The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald

The film goes completely off the rails by choosing to focus on wild conspiracy theories instead of the actual criminal trial of Oswald. What really destroyed the value of the film for me was the fictionalized version of Harold Norman's eyewitness account (he was called "Melvin Johnson" in the film.) Norman was on the fifth floor of the Depository at the time of the shooting. He clearly heard shells falling above him (he referred to them as "hulls") as they were being ejected AND THE BOLT ACTION OF THE RIFLE. The sound of the bolt action was completely omitted from the fictional "testimony". Also omitted was the fact that Norman was quite familiar with rifles and the sound they make during such actions. His use of the word "hulls" ( a common description of ejected shells by those familiar with rifles) shows that he was hardly the ignorant "golly gee, they sounded like shells" buffoon he was made out to be in the film. Also, the film claims that supposed conspirators knew about the motorcade route weeks in advance. This is nonsensical, because the Secret Service decided on the route just days in advance, and it was announced just three days beforehand. Another example of the film's distortion of facts is the idea that the bag that the Carcano rifle was in should have had oil on it, because the rifle was "well oiled". What the FBI was referring to was the firing pin and spring. They did NOT say that the rifle was slathered in oil.

This picture has only one thing going for it: Pleshette. The portrayal of Oswald here is the only item worthy of mention. Made for TV, on the threshold of the publishing of the House Select Committee on Assassination's Report, this is yet another apology for the Warren Commission. As with Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed" there was by necessity a myriad of omissions and errors committed to make this story believable. The subject is better covered in Walt Brown's novel "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald." As a piece of fiction, this movie moves at a good pace and the acting is fine, as fact, it is only for those that have a yearning to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, or occasionally peer out the window searching for flying pigs.

I'm usually no conspiracy theorist, princess diana, 9/11 all i can say is yawn but this is very different, nobody no matter what they say knows for certain what happened on that day, other than president kennedy and john connolly were shot, how many shots,how many shooters, who did the firing,Did Oswald act alone,did he fire any shots, was he in fact on the 6th floor at that time,the magic bullet truth or fiction? so all these and more are questions that still have not been conclusively proved either way.

The film certainly is not the standard 'toe the official line' and treat the public like little children fair usually dished up when discussing this particular episode in American and world history, by the mainstream media, who are prepared to air the latest claptrap about princess diana, michael jackson and 9/11 CTS, but always shy away from even questioning the events leading up to nov 22 1963... the movie has some good acting and is at least occasionally prepared to move away from the WC bible although predictably it ends up coming back onside.

So to end a good movie but we are still awaiting a truly definitive movie to be made about this enduring mystery man named lee harvey oswald.

As I stated in my comment regarding JFK(1991), I'm not willing to dismiss any conspiracy theory regarding the Kennedy assassination, unless it's completely devoid of facts, such as in Oliver Stone's propaganda piece. Somebody criticized it for echoing the Warren Commission report, but I don't think this movie supports the Warren Commission's line at all, in fact it offers the possibility of other groups who might've wanted Kennedy dead, including the Ku Klux Klan, who is rarely considered despite the fact that they were so determined to kill in order to resist an integrated south.



What we all have to remember that this is pure fiction, since Oswald never lived to go to trial, and Robert Thompson never implied that it was the truth, unlike Oliver Stone who firmly believes his left-wing rhetoric, and expects us to do the same. This TV-Movie and the play it was based on offers all kinds of speculation of who else may or may have not worked with Oswald. Even die-hard believers in the Warren Commission have to accept the fact that Oswald SAID he was a patsy. Was he telling the truth, or was he just trying to throw the spotlight off of himself? Just what would've happened if Jack Ruby never killed him on live television, can only be speculated by all sides. At least Thompson tried to give us something to consider.

With all due respect to the previous viewer, what makes this speculative TV movie so effective is *because* it ends up coming down on the side of the Warren Commission conclusions for the most part, which have been vindicated by all subsequent investigations and serious historical analyses, particularly Gerald Posner in "Case Closed." A priceless moment is when the judge berates Oswald's defense attorney (Lorne Greene) for deliberately injecting a grassy knoll gunman during a shooting demonstration.

Skip "JFK", which is all about making things up out of thin air to fit a biased theory. Watch this instead if you can, along with the 1992 Quantum Leap episode "The Oswald Conspiracy".