Customer Reviews

Silencing the Lone Assassin: The Murders of JFK and Lee Harvery Oswald

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

You ever disagree on a topic and then later find out that maybe you might not have all the facts? In my case, this is the assassination of JFK. I have read over thirty books on the assassination and most point to a conspiracy. Along comes John Canal and maybe, just maybe I need to rethink my position.

While I am still leaning to the conspiracy angle, Canal give a well documented and well-written book that may, may have you think again. Over the last four decades the answers have been shrouded in a world of mystery and cover-ups, now some of those clouds are disappearing.

Canal uses extensive evidence from ballistics expert testimonies, newly acquired evidence and his own simulations to formulate the assassination, his arguments are clear, well documented and extremely convincing. This reader was most impressed by the layout of his findings.

The other thing I liked about this book was the way the author used phone records of Oswald and Ruby to track the movements of both men. This is the first time I had ever read any book that detailed this are of the assassination. While I still believe in multiple shooters, this book does give you another side to consider - well done!

Boy is this book lame- Let me get this straight the only conspiracy is Ruby's shooting of Oswald under orders from the Mafia..The Author opines Oswald shot and acted alone- Contrary to what we see in the Zapruder Film and dozens of witnesses in Dealey Plaza & Parkland Hospital the head shot actually came from the rear. Dr. Malcom Perry reported 3 times 11-22-63 the throat wound was one of entrance. Again the Single Bullet Theory is seen as fact yet, orderly Tomlinson reported to the Warren Staff and head of Sec. at Parkland O.P. Wright told author Josiah Thompson that the bullet was wedge shaped, not at all like the supposed MC Bullet of infamy. SS A Roy Kellerman told the Warren Commission that Finck reported to him" there are no outlets for entry in this man's Shoulder" Then we have none of the SS Agents being able to positively ID it for the WC> To top it off during the Shaw Trial, Dr. Finck told the New Oreans Grand Jury that the bullet never penetrated! Testimony recently released from one of the Autopsy assistants makes clear the bullet never penetrated the pleural cavity. Knowing this..you would have to be intellectually dishonest to believe the Official Story. But, that's what they wanna do is keep you confused. Anyone can see the fatal shot came from the right front..add a big mess on the right side of his head in the Z Fim( which wasn't seen at Parkland) and remove any traces of blood going out the rear of the head, a little blackening of the back of the head- remeber the Z Film wasn' seen by the vast majority of the public until Robert Groden showed it on Geraldo in 1975.

Though I do not concur with all of the conclusions this is an extremely valuable book to examine in determining the truth about what occurred on 11/22/63. The book is an essential resource in the library of serious researchers. John Canal has gathered a tremendous amount of evidence and organized it in a well written treatise .

This book may seem impressive to the novice, by virtue of its very careful selection of "facts" and "aw shucks" style. But in its brevity it dismisses mountains of evidentiary problems. Canal's "proof" of two shots from the rear breezily ignores such basic issues as where the bullet entered the head (the autopsy doctors differed from the HSCA's 9-member medical panel by an incredible 4 inches, in case you didn't know, and it makes all the difference in the world). The authenticity of the "authenticated" autopsy pictures was disputed in 1997 by several autopsy witnesses deposed by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), but Canal is silent on all of these interviews. Many new ARRB documents (including a transcript of an LBJ-Hoover phone call from 10 AM on November 23rd) show that the FBI realized Oswald was impersonated in (incriminating) telephone conversations to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Canal discusses only the embassy visits, not the taped phone calls, which are an entirely different matter. There's no room to list all the ways in which the evidence released in 1993 through 1999 blows apart the simple "facts" presented in this book, not to mention the problems with this evidence all along. It is very telling that the author does not present a single word from the new testimony and released files, and instead substitutes 29 pages from a Journal of the American Medical Association non-peer-reviewed article whose contents are in many instances directly contradicted by sworn testimony. The Ruby thesis (shooting Oswald because he knew too much about the Castro assassination plots) is at least entertaining.

Ridiculous. Filled with inaccuracy, incomplete inquiry and misguided analysis, as anyone who has legitimately and objectively studied and examined this case throughout the years knows. Mr. Canal needs to understand a basic tenant of reliable writing: research must go beyond information found solely within the author's home, and his presentation of that research, if credibility of the writing is an objective, should not use such outlandish, incorrect and juvenile descriptive phrases as "Let's face it, Oswald was three french fries away from being a 'Happy Meal'!" (See P. 52.) Absolutely ridiculous.

This book is a good introduction to the lone gunman theory and offers a reasonable but basic insight into why Oswald pulled that trigger if indeed he did. In fact its quite a brave book in that Canal offers a personal if not entirely professional insight into the mind of a would be assassin. Let us face it - JFK was shot and there is indeed a need to try and understand the psychology behind the killer that pulled this off. It concludes however that whilst Oswald was not part of a conspiracy, Ruby's killing of Oswald was itself not a spontaneous and single minded act. It was mafia backed due to Oswald's knowledge of anti Castro clandestine activity in New Orleans in the summer of 63 and before. Give this some serious thought and you should conclude it's not such a crazy suggestion. Personally I don't agree with Canal on Ruby's motives, but I am open minded enough to consider Canal's view.

So this small rather casually written book contains some reasonable common sense and if you are limited on time and wish to gain an appreciation of the "Oswald did it" stance, it is worth reading. Unlike some reviewers here, I did not find the style and sometimes poor grammar that off putting. I do think Canal has made a reasonably worthwhile contribution to the case in that it is difficult to do justice to the subject in less than a thousand pages, but he makes you think. I have studied this case extensively for 25 years and I started off believing in a conspiracy, I have to say now that that was because I had not read widely enough around the subject and I do not mean just the assassination. The vast majority of people who do however read extensively - and I mean all 26 volumes of the Warren Commission plus the hundreds of books on the subject - from both sides of the fence and who equip themselves with a good understanding of ballistics and gunshot wounds etc, and who step back and take an open mind, conclude that it is possible that one shooter was involved and only one. The wealth of evidence suggests beyond a doubt that all shots were fired from above and behind. After years of wrangling with that issue, I agree. John Canal does a good job of condensing a lot of analysis into succinct passages that give the reader an insight into the no conspiracy view. This is where this books strengths are. To summarize, if you want a short introduction to the "Oswald did it" argument, this book is recommended. Mel Ayton's works on this subject are similarly brief, but slightly better and are highly recommended.

John Canal seems like a nice guy; then again, so does O.J. This book is in the same realm as Posner-Belin-Moore-Mailer: LHO did it all alone. Yawn. Bugliosi is soon to follow (soon=years away)...
Vince Palamara

Author John Canal, identified as an ex-U.S. Air Force and electronics expert, wants to have it both ways: no, a conspiracy did NOT exist in the murder of JFK but yes, the Mafia DID conspire to whack out Lee Harvey Oswald. Cleverly citing plenty of 36-year-old scientific gobble-de-gook in attempting to prove the Warren Report's unlikely "single bullet theory," Canal neglects to cite any of the more recent evidence released from secret government files since 1992. Why? Perhaps because many of these documents tend to support conspiracy theorists who have long believed that Oswald was in fact a low-level intelligence operative and informant for more than one U.S. government agency, possibly including the Office of Naval Intelligence and the FBI.

Canal DOES tie Oswald to the New Orleans Mafia, however, and DOES tie those same mob figures to the CIA (via the now well-known early 1960s assassination plots targeting Cuba's Premier Fidel Castro), but he fails to make the next logical jump: that Oswald may have worked for or at least had working knowledge of the CIA via his relationships with Crescent City spooks David Ferrie and Guy Banister, both of whom also worked for New Orleans Mafia Don Carlos Marcello.

Although the Warren Commission was content to characterize Oswald's killer, Jack Ruby, as just another "lone nut," Canal concedes that the Chicago-bred nightclub operator was affiliated with Windy City mob figures, the Teamsters Union and southern Mafioso such as Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello. So OK, Canal says, the Mafia had to "silence" Oswald because he might talk about the CIA/Mob plans to kill Castro--NOT because the CIA and the mob turned their guns back on Kennedy (as so many researchers now believe, and the historical record is slowing starting to reveal). But you really can't have it both ways. If you believe that Ruby shot Oswald under orders, then it's more reasonable to deduce that those orders came from the same dark forces which assassinated the president.

Canal's work, like that of Gerald Posner and others who steadfastly cling to the Warren Report's "Lone Nut" theory, smacks of contemporary historical revisionism intended specifically to confuse the public and deter people from the real truth--that agents of the U.S. government in concert with underworld criminals successfully eliminated JFK (and later Robert F. Kennedy as well).

Readers who want to know what really happened would do well to check out other recent studies such as DEEP POLITICS & THE DEATH OF JFK by Peter Dale Scott or CONTRACT ON AMERICA by David Scheim.

John Canal's work is more obfuscation than illumination.

Canal has produced a readable and quite convincing argument for a lone assassin of JFK. The book seems to be quite accurate and the reference list is quite complete. The book is interesting and a very quick read. The summary of the controversy about JFK's assassination is complete and very convincing that LHO acted alone and without conspiracy. Also, the explanation of why JR assassinated LHO is very convincing. All-in-all quite a good work!

Canal's objective in writing this book was to convince his readers that Oswald acted alone in the assassination of JFK. Unfortunately for Canal, his weak presentation, complete ignorance of many of the facts of the case, obnoxious self-righteousness, and poor grammar do little to persuade the reader that he is a trustworthy source of information.

His arguments are subjective, flimsy, and often contradictory; at one point he argues that JFK's assassination could NOT have been a conspiracy because no worthy conspirators would have hired Oswald for the job after he had demonstrated such poor marksmanship in an (alleged) failed assassination attempt on General Walker several months earlier. Yet Canal would have the reader believe that this same lousy marksman squeezed off 3 shots (2 with deadly accuracy) from a bolt-action rifle in under 7 seconds? Such arguments are more confusing than convincing, and the book is packed with them!

Much of the book is speculation (Canal even admits this), and it contains few (if any) hard facts. Evidently Canal felt that his indignant tone and his frequent use of italics, capitalization, and exclamation points would make it obvious to the reader that he was right and that he would therefore not need to present any actual evidence in support of his thesis. If you're looking for facts or answers to nagging questions regarding the JFK assassination, this book is not for you. (If you're looking to be smugly berated by an author who refuses to acknowledge the possibility that he's wrong, then you're in luck...)

As if to add insult to injury, Canal's grammar and sentence construction are abysmal. If there was a convincing argument in there somewhere amidst all the misplaced commas and dangling participles, this reader certainly missed it.

My advice to those who are seeking an intelligent discussion of the facts of the case: save your money (or try Lifton's "Best Evidence" if you're really serious). My advice to Canal: don't quit your day job.