I stand in awe of the scope, detail, and profound insights that Horne has achieved, especially in the medical evidence – to say nothing of his Olympian effort. ... The bottom line is that I feel a deep debt of gratitude to Horne for further disentangling this nearly half-century old Gordian knot. By contrast, I should emphasize that I never experienced that sensation with Bugliosi, writes David Mantik.
In part 1 of his three-part review, Dr. Mantik looks at Don Thomas' treatement of the ballistics evidence, the backyard photographs, and the President's wounds.
Supplementary material on terminology, ballistics and acoustics referred to in David Mantik's review of Don Thomas.
In this final part of his review, David Mantik concludes his detailed discussion of the dictabelt evidence and why he disagrees with Thomas's conclusions concerning that evidence.
In part 2 of his three-part review, David Mantik continues his discussion of ballistics, Thomas's version of the single-bullet theory, neutron activation analysis, the Tippit murder, and begins his lengthy review of the dicatabelt evidence.
Thomas shows how people like Luis Alverez, John Lattimer and Larry Sturdivan all constructed dubious theories “for the purpose of explaining away the obvious reason for the head snap, and all suffer, not only from implausibility, but from a failure to fit the evidence.” This is the true strength of the book and the reason why I believe it will be such a valuable contribution to the literature, writes Martin Hay.
David Mantik replies to criticisms made by Pad Speer of his conclusions concerning the 6.5 mm bright object and the "white patch".
The amount of bunching of the suit coat in the Jefferies film is not significant enough to raise the entrance wounds to the base of the neck. It is an experiment that can easily be done, writes Chuck Marler.
Just how extensively this new Jefferies film will be used to promote jacket-bunching to explain the jacket/body discrepancy remains to be seen, writes John Kelin.