This is a TV grade documentary that sensationalises an old theory which had been forgotten about, and probably for good reason.
Problems with this theory:
1. Warren Report
The theory relies on the autopsy as hard evidence for entry wounds and trajectory. The film basically confirms the highly contentious 'single bullet' theory and also that a lone shooter made the first two shots (not to mention it just seems to be assumed that Lee Harvey Oswald had to have done it) based on this evidence. However, it is well known (and even mentioned in the film) that the Warren Report and autopsy are both unreliable and were both compromised.
2. JFK (film)
There is only one mention of the film JFK and absolutely no mention of the work of Jim Garrison (on which the film JFK is focused). The work of Jim Garrison is much more thorough and answers a lot more questions than this theory.
3. The grassy knoll
The film conveniently does not mention that MANY people heard shots and saw smoke from the grassy knoll. This theory dismisses the grassy knoll because there is not entry wound from that direction. But the theory relies on the botched autopsy. The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK move back and to the left from impact (as pointed out in the film JFK) locating the shooter at the grassy knoll (where the best shot is). Something this film does bring to light that Oliver Stone's JFK does not is that people smelt gunpowder on the street. But if you consider the wind blowing back towards the book depository (which is mentioned in this film), then the grassy knoll becomes the prime location for the smell to be coming from.
4. Colin McClaren (useless Australian detective)
Colin McClaren is nothing more than a film making device to try and reinforce the theory and make it more believable. Basically a case of: insert expert who agrees with everything we want to say. He may have read many documents about the case, but they would not be any documents that you or I couldn't get a hold of, definitely not the calibre of the evidence that Jim Garrison was working with (same applies to Donahue). He didn't meet any of the suspects or associates involved, didn't conduct interviews or have the kind of authority you need to investigate this properly. The film even shows this guy visiting tourist attractions about the assassination. The only 'new' evidence he presents is information that the film hadn't presented to us yet. Most importantly, for a detective, he doesn't ask why! He never discusses motive or what people could be involved, he just simply mirrors what Donahue has already said.
5. Accidental shooter
Just when the film gets to its most believable stage and suggests that the secret serviceman Hickey in the car behind may have fired the last shot (which is not all that believable) it makes the bizarre conclusion that Hickey most likely accidentally fired. It is particularly frustrating for someone like myself (I am from Australia) to see many Americans not look at the shooting with a free thinking mind, almost as if it is totally impossible for a US agency to take out its own president, even though it is one of the most logical explanations.
... On a side note, this film talks about how the secret service were out late the night before and attributes this as to why Hickey was able to get the shot off. But doesn't it make more sense that they had been enticed to go out in order to lower the guard for the next day?
Ultimately this film not only makes a mess of its argument but also fails to explain the important side of the JFK assassination, which is WHY it happened. Look at what was happening at the time, JFK's relationships with government bodies and other groups in the American public, the explanation requires much more than a ballistics analysis. Oliver Stone's JFK gives the best picture so far, watch that instead of this.
Problems with this theory:
1. Warren Report
The theory relies on the autopsy as hard evidence for entry wounds and trajectory. The film basically confirms the highly contentious 'single bullet' theory and also that a lone shooter made the first two shots (not to mention it just seems to be assumed that Lee Harvey Oswald had to have done it) based on this evidence. However, it is well known (and even mentioned in the film) that the Warren Report and autopsy are both unreliable and were both compromised.
2. JFK (film)
There is only one mention of the film JFK and absolutely no mention of the work of Jim Garrison (on which the film JFK is focused). The work of Jim Garrison is much more thorough and answers a lot more questions than this theory.
3. The grassy knoll
The film conveniently does not mention that MANY people heard shots and saw smoke from the grassy knoll. This theory dismisses the grassy knoll because there is not entry wound from that direction. But the theory relies on the botched autopsy. The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK move back and to the left from impact (as pointed out in the film JFK) locating the shooter at the grassy knoll (where the best shot is). Something this film does bring to light that Oliver Stone's JFK does not is that people smelt gunpowder on the street. But if you consider the wind blowing back towards the book depository (which is mentioned in this film), then the grassy knoll becomes the prime location for the smell to be coming from.
4. Colin McClaren (useless Australian detective)
Colin McClaren is nothing more than a film making device to try and reinforce the theory and make it more believable. Basically a case of: insert expert who agrees with everything we want to say. He may have read many documents about the case, but they would not be any documents that you or I couldn't get a hold of, definitely not the calibre of the evidence that Jim Garrison was working with (same applies to Donahue). He didn't meet any of the suspects or associates involved, didn't conduct interviews or have the kind of authority you need to investigate this properly. The film even shows this guy visiting tourist attractions about the assassination. The only 'new' evidence he presents is information that the film hadn't presented to us yet. Most importantly, for a detective, he doesn't ask why! He never discusses motive or what people could be involved, he just simply mirrors what Donahue has already said.
5. Accidental shooter
Just when the film gets to its most believable stage and suggests that the secret serviceman Hickey in the car behind may have fired the last shot (which is not all that believable) it makes the bizarre conclusion that Hickey most likely accidentally fired. It is particularly frustrating for someone like myself (I am from Australia) to see many Americans not look at the shooting with a free thinking mind, almost as if it is totally impossible for a US agency to take out its own president, even though it is one of the most logical explanations.
... On a side note, this film talks about how the secret service were out late the night before and attributes this as to why Hickey was able to get the shot off. But doesn't it make more sense that they had been enticed to go out in order to lower the guard for the next day?
Ultimately this film not only makes a mess of its argument but also fails to explain the important side of the JFK assassination, which is WHY it happened. Look at what was happening at the time, JFK's relationships with government bodies and other groups in the American public, the explanation requires much more than a ballistics analysis. Oliver Stone's JFK gives the best picture so far, watch that instead of this.