It was interesting -- and in some ways revealing -- to read James Hosty's description of the events leading up to and immediately following the JFK assassination, as well as his opinions as to everything that came after. His name will always be intimately associated with the assassination -- and not merely because he was the FBI agent assigned to monitor Lee Harvey Oswald in the fall of 1963.

I do believe Hosty has been, to some degree, unfairly denigrated over the years by everyone from the Warren Commission and factions within the FBI to the press and conspiracy theorists. My own view is that he was really just a bit player in this whole sordid story -- largely because I believe Oswald was framed; even if I'm wrong about that, though, I do not believe Hosty had any compelling reason to suspect Oswald posed any danger to JFK on his fateful Dallas trip. Certainly, I disagree with anyone who blames Hosty for JFK's death.

All of that being said, however, I am no fan of James Hosty. It is an incontrovertible fact that he destroyed evidence pertinent to the investigation -- whether he was ordered to do it or not, he acknowledges having destroyed a note that Oswald left for him in the FBI office shortly before the assassination. No matter how much he regrets having done it, that action prevents me from placing 100 percent confidence in anything he says. That is my bias -- but Hosty has his own biases, as well. For one thing, he is a firm believer in the lone nut theory put forth by the Warren Commission; concomitant with that is his own belief that the Warren Commission and the federal government covered up various ties that Oswald had with the Soviets and Cubans.

I think he is sincere I these beliefs, but I have to note that these beliefs also prove quite convenient for his position. It all centers on Oswald's supposed visits to the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City several weeks before JFK was shot. As the story goes, Oswald made contact with V.V. Kostikov and communicated his intent to kill Kennedy. Hosty knew about the trip, but he says he did not know that Kostikov was anything more than a vice consul at the Soviet Embassy -- that, in fact, FBI officials never told him that Kostikov was in fact a KGB agent who oversaw assassinations across the Western hemisphere. According to Hosty, much of the criticism he took from the Warren Commission and government investigators was based on their assumption that he did know who Kostikov was and what Oswald supposedly told him -- in which case he should have considered Oswald a threat to the president.

Hosty's career and reputation did suffer over the years -- he was censured twice by J. Edgar Hoover, transferred out of Dallas to Kansas City, denied commendations and promotions, and excoriated by the press -- particularly when word leaked out in 1975 about his destruction of Oswald's note. Hosty spends most of the book defending himself against all of these attacks -- and his growing sense of frustration and anger at having basically been denied access to information about Oswald's Mexico City trip, betrayed by some of his Dallas superiors and ultimately hung out to dry by FBI officials.

As a reader, I got the sense that the man doth protest too much, however. Any man who destroys evidence and illegally accesses his own personnel file is no model FBI agent.

I don't necessarily have any greater respect for Hosty after reading this book, but I did find myself sympathizing with him to some degree at times. Whether or not Oswald was the assassin, I do not think Hosty was to blame in any way. This is particularly true if the Mexico City Oswald was actually an impostor -- which is what I believe. Finally, I should mention that the book does prove interesting in terms of its insights into how the FBI operated, particularly under Hoover.