2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Coup d'etat: The assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Kindle Edition)
I have not downloaded this book and nor will I be doing so. Here's why.
Having read the opining paragraphs of the sample provided, it's clear that the writer knows nothing about the murders of JFK and Tippit. There are factual errors a-plenty in the `taster' but, by far the most crass falsehood is:
"After being barred from the autopsy, JFK's personal physician, Dr Burkley.."
Dr Burkley was not `barred from the autopsy'. He was present throughout the entire procedure. Burkley served as the conduit in the room for RFK's messages and requests to the three surgeons.
In order to understand just how stupid the author's statement is, the reader need only consider the facts that;
a) Dr Burkley was a serving Rear Admiral in the Navy. (Note the word `Navy')
b) The post-mortem was carried out at Bethesda Naval Hospital. (Note the word `Naval')
Burkley was the highest ranking Naval Officer present at Bethesda on the night of the post-mortem; he out-ranked the Commanding Officer of the facility. Exactly who was in a position to `bar' him from the room?
Potential buyers of this `book' should consider that Professor Kroth's PhD isn't in law or history. His `take' on the assassination carries no more weight than the man at the bar who watched `JFK' three times.
++ Updated info appears below ++
Well, well. I notice that Kroth's baloney about Admiral Burkley no longer appears at the head of the `taster' (above). It seems to have been moved further down into the body of the text, without apology or explanation. Whether the author or publisher decided to relegate it as a result of my review, I don't know; but the falsehood is no longer being used to attract attention.
Unfortunately, Kroth and/or his publisher have chosen to replace one mound of bovine excrement with another for the purpose of grabbing the eye.
Now we read, " Jackie Kennedy believed Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the 1963 assassination of her husband, John F. Kennedy. Sensational tapes recorded by the First Lady months after the President's death are to be released ahead of schedule by her daughter Caroline."
Is this true? No, it isn't.
This eyewash is more than three years old and was never more than uninformed speculation from the day of its origin. Kroth's presentation of this assertion is hugely disingenuous.
The source for this astounding revelation is given as IrishCentral.com. And, yes, this bold claim is, indeed there on the website. IrishCentral cite their source for this `claim' as The Daily Mail, no less. Sure enough, this allegation does appear (online) on the 8th August, 2011 in an article by Liz Thomas.
Predictably, Kroth and/or his publisher have not cited the most important part of Thomas' piece, though. Thomas includes a rebuttal of the claim by writing, "A spokesman for ABC said that the claims about the content of the tapes are erroneous."
Can we be sure that the claims were `erroneous'? Yes, we can.
The taped interviews that Jackie Kennedy gave to Arthur Scheslinger Jnr in `64 have now been published in written and audio formats. Hyperion published them in 2011. Historian Michael Beschloss collaborated with Caroline Kennedy to produce `Jacqueline Kennedy' and the result is a priceless piece of history.
Is Mrs Kennedy's belief that LBJ was behind her husband's murder to be found in the recordings or manuscript? No, it's not! She expresses no such belief or anything remotely like it. The entire premise is without foundation. Kroth flunks again. It would seem that lurid imaginations have, once again, beguiled the credulous - that's Kroth - and stained the historical record.
Kroth didn't try hard enough to get to the bottom of this `claim'. It seems to me that he didn't really want to. This nonsense was debunked by the publication of `Jacqueline Kennedy' and its accompanying CDs in 2011; long before his facile `Coup d' etat' sullied the internet.
As previously stated, professor Kroth isn't a professor of history or politics. But the issue here is a simple one; either he didn't know that this spurious `claim' had been debunked years ago or he did. If he didn't know, then the man is wholly unqualified to be writing about history. If, on the other hand, he did know... well, that would be much worse.
Jerry Kroth seems to be quite unabashed when it comes to displaying his own lack of knowledge on the internet.
In the appropriately titled section ` (3) Alternate Realities', he writes that James Files is currently in prison having been convicted of, "..murdering a policeman".
That is factually wrong. Files was not convicted of murdering a policeman. Files has never been convicted of murdering anybody.
Abysmal writing, Kroth, utterly abysmal.