"The Kennedy Detail" paperback (11/15/11): NOTHING truly new, no corrections, & misleading blurbs

"The Kennedy Detail" paperback (11/15/11): NOTHING truly new, no corrections, & misleading blurbs


"The Kennedy Detail" came out in paperback 11/15/11- very disappointing. Blaine had the chance to correct the record regarding the many errors and omissions pertaining to the assassination, as well as the 11/18/63 Tampa trip, and he chose not to address one iota of the criticism whatsoever.

On the front jacket and spine, it states that the book was a New York Times Bestseller. However, while technically true, it was briefly on the EXTENDED list---meaning, it was NOT even a top 20 book (it also barely, briefly, grazed the top 100 on Amazon.Com). The very first page is (once again, technically) something "new": a brief tally of "praise" for the book. However, "The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction, CO)" blurb MERELY REPEATS EXACTLY WHAT BLAINE SAID- THESE ARE BLAINE'S OWN WORDS ("A book that needed to be written")! "The Dallas Morning News" blurb states: "John F Kennedy's Secret Service agents break their silence"...nothing more (and this is not true, either). This is ALSO the tag line to Blaine's own book! So, once again, these are BLAINE'S OWN WORDS! "The Washington Times" states that the book is "full of anecdotes, recollections, and accounts...", not stating if they are good, bad, or truthful; that's it. The "Herald Review (Decatur, IL) chimes in: "the only authoritative account of that day from the men who were there to guard the president’s life." While we can argue the merits of that statement, as well, it appears this was a favorable review...favorable, in that Lisa McCubbin, the co-author, has a Decatur, IL "connection", as the whole review states.

For its part, ABC News states: "The Kennedy Detail has brought a new perspective to the story"...but, once again: is that good or bad? CNN reports: "A newly detailed account...based on interviews with many of the agents...Former agent Hill, who has rarely granted interviews about the shooting [not entirely true: twice to CBS, once to The History Channel, once to National Geographic Channel, the Warren Commission, and to William Manchester], wrote a foreword." Not much praise there.

The Library Journal ends their brief blurb with the statement that "their best efforts were not enough." "Best efforts"?!?!?!

Only The Florida Times-Union presents a truly praiseworthy blurb. Perhaps this is why it was also presented on the cover of the book.

Same old, same old...

Vince Palamara