24-06-2013, 06:11 AM
When this program first aired on Showtime in 1986, there were several indications it was a typical msm disinfo product. First, the selection of Gerry Spence as Oswald's attorney. I've liked what Spence has had to say on other issues, but he was woeful here; very limited knowledge of the case, to the extent that he kept referring to J.D. Tippit as "Tibbits." And, has been noted, his defense was the kind patsies from Bruno Richard Hauptman to Sirhan Sirhan to Timothy Mcveigh have typically received. None of the strongest indicators of conspiracy were touched upon. But there was a lot of dramatic posturing by Spence, holding Oswald's photo in front of him.
The "experts" chosen to discuss the trial, while we awaited the verdict with bated breath, were Alan Dershowitz, Ramsey Clark, and I believe Jack Anderson, I may have that wrong, but that's what I remember. At any rate, there wasn't a "conspiracy theorist" among them. Shockingly, they all thought the evidence against Oswald was "overwhelming," and were there to prepare the audience for the predetermined "guilty" verdict. They made a mistake, however, by permitting the public to call a 900 number to register their own vote. When the results came in as we might expect, with some 89% voting Oswald "not guilty," host Edwin Newman stuttered and stammered to try to explain why the jury's verdict might well be different (as if he didn't already know).
When this program was rebroadcast a few years later, a few key changes were made. First, Geraldo Rivera was the host, assuring that it would all be presented in as lurid and sensational a style as possible. Secondly, they still let the audience vote, but added a third choice, one of "guilty as part of a conspiracy." This subtle change did the trick, as the audience voted for that option instead of "not guilty." Geraldo still didn't seem that happy; I believe he was in the midst of converting officially into his staunch lone-nutter stance.
The program is interesting, in that it does include the real witnesses, but very predictable in the way the material is presented. Still, most here would probably find it mildly interesting.
The "experts" chosen to discuss the trial, while we awaited the verdict with bated breath, were Alan Dershowitz, Ramsey Clark, and I believe Jack Anderson, I may have that wrong, but that's what I remember. At any rate, there wasn't a "conspiracy theorist" among them. Shockingly, they all thought the evidence against Oswald was "overwhelming," and were there to prepare the audience for the predetermined "guilty" verdict. They made a mistake, however, by permitting the public to call a 900 number to register their own vote. When the results came in as we might expect, with some 89% voting Oswald "not guilty," host Edwin Newman stuttered and stammered to try to explain why the jury's verdict might well be different (as if he didn't already know).
When this program was rebroadcast a few years later, a few key changes were made. First, Geraldo Rivera was the host, assuring that it would all be presented in as lurid and sensational a style as possible. Secondly, they still let the audience vote, but added a third choice, one of "guilty as part of a conspiracy." This subtle change did the trick, as the audience voted for that option instead of "not guilty." Geraldo still didn't seem that happy; I believe he was in the midst of converting officially into his staunch lone-nutter stance.
The program is interesting, in that it does include the real witnesses, but very predictable in the way the material is presented. Still, most here would probably find it mildly interesting.