Product Details

• Actors: James E. Files, Confession of an Assassin
• Format: Color, NTSC
• Language: English
• Rating: NR (Not Rated)
• Number of tapes: 1
• Studio: Mpi Home Video
• VHS Release Date: September 10, 1996
• Run Time: 81 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
• ASIN: 6304138458
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #26,724 in Video (See Bestsellers in Video)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #18 in

  Video > Documentary > Crime & Conspiracy

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

20 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Interesting, But You Have To Be Careful In Believing It., October 15, 1999

By	Mr. Fellini "Fellini" (El Paso, Texas United States) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

"Confession Of An Assassin" may be one of the most controversial films I have seen related with the JFK assassination. Not because it presents a new conspiracy theory, but because a man in here actually claims to be one of the assassins! I really can't say that I believe everything the prisoner in this video says, some of it seems a little too off kilter. Maybe he is telling the truth, who knows? Though I can't give it five stars, I still recommend you see it to make your own decision. Pay very close attention and keep some skepticism in mind because this guy could be a phony looking for a way out. I'm not saying he's a liar, if this is the truth, then it's settled: A conspiracy killed John F. Kennedy. If it's not, then we should just put it aside. I would give this guy some support considering time is running out and not much is left to build a big case. "Confession Of An Assassin" is for the viewer to make up his mind. I can't say it's a "great" piece, but I still recommend it.

19 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An extremely interesting interview, October 10, 2002

By A Customer

Let me start by saying, I've been a serious student of the JFK assassination for the last 27 years; I've read and re-read all the major books and articles including the great anti-conspiracy work of Posner's, as well as the much vaunted Warren report; I've also seen all the major documentaries and most importantly,have THOUGHT many hundreds of hours about the case.

As for the video in question, let me say this: although I am the most skeptical and "doubting Thomas" kind of guy you'll ever meet, I find many compelling kernels of truth to James Files' (the subject of the video) interview---though I'm not quite ready to proclaim him as completely sincere yet.

Yes, there are a few discrepancies in Files' story. However, the man's recall of NON EVENTS would be extremely difficult to conjure up (if he were, indeed, lying). Simply put, a pathological individual who was simply making up a story wouldn't be concerned with minute, trivial details, but with the larger picture. Files' not only has amazing recall of such little details, but when viewed as a mosaic of the larger picture, they all seems to fit. But another important element emerges in File's remarkable story.

Interestingly, I had always assumed that the Secret Service impersonator (in the Grassy Knoll) was, as a confederate in a larger conspiracy plot, used to protect the frontal shooter. My explanation to myself of the impersonator's apparent brashness (when confronted by police) was simply that he must have had some real brass gonads, or simply stated, was so cocksure of his phony credentials' (and, perhaps, his relationship to a larger governmental or institutional conspiracy), that fear wasn't really an issue. But innately, I'd always questioned this assumption without really knowing why.

Enter in Files' revelations: not only do they shed new light on my assumptions (whether by truth or design), but they make me realize I had probably been viewing the whole Grassy knoll sequence in a skewered light. As Files' explains it, his presence in the knoll was only as a back-up---in case the assassination didn't go down the way it was supposed to. Thus, the impersonator was also a back up and was to only be used if really necessary. Now, it all made sense to me: If Oswald was to be "set up" as the rear shooter, then a frontal gunman would NOT be expected to shoot, but only be used in a back-up mode. And this would also explain the inordinate 'brashness' of the impersonator who only displayed his authentic-looking ID's when he really HAD TO. Not a story likely created by someone so egotistical as wanting to feign involvement.

How would Files have dreamed up this simple, yet remarkable observation if he were simply fictionalizing? Two explanations emerge: 1) either he IS, in fact, the frontal gunman and his actual participation provides true insight into what really happened; or 2) he is one of the most prolific liars AND students of the assassination (possessing an enormous database of info) to emerge in the last 3 decades. Problem is, Files simply doesn't come across as being THAT sophisticated or book smart (although he does appear very street savvy). Whether File's is, or isn't telling the truth, his unique descriptions of the Grassy Knoll sequence put pieces of the puzzle into place in a way I have never heard anyone *else* suggest. This seeming familiarity with the event has an odd ring of truth to it and suggests in some form, an INTIMATE knowledge about the assassination.

In conclusion: the only way File's story could be corroborated would be if a second interview took place, and dozens of minute details mentioned in the first interview were presented to him for spontaneous validation.

Whatever the outcome, this video is definitely a must see for any serious student of the JFK case. Decide for yourself.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Truth or Fiction: Much Food for Thought, November 29, 2006

By	Herman "on the path" (USA) - See all my reviews

I have read several books on the assassination over the years. The best was a book by a surgeon at Parkland hospital who discribed the entry wound to Kennedy's throat-the first thing he grabs-at Parland they enlarged the wound and used it to create a tracheotomy.He further describes the call from the inexperienced MD's doing the autopsy who did not know what had happened to Kennedy's throat. Also more importantly he decribes the head wound exit as obviously having a back of the head exit-I believe if you wee working on the president-actually there was not much they could do-you would certainly remember the wound details. I believe the MD was Dr. Crenshaw. The nest best book was called Best Evidence-basically the brain might have given clues-but guess what, the National Archives lost the brain. I agree that Files seems to either have a vivid imagination or the details are factual. Hopefully more interviews will be forth-coming-this interview is credible-anyone who thinks Oswald got lucky is naive. I remeber one TV demonstration years ago where Military sharp-shooters could not duplicate Oswald's alledged feat. More confirmation is obviously needed. Hopefully someone will research Files.