History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
That is the
conclusion drawn by Vincent Bugliosi who proclaims that his
new tome"settles all questions about the assassination once and for
all."
According to the author,
"No reasonable, rational person - and let's italicize those words -
can possibly read this book and not be satisfied beyond all reasonable
doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone."
Bugliosi will not win any prize for modesty but his general conclusion is probably correct. The evidence is overwhelming that
it was Oswald, and Oswald alone, who did it.
The case that conspirators in the Military-Industrial Complex had anything to do with the crime is especially weak. What motive could they possibly have had? The Military-Industrial Complex never had a more dynamic and vigorous champion than JFK. He was their Lancelot.
The Nov/Dec issue of the "The Federal Lawyer" published my review of
Vince Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History." It's available on-line
at http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html
Many of the footnotes are hot-linked to source documents that are
available on-line.
Gary
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
By Vincent Bugliosi
W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY, 2007. 1612 pages plus CD-rom, $49.95.
Reviewed by Gary L. Aguilar*
Federal Lawyer, November/December 2007
Mark Brady -
6/4/2007
No doubt this was available through the American Opinion bookstore in Wichita, Kansas, which, I understand, was run by a youthful Charles Koch.
David T. Beito -
6/4/2007
I also thought that the Norman Mailer's book was pretty convincing in its own way.
Although Mailer thinks that Oswald was acting alone, however, he argued that a good defense attorney could have presented a persuasive case.
Tim Sydney -
6/4/2007
David uses a link to Prouty.org above.
I agree that the Oswald did it theory makes the most sense. Still there is a lot of useful material in Fletcher Prouty's book "JFK".
The strength of the book is his first person / insider views of what it was like within the US covert warrior system in the 1950s-60s. He has some great discussion of visiting Vietnam in the 1950s; the difficulties and tensions within the military between the traditional war/peace mentality versus the new cold war mentality; how Allen Dulles exploited the presidential transition to inflate Ike's highly limited "Bay of Pigs" amphibious infiltration operation into a full scale invasion; how JFK/McNamara (micro-managed) ran the F-111 program for congressional pork etc.
The part I remember as particularly interesting could be described as "I was a Maoist for the CIA". Prouty describes how CIA covert operatives working against the Communist Parties in France and Italy adopted and modified maoist strategy and thinking in a "pro-Free World" cause.
So despite the failure of his central thesis of Military-Industrial Complex conspiracy behind the JFK shooting, he does provide a useful look at the MIC operating at it's cold war peak.
David T. Beito -
6/2/2007
I agree. This does not mean, however, Oswald was a fool. He handles himself quite well in the New Orleans radio show defending The Fair Play for Cuba Committee:
I read the Posner books and some of the critics and I think the book stood up quite well. Oswald seems like the last guy you would want to recruit for a conspiracy.
David T. Beito -
6/1/2007
True, but for a guy that had a rather typical, law and order pro-establishment reputation, he took the somewhat unorthodox position of arguing that Bush stole the 200 election.
David T. Beito -
6/1/2007
It has been a long time but I believe that I first read this in the Bircher outlet, American Opinion article from 1964.
Roderick T. Long -
6/1/2007
According to this theory, one of the secret service agents mistakently fired his gun in response to the backfiring of one of the cars thus killing the prez!
I read a book defending this theory once; it didn't seem obviously Bircherite, and it didn't claim that the agent was the only shooter.
Roderick T. Long -
6/1/2007
This may or may not be a good book, but Bugliosi has always been a slimy statist hack, so a book by him does not inspire confidence.
David T. Beito -
6/1/2007
My favorite explanation was from a Bircher publication I once read. It is better known as the Barney Fife theory. According to this theory, one of the secret service agents mistakently fired his gun in response to the backfiring of one of the cars thus killing the prez!
In light of the FEMA mess, it all seems to fit together.
Jesse Walker -
6/1/2007
I still think it was an elaborate suicide attempt by John Connally.
David T. Beito -
6/1/2007
There probably isn't much new but my impression is that this is a much more comprehensive book. Also, as a I recall, there were several holes in the Posner book which weakened its credibility somewhat.
Aeon J. Skoble -
6/1/2007
This all looks good to me, but didn't a Gerald Posner show all this a few years back -- IIRC the book was called "Case Closed" or the like. Does Bugliosi have new material, or did Posner not do an effective job, or what's the deal? I'm not criticizing, having read neither book, just wondering.
Yes, I saw that too and thought it was connvicing. Another obvious problem with the conspiracy theory, of course, is that Oswald got his job in the book depository long before Kennedy even contemplated his trip to Dallas.
Less Antman -
6/1/2007
I don't know if the current book addresses it, but I was convinced a few years ago when I saw a documentary on either History or Discovery. They ripped every conspiracy theory to shreds, but the big moment that caused me to hit my forehead:
They performed an experiment over and over on camera shooting a pumpkin on a table with a high powered rifle, and the pumpkin always jumped off the table IN THE DIRECTION OF THE RIFLE SHOT. We were then reminded that this was expected since, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and the movement in that direction was in reaction to the energy going through the object in the other direction. In other words, the fact that Kennedy went back and to the right meant that he was shot from back and to the right (i.e., where Oswald was).
