Customer Reviews


10 Reviews
5 star:
 (6)
4 star:
 (1)
3 star:
 (1)
2 star:
 (1)
1 star:
 (1)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Great book
Oswald didn't kill Kennedy he may have been involved in some indirect way,but there was no doubt a conspiracy as proven in this book a great read ...!
Published 23 months ago by Murpho

versus
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars It's still Oswald...
This volume seeks to further the author's argument that there was `no case' against Oswald and that he would not have been convicted at trial.

Volume one was largely disappointing but was redeemed by its final chapter in which Barry K highlighted the handling and documentation of the shell-case evidence.

Volume Two does nothing to advance Barry's...
Published 22 months ago by Barry Ryder


Most Helpful First | Newest First

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Great book, 24 Mar. 2013
This review is from: Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (Volume Two) (Kindle Edition)
Oswald didn't kill Kennedy he may have been involved in some indirect way,but there was no doubt a conspiracy as proven in this book a great read ...!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4 of 6 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars It's still Oswald..., 28 April 2013
This volume seeks to further the author's argument that there was `no case' against Oswald and that he would not have been convicted at trial.

Volume one was largely disappointing but was redeemed by its final chapter in which Barry K highlighted the handling and documentation of the shell-case evidence.

Volume Two does nothing to advance Barry's contention at all.

The bulk of the book is dedicated to the arguments that have long been advanced about the possibility of more shots fired than Oswald could have discharged. Whether these arguments have any validity or not is not the point. It really wouldn't matter if fifteen more shots could be proved to have been fired at JFK; it would merely be proof of more than one rifleman. Such a finding would not exonerate Oswald. This same fallacy has long existed about the SBT - which is central to the three shot scenario. Even if the SBT could be discounted as wrong (which it can't) such a conclusion would do nothing to weaken the case against Oswald. If it can be proved that Oswald discharged any shots toward JFK, he'd be guilty of murder.

The wording of the complaint filed against Oswald (F-154) written by Alexander and signed by Fritz, which Judge David Johnston accepted, reads as follows:

`Lee Harvey Oswald, hereinafter styled Defendant, heretofore on or about the twenty-second day of November, 1963, in the County of Dallas and State of Texas, did then and there unlawfully, voluntarily, and with malice aforethought kill John F. Kennedy by shooting him with a gun against the peace and dignity of the State.'

No charge of conspiracy or complicity was made. Because no such charge was ever made, no such charge need ever be proved. Oswald's guilt or innocence does not hinge on his associations - even, if he had any - it hinges on his alleged actions.
All of the discussion presented in volume two does nothing to diminish the case against Oswald. Wound location, vehicle damage, street damage, and post-mortem conundrums still leave Oswald at great risk of conviction. It wouldn't matter if the entire massed ranks of Alpha-66 were shooting at JFK - Oswald is still in very deep water.

Barry K cites the HSCA finding of `four shots' as more proof of a conspiracy. Well, he can have the HSCA results if he wants but they do his case far more harm than good. The 1979 conclusion does provide for a shot from the grassy-knoll but it also verifies three shots from the TSBD!

On page 46 of the Final report, (paragraph 5) - `Acoustical evidence and blur analysis' we read that, `The first, second and fourth [shots] came from the Texas School Book Depository Building behind the President, the third came from the grassy-knoll to the right front of the President.'

On page 47, part 2, the chapter is opened with this statement, `The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building.'
Section (a) is headed, `Scientific analysis.' Part (1), `Trajectory analysis' contains the following,, ` ..all three trajectories intercepted the southeast face of the Texas School Book depository building.' And, `The margins of error were indicated as circles within which the shots originated. The southeast corner window of the Depository was inside each of the circles'.

The author has been insisting that `a maximum of two shots' came from that window. In order to avoid the accusation of cherry-picking his evidence, Barry must choose whether or not the acoustic findings are to be believed. It's a package deal, all or nothing.

If JFK's body exhibited any wounds that could be shown to have been inflicted from a position to his rear - which it did - then Oswald most assuredly had a case to answer.

There is much to contest in the many arguments that the author advances for more than one assassin but, in order to keep this review as brief as possible, I'll hold those matters in abeyance.

The next phase of the narrative moves on to the written works of David Lifton and Doug Horne.

This highly contentious area seeks to explore the notion of post-mortem wound alteration and criminal activity by those who conducted the post-mortem itself.

This reader remains mystified as to why anybody could subscribe to this idea at all. Pre and post-mortem injuries are immediately distinguishable to any professional working in the field of forensic pathology. It is notable, therefore that those who advocate post mortem wound alteration are not forensic pathologists. David Lifton certainly isn't and he has yet to find one to support his contention.

This reader has no difficulty in dismissing Lifton's theory and his book out-of-hand. Barry describes Lifton's book, `Best Evidence' as, "..incredibly well-written and well-researched..". Yet, as long ago as 1997, Lifton was forced to concede that his postulated scenario of the removal of JFK's body from its casket was wrong. His error wasn't a minor detail, either.
The voluminous works of Doug Horne are referenced at this point as Barry K presents more arguments that the evidence against Oswald was manufactured.

Barry K offers David Mantik and his writings as support for the notion of forgery of autopsy photos and X-rays.
It seems to me that for every 'expert' who advocates the medical `frame-up', fifty others can easily be found to refute it. Mantik says yes, Baden says no; Horne says yes, but Wecht says no. (Horne isn't a `medical expert, I know.)

I'm bound to say that, to this reader, the notion of post-mortem wound-alteration has always been impossible to accept. The very necessity for such a course of action would suggest abysmal planning and execution of the crime by a postulated group that is invariably suggested to be a slick, professional hit-team. Surely, if part of the plan is to blame some guy who is to the rear of the target, it would be paramount to ensure that nobody in front of the target shoots at it. Wouldn't that save a great deal of time, effort and risk after the event? The idea that there were multiple shots being fired from various locations in the Plaza leaves this reader wondering why the occupants of SS-100-X (and the vehicle itself) didn't resemble the grisly aftermath of the Bonnie and Clyde ambush.

All-in-all I found this volume to be largely `diversionary' as it seeks to introduce other assassins whilst doing nothing to ease the pressure on Oswald. There are long passages devoted to just about everything except Oswald and the case against him.
There is a wealth of evidence that counts against Oswald but, understandably, Barry K doesn't touch upon any of it here. The author is arguing `a defence' and none of this evidence would be useful to his case, of course.
Barry has been working hard to call the evidence itself into question. Advocates do this every day in every court and they are duty-bound to do it.
In volume one his observations about the shell-custody were well-made and this reader has no doubt that a defence team might have got the shell-case evidence thrown out; or they might not. But, just how damaging would such a set-back have been. Barry suggests that it might have been fatal to the prosecution case. This reader disagrees.

There have been many successful prosecutions over the years (here in the UK) where desired elements are either missing or ruled inadmissible. Cases don't usually rely on one facet and the idea that the entire chain of evidence must be strong and intact is, largely, erroneous. Rock-solid chains are nice if they can be presented but, ultimately, a jury has to decide if there is any reasonable doubt about that which is missing. Judges will direct juries about what they may reasonably infer from things that are not presented (and, indeed, things that are presented.). Juries do not compile tables of numerical values of their confidence levels. They use common sense.

In 1948 (here in the UK) a successful conviction was brought against James Camb for the murder of Miss Gay Gibson. Her body was never found, having been pushed into the sea through a cabin porthole. Camb was sentenced to hang but escaped the noose as the Criminal Justice Bill's `no-hanging' clause was being debated in Parliament at the time. No body, no post-mortem and no provable cause of death but still a conviction. How's that for `reasonable inference'?

This reader feels sure that Barry K has overestimated the strength of the shell-case issue and this volume hasn't done anything to get Oswald out-of-the-woods.

I'll be downloading volume three during the coming week.

Barry Ryder
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Impossible to read., 22 May 2013
By 
C. R. Grosvenor "humpshire" (Willenhall England) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (Volume Two) (Kindle Edition)
Too detailed just the facts just give me the facts, He makes his case too well, I got the point no need for all the it, I'm not that bothered, I just want a readable book!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars my confidence level for proposition 1, element 1 is 0%, 29 Mar. 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (Volume Two) (Kindle Edition)
My confidence level for proposition one , element one is zero percent. Read the book and decide for yourselves - don't delay!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Evidence Screams Conspiracy !, 10 Aug. 2014
By 
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (Volume Two) (Kindle Edition)
What I like so much about this series of books is that the author's focus remains firmly on the evidence.
There are many very good pro-conspiracy books out there that advance highly plausible explanations as to who may have been behind the plot and their motivations etc. Whilst these make for very interesting reading and indeed may be absolutely correct, they can suffer from the fact that since no proper objective investigation of the individuals concerned was carried out at the time, such allegations would very difficult to prove. For example, I've always thought that it beggars belief that the Warren Commission failed to call Joseph Milteer to testify and explain his apparent foreknowledge of the assassination in his recorded comments to police informant Willie Somerset.

That opportunity has gone however since the Warren Commission were very clearly only interested in implicating their chosen patsy rather than uncovering the truth about the assassination.

Whereas the Warren Commission's approach was to ignore or lightly dismiss any evidence that pointed away from their pre-selected patsy, Barry Krusch asks questions about the evidence that the WC chose to dismiss so readily or ignore.
In volume one, the author effectively demolished the case against Oswald by proving beyond any doubt that at least some of the shell casings evidence was planted and that Captain Fritz invented the story about keeping one shell casing in his desk drawer.

In Volume Two the author explores evidence of a number of possible missed shots as well as the plausibility of all the wounds to Kennedy & Connolly being caused by just two bullets. His analysis exposes the single bullet theory as the absolute fraud it has always been.

The author reminds us that the official conclusion concerning the number of shots causing the injuries to the two men and the location of the entry wounds totally contradicts their own evidence.

For many years a great deal of confusion has surrounded the apparent differences between the observations of the Parkland medical staff, almost all of whom described essentially a frontal shot both to the neck and the head with a large, gaping exit wound at the back of the head (the occipital parietal area) whereas we were told that the observations of the Bethesda witnesses placed the large hole at the front of the head implying a shot from the rear. As the author points out the truth is that the Bethesda witnesses all said the same as the Parkland witnesses - There was a large wound at the back of the president's head.
So where did this 'confusion' come from ? Clearly it came from the WC as once again their conclusions were the exact opposite from what the evidence was telling them. The was no real confusion - the evidence was always clear - the WC just chose to mislead the public by lying about what the Bethesda witnesses really said.

At this point the author then examines the David Lifton claims. Personally I've never been persuaded by the 'body alteration' stuff. Having said that Lifton does highlight some important issues that to my knowledge have never been explained by the lone-nut crowd. The president's body left Dallas in a bronze ceremonial casket wrapped in sheets and yet,according to at least 8 witnesses at Bethesda, it arrived in a body bag inside a cheap grey shipping casket. Whilst this does not mean that the president's body was altered in transit it certainly does raise questions about when this 'transfer' took place and, more importantly, why.

This is the one occasion that the author has allowed himself to get distracted by theories rather than sticking with the hard evidence.To my mind the Lifton stuff is a side issue because the evidence provided by almost all witnesses at both Parkland hospital and at Bethesda is that the president had a massive wound at the back of his head meaning that this had to have been an exit wound.

Simply by sticking with the evidence the conclusion is obvious:- Shots were fired both from the rear and from the front meaning that there were a minimum of two gunmen involved.

Aside from the brief flirtation with the Lifton claims the author has left the lone-nut crowd no real avenue for attack. No matter how much they wriggle and squirm the evidence screams conspiracy!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A BRILLIANT DEFENCE OF LEE OSWALD!, 11 May 2014
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
Cannot praise this second volume too highly. Any one who still rates \Gerald Posner's 'Case Closed' after reading this volume is mentally impaired. A Must read!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars My confidence level for Proposition One Element One is 0%, 30 May 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (Volume Two) (Kindle Edition)
The evidence in this book provided by Barry Krusch devastates beyond reasonable doubt the lone assassin theory. Please read the book it is highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars My confidence level for proposition one, element one is 0%, 4 May 2012
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (Volume Two) (Kindle Edition)
The evidence here is comprehensive and damning for the "Prosecution".
The chapter about the shells in particular is incredible,very hard to argue with and taints all the other evidence with its faked photos and false testimony.
To top it all off we have The single bullet lunacy which is also blown out of the water here.
Lets see if anyone can attempt to counter this with a like for like "Prosecution" case without being abusive. I seriously doubt it.
I suspect that people will attempt to argue without actually committing to take the challenge. Let's see....
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


0 of 2 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars not for me, 6 Feb. 2014
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (Volume Two) (Kindle Edition)
I found this book a bit too monotonous and repetitive with too many figures and percentages and other things besides. The outcome of the book I do agree with but it was such a long winded effort to get there. Not one I would recommend. The same rating for all three volumes for me I'm afraid.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


0 of 4 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars A few surprises to be found..., 16 Sept. 2013
By 
Mr. J. H. Wheeler "Easy Street" (Cheshire, England) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (Volume Two) (Kindle Edition)
This was a good read, if only for the proposal that Oswald would never have gotten convicted if he'd ever faced trial in Texas, with solid, verifiable legal reasons why. Frankly, I'm both convinced he was the lone gunman, a fringe nutter and had always been a loose cannon, so thanks Mr Ruby, for saving all that trouble and expense. When thinking this, think Occum's razor.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Only search this product's reviews