Here's a selection from the negative review to Jim DiEugenio's book "Reclaiming Parkland."
David Adams - I don't understand the anger toward Hollywood the author brings.
Jeffrey Herman- (from the no matter what anyone says or writes Oswald-did-it school)
If I am to understanding the good Gentleman DiEugenio , he is saying that Oswald did not have anything to do with the assassination, was definitely not on the 6Th floor, did not shot at Walker, did not have any guns, did not shot officer Tippet, and was not in the photo in question.
DiEugenio indicates that based on the paraffin test Oswald did not shot a rifle, but when the test indicated that he had shot a pistol, DiEugenio simply negates those results to fit his scheme. I would like to ask Mr. DiEugenio, if Oswald could not have possibly gotten down from the 6Th floor without being seen, how did the real shooter or shooters get down?
Because the real shooter could only be on the 6th floor of the TSBD. And can only be firing from the 6th floor's southeastern window, right where we were told Oswald was. So, if you remove Oswald from being an assassin something creates "an Oswald" assassin doing exactly what the WC said Oswsald did. Brilliant.
On page 101 DiEugenio indicates that Benavides refused to name Oswald as Officer Tippets killer, and that he was then threatened and HIS BROTHER WAS THEN SHOT. DiEugenio goes on to indicate that Benavides then changed his mind and did identify Oswald.
Really, that very day they went out and found his brother and shot him, just to get Benavides to change his mind, when they already had many other people who had identified Oswald.
This is the kind of mindless nonsense that brings into question anything this guy has to say.
What Herman neglects to mention is that Domingo Benevides' brother, Edward, strongly resembled him. So, leaving that detail out brings into question Mr. Herman's motives.
Then we get the "it would take an enormous amount of people" meme.
But, how many people actually wrote "Reclaiming History?" The correct answer is more than one.
W. Bell "wumhenry" (whatever the jell kid of a name that is) - In contrast, when reading Bugliosi's book I occasionally found one of his arguments unconvincing, but never did I see any reason to suspect that he was deliberately trying to deceive readers about the evidence.
Jeremy ( I'm ashamed of my last name that's why I don't use it ) - This book, from cover to cover, is an attack piece on other authors and other theories. DiEugenio enumerates why other authors/historians are wrong, and he, and he alone, has got it all figured out.
But there's one big problem: DiEugenio has clearly NOT read the books he so viciously tears apart! Whether you agree with theories other than your own or not, you should at least try to understand where others are coming from.
DiEugenio assumes that we haven't read the works of Hartman/Waldron... He summarizes their extensively researched books are "pretzel logic." DiEugenio erroneously claims that Waldron and Hartman theorize that the "mob killed JFK to stop him from invading Cuba." WHAT!!? Where did Waldron and Hartman mention this in their books?
That last name? It must be Cinque - Because we really don't have to look beyond the inside of the dust jacket. Here's the one from "Ultimate Sacrifice."
And the one from "Legacy of Secrecy."
C. E. Angleberger - [ See if you can spot the fault in this author's point, if not entire methodology in reading any book. ] I have never read anything like this where an author just slams and picks apart another book/author like this. If you are a fan of DiEugenio and agree with his views, well heck, you will love this book. But for someone like me who is interested in different takes on the Assassination, it was hard to get through it. I have a few opinions on the events, and haven't even read Reclaiming History nor care what Bugliosi has to say, but DiEugenio's constant ruthless attacks throughout the book just turned me off and made himself sound like a sterotype conspiracy theorist to me. And the writing was frustrating; often specific events are mentioned in passing but not explained. Most readers don't know every little associated event. Dozens of names were thrown about in the sentences to the point where I didn't care and started skipping paragraphs.
An Anonymous Kindle customer - Could not get half way through before I was tired of hearing about Bugliosi's faults (I get it). Enough.,
The book was entitled "Reclaiming Parkland: Tom Hanks, Vincent Bugliosi, and the JFK Assassination in the New Hollywood," what did you think the book was going to be about, how they made the monkey fly in The Wizzard of Oz?
Michael - "All he does is complain about Bugliosi's book and rebut everything in it..."
Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me considering that Jim's book is 496 pages, with no CD enclosed while Bugliosi's is 1,648 page with a CD with at least 1,000 more pages.