Customer Reviews

4.1 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on 20 October 2013
This book has confirmed what i have thought for a long time that Lee Harvey Oswald was set up to take the blame and in his own words he was a patsy. I am now even considering thoughts that he might not have even pulled a trigger?. I remember as a 12 year old watching in black and white it all unfolding on our television from the assassination to Ruby shooting Oswald. the book has given me an understanding of the rules regarding the handling of evidence and the protocol required to maintain the integrity of that evidence. And in the crime of the century the police failed all round. Great book
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on 11 May 2014
Anyone who completes this third volume of Barry Krusch's 'IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD ' and who still believes that Oswald - or any other single lone assassin - murdered the President of the United States has simply not understood the text. I contend that it is impossible to read all three volumes and still believe the Warren Commission. A very clever and brilliant book.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on 16 June 2015
good book well written and a bit scary if it is all true
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on 7 January 2014
I've read several books on the subject of the JFK assassination and this is probably the best. It's crammed full of facts and is extremely well researched. I'd highly recommend it to anyone interested in the death of JFK.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on 10 September 2014
Volume 3 of this excellent series of books ties together the evidence presented in the earlier two volumes and adds some further knockout blows of its own. This evidence is presented in very detailed and comprehensive fashion and leaves the lone nut crowd with nowhere to run.

The author highlights the totally corrupt nature not only of the Warren Commission but of the investigation itself.
It is well known that Gerald Ford admitted 'moving' the location of JFK's rear entry wound up by some 4 inches to convert a back wound into a neck wound. This act alone demonstrates the criminal nature of the Warren Commission and arguably should have resulted in criminal proceedings being brought against him for obstructing the course of justice (instead of which of course he went on to become the 38th President !)

Added to that, the example is given of how witness James Leon Simmons' testimony of shots coming from the front left was misrepresented to become 'shots coming from the TSBD'. This was very typical of how evidence that failed to support the pre-determined 'lone-nut' conclusion was treated.
The Commission even went to the lengths of adding an extra word into the answer given by Oswald during his WDSU radio interview in order to mask Oswald's apparent slip.

With regard to the moving boxes issue, whilst the timing of the Murray, Powell, Dillard photos cannot be absolutely certain, whichever combination of timings are applied leaves no doubt whatsoever that some boxes WERE moved after the shooting and before the Dallas police arrived on the 6th floor.

We know for certain that Oswald could not possibly have been the one who moved them as even if he had really been on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting he would have to have been racing down the stairs ready for his 2nd floor encounter with Roy Truly and officer Marion Baker just 90 seconds later.

This book completely demolishes the single bullet theory. The author demonstrates very successfully that even using the Warren Commission's own evidence there is no possibility that this ludicrous theory can be made to work and remain consistent with the evidence. The SBT is shown to be not only highly improbable but in fact completely impossible !

The extremely detailed nature of the subject matter presented makes this the most difficult read out of the three books but by the end the author skillfully leaves the lone-nutters in a choke-hold from which they cannot possibly escape.

One of the weakest arguments I've seen from the true-believers in the Warren Commission's fairly tale is that 'even is there were other gunmen, it wouldn't mean that Oswald was innocent' !
Maybe this will be the fallback stance of the 'Oswald did it' crowd now that the lone-assassin theory has been so comprehensively demolished !

This argument, however, really is laughable. Whilst a theoretical second (or third) gunman working with Oswald would get around the problems with the ludicrous SBT, it would also open up a vast number of other questions.

For a start the author has demonstrated in these books and also in the related video ( ) that evidence was planted in order to implicate Oswald as the lone assassin. Why would it have been necessary for the authorities to do this if he really was part of a conspiracy?

As the author points out, when it can be shown that evidence has been planted or altered this not only destroys the case against Oswald it also becomes powerful evidence that Oswald was in fact innocent.
The revelation that evidence was planted and that witness testimony was altered really brings the entire body of evidence implicating Oswald into disrepute.

The Commission went to great lengths to show that Oswald had not been involved in any conspiratorial activity prior to the assassination and was at pains to paint him as a disaffected loner - not really a great argument to now suggest that he had co-conspirators!

The author has shown that a vast cover-up took place by the authorities to implicate Oswald. The conspiracy therefore had to have included a sufficient number of high ranking government employees in order to implement the cover up.

It is highly unlikely that such a vast conspiracy would include a gunman of such limited ability as Oswald. They would have used experienced assassins to do the job - not a novice!

Does that mean that Oswald played no part in the conspiracy? Not necessarily. I think it unlikely that he was knowingly involved in the plot at all but the possibility that be played some other low level role cannot be ruled out completely. In all likelihood though the only 'role' he was ever going to play was that of patsy. Joseph Milteer spelled it out just a couple of weeks earlier in a recorded conversation with FBI informant Willie Somerset:- "They will pick somebody within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen, just to throw the public off".

It is rather sad that sections of "the public" continue to allow themselves to be "thrown off"!

Barry Krusch has laid down the challenge. Given that the reward is now increasing at the rate of $5000 per month it should now stand at $150,000. Not a bad return if this really was the "open and shut case" that the lone nutters claim it to be. To date they have all shown themselves to be far too gutless to take up the challenge! Now let's wait and see which dodges all the lone-nut theorists on this forum choose to employ !
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful
on 26 July 2013
Krusch offers a different approach following the legal angle "what if Oswald was on trial" and - plot spoiler - it is clear that an unbiased jury would have to acquit on the basis of the evidence to hand. As a very complicated case rife with misinformation and continuing disinformation it is unlikely we will ever know the truth but this book presents a fascinating case for the defense. Well worth a read even though the legalese can require an occasional re-read
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
5 of 11 people found the following review helpful
In this volume, chapter one deals with the author's, `Proposition One, Element Three: Oswald The Only Person On the Sixth Floor'.

This `proposition' did not form any part of the charge against Oswald and is, therefore, irrelevant. The charge against Oswald makes no mention of him being `the only person on the sixth-floor'.
The postulated presence of others on the sixth-floor at the time of the shooting would have a bearing on the conspiracy supposition but it does nothing to remove Oswald from the location. This argument does not make the case against Oswald `impossible'.
All other discussion in chapter one is rendered redundant because of this.
In Chapter Two, the author offers `Proposition One, Element Four: All shots were fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.'

Commission exhibit 399 (found at Parkland) was fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Two large bullet fragments - CE 569 and CE 567 were recovered from the front seating area of the limousine. These both came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The assumed `first bullet miss' left no physical trace of itself and it could be argued that no definitive statement can be made about its origin. However, the discovery of three spent shell cases at the 6th floor window and the ear-witness testimony of Norman, Jarman and Williams is persuasive evidence that the shot did come from Oswald's rifle at that location.
There is not now - and never has been - any bullet fragment or shell case which can be shown to have originated from any other weapon apart from Oswald's.
The content and discussion in chapter two does nothing to render the case against Oswald `impossible'.
In chapter three the reader finds, `Proposition One, Element Five: Plausibility Of Timing'.

Whilst this matter goes to the heart of the question of whether Oswald could have fired all of the shots in the assumed time-span, it does nothing to preclude him from having fired any, some or most of the shots at Kennedy.
The postulated existence of other riflemen does not help Oswald's defence.
The content and discussion in chapter three does nothing to render the case against Oswald `impossible'.
Chapter Four deals with the perennial `Single Bullet Theory'.

This is a necessary part of the `lone-assassin' scenario, of course, but Oswald was not charged with being a lone assassin. Wade did not have to prove that Oswald acted alone.
The content and discussion in chapter four does nothing to render the case against Oswald, `impossible'.
In chapter five Barry K revisits his earlier points of contention and invites the reader to assign numerical values to their `confidence levels' for the previous propositions and elements.

Given that these issues would have had little or no importance to `the case against Oswald at trial', this chapter held little interest for this reader.
Chapter six brings the reader ever closer to `The JFK Challenge'.

The author states, "..if they [dissenting readers] believe that there is a significant divergence between what I wrote and what I should have written they can bring me before an arbitrator'.
Well, this reader wouldn't presume to suggest what a defence advocate should have written.
My list of counter evidence against Oswald is rather long and I wouldn't expect any `arbitrator' to tell `the defence' that it should also argue the prosecution case!
Chapter six concludes with a bit of gratuitous name-calling from Barry K in which he characterises `lone assassin' advocates as `trolls'. This is a pity and it does rather devalue his best efforts to present an argument.
In chapter seven, Barry K includes the responses of a few `virtual jurors'. The responses are to specific elements and propositions of the author's choosing.

The results are a fairly mixed-bag with `confidence levels' ranging from very high (95%) to no confidence at all (0%). This may seem to suggest a fair and balanced sampling; but the sampling isn't the problem here; the question is.
In the main, the respondents are considering the presence of others on the sixth-floor and the apparent movement of boxes. Neither of these issues have any bearing on Oswald's presence at the window before, during and immediately after the shooting.
What struck me most about those whose confidence levels were low, was how little they seemed to know about the investigations conducted by the DPD and FBI. Those respondents who had low confidence levels also seemed to be exclusively reliant on Barry K's presentation for `all the facts'. The three volumes under discussion here do not offer `all the facts'; they offer highly selective defence arguments.
Chapter eight sets out the `rules' which will govern the JFK challenge.

Barry spends a little while setting out how the challenge will work and he suggests a couple of hypothetical challenges to illustrate just how easy it should be for a challenger to win the money.

The examples of `Elvis Is Still Alive' and `Man Never Walked On The Moon', deal with real world events that are amenable to discovery, analysis and conclusion. These two examples seem simple enough; because they are.

Proponents and opponents of the two propositions can produce evidence to support the claims that they make. The `Elvis is dead' case can be supported by post-mortem records, death certificates, paid insurance/assurance claims and settled wills of bequest (among many other things). His continued and present existence can be argued by witnesses who claim to have seen and spoken to him but not much else, I wouldn't think.

These claims and counter claims can be tested and adjudicated on.

The same is true of the moon-landing' analogy that Barry K offers. All claims can be tested.

However, the author's JFK challenge which awaits the unconvinced reader is an entirely different matter. The challenge states that:
`The claim of this book is that that conclusion [Oswald fired the shot that killed President John F. Kennedy] would be impossible to support in a court of law'.

This is not something that is amenable to discovery, analysis or conclusion. This is a matter of conjecture and nothing more. Nobody can ever know or guess what `would' or `would not' have happened had Oswald lived to face a trial. What a panel of arbitrators think, feel, imagine, suspect, hypothesize, assume or theorise counts for nothing. They would merely be expressing an opinion.

Barry K notes that juries render opinions every day of the week; they do, of course, but they are passing verdicts on things that have happened, or are alleged to have happened at a past time. Juries are not empanelled for the purpose of predicting the outcome of events that have never happened at all.

The question being posed as the JFK challenge amounts to no more than asking, `Would the boxer have won on points had he not been stopped in the 5th with a cut eye?'

We cannot know how the fight `might have' played-out in the rounds that were never fought and nor can we know how the judges `might have' scored the fight at the end. The `stoppage' forever precludes us from knowing all of these things.
The adjudicators here will be guessing what `might have happened' at trial as a consequence of something else `not happening' - which actually did happen - namely, Oswald's death.

The `had Oswald lived' component (which is implicit in the challenge) is a conditional clause that can never be met. The claim that the case against him `..would be impossible to support in a court of law', cannot, therefore, ever be guessed at, much less proved.

Naturally I don't accept `the JFK challenge'. My `dodge' is spelled-out above and is not one of Barry K's forty-two anticipated evasions. I'd like to suggest that he adds it to his list: `I do not accept the challenge because it is predicated on the spurious notion that an adjudicator can know `what verdict a jury - which never sat - might have returned in a case that it never heard'.

In this trilogy, Barry K has made the claim that the prosecution case against Oswald at trial would have been `impossible'. This reader disagrees. The veritable hornet's nest of evidence against Oswald that has not been presented here would have - in my opinion - offered a very good prospect of conviction.

All three volumes of this series are attacks on selected findings of the Warren Commission.

The WC did not assemble `the case against Oswald' - the DPD, FBI and Secret Service did. The WC was a fact-finding exercise and not a prosecution case. There's a big difference.

Barry's criticisms of the WC and its findings, as expressed in these volumes, aren't new and, they are almost totally irrelevant to `the case against Oswald'. The author is arguing for `a conspiracy'. Whether he has `proved' one or not will be up to the reader to decide. What the author has failed to show is that `the case against Oswald would have been impossible'.

Far too many people seem to think that `proof of a conspiracy' would exonerate Oswald. It wouldn't and doesn't.

`The case against Oswald' was well-developed and robust long before he was murdered. Fritz had described it as "..cinched.." and Wade had repeatedly expressed his confidence that he had enough evidence to convict.
The key evidence against Oswald had been discovered whilst he was alive and he was even confronted with some of it. Wade was working to put him before a grand jury within a week.

This series of books does nothing to undermine the prosecution case that the Dallas DA - Henry Wade - was preparing at the time of Oswald's murder.

There are a great many things that Barry K has not discussed because he is arguing a defence. If there are any readers who would be happy to render a verdict having heard only one side of the argument, well, so be it. But, fortunately for all of us, the courts permit both sides of the case to be heard, in full, with cross-examination being a key component of the adversarial process.

Unfortunately for all of us, Jack Ruby had also decided that only his side of the argument needed to be heard.

44 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
1 of 4 people found the following review helpful
on 22 June 2013
Very technical volume debunking all the lone assassin theories. Would Oswald have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt? On the evidence the answer is no.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
0 of 3 people found the following review helpful
on 6 October 2013
The author's tone is a little informal, but it's really enjoyable and easy to understand.

Apart from that, I'm hugely and seriously irritated that Amazon makes you write at least 20 words in this box.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Customers who viewed this item also viewed

The Kennedy Autopsy
The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger


Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.