Graham

I've just watched the programme and frankly I was *incredibly* disappointed with the standard of the journalism and presentation (I didn't check if it was actually a BBC production, but if it was, I could be reconsidering some of my comments in the "licence fee" discussion!)

Frankly it looked like the programme went in with the sole intent of "proving" there was no conspiracy. They presented only *one* "expert" who had modelled the event and gave his results maximum coverage and credence, despite the fact that other people have differing viewpoints.

They used language that supported their case whilst dismissing anything that didn't support it.

They missed out any reference to some very curious events (like why *did* some people run towards the grassy knoll?).

They dismissed the evidence of the recording from the policeman's microphone because he wasn't "in the right place", and didn't examine it further.

They didn't mention the "missing evidence" such as the chipped kerb stone that was "lost" or "thrown away".

And then, to add to this, they spent a huge chunk of the programme rubbishing Oliver Stone's *film* which is a work of *fiction*, not a historical document.

I don't know if there was a conspiracy or not. I don't know if there was a second gunman. I don't know if we'll ever find out. But we certainly won't find out through shoddy work like that programme.