What do you think?
Rate this book
Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth
Inquest is the classic study of how a government attempts to establish the truth after the assassination of a president. Edward Jay Epstein, then an undergraduate at Cornell, was the only person to interview most of the members of the Warren Commission and its staff, lawyers, and investigators. He also obtained from them their memos and the crucial FBI Report. The result was a book that demonstrated that the Warren Commission had not solved the mystery of who killed President John F. Kennedy.
PRAISE FOR INQUEST
"The first book to throw open the question, in the minds of thinking people, the findings of the Warren Commission." -- The New York Times
"The single greatest contribution to the criticism of the Warren Report."-- The New Yorker
.
PRAISE FOR INQUEST
"The first book to throw open the question, in the minds of thinking people, the findings of the Warren Commission." -- The New York Times
"The single greatest contribution to the criticism of the Warren Report."-- The New Yorker
.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published October 9, 2011
6 people are currently reading
124 people want to read
About the author
Edward Jay Epstein
72 books69 followersEdward Jay Epstein (born 1935) was an American investigative journalist and a former political science professor at Harvard, UCLA, and MIT. While a graduate student at Cornell University in 1966, he published the book Inquest, an influential critique of the Warren Commission probe into the John F. Kennedy assassination. Epstein wrote two other books about the Kennedy assassination, eventually collected in The Assassination Chronicles: Inquest, Counterplot, and Legend (1992). His books Legend (1978) and Deception (1989) drew on interviews with retired CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton, and his 1982 book The Rise and Fall of Diamonds was an expose of the diamond industry and its economic impact in southern Africa.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
February 26, 2011
There is a whole range of books, hundreds of them, about the Kennedy assassination, very few now supporting the Warren Commission as being either thorough or forthcoming. Epstein is one of the moderates. He accepts many of the Commission's central claims, most particularly that Oswald participated in the shooting of President Kennedy. He does not, however, accept the magic bullet nonsense nor that Oswald was a lone, crazy murderer.
This book was written only two years after the events it describes. Epstein's views have become more critical in the meantime. For a similarly early work about the assassination, see Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment. For corroboration of his later claims about George De Mohrenschildt, mentioned in the appended description of this book, see Fonzi's The Last Investigation.
This book was written only two years after the events it describes. Epstein's views have become more critical in the meantime. For a similarly early work about the assassination, see Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment. For corroboration of his later claims about George De Mohrenschildt, mentioned in the appended description of this book, see Fonzi's The Last Investigation.
March 13, 2017
While I knew there were conspiracies surrounding the assassination of JFK, I never really studied the details of the assassination. This book on the Warren commission spent time analyzing how they went about writing the report and reckoning with various theories to calm down a worried world. There really is a lot of confusing evidence surrounding the single bullet theory and the idea that if that can't be proved a second assassin should have been explored. The world didn't seem ready for that option. So interesting to think about what that event would have been like with the media scrutiny of today .
April 14, 2024
AN EARLY CRITIQUE OF THE WARREN COMMISSION
Author Edward Jay Epstein wrote in the Preface to this 1966 book, “The primary subject of this book is the Warren Commission, not the assassination itself. It attempts to answer the question: How did the Commission go about searching for such an elusive and many-faced quarry as the truth?... The Warren Commission … had to find the solution to a very complex and involved mystery… This study deals with four central questions arising out of the Commission’s work. The first question is: How did the Commission, under virtually unprecedented circumstances, initiate, organize, and direct a full-scale investigation? Second, there is the more general problem of truth-finding in a political environment….. Third… What was the scope and depth of the investigation, and what were its limits? Finally, there is the question of how the Commission’s Report was written… These four questions are the main concern of this study. Even if these questions could be fully answered, a complete picture of the Commission would probably not emerge. The answers might, however, give some insight into the nature of the Commission.” (Pg. 13-15)
He explains in the Overview, “The Commission gave several reasons for its decision to hold closed hearings… The most substantial reason that the Commission gave was that, since testimony could not always be taken in logical sequence, it ‘was impractical and could be misleading’ to hold public hearings… Evidently the Commission was greatly concerned that the public might reach mistaken conclusions if testimony were released unevaluated and out of context…” (Pg. 30)
He continues, “Another problem … arose from a telegram sent by Mark land, a New York lawyer who claimed to represent the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald. Lane requested that he be appointed ‘defense counsel’ for Oswald and be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. This request was rejected because the Commission considered itself to be an ‘impartial fact-finding agency,’ not a court, and thus there was no need for a ‘defense counsel.’” (Pg. 30)
He suggests, “There was thus a dualism in purpose. If the explicit purpose of the Commission was to ascertain and expose the facts, the implicit purpose was to protect the national interest by dispelling rumors. These two purposes were compatible so long as the damaging rumors were untrue. But what if a rumor damaging to the national interest proved to be true? The Commission’s explicit purpose would dictate that the information be exposed regardless of the consequences, while the Commission’s implicit purpose would dictate that the rumor be dispelled regardless of the fact that it was true. In a conflict of this sort, one of the Commission’s purposes would emerge as dominant.” (Pg. 7)
He recounts that Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade (a former FBI agent) “had heard that a government voucher for $200 was found in Oswald’s possession. In addition, a Western Union employee had claimed that Oswald was periodically telegraphed small sums of money. Also, Wade thought that Oswald’s practice of setting up postal-box ‘covers’ each time he moved---a practice Wade himself had used as an FBI agent---was an ‘ideal way’ to handle undercover transactions.” (Pg. 47-48) He adds later, “J. Edgar hoover testified before the Commission and … categorically stated that Oswald had no connection with the FBI… [This] amounted to no more than taking the FBI’s word that Oswald did not work for them… Alonzo Hudkins, the source of the story, was never called as a witness… Instead, Leon Jaworski … was asked to speak informally to Hudkins… Jaworski reported back … [that] it was ‘sheer speculation based on nothing but Hudkins’ imagination.’ … Hudkins told the Secret Service agents that his information same from Allan Sweatt, the chief of the criminal division of the Dallas sheriff’s office. According to Hudkins, Sweatt stated: ‘Oswald was being paid two hundred dollars per month by the FBI is connection with their subversive investigation [and] that Oswald had informant number S-172.’ … No efforts were made by the Commission … to investigate the rumor itself…. it relied entirely on the FBI to disprove the rumor. The important question is not whether Oswald was employed by the FBI. Even if he had been an FBI informant---and no evidence developed to substantiate this possibility---this fact might not be particularly relevant… the important question is: How did the Commission choose to deal with a potentially damaging rumor?” (Pg. 51-53)
He asserts, “The fact that the autopsy surgeons were not able to find a path for the bullet is further evidence that the bullet did not pass completely through the President’s body… If the FBI reports are accurate, as all the evidence indicates they are, then a central aspect of the autopsy was changed more than two months after the autopsy examination, and the autopsy report published in the Warren Report it not the original one. If this is in fact the case… It indicates that the conclusions of the Warren Report must be viewed as expressions of political truth.” (Pg. 68)
He argues, “Was the investigation exhaustive … in searching for evidence of a second assassin? … the [Zapruder] film showed that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were hit almost simultaneously, and it was later established that the murder weapon could not be fired twice within this time period…. There was thus a prima facie case of two assassins… The fact that Oswald was able to escape from the murder scene suggested that a second assassin could also have escaped undetected.” (Pg. 73-74)
He observes, “The investigation of the stretcher bullet was by no means exhaustive. Two major witnesses were never questioned…. An investigation in which expert testimony was ignored, two out of the three major witnesses were never questioned, and the working hypothesis was maintained despite the development of contradictory evidence can only be considered superficial.” (Pg. 83-84)
He states, “If there was no evidence of more than one assassin, there was also no evidence that precluded the possibility… all the pertinent evidence was NOT brought before the Commission… Nor did the staff conduct an exhaustive investigation into the basic facts of the assassination… The investigation of the threshold question was thus a limited and relatively superficial one which never pursued answers to many important problems.” (Pg. 90-91)
He says, “The third major problem … was time pressure. The constant deadlines limited not only the quantity of the investigation but also its quality… considerable pressure was exerted on the lawyers … to ‘close down their investigations and submit their chapters. To do so, lawyers, in some instances, were forced to leave important problems unresolved.” (Pg. 103) Later, he adds, “although the members of the Commission asked many perceptive questions of the witnesses, the depth to which the hearings could probe was limited to some degree by the relatively small amount of time the Commission devoted to hearing evidence on the assassination itself.” (Pg. 110)
He explains, “Although the Army tests demonstrated that it was at least possible to fire three shots in 5.6 seconds with the murder weapon, three factors must be taken into account in evaluating these tests. First, the experts were timed only from the sound of the first shot to the sound of the last shot. This meant that they had UNLIMITED time to aim at the first target… Second, the experts were firing at a stationary target… Finally… the assassin fired with inaccurate sights. Despite the fact that only two of the six rifle experts were able to equal the assassin’s time of 5.6 second, the draft chapter described characterized the shots as ‘easy shots.’” (Pg. 141-142)
He acknowledges, “the Commission concluded that the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository. This conclusion was based on medical evidence which showed that at least two of the shots came from the general direction of the Depository; on the testimony of eyewitnesses who saw a rifle in the sixth-floor window… and on the fact that the murder weapon and three cartridge cases were found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Although this evidence in itself did not exclude that other shots came from a different source, it constituted ample proof that shots had come from the Depository.’ (Pg. 147-148)
He notes, “the Commission concluded that the assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald… based on seven subconclusions: (1) the murder weapon belonged to Oswald; (2) Oswald carried the weapon into the Depository; (3)… Oswald was at the window from which the shots were fired; (4) the murder weapon was found in the Depository… (5) Oswald possessed enough proficiency with a rifle to have committed the assassination; (6) Oswald lied to the police; and (7) Oswald had attempted to kill General Walker. The most compelling of these subconclusions was that Oswald’s rifle was used in the assassination… The other subconclusions, however, were based on less substantial evidence…” (Pg. 149-150)
Appendix ‘A’ notes, “Oswald’s wife, Marina, has revealed that her husband owned a rifle which he kept wrapped in a blanket in the garage at the Irving residence… On November 22… she notice that .. the rifle was gone… When Oswald left Irving … [on] November 22… he carried a long package wrapped in brown paper… after the assassination … brown wrapping paper in the shape of a long bag was found near the window from which the shots were fired… a latent fingerprint … was determined to be … [that of] Lee Harvey Oswald …. [as well as] the right palm print of Oswald… In addition to having been seen by Mr. Frazier entering the building with a brown paper package… Oswald was seen in the building … by several fellow employees. Between 11:30 and 12:00 noon, Oswald was observed on the fifth floor by three employees… he requested one of the employees … to close the elevator gates when he got off so he, Oswald, could summon the elevator to the sixth floor.” (Pg. 168-140)
The Appendix continues, “Oswald admitted he carried a gun with him to the movie [theater] and stated that he did this because he ‘felt like it.’… Oswald denied that he ever ordered, owned or possessed a rifle. However… a photograph was found showing Oswald wearing a sidearm and holding a rifle… Included in his personal effect… were a Selective Service card… in the name of Alek James Hidell… the Selective Service card is fraudulent and counterfeit.” (Pg. 175-176) “[Oswald] came rushing into the house… very pale and agitated… he replied that he had tried to kill General Walker by shooting him and he did not know if he had hit him… as a result of this incident she insisted that they move from Dallas.” (Pg. 184-185)
This book is one of the more ‘thoughtful’ of the early books criticizing the Warren Commission.
Author Edward Jay Epstein wrote in the Preface to this 1966 book, “The primary subject of this book is the Warren Commission, not the assassination itself. It attempts to answer the question: How did the Commission go about searching for such an elusive and many-faced quarry as the truth?... The Warren Commission … had to find the solution to a very complex and involved mystery… This study deals with four central questions arising out of the Commission’s work. The first question is: How did the Commission, under virtually unprecedented circumstances, initiate, organize, and direct a full-scale investigation? Second, there is the more general problem of truth-finding in a political environment….. Third… What was the scope and depth of the investigation, and what were its limits? Finally, there is the question of how the Commission’s Report was written… These four questions are the main concern of this study. Even if these questions could be fully answered, a complete picture of the Commission would probably not emerge. The answers might, however, give some insight into the nature of the Commission.” (Pg. 13-15)
He explains in the Overview, “The Commission gave several reasons for its decision to hold closed hearings… The most substantial reason that the Commission gave was that, since testimony could not always be taken in logical sequence, it ‘was impractical and could be misleading’ to hold public hearings… Evidently the Commission was greatly concerned that the public might reach mistaken conclusions if testimony were released unevaluated and out of context…” (Pg. 30)
He continues, “Another problem … arose from a telegram sent by Mark land, a New York lawyer who claimed to represent the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald. Lane requested that he be appointed ‘defense counsel’ for Oswald and be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. This request was rejected because the Commission considered itself to be an ‘impartial fact-finding agency,’ not a court, and thus there was no need for a ‘defense counsel.’” (Pg. 30)
He suggests, “There was thus a dualism in purpose. If the explicit purpose of the Commission was to ascertain and expose the facts, the implicit purpose was to protect the national interest by dispelling rumors. These two purposes were compatible so long as the damaging rumors were untrue. But what if a rumor damaging to the national interest proved to be true? The Commission’s explicit purpose would dictate that the information be exposed regardless of the consequences, while the Commission’s implicit purpose would dictate that the rumor be dispelled regardless of the fact that it was true. In a conflict of this sort, one of the Commission’s purposes would emerge as dominant.” (Pg. 7)
He recounts that Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade (a former FBI agent) “had heard that a government voucher for $200 was found in Oswald’s possession. In addition, a Western Union employee had claimed that Oswald was periodically telegraphed small sums of money. Also, Wade thought that Oswald’s practice of setting up postal-box ‘covers’ each time he moved---a practice Wade himself had used as an FBI agent---was an ‘ideal way’ to handle undercover transactions.” (Pg. 47-48) He adds later, “J. Edgar hoover testified before the Commission and … categorically stated that Oswald had no connection with the FBI… [This] amounted to no more than taking the FBI’s word that Oswald did not work for them… Alonzo Hudkins, the source of the story, was never called as a witness… Instead, Leon Jaworski … was asked to speak informally to Hudkins… Jaworski reported back … [that] it was ‘sheer speculation based on nothing but Hudkins’ imagination.’ … Hudkins told the Secret Service agents that his information same from Allan Sweatt, the chief of the criminal division of the Dallas sheriff’s office. According to Hudkins, Sweatt stated: ‘Oswald was being paid two hundred dollars per month by the FBI is connection with their subversive investigation [and] that Oswald had informant number S-172.’ … No efforts were made by the Commission … to investigate the rumor itself…. it relied entirely on the FBI to disprove the rumor. The important question is not whether Oswald was employed by the FBI. Even if he had been an FBI informant---and no evidence developed to substantiate this possibility---this fact might not be particularly relevant… the important question is: How did the Commission choose to deal with a potentially damaging rumor?” (Pg. 51-53)
He asserts, “The fact that the autopsy surgeons were not able to find a path for the bullet is further evidence that the bullet did not pass completely through the President’s body… If the FBI reports are accurate, as all the evidence indicates they are, then a central aspect of the autopsy was changed more than two months after the autopsy examination, and the autopsy report published in the Warren Report it not the original one. If this is in fact the case… It indicates that the conclusions of the Warren Report must be viewed as expressions of political truth.” (Pg. 68)
He argues, “Was the investigation exhaustive … in searching for evidence of a second assassin? … the [Zapruder] film showed that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were hit almost simultaneously, and it was later established that the murder weapon could not be fired twice within this time period…. There was thus a prima facie case of two assassins… The fact that Oswald was able to escape from the murder scene suggested that a second assassin could also have escaped undetected.” (Pg. 73-74)
He observes, “The investigation of the stretcher bullet was by no means exhaustive. Two major witnesses were never questioned…. An investigation in which expert testimony was ignored, two out of the three major witnesses were never questioned, and the working hypothesis was maintained despite the development of contradictory evidence can only be considered superficial.” (Pg. 83-84)
He states, “If there was no evidence of more than one assassin, there was also no evidence that precluded the possibility… all the pertinent evidence was NOT brought before the Commission… Nor did the staff conduct an exhaustive investigation into the basic facts of the assassination… The investigation of the threshold question was thus a limited and relatively superficial one which never pursued answers to many important problems.” (Pg. 90-91)
He says, “The third major problem … was time pressure. The constant deadlines limited not only the quantity of the investigation but also its quality… considerable pressure was exerted on the lawyers … to ‘close down their investigations and submit their chapters. To do so, lawyers, in some instances, were forced to leave important problems unresolved.” (Pg. 103) Later, he adds, “although the members of the Commission asked many perceptive questions of the witnesses, the depth to which the hearings could probe was limited to some degree by the relatively small amount of time the Commission devoted to hearing evidence on the assassination itself.” (Pg. 110)
He explains, “Although the Army tests demonstrated that it was at least possible to fire three shots in 5.6 seconds with the murder weapon, three factors must be taken into account in evaluating these tests. First, the experts were timed only from the sound of the first shot to the sound of the last shot. This meant that they had UNLIMITED time to aim at the first target… Second, the experts were firing at a stationary target… Finally… the assassin fired with inaccurate sights. Despite the fact that only two of the six rifle experts were able to equal the assassin’s time of 5.6 second, the draft chapter described characterized the shots as ‘easy shots.’” (Pg. 141-142)
He acknowledges, “the Commission concluded that the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository. This conclusion was based on medical evidence which showed that at least two of the shots came from the general direction of the Depository; on the testimony of eyewitnesses who saw a rifle in the sixth-floor window… and on the fact that the murder weapon and three cartridge cases were found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Although this evidence in itself did not exclude that other shots came from a different source, it constituted ample proof that shots had come from the Depository.’ (Pg. 147-148)
He notes, “the Commission concluded that the assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald… based on seven subconclusions: (1) the murder weapon belonged to Oswald; (2) Oswald carried the weapon into the Depository; (3)… Oswald was at the window from which the shots were fired; (4) the murder weapon was found in the Depository… (5) Oswald possessed enough proficiency with a rifle to have committed the assassination; (6) Oswald lied to the police; and (7) Oswald had attempted to kill General Walker. The most compelling of these subconclusions was that Oswald’s rifle was used in the assassination… The other subconclusions, however, were based on less substantial evidence…” (Pg. 149-150)
Appendix ‘A’ notes, “Oswald’s wife, Marina, has revealed that her husband owned a rifle which he kept wrapped in a blanket in the garage at the Irving residence… On November 22… she notice that .. the rifle was gone… When Oswald left Irving … [on] November 22… he carried a long package wrapped in brown paper… after the assassination … brown wrapping paper in the shape of a long bag was found near the window from which the shots were fired… a latent fingerprint … was determined to be … [that of] Lee Harvey Oswald …. [as well as] the right palm print of Oswald… In addition to having been seen by Mr. Frazier entering the building with a brown paper package… Oswald was seen in the building … by several fellow employees. Between 11:30 and 12:00 noon, Oswald was observed on the fifth floor by three employees… he requested one of the employees … to close the elevator gates when he got off so he, Oswald, could summon the elevator to the sixth floor.” (Pg. 168-140)
The Appendix continues, “Oswald admitted he carried a gun with him to the movie [theater] and stated that he did this because he ‘felt like it.’… Oswald denied that he ever ordered, owned or possessed a rifle. However… a photograph was found showing Oswald wearing a sidearm and holding a rifle… Included in his personal effect… were a Selective Service card… in the name of Alek James Hidell… the Selective Service card is fraudulent and counterfeit.” (Pg. 175-176) “[Oswald] came rushing into the house… very pale and agitated… he replied that he had tried to kill General Walker by shooting him and he did not know if he had hit him… as a result of this incident she insisted that they move from Dallas.” (Pg. 184-185)
This book is one of the more ‘thoughtful’ of the early books criticizing the Warren Commission.
May 24, 2014
Edward Jay Epstein is almost as much of an enigma to me as Lee Harvey Oswald. My copy of 'Inquest' is from 1966 and joins Weisberg's 'Whitewash' and Lane's 'Rush to Judgement' as the earliest publication in my JFK assassination book shelf.
Unlike Weisberg and Lane, Epstein, in his probe for the establishment of truth exposes the Warren/FBI forest but fails to see any trees. We may allow for the early date of his thesis, yet two decades later in a Wall Street Journal essay Epstein remains a lone-nut advocate:-"The endless tangle of questions about bullets, trajectories, wounds, time sequences and inconsistent testimony that has surrounded the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and has obsessively fascinated, if not entirely blinded, a generation of assassination buffs-probably never will be resolved.
Within this morass of facts. however, there is a central actor, Lee Harvey Oswald. His rifle, which fired the fatal bullet into the president, was found in the sniper's nest, His cartridge cases were also found near the body of a murdered policeman on the route of his flight. He was captured resisting arrest with the loaded murder revolver in his hand.
In light of this overwhelming evidence, the issue that ought to have concerned Americans was not Oswald's technical guilt but his dangerous liaisons abroad."
Please Mr Epstein, come crawl out your window, use your hands and legs it wont ruin you.
I will not weigh this review down with numerous examples of this authors exposures of the official whitewash, or their rush to judgements, all of which he swallows without question as if entirely blinded. Unable to confront this 'morass of facts' for the flimsy flim flam that they are.
'Inquest' is worth the paper for it's appendices, which contain the partial FBI Summary Report from December 9th 1963 and the Supplemental Report from January 13th 1964. The Supplemental Report contains a Treasury Dept., document from the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service, dated November 26th 1963 and signed by Robert I. Bouck. In its list of items it states, 'One receipt dated Nov.22 1963, regarding a carton of photographic film, undeveloped except for X-rays, delivered to PRS for safe keeping.' (What a brilliant job they did too...we've never seen these photographs since!) Also on this list is:-Authorisation for post mortem examination signed by the Attorney General (RFK) and dated Nov.22, 1963. If authorised by RFK, why was autopsy procedure not followed at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell, supposedly in deference to the Kennedy family? Don't ask Epstein.
Unlike Weisberg and Lane, Epstein, in his probe for the establishment of truth exposes the Warren/FBI forest but fails to see any trees. We may allow for the early date of his thesis, yet two decades later in a Wall Street Journal essay Epstein remains a lone-nut advocate:-"The endless tangle of questions about bullets, trajectories, wounds, time sequences and inconsistent testimony that has surrounded the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and has obsessively fascinated, if not entirely blinded, a generation of assassination buffs-probably never will be resolved.
Within this morass of facts. however, there is a central actor, Lee Harvey Oswald. His rifle, which fired the fatal bullet into the president, was found in the sniper's nest, His cartridge cases were also found near the body of a murdered policeman on the route of his flight. He was captured resisting arrest with the loaded murder revolver in his hand.
In light of this overwhelming evidence, the issue that ought to have concerned Americans was not Oswald's technical guilt but his dangerous liaisons abroad."
Please Mr Epstein, come crawl out your window, use your hands and legs it wont ruin you.
I will not weigh this review down with numerous examples of this authors exposures of the official whitewash, or their rush to judgements, all of which he swallows without question as if entirely blinded. Unable to confront this 'morass of facts' for the flimsy flim flam that they are.
'Inquest' is worth the paper for it's appendices, which contain the partial FBI Summary Report from December 9th 1963 and the Supplemental Report from January 13th 1964. The Supplemental Report contains a Treasury Dept., document from the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service, dated November 26th 1963 and signed by Robert I. Bouck. In its list of items it states, 'One receipt dated Nov.22 1963, regarding a carton of photographic film, undeveloped except for X-rays, delivered to PRS for safe keeping.' (What a brilliant job they did too...we've never seen these photographs since!) Also on this list is:-Authorisation for post mortem examination signed by the Attorney General (RFK) and dated Nov.22, 1963. If authorised by RFK, why was autopsy procedure not followed at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell, supposedly in deference to the Kennedy family? Don't ask Epstein.
February 10, 2022
This is one of the first books I read on the JFK Assassination when I began studying it in 1974 as a sixth grade student. It was also one of the first books released which was critical of the Warren Commission report back in 1966. The author does a great job of studying the Warren Commission's investigation and conclusions and pointing out issues with both. In this book, Epstein does not seem to assign the faults of the commission as being dark or intentionally hiding facts, but rather an investigation which was rife with political appointees who did not have the time or desire to truly conduct a "real" investigation with an open-ended mind toward discovering what really happened, but rather one constrained by time and under a lot of pressure to confirm Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin and dispel rumors of a conspiracy or foreign government involvement. I am glad to reread the book almost 50 years later with the eyes of an adult who has read tons of books and articles on the JFK assassination. I do recommend this book as well researched and well written and a good start to any novice investigator of the JFK assassination.
September 10, 2018
Excellent summation of the Warren Commission’s fumbling through the investigation of the Kennedy murder.
No photos, drawings, etc. even though they are referred to in the text.
No photos, drawings, etc. even though they are referred to in the text.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 26, 2014
While the Warren Commission Report into the runs to several volumes, the author boils the input and findings to down to two hundred pages. One quarter of this is two appendices containing FBI reports.
February 8, 2023
KSKS
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 18, 2016
very interesting read
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews