Rating: 
Summary: Garrison Proves His Case
Review: Jim Garrison's book is one of the best regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. Regardless of the attacks on Garrison by many authors and members of the media, Garrison proves to be the one and only real hero in this matter, which really is in need of a hero. His book goes to state his thoughts on how the President was killed and why, and goes into telling an epic tale about the investigation he conducted in New Orleans as the District Attorney. It is a story about one man who tried to seek the truth, and bring the killers to justice, and when he brings a conspirator to trial, the media and federal government tries to shred his case to pieces. The government went so far as to charge him with fraudulent case of collecting payoffs from "pinball operators" while running for re-election. It brings forth the odd charcters involved in the case such as David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, and Guy Banister. This book is the basis for Oliver Stone's film "JFK." I recommend this book to all of those people whom are seeking the truth. This is a very important book, and is a must have!
Rating: 
Summary: Nice story, but it's untrue
Review: Like many conspiracy books, the impact of Garrison's tome depends on the reader having little independent knowledge of the facts of the case. In this case:
1. Garrison conceals problems with witness testimony.
2. Garrison recounts the testimony of witnesses who were discredited before the Shaw case came to trial, and who were never called to testify precisely because they lacked credibility. He apparently assumes (correctly, in many cases) that readers will not know that these witnesses were discredited.
3. Garrison takes witnesses who appeared rather late in the investigation and has them appear earlier so as to imply a sound basis for his suspicions about David Ferrie, arrest of Clay Shaw, etc.
4. Garrison makes excuses for the failure of his case, claiming sabotage by nefarious Federal authorities, journalists, and governors of states who supposedly refused to extradite witnesses he wanted. He would have had a case, he implies, if sinister forces had not impeded his prosecution.
5. Garrison inflates his own (and his staff's) investigative prowess. Ideas that were the result of crackpot inferences (Shaw as "Bertrand"), or dropped into Garrison's lap by buffs trying to help become the product of painstaking investigation.
6. Garrison conceals his own volatile character, painting himself as a model of self control.
7. Garrison paints a vivid picture of himself in the courtroom during the testimony of Clay Shaw and Charles Spiesel, and when the verdict was read, in spite of the fact that he was absent. Had he told the truth, readers would wonder why he was absent from the most important case he had ever brought.
People who want to believe Garrison doubtless will, but people who are at least a bit skeptical should check the following web page:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
Rating:
Summary: The Search for the Truth
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Nuttery Kookery
Review: Really, this is for the unhinged, hate-America crowd. I give it two stars because it was entertaining enough to read a half dozen times over the years--but this is a book that brings to mind the line about Capt. Queeg, He is a freudian delight, he crawls with clues. Poor Garrison yawps and waves his arms in a disturbing manner and howls of a conspiracy for several hundred pages--and proves no such thing. What he omits would fill twenty-plus volumes--and does: the Warren Commission, whose let's-get-to-the-conclusion-LBJ-wanted report is flawed but gets to the heart of it: Oswald had the means, motive, and opportunity. If you are serious about this business and want to see the REAL Garrison, please read the Lambert (False Witness), Bremer (The Garrison Case), and especially the Kirkwood (American Grotesque) books on Jim's case (all available on Amazon.com). If you can read them and still think of all doubters of the doubters as CIA plants, well....
Rating: 
Summary: Low-key, fact-filled and fascinating
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Low-key, fact-filled and fascinating
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: If you want wacky, Garrison gives it to you....
Review: This is in a tie with Lane's Rush to Judgement for worst book on the subject. Written by a man who is clearly mentally disturbed and the books shows it. He went on a case based on almost no evidence and lost the case because of this. He lies consistently about witnesses and belittes the people who disagree with him. Skip this and read Posners Case Closed.
Rating:
Summary: The only prosecution involving the JFK assassination.
Review: 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
|
