Minn. Judge John Tunheim Sheds Light on JFK Assassination | KSTP TV

[Bernice Moore]

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3166978.shtml?cat=1

Minn. Judge John Tunheim Sheds Light on JFK Assassination | KSTP TV

[James Norwood]

As a resident of Minnesota, I have followed closely the speeches and appearances of Judge Tunheim over the years. The refrain of his talks is that the goal of the ARRB was merely to open the government files without evaluating them. He also is quick to assert that there exists no "smoking gun" from the enormous repository of information unearthed by his committee. More recently, however, he has adopted the stance of another government authority figure reiterating the original findings of the Warren Report. For example, Tunheim recently suggested to a gathering in Stillwater, Minnesota, that, despite new evidence available to the ARRB, Lee Harvey Oswald was a genuine defector and malcontent, apparently driven to killing the president to etch his name in history!

When the local television station recently aired a segment and published the short piece posted above by Bernice, I contacted KSTP (Channel 5) news reporter Steve Tellier, offering to provide a rebuttal. I sent Steve a link to my article on Tunheim (listed below) and invited him to attend a four-part lecture series on the JFK assassination that I will be offering here in the Twin Cities to coincide with the 50th Anniversary.

I never received a reply from the reporter.

In my article, I conclude the following: "As a federal judge, John R. Tunheim has the power and arguably the obligation to inform the American public of the implications of the release of sixty million documents about the murder of JFK. But to listen to Judge Tunheim is to believe that all of the work of the ARRB amounted to no more than an enormous blank in the evidentiary trail of the death of President Kennedy."

For my article "The JFK War: The Case of Federal Judge John Tunheim," see: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/15/...n-tunheim/


James Norwood

[Keith Millea]

James Fetzer and the disinformation rag VeterensToday?

You're in real good company there James.......::

[James Norwood]

Keith,

For my article on Tunheim, I wrote the entire text, and Jim Fetzer added links and captions. Did you even read the article, prior to posting your note?

This thread concerns Judge Tunheim, not the "company" I keep.


James

[Keith Millea]

What happens to your article when the "company you keep" is known to be unreliable,at best,and otherwise,a spreader of dubious material?

And I'm talking about both JF and the VeteransToday site.

Good intentions aside,your article is posted on an unreliable webpage.People know this,and it will also reflect back onto your article.That's all I'm sayin'.......

[James Norwood]

Keith,

For the second time: this thread is about Judge John Tunheim. There is the potential for an important discussion about the role he played both during and after the ARRB. He was one of principal government officials administering the ARRB, yet he has steadfastly avoided discussing publicly some of the major revelations of his committee.

Again, there is no evidence that you have even glanced at my article. Discussions on this site invariably get sidetracked by irrelevant, personal opinions exactly like yours. If you were concerned about such issues as my personal reputation, then the appropriate venue would have been to send me a note through the "Private Messages" link on this site.

These threads are only as good as contributions made by its members. Postings like yours are one of the reasons people simply stop reading a thread.


James

[Keith Millea]

. If you were concerned about such issues as my personal reputation

No,I'm not concerned about your reputation.I'm concerned with this forums reputation.James Fetzer was banned from this forum,and rightfully so."VeteransToday" is a good place for him and his followers.Let them stay there!

'Nuff said

[James Norwood]

Keith,

For the third time: this thread is about Judge John Tunheim and the ARRB.

The implication of your posting above is that you wish to "ban" me from the site. If that is the case, then I recommend that you take the matter up with the administrator.


James

[Magda Hassan]

Thank you Keith. Yes, dodgy company indeed.
Let's get this back on topic about Judge Tunheim and his possible role as perception manager for TPTB and the MSM which gives him an open platform while denying one for James and others who question the WC findings.

[James Norwood]

Magda,

Yes, I would really like to see this thread get back on topic with a discussion of Judge John Tunheim and his errors of omission in over a decade of his speeches and interviews about the ARRB.

When I first began writing about this subject, I approached the two major newspapers in the Twin Cities, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Neither of those organs responded to my queries.

After exhausting all of my options, I was able to find an outlet for my thoughts on Tunheim, which I published in an online article.

After the local ABC affiliate aired a piece on Tunheim, I approached reporter Steve Tellier, who was not interested in reading my article and presenting an alternative view of the ARRB.

After I provided the link to my article on this thread on Deep Politics Forum, I was attacked in multiple postings by one of your members, Keith Millea, because he didn't like the online site for my publication, and he wanted to protect "the reputation of the forum." He never read the article; he simply didn't like the site where I (by necessity) had published the piece.

The members of this forum comprise an extremely limited clique of students of the JFK assassination. It is most unfortunate that you have failed in devising united front in order to raise awareness about the truth of the JFK assassination at the time of the 50th anniversary. As a relative outsider to the members who post frequently on this forum, I would observe the following: right now, you are not making a difference in changing views about the assassination.

To get the Tunheim discussion back on track, I would raise the following question:

Why should the "voice" of John Tunheim count for so much, while the five-volume publication of Douglas Horne on the same topic receive virtually no coverage in the mainstream media? Horne was a bona fide member of Tunheim's committee, yet his detailed synthesis of the medical evidence has been nearly completely ignored in the press and television. Why?


James