There is an almost pathological use of conditionals; may have, perhaps, could have, if, etc. Conversely, there is an overabundance of hackneyed declaratives where conditionals should have been used, as well as an over-reliance on unnamed sources. And yet this dogged pursuit and elucidation of the documentary record is supposed to be the sine qua non of these two books, writes Bill Davy.

Jim DiEugenio provides an advance reaction to Brothers in Arms, by Gus Russo and Stephen Molton, as announced in an article in American Heritage magazine.

Russell, with the help of Hulme, did a much better job of telling the story of Nagell in 2003 than he did in 1992, writes Jim DiEugenio.

An anthology of over forty chapters which spans many years of contributions, but the number of essays that are really important, insightful, and worth preserving is small, writes Jim DiEugenio.

Jim DiEugenio discusses reactions to his review of Lamar Waldron's Legacy of Secrecy.

Author Philip Sheridan reviews the film "inspired by" the Mary Meyer story and directed by William Olsson.

One of the most puzzling things about Ultimate Sacrifice is that some have actually taken it seriously. Peter Scott has said it is well documented. My question to Peter: Well-documented with what? Frank Ragano and Ed Partin? If you don't analyze the footnotes you might be impressed, writes Jim DiEugenio.

With what the authors have now done to Williams' credibility, plus the near universality of agreement on the true nature of the C -Day plans, the end should be spelled out for this entire "second invasion" thesis, writes Jim DiEugenio.

An interesting, well-organized, and crafted book. [Haslam] has given us a documented, insightful, and arresting alternative to the unsatisfactory, or missing, official story [of Mary Sherman's death]; that alternative may have huge implications down to the present day. His work deserves attention and accolades, concludes Jim DiEugenio.

In a book like this, a lot of the credibility must come from the reader's trust in the author(s). Unfortunately, that is not forthcoming here, writes Jim DiEugenio.