Because of its innumerable textual and sourcing problems, Tye's book is neither worth reading nor buying, concludes Jim DiEugenio, who is prompted to muse: "Why did the author write the book? Only he can answer that question".
With this book, we finally have a record of one of the very, very few mainstream reporters who actually delved into one of the assassinations of the sixties. Who tried to do an honest job and who actually tried to follow the evidence wherever it was headed, writes Jim DiEugenio.
While I dislike intensely what [Heymann has] written, I can imagine the situation from his point of view. In his mind, he's a crafty guy who figured out a way to make a great living, while breaking, to my knowledge, no enforceable laws to do so. That he broke all laws of decency and historical faithfulness, if you put yourself in his shoes, is beside the point, writes Lisa Pease.
Mazzucco at least tried to make a documentary on the RFK case to bring to the public some troubling facts. But today, that really is not good enough, writes Jim DiEugenio.
The book is certainly easy to read, and clearly presented. So long as you understand that some of the material is incorrect ... and outdated ..., there is still much to recommend here, writes Lisa Pease.
Estevez had a huge and magnificent historical subject. For all the liberties he has taken, and for reasons stated above, he didn't do it justice, concludes Philip Sheridan.
The methods and approaches of his are highly dubious, as Jim DiEugenio demonstrates in this review of Moldea's apologia for the LAPD.
Jim DiEugenio reviews the television documentary which concludes with the acoustical analysis of the Pruszynksi tape demonstrating the presence of at least two shooters.
For anyone interested in the RFK case, try and get the original version of this book. That version is still a valuable work, one worth having and reading, concludes Jim DiEugenio.
Jim DiEugenio reviews the RFK assassination book by Shane O'Sullivan, arguing it is better than the documentary by the same title.
Despite its up and downs, overall this is a worthwhile and unique book. Its most important aspect, of course, is the proof of Robert Kennedy's secret quest for the truth about Dallas. That is an important contribution with which to rebut the opposition's argument of: "Well, why didn't Bobby do anything?" We can finally dispose of that question in a truthful and forceful way, writes Jim DiEugenio.
Overall, the film is a sad and puzzling disappointment. It could and should have been much better. Considering the state of knowledge in the case, and the state of computer technology, it should have been compelling in form and convincing in content, laments Jim DiEugenio.
On the occasion of the reissue of a book which "completely changed my thinking on both the RFK case, and the relationships between the assassinations of the sixties", writes Jim DiEugenio.