Customer Reviews

A Simple Act of Murder: November 22, 1963

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(22)

 

 

Unlike Furman's other books, well-researched and written by a man who obviously knows how to investigate, this one was a disappointment. Furman totally ignored the Dallas doctors' observations of JFK's skull and the damage done to it. Taking only the autopsy material, and discounting the eyewitness reports from Dealy Plaza, as well as the reports from other than physician staff at Bethesda Naval, his conclusions are invalid.
If I didn't know any better, I would say that Mark Furman was merely fulfilling a contract with his publisher for another book that was due. Despite his self-proclaimed interest in the murder of JFK both from the personal and professional standpoint, Furman seemed in writing this book to not be interested in truth-finding. Afterall, it is the murkiness of the investigation, autopsy and conflicting medical examinations, to say nothing of the possible government coverup of the matter that have fueled the controversy for all these years. This book is overly simplistic, and I say that not as a "conspiracy buff" but as one who is interested in all viewpoints of the assassination, as long as they are thoughtfully conceived. Furman's is not.

It is refreshing to read a book on the Kennedy assassination by a REAL crime investigator. Fuhrman, like any professional investigator, does not make wild assumptions and allows the evidence to lead him where common sense dictates. He does an excellent job of summarizing the assassination and then, in an orderly fashion, breaking down the evidence and assessing its value. As the title suggests, his ultimate conclusion is that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the murder, yet, he adds a different twist to the sequence of the shots - dramatically different than the Warren Commission's conclusion. Fuhrman does not think that the Single Bullet Theory works from a geometrical and anatomical point-of-view. Be prepared for detailed analysis in this area. Fuhrman thinks that all three shots fired by Oswald hit an occupant of the limousine and that there was no "missed shot." Fuhrman believes that Kennedy's neck wound occurred at Z-187. Personally, the problem I have with that is that Kennedy shows no signs of distress and actually continues waving at the crowd. Kennedy shows no signs of being injured until he emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign at Z-224. A 2-second delay for a bullet passing through the neck seems a bit extreme, in my opinion. This book would most be appreciated by real students of the assassination because of its technical and detailed analysis. Conspiracy theorists will naturally be disappointed unless they want to gather some good information to refute the Single Bullet Theory. This is more of a forensic crime book than a history book. It is also a very quick read.

Got a good laugh from all the negative "I think the hobos on the Grassy Knoll did it" reviewers. I've studied all the evidence for many years and appreciated Fuhrman's clear-eyed look at all the evidence. Modern computer recreations all support the lone gunman theory. I agree that Posner's "Case Closed" was better, but this is worth reading, as well. Sorry, Mulder!!!

I was halfway through Legacy of Secrecy when I decided to reread Fuhrman's analysis of the Kennedy assassination. Whereas the former tome goes on and on in the usual conspiratorial manner, ticking off implicated name after implicated name as if to complicate the issues and confuse the reader unnecessarily, Fuhrman cuts right to the heart of the matter and makes most of the important aspects reasonably clear. What do the bullets and bullet fragments tell us? What do the ballistics tell us? How do we know that all shots, including the fatal shot, came from above and to the right rear of the presidential limousine? What "myths" about the reliability of Oswald's Italian made rifle require dispelling? What about Oswald's character and his behavior both before and after the assassination? The fact is, the author makes a compelling case for blaming the entire matter on the lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. Whether or not you buy every point he makes (some are more speculative than others), or completely accept his conclusions, is another matter. But to paint this effort as "light" and inconsequential simply because it is short and sweet is to miss the "Mark," in my opinion.
The author departs from most previous work in certain respects, for example in the particular way he rejects the single bullet theory. To account for the lack of time between the wounding of Kennedy and Connally, Arlen Specter proposed to the Warren Commission that both men were wounded with the same bullet, hence the so-called "magic bullet" hypothesis. This argument was supported in the Warren Report and subsequently pounced on as the primary point of departure by its critics. Fuhrman contends that too much use has been made of the Zapruder film and that it is only one piece of the evidence, albeit an important one. He thinks Kennedy was hit with the first shot a moment before the film shows him clearly reacting to it and that Oswald probably shot him through a break in the foliage of the oak tree at the corner of Houston and Elm, a possibility previous investigators had discounted as nearly impossible. After passing through Kennedy's back and neck, that bullet dented the trim atop the windshield and was deflected out of the limousine entirely, the author proposes, possibly striking a nearby curb and superficially injuring a bystander. It was followed by a completely separate second shot that struck the governor in the back, the so-called "magic bullet" that ended up on his stretcher at Parkland Hospital after falling out of a final, superficial wound in his left thigh. The testimony of both Connally and his wife support this view and Fuhrman expresses a strong belief in their credibility.
The third bullet, of course, is the one that killed the President, fragments from it cracking the windshield before bouncing back into the car. Previously, it was thought that the first shot missed the limo entirely, that the second shot probably wounded both victims, and the third shot killed Kennedy. Fuhrman's analysis dispels the necessity for the second projectile behaving as if it were a magic bullet and thus all but eliminates one of the cornerstones of conspiracy theorists. No wonder they are upset with him. Of course, he doesn't claim that he knows this for sure, but he does make a convincing case for believing it. Kennedy simply didn't realize he was shot, or at least didn't visibly react to his wound immediately. It's not so difficult to believe. But if not true, Fuhrman's "novel explanation" for the shot sequence begins to unravel.
I still can't buy that Oswald necessarily acted without anyone else's help or encouragement and this book barely considers the possibility, making much hay over his very suspicious testimony during his interrogation by Dallas Police. What it does prove is that he was a very capable assassin, despite all the armchair psychologists over the years who have painted him as a thoroughly inept, incompetent, and pathetic screwup. In murdering the President, he acted in a way that wasn't the least bit admirable, of course, yet he did demonstrate quite effectively one thing that most Americans these days still can't comprehend -- uncritical admiration for people who occupy lofty positions and have achieved material success coupled with derisive contempt for those who haven't done so may be a very misleading, distorted, and potentially dangerous way to view the world. Those who appear to be among the least of us, when gradually or suddenly driven to the brink of despair, can suddenly destroy the cherished notions of millions as easily as Oswald quickly and efficiently snuffed out the existence of our beloved 35th President, a man whose life and accomplishments embodied everything he could never hope to emulate.

When I first saw Mark Fuhrman's book I looked away, incredulous, a natural by-product, perhaps, of the "star-struck" cast of all involved with the O.J. Simpson case. I remained of the view that Lucien Parti probably gunned down Jack Kennedy, with complicity of CIA operatives, perhaps, in a cover-up. I never, ever "bought" the Lone Gunman theory of the case and the so-called "MAGIC BULLET" conjured out of thin-air by Arlen Specter because it simply ignored both natural laws and the clear, unequivocal testimony of among others John Connally and his wife--that he was hit by the 2nd shot, not the first.

I picked up Fuhrman's book yesterday and read it in an afternoon. Nobody else has put together such a practical and entirely credible synthesis of the crime. It reads almost like a report, a clear service to the public insofar as the so-called conspiracy theorist books are so pedantic, winding, and long-winded, they leave you both confused and tired. In the midst of an array of books that seem to try and crack the case with complicated theories and technologies, connecting the most disparate dots, all without the precision of a homicide investigator who genuinely wants to find the TRUTH. Who killed JFK and why?

Here's the deal: Simplicity has long been what was required and Mark Fuhrman delivers. He explains what really happened on that day in Dealy Plaza

Once an investigation turns John Connally to the left and not the right, which is the evidence and testimony at the time of his being hit, with the 2nd and not the first shot, (shot arrived before the "report" and shock precluded hearing what he felt and understood as being "hit") you see how the round hit his chest, ran around the ribs and out, into his wrist and then into his thigh. Nothing MAGIC about it!

The first shot was clearly through Jack Kennedy's back and perhaps nicking a thoracic vertabrae it exited his throat, yawing and hitting the stainless steel trim of the limo, bouncing back into the car as a fragment. Clearly, the third shot destroyed the President of the United States, there was absolutely no hope of surviving that horrible and demonically inspired shot. That round produced fragments that hit the windshield, together with blood spatters, and the corroboration of these events is clearly revealed by Mr. Fuhrman's skilled analysis. Another fragment hit the curb and wounded a bystander superficially in the face.

Three shots that day all from the same gun, all from the 6th floor of the TSBD building. The ballestic and related evidence is compelling.

It is clear that the people surrounding the murder and its aftermath were human, frail, even wicked, and once you dig up their lives you find things that brought them, somehow, in some way, into the fray, even if by innocent but related motives, as somehow related it seemed to the murder. And it has always bothered Americans that a simple crazed nut could successfully bring down a chief executive, a prince in our midst, what is inexorably linked to an institution of federal government. Those, while understandable and even cursorily related, do not give us a great deal, in terms of explaining what happened that day and they do not by any means operate to block or view from what truly happened--not if you read and understand this book.

Mark Fuhrman deals with those things sufficiently but not exhaustively. He investigated the crime and because a conspiracy theorist or even serious amateur investigator says there is another connection, tied to his or her own profit motives and even vanity, does not mean that any serious and detached homicide investigator would follow that lead.

One fellow decries the book, for example, because Mr. Fuhrman didn't follow the underworld links of Jack Ruby to their dead end cul-de-sac, quite to his satisfaction. To him that means the book is fatally flawed. That type of thing is nonsense and one large reason why so many have proved to be so distrusting of all that has been vomited out on this subject since 1963, starting with the literal garbage of the Warren Commisssion and following it the HSCA.

Mark Fuhrman wasn't investigating the Jack Ruby who murders Lee Harvey Oswald case. It is related, yes, but everyone knows who killed LHO and Jack Ruby told everyone why he did it even if we don't believe him.

I walked away entirely satisfied. The evidence finally was explained in a cogent and plausible manner. The timing fits. The testimony that corroborates the physical and other evidence is truly thoughtful and right on the mark.

I am a graduate of a top-ranked ABA-ACCREDITED law school. I am professionally trained to understand a case like this, in this way. Mark Fuhrman's case is one I could take to any jury, anywhere in America, and convince that jury beyond any reasonable doubt, that what happened all around that terrible day is clearly explained in this one cogent and well-written report. It explains the evidence better than any other effort out there.

The relative simplicity in which the book is written will make it possible for just about any person to pick that book up and understand what happened on November 22 1963. That is a real public service! Everyone SHOULD be able to understand if he or she desires to do so. One ought not have to be an erudite Ph.D. to know who killed an American President and Why?! Yet the book is not based upon Mr. Fuhrman being any simpleton. Rather, he "simply" solves the case. The different heights of the seats, the correct turns in the correct sequence and timing, as matched to the only meaningful eyewitness account--ZAPRUDER--and the testimony of disinterested witnessses--clearly shows us that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot and killed JFK, for reasons OTHER than why the previous investigations concluded it happened that way.

I am satisfied the truth is knowable, as to what happened to JFK that day. Perhaps Gerald Posner's book is a helpful addition, I will have to reserve judgement on that, until I read it--if I ever do. In the interim, I am convinced that we now have the truth.

Other than a few small errors, owing to fast editing, such as once more having John Connally turning right in the car in the summary chapter instead of left, which could confuse someone, and small details like that, the book is a real gem in the mist of a thicket of weeds.

I am truly glad I read this book. I always wanted to know what happened that day. Luciano Parti had nothing to do with it, and neither did the Corsican underworld, or Frank Sturgis, Cord Meyer, William Harvey, etc. This wasn't the hatched plot of a band of disgruntled CIA operatives, even IF there is tangential criminality surrounding the murder--i.e., Why was Mary Meyer plainly "executed" in a park, in broad daylight, only to have CIA's James Angeleton over at the residence before even her blood was dry, looking for her diary re JFK and their purported White House trysts while on LSD and Dr. FeelGood's visits? There are myriads of other questions and they relate to covering up what the President did while alive and we only confuse them to, somehow, in some way, also mean that is relevent to how and why he was thoughtlessly murdered. This is the reality of the distrust all previous efforts spawned because they could not and did not simply solve this case like an experienced homicide investigator would solve a case anywhere.

Let me add only this. Perhaps another book will one day better explain all other interests, why the federal government continues to withhold evidence from the people. I wonder if we didn't have a chief executive somewhat out of control? Family wanted to protect his image and by extension their own, for example, thus why Bobby or the Secret Service and/or CIA simply got the brain to simply "disappear." There are numerous questions that require analysis. Once JFK was murdered the question arose as to what ought to come out in an environment of hysteria and deep suspicions, and many concerns overlapped with the investigation that truly had nothing to do with the murder but would, perhaps, damage societal trust in government and its institutions. JFK was a deeply flawed man as all of men are and he had his skeletons in closets as does everyone, in some way.

All of those and related issues are not resolved by the book. Best I can ascertain, Mr. Fuhrman did not intend otherwise. He intended to solve who killed JFK and why he did it, not why others who had nothing to do with it would have done it or why they might have wanted to do it even though they did not. He stays on task and on what is critical to solve the case, to explain the evidence, to follow where it leads him.

He solves the CRIME. It truly was "a simple case of murder." Well done Detective Fuhrman. It never occurred to me that homicide detectives were not on any blue ribbon panel. That, too, does not mean any conspiracy, it simply means we have thoughtless politicians deciding what they, frankly, have no judgment or experience to decide. We live in a plastic world, where appearances are everything.

Mark Fuhrman's book is the first book anyone ought to read IF they want to know what happened and they want to get right to the truth!

After all the Conspiracy Theories ,Commissions,Investigations,Books,Movies,Documentries,etc.,Mark Fuhrman ,taking the detective approach,analyses the facts and methods that are the principles used in solving crimes like this;comes to the conclusion that the evidence supports the case that 3 shots could have ,and were fired from the window of the TSBD.The 3 shots came from the same rifle,there was enough time to accomplish the shots.It was not that difficult, and Oswald had the ability.There is no evidence that anyone was with him near the window.There is no evidence of a shot from anywhere else.There is an over abundence of theories of connections,motives and so forth.However,all the hard evidence points to only 3 shots fired by one gun and one person;that being Oswald.No other conspiracy theory has ever resulted in any other conclusion of another gunman being involved.Fuhrman does not even try to deny that there may have been a conspiracy behind the shooting,but, be that as it may,it has never been proven,only suggested,and that Oswald had the ability and did do it.If there was anyone else in the window who fired the shots,other than Oswald,and evidence had been placed there connecting it to him;then there is a possibility that someone else did it and when Oswald was shot by Ruby,it was to silence him. I don't think this was ever proposed,and it would have to been proved.
I have read a lot on the Assassination,and much as Mark suggests,if it wasn't Oswald ;then who ,and where is the evidence? There has not been the slightest proof for the case of another sniper ,or any other bullet from any other location...Just speculation and conspiracy theories.Theories are fine,but only the proof of a theory is what counts.

I was a little intrigued by the idea of a police detective looking at the evidence in the Kennedy killing and offering a 'solution' of the case. After reading this book, though, I am still waiting. The author provides nothing but a warmed-over presentation of the original Warren Commission report and restates the lone-nut-did-it conclusion. This book is a little like the 'Case Closed' book that Gerald Posner did a few years ago, but without even an effort to provide footnotes or references. Call it Posner lite.

The only deviation that the author makes from the Warren Commission is to attempt to reconcile the magic bullet theory with geometry and physics by saying that Oswald fired three shots but that none of them missed so there was no magic bullet. He then claims that the bystander injury from the alleged shot that missed was instead caused by an errant bullet fragment from a shot that hit Kennedy rather than a bullet striking the curb. The physics and geometry of THAT claim make the magic bullet theory look reasonable by comparison.

Fuhrman does offer a couple of interesting observations on the shooting. He claims that the grassy knoll shot would be a difficult angle, that an expert shooter would have no trouble shooting 3 bullets in 6 seconds from the bolt-action rifle, and he offers his opinion that Oswald was a failure as a Marine and had no friends. Recent evidence that Fuhrman has apparently never seen shows that Oswald received advanced Russian language training at a prestigious military language school while serving in the Marines, had many friends while in the USMC, served at a top-secret U2 air base in Japan, had a secret security clearance, and received an honorable discharge. Fuhrman also restates the botched autopsy of Kennedy as providing an accurate representation of Kennedy's wounds, ignores recent published observations of doctors who actually saw Kennedy's body after the shooting, and ignores most of the eyewitness observations of the shooting.

The Posner book "Cased Closed" is a much better statement of the lone-nut-did-it theory than this book, for those who are comforted by that theory, and has a lot more information. The Posner book does a good enough job of laying out the lone nut position that you can close your eyes, squint, and think to yourself that there might at least be a possibility that Oswald banged away from the 6th floor and did the job alone. This book does not.

There are many controversies about JFK's assassination, but the main controversy is about whether or not Oswald was part of a conspiracy. An author who holds that Oswald acted alone can either argue against the myriad and contradictory arguments for a conspiracy, or he can simply make his case that the evidence does not persuade against and in fact justifies the conclusion that Oswald planned and carried out his plan to kill Kennedy without any involvement in any way from others.

Mark Fuhrman holds that Oswald acted alone, and he makes his case that the evidence justifies that conclusion. This book does not contain detailed biographical information on Oswald or Kennedy. He contends that there were 3 shots fired. The first hit Kennedy alone, the second hit Connally alone, the third hit Kennedy alone. The "magic bullet" was from the second shot, and did not first hit Kennedy.

Like every other baby-boomer, I've read tons of books on the J.F.K. assassination. This one is profound in its simplicity.

If you want a clear-eyed, to the point, book on this subject, look no farther than A SIMPLE ACT OF MURDER. Agree with him or not, Fuhrman at least doesn't reach for the sensationalistic, as so many other of these books do.

It is quite obvious from the previous negative reviews that Furhman has forced the nuts to respond.Nothing upsets them more than to see someone with no axe to grind come up with rational and reasonable responses to the conspiracy question.
Although I don't agree with everything he has to say (see David R. Von Pein's excellent review), Fuhrman has, nevertheless, written a commendable book.