The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald

I saw this movie as a kid and then watched it from a library copy a week ago.

Since my original viewing I have intensely studies the various conspiracy theories, including the Federal Government's conspiracy theory: that a lone nut gunman who happened to be a USMC, Russian speaking defector, with US Naval Intelligence credentials, who flew back from the USSR at the height of the Cold War on a state department ticket, to repatriate in the US without a passport, who enjoyed the company of virulent right-wingers, assassinated the President with a Manlicher-Carcano (known as the Italian "humanitarian" rifle during WW2 because its barrel rifling was so bad) that he bought mail-order from Chicago, when he could have bought something better from just about anywhere in Texas back in 1962.

Yeah, these conspiracy theorists are real whack jobs.

Watch this movie to stoke the fires of your interest in discovering the truth. And don't let anyone call you a liberal or leftist just because you won't swallow the propaganda.

Think for yourself.

This movie is a good place to start.

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.

On November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald gunned down the President of the United States in the most spectacular assassination in history. He was arrested in double quick time, not for the Kennedy assassination, but for the cold-blooded execution of a police officer who perhaps acting on instinct had challenged him in a routine stop.

It took no time at all for the authorities to connect Oswald to the first crime, and in due course he would have been indicted for the assassination, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. But forty-eight hours after the crime of the century, Oswald himself fell victim to an assassin's bullet.

Up to a point, this docu-drama does a reasonable job of tracing that predictable but abandoned future by airbrushing Jack Ruby out of the picture and putting Oswald on trial. There are no faults with the acting, especially that of John Pleshette who bears a more than superficial resemblance to Oswald and who mimics the mannerisms and moods of this narcissistic non-entity to a tee. Unfortunately, towards the end the film loses its way in a maze of manufactured conspiracy. While it is true that these imaginary conspiracies were extant rather than newly invented, a more straightforward approach would have had true historical legitimacy.

Nevertheless, some people will have liked it, and the ending is certainly novel, like everything else about the life and death of Lee Harvey Oswald.

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.