No comments about A Case Study in the Insanity Defense- The Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr. (Academic Text/Reader).

No comments about Three Roman Plays (Penguin Classics).

5 comments about Lincoln and Booth: More Light on the Conspiracy.

1. Lincoln And Booth: More Light On The Conspiracy is a close and revealing study of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination. Journalist, historian, and political scientist H. Donald Winkler sheds new light on the possible conspiracies and motives that may have been a factor in Lincoln's assassination. Black and white photographs combined with deftly researched and presented evidence make for an insightful and highly commended study of a terrible political murder that was to serve as a grim and symbolic epilogue to the American Civil War. Lincoln And Booth is an invaluable contribution to Civil War Studies reference collections and Lincoln Studies reading lists.



2. While not always an exciting read, LINCOLN AND BOOTH will give the reader lots to ponder regarding the various characters surrounding the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Author H. Donald Winkler has done extensive research and provides lots of insight into the major and minor players in the assassination of President Lincoln and the subsequent investigation. Winkler is obviously passionately interested in his subjects and some of his revelations are shocking. Were certain officials in the US Government actually Confederate sympathizers? Was Lincoln's Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, part of the conspiracy? Stanton rushed to prosecute and execute 4 conspirators while ignoring others who played important roles in the conspiracy. Did he refuse clemency to the first female executed by the US government knowing she may have only been a minor player in the conspiracy? Did the assassination involve more than a handful of conspirators or does the path lead back to the White House and even the Confederate government? His research is extensive and there is plenty of fuel for thought but no conclusive answers the mystery of the conspiracy. Stories of missing documents and diaries fuel the conjecture. The suggestion that there was a much larger conspiracy is overwhelmingly strong. LINCOLN AND BOOTH is well worth a read for anyone interested in this fascinating period of history.



3. I've always been intrigued by the poor security given to the President during, literally, a time of civil war. "Lincoln and Booth" spent a good time on the characters and situations involved with this matter. What was also excellent was the questions posed by Winkler regarding the guard who accompanied Lincoln to Ford's theater, both prior to and after the assassination. It adds to the notion of conspiracy surrounding Lincoln's killing.



4. A Deluded Southern Sympathizer:
   
   He sprang from a great family of actors; his brother Edwin was an accomplished stage actor. J. W. did his deed so as to be famous in his own right. Many books have been written about John Wilkes Booth's participation in the Lincoln death. It is sad that so much blame was put on his shoulders.
   
   I have been interested in Lincoln's assassination for over twenty years, mainly because they hanged Mary Surrat, the first woman to be officially killed in this manner. It was at her boardinghouse where the conspirators met to discuss and plan killing Lincoln and others in his Cabinet.
   
   John Wilkes Booth, from a prominent acting family, was a Confederacy sympathizer. But that in itself does not make him guilty. He was denied his right to a trial. Most of the South were more than a little upset when Lincoln was inaugurated for the second time. They refused to accept him as "our" President. We had Jefferson Davis whose daughter married Zachary Taylor. I don't believe old Zach was a Rebel.
   
   "Killing Lincoln' as a one-man theatrical presentation, written by Amy Russell, was originally premiered in Toronto, Canada. I emphatized with the young actor (who I thought was an old man, as he is such a good actor) who said, "I enjoyed playing off you." I told him the reason he held my complete attention was due to the fact that I had read so much about Lincoln and also sympathized with Booth's reasoning.
   
   Lincoln as it so happens was a Shakespeare fan and enjoyed going to Ford's Theatre. John Wilkes Booth (Brutus) was one of the most promising young Shakespearean actors of his day. Booth considered Lincoln an "American Caesar." Booth has been called "American Brutus." His father was named Brutus for sure.
   
   He was a very handsome man and, even though he broke his leg in the leap to the stage (instead of running down the back stairs), he eluded capture with the help of a Dr. Mudd for twelve days. He was not given a chance to tell his side and the complex, misleading reasons he did what he did. That took fortitude! He did not act alone! That's a major issue. He was cornered in that barn like an animal and burned (at the stake) by the vigilante cowards.
   
   He was merely a misinformed player who ended up "on his own" after the dasdardly deed. He deserves better than to be called a devil. To some, he was an avenging angel. Terry Weber played the dual role in the Knoxville production of "Killing Lincoln," and had both Lincoln and Booth down pat. I have read many books about Abraham Lincoln but not so many about John Wilkes Booth -- but am working on it.



5. I had just finished "American Brutus" by Kauffman when I picked this book up. In contrast to Kauffman's thesis that Booth was a singular mastermind who manipulated his friends and co-conspirators (and deliberately left a trail that would look like a vast conspiracy), this book takes the view that Booth was more of a cog in the larger Confederate plan late in the war. It is well worth reading the two books in sequence, as they view the same information so differently.
   
   As another reviewer has touched upon, I also was fascinated to learn about the problems/mysteries surrounding Lincoln's security detail on the night of the assassination. It was hard not to see a larger conspiracy as Winkler describes the Montreal-Confederate connections, the curious behavior of Edwin Stanton, and the backgrounds of several Booth accomplices (particularly Powell and Surratt).
   
   The book is accessible, though probably not as a way to first become familiarized with the subject matter. The story is less 'exciting' to read than Swanson's "Manhunt" (this by NO means detracted from my enjoyment - I much prefer the more 'scholarly' approach here); the information presented, and the detail with which the thesis is developed make this a valuable addition to any collection.

5 comments about Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy.

1. Like most of the JFK conspiracy books, David Scheim's "Contract On America" offers a lot of footnotes and sources, but not one shred of evidence the mob was involved in the murder of John Kennedy--a theory that, though widely held in some quarters, holds virtually no water at all...
   
   Had Robert F Kennedy as Attorney General (who had come down heavily on the mob in the early 60's) received a scintilla of evidence of mob involvement in Dallas, the entire US Justice Department would have come down on organized crime with a wrath unprecented in U.S. history.
   
   Aside from the fact that all the known ballistic and scientific evidence points to Oswald as the lone assassin, the idea that the Mob would use a psychotic wild card like Oswald in an assassination plot is borderline ludricrous.
   
   Scheim, however, does come up with one little obscure fact, previously unknown....prior to the assassination Jack Ruby made some phone calls to Mike Shore, an executive at Sinatra's Reprise records; and after Ruby shot Oswald, Shore offered assistance in finding Ruby an attorney.
   



2. This book by David Scheim serves as a nice companion volume to John Davis' "Mafia Kingfish" and is required reading for those interested in the Mafia's motive for killing JFK. That said, the book is a tad dated now and certainly does not cover all the bases. Still, for the area (s) it does tackle, it is to be commended.
   Vince Palamara



3. This book goes beyond the subject of the JFK assassination to a decades-long history of corruption and murder on the national scene.
   The first part of the book gives examples of Mafia killings using a "nut" or "patsy".
   Mr.Scheim tells of some interesting ties between D.A. Jim Garrison and members of the Marcello organization.Also of interest was his indictment on bribery charges.
   
   The author also details activity involving the Warren Commission.-
   *Earl Warren's reluctance to be part of the commission.
   *The prepared book handed out to members by Allen Dulles advocating that all American assassinations were perpetrated by a lone,demented gunman.
   *Abundant editing and deleting any documentation of Jack Ruby's obvious links to Organized Crime.
   
   J.Edgar Hoover's relationship with Frank Costello explains his deep involvement in the cover-up.
   
   Mr.Scheim covers Lyndon Johnson and his ability to manipulate people as well as the payoffs he accepted from the Teamsters and Mafia.
   
   Financial links of the Sicilian Mafia to the Vatican as well as U.S.banking institutions was also highlighted in the book.
   
   This is a an excellent book about the Mafia's involvement in political corruption and assassinations.Mr Scheim has done a good job in researching the subject.



4. The best book on the JFK assasination that I have ever read. An outstanding case for mafia involvement in the president's murder. Like the Academy Award winning film, The Departed, this book reveals the often blurred line between criminals and law enforcement. Jack Ruby is the real key to understanding that there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. Contract on America offers a very revealing look at Ruby, that I believe is the most accurate description published to date. This book's perspective on "the crime of the century" is highly focused, and supported with details based on facts. It is an exciting book that will give any reader a better understanding of the personalities and events surrounding the JFK assasination.



5. Ive Read many books on the JFK Assassination and this is one of the best!!very well written and researched.consider that the WC concluded that Jack Ruby had no ties to organized crime compare to the evidence that the Author presents in this book makes more sense than the WC Conclusions even if you choose to believe the official Govt Account that ''Oswald did it Alone''(:.Highly recommended and intriguing reading!!!

1 comments about The Warren Report of the President's Commision 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.

5 comments about The Night Attila Died: Solving the Murder of Attila the Hun.

1. First off, I'll disagree with this author and say that philology is in most ways an art, not a concrete science. His suggestion that by somehow reading into the subtext of existing and later documentary evidence regarding Attila's demise we can prove a 1,600-year-old act of murder is at best too optimistic and at worst absurdity itself, since from the start, rumor, hearsay and misinformation have been prevalent regarding the end of the great Hunnish king. I felt this book deserved four stars instead of the three I nearly gave it because Michael Babcock was obviously well-versed on his subject matter's life and the period in which he existed, but I cannot see clear to rating this book higher simply because it fails to achieve the lofty goal its author set for himself and promised in the title. Had this been a straightforward biography of Attila, I'd have been more impressed, since the life and times of this figure were indeed nicely-covered. Babcock also delves into the psychological effect the Hunnish invasions had on the populace of Europe, and I was impressed when at the start of chapter seven there was a discussion the discovery in modern times of a number of children's skeletons in and around Lugnano, Italy, dating to the time of Attila. Though victims of a malaria outbreak, it is the fact that these young people of a supposedly Christian era were interred via burial practices that harkened back to customs of pagan Rome that proves telling. Babcock and others feel that so terrifying to the Italians was the concept that Attila was coming, that they abandoned for a time the Christianity of their age in favor of a return to the earlier religion of a more glorious Rome. Fascinating stuff! Attila may very well have been murdered, since the means and motive were there, but I do not feel Babcock proved that a murder took place, and I don't think that after so long a time it is likely a smoking gun will ever come to light. The "Exhibits" Babcock uses to conclude the book were the most unimpressive pieces to his story. Instead of presenting conclusive evidence, Babcock tosses in everything but the proverbial kitchen sink, and offers nothing but circumstantial evidence that we already knew about. While a good read and a sound investigation of the age of Attila the Hun, this book does not prove he was murdered, only re-hashes the long-speculated fact that he might have been.



2. I waited with much anticipation for Babcock's book because I love historical mysteries. Sadly I have to say that I was disappointed in his effort. I definately feel that it could have benefitted from firmer editing. Babcock has a tendency to go off on tangents that make following his narrative more challenging than it should be. For example he spends a great deal of time arguing that one should take any historic account with a grain of salt because people back then were just as prone, as folks are now, to skew their accounts to a particular point of view. I have no argument with this and Babcock is right to make it, but he keeps bringing up this thought again and again to the point where I wanted to shout, "Okay, Okay, I get it!" As for his contention that Attila was murdered Babcock makes a good circumstantial case as to why this was done and who may have been behind it, but doesn't offer much in the way of particulars. For me this was a bit of a let down.
   
   I must say in the book's favor that Babcock's enthusiasm for his subject matter is quite infectious. It's obvious that he cares about this subject and whatever else one can say about the book it is not boring. He more than succeeded in getting me interested in late Roman history, something that I did not know a great deal about.
   
   So if you read the book just be ready to separate the wheat from the chaff.



3. Dr. Michael Babcock makes a compelling case that Attila the Hun did not die of natural causes - a nosebleed - but instead was murdered. Given the lifestyle Attila led, the liklihood of murder is a much higher probability in any case, than natural causes ... Like a modern detective the author examines the key players who had something to gain by Attila's death. He discovers the clues obtained from historical documents, some of which were altered in an attempt to mislead anyone who was looking for evidence, but just enough detail is left that points to an assasination plot which succeeded.
   
   The author suspected something was amiss in the generally accepted explanations for Attila's death when he was a student of philology (the study of reconstructing the past from words, taking into consideratin culture, history, phonetics and graphics). The author read the detailed account of Attila's death initially in the book "Gothic History" by Jordanes which included a tightly constructed explanation filled with precise details ... however the account was written a hundred years after Attila's death. It was written based on a historical document left by Priscus, a Fifth Century historian and diplomat. Priscus had attended Attila's court in 449 A.D. and a detailed description of this event survived in his autobiography. Unfortunately, Priscus's account of Attila's death did not survive, the only thing which remained was the second hand version written by Jordanes ...
   
   The most fascinating information contained within this book is how the politics of the past are revealed. At the time, the Roman Empire was separated into East and West: Marcinion was Emperor in the East and Valintinian III ruled as Emperor of Rome. Rome was losing some of its provinces as new nations in Europe were born from their ashes. Each of the two Empires had reasons to see Attila dead ... The book captures the imagination of the reader taking one back to ancient times. The reader's eyes are openedas to how different factions influenced and swayed each Empire and how power was wielded behind the scenes by those who could manipulate events to their own advantage. Whether or not the author is correct can not be factually proven but he provides enough information to make a great case for his side. Erika Borsos [pepper flower]



4. Other reviewers give you the whole book. I prefer to read it myself. And, this book provided new information (at least for me), an intelligent and logical progression of actions and reactions, and an interesting murder plot. I was particularly intrigued by how the author teased out his conclusions from fragments of the past and the use of language.
   A worthwhile book which should appeal to a wide variety of readers.



5. I must preface my review by stating that, before reading this book, I knew little about Attila other than his name. Overall, I found it to be a surprisingly fascinating and involving tale, and the "murder" thesis quite plausible. (The "died-of-a-nosebleed-while-in-a-drunken-stupor-on-his-wedding-night" yarn does indisputably sound like the setup for a really, really bad Monty Python sketch.) Unfortunately, the fact that no original, uncorrupted accounts of his death survive make it impossible to tell for certain what the first "official" account of Attila's death even really was. (If he was murdered, I'd like to think that even a bunch of Barbarians could cook up a better cover story than that.) However, I wish the author had shown a little modesty in pushing his theory. When your one source for a death is what one author said one earlier author said about one even earlier author's account, which itself was probably based on hearsay and propaganda...well, it's hard to be too sure of anything much. Babcock would perhaps have been better off just spelling out what little information we have, and let that speak for itself.
   
   That said, I'm still giving the book five stars, simply because, aside from being quite a lively read, it's inspired me to find out more about Attila and his decidedly strange times. I have to thank Babcock for that.
   
   By the way, am I the only one who would like to know, more than anything else involving this story, whatever became of Ildico?

5 comments about Presumed Guilty.

1. book is written in black and whites, no grey areas. It deals with only a few indisputable facts, for example: time line and placement. The book draws no conclusions nor does it make any suppositions. The book is very short and to the point, a must read for any one who has any intrest in the death of J.F.K.



2. Roffman's book would be an excellent text for a class in faulty logic. He contrives outlandish reasons for NOT believing compelling evidence (e.g., Oswald's fingerprints on the rifle and sniper's nest show that he was the shooter) and then contrives more outlandish reasons to suggest that a timeline of events shows Oswald could not have been at the 6th floor window. In Roffman's world, some conspirator would have had to steal Oswald's rifle from his wife's landlady's garage, fire three bullets, plant the rifle with Oswald's fingerprints on the 6th floor of the Book Depository, plant the three shells in the "sniper's nest," make sure Oswald's palm print was on the cardboard boxes of the nest, plant one of the bullets on Gov. Connally's stretcher, plant another bullet (what was left of it) in the floor of JFK's limousine. And, of course, someone other than Oswald would have had to shoot JFK and Connally with another rifle and then disappear. I found this book at the library. Can't believe people pay money for this stuff.



3. I liked the spectrographic analysis and the comments Roffman made. In reality only the bullets found in Conally, Kennedy, the stretcher bullet, fragments found in the limo can tell us what happened that day. If these bullets are identical to the Oswald's gun then we can conclude that there was a lone gunman. But until that is proved the lone gunman theory is specualtion.



4. This is one of the best books Ive read on the JFK Assassination!it shows that the Warren Cmmission concluded before it did any investigation or took any testimony tha LHO was guilty and that he was the Assassin.it is clear that Oswald's legal rights were violated in every way imaginable way.The district Attorney the cheif of police and the captain of homocide all said that OSWALD was the man who killed the President on what evidence??a rifle with no identifiable fingerprints only a smudge palmprint 3 days after he was murdered was found on the stock!!there were no fingerprints on the empty shells found at the window.are we suppose to beleive that after shooting the president with three consecutive shots in 5.6 seconds he runs across the other side of the depository cleans the rifle of any prints picks his way around the stacks book hiding the rifle carefully amomg the stacks of books runs 4 flight of stairs to the 2nd floorlunchroom works the coke machine and is confronted by by two witnessis who said he appeared normal calm and not agitated!!it did not happen!!!



5. I don't need much to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was probably not the killer. The author does a lot of necessary work in exlaining the situation to us. Of course, he leaves vital information out because the book was published only 13 years after the assassination and was probably controversial even in 1976. It was long before Oliver Stone's masterpiece epic and one of the best films of all time, JFK, about Jim Garrison's quest for the truth. The author does explain the details about the assassinatino and the problems with the Warren commission which concluded only that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing the president. The author here goes further in disputing the claim that he was guilty. He was presumed guilty because that was what they wanted us to believe. It was simply since Oswald was himself killed in public by Jack Ruby. I don't the author here details Ruby's involvement or motive in the killing of Oswald. Everything happened fast from Kennedy's assassination and death until Oswald was also gunned down in broad daylight in front of the press and law enforcement. How could law enforcement allow a potential suspect in one of America's most infamous crimes be so vulnerable for a murder unless they believed his guilt and wanted it over. Regardless, the truth has never really been told about either murders and probably never will.

No comments about The Assassination of Federico Garcia Lorca.

1 comments about The President Has Been Shot: Confusion, Disability, and the 25th Ammendment in the Aftermath of the Attempted Assassination of Ronald Reagan.

1. As a student of history, I can't praise this book highly enough. Abrams delves into the murky waters of the 25th Amendment in the aftermath of the March 30, 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.
   
   The President lay near death in the hospital. The Vice President was in the air, flying back to Washington. The West Wing staff never informed the next in the order of succession. (Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill) All of these events taken in concert would make for gripping fiction -- save for the fact that this is a history book.
   
   Most definitely worth the read.

No comments about In the Line of Fire: Presidents' Lives at Stake.