Customer Reviews

On the Trail of the Assassins

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

On the Trail of the Assassins is an excellent starting point for those trying to make sense of the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States. The author was the District Attorney of New Orleans, Louisiana at the time of the shooting. He felt, rightly it seems, that his jurisdiction contained a hotbed of intrigue against J.F.K. OTA is 2 tales in one: The first marshals the virtual kaleidoscope of sinister information, actual events, recreated events, innuendo, questions, malfeasance, lying, ineptitude, charges and countercharges behind the killing. The second relates the author's frustrating attempts to convict a real life person with plotting the act. The first effort is highly successful. This is true at least to the extent that the attentive reader should be convinced that 1) Lee Harvey Oswald certainly DID NOT assassinate Kennedy on his own and 2) was in every likelihood not DIRECTLY involved with the shooting -period. Furthermore, the author proved, to this reviewer's satisfaction that 3) Oswald also did not shoot Dallas Police Officer J.D.Tipitt that fateful afternoon. Linking Tippit to Oswald is critical in determining guilt. Finally, the author effectively eliminates the Mafia as the culprits in the crime. The foregoing is no small accomplishment. Left unanswered are the mysteries that have plagued virtually anyone who is unsatisfied with the Warren Commission or subsequent House investigation into the affair. A partial list of these issues encompass: the virtual criminal activities surrounding Kennedy's so called autopsy, the presence of a second and even third (!) gunman in Dallas that day, the outright theft of the President's brain from the National Archives and the total and complete failure of the Secret Service to protect J.F.K. in Dallas. The author properly raises the right questions. Like most investigators, he is unable to provide answers. The most tantalizing questions of all concern Oswald: Who was he? If he did not shoot the President, why is he so prominent And what on the fringes of the event? He certainly was on the scene that day. Was he set up to take the fall? Was he a patsy? His own murder two days after that of the President proved that someone wanted him silenced. The second tale surrounds the trial of one Clay Shaw, a local prominent business leader. Shaw was not charged with the murder but in forming a plot to carry out the assassination. No reader should be surprised at his acquittal. Garrison's case was unspecific and not coherently put together for such a serious charge. The jury s decision does not detract from the book one iota. There are so many unanswered questions and unexplained events to the Kennedy assassination it boggles the mind. The overriding burden lies in assigning specificity . At least Garrison tried to bring someone to justice. Conspiracy theorists will have to read further to get more answers to the frustrating questions. One weak point is the inadequacy of the one map of Dealey Plaza, the murder site. A more serious detraction is that so many facts are spread out over the text, many buried in footnotes. Readers will have to work hard! These facts, like the Shaw prosecution, are not always coherently presented, a strange omission from such an experienced lawyer. In fairness to the author, this may reflect poor editing, not poor writing. One cautionary note from this observer: The Kennedy assassination is highly similar to another troubling affair: The missing POWs and MIAs from Indochina. In both instances, our Government failed us. And in both cases, the full truth will never be known. There remains no reason not to continue to seek answers no matter how frustrating. If enough of us try hard enough for long enough, perhaps more of the truth will one day emerge.

As the only elected official to ever bring a criminal prosecution forward on the JFK assassination, this is definitely a must read book. Every newspaper in the country had as their first paragraph the announcement that the FBI and the Dallas police had an air-tight case against a marxist communist named Lee Harvey oswald. It was impossible to believe otherwise. Our government had facts that indicated otherwise. As District Attorney of New Orleans, Garrison had the authority to bring the facts out into the open. This wasn't a reseacher looking for the truth; this was a DA in a courtroom. Too many things didn't fit into the government's story and this is when Garrison approached the JFK case with a police mentality. From the opening cover depicting how the President's motorcade route was changed the morning of the assassination (only then would it be in front of the depository) to the fact that a first-class Mauser rifle was found by Dallas police on the 6th floor of the Book Depository ( not just the cheap mail order Mannlicher-Carcano rifle Oswald was alleged to have used), the facts continue to frustrate us today. The rifle alone leaves a hundred questions. Three empty cartridges from the Mannlicher-Caranolaying almost parrallel next to each other by the sniper's window in the same room as a 7.65 Mauser only complicated the set-up. One is left with the overwhelming feeling after reading this book that the JFK murder should still be classified as an open investigation. Facts that the government are keeping closed for 75 years from the time of this murder should be released. As entertaining as the Oliver Stone movie was; this should leave the reader numb. I don't often see this book as JFK material for the average reader and the fact that it's no longer published makes one wonder why. Maybe we're still not supposed to look at this case like a prosecutor but only as historians. I like the police mentality that Garrison brings to the story.

This is an amazing story, and of interest to those who like history, whodunnits or any example of clear thinking. I had always dismissed "conspiracy theories" as paranoia, without bothering to inform myself more. This book changed my mind completely!

It is low-key, fact-filled and well referenced, with footnotes and a good index. It is also a disturbing book, as it forces the reader to confront and question many sacred cows.

Jim Garrison, DA in New Orleans at the time of Kennedy's assassination (and central figure in Oliver Stone's movie "JFK") began his own investigation immediately he heard that Lee Harvey Oswald had spent some time in New Orleans, as Garrison expected Dallas police and the FBI would soon be visiting him. They never did. The Warren Commission Report came and went. It was not until 1966 that a chance remark led Garrison to read the Warren Report for himself: "Considering the lofty credentials of the Commission members and the quality and size of the staff available to them, I had expected to find a thorough and professional investigation. I found nothing of the sort." The book tells the story of what he did find and his own attempt to verify the Report's findings, in particular by talking to many of the witnesses called (and to many who should have been called but were not). His findings led him to Clay Shaw whom he indicted for conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.

The details of the assassination that Garrison uncovered are fascinating, e.g. Lee Oswald's negative nitrate test on the day of his arrest, the disappearance of Kennedy's brain, the odd (to say the least!) White House commands to vacuum and wash the car Kennedy was shot in, etc. Just as fascinating are the many blocks and stonewalls he encountered - why was Oswald's nitrate test result kept secret? Why was the famous Zapruder home movie of the shooting kept hidden from the American public until subpoenaed by Garrison in the Shaw trial? Why did so many important witnesses mysteriously die or disappear? Why was Oswald interviewed by an FBI agent for 12 hours yet no taperecording or notes were taken, nor was an attorney present (therefore nothing Oswald said then could be used in court)? Why did so many people warn of an impending attempt on Kennedy's life and why were these warnings ignored?

Some of the criticisms of Garrison that I have read do not answer these questions. Instead, oddly enough, they aim at his character, assigning to him vulgar motives such as self-aggrandizement or ambition. Some people even attack Oliver Stone's movie, as if discrediting the movie automatically discredits Garrison's own account, or makes Garrison's questions irrelevant. Other critics cite the fact that in the trial of Clay Shaw, the jury took just 45 minutes to find Shaw not guilty, as if this completely discredits Garrison's theory. The trial was about Clay Shaw, not about JFK's assassination. Firstly, Garrison himself was not sanguine about getting a conviction, but went ahead anyway as a trial would make many of his doubts and questions public. Secondly, his evidence passed the preliminary hearing (a 3-judge panel felt Garrison had enough evidence to warrant a trial). It also brought the Zapruder film to light, and discredited the completely ludicrous "magic bullet" theory.

Garrison comes across as an initially patriotic and naive young man, and his growth is similar to that of the main character in another Stone movie "Born on the Fourth of July". His style is rather plodding and perhaps here and there rather smug, but on the whole I found it scholarly and impressive.

I have read this book several times..plus read many other theories, but I find that Mr. Garrison's investigation was the most thorough of any government investigation. He new where to look and who to look for, since he was right in the middle of the New Orleans scene, during the trying times of the Cuban problems. This book goes into great detail about the search and contacts of many of the witnesses, plus gives numerous cases where witnesses for the case were killed or never found. I am with Mr. Garrison, I believe the government knew about the assasination and were involved with it in covert operations. This book really elaborates on all the fine details of cover-up at it's best.

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.

If you are even remotely interested in the Kennedy assassination then you have to buy this book. I am not ashamed to say that I have read this book at least a dozen times. It is that good. Garrison not only shows us the errors of the Warren Commission but anyone reading it is guranteed not to put it down until they are finished reading it. Not only is it well written but all the evidence Garrison provides to prove that the murder was covered up and even committed by individuals in our governments intelligence community is undenialble. This book truly made me a believer. Although Garrison was humble in response to some of the praise he received there is no doubt in my mind that he is truly an unsung hero of our nation. Unfortunately this work makes one question the greatness of of our government.

Garrison must have had something. I don't know what to believe anymore about the murder of JFK(I used to always believe that Oswald acted alone and he did it...case closed(read Posner's book!).My mind is still open since reading this and other books, plus watching several good documentaries.This book reads like a good novel(I read it in a day and a half).While reading this one, I also studied the Warren Report. After reading this excellent book, the questions are still in my head with no answers:Did David Ferrie know Oswald?Was Clay Shaw a black operative for the CIA?Were Ferrie,Shaw,and Oswald connected to the murder?Did Julia Ann Mercer really identify Jack Ruby in the pick up moments before the shooting?What was really going on in Guy Bannister's office?Was there any credibility to Jack Martin's story? All Americans must read this because whether or not you believe there was more to the assassination of JFK, Garrison must have been on to something.

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

Written by former New Orleans District Attorney, Jim Garrison - the only individual to ever pursue a defendant (Clay Shaw) for their involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Jim Garrison was played by Kevin Costner in the Oliver Stone movie "JFK". Although Clay Shaw was ultimately acquitted, many believe that Garrison unearthed some troubling issues concerning the assassination. This book invites you into the DA's office for an inside look at an investigation that had national attention. Garrison even appeared on the Johnny Carson Show while the investigation was in progress

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.