The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald

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.

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!

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.

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.