The single-bullet theory can be criticized on many points. But it’s really time to retire the old chestnut about the path being impossible because Connelly wasn’t in the direct line of fire. Anybody who still brings that up, as Waldron does, immediately loses credibility.
Connelly was sitting in a small collapsible seat that was to the left of and quite a bit lower than Kennedy; a bullet that exited Kennedy’s neck on a downward path could easily have entered Connelly’s back at the point where his first wound occurred. (What the bullet supposedly did after that point, and where it ended up, are the points where the theory is vulnerable.) This has been demonstrated repeatedly in computer analyses of the assassination; Waldron dismisses them in a single sentence and never mentions the effect of the seating.
Debunking the single-bullet path was a memorable scene in Oliver Stone’s film. But it’s bogus: the stand-in for Connelly is sitting directly in front of the stand-in for Kennedy and at the same height. And that simply isn’t how it happened.
And while debunking this theory makes the job of debunking the Warren Report easier, it isn’t necessary. Oswald could have been the lone gunman AND there could have been a conspiracy. It’s not an either/or situation.
For all that, Waldron may be right in his analysis of the motive, means, and opportunity. His argument supports the most recent official government conclusion (the House Assassinations Committee report): that Kennedy was probably killed as part of a conspiracy in which the Mafia figured heavily.
But when he started to argue that Oswald wasn’t involved in the shooting at all, I lost interest and stopped listening. It should be noted that that same House report concludes that Oswald was the only gunman whose bullets actually found their target; and it presented considerable evidence as to his political motives in trying to kill Kennedy. I’ll go back to Waldron’s book someday, when I’m in the mood for a detective novel.