The Last Investigation: What Insiders Know about the Assassination of JFK by Gaeton Fonzi

by Gaeton Fonzi

s/t: Gaeton Fonzi, Former Federal Investigator Breaks His Oath of Silence
Gaeton Fonzi, an investigator with the Senate & House Select Committees dealing with Intelligence & Assassinations, reveals the fruit of his investigative efforts in addition to providing a penetrating critique of the conduct of the House investigation. His most significant work involves Cuban exiles Sylvia Odio & Antonio Veciana. Odio was visited in her Dallas home by two anti-Castro activists & Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the JFK assassination. They approached her to solicit funds for their anti-Castro activities. Odio is certain it was Lee Harvey Oswald who was present at that time. Antonio Veciana was the leader of the extremely militant anti-Castro organization known as Alpha66. Veciana's CIA handler was 'Maurice Bishop' who the author demonstrates was none other than David Atlee Phillips. When Veciana travelled to Dallas prior to the assassination to meet his CIA handler, he found Phillips in conversation with Oswald, thereby demonstrating Oswald's link to US intelligence. Fonzi also reveals another CIA handler of anti-Castro Cuban organizations & their operations inside Cuba, David Sanchez Morales. {Miami's CIA station handling the anti-Castro operations was run by David Sanchez Morales, Theodore Shackley, E. Howard Hunt & David Atlee Phillips}. Morales admitted to a lifelong friend that "We [CIA] took care of that...Kennedy", suggesting US intelligence participation in the JFK hit. Fonzi's personal interactions with Sylvia Odio, Antonio Veciana, David Atlee Phillips etc provides a human dimension to the information he reveals which sets his work apart from most other assassination literature. His work provides readers with important, new information based upon his own personal investigative work in the field & is invaluable in its contribution toward uncovering the truth of the JFK assassination.--Theodore M. Herlich (edited)

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Conspiracy Theories, True Crime, Politics, The United States Of America, Historical

Hardcover

First published November 1, 1993

Reviews

[Pete daPixie · Rating 4 out of 5]

'The Last Investigation' copyright 1993, tells Gaeton Fonzi's frustrating sleuthing efforts as a Federal Investigator for The House Select Committee on Assassinations. Fonzi writes his story in a Raymond Chandler 'gumshoe' style with more than a few touches of dry humour colouring the text.
A further angle in this book is the whitewash and political games played out behind the scenes of the Select Committee. Despite the political prevarications, budget constraints, lies and obstructions from Intelligence agencies, (that's the C.I.A.) Fonzi's bloodhound tenacity uncovers C.I.A. involvement through JM/WAVE elements in Miami and into Dealey Plaza, which also shows L.H.O. as the agency 'patsy' that he said he was.
For assassination geeks who may wish to pursue more information down this line of enquiry I can recommend 'Someone Would Have Talked' by JFK Lancer's Larry Hancock, published 2003.

[Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've lately been on a reading binge on the Kennedy Assassination investigations, and this one is quite well done. It gives painstaking detail bout the House Committee on Assassinations working, and investigation. It seems that we'll never have a "smoking gun", but we can be fairly certain that the CIA, or some rogue element therein staged and killed Jack Kennedy. Oswald, Cuba and Mob connections were all pretty much diversions. It's not saying that some elements of these groups weren't involved, but if so, under the auspices of the CIA.

[George Bradford · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why did the United States Congress authorize a second federal investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy? Why did that government investigation produce a report concluding President Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy? Investigator Gaeton Fonzi -- who worked for the committee during its three year mission -- documents the answers to those questions in this fascinating book.

In September 1964 the first federal investigation conducted by the Warren Commission produced a flawed report raising more questions than it answered. Critics exploited its contradictions, inconsistencies and glaring omissions. And the public grew increasingly skeptical of its conclusion that an individual acting alone was responsible for the crime.

In the years that followed new revelations, disclosures and events cast increasing doubt on the Warren Commission's conclusions. Important information had been withheld from the commission. Essential evidence had been destroyed. And top government officials had lied under oath.

By 1974 the findings of the Warren Commission investigation were rejected by over 75% of the American people.

So, in September 1976, congress decided to launch a new investigation. It would be a "comprehensive and complete" examination of the case. And the author of this book was the first investigator hired. The book's title comes from the first staff meeting: everyone was told this would be the last investigation of the matter.

The story chronicles Gaeton Fonzi's work in this second and final federal investigation. And it is quite a detective story. There are mysterious figures, hidden agendas, red herrings, aliases and one relentless investigator plowing toward the truth.

And the truth is very elusive.

But it's out there. And Gaeton Fonzi never lets up in his pursuit of it.

At the outset the author states he wants his book to make readers angry. Angry at a government that failed its citizens. You certainly feel the writer's anger as he closes in on the truth. And it's very difficult -- if not impossible -- to avoid joining him in that frustration and disappointment. Our government allowed this crime to occur. Then our government failed to do anything about that crime. And that's enough to make any citizen furious.

[Josh Caporale · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read The Last Investigation to prepare for a discussion that we taped and will be releasing for Literary Gladiators and I had the honor to discuss this book with an instructor I had back in college who is passionate about the subject of the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the many conspiracies behind what really happened. In this book, we get Gaeton Fonzi's perspective. Fonzi was part of the House's Assassination committee when the case was opened up in the 1970s and was tapped to take part, despite being a known skeptic. In this book, Fonzi talks about his experiences of examining the JFK assassination from the Warren Commission up until things were closed once and for all with the House committee. In retrospect, Fonzi's theory is one that I can attest to: it was not a matter of not being able to come up with a conclusion, but a matter of not wanting to come up with a conclusion. There was a great deal of skin in the game with the people that were involved and the establishment felt that they had more to lose than to gain and the established prioritize getting re-elected over doing the right thing more often than not.

The Last Investigation puts most of its concentration on the CIA, as the CIA was the most heavily involved in the investigation of which Fonzi was working. Concentration was placed on JFK's actions against the CIA and issues involving the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis, both of which showed his actions against anti-Castro Cubans and for Communism, both from Fidel Castro and Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev, perhaps with the intent that JFK was looking to prevent nuclear war and creating a situation. Fonzi also explored the very moments of the assassination. While he cannot say who shot which bullet, he can conclude that more than the lone gunman theory does not add up. He also makes mention to Arlen Specter being part of the original Warren Commission and how Fonzi caught him in a contradictory.

The Last Investigation does a great job giving us Fonzi's perspective on the JFK assassination and he is straightforward with what he knows and the process of everything that was taking place. This book is slightly dense and does stray off into territory that does not entirely connect with the assassination, but Fonzi makes sure we know everything that he can possibly tell us about the assassination, who was connected to who, and how this connects to the events that took place on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, TX, when a man, a fellow human being, was shot and killed. Lyndon Johnson is barely mentioned in this book, but Fonzi does not have much to go on when it comes his potential involvement. The same can be said about other subjects of speculation, such as the FBI, Jimmy Hoffa and the Mafia, and the Russians. This is a book trying the be as factual as possible and is based on Fonzi's experiences, so if he cannot offer any more than assumptions, it would be a misleading book. The fact that Fonzi stepped up with his perspective of everything going on, though, is a puzzle piece toward the truth of what really happened to JFK and why it was that it happened.

[Randall Sellers · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Last Investigation is a modern masterpiece of American history, one of the few great and truthful books about the role of the intelligence community in United States government, politics, and foreign and domestic affairs during the Cold War and Vietnam years of the 1960s and 1970s. Gaeton Fonzi cut his teeth on investigative journalism in Philadelphia, and was called upon to lend those skills to the Church Committee and then the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in the late 1970s. As he explains, it turned out to be anything but an investigation. A long time in writing, The Last Investigation is Fonzi's memoir of his experience working on that committee, in a perfect melding of anecdotes, well drawn character studies, and incendiary revelations about the assassination and its cover-up, delivered with polished understatement, dry humor and quiet rage. Fonzi shows a tasteful evenhandedness in his exposition of the material and in his generally empathetic profiles of the players and even the conspirators, but he does not flinch. His dragnet is thorough and his indictment of David Atlee Phillips and other CIA operatives in the assassination of President Kennedy delivers the assurance of truth.

[Steven H · Rating 3 out of 5]

AN INVESTIGATOR FOR THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE REVEALS HIS MISGIVINGS

Journalist Gaeton Fonzi wrote in the Introduction to this 1993 book, “I spent three years working for the Government as an investigator of the Kennedy assassination, and many more before that as a member of the community of private researchers following the case… I am deeply concerned. I know how your Government failed in its investigations, what your Government didn’t tell you and why, and what your Government was really doing when it told you it was investigating the assassination. I’ve seen how history has been shaped for you without your knowing it. I believe… that unless we do something about it, history will continue to be shaped by powers responsive only to the priorities of maintaining power.” (Pg. xiii) He continues, “The action that brought about the death of President Kennedy is directly related to where we have gone as a nation since then… That single event prefaced the disintegration of our solid faith in government… The assassination and its aftermath bred rampant distrust and disrespect for all established institutions, and that outlook festers yet.” (Pg. xv)

He recounts that with the 1976 establishment of the House Select Committee, “the American people thought they were getting … ‘a full and complete investigation and study of the circumstances surrounding the assassination and death of President John F. Kennedy… ’ Finally, there was going to be a REAL investigation… at least the forces and the motivation behind the assassination would be determined… This investigation would be given such power and resources it would, by its very nature, be conclusive and absolute. There would be no need for future investigation; this would be the last investigation.” (Pg. 5-6)

He notes, “Unfortunately, one of the areas that most reflected the Committee’s inadequacy was its investigation of Oswald himself… the Committee never truly defined who Oswald really was, what he believed, the nature of his relationships with an odd and mysterious assortment of people, the reasons for the strange things he did, nor why there are gaps in the record of his actions over certain periods of time. The Committee, mostly because of the tangle of political constraints, had a very limited investigative plan. It did very little original work in this area. One glaring example … is the fact that a women [sic] named Ruth Paine was never called as a witness… It was in Ruth Paine’s garage, the Warren Commission said, that Oswald stored and retrieved the rifle used in the assassination.” (Pg. 9-10)

He adds, “I don’t think the Mob did it… I think there was a Mob link to Jack Ruby’s killing Oswald, but there were stronger links to others in killing Kennedy… The truth is, the last investigation was not broad enough… nor honest enough to yield ANY firm conclusions about the nature of the conspiracy… it was… a charade. Yet the answer to the assassination of President Kennedy does lie in understanding what happened during the last investigation. It lies in understanding why the Government again failed to pursue the truth—and why it doesn’t want to.” (Pg. 12)

He states, “Even if I accepted the highly unlikely possibility that a single bullet COULD have gone through Kennedy’s neck, done major muscle and bone damage, passed through Connally and emerged almost pristine, I thought the overwhelming evidence showed that the bullet hole wasn’t at the base of Kennedy’s neck more than five-and-one-half inches below it.” (Pg. 25)

He explains in the days prior to the House Select Committee, “Senator Schweiker gave me no investigative ground rules to follow. He wanted an investigator who wasn’t bound by the parameters of the Church Committee’s mandate or under the pressures of its deadline… Schweiker encouraged me to pursue the evidence wherever it led. In Miami, my attention was first drawn to a diverse collection of individuals who once had, or still did have, an association with the CIA and anti-Castro activity. Most had the means, motivation and opportunity to be considered suspects in the Kennedy assassination. They all denied having any connection with the assassination, although a few admitted that they would have liked to have killed [JFK].” (Pg. 66)

He continues, “A character like Frank Sturgis illustrates some of the dilemmas in investigating the Kennedy assassination: He can’t be ignored. He is, by his own admission, a prime suspect. He had the ability and the motivation and was associated with individuals and groups who considered---and even employed---assassination as a method to achieve their goals… But there were other, similar characters who injected themselves into the investigation and drained time and resources far beyond any valid justification. In some of these cases, I thought I caught a glimpse of … A force deliberately manipulating the investigation into turns so weird and wild I sometimes wondered … if I had been lured into a carnival and thrown onto the loop-the-loop.” (Pg. 83)

He explains, “It is not generally known---and researchers have yet to find a reason for it---but there is a period of Lee Harvey Oswald’s stay in New Orleans which is largely undocumented. On August 9th, 1963, Oswald was arrested after distributing pro-Castro leaflets… On August 21st, Oswald had his radio debate with Carlos Gringuier… Despite seeming to go out of his way to court public attention as a Castro supporter, as soon as he got it he dropped out of sight. Between August 21st and September 17th, there is no validated indication of Oswald’s whereabouts.” (Pg. 140)

He observes, “The staff of the Church Committee continued to look … in the area of Army Intelligence… But what the staff didn’t consider was the possibility that some Army Intelligence personnel actually work for the CIA.” (Pg. 161)

He states, “The Select Committee on Assassinations was born in the septic tank of House politics. For many members it was simply politically inexpedient to oppose it… But the seeds of dissension were early sown…The first month of the Committee’s life was a harbinger of what was to come. It immediately mired itself in internal squabbling…” (Pg. 175)

He recalls, “I would officially join the Committee as a staff investigator on January 1st, 1977… I was never more optimistic in my life. I remember envisioning its scope and its character. There would be a major effort in Miami, with teams of investigators and squads of attorneys. We would have all sorts of sophisticated investigative resources and.… the authority to use them…. There would be no more deceptions. Little did I know.” (Pg. 177)

Later, “Frustrated as the staff was becoming with the limitations being imposed on the investigation, in retrospect we shouldn’t have been surprised. The restricted-issues approach was itself creating limitations and keeping them well defined… Even though the issues selected had narrowed the breadth of the investigation, it was obvious in most areas that the investigative plan still wouldn’t be completed. But it didn’t really matter. The investigative plan itself only called for touching all bases---the Committee version of covering its a-s... so the report could be written simply on the basis of the effort made.” (Pg. 243)

A potential witness, Silvia Odio, told him, “‘now I really know that they don’t want to know… because they don’t have any answers for the American public. They should never have started this charade in the first place.’ … I could not answer her. In my gut, I knew she was right.” (Pg. 254)

He explains, “In retrospect, it’s clear that the last week of the Assassinations Committee’s public hearings was designed to leave the overwhelming impression that Organized Crime was involved in the murder of President Kennedy… it appears that this was a deliberate attempt to set up the American public for what was coming in the final report. The results of the acoustic tests---which found that more than three shots were fired, thus dictating that there was a conspiracy---were already well known. So the public hearings became an opportunity … to pin it on the Mob.” (Pg. 255)

He reports, “In its final report, the House Assassinations Committee appear to come to a definitive conclusion about Oswald’s activities in Mexico City. ‘The Committee found no evidence of any relationship between Oswald and the CIA.’ But Chief Counsel Blakey… knew the Committee’s principal researchers and investigators working the Mexico City area believed there was a slew of ‘evidence’ to indicate that the CIA was very much involved in Oswald’s activities.” (Pg. 284)

He adds, “The House Select Committee on Assassinations issued 542 subpoenas for individuals to appear before it or provide material evidence. It actually took sworn testimony in depositions, at public hearings or in executive sessions from 355 witnesses. Despite the significance of their statements, the Committee never questioned Ron Cross or Doug Gupton under oath.” (Pg. 309)

He summarizes, “With the official expiration of the Committee that December, I returned to Miami spent and depressed. Blakey had asked me to stay on but I refused. I had no idea of what was going to happen to the staff reports that were produced on … areas of anti-Castro activity, and, truthfully, I was so beaten down I didn’t care… Just before I left, the remnants of the anti-Castro team had given me a farewell gift… It was a well-worn whitewash brush.” (Pg. 391)

He asks, “How could the Committee reach such a conclusion without calling for a deeper and more forceful investigation of the Central Intelligence Agency? And how could it do it without admitting that its investigation of the CIA’s possible involvement in the Kennedy assassination was inadequate, that it was bound by the parameters imposed by the Agency? That’s why, in the end, Blakey and the Committee had no choice. In its final report, the Committee was forced to dismiss Vectana’s allegations completely.” (Pg. 398) He continues, “Any other conclusion would have opened doors that the Committee did not want to open; would have questioned the validity of the Committee’s entire relationship with the CIA; would have raised ominous doubts about the worth of the Agency’s promise to cooperate with the Committee; would have made suspect the Agency’s veracity in responding to question, in making documents available and in providing access to all its files; and would have challenged the Agency’s claim of having had no association with Lee Harvey Oswald and no knowledge of the circumstances of Kennedy’s assassination…” (Pg. 400)

He asserts, “Kennedy’s assassination wasn’t the real issue at all. In retrospect, perhaps it never was. It’s quite obvious that it takes more of a leap of the imagination to accept the hypothesis of Arlen Specter’s single-bullet theory and the ‘evidence’ on which it’s built---computer-composed charts of bullet trajectories… notwithstanding---than it does to simply look at the hardest of facts, such as the bullet holes in the back of Kennedy’s jacket and shirt. It takes an even greater leap into fantasy to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut. Yet, despite all the substantive and overwhelming evidence confirming Oswald’s association with the CIA as well as his contacts with a number of Agency assets, the CIA still officially denies that it had any relationship at all with Oswald… It is apparent that the Committee’s failure to pursue the new evidence linking the CIA to Lee Harvey Oswald was a monumental dereliction of its duty. To prevent the American people from knowing that, the Committee had to deliberately distort the conclusions in its final report. So after all these years… what the Kennedy assassination still sorely needs is an investigation guided simply, unswervingly, by the priority of truth.” (Pg. 404-405)

He concludes, “the issue of conspiracy is not contestable. It never was… The location of the bullet holes in the back of Kennedy’s jacket and shirt… obliterate the possibility of a bullet emerging from Kennedy’s throat and striking Governor Connally… There is also a preponderance of evidence that indicates Lee Harvey Oswald had an assassination with a U.S. Government agency… but undoubtedly with the Central Intelligence Agency…” (Pg. 408)

This is one of the best books alleging a ‘conspiracy’ to kill JFK.

[Justin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The late Gaeton Fonzi, journalist and investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, gives us an instructive (if dispiriting) view from the inside of a Congressional investigative committee in action: its budgetary, political, and time constraints all served as obstacles to the stated objective of his work there.

Constrained though he may have been, Fonzi's work for the HSCA still clarified some crucial points in the ongoing study of the assassination of President Kennedy. Namely:

1) That Silvia Odio was correct and credible when stating that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of a group of three men who visited her apartment during the last week of September, 1963. While this could be perhaps inferred by the manner in which the Warren Commission distorted her testimony to that body, Fonzi's subsequent interviews with Odio, her family, and other members of the anti-Castro Cuban community, and Odio's therapist (to whom she related the incident to prior to the assassination) all make for a compelling claim. The importance of verifying that Oswald was there is manifold, as the Warren Commission had held that Oswald was in Mexico City at the time of this alleged visit. Subsequent investigation by other researchers can leave no one (save the most credulous) in doubt of the fact that there were people impersonating Oswald both in Dallas and in Mexico City in the months leading up to the assassination, creating a "legend" as they say in the world of Intelligence. Oswald's presence at Odio's apartment also adds yet another piece of the now-mountain-sized trove of evidence that supports the conclusion that Oswald was working for at least one U.S. intelligence agency (CIA, Naval Intelligence, etc) and perhaps for the FBI as well.

2) That the man known to Antonio Veciana (head of the paramilitary anti-Castro group Alpha 66) and other CIA-supported anti-Castro Cubans as "Maurice Bishop" was in fact career CIA officer David Atlee Phillips. "Bishop" was with Oswald when Veciana met with him in Dallas in September, 1963. "Bishop" was the case officer advising, funding, and training Alpha 66 along with other anti-Castro groups operating from US soil at the time; as David Atlee Phillips, he was also the CIA's foremost specialist in psychological warfare (playing crucial roles in events as distant as the 1954 overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala, and the 1973 coup against the Allende government in Chile), eventually rising to become the CIA's chief of Western Hemisphere operations. Not only was Phillips in charge of all anti-Castro propaganda being run through the CIA's JM/WAVE station in Miami, one of his top field operatives--David Morales--was Chief of Operations at JM/WAVE, directly supervising "action groups" that planned and executed various terrorist/assassination plots against the Castro regime. One of these groups was being run by career mobster John Rosselli. Rosselli, who had begun his career working for Al Capone's gang in Chicago, was the CIA's liaison to the organized crime networks of Sam Giancana (Chicago) and Santos Trafficante (Florida).

The lead counsel of the HSCA, G. Robert Blakey, comes in for a lot of criticism from Fonzi. Much of it is justified, especially in his naivete in dealing with the CIA in seeking access to their documents. But much of it is also somewhat unfair, as Blakey clearly had an eyes-wide-open understanding of the political nature and constraints of Congressional committee work, and much of Fonzi's griping about Blakey stems from chafing under the (from Fonzi's point of view) restrictions placed on the HSCA's investigators.

Fonzi also criticizes Blakey for focusing too much on the conclusion that organized crime (rather than the CIA/intelligence world) was responsible for the murder of President Kennedy. Fonzi is careful not to argue any particular theory of the crime during this book, instead commendably focusing on his own first-hand experiences as an investigator for the HSCA. It does seem clear that he favors a thesis that supposes that Kennedy's pledge to Khruschev (as part of the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis) to cease any further American attempts to invade Cuba or to overthrow Castro is what angered many anti-Castro Cubans (and their CIA handlers) to the point that they considered Kennedy to be a traitor or to be himself a communist. It's a plausible scenario. But with someone like Rosselli running his own anti-Castro action group in Florida, in contact with Trafficante (and through him, or alongside him, presumably Carlos Marcello), Blakey's "the Mob did it" theory is credible and plausible on its own terms, however flawed Blakey's reasoning might have been in 1978.

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gaeton Fonzi has an exceptional background. Not only did he work for the House and Senate Select Committees in their investigations of the Kennedy and King murders, he also worked as an investigator for one of the senators, Richard S. Schweiker, concerned. So doing, he had the authority and funds to travel to interview some of the principals in these cases. Indeed, the fruit of his research appears in the text and notes of many other books about the Kennedy assassination.

This is not, however, the last investigation. Part of the book is a criticism of the half-hearted and inconclusive work of the House and Senate studies, work that he has tried to continue.

Insofar as there is a central argument or proof to this book (as opposed to his scoops mentioned in the appended description), it is as regards the involvement of CIA personnel connected to the covert war against Cuba in the assassination of the president.

[Jeffrey Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

For it's length, this book, in the end, was a disappointment.

The late Gaeton Fonzi offers a lot of intrigue in his role as an investigator for the House Committee on Assassinations. He brings us into some of the meetings with other committee staffers and even shows us how Congress often cares more about symbolism over substance. He also ventures head-first into the work of the subcommittee that he is tasked with leading, the anti-Castro/Cuba section.

He does an excellent job in tracking down David Atlee Phillips and showing how much of a persuasive disinformation artist he was. Everything in this book tracked back to D.A.P., also known as "Maurice Bishop" (not to be confused with the Maurice Bishop who was the former Prime Minister of Grenada who died in 1983).

But here is where this becomes a disappointment. We spend so much time reading about David Atlee Phillips and Antonio Veciana, that sometimes we forget that we are supposed to be investigating who killed President John F. Kennedy. Fonzi gives us a very impressive cast of characters who seem to all be involved in Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis and Assassination attempts on Castro; Watergate Burglers; to the Iran-Contra Affair, that it becomes a distraction from the task at hand.

Fonzi mentions early in the book that he didn't believe the Warren Commission Report (like who actually does?), but then gets focused on David Atlee Phillips, Antonio Veciana and Lee Harvey Oswald, with a few other minor supporting characters. Because of this, the writing became one dimentional. With as many times as these characters lied during the investigation or in the course of doing business, I'm beginning to think that they lied about seeing Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Nov. 23, 1963, the day after the assassination. It seems that the operation in Mexico was done trying to create misinformation and conspiracy. We still don't know if Lee Harvey Oswald was acting on behalf of David Atlee Phillips and the CIA or not.

What Fonzi misses is tie-in's with other sections of the committee. Since he was responsible for one section and he tells us about the other sections, he never really told us much about what other things the committee was looking at. Outside of going after the CIA, is there any other thing related to Oswald's background that they discovered and we readers don't know about? He never tells us.

He does mention towards the end, that there are over 600 books dealing with the Kennedy Assassination (at the time that this was published 30 years ago). I am sure that there are even more books out now. He is correct when he mentions how writers interpret the same facts differently, or how they selectively edit the facts. That's kind of what happened here. There's so much that we don't know, that it actually muddles that which we do.

What I do appreciate about Fonzi is his tenacity at pursuing leads and overcoming obstacles. He writes like he was a Pit Bull biting the leg of an impending home invader. This could have been edited tighter as there was a lot of wasted space, but it was professionally written. Not a bad read but you aren't going to really get the answer to who shot the president in this volume.

[Grant Skene · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-written but don't expect stunning revelations

The late Fonzi has an engaging style and I believe him to be an honest and a good investigator. He certainly demonstrates how the House Assassinations Committee that he worked for was a shambles. It also is an indictment of Congress and its obsession with appearance over substance. Nothing new there, but nice to see first-peraon evidence of that.

Once again, the CIA since its inception to the 1980s, at least, was just an old boys network of Commie-hating fascists who didn't think the Constitution applied to them. They were content to suck on the teat of tax-payer funded dark money to assassinate duly-elected, democratic socialists, whether the President or Congress wished it or not. Whether or not they, and David Atlee Phillips, had anything to do with the assassination of JFK, we will maybe never know, and this book offers little evidence. But, is it plausible? Certainly.

[Steven Ooms · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book for a few reasons :
- It tells the truth about what happened in 1963 and who was behind it with very circumstantial evidence, told by someone who was a part of the HSCA. It looks into many of the arguments given against its story & gives convincing arguments of why the persons who made these arguments made them.
- It's written in a clear style, which is important for a story with so many winding roads. Each chapter rounds a part of the story. Instead of telling the story chronologically, it is told in a thematic fashion, and builds up to a convincing finale. This way, after a few chapters it is clear already what the HSCA's conclusions will be, but that is not the end of the story, since evolutions after the closing of the committee are also included.
Came onto this book after reading "History will not absolve us", which was recommended by another reader here on Goodreads.

[Lynn Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book mainly details behind the scenes of the House Select Committee on Assassinations 1976-78 investigation of the JFK Assassination. I remember well when this investigation started and ended and read with anticipation the committee report. I had no idea as a young teenager of all the politics and machinations behind the scenes. It is very disappointing that this investigation which began with such promise ended with such dashed hopes. The Kindle version of this book needs a lot of editing, including missing punctuation and strange hyphenation. While interesting reading, it did not add to the substance of my knowledge of the JFK assassination and unfortunately brings us no closer to the truth. I may be done with reading about the JFK assassination as I'm not sure we will ever know the full truth, in my lifetime or thereafter.

[Jith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential perspective, and one of the best books i've read on the JFK assassination from an official investigator on the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in the late 70s. A fearless investigator and compelling writer. Although the HSCA ruled, very vaguely, that there was a 'conspiracy' (and its shocking how few people are now aware of even this) - you can see behind the scenes, the shadowy means by which the committee was suppressed, misled and stalled by the CIA, frustrating the hell out of the idealistic, mostly younger ones on the team (e.g Fonzi, Dan Hardway, Edwin Lopez). He focuses particularly on Florida, David Atlee Philips and Antonio Veciana but there is a wealth of insight despite the nullified HSCA report.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting book. Despite the extensive reading I've done on the Kennedy assassination, there was information in this book that I had not heard before. My issue is that the book is overly long, and certain pieces of information are repeated in several different chapters of the book. There is detail included that bogged the book down without necessarily adding evidence to the author's thesis. For example, there were long sections that minutely detailed the fighting over the budget for the Select Committee on Assassinations. The most succinct and informative part of this book is the timeline at the end.

[Alan Frost · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having finished the book I mistakenly entered my review under progress . A brief summary was a wonderful book and essential reading for anyone interested in 20th century history and or American politics.

One could argue ,and Fonzi probably would have done that the decline of America which has progressed through Reagan, briefly halted by Obama, and then continued with Trump really started in November 1963, but suddenly accelerated when the American electorate were robbed of answers by the bureaucracy that stymied the last investigation. Not often that history is as compelling as this.

[Jack Stanborough · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting take from someone inside the committee and an active participant in the investigation. Weak on meaningful conclusions and far too much of the book painstakingly details the frustrations of government and lack of a forthright investigation. It may have been cathartic for the author but I was expecting the book to lead somewhere. It doesn’t, and simply stops with innuendos and insinuations.

[Too Many Toys · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best of this genre

Having read several books concerning the Kennedy assassination, this is by far the best. It is factual and sourced and draws reasonable conclusions. Ever American should take note. My only criticism is the last epilogue, which was so filled with errors that it was almost unintelligible.

[Lynne · Rating 5 out of 5]

A tale worth telling and generally well written. I suppose you can't have ope ended investigations but you should have things that matter to the conclusion and how you judge what is important is very difficult.
I wish he had been given longer to investigate at a time when answers mattered and we were not so far away in time. A lasting record worth the investment of time.

[Graham Catt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Follows the author in his attempts to investigate the assassination of JFK. At every turn he confronts lies and deception as the Government's agencies (mainly the CIA) continue to thwart his efforts. Ultimately, it's a frustrating, even maddening process.

[Jason RB · Rating 3 out of 5]

If ever a book needed a good editor.

Actually quite a fascinating book, in particular it provides an insight into why enquiries/congressional hearings are so unsatisfactory. It is well researched and provides some insight into the JFK investigation but is quite an untidy read.

[John Thornton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve changed my mind after 55 years

After naively accepting the Warren Commissions conclusion about the Kennedy assassination, this book has convinced me that there was a major coverup and the CIA was almost certainly involved.

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a history of the flawed Warren investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Background is given on some of the investigators and staff involved as well as limitations placed on the investigation itself. While somewhat revealing, this work is in no way definitive.

[Mark M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations established in 1976 found that the JFK assassination was a probable conspiracy, the investigation amounted to a Warren Commission, part two.

Things pointed to the CIA, but the head of the investigation did not want to go there.

[Jonathan Pine · Rating 5 out of 5]

....A paragon of investigative journalism that brightened the universal torch of truth for all that were courageous enough to seek that flame.

[Melissa Cassel · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is an excellent read.

[alban weber · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow, scary revelations....why are our leaders so afraid to find the truth

[Jim Tracy · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's interesting. Although it's basically the author chasing a connection that a CIA agent named David Phillips was seen with Lee Harvey Oswald, but there's not a lot of proof. And later Phillips won libel suits against some magazines, which repeated that accusation based on this book.

[Julia · Rating 4 out of 5]

5 stars for content, but 3 stars for lack of organization. I read this because it's written by one of the actual investigators who worked for the congressional committees (two of them) to investigate the assassination. His descriptions of what actually happened to him and other investigators is very disheartening; extremely important leads that were dropped, the stonewalling and lies by the CIA, the lack of strong leadership and courage to champion truth, and why the final report is purposefully deceitful with many known inconsistencies.

I can now see why congressional committee investigations for large scale events like the assassination of JFK and the terrorist acts of 9-11 are not meant to investigate, but rather to give certain congressional members attention. This book shines a light on some of the inner workings of the government and the CIA (which continue today), and frankly, it's as dark and thick as you think it is.

[G.H. Monroe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Do you want to understand the assassination of President Kennedy? If so, this is one of two books you need to read. You have to understand that Gaeton Fonzie was hired in 1975 by Senator Richard Schweiker as a researcher for the Church Committee into the activities of US intelligence agencies, and in 1977 he was hired as a researcher for the House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). This man has seen things that we have not seen and spoken to witnesses and de-facto informants who few people have ever had access. I walked away feeling that the Kennedy Assassination was much less of a mystery. I understand now that not only did the Warren Commission lie but they suppressed evidence. All I can say is if you want to know what happened, read this book ... and read JFK and the Unspeakable. These books are the Rosetta Stones of this crime.

[Chad · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is enthralling but also moving, since the afterword by the author's widow adds an oddly happy - even poignant - ending. Anyone who enjoys a fast-paced sleuthing story will like this. Fonzi is one of the heroes among all the researchers and investigators of the JFK assassination. His focus is on one overriding goal: to connect a senior CIA officer to the accused assassin of Kennedy: Lee Harvey Oswald. I would defy anyone to argue, after reading this, that Fonzi did not accomplish his objective.