Forget Tom's nonsense. Here's my two-star Amazon review of
JFK: Public Private Secret. The author relies on Jim DiEugenio as an "acclaimed historian." BWAHAHA!
The review is scarcely up to my usual standards, but hopefully I cost them a few sales.
____________________________________________
2.0 out of 5 stars
Reads more like fiction than historyReviewed in the United States on July 26, 2025
Verified Purchase
Yes, this is interesting in a National Enquirer sort of way. However, it disconcertingly reads much more like a work of fiction than a serious historical work. I don't know how many times - but MANY - I found myself thinking, "You could not POSSIBLY know that." We are told what people said, did and were thinking in circumstances where neither the author nor anyone else could POSSIBLY know the truth. The author does not directly footnote any of these descriptions. Instead, "Sources" are described in a huge section at the end; although that section reads as though the author and his assistant spent 100,000 hours in the preparation of this book, the text itself does not inspire confidence.
The book is not, as the author admits, intended to be a biography. It jumps around chronologically in short chapters that will sometimes move forward or back years in time. I had no problem with this, as it flows well and is interesting in a National Enquirer sort of way. There were some odd lapses that leaped out at me. For example, journalist Ben Bradlee is described at one point as "at 38, five years older than Jack." Well, no, at that point Jack was 41 and in fact Bradlee was born less than a year before JFK. How do errors like this creep into a book that is purporting to be so heavily researched?
One red flag REALLY leaped out at me due to my long involvement with the assassination of JFK: A former schoolteacher who has become one of the most prominent conspiracy buffs - he believes JFK, RFK and MLK were all killed by dark and sinister Deep State conspiracies - is described as an "acclaimed historian" and is relied on extensively. Not only is this individual not an historian AT ALL, but his work is riddled with factual errors and he is "acclaimed" only by the segment of the conspiracy community that shares his Deep State perspective. (He does, however, worship - and I mean WORSHIP - JFK.) If this was the best the author could do for an "acclaimed historian," I have grave doubts about his research.
Lastly, the author's main breaking news seems to be his interviews with 100-year-old Janet DesRosiers, who apparently became Joe Kennedy's surrogate wife (literally) when he was 60 and she was 24, became accepted as a member of the family even by Rose, later resisted JFK's advances but went to work for him, and - well, you get the idea. Suffice it to say, the reader must place a GREAT deal of trust in her memories and truthfulness.
Buy it if you like - I'll admit, I enjoyed it while feeling slightly embarrassed that I did - but take it and the author's pretentions of being a serious researcher with a large grain of salt.
