Sabato reviewed by DiEugenio

[Marc Ellis]

I've always thought Sabato was a talking head with a silly mustache. He only wrote his book for a one time payoff on the fiftieth anniversary. He's not worth a serious review IMO. I did read the CTKA review though.

More importantly, I've learned much from DiEugenio's deconstruction of Bugliosi in 'Reclaiming Parkland'. At it's best, it's persuasive. And in argument, that's all that matters.

Now that I've gotten past the Hollywood stuff and the Tom Hanks tedium, I think it's a more important book than 'Destiny Betrayed'. It is focused on taking down Bugliosi's (ie., the etablishment's) conclusions, carefully, logically, one-at-a-time. That's important and no one yet has done it to my knowledge. So if Bugliosi's book is 'for the ages', so is 'Reclaiming Parkland'. It is the only serious point-by-point rebuttal I know of.

More than once, the author returns to Bugliosi's dubious pledge at the beginning of his book, to state his opponents' arguments in the way they would make them, and leave nothing out. DiEugenio shows repeatedly, either Bugliosi was dishonest about that, or the JFK assassination is a subject way out of his intellectual depth.

I highly recommend 'Reclaiming Parkland'. Notwithstanding the title, it's not about a flop movie.

Thanks Marc. I may have been the only guy to read all of the book, plus the CD. When I asked Gary Aguilar if he had done so, he memorably replied, "Are you crazy!"

To this day, I don't understand why Bugliosi took that pledge in his introduction. If I was his editor I would have told him, "Look you wrote a long prosecutor's brief. You did not include all the exculpatory stuff. Someone is going to take notice and go after you on that." Either the editor did not tell him that, or Vince ignored him. With all due respect to VInce, who I still like personally, he deliberately left stuff out. For example, about Ruby's polygraph. He read that report. He then censored it for the reader.

About the title. They gave me a list of five titles to pick from. I wanted to call it either "Refuting Bugliosi" or "Doubting Bugliosi". I got overruled. Turns out I was right. But 90% of the time, the publisher gets to name the title.

I think your publishers didn't foresee the possibility the movie would be a miserable flop that never came close to making a dent on the public consciousness. So the title today alas, is something of a non sequitur.

I think it's your most important book. As long as people refer to Bugliosi's tome 'for the ages', scholars will have to refer to your book as well. It's the only one out there. And it's a very careful and logical deconstruction of Bugliosi.

it's not for the first time reader. But everyone in the research community should have a copy. To rebut Bugliosi - it is the best source out there. Maybe you can retitle it in the next edition.