Josiah Thompson reviews Reclaiming History

[Michael Hogan]

"The real scandal of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination is that no reconstruction of the event makes sense. We know the event happened in one way rather than another. But the evidence is discordant and irreconcilable at a primitive level. The meaning of this discordance is unclear, but the simplest explanation is that not all the "evidence" is really evidence.

What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened."

So writes Josiah Thompson in his succinct style in a review of Vince Bugliosi's new book that appeared in the June 3rd edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07154/790575-148.stm

Apologies if this was posted elsewhere.

Edited June 5, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[John Simkin]

"The real scandal of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination is that no reconstruction of the event makes sense. We know the event happened in one way rather than another. But the evidence is discordant and irreconcilable at a primitive level. The meaning of this discordance is unclear, but the simplest explanation is that not all the "evidence" is really evidence.

What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened."

So writes Josiah Thompson in his succinct style in a review of Vince Bugliosi's new book that appeared in the June 3rd edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07154/790575-148.stm

Apologies if this was posted elsewhere.

Thanks for posting Thompson's impressive review. I thought this passage was very good:

From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered.

The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission.

What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest.

What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution.

[William Kelly]

"The real scandal of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination is that no reconstruction of the event makes sense. We know the event happened in one way rather than another. But the evidence is discordant and irreconcilable at a primitive level. The meaning of this discordance is unclear, but the simplest explanation is that not all the "evidence" is really evidence.

What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened."

So writes Josiah Thompson in his succinct style in a review of Vince Bugliosi's new book that appeared in the June 3rd edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07154/790575-148.stm

Apologies if this was posted elsewhere.

Thanks for posting Thompson's impressive review. I thought this passage was very good:

From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered.

The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission.

What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest.

What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution.

Both Bugliosi in his title "Reclaiming History" and Tink Thompson in his conclusion that "What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship" are wrong, in that this case is still legally classified as an unsolved homicide, and not totally in the historic realm, yet.

BK

[William Kelly]

"The real scandal of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination is that no reconstruction of the event makes sense. We know the event happened in one way rather than another. But the evidence is discordant and irreconcilable at a primitive level. The meaning of this discordance is unclear, but the simplest explanation is that not all the "evidence" is really evidence.

What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened."

So writes Josiah Thompson in his succinct style in a review of Vince Bugliosi's new book that appeared in the June 3rd edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07154/790575-148.stm

Apologies if this was posted elsewhere.

Thanks for posting Thompson's impressive review. I thought this passage was very good:

From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered.

The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission.

What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest.

What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution.

Both Bugliosi in his title "Reclaiming History" and Tink Thompson in his conclusion that "What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship" are wrong, in that this case is still legally classified as an unsolved homicide, and not totally in the historic realm, yet.

BK

[David G. Healy]

"The real scandal of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination is that no reconstruction of the event makes sense. We know the event happened in one way rather than another. But the evidence is discordant and irreconcilable at a primitive level. The meaning of this discordance is unclear, but the simplest explanation is that not all the "evidence" is really evidence.

What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened."

So writes Josiah Thompson in his succinct style in a review of Vince Bugliosi's new book that appeared in the June 3rd edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07154/790575-148.stm

Apologies if this was posted elsewhere.

Thanks for posting Thompson's impressive review. I thought this passage was very good:

From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered.

The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission.

What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest.

What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution.

Both Bugliosi in his title "Reclaiming History" and Tink Thompson in his conclusion that "What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship" are wrong, in that this case is still legally classified as an unsolved homicide, and not totally in the historic realm, yet.

BK

the time for scholarship (historical or otherwise) has long passed...

[Charles Drago]

We DO KNOW what happened:

John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

We DO KNOW how he was killed:

By multiple gunmen.

We DO KNOW the legal term of art used to describe these gunmen and their sponsors:

Criminal conspirators.

Charles

[Thomas H. Purvis]

"The real scandal of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination is that no reconstruction of the event makes sense. We know the event happened in one way rather than another. But the evidence is discordant and irreconcilable at a primitive level. The meaning of this discordance is unclear, but the simplest explanation is that not all the "evidence" is really evidence.

What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened."

So writes Josiah Thompson in his succinct style in a review of Vince Bugliosi's new book that appeared in the June 3rd edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07154/790575-148.stm

Apologies if this was posted elsewhere.

Thanks for posting Thompson's impressive review. I thought this passage was very good:

From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered.

The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission.

What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest.

What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution.

Both Bugliosi in his title "Reclaiming History" and Tink Thompson in his conclusion that "What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship" are wrong, in that this case is still legally classified as an unsolved homicide, and not totally in the historic realm, yet.

BK

the time for scholarship (historical or otherwise) has long passed...

Yep!

Since virtually every other approach has resulted in failure, perhaps one should try the old:

Forensic; ballistic; pathological; & physical fact approach at problem resolution.

The resulting answer will no doubt NOT be what many here wish to here.

[Charles Black]

Sorry ! Error !

[David G. Healy]

"The real scandal of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination is that no reconstruction of the event makes sense. We know the event happened in one way rather than another. But the evidence is discordant and irreconcilable at a primitive level. The meaning of this discordance is unclear, but the simplest explanation is that not all the "evidence" is really evidence.

What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened."

So writes Josiah Thompson in his succinct style in a review of Vince Bugliosi's new book that appeared in the June 3rd edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07154/790575-148.stm

Apologies if this was posted elsewhere.

Thanks for posting Thompson's impressive review. I thought this passage was very good:

From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered.

The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission.

What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest.

What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution.

Both Bugliosi in his title "Reclaiming History" and Tink Thompson in his conclusion that "What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship" are wrong, in that this case is still legally classified as an unsolved homicide, and not totally in the historic realm, yet.

BK

the time for scholarship (historical or otherwise) has long passed...

Yep!

Since virtually every other approach has resulted in failure, perhaps one should try the old:

Forensic; ballistic; pathological; & physical fact approach at problem resolution.

The resulting answer will no doubt NOT be what many here wish to here.

Frankly Tom -- whether or not LHO was a *wittingly or unwittingly* participant means not much to me. It's the OTHERS I'm curious about

[Thomas H. Purvis]

"The real scandal of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination is that no reconstruction of the event makes sense. We know the event happened in one way rather than another. But the evidence is discordant and irreconcilable at a primitive level. The meaning of this discordance is unclear, but the simplest explanation is that not all the "evidence" is really evidence.

What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened."

So writes Josiah Thompson in his succinct style in a review of Vince Bugliosi's new book that appeared in the June 3rd edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07154/790575-148.stm

Apologies if this was posted elsewhere.

Thanks for posting Thompson's impressive review. I thought this passage was very good:

From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered.

The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission.

What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest.

What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution.

Both Bugliosi in his title "Reclaiming History" and Tink Thompson in his conclusion that "What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship" are wrong, in that this case is still legally classified as an unsolved homicide, and not totally in the historic realm, yet.

BK

the time for scholarship (historical or otherwise) has long passed...

Yep!

Since virtually every other approach has resulted in failure, perhaps one should try the old:

Forensic; ballistic; pathological; & physical fact approach at problem resolution.

The resulting answer will no doubt NOT be what many here wish to here.

Frankly Tom -- whether or not LHO was a *wittingly or unwittingly* participant means not much to me. It's the OTHERS I'm curious about

Well! If looking for the "OTHERS", as in multiple assassins, good luck!

And, as far as the "OTHERS", in regards to who was manipulating persons and events, the stench of the WC and the time delay caused by it's lie has long ago degraded the true scent in which the hounds could absolutely determine which of the multitudes of players were actually behind the shooting.

Irrelevant as to whether LHO was the lone shooter/assassin, or the designated rabbit to be chased, he most assuredly was not a "Lone Nut".