5 comments about Assassins.

1. I profess to be of a young age, and those who don't know me would probably consider my experience with musical theatre to be rather inextensive. I am, however, even at a young age, a Stephen Sondheim admirer. Yet even I, whose favorite musical is the ghastly and mind-numbing masterpiece "Sweeny Todd," was not entirely prepared for the unabashed "Assassins."

   Assassins combines all the would be and have been presidential assassins of the United State's history and throws them all into a timeless world where Charles Guiteau (Garfield) can chat with Leon Czolgosz (McKinley) and Sam Byck (Nixon) at a bar while John Wilkes Booth (Lincoln) reads a copy of Variety magazine. It is more of a revue than anything, but the music (which you MUST own if you're going to buy the libretto) is so moving and so powerful it actually is able to draw sympathy for Lincoln's assassin. If the prospect of feeling pity or sympathy for Lee Harvey Oswald makes you angry, Assassins is not my recommendation.

   Indeed, Sondheim and Weidman sucessfully made me feel sorry for Leon Czolgosz and Booth and Oswald and nearly all the characters in the musical. Some may think it unpatriotic; I think it presents the other side to woefully biased history lessons claiming the Assassins to be vengeful madmen searching for chaos. Assassins truly brings to light what's wrong with the American dream, and for any history buff, Sondheim fan, or just plain theater fan, Assassins is a MUST have.




2. Well, I was not very well aquainted with Sondheim, though I had heard of him. Then I was fortunate enough to be cast as Sam Byck in a production of Assassins. I have to say, the show was an experience like I can only hope to have ever again. Weidman's writing brings to life thoroughly disturbed characters in a way the audience can relate to. It shows us the world of a psychopath- looking out from the inside. My first thought was to question whether I could do justice to the material. The incredible intensity of the scenes and the forceful emotion of the songs is nearly overwhelming. From the actor's point of view, I can say only that a sense of desparation is omnipresent, even in the comedy, and that there is the feeling of a great injustice, and perhaps an epiphany that never quite came. I encourage anyone who can to try and acquire a copy of the London production( I don't know if there are any official ones, but as any theatre enthusiast knows, there are ALWAYS bootlegs), or of the new production when it becomes available, because of the added song "Something Just Broke". This incredible piece serves as an important... I think the word is catharsis. I remember crying backstage during the first show, because it put a sharp point on the events of the previous scene, where Oswald takes his shot. The play itself also brings into focus the background of the assassins, and those lesser-known souls who tried and failed( like Byck). While it won't appeal to everyone, it is definitely worth looking into for Sondheim lovers and US History buffs. And serious performers will find the songs and text rich with meaning. I recommend this show, libretto and music, to anyone with an open mind, or a love of art.



3. When I went and saw "Assassins" for the first time, I honestly wasn't sure what to expect. I've been a Sondheim fan ever since I began watching "Into The Woods" at the tender age of four years old... but I don't think I was sufficiently prepared for "Assassins". And that's a good thing.
   "Assassins" keeps you on your toes throughout, being able to make dramatic changes from the light-hearted to the tragic in the time it takes to bat an eye. Perhaps most striking is how you come to like and sympathize with every one of the assassins, while still knowing that they all have their dangerous streak.
   Moreover, "Assassins" deals with a common subject in a very uncommon way. The overall 'theme' says "Everybody's got the right to be happy." The brilliance in this statement is not in the statement itself, but within the context of the cold-blooded murderers with it has been placed. It gives us the lesser seen perspective of life from the point of view of these historical figures who had major problems with their lives and with themselves. Rare, even in the history books.
   In fact, "Assassins" has been a better history lesson for me than nearly anything else. The play is very highly based on the facts of every person's life and the details of their assassination attempts. Good for theatre buffs and history teachers alike.
   Go Sondheim, go!



4. This review is by Crosley.

   I had become very well acquainted with the score to Assassins before I read the script, and I think John Weidman may have done the impossible: he may have overshadowed Sondheim's score with his book. Don't get me wrong, the music and lyrics are phenomenal, but the book is what really matters in this one.

   Assassins is an examination of the dark side of the American Dream and those it has affected, namely, those who have tried to kill presidents. Most of the assassins actually have good reasons for their efforts. The play has gained a lot of bad publicity for "glorifying assassinating the president," "being unpatriotic" and "trivializing terrible events." The play does none of these on any level. I said that some assassins had good reasons. I did not say that their actions were the right thing to do, because they weren't. However, the play rehumanizes people that society has dismissed as one dimensional madmen. Hence, the Balladeer. The Balladeer represents the traditional, one sided view of the assassins, and is used expertly. The play keeps in mind the fact that the assassins are dangerous people who should be condemned, but it also keeps in mind that they are indeed people. The scene between Csolgosz and Emma Goldman is wonderfully poignant, and allows us to see a side of Csolgosz rejected by the world, and it's things like that that make the characters much more real.

   By making the characters real and at least vaguely sympathetic, the play succeeds in such a way that could never be done with demonized characters. Since the assassins are made human and just like us, Americans trying to live The Dream, they are infinetly more terrifying and frightening, because now we can identify with them, and see the clear and present danger in America.

   They all have different motives, but there is one thing that ties them all together. They thought The Dream was not a goal, but something they were entitled to, and when they didn't get it, they wanted people to listen. Hence, drastic measures. Booth's anger with Lincoln is very real, and the crimes he lists against Lincoln are all true to some degree. Csolgoszs' anger at the working man's plight is completely justified, considering his working conditions and wages. Few of them have motives that we can't understand (except Moore and Guiteau), and again, they are that much worse because of it.

   This is not to say that the play is not funny. Au Contraire, Assassins is one of the funnier plays I've read, mostly because it preys upon the assassins' character flaws and quirks and exploits them for some great comedy. They're even funnier if you know about the personalities of each for whatever reason. For example, regarding the scene where Guiteau hits on Moore, it was known that Guiteau hit on anything with two legs (usually unsuccessfully), and Moore, who had been married five times (each husband was more successful than the last), may have been roped in by Guiteau's line of "How would you like to marry the ambassador to France?" It's really quite good. The scenes between Moore and Fromme are priceless, as are Byck's rants into his tape recorder, hamburger in hand. "I am Unworthy of you Love" is a gorgeous song, and in context (being sung to Jody Foster and Charles Manson by John Hinckley and Squeaky Fromme, respectively), it's uproarious. Thank God for Weidman's wit, because this is a show that definetly needs comic relief.

   The interesting idea that the play presents is that the assassins are just as American as anyone else, because America is "The land where any kid can grow up to be president," and likewise, "Any kid can grow up to be his killer." Comedy, tragedy, laughs, tears, a message, great music, Assassins has it all. The scene near the end with Lee Harvey Oswald is one of the most powerful scenes I've ever read. In fact, it was recorded on the soundtrack, because it's just that important. Delaying Oswald's appearance for so long was a great move, because the audience, after being emotionally assaulted by the other 8 assassins, is finally pushed over the edge with an event that most of them were alive for and remember. The triumphant chords after Oswald's shot give me shivers every time I hear them.

   Assassins is a phenomenal play that unfortunately is rarely produced. I recommend reading the script and enjoying the excellent score to people looking for something a little different (hey, that's Sondheim for you), a little funny, and a little scary. The show will live on because of its relevance, and it's a wonderful addition to the American Musical Theater.




5. All I can say about this play is that it is sheer genius. I was fortunate enough to see the Broadway revival cast act it out in Studio 54, thus can safely say that the play is just as shrewd and clever onstage as it seems in the play.

   The thing that often repels people from 'Assassins' is firstly its subject matter - assassins and would-be assasins of presidents of the United States - and secondly, the way it handles its subject matter. 'Assassins' neither trivializes nor glorifies its characters: what it does is examine them, and let the audience make the decision as to what prompted them to commit the crimes they did. On stage, the play is chilling - seeing "Squeaky" Fromme carve an 'M' for 'Manson' into her forehead at the end of her number with John Hinckley 'Unworthy of Your Love' does not seem disgusting; it is entrancingly horrific. And this is not even mentioning the song 'How I Saved the President', the fast-paced narrative of Giuseppe Zangara's attempt on the life of President Franklin Roosevelt: it rises to an eerie feverish pitch and ends with a jolt - literally. The singing ceases only when Zangara has been electrocuted.

   I realize that the above description may seem to portray 'Assassins' as a gruesome horror-trip into history - but really, that is not what it is at all. The rises and falls of emotions in the songs (apparent in the book as well as in the play) are shrewdly placed so that the viewer can't quite bring themself to feel sorry for the assassin, exactly, more fascinated. And this is what 'Assassins' is - a fascinating look at some of the most forbidden American taboo in our country's history. The play jumps on its subject matter with surprising gusto - it does not jump delicately from point to point. It attacks its topics and does not let the audience leave unshaken.

   I feel as though I should probably mention that reading the book and seeing the play live are two different things. They are both thought-provoking and interesting looks at the various assassins - but a certain emotional element is lost in the text. Not that the book is bland and dry - far from it. However, seeing Charles Guiteau dance his way up to gallows feverishly reciting his poem 'I Am Going to the Lordy' is slightly more morbid than reading it.

   Highly recommended.

3 comments about JFK: The Cuba Files: The Untold Story of the Plot to Kill Kennedy (Secret War).

1. It has been said once that the truth about JFK's assassination would never be known "in our lifetime".
   This short volume contradicts this statement and proves that it is still possible, provided there is a will to do so, to bring the case to justice.
   
   For a number of years now, most serious scholars and searchers (meaning those who have no specific agenda to market, and who try to analyze the evidence without bias)of the JFK case have come to the conclusion that the murder of Kennedy was some sort of side-effect of the secret war against Castro, what would be called today a "blowback" in Intelligence parlance.
   Since that war involved elements of the CIA, Military Intelligence, FBI, Mafia, Cuban exiles and their supporters (mainly business or pro-business figures), names of individuals and organizations pertaining to this loose alliance of interests have repeatedly and regularky cropped up either during the various official investigations or the work of researchers.
   
   Unfortunately, even though some HSCA investigators started unraveling some crucial information, the official inquiry in fact buried the case (see HSCA investigator Gaetan Fonzi's book). So no real, "hard" investigation of what was still only a very compelling hypothesis (was JFK killed by people in relation with/pertaining to the secret Intelligence and Military apparatus at war with Cuba?)ever took place.
   It befell to independant researchers to pour over the evidence over the years and painstakingly verify and refine the information, zeroing on the hypothesis described very sketchily above: a general overview of the conspiracy, but with some crucial elements missing to complete the puzzle.
   
   So, just when you thought that we would have to be content with what we've got, comes this little book, which gives names, dates and places and allow the serious searcher to reevaluate previously gathered information.
   What we have here is, in fact, the hard inquiry into the Anti Castro Cuban Exiles that we were hoping for, but never happened.
   Well, it came to pass that some people did have a reason to be very interested in the activities of Anti Cuban Exiles at the time and did have the means and motives to obtain detailled information about what they were up to at the time of JFK's assassination: Cuban Intelligence.
   
   Former head of Intelligence Fabian Escalante relates how, in the course of their eforts to thwarts assassination plots against Castro and prevent sabotage, they came across fragmentary information that allowed them to reconstruct the assassination in Dallas and identify some of the principals in the crime.
   
   One of the greatest asset of the book is that people that are only alluded at in previous books are identified by name, and dates and details of specific events are clarified.Basically, who said what to whom, when and where.
   
   Imagine having several informants deep within the most violent exile groups of the sixties,crossing paths with such notorious figues as David Phillips, Franck Sturgis, Carlos Bringuier, Guy Bannister, and the like.
   
   Imagine analyzing all the information coming back, and starting to find, along the years, an intriguing track of evidence leading back to the events in Dallas.
   
   Imagine capturing a senior Anti Castro exile, seriously wounded, who would start talking, after years of treatment in a Cuban hospital, of what he knew about JFK's death.
   
   In fact, don't imagine it, because that is Escalante's story.
   The book is full of details that should be taken upon and pursued by serious researchers. For instance, Escalante ponders, with good reason, about an obituary published in Dallas sometime after the assassination, and announcing the death of a group of "Exile patriots" killed in action in Cuba. Escalante states that some of the names given in the obituary do not correspond with the identity of the three men actually killed that day.
   
   He also wonders why, of all places, this obittuary would be published in Dallas, and not Miami, the homeplace of the Anti Castro community.
   
   The names of the "would be dead" men are given by Escalante (so go buy the book...).
   It is my guess that serious inquiry of these persons would show that they were direct participants in the crime, at the action level (probably a shooter team)
   
   Another crucial information, in my view, is that according to Cuban Intelligence, David Morales handled David Phillips, and not the other way around.
   
   Oh, by the way, the book blows of the water the theory propounded by "ultimate sacrifice" (the only JFK book I could not finish, and I have read some real turkeys on that subject believe me..), of a coup d'état led by Che Guevara and supported by Kennedy that somehow led JFK to take unnecessary risks that day in Dallas (yes, I know, makes no sense to me either..). There is not a single mention or allusion to that supposed plot in the Cuban files.
   
   When you know the efficiency of Cuban Intelligence, as demonstrated by Castro's endurance (see also the HSCA records for details of plots foiled by Cuban agents), if there was such a plot, it would have been penetrated and unmasked.
   
   So five stars, and a must read for serious researchers.
   
   On the other hand, if you are new or not very well versed in the assassination specifics or general issues of debate, I would recommand you start somewhere else.
   
   You need a good background information to really appreciate and make sense of what is presented here
   
   
   As you see, there are tons of information to be gained here, in a mere 300 pages.
   
   
   



2. great



3. Well-written, thoughtfully composed. If there's anyone left in the world who doubts a conspiracy (professional disinformation puppets like Gerald Posner discounted, or those who've been in a coma since before Nov. 22nd, 1963) this is one more solid nail in that coffin. The preponderance of evidence unearthed in the last 40+ years simply demolishes any specter of a disaffected lone nut. This book is written from the Cuban (non-exile) perspective with no real axe to grind (no one now seriously believes Castro was behind the plot) and Escalante has done a large amount of homework. His findings parallel those of most of the serious historians and researchers, and short of who fired the fatal shot from the knoll, is complete and satisfying. I found his timeline catalogue of actions against Cuba interesting, especially when he weaves in the "patsying" of Oswald. This book belongs on the shelf of those afore-mentioned historians and researchers. And it's not full of typos and grammatical weirdness.

5 comments about JFK And Sam: The Connection Between the Giancana And Kennedy Assassinations.

1. Interesting read, closley follows JFK Murder Solved web site. James Files did it with help of others.



2. Absolutely astonishing. Being new to the whole Kennedy assignation field of study this book was my first introduction to this intriguing subject. I was so fascinated by the information presented by the book I was even inspired to purchase the DVD of the taped interview with "Deadeye". I would highly recommend this book largely due to the fact it has kindled an interest in me I never thought I would have. I am still amazed at the idea that the man responsible for the shooting of JFK is alive and well in a prison in Joliet, IL. Even more remarkable is the thought that the world doesn't know



3. This is an outstanding book. It reads nicely and easily and gives a good overview of the case, also for beginners. This should not come as a surprise from me as I conversed a lot with author John Hughes and shared some of my research and materials for this book. Nevertheless a few tiny errors slipped into the last two chapters that deal with confessed grassy knoll shooter James E. Files. Such as that he used a .221 bullet, while in fact it was a .222 bullet. But these small errors are forgivable since they don't take away from the big picture, although the involvement of the CIA and the highest elements of US government could have been emphasized more. But then again, any child can grasp that Organized Crime alone could not have executed this coup d' état, not to mention its cover-up.
   
   Five stars.
   
   Wim Dankbaar
   
   - author "Files on JFK"



4. Reviewed by Joanne Benham for Reader Views (8/06)
   
   There have been so many books written about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, one would wonder why someone would bother writing another. There are two schools of thought about the assassination. One theory is that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman, working on his own initiative. The other theory is that the assassination was a giant conspiracy involving the FBI, the CIA and the Mafia.
   
   One name that comes up time after time in the conspiracy theory camp is Sam Giancana, the Mafia chief of Chicago during the late 50s and 60s. This book is co-authored by Sam's daughter, Antoinette, who had intimate access to several of the main characters named in the conspiracy theory. Her co-authors are doctors in the fields of neurology, neurophysiology and neuropsychiatry who provide expert analysis about what could and could not have happened that day in November, 1963.
   
   The authors lay out a logical sequence of events, showing the strong links between the Kennedy family and Sam Giancana; links stretching back to prohibition days when Joseph Kennedy was a bootlegger with a contract on his head for running his rum through Mob territory without permission.
   
   Whatever theory you believe, this book is fascinating, delving into the inner workings of politics and the Mafia. I could hardly put the book down, although I had to keep skipping ahead to follow a particular story thread because the authors would throw out a tantalizing bit of information and then tell you they would explain it more fully in a future chapter. I couldn't wait to get to that chapter.



5. I recommend this book to anyone. I got hooked into reading the whole book, by just the first page. It is an interesting book that will even get those loyal JFK fans thinking!!! I wish i'd known about this book a long time ago. If you have not read this book, then you don't like learning the history of this country.

1 comments about The Forgotten Terrorist: Sirhan Sirhan and the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

1. Mel Ayton has accomplished something that no one writing about the RFK
   asssassination has ever achieved before. By combining a judicious
   review of the forensic and eyewitness evidence with a firm grasp of the
   historical context, Ayton has finally made sense of the 1968 killing.
   THE FORGOTTEN TERRORIST is a long overdue reminder that assassination
   is political murder.

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!

5 comments about KGB Alpha Team Training Manual: How The Soviets Trained For Personal Combat, Assassination, And Subversion.

1. I found the book to be very interesting from a historical viewpoint but found many of the techniques inside to be very standard issue.Not a groundbreaking book but not a bad one either.



2. This book is the translation of a Russian text dating back to 1945, the hayday the Soviet Union. The chapters covering the history of the Spetznaz, past and present, is very interesting, especially the parts detailing the different branches of Special Action teams and how they relate, but the technical portion of the manual tends to be vague and too general to be of use unless you're already a student of Samooborona bez Oruzhia (commonly known by the Russian acronym "Sambo" and translated as "self defense without weapons"). Don't buy this manual if you're looking to study Soviet hand to hand combat. If that's what you're after, go to www.russianmartialart.com or www.amerross.com.

   The author/translator, Jim Shortt, retained many of the terms common in the Soviet Union, which may seem odd to Americans (I wouldn't even try to explain "moral-political" to your average American, as I have a hard time grasping it!).

   There is also a section on physical fitness and recovery which is interesting, and probably as relavent today as it was in 1945.

   This is not a bad book, and I do recommend it, but only if kept in perspective.




3. I was dissapointed by this book, trully it is telling you how to run ove stuff, how to go prone, how to stab someone (duhhhh, could it be just push the knife in someones chest). I thik if you really want good fighting stuff there are better things around. Check out Master of the Blade, excellent book. Also check out some other stuff by that author, a really smart guy, not a fighter not a writer.



4. I was laughting loudly while reading this book.
   I've newer red a such BS about former Soviet special forces.
   If you want to be busted in no time then read this "manual" and try to follow it.
   It may be a "good guidance" for stupid Hollywood screen writers
   to produce another amusing movie for ignorant general public.
   Author or a "translator" is a real dumbass. He/She couldn't even properly translate the original insignia on the KGB sign shown on the front cover of this book. This sign has been issued only as a memorabilia to the veterans and other KGB personnel in connection with round (jubilee) dates in KGB history since its creation. In original form it shall be red "(number of years) of VChK - KGB". The real KGB sign of honor has a totally different design and insignia on it.
   The most important skills you learn in special forces is how to be invisible. The main principle is that "You're invincible until you're invisible". I wouldn't give this book even one star but unfortunatelly it's not an option.



5. It lets the reader know why the soviets were dominant militarily for a long time in Eastern Europe. They were brutal and trained to be efficient in that subject. This book is an eye openner in all that it shows technique wise and the little history lesson the author gives. International Bodyguard Association president wrote this book.

5 comments about Case Closed.

1. My search for JFK assassination material began when I booked a trip to Dallas for a football game. I really didn't have any preconceived notions on whether the assassination was a conspiracy or not. I simply wanted to educate myself on what I would be looking at when I visited the Dallas School Book Depository. After reviewing most of the well known theories on wikipedia.com, I decided to purchase a book that went into depth on why Oswald acted along.
   
   "Case Closed" does a good job giving the reader an insight on what Lee Harvey Oswald was all about. It also goes in depth on the background of Jack Ruby. Most impressively, Posner does a fantastic job citing where and how his information was obtained.
   
   When I finally got the the sixth floor of the Depository, I quickly came to the conclusion that the shot from the window was not a difficult shot to make (esp in 3 attempts). I also made a point to go down to the grassy knoll. I couldn't help but think to myself, "the grassy knoll sure is close to location where the president was shot. If the shots came from there how could not everyone notice?"
   
   What sealed the deal for me was watching the assassination on youtube.com. One can clearly see that when the second shot is fired, both the President and Governor react as if they have been hit at the same time. You have to ask yourself, if it wasn't a "single bullet" that hit them both, what is the probability that a conspirator(s) could make it appear as if it were a single shot?
   
   In my opinion, if Jack Ruby hadn't shot Oswald, there would be no conspiracies.



2. ...I've seen in print to capture the logical progression of what likely happened. Naturally, ANYTHING is possible. We can never know with absolute clarity everything about the JFK assassination. Over the years, I've found myself intrigued by the various alternative ideas of what happened, and even now I find it difficult to consider the various sinister associations of the principles in the case and arrive at a "2 independent lone killers" hypothesis. However, we are left at this point 45 years later having no real choice but to make do with the most plausible and demonstrable alternatives among the world of competing theories. I think this is it, or at least as close to it as we're ever going to get.
   
   Mind you, I TOO believe that Mr. Posner sometimes gets too far afield in some of his speculations. He sometimes shows his lawyer training by appearing to present more of a slightly stretched legal brief than an objective evaluation of the facts. Nevertheless, on balance, he's hit a home run. Much of the technical scientific data appears so sensible as to be beyond dispute. His strongest argument against an involved conspiracy in my opinion has to do with the nature of SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. For example (one of many): How does Oswald (as a logical result of a conspiracy) end up working at the Depository well in ADVANCE of the decision of JFK to drive by that particular building, in that particular city? I think most conspiracy theories over the years have tied themselves in knots trying to deal with straightforward questions like that. In the process, they have tended to become more and more convoluted, and less and less plausible. Mr. Posner brings a lot of this back to earth, and this really is pretty near to "closed" in my opinion.



3. I can't even give it a star but it's a requirement. Part surmise part fact, this is not definitive in any aspect of the word. He cherrie picks his way through the evidence.



4. Years ago I came to the conclusion the assasination MUST have been a conspiracy. But later in life after some research started to be open minded to the idea that Oswald acted alone.
   I read this book with the hope, that it would close this case (for me). Incredibly, what Posner did for me, was leave me thinking that it is impossible all these events are just a series of random coincidences.
   It is clear after reading the book that Oswald was not just some nut who acted alone. .



5. Gerald Posner's book, Case Closed is a real eye opener. If, like many people, you base all of your opinions on the JFK assasination on the Oliver Stone film, then you need to read this book.
   
   Posner's book, incredibly well researched and annotated, demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Stone's film, while remarkably entertaining, plays fast and loose with many of the facts surrounding this historical event.
   
   As Posner details, most of the so-called "evidence" of a conspiracy presented in the film does not stand up to close examination. Some of it is no more than wild speculation, much of it flat out untrue, but has through years of retelling entered the public consciousness as if it were fact. For instance, the alleged eyewitnesses featured in the movie have largely been discredited over the years, many changing their stories several times, others having been shown not to have even been in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Posner also takes on the so-called scientific evidence of the conspiracy buffs, dismantling their arguments piece by piece in convincing fashion.
   
   The important thing to realize about this book is how thoroughly and meticulously researched it is. There is no conjecture - merely cold hard facts, presented as found. As convinced as I was before I read this book that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, I am just as convinced now that there was not.

5 comments about Like A Man.

1. This is an exciting book as real as the events it tells about. Like A Man begins at a very high level where the wartime mission is conceived and leads us through the turmoil of give-and-take espionage on the streets. Almost everything that can go wrong does for the two men who are told to carry out the assassination against all odds. That they did is a tribute to their courage. Chacko gets us on the ground from the first parachute jump and keeps us there all the way to the furious end.



2. LIKE A MAN is a first-rate read and a great piece of historical writing. The wartime atmosphere, the importance of the mission, two dedicated commandos, and well-drawn supporting characters, including Churchill, Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, along with many members of the WWII underground, make for a fascinating picture of men under orders to do the impossible. They did it, and their story is one for the ages.



3. LIKE A MAN is a stirring book that keeps coming until the last page plus two. A real mission performed by real people becomes in David Chacko's hands a well-wrought tale of action and suspense. Anthropoid (which probably means "like a man") was a team that parachuted behind German lines into Occupied Territory. Their mission was to assassinate the man who coordinated--and usually ran--the most terrible Nazi policies of brutality and extermination. History remembers him, but would remember much better if he had lived to fulfill his destiny as Hitler's successor. That he did not is a tribute to these two men, who were eventually joined by a third man as they entered the wartime underground, disappearing from the Gestapo radar until it was time to surface and close out their mission. When they do, the facade of Nazi Germany invincibility is shattered in bursts of violence that are meant to terrorize. Instead, the outrage it inspired fed the Allied war effort. All the large historical figures are here to give background and tastes of their character--Churchill, Hitler, Himmler--but the men who took their mission to its end against the longest odds are the ones who should be remembered. They were men and this is Like a Man.



4. This book gives you a good feel for what it must be like to drop behind the lines, try to blend in, and carry out resistance operations. It moves right along, not too fast or slow, and builds to the tragic climax. If you like WW II fiction this is a book for you.



5. I ordered three of this author's books and have to say I am not a fan. I found the writing flat and uninteresting. The story idea is better than the actual story. I would not recommend these books.

5 comments about The Betrayal Game.

1. This was another good book by David Robbins. His previous book "Assasin's Gallery"was very interesting. The hero of this novel is
   once again Dr. Michael Lammeck. He is an authority on assassinations. He
   is in Cuba researching Cuba and Castro. He unwittingly becomes involved
   in a plot to assassinate Castro. He is lured into this plan by CIA assassin Bud Calender. Calender has brought a marine sharpshooter named
   Alek Hidell to do the deed on Castro. They have also brought his girlfriend Rina a KGB agent. The whole group is being watched over by
   Castro's chief of security Johan. The story takes many twists turns
   and you have many doublecrosses taking place. From one second to the next youhave a new twist on the Castro story. Be sure to read this book.



2. I have now had the pleasure of reading all eight of D Robbins thrillers and have yet to find one that failed to hold my interest or my desire to keep turning page after page,after page.
   The Betrayal Game is a fascinating , thought provoking work that with the very cleaver use of 2 sets of annotations, makes you remember (and in some cases rethink what you thought you knew)about the atmosphere regarding US/Cuba relations in the early 60's and the machinations on both sides (along with the Soviets) to make this island an ally-or at least not a threat.
   I read an inane review on this site by Publishers Weekly saying Mr. Robbins had a hard time keeping readers interest because everyone knew Castro survived so the suspense was lost....One of the best political/historical books of suspense ever written and which was world-widely acclaimed was "Day of the Jackel" by Frederich Forsythe which was a great book about a rogue killer hired to murder Charles De Gaulle, I believe everyone who read that book was quite aware that event did not succeed, but as in the case of "The Betrayal" game it was everything leading up to the conclusion that made it such a compelling book.
   BTW My two favorite other books of D Robbins are "War of the Rats" and "Liberation Road".
   If you're looking to discover a new author who maintains a very high level of consistant quality and just plain great writing David Robbins is your man.



3. I enjoyed Mr. Robbins first novel so I looked forward to reading this one. I thought his premise of the detached academic becoming a part of history was good.
   The story execution did not live up to my expectations. I think it lacked the necessary suspense but it did have many twists some of which were predictable (i.e. the closing encounter - did not want to spoil the plot).
   Mr. Robbins still has a great knack for weaving his story into history.
   A pleasurable read but not a page turner.



4. Talk about timing. David L. Robbins has it, and not just in the literary sense. Robbins lays down his new book, THE BETRAYAL GAME --- dealing with a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro in 1961 --- and guess who retires within a couple of weeks after it hits the shelves? If there is any connection between Castro's abdication of his dictatorship and this fine novel, arguably it would be that the bearded one decided he wanted some time off to read this riveting work.
   
   In his introduction, Robbins describes THE BETRAYAL GAME as "thinly fictionalized fact." Indeed, it centers on a plot to end Castro's life on the eve of a clandestine invasion by a U.S.-backed force. Though it is not conclusively documented, evidence would indicate that the coordinated assassination attempt was a joint effort conducted by the CIA and certain members of organized crime syndicates, the latter motivated by the nationalization of mob-owned businesses and industries in Cuba following Castro's takeover.
   
   Robbins drops Mikhal Lammeck, professor of history and retired special forces instructor, into this cauldron as observer and historical force. Lammeck's welcome return --- he was first introduced in THE ASSASSIN'S GALLERY --- is fraught with danger, as he finds himself caught between opposing forces in post-revolutionary Cuba. First approached by (Pablo de Santana) Johan (Guerrero), the pleasant but enigmatic captain of Castro's security force, then by Bud Calendar, a CIA agent inflamed with his own sense of history and destiny, Lammeck finds himself being used as a pawn in a game he can't win. Ostensibly in Cuba to study historical assassinations, he is recruited by Johan to keep his ear to the ground for word of a potential assassination attempt.
   
   Lammeck is still puzzling over his "recruitment" when he is approached by Calendar with an offer he can't refuse. Calendar wants Lammeck, a renowned weapons expert, to evaluate and train a former Marine sniper who has been tasked by the CIA to kill Castro. Lammeck walks a fine line, bouncing between what he can do and what he must do, and torn between doing what is right and what may well be wrong. His ability to judge the correct path becomes increasingly complicated as the motives of all parties involved grow more and more cloudy as the time for the assassination approaches, and he must make a choice that will change both his life and history forever.
   
   Robbins lobs a major grenade into the proceedings here with a plausible supposition concerning one of the major players in THE BETRAYAL GAME, one that makes Lammeck's final path of action all the more ironic. Those readers who were of age in the early 1960s, as well as diligent students of events of the period, will see what is coming almost immediately. But such foreknowledge by no means spoils what occurs at the conclusion, given that it provides an interesting theory regarding one of modern history's most enduring puzzles. Those with only a passing familiarity of the era, on the other hand, will be stunned. If Robbins is going where I think he is, watch for Lammeck --- and at least two other characters --- to return in short order.
   
   --- Reviewed by Joe Hartlaub



5. About twenty years ago I read an article about the Kennedy assassination. One of the stories it posed was that the Cuban's were out to assassinate Kennedy. They looked to their Russian allies for help. The Russian's did not want to assassinate Kennedy, but they also did not want to alienate Castro. The answer: send the least likely successful assassin: Lee Harvey Oswald. Sadly, Oswald's success is history.
   
   Robbin's Betrayal Game precedes the events in Dallas. Yet, all of the characters are there: Oswald, Castro, the Mafia, the CIA, Russian KGB. The story line is relatively simple: The CIA seeks to terminate Fidel Castro in hopes of ending the communist threat 90 miles from Florida. The main character, Mikhal Lammeck in Cuba for research on, of all things, assassins, is thrust in the middle of several different undercover operations involving all of the alphabet organizations. His convictions are sorely tested by his affection for the Cuban people and the young assassins sent to kill Castro.
   
   Robbin's does an excellent job setting the stage and developing the characters who cross paths in and around Havana of the early 1960's. There are no innocents here but the Cuban people. The CIA, the Mafia, the Cuban secret police and the KGB all are in it for their own ends. Robbin's never gets to answer the question posed throughout: can one man change history. Yet, we can see here how one man can direct the events which become history.
   
   I strongly recommend the Betrayal Game as a political thriller, a work of historical fiction and as an interesting spring into summer read. Buy it, you won't be betrayed.

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.