Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald; Volume One

by Barry Krusch

Why is this book one of the the most discussed topics in the history of the JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM web site?

Answer: $25,000.

Want that money? It’s all yours! Just win The $25,000 JFK Challenge!

Difficult to win? Not according to ace prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi: “Only in a fantasy world could Oswald be innocent and still have all this evidence against him. I think we can put it this way: If Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy, then Kennedy wasn’t killed on November 22, 1963.”

But the author of IMPOSSIBLE says Bugliosi is wrong. Bill O'Reilly too. Interestingly enough, no one, including Stephen King (who wrote there was a 98% chance that Oswald was guilty) has accepted the Challenge yet, including the dozens of lone assassin theorists to whom the offer has been made on internet forums.

Now why would that be?

FALL 2012 UPDATE: Thousands of people have read this book. Number of people who have accepted the Challenge: 0.

Genres: Nonfiction, History

328 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 10, 2012

About the author

Barry Krusch has a bachelors degree in Psychology from Emory University located in Atlanta Georgia, and a Masters degree in Education from Hunter college in New York City. Mr. Krusch also attended law school at the University of Georgia for a year.

After working as an investigator for Atlanta legal aid for four years and a paralegal for four years, Mr. Krusch has worked as an instructional designer, senior instructional designer, and project manager for the last twenty years. His client list includes Bank of America, Wachovia, American Express, Chase, Hartford Life, Knowledge Transfer International, Procter & Gamble, and many others. In 2002, he was responsible for the preliminary instructional design and editing of 52 audio books for Drive2Learn, Inc..

Mr. Krusch is also author of several books. His first book, The 21st Century Constitution, published in 1992 by Stanhope Press, was reviewed by New York Law School professor Richard Bernstein in his book Amending America. In that book, Professor Bernstein stated that the The 21st Century Constitution "may well be the most thoughtful and thorough reframing of the Constitution yet attempted." His second book, Would the Real First Amendment Please Stand Up? was published in 1996. When available in PDF format, it has received over 100,000 downloads since that time. According to the online directory Excite, "If you've got the time, we've got an online book for you. Barry Krusch examines the 1st Amendment in detail and attempts to put the Supreme Court's revisions of the Constitution into a form the layperson can understand. You should know this stuff."

As a result of his works on the Constitution, Mr. Krusch has appeared on the Tom Snyder radio show, as well as C-SPAN. He is also listed as an encyclopedia entry in the Encyclopedia Of Constitutional Amendments.

Mr. Krusch's latest book is Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald, divided into three volumes. This extensive work, over 1000 pages, demonstrates conclusively that the notion of a "lone assassin" in the Kennedy assassination is a complete myth, in no way justified by the evidence, and that therefore any case against Lee Harvey Oswald based on the notion of a lone assassin must completely fail.

His book is one of the most discussed topics in the history of the JFK assassination forum, perhaps for the following reason:

Impossible is paired with a thought experiment called The JFK Challenge. If anyone demonstrates before a unanimous virtual jury of 12 arbitrators that he has distorted or omitted information in a way that materially affects the conclusions of the book, Krusch will award them $25,000.

As of this date, out of thousands of readers of the book, and hundreds of visitors to Internet forums, no one has yet accepted the Challenge.

Reviews

[Sean Dexter · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is well researched and full of real evidence rather than wild speculation. I am the son of one of the original first generation citizen investigators of the JFK assassination, and I know what I'm talking about. Krusch's use of pop culture and humor is a great way to interest a new generation. We may never know the truth, but understanding that we don't know the truth is a good starting point. If you want a crash-course in why Lee Oswald was probably innocent, this is where to start. I will be reading the other two volumes soon.

[Dale Thorn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Note: Although I follow the the detailed presentation of the material in the book as closely as I can, some of my interpretations may go slightly beyond what's in the book in order to clarify certain points.

This book is really different. If you've been curious about the justice system - trials and juries and evidence et al - but didn't want to spend a lot of time digging through the usual volumes of boring material, this book is for you. If you were fascinated by the Kennedy assassination case but considered Oswald to be a minor character or (gasp) not even involved, you won't be titillated by this book like many of the other tomes which can entertain you with their lurid tales of Corsican assassins and Mafia godfathers etc.

On the other hand, if Oswald's guilt or innocence and the U.S. government's evidence handling can clue you in to the real secrets of the case, which I think it does, this is the book to read. But more than just an accurate examination of the evidence, I believe this book could well be the best primer on one of the most important roles a U.S. citizen has - passing judgment on an accused in a real murder case based on evidence provided by police and prosecutors.

If you were thinking that Bugliosi, Posner and others had fairly well proven Oswald's guilt in the Kennedy assassination, be prepared for a shocking lesson in the collection and preparation of evidence that's often presented to juries, and just how poor the case against Oswald has been all these years. It never fails to amaze me how many people will accept false or tainted evidence for a trial, whether they are on a real jury or just watching the proceedings on TV at home. I noted for example in a recent trial where blood samples were collected at a crime scene by a police lab technician and those samples were marked by the technician with their initials, that when those samples were presented in court the initials were not on them, yet the judge allowed them into evidence.

Before examining the evidence itself, it's important to note that the murder of any person, president or private citizen, has no statute of limitation, and thus the lack of real evidence against Oswald makes this an open case, not case closed as certain obstructors of justice would have you believe. A cold case perhaps, but not a closed case. Since assassinations of political officials are usually controversial, and many highly placed persons in media and government are satisfied to have certain other persons dead even when it's by a criminal act and covered up, we need to consider that coverup isn't just false or tainted evidence, it includes books with false information, fake reviews of honest books, and expert trolling of Internet discussion sites where most of the muck is being raked.

In the About This Book pages Barry briefly covers a few citizenship topics. One of my favorite mentions is the book Creature From Jekyll Island. Although I didn't read the entire book (which belonged to someone else), it contained an unforgettable analysis of the Michael Milken "Junk bond" case. It turns out that Milken wasn't so much committing a crime or perpetrating a fraud as he was in effect creating what amounted to an alternative money supply, something the Federal Reserve (a private banking consortium) seriously frowns on. While this book doesn't try to say that "The banksters did it" or some similar scandalous charge, it does point out that the overwhelming influence of money and corporate power can contribute to the murder of public officials, and that money and power can then influence the sitting government to cover things up for them.

In the Foreword to the book Barry raises issues in logic, so we can compare and contrast the type of logic we learn in school and apply to everyday things like balancing a budget, or whether it's OK to drive over the speed limit and then have to explain to our children that "It's really OK because you're allowed 5 MPH extra or (fill in the blank...)", with the special type of logic reserved for religious and political discussions. Not supposing that I know what Barry's actual beliefs are, I'm guessing after reading this book that he's trying to say that assassination, i.e. murder is not acceptable within the scope of political actions, and that we should examine cases such as Oswald-JFK using the first type of logic as we would when sitting on a jury in a murder trial.

Also in the Foreword is a deconstruction of the infamous Single Bullet Theory, which apparently was intended for Congress and the major media as a way out of having to deal with the notion of multiple assassins and thus a conspiracy. The general public might have found that theory suspicious, but given other events of that period that commanded a lot of their attention, i.e. the Beatles, Rolling Stones, long hair, beatniks, hippies, Maynard G. Krebs and his aversion to work, the developing Vietnam War, Jackie Mason and Ed Sullivan (OK, not a big deal but you get the picture) - the public just "moved on".

In the Introduction Barry gives examples with pictures that demonstrate how the major media have developed the Hate Words (my characterization) "Conspiracy Theorist", which are like other hate words we know very well that are used to marginalize people when we don't have the time or actual evidence to make a fair judgment of them. But where the media have come down severely (and sometimes opportunistically) on persons who might utter those "other" hate words, they make full use of Conspiracy Theorist because they see themselves in a war for their survival and the survival of their corporate sponsors against a public who to them are nothing but ignorant consumers and potential troublemakers.

Continuing the Introduction, Barry reiterates most of the commonly-known evidence said to convict Oswald of the murder. Then Barry says that not only does the actual evidence not incriminate Oswald, but he offers to put up as much as $25,000 of his own money for anyone who can demonstrate that Oswald did it, based on the factual evidence of the case rather than the usual media speculation and innuendo. Reviewer's note: I went to the JFK message board where the full challenge is posted, and wouldn't you know it the trolls and deniers there are as thick as fleas on a stray dog. In fairness to the forum however, while you won't likely gain an appreciation for truth and honesty among the many so-called Lone Nutters who troll the boards, you can learn a great deal there about disinformation techniques. It's a serious game with real winners and losers.

I'd like to add that for anyone who doubts the authenticity of Barry's JFK Challenge and the possible $25k award, I've gone that route myself on an unrelated topic and faced the same kind of disinformation from the people who have a lot to lose if certain facts become better known. The money as I understand it makes it real, and should any of today's JFK media stars like Bugliosi, Hanks, Posner et al decide they would really like to prove their points and collect the award money to donate to the poor (since they obviously wouldn't keep it for themselves), we could learn something from their acceptance of the challenge. But taking on that challenge means debating real evidence instead of regurgitating government propaganda, and I don't think even 25 million dollars would budge any of those guys.

In the first chapter Barry discusses Reasonable Doubt and what it means in murder cases. The standard of proof is very high, and in my quizzing of friends and relatives I've gotten a fairly consistent response that a juror should be 99 or more percent certain before finding a person guilty of murder, where the penalty is often death or permanent imprisonment. A terrible consequence of the bogus information propounded by the likes of Bugliosi and Posner is that not only don't we have the 99 percent certainty, we have considerably less than 50 percent certainty based on the percentage of people who believe the government's case. The percentage of certainty gets even lower when you consider that most people on either side have not taken a close look at what authentic evidence remains or was well documented before it could be destroyed.

This discussion of Reasonable Doubt was a turning point for me in reading this book and considering Barry's angle - specifically the case against Oswald. Up to this point, with Oswald and most of the other players and witnesses dead and with much evidence destroyed, we were all free to have our pet theories (or those provided to us by the major media) of what happened, with the plurality of those theories (not the majority) focusing on Oswald irrespective of the actual evidence. If you read this book with an open and inquiring mind, you'll be confronted with the real evidence of the case, preserved in a trail of official documents over the years and which exonerates Oswald based on Reasonable Doubt. And that is true even if you lower the standard to less than 90 percent. Which leaves you facing the likelihood that Oswald was framed. Or you could simply read the Katzenbach-Moyers memo and know officially that Oswald was framed.

Chapters 2 and 3 discuss levels of certainty and objective standards of Reasonable Doubt. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss quality (admissibility standards) and categories (comprehensive, credible, sufficient, consistent) of evidence. I don't need to describe any of that - it's self-explanatory, but I can say that the close examination of evidence against Oswald shows how bad it is in some of those categories and how much of it would not be admissible because it doesn't pass even the simplest tests. Example_1: The paraffin test on Oswald's cheek was negative. Example_2: There were two spent rifle shells found in the depository, yet certain documents were "updated" later to reflect three empty shells. Example_3: The rifle scope was very rusted and could not be used by the FBI in their tests, so they inserted metal shims under the scope mount to align it so it could be used. Example_4: Three spent revolver shells were found near Tippit's body, yet revolvers don't eject shells like semi-automatics do.

I think it's important to reiterate here that in a real trial, evidence that's been destroyed, fabricated, or has the appearance of being planted creates more than reasonable doubt in jurors' minds, unless that real trial is not a fair trial where elements of race, religion or political agendas are allowed to pervert justice. It's pretty obvious to anyone who has studied the Kennedy assassination that most if not all of the anti-conspiracy/pro-government authors have subscribed to a much lower evidence standard than what Barry's book describes, presumably because the accused and victim are dead and the only player still alive (the government, which by the way is highly suspect) is too powerful to indict and prosecute. Chapter 6 gives several examples of documented conspiracy and evidence fabrication by public officials - good background for readers not familiar with how those techniques work.

Chapter 7 raises an important issue that the HSCA as well as the pro-government authors dismissed or glossed over as not critical to Oswald's guilt as would be determined in a court of law. That issue is whether Oswald acted alone or there was another shooter. Barry points out that authors like Bugliosi have expended much energy and numerous book pages to convince their readers that Oswald acted alone, realizing that if their virtual jury of readers would seriously entertain the notion of another shooter, it would simultaneously raise doubts about Oswald's role. At the very least, since the pro-government authors claim that only three shots were fired, if there were other shooters then Oswald might be tied to only one of those three shots, or even none, with less likelihood of having fired the fatal shot.

Chapter 8 lays out the elements of the charges that must be proven to preclude Reasonable Doubt: Three shots were fired, by Oswald only, from the Carcano rifle only, from the sixth-floor window only, the three shots were spaced far enough apart to allow the bolt-action rifle to be reloaded and re-aimed, and only one bullet must have passed through Kennedy's neck and caused all of Connally's wounds. If even one of these elements cannot be proven, for example if two of the shots occured closer together than how quickly the rifle could be recycled and re-aimed, or if the Single Bullet Theory is shown to be wrong, another shooter is thus required and the charges against Oswald are in doubt, i.e. Reasonable Doubt. Chapter 9 then begins the item-by-item analysis of the evidence.

Warren Commission documents released in 1966, which were not included in the 27 volumes(!) released to the public earlier, revealed that one bullet struck Kennedy in the back below the shoulder, penetrated to less than the length of a finger and was recovered during the autopsy. In the early months of the Warren Commission hearings the Commission was proceeding on the assumption that separate shots hit Kennedy in the back, then Connally, then Kennedy in the head. Something happened then that created a serious dilemma for the non-conspiracy view the Commission was maintaining: James Tague, a bystander in Dealey Plaza during the shooting, was hit by a bullet fragment that bounced off of a curb near where he was standing. The trajectory did not allow for this bullet to have been one that also hit Kennedy or Connally, so the Commission was forced to explain how only one bullet could have caused all of Connally's wounds and Kennedy's earlier wounds, since the third shot to Kennedy's head was fired last.

The Commission came up with what is known as the Single Bullet Theory, which contends that a Carcano rifle bullet passed completely through the thickest part of Kennedy's neck, through Connally's chest breaking a bone there, through Connally's wrist breaking another bone there, and finally penetrating Connally's thigh. This bullet then fell out of Connally's thigh onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital in near-perfect condition. This theory has never been shown to be plausible, as least partly because no test bullets have ever been fired into carcasses breaking bones and exiting in near-perfect condition as is seen with the Parkland stretcher bullet. And since this theory, bogus as it is, also ignores the autopsy finding of the bullet in Kennedy's back, we know that Oswald could not have made all of these shots with the bolt-action Carcano rifle.

Reviewer's note: Occam's Razor is the principle that urges people to choose the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions in a case like this, or to put it differently, has the fewest contrivances in support of a particular conclusion. In that spirit I offer my best guess as to the number of bullets fired in Dealey Plaza during the shooting sequence:

1) Bullet to Kennedy's back.
2) Bullet through Kennedy's neck where Kennedy is grasping his throat and Connally obviously has not yet been hit.
3) Bullet striking curb and fragment hitting James Tague.
4) Bullet hitting Connally and suffering severe damage from broken bones.
5) Near-simultaneous hits to Kennedy's head making a small hole in the top back and a large hole in the lower back of the head.
6) Parkland stretcher bullet, possibly falling out of Connally's thigh.

Those six are a minimum count that does not include the bullet strikes on the windscreen and roofline of the car, nor the bullets picked up off of the grass by agents after the shooting. The evidence of bullet strikes to the car was photographed as was agents finding bullets on the plaza grass. The physical evidence of bullet strikes on the car was erased by the new president when he had the car impounded and "rebuilt". I don't know whether the bullets found on the grass were turned in as evidence or not.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Barry Krusch does an outstanding job. He has catalog volumes of information that he can quickly access and he understands how the court of law works. This is the first of three volumes that are out now and I understand a fourth volume is in the works. If you order the first volume on the 22nd of any month you can get this first volume free. The other volumes are only 9.99 each. Not a bad price for a Kindle book. Barry, knows all the evidence available. He explains how reasonable doubt works in great detail and then he examines the evidence to determine whether or not there is evidence that could have been used in the case against Oswald. He gives a fair view of all sides but shows what would have happened in a court of law in determining the admissibility of the evidence. Assuming that Oswald could have received a fair and impartial trial. Fascinating read and the best book I have ever read on the subject of the JFK assassination. Everyone needs to read this book. I do mean everyone!

[Marc Leroux · Rating 2 out of 5]

I won this book as part of the Goodreads giveaway program, and I was really looking forward to it. I clearly remember having my best friend's father come out and tell me I had to go home and tell my mother that someone had shot the president … I was 5 years old.

Unfortunately, I didn't enjoy this book. I'll round up from one and a half stars, because I did learn something of the legal system, but little about the Kennedy assassination.

The basic premise of the book is that Lee Harvey Oswald can't be considered guilty, for a variety of legal reasons. The author has created the "JFK Challenge" where he will put up $5,000 of his money if anyone can disprove his theories. This whole premise is a core piece of the book, but it is not well defined. The details of the challenge are scattered throughout the book, so you can't just go to the section titled "The JFK Challenge" and find out what it means; the section mentions $5,000, but the back cover says $25,000. Maybe the author changed his mind as he was writing the book, but if he wanted the information to be clear, he could have gone back and updated the section where he defines the challenge. My understanding is that the author wants to have a public debate and is challenging other writers, presumably those that believe that Oswald was guilty, to disprove the author's claims. Fair enough, I guess, but the details are kind of fuzzy. In the introduction, the author makes mention of an arbitrator, without any details like "Who chooses the arbitrator and what are the qualifications?" Elsewhere in the book the author says that the challenge will involve a virtual jury, again without details on how they will be selected, and how to be certain there will be no bias. Without clear details, I can't see why anyone would go down this path.

Also, what irked me, is that in the same section the author says that if I find any distorted or omitted information, I should prepare a rebuttal, then he will prepare a counter rebuttal and then it should go to an arbitrator. So there should be no debate about the book. If we haven't followed the process, then the author can discount everything that is said.

So anyone that believes that this is a system that makes sense can stop reading right now, because I'm not going to take my comments to an arbitrator. The book has a number of inconsistencies and peculiarities to it.


There isn't a lot of, perhaps any, primary research. Instead, the author is relying on previously written research, which can introduce distortions.

There are quite a few pictures, some which are from his personal collection, some public domain, and some which are probably still under copyright, that have no credits associated with them. That is just plain wrong. I'm pretty sure that the author didn't take the picture of JFK Jr at his father's funeral, or Jack Nicholson in "The Shining".

One of the books that the author cites as being incorrect is Stephen King's "11/22/63". OK, perhaps it does … but Stephen King writes fiction. That means he makes things up! In deference to Mr. King, I'm sure that he does a tremendous amount of research, and his book is on my "To read" list, but it is, none-the-less, fiction.

In Chapter 9, Krusch makes the case that we should believe certain things because they were reported in "media sources as reputable as The New York Times and the Journal of the American Medical Association" (pages 216-217), then later in the chapter (page304 – yes, it's a long chapter) he presents the "False Reporting Hypothesis", basically saying that what was reported in the press could be untrue.

In chapter 3, while trying to quantify what "Reasonable Doubt" means, the author includes a table of responses from judges on the subject. The 1981 poll included 171 judges in cases "not confined to capital cases". He then goes on to make the argument that the average number for non capital cases was 90.28%. Maybe, the capital cases from the "not confined to capital cases" were taken out, but there is no mention that they were. The number of 171 judges is the only reference. I read "not confined to" as something different than only non-capital cases.

He eventually sets the number for reasonable doubt at 95% (personally, I think that is low), but he doesn't apply the same premise to his own arguments. In the section where he maintains that Oswald could have been part of the CIA (chapter 7), he prints a memo from John A. McCone of the CIA saying that Oswald was not an agent, informant or employee of the agency, but immediately discounts it with "would they have admitted to it?" I'm not sure that meets the standard of 95% proof. A couple of pages later he makes the statement that Jim Woolcott (or Wilcott, the spellings are used interchangeably) "linked Oswald to the CIA", when in fact the wording in a 1978 interview with Woolcott/Wilcott says "talk about Oswald's connection with the CIA was making the rounds". This might have been very credible if the interview occurred before the assassination, but since it was 15 years after the fact, I'm not sure that it meets the 95% rule. Or perhaps, the rule only applies to those trying to find Oswald guilty, and any innuendo is sufficient for those trying to disprove it.


It's the small details like this (and there are many, many more) that make me question the accuracy of the information in the book. I'm like many people, I believe that Oswald acted with others, but I also believe that he could have been the sole shooter. In chapter 7, Krusch makes the case that perhaps Oswald was part of a conspiracy, with others directing his actions, and in this case he should be found innocent. He uses the argument:

"Suppose someone asks you to deliver a package for them to an attorney's office because their car has run out of gas. Being a good Samaritan, you do that. 30 minutes after the you deliver the package, it explodes."

He then goes on to say that you should not be found guilty, you had no intent. I agree, but I find that this example is a long way from aiming a rifle at the President of the United States and pulling the trigger multiple times. Even if, as Krusch postulates, Oswald was told that there were blanks in the rifle, the premise doesn't hold up. To be safe, he could have aimed slightly off target, just to be sure. This was under his control. I thought that the "I was ordered to do it" argument went out at the end of the second World War.

There are a lot of interesting items raised in the book, but they are put together in a confusing way, which makes it hard for the casual reader. The examples used often do not relate to the case, or even the point the author is trying to make. The author's bias is very clear throughout, which makes it hard for me to take this as a serious analysis.

[Pete daPixie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have to admit that no matter how many books I read covering the JFK case, I continue to be amazed with new publications that introduce fresh angles of research, or startling snippets of historical data that I haven't come across before. Indeed, it was a most tangled web that was woven back in '63, and after fifty years the deceit and mind-wash is maintained. If in doubt, just check out Lee Harvey Oswald on the free and independent website called Wikipedia.
To be honest, this book(s), (there are three volumes of this work, with a fourth somewhere in the pipeline) has been on my 'to read' list for some time, but the only reason I've embarked on this series now, is because I've just entered the world of Kindle. Being a fully paid up member of 'technophobes anonymous' the first book I decided to download was one of the cheapest I could find, therefore 'Impossible:The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald', at £1-91 was selected.
A large part of Volume One guides the reader into his, or her, place in the trial jury seat, and once fully sworn in, Mr Krusch begins his case defending the alleged assassin. Over the first one hundred pages there are five chapters that explain how the ladder of law has no top, and no bottom, and instructs us to only convict with evidence of guilt-beyond a reasonable doubt. It is only in the latter half of this first book that the reader begins to grasp the title of this work.
At £1-91 I'm off to download the next volume. Similar to 'Inside the A.R.R.B.' the first vol is largely introductory, hence four stars. However, I suspect that the following vols may well provide some five star ratings.

[Mike]

Be prepared to take a course in due process,but the class is worth the seat time. LHO was never put on trial. In the absence of that, The Warren Commission presented the prosecution's case. As a result Oswald was convicted in the court of public opinion. Ignoring the meme of conspiracy, this work is a credible cross examination of the evidence presented and the results are disturbing in the least. This is not a quick or easy read. It is methodic and meticulous because as the addage says "the devil is in the details".

[Danielle · Rating 2 out of 5]

I just cannot finish this book. I'm sure he proves his case, but it is so dry & dull, I'm not even absorbing what I'm reading.

[Mike Boyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tough To Follow

The author I felt tried to improve the readers understanding of evidence, perceptions and legal requirements to qualify Oswald’s innocence. But the reader is bombarded with legalese, syllogisms, charts and screenshots which instead of being helpful, was very distracting.
I had to do a cursory reading of the first 6 chapters of mental gymnastics just to start getting to the meat of the story.
In general, I agree with the authors general premise, but there are a lot of distractions before reaching a premise.

I felt using general narrative format would have been more effective.
I rated this a 3 star review, because the problems I had with my reading experience may be my own issue after having read so many JFK books and may not be problematic for others.
But the author is on the right path with his overall premise.

[Kevin Yates · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very disappointed with the book overall. The concept is a great idea and the areas that actually deal with the case and the evidence are quite good.
However, the bad points are the author waffles on about reasonable doubt and the justice system for far too long. This has nothing to do with the case and as a jfk assassination book it falls far wide of the mark as being a must gave title.

[Tony Martinez · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting read!! If you are a history buff or just a fan of JFK, it is worth the read.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sitting on the fence until I've completed this. So I might go back and change this initial ★★★ rating to something else. But if anything, I suspect it'll be downward.

The opening two thirds is very much along the lines of Father Ted's acceptance speech/rant of grudgements. The final third is inconsistent*/disingenuous/stretching/smoke & mirrors - all the things the author rails against.
It is undeniable that chain of evidence rules were not followed. The extension then employed in the final chapter here is a challenging one to accept.
Krusch also seems to have a bizarre bee in his bonnet over Stephen King's 11.22.63 over its narrative - a work of universally-acknowledged fiction.
The book makes some outlandish claims about its uniqueness - in terms of research and writing.

*especially this - cf. my highlights.

LATE EDIT -- Despite its compelling arguments, I'm downgrading this overall, partly because of some of its spacious arguments, but mostly because of its writing style.

[Risco · Rating 1 out of 5]

Self serving and sounds like an amazon commercial. There are other ways to obtain the book, but who would want to. I was in jr. High when JFK was killed. I had met him several times and was heartbroken by his death. I have read just about every book written and I do not think the whole story has been told, but his guy isn't one I'd choose to believe. Don't waste your cash on 2 and 3. I can get them free and won't waste my time on them.

[Allison · Rating 2 out of 5]

I expected more from this book, so that may've played into my dissatisfaction. He did make some very good points, but they were belabored ad nauseum. And it reiterated the old CIA conspiracy theory. I was hoping for more actually looking at the evidence and discussing that. There was some, and they were valid, but he would go on and on about them.

[Janet · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was unable to finish the book. I gave it a good try and made it half way through but I was so confused by all the legaleze stuff. I believe the book to be more for someone who would may e make an attempt to prove Oswald's innocence or guilt (if there would actually have been a trial) from a legal standpoint.

My one star rating is based solely on that it was was over my head.

[Jackie · Rating 1 out of 5]

I got this book as a goodreads giveaway. I made it to page 50. It's too dry for me. And too philosophical. I know it has to be like that in order to try to prove the author's case. I guess I was hoping for the "executive summary".

[Evelyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

As an attorney I almost have of the book could be spared and get directly to the case substance, however, for those non lawyers is indeed necessary to master some legal concepts. Also as a foreigner, this book presents an out of the box opinion of recent events.

[Barbara Huskey · Rating 3 out of 5]

I won a copy from Goodreads First Reads Giveaway.

It has a lot of facts and a lot of information and was pretty well done and readable by a non-lawyer. It did get pretty dry in some areas though.

[Bugra Kuran · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very Perfect.

[Duncan MacDonald · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book.