JFK Conspiracy Theories: A Book to Disprove Them All

May 15, 2007 — -- In the decades since the assassination of President Kennedy, the questions about who killed him and why still draw fierce debate despite the 1964 Warren Commission report that fingered Lee Harvey Oswald.

By some measures, as many as three-quarters of Americans believe there was a conspiracy. Vincent Bugliosi, the famed prosecutor who put away Charles Manson and co-authored the book "Helter Skelter" about the Manson trial, is not one of them.

Bugliosi has written a comprehensive book that claims to debunk nearly every conspiracy theory put forth: the 1,600-page-long "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

In an interview with ABC News' Cynthia McFadden, Bugliosi explained why it was necessary to write a book of such length.

"The case has become kind of complex as a result of the unceasing, fanatical obsession of literally thousands upon thousands of researchers in this case examining every single aspect of this case, making hundreds upon hundreds of allegations," he said.

'Most Important Case in U.S. History'

While Bugliosi blames conspiracy theorists for making the JFK assassination more complex than it should be, he might be accused of becoming obsessed with the case.

After all, it took 20 years to complete the book. However, Bugliosi said, "the Kennedy case is the most important murder case in American history. … I think the assassination, to put it mildly, was sufficiently important to have a book for the ages written for it."

Bugliosi said others who had attempted to tackle the material had until now been able to concentrate only on specific parts of the case and parts of the conspiracy theories. In "Reclaiming History," he attempts to encapsulate every aspect of the case.

"I decided, maybe like a fool, to take on the whole case, and there's no bottom of the pile in the Kennedy case," he said.

Bugliosi said that in the last seven years he'd worked between 80 and 100 hours a week on the tome, writing every day during that time. He doesn't own a computer, and while some of his notes were dictated to an assistant, most of the book was written in longhand on yellow legal paper.

Debunking the Conspiracy Theories

He passionately contends that there is no credible evidence to uphold any of the conspiracy theories put forth, merely speculation.

"It would not be humanly possible for Oswald to be innocent," Bugliosi said. "In the book, I give 53 separate pieces of evidence that point towards his guilt, and in the real world you cannot have 53 pieces of evidence pointing toward your guilt and still be innocent."

Bugliosi refutes the theory that the president could not have been shot by Oswald from behind because his head -- as seen in the famous Zapruder film -- pushes backward.

According to the author, the film needs to be looked at frame by frame rather than continuously. In doing so, one can see that the slain president's head does indeed push forward before slumping back, he said.

What about the "magic bullet theory" that claims Texas Gov. John Connally, who was also wounded while riding in a motorcade, couldn't have been hit by the same bullet as Kennedy?

"Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy but to Kennedy's left-front. Therefore, the orientation of his body vis-a-vis Kennedy was such that a bullet passing through Kennedy's body in a straight line through soft tissue had nowhere else to go except to hit John Connally," he said.

Bugliosi saves his greatest criticism and disdain, however, for the most famous of all the doubters about the Kennedy case: movie director Oliver Stone.

Many believe that Stone's 1991 film, "JFK," has done more to fuel the controversy than any other book or film on the subject.

"Oliver Stone does not look good after this book. His movie is one continuous lie. He didn't have one single piece of evidence pointing toward Oswald's guilt in his movie," Bugliosi said, adding sarcastically, "I understand, he didn't have time -- it was only three hours and eight minutes."

Stone, Bugliosi says, "had the stratospheric audacity to call his film the truth. … And he said he wanted his film to replace the Warren report."