No comments about Yankee and the Cowboy War.

No comments about The Senator Must Die.

4 comments about Marat/Sade, the Investigation, and the Shadow of the Body of the Coachman (German Library).

1. The world in which we live operates on systems of inequalities which are overtly justified by the minor inequalities of people's intellegence, motivation, appearance, etc. However, the relative personal inequalities among people are in no way commensurate with the unequal material conditions in which we live, to a degree which is often tragic and criminal in the truest sense of that word.

   In Peter Weis's play "Marat/Sade", the character Marquis de Sade states that it was in trying to understand our criminal society, and personally disadvantaged by self-hatred, he became a criminal himself, and this outsider position forced him to focus on personal escape through brilliant, inventive, one-time sensual or artistic acts. The character Jean Paul Marat, more of an idealist, believed escape could only be successful if everyone escaped together, through the restructuring of all of society, by sudden powerful intervention. These two approaches are opposite. Everyone agrees that sure, the world could be better, but the question of "how" leads to conflict. This is the central conflict of "Marat Sade", one of the world's greatest conflicts, and I think it is fascinating.




2. When the character of Marquis de Sade shouts out at Marat, "Can't you see this patriotism is lunacy/Long ago I left heroics to the heroes/I turn my back on this nation/I turn my back on all the nations. . ." the reader can truly sense what the play of Marat/Sade is all about. As the reader gets lost in the production of a play within a play, the idea of surrealism presents itself almost at once. The reenactment of the killing of Jean-Paul Marat by Charlotte Corday seems to be a secondary plot alongside of the chanting and screaming of idealism concerning the revolution and liberty. A division of strategies regarding revolution develops between Marat and Sade. Marat advocates fast action, while Sade preaches that it is hopeless or fruitless to even bother to act. Of course, the cries of the asylum patients tend to distract, but it all adds to the surreal, bizarre nature of the play. I felt that one of the aspects the play touches on is how the revolution affects those living within it. The ideas of liberty, freedom, and revolution all make for interesting debate, but I felt one of the themes that struck me was the reality of revolution as it affects those who live around it day in and day out. One of the more striking scenes of the play, for me, came when Charlotte is in the middle of a monologue, describing children playing with toy-like guillotines. The very idea of children treating such a deathly object as a toy is disturbing, but also brings to life the desensitization that revolution brings about. The play reminds the reader that the death of masses makes the value of life and the impact of an individual death meaningless. That alone is a very somber and surreal thought. There are literary techniques throughout the play that seem to remind the reader that the dramatization depicts things which took place in the past, but threaten to become a part of our future. Marat/Sade attempts to mock the aristocratic classes that seem to catalyze such mass movements of revolution in the first place. The play seems to slap the hand of those in power through the action that takes place throughout. Every time that the characters in the play (the asylum patients) seem to become too excited or outspoken, when the truth behind their madness seems to get out of control, the "Herald" of the play speaks out to placate Coulmier, the director of the asylum. I believe that Weiss tries to make the play more socially acceptable by presenting it in a way that mocks and brings out the weakness of the debacle of government that followed, in this case, the French Revolution, but actually cuts across so many more layers than just one isolated revolution.

   Our society will always have people who have large amounts of material wealth, and those who do not. That is an injustice that we must rise above, and change ourselves. Whether our means of change is reached through violence and upheaval or through escape within oneself, this is the core dialectic that the play tackles. Although at times this play is a little hard to follow or even outlandish, the play offers a look at how society deals with its corruption and injustice once it escalates to what may seem to be a point of no return. The element that seems to be the most surreal in my mind is that the ranting of the characters within the play, although they are asylum patients, reveal more truth and brutal honesty than the audience would like to admit. I think Weiss is clever to choose some very clear and controversial themes and present them in a way that is socially appropriate. He does this by blatantly speaking out against established forms of government and rule, but discrediting the characters speaking by placing them in an insane asylum. It is true to say that there are many elements of the play that never seem to completely gel in the end, or come together nicely as in most plays. But to be honest, if the story had come together neatly in the end, the essence of the play would have been lost. I think the point of the play is to show that although people may have conflicting ideals of how to handle a revolution, whether of government or ideology, things do not always work out as we had hoped. People may preach liberty and justice, but when the reality is murder and riots, there are two conflicting messages being handled at once. I believe that is what this play shows rather well. In a very surreal and bizarre way, Weiss enables the reader to see that society hardly ever practices what they preach, and although our goal might be change, in the end, upheaval and disarray may be the only things truly achieved.




3. Marat/Sade, by Peter Weiss, is a play centering on the murder of Jean Paul Marat. Weiss sets the play in the Asylum of Charenton, where both Marat and the Marquis de Sade are inmates. Before reading this play, I did not have much knowledge of Marquis de Sade or Jean Paul Marat. The French Revolution was a topic that I had studied, however not these members specifically. For the reading of this work, not much understanding of these ideas is needed. Some knowledge of Modernism would be helpful for insight into the motivation and reasoning of the play, however that is not needed either. The plot of the play is very thin and does not do much for the reader. There does not seem to be much action involved in the play. The characters mainly discuss and wax philosophical about the French Revolution and whether or not it was successful. It is the characters themselves and the dialogue that are most intriguing. Characters that are patients in the asylum are the driving force of the work. Many off the wall topics and rants are shouted by any number of patients. Clever use of the director of the asylum gives the reader a better sense of how a play produced in an asylum might work out. The format of the work is what seems to be an extended poem. The rhyme scheme, which is at points non-existent, can be carried from one character to the next. This is at times confusing, however it does give the work a somewhat psychotic feel. The work is a relatively easy read, however it does at times get to be a bit confusing. Because the plot is so thin, the reader is bombarded with confusing dialogue, rather than constant flowing action. The work leaves something to desired, as the reader waits for some twist of fate or action that may create some interest. Personally, I was not impressed with the work as a whole from an entertainment aspect. However as a writer I could see the work is definitely that of a talented author. There is a political aspect to the work that focuses around Sade. The many conversations between Marat and Sade focus on the Revolution and its positives and negatives. Commentary is given on the state of affairs during this time, as well as the idea that revolutions do not work on a general basis. Other such ideals are discussed throughout the work, however Sade seems to be more of a reactionary and Marat seems to be more of an idealist. On a whole this work does accomplish its goals in discussing sadism and other such ideas. Modernistic works such as this, often do not have much entertainment value, however they are quite intellectual and original; the two best points of this work.



4. The Marat Sade is truly misery made beautiful, where else can the hero be made to suffer as much as Marat does. Through the course of the reading one can not help but desire to emulate the characteristics of Marat, this and the conflict between Marat and Sade are the elements of the story that keeps interests and stimulates thoughts. Weiss argues both the points of view of Marat and Sade well and ultimately delivers an interesting message.

   The Marat Sade does have a captivating message, but much of the beauty in the delivery of the message may have been lost in the translation. Translations are difficult to accomplish, especially when many words do not translate from one language to another, and when verse or meter is concerned, especially verse or meter that rhyme it is nearly improbable. However, the story did have its moments of intrigue especially some of the monologues. To be truly understood The Marat Sade needs to be seen. This realization is probably what inspired someone to make the play into a film.

   The film about was not stimulating aside from a few moments of irony in the simplest form made out to be humorous. The story is meant to be seen on the stage. The time period that the film was made in was not equipped well enough with special effects ,not that there was need for this in the Marat Sade but it could have made some kind of impact. The Low budget appearance of the film added to the melancholy of the film that appeared worse than the disorder of the mental patient playing Charlotte Corday and defiantly makes the viewer experience moments of sudden and involuntary sleep. If done today and well budgeted as well as directed the play could be portrayed through cameras in a most pleasing manner. Still, the play is meant to be seen on stage, this is the true way for the audience to feel the experience that Weiss wanted otherwise he would have written a film script.

   I do not claim to be an expert on Marat Sade or some official critic or well read for that matter but neither is the general public and that is who an artiest should want to reach considering they are the majority, even though they fall to rule. This play is a product of the past. I feel that most American people would not be able to relate to it and they would fall to be lured into the story. The martyr roll has been over used - after all many people were force fed a similar story since birth.

5 comments about A Force for Evil: Assassination In A Small Town.

1. This is an excellent book showing how small town police use their acquired knowledge to track and convict a murderer. It also tells of the towns people and their anxieties during this time. It is a well written, fast moving book (about 4 hours).



2. As a Sister to Jay Fry, Bill has told the compelling story of the Murder's of of My Loved One's as it unfolded. He has told in great depth the life of such a terrible human and how someone so cruel could be brought to justice and put away as he so justly deserved.
   Bill deliver's the story in a very interesting way as keep your attention and your thought process going. The Detective work that was involved is amazing. Hat's off to you Bill! Once again you have come through for my family. Another job Well Done! William Krueger will alway's be in our heart's. A Very Well Written Story.



3. This book should be listed as fiction since it is so full of errors, misrepresentation of the facts, and elimination of much of the real evidence. Krueger is either a deliberate liar and in some way connected with the murders or prefers fiction to fact.



4. Former detective William Krueger withheld the truth and misinformed the public about the most important facts and evidence gathered in the Ruth Martin case. He further misled the public when he stated in his book that no direct evidence connected to Martin's disappearance was found and no suspects were developed. I am in the position to inform people that what Krueger printed in his book is not true because I've been investigating and writing about these murders for many years; I'm very familiar with the evidence gathered in these cases as well as the courthouse and police records pertaining to these 1976 murder investigations. In addition, I'm the daughter of Roger W. Thompson, the Logan County State's Attorney who convicted Russell Smrekar of the Fry double homicide. The chain of custody pertaining to the evidence in the Martin case reveals that Krueger and his former partner, detective Tom Mauer, came into direct contact with monumental evidence, which provided these two former detectives with an excellent lead to a possible suspect/accomplice in Ruth Martin's disappearance/murder. However, I have found no record that this possible suspect/accomplice was ever questioned by law enforcement in regard to Martin's mysterious demise. Krueger also presented false information about the BC Rich guitar that was stolen in the Lincoln College dorm room burglary. Krueger claimed that his former partner, Mauer, searched "Smrekar's car, a white and blue Buick Skylark", and found the BC Rich guitar in the trunk. That is a complete falsehood. The BC Rich guitar was discovered at an apartment in upstate Joliet, IL - Joliet Police Officer M G. Taylor shipped it to Tom Mauer at the Lincoln PD. Smrekar didn't even own the Buick Skylark in 1975. It's my strong opinion that both former detectives Krueger and Mauer need to be interrogated about some particular "True Facts & Findings" concerning the Martin case.



5. This book is full of inaccuracies and discrepancies. On page 39 this 'detective' states he will not reveal the name of the killer's girlfriend, by page 119 he has ratted her out in black & white. One chapter says 2 young boys saw a dark car, another chapter states they saw a blue & white car. Which is it? The real kicker is page 82 where the 'detective' refers to another major murder that happened in that area a couple of months prior to the Fry murders. By time he wrote this book, it was a well know fact which girl was tied up and should have known how to spell the girl's name correctly that escaped. It was also a well-known fact by the time of the writing that this killer did not drive himself to the hospital. It is hard to believe that a detective living in Lincoln IL at that time could not have gotten his facts straight on this prior major murder case. Perhaps he would have been better off leaving that part of it out all together. I went to that trial, I know. If the writing of this book is anywhere similar to the work of a major detective in this case, then my opinion is that he must have done some sloppy detective work. As for the chapter about the psychics, I have not lived in Illinois for over 25 years now and the part about water with a capital K? A detective living there could not figure it out? Hello?? Has anyone in Lincoln, Illinois never heard of Kickapoo Creek? I have ordered another book about this same case and cannot wait to receive it to see if that author has anything straight. I lived in the area at the time of both murders. I remember them both....well. Things like that stay with you. They just don't go away.

No comments about The Assassination of New York.

5 comments about The Warren Commission Report: Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

1. The Warren Report was the official report on the assassination of JFK. Because Lee Harvey Oswald was shot 2 days after the assassination by Jack Ruby, there was no trial. The American people would not stand for this, so President Johnson authorized the Warren Commission to determine what happened on November 22, 1963.
   
   This book is an important work in American history, regardless of which side you take: lone assassin or conspiracy. It is fairly easy to follow; the authors sum up their conclusions in each sub-chapter, make their case and then dismiss what they believe is "uncredible."
   
   Unfortunately, the book I have has no index and no table of contents. I'm not sure if this edition that I'm reviewing does or not; I suspect it also is lacking this critical apparatus. This makes reviewing their notes and conclusions somewhat muddled. Some would say that this was deliberate, all part of the conspiracy and coverup. I can't draw that conclusion.
   
   The Warren Report doesn't prove that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. It proves that Lee Harvey Oswald COULD HAVE acted alone. Many leads are dismissed out of hand. For example: a Dallas cop saw Oswald running down Houston Avenue moments after the shooting, getting into the passenger side of a station wagon. Later that afternoon, that cop saw Oswald in the captain's office being interrogated. He told his chief that's the guy he saw. The chief dismissed this and said that a little old lady saw him board a bus after the shooting. Therefore there was no getaway car.
   
   One of the reasons that Oswald was pinned down to the Kennedy killing was that he took a shot at General Walker. They pinned this crime to him in December of 1963; the shooting took place in March. The day before the shooting, a friend of Walker's saw 2 men peeking in Walker's windows. The day of the shooting, a teenager saw 2 men get into seperate cars, parked next door to Walker's house, and drive away. If Oswald did take a shot at Walker, then what of the other man? This is what I mean when I say the Warren Report proves Oswald COULD HAVE killed Kennedy. Many leads like this are not followed up.
   
   This book should be the starting point of any serious reader who wants to know what happened to JFK. Read it and take a grain of salt. Then read one of the conspiracy books that dismisses the Warren Report out of hand. Then take another grain of salt.



2. The popular notion that this book is unreliable and obviously a joke is one of the most bizarre mistakes supported by the popular media. None of the people I have ever heard dismiss this book with a mere waive of their hand or a wisecrack has actually bothered to read the report. Yes, the work of the commission in its 26 volumes is not perfect. So what? There is an overwhelming consistency to the evidence and the conclusions of the commission. This report is fascinating because it is the distillation of all that work. Again, it might be possible to quibble with this or that, but the central conclusions of the commission are clearly supported by the weight of the evidence gathered by commission.
   
   Read the book. Look at the documentary evidence in its actual context, not as it is mischaracterized and misquoted in the conspiracy literature. This book is very affordable and an important part of our nation's history. It is too serious and too important to be treated dismissively and irresponsibly to support theories that come from nothing more than fantasies spun from false notions of what the facts are.



3. ...they were pointed in the right direction. Instead of miscalculated blunders like conspiracy theorists, the government DID try to get it right. Most of the others are in it for the money and fame rather than the truth. Not perfect but 4.5 stars.



4. Oh yes. The people behind the Warren Commission findings had such faith in the 'truth' of this most 'thorough and sincere' report - in order to preserve their own sorry hides or their possible foreknowledge of the JFK assassination itself - that the CIA had to issue instructions to its agents on how to discredit those independent investigators who had reasonable doubts about the Commission's conclusions that Oswald was some nut who acted alone. On the contrary, there's ample evidence uncovered elsewhere by independent researchers that he may have shot nobody.
   
   (By the way, some of those same Warren Commission participants are still around today mucking up the political landscape, such as Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford, both of whom will have a lot to answer for when the final history of this great nation - now being dismantled from within - is written. Specter for his out-of-this-world-of-logic "magic bullet theory" - creating seven wounds from one bullet!...seven! - and Ford for tampering with evidence related to JFK's autopsy and back wounds more than twenty-five years after the fact. When such a preposterous magic bullet theory is presented with a straight face - and rejected by the majority of the public - they erode the trust between the gov't and its people.)
   
   I wonder how many Americans have seen the following CIA document. Note particularly point b.:
   
   >b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. >Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.
   
   For illustrations of point b, note many of the carefully constructed reviews posted here that no thinking person could possibly believe - that is, if the person has looked into many of the eyewitness accounts that were ignored or never included in the original Commission report to begin with. They were ignored for obvious reasons too, because their testimony directly contested the report's conclusions, such as the witnesses who saw gunfire from the area of the knoll and *smelled* gunpowder.
   
   So, on the contrary, this report is not the place to begin your investigation unless you are interested in reading one long fairy tale that never pretends to any kind of objectivity at all, except on the surface and in terms of its massive 26 volumes that were designed to discourage the public from reading them and to make it appear that a thorough investigation was conducted...not! Instead, just for starters, it's primarily a political whitewash of an Oswald who most likely worked for the Federal gov't as an agent on some level for many years, leading up to the time of the assassination, in which he was set up as the patsy - a fact that has been unconvincingly denied for more than 40 years because of its scandalous implications.
   
   The only real purpose this report serves is to show the degree of paranoia that existed within the hidden political recesses of our country and the Federal gov't at the time - because of the tensions of the Cold War with the Soviet Union - and the steps these "honorable" men were willing to take to "protect" our country in the name of "national security," including the brutal murder of their own democratically-elected president. If Kennedy was considered a secret Communist and traitor by the likes of J. Edgar Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he should have been brought up on charges of impeachment - not murdered in the streets of Dallas.
   
   And now, years later, look at the mess we are in because men of political conscience and genuine humanitarian concern have been systematically assassinated in order to preserve the war machine that was turned loose on Vietnam - and not by Kennedy either, who had talked about pulling out our ground troops - and are now on the loose in Iraq and threatening further wars. Should our country go down the tubes, we can look back to those leaders with a political conscience - who loved the people and the goodness within the soul of America, but were cut down in their prime... everyone knows the list by heart.
   
   (By the way, it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to look at contemporary American society - and its destruction - to see all the other political abuses that are being committed on a daily basis in the name of "national security." Anyone see a pattern here?)
   
   THE entire CIA document I'm referring to:
   
   Countering Criticism of the Warren Report
   1 April 1967
   JFK 01, p.1
   
   Chiefs, Certain Stations and Bases
   Document Number 1035-960
   for FOIA Review on Sep 1976
   
   SUBJECT: Countering Criticism of the Warren Report
   
   PSYCH
   
   1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results.
   
   2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
   
   3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addressees are requested:
   
   CS COPY
   9 attachments h/w
   DATE 4/1/67
   1- Satts
   8-Unclassified
   DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED
   
   JFK 01, p.2
   
   a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
   
   b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher Knebel article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where contested by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
   
   4. In private or media discussion not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
   
   a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attacks on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, A.J.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Van der Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been much more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
   
   b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual eyewitnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent -- and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistic, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the commission for good and sufficient reason.
   
   JFK 01, p.3
   
   c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.
   
   d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory; or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
   
   JFK 01, p.4
   
   e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed-up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.
   
   f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
   
   g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some more natural way: e.g., the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conducting 25,000 interviews and reinterviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
   
   5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the Report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
   
   [end of CIA directive]



5. The Assassination of JFK - Warren Report, NY Times Edition
   
   The `Prologue' by Tom Wicker says the shooting took place at "12:30 PM Central standard time" (p.v). NO, it happened 12:30 PM Eastern standard time (lunch hour). The rest of the `Prologue' summarizes the events of November 22, 1963 that forever marks that day. The `Introduction' attempts to provide an overall look at the events and the theories of the Warren Report critics. Harrison Salisbury mentions the attacks on other presidents (pp.xxi-xxii). The pattern differs for JFK; a rifle was used to let the assassin escape after the shots were fired. A pistol was used by the assassins who did not care if they were caught. Distant observers may have a more objective view (pp.xxiv-xxv). Salisbury never asks if the stories about Oswald (p.xxix) make him an agent provocateur, like Czolgosz (p.xxviii).
   
   Anthony Lewis reports the assassination was the work of one man; there was no conspiracy (p.xxxi). Lewis says they traced Oswald's purchase of the gun (p.xxxv) but never admits there were no records of any purchase of ammunition for this foreign rifle. James Reston admits "this report may not satisfy the historians" (p.xxxviii). The filmed events of that day provide records for future studies. No one person could process all that information until time had passed, and this explains the Anti-Warren Reports. The section with photographs are between pages 344 and 345; many are too small to see the details. What is the purpose of showing the back of a camera? After Oswald was rubbed out there was talk of a court of inquiry in Texas, or a grand jury investigation in Dallas. Instead the extralegal Warren Commission preempted them with a Presidential Commission that could only produce a report, never an indictment (p.5). Their conclusion was the story from the beginning: a lone gunman who was a misfit. Yet Oswald was married with children unlike Booth, Guiteau, or Czolgosz. His spotty employment record was not unusual for a young man who moved around.
   
   The `Contents' on page 11 contain an index to the topics contained in this book. Page 182 says the telescope was sighted for a moving target just like the President's car. Coincidence or planning? The `Statements of Oswald' on pages 167-169 show either a compulsive liar or someone telling a cover story. Years later a Voice Stress Analyzer test of Oswald's tape recorded statements indicated he was telling the truth, or was insane ("The Assassination Tapes" by George O'Toole). The spurious identification cards showed skill at retouching negatives (p.527). What camera was used for this? Where would Oswald get a large-format camera?
   
   There was a cover photograph on `LIFE' magazine after the assassination. It showed what looked like Oswald at the front door when the first shot was fired - a perfect alibi. We were told then that it was a look-alike. Decades later David Wrone wrote his book "The Zapruder Film". It has a photograph of that look-alike who was wearing a different shirt at the time. Wrone says two people were taking movies across from the Book Depository. Their films do not show Oswald of anybody else at the 6th floor southeast corner of the building. This refutes the Warren Report. If you've never heard of this its because of media censorship. After the reports of frontal shots J. Edgar Hoover claimed JFK was shot when he was heading towards the building. When the photographs were released showing JFK was leaving that building a new theory was created for the "lone gunman" solution.
   
   [This is from the 1964 hardcover edition.]

No comments about The Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: Performance of the Intelligence Agencies: Final Report of the Select Committee to ... with Respect to Intelligence Activities.

2 comments about The Assassination of Mozart..

1. I am convinced. Mozart was poisoned. The experts of medicine and law can shout with the world their agreement with the Hapsburgs. Just as Mozart's music won't let me go, this book remains. I remain secure in my conviction of the accuracy, the truth as presented by David Weiss. He has explored every possibility with historical accuracy, leaving me grateful that I know, and sad for the world that doesn't care to see. You will see when you read this.



2. I enjoyed reading this book.
   
   Page 141, in particular, is interestiing ""He (Mozart) knew he was at odds with the nobility, but when the subject came up, he would look at you with his pale, gentle face and shrug, and go on composing music as if that were all that mattered""
   ""Do you believe it was simply poor health"? A kidney ailment, as his doctors implied?""......
   
   I would have been more at ease if I had seen an authentic references to Doctor's Reports on Mozart's health conditions.. there must have been one written and archived somwhere (I wonder!!!) Unless it had been a taboo subject to write anything about Mozart, notably during his last four (to five) years after he had composed Figaro, and the aftermath of the French revolution (the locking up and confinement of Marie Antoinette)
   
   However I should say the author has omitted to list his References and missed to compile an Index.

5 comments about The Sands of Sakkara.

1. I'm a fan of this genre and was looking forward to my first book by this author. Very disappointed. The idea of a plot against FDR and WC is fine (though we know outcome ahead of time) but the writing sinks the book. The coincidences relied upon to keep the plot moving are rediculous (coincidences usually play a role in spy thrillers but here seem to be used simply out of laziness or lack of imagination). The dialogue is wooden beyond belief as if taken from Hollywood B movies of the 1940s. If the book was "extensively researched" (see Amazon review) it doesn't show. The period touches amount to the simple mentioning of makes of old cars, military planes and weapons. For far superior WWII espionage fiction read Alan Furst.



2. This is a wonderful World War II story. It is unique in that it details the attempted assassination of Roosevelt and Churchill by the Germans, during their Cairo Conference in Egypt. There are three key characters in the book, Jack, Rachael and Harry, who were friends, and at times lovers, before the outbreak of the war. Each is extremely well developed, as are the convoluted and at times desperate relationships between the three of them. The story essentially deals with a contest between Jack, who has been dispatched to Cairo by the SS with the task of carrying out the assassinations, and Jack, who has been assigned (by US military intelligence) the task of preventing the assassinations from happening. This novel is a wonderful combination of suspense and adventure, set in wartime Berlin and Cairo, and I believe that Meade has done an excellent job of describing the atmosphere of those two locations during World War II. The novel is classical Glenn Meade and I wholeheartedly recommend it.



3. the plot to make did not make any sense.
   send two people who hate hitler and his cause to kill Roosevel and Churchill.
   the germans in this book are portrayed as pure evil.
   like in the starwars series where the sith and darth vader are pure evil.
   it seems to may as yet another copy of The Day Of The Jackal where one man can change the course of history and bla bla bla.
   even though The Jackal is by far the best book I ever read.
   as i already mentioned, the germans are potrayed as pure evil and the allies as pure saints.
   the plot doesn't make much sense as i don't see the dificulty of assassinting two men.
   if your german, DON'T READ THE BOOK.
   if you hate germans, you'll love to see how "coldblooded" they are.
   instead, read The Day Of The Jackal if you like them conspiracies.



4. In the same line of "The Day of the Jackal" Meade offers an entertaining WWII thriller. The story is a little farfetched, another conspiracy to assassinate one world leader and change the course of the war. Nobody has done that better than the original Frederick Forsight. But the recreation of Africa on the verge of War is still first rate.
   
   If you are not very demanding and forgive some plot holes this will make a very nice reading and you will enjoy the adventure, heroism and romance



5. Sands of Sakkara is set in 1943. The war is starting to go bad for the Nazis, so they decide to launch an audacious plot to murder U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, as he meets British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, for a conference, in Cairo. They hope this assasination will turn the tide of war back in their favour.
   
   Enter the books main characters, Harry Weaver, Jack Halder, and Rachel Stern. Three people from different backgrounds, who became close friends, during an archelogical dig, in Egypt, back in 1939. However, the fortunes of war sees them on opposing sides, and their friendships tested to the limit.
   
   I found this book an enjoyable read, with a relentless pace, particularly towards the end. Character development is good, and I really felt for two of the protaganists, in particular, and the desperate situation that they had been forced into, by the Nazis.
   
   The only drawback to the book, I felt, was that there was an element of 'Keystone Cops' at times, when the authorities were trying to chase down the spies. Overall, though a good read.

No comments about The Lincoln Assassination: The Evidence.