The Mother of All JFK Books: Oswald Acted... Alone?

After forty-plus years and a thousand books about John F. Kennedy and his assassination, it has become an accepted article of faith to most Americans (75% or more) that JFK was killed by the actions of a conspiracy. The debate has centered only on who was in on the murder plot: the CIA, the mob, Cubans, Castro, even LBJ. The most radical thing anybody can possibly say in this situation is that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and was the only gunman who took at shot on November 22, 1963.

Vincent Bugliosi is that kind of radical. He's perhaps our country's foremost prosecutor. You know him because he's the man who put that evil bastard Charles Manson behind bars for life and, later, made the case against O.J. Simpson so convincingly in his book Outrage. He also prosecuted Lee Harvey Oswald (in absentia) during a 21-hour British television production in the mid-80s where he actually convinced a jury of Dallas citizens who had served on federal trials to return a guilty verdict. Buglioisi has the steely intellect to see through bullshit and the guts to call it the way he sees it.

Bugliosi's new book, Reclaiming History, has been nearly twenty years in the making. It's over 1600 pages (not a typo). For the past four days, I've been reading it like the obsessed Kennedy reader I am. I do not have eye-strain but I do have a strain in my right forearm from balancing this book. It is literally too big to hold comfortably.

I'm betting, also, that it is also metaphorically too big for many people to hold comfortably in their minds because it will challenge their current mind-sets. But, as Bugliosi points out, the JFK assassination is "the most consequential murder case in American history." Therefore, he argues, he has written these 1,612 pages because he wants it to be the definitive piece on the assassination. As a former investigative reporter myself, I am duly impressed by how much work has gone into this.

Personally, like a lot of Americans, I've followed quite a path on the JFK story. As a child, I mourned with everyone else when Kennedy was murdered. And, like most everyone else at the time, I hated Lee Harvey Oswald (who we all assumed did the deed). I hated the fact that my middle name was "Harvey" from that day forward.

Then, like a lot of Americans, I began to have doubts. The conspiracy books started to make their cases. As historians turned up the truth about a lot of Kennedy's personal conduct, and his relations with Castro, and the CIA, and the mob, well, it seemed like there were lots of suspects for a conspiracy. By the mid-90s, in fact, I even turned the JFK conspiracy into an NBC primetime television series, "Dark Skies," which bizarrely welded the two great conspiracies of our time together into a plot-line that had JFK being killed because he was about to tell the truth about UFOs in his second term.

Even before Bugliosi's heavyweight indictment (it's 5.3 pounds), however, I'd begun to have doubts about my doubts. Gerald Posner wrote Case Closed which, also, argued that Oswald acted alone. I wasn't completely swayed, but my mind was open. One thing I learned as an investigative reporter is that in most instances the simplest explanation, even if it is emotionally unsatisfying, is often the right one.

The thing is Bugliosi's book is excellent and he is a powerfully assured organizer and interpreter of facts, particularly in complex cases like this one. Plus, and this is what sets his book apart, he takes the various conspiracy theories to task one-by-one and literally shreds them.

I'm a nut for detail, too. I actually collect Time and Newsweek magazines from the 1960s. Reading the issues about JFK leading up to the assassination and after is so much different than reading what you can find today.

Now I have a confession to make. I am the same man who once described the Warren Commission Report as "the greatest work of fiction ever produced by Americans." And yet I am close to believing that the Warren Commission got it more or less right.

I can't believe I just wrote that.

• Sidebar: Oddly, I've been working on a JFK book for a few years now that, while it is not the centerpiece, also assumes that Oswald probably was the lone gunman after all. My book is an alt-history novel, co-written with prolific author Harry Turtledove, called Winter of Our Discontent: The Impeachment and Trial of John F. Kennedy. It's our contention (at least for novelistic purposes) that if Oswald had shot at JFK in Dallas and missed, the resulting investigation would have exposed JFK's secret life as collateral damage and he would have been impeached a decade before Nixon for crimes large and small.