Product Description
Working with thousands of previously unreleased documents and drawing on more than one thousand interviews, with many witnesses speaking out for the first time, Joan Mellen revisits the investigation of New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison, the only public official to have indicted, in 1969, a suspect in President John F. Kennedy’s murder.

Garrison began by exposing the contradictions in the Warren Report, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was an unstable pro-Castro Marxist who acted alone in killing Kennedy. A FAREWELL TO JUSTICE reveals that Oswald, no Marxist, was in fact working with both the FBI and the CIA, as well as with U.S. Customs, and that the attempts to sabotage Garrison’s investigation reached the highest levels of the U.S. government. Garrison interviewed various individuals involved in the assassination, ranging from Clay Shaw and CIA contract employee David Ferrie to a Marine cohort of Oswald named Kerry Thornley, who was also a CIA asset. Garrison’s suspects included CIA-sponsored soldiers of fortune enlisted in assassination attempts against Fidel Castro, an anti-Castro Cuban asset, and a young runner for the conspirators, interviewed here for the first time by the author.

Building upon Garrison’s effort, Mellen uncovers decisive new evidence and clearly establishes the intelligence agencies’ roles in both a president’s assassination and its cover-up, set in motion well before the actual events of November 22, 1963. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (52)

Poorly constructed fiction
Very poorly written.Choppy and unorganized.Appears that she dropped her notes, attributing things to wrong people, making up things to make her story look good.Even Garrison thought she had a loose screw.

Jim Garrison, American Hero
Jim Garrison is an American hero because he steadfastly pursued the truth about what happened November 22, 1963.He truly cared about our country and our democracy, and he really felt the loss of John F. Kennedy.There are always new books to refute him, but none stand the test.It's just absurd to even think that the mafia killed JFK, or Cuban exiles, or any of the usual media suspects.Who had the power, the means, the motive to execute and cover up for all these years this horrendous crime? Thank you, Jim Garrison.

Close, But Still, Not Quite "Case Closed"
Although this book is a credible continuation of Garrison's impressive work, unlike Garrison's three books, which are beautifully, coherently and convincingly written, the style of this one is self-destructively disjointed, gossipy, and just barely coherent. Sadly, it has adopted a style reminiscent of the very CIA disinformation tracts that have been used over the last 40 years to discredit Garrison and his impressive work. Despite its self-destructive style, this is still an important book --among only a handful that seem to have a secure handle on the events and people that led to JFK's assassination. It correctly ridicules the Warren Commission Report as an exercise in "exorcism," a fantasy that at least for a while, accomplished its task of "pinning the tail of the assassination donkey" on "everybody's favorite Commie," Lee Harvey Oswald.

Importantly, it recognized (as did District Attorney Jim Garrison) that the epicenter of the plot that ended in JFK's death was probably hatched in Langley, but finalized in New Orleans and carried out by "hired mechanics" in Dallas. It was New Orleans and its environs where most of the dots could be connected that led up the chain to offices in Langley and inevitably on to Dallas. It was there that Clay Shaw, as the Managing Director of the "CIA front," the New Orleans International Trade Mart, was also the apparent "second line" manager of the JFK assassination plot. The New Orleans International Trade Mart was itself but one link in a longer and tighter chain connected directly to a similar "CIA front" in Rome called "Centro Mondiale Commerciale," which was a replacement for the more notorious "CIA Front" PERMINDEX, based in Switzerland. All three apparently were at Shaw's disposal for among others nefarious things, funneling untraceable money to fund CIA activities.

Jim Garrison went to his death with the belief that the same team within the CIA that had carried out the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala, namely, Lawrence Houston, Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, E. Howard Hunt and David Atlee Phillips, also planned the JFK assassination. And although there is only scant circumstantial evidence presented here that this was in fact the case, it is powerful evidence nonetheless. This book demonstrates "guilty and conspiratorial connections" all along the chain of the plot: from the ground grunts, the actual shooters (probably rabid anti-Castro Cubans or hired foreign professional hitmen), to the third line managers and planners of the mechanics of the assassination (Guy Bannister and David Ferrie), to the second line manager, Clay Shaw (Bannister's handler), on up the chain to the first line managers in Langley mentioned above.

It was New Orleans where the den of vipers, headed by ex-FBI SAC and CIA asset, Guy Bannister, at 544 Camp Street was engaged in all manner of nefarious activities designed to undermine and embarrass JFK and his Cuban policies: from directing Cuban exile attacks against Castro, to purchasing and storing weapons, to managing the activities that would advance the "legend" of Oswald as a patsy. New Orleans was where the mysterious but central player David Ferrie operated ubiquitously engaged in all manner of activities associated with assassination planning and execution. It was also New Orleans where mobster Carlos Marcello, lived. Recall that it was Marcello (as well as Santos Trafficani) who had accurately predicted that "JFK would be hit."It was Clinton, Louisiana, near New Orleans, where Shaw, Ferrie, Bannister and Oswald were spotted together during the summer of 1963, apparently in an effort by them to "darken" Oswald's record as a "Communist Pro-Castro malcontent." We also discover here (on page 43) that Lee Harvey Oswald at the age of 16, was recruited into the CIA via the Marine Corps by (CIA Asset) David Ferrie, who was at the time Oswald's Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Commander. Recently released document also reveal that Oswald also went on to become both a CIA, FBI, ONI, and a Customs undercover agent and asset.

These are a few of the many isolated facts that are unnecessarily thrown together willy-nilly in this book. Undoubtedly one of the reasons it may have been done has been to protect anonymous sources, but it could have been done also as a way of "stretching tenuous facts." However, without the necessary connective tissue, without a context, without a convincing theory of the assassination, throwing facts together willy-nilly does not add up to a convincing case against those who are "probably guilty." This case, very much is presented like the O.J. Simpson case was presented: the evidence against "the guily" is overwhelming, but the case is so badly botched, that any sensible jury would have to give the accused (the CIA in this case) "a pass."

There is no theory, no overarching theoretical framework, no hypothesis in which to place this mosaic. It gives hints and suggestions that mere hatred of the Kennedys was sufficient for CIA's clandestine services, to begin the wheels turning of a "vast right wing conspiracy" that ended in JFK's murder. How credible is that? It is simply left up to the reader to draw his own conclusions.

Well, the fact is that most of us have drawn our own conclusions, what we needed but did not get here was an author who could put together a coherent and logically sound case that refuted the "cock-and-bull story" sold to us in the Warren Commission Report. This book came close, and gets "an A" for effort, but still gets no bananas.

Five stars for the research, three for the writing, and four for the book as a whole.

Pure Junk
This is a book for conspiracy addicts and those who believe anything that is written in book form.
On her website, the author boasts "this book will become a landmark". It is hardly that! In the 3 1/2 years since published, it has been blasted by even the JFK-conspiracy-nut-crowd, and that takes some doing. Google the book title and see for yourself. Actually, the reviews by Von Pien and McAdams (who runs a fine JFK website) are the best on here, albeit the longest. The book is full of lies and distortions, and before she pulled this together, Ms Mellen had a reputation as a solid writer/biographer. Too bad she was snowed when she met Garrison in person in the 1960's and never recovered from it. (Does she tell us about his being discharged from the service for psychiatric reasons? Of course not).....amoung other things that point to his "unbalenced nature"---its all NOT here! read "American Grotesque" to get the low-down on what happened at the Clay Shaw trial, written by someone who was THERE.

"He (Garrison) went from being a highly intelligent eccentric to a lunatic is the space of a year", said Rosemary James, who wrote the first book on the emerging Garrison-Clay Shaw case, called "Plot or Politics". We know now which it was.

Fortunately there is a man in Nashville who has been researching Clay Shaw's life for a couple years and will soon have a (massive) biography out on him some day.

Comprehensive and Thought-Provoking
The book could use some editing (the writing is ponderous and repetitious at times) but the research supporting Garrison's "trail of assassins" is edifying and compelling. ... Read more

Product Description
An explosive, provocative novel about the life and times—and sexual dalliances—of John F. Kennedy during his administration. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (42)

American Adulterer was just okay, but I'll definitely be reading more about JFK
American Adulterer looks closely at John F. Kennedy's lecherous tendencies while in office. The book tries to make the case that JFK cheated on his wife because he had difficulty concentrating, developed headaches, and in general, had a hard time getting his presidential work done if he didn't have a lot of sex with a lot of different women. Maybe it's because I'm a woman or maybe it's because I don't go for the "boys will be boys" attitude, but I did not buy into the argument that JFK not only "needed" to have a lot of sex, but he "needed" to have sex with a variety of different women. This may have impacted my overall take on the book (note the sarcasm - it definitely impacted by take on the book).

I will say, I was surprised to read that JFK was in almost constant pain because of his Addison's disease, back problems, and bowel issues. I don't know if the book is totally accurate on this point, but in the book he is getting daily injections of painkillers and downing a variety of other medications. He juggled multiple doctors to ensure he got the different treatments he thought he needed. Now, I understand trying to cope with chronic pain and how distracting it can be, but even JFK's myriad health problems seemed to take a back seat to his need to get down with the ladies.

I'll admit there was a little bit of prurient interest in picking this book up. JFK was known as a bit of ladies man so I thought his love life would make for an interesting novel. But my god, it felt like this book was all about sex and his various health problems. Every important point in his presidency (and adult life) was set against the backdrop of his insatiable need to have sex and/or how much pain he was in. If JFK's mental energy was really so strongly focused on sex and pain, I honestly don't know how he accomplished anything.This laser focus made the book feel a little repetitive by the time I got to the end.

In the book's defense, I did want to read more about JFK once I had finished it. I want to find out how much of Mercurio took liberties with the historical record and where he stuck with the truth. I mean, could all of this possibly be true? I find this happens to me pretty regularly - I'll read a historical novel that is just okay, but it drives me to read more about the subject because I want to learn more. I suppose this shouldn't be surprising - I read so many historical novels that they can't all be good. So while the story in American Adulterer wasn't that great it will definitely drive me to pick up a biography or two on JFK (recommendations are welcome).

I was bored by this but my GF LOVED it,
I didn't enjoy this book at all. I really wanted to as I find this fascinating but it was a very dry read for me, reminiscentof a textbook. My friend however LOVED it and just lent it to someone else. She found it very informative and was amazed by the history, partly cuz she didnt grow up in the US.

Well Researched but too Intimate a Portrait of the Man
If the name JFK makes you envision a champion of civil rights, activist for nuclear disarmament, and a handsome, charismatic leader who was brutally snuffed out before his time, after reading American Adulterer, you will never view Jack Kennedy that way again.

Jed Mercurio, a British author with a medical background, offers a fictional glimpse into what could have gone on in the sex life, physical health and mind of JFK. Mercurio portrays Kennedy as such a medically ill person that we wonder how he ever had the clarity of mind to decide whether to wear the white shirt or the blue shirt, let alone to negotiate with Nikita Khrushchev. Kennedy is on a host of medications for his Addison's, thyroid failure, and suffers with severe bouts of stomach distress. This is not to mention the incessant pain from his back, which was injured in his early years playing sports, fractured when PT 109 was blown up by the Japanese, became septic during surgery, and infected during a postop operation for a herniated disc. Wow! How could one person have such bad luck? And how could that man possibly have the drive, and the intellectual rigor, to aspire to the highest office in the land?

I felt very sympathetic towards Kennedy reading about all his ailments, although there was quite a bit of TMI, but the sympathy stopped the minute Mercurio provided a detailed description of Kennedy's affairs. I'm not quite sure how I feel about sex addiction -- is it just a way for powerful men like Tiger Woods to justify their infidelity and exploitation of women because women throw themselves at them? Is it a psychological problem -- a type of sociopathy where an otherwise devoted husband has absolutely no regard for his wife or her feelings? Or is it biological? Do some men (and women) have extraordinary urges for sex that go beyond the "norm"? There are no easy answers but I had an uncomfortable feeling reading this book... that I wasn't sure if I was really entitled to this information. Just because people are famous, or even world leaders, doesn't mean that I should know the intimate details of their physical health or sex life.

On the other hand, Kennedy is part of history. And the old boys' network that kept his secrets is long gone. Maybe we're entitled to know some of this but not all. Although this work clearly took a lot of time and was well researched, it was quite repetitive and too intimate a look at the man for my own taste. Mercurio succeeds in crushing whatever idolization we have about the JFK years and the dreadful assassination. Instead, he is reduced to a skirt chasing invalid. Very sad.


Sigrid Macdonald, Author of Be Your Own Editor

Fact of Fiction
Although some of the facts seem to be correct I think the author wrote this more as fiction

A Mixed Bag (excuse the expression)
I was pretty sick of the repetitions about JFK's need to flush the 'poisons' out of his 'tubing.' Has there every been a more distasteful description of the sex act?

I also found it distasteful to hear this major historical figure called 'the subject.' Is the author a scientist, a dissectionist, a psychotherapist? Maybe all?

But the book did hook me. I learned facts I didn't know about the horrific face off in the ocean between Russia and the US. I was very grateful that we had a president who did not give in to the importunings of all the generals, who were virtually jumping up and down and wetting their pants over the prospect of nuclear war and, if anyone survived, the lucrative contracts that could be awarded to their favorite companies. Now, that's disgusting.

I found the repetitivness of JFK using woman after woman, much like kleenexes, to be depolorable. But I'd much rather have a president who received head in the oval office, but kept his head in the war room rather than the reverse.

There were so many moments of pre-deja vu. 'Did you have sex with that woman?!' That was the mantra of Congress' questions about Bill Clinton and his intern. And there was a threat of the story being broken in 'The Star?' Reminded me of Kenneth Star, who was in charge of exposing Clinton's predilections. Also, the Star Chamber for torturous question sessions by the Inquisition.

The scenes after the baby died were were heartrending. I found it hard to square up that man with the man who continued cavorting in the Mediterranean when Jackie had the miscarriage. What made him so much more sensitive? It couldn't have just been having the FBI scare him to death about disclosures on his refutable health treatment to relive his 'argonic poisons.' (Was that how it was spelled? I read the book in audio form. Anyway, it was a heck of an explanation/excuse for a married man with a sexual addiction.)

But I digress. How did the same man who went without sleep for two nights to stay by a dying baby and grieving wife square up with the man who didn't even trouble to come home when his wife had a miscarriage? Did he fall truly in love with her during the crises they faced? I'd really like to know the magic formula for transforming an s.o.b adulterer into such a loving, caring man.

I did enjoy the book. I learned a lot about that period in history. I still don't understand the man.
... Read more

Product Description
A gripping, masterful blend of fact and fiction, alive with meticulously portrayed characters both real and created, Libra is a grave, haunting, and brilliant examination of an event that has become an indelible part of the American psyche. In this powerful, eerily convincing fictional speculation on the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Don DeLillo chronicles Lee Harvey Oswald’s odyssey from a troubled teenager to a man of precarious stability who imagines himself an agent of history. In his new introduction, DeLillo reexamines the evidence surrounding Oswald’s role in the assassination as well as Oswald’s place in popular culture. BACKCOVER: Now with a new introduction by the author—“a thriller of the most profound sort”
—Chicago Tribune

“Libra operates at a dizzyingly high level of intensity throughout; it’s that true fictional rarity—a novel of admirable depth and relevance that’s also a terrific page-turner.”
—USA Today

“DeLillo’s novel is like a stop-motion frame of the crossfire, a still picture of an awful moment.... [His] prose has a quality of demented lyricism.”
—The New Yorker ... Read more

Customer Reviews (78)

Bad Citizenship, My Foot
Fictionalized accounts of historic events, particularly recent ones, make me suspicious.Any author might write a book set during an actual event, of course, but authors who set out to tell a tale about that same event give themselves a whole set of challenges that strike me as unnecessary at best.Just how fictionalized is the story to be?How closely must it stick to historical fact before it becomes nonfiction?What does the fictional element add - that is, why bother to fictionalize it at all?Why in the heck would anyone spend so much effort writing a story the ending of which is a foregone conclusion?And so on.

I haven't read enough of Don DeLillo's work to explain why, but there's something about him that leaves me unsurprised at his willingness to face this set of thorny problems.Whatever makes him more likely to tackle this style than others, "Libra" is one of the novels upon which his reputation rests.It explores the life of Lee Harvey Oswald on the one hand, and the supposed conspiracy to assassinate John Fitzgerald Kennedy on the other.Some of these story elements are factual, many are speculative.Most are spellbinding.I found myself reading the thing wondering if the conspiracy would succeed or not; I had to remind myself that the president would without fail die at the end, and so would the protagonist.DeLillo actually managed to retain some sense of mystery about his climax.That in itself makes this novel a success.

Which is not to say that everything about "Libra" is equally successful, of course.As the title implies, DeLillo evidently intended to tell his tale against a structure about balance and imbalance.To that end, he introduces a character named Nicholas Branch who spends his time with the millions of documents about the assassination - reading, watching, listening, digesting, and allegedly writing an official history of the event for the exclusive use of the CIA.Not at all a bad literary device, and occasionally even shocking; once in a while you run across a passage dealing with Branch and you remember with a gasp that the story you're reading is already over, that people have spent years trying to understand it and have failed.Works well with the balance/imbalance theme, but to my mind Branch doesn't appear often enough in the book to hold up his end, as it were.In other words, the Branch material works, but not the way DeLillo apparently wanted it to.

More successful is the back-and-forth between Oswald's life story, much of it taken from the historical record, and the developing conspiracy among old Agency operatives, almost all of it speculation.Much has been written as to why Kennedy died, of course; DeLillo takes on the notion that the real assassins were out to punish Kennedy for abandoning Cuba to the Communists, or maybe just recall America's attention to the issue by threatening the life of the president.Whether the events in "Libra" are fact or fiction, the author does a decent job linking them; plenty of novels try to do that with two separate plotlines and wind up telling two stories that never quite come together.In this case, DeLillo gives us conspirators who intend to invent a nonexistent man to blame the assassination on, and discover that their man has actually been right there the whole time.At which point Oswald finds himself participating in this conspiracy almost without realizing it.This lack of intention has something to do with his dyslexia, his years as a Russian defector, even his astrological sign.And thus DeLillo loses a certain amount of control over his materials.Still interesting to read, but again, not quite for the reasons DeLillo apparently intended.

And that's the big problem with "Libra", or any novel that deals with a historical event.As I said before, the question arises as to why one would want to deal with such an event fictionally."Libra" is a good read, raises good questions and possibilities, and sold pretty well, but I can't help feeling that people read it because they were interested in the Kennedy assassination, what the author calls "the seven minutes that broke the country's back".In other words, "Libra" is interesting not for its own sake, but more because of something outside the world of the book itself.It invites a certain lack of imagination; readers must judge it for how accurate they think it is, at least in part, rather than how much it touches them or makes them reconsider their world.Call me a purist, but that's not quite good enough for me.One star off.

Not more than that, however.Like all things Kennedy, "Libra" drew down enormous criticism from certain wings of American life.George Will, for instance, referred to it as a work of "literary vandalism and bad citizenship" because it speculates on matters that (according to Will and his kind, at least) have long since been disproved.I suppose that the "Oswald acted alone" side of the argument believes that any attention to conspiracy theories does a disservice to America as it tries to heal from the events of November 22, 1963.Maybe so, but if you ask me, DeLillo's book helped remove the aura of untouchability that surrounded those seven minutes.You can't move on from something you can't touch.So aside from its quality, however ambiguous, "Libra" actually does help us heal.

Benshlomo says, American history belongs to all Americans, and all Americans may come and play.

Delillo Tackles American Obsession
This was not my first Delillo novel, I've read Mao II, Underworld and White Noise before this one, no particular reason to wait and read Libra. The non-linear plot and intensely descriptive sentences are an appeteizer for the Underworld entree...I've always been fascinated by the JFK assassination and this book was right in my wheelhouse. If you enjoy the author this book is a great read!

TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH
Definitely the best approach about the anti-communism fever in the U.S. but also the most truthful confession about all hard disillusionments -ideologies, religions, family, relations and relationships. As an author myself, I must admit I envied it.

Fascinating take on the '60's
This was a very uneven book in my opinion. It's premise of course is that JFK's assassination was a vast conspiracy plot with many people playing out private agendas. The book delineated those agendas well: exploring/explaining each player's motivations. There was the mafia who resented RFK going after them and interfered with their business or was it just because JFK had an affair with Giancana's gumma? Jack Ruby was a bit player who'd worked with Giacona in Chicago and was in debt to mobsters who used him as a trigger to shut Oswald up. There were many covert government operatives but the main one didn't like JFK's selling out the Cuban rebels after during Bay of Pigs and he wanted to scare but not kill the president into renewing his efforts for the Cuban cause. There were the Cuban rebels themselves who were determined to wreak vengeance. And finally, of course, there was pathetic Oswald. The first half of this book felt disgustingly sympathetic to him with his single parent upbringing, moving all the time, learning disabilities, other kids bullying him, poverty but it started to level out when DeLillo describes Oswald's physical and mental abuse to his wife Marina. Oswald's thinking becomes more and more deranged. I'd forgotten he actually kills a policeman who attempts to detain him soon after shooting Kennedy. I really didn't want to like or even sympathize with Oswald but I did come away from the book with a clearer idea of what might have formed him.

Libra
Libra (Contemporary American Fiction)by Don DeLillo

The book was recommended by a writer friend of mine who liked "Libra" very much. I usually do not read this genre, but wanted to give it a try. I didn't enjoy the read that much. Found the characters not engaging enough, the novel a bit disjointed. ... Read more