Suppressing the Truth in Dallas

Conspiracy, Cover-Up, and International Complications in the JFK Assassination Case

By: Charles Brandt

Narrated by: Adam Grupper

Length: 7 hrs and 49 mins

Publisher's summary

Featuring the eyewitness testimony of Earlene Roberts and Victor Robertson

With this book, “Dallas” is now completely solved, by a professional and rational analysis.

Charles Brandt, who handled over fifty-six homicides as the chief deputy attorney general of Delaware, in charge of all homicides and a private homicide defense attorney in the 1970s, has now used his hands-on professional experience in murder investigation and his analytic skills to conclusively solve every secret of the homicides of JFK, Officer Tippit, and Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in 1963. As well, Brandt proves that “but for” the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Mafia would not have authorized any of these 1963 murders that form the basis of Suppressing the Truth in Dallas. Brandt solves everything for all time, and he exposes all the motives of those, such as Chief Justice Earl Warren, who intentionally attempted to suppress all of the truth.

©2022 Charles Brandt (P)2022 Recorded Books

Not bad

This book wasn’t bad, it was actually quite interesting however it’s written in a very dry manner which made it difficult to keep the attention as a reader/listener

It did annoy me a bit how the author kept referring to his other book. It would have been fine if the other book was mentioned once (I wrote down the title in case this would be a great read) but multiple times made me lose the interest in reading it.

This is a book based on conspiracies - who doesn’t like a little conspiracy every now and then ;-) so it will give you food for thought.

*this review is shared on multiple platforms

Wanted to like this more than I did.

The story being related in this audiobook was interesting and I find that I accept the facts being presented by the author. However, as a career detective and, like the author, someone who taught interview and interrogation, I find myself at odds with his vehement hatred of the federal exclusionary rule (Mapp v. Ohio) and the Miranda rule (Miranda v. Arizona).

In Mapp, it was held that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court against a defendant. In Miranda, the court famously required that suspects must be advised of their Constitutional rights and may not be questioned once they ask for an attorney.

It seems to me that these two decisions are fundamental to the fairness of our legal system and in my experience in investigating crimes against persons (murders, rapes and robberies) neither were a hindrance in me doing my job. Getting offenders the right way is just as easy as doing so by violating their rights - the same rights we ourselves would demand. And I found that Miranda almost never stood in the way of taking a statement and obtaining a confession.

The author’s attacks on these rights throughout the book and his inference that they were implemented to help cover up the conspiracy to kill Kennedy made me question the author’s perspective.

Further, his constant waiving around the felony murder rule, in my view, served to dampen the narrative he was presenting. The felony murder rule says that if someone is killed during the commission of a felony, all participants can be charged with first degree murder, even though they did not actively participate in the killing. A simple example would be if you and I go into a convenience store to rob it and the clerk pulls out a gun and shoots and kills me, you could be charged with and convicted of murder.

The author would have liked to go up the ladder to charge everyone who participated in the plot and cover up of the killing of Kennedy, however distant from the actual killing, under the felony murder rule. That would include, not only members of organized crime, but political figures as well such as Bobby Kennedy, Earl Warren, President Johnson, and many others.

I understand his disappointment in the plot and in the cover up succeeding, but I also know that juries really don’t like the felony murder rule and I can see prosecutors not wanting to use it. Using the felony murder rule in this way seems a sour grapes way of prosecuting someone - if I can’t get you the right way, by god I’ll use this technicality to get you.

But don’t let these issues deter you from listening to the book. The story is interesting and presents a compelling case in outlining the plot to murder Kennedy and the ensuing efforts to bury the conspiracy. I just happen to disagree with the author on the extent in which suspects in crimes are protected under the law and in which their (our) rights are protected.

I lasted 6 Chapters

I'm not a tin hat wearer or a marginalized conspiracy theorist but the "factual" delivery of the authors writing leaves a lot to be desired.

Not the best (not even close)

Maybe I was hoping for more, but this story certainly didn’t deliver. The author makes bold assumptions and doesn’t back up his statements with facts. I was very disappointed when considering this came from a “professional homicide investigator” (his words). Still, there are a few facts that were freshly presented, so that was good. If you’re new to the JFK assassination, there are lots of better books. If you’re more up to speed, this may frustrate you, but you’ll probably learn something new.

it defeats itself

this book defeats its own argument about half way through. this guy puts up NO proof just raw conjecture and speculation on what might have happened.

now, i do believe oswald did it in conjunction with the mob likely but this story is just daffy!

Riveting and Eye-popping

I listened to this book in two days because I couldn’t turn it off. It is fascinating, and is told with great clarity yet reads like a fast pace. Mystery novel. It’s incredible how many historical events and characters are involved in this story of manipulation, assassination, and cover-up. I highly recommend reading it.

The lack of CIA involvement

Lack of proof, ignoring so many witnesses testimonies, and laying it all on Oswald and the mob..Very disappointed.

yuck

I was so disappointed with this book. He talks a lot about how the mafia was involved in the assassination of JFK,, which i am sure of, but he argues that OSWALD WAS THE ONLY SHOOTER!! He talks about JFKs head snapping back as a natural reaction to being shot from behind. He talks about Oswald not shooting until the motorcade has passed and was moving away from him as being due to him planning his escape instead of him waiting until the other shooter would have the cleanest shot. He says that no one could have possibly been ahead of the motorcade to shoot, like in the grassy knoll. i think the word Zapruter happens twice in the book. He talks a lot about the Warren report being a coverup and then he says Oswald was the only shooter? Could there be a more important part of the coverup? Before listening to this book i would have considered what this author says as gospel. Now everything he says must be seen as highly suspect. Ugh.