The book is well worth buying. In my view, it closes the chapter on a debate that has been going on since 1992. As shown here, it's a debate that should have never started, concludes Jim DiEugenio.

Although [Bundy] thought [Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest] was an entertaining and informative read, he concluded that the central thesis was just wrong. It was not the advisers—the best and brightest—who did the staff work who got us into the Vietnam War. It was the difference in the men who occupied the Oval Office. It was the difference between Kennedy and Johnson, writes Jim DiEugenio.

This book may well represent the high point of Jesse's legacy ... We can all be thankful of the fact that he felt compelled to commit his power and influence toward noble causes, rather than sell his soul to the highest bidder, like so many others have, writes Frank Cassano.

Except for where he notes some of the problems with the JFK assassination's evidentiary record, this book is pretty much not just without distinction, but so agenda driven as to be misleading. On the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's murder, we needed a lot better, writes Jim DiEugenio.

Any serious student of the King case should ignore both this program and the book by Hampton Sides. Instead, read The 13th Juror, concludes Jim DiEugenio.

Jim DiEugenio's second book on the JFK assassination, which takes Bugliosi's pretentious and inflated bag of obfuscation as its framework for dismantling the Warren Commission, the Clark Panel, and the HSCA, and for further revealing how beholden the film and TV industry has become to Washington in general and to the CIA in particular.  A masterful dissection of a rotting corpse, and the rightful heir to Accessories after the Fact. [Al Rossi]

The sum total of the film is so limp, banal, and uninspired that, one really has to ask: Why did Landesman take this on in the first place? But further, why did Hanks go through with it on the big screen? Something like this was more cozily housed on cable TV. That's how reductive of a gigantic subject this film is, writes Philip Sheridan.

  An interesting and worthwhile work. ... it has a unique approach to it, and Hancock’s analysis of the crime has sophistication, intelligence and nuance to it, writes Jim DiEugenio.    

It is evident that [the] three shows [reviewed in this article] reveal a rather unwelcome truth. That is, today's cable TV companies are just as psychologically and socially incapable of telling the truth about President Kennedy's death as the networks were in the sixties and seventies, concludes Jim DiEugenio.

By any standards, Lane's resume is impressive, and I have a great deal of respect for the man. So it is with heavy heart that I must say his latest and most likely his last book on the murder of JFK is—for me at least—a little disappointing, writes Martin Hay.