Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Hardcover)

~ (Author) "Marina Oswald awakens in the dark..." (more)
Key Phrases: book depository building, triple underpass, sixth floor museum, Warren Commission, New Orleans, Secret Service (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Bugliosi, best known as Charles Manson's prosecutor, spent more than 20 years writing this defense of the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the slaying of President Kennedy, but his obsession has produced a massive tome that's likely to overwhelm most readers. At times, the author seems determined to present every detail his researches revealed, even if it doesn't add to the overall picture (like a footnote on Elvis sightings). Further, while Bugliosi says even serious conspiracy theorists don't claim the FBI or Secret Service were involved, he devotes chapters to each. The book's structure—it's organized by subject, such as theories about the role of the FBI, the KGB or anti-Castro Cubans—leads to needless repetition, and, for an author who excoriates conspiracy theorists, charging them with carelessness and making wild accusations, Bugliosi is not always temperate in his language; for example, twice he makes the nonsensical claim that some Warren Commission critics "were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal bullet had come to rest." His decision to devote twice as many pages to critiquing Oliver Stone's movie JFK as to his chapter on organized crime (identified by the chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassination as the likely conspirators) is a curious one, as is the choice to open the book with a dramatic re-creation of events surrounding the assassination rather than a straightforward chronology of the relevant facts. Moreover, Bugliosi does not always probe whether individuals who are the sole source for certain facts (for example, Oswald's widow, Marina) had any motive to lie. Bugliosi's voluminous endnotes are on an accompanying CD. Gerald Posner's 1993 Case Closed made most of the same points in a much more concise way. 32 pages of illus. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From The New Yorker

This weighty book (its pages number sixteen hundred and twelve) claims to be the final word on the assassination of President Kennedy. It is as if Bugliosi, who prosecuted the Manson murders, intended to overwhelm with sheer, footnoted bulk. But in the way that others have "proved" conspiracies, Bugliosi "proves" yet again the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. He does this by reëxamining familiar evidence but also by dismissing preposterous theories, such as one that J. Edgar Hoover masterminded the murder to keep his job. Bugliosi steps less certainly in considering the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which, in 1978, concluded that J.F.K. was "probably" killed as the result of a plot. Citing a National Research Council study, Bugliosi brushes aside the committee’s acoustic evidence suggesting that four shots were fired in Dallas (a fourth shot would confirm a second gunman); he is uncomfortable with a subsequent analysis, by the British Forensic Science Society, which challenged the N.R.C. opinion. Mysteries are like that"
Copyright © 2007 Click here to subscribe to The New Yorker

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 1648 pages
• Publisher: W.W. Norton & Co.; 1st edition (May 15, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0393045250
• ISBN-13: 978-0393045253
• Product Dimensions: 10.2 x 7.1 x 2.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 5.6 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (178 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #36,484 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #3 in	Books > Biographies & Memoirs > People, A-Z > ( K ) > Kennedy, John F.
  #28 in	Books > History > United States > 20th Century > 1960s
  #38 in	Books > History > United States > 20th Century > 1945 - Present

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

39 of 51 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent book - from a Prosecutor's viewpoint, July 28, 2007

By	Jerry Dealey "www.dealey.org" (Garland, TX USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is an excellent book, and well worth the long read. It is a good overview of all of the events of November 22, 1963, here in Dallas, and a good overview of many of the problems with the Warren Commission and other theories.

However, the reader should keep in mind that Mr. Bugliosi is a Prosecutor, and not a researcher or investigator. His tendency is to build a case to prosecute the defendant, and explain away, or debunk any information that counters his case.

Unfortunately, like a Prosecutor, this includes discrediting any witness that puts forth any information that points elsewhere. Vincent often addresses the background of the witness, instead of answering or explaining the information the witness presents.

Vincent spends the first half of the book rehashing the 1986 trial of Oswald, where he was the Prosecutor against Gerry Spence. He uses 53 points of evidence to prove that Oswald was guilty of shooting the President from behind. He then goes on to review the many problems with the evidence, but bases the evaluation of these problems on the premise that he has already proven Oswald guilty. Since he has already proven Oswald guilty, the problems can be disregarded.

Mr Buliosi does admit (page 18 of the Introduction) that almost all of the evidence in the case has some "problem" with it. He says that each problem can be explained, in itself; however, he never states when the sheer number of problems reaches the point where it becomes doubt.

It is not surprising that Vince takes this tact, as he has always been a Prosecutor. It is not the Prosecutor's job to look for the "truth", as that should have been done by the Investigators. It is also not his job to evaluate legitimate problems that create doubt, as that would be the function of the Defense Attorney. It is the Prosecutor's job to present a case that would convict the defendant, and to explain away, or discredit witnesses, that present other evidence.

Mr Bugliosi also lumps all of us who have any doubts about the Warren Commission into the group of "Conspiracy Buffs", and states that we are all "kookier than a 3 dollar bill". He thusly tries to discredit any legitimate concerns and questions we may have, by using the most extreme examples.

He further uses the explanation that the public has heard that there was a Conspiracy for so long, that they simply now believe it. He also uses the old concept that "a great man needs to be killed by a great evil", and that is why many believe that a Lone Nut could not do it. He never addresses (or even admits) to those of us who wish we could believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone shooter, but are still troubled with the mass of points that point elsewhere, or to other shooters.

Again, the book is a good read (quantity and quality), but the reader should be aware of the bias of the writer to Prosecute a case rather than look for truth.

Jerry Dealey - Dallas historian, Dealey Plaza namesake family

44 of 63 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Interesting and thorough--but told from the perspective of an advocate,, June 18, 2007

By	Kerry Sullivan (Taylor, Texas) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This enormous assessment of the Kennedy assassination is impressively researched and seems quite thorough. But the author's background as a prosecutor and his probably well-founded disdain for most conspiracy theorists makes me feel I'm not getting an even-handed assessment of the evidence.



I have the impression Bugliosi is correct in his assertion that Oswald did it and acted alone, but his repeated characterization of those who view the evidence differently as silly or deluded undercuts his objective of providing a balanced picture of the evidence.



I finally gave up on a straight through reading at page 444, where Bugliosi laments the likelihood of future conspiracy theory proponents "who will breast-feed the conspiracy loonies for generations to come with their special lactations of bilge, blather, and bunk." Yuck.

13 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Absolutely Gripping - Solidified my thoughts on the case.., October 2, 2007

By	Christina Warren (Atlanta, GA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

I was 9 years old when Olver Stone's JFK was released - and that film and subsequent studies about Kennedy in school piqued my interest into the entire assassination. In 1993, after seeing a documentary on CBS or NBC, made for the 30-year anniversary of the tragedy, I REALLY got interested - at at age 11, started scouring the public library, devouring as many books on the assassination that I could. Although my personal research is paltry compared to the real buffs (on either side of the conspiracy debate), and my own interest in the case has waned over the years (puberty and whatnot), JFK has remained a subject of interest, and I have read dozens and dozens of books, seen countless documentaries and read the Warren Commission's report (though not all 40 volumes - just the 900 page paperback). Because of the film JFK, and the fact that the vast majority of the books written on the subject are pro-conspiracy, my young mind was shaped into that way of thinking. Although never a hardcore conspiracy believer, I certainly believed in not only government cover-up, but found the idea of a second gunman very, very probable. In the last four years or so, that has significantly changed -- seeing the 3-D recreation of the Zapruder film in 2003 or 2004 completely obliterated my previous thoughts, thoughts I had held for more than a decade (which at the time amounted to half of my life). Any waning questions I had about a cover-up or broader conspiracy were pretty firmly squelched after reading Vincent Bugliosi's fantastic, fantastic book.

While certainly ambitious (you could say overly so) and audacious with its goal - to undo 40 years of misinformation - the book largely succeeds. I say largely, because even though I give this book 5-stars (no question, to me, it is worth it) - the sheer breadth of the book and the concentrated nature of the information does not make this the easiest read for someone who comes to the subject with little interest or advanced knowledge. For those individuals, I highly recommend the unabridged audible download of the book, read wonderfully by Edward Herrmann -- I listened to it while on a long road trip with some friends, after reading the book, and it was engrossing and engaging in a way the written word can sometimes be overwhelming.

Issues of the denseness of the text aside, the book is just fantastic - Bugliosi does a unbelievable job laying out the events and then critiquing the aftermath, the theories, the criticisms and the public response. I have read more about those 4 Days in November than most people my age, but I was so captivated by Bugliosi's description and breakdown, it was almost like hearing the story for the first time. "Story" is an interesting word choice, because really, that is what the Kennedy saga has become: a story; a fable. More than just a historical event, the mythical nature of that presidency and especially it tragic end has become so much larger than life, it is easy for even rationale thinking people to get swept up into the idea of conspiracy, espionage and deceit. A mental case with an $8 rifle, a good marksmanship record and a perch overlooking the motorcade doesn't seem worthy of all that build up. Nonetheless, as Bugliosi so successfully lays out the facts, the "theories" and the reasons why those theories are almost all garbage (say "almost" because some theorists aren't nutty and as with most crimes, all the answers will never be exposed -- just because I buy the government's analysis doesn't mean that questions don't still exist), that's exactly what happened. We don't like to think that great figures of power can be taken down by nutcases with cheap guns -- but they can.

Even now, I consider Oliver Stone's JFK to be an all-time favorite film. The difference, however, is that I no longer believe that film to have any real bearings in reality. I still think it is a fantastic cinematic achievement and has had a larger impact on how the zeitgeist views a historical event than any other film in history (whether that impact was positive or negative can be debated - but the impact cannot -- though I may now disagree with the theories espoused in that film, I will always be grateful to it for introducing me to a subject I might otherwise never have given much thought).