Le procès de Lee Harvey Oswald

although the conclusion is plausible, conceivable, it is ultimately useless: I wasn't there, but many credible sources say that there was an approx. 1.5 second interval between 2 of the shots....so if LHO shot a gun that day, he had a "partner", probably to JFK's right; there is MINUS-ZERO evidence LHO was perched at that window as JFK passed.

tempered by those rational points...I thoroughly enjoyed the layout of the film, the pacing, and esp. the great performance of Lorne Greene.

buy this movie....watch it as you would watch any "movie house" movie. the "conspiracy" resolution here might not satisfy your curiosity or investigative urges but it will make you stand up off your loveseat!

When my dad told me that there was a movie he saw about what may of happen if Oswald had been Trailed for the murder of President John Kennedy, i told him i had to see this movie. So we went and looked every where for it and finally we found it on the internet. When i watch the movie i couldn't believe how the actor who played Oswald looked so much like him. One of the main reasons i enjoyed this movie is because I'm a big Kennedy conspiracy nut. This movie really made me think, It would have been interesting to hear what Oswald had to say, what did he know, and if he did kill the President, why? Was he part a group who were mad at Kennedy because of his way of handling communism, or was he just crazy? "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" is a wonderful "what if" movie, and if you like conspiracy's this is a movie for you. And as you are watch think, did Lee Harvey Oswald really kill The President of the United States or was he in fact a patsy?

As a serious researcher of the Kennedy assassination (and Lee Harvey Oswald in particular), I was intrigued by this film's title and grabbed it as soon as it became available on VHS.

The film is based on the supposition that Lee Harvey Oswald was not killed on November 24th, 1963, and lived to stand trial for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It was shot on location (that's worth the price in itself) and all of the key people are represented, although many of the names have been changed (possibly to avoid paying royalties to the real witnesses and players, but who knows). This could tend to be slightly irritating to researchers and serious students, but it doesn't detract from the drama as it unfolds.

I want to point out here that at no time during the film does it show Oswald doing anything illegal. We never see him with the rifle; we never see him in or around the "sniper's nest"; and we never see him shoot Officer Tippit. All conjecture. The film does tend to follow the findings of the Warren Commission Report, so new students to the assassination can get a good start here. Bottom line ... whether you believe in the lone nut theory or conspiracy, it is an entertaining and thought-provoking film.

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.

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.