Book Review: Vincent Bugliosi. Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. NY: Norton, 2007. ISBN 978-0-393-04525-3
“Part I—Matters of Fact; What Happened”
It is the best of books; it is the worst of books. Former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi takes on one of the biggest mysteries in American history, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and, with explosive bloviating, fuming, and fiery prosecutorial zeal, attempts to prove that JFK assassination conspiracy theories are all just a figment of our paranoid imaginations.
I have spent over two weeks reading only the first part of this book, almost 1,000 large pages with small type, plus over 500 pages of endnotes. The good news is, I’m a little more than halfway finished with the entire book (I’ll write about the rest later). The bad news is, this is perhaps the silliest book of all time written from the point of view of a conspiracy debunker (even if I’ll grant that the silliest books written about the JFK assassination have always been from the point of view of the conspiracy theorists). It is a concerted and confident leap into a giant manure pile that we cannot look upon with the dignity it asks, even begs of us.
Bugliosi believes Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin. He repeatedly
scolds anyone who has ever entertained that any of myriad conspiracy theories out there is worth more than something to line your canary cage with.
He attempts to analyze the consistent folly of conspiracy theorists in the following way: 1) they find some anomaly in the case; 2) they spin a theory using the most creative forces of their imagination; and 3) they cherry-pick supporting evidence out of the wide body of evidence of the case, irresponsibly omitting details disadvantageous to their theory. Then again, the old tale goes that when you point your finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you. In this way, Bugliosi unintentionally adapts what he perceives to be the disingenuous guile of conspiracy theorists and proceeds to fight fire with fire.
In all fairness, anyone cocksure of himself in explaining the JFK assassination is going to fall into the same trap Bugliosi falls into. No one has ever successfully written the type of book that Bugliosi envisions.
But wait a minute. Bugliosi is a prosecutor. The granddaddy of conspiracy theorists, Mark Lane, has always described himself as a defense attorney for Lee Harvey Oswald—with the blessings of Oswald’s late mother, Marguerite. Why not put the two great legal minds together—Bugliosi’s and Lane’s—and come up with an adversarial approach to justice, even if it is outside the hallowed halls of a court of law and into the arena of pulpy conspiracy theory books? In other words, if we let Bugliosi and Lane duke it out, we might come to some useful conclusions.
Actually Bugliosi did just that in 1986 with a defense attorney named Gerry Spence in a mock televised trial sponsored by London Weekend Television. Bugliosi reminds us that he won the case: a 12-person jury unanimously found Lee Harvey Oswald “guilty.” We assume this mock verdict means that the jury thought Oswald was involved in the killing, but the jury did not rule out a conspiracy, as Bugliosi so vehemently does.
Here’s the problem: Bugliosi does not present himself or his arguments in the context of a prosecutor, rather in the context of an historian, if not even a scientist or advanced logician. He claims that people who doubt the substantial conclusions of the Warren Commission are not living in the “real world” where bullets are fired from specific guns and specific people pull the triggers of these specific guns from specific places. Such theater may the gist of a court of law, but Bugliosi suffers from the severe delusion that courts of law and their theater do not exist outside of courts of law. The real world may be the predictalbe but confusing world of cause and effect, but it is also the world of eyewitnesses that disagree as to what they saw, while sometimes change their stories over the years, and of the general public trying to piece the confusion all together for themselves—without the Jedi mind tricks, thank you.
That being said, Lee Harvey Oswald is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The Warren Commission is a Presidential Commission, not a court of law. It is and has always been improper for a President or any Commission that he appoints to make a decree regarding the guilt or innocence of a human being. The Bugliosi/Spence TV show is also not a court of law. Since Oswald was murdered before he could be given a proper trial, we can still only speculate about what happened on November 22, 1963.
As a prosecutor, Bugliosi has a bag of tricks. When dealing with testimony of policemen that agree with his conclusions, he introduces them using their full title; mentions how many years, days, and, if possible, even hours, they’ve been dutifully on the force; describes their service as gallant and heroic; and never questions their infallible eptitude or integrity. Similarly, when dealing with experts, he reverently mentions their credentials (college degrees and employment experience). Original FBI reports are treated as reverent primary sources, something that witnesses should be held to if they ever change their story.
Unfortunately, Bugliosi’s bag of tricks gets him into trouble when confronted with a policeman, expert, or FBI report he doesn’t agree with. Then, suddenly, he pulls out an alternative bag of tricks, producing witnesses that will attack the character of such people with caustic, even unsophisticated words like “zany” (as a noun), or proof that the adverse witness has a tendency to make up stories, or, in one case, even that the adverse witness is mentally retarded (p. 767).
Let’s go back a few steps. When I was a teenager, I believed in the myth of Big Foot—a Yeti (giant half-man/half-ape) that lived in Northern California. I almost cried when it was revealed that the most famous home movie of Big Foot was nothing more than a large guy in a Sasquatch costume. Think about all those people who claimed to see Big Foot and all those plaster casts of large foot prints in the snow made by Yeti hunters. The truth is, people spin yarns and, sometimes just for the fun of it, start and perpetuate hoaxes.
At one time, I also believed professional wrestling was genuine. Finally admitting to myself it was fake threw me out of my childhood and into a much more complex adulthood, leaving me confused as to what people’s motives for lying might be.
Up to 80% of Americans believe that a conspiracy was involved in the death of JFK, but a majority also believes that UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft, and the U.S. Government is lying about their existence. Jim Marrs, a tried and true conspiracy theorist, has written one of the best books about the JFK assassination (Crossfire) but also, as part of the genre he works in, has written a book about aliens and their presence on earth, as well as a book about the secret government run by the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group. Bugliosi wants Americans to realize the power of hoaxes and that a myth about a conspiracy killing JFK is nothing more than a large guy in a Sasquatch costume. Reality says there are no Yetis. Reality also says Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and was not part of a conspiracy.
Right off the bat, in the introduction, Bugliosi blames the widespread JFK hoax on the inability of people to penetrate the Warren Commission Transcripts, all 26 volumes of them. He is certain that Americans haven’t read the Transcripts because there aren’t that many copies sold, and few libraries carry the Transcripts. Not to mention, it is a gigantic amount of information that few people would bother reading anyway. He is also certain that once any reasonable person reads all 26 volumes, that person will see things his way. Unfortunately, I myself started reading a library’s copy of the Warren Commission Transcripts, and continued to read the Transcripts off of the Internet. At least two separate Websites have typed the entire Transcripts onto the Internet. Bugliosi doesn’t seem to even know about the Internet (will someone please tell him?). I also believe that the people reading the Warren Commission Transcripts do not necessarily come to the same conclusion that Bugliosi does.
Bugliosi also cites the transcripts for the House Special Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) at the end of the 1970s. Those are even more difficult to find than the Warren Commission Transcripts. I don’t need to read them, because I watched them on television during the late 1970s—they were televised on PBS. I remember listening intently to the scientists talk about their proof of a lone gunman through “neutron activation” tests and the beveling in JFK’s head wound. Then came the testimony of a coroner named Dr. Cyril Wecht, who explosively stated that the so-called “single bullet theory” is completely unreasonable, based on the pristine condition of the bullet in question and the testimony of the former Governor of Texas, John Connally, who the Warren Commission claims was hit by that same pristine bullet after JFK was.
In 1991, when Stone made his film JFK, there was a nervousness in the country that somehow a film actually went too far—almost like pornography. Stone’s film was met with a barrage of negative press. Why? Why the hell did Time Magazine care if the people of America believed in Stone’s film or the Warren Commission? A rather smug journalist named Gerald Posner came out with a book a few years later (Case Closed), declaring that his thorough study of the JFK assassination finally “closes the case” and ends all doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman.
It was in this atmosphere that I began reading the Warren Commission Transcripts, starting with Marina Oswald’s (Lee’s wife) testimony. After reading the first few volumes, I read the rest on the Internet. The experience does make you choose sides. I chose to believe Dr. Wecht’s doubts about the single bullet theory.
You can also study the Zapruder film on the Internet and match up the events with John Connally’s testimony. It certainly appears in the Zapruder film that Connally had to have been hit several seconds after JFK, not a split second afterward.
Since I don’t fall under Bugliosi’s category of the reasonable person who knows the facts and still refuses to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman, and even have doubts that he was a gunman at all, I must be what he calls a “zany.” That would bother me if I was convinced that Bugliosi wasn’t a bit of a zany himself.
If the Zapruder film did not exist, I don’t doubt that a deft prosecutor like Bugliosi might convict Oswald in a court of law with the evidence that the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, and the Warren Commission came up with—not to mention the HSCA. The problem is, the Zapruder film was produced using a technology fairly advanced by 1963 standards: an 8mm home movie camera. I don’t think that anyone today would ever doubt that an 8mm film doesn’t reflect a scientific process that is irrefutable: light hits the emulsion and the image created is an accurate portrayal of an event.
On the other hand, Bugliosi’s reasoning demonstrates why courts of law do not stem from the certainty of scientific laboratories (as he claims they do), but from the logic of the Middle Ages—throw a witch into the river to see if she floats. A court of law does its best to solve a case, even if there is only circumstantial evidence.
In what is the most irresponsible statement I have ever heard on this case, Bugliosi states the following: “But since we know Kennedy and Connally were not hit by separate bullets, we know, before we even look at the film, that it cannot show otherwise.” (p. 458) It’s as if he’s telling Galileo that he doesn’t need to look into a telescope because he already knows that Jupiter has no moons.
But any researcher of the JFK assassination should look into the telescope. The Zapruder film shows that JFK and Connally had to have been hit by separate bullets, and the small but potent fact that Bugliosi only sticks in his endnote, that Connally is still holding on to his cowboy hat with the same right wrist that has been allegedly shattered, doesn’t make sense. The theory of “delayed reaction” that is supposed to explain the single bullet anomaly doesn’t add up, since Connally is certain he was not hit by the same bullet, and felt a “punch in the back” which was the bullet striking him—well after JFK was hit. That is inconsistent with any “delayed reaction” injury, such as when someone is shot and doesn’t know it until they look down and see blood.
Look into the telescope again and see another small but potent fact that Bugliosi mentions only in his endnotes, but even then doesn’t completely develop it. The Zapruder film famously shows Jackie Kennedy crawling out onto the trunk of the limousine, and it appears she is trying to retrieve a piece of JFK’s skull. It also appears that she never quite gets it—it falls off the back of the limousine before she can get to it. We get a couple of theories about why the Zapruder film shows JFK’s head snapping from the lower right to the left back, including studies by one man who apparently has little else to do than fire rifles into the back of skulls filled with gelatin, who claims that what's portrayed in the Zapruder film is the natural reaction of a shot to the back of the head. We also hear the implausible theory that the snapping back of his head is some sort of “neuromuscular” reaction (have anyone out there ever seen an epileptic snap their head back like that?). But Bugliosi ignores the implication that if a piece of skull flew backwards, JFK must have been hit from the front.
Let’s give some credit to Bugliosi’s convincing points. Conspiracy theorists should at least give in on the tired myth that the photographs of Oswald holding his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was faked, as Oswald himself claimed it was. Some conspiracy theorists try to prove that Oswald was completely innocent and that nothing he said in his short interrogation was untruthful. Oswald’s wife, Marina, claims she took those pictures and that is believable. That also means Oswald owned the rifle he claimed he didn’t own.
Bugliosi also makes a convincing argument that the documents of the Warren Commission were routinely kept secret not as some sort of cover-up. Many of these documents have now been declassified and nothing in them shows any substantially incriminating evidence against the Government.
Oddly, Bugliosi even attacks his potential allies for their lack of thoroughness and even honesty. In his endnotes, he mentions that the maid taking care of Oswald’s room, Earlene Roberts, testified before the Warren Commission that she saw a police car drive by and honk its horn when Oswald returned from allegedly killing the President. If true, Roberts’s small detail has large implications—a possible conspiracy involving a Dallas Policeman or police impersonator. Bugliosi scolds Posner and his book Case Closed for simply leaving that inconvenient detail out of his account (pp. xxxvi). But then in Bugliosi’s own construction of the events, he also leaves out Roberts’s detail (p. 70). To make it right, Bugliosi mentions the detail in an endnote, completely discrediting Roberts’s account, drawing upon character witnesses who swear Roberts is prone to making up strange tales. In the end, the only real difference between Posner and Bugliosi is that the latter will dissect an inconvenient detail in a tedious endnote before amputating it completely. In this way, Bugliosi’s hubris resonates as the man who has written the most and examined the most, and he doesn’t need allies, who are inferior to him anyway.
This dissect and amputation process is at times far too brutal—to say the least. Bugliosi is fond of making conclusive statements as if he never had to dissect a certain crucial fact to make his theory work. In fact, he occasionally even goes too far and doesn’t even bother to line up his facts. For example, in one endnote (to p. 868), in which he even adds an additional footnote with an asterisk, he claims “… no evidence has surfaced that Oswald had ever been associated with any of the various agencies of military intelligence (e.g., Office of Naval Intelligence, Army Intelligence, and the Office of Special Investigations of the U.S. Air Force).” This comment was made in regard to an Army Intelligence report on Oswald that was supposedly routinely destroyed. Unfortunately, Bugliosi forgets that earlier in his book (p. 723) he quotes FBI Agent John Quigley’s testimony to the Warren Commission that Quigley himself went to the Office of Naval intelligence to check records on Oswald when Oswald was in the USSR, a year and a half before his arrest for passing out leaflets in New Orleans (which was supposedly the sole topic of his destroyed Army Intelligence report). That is a big, albeit rare omission on Bugliosi’s part.
The proof of the pudding is in the Acknowledgements section in the back of the book, which I skipped ahead and read. Bugliosi writes the following: “… there is no bottom to the pile in the Kennedy case.” (p. 1513) and “… there simply is no end to the case.…” (p. 1518). Finally Bugliosi admits what he should have admitted at the beginning: that this case is nowhere near being solved and probably never will be solved, even after decades of industrious research. Not even a former district attorney is superman enough to look down on this large community of Kennedy researchers and call them a bunch of “zanies” or “loony birds.”
Nonetheless, although it is the worst of books, it is also the best of books. I have started this blog, hopefully to connect with others who have taken the large amount of time out of their lives necessary to read it carefully. Whether you agree with Bugliosi or not, your views could be worthy to share, since there are now and then things in the Kennedy case that could be called progress. I hope you’ll chime in and not be shy.
