Hankey's film, Dark Legacy
, examines the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and makes the claim that George Herbert Walker Bush was involved by examining the former President's CIA relationships and where and what he was doing at the time of the assassination. Hankey is a former high school teacher from Southern California who has spent years researching his thesis, connecting the dots, and making his case, which one reviewer, Henry Eshelmann, maintains is compelling. Eshelmann observed
yesterday Hankey has made a credible examination of the evidence in the film, calling it "spirited and well-documented."
Hankey points out how Bush rose to the top in the CIA and was in Dallas at the time Kennedy was assassinated, according to documentation found in a letter from the F.B.I. Bush was once asked about this and observed there had been another CIA agent called George Bush in the CIA at the time, But Hankey declares the evidence concerning the former President is strong enough that it could be put to serious legal examination and says this, "If we could present this evidence to a jury in Texas, he would pay with his life."
While some people might find the conspiracy another crackpot story, people across the political spectrum have said the assassination of Kennedy needs to be re-examined, and as Edelmann points out 22% of the American public do not believe Kennedy was killed by a single gunman. Those who have raised the questions include Jesse Ventura, an Independent, presently touring the country to promote his book American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies and More Dirty Lies that the Government Tells U
s. Edelman quotes Republican Brice Willis as saying to Vanity Fair three years ago, "They still haven't caught the guy that killed President Kennedy---I'll get killed for saying this, but I'm pretty sure those guys are still in power, in some form--."
This isn't the first time Hankey has put forth the film, and other reviewers declare "not so fast" to the notions he puts forth. For example, Seamus Coogan who writes for the CTKA, a group devoted to the study of the Kennedy assassination, maintains Hankey makes exorbitant claims about himself and his research and also distorts many facts. He writes this:
Where, when, and how did he "hang Kennedy's murder around Bush's neck"? Is JFK 2 evidence of this? Not on your life. The evidence would suggest that Hankey first got into his research around 1999, with the death of John Kennedy Jr. After that, around 2004, his video was cobbled together. Hankey seems to have had a mere 5-6 years of investigation under his belt before the film. But that's no excuse for 1.) The errors that riddle his work and 2.) His penchant for taking credit for things he did not achieve. 3.) His need to distort things both large and small.
is very detailed, and he quotes the assessments of other critics as he examines Hankey's film, which just yesterday has been touted again. His summary conclusion declares firmly that viewers need to look with a jaundiced eye upon many of Hankey's notions since they take away from serious investigations and mislead the public. He ends by saying, "There is nothing wrong with writing revisionist history. But if you choose to do so, you must be held to high standards of scholarship. "
Hankey's film is recycled work as observed on a website that presents the film and its updates, still being touted by fans and reviewers who hang onto Hankey's theses without what Coogan maintains is a careful examination of the facts. The website for this
observes Dark Legacy
is a remake of his original documentary JFKII the Bush Connection
. The website also advertises a manuscript by Professor Steven Jones entitled Murder by Manchurian Candidate
which declares it contains "Overwhelming, jaw-dropping evidence of foul play in the death of John Kennedy Jr., all based on official government documents." Readers and viewers have Coogan's admonitions, however, in examining both the Hankey film and Jones book, in assessing the veracity of both.
While Edelmann makes strong pronouncements about Hankey's film in his review, the issue of political discord tangentially offers the arena for discussion, although Coogan's assessment warns everyone of the risks in saying too much based on too little evidence.