I find the quality of theBBC’s documetaries genrally exceptional. However Kennedy 40; The Kennedy Assassination on BBC 2 on 23 November 2003 was one of the most irresponsible, incomplete and erroneous documentaries I have seen broadcast..

The programme was full of unsubstantiated allegation portrayed as fact, selective opinion presented as fact, and statements which are demonstrably untrue.

This was the case for the prosecution against a man who was murdered without being able to defend himself.

No case for the defence was allowed. That in itself is outrageous.

Also disturbing was the programmes attempt to denigrate people who believed anything about the assassination other than what the programme wanted us to believe. We are told why we want to believe, why we believe it - we re conspiracy theorists, and therefore to be grouped with people who think they have been abducted by aliens.

What patronising tosh.

Oswald didn't do it. 'Fact' after' fact ‘presented has been disproved. Oswald wasn’t at the Cuban embassy in Mexico, as photographs and testimony of embassy staff shows. Why was someone there claiming to be Oswald? It happens over and over again in the weeks leading up to the assassination He wasn’t at the sixth floor of the school book depository at the time of the shooting, but drinking a coke in a canteen on a lower floor as witnesses have declared. Why did he run away form the building? - because he realised he had been set up ‘ I am a patsy' he said, not the kind of cry you would expect form a man whom the programme portrays as ‘ proud ‘ of his assassination of the president. So proud he also said’ I didn’t kill anybody, no sir.

The attempt to portray Oswald as an assassin and claim Ruby was not a hitman was risible.

Oswald was a loser - one with a great shot mind you. A loser who died aged 24 having done more in his short life than most of us will do in thriice that time. The programme’s portayal of Oswald was completely one sided and in my view false.

The programme's central claim is open to scientific debate and no attempt to debate it was made. If the science proves the in my mind ludicrous magic bullet theory, and even if it were to prove that only three shots were fired, that does not prove that Oswald was the assassin. And as the man was murdered before he was able to defend himself such a claim - made in grand terns by the programme - is irresponsible.

No mention is made of the many witnesses who heard a shot from behind the grassy knoll, of the evidence of other shots fired.

What disturbs me most is the reviews that this programme has had in the national newspapers, and the comments form your contributors yesterday - none of whom demonstrated any significant knowledge of what happened ton 22 November but seem to swallow the programmes claims. Scratch below the surface of those claims and it is clear that Oswald was set up. The programme attacks a film, rather than engages with someone who can answer back - that in it self is rather sad. Why did the programme not present views such as those expressed in this email? Why did Mayo not speak to commentators such as Anthony Summers, Jim Marrs, Robert Grodin, Davis E Schiem, or Mathew Smith, whose significant research has shown so much of the BBC programmes claims to be hokum. Or even the quiet, respected lawyer Mark Lane, whose 'Rush to Judgement' as early as 1966 did the same.

Commentators in our major newspapers and radio programmes seem so scared of being labelled a’ conspiracy theorist' that they accept what is placed before them at face value, ignoring the disturbing story underneath.

We need a forum to counter the risible claims in this documentary