Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the J.F.K. Assassination

by Anthony Summers

Updated with the latest evidence, the essential, acclaimed account of President Kennedy’s assassination by Pulitzer Prize finalist Anthony Summers

“He was holding out his hand . . . He looked puzzled . . . Then he slumped in my lap . . . I kept bending over him saying, ‘Jack, Jack, can you hear me? I love you, Jack . . .’ The seat was full of blood and red roses . . . .” —Jacqueline Kennedy, recalling the fatal moment in Dallas. Fifty years on, most Americans still feel they have not been told the truth about President Kennedy’s death. Chief Justice Warren, who chaired the first inquiry, said “some things” that “involve security” might not be released in our lifetime. Millions of pages of assassination records were finally made public in the late 1990s. Yet the CIA is withholding more than a thousand documents under “national security”—until 2017. Why? Why hold these records back if—as we were told half a century ago—Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin? Anthony Summers set out to write a reliable account of the murder mystery that haunts America. Not in Your Lifetime, in this fresh edition, is one of the finest books written on the assassination. 

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, True Crime, Crime, Conspiracy Theories, American History

706 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1980

About the author

Anthony Summers is the bestselling author of eight nonfiction books. His investigative books include Not in Your Lifetime, the critically acclaimed book about the assassination of John F. Kennedy; Official & Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover; and most recently The Eleventh Day, on the 9/11 attacks—a finalist for the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for History.

Reviews

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

The other night, I was chatting online with my friend, Amanda. She asked what I was doing, and I told her I was reading a book about the JFK Assassination. There was a long pause while she thought and typed.

Her reply: One thing I don't understand, and don't want to read a bunch of books to find out, is why people are still so caught up with the assassination. JFK? The ONLY thing I know about him is that he was shot in the head. And that his wife is named Jackie, and for some reason I know that he was Catholic Why do people still care about him?

For her, that's a perfectly valid question. Amanda is 24. She was twelve when 9/11 happened; The Cold War—such a big part of JFK’s administration—was over before she started school. For Amanda and her peers, 9/11 is their defining event, her generation’s equivalent of the JFK assassination.

I wasn’t alive when JFK was killed, but I grew up with the legends of Kennedy’s Camelot, of his vitality and wit, and of that terrible day in Dallas. My parents talked about JFK when November 22nd rolled around. My teachers—also Baby Boomers—talked about it. What I told Amanda was that for a couple generations of Americans, the day JFK died, something in America also died.

For Amanda, that day tolled shortly after 9/10/01 turned over to 9/11/01. That was when her generation’s innocence was lost, and it’s understandable why the Kennedy assassination doesn’t resonate with her.

For me, though, it does. Since I was in middle school, I’ve read books about JFK, his administration, his family, especially his assassination. My conclusions aren’t important here. My point is that for millions of Americans, JFK still matters.

And most Americans don’t buy that a scrawny Marxist nutball named Lee Harvey Oswald—acting alone—killed the most-powerful man in the free world.

The government’s official findings—The Warren Report—say there was no conspiracy in Dallas: that Oswald killed JFK, period.

In the preface to “Not in Your Lifetime,” author Anthony Summers quotes a 2009 CBS News poll that says 76% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy. Similar numbers think there was a government cover-up to hide the truth from the American people, and that we will never know exactly what happened that day.

“Not in Your Lifetime” is Anthony Summers’s intelligent, scholarly study of the JFK Assassination. It was originally published in 1983 under the title, “Conspiracy.” Since then, Summers has repeatedly updated his original work, essentially rewriting it by now. He changed the title to jibe with what Chief Justice Earl Warren said to a reporter asking when all of the information would be released: due to security concerns, “Not in your lifetime.”

Over the past fifty years, documents were released here and there, until the early 1990’s, when tens of millions of pages were released regarding the JFK Assassination.

Summers has examined many of these, as well as other fresh sources. He has conducted dozens of interviews with key players in the JFK assassination. Summers has a theory as to what happened on November 22nd, 1963, and he explains it here, with impeccable documentation.

Could one man kill President Kennedy from a sixth-floor warehouse window? Or was there an intricate plot involving various groups inside and outside the government?

While today’s twenty-somethings may have moved past the day JFK was shot and Camelot crumbled, millions of people still chew-over facts and fairytales, trying to make peace with what happened. As long as the debate continues, we can hope Anthony Summers keeps updating his wonderful book, “Not in Your Lifetime.”

Highly Recommended

(nb: I received an Advance Review Copy from the publisher via NetGalley)

[Pete daPixie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A much revised and updated book with a few titles. 'Conspiracy' or perhaps 'The Kennedy Conspiracy'
or 'Not In Your Lifetime'. Take your pick. The copyrights date 1980-1981-1989-1992-1998. Initial inspiration in 1980 for Anthony Summers, began with the 'probable conspiracy' finding of the House of Representatives' Committee on Assassinations, and this work includes the next twenty years of study. The author writes in 1998:-'More than thirty years on, all those official inquiries and all that private sleuthing-and all those reams of once-classified documents-tell us only that we do not yet have the full story of Dallas. Those who profess to be certain there was a conspiracy, of whatever hue, are as misguided as those who profess certainty that there was not. The truth may never out, but the facts in this book hopefully offer a glimpse of it.'
In covering the myriad of trails in this case, Summers has rightly tipped the hat to acknowledge previous critics from Meagher, Ferrell, Allen, Fonzi, Kantor, Lifton, Mack, Marrs, Russell, Shaw and Weisberg among others. Readers of 'Dallas '63' can always learn something new it seems. For instance as early as page eight, I was struck with the Parkland exit of the President's body, against Texan law without the required autopsy in any homicide case. 'The Secret Service agents put the doctor and the judge up against the wall at gunpoint and swept out of the hospital with the President's body.' Unfortunately Summers gives no notes to substantiate this little snippet. Lifton does not mention this 'at gunpoint', neither does Marrs. There are many 'chain of possession' issues still in cloud, not just from Dealey Plaza but 10th & Patton. Summers omits the Mauser/Carcano chain. Yet, this book has strengths in it's impartial coverage of the organised crime, Cuban and C.I.A. elements.
All things considered, 'The Kennedy Conspiracy' is a well balanced and highly acclaimed addition to the never ending pile of books that time continues to stack up against the loss of trust in government through deception, proven lies and confessions from central players. For the reader taking the plunge into this genre for the very first time, this Summers contribution can be recommended.

[Speesh · Rating 4 out of 5]

When it comes to believing in conspiracy theories, the Kennedy Assassination is the respectable conspiracy. The one it is ok to believe was a conspiracy without people immediately having an image of you sat at your computer in a tin-foil hat when you tell them. Some ‘conspiracies’ (9/11, Moon landings, etc) ARE only believed by tin-foil hat with a propellor on top-wearing nincompoops blind and deaf idiots…but that John F. Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, is beyond question. The only question is ‘by whom?’ Forget Oswald. It is first unlikely he was at the window with a gun, if he was, he certainly wasn’t the ‘lone gunman’ of the Warren Commission’s whitewash, though he was probably not actually aware he had had an accomplice - you’re not gonna keep a ‘patsy’ in the loop, now are you?

One has to face one of the few undisputed facts in the whole JFK assassination case - it wasn’t suicide. I mean, the fact is that we will never find out what really happened that day, the 22nd November, 1963. About the only other fact on which most people interested in the case can agree, is that he died in the car in Dealy Plaza, or on the way to the hospital (he didn’t die at the hospital, as is sometimes claimed, as half his skull was blown out by the shots in the square, you try it). ’Shots’ yeah, but how many? From where? By whom? Anything other than he was killed in Dallas, 22 November 1963, is disputed. And often.

Think about it: If someone came tomorrow and said “I did it and this is how I did it and why,” no one would believe them. Or, for everyone who did, there’d be ten who could ‘prove' - most likely in print - why it couldn’t have been so. There is film of the shooting, of bullets hitting Kennedy. That is disputed. Not that it doesn’t show Kennedy being hit by bullets, but for everyone who says it shows Kennedy being hit with bullets from (at least) two different directions, there are an equal number who say it does not. There is an (audio only) recording of the whole incident. Yet for every ‘expert’ who says you can hear four shots (the minimum number to be agreed upon for there to have been a conspiracy), there are an equal number of experts who say you can hear no such thing. The people in the square, on the day, who swore blind that they heard shots coming from the direction of the grassy knoll, heard no such thing say experts (usually experts who weren’t there at the time, or have run tests subsequently - which obviously cannot replicate the conditions of the time). The people in the square on the day who heard and saw smoke from shots from the grassy knoll and ran there to investigate, were wrong or fooled, by mass hysteria I have even read. And ’The Umbrella Man’…don’t even go there. There are people who saw two figures just prior to the shooting up near the offending window of the Texas School Book Depository, where Lee Harvy Oswald worked. Unfortunately, not at the window where the boxes piled and three bullet casings were found. There were people who ’saw’ Oswald there, when there are also people who saw him several floors below in the canteen at the same time. The parade was delayed in arriving at the plaza. Something an assassin would not have known, so would have had to have been in place at or before the originally predicted time. Yet there are people who saw Oswald at that time, just before it or just after. In a condition which would not have suggested he just fired three shots (or was on his way to fire them) and dashed away and down stairs to be in the canteen having a drink. And, three shots? Why? Because three bullet casings were found? Yes…but…the casings were found in a neat little arrangement, not gathered up as an assassin not wanting to be caught might have been reasonablyexpected to have done. And only three. No other bullets or ammunition if you like, for the gun were found. Ever. Not at the site or at Oswald’s property. The cases they found didn’t have his fingerprints on them, which might be considered unusual when loading a bolt-action gun. Which it is highly unlikely could have been fired three times in the timeframe with the accuracy credited to it. It IS possible, but not by Oswald, at that time. His palm print was ‘found’ on the gun stock. Much later. After it had been reported there wasn’t a print and in a position which wouldn’t suggest it was a print from someone who held the gun in a manner by it could be fired. He took three bullets, fired three bullets and hit the President three times…nope, maybe twice. Something somewhere up in that old attic I call a brain there, also tells me something like I’ve even seen a theory that the real target that day, wasn’t Kennedy, but Connally. I won’t go on.

‘Not In Your Lifetime’ was, as I suspected on reading, a book I read previously (1980) as ‘Conspiracy.’ It is - he says at the start - significantly updated and rewritten. Almost a new book. Up-dated with (his) new ‘evidence’ (interviews and document combing) and a change the title. It is now a quote from Chief Justice Earl Warren, when asked if all the Commission’s investigation’s evidence would ever be made public, who said “Yes, there will come a time. But it might not be in your lifetime. I am not referring to anything especially, but there may be some things that would involve security. This would be preserved but not made public.” That would suggest first there is more evidence still to come out. Summers makes much of this, but not in an overt way. He doesn’t want it to appear that his book isn’t complete, after all. More in a way to suggest that his research has led him to find what is most likely the evidence still to come out. Though he - naturally - hedges his bets on this front. It is unlikely there is still a ’smoking gun’ to come, it’s more likely, you ask me, to be information which would show what a right Royal lash-up the USA Secret (and non-secret) Services made of the whole sorry mess, before and after. That despite Oswald being under such close, documented security, by any number of agencies, he - and his undoubted accomplices - managed to sneak, undetected, past, fooling them all? Unless THAT is why they want to cover their asses? It’s more likely kept hidden (if not already ‘accidentally’ destroyed) for those reasons. Even now. Most of the principle figures are dead and the world has turned, but being shown up to be idiotic, inefficient blundering fools can still hurt reputations.

Summers does organise a huge amount of evidence and conjecture superbly well into a very easily understandable story/timeline. The main area of interest in NIYL, is the section dealing with the day itself. Something the other ‘definitive’ book I’ve read recently, 'A Farewell To Justice,’ has very little to say about. To be fair, Joan Mellen’s aims are elsewhere, concerned with the CIA and FBI involvement, along with Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald’s links to both the afore-mentioned and each other. I did think, given the near perfection of the Mellen book it was more than a little churlish of Summers to almost dismiss her efforts - I’d put money on that he had her in mind when he wrote, “It is hugely improbable that any US agency - or top leadership of an agency- had any part in the assassination." Something, from my reading of her book any way, Mellen proved without a shadow of a doubt. Though, the ‘or’ could be important in the quote above. I also think he makes a mistake when, early on, he points out that “What the polls have consistently shown is that millions do not believe what the official inquiry that followed the assassination, the Warren Commission, told them happened…74 percent of those Americans polled in a January 2013 study believed…that there had been a conspiracy… 74 percent of respondents, according to the same poll, believed that there had been “an official cover-up to keep the public from learning the truth about the assassination” The vast majority, 77 percent, thought the full truth would never be known.” Oh really, Mike Brearley? And the public are all experts with expert knowledge of the case? Nope. Basing a premise on that the great American unwashed think it must be so, isn’t a good way to go. Maybe that the next question the same group were asked, “Did God create the world an all of us inside seven days?” which got a higher poll reading, got edited out. That’s from me, for the cheap Mellen shot.

However, while dismissing CIA links (as above), we get “…renegade anti-Castro forces within the CIA or used by it, sought to assassinate President Kennedy and by manipulation of Oswald, and through true or false facts that could be pinned on him, lay the blame on Castro. That done, they would have surmised, the United States would be almost bound to retaliate by invading and toppling the Cuban communist regime.” And he gets closer to one of the most shocking areas of the Joan Mellen book, in that Robert Kennedy didn’t actually want the murder investigated. The Warren Commission was to squash the whole investigation. Summers uses a quote from Gore Vidal, saying “Castro had told her (Lisa Howard) of the efforts by the CIA against him, and it upset her to think that the Kennedy’s had been talking peace while they were also out to do him in. I think all this is why Bobby never really wanted Jack’s assassination investigated. Because they more they dug up, the more quickly they would ask whether Castro had done it to forestall the Kennedy’s. And the Kennedy’s would come to be regarded as American Borgias.” The Warren Commission wasn’t set up to investigate, but to bury. As Mellen suggests.

And…not one mention of the main pivot of the Garrison investigation (still the only court charge brought concerning the assassination), Clay Shaw. The whole Garrison aspect should have been given more space here, I felt.

Anyway, why do people think there was a conspiracy - and therefore not a lone, motiveless gunman and, therefore, we were lied to and, therefore, there was a cover-up? Poll people today, 2014, NSA, Snowden, et al behind them and of course you’ll get an answer in the affirmative. Back then, pre-computers, pre-Internet, pre-hacking, was surely different? However, it was seen as suspicious even then, as the book says; “…because President John F. Kennedy was killed during the Cold War, at a time when nuclear war seemed a real and constant threat; and in part too, because November 1963 signalled an end to the cozy security of the previous decade, the waning of public trust in authority." The Warren Report was set up with the aim of putting a lid on the conspiracy theories and was supposed to sweep them aside in finding that one man, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, murdered President Kennedy. But, while on Snowden, Summers mentions the release of documents on the assassination in 1977, noting that the authorities admitted that “'up to 10% of the (Kennedy) file will not be released.'" Then even after the 1992 JFK Records Act there were still some documents withheld, by the FBI amongst other security agencies. Seems clear that their need to avoid scrutiny now, is as valid - for them - as it was then. It makes me wonder why in all the Edward Snowden leaks, nothing has come out about the assassination. I haven't followed the whole Snowdon business in any way even remotely close to closely, so may have misunderstood what info he had access to and leaked. But still…nothing? It can’t have all been ‘rutinely’ or 'accidentally' destroyed, can it?

As I’ve said above, given the thoroughness of Joan Mellen’s book, it is, in a way, hard to see what Summers’ point with re-writing this book was. As I can't think that he came down particularly hard on one theory or another. I think you can probably get out of it what you want. Mellen's book 'Farewell To Justice's aim was to show that there was a conspiracy and that the CIA, in one form or another, were behind it. By changing the name of his book, from ‘Conspiracy’ to the comparatively nondescript ‘not in your lifetime’ and bearing in mind his comments on any possible CIA involvement, it’s as if he is afraid of coming down on one side or the other, for fear of cutting himself off, driving up a blind alley, going out on a limb - and later being proved wrong. If convincing evidence for something else, comes to light. The phrase “not in your lifetime” is used as a means of indicating that either not all the evidence has been made public, or evidence, convincing evidence for one theory or other, is still to come to light. So, he's saying 'these are all the theories - in slightly more than outline form, you make your own mind up, but it could all change if something new turns up at sometime when 'National Security' is not deemed to be in danger from its publication." What Summers himself thinks, I felt was a little hard to determine. If I had to put your money on it, I'd say The Mafia.

The best part of the book, though there are several excellent sections dotted throughout, to be fair, is the look at what happened on the day, at the time and the involvement of the Mafia in the whole thing. He looks at the actual event from all sides and answers all the questions he knows people have raised, for each step of the way. If nothing else, this is worth the admission fee. If you read this on its own, you’d be in no doubt of a conspiracy. My only problem was, I felt Summers then sidestepped the questions he needed to answer after the excellent beginning. It could just be me though, read it and decide for yourself. Me? Oswald was set up to look pro-Castro, by anti-Castro operatives, backed and helped by Mafia figures and deliberately not hindered by elements of the CIA. He was set up to be there on the day and appear guilty, but the killing was actually carried out by (at least) two others.

I've read a tremendous amount of books about November 22, 1963. There are very few books I’d recommend, though this (along with 'Farewell to Justice’ of course), is now going to be one of them.

[Tim Pendry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Originally published in 1980, this impressive example of deep investigative journalism has been regularly updated and revised with new information. The Edition that I am reviewing is the 1998 edition.

The book contains several pleas for the US Government to be more forthcoming with documentation and I am not qualified to assess whether any 'smoking gun' document has been found since my reprint (2001). I think we would have heard of it by now.

Nevertheless, what is in this dense and fully foot-noted book, which tries to summarise research by other respectable investigators (a story where politically engaged populists like Oliver Stone have probably done more harm than good) is remarkably full and interesting.

Summers lays out his evidence and refuses to speculate too far beyond the data, certainly not directly on the grand questions of whether Oswald pulled the trigger or not and whether he was a patsy or a participant in some conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.

Part of the value of the book is that it forces you to think and evaluate the evidence for yourself and so to come up with the most likely (all things being equal) narrative for what actually happened in the years and months leading up to the assassination and even on the day itself.

Perhaps once or twice in nearly 400 pages and another just under 1oo of footnotes I may have questioned Summers' interpretation of specific evidence but his work stands up very well to scrutiny with speculation reduced to the minimum necessary to make some sense of it all.

The best I can do is interpret the facts as I can, knowing that another reader may read them differently. There is no shock headline here just the accumulation of circumstantial evidence to the point when you would be wilfully blind to believe the Warren Commission Report was not fiction.

1. It is possible that Lee Harvey Oswald did not actually pull the trigger from the Book Warehouse but we can probably never know that. The 'grassy knoll' and forensic evidence is indistinct.

2. It is almost certain that the Soviets or Castro Cubans had nothing to do with any conspiracy although immense efforts (well documented) appeared to have gone into trying to 'frame' the Soviet Union or Cuba in the weeks before the assassination.

3. There is significant evidence that Oswald was involved in special intelligence 'dirty tricks' operations against Castro's Cuba and that he was a well known participant in 'deep state' or radical right circles since late teen age.

4. There is evidence that Oswald was on the US intelligence services' radar screens for some time before the assassination and the FBI and CIA appear to have gone to an awful lot of trouble to try and cover up that aspect of the matter immediately afterwards.

5. Oswald was possibly a high security clearance agent for naval intelligence and his visit to the Soviet Union engineered for intelligence purposes. His 'flakiness' is as likely as not to have been cover. Of course, the line between flakiness and off balance sheet security work is a fine one.

6. Oswald had family connections to the mob and Jack Ruby was much more embedded in mob networks (notably the powerful Marcello network) than most accounts seem to imply. He was not quite such a minor player, with a track record that goes back to Capone and the Outfit in Chicago.

7. Oswald appears to have had longstanding personal connections to right-wing extremists with links to the anti-Castro community who in turn had close links to the Mob (in view of a shared interest in overthrowing Castro)

8. There is reason to believe that, for different reasons, the Mob (Giancana-Marcello-Trafficante) and extreme elements in the anti-Castro insurgent forces (and their minders in the intelligence services) had 'good reason' to want Kennedy dead.

9. Oswald's engagement with anti-Castro activity looks increasingly (as the evidence piles up) like the sort of agent provocateur action typical of domestic intelligence operations and adds to the 'evidence' that if he was being set up as a patsy in the context of what was to happen in Dallas.

10. There is evidence that in the period leading up to the assassination there were contacts between Oswald and others which might imply police corruption and Oswald being set up for arrest. The ease of access to Oswald of Jack Ruby also looks suspicious in this context.

The attempted assassination of right-wing extremist General Walker has always looked suspiciously 'set up' to me especially as Oswald (or whoever) missed but there is no evidence that Walker was involved in any conspiracy.

Similarly the murdered Officer Tippit looks a lot less of an innocent party in Summers account of him and even the circumstances of Oswald's movements and arrest at the cinema look puzzling.

Overall, the most plausible scenario (as far as Oswald is concerned) is that he was being set up to be a patsy or was directly involved in the assassination but was unaware of a second level of activity designed to incriminate the Soviet Union in the assassination.

This latter really does look evidenced by the weight of suspicious activity involving possible impersonations of Oswald in Mexico City and the stories placed in the media in the immediate aftermath of the assassination - though this part looks pretty amateur to my seasoned eye.

As for the 'conspiracy', the most plausible scenario is that anti-Castro militants (supported by a right-wing fringe element in the security services), with Mob connections and access to Mob assets and resources, killed the President.

I now find the Robin Ramsay 'cui bono' related to the circle around LBJ as less plausible unless someone is postulating that all Summers evidence is incredibly coincidental and that something else was going on all this time! Summers is certainly as plausible as any official investigation.

If so, the anti-Castro militants feared (wrongly) that Kennedy was turning away from toppling the regime (and that LBJ would take a tougher line) and the Mob wanted to pay the Kennedys for welching on the deal they thought they had in 1960 and also warn off investigators.

The identity of interest between Mob and anti-Castro activists was the overthrow of the Castro regime (an interest shared with the Government and the CIA) but this would be only the framework for a more specifically directed plot.

And where do the US intelligence services fit into this? Probably just as totally embarrassed people who find that one of their own (albeit a minor player) has killed their own boss. Then they desperately run around trying to get the facts off the agenda of investigators, colleagues and media.

There is a strong suggestion which would be plausible, of an element in the intelligence services, perhaps semi-detached and 'political', engaged directly in anti-Castro subversion, emotionally engaged in the Cuban situation and able to talk to the Mob when required.

It would be naive not to believe that these types of sociopathic groups emerge inside all unaccountable intelligence services at moments of tension or under weak leadership - we can think of the Italian cases in the 1970s and rogue activity in Northen Ireland.

The question is whether such a rogue element knew of, connived in and even facilitated an essentially Cuban dissident operation with Mob aspects in order to meet some other political objective. This one is tougher to claim - doubtful for any but criminalised security elements.

But this moves us well into 'deep state' territory which is, by its very nature, almost impossible to evidence very far. The balance of admittedly circumstantial evidence strongly indicates that this was more than possible with motive and means both available.

I will leave you to read the book in regard to motives but, in the foot notes, there is one very dark suggestion which we should note, disturbed perhaps, and pass on - this is that the assassination might be linked to a military claim of a particular window of opportunity.

There was serious military interest in a successful 'first strike' against the Soviet Union before the notorious 'missile gap' disappeared. This too has to be seen in a Cuban context since all Americans were painfully aware of how close they had come to be being incinerated.

Kennedy was horrified and forbad any further discussion of it but we have to take account of the possibility (no more) that radical right intelligence awareness of this 'opportunity' might offer the chance to incriminate the Soviet bloc and defeat world communism. Some were nutty enough.

Should we take this seriously? We are a long way now from a lone loony gunman. Oswald can only be regarded as that if we forget his family connections to organised crime, the mass of coincidences, the historic link to right-wing extremists, the Cuban aspect and so on and so forth.

Maybe he had all these attributes and connections but still was loopy and did the deed without orders. Under this scenario, Jack Ruby took him out before he could open up a can of worms that might implicate 'innocent' parties. That too is possible.

In the end, we do not know but we do know that the 'conspiracy theories' are not to be dismissed as the work of nutters (though some are) but as ways of seeing events in a way that is no less plausible (probably more so) than the grossly poorly evidenced official versions.

The real story is, as always, hidden. It is not who killed the President - do we honestly care any more? It is what conditions make the alternative versions credible and what did and do we do about it if they persist. Let us review them.

A: There is the lack of accountability of the military towards the welfare of the people they serve - the people we elect are merely a thin and weak barrier between us and destruction. In the standard model, welfare-warfare state, the two elements are regarded as separate. Is this wise?

B: There can be a lack of accountability and gross internal mismanagement within the intelligence services but especially of sections of the intelligence services that operate either outside the law or become politicised in undemocratic ways because of their secret work.

C: There is the state sponsorship of subversive operations against other 'regimes' that permits the emergence of special interest groups trained to kill, with intelligence connections and with political motives in using violence or disinformation to affect democratic decision-making.

D: There is the use of low level operatives to investigate but also to disrupt and discredit lawful dissident political operations in a democracy (as Oswald was clearly doing if Summers' pile of evidence stands up)

E: There is the impunity of organised crime and the tendency of political intelligence services to solve problems outside the law by cutting deals with mobsters.

These disturbing but well known aspects of the 'deep state' are all found evidentially laid out (regardless of the assassination) in Summers' book at different points.

Together, they almost define the infamous Deep State: institutionalised military power, an unaccountable security apparatus, state-backed regime change, state infiltration of internal politics and the latitude permitted to any organised crime interest that stays within 'its box'.

I would like to think that matters have improved somewhat since 1963 but I have my doubts. Everything is just run more effectively (lessons learned!) and more subtly. If some state actor was complicit in the Kennedy assassination, the first lesson would have been that victory was Pyrrhic.

Perhaps from now on, the Deep State just tries to make sure a wrong 'un isn't put into power at the start. Yet much of what we saw in 1963 has simply been transmuted into another form despite some honest reforming efforts by some honest politicians.

Just glance at NATO's political interventions in Europe in the last few years, at the emergence of mass surveillance, at the manipulation of soft power to build momentum for regime change, at the use of the media for political purposes and at the lack of progress in dealing with organised crime.

But matters are at least less violent and obvious. We have become sophisticated. But, going back to the Kennedy assassination, we should not look at the US through the lense of the half century since 1963.

If we look at the country through a different lens - the previous half century - we see a nation with a high level of overt and covert violence inherent in its politics, not just cultural manipulation and control of information.

Assassinating a President may seem horrific to 'ordinary' Americans but, just as the US is only now coming to terms with its criminal gulag and police brutality, it would take another two decades for the US to exorcise state violence as an instrument of policy and then not for long.

The Church Committee Hearings were an eye-opener but the old ways were back with a vengeance with the arrival of George Bush II and on terms that ensured direct advocacy for sociopathy by half the political class. The next assassin will no doubt be a Muslim threat or Muslim patsy.

So it is very reasonable to look at the hyper-tense culture of the American South, in the context of civil rights and fear of communism, as always marginally on the edge of political violence but also possibly of military intervention in politics.

Be all that as it may, the book is highly recommended for anyone seriously interested not just in the Kennedy assassination but also in modern American politics and the curious phenomenon of the Deep State.

[Chad · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is, undeniably, core literature in the JFK canon. It's wonderfully written, masterfully researched, and circumspectly toned throughout. It adds tremendous heft to the critique of the government-approved version of the assassination.

Like most scholarly books on the subject, it omits at least one angle. Most notably, Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, was most likely "in the loop" in some way. Summers is a Brit, however, and one sort of imagines his reaction upon anyone suggesting to him that someone who could become head of state might have had advance knowledge of - never mind an actual hand in - the murder of his predecessor. It would be the "decent fellow" reaction. "Surely you're not suggesting... Oh, come now!"

But just like "English Bob" in the Clint Eastwood movie "Unforgiven," Summers evidently doesn't want to dwell on the potential for savagery right here in the good ol' U.S.A. Few who have studied the assassination in any depth now exclude the possibility that LBJ not only played an active role in the cover-up, but had actually been informed that the murder would happen and - in his satrapy of Texas - helped it along. Johnson was a classic crooked savage of the American West. He wanted JFK dead, and in Dallas he could facilitate that end.

Another lamentable aspect of the book is its unfairness toward Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison and the movie JFK. He describes the movie as having "misled" the public, and while he's prepared to discuss in-depth the relationship of both David Ferrie and Guy Banister to Lee Harvey Oswald in connection with the assassination conspiracy, he leaves Clay Shaw completely out of the narrative, even though Shaw was on the CIA's domestic contacts list and clearly knew Oswald. Summers describes the trial (without mentioning Shaw) prosecuted by Jim Garrison in New Orleans as a "circus" and suggests it was ultimately unhelpful to a proper understanding of the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. This is unfair.

Garrison was operating in the Sixties, only a few years after the assassination itself, and had far less information at his disposal than Summers had even when writing Conspiracy, the first incarnation of Not In Your Lifetime, in the late Eighties. Garrison was great, and so is Oliver Stone, who has just made a new documentary out this year, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. It's bound to be another welcome augmentation of the public consciousness on JFK.

But otherwise this is a stellar work and a masterpiece in its own right. Essential reading.

[R.G. Belsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is, in my opinion, the best and most comprehensive book written about the questions surrounding the JFK assassination. I read his first version of this in 1980 and have re-read that numerous times. The issues that Summers raised helped inspire me to write my own JFK book, a novel called The Kennedy Connection which will be out in August which provides a fictional view of the JFK controversy http://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-Connect.... This is an updated version of the Summers book and provided even more insight into the greatest unsolved crime in history.

R.G. Belsky
www.rgbelsky.com

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an exhaustive look at the JFK assassination. Summers covers the events on that fateful day in Dallas in great detail. He also gives a thorough account of who Lee Oswald was and who he may have involved himself with. This book is long. It is detailed. It is well written, but it is as exhausting as it is exhaustive. Maybe it is the subject matter that wore me out so, but I could not bring myself to finish the last few chapters.

If you have any interest in the JFK assassination, especially conspiracy aspects of it, you will benefit from this book. Be aware, it is a mountain of information about a tragic and creepy event in U.S. history.

[Jeffrey Powanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

An immensely intriguing, rigorously sourced, and well-written investigation into the JFK assassination, perhaps the best book among hundreds on the well-trodden subject. The book was originally published in the 90s, and Summers has updated it several times since then. He’s also changed the title from Conspiracy to the somewhat bland Not In Your Lifetime, which is based on a quote from Earl Warren. I honestly don't recall whether I read the original edition, but it's quite likely I did.

Although Summers's book is recently updated, it ignores various aspects of the JFK assassination commonly featured in other more controversial books. For instance, Summers downplays any connections from the JFK assassination to Nixon, LBJ, and George H.W. Bush, who loom as sinister suspects in other books. He doesn’t discuss the more than one hundred witnesses, investigators, and other people linked to the JFK assassination who have died under suspicious circumstances. He fails to mention that there is evidence that as many as six other shots missed JFK that day, striking the president's car and several other locations in Dealey Plaza. Many JFK assassination books obsess over a photo of three tramps being escorted by the Dallas police near the Texas Book Depository shortly after the assassination, and assassination researchers identified two of the men in the photo as Watergate burglars E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, but Summers omits that fantastic story (and the famous photo). He also never mentions that Jack Ruby was alleged to have supplied the Secret Service with alcohol and strippers the night before JFK was killed.

Why does Summers exclude such provocative information? Perhaps he wasn't able to corroborate it, or he considered the information immaterial. Regardless, his book is stronger for his journalistic discipline. This is one JFK assassination book I’d recommend to people without fear of being labeled a paranoid conspiracy nut. Summers serves up facts and reasonable analysis, steering clear of rabbit holes. Consequently, you won’t find any wacky theories about the Umbrella Man or the Babushka Lady in this clear-eyed, rational book.

Despite failing to unearth definitive proof of conspiracy, Summers presents enough facts about the JFK assassination for readers to make their own conclusions. Was the JFK assassination a conspiracy? It certainly seems likely.

The book has four main parts:

I. Dallas: The Open-and-Shut Case
II. Oswald: Maverick or Puppet?
III. Conspiracies: Cuba and the Mob
IV. Endgame: Deception and Strategy


I think this simple structure makes perfect sense, and it's why this book reads a lot better than other shoddy JFK assassination books, which tend to be sloppy and disorganized. Unlike other writers, Summers always maintains control of his story.

Some important takeaways from the narrative:

- In late October 1963, the Secret Service learned of two separate assassination plots associated with JFK's planned visit to Chicago on November 2. Police thwarted one of the plots by arresting a former marine with a history of mental illness named Thomas Vallee, who possessed an M-1 rifle and three thousand rounds of ammunition. The other plot involved a four-man team with high-power rifles. Consequently, JFK's trip to Chicago was cancelled at the last minute. Writer Lamar Waldron revealed that another JFK campaign stop in Tampa scheduled for November 18 was also canceled by the Secret Service due to an eerily similar assassination plot featuring multiple shooters with high-power rifles.
- The transport of JFK's body from Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas to Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland and the subsequently botched autopsy destroyed the best evidence of the crime, essentially providing the space that numerous conspiracy theories have inadequately attempted to fill.
- No one has ever identified a motive for why Oswald might have shot JFK; in fact, Summers quotes several people who say that Oswald only had nice things to say about the president.
- Most people who were on the grassy knoll when Kennedy was shot believed some of the gunfire came from behind them, high up on the knoll. Several people also reported seeing puffs of smoke beneath the tree branches on the grassy knoll immediately after hearing the shots. The smoke is actually visible in several photos taken that day.
- Although ballistic evidence clearly indicates that Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit, a Dallas police officer, on 11/22/63, it's unclear whether he was a gunman (lone or otherwise) in the JFK assassination.
- Officer Tippit’s actions that day are suspicious and remain unexplained, so he may have been part of the plot (his assignment may have been to murder Oswald immediately after the assassination).
- Although there was plenty of evidence for Dallas police to charge Oswald with the murder of JFK, he did have an alibi: He was seen by coworkers down in the second floor lunchroom of the Texas Book Depository fifteen minutes before shots were fired and again just 90 seconds afterward by a Dallas police officer. In the minutes after the assassination, no one had seen Oswald in the building's only stairwell. That suggests that someone else manned the sniper's perch on the sixth floor at 12:31 p.m. However, it's still possible that Oswald managed to leave the lunch room unnoticed at 12:20 p.m., walk up to the sixth floor, shoot JFK at 12:31 p.m., hide the rifle at the opposite end of the sixth floor, and then make it back to the second floor, where he was questioned by the police at 12:33 p.m. That's an astonishing timeline, but still remotely possible. But a gunshot residue test on Oswald's right cheek proved negative.
- One or more people impersonated Oswald in Mexico City in the months before the assassination, suggesting that Oswald was being set up.
- Oswald's activities in New Orleans before moving to Dallas suggest he was drawn into a complex U.S. intelligence scheme (possibly operated by George Joannides of the CIA) aimed at either compromising the Fair Play for Cuba Committee or linking Oswald to Castro's government.
- Was Oswald working for a U.S. intelligence service? Many of Oswald's actions (defecting to Russia, taking Russian classes in Monterey, crafting false identities (e.g., “O.H. Lee” and “A.J. Hidell"), purchasing weapons and cameras) seem right out of a spy novel.
- Jack Ruby, a nightclub owner and low-level mobster connected with mob bosses Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante Jr., was deeply indebted to the Mafia at the time he murdered Oswald at Dallas police headquarters.
- A Cuban hit man named Herminio Diaz, who worked for Trafficante and was involved in several other political assassination attempts (including a plot against Castro), confessed to killing Kennedy to a fellow rebel before he was killed in a nighttime raid in Cuba in 1966.


Based on the points above and Summers's thorough examination of the evidence, the JFK assassination appears to have been a conspiracy that likely involved members of organized crime, Cuban exiles, and U.S. intelligence. People presumably acting on behalf of those groups repeatedly tried to deflect blame for the crime onto Cuba and the Soviet Union, unsuccessfully. Several government officials—particularly CIA and FBI agents—lied and destroyed evidence. The Warren Commission was a blatant cover-up, and it was assisted by LBJ and Robert Kennedy. The single bullet theory is an absurd joke.

The Abraham Zapruder film, a grainy 8mm home movie consisting of 486 frames lasting only 27 seconds at full speed, is perhaps the most famous piece of JFK assassination evidence. After Life Magazine bought the film from Zapruder and published select frames in the magazine in 1967, they withheld the video from the general public for years. Finally, Geraldo Rivera played the complete Zapruder film on Good Night America, a late-night show, in 1975. It's now the most-watched film in history. The fatal head shot (frame 313) caused Kennedy's head to move suddenly backward and to the left, suggesting that the bullet came from the front and to the right, not from the rear. However, Nobel-prize winning physicist Luis W. Alvarez concluded that the puzzling backward lurch of JFK’s head was the result of a recoil effect. That conclusion was backed up by subsequent independent experimental studies conducted at a firing range. Once you view the footage it’s incredibly difficult to accept that scientific explanation, but it is convincing. However, does the forensic evidence support Alvarez's explanation? Thirty-six people (doctors, nurses, and technicians) at both Parkland Memorial Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital described JFK’s fatal head wound as a hole thirteen centimeters wide at the right rear side of JFK's skull. However, the Warren Commission Report claims that the fatal wound was on the right side of the head, not in the back, and that those witnesses were simply mistaken due to faulty memory. Meanwhile, the witnesses have not only stuck to their story, but many have said (some under oath) that the official autopsy photographs and x-rays in the JFK assassination are fakes.

It's infuriating that the JFK autopsy results remain inconclusive. Summers expresses his frustration with the following sentence:

It is evident that science—whether forensic, acoustic, or ballistic—has produced no certainties, and will not resolve the questions surrounding the Kennedy assassination

In 1992, following enormous public interest in the JFK assassination caused by Oliver Stone's movie JFK (1991), Congress passed the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act. That act required all assassination records to be publicly disclosed by October 2017. Due to noncompliance by several government agencies, particularly the CIA, that didn't happen. President Biden renewed the effort to comply with that 1992 law, releasing more than 14,000 records. National Archives and Records Administration indicated that 99% of the roughly 320,000 assassination records had been disclosed. In June 2023, Biden declared that he had made his “final certification” of files to be released, leaving just 4,684 documents withheld in whole or in part, many by the CIA. You can browse the recently released documents at this site: JFK Assassination Records - 2023 Additional Documents Release.

[Joan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember exactly where I was that day when the announcement came over the high school intercom. The president has been shot. I have read many books on the event over the years, feeding my suspicion that there was more to the event than the government wanted us to know. This latest edition of Summer's book contained as much as we can currently know. He covers Oswald's life, his connections with organized crime and Cuba. He explores the CIA, the Mob and the Cuban possibilities. Like Summer, I kept asking myself, are these coincidences or a conspiracy? As the house Assassinations committee concluded in 1979, the evidence leads to a conspiracy. By whom we'll probably never know.
Why read about the event now, fifty years later? Summers says that event was a turning point in American history. American citizens no longer believed in the credibility of government institutions. Read his book and it will become clear why that is so. See my full review at http://bit.ly/1daDc6v.

[J M Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Comprehensive but flawed

This well researched book has also been updated since I last read it. A very comprehensive examination of the conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of JFK, if it has a flaw it is that the possibility that Oswald acted alone doesn't get the same detailed examination. The author clearly believes Oswald didn't and at several stages glosses over these issues; if he had chosen to explore a little more deeply, he could perhaps have justified that belief. As it is, the sceptical reader may see Summers' arguments in favour of possible conspiracy and still be able to return to the possibility that Oswald acted alone. This e-book presentation isn't the best, either - the illustrations, many of which are repeatedly mentioned in the text, are all hidden at the end, after the index.

[Patrick Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just another JFK assassination book full of rumor and innuendo. I have read scores of books about the assassination and it appears, everyone in the CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service, Congress, Senate. Mafia, Dallas Police, White House, Cuba, Russia, Anti-cubans, Air Force, Army, Marines, Department of Defense, and half of New Orleans were involved. I am starting to think I may have been the second shooter on the grassy Knoll and I was only 3 yrs old! Save your money!

[Patrick Barritt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I did not think I knew enough about Kennedy assassination or US history in general so read this for historical background as it all seems so long ago and a bit mad! Really enjoyed the narrative layout which made for a good read if nothing else. I am left still not sure what happened but much more aware of the period and the machinations involved and a bit nearer guessing something of the truth. An elected official was shot dead whilst trying to do his job and the lone deranged gunman conclusion as to why and how does not and could never give any closure.
I am glad people like the author keep the questioning and enquiry going.

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Consider the possible reality," former Warren Commission counsel Burt Griffin suggested, "that under the American system of civil liberties and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is virtually impossible to prosecute or uncover a well-conceived and well-executed conspiracy."

The only proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the Kennedy Assassination, in my opinion, is that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a lone nut acting alone as some people insanely still believe. Connecting the rest of the dots to this conspiracy is a lot trickier, though it's fair to say all the dots are laid out on the table for you here.

Conspiracy theories generally evolve from a dangerous cocktail of misinformation and loose coincidences. In the case of JFK, it would be a far tougher sell to convince an intelligent, informed person that there was no conspiracy. I've read multiple books on the topic, and there is no question that some combination of Fidel Castro, Anti-Castro exiles, US Intelligence and the Mafia were involved in the assassination. The same people who scoff at the idea of members of the CIA partnering with the Mafia to assassinate JFK will likely also reject being educated that the CIA did, in actually acknowledged fact, partner with the Mafia in an attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Summers' updated masterpiece (originally titled "Conspiracy"), truly is the defining book on the J.F.K. Assassination. We may never have a completely definitive timeline ("Not in Your Lifetime"), but I feel extremely comfortable in my mind as to what likely happened before, during and after that fateful November 1963 day in Dallas. I would be very surprised if you came away from reading the book without the same feeling.

[Victoria · Rating 5 out of 5]

I didn't know much about JFK a few years ago - other than that he was assassinated and that he caused a lot of trouble for Marilyn Monroe!

However, I have recently read a few books about his assassination and I have to say there is a lot that doesn't add up. This updated edition of a previously released book uses a lot of previously unknown/unreleased information to flesh out the various theories surrounding his death. It doesn't necessarily suggest that any of the theories is correct but rather explores how they could be correct.
The reader is left to decide upon the theory they think could be plausible - personally I consider that the American Intelligence agencies did away with JFK - either directly or indirectly. There is plenty of evidence to suggest their involvement and the resulting coverup does seem to have originated with them. Oswald did have a hand in the assassination but he was - in my view- set up.

The book is well researched and well written. It is a bit hardgoing at times but this is mainly down to the subject matter rather than the narrative.

It is a worry to me that these days nobody seems to care too much about JFK's assassination - arguably one of the pivotal moments of the last century. Whether he has any relevance today or not - we should care that somebody was murdered and the truth was covered up to benefit the people who should be protecting the country - the intelligence agencies.

I recommend this book to anyone who doesn't believe the official story.

[John Wood · Rating 5 out of 5]

Being in a Catholic school at the time of the JFK assassination, I think the terrible tragedy was magnified by the fact that Kennedy was the first Catholic president. I have always been fascinated by the conflicting accounts and theories that continue to persist after these many years. The author presents an incredibly thorough compilation of viewpoints, evidence and testimony. The fact that the supplements to the main text (including notes, bibliography and index) are roughly equal to the size of that text, indicate the extensive research and documentation involved. Although I have learned many ideas, the true story is still obscured. The botched autopsy, shortcomings of the Warren Commision findings, inconsistent and conflicting testimony, various possible conspiracies and coverups will assure that the true story will never be uncovered. I believe that Oswald shot Kennedy but the actual kill shot came from the grassy knoll, that it was a mafia hit, most likely not Castro. The author presents plenty of excellent evidence from which, of course, almost any conclusions can be drawn. Any or all of my conclusions could and probably will, change many times. If you too are fascinated by the assassination definitely read this book.

I received this book free from Netgalley.com.

[Paul Addy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very informative read and a must for anyone seriously interested in the JFK assassination.

It provides a comparision between the official version and the most likely version of events without pretending to positively know everything. It shows the connections between the intelligence agencies, the Mafia/organised crime and the anti-Castro Cubans, connections previously hotly denied by those Agencies. It details the reasons for their motivation and general hatred of the Kennedys. It also, for me for the first time, adequately explains Oswald's involvement in leafleting for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.
The sections on Oswald's life make it difficult to conclude anything other than an intelligence services connection. All this backed up with source references. The 'acknowledgements' section itself should be read simply to understand the depth of investigation and witness co-operation that has taken place here.

At this stage the JFK assassination is not about which individuals took part. It's about a plot and a totally separate cover-up. It's about rogues in the system, tacit approval and a need to cover up the connections to prevent difficult questions being asked and difficult answers 'having to be given'.

[Pete daPixie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I seem to be going over old ground on the trail of the assassins of JFK. Having recently re-read Jim Marrs' 2013 updated 'Crossfire', I'm at it again with Anthony Summers' 2013 reworked 'Not in Your Lifetime'. Summers has been at this since the first release under the title 'Conspiracy' back in 1980. Since then 'Conspiracy' or 'The Kennedy Conspiracy' has been revised and updated many times. It is now presented with it's third title along with various alterations in the text.
It is still presented in four parts, with only Part III subject title altered from 'Cuba:The Key to the Crime' to 'Conspiracies:Cuba and the Mob'. I would say that perhaps 80% of the original has been kept intact. Various chapters have been re-titled with their content re-jigged and shuffled in with fresh information.
As for my review of 'The Kennedy Conspiracy' I remain with a four star rating. Summers' background as a journalist of many years standing with the BBC is why I have kept up with his progress in this case. Certainly for those who have an interest in the Kennedy assassination, this book can be strongly recommended.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Conspiracy” by Anthony Summers is a riveting sequence of events unveiling unmistakable evidences that the assassination of the late John F Kennedy was nothing less than a conspiracy.

With intrigue, the author exploits the probably of a “coup d’etat” tailored by renegade CIA members who were closely associated with the Mafia and anti-Castro movement, giving new insight to the level of involvement the US had in Cuba prior to the assassination.

Immersed in espionage, saboteurs and covert operations, Summers’ gripping evidences substantially overshadow the Warren Commission with its supposed “lone gunman” theory as well as the congressional investigation conducted in 1979, inconclusively assessing the possibility of a second gunman.

In addition to re-evaluating former incongruent evidences by previous commissions, this book is a compilation of captivating and well documented research that will continue to engender much debate. No doubt “Conspiracy” is an investigative masterpiece, the inquisition of which startles the very imagination!

Wm Marsh ~ Mierzejewski

[Simon Fletcher · Rating 4 out of 5]

"It might not be in your lifetime" said the Chief Justice of the United States, when asked whether all testimony on the assassination of John F Kennedy would be made public. and such seems still to be the case 50 years on.

Anthony Summers attempts not to get to the truth, because to all intents and purposes, this no longer exists but tries to unpick and expose what amounts to a mountain of truths, lies, half truths, pipe dreams and myth. He shows that we may never know who was responsible because there were too many people with the means, motive and opportunity to kill Kennedy all of whom were involved in protecting their own piece of turf to ever allow the truth to come out.

Summers book is an exhaustive look at the case and is well worth a read

[Chris Beal · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book because I was impressed with the author's biography of Marilyn Monroe. He's an excellent researcher and journalist -- and OBJECTIVE -- something that can't be said of a lot of people who write about the assassinations in the 1960s. I didn't know until I had nearly finished this work that he has a new edition out that updates this 1980 book. His blog says that in the new version he dropped leads that turned out not to go anywhere and added the information gathered in the past 35 years. I would read the newer version if I hadn't read this already. (It has a different title but can't be hard to find. He says his publisher insisted on CONSPIRACY as a title originally and that he never liked it.)

[David Searle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having not read this in its previous incarnations, I found Summers' account accessible and engaging. Hugely impressive in the effective juggling of so many persons of interest, events and supposed statements, Summers structures the huge web of information clearly with a enough endnotes to please any pedant historian or DIY sleuth. He connects and reminds the reader, occasionally posing questions about probable relationship and motives, but he refrains from pushing a definitive argument. Despite this, he most clearly shows that there was a complex conspiracy and that the intelligence agencies ensured that the truth would never come out.
Enthralling reading!

[Julie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I did have a Kennedy Assassination fixation for a while. That being said, you can only read so much on the topic because there is nothing else new to add. I did not finish this whole book, but the parts I did read made me think. Which is always the greatest quality in non-fiction. It asked more questions than it answered. I think I am done with this topic now. Now because of this book, but because I really am just done with the topic. Even if someone were to difinatively prove who killed the President, there would still be conspiracy theories and people who doubt. So much mishandled evidence. It's amazing that they were able to figure out a suspect at all. Or a "patsy" as it were.

[Ann Li · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an enlightening book that successfully uncovers the web of CIA, extreme anti-Castro militants, and Mob strongmen that were truly behind the JFK assassination. I am appalled that the Warren Commission did such an ineffectual job at solving the murder and disgusted at the Secret Service, CIA and FBI for deliberately destroying and hiding evidence that could have proven that Oswald was not a lonely crazy gunman. A must-read.

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I typically revisit this case about every year or two. Somehow, I'd never read Summers' book until it was updated to mark the 50th anniversary of the assassination. It's very thoroughly researched and probably the most even-handed of the books that believes there's a conspiracy. It could use a little more on the recent findings, specifically the role of George Joannides, but probably the best book I've read, top to bottom, about Dallas, 1963.

[Alistaire King · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best investigation of the assassination.

By the time you finish this book you will be convinced that Oswald was not the lone nut with a gun that officially we are still told. As Oswald famously claimed, he was a pasty but not totally innocent. The book does not claim his innocence but shows how Oswald was involved in web of intrigue. The only question that remains unanswered is was he led blindly up the garden path or an active part of the plot.

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

A mind-boggling work of meticulous research and enough detail to keep anyone thinking seriously about what really happened in Dallas in November 1963. The author does a masterful job of reviewing 50 years worth of investigations, including more recently uncovered material. While not pursuing one hypothesis exclusively, he does make a very strong case for there being much, much more to the assassination than the "lone crazy gunman" theory. All in all, fascinating and more than a bit disturbing.

[Kim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-written, extremely informative, but I as a reader felt shortchanged at the end. There are many rabbit-holes to explore in this investigation, and I feel that the author skimmed the surface on too many pertinent points, i.e., Officer Tippit's connections as a dirty cop. Still would recommend the book for great background information.

[Fran · Rating 3 out of 5]

The mystery or the mysterious circumstances around the event are fascinating, the level of apparent incompetence is extraordinary and genuinely interesting. However I found Summers' prose slightly dry and by the numbers finding him unable to explain clearly the amount of information to hand often taking the most long winded route. The Subject Matter makes it worthwhile.

[Anthony Ambruso · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent overview of the assassination

While not always in agreement with the author's conclusions, I find his information well organized and logical. Having recently read several assassination books, this book is still highly informative. Well worth the investment to read if you are even slightly interested in this event.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the better written overviews of the John F. Kennedy assassination. Well-researched, it reasonably ties elements of the Mafia, the CIA and right-wing anti-Castroites together to produce a coherent picture of how they came together to murder the president.