First viewed : 22 November 1986
Channel Four broadcast this legal marathon on the 23rd anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. It was as realistic as it could be given that the defendant had been dead for over 20 years. It was conducted by a genuine judge and the cases were argued by two high-powered lawyers, Manson-prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi for the prosecution and Gerry Spence, who won compensation for the family of nuclear whistle-blower Karen Silkwood, for the defence. The jury was selected according to normal Texan procedure. The witnesses were all genuine but it didn't tell you how many had declined to participate.
In the end Bugliosi was triumphant against the over-emotional Spence and got a guilty verdict.
To which I would add a follow-up question: what was your verdict based on what was presented in the show?
ReplyDeleteWell I have to admit I didn't watch it all the way through and have seen many other programmes on the same subject since. My belief is that Oswald did fire at the president so would have been guilty of something and I'm open-minded as to whether there were others involved. It seemed to me that Spence knew he had little to work with and was trying to blow smoke in the jury's faces with grandiose emotional pleas on Oswald's behalf.
ReplyDelete