I read a few comments on this scattered across the web prior to viewing it, and the condemning ones clearly outweighed the positive reviews (I didn't take the time to read those). I had devoured Jim Garrison's book (after watching Oliver Stone's "JFK") and found it convincing. In any case with that much smoke around, there's usually some fire, and if only the - possible - premature demolition of a certain WTC building for a little insurance or stock market fraud.
The BBC has a reputation for well-researched, non-sensationalist documentaries that generally go along with official lines, and this film is a good example. Watching it with an open mind, I must say it offers a persuasive account of the Kennedy shooting. At least Dale Myers's computer-based reconstruction regarding the "magic bullet" is very convincing. Computer graphics are nowadays an essential part of every major accident investigation - in reality, not just in "Mayday" episodes. They are only as good as the data they rely on, but unless inaccuracies are found, this is definitely the most reliable method available today.
The film also debunks some of the serious errors made by Oliver Stone's "JFK": That Oswald was a bad shot (he was actually a sharpshooter), the Kennedy-Connally bullet (surgically recovered fragments prove it really caused the wounds, ballistics show it was fired from the Oswald rifle) and others. It doesn't bring up all the "evidence" for a conspiracy, particularly the witnesses and the allegedly negative nitrate test on Oswald. And - as others have pointed out - Oswald's killing of the policeman Tippet is not really a "rock-solid fact". There is no "rock-solid" evidence for a conspiracy either, but that doesn't rule it out completely - until the 1990's, there was not overwhelmingly much tangible evidence for Auschwitz (see D.D. Guttenberg's book on the David Irving trial).
The filmmakers took the trouble to interview a lot of people who knew Oswald and his wife personally, and their memories paint quite a different picture of the "secret agent": most notably Ruth Paine (who got him the job at the Texas Book Depository), Oswald's brother (who describes him as a social dropout seeking attention) and people who met Oswald during his time in Russia. Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's successor, seems to have been convinced that Fidel Castro was behind it - an allegation that Castro himself objected to because it would have created the perfect pretext for an invasion of Cuba. John Ruby, the alleged mafia hit-man, is portrayed as a hothead on the fringes of the mob, at most - yet another "trigger-happy American" stereotype.
Because all the alleged ringleaders - Ferrie, Shaw/Bertrand and Oswald - of the "conspiracy gang" are dead, it's up to guess if that's really all there's to it. The filmmakers vindicate Clay Shaw, the businessman/alleged CIA agent Jim Garrison prosecuted unsuccessfully, of any involvement, without delving into any of Shaw's mysterious ways - based on a lie detector test on Garrison's main witness Perry Russo. Here some will cry "foul", at the latest. Garrison tells us there were other witnesses. As always, it's a question of credibility.
In my opinion, the film doesn't deserve the vilification it has received from some people that called it "propaganda" intent on bending the truth to reach foregone conclusions. Some "evidence" you ignore, some you disbelieve - the other side does the same. It's well made, maybe too good for everybody's taste, but certainly worth to take the time and make up your own mind.
The BBC has a reputation for well-researched, non-sensationalist documentaries that generally go along with official lines, and this film is a good example. Watching it with an open mind, I must say it offers a persuasive account of the Kennedy shooting. At least Dale Myers's computer-based reconstruction regarding the "magic bullet" is very convincing. Computer graphics are nowadays an essential part of every major accident investigation - in reality, not just in "Mayday" episodes. They are only as good as the data they rely on, but unless inaccuracies are found, this is definitely the most reliable method available today.
The film also debunks some of the serious errors made by Oliver Stone's "JFK": That Oswald was a bad shot (he was actually a sharpshooter), the Kennedy-Connally bullet (surgically recovered fragments prove it really caused the wounds, ballistics show it was fired from the Oswald rifle) and others. It doesn't bring up all the "evidence" for a conspiracy, particularly the witnesses and the allegedly negative nitrate test on Oswald. And - as others have pointed out - Oswald's killing of the policeman Tippet is not really a "rock-solid fact". There is no "rock-solid" evidence for a conspiracy either, but that doesn't rule it out completely - until the 1990's, there was not overwhelmingly much tangible evidence for Auschwitz (see D.D. Guttenberg's book on the David Irving trial).
The filmmakers took the trouble to interview a lot of people who knew Oswald and his wife personally, and their memories paint quite a different picture of the "secret agent": most notably Ruth Paine (who got him the job at the Texas Book Depository), Oswald's brother (who describes him as a social dropout seeking attention) and people who met Oswald during his time in Russia. Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's successor, seems to have been convinced that Fidel Castro was behind it - an allegation that Castro himself objected to because it would have created the perfect pretext for an invasion of Cuba. John Ruby, the alleged mafia hit-man, is portrayed as a hothead on the fringes of the mob, at most - yet another "trigger-happy American" stereotype.
Because all the alleged ringleaders - Ferrie, Shaw/Bertrand and Oswald - of the "conspiracy gang" are dead, it's up to guess if that's really all there's to it. The filmmakers vindicate Clay Shaw, the businessman/alleged CIA agent Jim Garrison prosecuted unsuccessfully, of any involvement, without delving into any of Shaw's mysterious ways - based on a lie detector test on Garrison's main witness Perry Russo. Here some will cry "foul", at the latest. Garrison tells us there were other witnesses. As always, it's a question of credibility.
In my opinion, the film doesn't deserve the vilification it has received from some people that called it "propaganda" intent on bending the truth to reach foregone conclusions. Some "evidence" you ignore, some you disbelieve - the other side does the same. It's well made, maybe too good for everybody's taste, but certainly worth to take the time and make up your own mind.