The author of this book has a disclaimer at the end urging readers not to try what he and some experts had done to see if the actions in the plot were viable.  

They discovered that they were, but he suggests that readers not try it. You’ll understand after you have finished the book.

The cover of this book indicates the content:  a portrait of JFK shows that this book offers yet another book about the Kennedy assassination; this one, however, is fiction, and a bit far-fetched but still a good read.  

As the 50th anniversary for that event is later this fall, be prepared to see several books related to it appear in the next few months.

This one is not to be confused with Bill O’Reilly’s recent book entitled “Killing Kennedy,” which also has Kennedy pictured on the front.  O’Reilly’s was nonfiction.

This one features a former government operative extraordinaire, Bob Lee Swaggert, who is retired, but ends up looking into the Kennedy assassination to assist a woman whose husband was killed while doing research for his book: he died in a hit and run accident, which seemed to target him specifically.  

In the book, Swaggert does some research himself, then travels to Russia and finally to Dallas, Texas.

In Texas, he too becomes a target but manages to evade a car trying to make him a second hit and run victim.

After investigation and theorizing, Swaggert offers the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy in the whole scenario, and that the shooting was actually done by a sharpshooter arranged by another party who had dangled Oswald along, pretending to be a Russian operative.

Remember Oswald’s connections to the Russians, even though tenuous, might make Oswald think that he was engaged in a plot that would have far-reaching repercussions.  

Oswald’s willingness to participate in such is explained by the psychological dissection of Oswald’s thinking presented here-and other places if you have looked into the assassination much.

A couple of interesting conclusions are drawn by Swaggert: first, he feels that Oswald was not psychologically stable enough to have carried out the assassination, nor was he skilled enough to plan and execute the assassination.  Swaggert’s own training and skill makes him see this when he visits the Sixth Floor Museum.

Swaggert is a weapons expert, and he notes that the rifle that Oswald had was a poor weapon, actually left-over Italian military “junk,” and the scope he purchased and attached was not calibrated accurately, nor even viable to use.

He doesn’t see how Oswald managed, and concludes that all of the investigations that have been conducted over the years have drawn wrong conclusions.

He decides that there must have been another shooter.

In this story, there was another shooter, not from the grassy knoll or other suggested spots, but from the Dal-Tex building across the street from the School Book Depository.  

The way the scenario is explained is intriguing, especially if you have ever visited that area of Dallas.  You can understand how this might be a credible explanation, but remember this is only a fiction book.

The explanation for ammunition appearing to come from Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano is intriguing.  (Remember the disclaimer?)  

The ironic thing in this book is that the plot was not originally to kill the President; it was just a matter of opportunity.  

Plans were to assassinate General Walker, whom Oswald had missed a shot at before, but when the motorcade route was published a couple of days ahead of time, the opportunity was too good to pass up.

Hunter’s book is a fun read on a grim subject.

Sherwood, of Charleston, is a retired reading teacher.

(1) comment

Max Steingrout
Max Steingrout

Calling O'Reilly's book non-fiction is funny. The book is full of nonsense and make believe. Such as his claim that he was present when De Mohrenschildt was killed, or that no one mourned Oswald. The book is shallow, racy and O'Reilly assassinates JFK's character by the beginning of chapter 2. He cleverly ignores evidence unearthed over the past 49 + years. I wish the book was only naive, but it's more sinister than that. It's a white wash. Shame on Bill O'Reilly.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.