Customer Reviews

On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The quote I used in the title of this review came from the lips of Mrs. Ruth Paine in 1986, and can be heard on this DVD. Mrs. Paine was one of the very few people in the world who knew Mr. and Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald fairly well just prior to November 22, 1963, which was the Friday when Lee Oswald took a gun to work and assassinated President John F. Kennedy.

In July of 1986, Mrs. Paine was one of several people who travelled from America to London in order to participate in a TV "docu-trial" ("ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"), a simulated courtroom trial produced by "London Weekend Television".

The mock trial was 21 hours long, but approximately 75% of that filmed footage was left on the cutting-room floor, with the 21 hours' worth of trial material being trimmed down to a little more than 5 hours for its original two-part "Showtime" cable-TV broadcast on November 21 and 22, 1986.

This 2-Disc DVD edition of "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" contains the entire uncut docu-trial as it was originally aired in November 1986 by the Showtime network in the United States (5+ hours of programming).

However, some portions of the original Showtime broadcast featuring host Edwin Newman and other commentators (such as Jack Anderson, Ramsey Clark, and Alan Dershowitz) have not been included on this DVD.

Very brief interview snippets with the two lead attorneys involved in the trial (Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence) that were aired on TV in '86 have also been removed for this DVD presentation. But all of the in-the-courtroom footage from the original '86 Showtime broadcast appears to be intact and included in this MPI Home Video version.

Footnote regarding running time --- Each of the two DVDs in this set has an incorrect (too short) running time shown on it. Based on the printed information on the discs, the total run time is only 4 hours and 8 minutes. But the total time for both DVDs is actually 5 hours and 7 minutes, which almost certainly represents the whole program as it first aired on Showtime (minus some of the wraparound segments with Edwin Newman, et al).*

* = At least one subsequent airing of this docu-trial on a different U.S. network (in 1988), however, does contain additional courtroom footage that is not included in this Showtime/MPI version.

But it's not entirely surprising that alternate versions of this lengthy program were produced, featuring different editing, given the fact that more than three-fourths of the filmed trial was edited out in the first place (including the entire testimony of at least one witness, Jack Tatum).

Another packaging error can be found on the back cover of this MPI DVD, where we find this absurdly-overstated blurb -- "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald recalls all of the surviving witnesses...".

But quite obviously, as of July 1986 (when the Oswald TV trial took place), more than just the 21 people who took the witness stand at this mock trial were still among the living (as far as assassination-related witnesses are concerned).

No witnesses were subpoenaed, however. The people who took the witness stand at the mock trial did so voluntarily. They were not being forced to appear. So, that fact certainly must have limited the length of the witness lists for both the defense and the prosecution to a large degree.

"On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" has the feel of a real trial (although, of course, it isn't, since the defendant in the case, Lee Harvey Oswald, was himself shot and killed by Dallas nightclub operator Jack Ruby just two days after President Kennedy was murdered)....with a real judge sitting on the bench in the London courtroom, 12 real Dallas jurors sitting in the jury box, 21 real sworn-in witnesses (connected in various ways to the JFK and/or J.D. Tippit murder cases) taking the witness stand to testify on behalf of either the prosecution or the defense, and two prominent U.S. trial attorneys presenting their cases in front of the jury -- Vincent T. Bugliosi for the prosecution (representing the "U.S. Government") and Gerry Spence representing the deceased defendant, Lee Oswald.

Mr. Bugliosi, in 2005, said it was his belief that the 1986 television docu-trial was "the closest thing to a trial that Lee Harvey Oswald ever had or will have". And after having watched that trial many times since '86, I have to fully concur with Vince's assessment as well.

This simulated trial was the springboard that led Bugliosi to write his mammoth and all-encompassing book on the JFK assassination, "Reclaiming History", which took Vince more than 20 years to research and write. The book was finally published in May 2007.

As mentioned previously, Ruth Paine was among the 21 witnesses who testified at the TV docu-trial, and Paine's testimony is among the most riveting and enlightening during the five-hour program. Even after 23 years, the raw emotion of that day back in 1963 still resonates deeply within her. Ruth's testimony is worth the price of this DVD set alone.

Another standout section of "On Trial" comes during the latter portion of the program, when noted conspiracy theorist and House Select Committee on Assassinations [HSCA] member Dr. Cyril H. Wecht takes the witness stand to face off against Vince Bugliosi.

The sparks begin to fly when Bugliosi wants Dr. Wecht to explain what happened to the intact bullet that exited President Kennedy's throat, heading downward and forward, directly toward Governor John Connally in the limousine.

Although Wecht agrees with Bugliosi that the bullet did, indeed, go completely through JFK's body without deviating from its original flight path, Cyril also contends that the bullet did not strike Governor Connally at all. Instead, evidently it vanished into thin air without a trace. (Talk about a "magic bullet".)

Other witnesses who put in an appearance include (among a few others): Charles Brehm, Buell Wesley Frazier, Dallas police officer Marrion Baker (who actually stopped Oswald and spoke to him inside the Texas School Book Depository within minutes of JFK's assassination), Harold Norman, Johnny Brewer, Nelson Delgado, Edwin Lopez, Seth Kantor, Ted Callaway, Eugene Boone (the deputy sheriff who first discovered Oswald's rifle on the sixth floor of the Depository), William Newman, Dr. Vincent Guinn, Dr. Charles Petty, and FBI agent James Hosty (who was aware of Oswald's presence in Dallas weeks prior to 11/22/63).

A full DVD chapter/witness list is provided later in this review.

Vince Bugliosi puts on a strong prosecutor's case against Oswald in "On Trial", relying heavily, of course, on the wide array of physical and circumstantial evidence that easily shows Oswald to be guilty of not only killing President Kennedy, but also of murdering a second man on November 22, 1963 -- Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, who was shot four times by Oswald on 10th Street in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff, approximately 45 minutes after Kennedy was slain right in front of Oswald's workplace on Elm Street.

Gerry Spence, on the other hand, relies mainly on guesswork, unsupportable theories, and "what if" scenarios in his attempted (and anemic) defense of his "client", Lee H. Oswald.

Mr. Spence is a good showman, though, I must say that. He's fun to watch in the courtroom. And so is Bugliosi, I might add. But Spence's choice of witnesses to try and buttress his case for conspiracy was rather weak, to say the least, with only 7 witnesses called to the stand (per the final 5-hour version of the trial seen on Showtime anyway), with one of those seven being the laughable Tom Tilson.

Mr. Tilson, who was a Dallas police officer in 1963, tells the jury a crazy tale about how Jack Ruby killed President Kennedy, with Tilson witnessing Ruby's getaway just after the assassination.

Not all of Tilson's testimony was shown on TV, however. Here's the text of a portion of Mr. Tilson's testimony that didn't make the final television cut (and it's a howl too). The following paragraph comes directly from Vincent Bugliosi's outstanding and comprehensive book on the assassination, "Reclaiming History":

"I asked Tilson why, if he believed the man he pursued was Ruby, didn't he give Dallas homicide Ruby's name when he called them with his information? Unbelievably, Tilson answered, 'Well, I couldn't. Somebody might go get Jack Ruby and he might not have been guilty.' (Translation: Never pursue any suspect to a crime because there's always a chance the suspect might not be guilty.)" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 879 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton & Company)(c.2007)

~LOL break~

In the end, thankfully, the real evidence against the defendant is able to conquer the fanciful "what ifs" in the minds of the jurors, and after six hours of deliberations, Lee Harvey Oswald was declared "Guilty" at the conclusion of the mock trial.

Three of those jurors, however, weren't convinced that there was no "conspiracy" to murder the President; but all twelve of them were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee Oswald did, in fact, kill John Kennedy.

========================

Here are a few random excerpts that can be found in "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald":

"The evidence that will be presented at this trial will show that there is no substance to the persistent charge by these critics that Lee Harvey Oswald was just a patsy, set up to take the fall by some elaborate conspiracy. We expect the evidence -- ALL of the evidence -- to show that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, was responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI (Opening Statement)

----------------

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his [Oswald's] body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

----------------

BUGLIOSI -- "Did it sound to you like a rifle was being fired directly above you?"

HAROLD NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any OTHER reason, in addition to the sound of the rifle, any other reason why you believed the shots were coming from directly above you?"

NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

BUGLIOSI -- "And what is that?"

NORMAN -- "Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I call them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of the rifle being pushed back and forward."

BUGLIOSI -- "You're familiar with a bolt-action rifle?"

NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

----------------

BUGLIOSI -- "What you're saying is that from your Neutron Activation Analysis, there may have been fifty people firing at President Kennedy that day....but if there were, they all missed....ONLY bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the President. Is that correct?"

DR. VINCENT P. GUINN -- "That's a correct statement; yes."

----------------

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Delgado, I believe you testified before the Warren Commission, that on the rifle range Oswald was kind of a joke, a pretty big joke."

NELSON DELGADO [served with Oswald in the Marines] -- "Yes, he was." ....

BUGLIOSI -- "Are you aware that in 1956, when Oswald first joined the Marines, and was going through Basic Training, he fired a 212 on the rifle range with an M-1 rifle, which made him a 'sharpshooter' at that time -- are you aware of that?"

DELGADO -- "Yes."

BUGLIOSI -- "Given the fact that Oswald was about to get out of the Marines when he was in your unit, and the fact that he showed no interest in firing on the range -- you don't attribute his poor showing on the range to his being a poor shot?"

DELGADO -- "No."

BUGLIOSI -- "He could have done better, you felt, if he tried?"

DELGADO -- "Certainly."

----------------

BUGLIOSI -- "While he [Lee Oswald] was at your home did he ask you for any curtain rods?"

RUTH PAINE -- "No, he didn't." ....

BUGLIOSI -- "Now you, in fact, DID have some curtain rods in the garage, is that correct?"

PAINE -- "In the garage...yes."

BUGLIOSI -- "After the assassination, they were still there."

PAINE -- "Yes, that's right."

----------------

BUGLIOSI -- "Seems to me, Doctor, that by necessary implication they are either hopelessly and utterly incompetent, or they deliberately suppressed the truth from the American public. Is that correct?"

DR. CYRIL WECHT -- "There is a third alternative, which would be a hybrid to some extent of the deliberate suppression, sir..."

BUGLIOSI -- "So, of the nine pathologists, Doctor Wecht, you're the only one that had the honor and the integrity and the professional responsibility to tell the truth to the American people! Is that correct, Doctor!?"

WECHT -- "I'll prefer to put it this way....I'm the only one who had the courage to say that the King was nude, and had no clothes on....yes."

BUGLIOSI -- "No further questions."

----------------

"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON. .... And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.

"At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else....how much do you need?....if we had NOTHING else....this would be enough to prove Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more. ....

"How, in fact, if Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within forty-five minutes of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or was he framed for that murder too?! ....

"As surely as I am standing here, as surely as night follows day, Lee Harvey Oswald--acting alone--was responsible for the murder of President John F. Kennedy." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI (Closing Arguments)

========================

ABOUT THE DVDs:

The video and audio quality on these DVDs is just about as perfect as anybody could hope for. The picture looks excellent, probably as good as it did when the program first aired in 1986.

There are no audio commentaries or additional bonus features on either of the two discs in this DVD package. It would have been great if a commentary track by Vince Bugliosi could have been included, but it wasn't. But I was surprised to find that English subtitles have been included on these DVDs, which could be considered kind of a "mini bonus" of sorts.

Some more disc data:

2-Disc set.
Single-sided discs.
Video: Full-Frame (1.33:1). In color.
Audio: Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo.
Total Run Time: 307 minutes.
Menus: Non-animated; looped music on the Main Menu.
Paper Enclosures: None.

========================

DVD CHAPTER LIST:

DISC ONE:
1. Introduction (With Edwin Newman)
2. Opening Statement: The Prosecution
3. Opening Statement: The Defense
4. Prosecution, 1st Witness: Buell Frazier
5. Prosecution, 2nd Witness: Charles Brehm
6. Prosecution, 3rd Witness: Harold Norman
7. Prosecution, 4th Witness: Eugene Boone
8. Prosecution, 5th Witness: Marrion Baker
9. Prosecution, 6th Witness: Ted Callaway
10. Witness Recall: Buell Frazier
11. Prosecution, 7th Witness: Jack Brewer
12. Prosecution, 8th Witness: Cecil Kirk
13. Prosecution, 9th Witness: Dr. Charles Petty
14. Prosecution, 10th Witness: Monty Lutz
15. Prosecution, 11th Witness: Dr. Vincent Guinn
16. Prosecution, 12th Witness: Lyndal Shaneyfelt
17. Prosecution, 13th Witness: Nelson Delgado
18. Prosecution, 14th Witness: Ruth Paine


DISC TWO:
1. Defense, 1st Witness: Bill Newman
2. Defense, 2nd Witness: Tom Tilson
3. Defense, 3rd Witness: Dr. Cyril Wecht
4. Defense, 4th Witness: Paul O'Connor
5. Defense, 5th Witness: James Hosty
6. Defense, 6th Witness: Edwin Lopez
7. Defense, 7th Witness: Seth Kantor
8. Final Summation: The Prosecution
9. Final Summation: The Defense
10. Final Rebuttal: The Prosecution
11. The Verdict

========================

A FINAL WORD:

Although it wasn't a "real" trial (quite obviously), "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" did a nice job (at least partially) of filling a gap that had long been in need of filling -- and that is: to present the evidence against Lee Oswald in a courtroom setting, complete with the adversarial process of United States law on full display (i.e., the prosecution vs. the defense).

Lee Harvey Oswald, posthumously, had his day in court. Some conspiracy theorists maintain that the 1986 mock trial was nothing but a "sham", a "farce", a "fictional TV drama" with no real facts or truths being brought out in the courtroom.

I, however, would strongly disagree with such assertions regarding "On Trial". While not binding as an actual "Guilty" verdict in the case against Oswald, the fact remains that a lot of REAL evidence, presented by REAL witnesses, came to light in that London courtroom.

And whether Oswald was alive or not to defend himself against this evidence, it is evidence that still exists all the same. And it's evidence that convicted Lee Harvey Oswald of a Presidential assassination in the eyes of twelve Dallas citizens in 1986. And, in my opinion, that's a nice gap in the world of "JFK Assassination Lore" to have filled in.

David Von Pein
October 2008

I purchased this DVD after reading the lengthy book, "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor in the mock trial presented here. Like many people I have always believed in the probable existence of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, nevertheless, my mind was changed after reading the very lengthy Bugliosi book. Frankly, I was unaware that a mock trial had ever taken place until reading of it in this book. Learning that Gerry Spence had been the defense attorney, and being an attorney myself, I was very eager to get a chance to see these two attorneys cross swords in a courtroom.

Unfortunately from an attorney's perspective, this DVD presentation of the mock trial was disappointing. From the very beginning I was shocked at the degree to which Mr. Bugliosi persisted in leading his witnesses, seemingly with no objection from Mr. Spence. I realize that leading the witnesses in a mock trial for television might be simply a means of saving time, but when Mr. Spence did finally object, he did so with a statement that he did not usually object to his opponent leading witnesses during trial testimony. Somehow I found this statement difficult to believe.

Naturally the trial made use of the Zapruder film. Unfortunately, however, the viewer was provided with no view of the diagrams of the wounds or bullet paths that played so important a role in determining whether Oswald acted alone or only as part of a conspiracy. I know that the jurors in the mock trial were made aware of those photos and diagrams since I saw some of the blow-ups of them in the courtroom. Perhaps if I had not seen them or already known of their existence, I would not have felt as cheated as a viewer by not having them presented as part of the trial on the DVD.

Lastly I must comment on the brevity of the closing arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defense in this DVD. Again, I recognize that there are time constraints when presenting a trial in a televised setting; nevertheless, considering that this might have been "The Trial of the Century" shouldn't we have expected the prosecutor to provide a much longer closing argument than was shown here?

Naturally Mr. Bugliosi considered his case to have been one of overwhelming evidence of guilt but wasn't he taking a big risk by not spending more time referring to the evidence that had been presented to the jury than he did here? Of course had he done so, he would probably have mentioned witnesses and items of evidence that the jury had seen but which had not been part of what was seen by the DVD viewer. The jarring effect that this might have had upon the viewer might have been lessened somewhat had there been a statement at the beginning of each disc reminding the viewer that they were seeing a presentation that had been edited from the much longer presentation that had been made before the mock jury.

This London trial--so long unavailable on DVD--is an invaluable tool for the serious Kennedy assassination researcher and scholar. For the first time actual assassination witnesses are subjected to direct and cross examination in an attempt to prove once and for all, 'Was Lee Harvey Oswald guilty of assassinating President John F. Kennedy.' Before purchasing and reading "Reclaiming History" this trial is a must see. There are NO actors and NO recreations. The witnesses questioned on the witness stand are the real deal. The experts are REAL experts and the questioning is authentic. Vince Bugliosi and Gerry Spence lock horns in the video trial of the decade. Clearly the evidence is on Bugliosi's side and Spence doesn't really have much ammunition with which to work (which is exactly how the REAL trial of Oswald would have been had Oswald lived.) For individuals looking for evidence of Oswald's guilt, there is plenty of it here. Additionally many of the pseudo-scientists with degrees in fraud and quakery such as Jack White, Robert Groden, and David Lifton do not appear. The LAST people Gerry Spence wanted arguing in favor of Oswald's innocence would be Jack White, Robert Groden, or David Lifton. Bugliosi would have disemboweled them in seconds and whatever credibility they ever had would have been totally destroyed. But the trial questioning is riviting and the logic employed by Bugliosi cannot be ignored.

An overall great trial to enjoy and learn from.

I always believed the J.F.K. murder was a plot of some sort........until i saw the great Vincent Bugliosi present the EVIDENCE! It is common sense evidence that any reasonable human being could not possibly look away from. Oswald did it, alone, it is as simple as that. I believe that most people do not want accept that because accepting a plot is easier and excuses us from dealing with the almighty truth.

This trial is the best possible way of determining the "truth" about the Kennedy assassination. With the REAL witnesses and other REAL persons involved (and still alive when this made for television "trial" was produced), the viewer is allowed to learn a great deal about the JFK assassination. With a little background beforehand, the viewer can easily follow this trial and learn a great deal. Formulating an opinion, after viewing, could be done by a more informed person. DON'T MISS THIS DVD if you have an interest in the "mystique" of the JFK assassination.

Did Lee Harvey Oswald murder President Kennedy and if so did Oswald act alone or as part of a conspiracy?

In five and hours of gripping court room testimony from real witnesses not only are these issues but the process of American trial work on display.

As a trial litigator for over twenty years, I found myself appreciating this DVD on both levels.

In terms of the trial practice aspects of this presentation I was disappointed that the DVD started with the trial itself instead of jury selection. As trial litigators and many within the lay public well know, the outcome of jury selection often is the outcome of the trial itself.

Taking Gerry Spence as an example this was most prominently on display when he obtained an acquittal for Imelda Marcos in connection with charges of corruption while serving politically with her husband in the Phillipines (where she was actually mayor of the country's capital city).

Therefore it was unfortunate that we were unable to see Spence and Bugliosi engage the jurors in pre trial questioning and just what that questioning focused on.

For that reason I found it more difficult to evaluate what the attorneys were doing because commonly the attorneys will stress themes they developed in pre trial questioning including even using key words and stock phrases developed by the jurors themselves.

That being said I was also surprised the presentation of the attorneys who often seemed too willing to engage each other in baiting type tactics such as when Gerry Spence offered that the only thing silent about Mr. Bugliosi was the pronounciation of the "g" in his name. It's been my solid experience that jurors are overwhelmingly offput by such behavior.

Likewise I was surprised at the periodic histrionics of counsel. While jurors are often ready to accept a well crafted metaphor they quickly bristle at long irrelevant stories more fueled by the orator's sound of his own voice than by any clear relevance to the case.

Additionally while I understood that there was a broadcast mandate for brevity I was surprised at the speed of counsel's presentation. Vincent Bugliosi made many, many good points but often so quickly you missed some of them.

All that being said, it was interesting just how much material was developed in the mere five and a half hours this DVD lasted. For a more thorough presentation I heartily recommend the Bugliosi book Reclaiming History (at a thinly typeset 1500 plus pages much more lengthy than either War and Peace or Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).

So: did Lee Harvey Oswald murder President Kennedy and if so did Oswald act alone or as part of a conspiracy?

While my personal prejudices would be to say "yes" and "no" in those orders (just as this jury decided), I leave the reader to the evidence itself and their own best discretion.

On the more important question of the ability of American courts to deliver justice I remain hopeful and am occassionally vindicated in that hope.

This video is absurd. Jerry Spence looks like a fool walking around with a sandwich board picture of Oswald. Bugliosi is arrogant and smug. All the witnesses that would be worth hearing are long dead. I rented this, so glad I didn't waste my money.

Being from Australia, I had not seen this apart from some grabs on You Tube and what-not, and references to it in books like Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History". The DVD itself is fairly basic, and unfortunately it was clearly filmed at a time where the trend was to go to the low-def video format, but DVD makes it probably as clear as you can get it. I won't be holding out for the blu-ray release, anyway.

In terms of the program, I thought that Mark Lane should have led the defence - sometimes I felt like Gerry Spence didn't have the same knowledge of the events as someone like ML, and I don't even recall reading GS lending his weight or even an opinion towards any aspect of the JFK assassination case prior to this production occurring (to be fair, I guess VB hadn't either, but he claimed that "Reclaiming History" was from 20 years of research). Even someone like me, an avid reader of the events in the JFK assassination, thought up many questions during the program that GS didn't seem to even consider. I think ML would have shown a little more tenacity in the cross-examination of some of VB's witnesses than GS. Although "Reclaiming History" didn't come out for another two decades, a showdown between VB and the man he essentially labeled a fraud in his book would have been a match-up for the ages. GS to me came across as a likeable kinda guy who tried to win over the jury with a smile and some charm (his comment when VB complains about how GS pronounces his name, that the "g" is silent - "that's the only that's silent about Mr Bugliosi" - is a real gem !) rather than strenuously attack the official version. It's like he didn't read some of the pioneering conspiracy theory books that left genuine questions about the events.

The list of witnesses & experts include Buell Frazier (x2), Charles Brehm, Harold Norman (love his suit !), Eugene Boone, Marion Baker, Ted Callaway, John Brewer, Cecil Kirk, Dr Charles Petty, Monty Lutz, Dr Vincent Guinn, Lyndal Shaneyfelt, Nelson Delgado, Ruth Paine, Bill Newman, Tom Tilson (amusing witness !), Dr Cyril Wecht, Paul O'Conner, James Hosty, Edwin Lopez, and Seth Kantor. I think there are a lot more names that may have been slipped into this list in a real trial.

VB's prosecution is predictable & requires little explanation here, and any student of the assassination is not going to struggle in determining what he's going to do - produce the usual exhibits we all know, defend SBT & and a rearward headshot, claim that the evidence against LHO is faithful, and try to portray LHO as the sole assassin (SA), through a battery of quickfire questions to witnesses & experts that are flying in so fast they make your head spin. Therefore, my review is based largely on the performance of the defence, as I felt it was lacking in many area, and VB was always going to win the case as a result.

This started for me with GS's rather weak questioning of Buell Frazier - I mean, all he had to do was read Sylvia Meagher's "Accessories After The Fact" to ask Frazier one key question that I find curious: if the motorcade route was only published early in the week of the assassination (going past the TSBD), did Frazier ever see any evidence of Oswald carrying the rifle bag back to the Paine household. Unless he made the bag at the Book Depository before knowing the motorcade would pass the building (for reasons unknown), we would have to conclude that the only chance he had to get the bag back to the Paine residence in Irving was the one time he travelled back - on the night before the assassination - with Frazier. A relevant question might be did he carry anything with him that could have allowed him to smuggle the rifle bag to the Paine household, or did he wear clothing that may have allowed him to smuggle the bag there on his person without Frazier realizing.

In fact, I wonder how many long-established conspiracy orientated books published by that time that GS might have read to get a handle on some of the questions out there. Issues like why no cleaning kit or ammunition boxes were found amongst LHO's possessions at the Paine household. GS didn't seem to question the condition of the Carcano rifle at the time it was allegedly used, yet it apparently had inherent problems with the trigger mechanism & firing pin. There was no query regarding the comparison tests on the rifle done by the FBI & the conditions in which they were done, and I don't think even the long-established issues with the misaligned scope even got a mention. There was not one mention of black dog man or his buddy photographed on the knoll fleeing the scene in the seconds after the shooting ended, and the evidence of these characters, especially in the Willis photos seems somewhat underrated to me. They never stepped forward (as you might expect someone innocent might do at least to clear themselves), and to me, cannot be excluded as suspects that were possibly involved somehow, yet it didn't get a mention with GS at the helm.

However, GS did have his moments - the questioning of Ruth Paine was good, and I thought she was going to have a major break-down at one stage, but he took the foot off. This is where ML would have been better than GS (even though his soft approach had her on the verge of a meltdown), without doubt, because I doubt ML ever would have let her off the hook so easily, and I've always wondered might come of a more stern questioning of her. In almost a mocking way, GS asked her if she was a CIA agent - I would like to have seen ML, in his own way, ask that on cross-examination in a more serious manner !

Charles Brehm is interesting - in "Rush To Judgment", ML asked him not about the direction of the shots, but where pieces of the President's skull landed (left & back of the car). Brehm should have been shown this footage, and asked to explain his comments from "Rush To Judgment", as he seemed to express some exasperation at not been called as a witness to the WC (although he doesn't seem to have claimed anything other than three shots from the TSBD or Records Building ever, so far as I am aware). Twenty years later, in this program, he also claimed that the first shot occurred after the limousine had completed the turn and had straightened out, which is inconsistent with the first shot occurring at z160. This agrees with the accounts of many witnesses, but is at odds with the conclusions of "Reclaiming History", yet VB doesn't seem to argue that point (presumably because Brehm is otherwise supporting VB's sole assassin conclusion). To me, this shows that VB is just as selective in the use of testimony as Posner or any conspiracy theorist, and shows that GS didn't appear to know the sequence of shots that VB is trying to demonstrate, or he would have leapt on this testimony to shorten the timeline of the shots, and subsequently demonstrate that a Carcano rifle couldn't be recycled and fired accurately within the timeline.

GS should have called Marina Oswald - even the Warren Commission had reservations about her testimony, so perhaps we might have been able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and so we might have made in-roads into her testimony on things like LHO's alleged involvement in the Walker shooting.

Don't expect to see any Parkland doctors or Bethesda autopsy doctors, either. Why none of these important witnesses were never questioned, I do not know, and this seems to somewhat invalidate the results of the trial, as at a real trial, we might have heard from some or all of them. There is also a massive list of witnesses that are either dead, or were alive and were not called - probably the two I would have loved to have seen that were dead by that time are Howard Brennan & James Worrell. A cross-examination of Brennan would have been awesome, as WC lawyer Joseph Ball had reservations about what Brennan saw when a recreation was done in Dealey Plaza. Worrell gets quoted in "Reclaiming History" in VB's attempt to establish three shots-TSBD, yet his statements & testimony claim four shots, and that he saw someone fleeing from the back of the TSBD in the minutes following the assassination. Unfortunately, Brennan died a few years before this program was made, and Worrell died in a motor vehicle accident in 1966.

The bit of the program that makes the entire show worthwhile is when Cyril Wecht trots out as one of GS's witnesses. Two titans going toe to toe, and CW is always good value in his interviews as he gets heated and passionate over the topic. It's pretty clear that he and VB have nothing but contempt for each other. Hosty & Lopez provide interesting testimony that is worth watching, too.

GS's attack should have focused on the viability of the single bullet theory, because it is that thesis that makes the sole assassin scenario possible, and introducing evidence like the President's shirt & jacket, plus the autopsy photo of his back & the Willis photo which shows minimal-to-no bunching up of the jacket at the time of the alleged event, plus the death certificate & autopsy reports, and comparison bullets from the FBI that deformed just from being fired the wrist of a cadaver. All of these items introduced together could have upset VB's defence of the SBT, but instead, Wecht seemed to be the only one standing in the way of this episode being seriously questioned. GS could probably have also been pointed out that Arlen Specter was an Assistant DA, not a ballistics/wounds expert, and that the SBT is therefore a law fraternity invention that both sides have since tried to prove or disprove.

In the case of the fatal head shot, GS could have argued momentum conservation versus neuromuscular reaction and jet-effect with VB via the witnesses he called. For example, Josiah Thompson used Dr A.J. Riddle, member of the Brain Research Institute & Assistant Professor of Physics from UCLA to back up momentum conservation (Thompson referring of course to a near simultaneous double headshot), and an unnamed neurologist to explain that the expected neurological effect of a rearward shot to the head "would be for the victim's body to go limp". Apart from a few like Petty & Wecht, no one like this was called, unless these witnesses never made the DVD version.

Neutron Activation Analysis gets a bit of a run with VB, but I've read that it's now under fire from the FBI & the courts. VB seems to argue the Z224-225 SBT that is the Lattimer/Posner/Myers version, but the most recent investigation at that time had been with the HSCA, and their expert, Thomas Canning, had reported that it was at around z190. One would think Canning would be the most qualified given his credentials (in comparison to the others listed here), yet it appears VB is at odds with the Canning version. Wecht does point out in his testimony that at z230, Connally is still holding his hat, despite his wrist bone being shattered & radial nerve almost severed, which is a golden oldie in the conspiracy theory argument against the SBT.

Interestingly, despite all his chest-beating in "Reclaiming History", the end credits claim that despite VB's win in this "trial", the producers claim that several jurors still believed that a conspiracy existed. I don't know if we ever got numbers on exactly how many, but the plural form makes us presume at least two.

So I rate this program as having some value (the eighties clothing is priceless !), but it is just one of many books and programs that EVERYONE should consider before forming any kind decision in this case, and it is far from being definitive. If you are new to the case, read maybe 6-12 of the long established books on the subject, and make up your own mind - don't rely on this program alone.

Someone posted some of this on Youtube and I ended up wanting the whole thing. The video quality is decent (not like the Firing Line DVD's!), but it could have been better. This is good because it is a mock trial with the actual witnesses from the event. The main reason I decided to buy this is because Spence tripped up Mrs. Paine and her "to the letter" script that she had recited since day one. This is the first time that I was able to see her go off script. Good for this alone!

A recent casual interest in the JFK assassination lead me ultimately to this DVD.

It is a "real" trial of Lee Harvey Oswald using a real judge, prosecutor (Vincent "the G is silent" Buglioso who prosecuted Charles Manson), defense attorney, and jurors. The only big names missing, for obvious reasons, were Oswald and his killer, Jack Ruby.

From a purely historical viewpoint this is an excellent chance to hear testimony from the witnesses, without having to read a transcript and make interpretations. However, the downside is that what's even worse and more fallible than human memory is old human memories, and these witnesses are recounting events from 25 years earlier. One of them originally said in 1963 he saw Kennedy "stand up" after getting shot, though he corrected himself ("threw his hands up") at this trial.

You get testimony about how hard (or easy) it is to fire the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle - but no visual test or demonstration. (At least you see someone moving the bolt-action in the dramatized "JFK" movie by Oliver Stone). It's supposedly impossible to accurately fire 3 rounds in the time-frame indicated by the famous Zapruder film.

You get witness testimony about Oswald shooting policeman JD Tippit and going into the theater. Also there were some hints that this was a frame-up as so many cops showed up all at once, etc.

You get testimony by the woman who shared her home with Marina (wife of Lee) Oswald. She recounted how Lee had always come over on Friday night, except for this particular week when he came on a Thursday night (in theory to get his rifle from the garage) as the assassination was the next day (Friday). The man who drove Lee back and forth recalls him carrying a brown-paper covered package under his arm into the book depository building that Friday morning (Oswald had told him he was going to pick up curtain rods on Thursday night).

You get testimony from a hospital technician trained to remove brains for preservation saying there was "maybe half a handful" in Kennedy's head.

You get testimony about the (very few) bullet fragments reportedly removed from Kennedy's brain and analyzed to determine if they came from the M-C rifle.

You get testimony about the suspect procedures during the autopsy of Kennedy.

You get testimony from a policeman saying he saw Jack Ruby coming down from the triple overpass, get into a truck and drive away at the time of the assassination. The cop said he and his daughter followed him and wrote down the license plate number. This plate number was phoned in to the Dallas PD, FBI, etc, but no follow up was ever made. In subsequent years the cop threw out the number during housecleaning, thinking it would never be needed all these years later. Funny thing is that other witnesses place Ruby in a different location at that time.

You get confrontational questions and testimony between Prosecutor Bugliosi and Cyril Wecht, a leading conspiracy theorist, regarding the "magic bullet" or "single bullet" theory, which is the idea that a single bullet went through Kennedy's neck, into Governor Connally in front of him, smashed a rib, then broke a wrist bone, and finally went into the governor's thigh - only to be found in nearly pristine condition later on a stretcher in the hospital. This single bullet theory is the "answer" as to how both people could be shot from a rifle which takes too much time between shots to shoot the people individually. The exact time-frame of the shots is still in question, even when using the 18 frames-per-second Zapruder film as the benchmark. (You should watch the trial summation at the end of Stone's "JFK" for the importance of this theory). Governor Connally (in archive footage) says he was not hit by the first bullet.

You get testimony from witnesses as to the number and direction of the shots fired. This varies a bit. Was it three shots, or four? Was the third/fourth fatal headshot from the "Grassy Knoll" where many people reported seeing a puff of smoke? Does a head go forward or backward when shot from behind?

Just about all the questions are asked, but unfortunately, the experts can not agree on any single point.

(Not covered on this DVD) Many theories exist - it was a hit by Italian mobsters, or the Cubans. The best one may be that "Badgeman" (google it) fired the headshot from the grassy knoll, and was actually shown in Mary Moorman's famous polaroid photo taken approximately 1/6th second after Kennedy was shot. While there may have been someone on the grassy knoll, subsequent photo analysis seems to indicate the image in the photo is not him, if even a person. One "researcher" even went as far to claim "badgeman" was none other than police officer (hence the "badge" in badgeman) JD Tippit, who was himself shot by Oswald some 45 minutes later. A branch of that theory suggests the wounds on Tippit were deliberately made to look like Kennedy's wounds and the bodies were switched for the autopsy. Someone claiming to be Badgeman has recently confessed, but his testimony (about leaving a single bullet casing with his toothmarks on the fence post, among other things) seems to be thoroughly debunked.

I've seen other documentaries, including the restored/digitized Zapruder film (some claim the original was faked by the Secret Service or FBI) and I do not have the ultimate answer. I do believe Oswald shot Kennedy, but based just on the timing and headshot shown in the Zapruder film, I have to think there was another shooter.

This DVD is required viewing by any assassination buff, I think, as it is a close to the real deal as you will get.