Four Days In November And Mortal Error

“History is defined as acts, ideas, or events that will or can shape the course of the future; immediate but significant happenings.” Nothing describes the events of November 22, 1963, as illustrated by Vincent Bugliosi in Four Days in November, better than this sentence. Oswald was aware that he would change history has soon as he pulled the trigger of his Carcano rifle. But what if Oswald was not the one who fired the fatal shot? What if the shot that led to President Kennedy’s death was an accident? The evidence to support that claim is abundant. There is sufficient enough evidence to put Secret Service Agent, George Hickey, at Dealey Plaza with the AR-15 in his hands. Could George Hickey accidently fired the last shot, Mortal Error presents that argument.

In the decades following the assassination, conspiracy theories grew and became more outlandish by the year. The law of complexity further supports that as more time passes, the complex the conspiracy theories get. Four Days in November was written as a prosecution case. It was based heavily on official government records presented in Warren Commission Report. Most conspiracies are based on speculation, what if’s, and deductive reasoning. They attempt to provide explanation to historical events . Can these conspiracies that lack proper support fare well against a piece of literature based on a government document? In most cases, they fail to develop an argument accurately, but Mortal Error succeeds where other theories fail. Mortal Error acknowledges that Oswald was present in the Book Depository Building with his rifle cocked and that based on official law reports, he was the only assassin with the intent to assassinate the president, it builds off the faults in Bugliosi’s history, and it supports its theories with logistics, and