2 comments about Algeria: Revolution Revisited (Islamic World Report).

1. The book starts witha promising introduction but falls into serious errors concerning the political climate in Algeria. As an Algerian, the author appears to have his head in the clouds and his commentary is shot through with a basic naievete about the affairs governing Algeria. A very poor attempt at poltical analysis.



2. I am somewhat inclined to agree with the other reviewers over this one. As a western journalist who has visited Algeria many times over the last few years I can understand why it over-simplifies the case. I am often in a position where I am asked about Algeria and my usual response is to make people understand that it is a situation which is very complex and does not give in to the type of analysis which is common among some journalists.I am afraid to say that this book also belongs to the same category of journalism which starts off with an approach containing a series of assumptions which are then not substantiated with good analysis.

   R.Wakeman

No comments about Assassination of Heydrich.

3 comments about Death In Hyde Park.

1. The husband and wife team who write under the pen name of Robin Paige are making wide inroads into the period thriller field. What a prolific pair - the duo have penned more than 60 books for young adults and she (Susan Wittig Albert) is also the author of the China Bayles mysteries.

   Their last Victorian mystery, Glamis Castle, ranked high with readers, and "Death In Hyde Park" will undoubtedly do the same as the writers deftly explore turn-of-the-century methods of crime detection and create intriguing fictional characters who mix with actual persons of that time - in this case, Jack London.

   The year is 1902 when Prince Albert is due to replace the exalted Queen Victoria on the throne to become King Edward VII. Just as it rains on many parades, there was a damp chilly rain falling on Coronation Day. However, there's more than inclement weather to mar what was meant to be a celebration. An anarchist, Yuri Messenko, believed that "Assassination was a moral response to the immoral institutions and governments that spawned" what he perceived as horrors. Further, he was desperately in love with the very mysterious Charlotte Conway, editor of the newspaper where he is employed. Thus, for these two reasons he intended to send the newly crowned king to his heavenly reward by detonating a bomb.

   However, Yuri was an inept assassin - he tripped, fell on his satchel, and blew himself into pieces. Suspecting that there was more than one involved in the attempt on his life the new King asks his friends, Lord Charles Sheridan and his wife, Kate, to investigate.

   The Sheridans unearth many clues, all of which lead them in different directions. Their investigation takes a more intriguing turn when the beautiful Charlotte turns up in their home. She has been romantically involved not with Yuri but with American writer Jack London.

   As always the Sheridans do manage to unravel this tangled mystery and emerge unscathed. For those who take their mysteries with dashes of period drama "Death In Hyde Park" should be on their list of must-reads.

   - Gail Cooke




2. This tenth book in the Kate and Charles Sheridan series deals with the problem of terrorists (or anarchists as they were called then) in England. Apparently in 1902, during the reign of Edward VII, there was fear of this type of violent action. England has just retreated from the Boer War, and they find that their "Jolly Old" is full of foreigners, and surely some of those foreigners must be dangerous! This book is not a mystery story at all. The only death is an accident when a bomb actually blows up the person who was carrying it. It appeared that the bomb was meant for the King and Queen on his Coronation Day. Charles is asked by his King to find out if there is a real anarchist threat, or whether or not this was an isolated incident. The characters are pretty good, and Kate and Charles are delightful as always. Also the writing team of Bill and Susan Albert (pseudonymously knows as Robin Paige) have done their homework. They do a good job of providing enough historical detail, and actual historical people (in this case the American author Jack London), to make the story interesting. This wasn't a bad effort in my mind.



3. Fans of this series will already be very familiar with Queen Victoria's son, who is being coroneted Edward VII as this book begins. The new king has appeared in several of these books and has become very aware of Lord Charles and Lady Kathryn Sheridan's sleuthing abilities. On Coronation Day there is an explosion in Hyde Park and shortly thereafter the king asks Charles to determine the depth of the plot and the extent of the danger to the royal family in the future.
   
   This is by no means a traditional murder mystery for there is no real murder. The explosion was caused when a bumbling young anarchist trips and falls on his own bomb, blowing himself up and injuring no one else. This book is really more of a fictional version of a true crime novel with a strong political message. Depending upon one's political leanings, the political message may or may not be welcome but it is a very strong thread that runs from cover to cover. The authors even go so far as to tag an inspector who is willing to break any law and violate any civil liberty with the name of Ashcraft.
   
   Soon after the bombing an anarchist newspaper where the young bomber worked is raided and three men on the premises are arrested. One of the men is not an anarchist at all but is just there to take the paper's lovely editor Charlotte Conway to lunch. This young man is a Labor leader and has worked with Charles before so that his protestations of innocence fall on fertile ground. When bottles containing nitric acid are found in the living quarters of all three men Charles uses his vast knowledge of the new science of fingerprinting to find out just how those bottles got there. All three men of course say that they have never seen those bottles. The investigation then moves into a courtroom setting and the defense lawyer Charles has hired uses Charles' fingerprint evidence to great advantage. This courtroom drama is easily the most enjoyable part of the book.
   
   As is normally the case with the books of this series, a real historical figure plays a major role in the story and in this case it is novelist Jack London. I really don't know that much about Mr. London's life but I dare say that his fans will not like the portrait of him that is painted in this book. Fans of this series may be a little put off by the fact that Kate does very little snooping in this story and mostly just presides over a tangle of sexual misconduct while comforting the victim left behind.
   
   I found this book to be slow reading at times, although at other times it was a page-turner. What mystery there was seemed shallow and some of the characters came across as very one-dimensional. On the other hand, I just can't say enough good things about the court scenes, which saved this book from being very ordinary. While I tend to agree with the author's concern about our civil liberties in light of the current terrorist threat, I think that they may have gotten too caught up in their message, with the story suffering as a consequence. This is not my least favorite of the series, but its close.

5 comments about Dave's Song.

1. When I first read this book I was baffled by why I loved it so much. The story line seems basic and the plot is conventional, but the characters--they are incredible. The author creates a hero and heroine that draw you to the book time and again. I can't help but read it at least once a month, just to remind myself why I like chickens. Andrea Rasmussen



2. This was one of the first novels I read back in 7th grade. (I had to sneak to the library to get it, I wasn't allowed to read novels) It touched me in so many ways. Most profoundly by the sense that others had the same or similar feelings and hopes, dreams, and fears that I did. I'd recommend this book to anyone who wants to remember the intensity of our younger selves or to share with your own children.



3. I first read this book 35 years ago, when I was in 7th grade. It swept me into a world of characters with feelings like my own, something I'd seldom known. I immediately rushed out and bought a copy of Judy Collins singing "Suzanne," and wore out the record. I wore out the book, too - had to buy another copy.
   
   Now, many years later, I still return to this beautiful book time and again, and recommend it to young friends.



4. This book was my "Catcher in the Rye" because I was a huge Leonard Cohen fan and Suzanne was my mantra.
   This book meant more to me than almost any thing I had read.
   I had my kids read it when they were in 6 or 7th grade and they felt the same way.
   The book still gives me chills.
   What's happening with Mr. McKay these days?



5. Here's a young adult novel that holds up beautifully some 40 years later. If its period references place it in a particular time, its message is as fresh as ever. And if you ever had a song, or book, or film, or painting change your life, open up wider vistas to you, then this story will resonate all the more. Sometimes that single, soul-wrenching encounter with art can change your whole life & set it going in a new direction.
   
   I love that Dave's version of "Suzanne" is the Noel Harrison one, and later the Judy Collins one, because that's how a teenager in the Midwest would have been likely to hear it. No artistic snobbery here, no "cooler than thou" attitudes -- the emphasis is on honesty, both with others & one's own self. Dave & Kate come across as very real, struggling with the need to be individuals, to be more than what they're supposed to be, to change & to grow. Each gains precious insights into themselves & the world around them. And you'll never look at a chicken the same way again, either!
   
   My paperback copy became so worn out that I finally tracked down a hardcover copy for my shelves. It remains very re-readable, even if you're now as old (or even older) than Dave's parents. A thoughtful, perceptive little gem, most highly recommended.

5 comments about Treachery in Dallas.

1. This is an interesting book, in which the author provides an fresh perspective on what happened in Dealey Plaza, in 1963. Some of the extrapolations fail to recognize the distinction between conspiracy and forensic competence. It is interesting to note that the annual report (not mentioned by the author) of the Dallas Police Department for 1963 makes no mention of one of the most momentous occurrences in history. As a law enforcement officer, I can readily identify short comings, in the way Dallas PD handled the enquiry. It is not every day that officers have to deal with an incident of world interest and prominence. The fact that not everything went according to plan is hardly surprising. Whilst I do not judge the way in which the enquiry was handled, it is not the case that lack of forensic certainty and conspiracy are the same thing. I would have preferred the author to provide more forensic detail about the rifle found in the TSBD and the weapon allegedly used to shoot the President: where they the same; what, forensically, can be shown about the magic bullet and its relationship to the'TSBD' weapon? Similarly, the book would have benefitted from more detail about the weapon with which Tippit was shot. In both cases, a link to Oswald or otherwise would have enhanced the forensic examination provided by the author, which, generally, is of a good standard. Finally, do we ever bottom the Hidell/Oswald dilemma? I am unsure that we do truly unearth the actual relevance. Over all, this is one of the best books that I have read, dealing with the assassination of the President



2. While I thought this book was VERY worthwhile in many respects (I am mentioned on several pages, as well), ULTIMATE SACRIFICE is simply the best book ever on the JFK assassination. Still, very much worth your time.
   
   Vince Palamara-JFK/ Secret Service expert (History Channel, author of two books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.)
   Pittsburgh, PA
   
   BEST JFK ASSASSINATION BOOK: ULTIMATE SACRIFICE
   BEST JFK SECRET SERVICE BOOK: SURVIVOR'S GUILT BY YOURS TRULY :)



3. Walt Brown can write rather well. In fact he makes a good story teller ! I soon realised this book was going way off the line when grandiose conspiracy theories started falling off the pages from almost the word go. Its a pity because Brown has a wide knowledge of the subject matter and clearly has a legal flair - see his book "The People versus Lee Harvey Oswald", but this book is so full of conjecture and utter myth it is difficult to recommend. Why do people write books like this when they have clear talent ? I expect it is to make money and get on the conspiracy bandwagon. So, very much a pro conspiracy stance - hugely exaggerated in its conclusions in my opinion and I would suggest Anthony Summers "Not in your lifetime" to be a better work on the conspiracy side of the fence. In my opinion this subject is starting to run its course and may indeed be put to rest by the forthcoming Vincent Bugliosi book "Reclaiming History". Lee Harvey Oswald, with a gun from the Texas School Book Depository after all !



4. I have read many books on the JFK Assassination and this one by Walt Brown is at the top of the list in my favorites!very well written and researched!!



5. Walt Brown is a former special agent of the Justice Department, and has a Ph.D. in American History. The 'Acknowledgments' thank the many who helped him. The 'Prologue' summarizes the assassination of JFK. Brown ways this coup d' etat was done by and for the "financial elite and intelligence community" to remove a threat to their interests (p.6). An end to nuclear testing and the Cold War threatened the profits of the military-industrial complex. The intelligence community used their allies in organized crime to effect this murder (p.7). LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover cooperated for their self-interest. Dallas was the perfect location for this operation (p.8). Brown explains who had the motive, means, and opportunity to control and effect this operation: the local police (pp.9-10). The Warren Commission was created and controlled by LBJ, it only saw the evidence that was approved by J. Edgar Hoover (p.10).
   
   This book is divided into five sections. "Theories" will present the major conspiracy theories and analyze them. "Blue Death" will detail the events that point to important Dallas police officials. "Red Patsy" will examine the career of Lee Harvey Oswald. "White Lies" discusses the cover-up of the Warren Commission. "Hypothesis" will try to make sense of it all to the reader. No single book can answer all the unsolved questions and arrive at the ultimate truth (p.14). Future researchers will have their answers. "Table 2" lists the suspects who could plan that assassination, carry it out, then cover it up (p.345). The "Select Bibliography" lists a number of books by authors. There is no rating or summary for any of them. After 44 years public opinion does not believe it was a lone gunman. Do you?
   
   On page 85 Brown mentions some of the people who were in the "pilot car". "Since no innocent explanation has been offered for these presences, one can only place a sinister interpretation on them." This breaks some laws of logic! Book One Chapter 5 has interesting comments on the shooting of policeman J. D. Tippit. (There were 3 Dallas policemen named "Tippit" then.) The stories about a "second Oswald" could be explained by a look-alike (p.243). The "Hypothesis" chapter provides a summary of this book. Its interesting reading even if you don't believe all of it. From the time of the assassination to J. Edgar Hoover's death the Dallas police were banned from FBI training facilities (p.333). Brown contrasts the shots that killed JFK and RFK (p.334). [This 1995 book cannot discuss the accidental death of JFK Jr after he decided to run for the Senate in 1999. The October 2000 issue of 'Flying' magazine discusses the findings.] The 'Epilogue' says this is "the best logical deductions to be made from available source material" (p.337). Brown discusses the "bag pistol" found near the TSBD (p.339). Another plant? The Appendices 1,2,3 analyze the 488 witnesses who gave testimony to the Warren Commission. Brown lists the 200 witnesses who were not called before the Warren Commission (pp.381-389).

5 comments about Last Rights: A Novel.

1. Plain and simple, I liked this book. Another, at least for me, page turner. I haven't read anything else written by P. Shelby, but I just might, because he impressed me.

   As simple as that.




2. This is the second Philip Shelby book I have attempted to read, the first being "Days of Drums." These books were so dull and poorly written, I found my attention wandering. I was unable to complete "Last Rights" because it was so boring and returned it to a bookstore. I didn't even ask for my money back. I just dropped it off and "donated" it to them. I can never throw a book out...no matter how bad it is. Dull, dull, dull.



3. Robert Ludlum's mantel has rightfully fallen to Philip Shelby, but unlike Ludlum his protagonist, Rachel, is a credible physically-fit smart woman--not larger than life as Ludlum was prone to make his heroic characters, who could be half dead but they could still run across roof tops for five pages afterwards without a murmur of pain. He keeps a taut pace, and the story races forward without the constant circling back to redundant information that plagues many authors' works. An explosive page turner with a fascinating psychopathic villian, the Engineer. A must read worth five-stars.



4. This political / action thriller revolves around the murder of a Colin Powell-type successful black general that was staged to look like a plane crash. Army Warrant Officer Rachel Collins discovers a clue to the actual cause of the general's death while investigatig another crime and a nation-wide chase ensues while victims fall all over the place at the hand of the professional assassin "The Engineer."
   
   It started out slow but the middle part of the book is really quite good. Shelby creates good tension and the main characters get banged up most thoroughly and realistically.



5. This thriller has all the features of its genre, plus some. A crooked judge, assassins galore, terrorists before the ones we are aware of, and secret agents (all using false names). No one is who he or she claims to be. This is right down Eddy Roy's alley, but I can't for the life of me remember the author he is devoted to and buys all his books.
   
   Sarah Martindale, Wink's sister (not her real name), Rachel used to book a flight from Baltimore to Atlanta. I hope she had proper ID. On my first solo flight, I ran in panic to the nearest phone when ID was required. I had my own, but not for the name on the ticket. It was a last minute gift. Since Lee wasn't at home to verify he had given me the round trip to Chicago, I was finally allowed to use it for the last empty seat. She is a secret agent, a strong woman with military training.
   
   Little did she know that the assignation was closely monitored and thwarted. The Engineer was determined to get her out of the way any way he could. Steven Copeland should never have gone into the hotel sauna alone. The depraved Engineer got to him first. "We don't believe in virtues, that some things are good and others evil. Consequences. That's what we knw for sure, the only thing we hold true." His soul "was utterly rotted away." He was the very essence, the presence of evil. That's how Philip uses dialogue, choppy and to the point. Not much elaboration or explanation. It gets old after awhile. So much blood and gore, you'd think you were in Baghdad. There was much evasion of the truth and delusion -- too much, in fact. The Engineer turned out to be David McFadden of Hong Kong. What business of his would it be if a black man were elected V. P. of the United States in the first place. He was just doing what he was paid to do, as was she in trying to protect the rights of U. S. citizens.

5 comments about When the News Went Live: Dallas 1963.

1. 1963 nov 22 brought to life again but with more professionalism.some very interesting facts that confirmed my own thoughts .



2. We have become accustomed (yea, verily, some would say desensitized)to horror unfolding before our eyes in our very own living rooms. Bob Huffaker's book brings us back to a time before the desensitization, when we could scarcely believe what our eyes were telling us. I recommend this book highly to those who were there, watching as I was, and even more so to those who were not there. The young, raised in an era of suicide bombers, need to understand that it was not always thus.



3. "With three shots from a mail-order rifle, Lee Oswald set off a worldwide tragedy that developed too fast to print. .... Broadcast journalism came of age in that crisis of grief and uncertainty, and as it drew its mourning audience, it helped to hold the nation together." -- Bob Huffaker; From the Preface of "When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963"
   
   ----------------------
   
   "When The News Went Live: Dallas 1963", published in 2004, paints a vivid word picture of many of the incredible events that surrounded President John F. Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963, as seen through the eyes of four journalists -- Bob Huffaker, Bill Mercer, George Phenix, and Wes Wise -- who covered those events as they happened for CBS affiliate KRLD-TV and Radio in Dallas.
   
   President Kennedy's shocking and appalling assassination on November 22, 1963, was the very first really big "Watch It Unfold Live On TV" news event of the television era, with four full commercial-free days being devoted to nothing but exclusive assassination-related coverage by all three major TV networks (with KRLD's on-the-scene Dallas reporters frequently feeding CBS-TV headquarters in New York).
   
   And the four reporters whose intriguing stories unfold within this 224-page hardcover volume were right smack in the thick of things during the rapidly-developing events -- from the initial sketchy bulletins that told of the President being shot in Dealey Plaza during a motorcade drive through the city of Dallas -- to the announcement of JFK's death at Parkland Hospital -- to the capture of the accused assassin (Lee Harvey Oswald) in a nearby movie theater -- to Oswald's very own murder on live TV (with Bob Huffaker reporting live from the basement of the Dallas Police Department, where the single gunshot from Jack Ruby's pistol added yet another hard-to-believe chapter to the weekend's nightmarish story).
   
   It was a mesmerizing weekend in American (and television) history, to say the least. And those days are re-lived with clarity in this engaging book by way of the recollections of four men who lived through and reported on those events when they were occurring.
   
   "When The News Went Live" contains several excellent black-and-white photographs, too (some of them I haven't seen published elsewhere).
   
   On a personal level, I have had the pleasure of communicating (via e-mail) with Bob Huffaker several times. He has been very cordial and gracious whenever answering the questions that I had for him. His personal insights into the events revolving around JFK's death are fascinating glimpses into the past, and are insights that I have enjoyed reading immensely.
   
   A sample e-mail excerpt from Mr. Huffaker:
   
   ----------------------
   
   "David, you're right about the presidential visit and motorcade being the main attraction that all Dallas media were covering, of course. But all our stations had limited capabilities for doing mobile TV, which then demanded either cables or microwave dishes--as well as a receiving dish within line-of-sight beaming or bouncing.
   
   Hence the pool TV arrangements, limited to three planned locations. The local TV stations did live TV from the FTW {Fort Worth} breakfast, Love Field, and the Trade Mart. But this was, indeed, the day the news went live on television, unplanned.
   
   WBAP-TV in Fort Worth had a non-running TV van, which they had towed all the way from Cowtown to Dallas Police headquarters, and we sent both of our KRLD-TV vans into duty--the Bread Truck at DPD and the Blue Goose on the 24th to the county jail, etc.
   
   This was the first time in TV history when on-the-spot news suddenly demanded to go live from the scene. Before that, radio news on-the-spot descriptions such as ours that day were common (like the Hindenburg broadcast--radio only), and live TV was usually reserved for major speeches, sports, etc.
   
   Bob" -- E-mail to this writer; May 30, 2006
   
   ----------------------
   
   Relating to the subject of "WHEN THE NEWS WENT LIVE", I'd like to offer up the following observations as an extension of this book review.....
   
   To those JFK conspiracy theorists who seem to favor the Oliver Stone-like or Robert Groden-promoted assassination scenarios (that feature a minimum of three gunmen and anywhere from 6 to 10 gunshots being fired at President Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963) -- I always suggest to them that they ought to dig up some of the originally-aired "As It Is Happening" live TV or radio broadcasts from that dark Friday in American history.
   
   After performing that exercise of watching a few hours of the November 22 television coverage of the assassination (in real time), or listening to some of the radio broadcasts in real time (which works just as well) -- I challenge anyone to then arrive at the same conclusion that was slapped up on the big theater screen in 1991 via Director Oliver Stone's blockbuster, conspiracy-laden motion picture "JFK".
   
   Watching the day's events unfold "live" in front of you (or listening to them unfold on the radio as it was happening) should, in my opinion, provide everyone with a good general idea of how utterly impossible a task it would have been to have "faked" so much stuff that was being IMMEDIATELY reported to the world on live television and radio within minutes and hours of the President's assassination (and within a very short space of time following Police Officer J.D. Tippit's murder as well).
   
   Via those original live TV/Radio broadcasts, you're not going to hear a SINGLE report that resembles anything close to the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison-endorsed nonsense of:
   
   "Three gunmen fired six shots at President Kennedy's motorcade today here in Dallas!!"
   
   What you will hear, instead, is live coverage, as it happened, of a ONE-GUNMAN assassination taking place from where the majority of witnesses said it took place (the Texas School Book Depository Building), with no more than three shots having been fired by the SINGLE SHOOTER, which is a shot count that over 91% of the witnesses concur with -- including the small percentage of witnesses who heard only one or two shots, who are witnesses that certainly don't do Mr. Stone's "6-shot ambush" theory any favors.
   
   Upon evaluating virtually all of the TV networks' live assassination footage from November 22nd, 1963, there is no possible way that a reasonable person could arrive at a conclusion that JFK was shot by three assassins, firing from both front and rear. Let alone arriving at an even more-cockeyed "8-to-10-shot" shooting scenario, as purported by Mr. Groden and some other CTers, which is an outlandish conspiracy-flavored scenario that has John Kennedy and John Connally being shot by way more than just the two Warren Commission-backed Mannlicher-Carcano bullets from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.*
   
   * = And Mr. Groden's theory (that sports from 8 to 10 gunshots) also features an additional hunk of lunacy, in that Groden thinks it's very likely that NONE of these eight to ten shots came from the "Oswald window" in the Book Depository! (I'm not making this crazy stuff up here. I promise. Anyone who owns a copy of Robert Groden's 1993 book "The Killing Of A President" can check out Groden's preposterous theory for themselves, on pages 20-40.)
   
   The bottom line is -- Very nearly all of the information being reported on TV and radio that November day favored a "Lone Assassin" shooting scenario (including the info concerning the Tippit murder in Oak Cliff), with very little evidence and information being broadcast that would support any type of a "conspiracy" whatsoever; and certainly no "conspiratorial" evidence that has ever panned out and "proved" that a multi-gun plot ended JFK's life in Dallas.
   
   This is quite a telling "One Killer" fact. Because, in my view, if a vast conspiracy and subsequent "cover-up" had been in place on November 22nd (given the immense amount of TV and radio coverage, with reporters scrutinizing everything coming across their desks and digging hard for any type of case-solving clues during those first hours and days after JFK and J.D. Tippit were killed), I think that at least SOME pieces of the conspiracy would have leaked through to the sweeping television and radio coverage surrounding the two Dallas murders.
   
   And I'm guessing that every reporter and newsman in the country (including Messrs. Huffaker, Mercer, Phenix, and Wise) would have loved to dig up some "conspiracy"-proving angle during that weekend in November of '63. Being the person who uncovered such a huge story would certainly be a feather in that reporter's cap, to be sure. But, as it turned out, nothing of that nature occurred....and has yet to occur all these many years later.
   
   To think (as many theorists do) that these conspirators were so smart and so quick to have had the capabilities to immediately eliminate virtually every last scrap of information leading to a conspiracy plot of some kind, making sure that none of the "multi-gunmen shooting event" details seeped through to the media (multiplied by TWO separate murders as well, counting Tippit's!), is to think that any such evil-doers had powers similar to "Superman".
   
   For example -- Almost every one of the initial reports concerning the number of gunshots heard by witnesses stated "3 shots". And while it's true that the very first report of the shooting from UPI's Merriman Smith (which was broadcast over all the television networks) stated "Three shots were fired...", it's also worth noting that Smith's initial bulletin was not the ONLY "three shots" account that was reported during those early hours just after the shooting.
   
   For instance, Jay Watson of ABC affiliate WFAA-TV in Dallas (who happened to be in Dealey Plaza during the shooting and nervously reported the first bulletins to the unaware Dallas TV audience) is heard multiple times on November 22nd saying he heard "3 shots" fired.
   
   Plus, several other members of the media are also on record stating their own PERSONAL beliefs that exactly three shots were fired by the assassin, including Robert MacNeil, Jack Bell, Bob Clark, Jerry Haynes, and Pierce Allman, among still others.
   
   Some of the other "Three Shot" witnesses who were riding right in the Presidential motorcade itself include -- Photographers Tom Dillard, Robert Jackson, Mal Couch, and James Underwood. Plus, both John and Nellie Connally, who were riding in the same car with President Kennedy.
   
   In addition, Presidential aides Ken O'Donnell and David Powers, who were both riding in the Secret Service follow-up car directly behind JFK's limousine, can also be added to the lengthy list of witnesses who heard precisely three gunshots.
   
   And then there's also amateur filmmaker Abraham Zapruder, who took the most famous 26-second home movie in history when he captured the entire assassination with his 8mm Bell & Howell movie camera -- Zapruder showed up on live TV about 90 minutes after the President's murder took place and gave a graphic account of the horrifying event that had taken place in front of his very eyes.
   
   Mr. Zapruder told the WFAA-TV viewing audience that he had heard two or three shots (but definitely no more than three), and he also demonstrated on live television where on the President's head he had seen the effects of the fatal gunshot. Zapruder puts his hand over the right-frontal portion of his own head to demonstrate where he saw the blood coming from JFK's head.
   
   That's pretty amazing "LIVE" stuff from Mr. Zapruder's own lips (within approx. an hour-and-a-half of the assassination). And it's especially incredible and amazing if there had actually been many more than just two or three shots fired at the President, and if the fatal shot had actually (as many CTers believe) caused a huge hole in the BACK of John Kennedy's head, instead of the location where Zapruder placed it on live television -- i.e., the RIGHT SIDE AND FRONT portion of the head.
   
   How could the so-called "conspirators" have possibly gotten THAT lucky with respect to Abraham Zapruder's live "on-the-air" WFAA-TV statements and head-wound "demonstration"? How?
   
   And -- Could these ultra-clever conspirators have somehow managed to "manipulate" several reporters who were relaying the news live to the world immediately after the event, and have them ALL report on hearing just "three shots" (or, in a few cases, hearing only TWO shots, which is a number that certainly does not favor a "Multi-Shooter Conspiracy Plot")?
   
   Or did the plotters just happen to get really, really LUCKY (again) when virtually all of the news reports favored the "Three Shots Fired" conclusion? With this 3-shot scenario matching the precise number of bullet shells that were found on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository after the shooting; and also perfectly matching the exact number of shots heard by TSBD witness Harold Norman, and also perfectly matching the precise number of bullet shells (3) that Norman heard hitting the plywood floor directly above his 5th-Floor location within the Depository.
   
   Which, per Oliver Stone's movie, would mean that a full 50% of the ACTUAL number of gunshots were somehow inaudible to the enormous majority (91%+) of the earwitnesses! And, remember, Oliver has NONE of the shots within his movie's six-shot assassination ambush being "synchronized" in order to merge together with the sound of some of the other shots.
   
   And yet, per Mr. Stone, we're supposed to actually believe that approximately 9 out of every 10 witnesses somehow missed hearing HALF of the gunshots fired that day! A reasonable thing to believe....or not? I ask you.
   
   Were these so-called conspiratorial shooters so good that they could make 4 to 10 shots sound like only three to the vast majority of witnesses scattered all throughout Dealey Plaza? Highly doubtful, to say the least.
   
   Again -- I'd advise all conspiracy theorists to sit down and watch the live TV footage....or listen to some of the surviving 11/22/63 radio tapes....and then try to find a "Multi-Gunmen Conspiracy" lurking within ANY of those original broadcasts. If anybody finds proof of a conspiracy via those means, please let me know. And let the world know too.
   
   David Von Pein
   December 2006
   January 2007



4. There are so very few books that convey a sense of "being there" when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. This outstanding book takes the reader back to that fateful weekend of November 22nd 1963 in Dallas, Texas and does so in an open, honest and compelling manner.
   
   "When the News Went Live" is written by four journalists who were in Dallas on that day covering the presidential visit. Bob Huffaker and the other three newsmen share many interesting stories that you will not find elsewhere and that have been untold for many years no doubt to all but their personal friends. This is why the book is such a valuable contribution to the historical record. Such first hand observation regarding not just those few seconds in Dealey Plaza, the murder of Officer Tippet and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, but how in fact the entire story unfolded, makes fascinating reading.
   
   As an aid to anyone interested in the assassination, this book is a must have. I would emphasize - rarely do you find first hand knowledge like this - much of what is written on this subject is written by people many steps removed from the event where fact and fiction merge into one. Not so here. A fabulous book which is refreshingly free of the conjecture and myth that is so common in the Himalayan pile of work on the Kennedy assassination and is highly recommended.



5. The four authors were at the pivot point of American news delivery changing from morning and afternoon newspapers to live television. Forty years later they look back, using contemporaneous recordings and transcripts to describe the events they lived and to reflect on how it changed America and the news. Their insights about Oswald, Ruby and the officials involved bring back a flood of memories; they also enlighten us on how much the media have changed since those dark days and why.

No comments about Legacy of doubt.

2 comments about Mr. Wilson's War: From the Assassination of Mckinley to the Defeat of the League of Nations.

1. John Dos Passos wrote this history of World War One in 1962, and much of it appeals to my nostalgia for the great ideas that were expected to make the world safe for democracy in that century. Dos Passos is sensitive to the progressive issues which were supposed to make politics meaningful to ordinary participants in the process, but the end of the book runs into prohibition, the moralistic attempt to legislate the end of all evils, which produced an economy of booming illegality and immorality on a scale that this book does not attempt to encompass. Wilson's great wish, when the Treaty of Versailles was placed before the Senate, was, as Wilson put it, "The united power of free nations must put a stop to aggression and the world must be given peace . . . It has come about by no plan of our conceiving but by the hand of God who has led us into this way." (p. 483). This is at the beginning of Chapter 24, which is called "The Supremest Tragedy."

   President Wilson, somewhere in this book, is asking the people who are talking to him for a continuation of his ideal: please find an American president who can think of the entire world to come after him. He did not mean that American corporations need to acquire the right to see the whole world as booty in their quest for profits. Personal details on how Wilson actually perceived the world include the Wilsons preparing for "the final longdrawn ceremonies of a dinner at the Elysee Palace:" (p. 482):

   (When the invitation came from Poincare Wilson flew off the handle. He vowed he would not sit down at table with the swine. It was as if all the resentment of the frustrations suffered in Paris were focussed into hatred of the stubby little President of the French Republic. It was all House and Henry White could do to convince him that not to accept the invitation would cause an international incident. Perhaps Mrs. Wilson had already clinched the matter by getting a special dress for the occasion designed for her by Worth.) (p. 482).

   One of the major characters in this book is Teddy Roosevelt, who became President in September 1901 after President William McKinley was shot in Buffalo, in the Temple of Music of the Pan-American Exposition. The assassin declared that he had been inspired by "Emma Goldman who was inciting working people in Chicago to bring about the triumph of right and justice through anarchy. . . . The Chicago police arrested Emma Goldman but the judge turned her loose for lack of evidence. Editorials demanded the deportation of foreign anarchists." (p. 4). This book keeps bringing in T.R. as representative of the politics of these times until he was "too weak to talk." (p. 432). "By Christmas T.R. was thought sufficiently recovered to go home. Two weeks later he died, without a murmur, in his sleep in his own bed at Sagamore Hill." (p. 433). There was a Congressional election campaign shortly before the armistice is 1918. Late in July T.R.'s youngest son, Quentin, "had been shot down fighting a formation of German planes. At first he was listed as missing. Then the Germans reported his death and burial with full honors behind their lines near Cambrai." (p. 432). T.R. made a campaign appearance "in Carnegie Hall, flashing his eyeglasses and clacking his teeth and waving his arms with his legendary zest" (p. 432):

   On October 26, before a packed and cheering audience, he hauled the President over the coals for his call for a Democratic Congress. He denounced the arrogance of Wilson's conduct of the war. With his customary combination of wild inflammatory statements and commonsense reasoning he tore the Fourteen points to pieces, crying out that they were shams and would not bring the peace with justice the American people wanted. (T.R. hadn't been able to get Wilson's war away from him: maybe he could carry off the peace.) (p. 432).
   Photograph number 25 from 1916 shows a campaign truck with a sign on the front that says:

   VOTE FOR WILSON
   PEACE WITH HONOR
   PROSPERITY
   PREPAREDNESS

   On the side: WHO KEEPS US OUT OF WAR?

   The captions on the photos are brief, as skimpy as subtitles in a silent movie. By 1916, "on the western front the British had lost half a million men and the French nearer two million, with the gain of only an occasional thousand yards of shellpocked mud on the Flanders front." (p. 156). Wilson's Secretary of War, Lindley Garrison, and Assistant Secretary Breckenridge resigned because they favored universal military service while Wilson still thought "that the Administration could not move faster towards military preparation than the people moved." (p. 160). Eight soldiers and eight civilians were killed in Columbus, New Mexico by several hundred men led by Villa on March 9, which was about the size of any problem an American Secretary of War ought to be able to handle, and "Wilson picked a man after his own heart. Newton D. Baker was a progressive reformer and a Wilson man from long before Baltimore. He was reputed to be an ardent pacifist." (p. 161).

   There are some exciting descriptions of the war in France and the confusing situation in Russia at that time. Details like "The growth of war exports, without compensating imports, tended to fill the railroad yards in the east with empty freightcars waiting for a westerly load. On top of that the prolonged cold spell froze up locomotives, trapped barges on rivers and canals and increased the nationwide demand for coal and petroleum products." (p. 297). People couldn't use the internet to plan their trips, back then.




2. I read this book at the suggestion of my father and I found myself completely immersed in a historical tale of Woodrow Wilson and the war that consumed the world. Dos Passos' writing is spectacular and adept, leaving many indelible images of Wilson and the events at that time in your mind. More than any other, the moment I best remember from this book is the image of Woodrow Wilson, following his speech asking Congress for a Declaration of War. He is sitting at a desk, where he states to his advisor, Colonel House, that he had just asked for the death of thousands of American young men, yet the people cheered his Declaration of War. He then begins to weep. It's images like these that allow this book to remain one of my favorite works on the United States.

No comments about Three Assassinations: The Deaths of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.