Ad Orientem wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
When I have read the book I linked to before, I'll let you know how good its arguments are.
Try reading the one I linked to. It's by far the most exhaustive work on the subject. And it explores in detail all of the major, and many of the minor, conspiracy theories. It is available in most well stocked libraries.
It doesn't sound that impressive. Here's one of the Amazon reviews:
'Gosh, where to begin? Well, I guess I should start out by coming clean and admitting I haven't read the entire book. I tended to focus on sections that really interested me, especially the medical evidence and the autopsy, because its just so long. The sections that I did manage to get through were bad enough that I hope I can be excused for not plowing through all 1600 hardcover pages.
I've always admired Bugliosi. Helter Skelter is my favorite true crime book, and he's always seemed really sharp and insightful every time I've seen him on television, usually commenting on a court case. As someone who's pretty firmly on the conspiracy side of the fence, I was both looking forward to and dreading this book. If anyone could change my mind, it was Vince.
He did not succeed, though it wasn't for lack of trying. He starts out by applauding the Warren Commission and claiming that their only interest was in finding the truth. It's absurd to think that they would have pursued leads that pointed towards the mafia or CIA when that would have inevitably exposed a number of illegal CIA operations, including government plots to kill Fidel Castro that involved the mafia. This would have been disastrous to the agencies involved and to many of the nations' most powerful, influential people, including the Kennedys. And then there's all the dirt Hoover was holding over the Kennedy's. I wonder if Bugliosi has ever heard the audio tape of RFK calling LBJ and delicately trying to get some information on just how much he and Hoover had on them. It would be a good lesson on realpolitik for him. Yes, even the Kennedy's had reasons to want the Warren Commission to decide it was a lone nut.
Bugliosi succeeds in poking holes in some arguments that have been popular with the critics, pointing out the errors some researchers have made. Oliver Stone is a favorite whipping boy, but no one refers to his movie when they are looking for real research, I hope. This is a case where the primary suspect was held for two days and interrogated constantly by the FBI and the police and no record of what he said exists. Pretty astounding. Oh wait, there is that page of notes that Captain Fritz found later. There's really no excuse for this, though Bugliosi tries. Well, he wasn't saying much... They didn't know he would be dead soon... Yes, and they also didn't know when he might let something slip that might be important. This is the same FBI that ordered one of their agents to destroy evidence - a note that Oswald had left with the FBI. What exactly was on that note? We'll have to take the FBI's word for it that it was something that incriminated Oswald. They only destroyed it because it was kind of embarrassing that they overlooked it pre assassination. Bugliosi tends to take the government at its word even in situations where its been proven to be lying a lot.
The section on the autopsy was the one I was most interested in, and pretty well encapsulates how he approached this book. He's always had a feisty, no holds bar approach, but it's almost bizarre how frequently he descends into invective here. He can't get through a paragraph at times without insulting the critics. It's almost like he knows he's over promised by telling us that he's closing the case for good and is over compensating for that. Defending the choice of autopsy Doctors, he points out that in an interview Humes, the lead Dr. who wrote the report, actually said he had done autopsies on a few gunshot victims. It's pretty clear from the quote that these cases were pretty few. Humes can only specifically remember two of them. Bugliosi acts like this was some kind of deliberate omission by the critics, even though it doesn't make Humes any more qualified to be doing any kind of autopsy that involved a murder investigation, much less the President's. And none of them were in criminal cases. Humes wasn't trained for doing autopsies that involved a crime. He was not a forensic pathologist.. And there's also the fact that Humes only gave this interview 28 years after the autopsy, when the most well known assassination books had already been written.
Bugliosi is a strong believer in the House Select Committee on Assassinations, at least when they agree with him, like they do on the direction of the shots. He does admit that the HSCA's opinions of the autopsy doctors and their work were brutally negative. He then tries to salvage this by telling us that they "contradict themselves somewhat" when they say that there was enough there to show that Kennedy was shot from behind by two bullets. As if that disproves the notion that the autopsy was shockingly lacking. He even includes a quote in which one of the Doctors that worked for the HSCA panel mentions that the only thing they got wrong was the location of the head wounds. The HSCA put it near the top of Kennedy's head, while the autopsy had it at the bottom of the back of Kennedy's head, near what they call the external occipital protuberance. It's a difference of about three or four inches. That's huge when you're talking about the location of a head wound, and Bugliosi dismisses it as a "gaff". OK. Got the wound location wrong by several inches, didn't properly examine the brain or other evidence that would have given us more information about the trajectory of the bullets through Kennedy, but those crazy conspiracy theorists are being unfair when they say the problems with the autopsy are suspicious. How did the bullet go through Kennedy's neck without hitting the spine? We'd know if the autopsy was done correctly. Of course, Bugliosi blames this on the Kennedy's "limiting" the autopsy, but the only evidence he gives for this is that they didn't want Kennedy's Addison's disease mentioned, and that Jackie wasn't leaving until the autopsy was finished and the family could have the body with them.
There's more, of course. Eyewitness testimony is not reliable, unless it agrees with the Oswald as a lone nut version. Even if it comes from FBI, CIA, one of Lyndon Johnson's lawyers, high ranking mafia who were involved in a plot to kill Castro. They are just talking crazy, and should be ignored without a thought.
At this point I doubt we'll ever get to the "truth". The major players are dead. The time to look deeper into their stories and see where they could take us, to corroborate or disprove them, is passed. However, I don't think you can call everyone who's a doubter a kook. Not when even the man who put together the Warren commission was one. LBJ himself admitted several times that he wasn't sure about the Warren Commission's conclusions.
So I give this one star. Unless you're a student and want a good lesson in lawyerin' tricks.'