But I expected better of Bugliosi, who did this nation proud in his (almost literal) indictment of the five-member voting bloc on the Supreme Court that handed George W. Bush the Presidency in 2000. In that book he made it perfectly clear that what had happened was a legal coup d'etat, an actual crime requiring indictments and trials. It was bracing stuff.

But then, when one goes into a project of this scope with pre-conceived notions (i.e., Oswald acted alone), this is what one gets.

Long, long ago. Oswald. By himself. Talbot continues to embarass both himself and Salon by tooting the horn of the tinfoil hat brigade. But it probably sells a lot of books. As for Talbot's book, I would not buy or put any credence in a book by someone who is so unable to see past his own paranoia and actually examine the evidence, which points clearly and incontrovertibly to Oswald.

Since Bugliosi made his bones by inventing a case against Charles Manson and his friends out of whole cloth why should anyone believe anything he says or has said since -- there was no doubt they committed the crimes, but since Bugliosi couldn't find the evidence (including the pistol with fingerprints and broken grip that had been tured over to the police by a neighbor of Polanski's the day after the killings, he made up a story about a random attack on rich folk). Which of course doesn't explain Polanski's comment when flying home from New York the day after, saying "It must have been that damned Manson and his friends."

Again, why should we assume he would care any more about facts, truth, reality, or integrity now than he did then?

My appreciation to Mr Talbot for his criticism to call attention to that sadly lacking aspect of the new book and Mr Bugliosi's journalistic ethical standards.

Vidor1, who takes his screen name from an evil racist town in Texas says Oswald acted alone, therefore it must be true.

From the NY Times article:

His conclusion: Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and acted alone.

Why would such a simple conclusion require so much argument?

“Because of the unceasing and fanatical obsession of thousands of researchers over the last 43 years, from around the world but mostly in the United States,” Mr. Bugliosi said in an interview at the cafe of the Sportsmen’s Lodge Hotel in Studio City, Calif. “Examining under a high-powered microscope every comma, every period, every detail on every conceivable issue, and making hundreds and hundreds of allegations, they have transformed this simple case into its present form.”

It seems the LAT is not as gullible as certain Salon writers:

"VINCENT BUGLIOSI is an American master of common sense, a punishing advocate and a curmudgeonly refreshing voice of reason.

His targets have been the loopy and the deranged, the deceitful and the violent. And so, a career launched with the prosecution of Charles Manson and honed with a book parsing the defense of O.J. Simpson has, with seeming inevitability, come around to 20th century America's great repository of poor reasoning: the assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.

After reading what may be Bugliosi's crowning work (more than 1,600 pages, not to mention an additional 1,100 pages of notes on an accompanying CD), one thinks: At last, someone has done it, put all the pieces together. "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" is important not just because it's correct, though it is. It's significant not just because it is comprehensive — surely, no one will deny that. It is essential, first and foremost, because it is conclusive. From this point forward, no reasonable person can argue that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent; no sane person can take seriously assertions that Kennedy was killed by the CIA, Fidel Castro, the Mob, the Soviets, the Vietnamese, Texas oilmen or his vice president, Lyndon B. Johnson — all of whom exist as suspects in the vacuous world of conspiracy theorists.

Each may be guilty of crimes, but none had anything to do with Kennedy's assassination. "Reclaiming History" may finally move those accusations beyond civilized debate."

vidor1,

That's just what most in the press said about Posner's book, until leading researchers into the assassination started poking very large holes in his reasoning and evidence. And then there was what he left out. So please, by all means, continue marching with the head-in-the-sand (or is that head-up-the-ass?) brigade.

Saintperle,

You're kidding, right?? Bugliosi did not create a case out of whole cloth, he took what evidence he had - including the devastating, eyewitness testimony of Linda Kasabian - and proved beyond all doubt that Manson and some of his followers murdered those poor people on Cielo Drive, and that he ordered the murder of the Lobiancos too. Talk about "case closed."

The simplest, most elegant proof of conspiracy is the rifle Oswald used (yes, I'm of those who accepts he was one of the shooters). The Maanlicher-Carcano is one of the worst rifles ever manufactured, and the ammunition it fires - the 6.5mm "Jap-Norman" round - is one of the worst types of rifle ammunition every manufactured. Furthermore, the scope on Oswald's rifle was so poorly installed that it broke off not long after the assassination. All of this does not equal three shots, with two hits and a kill. Solly, Cholly.

There's really no way to respond to posts like the one above. The writer above admits that he believes Oswald was firing bullets at Dealey Plaza that day, but then goes on to say that Oswald's rifle couldn't have fired those bullets. Aside from sweeping statements like "The Mannlicher-Carcano was the worst rifle ever" that are simply false, since that rifle was shown to be capable of firing those shots, what are we to make of the muddled thinking that admits Oswald was a shooter, but refuses to believe his rifle could fire the shots? I guess some eeeeeeeeeeevil secret agent snuck into the Book Depository and switched out rifles and got away clean? (Maybe that's the secret behind conspiracy theories. The ability to believe in Evil Secret Agents that can materialize and disappear at will).