Comment of the week

Steve Stirlen – February 29

John,

There is a HUGE problem for the LN side with Mr. Gunn and his comments about the WC failing to do its job and it is now TOO late to know the truth. Allow me to help.

1. He is not a “kook” or a “buff.” He says so in the first sentence. He does not have an opinion. Oops, have to throw away your “hatred” or “ad hominem” quotes.

2. He is highly educated. Therefore, he is not a “wacko” or a “crazed theorist” or whatever else you will try to throw at him. I don’t know for sure, but I believe he was educated at Notre Dame. I believe that is a quality institution of higher learning. Wouldn’t you agree, John?

3. He has sought NO publicity or not written a book. Shhhhhh, don’t tell Photon, because Photon believes that the CT side exists “only to sell books and make money off of JFK’s death.” Oops, this Gunn guy is a sticky wicket, isn’t he?

The problem with Gunn, as with most people on this site, is the fact that we can see both sides of the coin, we can ask questions that your beloved WC did not ask, and we can dig a little deeper than what we were told by the same government that eventually gave us the Vietnam War. Tom S. is a perfect example. He gives all of us MORE info than the WC ever thought to, simply because he does a little research. You have been quoting Shenon lately. Well, Shenon talked to Slawson, and Slawson now believes the WC was not told the full truth (read lying) and that LHO was not a “lone wolf.”

Oops.

91 comments

  1. DG Michael says:

    Can someone please post a link to Gunn’s writings or works?

  2. There is a HUGE problem for the LN side with Mr. Gunn and his comments about the WC failing to do its job and it is now TOO late to know the truth. Allow me to help.

    Gunn is not a witness. His opinion is just his opinion, and it’s not evidence.

    Why do conspiracists like to talk about people’s opinions, rather than evidence?

    You have been quoting Shenon lately. Well, Shenon talked to Slawson, and Slawson now believes the WC was not told the full truth (read lying) and that LHO was not a “lone wolf.”

    Don’t misrepresent what Slawson believes.

    Shenon appears to have convinced him that Oswald was at a party in Mexico City, and may have palled around with some folks that the WC did not know about.

    I’m quite skeptical of Shenon on this, but if it’s true, it’s far short of showing that a conspiracy killed Kennedy.

    And even if it did, it would be a conspiracy that included Oswald.

    As for the CIA withholding information: that’s not the same as lying, and it’s long been known that the CIA concealed the plots against Castro.

    If you believe that Castro had Kennedy killed, that’s of huge significance.

    • “Gunn is not a witness. His opinion is just his opinion, and it’s not evidence.
      Why do conspiracists like to talk about people’s opinions, rather than evidence?”~McAdams

      “The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel consisted of nine of the nation’s top forensic pathologists.
      You think it’s just my opinion that those guys were top forensic pathologists?
      You think you can just declare that their opinions don’t count?”
      ~McAdams

      Well we seem to have a discrepancy in whether McAdams thinks opinions count or not. It seems to be a matter of whether the opinions he cites are in favor of his thesis, or whether the opinions others cite counter his thesis.

      I have heard this type of argumentation called “hypocritical” and “disingenuous” … perhaps “dishonest”.

      What would YOU call it Mr McAdams?
      \\][//

      • Well we seem to have a discrepancy in whether McAdams thinks opinions count or not.

        I’ve explained this to you, and you ignore it.

        The opinions of technical experts are probative if the issue is a technical one.

        You ignore the people with real technical expertise (the Forensic Pathology Panel, the Photographic Evidence Panel) and tout the opinions of people who aren’t technical experts.

        If there is evidence that somebody “encouraged” Oswald, what is it?

        You can’t answer that, can you?

        • “If there is evidence that somebody “encouraged” Oswald, what is it?
          You can’t answer that, can you?”~McAdams

          No I can’t. Because Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy or anyone else, and you can’t prove that he did.
          \\][//

    • ed connor says:

      What about Ruby, the mobster with a heart of gold?
      He loved his strippers, he loved his dog and he loved Jackie.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Oh John,

      This was my reply on a different thread. You didn’t forget to post this as well, did you?

      Mr. McAdams,

      Your words:

      “Don’t misrepresent what Slawson believes.”

      My words:

      Let’s let Mr. Slawson speak for himself:

      “Today, however, Slawson’s silence has ended once and for all. Half a century after the commission issued an 888-page final report that was supposed to convince the American people that the investigation had uncovered the truth about the president’s murder, Slawson has come to believe that the full truth is still not known. Now 83, he says he has been shocked by the recent, belated discovery of how much evidence was withheld from the commission—from him, specifically—by the CIA and other government agencies, and how that rewrites the history of the Kennedy assassination.
      Slawson is now wrestling with questions he hoped he would never have to confront: Was the commission’s final report, in fundamental ways, wrong? And might the assassination threat have been thwarted? The commission, he believes, was the victim of a “massive cover-up” by government officials who wanted to hide the fact that, had they simply acted on the evidence in front of them in November 1963, the assassination might have been prevented. “It’s amazing—it’s terrible—to discover all of this 50 years late,” says Slawson, whose health is still good and whose memories of his work on the commission remain sharp.
      Slawson’s most startling conclusion: He now believes that other people probably knew about Oswald’s plans to kill the president and encouraged him, raising the possibility that there was a conspiracy in Kennedy’s death—at least according to the common legal definition of the word conspiracy, which requires simply that at least two people plot to do wrongdoing. “I now know that Oswald was almost certainly not a lone wolf,” Slawson says.”

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/warren-commission-jfk-investigators-114812#ixzz41gecXact

      What EXACTLY did I misrepresent, John? The truth as Mr. Slawson now sees it?

      • You are ignoring the fact that Slawson has been influenced by Shenon, who thinks that Oswald was paling around with folks in Mexico City that the Warren Commission didn’t know about.

        Did you even notice how vague the passage you quoted was?

        Nothing about the CIA killing Kennedy. Nothing about the Mafia, or anti-Castro Cubans.

        Just whom does he think “encouraged” Oswald?

        And did you notice that, as least as Slawson’s opinion is stated, Oswald is not a patsy, but a real assassin?

    • Bogman says:

      “As for the CIA withholding information: that’s not the same as lying…”

      Whew. Talk about disasssembling the truth.

      When Oswald “withheld” knowledge to DPD, Bugliosi claimed that was proof of his guilt.

      The CIA runs an OPERATION against the US Congress in the 70s to FOREVER hide the nature of its relationship with the DRE, and that’s not lying?

      You may be right. It’s much more than that. It’s treason.

      And the CIA’s treasonous cover-up continues to this day.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        But if you didn’t ask the question in the exactly right kind of way, I wasn’t lying. Or, you didn’t ask me that directly enough or specifically so, no. Nothing given Freely to the people who own the information.

        FREETHEFILES2017

    • DB says:

      What’s surprising to me is how LHO acted alone supporters seem to refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts their opinion . How can anyone discredit Gunn who arguably saw the most evidence of anyone investigating this murder and has simply amazing credentials ? That makes little sense to me, why backs yourself into a corner when they still cant say for sure what actually happened. He states LHO would not have been convicted because of the reasonable doubt threshold , why would anyone dismiss that immediately given his legal and investigation expertise ? Why not just discuss in depth

      I know there seems to be conspiracy supporters that show similiar behavior but I think most discredit a lot of theories and statements out there .

      At the end of the day with the CIA admitting a cover up . Once an investigatory body of a report admits to cover up valuable evidence and information in a report , by definition it is discredited . It’s odd if someone today accepts the conclusion of the WR with all these recent disclosures .

      Instead of argueing back and forth , both sides should try and agree upon a set of facts to continue to build upon, At the end of the day , we should all be seeking out the truth as the WC report was confirmed as corrupted and by a govt agency . A new report is needed and eventually there will be one when all the 1960 actors have passed away .

      At the end of the day with AI and amazing computer power upon us in the next 25-50 years , this case will be solved. The AARB was a landmark from the sheer amount of information released which AI technology will analyze and be able to provide a non biased conclusion and either confirm or not confirm a conspiracy and at least assign blame at the assassination executors level if a conspiracy is confirmed .

      • Tom S. says:

        How can anyone discredit Gunn who arguably saw the most evidence of anyone investigating this murder and has simply amazing credentials ?

        I read enough comments to be able to answer that question. There is nothing sinister, ‘cept in the minds of “you folks (buffs)”.

        http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/top-10-questions-still-secret-jfk-records/#comment-860013
        Because government is typically incompetent.
        Conspiracists view government as very competent, and very evil. This if something is “out of line,” it is assumed to have a sinister purpose.
        But government is both less evil and less competent than conspiracists typically think.

        https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=john+mcadams+death+penalty
        Pro-death penalty.com
        http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
        I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.” John McAdams – Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence …

        [PDF]Wisconsin Should Adopt the Death Penalty – Marquette Law …
        scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1544…
        by JC McAdams – ‎1996 – ‎Cited by 4 – ‎Related articles
        John C. McAdams, Wisconsin Should Adopt the Death Penalty,…

        http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/top-10-questions-still-secret-jfk-records/#comment-860911
        ……
        Only a leftist like you would consider my opinions “extremist.”

      • How can anyone discredit Gunn who arguably saw the most evidence of anyone investigating this murder and has simply amazing credentials?

        We can simply ask what evidence he has.

        I have done that. But I get silence.

        Why don’t you step up to the plate and tell us what Gunn has cited as evidence?

        • “Why don’t you step up to the plate and tell us what Gunn has cited as evidence?”~McAdams

          Here “professor”, spend some part of your evening reading this, it is Mr Gunn’s own interrogation of Dr Humes for ARRB:

          http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

          \\][//

          • What do you see there that you think is evidence of a conspiracy?

          • “What do you see there that you think is evidence of a conspiracy?”~McAdams

            Did you read the full interrogation by Mr Gunn of Dr Humes Mcadams?

            If you did, you would recognize that Dr Humes was entirely inept at performing a pathological autopsy. He didn’t even know standard procedures for performing an autopsy for a victim of gunshot wounds.

            He did not know that the standard procedure for a gunshot wound to the back that could not be probed, would be to dissect the wound and track the path of the bullet in that manner.

            It is critical in standard autopsy protocol to have the clothing the victim was wearing to compare the wounds in the body to the bullet holes in the clothing.

            It is critical to standard autopsy procedure to confer directly with the attending emergency room doctors who attended the victim before his death. The Parkland doctors should have been ordered in attendance to the autopsy for such conference.

            It is critical to standard autopsy procedure for the prosecutor of that autopsy to investigate the crime scene; the crime scene where this victim was shot was the Presidential Limousine. Why was this crime scene unavailable for the doctor performing the autopsy?

            I see not only the fact that the autopsy was performed by unqualified doctors as evidence of a conspiracy, but the fact that the limousine – a crime scene, was tampered with and unavailable to the autopsist.

            Protesting that the these critical procedures were not “practical” in the case of the President of the United States is utterly preposterous.

            The entire thing as it took place is evidence of a conspiracy to botch the autopsy of JFK.
            \\][//

          • Appendix B
            The Forensic Autopsy in Gunshot Wound Cases

            The forensic autopsy differs from the hospital autopsy in its objectives and relevance. In addition to determining the cause of death, the forensic pathologist must establish the manner of death (natural, accidental, suicidal, homicidal or undetermined), the identity of the deceased if unknown, and the time of death or injury. The forensic autopsy may involve collection of evidence from the body, which can be used to either incriminate or exonerate an individual charged with a crime; determine that a crime had or had not been committed and provide clues towards a subject if it has.
            Because of the possible medicolegal implications of forensic cases, not only do these determinations have to be made, but the findings or lack of findings must be documented. In many cases the cause and manner of death may be obvious. It is the documentation of the injuries or lack of them as well as the interpretation of how they occurred and the determination or exclusion of other contributory or causative factors that is important.
            The forensic autopsy involves not only the physical examination of the body on the autopsy table, but consideration of other aspects that the general pathologist does not consider as part of the autopsy—the scene, the nature of the weapon (if any), clothing, toxicology, and the results of laboratory tests on evidence. The forensic autopsy begins at the scene. The pathologist should not perform a forensic autopsy unless they know the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death. This is a very basic principle that is often violated.

            The scene should be documented with diagrams or photographs, preferably both. Individuals should be interviewed, and a written report given to the pathologist before the autopsy. At the scene, the body should be handled as little as possible. (pg. 396)

            Examination of the clothing is as much a part of the autopsy as examination of the wounds. The clothing must be examined for bloodstains and trace evidence as well as to determine whether the wounds in the body correlate with the defects in the clothing. (pg. 397)

            –Gunshot Wounds
            Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques -Second Edition
            by Vincent J. M. Di Maio, M.D.

            http://www.e-
            reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

            \\][//

      • Once an investigatory body of a report admits to cover up valuable evidence and information in a report , by definition it is discredited.

        What did the CIA “cover up” other than the plots against Castro?

  3. “There were many things that were disturbing,” Gunn said of the ARRB’s discoveries.

    One concerned Dr. James Humes, the Navy doctor who conducted JFK’s autopsy.

    “Dr. Humes admitted that the supposedly original handwritten version of the autopsy that is in the National Archives is in fact not the original version,” Gunn said.

    “Humes had never said that publicly before, even to the Warren Commission,” he observed.
    \\][//

    • “Dr. Humes admitted that the supposedly original handwritten version of the autopsy that is in the National Archives is in fact not the original version,” Gunn said.

      “Humes had never said that publicly before, even to the Warren Commission,” he observed.

      But that’s untrue. Humes early on admitted he burned his original notes, and recopied them. The recopied version is in evidence.

      • “But that’s untrue. Humes early on admitted he burned his original notes, and recopied them. The recopied version is in evidence.”~McAdams

        I am pretty sure that Gunn is talking about a third copy that is now on display, that Humes finally admitted to writing two substantially different reports and held one back, didn’t burn it like the “notes”, but a completely different “final report.”
        \\][//

        • Yes, Gunn was talking about the first autopsy report, not the “notes” – but Humes did burn the notes, and then burnt the first autopsy report as well. It is the second report – not his original that is on file in the archives.

          1. Notes taken at autopsy burnt because (excuse) blood was on them.

          2. First autopsy Report, written at home – no blood on this. Burnt in fireplace as well.

          3. Second autopsy Report, turned in as official report, now in National Archives.
          . . .

          Chalk it up to lack of experience because Humes was not a trained Forensic Pathologist? Or was he hiding something that was too plainly revealed in his first report?

          I spent a great deal of time in a few other threads showing what a proper post mortem procedure would be.
          The Bethesda Autopsy was simply a hack job by a couple of hack general pathologist who didn’t have the slightest idea of what they were doing.

          Finck was not officially one of the prosecutors of this autopsy, he was simply an observer.

          Why were these doodahs put in charge of the autopsy of the President of the United States?

          The answer is clear to me: So they could be made to do what the flag officers in the gallery demanded; botch the job, with plausible deniability because they weren’t qualified. This did not happen by accident.

          The main thing hidden was the track of the back wound to the throat. Because the throat wound was one of entry and the back wound at T-3 was one of entry. ie, a shooter from the front, and a shooter from the rear.
          This equals a conspiracy.
          \\][//

        • You are going to need to post a primary source on that.

          • Gunn: “Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?”

            Humes: “Well, no. I haven’t seen that in–what you say, standard…”
            . . .

            Do YOU know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck Dr McAdams?

            You certainly should by now as we have been over this territory on numerous occasions on this thread.
            \\][//

          • Do YOU know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck Dr McAdams?

            You certainly should by now as we have been over this territory on numerous occasions on this thread.

            What’s your point? That the autopsy doctors were not competent to do a forensic autopsy?

            You can see me saying that in the 2013 PBS NOVA documentary.

  4. Gunn’s boss, Judge Tunheim, has a different view:

    That being said, there’s no hard evidence for that at all; all we have is the murky lifestyle of a misfit who wanted the world to think he was an important person. And so, I think those connections lead people to think he must have had some kind of tie in with organized crime via Jack Ruby, or maybe there’s something to this Cuba connection, or maybe there’s a connection with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. So, there are a lot of these tentacles going out from Oswald, and his life that caused people to believe that he must have been involved in a conspiracy.

    I’ve said, you know, I’m a judge. I look at hard evidence. I look at what’s provable in court, and the only evidence that’s provable in court is that Oswald fired the rifle and killed him that day and that he had no involvement with anyone else That doesn’t mean it’s entirely true, but it does mean that is what is provable in court today, and that’s why I say that about the evidence … because there isn’t any direct evidence, at least that is admissible in a court of law, that would suggest any involvement with anybody else.

    This from Jacob Carter, Before History Dies.

    Of course, this is just Tunheim’s opinion.

    But Stirlen is just posting Gunn’s opinion.

    • ed connor says:

      I hope Judge Tunheim is not nominated to replace Justice Scalia.
      “The only evidence that’s provable in court is that Oswald fired the rifle…”
      There is NO evidence that LHO fired a rifle that day, and convincing evidence that he did not. His paraffin test was positive for firing a handgun but NOT for a long gun.
      This judge is an ass.

      • “His paraffin test was positive for firing a handgun but NOT for a long gun.”~Ed Connor

        And the paraffin test for his hands could have been a false positive because of the chemical makeup of the cardboard boxes that Oswald handled all day on his job. Also leaving his finger and palm prints on said boxes as well.
        \\][//

      • This judge is an ass.

        But Gunn’s opinion is gospel.

      • His paraffin test was positive for firing a handgun but NOT for a long gun.

        More buff forensics.

        You really need to look at what standard forensics texts say:

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

        • ed connor says:

          Professor, you really need to recall what the issue was: Judge Tunheim stated there was no evidence “provable in court” that LHO did not fire a rifle on 11/22.
          Paraffin testing WAS admissible in 1963 and, as your link demonstrates, it is still admissible.
          Is it dispositive? No. Can there be false negatives/ positives? Yes.
          The issue is ADMISSIBILITY (and probabtive value) of the test. Had LHO gone to trial in 1963/64, his defense counsel would most certainly have offered the paraffin test results into evidence, and the trial judge would most certainly have admitted them. Tunheim remains an ass.

          • Paraffin testing WAS admissible in 1963 and, as your link demonstrates, it is still admissible.

            Is it dispositive? No. Can there be false negatives/ positives? Yes.

            The issue is ADMISSIBILITY (and probabtive value) of the test.

            In the first place, you seem to be arguing that, even if the test is now known to prove nothing, if it was admissible in 1963, we should view it as exculpating Oswald.

            Sorry. We should judge evidence by the best science, not defective science.

            But it’s not clear it would have been admissible.

            http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1959/18638.html

            The best known and most frequently cited tests for physical evidence deemed admissible in the trial of a defendant are for intoxication through means of the breath, of samples of blood or urine; blood tests to determine identity; examinations for sanity; tests of fingernail scrapings taken from defendant, fingerprints, palmprints or footprints and photographs.

            Thus the one thing all of the tests have in common is that they have been proven irrefutably accurate. There is no room for doubt now that fingerprints, palmprints and footprints are positive means of identification. Chemical analysis of the blood or urine to determine the content of alcohol is deemed acceptably accurate.

            In contrast, the paraffin test as described by Lt. Moomaw enjoys no such reputation for accuracy. Nevertheless the court, upon the urging of counsel for the People, classified the paraffin test in the same category as the others. From this it is argued, and the trial court assumed, that if the results of the paraffin test be admissible, the refusal of the defendant to take the test was likewise admissible. This assumption on the part of the court was error.

            We hold, therefore, that the result of a paraffin test, rather than being placed in the category of the accepted tests has the same reputation for unreliability as the lie detector test.

          • ed connor says:

            Professor, you are obviously not a law professor. You have cited Brooke v. People, 339 P.2d 993, a 1959 Colorado case, for the proposition that a Texas court would not have admitted LHO’s paraffin test results in a 1964 trial. You have not cited a contemporary TEXAS opinion, because there is none. That is why the DPD performed the test: to use it in court against the defendant.
            Your own site, mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm, states
            “While the traditional paraffin test (as used on Oswald in 1963) was largely useless, more modern versions of the test are quite useful…”
            So you are, in essence, arguing that the 1963 test was inferior to the 2016 version.
            (1) That does not make it inadmissible in an unconsumated LHO trial, and (2)as a history professor (that is your field, correct?), you advocate the application of current standards to past controversies. By that standard, Washington, Jefferson, Madison and other founders should not be celebrated for bringing democracy to our shores, but condemned for participating in chattel slavery. Slavery is illegal today, but in the late 18th century it was an accepted economic model (See your comments on the 3/5 compromise elsewhere on this site.)
            LHO’s paraffin test was state of the art in 1963. We could dig him up (again), but I doubt the residue will test properly after 53 years. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, “you go to trial with the evidence you have, not the evidence you wish you had.” In a 1964 trial, the paraffin evidence would have been admitted, and would have been exculpatory.

          • You have not cited a contemporary TEXAS opinion, because there is none.

            You don’t know that, you are just making it up.

            You folks are not allowed to assert something, and have it assumed to be true until it can be disproven.

            That is why the DPD performed the test: to use it in court against the defendant.

            No. This from Warren Commission testimony:

            Mr. BELIN. Had you ever done a paraffin test on a face before?

            Mr. DAY. No; actually–had it not been for the particular type of case and this particular situation here we would not have at this time. It was just something that was done to actually keep from someone saying later on, “Why didn’t you do it?” Actually, in my experience there, shooting a rifle with a telescopic sight there would be no chance for nitrates to get way back or on the side of the face from a rifle.

            And of course, if Day had failed to do it, we would have dozens of conspiracy books today talking about how “suspicious” that was!

            But think for a minute how bizarre your argument is.

            You are saying that we, in 2016, should decide that Lee Oswald was innocent on the basis of a test we know was worthless?

            But that’s OK in your world, since you think they didn’t know that in 1963?

            Leaving aside the fact that they did know that in 1963.

          • ed connor says:

            No, Professor, I am not “making it up,” and I CAN “know that.”
            Every first year law student studies legal research. All courts of record report their opinions on the West system, where they receive key numbers for the subject matter decided. They are also placed in the Sheppards system, which lists every time an opinion is cited by another court, or in a law review article.
            Now both systems are contained in the Lexis-Nexus system.
            This is really elementary law school stuff. You can confirm it if you stroll down to the Marquette faculty lounge and talk to the law professors. While you are there, ask why they are charging $150 K for a degree from a law school ranked #105 by the U.S. News. If you don’t have a job waiting in daddy’s firm, you’re S.O.L. Maybe they can rename themselves “Trump Law School.”
            In any case, your cite, Brooke v. People, 339 P.2d 993 (CO. 1959), was not adopted in Texas. In 1963 the leading case on Paraffin testing was Henson v. State, 266 SW2d.864(TX. 1954), which allowed such tests in evidence.
            Your Colorado case was cited by a convicted murderer in Cordova v. State, 754 SW 2d.502 (TX. 1988), and was rejected. Only four states, the court noted, disallowed the test results as evidence.
            So, recall the original question of Judge Tunheim: was there evidence “provable in court (in 1964) that LHO did not fire a rifle on 11/22. There was such evidence; it was provable; and it was admissible in 1964.
            Your criticism of the state of the test in 2016 is immaterial to Judge Tunheim’s assertion, and raises an impossible standard: would the cars of 1963, with their leaded gas and lack of seat belts, be allowed today? No. So what?
            Finally, the testimony of Officer Day, that the test was just a ruse, is laughable.
            In trial, professor, each advocate claims the test favoring his side is unimpeachable, and the other attorney argues the flaws of the test (there are always flaws). If LHO had lived, and had he tested positive for residue on BOTH hand and cheek, do you really believe D.A. Wade would have refrained from introducing the paraffin test results at trial?

    • DonPablo says:

      The court also failed to prove OJ Simson guilty of murder, so I don’t find court findings to be an infallible representation of the truth.

      • “The court also failed to prove OJ Simson guilty of murder, so I don’t find court findings to be an infallible representation of the truth.”~DonPablo

        Was OJ Simpson actually guilty then?

        What about the lack of blood on the white carpeted stairs in the very first police photos taken of the crime scene. And the sudden appearance of blood stains on the same stairs after the racist cops showed up – cops who had access to OJ’s blood in the medical evidence lockers.

        Have you ever studied the case beyond mainstream media coverage?

        Did you know that Nicole Simpson, and Ronald Lyle Goldman, were running cocaine through Nicole’s laundry franchise, and they were millions of dollars in debt to the Japanese mafia in LA? Japanese mafia who are experts with razor sharp bladed katana. Experts at Ninja stealth killings…Hmmm?
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          Tom S , how can you possibly allow such unsubstantiated offal as Willy has posted above slandering two innocent murder victims with his twisted version of the truth?
          And yet you would not allow Dr. McAdams and Jean to post well-documented statements about JFK’s relationship to Mimi Alford-a relationship confirmed by the eminent historian Dallek.
          Shame.

          • Tom S. says:

            This thread is still young enough to attempt to keep on topic. Pablo, Willy, and Photon have all enjoyed submission of an (one) off topic comment. On topic comments are encouraged, especially comments including supporting links.

          • J.D. says:

            I find it amusing that Photon and John McAdams evidently think so highly of Robert Dallek. Dallek believes that JFK would never have escalated in Vietnam, that he was not aware of the plots against Castro’s life, and that he was basically at war with his own national-security establishment. Maybe certain readers missed that, and skipped right to “Alford, Mimi” and “Kennedy, affairs of” in the index.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            J.D.
            March 2, 2016 at 12:33 am

            I find it amusing that Photon and John McAdams evidently think so highly of Robert Dallek. Dallek believes that JFK would never have escalated in Vietnam, that he was not aware of the plots against Castro’s life, and that he was basically at war with his own national-security establishment. Maybe certain readers missed that, and skipped right to “Alford, Mimi” and “Kennedy, affairs of” in the index.

            But JFK did escalate in Vietnam. This isn’t my opinion but is supported by evidence. The number of American personnel in Vietnam increased from less that 1,000 to around 16,500 at the time of his death. There was a large increase in 1963. Is this the the actions of a man ready to withdraw from Vietnam? I don’t think so.

        • And check out who was carrying the mortgage on Rockingham.

          I’m cashing in one of my ‘off topic’ comments because the OJ Simpson trial has been introduced on this forum a number of times over the years apparently in some ludicrous attempt to compare Simpson and Oswald. The suggestion is an insult to any who are serious about the time they spend on this forum.

        • Paul May says:

          If you are suggesting that ninjas executed Brown and Goldman then JFKFacts has now deteriorated into the type of venue that most JFK researchers attempt to avoid. Laughable.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Oh John,

      Your words:

      “But Stirlen is just posting Gunn’s opinion.”

      My words:

      Mr. Gunn had FAR more interaction with the HSCA and the “evidence” that was collected or not collected by your beloved members of the FBI and the CIA and the DPD than you have. His “opinion” is different than yours and yet he looked at the SAME evidence—in much greater depth if truth be known—as you did. You believe the WC did a thorough job, Mr. Gunn does not. He said the WC failed and it is TOO late to know the real truth.

      Your opinion is different than Mr. Gunn’s. That makes him wrong how?

      • Your opinion is different than Mr. Gunn’s. That makes him wrong how?

        I have evidence to support my opinions, and I post it here.

        What is Gunn’s evidence?

        Lay it out!

        • “I have evidence to support my opinions, and I post it here.”~McAdams

          Some would say that you have spin on the evidence everybody has and you post that spin here.

          Hmmm…’some would say’ is vague isn’t it? Let me rephrase that:

          I would say that you have spin on the evidence everybody has, and that is what you post here. or more often post links to at your site.
          \\][//

    • Bogman says:

      When the suspect – US intel agencies – deliberately and illegally withhold evidence — from the mob partnership to kill Castro to stopping John Whitten’s investigation of JM/WAVE, you’re left with what they want you to see.

      Why do we have to fight for files? Why can’t the intel agency in a democratic society just answer our effing questions, eg.

      o Who decided to withhold information on the mob partnership to kill Castro
      o Why were the bullets from the Carcano from the same lot purchased by the CIA?
      o What was Joannides knowledge of Oswald?
      o Who decided to bring him out of retirement to block the HSCA?
      o Why did Joannides and the agency not tell the HSCA he had directed the DRE?
      o Why did Angleton and Helms stop the full investigation by Whitten?

      The list goes on and on.

      • Bogman says:

        I’ll add more….

        o Why did the CIA keep Bill Harvey after RFK wanted him fired and put him charge of the ZRIFLE executive action program?
        o Why were both Angleton and Harvey allowed to be so closely tied to the mob and keep their jobs?
        o Why didn’t Helms alert the security agencies of a Russian defector’s meeting with a Dept 13 KGB in MC until AFTER the assassination?
        o Why did CIA’s SIG officers lie to the MC station about Oswald’s recent activities in NO?
        o How could the CIA miss a PRESS RELEASE from their own Cuban student group calling for a Congressional investigation of Oswald THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ASSASSINATION?
        o Why did Phillips leave an HSCA hearing when confronted with evidence that the Oswald MC tapes did exist and showed an imposter?
        o Who in the CIA got Sprague canned and why?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Great questions Bogman. All should be answered.
          We can’t have the files because we live in not a Democracy or Republic but an Oligarchy.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Bogman
        March 1, 2016 at 11:02 pm

        When the suspect – US intel agencies – deliberately and illegally withhold evidence — from the mob partnership to kill Castro to stopping John Whitten’s investigation of JM/WAVE, you’re left with what they want you to see.

        Why do we have to fight for files? Why can’t the intel agency in a democratic society just answer our effing questions, eg.

        I agree.

        o Why were the bullets from the Carcano from the same lot purchased by the CIA?

        I’ll have to check on this but it is my understanding that the Western ammo company made a run of the Carcano rounds under contract with (oh no) the CIA. For efficient production it isn’t unreasonable to assume that this run was made all at the same time.

        If this is true all the rounds should have the same lot number. If you or Oswald bought a box of the Carcano ammo it follows that it would be from the same lot.

        Again, I need to check on this.

        • Tom S. says:

          Again, I need to check on this.

          https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57691&relPageId=118
          (Western Cartridge ammo used in assassination was part of a lot ordered by the USMC, probably as a cover for CIA)

          Background on reimportation of Western Cartridge ammo and distribution into U.S.:
          https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11462&search=million_and+western#relPageId=93
          and several pages forward….

          https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11462&relPageId=292
          (Comparable ammo available in Dallas)

          Bill, hopefully I’ve saved you some legwork related to checking the source and history of the
          Carcano ammo. Please do not use the time I have saved you (or any other opportunity) to post any further mention in this discussion thread, of Vietnam or of presidential ultimate responsibility for covert Ops of CIA or other U.S. gov. agencies.

          • From what I have read on the Mary Ferrell pages, it seems that the commercially available Carcano ammo in Dallas, was soft nosed hunting rounds, not the full metal jacket rounds alleged to have been fired by Oswald.

            One might infer from this that the Carcano ammo more likely originated with the “Marine/CIA” purchase. Not solid ‘proof’, but some indication of official entanglement with the assassination.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Willy, that is not the way this reads. Masen, the Dalls ammo merchant, sold homemade soft point reloads for hunting but another Dallas shop (John Brinegar of “The Gun Shop”) had available Western Cartridge factory loads of allegedly the same 4 million rounds production run ordered by the USMC before 1955 and exported.: see – https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11176&relPageId=4

            And from my reply to Bill:
            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11462&relPageId=292
            (Comparable ammo available in Dallas)

          • Tom, you misinterpreted my meaning. I said that it was most likely that the ammo in question was in fact from the Western Cartridge factory loads of allegedly the same 4 million rounds production run ordered by the USMC before 1955.

            Reread my original remarks:

            >’One might infer from this that the Carcano ammo more likely originated with the “Marine/CIA” purchase. Not solid ‘proof’, but some indication of official entanglement with the assassination.’

            If you are confused by my not mentioning the “private sale at the gun shop” _ I didn’t mean that the ammo came directly from the Marines, but that that is where it ORIGINATED from.
            \\][//

          • Nope…I get it. The Marine Carcano ammo was commercially available. Anybody could buy it in Dallas. Pushy guy that looks kinda like Oswald makes a scene while buy Carcano bullets, a couple notices this creep and just happens to remember what kind of shells he bought. Oh yea, oh yea…

            And the legend grows. Oh yea, oh yea.
            \\][//

          • In the 1970s, John Lattimer purchased FMJ Carcano rounds of the lots from which Oswald’s rounds came.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/ammo.gif

            So it makes no sense to claim that Oswald got his ammo from some spooky CIA source. It could be bought on the open market.

            Indeed, even of Oswald was a CIA spook, he probably would have been told to buy commercially available rounds.

          • Tom S. says:

            Dr. McAdams, you twist, invoking your “so it makes no sense,” in reaction to my describing
            what the FBI document stated, related to the buyer of record of 4 million Western Cartridge
            ammo rounds being USMC, which had no use for ammo of that caliber. The FBI reported that the
            4 million round order was exported and then reimported, 8 or 9 years later. IOW, you posture
            as if I was intimating that there was a sinister component to the linkage to the Western Cartridge sourced cartridges to the assassination, to create your own opportunity to declare, “nothing sinister in this, buff, stand down now, return to your couch and tee vee.”
            If the opportunity does not come close to warranting you attempting to make a comment of another seem foolish, you will attempt to manufacture a scenario in which to attempt it.

            I’ve just approved back to back comments by you and Jean presenting links to pages of your
            website. I try to link to primary sources when that is an option. I ask both of you to endeavor to include a link from a maryferrell.org archived document, for example, when the
            choice is a link from either there, or from http://*.mu.edu. Now we can make this comment, or a reply that this comment might prompt, next week’s “Comment of the week,” but I won’t let
            this thread be the place to discuss this further.
            My request for primary link sources when possible extends to any commenter who more or less has made it a habit to link to their own site or blog when a primary or closer to primary source alternative is available. I understand that there are instances when something unique a commenter has written or assembled a group of links related to is sourced from their own site or blog, but I don’t accept that it is reasonable to often include links but almost always from one, non-primary sourced site or blog that happens to be your own, or of a likeminded commenter here.

            If you are submitting comments regularly but consistently including no supporting links, expect to experience gaps in appearance of your comments on JFKfacts.org. Last week I pointed out that the comment submission rules clearly state-

            http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
            Comments must pertain to the subject of the original post…..
            ……
            Only comments that the moderators think will advance the conversation and enhance the reader experience will be approved.
            Consecutive comments from the same reader will not be posted
            ……
            Preference is given to comments that include links to, or citations of, …..

          • Jean Davison says:

            “I’ve just approved back to back comments by you and Jean presenting links to pages of your website. I try to link to primary sources when that is an option. I ask both of you to endeavor to include a link from a maryferrell.org archived document, for example, when the choice is a link from either there, or from http://*.mu.edu.”

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I have probably posted more links to the maryferrell site than anyone else here. So far as I recall the only material I’ve linked to on John McAdams’ site lately *are* primary sources, so I don’t understand your objection.

            I often use his collection of witness testimony because unlike maryferrell the entire text is searchable at once, and lengthy quotes appear on one page. It’s easy for me to find what I’m looking for and easy for viewers to see the full context:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

            Readability is also the reason I have linked to his transcripts of the DPD radio tapes. They also have audio excerpts (highlighted in color). Again, easier to read and search:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm

            Contrast that with the maryferrell page-by-page version:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139&search=dallas_police+radio#relPageId=866&tab=page

            I also recently posted John’s link to RFK’s oral history on Vietnam. Actually, I searched for a different link because I wanted to see more of the interview but couldn’t find one. The Kennedy Library link tells me the transcript isn’t available online there. If you can find this oral history somewhere else, good for you.

            I don’t see why you’d object to these very good primary source links.

          • Tom S. says:

            ……
            Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I have probably posted more links to the maryferrell site than anyone else here. So far as I recall the only material I’ve linked to on John McAdams’ site lately *are* primary sources, so I don’t understand your objection.

            I often use his collection of witness testimony because unlike maryferrell the entire text is searchable at once, and lengthy quotes appear on one page. It’s easy for me to find what I’m looking for and easy for viewers to see the full context:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

            Readability is also the reason I have linked to his transcripts of the DPD radio tapes. They also have audio excerpts (highlighted in color). Again, easier to read and search:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm

            Contrast that with the maryferrell page-by-page version:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139&search=dallas_police+radio#relPageId=866&tab=page

            I also recently posted John’s link to RFK’s oral history on Vietnam. Actually, I searched for a different link because I wanted to see more of the interview but couldn’t find one. The Kennedy Library link tells me the transcript isn’t available online there. If you can find this oral history somewhere else, good for you.

            I don’t see why you’d object to these very good primary source links.

            Jean, next Tuesday I will make “Comment of the week,” a discussion related to the dual deficiencies I perceive; absence of links or consistently narrowly sourced links in content of submitted comments.

            I understand and experienced the difficulty in finding the text online of the particular segment of RFK oral history you cited in your example. I did
            not regard the quotes from it by McAdams as a primary source and the other day, “teased” portions of the text of it from the actual reference source. (The “results” page includes a phrase search option):
            https://books.google.com/books?id=_WwOAQAAMAAJ&dq=robert+kennedy+%22in+his+own+words%22+march%2C+1964&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=going+well+buddhist

            Jean, I find it hard to believe you do not understand the crux of my objection. You know of my research of the Klein’s money order, and of Garrison, so I hope you accept that I trust no author or source, and the consequence is that I am very skeptical of any detail I have not traced back to and read the most reliable source of. My method does not make me popular, but criticism of those who are mistaken is to be expected.

            In the meantime, since I used your comment as one of two examples, I am replying to you here. I did not read the
            pages you included links to, and judging by what you’ve written in response to my comment, it does not
            seem our opinions are in conflict. It seems if I read the pages you linked to in the comment I included in
            my recent example, I would agree your purpose was along the lines of what I attempted to define as practical.:

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-18/#comment-860880
            ……
            I understand that there are instances when something unique a commenter has written or assembled a group of links related to is sourced from their own site or blog, but I don’t accept that it is reasonable to often include links but almost always from one, non-primary sourced site or blog that happens to be your own, or of a likeminded commenter here…

          • Jordan says:

            Tom, you’re getting into the gun running/political influence/drug equity realm of the machine.

            Century Arms was actually based in Montreal, and was known as Empire Wholesale at one time. It was also the source of the handgun Oswald allegedly killed Tippet with.

            It is believed that it was a CIA cover, as many of the weapons supplied to the Contras were from there and arrived in crates marked “CIA Montreal” which was to be read as Century International Arms.

            There are claims that a picture of such a shipment was shown in Soldier of Fortune magazine of that era.

            Montreal has served as both an arms-length location, as well as an easy to access revolving door international port-of-exit and entry for and in matters of U.S. Security and “other” activities.

            Somewhat relatedly, In the early 90’s I happened to bring someone to an appointment at a local Montreal hospital.

            From the instant the heavy, ancient doors closed behind us, I had an intense feeling of dread, and I could not wait to leave the building as I sensed an increasing presence of incredible turmoil that I simply could not explain and which was rather disconcerting.

            Driving back from my friends appointment, she told me that the hospital had recommended that she undergo “behaviour modification” therapy in order to resolve her issues.

            I found this to be rather disconcerting as well…!

            I’m not one to experience the paranormal lightly nor often, but I couldn’t deny that something extremely unusual had occurred.

            Almost 20 years later, during research into MKUltra I came across the name “Allan Memorial Institute” so I looked it up.

            The instant I saw a picture of the front of the building, I knew that that was where I had been, and for a few seconds, that dread came right back….Strange but true…

          • Tom S. says:

            Jordan,

            I find your observations mostly speculative and anecdotal, but I am replying, because when I pointed these
            facts out to an online friend, a Harvard degreed, U.S. ex-pat long a resident of and business operator in Montreal,
            he checked out the details and several days later shared that his frequent walks took him past the fire gutted mansion, but he had no idea of this background.:

            http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/ari-ben-menashe-arson-attack
            December 3, 2012
            In June 2010, Mr. Ben-Menashe negotiated an agreement with Arthur Porter, then director general of the McGill University Heath Centre, one of Canada’s largest health providers. A radiation oncologist by training, Dr. Porter was also chairman of Canada’s Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), which oversees CSIS, the national spy agency…..

            http://staugustine.com/stories/101604/wor_2646135.shtml#.Vtdxz_ihdPZ
            In surprise verdict, Zimbabwe opposition leader acquitted of one treason charge
            MICHAEL HARTNACK
            Associated Press Writer
            Published Saturday, October 16, 2004

            HARARE, Zimbabwe — Zimbabwe opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was acquitted on treason charges Friday, a surprise end to a yearlong trial that his party said was orchestrated by the government of President Robert Mugabe.

            THE VERDICT: A judge cleared opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai of treason charges rooted in an alleged plot to assassinate Zimbabwe’s longtime president, Robert Mugabe.

            THE SURPRISE: The ruling came despite opposition claims throughout the trial that Mugabe aimed to frame Tsvangirai and would manipulate the courts to win a guilty verdict. Tsvangirai was charged two weeks before he ran against Mugabe in March 2002 presidential polls that he narrowly lost.

            THE CASE: The judge said a videotape failed to show that Tsvangirai sought political consultant Ari Ben Menashe’s help in killing Mugabe, as the prosecution alleged. The judge said Ben Menashe appeared intent on entrapping the politician……

            http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/13/us/house-inquiry-finds-no-evidence-of-deal-on-hostages-in-1980.html
            House Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Deal On Hostages in 1980
            By NEIL A. LEWIS,
            Published: January 13, 1993
            ……
            The summary of the report harshly criticizes another principal source of many of the allegations, an Israeli named Ari Ben-Menashe. Mr. Ben-Menashe has told several reporters that he was present at a meeting in October 1980 in Paris between Iranian representatives and people from the Reagan campaign. Mr. Ben-Menashe has suggested at various times that George Bush, the Republican candidate for Vice President at the time, was at the Paris meeting. The panel said it had conclusive evidence that Mr. Ben-Mehashe was not in Paris then.

            http://fair.org/extra/october-reprisals/
            October Reprisals
            Investigators of alleged Iran deal face smears, legal threats
            By John Canham-Clyne November 1, 1993
            It’s true that Hashemi (the brother of Cyrus Hashemi) contradicted himself on several points in his Task Force deposition. It’s also true that people who are familiar with the fringe worlds of covert operations, even sources who have offered legitimate leads on subjects like Iran-contra and Iraqgate, are quite often notoriously unreliable–former Israeli intelligence officer and October Surprise source Ari Ben-Menashe being a prime example. Emerson maintains that catching such a source in a lie makes them permanently unusable; any journalist who follows up on the allegations of such a fabricator is either a liar or a dupe, and subject to ad hominem attack.

            But consider if Emerson applied the standards he uses for October Surprise sources to himself. What would he say about someone who proffered false information, threatened to sue someone who challenged that information, and when presented with incontrovertible proof, refused to apologize, instead resorting to further smears?….

            continued –

          • Tom S. says:

            Part II Montreal, Ben-Menashe

            http://fair.org/extra/steven-emersons-crusade/
            Steven Emerson’s Crusade
            Why is a journalist pushing questionable stories from behind the scenes?
            By John F. Sugg January 1, 1999
            …..Money trail

            ……
            The three “experts” spend a lot of time congratulating each other on their courage and expertise. Pomerantz, for example, has written that Emerson “is actually better informed in some areas than the responsible agencies of government.” (That came as news to Bob Blitzer, the FBI’s top counterterrorism official, who says Emerson “doesn’t have access to any high-level FBI intelligence.”)

            Revell’s credits include quashing an investigation of the Iran-Contra arms smuggling operation (Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control, p. 231). Revell also acknowledges another member of the fraternity is Yigal Carmon, a right-wing Israeli intelligence commander who endorsed the use of torture (Washington Post, 5/4/95), and who has stayed at Emerson’s Washington apartment on trips to lobby Congress against Middle East peace initiatives (The Nation, 5/15/95). An Associated Press reporter who has dealt with Emerson and Carmon says: “I have no doubt these guys are working together.”

            Says Vince Cannistraro, an ABC consultant and a retired CIA counterterrorism official, of Emerson’s allies, Pomerantz, Revell and Carmon: “They’re Israeli-funded. How do I know that? Because they tried to recruit me.” Revell denies Cannistraro’s assertion, but refuses to discuss his group’s finances.

            Emerson’s own financing is hazy. He has received funding from Scaife. Some Emerson critics suspect Israeli backing. The Jerusalem Post (9/17/94) has noted that Emerson has “close ties to Israeli intelligence.”

            “He’s carrying the ball for Likud,” says investigative journalist Robert Parry, referring to Israel’s right-wing ruling party. Victor Ostrovsky, who defected from Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency and has written books disclosing its secrets, calls Emerson “the horn”–because he trumpets Mossad claims.

            Presumed credible

            Emerson is aided by those who appear to be ignorant of his record, or who fear reprisal from his backers. He testified in February before a Senate subcommittee chaired by Sen. Kyl. The testimony accused most major American Muslim organization of terrorist connections. “We presumed him to be credible [because] he is known to have contact with street agents,” said Jim Savage, at the time a Kyl staffer. “He represented his findings as authentic. We haven’t verified them.”…

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/british-pm-david-cameron-calls-fox-news-guest-steven-emerson-a-complete-idiot/
            AP – January 12, 2015, 4:06 PM
            British PM calls Fox News guest “a complete idiot”
            ….Emerson, who was discussing the recent terror attacks in Paris with host Jeanine Pirro, also claimed that in parts of London, “Muslim religious police” beat and injure “anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim religious attire.”

            Official figures show that the number of Muslims in Birmingham, Britain’s second-largest city, numbered at 234,411, or 22 percent of the city’s population. That compares to 494,358 who described themselves as Christian.

            Emerson quickly tweeted an apology saying his comments were “totally inaccurate.” But his comments continued to draw derision online, spawning dozens of humorous reactions on social media.

            British Prime Minister David Cameron told ITV News he “choked on his porridge” when he heard about the claims. “This guy is clearly a complete idiot,” he said….

  5. Dr. T. Jeremy Gunn
    EDUCATION:

    Ph.D. Harvard University, Committee on the Study of Religion (Religion and Society), 1991

    Affiliation: Graduate Associate, Center for European Studies
    Awards: French Government Grant; Krupp Foundation Fellow; Gilbert Chinard Award, Institut Français de Washington; Center for European Studies Grant
    J.D. Boston University School of Law, 1987, Magna cum laude
    Awards: Hennessey and Liacos Distinguished Scholar
    A.M. University of Chicago, General Studies in Humanities, 1978
    Award: University Fellowship
    B.A. Brigham Young University, International Relations and Humanities, 1974, High Honors
    with Distinction (highest 1%)

    PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS

    Director, Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, D.C., 2005-present

    Senior Fellow for Religion and Human Rights, Emory University Law School, Atlanta, Georgia, 2000-present

    Director of Research and Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Washington, DC, 1999-2000

    Senior Fellow, United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC, 1998-99
    Seconded to the Office of International Religious Freedom at the U.S. Department of State (Top Secret clearance)

    Executive Director and General Counsel, JFK Assassination Records Review Board, Washington, DC (Executive Level V) (Top Secret/SCI clearances)
    (Associate Director, 1994-97; General Counsel, 1995-98; Executive Director, 1997-98)

    Attorney, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, 1988-94

    Law Clerk, Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, United States District Court, Boston, MA, 1987-88
    . . .
    According to McAdams stated criteria for “professional opinions” to be held in regard, this CV should be sufficient; Aye McAdams?
    \\][//

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      I believe that Mr. Gunn destroys everything I have ever heard from the LN side about the “cashing in” on JFK’s death. As I have stated on SEVERAL occasions on this site, I don’t really care who killed Kennedy. It matters to me not one whit. Was it LHO? I don’t know and/or yes it was. Who cares?

      What I DO care about is the notion that the government at the time did its level best to find the truth about the murder. IT DID NOT. As Tom S. said on a different thread, the commission was “thrown together” for political reasons by the biggest crook outside of Richard Nixon to occupy the White House. And, true to his nature, Johnson picked a man to head the commission that was pliable and easily molded to the will of others. Please see McKnight’s Breach of Trust to see how Rankin was chosen over Olney as chief counsel.

      I also care very deeply that Allen Dulles and his cronies were allowed to overthrow governments—yes, Mr. Clarke, with the knowledge of the president(s)—murder millions of innocent men, women and children, and then sit on the very committee to decide the murder of a president. Since when did inmates run asylums? Oh yeah, in Washington D.C. regularly. It is inconceivable to me how that man escaped jail time, let alone be allowed to funnel sensitive info to the CIA and control the “flow” of information the CIA was going to give to the WC, Or as Tom S. has said, is it really outside the realm of thinking to believe that Dulles was there for purely honorable reasons.

      So, in my mind, Gunn and his impeccable credentials—yes, John, the CT side has its “experts” too—allows me to hope that one day the FULL truth may one day come forth. (Thanks also to Jefferson Morley, for having the balls to sue the CIA.)

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Steve Stirlen
        March 1, 2016 at 8:57 pm

        “I also care very deeply that Allen Dulles and his cronies were allowed to overthrow governments—yes, Mr. Clarke, with the knowledge of the president(s)—murder millions of innocent men, women and children,”

        Thank you Steve. Thank you very much. I appreciate the acknowledgment that these things went all the way to the top.

  6. George Simmons says:

    I believe the opinion of Mr Gunn should be taken seriously because, as General Counsel to the ARRB, he had unparalleled access to the Government records on the JFK assassination.

    I watched a video which was posted on this site in Nov 2014, in which Mr Gunn gave a speech and I wrote down some of his remarks which I found interesting :

    “They (the WC) did not conduct a serious, comprehensive, conscientious investigation of the assassination”
    “Any evidence they (the WC) could find which was incriminatory against Oswald they would include, things that were exculpatory they left out of the report”
    “The autopsy that was performed in Bethesda Naval hospital was a disgrace”
    “I am convinced that Oswald would have been found not guilty , beyond a reasonable doubt”

    I would like to make one other point. In my opinion, the CIA has not simply withheld information about the JFK assassination to investigations. It has lied. One example would be this quote from Mr Blakey, talking about George Joannides :
    “He, the (DRE) case agent, denied that there was a case agent and that he could not find the DRE file”
    Considering that Joannides was the case agent, this is a lie.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      George,

      You are spot-on correct about the CIA and its LYING. Don’t tell John McAdams because he believes that the CIA was above reproach in its handling of its part of the “investigation.”

      Well said.

    • I believe the opinion of Mr Gunn should be taken seriously because, as General Counsel to the ARRB, he had unparalleled access to the Government records on the JFK assassination.

      And he was in charge of the release of the overwhelming majority of them.

      So where in the records he released is the evidence of conspiracy?

      • McAdams,

        Watch the video of Gunn speaking the link is on this page.
        \\][//

        • If he actually had any evidence, you could explain what it was.

          Since you don’t, we have to assume that it would not sound very impressive.

          • “Since you don’t, we have to assume that it would not sound very impressive.”~McAdams

            You say “we have to assume” – who is “we” and why would they assume such?

            I merely advised you watch the Gunn video presentation. His commentary explains his analysis of the evidence he discovered very well.

            So what’s your problem McAdams? Are you afraid you might hear an argument from Gunn that you can’t spin out of shape?
            \\][//

          • So what’s your problem McAdams? Are you afraid you might hear an argument from Gunn that you can’t spin out of shape?

            I’ll be happy to hear it if you will post it.

            But you refuse to.

  7. Paulf says:

    The whole opinion war is another bit of misdirection. Everything has an element of opinion to it.

    Videotape of Oswald at the time of the shooting doesn’t exist. The evidence against him is circumstantial, which involves interpretation. Evidence for conspiracies is based at least in part by educated inferences.

    Suppositions about the motives of Oswald are opinion, silly ones at that.

    It’s just another way the LN crowd tries to get people riled and take their eyes off the ball, don’t fall for it.

  8. “As general counsel for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the mid-1990s, Jeremy Gunn had unparalleled access to the government’s records on the JFK assassination. Last year he gave an interesting talk about “Seeking the Truth in the Kennedy Assassination” at the Center for Global Humanities at the University of New England in Portland, Maine.”

    This is a link to that video on YouTube:

    https://youtu.be/L6zYC6gFCdw

    \\][//

  9. DB says:

    “I am convinced that Oswald would have been found not guilty , beyond a reasonable doubt”

    This is a both a fascinating and troubling statement at the same time.

    IMO the same can be said regarding the CIA cover up report except it is more tragic considering our strong beliefs in a democratic society. The release of that report was a tragic day for our country IMO. That can never happen again on such an important matter.

  10. Jordan says:

    Tom,

    It’s pretty early in the morning here, and that may be why I don’t seem to catch the hook between the Allan Memorial Institute and a Montreal “fire bombing”…

    Please see the following:

    http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130207/BUSINESS03/702079929

    • Tom S. says:

      Jordan, thanks, I saw the article you linked to shortly after it appeared in 2013 and seeing it again
      now jogged my memory. I was reminded that I looked to see what ever happened to those named in the FBI
      reports in ’63-’64, related to the alleged rifle’s origin.

      I was replying earlier to what I thought was your appraisal of Montreal as a center of covert intrigue.
      My reaction was to share that the Canadian PM appointed and promoted a man not even subjected to a routine
      background check involving a rather recent employer, to chief of national intelligence agency oversight, and that chief was also doing business with the complex and controversial Ben-Menashe. I think Ben-Menashe over thirty years, infiltrated at a high level, intelligence agencies of Israel, the U.S. and Canada, but still managed to live in luxury in Montreal until the 2012 firebombing, despite being the primary trigger for the resignation of Arthur Porter, and having a background that should have disqualified him from entering Canada.

      I was once detained for three hours attempting to enter Canada, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_Line%E2%80%93Rock_Island_Border_Crossing – and asked at least twenty times if I had ever
      appeared in a court before a judge for any reason. I kept answering, “no,” and the customs officer and
      his supervisor just kept repeating the question.

      http://vigile.quebec/Warning-letter-on-appointing
      Warning letter on appointing Arthur Porter to oversee spy agency raised no red flags
      Stephen Maher
      The Gazette – vendredi 4 octobre 2013
      …..
      Yet emails obtained under access-to-information laws suggest the Bloc’s concerns about Porter’s background in Detroit may not have been passed on to security officials — or were discounted.

      On Nov. 7, 2011, National Post reporter Brian Hutchinson emailed the Privy Council Office to ask about Porter’s appointment. Hutchinson had discovered that Porter was involved in an infrastructure deal with the governments of Sierra Leone, Russia and controversial Montrealer Ari Ben-Menashe, an international lobbyist.

      The news that Ben-Menashe and Porter were seeking a $200 million infrastructure deal with the Russians led to Porter’s resignation from SIRC within days.

      On Nov. 7, after Hutchinson emailed with his question, Joyce Henry, then the director of appointments at PCO, asked an adviser, Tamara Ford, to check the file on his appointment .

      “There were no appointment-process related red flags raised,” Ford wrote back to Henry.

      Yet the letter from Duceppe would certainly have raised red flags if it had been passed along, says Penny Collenette, who was director of appointments in Liberal Jean Chretien’s PMO and is now a law professor at the University of Ottawa….

      see- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Porter_%28physician%29

  11. Jordan says:

    Tom,

    Our then Prime Minister Harper came from the BigOil sector, and was clearly acting at the behest of others.

    The Porter-McGill-SNC-Lavalin-CANDU-Ghaddafi family link is simply to obvious to ignore…

  12. Paul May says:

    Jeremy Gunn during his ARRB discussion at Stanford U. addressing witness testimony:

    “The one thing worse than witness testimony is 30 year old witness testimony”.

    • Mr May,

      Gunn is also of the opinion that there was a conspiracy behind the death of JFK. It seems you are cherry picking what you want to hear in his opinions and dismissing what you don’t want to hear.
      \\][//

      • Paul May says:

        On the contrary. Please post the evidence of conspiracy endorsed by Mr. Gunn.

        • “I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t have a theory about what happened.”~Jeremy Gunn

          So Mr May is correct, in that although provides much evidence of a conspiracy, Gunn himself will not posit a theory one way or another.

          As far as providing Mr May with such evidence, there is too much evidence to chose from to list here. However the botched autopsy is perhaps the most critical of the issues Mr Gunn brings to our attention. The fact that two general pathologists were chosen to prosecute the post mortem on the President of the United States is beyond merely suspicious.

          I presume Mr May has reviewed much of what has been presented here before and shall not relitigate any of the specifics here, for they are legion.
          \\][//

        • Buy the way Mr May, I am not a conspiracy theorist either, I am a conspiracy analyst.

          After 40 plus years of studying this issue I have determined that there indeed was a conspiracy to kill JFK, that the authors of that conspiracy were the top tier of the Military Industrial Complex; thus the assassination was in fact a military coup d’etat.
          \\][//

          • Paul May says:

            Mr. Written are you aware that Dr. Earl Rose, the Dallas ME endorses the conclusions of the official autopsy? Interesting in that Dr. Rose would have performed the autopsy had it been done in Dallas.

          • “Mr. Written are you aware that Dr. Earl Rose, the Dallas ME endorses the conclusions of the official autopsy?”~Paul May

            Yes I am aware of that. As a matter of fact Photon and I discussed Dr Rose at length a bit of a while ago.
            \\][//

          • “Contemporary academic histories, with perhaps the sole exception of Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy And Hope, ignore this evidence. On the other hand, it is understandable that universities and research organizations, dependent on financial aid from foundations that are controlled by this same New York financial elite, would hardly want to support and to publish research on these aspects of international politics. The bravest of trustees is unlikely to bite the hand that feeds his organization.”~Antony Sutton

            PREFACE to, WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER

            Sutton was referring to the information in his book – but I think these points he made are well taken on the many topics discussed here;
            Going along to get along – not daring to “rock the boat” unwilling to stand out from the crowd of conformity.
            More than ‘conspiracy’ these are the reasons for silence in the face of the pathological system; Moral Cowardice. Fear of disenfranchisement, loss of status and livelihood.
            \\][//

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more