For the next forty years, because of my own curiosity and because the event was continually thrust upon me by the media, I studied the sad event from every possible angle. I considered the views of those propounding the prospect of the lone shooter, the single bullet. I listened to the views of those sure that a conspiracy of monumental proportions had taken the President. In short, I have heard every possible explanation and still the evidence--in my view--leads backs to the beginning.
In "The Death of a President," William Manchester, one of the greatest authors of our time and one renowned for his concise, almost obsessive, research was called upon by Jacqueline Kennedy to attempt to set the record straight. The work was published in 1967, four years after the assassination. His research was characteristically pointed, considering every detail, every venue, every person involved. The result: the only book needed to understand the "crime of the century."
In 1988 the book was reprinted and Manchester wrote a new forward to his masterpiece. He mentions how individuals came to him wondering whether he would update and modify his original work due to "new developments" in chronicling the story. He observed at the time that, in his view, "the cruel fact" was that there were no new developments.
Having studied, as I said, the event in considerable detail, I echo Manchester's profound sentiment. There simply is nothing that holds up under severe scrutiny.
Conspiracy theorists claim that it is just impossible that someone like Oswald, a crazy loner, could kill someone like Kennedy as the result of the shallowest of motives. They want to believe that something weightier, darker and more sinister than simple hatred and ego had to be at the root of things. Why?
I would ask them to step back just a few years to when Reagan was President. Consider a lone gunman, John Hinckley, who squeezes off at least three shots before being subdued, wounding Reagan, Brady and a secret service agent in the process. His motive? He wanted to get the attention of a girl, of the actress, Jodie Foster. The shallowest of motives, nothing more. So why is it that we can accept Hinckley's dementia without crying conspiracy but have such difficulty when it comes to Oswald? Quite simply Reagan survived. I believe that, had Reagan died, the nation would have erupted into the same conspiracy craze that has gripped our minds since 1963.
"The Death of a President," so well researched, so well written, is and should be the first and last word. It's been nearly forty years since Manchester completed his study and, despite all of the other books, all of the other theories, this is really the only work that any serious student of that sad day in Dallas need consider.
Douglas McAllister
