I read that book too. Both are fascinating. That's why you rely on primary sources. Bugliosi's JFK book is forebodingly well documented. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of notes.
I've spent years reviewing books from "both sides" and none are perfect. But on balance, the conspiracy books rarely stand up to even the most basic fact checking.
Jesse Ventura's book on the assassination is also highly recommended. It provides a great alternative to the Lee Harvey Oswald narrative. It's so impressively thorough.
'During his [Vincent Bugliosi] eight years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson. He is also a best selling author.'
You don't get a 99% conviction rate by being honest, I would say this wouldn't be a great choice of person to put ANY faith in really. I MUCH prefer Colin McLaren's take, an ex police investigator who took on the "case" in his retirement as if it were any other cold case in his book, JFK: The Smoking Gun.
Sorry, but "he's not honest because I say so" isn't an argument. Let's say he isn't honest. Ok. His citations and endnotes themselves are hundreds of pages (I think over 1,000 pages). I've frequently checked many of them, because I was curious about this or that topic. Nothing was out of context or false. On the other hand, I frequently will look at quotations or documents cited by the conspiracists and more often then not the quote is either 1) out of context or lacking important context, or 2) false.
If you're trying to convince people that you're a rational investigator, not batshit conspiracy theorist, making blanket dismissive judgements about his lack of honesty based on your subjective interpretation of his conviction rate is not going to help.
