Review of Reclaiming History

by Gary L. Aguilar, 21 Dec 2007

Ed note: This review first appeared in the Nov/Dec issue of The Federal Lawyer.

"[A]lthough there have been hundreds of books on the [JFK] assassination," Vincent Bugliosi writes in the introduction to Reclaiming History, "no book has even attempted to be a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the entire [italics in original] case, including all of the major conspiracy theories." Indeed, no book has – not even this 1612-page book, supplemented by a CD-rom containing 958 pages of endnotes – although not because it is too short.

The gigantic swing that Bugliosi takes is easily the most ambitious one-person undertaking ever published on the Kennedy assassination. Bugliosi, the famous Charles Manson prosecutor, devotes more than 1400 pages of text and endnotes to "reclaiming" the lost truth as first set forth by the Warren Commission. He then devotes 900 more pages of text and endnotes to pounding myriad “conspiracy theorists” whose efforts over the years, Bugliosi claims, have wrought a grave injustice on the Commission and performed a "flagrant disservice to the American public."

It is not just that critics have convinced 75 percent of Americans (Bugliosi’s figure) to reject the official truth, which he says happens to be the real truth. These critics, Bugliosi contends, are also responsible for a widespread loss of faith in once-respected institutions. Such widespread skepticism, "gestating for decades in the nation’s marrow," he writes, "obviously has to have had a deleterious effect on the way Americans view those who lead them and determine their destiny. Indeed, Jefferson Morley, former Washington editor of the Nation, observes that Kennedy’s assassination has been 'a kind of national Rorschach test of the American political psyche. What Americans think about the Kennedy assassination reveals what they think about their government.'" To those who might wonder if more than 1600 pages of text and 900 pages of endnotes were really necessary, Bugliosi says that the problem is so severe that nothing less would have sufficed.

Although Warren Commission skeptics might not welcome this gargantuan new salvo, there is no denying that Bugliosi’s Herculean effort is an historic and important contribution. It is valuable not only as a reference for the myriad facts in the case and for debunking some of the pro-conspiracy codswallop that has not elsewhere already been debunked (most of it has been, if one has the time to find it). The book’s use also lies in demonstrating that it may not be possible for one person to fully master, or give a fair accounting of, this impossibly tangled mess of a case. In fact, despite Bugliosi’s pugnacious pummeling, he hasn’t laid a glove on major elements of the case for conspiracy.

And, regrettably, it must be said that the most distinguishing characteristic of this book is its demagogic pugnacity. Bugliosi cleaves the world of opinion holders neatly in two – sensible Warren Commission loyalists and conscious evildoers, the "conspiracy theorists." He allows, however, for the occasional sincere dupe. Although his prosecutorial, conclusions-driven style is redolent of Gerald Posner’s in Case Closed, the last attorney-written book to defend the Warren Commission, Bugliosi’s endless self-congratulation and his arrogant condescension make his book far more insufferable.

These traits may have served Bugliosi well as a Los Angeles County prosecutor where, he boasts, he won felony convictions in 105 of 106 jury trials. They may have helped him knock out true-crime books, including his famous book about the Manson murders, Helter Skelter. But his arrogance is of little use in untangling the hopelessly conflicted facts in this 44-year old national tragedy. His incessantly hurling slurs such as "deranged conspiracy theorist," "crackpot," "con man," "kook," and "huckster" at virtually all critics inevitably carries a whiff of buffoonery and anxious self-promotion about it. And that’s particularly the case when he’s flat-out wrong on the facts.

A typical example is Bugliosi’s mocking of skeptics who say that Robert Kennedy was, to borrow from Bugliosi, a "conspiracy theorist." He counters not with an informed discussion, but by producing an RFK quotation of support for the Warren Commission. Ironically, in the very week that Bugliosi’s book premiered, a new best-selling book by David Talbot, Brothers, was published proffering book-length documentation of something skeptics have long known and Bugliosi could have known if he had really looked: While RFK toed the official line in public for the obvious, political reasons, in private, and until the day he died, he remained active as, to borrow from Talbot, "America’s first assassination conspiracy theorist."

Read the full essay at www.maryferrell.org.

Comments

[Ed J]

Another review attacking Bugliosi's book without addressing his evidence.

You try to lump him together with Posner while neglecting to mention that in "Reclaiming History", Bugliosi is extremely critical of Posner's book.

And as to Robert Kennedy - to posit that he would participate in a coverup of his brother's murder for "political reasons" is an astonishing slur against his memory. If Robert Kennedy had any information that anyone but Oswald was involved in the assassination, he'd have moved heaven and earth to bring those responsible to justice.

[Ryan Post]

This is just another typical critique/review from a disgruntled conspiracy. Throw out a bunch of blanket statements like "Bugliosi...hasn’t laid a glove on major elements of the case for conspiracy" and then hope that others accept those statements as fact.

Then there's this statement: "The book’s use also lies in demonstrating that it may not be possible for one person to fully master, or give a fair accounting of, this impossibly tangled mess of a case." Bugliosi, himself, says in the book that even after 20 years of writing, he couldn't possibly call his book a complete, exhaustive resource on the entire assassination, because there's so much information surrounding the case.

But this is typical of conspiracists when they're backed up against the wall. Use half-truths, blanket statements, and mis-characterizations and hope that most people are too intimidated by a 1,600-page book to read it and find out that it blows all of their own "research" out the water.

Sour grapes.

[neaguy]

Well, isn't that nice. Two more lone shooter theorists who don't want to deal with the evidence.

The reality is that Dr. Aguilar has, like Dr. Wrone before him on this site, annihilated Mr. Bugliosi's book.

Bugliosi did some wonderful work on the RFK case when he went after the walking bible, that preacher Jerry Owen who was involved in some still unknown way with Sirhan Sirhan prior to his shooting of RFK.

But his work on the JFK case has only served to obfuscate the facts and issues, apparently with the two writers who posted prior to me.

Since Harold Weisberg completely destroyed the Warren Report in 1965 in his book Whitewash, there hasn't been anyone who's provided what the Warren Commissioners failed to do: the full truth about who shot JFK.

[Pat Speer]

I couldn't help but notice the irony of Ryan's post. He says that Bugliosi admits the case is too big for one man to master, and then claims it blows ALL the research of conspiracy theorists out of the water. Is this a joke? It has to be, right?

In my article, available on this webpage, and in chapter 4c of patspeer.com, I discuss the NAA tests performed on Oswald's cheek cast, and reveal that Bugliosi totally misrepresented and/or ignored this important element of the case. This is just one of the many aspects of the case where Bugliosi's lawyer's brief falls flat.

[Ryan Post]

"I couldn't help but notice the irony of Ryan's post. He says that Bugliosi admits the case is too big for one man to master, and then claims it blows ALL the research of conspiracy theorists out of the water. Is this a joke? It has to be, right?"

Where is the irony in that? There are a ton of assassination researchers (even those who lean towards "conspiracy") who have said and written about their admiration of Bugliosi's work as an unprecendented amount of research in comparison to any other book on the assassination. Just because he pointed out that it's impossible to write one book that includes every bit of information possible on the case, doesn't negate the fact that his book is the most comprehensive and thoroughlu-researched book on the assassination that's ever been written.

[Pat Speer]

The irony, Ryany, is that Bugliosi and his supporters admit his book is incomplete one second, and then claim his book refutes ALL conspiracy theories the next. You can't have it both ways. Either Bugliosi's book is complete, and covers everything, or it is not, and there are questions suggesting a conspiracy that remain unanswered.

While the second scenario is obviously true--even Bugliosi admits the Odio incident probably happened and that he can't make sense of it--for some reason people (most loudly Bugliosi himself) keep repeating that he debunks ALL conspiracy theories. Well, repeating it doesn't make it so. It's as if he's afraid to admit that there's anything he doesn't know.

Which is ridiculous. While Bugliosi's over-all knowledge is probably as great as anyone's, there are a number of researchers who would tear him to shreds on a number of topics on which he knows next to nothing. If he really wanted to write a great book, he should have had it proofread by the research community. Then he would have had a chance to correct his errors, and answer the challenges of reviews such as the one written by Dr. Aguilar.

P.S. Bugliosi's silence is deafening. Does the prosecutor lack a defense?

[GLA]

Ed J writes:

"You try to lump him together with Posner while neglecting to mention that in "Reclaiming History", Bugliosi is extremely critical of Posner's book."

If he would bother to actually read my review, he'd discovered not only that I did indeed mention Bugliosi's criticisms of Posner, I highlighted them.

I hope this comment was made in haste and is not reflective of Ed, generally.

Gary A.

[GLA]

Ed J writes:

"You try to lump him together with Posner while neglecting to mention that in "Reclaiming History", Bugliosi is extremely critical of Posner's book."

If he would bother to actually read my review, he'd discovered not only that I did indeed mention Bugliosi's criticisms of Posner, I highlighted them.

I hope this comment was made in haste and is not reflective of Ed, generally.

Gary A.

[Ed J]

Mr. Aguilar,
I just reread the whole of your entry on this site and the only reference I see to Posner is this:

"Although his prosecutorial, conclusions-driven style is redolent of Gerald Posner’s in Case Closed, the last attorney-written book to defend the Warren Commission, Bugliosi’s endless self-congratulation and his arrogant condescension make his book far more insufferable."

If this is critical of Posner I must be reading in "haste" again because I don't see it. In this line you definitely lump them together.

If, however, you want me to "bother" to read the rest of your piece, please post it here in it's entirety.

[zelduh]

Hi Vince! Um.. I mean...
Hi Ryan and Ed J!
I know how difficult it is to click on a link to read the entire article, but it's really easy.

Just click here, --> --> -->http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Review_of_Reclaiming_History
and you will be transferred magically to Dr. Aguilar's ENTIRE (and rather brilliant) article.

Zel

[Ed J]

Why not post the whole thing here? Trying to get traffic at that other site?

By the way, did you see that "Reclaiming History" has been nominated for an "Edgar" award in the true-crime category?

[Scott]

Let's try this folks...why doesn't someone post EVIDENCE that refutes Bugliosi's thesis that Oswald acted alone? I have read all the criticisms and attacks on VB's book, but I eagerly await someone, anyone, to post EVIDENCE that someone other than Oswald acted in a conspiracy. Outside cherrypicking randomly perceived distortions and inaccuracies in VB's book, please show me ONE, just ONE, scintilla of EVIDENCE that Oswald is not guilty. That is a remarkably generous and low threshold of compliance. However, I will not hold my breath. I suspect it will be a long wait.

[King Kennedy]

People will continue to debate what actually happened that fateful day. If you want to see it for yourself and the events leading up to the death check out King Kennedy a film which is has been procued entirely from archived materail with no narration that aims to piece together the facts to arrive at the truth. http://www.kingkennedy.com

[ferragamo shoes]

I listen with interest and sustained concentration follows instructions carefully is able to give and explain simple instructions.

[spy phone]

The name of Kennedy and his death has been discovered lots of times already. And when I read books or articles about this mystery i remember the words by Wim Dankbaar: "Knowing the Truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today".

[Thesis Writing]

This post is quite interesting and awesome to read I wanna share it with my other friends because we are discussing about it last night and I told them I will search it tomorrow and finally I got all answer here too tell them ....
Thanks for sharing here with us...