Jim DiEugenio lists the low quality of the government witnesses in the JFK assassination case.

Jim DiEugenio examines Dallas journalist Hugh Aynesworth and his role in covering up conspiracy in the JFK assassination.

Conducted by Seamus Coogan at the JFK November in Dallas conference in 2006.

Looking at the totality of Philip Melanson's work (and I am leaving out some of it), there are very few people who contributed as much or as at the high level that he did, writes Jim DiEugenio.

On the crucial work of Randich and Grant published in the Journal of Forensic Science which completely demolishes the validity of neutron activation analysis for the comparison of bullet lead, touted by the HSCA on the basis of Vincent Guinn's claims.

Randich and Grant's invalidation of Neutron Activation Analysis for bullet lead comparison renders the single-bullet theory even less credible than it seems.

Although Randich and Grant's research doesn't solve the Kennedy assassination, it certainly does weaken the case for a lone gunman, writes Betty Mason of the Contra Costa Times.

The book was a huge disappointment for me. Reportedly, Mellen spent seven years on it and over 150, 000 dollars. So, quite naturally, like others, I was expecting at least a worthwhile effort. If it was not going to be definitive, it would now be at least the best book on Garrison. But that's not true, writes Jim DiEugenio.

In its February 20, 2006 issue, The Nation published an article by Max Holland called "The JFK Lawyers' Conspiracy." Reprinted here are letters to The Nation from people who believe they, their organization or their views were unfairly represented by Holland and one from an eyewitness to some of the story, along with Holland's reply.

For me, and for most of his longtime admirers, the highlights of this distinguished and fascinating book were the chapters on the Garrison inquiry and the one on the Robert Kennedy murder, writes Jim DiEugenio.