From the November-December 1999 issue (Vol. 7 No. 1) of Probe
I have to admit I was initially reluctant to respond to this "review" of my book for several reasons. First and foremost, I am averse to feeding into the divide-and-conquer strategy so prominently played out among the critics for too long - a tactic that is ultimately counter-productive. Second, I had never heard of the author of this "critique," Dave Reitzes, and information subsequently provided to me by colleagues who regularly check the Internet has done little to assign Reitzes even a modicum of credibility. And finally, Reitzes habitually haunts something called the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup on the Internet and his "review" appeared on a Web site run by someone called John McAdams. Given that the combined readership of these two electronic fora probably rivals that of the Eskimo population of Miami Beach, I was even more disinclined to respond. But having waded through Reitzes' abundant medley of errors and distortions, I felt some response was warranted.
Reitzes titles his "review", Davy Disappoints. One thing I can say for Mr. Reitzes is that he does not. In fact he is quite predictable. He begins by complaining that, less the front and back matter, my book is "a skimpy 204 pages." (He chose not to include the Endnotes section in his count which runs for another 36 pages, but that's OK). Of these 204 pages, Reitzes writes, "approximately 27 are blank." It is a standard publishing convention to leave the verso page blank if the chapter ends on the recto page. But the mind boggles at Reitzes' command of the intricacies of mathematics. Of the 204 pages Reitzes mentions, only 8 chapters end on the recto page for a grand total of (Can you grasp this Mr. Reitzes?) 8 blank pages. Not 27. But it's a ludicrous argument anyway. Look at some of the literature that has been published on the assassination and related events. Phil Melanson's Spy Saga is 149 pages (I won't count footnotes or front and back matter since Reitzes seems to be averse to this). Trumbull Higgins' volume on the Bay of Pigs, The Perfect Failure is 176 pages. James and Wardlaw's Plot or Politics? is 167 pages. And Peter Dale Scott's Crime and Cover-Up weighs in at a mere 49 pages. Yet would anyone deny the contributions made by these slim volumes? On the other hand, one gets weighed down by the gross tonnage of Harrison Livingstone's, often incomprehensible, output. Apparently, Mr. Reitzes hasn't grasped the concept of quality over quantity.
Reitzes dazzles us further with his mastery of math by writing this bizarre calculation, "Davy provides us with an estimated 5 1/2 chapters of new information, or and estimated 67.1 pages (177 divided by 14 chapters total times 5 1/2 chapters). By my estimation, then, only about a fifth of Davy's book produces the promised new information, while about four-fifths provide what Davy calls context." Allow me to correct this bit of misinformation. Of the over 700 citations in the Endnotes section, approximately 425 of them have (to the best of my knowledge) never been published in print before. This includes many documents from the intelligence agencies, the HSCA, Garrison's files (culled from numerous sources), interviews, and miscellaneous other collections. This doesn't take into account the hard-to-find books and manuscripts I cite including William Turner's unpublished manuscript, The Garrison Investigation, Arthur Carpenter's Ph.D. dissertation, Gateway to the Americas, and rare books such as Menshikov's Millionaires and Managers and Scheflin and Opton's, The Mind Manipulators. Not even counting those volumes the amount of new material is roughly 64%. Back when I went to school 1/5 did not equal 64%, Mr. Reitzes. His convoluted formulas cause Reitzes to ponder; "One wonders what [Lisa] Pease makes of Bill Davy's math." Better yet, one wonders what the reader will now make of your math, Mr. Reitzes.
Reitzes continues his "review" by acknowledging that the longest chapter in my book is the chapter dealing with the concerted efforts of the media and the intelligence agencies to spread disinformation about Garrison and subvert due process. This chapter is indeed the longest because of the massive amount of supporting documentation affirming the attacks. Reitzes finds this all irrelevant contending that the reason Garrison lost his case "would hardly seem to be related to any alleged resistance from the CIA and/or the media." His conclusion doesn't surprise me since I doubt that he has studied any of the documents I cite.
Later Reitzes asks incredulously why haven't I read his Internet masterpiece, Who Speaks For Clay Shaw? I know this might be a little difficult for someone like Reitzes to understand, but not everybody spends their life on the Internet. This concept is obviously foreign to someone who apparently spends all of his waking hours on-line. Consider the following usenet post from Jim Hargrove, dated January 10, 1999:
According to the results a DejaNews "power Search," posts made to alt.conspiracy.jfk by Dave Reitzes as firstname.lastname@example.org totalled [sic] "about 15,000." Posts made by Dave Reitzes as ERXF03A@prodigy.com SINCE JUST BEFORE LAST CHRISTMAS totalled [sic] "about 14,000" posts. Since DejaNews breaks up long posts and counts then as multiple instances, these numbers are too high. Nevertheless, they are astronomical, and represent abuse of Usenet. [Emphasis in original]
But don't take my word for it. There is a long-established newsgroup devoted to the very topic of spamming and net abuse, and Dave Reitzes is a real fixture there. In just the last two months of 1998, his name appears on 19 different news.admin.net-abuse hit lists.
Again from Hargrove:
Switching over to Prodigy on the account of "Marc Reitzes," Dave Reitzes has also been fingered by news.admin.net-abuse three times since last Christmas.
Two months later, Reitzes was still at it, causing David Lifton to comment in a March 10, 1999 post that Reitzes is:
Completely divorced from reality, and, according to DejaNews, posting over 5,000 posts this year (that's right, 5,000 posts)
Reitzes certainly gives new meaning to the expression "get a life."
Reitzes later complains that I didn't report that an HSCA document that concludes that Clay Shaw may have been involved in the planning of the assassination, "did not reflect the opinions of its author, but rather the statements of its interview subject: Judge Jim Garrison." It is true that the title of the document reads "Interview with Jim Garrison in New Orleans" but even a casual reading of the memo shows that it contains more information than what was gleaned from an interview. In fact, the "interview" was actually a series of conferences that ran from July 29th through August 6th, 1977 between Garrison and several members of Team 3 of the HSCA, including Gaeton Fonzi, Jonathan Blackmer, Cliff Fenton, and L.J. Delsa. The subsequent memo contains not just the highlights of the Garrison interviews, but information gained from Garrison's files and separate research already conducted by Team 3, independent from Garrison. This content was confirmed to me by two of the HSCA staffers involved. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many HSCA people have you interviewed? Since the document concludes "We have reason to believe that Shaw was heavily involved in the anti-Castro efforts in New Orleans in the 1960's and [was] possibly one of the high level planners or "cut out" to the planners of the assassination," it is quite apparent that Blackmer is stating his team's conclusions, not Garrison's. (Since when does Garrison refer to himself in the plural form?)
Reitzes also incorrectly claims that I "take on faith" that other Vieux Carre denizens identified Shaw as "Bertrand" and that "these alleged witnesses would not speak for the record." Wrong. I name two of the witnesses in my book, William Morris and David Logan, both of whom were interviewed by the DA's office for the record. William Morris is a name Reitzes should be more than familiar with. For months, Reitzes hammered away on the Internet claiming that William Morris never existed and that Garrison invented him out of whole cloth. When confronted by Jim Hargrove's posting of the July 12, 1967 NODA interview of Morris (an interview that has been available at the AARC or its precursor for almost 30 years, by the way), Reitzes beat a hasty retreat, posting this mea culpa on January 9th; "I did, of course, assert on this NG that Morris never existed, a reckless statement I have fully retracted and for which I apologize." Apologizing for his inaccuracies is something Reitzes must be quite used to by now. After falsely alleging that David Lifton cribbed Best Evidence from an unpublished manuscript by Newcomb and Adams, Reitzes had to post this retraction on March 11, 1999: "I retract the charge and I apologize for alleging it. It was a cheap shot." He made another false claim about Harrison Livingstone's presence during the ARRB deposition of Dr. Humes and once again Reitzes had to atone, writing, "I humbly retract the statement."
I won't rehash Reitzes' attempted defense of Dean Andrews, since it is simply a regurgitation of Patricia Lambert's nonsense. However, I would refer the interested reader to my and Jim DiEugenio's review of Lambert's book in PROBE Vol. 6, No. 4, as well as the Dean Andrews section of my book. I will comment on one claim made by Reitzes though. He says that my revelation that Andrews was not under sedation at the time of the Clay Bertrand call is not borne out in the December 1963 FBI reports. On the contrary, as anyone who has read my book would know, the December 1963 FBI reports are the source for this revelation.
Reitzes is right about one point. An FBI report does mention that Metropolitan Crime Commission Director Aaron Kohn was one of the FBI's sources who had information about Clay Bertrand. But Reitzes finds it suspicious that I didn't explain why Kohn "would pass along this potentially helpful information - at a time it was common knowledge in the French Quarter that Garrison was seeking "Bertrand" - instead of sitting on the allegedly dangerous stuff." What Reitzes leaves out is that Kohn countered this revelation with another in which he said he received information that Clay Bertrand is actually a real-estate broker living in Lafayette, Louisiana - clearly disinformation. Maybe I should have included this in my chapter on the disinformation campaign.
Reitzes' prosaic attempt at critiquing the final chapter in my book is equally ridiculous. He apparently doesn't like my choice of titles as he feels it necessary to add his air of incredulity by referring to it as "The Hidden(!) Record." His emphasis on the word "hidden" is certainly appropriate since approximately 85% of the material in that chapter was suppressed until at least 1993. Regarding a March 2, 1967 FBI memo which Cartha DeLoach wrote to Clyde Tolson stating that "Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963, as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw," Reitzes takes on the role of apologist for the FBI asking, "DeLoach couldn't be mistakenly referring to that FBI report of February 24, 1967 (the Aaron Kohn document noted above), could he?" Let's see, the number 3 man at the FBI is writing a memo to the number 2 man, knowing full well it will also be read by Hoover, and he gets something like that wrong? I don't think so. Reitzes thinks he's really on to something as he writes, "Unfortunately, Davy disdains hunting for primary sources to support his theory when he can simply misquote the anonymous Justice Department informant who told the New York Times that "Bertrand" and Shaw were "the same guy" (Davy, 191)." It's interesting that Reitzes cites page 191 of my book for the Justice Department "it's the same guy" quote, because nowhere on page 191 or anywhere else in the book do I mention the "it's the same guy" quote! Even though that quote is nowhere to be found in my book, that doesn't stop Reitzes from his pathetic attempt at discrediting. He writes, "What the Justice Department source actually said was, "We think it's the same guy."" Reitzes cites the New York Times of March 3, 1967 as his primary source and Lambert as his backup. A quick look at Lambert's book shows she doesn't cite the New York Times at all, but rather the New Orleans Time-Picayune of March 3, 1967 and a Washington Post article some three months later. So, does Reitzes' main source, the New York Times of March 3, 1967 mention the "We think it's the same guy" quote? Well, I don't know what edition Mr. Reitzes has, but I have the New York Times, March 3, 1967 article in front of me right now and the Justice Department is quite unequivocal on the matter. I quote verbatim:
"A Justice Department official said tonight that his agency was convinced that Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Shaw were the same man, and that this was the basis for Mr. Clark's assertions this morning."
And this is precisely what I cite in my book, not the, "it's the same guy" or "we think it's the same guy" quotes that Reitzes erroneously attributes to the New York Times and me. Just who is misquoting the Justice Department here, Mr. Reitzes? It is also interesting to note that in his "review" Reitzes tries to downplay the Justice Department conclusion by saying I misquote an anonymous Justice Department informant. As the reader can see, the Times article (and my book) clearly states that it is a Justice Department official making the statement.
Later, Reitzes incredulously asks "How come none [witnesses linking Shaw to the Bertrand alias] came forward even after the success of Oliver Stone's 1991 movie JFK, which made much of the alleged "Bertrand" alias?" I would expect this from someone who probably hasn't interviewed a witness in his life. Within two days of my arriving in New Orleans, I located several people in the French Quarter and beyond, who claimed Shaw used the Bertrand alias. But since they wished to remain anonymous I chose not to use them in my book. One of these witnesses was a very credible 30-year veteran of one of New Orleans' major newspapers, whose name would be recognizable to anyone familiar with the New Orleans aspects of the case. (It was not Jack Dempsey).
Reitzes continues lowering his batting average when he writes, "Davy devotes a great deal of space trying to prove that Clay Shaw perjured himself when he denied knowing David Ferrie. Again Davy must resort to witnesses that Jim Garrison had, but were clearly not credible to use." Wrong again. One of the several witnesses I use linking Ferrie to Shaw, is Banister operative, Joe Newbrough - a very credible source. I also quote an FBI report in which they interview Carroll Thomas, a self-described friend of Shaw's whose funeral home handled the arrangements for the death of Shaw's father. While being interviewed by the FBI on an unrelated matter, Thomas volunteered that Shaw had introduced him to Ferrie. Neither of these witnesses shared this information with Garrison.
Reitzes attempts to score me for citing Jules Ricco Kimble as a source for a flight he made to Montreal with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie. Reitzes' main points for his argument are:
- According to Reitzes, "early accounts of Kimble's story mentioned flying to Montreal with David Ferrie, but did not mention Clay Shaw." Reitzes cites Flammonde's The Kennedy Conspiracy, pp. 206-7. A check of Flammonde's book shows that Flammonde devotes all of one sentence to the Montreal trip that reads, "Kimble also claimed that he had flown to Montreal on what he said was a Minuteman errand." True, Flammonde doesn't mention Shaw in his one-sentence summary, but neither is Ferrie mentioned as Reitzes claims.
- Reitzes also writes that "Kimble originally claimed the flight to have taken place a year before the assassination, then later moved the date to the summer of 1963, apparently in order to imply a more credible link to the JFK assassination." And what is Reitzes' source for this revelation? Some newly released document, perhaps? Or maybe an interview he conducted? No. He provides a web link to a book blurb for a book that hasn't even been released in this country and is only available in the French language. Assuming Reitzes does not have the book and is not bi-lingual, is this an example of his primary sources? A book blurb?!
He also wrote in a follow-up post on the Kimble episode that an undated NODA memo about the Montreal trip states "Despite the fact that the original source of this information was JULES RICCO KIMBLE, a man with a record, this lead keeps growing stronger." He cites a PROBE article by Lisa Pease as the source for this and that's about the only thing he gets right. He later writes that my book "briefly discusses the Freeport [Sulpher] story, but doesn't mention that the tale originated with Kimble, even though a discussion of Kimble's NODA statement directly follows the Freeport material. Davy, in fact, implies that Kimble's story "corroborates" the Freeport tale." Allow me to correct you once again (this is getting arduous). Kimble's statement is dated October 10, 1967. Almost four months prior to Kimble's statement, the NODA's office had information from Ken Elliot, a former newscaster, that Shaw and Ferrie had made the flight to Canada on Freeport Sulpher business. This was later corroborated by James J. Plaine, who had been contacted by a high official in Freeport Sulpher and also told Garrison's office about the Shaw/Ferrie flight and Freeport Sulpher angle. Apparently this was such common knowledge in New Orleans, that both Dean Andrews and WDSU reporter, Richard Townley revealed this information to Shaw's lawyers. Kimble's statement was just icing on the cake. And all of this information is laid out quite clearly in my book. As for the undated memo in Ms. Pease's article, I have a copy of the memo with the date on it. It is one of several memos from the spring of 1969, after the Shaw trial, as Garrison and Assistant DA, Andrew Sciambra were continuing the investigation on a very limited basis. At that point Garrison may very well have believed Kimble was the original source of the Canada trip, but as I've shown, the chronicled record indicates otherwise.
In my book I quote a CIA document that indicates Shaw was cleared for a project called QK/ENCHANT, which Reitzes accuses me of "mangling." However, the relevant paragraph is quoted in its entirety in my book. Yet Reitzes claims the document says Shaw was an unwitting source. I can assure the reader that nowhere in the QK/ENCHANT document I quote is there any mention of Shaw being an unwitting source. Earlier Reitzes had claimed that another CIA document exists (apparently a different one) that says Shaw was an unwitting source for QK/ENCHANT. In fact, the document in question says no such thing. Both Reitzes and McAdams have been claiming this CIA document exists which clearly states Shaw was used on an unwitting basis. I have obtained a copy of the CIA document and this is what it says: "Subject was granted a Covert Security Approval for use under Project QKENCHANT on an unwitting basis on 10 December 1962." Lo and behold, the document does say he was used on an unwitting basis. Unfortunately for Reitzes the subject in question is J. Monroe Sullivan, the San Francisco Trade Mart Director, not Clay Shaw. Just who is mangling documents here, Mr. Reitzes?
Reitzes' swipe at the Clinton witnesses is old news, but interviewing them could clear up any questions he has about their statements, testimony and veracity. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of the Clinton witnesses have you interviewed? One witness he obviously didn't interview is Henry Burnell Clark. Instead he trots out Posner's attempt at discrediting this prospective "Clinton" witness. Reitzes repeats Posner's claim that Clark did not place Ferrie and Shaw in town on the same day. Reitzes even provides a web link to Clark's statement on-line. I've heard this allegation before and thought perhaps there was another statement out there I hadn't read. A click on Reitzes' link confirmed this was not the case. Just a casual reading of the document verifies that Clark is talking about the same time frame. Consider what Clark says about his Clay Shaw sighting:
In the summer of 1963, after a period of civil rights demonstration and picketing had ending [sic], and during the attempted registration of Negro voters…." Clark then goes on to describe his sighting of Clay Shaw. Now, here is how Clark describes the time frame in which he saw Ferrie:
During this same period of time in the summer of 1963, after the conclusion of the picketting [sic] demonstrations and during the attempted voting registration of the Negroes…" [My emphasis] Note that the context is exactly the same as his Shaw sighting. Further, there is no mention anywhere in Clark's statement about these sightings being on different days. At this point I'm beginning to wonder if Reitzes, McAdams, and Posner even read the documents they cite.
Reitzes also accuses me of an "uncritical acceptance of such discredited Garrison "evidence" as David Ferrie's allegedly unnatural death (Davy, 66-7)." Here is exactly what I say about Ferrie's death: "The coroner ruled Ferrie died from a brain aneurysm, despite the presence of two typed "suicide" notes. (Whether they were suicide notes or not is a matter of interpretation. Ferrie, who knew he was quite ill, probably saw the end coming and decided to compose his own epitaph). Garrison would postulate that Ferrie could have been force-fed a fatal dosage of Proloid, a thyroid medication Ferrie had been prescribed. It is doubtful that Ferrie could have been fed enough Proloid to be fatal…" And from my preface I write, "…Ferrie was found dead in his apartment, apparently of natural causes." Does this sound like an uncritical acceptance of the "mysterious death" theory? The only thing mysterious about it, which I note in my book, is what Deputy Coroner Frank Minyard concluded about something being traumatically inserted into Ferrie's mouth.
Reitzes cites Lambert as a source for Perry Russo's supposed 1971 recantation of his original statement. His "recantation" was anything but, as he revealed in two lengthy interviews with me. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many times did you interview Russo?
Reitzes even tries to dispute Oswald's ties to Guy Banister and 544 Camp Street. He is apparently so confused at this point that he doesn't realize he's refuting his own lengthy treatise supporting Oswald and 544 Camp (See Reitzes, Oswald and 544 Camp, Parts 1 and 2, alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup posting of November 3, 1998). Reitzes' main source for his dissertation is Michael Kurtz. The reader may recall that Kurtz authored a book called Crime of the Century in which he cites numerous unnamed witnesses who placed Oswald with Ferrie and/or Banister in 1963. He even promotes his own "Castro did it" theory – a hypothesis long since discredited. Kurtz even claims he saw Oswald with Banister. Yet Reitzes accepts Kurtz' views uncritically (Apparently, aligning himself with discredited critics is Reitzes modus operandi. He's also fond of quoting A.J. Weberman, the former "journalist" who used to scour peoples' garbage cans for material. In the 1970's, he co-wrote a book called Coup d'etat In America in which he claims Frank Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt were two of the three "tramps" arrested in Dealey Plaza. Dallas Police records have since disproved that bizarre theory. In addition to "Castro did it" Kurtz and the garbage-sniffing Weberman, Reitzes has now found an advocate in Walt Brown, who recently published a Reitzes piece in his journal. Can anyone say, "Mac Wallace?")
Lou Ivon's recollection of Ferrie's breakdown gets pooh-poohed by Reitzes, despite the fact that Ivon confirmed this personally in my interview with him. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many times have you interviewed Ivon?
He also claims I say Vernon Bundy was a credible witness. I didn't say it. William Gurvich and John Volz did! Neither of whom were fans of Garrison's. Volz confirmed his take on Bundy in an interview with me. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many times have you interviewed John Volz?
At least Reitzes does provide some comic relief. He rebukes me for claiming "that the major media engaged in a conspiracy to discredit Garrison and interfere with his investigation despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary." And what is the sum total of Reitzes' "abundance of evidence?" It is as follows: "Lambert's discussions of James Phelan and Richard Billings." Whew! I'm overwhelmed with that "abundance of evidence."
Reitzes' credibility goes even further over the edge when he claims I "attempt to rehabilitate nutball witness Charles Spiesel (Davy 173-4)." In fact, I do no such thing. On the very pages Reitzes cites I list all of Spiesel's wild, paranoid claims. I criticize his story as being too pat and describe his testimony as "lunatic." Is this Reitzes' idea of rehabilitation? It was Judge Haggerty himself who thought Spiesel may have been dismissed too easily and I note that in the book.
Reitzes then writes "Davy also presents a dubious new theory of his own when he attempts to link the mental hospital in Jackson, where Oswald allegedly was seeking a job, to the CIA's infamous MK/ULTRA mind control experiments." No, this was recalled to us by Dr. Alfred Butterworth, one of the East Louisiana State Hospital's physicians and corroborated by other hospital employees. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of the Jackson hospital employees did you interview?
But less commendable, according to Reitzes, is my "acceptance of Daniel Campbell's assertions that Banister was a "bagman for the CIA" and "was running guns to Alpha 66 in Miami (There is no evidence to support either claim)." I guess Reitzes naively expects a CIA document to appear affirming something like that. While he's waiting, he may be interested to know that this was confirmed by Dan Campbell's brother, Allen as well as close Banister associate, Joe Newbrough. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of Banister's operatives did you interview?
Reitzes accuses me of being an advocate first, and an investigator second. But who's the real advocate here? Just look at the title of Reitzes' magnum opus, Who Speaks For Clay Shaw? and I think the answer is obvious. He also claims that I take all of Garrison's assertions at face value. Yet in the over 700 citations in my book, only about 20 are from Garrison's published works.
So, where has all of Reitzes' stellar research led him? - He thinks LBJ killed Kennedy.
And what does the reader get once he/she clicks on the link? An odd treatise called Yellow Roses by Dave Reitzes in which the author claims Johnson was responsible for, or covered-up, a series of murders, including LBJ's own sister(!) Assisting LBJ in the Kennedy assassination, according to Reitzes, were Texas millionaire, H.L. Hunt, Mac Wallace (of course), and everyone's favorite boogie-man, J. Edgar Hoover. Reitzes can spin this fantastic yarn because he cites no primary sources. He uses a couple of books (Haley's and Caro's books on LBJ and Harrison Livingstone's Killing The Truth) and an article by Walt Brown and that's about it.
Based on the astronomical number of Internet postings provided to me, Reitzes has taken on the anti-Garrison cause with all the fervor of a religious zealot. So, what would motivate someone to take up the fight so vigorously? - He was insulted. That's right, but don't take my word for it. Here's Reitzes' own words: "…without the nasty personal attacks from Mr. Hargrove and from one Bill Cleere, I never would posted a word on Garrison or Shaw. My interest, after all, is in the Kennedy assassination, not the so-called Garrison probe." (Reitzes, alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup post of January 8, 1999).
Finally, in the practice-what-you-preach department, Reitzes wrote in March of this year, "I hope that in the future other researchers and I may embrace the things we have in common rather than seize upon our differences." Instead of heeding his own words, Reitzes seized upon our differences in a manner so inaccurate it can only be described as vicious. How else can one account for the over 16 errors in his 8-page "review?" Using Reitzes' penchant for math, that's over 2 errors per page – a dismal record. How does one account for all of these blunders? Are we really to believe Reitzes' reading comprehension is as bad as his math? Or is he trying to hurt the commercial possibilities of a book he happens to disagree with? There seems to be some support for the latter, as Mr. Reitzes has seen fit to post an abbreviated version of his error-laden "review" on the Amazon.com site selling my book. I guess I shouldn't complain too much. Controversy sells books and sadly for Mr. Reitzes in just over 11 weeks since the book has been published it is already heading into its second printing. I take particular solace in the fact that the largest volume of orders has come from Amazon.com. Thank you, Mr. Reitzes.