5 comments about The Pelican Brief.

1. I thought this book was a little hard to follow. I found that I was often looking back to see who a character was and when and how he/she was introduced. Great main characters and story line.



2. The Pelican Brief is absolutely filled with suspense, and a plot that will leave you guessing at every corner. Truly hard to put down, even when the digital clock says its 2 a.m. This novel contains every single Grisham quirk which readers delight, whilst deviating from Grisham's usual court-room sanctum.
   
   Tulane law student Darby Shaw has unknowingly stumbled upon an incredible discovery: the true identity of the man who orchestrated the heinous killings of two Supreme Court justices. Now the killer, an huge oil mogol, will stop at nothing to silence anyone who comes in contact with the highly incriminating evidence: the pelican brief. Already Shaw's professor and lover has been murdered, and the body count is yet to climb. Darby is on the run and has become increasingly paranoid. Only one person who holds a critical link to the crime is able to help her: Gray Grantham, a Washington Post writer. Darby must now choose between fleeing the country for her safety, or riding shotgun with Grantham who is dead-set on exposing the killer in what proves to be a wild and dangerous ride that eventually brings down the Presidency.
   
   The Pelican Brief is not a novel to ignore. Grisham readers and those not familiar with his works will undoubtedly be drawn into his world.



3. I normally like Grisham's work, and I think his first two novels were first-rate. THE PELICAN BRIEF, however, suffers from a remarkably silly plot.
   
   You're supposed to believe that a 25-year old law student is able to figure out something that the CIA, FBI, Supreme Court, and national media cannot. I'm a lawyer, and I found the legal aspect of this book to be absolutely ridiculous. I realize THE PELICAN BRIEF is meant to be escapist entertainment, but I think a plot has to be half-way credible in order for me to enjoy it.
   
   It didn't help that the characterization was paper-thin and on the level of caricature. The heroine of this book is beautiful and smart, but has very little real personality. She spends most of her time running from place to place, dodging inept assassins. Her two love interests in this novel are lecherous and not the least bit likable.
   
   If you've never read Grisham before, my advice is to skip this book and read THE FIRM or A TIME TO KILL instead. Those novels are far superior to THE PELICAN BRIEF.



4. In this early novel by Grisham, he dives into the intrigue and secrets of Washington insiders, the murder of 2 supreme court justices, and the conspiracy behind it. A law student at Tulane University writes a brief nicknamed the Pelican Brief in which she proposes one of the president's financial supporter's link to the murders. This happens to fall into the hands of the FBI then makes its way to the President and CIA. They launch an all out investigation but apparently whomever ordered the original murders doesn't like this and begins knocking off more people. The law student connects with a reporter from the Washington Post and they go on a wild chase to prove the veracity of the brief while running from the killers.
   
   Written in his classic legal thriller style, The Pelican Brief is quality Grisham fiction and will keep you turning the pages to the end.



5. "Four-thirty A.M. He listened to the voice, jumped to his feet, and eight minutes later was in the oval office. . . "They're both dead."' Not only was the president in shock, but all of America was stunned to know that two of their Supreme Court justices were murdered in the same night. Darby Shaw, an innocent law student, guessed who the criminal master mind behind this evil trick was. Once the FBI got a hold of the brief her world was instantly turned upside down. Darby was scared to death, only trusting one ambitious reporter and constantly watching her back.
   
   The Pelican Brief is an action filled, legal thriller and kept me turning the pages. "The explosion knocked her to the sidewalk. She landed on all fours, facedown. . . She gaped in horror at the parking lot." (pg.127) this event really picked up and started the story. Though the plot line can get slow at times within a chapter you will be reading as fast as you can to find out what happens next. I would recommend this book for all mature readers, since this novel has a complex plot line and some language not suitable for children. Don't miss this gripping novel.

5 comments about Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Legacy.

1. Having read all the Bourne episodes, I truly believe that Eric Van Lustbader was the best choice to continue the saga begun by the great man (Robert Ludlum) himself.
   The links were to earlier stories were great.
   I'm now into the next edition - the Bourne Betrayal - by the same author.
   I can only it is as good.



2. Another great Bourne book form Ludlum. Haven't yet finished but I can hardley put it down to write this review. A real page turner, though a real disapointment that Conklin and the Doc have been killed off.



3. On its own, the Bourne Legacy is a good "thriller" book. Lots of action and page turning - likely 4 stars in this regard. However, when compared to the three previous books in the series (written by Ludlum), this book does not do the series justice (2 stars). My main problem was with the characters - the Bourne characters were either killed off, not in the book (or very limited - i.e. Marie) or hollowed out (lacked depth). The Bourne character lacked the cunningness of both the previous books and the movie series. Time after time in this book Bourne makes stupid mistakes and is either saved by another character or by chance/luck. Part of the awe of Bourne in the previous books was his ability to be on top of situations (mentally) at all times - to be a step ahead.
   
   Other issues with the book (perhaps a little nit-picky) - most mentioned already: cliches (I was laughing reading the dialogue at the beginning of the book when Bourne saves an Asian student from two black "thugs" - the "thug" talk was comical); the in-depth detail of certain places or people (regarding the terrorists mostly) that added no value to the book, especially when compared to the lack of depth of the main characters; Marie completely being written out of the book, except for a couple pages to wrap things up (whereas Marie is central to the Bourne character in the previous books), to name a few.
   
   Overall, a worthy thriller but a limited continuation of a great series.



4. **some very minor spoilers**
   
   I love The first two Bourne books, they're among my all time favorites and I've probably read the Bourne Identity 8 times, own all the movies, which I've seen multiple times, etc... I just love the premise and the character, so I really looked forward to settling down with Legacy.
   
   Lustbader is not Ludlum, clearly. And clearly he doesn't have a good handle on the character Bourne/Webb.
   
   The Bourne Legacy is so poorly written that I couldn't even finish it, actually I skim read to the end. I was on a long (very long) boring plane trip with nothing else to do and by the time Bourne decided he was an ace fighter pilot I gave up. I'd already slogged through the ultra ridiculous Mission Impossible-like face and identity switching and I couldn't take any more. It was so bad, I left a *hardback* on the plane. I didn't want anything to do with the story. Nothing. I've never felt that way EVER about a book. I can always find some redeeming quality but found none. I instead watched a silly Drew Barrymore/Hugh Grant movie Music and Lyrics and for all its cloying, boring plot it was better than Legacy.
   
   I DO NOT recommend this book. If you have to read it, get it from the library or borrow it from a friend. I cannot believe the editors allowed this to be published.



5. BOOK WAS GOOD , BUT I WAS NOT USE TO SEEING BOURNE GET BEAT UP THROUGHOUT THE BOOK . LOST TOO MANY BATTLES . LUDLUM WOULD BE SAD TO SEE IT..

5 comments about The Echo from Dealey Plaza: The true story of the first African American on the White House Secret Service detail and his quest for justice after the assassination of JFK.

1. Very little about Kennedy and the secret service in Dallas Texas concerning the assassination. [...]



2. If you are looking for something really new and substantial on the JFK case, I doubt you'll find it here. Or anywhere ! I'd recommend the book if you are interested in the secret service however and the author has a few interesting snippets to tell of his brief meetings with the Kennedy brothers which may be of interest to some. It's a reflective work and highlights some of the prejudices prevalent at the time even within the secret service, but the title is a little bit misleading as the material relating to the assassination is limited. A nice to have book, but there are better recent works on the case.



3. This is an amazing story of injustice, racism, a corrupted justice system, and dogged, courageous persistence to clear his name. Abraham Bolden was clearly his own worst enemy, if only because he wasn't shy about pointing out the shortcomings of his colleagues and bosses. Most of us would shake our heads and pass on by. Not Bolden. If Secret Service agents came to work drunk, he spoke up about it. If they let security relax on President Kennedy's White House detail, he told his superiors. That's not a strategy to warm the hearts of co-workers, but this was the Secret Service, and the President's life was at stake. Bolden took his protective mission to heart. The obvious and blunt racism of his colleagues is surprising forty years later but typical of the sixties. After a stint with the First Family on Nantucket Bay, Bolden writes that his shift supervisor, Harvey Henderson, a good-ol'-boy Southerner, commented to him, "You're a nigger. You were born a nigger, and when you die, you'll still be a nigger. You will always be nothing but a nigger. So act like one!" If that doesn't stagger your perceptions about the Secret Service, nothing would. Imagine trying to do your job with that kind of attitude hovering over you. Transferred back to Chicago, his home base, after a month on the White House detail, Bolden's troubles continued and eventually culminate in charges, conviction, and imprisonment. As he presents the case against him, the corruption, racist conspiracy to destroy him, and the fumbling, blockheaded pursuit of the case by authorities eventually overpower and convict him. It is justice pursued in the most invidious fashion for the most insidious motives. The man is black. Get him. Yet, after all that he and his family endure, Bolden emerges years later undefeated. And that is what makes him a man admired. This is one heck of a story! And the horrifying thing is, it's true.



4. What a story of shear guts and determination of a man who paid the price for speaking out against the Secret Service protection for President Kennedy. I wish I had half the guts Mr. Bolden has, and I hope that in the end, those who for the most part framed Mr. Bolden, will be held fully accountable when they meet their maker. There was definitely a breakdown that fateful day in Dallas of Secret Service reaction when the first shots were fired. REading about one of the agents losing his credentials in a bar the night before the assassination definitely makes one wonder about the "phony" Secret Service agent who flashed credentials behind the grassy knoll.



5. This work is intriguing as Abraham Bolden gives his side of how the Secret Service framed him rather than permit him to give testimony to the Warren Commission about the lax in the duties of Secret Service agents to protect President John F. Kennedy. The Warren Commission investigated the assassination. Bolden was the first black to serve on the White House Secret Service, assigned to protect the president, and was invited to that post by Kennedy. Bolden is very brief about his childhood, and tells even less about his teen and college years. The main purposes of this section is show the development of his sense of duty, honesty, and other values his parents taught him. Most of the book is devoted to his tenure as a Secret Service Agent and how all that he had built professionally was destroyed. He provides very detailed accounts of the trials, and his appeals and other strategies to clear his name and get his freedom. Despite all that happened to him, his family stood my him. The work is well written, and written in such a way that the reader can get a sense of the intellectual, emotional, spiritual and physical trials and tribulations of the author and those around him. The minute details are necessary because Bolden is attempting to clear his name and actions from a time period that is very controversial. Therefore, he uses footnotes so that the reader can cross check the facts. Some documents were unobtainable, but Bolden proves to a great researcher, using various primary source materials to support his claims. Unlike most autobiographies, the work is indexed. Others have criticized the book because it sheds little light on the Kennedy assassination, but this is an unfair assessment. The book is about Bolden, not Kennedy. This work is a very much needed addition to black American history, particular in the history of Secret Service Agents. In addition, it also contributes to the historiography of the assassination of President Kennedy, as well as the general historiography of the 1960s. It could also be used in the study of racism, organized crime, the criminal justice system, and the legal system. This work stands, perhaps, as the final testimony of Bolden, who wants to public to know his ordeal. At this point, the public becomes the jury.

5 comments about On the Trail of the Assassins.

1. Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books used as the basis for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" (the other was Kim Marrs' "Crossfire"). On that basis alone, highly recommended (for it led to the JFK Act and the ARRB). That said, this is a very good but not a great book. I would put James DiEugenio's book ON Garrison ahead of this one. Still, a good "read" with some good moments.
   Vince Palamara



2. The late Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was in large part the basis for Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture "JFK", which is a film containing so many lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations of the facts surrounding John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination, it's literally difficult to keep up with all of them.
   
   I cannot watch one single scene of Oliver Stone's film without finding some distortion of the evidence in the real JFK or J.D. Tippit murder cases. Some are small things being distorted; and some are great big ones. One example (among dozens) being: Oliver Stone's version of shoe clerk Johnny Brewer's testimony re. Lee Harvey Oswald's manner of dress when Brewer encountered Oswald shortly after Oswald had shot and killed policeman Tippit.
   
   Stone, in his film, has Oswald (Gary Oldman) wearing a jacket as he enters the Texas Theater and is seen by Brewer....and in one of the movie's "Deleted Scenes" (on the DVD version of the film), Kevin Costner (playing Garrison) even does a voice-over (lie) re. Brewer's testimony, with Costner saying "Brewer said the man was wearing a jacket".
   
   Brewer, in reality, said exactly the opposite during his Warren Commission testimony:
   
   Mr. BELIN -- "Will you describe the man you saw?"
   Mr. BREWER -- "He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all. ... And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out."
   Mr. BELIN -- "Any jacket?"
   Mr. BREWER -- "No."
   
   Another interesting part of the Tippit portion of the movie "JFK" is Oliver Stone's Audio Commentary during this part of the film, which is riddled with inaccuracies. Stone has the audacity to spout the following lie re. the Tippit shooting on the DVD's Commentary soundtrack:
   
   "Not one credible witness has really identified Oswald as a single shooter {of Officer Tippit}. In fact, the only significant testimony applies two to three shooters." -- O. Stone
   
   Therefore, per Mr. Stone (and Garrison said pretty much the same thing years earlier), the "only credible" witness must have been Acquilla Clemmons, who, as far as I am aware, was THE ONLY witness who ever said there was more than one person involved in the Tippit slaying.
   
   Stone, like Jim Garrison before him, would simply rather believe his OWN version of events, rather than the multiple witnesses who never saw more than one shooter (with that one single shooter being positively identified as Oswald by said witnesses).
   
   It's interesting, indeed, that Stone thinks the "only significant testimony" re. the Tippit crime came from Clemmons. Whereas, people like Markham, Tatum, and Scoggins (who were all closer than Clemmons to the scene of the murder) are deemed less "significant", merely, no doubt, because they don't fit into Stone's (or Garrison's) "CT Landscape" surrounding the murder.
   
   I wonder if people realize just how many outright lies are contained in Oliver Stone's 3-hour, 15-minute motion picture? The number is simply staggering. And that number of distortions is increased considerably on the DVD version of the film, when the Audio Commentary Track by Mr. Stone and all of the "Deleted and Extended Scenes" are included as well.
   
   And a great deal of this deliberate misinformation put forth on the movie screen came directly out of this book authored by Jim Garrison.
   
   Another great place to see more of Mr. Garrison's skewed views of the JFK case is to read Garrison's 1967 "Playboy Magazine" interview. Like Stone's movie, that Playboy article will keep you busy as you try to keep up with the inaccurate things Garrison keeps saying in that lengthy piece. The whole interview can be read here:
   
   www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
   
   
   Selected examples of Mr. Garrison's paranoia and loony-toon conspiracy talk, taken from that Playboy interview, are provided via the quotes below. My own rebuttal arguments follow each quote:
   
   
   "Though he {Oswald} may not have known why he was instructed to do so, this was undoubtedly why he got the job at the Texas School Book Depository Building. The conspirators knew this would place him on the scene and convince the world that a demented Marxist was the real assassin." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   The above Garrison gem totally distorts (or just flat-out ignores) the true and documented facts about how Oswald got his job at the Depository in mid-October of '63. It was suburban Dallas housewives Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine who were directly responsible for placing Lee Harvey Oswald in the TSBD, by way of ordinary garden-variety happenstance.
   
   Garrison must, therefore, believe that Mrs. Paine, who arranged Oswald's job interview with Depository boss Roy Truly, was one of the main "conspirators" who was setting up Oswald to take the fall for JFK's murder the following month (which would also have to mean that Paine had detailed knowledge of the President's motorcade route more than a month before November 22). Garrison must also think that Roy Truly was a big part of the patsy plot, because it was Mr. Truly who actually hired Oswald (even though nobody was holding a shotgun to Truly's head forcing him to hire Lee).
   
   The commonly-held belief that Lee Oswald was "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository by evil plotters prior to 11/22/63 is a desperate attempt by CTers like Mr. Garrison to attach unprovable and unsupportable conspiratorial "strings" to a random event that involved several individuals...individuals whose collective and synchronized actions could not possibly have been foreseen and controlled by a group of behind-the-scenes conspirators.
   
   ---------------
   
   "Anyone who takes the time to read the Warren Report will find that of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who were able to assess the origin of the shots, almost two-thirds said they came from the grassy-knoll area in front and to the right of the Presidential limousine and not from the Book Depository." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   This is pure nonsense. There were, indeed, several witnesses who said they heard shots coming from in front of JFK's car, but Garrison has severely skewed the stats to support his claim of Knoll shooters. His "almost two-thirds" figure is not even close to being accurate when talking about the number of witnesses who said they heard frontal shots. And even amongst other CTers, virtually no other pro-conspiracy author has ever rigged those stats in such an out-of-whack manner.
   
   The fact is that more than half of all earwitnesses heard shots coming from the direction of the Book Depository, and not from the Knoll. And an even more illuminating statistic reveals that less than 5% of all earwitnesses heard shots from more than just a single general location (front vs. rear). That stat speaks volumes....because even CTers admit to SOME rear shots.
   
   An interesting tabulation of this data can be found below:
   
   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
   
   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
   
   ---------------
   
   "The second shot struck the President in the back; the location of this wound can be verified not by consulting the official autopsy report, but by perusing the reports filed by two FBI agents who were present at the President's autopsy. Both stated unequivocally that the bullet in question entered President Kennedy's back and did not continue through his body." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Therefore, Mr. Garrison is, in essence, saying that he is much more likely to trust the word of FBI agents (who, of course, were not doctors and were not conducting the President's autopsy) rather than take the word of the three physicians who each signed the official autopsy report. After all, why believe the autopsy doctors when you COULD just trust as Gospel the word of a bystander? ~sarcasm alert~
   
   Plus: Why didn't these two FBI agents get the conspirators' memo which, if CTers are right about the success of the Patsy Plot, must have been passed out to nearly everyone in Officialdom on 11/22, a memo that probably said: "Attn. All Agents -- We're framing Oswald tomorrow; so remember to falsify as much evidence as humanly possible to ensure conviction of patsy".
   
   Evidently some people who needed to see it never received that important document.
   
   ---------------
   
   "We have also located another man who was not involved in the shooting but created a diversionary action in order to distract people's attention from the snipers. This individual screamed, fell to the ground, and simulated an epileptic fit, drawing people away from the vicinity of the knoll just before the President's motorcade reached the ambush point." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Yet another outright lie from the lips of District Attorney Garrison. The man who had the so-called "simulated epileptic fit" was fully identified by the FBI on May 26, 1964. His name was Jerry Belknap, a man who had a history of epilepsy since childhood. Belknap also proved to the FBI that he had paid the ambulance bill ($12.50) after he was taken to Parkland Hospital.
   
   ---------------
   
   "President Kennedy was killed for one reason: because he was working for a reconciliation with the U.S.S.R. and Castro's Cuba. His assassins were a group of fanatic anti-Communists with a fusion of interests in preventing Kennedy from achieving peaceful relations with the Communist world." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Any solid, verifiable proof of such accusations, Mr. Garrison? Any physical evidence whatsoever that shows JFK was killed by more than one gun? .... The answers to those two questions are: No and No.
   
   But the lack of physical evidence never stopped a hard-boiled CTer....that's been proven over and over again by a vast assortment of conspiracists who have more theories up their sleeve than a dog has fleas.
   
   ---------------
   
   "In summation, there were at least five or six shots fired at the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several accomplices. At this stage of events, Lee Harvey Oswald was no more than a spectator to the assassination -- perhaps in a very literal sense. James Altgens snapped a picture that shows a man with a remarkable resemblance to Oswald, standing in the doorway of the Depository. The Altgens photograph indicates the very real possibility that at the moment Oswald was supposed to have been shooting Kennedy, he may actually have been standing outside the front door watching the motorcade. .... I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   It seems as though these devilishly-clever conspirators forgot one important thing when they were setting up LHO -- they forgot their brains. For, who WITH brains would allow their lone "Patsy" to casually drift outside and be photographed and seen by countless witnesses when the plotters need to have Lee Harvey on the 6th Floor at 12:30? Per Mr. Garrison's account of Oswald possibly being "Doorway Man", evidently the real assassins were indeed brainless and lacked the common sense to keep Oswald where he wouldn't be able to establish a credible alibi for his 12:30 whereabouts.
   
   Just think about these Garrison remarks for a moment longer too -- "At least five or six shots were fired at the President from front and rear ... by at least four gunmen".
   
   Doesn't a "4-Shooter, 6-Shot, 1-Patsy" assassination plot seem a bit unlikely to anyone else but this writer? Would any professional killers actually attempt to "frame" a lone fall guy in that type of overkill fashion? In my opinion, no pro hit men would go about the complicated task of setting up Oswald (or anybody else) in such a needlessly-reckless way.
   
   A single "pro" hit man could have easily killed JFK with one or two shots (probably just one) from Oswald's "nest", without the need to clog the works with needless back-up gunmen hiding all around Dealey Plaza.
   
   There is no possible way the conspirators could have ensured the success of a multi-shooter plot to frame JUST Oswald in the minutes during and after the shooting. No way. There are way too many uncontrollable factors that could block the success of that One-Patsy venture that Jim Garrison placed his faith in.
   
   "Uncontrollable" items such as:
   
   1.) A frontal shooter might very well have been seen by witnesses (and to think that EVERY witness under the sun could be easily "bought", "taken care of", and/or coerced by these plotters is, again, just too much wishful thinking on the conspirators' part, IMO).
   
   2.) A frontal shooter might strike other occupants in the car, or strike somebody else in Dealey Plaza. But even if ONLY Kennedy is hit by a frontal gunman, there are massive problems to be "corrected" by the conspirators....bullets to be hidden and, of course, who knows how many obvious frontal wounds on the victim to be (somehow) eliminated -- and eliminated immediately before any non-conspirators can spill any beans. .... Only a person straight out of the booby hatch could believe that anyone, regardless of "power" or "pull", could get away with such a thing. It's just plain loony.
   
   3.) The one "Patsy" (Oswald) could have easily, by pure accident and happenstance, established a perfect alibi for himself at the time when he was supposed to be on the 6th Floor shooting the President (as Mr. Garrison apparently DID think occurred, with Oswald being seen in a photo taken as the bullets were flying; even though all reasonable researchers know full well that "Doorway Man" was actually Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald; Lovelady even testified to that effect in 1964). ....
   
   Plus -- If Oswald had really been in that doorway at 12:30, WHY ON EARTH DIDN'T HE SAY HE WAS THERE?! If he's got an ironclad alibi like that, why wouldn't he use it? Instead, he says not a word about being outside on the steps at 12:30, and even tells the police a provable lie re. his whereabouts (the lie about "having lunch with Junior {Jarman}" at the time of the shooting). How much sense does that make if Oswald had really been in the Depository doorway? ....
   
   And the very fact that Oswald did NOT have a usable, provable alibi for exactly 12:30 PM is absolutely remarkable IF he had really been wandering around on the lower floors of the Depository (or was outside the building), as many CTers firmly believe; and even the most rabid of conspiracy theorists have got to admit, that from the "CT/Patsy" POV, Oswald's not having a usable/believable/solid alibi is certainly, by far, the biggest piece of LUCK in the whole "Patsy Plot". ....
   
   These amazing Patsy Plotters just lucked out, evidently, in that Oswald was not seen by a single person inside or outside the TSBD at precisely the time of the assassination -- except by Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, and Robert Edwards, of course, who saw Oswald or a nicely-arranged Oswald "imposter" in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 or just seconds before 12:30.
   
   4.) And the likelihood that all of the non-TSBD bullets are going to somehow get swept under the rug is extremely remote, especially in a Bob Groden-like scenario. Mr. Groden (per his book "The Killing Of A President"), incredibly, has ZERO of the shots coming from the Oswald window, and a total of up to TEN shots being fired...and ALL OF THEM coming from rifles other than the one rifle these idiot plotters are going to attempt to frame Oswald with! Could Groden's scenario BE any more reckless and preposterous?! I doubt it.
   
   5.) And a biggie, that most CTers evidently don't think could have ever happened before 12:30 on November 22nd -- The one Patsy (Mr. LHO) could "get wise" to the plot that is brewing all around him and take measures to guarantee he could never be blamed for the actual assassination of John Kennedy.
   
   When thinking about any "Frame Lee Oswald As The One Patsy" plan, I just cannot visualize any professional assassins (even for a minute) contemplating the use of multiple shooters; let alone some gunmen firing from the Grassy Knoll, i.e., the exact opposite direction from where their single dupe is supposed to be located.
   
   ---------------------
   
   As the previously-mentioned quotes from the mouth of Mr. Garrison amply demonstate, if anyone has a desire to set out "On The Trail Of A Lunatic Conspiracy Theorist" -- look no further than Earling Carothers (Jim) Garrison.



3. I avoided reading this book when it was first published thinking it was but a mere rehash of Garrison's earlier book "A Heritage of Stone." However, thirty years on, I have pleasantly discovered that I was greatly mistaken. "On the Trail of the Assassins" is not a rehash, but stands quite sufficiently on its own.
   
   More than anything else, it is first a devastating critique of the Warren Commission's Report; perhaps the best there is so far. Second, it is written by a first-class legal mind. And whatever else one might say about Jim Garrison, it is difficult to ignore the fact that he has one of the best legal minds in this nation. Third, it is a summary report of the Garrison investigation, which again, it is difficult to ignore that Garrison, on a shoe string budget, and with a handful of mostly volunteers, did a much better job investigating the JFK assassination than all of the nation's institutional police and intelligence machinery combined. And finally, the book is Garrison's own defense of the case he lost against the only man ever to be charged with JFK's assassination, Clay Shaw.
   
   As a critique, Garrison attacks the slipshod way in which federal and Texas investigations pursued (or failed to pursue) the evidence and suspects -- other than the "carefully prepared patsy" Lee Harvey Oswald. Among these ways is the fact that Oswald was interrogated for more than 30 hours without a transcript; that the three tramps found in the rail car a few feet from the grassy knoll were released without even recording their names; and the general lack of curiosity on the part of the FBI and Dallas police authorities in following leads, protecting evidence, and in interrogating witnesses.
   
   Garrison's legal astuteness is on display in a number of ways in the book: in the way he corralled information from informants; the way he collated and peeled back his evidence to attain maximum courtroom effect; the way he shaped theories based on where the evidence led; and in the way he parried defense moves and the counter-moves against him made generally by the federal authorities, who curiously always viewed him as a threat and hindrance to their limp but "predetermined" investigation.
   
   With only a handful of investigators, researchers and contributors, Garrison fell just short of cracking the crime of the century. One must wonder out loud what would have happened if, instead of trying to derail and undermine his investigation, the government would have supported him?
   
   It seemed clear even to Garrison, that his case against Clay Shaw was a lost cause even before he entered the courtroom. However, if one looks carefully at the theoretical framework Garrison constructed, in which Shaw was just one of a number of important elements, it is clear that Garrison was on the right track; and that Shaw's acquittal was more about the lack of witnesses to confirm Garrison's evidence, than it was about Shaw's guilt or innocence. That is why after forty years, a great deal, if not all of Garrison's theory has been borne out.
   
   .Whether you believe Garrison's theories or not, this book is a report on investigative, legal, and police work of a very high order. Five Stars.



4. Now, maybe some people aren't interested in Mr. Garrison's point of view - but I am. And so are many others who repeatedly give On The Trail Of The Assassins a deservedly high mark. He was there in New Orleans and KNEW PERSONALLY most of the major players. How many investigators can say that? His overall conclusion of conspiracy is the same as many, many other independent researchers and the conclusion of 80 percent of the general public (Bugliosi be damned), only he was way ahead of his time. Had he known nothing of the truth surrounding the assassination, the CIA would never have bothered to smear his character or try ruin his investigation of JFK's murder by stealing his files for the trial of Clay Shaw. And yet it is Garrison who is accused of not playing fair. That's right... black is white, and white is black.
   
   This book is one of my favorites in the assassination canon. It is brilliantly written, soulful, human, and full of observations about gov't and how it sometimes changes without the people being invited to the party. He knew of Oswald (murdered by Ruby), Ferrie ("suicide"), Bannister ("heart attack" in 1964) and Shaw (no autopsy ever done) - and had most of them not died under conspicuously strange circumstances, Garrison would never have been placed in the position of being the Lone-Nut scape goat for their lack of honesty and insight into this murder investigation - an investigation that is still continuing, though with little help from some of the people who should have known better after all these years.
   
   Garrison's investigation and the trial of Clay Shaw were the inevitable result of the corrupt Warren Commission cover-up. Had the Warren Commission done its job and followed up leads in the first place, Garrison would never have ended up in the position of being the whipping boy for the Oswald as Lone-nut contingent. It was only through the efforts of Garrison that the Zapruder film ("back... and to the left") was viewed for the first time and the public began to see how dishonest the Warren Commision and the CIA were in lying to the American people about at least one more shooter.
   
   Recent revelations about secret CIA assassinations plots can no longer be denied and now are out in the open in recent news events. It's your country. You might think of the 40-year tailspin the country has been in since our president was killed and the efforts of private citizens who've tried to expose the CIA skullduggery during the Kennedy years and beyond. Garrison took on these covert agencies in the name of justice, and had not Clay Shaw lied his head off under oath during his trial, it's conceivable that Garrison would have won and Shaw end up on a chain-gang where he belonged. In a conversation with Oliver Stone, Judge Haggarty, who presided over the Shaw trial, said that he himself never believed a word Shaw said. (This is discussed on the JFK special features dvd.)
   
   The people of the country know all too well that Oswald didn't act alone - that is, if he shot anyone at all - and they're not about to let this conspiracy investigation end until the Federal gov't comes clean with what it knows. Every year more is being found out about certain participants, such as H. Howard Hunt's involvement, or David Morales, who was quoted as saying he was involved with the assassination of both JFK and RFK. Such revelations further vindicate Garrision's conclusion that the CIA was involved in the murder of Kennedy. Hunt and Morales (a man Hunt mentions) were both CIA. Gee, there seems to be a pattern here unless one has been playing ostrich with these recent CIA revelations.
   
   In the meantime, those who continue to smear Garrison are only making themselves small in comparison. They're not worthy to shine the shoes of this great man - a hero in every sense of the word in this sordid tale of political corruption, murder and media cover-up. Ten stars for On The Trail Of The Assassins and Jim Garrision. ZERO stars for the now documented CIA interference of Garrison's investigation and the perjury on the witness-stand of Clay Shaw. Even certain pro-conspiracy researchers wrongly denegrate Garrison and they should be ashamed of themselves now that Garrison's conclusions are being vindicated. They haven't half the courage of a Garrison, and no one other than he and Mark Lane have ever had the balls to take any of these arrogant, politically criminal jerks to trial (H. Howard Hunt by Lane) for lying about their complicity in the murder and cover-up of Kennedy's assassination. And I'm not the only citizen who feels this way. For more information on the coup d'etat in Dallas, read District Attorney Garrison's revealing book and witness courage under fire.... Grow up, America.



5. The year was 1969, and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison was preparing to make history. The often criticized Garrison had arrested local/international businessman Clay Shaw in conspiring to assassinate the President of The United States, John F. Kennedy. Garrison would accuse Shaw of Conspiring primarily with the CIA, to overthrow the Kennedy regime so that the Military/Industrial Complex could invade and overthrow Cuba and start a war in Southeast Asia. A mere three days after President Kennedy had been gunned down, the new President (Lyndon Baines Johnson) signed National Security Action Memo 273, which reversed Kennedy's withdrawl plans from Viet Nam and escalated the conflict, which eventually led to what is now known as the Viet Nam War. This outline is the backdrop for Garrison's book.
   
   As is well-known, "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books credited in creating the motion picture and Academy Award Nominated Movie: JFK (along with Jim Marr's fine book "Crossfire"; please see my review of that book too!). So if you're looking for an exact duplication of the movie, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that Garrison goes into much more detail and background then even the three-hour movie-thriller could provide. The one drawback and criticism that I have of the movie, the book, and of Garrison himself, was the lack of detailed information surrounding Jack Ruby's connections and associates who may have assisted the CIA in murdering the President. There are very few investigators these days who would rebuke Garrison on suggesting that the intelligence community within the United States orchestrated and carried out the murder of our 35th President. However, without even mentioning Ruby's role, even if it was only in taking orders from our government, Garrison undermines his own investigation and therefore this otherwise excellent book.
   
   In closing, this is an extremely well written book, with lots of behind-the-scenes info that only a very few were privy to. Garrison is an excellent writer, and more importantly, was most likely correct in almost all aspects of the conspiracy. If this book is not in your own personal library, then most likely you're not fully aware of all the nuances of this case. This book is a must read!

2 comments about Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth Anout the Unknown Relationship Between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK.

1. How `bout this scenario ...
   
   The good `ol Texas Oil Boys (increasingly invested in defense industries) want to control, possibly by eliminating, JFK so as to expand & preserve the nation's War Economy, about which JFK seems to have had second thoughts, with an eye on de-emphasis.
   
   So they hire the C.I.A. to deal with the issue; especially in the case of the need to off Kennedy, whom else would YOU hire to kill the U.S. president on American soil?
   
   The C.I.A. (as in "Corporate Interests of America") tries first to muscle their way past Kennedy in a showdown over Vietnam in the months just prior to 11/22/63, a "last chance" of sorts for the President.
   
   But then, the decision to kill him becomes necessary & final and the C.I.A. does the dirty deed, providing a covert operation complete with designated patsy at no extra charge and backed by a fine "cover thy butt" propaganda & hit squad apparatus.
   
   Madeline Brown has publicly stated that LBJ emphatically informed her that the assassination was the work of "the Texas oil boys and the C.I.A," a connection well represented and aptly symbolized in the form of Texan and C.I.A. bigwig David Atlee Phillips.
   
   In the immediate aftermath of the murder, the hotshots from Texas exert their influence over the Dallas Police while LBJ and Hoover exert their powerful oversight of any potential independent inquiries. In addition, Johnson's new power as the nation's Chief Executive very quickly puts him into position to control the autopsy of JFK at Bethesda (as the new Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces) and soon after to force Earl Warren to head up a Johnson-controlled committee of investigation.
   
   The short-term goal of eliminating John Fitzgerald Kennedy has been stated, and begins paying off when the U.S. fakes an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin less than a year later that sparks the Vietnam War, and tons of profits for the likes of Brown & Root, Bell Helicopter and LTV.
   
   And that's the truth! (With some details provided by Mr. Newman)



2. This is The Documentary evidence That Oswald was an American Intelligence operative who was a Radar operator in the CIA Top Secret Base in Atsugi Japan,was Trained in the Russian Language by ONI and sent to Russia as a Phony Defector!!This is who LHO was,and this is my firm conviction about him.of course the Govt has been in the Business of disinformation and obfuscation of the truth about his Real identity and his Place in history.Excellent Book!!!!!!

1 comments about Julius Caesar (Cliffs Notes).

1. James Vickers' Cliffs Notes for Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" begins with a short biography of the Bard that focuses on what little the historical record tells us about the man. A Brief Synopsis of the Play is followed by a List of Characters that not only tells us who they are but their primary roles in the play. The Summary and Commentary section of the volume breaks down the play scene by scene, and the best way of using this or any other little yellow book with the black stripes is to read the commentary after you have read each scene of the play. This is especially important with Shakespeare because the dialogue is so important and Vickers does not work in as many choice lines as some of the other Cliffs Notes for Shakespeare plays. You cannot deal with Shakespeare if you do not know the key lines. The last section dealing with Character Analyses looks as Caesar, Antony, Octavius, Brutus and Cassius, referring back to the analysis already established regarding the individual scenes. What you will not get from this volume if you are teaching/reading "Julius Caesar" is how the play touches upon the political realities of Elizabethean England. But Vickers does an excellent job throughout of capturing how Shakespeare uses the play to manipulate the audience. Remember, the celebrated funeral oration by Marc Antony is being listened to on stage by a Roman mob that is being watched by an audience of Londoners in the theater. This is one of the better jobs at capturing how Shakespeare constructed a play.

5 comments about Term Limits.

1. Get this one! The character Fitzgerald makes you think of that son of a bootlegger, that old murdering lush, Senator Teddy Kennedy. Mark Pumphrey's review in the Library Journal is just another liberally biased review from your typical left wing lunatic, probably saw some of the bozos he voted for represented in these characters. Great read and a page turner, would recommend to all but the mental midget Pumhprey.



2. This was a "nail biter" for me!! Great reading and a fast read, despite the 500 pages. I just found another favorite author to read.



3. If you want a real page turner, that you can't put down this is it. My only regret is that it ended. Can't wait for the next Vince Flynn book. He really knows how to keep it moving.



4. As a fan of Vince Flynn this was the last of his current titles that I hadn't read yet. Nobody that likes his other titles should be dissapointed in this one. The concept of the book makes, especially in todays economy, easilly grabs your attention.



5. Great Book, Vince Flynn is the king of the political thriller, then in his other books once Mitch Rapp is introduced, all great
   
   Great Great reads, I highly recommend them, I have read all nine of his books

5 comments about Transfer Of Power (Mitch Rapp Novels).

1. Unfortunately, I read Flynn's thrillers in reverse sequential order, but it made no difference. Rapp is some guy and I am sure we have men of his caliber today, who can't be utilized due to the politicians. Realistic picture of our political leaders today and presidential candidates. We need more people in positions of power like Stansfield. Rapp knows the enemy and knows what to do with them. Take them out before they have the chance to destroy you and your country. Great read and wish more would realize the truth in Flynn's fiction(?). Okay, so you can still get rid of the girl, but the courage and quick thinking of Rapp makes up for her. Highly recommend all of his books to anyone.



2. What a horrible book! I tried to read it but I just couldn't take it anymore. I stopped in the middle of what this writer considers action, and I don't even care how it ends.
   There are just too many unjustified descriptions obviously put it to make the book long. Thus writer must want long books like Clancy but is going about it the wrong way. I don't care to know what color a lady's fingernails are when she points at something. I don't care what kind of shirt someone is wearing. I don't care about this book nor Vince Flynn's other books.
   Way too many incorrect references. One example is MP-5's are used not MP-10's unless you want to kill everybody including the hostages. Also at the beginning why even bother with a SEAL team if the "hero" of the book does all the work. I know that writers want to show their character as a bad to the bone but even James Bond always called in help and even let them do some of the fighting.
   If this is the standard of writing to expect from todays writers then I am missing out, because I have some stories that I wrote when I was 5 that are better than this. Heck I could even start writing now. It seams that no research is required anymore to get the mass public to make a star out of a writer like Vince Flynn.
   There is no way that I will ever pass this book onto someone else. I won't even donate it, I will just burn it.



3. I first heard (or read, rather) about Flynn while browsing on Amazon. I found this book in a used book store and decided to give it a try. I was thinking maybe it would be overly patriotic and flag waving, and it's certainly no doubt that Flynn's loyalty is with Israel when it comes to the middle east, but it didn't make the novel less enjoyable.
   
   Becusue enjoyable it is. Flynn combines great action with political intrigue and despite being almost 550 pages (paperback edition) the pace never slows down. The book has good characters but there's not really any character development. Mitch Rapp is a good hero and I wouldn't mind reading more of Flynn's books. Recommended



4. This is the second Flynn novel that I have read, and I had higher hopes with the introduction of Mitch Rapp. The first novel was a bit better, mainly because this seems a little drawn out. The dialogue is weaker, and character development is minimal. The action sequences are pretty good, but they make up a small portion of the book. My favorite authors are Lee Child, and Barry Eisler. True, neither writes a political thriller, but the character development is far superior, and the action/violence is well choreographed.



5. I found that reading the series begun with Term Limits, it helps to read them in order of writing, as they build on previous issues. Transfer of Power is the second in the series, and I found it very hard to put down, just as I did Term Limits. I have finished the next two in the series, The Third Option and Separation of Powers, and I find all of Flynn's books full of incredible knowledge of the FBI, CIA and a full grasp of the pitiful inadequacy of our present Congress and the political system in general. I strongly recommend that all Americans read these books. All those who think "all is well" in Washington will have their eyes opened.

5 comments about White House Autumn.

1. Like its predecessor, I found myself unable to put the book down until I had read the very last page. I stayed up until 5 in the morning to finish it, and it was worth every minute (good thing I didn't have work the next day). Not as light as The President's Daughter, the first book in the trilogy, White House Autumn is bit more depressing and a bit more adult as it tells what happens to Meg and her family when her mother, the President, is shot. It's a serious subject, and the author deals with it in a very mature, realistic and sympathic way. Of course, all of the other great qualities of the first book is still present in this one. The characters are as likable as ever, especially Meg's best friend, Beth, who I'm sure would've been my idol had I read this book when I was younger. The conversation is witty, and the situations and the way the characters deal with them are very true to life. Admittedly not as great as the President's Daughter, but nevertheless a wonderful wonderful read. Try to get your hands on this one.



2. This is the best book ever! I love the president's daughter. She is the Best. Always getting out of sticky situations. I don't know how she does it? When her mother, The President,gets shot(a really sticky situation) she is forced to mature like never before. It teaches girls of all ages what can happen any day, even if your the prresident's daughter! A real life, well almost, look into the life of the first family.



3. This is the best book ever! I love the president's daughter. She is the Best. Always getting out of sticky situations. I don't know how she does it? When her mother, The President,gets shot(a really sticky situation) she is forced to mature like never before. It teaches girls of all ages what can happen any day, even if your the president's daughter! A real life, well almost, look into the life of the first family.



4. I have read and reread (and loved, especially the first one) all three Meghan Powers books in their original editions. I am grateful to Hawk Publishing for reprinting these three books (now called the "President's Daughter" series) so that more people can enjoy them, but I do feel that people should know that these reprints are not high quality. They are trade paperbacks with bindings that seem sturdy enough, but the text is not at all crisp -- in fact, it looks like the publisher may have enlarged the pages from the original mass market editions on a Xerox machine and then reprinted these new editions from those copies. I am basing this guess on the fact that the text looks enlarged and somewhat blurry.

   The covers of all three of the reprint editions are hideous; the first one shows a girl who looks to be about 8 or 10 years old instead of a teenager, and the "White House Autumn" cover is not much better. The price is also steep at $14.95. I can excuse that on the basis that Hawk is probably a small press, and small presses find it hard to make ends meet.

   If you can get past all that, these books are marvelous to read. "White House Autumn" continues to use Meg's unique voice and sense of humor. The book also deals with Meg's feelings of guilt when her mother is the subject of an assassination attempt. Again, I am grateful to Hawk for reprinting these, even if the quality is a little disappointing.




5. Although this is technically a YA book, the only real "teen" thing about it is Meg's age. She, her siblings, parents and various White House personas are thoroughly fleshed out, as well as the multitude of psychological issues that come along with being the child of a president. White intertwines this with Meg's thoughts -- usually zany, humorous or sarcastic -- which keep it from ever becoming too serious.

5 comments about The Art of Political Murder: Who Killed the Bishop?.

1. I'm surprised by David Stoll's review of Goldman's book. I had a very different reaction when I read it. Like both Stoll and Goldman, I have lived in Guatemala and written about the history and impact of political violence in the country. In addition, as a human rights lawyer, I have worked with prosecutors, rights advocates, and victims in countries throughout the region as they've struggled to ensure that cases like the Gerardi assassination do not end in impunity.
   
   Knowing first-hand the complexities of such cases, I found that Goldman did a masterful job of sifting through the evidence in the Gerardi case and reaching conclusions that were entirely judicious, sober, and convincing. Part of what makes the book so fascinating, in fact, is Goldman's very careful exploration of the limits and strengths of the case put together by the prosecutors and the Archbishop's Office--the contradictory testimonies, the dubious witnesses, etc. And what makes the book such a gripping read is how Goldman, a phenomenal storyteller, narrates the inevitably imperfect but remarkably audacious effort by a group of young lawyers to do something that most of their countrymen thought entirely impossible at the time--bring high level military officers to justice.
   
   This is easily one of the best books written about political violence in Latin America in the past several decades.



2. I got the book expecting to find insightful and unbiased investigation through the point of view of ODHA. Nevertheless, the author views are totally biased in favor of the ODHA lawyers and the Public Ministry. This feature of the book helped me to confirm that the arguments used by them to sentence the two military officers, and the catholic father to 20 years in jail are based on untrustful witnesses and false declarations, which are still supported by the author. The only good thing about this book is that it motivated me to read once again the book "Quien mató al obispo?" written by Maite Rico and Bertrand de Lagrange, which I think that contains much more trustful data, and that I wish it gets translated into English to broader its difussion. I hope that the inocent military people who are now in jail, as a result of an undeserved and unfair sentence could, sometime soon, be free.



3. Frankly, I wasn't at all sure about this book when I picked it up but I'm so glad I did. It's filled with much detailed and historically fascinating information, including personalities, and written exceptionally well. I simply could not put it down. If you're remotely interested in the topic, READ THIS BOOK.



4. The reviews here seem to fall into 3 camps: the "it's a perfect masterpiece"" camp, the "he was duped by ODHA - 'who killed biship' got it right" camp, and the "he is a lefist fool" camp. I belong to none of these, so let me throw my two cents in here....
   
   I spent a brief time in Guatemala doing human rights work in the mid 80's (a shout out to any PBI alums in the house :)), and so was interested in the subject matter, and had at least a glancing acquaintance with the horrid murderous travesty that was the Guatemalan government, as well as the impenetrable fog of denials, mis-statements, forgeries, violence, hidden agendas, disappearances and murk that hid virtually any attempt to get at any truth.
   
   I found the first half of the book (which focuses on the "who-done-it") outstanding. Here Goldman relates the story of the investigation - the false leads, the disappearing witnesses, the hopelessly (and deliberately) contanimated crime scene, the (deliberately) conflicting evidence, the overlapping areas (and agendas) of the investigators, etc. That the investigators were able to finally pierce it (not completely, but most crimes never are) is just amazing, especially given the very real threat to themselves and their families.
   
   I think the other reviewers who criticize this book for not analyzing the case for/against Monsenor Mario, or for not analyzing the case made by 'who killed the bishop' are being unfair - goldman spends a _lot_ of time on each of these, especially the latter, to the point that you could almost criticize the book for over-focusing on it. Similarly, I think criticizing the book for not telling more of the story of the defendants is ludicrous - when your primary interactions with a defendant consist of their giving you death threats, it's hard to go much further!
   
   The problem with the book lies in the second half, what is called the "second crime" - the multi-year "war of attrition" against the verdict, year after year of judicial games, wars in the press, maneuver after maneuver. Here, while I appreciate the author's work in showing us just how deeply broken the justice system and press were (and are), I just felt the book became a less interesting read - we know who done it, we know why, now we read chapter after chapter of frustration (although it sure made me glad I've never been a guest of the Guatemalan Penal system!). One last cavil - another reviewer says that Goldman never walks us through the final 'best guess' of the final crime, minute by minute - oh yes he does, it's near the end.
   
   So in summary - a good book, an important book, a book alternately deeply depressing and deeply inspring, but not a great _read_, the only reason I am marking it down a little.



5. I've been to Guatemala many times before and since Bishop Juan Gerardi's murder, and Francisco Goldman electrifies readers of "The Art of Political Murder" about one famous Guatemalan murder among thousands of others. His title using "the art" is so well chosen, since that word expresses so well the clever yet insidious minds who designed his murder. Despite those clever designers and their plots to hide their crime, and at the same time because of the courage of many Guatemalans in pursuing those murderers, some element of justice has been meted out to them.
   I found Goldman's chronicle of the assassination of Bishop Gerardi to be so engaging that it encourages a reading almost without stopping.