The first book did focus a great deal on the mafia. More, it made it appear that the "mafia" was distinct from certain elected officials in Washington, and government agencies, including the CIA. So I agree with you that this was a major short-coming in that book.
Both the second and third were made possible because of more and more documents being made available to researchers. (Luckily, that allows us to discuss this in the context of research in investigations, keeping this discussion from being referred to as "conspiracy theory."
One of the obvious problems with the Warren Commission is that two agencies -- the FBI and CIA -- failed to share information with the commission's investigators. This is a well-established fact. And any investigation can only be as good as the information available.
While I strongly disagree with Vincent Bugliosi's book on Dallas and the Warren Commission, I respect that it was well-researched. Yet, much of the information reported on in the three books we are discussing was not available to Bugliosi. Hence, while he disagrees with the authors, even he has said that these books are informative, important, and are not "conspiracy theories."
One of the things I believe is most important, and which rarely is reported upon, involves the ONI. By no coincidence, some of the major figures from both the first two books (Dallas) and the third (Watergate) are men who were officially in either the FBI or CIA. But, upon closer examination, they were actually from ONI, serving "on loan" as shared staff -- not uncommon, but definitely significant. Most journalists, like the general public, assume that "intelligence agency" equals CIA. Even here on DU, very few people understand the distinctions.
One of the things that the authors have learned is that ONI did its own investigation of Dallas. The study's conclusion is very different from that of the Warren Commission. The report, of course, will never be released to the nation.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
