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 Bill Glauber, At: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
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."
This author would not walk across the street to see Posner speak about either the JFK or King case. I have a hard time thinking that Stone could master the JFK case in just a matter of 3-4 years, and am skeptical of the case made against Lyndon Johnson. In watching this confrontation it appears I was correct about these suspicions, laments Jim DiEugenio.
This essay on [Willens' and Mosk's] work for the Warren Commission they served on is more notable for what they omit from the official record than what they include, writes Gary Aguilar.
An update by Jim DiEugenio on John McAdams' suspension and his lawsuit against Marquette University.
We here publish two letters written by Gary Aguilar and Cyril Wecht to the editors of the the journal of the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners concerning the ludicrous claims made by PBS' program on the JFK assassination.
As one can see, Mark Lane was such an effective critic of the Warren Report that his ghost is haunted by its shameless defenders even in death. It is they who are guilty of what they say he was: namely, presenting the facts in a one-sided, polemical way, declares Jim DiEugenio.
Arnaldo follows up his original critique of Shenon's book with a reply to the article published in Politico on October 6, 2015.