Continuing in the direction marked out by The Assassinations (2003), this book is the latest contribution toward an interpretation of the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK not as isolated incidents but as related to each other. Savastano has designed the book as something of a primer, a way of getting the lay person interested in all three of these momentous murders, writes Jim DiEugenio.
Jim DiEugenio reviews the career of Edward J. Epstein, who has recently come under attack for his concoctions concerning Edward Snowden – all too familiar to students of the JFK assassination in the way they echo his equally questionable construction of Oswald as Soviet agent.
The most inadvertently humorous part of Carpenter’s pathetic essay comes at the end. There he praises Oliver Stone for helping create the declassification process of the ARRB. Why is that funny? It's funny because this essay does not use any of those ARRB declassified documents it credits Stone for releasing, quips Jim DiEugenio.
In the second installment of this book review/essay, Jeff Carter focuses on questions of authenticity, alteration, and the NPIC analyses which occurred over the week-end of the assassination but which the CIA later tried to deflect and all but make disappear from the record.
By Jim Schutze, At: The Dallas Observer
The first in a two-part installment in which Jeff Carter reviews a book that "reveals some new – albeit not earth-shattering – information", but is also "imbued with a certain partisanship, not limited to family interests, which dulls the author’s critical thinking in some key areas."
Fidel Castro's speech, broadcast on Cuban radio and television on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963, concerning the assassination of President Kennedy, reprinted here thanks to David Giglio at Our Hidden History.
If Shaw had restrained himself, or if he had had an editor to point out the problems with his design, then this would have been a good and valuable book about Dorothy Kilgallen: who she really was, what we know and do not know about her death. But such was not the case. I would actually recommend Sara Jordan’s informative and objective essay instead, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
Milicent Cranor refutes John Canal's claim that the back-of-the-head JFK autopsy photo was taken after the morticians reconstructed the head, supposedly moving the scalp from the back to the front, dragging with it the entrance wound, and covering up bone damage.