What's your verdict on Jeremy Gunn?

[Michael Crane]

Listening to him on Youtube,I do not trust him at all.I can recall Doug Horne mentioning that he was set to grill Humes with questioning & was told to back off.

Was it Jeremy's idea to have all 3 testify together? (I think it was)

He ended up leaving the ARRB,was it too hot in the kitchen?

Like I say...I don't trust him.

 

[James DiEugenio]

The three pathologists did not testify together for the ARRB.

Are you talking about the speech he made at that college in New England?

I thought that was kind of mediocre myself.

And as far as I know, that is about all he has said after the ARRB.

We did everything to try and get him in Oliver's film.  He ended up being as slippery as an eel.

[Michael Crane]

My sincere apologies.

For some reason that I'm going to have to look up,I thought they talked to the ARRB as a group.

It was this one Jim.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Yes this is the one I was referring to.

We watched it for Oliver's film. 

I was not impressed by either the candor or insights.

He knows a lot more than this.

And again, I think this is the only public address he has given since the ARRB.

[Michael Crane]

Jim,

Do you know if Humes & Boswell were ever recorded together?

Could it be the brain examination that I'm thinking of?

[James DiEugenio]

According to Horne, the ARRB made their interviews separate.

I don't think the supplementary was recorded.  

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Joseph Backes]

They were not going to take any testimony from the Parkland doctors at all.  I played a small part in telling people and getting some public pressure on them to change their minds which they did. Doug Horne was kind enough to mention this in his "Inside the ARRB," 5 volume series. Gunn had left and was brought back to do this. 

They all knew ( they being the staff of the ARRB ) the thing was going to be over in 1998 so that last year everyone was doing everything to get a new job by October of 1998.  

Remember, the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, had this guy writing this phony article praising the hell out of Humes & Boswell.  So, the ARRB was interested in challenging the claims made in JAMA as well as claims to the WC and then the HSCA.  

Joe

[James DiEugenio]

Horne is kind of mysterious over why Gunn left.

I don't know why he is, maybe he does not really know.

But this is one of the reasons the Parkland interview was a group one.

[Joseph Backes]

I recall at one of the JFK Lancer conferences, I think it was 1998 or 1999, probably 1998, Deb Conway was going to give Gunn an award and Horne came forward and just roasted Gunn.  I mean he excoriated him.  It was brutal. And Gunn was present. The whole mood of the room changed. 

If you were in the room you'd remember it.  

 

[Michael Crane]

49 minutes ago, Joseph Backes said:

I recall at one of the JFK Lancer conferences, I think it was 1998 or 1999, probably 1998, Deb Conway was going to give Gunn an award and Horne came forward and just roasted Gunn.  I mean he excoriated him.  It was brutal. And Gunn was present. The whole mood of the room changed. 

If you were in the room you'd remember it.  

 

Yeah,I can believe that easily.Horne had a list of important questions & Jeremy chose not to ask them.

TTT for The One Man Gang.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Michael Griffith]

Jeremy Gunn did a lot of good work with the ARRB, but not as much as Doug Horne did.

[James DiEugenio]

One of the problems I have with Gunn is that, as far as I know, he only gave one public speech while on the ARRB.

That was at Stanford, and Gary Aguilar taped it.

The only other public appearance I know of that he did after is the speech Michael posted above. And according to Backes he did appear at a Lancer conference.

Tunheim has made many more public appearances than Gunn.

I have a problem with that since Gunn was privy to so much new information that he should have been conveying to the public.  

To his credit, he did send me stuff that discredited Russo and Brilab.

OTOH, he would not tell me about Russo passing on Martin Underwood to the ARRB.  I had to learn that from Max Holland of all people.

BTW, does everyone here know that all the other Board members besides Tunheim have passed on?

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Griffith]

We must abandon this all-or-nothing approach to judging people such as Jeremy Gunn. Go watch Gunn's 2013 presentation at the UNE CGH (LINK). No WC apologist would ever say the things he said in that lecture. 

In his lecture, Gunn clearly questioned the single-bullet theory. He noted that the WC's own wound ballistics tests contradicted the SBT. He discussed Saundra Spencer's testimony, including the fact that she said that the extant autopsy photos are not the photos she processed and that the photos she processed showed a large rear head wound. He pointed out that the paper of the extant autopsy photos does not match the paper that Spencer used. He implied that the autopsy photos that show the back of the head intact were taken after the autopsy, after the head had been reconstructed. He discussed Humes's lies about the autopsy report. He talked about the WC's misrepresentation of the Zapruder film. He discussed the CIA's lies about Oswald in Mexico City. He said it is a reasonable possibility that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City. He slammed the WC, saying the Commission did a "profound disservice" to the country and failed to conduct a serious, comprehensive investigation. 

But, for some folks, nope, this is not good enough. They make all kinds of accusations against him because he is not an avowed conspiracy theorist and/or because he does not believe every single thing they believe and/or because he failed to do certain things while working for the ARRB. They ignore all the good work that Gunn did with the ARRB and focus on his failings. They ignore the many things he has said that support our view and focus on other things he has said. We see a similarly counter-productive, hyper-critical attitude exhibited by some people toward G. Robert Blakey.

This all-or-nothing, our-way-or-the-highway attitude alienates people, especially influential people, and pushes them toward the other side.

[Michael Crane]

I wouldn't goes as far as saying all or nothing with me Mike.I guarantee you that he was privy to information that we will never hear about.

I must say that I was pleasantly surprised when he said that Robert Kennedy might have disposed of the brain.

The link that you posted was what Jim & I were referring to.

I still don't trust him.

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

I wouldn't goes as far as saying all or nothing with me Mike.I guarantee you that he was privy to information that we will never hear about.

I must say that I was pleasantly surprised when he said that Robert Kennedy might have disposed of the brain.

The link that you posted was what Jim & I were referring to.

I still don't trust him.

Well, as I said, you would never hear a WC apologist say the things that Gunn said in that lecture.

If a newcomer to the JFK case asked Gerald Posner or David Von Pein or Max Holland to recommend videos they should watch on the case, they would never recommend Gunn's lecture. 

An educated person who strongly distrusts all conspiracy theories and who knows nothing about the JFK assassination would be more likely to have their mind opened to the possibility of conspiracy in the JFK case by watching Gunn's lecture or Blakey's debate with Howard Willens or Blakey's presentation at the 2014 AARC conference than they would by watching a presentation by James Douglass or Monika Wiesak or Robert Groden.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Michael Griffith