7 of 8 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Well written and moving.
Brought back that sorrowful time but also the humanity and reasons JFK was so well like by many particuarly the youth. Enjoyed the detailed information about back stage in the President's daily life.
Published 22 months ago by Gary T Muller
2,630 of 3,289 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars SORRY BILL
I was working in downtown Washington, D.C. on November 22,1963, the day John F. Kennedy was killed. A few days later, I stood at Pennsylvania Avenue in bright November sunshine and watched an unforgettable funeral procession. A team of white horses pulled a two wheeled artillery cart carrying JKF's flag-draped casket, followed by a black, saddled but riderless horse...
Published on October 15, 2012 by Larry Mullins
Most Helpful First | Newest First
2,630 of 3,289 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars SORRY BILL,
I was working in downtown Washington, D.C. on November 22,1963, the day John F. Kennedy was killed. A few days later, I stood at Pennsylvania Avenue in bright November sunshine and watched an unforgettable funeral procession. A team of white horses pulled a two wheeled artillery cart carrying JKF's flag-draped casket, followed by a black, saddled but riderless horse. Boots, placed reversed, were in the stirrups. An unhurried, muffled drumbeat accompanied the inexpressible sensation of grief that pervaded the cool air. There was collective anguish for the man, of course, but also grief because it seemed our country would never be the same. What I am about to write is not a political rant. Rather, it concerns the ever-lengthening shadow that continues to be cast to this day by the unthinkable events of November 22, 1963.
I still have a copy of the Life magazine that came out just a few days after the assassination. An article in Life stated that the President had turned toward the School Book Depository, which explained the entrance wound that the Parkland doctors had discovered in his throat. Later this was corrected by the FBI, and we were told the Texas doctors were wrong about the entrance wound, it was an exit wound. By December 3rd a story was "leaked" to the press stating that J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI had already determined that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. This information seemed to calm the distraught nation. Almost a year later, the Warren Commission Report was published. It was hailed by the mainstream media with virtually universal praise, although its supporting 26 volumes of evidence (with a supplementary FBI report) would not be published for another two months. I believe I am one of the very few people who ever read the 888 page Warren Commission Report.
The Warren Commission Report reassured Americans that there was no conspiracy, and that Jack Ruby, who had murdered Oswald, was also a lone assassin and in no way connected to organized crime. After reading the report, I explained to people how the first assassination bullet missed, how the second bullet hit Kennedy in the back, exited from his throat, and traveled on to wound Governor Connally, and how the third bullet inflicted the final fatal head wound.
But new books began to emerge from credible researchers who reported that much of the evidence in the Commission's 26 volumes of documentation is dramatically contrary to its own findings. Clearly the Warren Commission had gone to extreme measures to ignore Jack Ruby's organized crime connections. Even more disturbing, it was equally apparent that not one witness to the assassination testified that the event had taken place the way the Warren Commission described it. Not one. Especially not John and Nellie Connally. (Both of whom testified under oath that they were absolutely convinced that JFK was hit a moment before Governor Connally, and by a different shot. If this is true, there had to be at least two assassins.) Not Zapruder, who filmed the tragedy and testified (along with scores of witnesses) that a shot definitely came from the grassy knoll. Evidence accumulated, and there was a steady decline in the credibility of the Warren Commission Report between 1964 and 1976. Lyndon Johnson disowned it before he died. Driven by public entreaties, there was a new congressional inquiry, 1976 - 1978, called the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
The new governmental investigation managed to take a baby step toward reality. It determined that there had been a conspiracy that involved at least two shooters (one from the grassy knoll) and was probably orchestrated by organized crime. However, the government still could not tell us what happened, nor who was involved, and it still generally supported most of the incongruous conclusions of the Warren Commission Report. In 1993, the late Gaeton Fonzi, who spent three years as an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, lamented the failure in his book, The Last Investigation. Historians consider Fonzi's book among the preeminent and most scholarly of the six hundred or so that have been published on the Kennedy assassination. He wrote:
"Despite the clamor of the last few years, all the books, the films and the articles, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is being allowed to go quietly into history. We must not let that happen-not yet, not ever ... The conspiracy to kill the President of the United States was a conspiracy against the democratic system-and thus a conspiracy against each and every one of us ... The Government has failed us. It is outrageous that in a democratic society, after two official investigations, our Government still tells us it doesn't know what happened."
I looked forward to Bill O'Reilly's new book. At last someone would shift through the morass of information and distill a reasonable, no-spin presentation about what really happened on that catastrophic day in 1963. I was certain O'Reilly would dare to open the forbidden doors. However, much as I like Bill O'Reilly, his book is mostly a sad rework of timeworn material. He finally gets around to addressing the assassination by page 245. In his final 50 pages the legendary "no-spin" man embraces the most flagrant spin-job in American history, the Warren Commission Report. How could O'Reilly examine the assassination without scrutinizing the Commission's own published documentation and the FBI supplemental report? In them the autopsy drawings by Dr. James Humes and FBI agent James Sibert both illustrate the back wound of JFK as lower than the supposed throat exit wound. Or how could O'Reilly ignore information in the FBI report by agents Sibert and O'Neil (who were present at the autopsy) that stated Dr. Humes probed the back wound and determined the bullet had entered at a trajectory of "45 to 60 degrees" and had penetrated less than the length of his finger? Or the testimony of Secret Service agent Glen Bennett who saw the bullet strike Kennedy "about four inches down from the right shoulder"? Or the testimony of Secret Service agent Clinton Hill who examined Kennedy's body in the morgue and again described a back wound that could not possibly have exited from the President's throat because it was "about six inches below the neckline and to the right hand-side of the spinal column"?
O'Reilly and his coauthor played it safe and wrote a book that pretends the research and investigations between 1964 and 2012 simply never happened. Beyond this, what they did write about is rife with all the errors, assumptions, and grievously incompetent conclusions of the Warren Commission Report. If Mr. O'Reilly's book had been submitted to a publisher by a non-celebrity, it would have been tossed in five minutes. "Killing Kennedy" is a colossal disappointment. Worse, it endangers the truth by assisting its submergence into fabricated history. "Killing Kennedy" is a disservice to the "folks" Mr. O'Reilly is supposed to be looking out for. Save your money. Or invest it in one of the more acclaimed books on the Kennedy assassination, such as The Last Investigation by Gaeton Fonzi.
314 of 398 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars No Spin? Are you kidding me? You blew it Mr. O.,
I am a huge Bill O'Reilly fan, and read his book, Killing Lincoln three times. It was excellent, and I purchased numerous copies for gifts. I could hardly wait for, Killing Kennedy, because I am a huge Kennedy fan, and have an impressive personal library on Kennedy, his presidency, and the assassination.
One of the recent books I read was Mary's Mosaic by Peter Janney, published April 2, 2012. The reviews for this book indicate that the author finally answers some key questions regarding the assassination, after years of painstaking research and interviews, and that he may have well solved Washington's most famous unsolved murder. I thought that with Bill's No Spin reputation, surely, his book would go even deeper in answering so many unanswered questions.
After reading, Killing Kennedy, I am of the opinion that Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Dugan did not engage in "years of painstaking research and interviews," but simply regurgitated the same old government spin from 50 years ago. Is Mr. O'Reilly unaware that, contrary to the Warren Commission, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that the Kennedy assassination was probably the result of a conspiracy, and found both the original FBI investigation and the Warren Commission Report to be seriously flawed? Is he unaware that even the Kennedy family believed that there was a conspiracy?
When polls conducted from 1966 to 2004 found that as many as 80 percent of Americans have suspected that there was a plot or cover-up, I am dumbfounded that someone as astute as O'Reilly would author such a book. And, more disturbing, is the thought that this book, like Killing Lincoln, will end up as required reading for American students.
Shame on you, Bill O'Reilly, for writing a book with 50-year-old government spin. What happened to the No Spin Zone? You blew it big time.
I agree with Larry Mullins review on Amazon.com rating this book with 1 star: "O'Reilly and his coauthor played it safe and wrote a book that pretends the research and investigations between 1964 and 2012 simply never happened. Beyond this, what they did write about is rife with all the errors, assumptions, and grievously incompetent conclusions of the Warren Commission Report. If Mr. O'Reilly's book had been submitted to a publisher by a non-celebrity, it would have been tossed in five minutes. Killing Kennedy is a colossal disappointment. Worse, it endangers the truth by assisting its submergence into fabricated history. "Killing Kennedy" is a disservice to the "folks" Mr. O'Reilly is supposed to be looking out for. Save your money. Or invest it in one of the more acclaimed books on the Kennedy assassination, such as The Last Investigation by Gaeton Fonzi."
While "Killing Lincoln" has been deemed a page-turning work of nonfiction, I think we should we call Killing Kennedy a work of fiction. THIS BOOK GETS A "ONE" RATING - DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY.
970 of 1,253 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Losing time, wasting money,
The corner stone of this book is this: Kennedy was killed by Oswald. End of story.
How does O'Reilly know? Because he read the Warren Report.
Fine. For a lone killer to have fired only three shots in the imparted six seconds, the Commission had to create the single-bullet theory: one bullet, seven wounds, two broken bones, one right turn, one left turn... So magic that the bullet is found in pristine condition on a stretcher. Are you ready to believe that? Well, in September 1964, two men were not.
One of the seven Warren Commisison members, Senator Richard Russell had this (recorded) conversation with his good buddy, President Lyndon Johnson:
RUSSELL: - The commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don't believe it.
JOHNSON: - I don't either.
- If you want to know how the story was concocted, you might want to read : Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why.
- If you want some perspective on who killed Kennedy and why, you might want to read : JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
- If you need a good dissection of the Warren Report, you could turn to : Accessories After the Fact (1967) or Biting the Elephant: The Warren Report (2009).
- If you don't mind a little file chasing, you might want to venture into : Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth About the Unknown Relationship Between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK
- If you want to know how does a well-sourced book looks like, you should read : Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case (Second Edition)
One book remains to be written, though. I will be more than happy to contribute title and subtitle:
The 1963-2013 propaganda campaign to keep Americans in the dark following the assassination of President Kennedy.
541 of 701 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars O'Reilly has lost all credibility.,
Having an email read by Bill on his show last August regarding how I was looking forward to this book so that someone would finally set the record straight for America, I was astonished by the complete lack of research that went into this drivel. It's a gossip-driven piece about JFK's womanizing, Jackie's smoking habit, and a cop-out to the erroneous pile of lies that constitute the 1964 Warren Commission Report (WC).
1. Bill and his cowriter make no mention of the Church Report, the findings of Jim Garrison's investigation, the House Select Committee on Assassinations(HSCA), or the final investigation in 1994-98, the Assassination Record Review Board (ARRB), all of which found increasingly more evidence than each previous investigation,of the widespread FBI/CIA-led plot to kill the President and cover it up.
2. This book contains no eyewitness accounts vs their edited versions in the WC report, no details regarding the conflicts between the real-time TV reporting and later omissions/deletions by the WC. For example, the first rifle found in the TSBD was easily identified by the police on site, and immediately reported on TV, as a 7.65mm German Mauser. Only later was the 6.5mm Mannlicher found "hidden" among boxes near the east "sniper's nest". Subsequently, the Mauser finding is disregarded by Dallas police chief.
3. No real studies on the inability to actually fire the Mannlicher as it would have to have been fired from that window, angle, tree, etc? Bolt action MC action has never been repeated by the most expert marksmen (please post a study that shows that someone actually repeated Oswald's "feat".)
4. Rehash the Magic Bullet theory? A bullet that caused multiple injuries to two men, but is found in pristine condition on the stretcher at Parkland? You mention Malcolm Perry perfoming a tracheotomy, but you are perhaps the first author to forget to mention the wound in JFK's neck, which Perry characterized as an ENTRY wound! No discussion on a trained trauma surgeon's initial take n the head wounds? And then you mistakenly try to align the wounds with your multiple viewings of the Zapruder film by stating on page 268 the bullet "exits the front of his skull." Then how did his brain splatter backward onto the car where Jackie tried to retrieve it? How inconvenient, Mr. O'Reilly. You have now painted yourself into quite a messy corner of misinformation and physical impossibilty. And what "version" of the Zapruder film were you watching? There are many versions circulating...
5. This list could go on for pages, but answer this, Bill - you said on Fox & Friends that you and Dugard "found no credible evidence of a conspiracy" yet I went on YouTube and found a cub reporter in 1989 doing a piece on "the CIA's Involvement in the JFK Assassination". Who's the cub reporter? Bill O'Reilly. Did you forget that you had previously investigated this same issue? You include an appendix that puts you at the door when DeMorhenshildt commits suicide at his daughter's house before his scheduled testimony for the HSCA - did you report your presence to police as a witness? Or are you spinning this a bit?
You could have followed that up with a piece about the Masonic involvement in the cast of characters, including Chief Justice Earl Warren, LBJ's oilmen in Dallas, LBJ's "best friend" and neighbor J. Edgar Hoover, and on and on.
6. The FOIA led to the release over 100,000 documents on this crime after JFK the movie came out in 1991, after you did your piece on the CIA's involvement 2 years earlier. Now there's over 1,000,000 more documents to review, and the multi-volume ARRB report from 1998 - are you aware of any of this information? You did NO research at all for this book, did you, Bill? No mention of Permindex? No mention of the New Orleans connection to David Ferrie, Mob boss Carlos Marcello, or Guy Bannister? No mention of Jack Ruby's long connection for Marcello and the CIA running guns into Cuba, training anti-Castro Cubans? Rose Cheramie? Fletcher Prouty of the CIA? Clay Shaw, Board member of Permindex, the only person ever put on trial for the assassination, by Jim Garrison? You ignored an entire trial?
7. How about this - on his deathbed, Watergate mastermind and CIA superspy E. Howard Hunt confessed that he was asked to participate in the planning and execution of the plot to kill Kennedy, but he declined. He also drew a crude flowchart of the chain of command for the plotters. You can Google it, but I'll save you the effort: From the top down, he wrote "LBJ - Cord Meyer (CIA) - Bill Harvey/David Sanchez Morales (2 CIA "hitters") - French gunman on Grassy Knoll (a hired Corsican Assassin named Jean Soutre (aka Michel Roux). Again, no mention of CIA agent Fletcher Prouty's epic expose?
8. O'Reilly also said on Fox & Friends that the one character he couldn't figure out was George de Mohrenshildt, Oswald's handler in Dallas. You claimed, as I said earlier, to have been on the doorstep when he killed himself? There are many sources of information on deMorhenschlidt - how did you not find anything on him in your "research"? Call me, I'll fill you in!
9. No information found regarding the many false sightings of "Oswald" in and around Dallas, at the same time he was supposed to be in Mexico City, trying to get papers to travel to Cuba? No research on the CIA's funloving habit of running "doubles" as covers for different scenarios? You mention an incident at the rifle range, but no discussion on the conflict here. What about the car lots, etc. drawing attention to himself in the 2 weeks prior to the assassination? If LHO was in Dallas making a fool of himself, then who was in Mexico City?
10. Bill, you and Dugard didn't really do your homework here. Tippitt's killer? There were witnesses - where's their story of two men, one dark/Latino, possibly Cuban? Who told the military to "stand down" for JFK's parade route? Who told Dallas police to stand down in Dealey Plaza?
You mention the parade route violated multiple rules regarding motorcade safety, but who was responsible? Someone had to agree to use that route - Police Chief Curry had that responsibility as well as coordinate it with Secret Service. Why were the motocycles not flanking the car? JFK never had any problem with his security, so it was NOT he who told them to stay back so he could be closer to the crowd.
Sadly, Mr. O'Reilly, in fairness, I think that you wrote a puff piece just to capitalize on the success of Killing Lincoln, which is a very well done piece of work. Of course, it's much easier to write about a subject where there is no real controversy - we all know what happened to Lincoln, but the details of his struggles filled the pages nicely and created a vivid chronicle of the difficulties he faced.
Your decision to take on the most controversial crime in the history of America was ill-advised and deserved much better treatment - better you had just stopped your story on November 21, 1963, and left it as a titllating memoir of juicy tidbits rather than ruin your credibility by proceeding into the Masonic Shrine that is Dealey Plaza. (You probably didn't catch that, either...)
If anyone reads this review, I would recommend, as other reviews have, that you look elsewhere for real research, critical analysis and make the effort to honor the 50 years of research that has been done to uncover the people involved and their motives. This book is devoid of any real detective work. Sorry Bill, but you really missed an opportunity to serve your country had you done this with real intent and purpose.
Stick with yelling at your Liberal guests on your talk show every nite. You're much better at that than history, despite being a former teacher.
And that, Sir, is fair and balanced.
141 of 181 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars The authors didn't do their homework,
O'Reilly and Dugard write a riveting narrative interweaving the lives of President Kennedy, his brother Robert, Lee Harvey Oswald and Johnson and all the important people and events surrounding the Kennedy presidency. As an historical narrative, the reader is drawn closer and closer to the day of the assassination and follows the lives and events of the period involving the two principals, John Kennedy and Oswald, as the horrible day draws near. The narrative proceeds in a manner which would indicate the authors have a strong control of the facts of both the personal lives of the two men but also of the events of the era.
Then we come to the assassination itself. According to the authors, Oswald is already at 12:14 p.m. standing at the sixth-floor window holding his rifle diagonally across his body. Shooting standing up, Oswald fires three shots, two of which hit the President -- one in the "back of his lower neck" and another "travels all the way through the brain and out the front of the skull." Kennedy's hand reflexively goes to the top of his head. "But now the top of his head is gone."
The plausibility of their narrative of Oswald-- their interpretation of his life, his motives and particularly his actions that day, in fact depend on the accuracy of their claims of the nature of the President's wounding, and it is here that neither author has done his homework. The two best sources we have for the actual nature of the President's wounds as first viewed would be the depositions of the Parkland doctors and nurses, their contemporaneous notes, and the earliest interviews of them, the latter of which are found in David Lifton's Best Evidence. It is well-known that at the press conference attending the announcement of Kennedy's death, the transcript of which the WC did not publish, that three times Dr. Perry is quoted as saying the wound in the front of Kennedy's throat was an entrance wound, the report of which went out through the UPI at 3:10 CST. Later on Nov 26 Dr. Kemp Clark would tell the New York Times the bullet entered Kennedy's neck, "ranged downward, and did not exit." The first doctor to see the wound, Dr. Carrico, also described the the wound as a "small penetrating wound of the anterior neck in the lower one-third." Before the Warren Commission, Nurse Henchcliff made the same observation. In his WC deposition, Dr. Ronald Jones said "The hole was very small and relatively clean-cut as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting a patient." Dr. Chrenshaw in his book Conspiracy of Silence p. 79 also identified the wound as one of entry."There was no doubt in my mind about that wound. I had seen dozens of them in the emergency room."
Because Perry performed a tracheotomy incision over the wound, an incision he told Lifton was 2-3 centimeters in 1966, at the Bethesda autopsy the wound was not recognized as such and in the FBI autopsy report by agents Sibert and O'Neill is unmentioned. Instead the FBI report describes Humes probing a shallow back wound right where the death certificate places it: at the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Corroborating the FBI reports are interviews (by Lifton and Law) of personnel at Bethesda who witnessed attempts at probing the wound, including James Curtis Jenkins and Paul O'Connor. Significantly, the neck area was not dissected and on Friday night the shallow back wound represented all that was known about Kennedy's non-fatal wounding. William Law's book, In the Eye of History, contains extensive interviews with the FBI agents on this very point. Clint Hill is brought to the morgue late at night, approximately 2:45 a.m., to verify the location of this wound, and he verifies its location as 6 inches down from the top of the shoulder, consistent with the death certificate.
The Warren Commission, however, attempted to erase the shoulder wound from history. It did not call FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill as witnesses nor publish their autopsy report in the 26 volumes; instead they squirreled it to the National Archives. In a very bold lie, the report consigns the non-transiting shoulder wound as mere speculation early in the autopsy. But the FBI report, the witnesses to Humes' probing of the wound, and Clint Hill's late night verification of its location are a matter or record.
It is only later, and probably Saturday morning, after the body has left the morgue and out of reach of the autopsy doctors, that Dr. Humes learns there is bullet wound in the front of Kennedy's throat, and this has to be accounted for. He admits burning a draft of the original autopsy, and by Sunday, the shallow back wound will rise to become a transiting neck wound, with a bullet entering Kennedy just to the right of the spine, exiting the midline of the throat without hitting any vertebrae, and proceeding onward to to hit Connally, destroy 5 inches of rib, shatter his right wrist, and end up in his thigh, all with little deformation or loss of metal. Thus was born the "magic bullet," required to account for a wound that never existed, and to conceal a wound that everyone at Bethesda saw, reported by the FBI and on Kennedy's own death certificate.
Now on to the head wound.
The first to see the head wound were Jackie Kennedy and Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who climbed aboard the limo before it sped off to Parkland hospital. Hill: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of his car." O'Reilly claims, in a statement without foundation in the autopsy report, official x-rays or photos, that a bullet entering the skull exploded "the thin wall of bone as it exists the front of the skull." But what does Jackie tell the WC? Jackie: "From the front there was nothing...but from the back you could see you know, you were trying to hold his hair on and his skull on."
And what was observed at Parkland corrobrates Clint Hill and Jackie Kennedy, the first witnesses. In his WC testimony, Dr. McClelland: "I was in a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull and been extremely blasted." The bones in the right rear were sprung open "in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." Dr. Jones described before the WC an exit wound in the rear of the skull. Dr. Peters described "a large defect in the occiput," and gave a more precise description to Lifton (p. 324, Best Evidence) which stressed how far back in the head the wound was. Dr. Chrenshaw, present in Trauma Room 1, drew diagrams of the wound for the ARRB consistent with the above descriptions.
But what of the author's contention that the top of Kennedy's head was gone, and the bullet exited the front of Kennedy's skull? No such wounds were reported at Parkland. Upon entering Trauma Room 1, nurse Audrey Bell had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was in Kennedy's head, whereupon Perry turned Kennedy's head to the left, revealing the right rear posterior wound. Her recollection that the top of the skull and front were entirely intact is shared unanimously by those at Parkland in their earliest statements. The Parkland verdict: Kennedy was shot from the front, and the body told the story unambiguously. The face was clear, the bones in the back of the head sprung open, with no obvious injury to the top of the skull.
So what does this do to O'Reilly's 300 plus page artifice? It tears it down like a house of cards. The problems with conflicting medical evidence is so great in this case whole volumes have been devoted to it, and the authors simply didn't do their homework. Those first on the scene and able to describe the President's wounds exonerate Oswald as Kennedy's murderer. The case is much too deep and complicated for a popular book such as this, and frankly, it never should have been written. The authors are simply in well over their heads. For a better picture of the medical evidence, it is still hard to improve upon Best Evidence; one would do well to read Doug Horne's 5 volume work Inside the ARRB and William Law's In the Eye of History. These give a more complete picture of the strange and distrubing picture that emerges from the events following Kennedy's murder. There is so much more to the story that has to be told.
213 of 276 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Disappointing,
I loved Killing Lincoln and could hardly wait for Killing Kennedy to be released. I pre-ordered it so I could be one of the first to read it. I was very disappointed. I felt there were so many things I did not know about the Lincoln assassination and learned so much from that book. I learned absolutely nothing new about the Kennedy assassination. I felt that, at times, it was hard to follow the story as it was sometimes written in the present and sometimes in the past.
I think Bill O'Reilly is great, but was disappointed in this read.
107 of 138 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Second Lieutenant John F Kennedy????,
Glaring error -- looks bad. Bill O'Reilly's Killing Lincoln, the page-turning work of nonfiction??? We all like to count on O'Reilly to get it right. Not this time -- gross inattention to (or ignorance of) detail.
"The skipper of the boat bearing the number 109, a young second lieutenant, slouches in his cockpit, half alert and half asleep."
Totally wrong service, wrong rank. JFK was in the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy has no second lieutenants and never did. The Army and the Marines had second lieutenants in WW II. JFK was a Navy Lieutenant Junior Grade.
A few pages later, in the text and in the caption for his photograph, there is a reference to Lieutenant John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Thus, he got a promotion. Lieutenant (in the U.S. Navy) is an O-3; a Lieutenant jg (in the U.S. Navy) is an O-2.
How many other oversights and errors are there in this #1 Best Seller??? It appears this book was rushed to press. I think the authors were the ones who were half alert and half asleep.
14 of 16 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars O'Reilly Completely Misses, Is Operating In Fantasy Land,
O'Reilly is a good story-teller, and this one is a real stem-winder.
While it is well-written, it belongs in the Fiction section as the entire "Oswald was a lone shooter, acting alone, and so was Jack Ruby, who never even heard of organized crime" theory of this event has been completely discredited by information that was available even to the Warren Commission (though they completely ignored it for the sake of expediency and the company line) and has been fleshed out in dozens of well-researched and documented books over the past three or four decades.
I was completely taken aback that Reilly would simply buy off on this theory and not even raise a question. This is a book that could have been written in 1965 and been appropriate to the times, had the author not read the entire Warren report and its supporting documents. In 2013, it's just a joke.
48 of 61 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Oswald standing while shooting?,
This is a well written book by a famous author. But there it ends. It is in no way a book about the Kennedy assassination. To give one startling example: O'Reilly has Oswald standing up against the left window sill while shooting at Kennedy (p.263). Everyone who knows anything about the case, or who wimply visited the 6th floor museum knows that this is impossible. Only the bottom section of the window in the Snipers Nest was open, and the window was a few inches above floor level. This one detail about the very seconds this book "Killing Kennedy" is supposed to be about, tells enough about the motives of the autor(s). Well written, but in no way a book about the Kennedy-murder.
22 of 27 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars TMZ Version of JFK Presidency,
This book is a readers digest version of Kennedy's presidency. The first almost 1/2 of the book focuses on JFK's philandering and Jackie's personal habits (chain smoking/confiding in other men etc). The short description of JFK's civil rights involvement concentrates on his alleged preoccupation with MLK's adultery. There's also mention of JFK's penchant for skinny dipping in the Whitehouse pool with other men visiting the Whitehouse. None of the quotes or descriptions of Kennedy, Jackie or Oswald include sources/footnotes, which makes the book seem contrived. It is the TMZ version of the Kennedy presidency and is a waste of time.
Most Helpful First | Newest First
Killing Kennedy by Martin Dugard (Hardcover - October 25, 2012)
Used & New from: $20.00