Killing Oswald

Interesting looking documentary showing at the Texas Theater:

http://thetexastheatre.com/movies-events/four-wall-killing-Oswald

Anyone know anything about this one?

Thanks for sharing the link, I hope it's as good as it looks. I certainly have a great deal of trust and respect for John Newman. Good move on their part with the release date and movie theater. This has gone straight to first spot on my must watch list.
Hopefully it will help with the bad taste left in my mouth from the disaster that was Parkland.
I don't know what Hanks was thinking with that one.
The assassination of president Kennedy and following days and even months were a brutal time in history, but it's a film makers dream. How on earth did he make it boring?
And why dispute facts that no-one disagrees with, like why didn't he put Zapruder's secretary up on the pedestal with him?
I feel kinda put out that it was so bad, after organising against it for so long.
Thanks again for the link. And a big fingers crossed from me!

Hi Frankie

It does look good. It's directed by Shane O'Sullivan who, you may remember, made the documentary about the Robert Kennedy assassination, RFK Must Die. As well as Newman it features interviews with Joan Mellen, David Kaiser, Antonio Veciana and Eugenio Martinez.

Website here: http://www.killingoswald.com/

Watched this last night. On the whole, it was OK. But it definitely has its problems.

I can't for the life of me figure out why O'Sullivan gave so much time to David Kaiser. His book, Road to Dallas, is a giant turd (as are all books that propose the Mafia did it, I suppose) and it's quite clear that he has an agenda to absolve the CIA of any guilt. Because Kaiser is pretty much the main talking head, we're told that Oswald's FPCC campaign was part of FBI's COINTELPRO program. What the viewer doesn't learn is that the CIA was running a program to discredit the FPCC and that David Phillips was in charge. O'Sullivan does present Antonio Veciana talking about seeing Philips with Oswald, but because he leaves out the CIA's anti-FPCC program the viewer doesn't get to join those dots.

The film also seems to uncritically present the idea that Oswald took a shot at Walker - which is absurd. There's no mention of the fact that Walker protested that the bullet was switched. Or that the whole story is completely reliant on Marina who also fabricated the tale of Oswald planning to shoot Nixon. How any discussion can leave these details out is beyond me.

Another thing I had problems with was the time wasted on telling the many tales of Richard Case Nagell. Frankly, I have issues with his credibility. And the fact of the matter is that, as far as I can see, nothing he said takes us anywhere. O'Sullivan would have been much better off exploring Oswald's contacts with Bannister, Shaw, and Ferrie in greater detail IMHO

Thanks for this, Martin.  I was debating whether to watch it or not, since I've been chewing on things Mexico City side, and O'Sullivan uses John Newman.  I was curious and troubled as to how he could put the likes of Newman together with Kaiser.

As for Nagell, my problems arise more from trying to separate out Nagell's story from the embroidery and interpretation Russell puts on it; I do think there is a core of truth to his tale, but I'm less sure of all the assertions made in The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Albert Rossi wrote:Thanks for this, Martin.  I was debating whether to watch it or not, since I've been chewing on things Mexico City side, and O'Sullivan uses John Newman.  I was curious and troubled as to how he could put the likes of Newman together with Kaiser.

As for Nagell, my problems arise more from trying to separate out Nagell's story from the embroidery and interpretation Russell puts on it; I do think there is a core of truth to his tale, but I'm less sure of all the assertions made in The Man Who Knew Too Much.

It's worth watching, Albert.

John Newman and, to a lesser extent, Joan Mellen provide some good info. And there's some good footage in the film of George De Mohrenschildt that I'd never seen before.

Despite its problems, it's infinitely better than anything that was on TV over the 50th.

It's definitely worth watching but the pace of the documentary drags at times.

There's some awesome rare footage of Oswald plus some pretty good dramatizations of his words and one dramatization of David Atlee Phillips.

I don't think the film takes sides or shows any bias towards any one researcher. Varying viewpoints are given a fairly equal amount of time.