Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Martin Hay's review of Wexler - Hancock book

My friend Martin Hay has written an excellent review of the God awful [deleted] that is the Wexler - Hancock book.  It's here.   


  1. I thought Martin's negative review of the book was solidly documented. However, after reading the book again, and reading Martin's review a second time, I feel that itt's worse than he asserts.

    It's also quite stunning that the giant in the field, Weisberg, is only mentioned in McKnight's preface. That itself says much about this book.

    How you can write a book about the King case and go in-depth into the testimony in Ray v. Rose (1974) is beyond my comprehension. How can you avoid quoting from official FBI lab reports that don't support the Ray did it theory?

    While the authors bring a lot of new information about threats to King and their interpretation of how they may connect to Ray, it's a forced connection. None is there.

  2. Please clarify, which lengthy book did you find to be fascinating and informative?

  3. You are referring to my comment on the other topic, which you didn't put up.

    In that thread I was talking about Whoring with History, Weisberg's attack on Posner's book about the King case.