as to whether the throat wound was a wound of entry or exit… is the simple fact that none of them were aware at the time of the corresponding wound… in the president’s back… if the Parkland doctors had been aware … the very strong likelihood is that they all would have concluded that the throat wound was the exit wound every pathologist later found it to be.” (Pg. 414)
He summarizes, “There can be no escape from the simple fact that the wounds in the president’s body were the result of two bullets that had been fired from above and behind. ALL pathologists who examined the evidence… reached the same conclusion… And this group of pathologists includes… the leading forensic pathologist for the conspiracy community, Dr. Cyril H. Wecht.” (Pg. 427-428) Later, he adds, “Although the medical findings ALONE do not provide enough evidence to state with absolute certainty that the bullet that passed through the president’s body went on to hit the governor, the majority of the HSCA forensic panel members (with the exception of Dr. Cyril Wecht) felt that the medical evidence was ‘consistent with this hypothesis’ (i.e., the single-bullet theory)… when other nonmedical evidence is considered, there can be no reasonable doubt that both men were struck with the same, single bullet.” (Pg. 449)
He points out, “In a gross and brazen misrepresentation of the facts, sketches in conspiracy books … have consistently and falsely placed Connally seated directly in front of Kennedy… In fact, Connally’s jump seat … was situated a half foot inside and to the left… but was also three inches lower than the backseat---placing him to the left and below Kennedy’s position on the extreme right side of the limousine’s backseat… Moreover, at the moment Kennedy was hit [in] his back, Connally’s body was turned to his right, causing their bodies to be aligned in such a way that a bullet traveling on a downward trajectory … passing through soft tissue in a straight line, and exiting his throat, HAD to go on and hit the governor in the upper right part of his back.” (Pg. 468-459) He adds, “If, as the conspiracy theorists allege, the bullet… did not go on to hit Connally, it would have inevitably gone on to hit the driver or caused… some significant penetrating damage to the interior of the car. Yet no such damage was found…” (Pg. 461)
Of the infamous ‘head snap’ backward, he states, “Kennedy’s head dramatically being thrust to the rear would… be more powerful evidence of a shot from the front in the eyes of … jurors, probably enough… to raise a reasonable doubt… Fortunately, the HSCA did address itself to the issue… concluding that the sharp rearward movement … was probably caused by a neuromuscular reaction---that is, nerve damage caused by the bullet… which in turn caused his head to be thrust backward.” (Pg. 484)
He continues, “the Warren Commission [volumes] contain only one reference to the absolutely critical and paramount fact of the president’s head [first] being propelled forward… photographer James W. Altgens [testified], ‘What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because … just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward.’ … there is only one sentence and four addition words on the subject in the entire twelve volumes of the HSCA… Watching the Zapruder film… from Z312 to Z313 the forward movement, though slight, was distinct and mistakeable… I now had… clear, PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence… that Kennedy was struck by a bullet from the rear.” (Pg. 485)
He explains, “Early press reports ‘guesstimated,’ without the benefit of the Zapruder film, that the assassination occurred in a span of 5 seconds, which helped make the general public predisposed to accept the critics’ argument… This firing time was based on the premise (which I believe to be false… that Oswald MUST have used the telescopic sight. The HSCA later found that [for] Oswald’s rifle, using the iron sights rather than the scope… ‘it was possible for two shots to be fired within 1.66 seconds.” (Pg. 490) Later, he adds, “Oswald’s Marine Corps records do not show that he was a ‘rather poor shot’… To the contrary… during Oswald’s most important shooting for the record, he fired a 212 out of a possible 250, which qualified him as a sharpshooter… And in Dallas that year, [Oswald told Marina] he practiced firing the rifle at Love Field and at a shooting range.” (Pg. 494)
Of the photographs, he reports, “Lee surprised Marina, who was hanging out diapers in the backyard… carrying … his rifle and some recent issues of the ‘Worker’ and the ‘Militant.’ His pistol was tucked into his waistband… She snapped the shutter at least three times as Lee smugly brandished the carbine and newspapers. When Marina asked Lee what he planned to do with the photographs, he told her he was going to send them to the ‘Militant’ to show he was ‘ready for anything.’ … Sylvia Weinstein, who handled the Militant’s subscriptions… opened the envelope containing the pictures that Oswald had sent, and [thought] the man in black appeared ‘kooky.’” (Pg. 685)
Oswald unsuccessfully attempted to kill right-wing Gen. Edwin Walker, and three days later showed Marina “‘My plan… It contained all the details … of his effort to kill Walker. The snapshots were of Walker’s house… [Marina told him] ‘It’s evidence! For God’s sake, Alka, destroy it.’” (Pg. 690-693)
He says of the “nearly intact bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital… the notorious ‘magic’ bullet … [that] FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier (and later, independent expert Joseph Nicol) concluded that the bullet had been fired from Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The HSCA firearms panel came to the same conclusion… Though it has become an accepted part of the lore … that the stretcher bullet was pristine… Yet, it is almost impossible to see how damaged the bullet really is from the single-view photograph that does not show the base of the bullet… But the myth has long survived the public hearings… Dr. Michael Baden, the medical examiner who headed the forensic pathology panel for the HSCA, scoffed at the notion that the bullet was pristine…” (Pg. 808-809)\
He scoffs, “I guess the conspiracy theorists would want us to believe that Oswald was really having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the assassination while some stranger who had stolen his rifle was firing it on the sixth floor… if Oswald wasn’t the one who fired his [rifle] that day… why did he deny holding the rifle, or even owning a rifle, two blatant lies that showed an unmistakable consciousness of guilt? … Oswald told lie after another about his own rifle because he knew, of course, that it was the murder weapon.” (Pg. 815)
He observes, “Critics have argued … that NONE of this evidence---the fact that Oswald brought a mysterious package to work the morning of the assassination, and it was found in the sniper’s nest with his finger and palm prints on it; the fact that Oswald was seen on the sixth floor around thirty minutes before the shooting … the clipboard Oswald was carrying all morning was found on the sixth floor; the fact that … one of his fingerprints were found on two of the sniper’s nest boxes; even the fact that Oswald’s rifle… and the three expended rifle shells… were found on the sixth floor---PROVES that Oswald was the one who actually pulled the trigger.” (Pg. 826)
He states, “the cold hard fact remains that no witness saw any human, with or without a rifle, standing behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll… and although many people, ran to the knoll after the shooting to investigate, they didn’t see anyone … running or even walking away… Certainly no reasonable person would say that Virgin Hoffman and Jean Hill, who said … fifteen to twenty years after the assassination, they saw someone with a rifle behind the fence (and even in complete contradiction with their earlier statements that they saw nothing) should be considered as refuting…” (Pg. 852)
He argues that Oswald’s murder of Officer Tippit “bore the signature of a man… in desperate flight from some awful deed… [If] Oswald didn’t murder Officer Tippit, then who in the world did? The conspiracy community never says.” (Pg. 961)
He observes, “The belief among many in the conspiracy community is that Garrison’s fiasco in New Orleans actually set their movement back several years… conspiracy theorists … more often than not had Garrison’s misadventure thrown in their face.” (Pg. 1352) Of Oliver Stone’s film ‘JFK,’ he comments, “he had to know he was relying almost exclusively on the extreme fanatical fringe of the conspiracy community… Stone based his movie on Jim Garrison’s [book, and] … Jim Marr’s ‘Crossfire.’ But Marrs is a conspiracy theorist who has rarely met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like. In his only other book, ‘Alien Agenda,’ Marrs tells us that … our government … has conspired … to ‘hide away the alien presence’ and keep the truth from the American people… Garrison and Marrs also served as advisors to Stone on his movie.” (Pg. 1359) He adds, “Oliver Stone… never saw fit to present … one single piece of evidence of evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy!” (Pg. 1386)
Bugliosi’s book has now "raised the bar" of the discussion permanently, and will not be refuted except by a similarly detailed critique.
August 30, 2023
MISCLAIMING HISTORY: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Vincent Bugliosi writes well and convincingly. Edward Herrman as the narrator for the Audible version was an inspired choice. Herrman’s voice is wonderful, oozing with sincerity and honesty. The voice of a man to be trusted.
If you haven’t read and understood both the Warren Commission Report (WCR), and the volumes of evidence it gathered (much of which it ignored or cherry picked), it’s no surprise that you would fall for the eloquent and, seemingly, persuasive words of Vincent Bugliosi.
However, if you have read them, especially if you have knowledge of the rules of evidence and you’re not actually deranged or following some kind of agenda, you will notice that Vincent’s apparently thoroughly researched tome is simply the Warren Commission enquiry and its witness evidence retold.
Part 1, subtitled - Matters of Fact: What Happened - sets the tone. The choice of those words makes a very bold and decisive statement, before he has even begun to introduce his evidence.
The opener is ‘Four Days In November’ which, at 456 pages alone, later became the basis of his book of the same name. I found it odd that he would do such a thing, given that he complains of authors cashing in on the Kennedy assassination yet he does the very same himself. I can only surmise it was that or a desperate attempt to get his message over in a shorter, more palatable, form than his tome.
After a 54 page introduction, which includes Bugliosi complaining of the misrepresentations and lack of objectivity of other pro-Warren Commission authors, thus setting himself up as being the opposite (which I found he couldn’t sustain for long), the first chapter commences and is full of incredible detail, not just about how the day was evolving for the Kennedys but also for Lee Oswald and others surrounding the events to unfold. It’s gripping stuff, compelling and forceful, even to someone who has a good knowledge of the alternate version, and it reads like a novel. Don’t forget, Mr Bugliosi wants us to know that these are the facts, this is what happened, the sub-heading told us.
Thereafter, begins a voyage of recognised fact mixed with misdirection, misinformation, selective production of evidence, supposition and things that look incredibly like downright lies which, amusingly, are exactly all the things he spends a lot of time disparaging ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ for doing; and he disparages without mercy. Oswald is always the killer, the assassin, the murderer, never ‘alleged’ as you might expect a person who has never been convicted to be referred as; he never had a properly constituted trial. Instead, he received an undefended and unrepresented inquiry, held out of public view in which he was condemned and still is.
Part 2, sub-headed – ‘Delusions of Conspiracy: What Didn’t Happen’ (yet another bold, firm and decisive statement). This soon makes you realise that there is little objectivity, or for that matter impartiality, in what Bugliosi writes. In this section, his ability to disparage blossomed and to say his credibility faded is an understatement. But it doesn’t seem to bother Bugliosi, and I believe that’s because he knows that few private citizens have read the WCR or the volumes of evidence let alone compared them. He knows that none of the main stream media of the time, who were quick to lavish praise on the Warren Commission Report, had done so either.
Such is his fervour that he refuses to contemplate that Oswald may have been used as a false defector and, in my opinion, he does so because to accept the possibility would strip away, for certain, the reasons he cites as Oswald’s motive for allegedly killing Kennedy, namely he was a devoted Marxist, frustrated because his Soviet dream had gone wrong, exasperated with capitalism and, besides, he was ‘nuts’. No western intelligence agency would use such a person and I’d have to agree. But a logical, impartial person would have to consider the possibility of the false defection being true, with all its consequences.
As the second part of the book progresses, he divides and conquers by breaking down various theories separately yet spends little time on the most enduring ‘conspiracy theory’– rogue operators from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, a group of people that included anti-Castro Cubans, Mafia personnel and right wing, disenchanted CIA officers and their sub-contractors. Some of his last words on that subject are – ‘It is noteworthy, that the only books written that suggest the CIA was behind the assassination are those by conspiracy theorists, who are convinced that a conspiracy was behind the assassination whether or not the CIA was involved.’
What he fails to recognise is that it’s hardly noteworthy at all. Any authors that did suggest such a thing would immediately be classed as ‘conspiracy theorists’ - so his contention is somewhat flawed, to say the least.
There is a whole chapter dedicated to Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone. What shines through is the author’s absolute hatred for both men, so much so it made me wonder if they had scammed Vincent’s grandmother out of her savings and stolen his mother’s recipe for Ratatouille.
Mark Lane, author of one of the earliest books to offer dissent from the WCR - 'Rush To Judgement', also comes in for some special treatment, receiving the cleverly worded repetition of a 1999 false allegation that Lane had received KGB funding but probably didn't know its real source (refuted by Lane), had misrepresented himself as a police officer to a material witness (refuted, Lane had recorded the encounter and Bugliosi should have known it if his research was as thorough as he would have us believe) and of 'having leftist tendencies'. In fact, any conspiracy author with real or imagined left wing leanings becomes prey to Bugliosi's dagger-like prejudice.
To prop up many of his claims, Bugliosi bandies around several well known names in the writing and media world and, whilst he freely mentions the associations of any 'conspiracy author', he rather hypocritically fails to do the same with the likes of - James Phelan, Hugh Aynsworth and Max Holland - who have been known for some time to have been media assets for various US intelligence agencies and who agree with him. Holland, who wrote regularly for the in-house CIA magazine, produced a glowing review of Reclaiming History and Bugliosi is not shy of lavishing praise back to all three.
I discovered many, many flaws in the narrative, from the simplest act of selective evidence use to supposition convincing made.
He produces Lt.Col Folsom confirming Oswald's status of a 'sharpshooter' thereby establishing his skills and markmanship made him 'up to the job'. What Bugliosi conveniently forgot to mention was that Folsom went on to affirm that this qualification was obtained during initial training after intense, one on one tuition from the finest firearms instructors using the most well kept and serviced weapons - failure to obtain any qualification was not an option for a Marine. He also forgot to mention that when Oswald next took his weapons test (his last) he only just managed to make the lowest qualification of 'marksman' (by two points - as he did with the 'sharpshooter' classification). Folsom went on to give his opinion, as head of the Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, having regard to Oswald's shooting documents which recorded scores of 34 and 38 out of 50 rounds on target during practices where 48 out of 50 were the expected norm, that LHO was not a particularly good shot and that he'd just had a good day when he qualified.
Then Bugtliosi decisively speculates that the ‘Secret Service man’ on the grassy knoll was, in all probability, simply a Military Intelligence man called Powell. The impression I got was that this was a previously unknown witness, discovered by Vincent's thorough research.
However, Powell was interviewed by ARRB staff in 1996 (some 11-12 years before Bugliosi published his book). In that interview it becomes clear Powell could not have been, in any way, the mysterious Secret Service man. Supposedly off duty, and with a camera around his neck, he stated that when he and Dallas officers ran around the back of the TSBD to the picket fence parking lot there were a lot of civilians already there, in fact he described them as ‘a stampede’. Clearly not the situation the officer who was first behind the fence encountered (or at the very least amongst the very first), and I like to think an officer who could describe a man’s fingernails in detail might have spotted the camera slung across his chest.
To say I was not impressed with Bugliosi periodically declaring that Oswald’s guilt was evidenced ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘irrefutable’ is an understatement and it made me doubt that Bugliosi had ever had any legal training. But, he apparently had, so I had nowhere else to go but to believe he was pushing an agenda and truth wasn’t on it.
Using my knowledge of criminal law, albeit British, I decided to give up trying to identify those responsible and went back to basics by simply examining the actual ‘irrefutable’ evidence that the Warren Commission had and upon which Bugliosi places so much faith that it led him to conclude ‘without any reasonable doubt’ that Oswald was the killer.
Briefly, there was none. Everything the Warren Commission had could have been successfully challenged in a properly constituted and run court of law.
The fingerprint evidence consisted of an old palm print on the part of the alleged murder weapon’s barrel that could only be accessed when the weapon was dismantled and a partial print on the trigger guard (the part that held the magazine clip) and which itself failed to meet any legally required standards of identification in a court of law. Lt Day, Dallas Police forensic and fingerprint expert, confirmed the prints were not fresh and therefore could have been there for a couple of days at least.
Bugliosi does cover that in later years, using new techniques, the fingerprint on the magazine housing was identified by several experts as Oswald's. Unfortunately, evidentially, this is no great shakes because we know he handled the weapon at some point prior to the assassination but according to Lt Day's evidence the prints were not fresh so it wasn't on the day.
We are told at length that other Oswald fingerprints were found, on boxes of books, a clipboard found on the sixth floor, on a brown paper bag alleged to have contained the dismantled weapon but none of this is 'irrefutable' evidence he killed Kennedy - he worked on the sixth floor often, he used a clipboard as part of that and the bag, even if it did contain the weapon, proves no more than Oswald handled it at some point. The ballistic evidence would have been challenged (and has) and let's not forget the prosecution has to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The Warren Commission had no such constraints and Chief Curry commented that they could never put Oswald on the sixth floor with a gun in his hand.
Maybe, Bugliosi, and his supporters, needed to get a far deeper understanding of the words ‘irrefutable’ and ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I had thought a lawyer might have an inkling of their meanings but it seems I allowed myself to get over excited.
During my reading of the book, there were several times that I felt Vincent Bugliosi was alluding to being the keeper of insider knowledge, something which made him ‘know’ beyond the unsound evidence that Oswald was the actual assassin. I even commented on that point to the WCR supporter who asked that I read the book. Several months later, I found out that Vincent was a close friend of David Atlee Phillips, the man alleged by many authors to have been Oswald’s CIA handler, the man at the centre of the whole ‘rogue Bay of Pigs operatives’ theory, the man caught lying to the HSCA when he declared that the Oswald Mexico City embassy tapes had been routinely destroyed in October or early November 1963, yet HSCA lawyer Robert Tanenbaum was able to show him the J. Edgar Hoover memo that said his FBI agents who were interviewing Oswald had listened to the tapes on the evening of the 23rd November 1963 and categorically stated the voice claimed to be Oswald’s was not.
Phillips was also the man who Antonio Veciana, head of the terrorist anti-Castro group Alpha 66, recently confirmed was his CIA case officer who he knew then as ‘Maurice Bishop’ and that, arriving early for a meeting with Phillips, he had seen him there talking to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Reclaiming History (book and audio) debunks absolutely nothing whatsoever and it provides no irrefutable evidence of Oswald's guilt; it simply regurgitates a flawed and failed inquiry and dresses it up in passion and deceit. I give it two stars for the writing and the misplaced fanaticism.
Vincent Bugliosi writes well and convincingly. Edward Herrman as the narrator for the Audible version was an inspired choice. Herrman’s voice is wonderful, oozing with sincerity and honesty. The voice of a man to be trusted.
If you haven’t read and understood both the Warren Commission Report (WCR), and the volumes of evidence it gathered (much of which it ignored or cherry picked), it’s no surprise that you would fall for the eloquent and, seemingly, persuasive words of Vincent Bugliosi.
However, if you have read them, especially if you have knowledge of the rules of evidence and you’re not actually deranged or following some kind of agenda, you will notice that Vincent’s apparently thoroughly researched tome is simply the Warren Commission enquiry and its witness evidence retold.
Part 1, subtitled - Matters of Fact: What Happened - sets the tone. The choice of those words makes a very bold and decisive statement, before he has even begun to introduce his evidence.
The opener is ‘Four Days In November’ which, at 456 pages alone, later became the basis of his book of the same name. I found it odd that he would do such a thing, given that he complains of authors cashing in on the Kennedy assassination yet he does the very same himself. I can only surmise it was that or a desperate attempt to get his message over in a shorter, more palatable, form than his tome.
After a 54 page introduction, which includes Bugliosi complaining of the misrepresentations and lack of objectivity of other pro-Warren Commission authors, thus setting himself up as being the opposite (which I found he couldn’t sustain for long), the first chapter commences and is full of incredible detail, not just about how the day was evolving for the Kennedys but also for Lee Oswald and others surrounding the events to unfold. It’s gripping stuff, compelling and forceful, even to someone who has a good knowledge of the alternate version, and it reads like a novel. Don’t forget, Mr Bugliosi wants us to know that these are the facts, this is what happened, the sub-heading told us.
Thereafter, begins a voyage of recognised fact mixed with misdirection, misinformation, selective production of evidence, supposition and things that look incredibly like downright lies which, amusingly, are exactly all the things he spends a lot of time disparaging ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ for doing; and he disparages without mercy. Oswald is always the killer, the assassin, the murderer, never ‘alleged’ as you might expect a person who has never been convicted to be referred as; he never had a properly constituted trial. Instead, he received an undefended and unrepresented inquiry, held out of public view in which he was condemned and still is.
Part 2, sub-headed – ‘Delusions of Conspiracy: What Didn’t Happen’ (yet another bold, firm and decisive statement). This soon makes you realise that there is little objectivity, or for that matter impartiality, in what Bugliosi writes. In this section, his ability to disparage blossomed and to say his credibility faded is an understatement. But it doesn’t seem to bother Bugliosi, and I believe that’s because he knows that few private citizens have read the WCR or the volumes of evidence let alone compared them. He knows that none of the main stream media of the time, who were quick to lavish praise on the Warren Commission Report, had done so either.
Such is his fervour that he refuses to contemplate that Oswald may have been used as a false defector and, in my opinion, he does so because to accept the possibility would strip away, for certain, the reasons he cites as Oswald’s motive for allegedly killing Kennedy, namely he was a devoted Marxist, frustrated because his Soviet dream had gone wrong, exasperated with capitalism and, besides, he was ‘nuts’. No western intelligence agency would use such a person and I’d have to agree. But a logical, impartial person would have to consider the possibility of the false defection being true, with all its consequences.
As the second part of the book progresses, he divides and conquers by breaking down various theories separately yet spends little time on the most enduring ‘conspiracy theory’– rogue operators from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, a group of people that included anti-Castro Cubans, Mafia personnel and right wing, disenchanted CIA officers and their sub-contractors. Some of his last words on that subject are – ‘It is noteworthy, that the only books written that suggest the CIA was behind the assassination are those by conspiracy theorists, who are convinced that a conspiracy was behind the assassination whether or not the CIA was involved.’
What he fails to recognise is that it’s hardly noteworthy at all. Any authors that did suggest such a thing would immediately be classed as ‘conspiracy theorists’ - so his contention is somewhat flawed, to say the least.
There is a whole chapter dedicated to Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone. What shines through is the author’s absolute hatred for both men, so much so it made me wonder if they had scammed Vincent’s grandmother out of her savings and stolen his mother’s recipe for Ratatouille.
Mark Lane, author of one of the earliest books to offer dissent from the WCR - 'Rush To Judgement', also comes in for some special treatment, receiving the cleverly worded repetition of a 1999 false allegation that Lane had received KGB funding but probably didn't know its real source (refuted by Lane), had misrepresented himself as a police officer to a material witness (refuted, Lane had recorded the encounter and Bugliosi should have known it if his research was as thorough as he would have us believe) and of 'having leftist tendencies'. In fact, any conspiracy author with real or imagined left wing leanings becomes prey to Bugliosi's dagger-like prejudice.
To prop up many of his claims, Bugliosi bandies around several well known names in the writing and media world and, whilst he freely mentions the associations of any 'conspiracy author', he rather hypocritically fails to do the same with the likes of - James Phelan, Hugh Aynsworth and Max Holland - who have been known for some time to have been media assets for various US intelligence agencies and who agree with him. Holland, who wrote regularly for the in-house CIA magazine, produced a glowing review of Reclaiming History and Bugliosi is not shy of lavishing praise back to all three.
I discovered many, many flaws in the narrative, from the simplest act of selective evidence use to supposition convincing made.
He produces Lt.Col Folsom confirming Oswald's status of a 'sharpshooter' thereby establishing his skills and markmanship made him 'up to the job'. What Bugliosi conveniently forgot to mention was that Folsom went on to affirm that this qualification was obtained during initial training after intense, one on one tuition from the finest firearms instructors using the most well kept and serviced weapons - failure to obtain any qualification was not an option for a Marine. He also forgot to mention that when Oswald next took his weapons test (his last) he only just managed to make the lowest qualification of 'marksman' (by two points - as he did with the 'sharpshooter' classification). Folsom went on to give his opinion, as head of the Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, having regard to Oswald's shooting documents which recorded scores of 34 and 38 out of 50 rounds on target during practices where 48 out of 50 were the expected norm, that LHO was not a particularly good shot and that he'd just had a good day when he qualified.
Then Bugtliosi decisively speculates that the ‘Secret Service man’ on the grassy knoll was, in all probability, simply a Military Intelligence man called Powell. The impression I got was that this was a previously unknown witness, discovered by Vincent's thorough research.
However, Powell was interviewed by ARRB staff in 1996 (some 11-12 years before Bugliosi published his book). In that interview it becomes clear Powell could not have been, in any way, the mysterious Secret Service man. Supposedly off duty, and with a camera around his neck, he stated that when he and Dallas officers ran around the back of the TSBD to the picket fence parking lot there were a lot of civilians already there, in fact he described them as ‘a stampede’. Clearly not the situation the officer who was first behind the fence encountered (or at the very least amongst the very first), and I like to think an officer who could describe a man’s fingernails in detail might have spotted the camera slung across his chest.
To say I was not impressed with Bugliosi periodically declaring that Oswald’s guilt was evidenced ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘irrefutable’ is an understatement and it made me doubt that Bugliosi had ever had any legal training. But, he apparently had, so I had nowhere else to go but to believe he was pushing an agenda and truth wasn’t on it.
Using my knowledge of criminal law, albeit British, I decided to give up trying to identify those responsible and went back to basics by simply examining the actual ‘irrefutable’ evidence that the Warren Commission had and upon which Bugliosi places so much faith that it led him to conclude ‘without any reasonable doubt’ that Oswald was the killer.
Briefly, there was none. Everything the Warren Commission had could have been successfully challenged in a properly constituted and run court of law.
The fingerprint evidence consisted of an old palm print on the part of the alleged murder weapon’s barrel that could only be accessed when the weapon was dismantled and a partial print on the trigger guard (the part that held the magazine clip) and which itself failed to meet any legally required standards of identification in a court of law. Lt Day, Dallas Police forensic and fingerprint expert, confirmed the prints were not fresh and therefore could have been there for a couple of days at least.
Bugliosi does cover that in later years, using new techniques, the fingerprint on the magazine housing was identified by several experts as Oswald's. Unfortunately, evidentially, this is no great shakes because we know he handled the weapon at some point prior to the assassination but according to Lt Day's evidence the prints were not fresh so it wasn't on the day.
We are told at length that other Oswald fingerprints were found, on boxes of books, a clipboard found on the sixth floor, on a brown paper bag alleged to have contained the dismantled weapon but none of this is 'irrefutable' evidence he killed Kennedy - he worked on the sixth floor often, he used a clipboard as part of that and the bag, even if it did contain the weapon, proves no more than Oswald handled it at some point. The ballistic evidence would have been challenged (and has) and let's not forget the prosecution has to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The Warren Commission had no such constraints and Chief Curry commented that they could never put Oswald on the sixth floor with a gun in his hand.
Maybe, Bugliosi, and his supporters, needed to get a far deeper understanding of the words ‘irrefutable’ and ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I had thought a lawyer might have an inkling of their meanings but it seems I allowed myself to get over excited.
During my reading of the book, there were several times that I felt Vincent Bugliosi was alluding to being the keeper of insider knowledge, something which made him ‘know’ beyond the unsound evidence that Oswald was the actual assassin. I even commented on that point to the WCR supporter who asked that I read the book. Several months later, I found out that Vincent was a close friend of David Atlee Phillips, the man alleged by many authors to have been Oswald’s CIA handler, the man at the centre of the whole ‘rogue Bay of Pigs operatives’ theory, the man caught lying to the HSCA when he declared that the Oswald Mexico City embassy tapes had been routinely destroyed in October or early November 1963, yet HSCA lawyer Robert Tanenbaum was able to show him the J. Edgar Hoover memo that said his FBI agents who were interviewing Oswald had listened to the tapes on the evening of the 23rd November 1963 and categorically stated the voice claimed to be Oswald’s was not.
Phillips was also the man who Antonio Veciana, head of the terrorist anti-Castro group Alpha 66, recently confirmed was his CIA case officer who he knew then as ‘Maurice Bishop’ and that, arriving early for a meeting with Phillips, he had seen him there talking to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Reclaiming History (book and audio) debunks absolutely nothing whatsoever and it provides no irrefutable evidence of Oswald's guilt; it simply regurgitates a flawed and failed inquiry and dresses it up in passion and deceit. I give it two stars for the writing and the misplaced fanaticism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 192 reviews