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.
In fresh tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action weapon, supervised by the Italian army, it was found to be impossible for even an accomplished marksman to fire the shots quickly enough.
Mark Lane wrote that the Warren Report dishonored "those who wrote it little more than those who praise it." This book makes you feel the sting of that dishonor more than any other book that I know. But, as with the best work in the field, it helps us transcend that shame with the beauty and power of pure understanding, writes Jim DiEugenio.
It is worth remembering that Gerald Ford's legacy also includes vetoing a bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act, reportedly at the urging of Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney and Antonin Scalia, writes John Kelin.
Cartoon depicting Gerald Ford clarifying the Warren Report.
Jim DiEugenio lists the low quality of the government witnesses in the JFK assassination case.
On the crucial work of Randich and Grant published in the Journal of Forensic Science which completely demolishes the validity of neutron activation analysis for the comparison of bullet lead, touted by the HSCA on the basis of Vincent Guinn's claims.
Randich and Grant's invalidation of Neutron Activation Analysis for bullet lead comparison renders the single-bullet theory even less credible than it seems.
Although Randich and Grant's research doesn't solve the Kennedy assassination, it certainly does weaken the case for a lone gunman, writes Betty Mason of the Contra Costa Times.