Learn more Download now Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle The Grand Tour Prize Draw Learn more Shop Women's Shop Men's

on 26 November 2016
A few very interesting points made, but not much of the book is actually about LHO, or the assassination. At least 70% of the book is just an explanation of the American justice system, and written in the most basic terms. The majority of people reading this book will not need to be told, in detail, what a 'trial' is, and will find this book incredibly dull.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 18 April 2013
I bought this book because it promised some interesting discussion and perspectives on the legal case against Oswald. I have long pondered the possibility that there were matters that might have compelled a judge to declare parts of the evidence as inadmissible and that, of course, would have jeopardised the prospects of a conviction.

Fortunately - for this reader - the book does, in the end, discuss the really important issue of the identification and transmittal of crucial evidence; specifically, the shells found on the 6th floor.
Unfortunately this most interesting and important material has to wait until the very last chapter of the book before it is presented.

First, the things that I didn't enjoy.

There is a great deal of material presented here and much of it isn't directly related to the assassination or the case against Oswald. This is particularly annoying because the author declares early on that he can't include all of the evidence because there is so much of it. That's true, there is. The combined efforts of the WC, Clarke Panel, Rockefeller Commission, Church Committee and HSCA do add up to a lot of paperwork. But at least half of the material that Barry includes here has no relationship or relevance to the matter at hand. The space dedicated to highlighting minor points of law and discussing other pseudo-legal matters could have been put to much better use, I feel.

Barry's writing style is a bit too `populist' for me and the early parts of the book are used to set the tone for the `us-against-them-we-are-being-lied-to' mood. Barry's entreaty to, "Think, The Matrix. Think, The Truman Show. Think, The Prisoner. This is what we are talking about, people!" illustrates the point here.

There is also a great deal that the author contends that I disagree with. His discussion of the SBT is standard-fare and actually has no real bearing on Oswald's guilt or innocence. If the SBT were shown to be wrong - which I don't think that it can - it would only mean that Oswald was assisted in his task and there was a conspiracy.

Anyway, I won't go on with the negatives because I do feel that Barry has raised a matter that has long merited examination and discussion; namely the handling of shells found on the sixth floor.

So, now the stuff that I did enjoy.

Barry has clearly spent a great deal of time and effort examining this vexed issue and following his reasoning will challenge most readers; it certainly posed a challenge to my ageing noodle!

The devil is in the detail with matters such as this, of course, and the author provides plenty of it. The author's discussion is very, very intricate and requires close attention. As it stands in the book it makes for stimulating reading for those who enjoy such conundrums but how might this have played out at trial? We can never know, of course.

Barry's arguments on the matter of the shells do pose some genuine questions.

For me, this matter is one of the most important issues relating to how robust the prosecution case might - or might not - have been and it is too rarely discussed. I have long been relatively happy to believe that the DPD and FBI were both very sloppy in their handling and transmittal of evidence but I'd be far less sanguine if something more worrying could ever be proved. Are we seeing incompetence or is it something worse?

It is known that Will Fritz was reluctant to surrender any of the evidence to the FBI in Washington and it was Wade who finally persuaded the Homicide Chief to allow material to go to the capitol for 24 hours. Fritz retained one of the shells in his desk and because of this he really might have compromised his case. Barry K thinks that there's more to it than Fritz just making a very rare mistake. I'm not sure; but what would a jury have said? What might a judge have ruled?

(A lifted palm-print was also retained in Dallas, but the author doesn't discuss that matter in this volume).

This reader has always felt that the many and various ways in which evidence - particularly the ballistic evidence - was named and numbered was needlessly arcane and was bound to lead to confusion. `Q' numbers, `K' numbers `C' numbers, exhibit names and so on. Is that what we are seeing here? Are we seeing honest confusion in the testimony and documentary record? Barry K says not.

This reader has never before seen the shell-custody-chain dealt with as methodically as it is here and I thank and congratulate Barry K for his efforts. The graphics and tables do help `visualise' what was going on.

The testimony that Barry highlights - especially that of Day - has long been familiar to this reader but, again, I think that the author has managed to make it more `stark'. I can imagine a fearsome defence advocate roasting poor Carl Day in the box with some of Barry's questions.

The bottom-line is (and always has been), were the DPD and FBI guilty of crass mistakes or is this a case of `tampering with evidence'? Barry contends that it's the latter. I truly don't think that it is. However, either way, the shell-case chain is compromised and confused. Does this make the case against a living Oswald `impossible'? Again, I don't think so but, it certainly doesn't make the case any easier, that's for sure.

Many of the arguments (on the shell issue) would obviously, have occurred to Oswald's defender(s) at trial. Had they done so, would the judge have been compelled to instruct the jury acquit on `a technicality'? Barry argues that we are not dealing with `a technicality' here, he pushes hard with the contention that only two shells were actually found and that at least one was later planted into the record. Again, I'm bound to say that I don't think that's what we are seeing; after all, the crime-scene photography clearly shows three shells and every witness who saw them saw three. But what would a judge and jury have made of the confusion? That's the important question.

I have long felt that a defence advocate might have hammered this crucial point and Barry is doing a job that was never done. Is there a `reasonable doubt' about the sanctity of the shell-case evidence? Barry K thinks so and I wouldn't want to fight him too hard over the matter.

The bottom-line here seems to be that either (a) the shell discovery and chain are genuine but poorly recorded or, (b) the discovery and chain have been falsified. Scenario (a) on its own might have or might not have been enough to jeopardise a prosecution. Within scenario (b) there would seem to be two sub-possibilities. (i) Knowing the discovery and chain to be genuine but poorly recorded, `overzealous' officers decided to help-things-along or (ii) Oswald was pro-actively framed.

With that said, it must not be forgotten that the bullets which struck the victims were proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle. This means that if (any of) the shell hulls had been planted - as the author alleges - then all of the recovered bullets and residue would have to have been `planted' as well! For this reader that is impossible to accept.

For readers who contend Oswald's innocence, Barry k's work here may, over time, become, a standard reference volume. For those such as I who contend his culpability, the author has offered something that must be considered and answered.

Barry Ryder
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 30 August 2013
There is a lot of detail in here that doesn't get referenced at all when so many people have dismissed conspiracy theory and assumed Oswald's guilt. So much, such as whether the number of bullets found and those submitted to the Warren commission were those found is just taken for granted but gets a good thorough review here.

Ultimately the premise though is as straight forward as it should be. The point of finding someone guilty is that it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - the author does a great job of showing just how much doubt there is in so much of the Kennedy Assassination.

The only challenge I would have is that occasionally the author does exactly what he points out others are doing and takes his own speculation too far. However that is rare and more so the details presented as simple facts to be considered as acceptable or not as evidence is well presented and worth reading if only to understand why there should be doubt about the simplicity of the "Oswald did it all on his own" theory. In particular it shows how the Warren Commission started from a theory and manipulated or simply changed/ignored the evidence to suit that theory rather than, as the author asks here, taking the evidence and then trying to decide what it does or doesn't prove/support.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 21 January 2013
How much of life is like 'Through the Looking Glass'? Intelligent,logical and - you are innocent till proven guilty- the bedrock of American jurisprudence. A great read.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 September 2012
I've got a new hero: Barry Krusch! This might sound a bit strange, but one of the nice things about the JFK assassination is that, being 50 years ago now, it's possible to employ humor in one's argument without seeming tasteless. Barry Krusch is funny. That is one of the things that makes this book highly readable. But "make no mistake" as our politicians like to say: his wit does not detract from his savagely penetrating legal reasoning. What makes this book different from other JFK books I've read is its very strict adherence to courtroom-style defense of Lee Harvey Oswald, who, after all, we presume at the start to be innocent, as the law stipulates. Don't we?

Also, Krusch is a geek, so I've got an affinity with him there, being a database guy myself. This man scanned, indexed, and cross-referenced over 100 books on the Kennedy assassination to make a searchable master index, so when he wants to be sure he's got a subject covered, he KNOWS he's got it covered.

So, take his thoroughness, his methodology, his sense of humor, and his rigorous adherence to the rule of law, and then sit back and enjoy his total deconstruction of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald (or lack thereof, as it plainly turns out). He's got a standing offer of $25K for anyone who can successfully prosecute the case against Oswald to the satisfaction of an Amazon-based jury of peers. Bugliosi and others have been challenged to take him on, to pick up the easy $25K if they're so sure all the facts point towards Oswald's guilt. Somehow, nobody has taken him up on the challenge yet.

And that is very possibly because there IS no case against Lee Harvey Oswald, and any decent prosecutor knows that very well. Any honest one would admit it. In volume 1 here, Krusch focuses mainly on one little piece of the giant puzzle: the bullet casings from the sixth floor of the book depository. Taking it apart in depth, this small but fascinating and crucial piece of the case is revealed to suffer from inexcusable problems relating to fraud, chain of custody issues, and so forth. In short, it is all but certain that at least one of the shells was planted, and probably all of them. The case against Oswald falls apart right here, no need to go further than this. But go further he does, in volumes 2 and 3 and, as I understand it, a planned 4th, at least. This is a devastating critique of the case against Oswald, revealing it incontrovertibly to be so flimsy as to be nonexistent. No court would have convicted Oswald. Not if he had a half-decent attorney.

In short, this is not an elaborate attempt to pin the blame on the CIA or anyone else. Just a straightforward and enjoyable explanation of the very good legal reasons why there is absolutely NO case to be made against Oswald. Disagree? Then quit yapping and go and claim the $25K. It's right there for the taking.
2828 Comments| 12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 25 November 2014
He was just a patsy.PROVED.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 16 May 2013
For those who want to read the truth and substantiated evidence to accompany it, read this book! Recommended - in three separate volumes
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 9 May 2012
Barry Krusch sets forward cogent arguments regarding the problems any court would have had with the evidence put forward to the Warren Commission. First part of the book goes into detailed information about the legal standpoints of the arguments and then progresses to set out where and how he believes the evidence is faulty. Apparently, so far, pro-Warren Commission supporters are wary of taking up Barry's challenge. We wait to see if any of them are confident enough to try.
I am looking forward to the next two installments.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 1 May 2012
This book is written incredibly well, is very easy to read and lays it all out for the reader as to exactly what standard would have been required should LHO have managed to somehow survive his way to court. It really is unbelievable as to what was done back then and what contradictory evidence still sits in the historical record. I cannot see any way for the Lone Nutters to get anywhere near Barry's cash here but am looking forward to see just who will take the challenge.
11 Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 7 April 2013
Brilliantly written - very logical and compelling. I can say as a Brit, that I am persuaded. Am I missing something, why aren't those people of the US (who are most impacted by this event) shouting and screaming from the rooftops? If BK is right, this is a massive scandal that 50 years on, should be exposed.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)