Russell, with the help of Hulme, did a much better job of telling the story of Nagell in 2003 than he did in 1992, writes Jim DiEugenio.
An anthology of over forty chapters which spans many years of contributions, but the number of essays that are really important, insightful, and worth preserving is small, writes Jim DiEugenio.
An interesting, well-organized, and crafted book. [Haslam] has given us a documented, insightful, and arresting alternative to the unsatisfactory, or missing, official story [of Mary Sherman's death]; that alternative may have huge implications down to the present day. His work deserves attention and accolades, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
This remarkable book could never have been composed or even contemplated without the existence of the Assassination Records Review Board. No book takes us more into Oswald's workings with the intelligence community than this one. And his section on Mexico City is clearly one of the 5 or 6 greatest discoveries made in the wake of the ARRB, writes Jim DiEugenio.
The best part of the book deals with Oswald's alleged visits to the Cuban consulate and Russian Embassy in Mexico City in the fall of 1963. This section of the work owes itself to the disclosures of the ARRB. More specifically to the Lopez Report and to John Newman's important book Oswald and the CIA, writes Jim DiEugenio.
It is not just well-written. In some places it rises to the level of extraordinarily well-written. Almost every chapter is well-planned and organized. And the book as a whole contains a completed aesthetic arc to it, writes Jim DiEugenio.
Much of [his] material [on the Paines] is taken from the extraordinary work done on the couple by Carol Hewett, Barbara La Monica, and Steve Jones. As the author notes, this work is so potent that it was attacked by a big gun of the GOP, Thomas Mallon in his pathetic whitewash of a book, Mrs. Paine's Garage, writes Jim DiEugenio.
Obituary from The Washington Post by Walter Pincus.
Although there are some interesting and worthwhile aspects to this book, overall I found it really disappointing. It is ... unconvincing in its overall thesis, and uses questionable sources and witnesses to advance parts of its presentation, while leaving out more credible evidence that works against that particular presentation. It pains me to write like this, since I like Mr. Hancock and think he and his organization have done some good work, writes Jim DiEugenio.