Jeremy Gunn on seeking the truth in the JFK story

in the 1990s, Jeremy Gunn served as counsel and executive director of the Assassination Records Review Board  He know the material released (or postponed) under the JFK Records Act better than almost anyone. In this 2013 talk, he assessed the evidence.

11 comments

  1. Dan clark says:

    THe he problem with Jeremy Gunn essentially saying there’s no big reveal in the documents we haven’t seen is he doesn’t/didn’t know what he was looking at. Yes, there won’t be a coffee stained note from Allen Dulles detailing the plot he initiated, that would be ludicrous. But Gunn didn’t know or realize the value in Joannides’ files and if something that big can be deemed nbr or otherwise overlooked how can we trust Gunn’s opinions on the remaining redacted documents?

  2. Fergal ÓhÉarga says:

    Typical, tawdry, shyster conspiracy theorist … this man should be ashamed of himself. Per the standard formula, present speculation as fact and leave it hanging in the air with conjectural innuendo, while at the same time absolutely ignoring all of the undeniable facts. Just a few examples … he said the three physicians who performed the autopsy did a ‘profound disservice’ to the American people … but did he ever say how? Did he ever mention that the treating physicians in Dallas never turned JFK over, but in the autopsy there were two very clear entrance wounds, one in the upper back area (note that your neck is longer in the front than it is in the back) and one in the back upper middle of the skull? Nope, he sure didn’t! Did he mention that the vast majority of the people on the day instantly looked up to the School Book Depository, and the police immediately ran in that direction? Did he mention that in frame 314 of the Zapruder film, right after the head shot, JFKs head moves forward almost 2.5 inches? And that the resultant 8+ inch snap to the rear is easily explained as a neurological reflex? I could literally write a book debunking all of the nonsense this eejit said … oh wait! Vincent Bugliosi has already done it! Perhaps Mr Gunn should read a copy!! What a fraud … I’m angry at him for wasting an hour and a half of my time.

    • Dan clark says:

      Uhm, no. When asked where the shots originated 32 people said tsbd, 38 did not know and 51 said behind the fence or by the overpass. It’s right in your sacred Dulles commission.

      Second, the films show the majority of people who ran towards shots ran toward the fence by the rail yards.

      Third, police chief Jesse Curry’s first call to dispatch requested sending all available officers go to the fence and rail yards to see what happened up there.

      Fourth, regarding ballistic evidence and autopsy notes etc., you clearly haven’t read much less seen with your own eyes the differences between what’s in Nara and what the Dulles commission concluded.

      Might I direct you to the truth?
      JFK and The Unspeakable, James Douglass
      The Devil’s Chessboard, David Talbot
      Brothers, David Talbot
      All of John Newman’s books on the subject
      All of James DiEugenio’s books on the subject
      Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez https://youtu.be/OmRhdOvzyQQ

      Also how about Bob Blakey’s intro there? Is he a kook now?

      If you want to live in a bubble that’s fine but make no mistake Allen Dulles sold out our country and committed treason twice. Having millions sent to the Nazis we were fighting and having his assets kill JFK and possibly TFK as well.

      • Dan clark says:

        I meant RFK not TFK above…

        • Fergal ÓhÉarga says:

          I’ve read pretty much everything, although a few years ago I did give up as it was just continual, unrelenting speculation with no facts whatsoever. Look at the Algens photo … where are the Secret Service agents looking? Look at Connolly … where did he start looking? Hmm, at the TSBD where, amazingly, a rifle was found that was conclusively presumed to have fired the shots was found! You can claim BS speculation about substitution of rifles, mysterious pseudo figures in the leaves of the ‘grassy knoll’ (ffs–have you been there?? How in the world would a gunman have remained unseen??), intricate conspiracies to switch brains and photographs, but Jesus, after 50 years with absolutely NO hard facts, no co-conspirators with irrefutable evidence … isn’t it time to just admit what the actual, hard facts prove? Give me one solid fact, an actual fact, that it wasn’t Oswald who fired the shots (the marksman actually missed two out of three shots from super close range). Regarding the autopsy, the three physicians were unanimous about the entry wounds … the ACTUAL photos matched the x-rays and the reports … I mean, you can speculate forever but when will people realise that speculation without fact is absolutely nothing. Do you realise that the actual location of the autopsy was decided at the last minute? So how and when did this deep conspiracy marshal their forces to switch photos, brains, blah blah blah. You people, get real jobs and lives. The facts are clear and your nonsense is just that.

          • Bogman says:

            There’s good logic and evidence to your argument, Fergal. I once wavered between conspiracy and lone nut for many years.

            My problem is two-fold:

            1) So often in this case, when a govt agency isn’t in charge of the evidence or testimony, the facts point toward another shooter. The observations of the Parkland doctors, JFK’s own doctor, the mortician, the Harper fragment, the autopsy photographer, and on and on.

            2) More than any other agency, the CIA has demonstrably, repeatedly and illegally LIED TO and WITHHELD MATERIAL EVIDENCE FROM federal investigators and records boards for DECADES, and continues to do so. That means that the conclusions of those investigations cannot be completely trusted – they simply didn’t have all the evidence. It also means to my mind that the agency would rather be considered a suspect in the case and risk being taken to task in felonious actions than tell the truth. After this much time, risking the very existence of the agency, and it’s aggressive anti-conspiracy subterfuge, I can only draw a single conclusion – the evidence they are hiding is incriminating. I didn’t arrive at that conclusion with any joy, BTW.

          • J.D. says:

            You’re bluffing, Fergal. John Connally is not pointing anywhere in the Altgens photo, because he had already been hit by a bullet by the time that photo was taken. He was doubled over in pain, not pointing anywhere. Furthermore, in his Warren testimony he said that he looked first to his right, and then to his left, after hearing the first shot — he didn’t look at the TSBD.

            Here is some evidence that “it wasn’t Oswald who fired the shots”:

            1. Oswald had no plausible motive for the shooting; according to numerous witnesses (interviewed by the Warren Commission, not by “conspiracy” writers), he liked JFK. Oswald’s wife, Marina, said the same thing. Why would a man who liked JFK and seems to have sympathized with his politics (particularly on civil rights) throw away his life for no reason?
            2. There is no solid evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. The only known witnesses to Oswald in the TSBD place him elsewhere — either on the first or second floor. Nobody saw or heard him running downstairs after the shooting. This certainly casts your rhetorical question — “How in the world would a gunman have remained unseen?” in a different light.
            3. The location of Kennedy’s back wound is too low to be consistent with the “single bullet theory” that assigns responsibility to a single shooter firing from the sixth floor. There is no plausible explanation for how this could be. Arlen Specter himself couldn’t explain it to Gaeton Fonzi only a couple of years after the Warren Commission finished its work.

          • Dan clark says:

            I’m sorry man but the facts are on the side that says LHO didn’t fire a single shot that day. You can try and explain why David Phillips, George Bush and a ton of Cubans were in Dealey Plaza that day, you can try and explain why Nixon told Helms “ I don’t care who got John” or Angleton saying “a mansion has many rooms, I don’t know who got John” or David Morales’ infamous “ we got that sob didn’t We!” You can try and explain the fact the secret service was pressuring dr. Malcom Perry to remain silent 20-30 years after the crime, you can try to explain the fbi absconding with Hale Boggs’ WC notes in the 90’s, you can try and explain the Chicago plot as hearsay, you can try and become Vincent bugliosi jr. but that would be ignorant.

            Don’t take my word for it, take real investigators words for it, G. Robert Blakey, Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez: https://youtu.be/OmRhdOvzyQQ

            And by the way the official position of our government is there is a 95% chance jfk was killed as part of a conspiracy. Reagan’s doj wanted nothing to do with following up on that.

  3. ed connor says:

    There is a lot wrong with Mr. Gunn’s analysis.
    Arleigh Burke was not the Secretary of the Navy in 1963. He was CNO, Chief of Naval Operations. He even had a class of destroyers named after him.
    LHO’s decision to return to his rented room and obtain his .38 revolver is not incriminatory; it is exculpatory. If he was planning to shoot the president with a rifle, why wouldn’t he bring his easily concealable revolver with him?
    His comment that LHO would have been found not guilty, based on a chain of evidence argument, is absurd. LHO was a communist who renounced his citizenship, defected to the USSR, married a Russian woman with a KGB uncle, owned a 6.5 Manlicher Carcacno rifle, denied owning it (to Will Fritz), the rifle was found on the 6th floor, the bullets and bullet fragments were ballistically traced to that rifle, and he fled the scene. He also killed a cop during pursuit.
    A 1963 Texas jury would have found him guilty, beyond a reasonbale doubt. I don’t think Gunn gas tried many homicide cases.
    But, the good thing is his reference to Sondra Spencer (@36:00), who developed the autopsy photos of the occiput and denied that the prints provided to the Warren Commission were the same prints she developed, or that they were even printed on the same paper stock she used. This is consistent with all the Parkland providers and the Gawler’s Sons morticians. There was a large exit wound in the right occiput which is invisible in the Bethesda photos. The autopsy photographers made the same complaint. There was clearly tampering with the head wound evidence. Why?

  4. Bogman says:

    At a certain point, I don’t care what’s in the damn docs still being withheld.

    The fact has been proven repeatedly and unequivocally that the CIA has withheld material evidence regarding the JFKA for decades, intentionally deceiving investigators. Mostly this deceit has been around the agency’s relationship to the DRE in the time of LHO and its close monitoring of LHO leading up to the assassination.

    Everything else is distraction. The above is real, compelling and serious and must be addressed by our government before this case is ever put to rest.

    To reiterate, the reason the JFKA remains relevant today is because it’s STILL a crime in progress.

  5. Fergal ÓhÉarga says:

    Bogman … there are actually NO facts that point to another shooter. The Parkland doctors, as I said earlier, were just trying to save the patient and never even turned him over. The three pathologists did, in fact, turn him over, photographed him, but more than anything, observed everything. The stuff about false photos etc. is, once again, not backed up by any facts … show me these different photos, not to mention explain to me how all of this would have worked. The conspiracy crowd have no facts, just selective supposition which is cool, sexy even, but useless.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.