Midnight Writer News Launches Counterattack Against "Politico" Article About JFK Records Release
My 60th Birthday
Blogger S. T. Patrick has posted two effective rebuttals against the absurd position taken in an August 3rd "Politico" article (authored by Shenon and Sabato) that 21st century forensics had proven Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK just as the Warren Commission said he did.

Here are the links to his two postings:

(1) Patrick's article critiquing the "Politico" article by Philip Shenon and Larry Sabato:


(2) Patrick's posting of my 2014 presentation titled: "The JFK Medical Evidence: Inadmissible at Trial"


The position taken by Sabato and Shenon (two Warren Commission apologists who apparently intend to spin the public reaction to JFK document releases) about Oswald's supposed guilt is not only incorrect, but is indefensible, in view of the evidence presented in my 2014 presentation (see link above).  Mainstream media programs which newly tout Oswald's supposed guilt all conveniently ignore the facts presented in my 2.5 hour presentation, delivered in September 2014 on the 50th anniversary of the release of the Warren Report.  The "landscape" of the JFK medical evidence arena changed forever as a result of the work of the ARRB staff in the mid-1990s---(as revealed in my 5-volume book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board")---and Shenon and Sabato have attempted to ignore that.


British Intercept of Japanese Diplomatic Message Proves FDR Had a "Back Door to War" with Germany
My 60th Birthday
Midnight Writer News has posted an article about the crucial original document I just obtained from the British National Archives.

Here is the link: http://midnightwriternews.com/document-further-validates-hornes-back-door-to-war-thesis-regarding-fdr-and-pearl-harbor/

Below you will find the digital scan of the actual, original document that is so ably discussed in the
Midnight Writer News article written by S.T. Patrick (see link above):

The red marginalia is Prime Minister Churchill's writing, and the green marginalia is that written by
"C", Sir Stewart Menzies, the head of MI6 and the defacto head, therefore, of signals intelligence for


The Americans also decrypted and translated the same message, and proof of this can be found in the Volume III Appendix, page A-400, of the DOD publication "The MAGIC Background of Pearl Harbor."

Here is a link to a PDF copy of the American version of the British intercept, posted by S.T. Patrick at Midnight Writer News: http://midnightwriternews.com/american-version-of-decrypt-validating-horne-thesis-pdf/


Power Point from June 3rd JFK/Cuba Lecture Posted at MIDNIGHT WRITER NEWS
My 60th Birthday
Posted here is a link to my recent, June 3rd, 2017 presentation at the Washington, D.C. conference titled "The National Security State and JFK."

S.T. Patrick of MIDNIGHT WRITER NEWS has posted both the latest (corrected) version of the Power Point, as well as the video posted online by FFF, the program sponsor.

If you go to this link:  http://midnightwriternews.com/horne-makes-jfk-national-security-presentation-available-to-mwn/
...you can view the power point slides while you listen to the lecture, by turning on both features at the same time.

The lecture was about the National Security State's obsession with invading Castro's Cuba from 1960-1963, and was titled "The Bay of Pigs, Northwoods, and Beyond."

And here is a link to my presentation posted by the Future of Freedom Foundation, the libertarian organization that sponsored the conference:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfak2B1yfY4&authuser=0

My thanks to MIDNIGHT WRITER NEWS for putting these up together online.


MIDNIGHT WRITER NEWS posts New Interview About FDR and Pearl Harbor
My 60th Birthday
Host S.T. Patrick has just posted an interview with me about my new book, "Deception, Intrigue, and the Road to War."

Here is the link: http://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-007-fdr-and-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/

I can't say enough about this new blogsite---it's professional, well-written, and your host S.T. Patrick lets each guest be the story in any given interview---he exhibits a very unobtrusive and welcoming presence.

This may well be the best interview I've yet given about my new book, so I encourage all of you to check it out.


Interviews About "Deception, Intrigue, and the Road to War" Posted Here
My 60th Birthday
Recently, I was interviewed by Brent Holland, Ed Opperman, and Len Osanic about my new book:

Those interviews are posted here:

Brent Holland: https://www.youtube.com/embed/_aeNDS4GrdE?list=PLJlo7KgTNLomTBQS_p-uiI9IPX0vpFuT3%22

Ed Opperman (Opperman report) Interview: https://www.spreaker.com/user/oppermanreport/doug-horne-deception-intrigue-and-the-ro

BlackOp Radio (Len Osanic) audio only: http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black832a.mp3

BlackOp Radio (with program notes---scroll down for notes for program # 832): https://www.blackopradio.com/archives2017.html

The book can be purchased at Amazon.com, at this link: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Deception%2C+Intrigue%2C+and+the+Road+to+War

Additionally, here are five related video links to FDR that are relevant to my book, and which help illuminate Roosevelt's personality and policy aims:

"Arsenal of Democracy" speech excerpt:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIJm8Hp4Xe0

"Unlimited National Emergency" speech excerpt:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlWLkmDMFZ8

"USS Greer Incident" speech excerpt:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxvASyuxgZ8

"USS Kearney Incident" speech excerpt:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5YlQ9QZ2qw

"Declaration of War" speech excerpt:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK8gYGg0dkE

New Book About FDR and Pearl Harbor: "Deception, Intrigue, and the Road to War" for Sale on Feb 15th
My 60th Birthday
Dear Friends,

After six years of work, my new two-volume, 742-page book about President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, titled: Deception, Intrigue, and the Road to War, should be available for sale online at Amazon.com NLT February 15, 2017.  A book description and an "about the author" writeup are posted below:


Over 75 years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that launched America's entry into the Second World War, one persistent question remains unanswered: "Did President Franklin D. Roosevelt have foreknowledge of the attack---and did he (and his senior military leadership) then withhold that knowledge from his overseas commanders in Hawaii?"  Douglas P. Horne, a former Naval Officer who recently completed 40 years of combined military-and-civilian service to the Federal Government, deals directly with this most difficult of all questions about World War II, in the first major "Revisionist" work about Pearl Harbor written in the last decade.  Contrary to recent assertions by mainstream historians that the Revisionist hypothesis is now dead, Horne finds it to be more robust than ever.  In the first known work that studies FDR's foreign policy "on the road to Pearl Harbor" as a timeline, or chronology (which assesses numerous factors---including codebreaking, diplomacy, military strategy, the unfolding events in Europe, and the personality and words of FDR himself), the author compellingly presents his own unique findings regarding the longstanding allegation by Revisionists that FDR used the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as a "back door to war." Horne concludes there is, indeed, persuasive evidence that once FDR's undeclared naval war against Hitler in the north Atlantic failed to provide the desired casus belli (which would have allowed him to request a declaration of war against Nazi Germany), then consequently, permitting the Imperial Japanese Navy to attack Pearl Harbor---without providing any specific advance warning to the Hawaiian field commanders (i.e., allowing the Japanese to "fire the first shot" and commit "an overt act of war")---became the last, best chance for FDR to get a united America into the Second World War.  FDR's overriding goal throughout 1940-41 was the imperative to get America involved, as a belligerent, in the war against Hitler's Germany, and the Japanese attack accomplished that goal, as Roosevelt knew it would.  Both the timing of when FDR apparently received his foreknowledge of the impending attack, and the mechanism by which it was likely delivered, are thoroughly considered in this work.  Author Douglas Horne also provides a critical assessment of the most recent Revisionist works, and using a new approach to the "big question" about Pearl Harbor, provides a bold new interpretation of events that will surprise most readers.


Douglas P. Horne, a 1974 Cum Laude graduate of The Ohio State University who majored in history, and author of the five-volume work "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" (about the U.S. Government's medical cover-up of the JFK assassination), has put his 40 years of combined  military-and-civilian service with the Federal Government to good use in studying the 1945-46 Congressional Investigation into the Pearl Harbor attack; a little-known 1946 U.S. Government report containing key evidence about the attack; and the most recent Revisionist works about Pearl Harbor, to produce a grand "new synthesis" which answers the persistent question: "Did FDR know about the Pearl Harbor attack before it took place?"  A former U.S. Naval Officer who spent 14 years working in four different Navy jobs at Pearl Harbor, and a Japanophile who has always been fascinated by the Imperial Japanese Navy, Horne has applied his own Navy job experience, and his understanding of how the government operates, to a plethora of data about the Pearl Harbor attack, to produce a work of high tension and drama that attempts to deal honestly with the most significant foreign policy event in America's 20th century history.

New Book, About FDR's Foreign Policy from 1937-1941, Coming Soon (in February 2017)
My 60th Birthday
Six years in the making, my new book about President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his foreign policy "on the road to Pearl Harbor," titled: Deception, Intrigue, and the Road to War, will be published in February of 2017 (next month), and will be available at Amazon.com.

This is a two volume work, and totals 742 pages (including the Afterword, Appendices, and Index).

The book takes a realpolitik approach to studying the actions of FDR during the run-up to Pearl Harbor, particularly during the crucial period of 1940-1941---an approach that I feel is long overdue.

Stay tuned for additional information as the book's publication date approaches!

Doug Horne, author, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.

My 60th Birthday
This weekend I have contributed to a comment thread at JFKFACTS.org following Jeff Morley's posting of Peter Voskamp's SEP 2014 interview of Richard Stolley of LIFE magazine, about Stolley's involvement with the Zapruder film the weekend following JFK's assassination.

This is a link to the JFKFACTS article by Peter Voskamp and the related comment thread, to which I refer here in this posting:  http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/where-did-the-most-famous-jfk-assassination-film-come-from/#more-16840

Once again (following my initial posting in the comment thread) I was subjected to the abrasive, sarcastic, and pejorative comments of one John McAdams---the foremost "lone-nutter" blogger in the United States---who rarely (if ever) engages in any gentlemanly discussion or debate about facts, and who usually tries to dismiss wholesale (without discussing factual evidence, or patterns in the evidence, or "the big picture") any ideas or conclusions that contradict the Warren Report's lone nut conclusion about the JFK assassination.

After observing him for some years, it is obvious to me that John McAdams is engaged in a full-time search-and-destroy mission, scouring all of the JFK chatrooms 24/7, with the sole intent of debunking or ridiculing any assertions, findings, or conclusions by American citizens that are at odds with the lone-nut findings of the Warren Commission.  He does not contribute anything positive to the JFK debate; rather, his sole intent is clearly to disrupt and sow dissention within the independent, honest, JFK research community.  (One can only wonder if he is doing this on behalf of someone else, and if so, what his "masters" are paying him for this "service.")  I find it extremely difficult to believe that he is engaged in this type of behavior solely out of a personal, genuine passion for the Warren Commission and its seriously flawed and discredited findings.  McAdams' behavior appears, on the surface, to be exactly the type of U.S. government-sponsored "third party surrogate" attacks on "conspiracy speech" advocated by President Obama's former cabinet member in charge of information, Cass Sunstein.  Sunstein (who eventually resigned his USG position under a cloud of controversy before the end of Obama's first term) co-authored a law school paper shortly before Obama took office advocating limitations on internet "conspiracy speech" in the U.S. by levying fines on "abusers" or even restricting their access to the internet; and he also advocated infiltration of "conspiracy groups" by government agents, and public attack on their ideas by U.S. government "third party surrogates."  Is John McAdams a propaganda tool of the U.S. government's intelligence community?  I don't know for sure, but it is a healthy question for us all to ask.  We may not know definitively for 50 years or more, until today's intelligence files are declassified.

I have decided to reproduce below what I posted this morning at JFKFACTS as a rebuttal to his latest inaccurate and scurrilous attack on my work; I decided this morning that if I remained silent, my silence might be misinterpreted by some as an inability to respond to his superficial criticism.  I wouldn't want anyone to think that I wasn't up to the task, or that I don't care when someone deviously attempts to discredit my many years of work on the JFK assassination.  On the other hand, I don't troll the chatrooms 24/7 like John McAdams and his ilk (Gary Mack, for example), so I don't have the time to respond to each and every sucurrilous or intellectually dishonest attack on my work---so I'm going to publish this one rebuttal on the tactics McAdams generally employs, and make my statement, and let it go at that.  I think you will all get the point when you read the piece I wrote this morning for the comment thread at JFKFACTS:

It is time for me to make a general comment here, for all readers of this thread.

If John McAdams had truly read any of my work on the Zapruder film---such as the 200 page Z film chapter, number 14 in my book "Inside the ARRB;" or my 19,000 word, footnoted research paper on the 2 NPIC events posted at LewRockwell.com---he would know that I have completely discredited David Wrone's book on the Zapruder film, and have done so with great specificity, quoting Wrone's incorrect conclusions verbatim, and citing exactly why his major conclusions (that the USG had no interest in the film and did not have the capability to alter it) are incorrect, in light of new evidence.  David Wrone's book misrepresented/failed to report properly on the 2 NPIC events, as I reported in my chapter 14, and that obfuscation, I believe, was intentional. Wrone's book, when it was published, was the best defense to date, at that time, of the Z film's authenticity.  But it now reads like a "flat earth" document, following Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe.  Citing David Wrone's book at this point in the Z film debate is about as useful as citing the Warren Report when discussing the medical evidence.

No one who has watched Dino Brugioni's interview in the Shane O'Sullivan piece titled "The Zapruder Film Mystery" has expressed anything but respect for his excellent memory and his integrity, and this includes the moderator on this site, Jefferson Morley. Dino's memories, when recorded on video in 2011, were 47 years old, and yet were more truthful, and useful, and reliable, than much of the testimony taken by the Warren Commission just months after JFK's assassination.  The best example of this is Dr. James J. Humes, who perjured himself on many occasions before the Warren Commission.  Humes' testimony was not "valid" just because it was "fresh."  And Dino Brugioni's recollections (and those of Homer McMahon of NPIC in 1997) are not "invalid" just because they were not recorded in 1964.  Each witnesses' testimony and recollections must be evaluated independently, within the context of all known evidence and what they have said previously.  Every oral historian and jurist knows this.

On those occasions when he discusses my work, McAdams keeps trotting out his favorite old shibboleth about how no one can trust 30+ year old memories; he attempts to use this rather lame, simplistic dismissal---a standard lawyer's trick used in adversarial proceedings---whenever he cannot counter any of my specific assertions or conclusions by discussing specific evidence, or by discussing the pattern revealed by a large body of facts (and what those facts mean).  On the rare occasions when he does discuss facts, he attempts to use a "reductionist" approach---which entails ignoring the "big picture" and selectively picking out one statement among many made by someone else, in an attempt to destroy a larger argument by nitpicking to death, and casting doubt upon, one small item in a large body of evidence.  I find this approach to the JFK assassination counterproductive, for in adopting these methods, Mr. McAdams contributes nothing positive to the JFK debate; his sole object seems to be to cast the maximum doubt possible upon any facts contrary to the Warren Commission's findings, and to debunk the serious work of dedicated JFK researchers, whose sole goal is to determine what really happened in our country in 1963.

But for the sake of this response, let me on this one occasion, counter his tired old argument that we cannot trust 30+ year old memories---which is demonstrably not true---by stating that most of the evidence that causes us to mistrust the Warren Commission's medical conclusions are NOT 30+ year old memories, but rather, are contemporaneous documents created at or near the time of the assassination, to wit:

(1) The Boyajian Report dated 11/26/63, which records the arrival of JFK's body at the Bethesda morgue 20 minutes prior to the Andrews AFB motorcade;
(2)The Sibert and O'Neill FBI FD-302 report dated 11/26/63, which quotes Dr. Humes' statement at the autopsy (when describing the condition of JFK's body) that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  The significance of this statement is that there was no cranial surgery in Dallas.
(3) The receipt trail for the JFK autopsy report (from both 1965 and from 1967) which proves that the Secret Service TWICE relinquished "original autopsy reports" on JFK to others.  The point here is that you cannot give away an "original" twice, if there was only one original.  And we know the first draft of the autopsy report was burned by Dr. Humes in his fireplace after it was revised, because this is what Humes testified to in 1964 before Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission.  That was not a 30+ year old memory---it was only about 4 months after the assassination.  So we can have no confidence today in the extant autopsy report.
(4) National Archives personnel recorded in a written report on 10/31/66 that all of the paragraph nine materials (see the APR '65 inventory) given to RFK in 1965 (including the brain and an "original autopsy report") were not returned to the govt by the Kennedy family; and we have a 1969 memo written by Assistant S.S. Director Tom Kelley which records that the group of USG officials he was meeting with discussed the missing autopsy report, and the incendiary nature of that fact, and decided to do nothing about it.
(5) The Joint Casket Bearer Team's official report written in 1963 lists the time that the honor guard took the Dallas casket into the morgue as "2000 hours," or 8:00 PM.  This contemporaneous document records the final casket entry (of three) that night at the Bethesda morgue; and when married with the Boyajian report (documenting the first casket entry at 18:35 hours, or 6:35 PM) proves that there was a shell game underway at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63 with JFK's body, and that its chain of custody from Dallas to Bethesda was broken---seriously compromised.
(6) The Gawler's Funeral Home "first call sheet" prepared on 11/22/63 records that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a metal shipping casket, a term which had a specific meaning within the funeral trade.  His body did not leave Dallas in a cheap, lightweight silver (or gray) aluminum shipping casket; rather, it left Dallas in a heavy, dark brown, bronze ceremonial viewing coffin. The break in the chain of custody of JFK's body already established by the Boyajian report and the report of the Casket Bearer Team is further substantiated by this written record created on 11/22/63.
(7) The contemporaneous treatment notes and reports of the Parkland treating physicians written on 11/22/63---they are certainly not 30+ year old memories---all record a large head wound in the rear, or right rear, of President Kennedy's head.  None of them describe any damage to the top of the head or to the right side.  Those are not my interpretations of what they wrote, for if one consults a medical anatomy atlas, there is only ONE possible interpretation to what they wrote: JFK had a large defect in the back of his head, devoid of scalp and skull, extruding cerebral AND CEREBELLAR tissue.  Those key observations speak to a fatal shot from the front, and dramatically disagree with the later autopsy conclusions.

I could go on and on, but by now the readers of this thread surely get the point: you cannot dismiss serious evidence, and the conclusions derived from studying the patterns in that evidence, by refusing to discuss the facts, and by resorting to simplistic techniques to attempt to discount "wholesale" everything someone says.  That is an intellectually dishonest approach.  END

Early Review of "A COUP IN CAMELOT" Posted Online
My 60th Birthday
You can read the review at this link:  http://redcarpetcrash.com/movie-review-coup-camelot-looks-jfks-assassination-group-experts/

The Advance Screening of "A Coup in Camelot" will be Sunday, October 26th at 5 PM, at the historic Texas Theater in Dallas.

You can learn more about the film here: http://acoupincamelot.com/


Here is My Response to Jeremy Gunn's 50th Anniversary Speech About the JFK Evidence
My 60th Birthday
Jefferson Morley's JFKFACTS.org blogsite has just posted a one-and-one-half hour speech made by Jeremy Gunn on the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. Jeremy Gunn flew from Morocco, where he and his wife were then reportedly employed as professors, to Maine, just to make the speech---and then flew home to Morrocco, according to the person who introduced him in the video.

For those of you who do not know, Jeremy Gunn wore two hats at the ARRB for the first 2 years I was there: he was the Chief of Research and Analysis (the director of all the analysts on the 4 record teams: FBI, CIA, Military, and Secret Service), and was the General Counsel.  When David Marwell (the Executive Director of the ARRB staff for its first 3 years) departed from the ARRB staff one year prior to shutdown, the five Review Board members eventually (belatedly, and not immediately) appointed Jeremy as the new Executive Director, circa November of 1997.  He served as our second Executive Director from roughly November of 1997 until his abrupt resignation in July of 1998, about 3 months prior to shutdown of the ARRB.  The rather incurious and conservative Board Members did not appreciate or like Jeremy's intense curiosity about all of the conflicts in the evidence of the JFK assassination, and so relations between Jeremy Gunn and the Board were strained, to say the least, once he took over as Executive Director.  He left "under a cloud," an unexplained cloud of obvious animus between him and the Board; I still do not know the reasons for his abrupt departure 3 months before our sunset.  From December of 1995, through the end of September 1997, I worked extremely closely with Jeremy Gunn as his primary research assistant helping him prepare for the ten depositions we conducted of witnesses to, and participants in, the JFK military autopsy.  I was present at all ten of those depositions, and was familiar with his thinking about the evidence going into each deposition, and after each deposition was concluded.

Having been hired by Gunn in 1995, and having worked closely with him for over 2 years (until we had a major falling out over the future direction of our research activity), I watched the video with great interest, because for many years following the sunset of the ARRB, Jeremy Gunn had told people that the JFK assassination was no longer a part of his life, and that he did not wish to discuss it anymore.  I knew that this attitude of his was changing a bit, since he had given a tepid interview to NPR last autumn in 2013, in which he discussed just a few of the irregularities in the medical evidence (without discussing the obvious implications of those irregularities---namely, a major U.S. government cover-up).

Jeff Morley at JFKFACTS has just posted the video of Jeremy's 50th anniversary speech in Maine last November, and here are the comments I just posted about the video at JFKFACTS:

As a person who was hired by Jeremy Gunn in 1995, and who worked closely under him (and with him) from August of 1995 until his abrupt and mysterious resignation from the ARRB (for unknown reasons) in July of 1998, I watched this presentation made by Jeremy Gunn in November of 2013 with great interest. Overall, I found it to be a good primer for those newly approaching the case, with respect to how many of the details about what really happened in Dealey Plaza in 1963 are truly "unknowable," because of the many conflicts within the evidentiary record, and because of the many instances where key evidence in the case has a badly broken chain-of-custody. Jeremy also pointed out that in many cases supposedly "key evidence," such as the Zapruder film, is subject to differing interpretations by different viewers; just as the reliability of witness testimony is subject to differing opinions by those evaluating their testimony or their recollections. For the most part, his speech was a cautionary tale about not jumping to conclusions without first considering ALL of the evidence about any facet of the assassination, pro or con. Jeremy is saying here that one must approach all evidence (film evidence such as the Z film or many of the autopsy photos; eyewitness testimony; and so-called forensics evidence) with extreme caution, and take nothing for granted about its accuracy or provenance.

Yet---and I find this unfortunate---Jeremy continues to use all of the uncertainties about the evidence as a "mask" to hide behind in a sense, which allows him to continue to say that he personally has no idea who killed President Kennedy, in an attempt to avoid controversy. Significantly, I do recall reading an interview he gave to a Washington D.C. law journal circa the year 2000, in which he stated that he thought that far into the future the official consensus of government and media would be that Lee Harvey Oswald had killed President Kennedy, and that he personally thought that this ultimate "verdict of history" would be INCORRECT. That is the true Jeremy Gunn, the one I knew and worked with for almost 3 years---who while not knowing who assassinated JFK, certainly believed that there had been a massive U.S. government cover-up of the facts surrounding his death, particularly of the medical evidence, and of the Mexico City evidence. This is the true value of this 2013 presentation: the many specific examples he gave of why we cannot trust the medical evidence or the Mexico City evidence.

Jeremy Gunn, unfortunately, made some factual errors during his presentation. As someone who has also spoken publicly about the assassination, I know how easy it is to make an inadvertent mistake when speaking before an audience. Nevertheless, it is important for someone to correct Jeremy's inadvertent errors, so here goes:

1. Gunn stated that the autopsy doctors had not seen the autopsy photos before their ARRB depositions; this was incorrect. Humes, Boswell, and Ebersole saw the original autopsy photos and x-rays on 11-1-1966 and created a catalogue listing of what they depicted; Humes, Boswell, and Finck saw them again in January of 1967 when gathered together by the Justice Department to write a report; and Humes, Boswell and Finck saw prints of some of the transparencies before the HSCA in 1977 and 1978.

2. Gunn mistakenly said that Dr. Humes had never told the W.C. that he had burned the first draft of the autopsy report. That is not true. Humes admitted this under oath to Arlen Specter (burning the original after preparing a revision), but tried to change the focus solely to his destruction of notes, when before the HSCA.

3.Gunn stated incorrectly that "the Secretary of the Navy, Arleigh Burke," was present at JFK's autopsy. This was untrue, and with some sympathy I could tell from his presentation that he knew he had misspoken. The truth is that the Surgeon General of the Navy, Admiral Kenney, was present; along with George Burkley, the President's military physician, as well as Admiral Galloway, who was in charge of the entire Bethesda complex. There was at least one other flag officer present as well: General Wehle (U.S. Army), the Commandant of the MDW. There is some reason to believe that one of JFK's enemies, USAF General Curtis LeMay, was present at his autopsy; but there is no evidence to suggest that another of his adversaries, Navy Admiral Arleigh Burke, was present.

4. Jeremy Gunn correctly admitted the importance of 2 brain exams (vice one) having taken place following the autopsy on JFK's body, but deftly avoided discussing the unavoidable implications: namely, that the brain photos in the Archives today were taken at the second exam, not the first, and CANNOT BE photos of JFK's brain. This is undeniably true; I know Jeremy believes it; and he was dodging the implications of this fact (U.S. government cover-up) by not mentioning the implications of the second brain exam.

5. Gunn's personal bias toward the authenticity of the Zapruder film was blatantly obvious; but he may not yet have been acquainted with the remarkable testimony of Dino Brugioni, the Chief of Information at the CIA's NPIC in 1963, who saw a different Z film the weekend of the assassination. If Jeremy could view the 4 hour, 15 minute video interview of Dino that I recorded on video in 2011, I'm confident his views on the authenticity of the Zapruder film would be modified.

6. In discussing the Dallas physicians Jeremy incorrectly stated that none of them had been pressured to change their minds about what they saw on 11/22/63. This is not true. Nurse Audrey Bell relayed to Jeremy and I personally, in 1997, that Dr. Perry had told her the day after the assassination that officials at Bethesda Naval Hospital had pressured him all night long to change his opinion about the throat wound being an entrance wound, and to say instead that it had been a wound of exit. If that is not pressure, I do not know what is. Also, the HSCA became aware of reliable hearsay that Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore later admitted to a third party (James Gochenaur) that he had "leaned on Dr. Perry about the throat wound" and that he felt remorse for that. [Moore was the official who showed the Dallas doctors the final version of the autopsy report on Dec 11th, 1963.]

In conclusion, Jeremy's speech is a good introductory primer about the hazards involved in investigating the JFK case; but as usual, he is unwilling to directly say what I know for a fact---that he personally believes there was a government cover-up of the medical evidence and of the Mexico City evidence, or discuss the obvious implications of those cover-ups. In refusing to go this far in public statements, I believe Jeremy hopes to avoid censure by the academic community, and any ensuing risk to his career. If you will watch his speech a second time, you will see that he actually acknowledges terrible conflicts in the evidence in these 2 areas, and much wrongdoing by government officials, but is unwilling to discuss the implications.

One of the most significant things Jeremy Gunn ever said to me about the medical evidence was that in his opinion, the JFK autopsy photos placed into the official record---we both knew there were numerous autopsy photos that had been “deep-sixed,” or suppressed---were intended to CONCEAL, rather than to reveal what had happened. In other words, the intent of the culled collection of photos was to conceal the reality of the event, and present a misleading picture of what had truly transpired during JFK’s assassination. This revelatory statement (which he made more than once to me) reveals, without any doubt whatsoever, that while Jeremy Gunn could not figure out who had killed President Kennedy, he believed without any doubt that the U.S. government had covered up the crime.



Log in

No account? Create an account