1 comments about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self.

1. Two apsects strike me in reading about Holmes. First is his life. What a great subject. Holmes is almost as exciting to read about as Lincoln. The second is his jurisprudence. White does a fine job covering both. I like White's style. Somewhat loose but never inaccurate, his biography is very readable.

   Two chapters: The Supreme Court of Massachusetts and the "Progressive Judge" are so wonderfully written that they deserve to be read twice.

   I read the book over a period of four months which is something I rarely do. This is because the subject and content are so important that the philosophy of Holmes takes some time to perculate. White's description of Holmes influenced my perspective greatly.

   I would recommend the book to any person interested in law or simply about America.

5 comments about Relentless Pursuit: A True Story of Family, Murder, and the Prosecutor Who Wouldn't Quit.

1. Kevin Flynn is a homicide prosecutor in a city that has one of the highest homicide rates in the country, Washington, D.C. Being surrounded constantly with stories and photographs of death and murder, you would think he would have grown a thick skin, learned to objectify the cases and move through them in a detached manner.
   
   But this case was different. The murders of 40-year-old Diane and 13-year-old Katrina Hawkins left a lasting impression on everyone associated with the case. Their murder investigation was one of the most brutal that police and prosecutors ever worked. Over a year after the crime occurred, during the trial, Detected Combee would still grow quiet when testifying about what he saw in the Hawkins house that day.
   
   But this case is not about the terrible method these two victims were murdered. To quote from the book:
   
   It's a story of extremes: the worst and the best the world can offer, humanity at its most brutal and most noble. It's the story of two families -- mine and another from a world that I thought I knew but didn't -- two families full of ordinary people who did their best under awful circumstances.
   
   Relentless Pursuit does indeed follow the Hawkins case, from the initial night of the murders May 25, 1993 to the prosecution in August 15, 1994. But there is much more to the case than just the horror and the story of how they caught the man responsible.
   
   This is also the story of the Hawkins and Flynn families, which became irrevocably linked together. The Hawkins family suffered one of the worst losses a family can, the loss of both a sister and strong influence in the family, and a child, who had just begun to show her gifts and talents to the world. But through it all, they clung to their faith in God, which also served to help their new-found family member, prosecutor Kevin Flynn.
   
   The Flynn family though, was going through its own trials. Kevin's mother was suffering from depression and shortly after he began work on this monumnetal case, his father was stricken with cancer. Through the entire case, Kevin is required to balance his work and family life, including his wife and child, and try not to let anyone down. And part of that includes the Hawkins, who look to him as the only man that can bring them any measure of justice on Earth.
   
   The book is told in a compelling style, taking us through the case, from the night the murders occurred through the entire case. There are procedural sections to the book, such as descriptions of how certain courtroom processes work, but that does not get in the way to the story, which is what the book is really all about.
   
   Relentless Pursuit is not a book for those looking to learn about how the law really works, but you will learn a great deal about how the defense and prosecution work together and against one another, how much power a judge can wield, and some of the reasons why cases don't work out as cleanly as they do on television.
   
   In the end, this book is just what the quotation above says, it is a story of two families. And it is an excellent book.



2. This is a true crime written somewhat similarly to Ann Rule. A pair of victims, Diane Hawkins and her daughter, Katrina Harris, are brutally murdered. It is Kevin Flynn's job as a DC prosecutor to put the alleged murderer behind bars. In his tale, Mr. Flynn expresses outrage at their horrific deaths and loses the cool mask of distant prosecutor. He becomes involved with other family members and friends of the victims and contrasts their closeness to his own small family's experiences with his father's impending death and birth of his first child.
   
   This book is clear and well written, although it will take some readers a bit to "get into" the book. Stick with it, it is well worth the read. I have bought this book for numerous friends and all have appreciated this thoughtful, insightful read.



3. True crime, sometimes, is far less interesting to read than crime fiction. In fiction, the author has many choices that a true crime writer doesn't. Fiction can place the reader inside the mind of the killer and/or inside the mind of the victim. Seldom is the author of a true crime book given that opportunity. Some writers can speculate with a great deal of seeming accuracy. That's not the road that Kevin Flynn takes in his book.
   
   RELENTLESS PURSUIT is told from the perspective of an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Washington, DC; he is prosecuting a man for the brutal murder of a woman and her daughter
   
   Diane Hawkins and Katrina Harris were murdered in May of 1993. The trial took place over a year later, in August of 1994. This may seem like a speedy trial, all things considered. The family of Diane Hawkins and Katrina Harris didn't think so; they knew right away who had killed these two people and had a difficult time with the slow and measured pace of the legal process. It took cool heads to persuade some members of the family not to take justice into their own hands.
   
   RELENTLESS PURSUIT is not the best true crime out there; Flynn can be redundant and verbose. The story he tells, however, is compelling and fascinating. It is unclear until the verdict is delivered in court whether or not he has done his job as a prosecutor. And the reader does want to know the verdict. While the case is already decided in the minds of the reader (probably) and in Flynn's mind, he makes us all too aware of the realities of a jury trial, the complexities of presenting a good case, and how little things can undermine the best presentation.



4. I think that Kevin Flynn has done a wonderful job on this book. Being as though I actually have a close relationship with the Hawkins family, the daughter of Diane (Shante) is my niece and nephews mother, it answered all of the questions that you would never ask. I knew how the Diane and Trina were killed, but it gave more than someone just giving their opinion. This was the actual facts from a very credible source. Even though this has happened almost 15 years ago, it brought back a lot of old feelings to the surface. However, it was two thumbs up as far as I was concerned!



5. For some reason, I thought this book was about the prosecutor's relentless pursuit to bring a hard to catch criminal to trial. It wasn't. The criminal is caught the night of the crime, and arrested soon after. There was no relentless pursuit. Just trying to gather evidence and outsmart the other lawyer, which wasn't too difficult. There was no way this guy was getting off. It's written from the prosecutor's viewpoint, including his family's illnesses, etc.
   
   When he describes the crime scene, the interviews with the victims' families, he does a good job - but I had to skip the pages and pages of preaching regarding their deaths. But it gets really bogged down when he describes his family, and when he describes the prosecutor's job, step by step - as if we don't know the process of a trial. He doesn't seem to know the difference between coveralls and overalls, and although he's a homicide prosecutor, he first heard of blood spatter analysis only a few months prior to the investigation.
   
   I didn't see anything regarding any real plot that the victims' family members had to kill the guy before he could go to trial, but I could have skipped it when going over the boring parts. The family wanted to take revenge, sure, but who doesn't. But they knew he was arrested and going to trial.
   
   I also didn't want to know his every thought (10 years later) as he questioned each witness. I would say that 15% of this book is good, the rest is filler.

5 comments about Judge Sewall's Apology: The Salem Witch Trials and the Forming of an American Conscience.

1. This is a well-researched and revealing account of the inner experience of a wealthy and powerful member of the Boston community. Largely based on Samuel Sewall's voluminous diaries, it covers his life from birth to death. It goes into detail about all sorts of events in Boston and Newbury.
   
   The cover blurb ("The Story of a Good Man and an Evil Event") and the title inflate the importance of the notorious Salem witch trials in the book. The publisher can be forgiven for this exaggeration: scandals grab public attention just as much now as then. If the witchcraft "angle" induces more people to take a look at this interesting book, the exaggeration will prove worthwhile.
   
   The witchcraft angle made me pick it up. I live scarcely a mile from the homestead of one of the women accused in that terrible crisis, and I am quite interested in what happened.
   
   Sewall was a Puritan magistrate. They sat in a panel over various trials, including the witchcraft trials. The nuances of Sewall's interior experience of those trials are revealing about the late Puritan age's issues of gender, social standing, and economic class that underlay the witchcraft panic: it started among women in run-down rural Salem Village (now Danvers) and was prosecuted by men in wealthly Salem Town. Both Sewall and his biographer convey an understanding of these struggles straightforwardly without polemic. Francis just tells the stories, and resists the temptation to draw simple moral lessons from what happened. By doing this he cuts through the illusion that Puritan culture was morally simple-minded and brings it to life.
   
   The people of the Puritan Commonwealth felt the presence of God looming over them with a clarity and intensity that is very difficult for us to understand in the 21st century. Those people thought their culture was destined to be the fulfillment God's divine Providence. Everything that happened, from earthquakes to the birth of infants to the attacks of Native Americans, they understood as expression of God's approval or disapproval of their personal conduct. Sewall was a diligent student of meteorology. He repented and apologized for his role in the witch trials partially because he saw signs of divine disapproval in the elements, and believed that the trials were a sign of collective delusion.
   
   Sewall's accounts of trying to persuade his contemporaries of this position are especially revealing about the complexity of the American attitude towards official mistakes and misconduct. He worked hard to declare a day of public fasting and repentance five years after the trials. He tried to get Minister Cotton Mather (that ghoul!) to write a declaration for the fast day specifically acknowleging the collective evils committed during the trials, but Mather would not go beyond broad generalities.
   
   Sewall's acceptance of personal responsibility for official misconduct is as American as roast turkey and apple pie. Unfortunately, so is Mather's refusal to accept it. This fine biography presents clearly that contradiction in American character in all its complexity.



2. Is it not important to make history interesting to read? This book is so boring, misdirected and verbose I couldn't finish it. Rather than talk about the issues of the title, Francis spends more time going on and on about what Sewall had for dinner, what he paid for land, his romp through London and wars against Indians.
   
   I appreciate the accuracy and thoroughness of his research. But his inability to focus and put words together that are fun to read make this book painful.



3. Francis does an admirable job helping us understand the motives and conflicts of the Salem Witch Trials. To modern eyes the events are so unbelievable, so heinous and illogical, that it's difficult to explain without resorting to religious mania, stupidity or superstition. Seen through the eyes of Sewall, we get a glimpse of the society which could be enlightened in so many ways and so backwards in others. Fascinating read.



4. Richard Francis's book is a great read! Puts the idea of the American conscience into a better perspective. The primary sources are great and the character of Judge Sewall comes alive and we see the ideas of early Puritanism melding with the upcoming ideas of American Benevolence and Sentimentalism.
   
   I recommend this to anyone interested in more detail on the interworkings of the Salem Witch Trials.



5. Just a wonderful book. I had never heard of Judge Sewall and was incredibly enthralled by the facts surrounding his personal life and the with trials

5 comments about Vanishing Point: The Disappearance of Judge Crater, and the New York He Left Behind.

1. We all know of the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa. But he was not the first. In 1930 Judge Joseph Crater cashed some checks for about $5,000 and went to dinner with some friends. Parting with the friends on the curb outside the restaurant he was never seen again. For fifty years the New York City Police Department tried to find him. Certainly dead by now (he's be 115 years old) there are no really good leads, no deathbed confessions, no real idea of what happened.
   
   This appears to be the first book written on Judge Crater. It is extremely well researched, exceedingly detailed and gives a better feeling for the times than most others. As for what really happened ....



2. Author Richard Tofel never claims to have all of the answers. But the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of New York Supreme Court Justice Joseph Crater in August 1930 certainly makes for fascinating reading. It is a curious tale, particularly given the strange reaction of not only his friends and associates, but also of his wife Stella. Yet there is much more to this book than merely the unsolved disappearance of a single individual.
   "Vanishing Point" is yet another book chronicling the cast of charactors and the inner workings of New York's legendary political machine known as Tammany Hall. And as I have found in many of these books it can become a bit difficult to follow given the large number of officials involved and the sordid and crooked relationships they participated in. When a vacancy occured on the New York Supreme Court in the Spring of 1930 Joseph Crater, a man no one expected to get the nod, was tapped by then Governor Franklin Roosevelt for the seat. Why was he selected? Who recommnded him? And is it possible that Joseph Crater literally bought his way on to the New York Supreme Court? Why did he suddenly disappear without a trace in the summer of 1930 and just what became of him? Did he leave the country? Was he murdered? Who might have been involved? So many questions. Based on a substantial body of available evidence "Vanishing Point" considers a number of intriguing possibilities. And although this case was never solved, Tofel does make a very convincing argument that the disappearance of Judge Crater set into motion a series of events that would ultimately spell the end of machine politics in New York City.
   Exactly what happened to Judge Crater will probably never be known. Nevertheless I found this book to be time well spent and a pretty good read. Recommended.



3. Judge Crater left a New York restaurant on the evening of August 6, 1930 and was never seen again. A female friend who was there with him disappeared several weeks later. He'd been a judge for just three months. The problem with the book is the author is not interested in this mystery; he really wants to write about Tammany Hall and that's what he devotes almost the entire book to, apparently citing Crater only to lure in readers. I felt ripped off.



4. This was an intriguing story about a colorful character from one of the most interesting periods in our history.Forty pages from the end the New York Daily News ran an article possibly solving the mystery.That made the read all the more riveting.A must read (esp.when accom. by the updates to the story ) for all 20th century U.S. history buffs.



5. to my grandmother, a native New Yorker who knew Judge Crater's wife, Stella. She devoured it and can't stop talking about it.

5 comments about My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror.

1. It is obvious throughout this book that Louis Freeh wanted the world to know that he was not a member of Opus Dei, he was not out to "get" Clinton, and that he did his best to investigate the Saudi bombings.
   
   However, despite his motives, he ended up writing a very interesting story. His pursuit of the New York Mafia, his insight into the FBI and the Executive branch, his perspective of the Clinton administration, and the inside story of the Saudi investigation all make for an interesting read.
   
   This book took a few hours to read. There are a couple of slow pages, but overall it was edited well, paced quickly, and is the right length for the subject. If you are interested in this period of history, in the Bill Clinton Administration, or in the FBI, you will appreciate reading this book.



2. "My FBI" was a quick read and a very interesting look behind the scenes at the FBI in the 1990s. Freeh discusses background on the major cases the FBI handled during his tenure. This book gives insight that you didn't get from the news stories. One of the controversial subjects in the book was Freeh's relationship with President Clinton. This subject may turn off certain people, but the bottom line is that Freeh did not like working for Clinton. That is not a result of politics- because Freeh went out of his way to be apolitical. Most of it stemmed from the many investigations into the Clinton administration like Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. Another small part of the book I found to be interesting was Freeh's take on former "Counterterrorism Czar" Richard Clarke. Freeh writes that Clarke was never a major player in national security in either the Clinton or Bush White House. Freeh writes that Clarke was a second-tier player that was rarely at any of the important meetings. This has somewhat of a ring of truth in light of the way Clarke has tried to recast himself as a modern day Paul Revere of terrorism, after the fact. Somehow I don't buy his self-promotion, see-I told you so attitude. Anyway, overall a solid book for those interested in the FBI and national security issues.



3. In writing My FBI, Louis J, Freeh has given us a microscopic view of how the FBI works and the numerable problems he faced during his tenure. He comes across as honorable and hard working, telling the truth as he saw it. I couldn't put the book down. I highly recommend reading this book to learn about how the FBI operates and about the terroism that we face today.



4. Freeh comes across early on as pompous and a phoney and it carries throught the book. He keeps remniding us what a great father he is because he has his kids drawings in his office. He is twice politically appointed yet rails against Clinton for being a politician. He seeths about the investigation of a bombing on Saudi soil and why Clinton would not let him interview the suspects...? I kept thinking Federal applies to the United States, not Saudi Arabia. It's that kind of arrogance that makes this book easy to put down. Plus, He never goes into ANY interesting detail on ANY investigation. And he OFTEN points out how he never really knew FBI agent turned spy Robert Hanssen. Hanssen went to the same church, their kids were in the same school....YET the same Freeh who says his style was to be among the troops claims to have barely known who he was. (BS) He also rails against Anything Clinton yet, everything Bush is AOK... This book is nothing more than a Swift-boat FBI poison pen letter.



5. This is one of the least political autobiographies of a public servant in a political position in Washington.
   
   That's no reason, in my mind, to doubt the veracity of most of what Freeh writes. Those looking for conspiracy theores or outright condemnation of political adversaries will be disappointed. Freeh writes deeply of respect for a large number of persons, most notably FBI agents and fellow prosecutors.
   
   It does make for an interesting, amusing, but very non-combative read.
   
   Even Bill Clinton, who receives most of Freeh's ire for being more a politician than a manager, is also described as the most charming and disarming statesman.
   
   It's not that Freeh is afraid to talk ill of any of his former co-workers, but rather this is an autobiography of his public career.
   
   He doesn't take the opportunity to hammer home points about policy, but rather berates mismanagement, favoritism, and a lack of ethical focus.
   
   This is a good read for someone looking for a shining hero. This is not a good place to find dirt.

4 comments about Lincoln the Lawyer.

1. Although Lincoln's contribution to history is his handling of public policy, governance, and war, probably most of his time prior to the White House was devoted to his law practice. This book will reward anyone seeking to know how one of America's greatest minds was occupied in the troubled affairs of one ordinary person after another. The solid account is highly knowledgeable but not at all technical, written for inquiring readers rather than legal professionals. Using assorted cases as examples, the author examines the role of attorneys in what was then the American West, giving the book broader scope than just Lincoln's law practice. This is one of the first studies to exploit a recently collected mass of documents relating to Lincoln's law career.



2. All to often, books about great historical figures tend to overemphasize the personality of the figure and forget the essence of the person to history. Also, many authors and historians research a historical figure and find that he is not who the legend claims he is. There is tendency to find this information out and then to immediately start disparaging the figure almost as if the person is taking a personal affront to the real person not being half of the myth.
   
   Thomas Jefferson probably father children with Sally Hemmings beyond a reasonable doubt. John F. Kennedy was a reckless womanizer. These facts do not however change what these people did and achieved. It makes for interesting fodder, but it does not change the fact that the Declaration of Independence was written and the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted. So, there is a trap anytime writers take up great figures. Dirck could have fallen into this trap when writing about Lincoln the lawyer. That the author did not do this is a testament to what an outstanding book this is. This is indeed the no frills Lincoln. Dirck's Lincoln is not a great lawyer nor is a terrible lawyer who represented slaveholders. For the most part, Lincoln the lawyer is closer in truth to the advice Lincoln gave to young lawyers which is cited several times in the book. Lincoln made a comfortable life as a lawyer but as the author points out, he never was unscrupulous in representing a client and was diligent and honest in his dealings through the bar in Springfield and elsewhere.
   
   As Dirck points out, the everyday of lawyering in mid-19th century America was just as exciting as lawyering is today. Wills, Estates, Trusts, debt collection, surety, personal injuries and maybe a smattering of criminal representation was Lincoln's lot in the world of the bar. Overall, Lincoln The Lawyer is a great appraisal of the world that Lincoln knew before anyone could say that he belonged to the ages.



3. What do YOU do all day?
   
   This book is an illustration of the philosophic points made in its own the last chapters. We take the almost superhuman character of Abe Lincoln and view - or interperate - the various instances of his law career in light of it.
   
   Better we should consider what he actually did all day for most of his working life,and it was a real working job, and see what that can tell us about what his character might have been like. I've read a lot of Lincoln bios, this is very informative. Dry as dust, but an A+.
   
   (Oh,bonus,gives you a little history of American law)



4. Dirck tries to do two things here. First he tries to assess Lincoln's law practice in the context of its time and place. Second he tries to evaluate what effect the practice had on Lincoln, both in how the practice suited Lincoln's personality and how it may have helped shape it. He does well on the first task and not so well on the second.
   
   Dirck paints a clear picture of the typical law practice of the day and shows that Lincoln's practice was not much different, except that he was more successful at it than many others. Lincoln had a general practice covering all of the legal areas of the time but largely concentrated on civil cases, most of which were claims for money owed (often on simple IOU's). There were a relatively few forays into criminal law, mostly (with but a few exceptions) minor crimes. In his practice Lincoln was neither a champion of the downtrodden nor a simple tool of corporate interests. Lincoln represented whoever happened to hire him and used all the tools available to a skilled and honest lawyer: Procedural rules, courtroom drama, legal knowledge and persuasive oratory. Lincoln, like all lawyers then and now, also spent a lot of time trying to settle cases before trial. Dirck speaks of this as "grease" (for the system) and seems to suggest that lawyers of the day were conscious of the system's need for "grease" and that Lincoln made special efforts to conciliate disputes. He offers, however, little hard evidence that Lincoln differed significantly from his colleagues in this respect.
   
   Dirck also argues that law was especially congenial to Lincoln because it fit neatly into what Dirck sees as salient aspects of Lincoln's personality (such as his reserve, tendency to avoid commitment, his dislike of conflict, his supposed love of conciliation and so on). Most of what we know, or think we know, of these supposed traits is based on anecdotes gathered by one of Lincoln's former law partners, William Herndon. The testimony was all given after Lincoln's death and apotheosis and is all anecdotal as well as subjective. Here I think Dirck spins too easily into amateur psychologising. The evidence for the conclusions is thin.
   
   Dirck's prose style is quite clear but very plain. He does not seem to have great legal knowledge. He describes a contract case, for example, as having been won on a "technicality" when it was dismissed for lack of "consideration," a legal notion that goes to the essence of contract law because it describes the exchange that makes the bargain. Dirck's book provides a useful overview of Lincoln's actual practice, devoid of myth but not compelling in style.

5 comments about The Last Mouthpiece: The Man Who Dared to Defend the Mob.

1. Robert "Bobby" Simone draws upon a 35 year career as a practicing criminal defense attorney to write a unique, informative, and at times alarming expose and anecdotal description of the criminal justice system in The Last Mouthpiece. This book reads more like a film noir script than a history of the law as we encounter "Phil "The Chicken man" Testa, Nick the Blade, Hunchback Harry, and a series of other real-life mob characters and their cadres. Here is a candid revelation of the mobsters, rats, set-ups, wires, bugs, double-crosses, strategies, judges, juries, and lawmen who were the daily elements of Simone's law practice. If you enjoy the fictional "The Sopranos" television series, then you will be fascinated by Bobby Simone's factual and real-life expose, The Last Mouthpiece.



2. Mr.Bob Simone tells his life story in great detail.The ups and downs of someone who believes in the rights of his clients.And will do everything legally in his power to help them.He tell how the government hates to lose and dose everything legal or not to get even.He knows the meaning of true friendship and payed the price for it!



3. Mr Simone keeps telling the readers how wonderful and friendly Nicky Scarfo and Phil Leonetti are. He just seems to forget that
   they are responsible for the deaths of many people. Of course they are entitled to the very best defense, but mr Simone seems
   to think that these guys were treated unfairly by the government
   and the judicial system. Furthermore, mr Simone contemptously describes Joseph Salerno as a no good rat, but forgets that his best buddy Phil Leonetti turned out to be just as despicable, even worse. So much for mob loyalty.
   I suggest that readers familiarize themselves with the book "Breaking the Mob" by Guinther and Friel to get a different view of many of the same incidents. I`m not claiming it to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but at least it gives you a good comparative read.
   Otherwise "The Last Mouthpiece" makes quite enjoyable reading.



4. This was a really great account about the life and times of "mob lawyer" Robert Simone. The author does not pretend that the account is objective, and indeed it is not. It is, however, exciting and intriguing to follow Robert Simone's story - from the beginning of his career to the height of his success and through his ultimate downfall, incarceration and back to Philly and a career in law once again. I could not tear myself away from this book.



5. Bobby Simone was always a guy we in the press liked. As a newspaper reporter in Philadelphia in the 70s and later in New Jersey in the 80s and 90s, I frequently read about and heard about , and a few times actually met Bobby Simone. I covered the trial in Federal Court where he unsuccessfully defended Nicodemo Scarfo and I watched Bobby Simone successfully defend himself against income tax charges.(forget that old saw that a lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client, Bobby won this case).
   Bobby was always friendly to reporters -- after all, we were his free advertising agency -- and he was always quotable. He was also always a strong advocate for his clients. But apparently he crossed the line between advocacy and participation once too often when the feds brought him down.
   But to hear him tell it, the feds went after him not because he broke the law, but because he represented unpopular clients. Yeah, right.
   I also heard Bobby Simone tell juries that the government was arresting guys like Nicky Scarfo only because the government was exercising some kind of prejudice against Italian-Americans. He actually used to say that to juries! I was there, I heard it. (Forget that many FBI case agents in the Organized Crime squads were Italian-Americans, many the best police officers who hated the mob had Italian names, and one of the most effective Assistant US Attorneys to prosecute the Scarfo case was himself an Italian-American who was very proud of his heritage.)
   The book isn't much better. Some of it is self-serving claptrap. But if you can put that aside, it is the story by an entertaining story teller talking about an exciting career. And besides, Bobby Simone is a nice guy, most people who meet him like him, and that comes through in the book, too.

2 comments about What Would Martin Say?.

1. Yes, I want to thank the author for writing this book. He tells the true story of a great man and a great movement--told as only someone who was personally there and lived through it can tell it. Jones uses the very close relationship he had with MLK not to aggrandize himself but to inform and educate anyone who chooses to read this book. The book provides balanced context and fascinating and sometimes unexpected insights, told in an unconstrained, thought-provoking manner. The book seems to be written by a self-effacing man who contributed greatly to the civil rights movement and now is passing along his knowledge and insights about MLK to all of us, regardless of our age/generation. I really enjoyed reading about what would Martin say about many issues of our time, and wish the book was longer.



2. I am so impressed with Mr Jones' observations. He takes the historical Martin King and brings him to 2008, addressing topics such as Black-on-Black crime, the current status of 'the struggle', the responsibility of modern Black America, the 'Jena Six', today's modern so-called 'Black Leaders', and a host of others.
   
   Mr Jones prefaces each topic with an historical account of how Dr King addressed a similar or identical situation. Mr Jones uses each recollection as a launching pad to address current subjects pertinent in the lives of Black America today, eminently qualifying him to surmise what he believes Dr King would say on the subject in 2008.
   
   Most if not all of these journeys in time are the accounts of the man who was present with Dr King at the time. More than just interesting sidebars, they validate Mr Jones as he gives compelling, rational argument for the positions he believes Dr King would take today.
   
   Mr Jones does not shy away from topics that he could have just as easily avoided. He could have successfully written a book where he honors Dr King's memory but steps on fewer toes. Mr Jones does just the opposite - he gets his big stompin' boots out and commences to "kickin' & takin".
   
   I stopped reading this book and immediately gave it to my niece for a college graduation present. I am ordering additional copies for my son, daughter, other nieces & nephews, as well as a copy for myself to finish. I hope that I see a dog-eared, frequently read copy on their bookshelves in the years to come.
   
   Thank you, Mr Jones!
   
   -RCH Sr-

No comments about Philadelphia Freedom: Memoir of a Civil Rights Lawyer.

5 comments about Bobby and J. Edgar: The Historic Face-Off Between the Kennedys and J. Edgar Hoover that Transformed America.

1. For about half the book, I was thinking Hersh did a tremendous job of researching the Mob-Kennedy-Hoover nexus, adding a great deal to what several other books on the subject have alleged.
   
   Then I got to the Kennedy assassination and it became clear that Hersh was simply repeating conspiracy lore and mythology without any ability or perhaps inclination to evaluate the material.
   
   Suspicion is not evidence, and to allege that a lot a strange and suspicious things happened, does not prove that the Mob/CIA/FBI/Cubans were in league to kill Kennedy. A plausible motive is not the same as proof of participation in a conspiracy.
   
   Only one case in point: on page 422 Hersh alleges that the FBI reversed six crucial images on the Zapruder film -- frames 313-319 -- to cover up the fact that there was another gunman (or was it several)?
   
   Does Hersh think that a half-dozen splices can be made in film and not be detectable? Nobody would notice that Kennedy's head, instead of exploding for six frames, would be reassembled? The limo, instead of traveling left-to-right, would be traveling right-to-left for six frames?
   
   This is grade-school stuff.
   
   It is understandable that the FBI would attempt to protect its reputation, even to the extent of altering/suppressing evidence of its incompetence. But to suggest that the FBI had an interest in protecting the killers requires evidence. Conspiracy buffs quote each other as authorities, and eventually create a huge network of myth, aided and abetted by Oliver Stone's bizarre movie (ummm, those were composites characters, was his defense).
   
   In the end, Hersh proves to be so gullible that nothing he wrote in the book can be taken at face value, however sensational -- maybe, particularly if sensational.



2. This primly salacious biography suffers from two conflicting flaws. Writer Burton Hersh seems to know too much about his subjects and is unable to dissever the wheat from the chaff. He seems hell-bent on telling the reader everything about everything, to the point of confusion. Detailing knicknames of mobsters who make cameo appearances in a paragraph or two, for example, blurs understanding rather than clarifying. Burton's quick switching between names hampers understanding as well, with John F. Kennedy switching to Jack and Bobby to Robert to Bob within a few sentences, making it difficult to be sure what character is acting in the play. The overabundance of detail makes for a very tedious read.
   
   Compounding the difficulty is a serious failure in editorial oversight. Misspellings abound, both typographic and the "spellcheck" variety with correctly spelled but incorrect words. Sentence structure is convoluted to the point that necessitates re-reading, parsing and deconstructing the author's intent. A competent editor would have cut a third of the text and imposed clearer chronological threads. History buffs will pick up a few new details and learn more about the sex lives and obsessions of the rich and famous than is particularly useful.



3. It's a well-written, well-sourced book detailing disturbing relationships, among them:
   * The mob and the Mormons in Las Vegas
   * The rum-running "founding father" Joseph Kennedy and his intertwined business interests with the criminal element
   * The at-times destructive relationship of the brothers Kennedy to one another.
   Mr. Hersh's account is high on credibility and readability. However, this is not a book for those who want to swallow the "martyr" myths about JFK and RFK.



4. A new slant on the differences between a new generation in politics and how not to use power.A nasty powerful man who was corrupt and used his position to stay in power at others expense.The Kennedys and J Edgar Hoover is a good book and lots of information brought to light .A.T.Kiln



5. I found this book very interesting to read. It is of special interest to me living in Massachusetts during this period. I found consideral insight into the politics of the time. It was well written and held my attention until the last page in the book.