Talk is cheap. Please enlighten us. Show us the evidence that contradicts the conclusion of the OIC report.
The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)
- Thread starter Galileo
- Start date
Talk is cheap. Please enlighten us. Show us the evidence that contradicts the conclusion of the OIC report.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Oh yeah? But what if it was a .357 magnum firing .38 special?Just so we're clear:
This is one of the first .38 specials, designed by Smith & Wesson in 1899.
This is the Colt Police Positive, chambered in .38 special. Colt was manufacturing these in 1913.
And this is my carry gun, a S&W 642 airweight. It has the Clinton safety lock meaning it was manufactured after 1998.
THEY ALL FIRE THE EXACT SAME BULLET!!
CONSPIRACY!!!!1!!!!1!11
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
And I would have gotten away with it if not for you meddling kids.
But kudos for removing the "q" in the image tags.
Galileo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,368
The evidence is in the film.
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,415
No...the film is a partisan CT video, which ignores evidence.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,582
I was under the impression that this was a forum which discussed a wide variety of topics. I was also under the impression that even if someone else has discussed a topic, others who have not were still free to discuss it as well.
I read Galileo's posts and I found someone who watched a video on Vince Foster and wanted to discuss what was in the video.
And lastly, staying on topic and not insulting members is a JREF quality requirement within the forum rules.
However, it seems after the initial dozen or so posts that were nothing but insults and sarcasm discussion about the topic started up.
Last edited:
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
His question was answered on page 1. He was told to read the three investigative reports done on the suicide. He has not done so, the rest of the pages, shows that he cares nothing for what we say, and that he only posts to troll for answers. So we meet his derision with our own derision
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,875
This is true, but it assumes the original poster is actually seeking discussion and not being disingenuous and throwing turds in an effort to 'pwn' forum regulars. I am sorry if you cannot make that distinction, but we can.
Then your powers of observation would seem to be poor.
When you have the situation as I described, that is going to happen. An honest inquirer would get answers, even Galileo got proper answers. But you can see the results.
"watch the film" is not an argument. It is a cop out. I don't have an hour an a quarter to spare right now. You have seen it, so summarize it for us.
For example, the OIC report documents the evidence that Foster was depressed. It seems compelling to me. Is this disproven in the film? what is the evidence?
Last edited:
chuck4842
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Messages
- 604
His body was found with arms straight at side and gun in hand. NOBODY can shoot theirself in the head and lay down perfectly without at least an accomplice, and he was the Whitewater attorney, and just part of a large list of dead people that got in the Clintons way. Hooray! Long Live The Monopolers!
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I've let you folks post enough disinformation, I think. Now to examine the veracity of the above claim about clinical depression. The entire "suicide" scenario promoted by the Clinton administration (and it's many supporters), and by Fiske and Starr, hinges on this claim. If it's not true ... ?
First, Fiske and Starr claimed, as evidence of Foster's depression, that Foster had lost weight. That it was obvious to many. But Foster's medical records are actually consistent with Foster losing no weight between the time he took the job in Washington and died. They indicate that on December 31, 1992, at a physical the month before he went to Washington, he weighed 194 pounds. Foster's autopsy weight was 197 pounds. In short, Fiske and Starr misled the public about this. They lied.
The second major claim used by the FBI, Fiske and Starr to support the suicide scenario is that Lisa Foster said her husband was "fighting depression." There are a number of problems with this assertion, however. To begin with, that's not what she told investigators in the days following Vince's death (which Starr and Fiske didn't mention in their reports). The night of the death, when asked by the Park Police and FBI if her husband had been taking any medication, specifically any anti-depressant medication, she said emphatically "NO".
In fact, she didn't mention the word depression until 9 days later ... in a session with Park Police in her attorney's office that occurred three days after the discovery of the torn suicide note and two days after a meeting that she and her attorney attended in the Whitehouse (to supposedly discuss that note). She then told Park Police that Foster had taken Trazodone [Desyrel] the night before he died. When asked how she knew this, the investigator's notes say "LF [Lisa Foster] told VF [Vince Foster] to take one and she also saw him take it." In his deposition, the officer who conducted the *interview* said "You know, we didn't have to question her a whole lot." He said the widow gave more of a verbal statement than an interview. He thought "she had gone over it with her lawyer so many times she had it down pat. ... I don't think we ever asked her a direct question." And the investigators did not interview any of Foster's children because the attorney "would not make them accessible to us."
What about this attorney of Lisa's ... James Hamilton? What do we know about him? He was general counsel of the Clinton transition team and the author of a memo to Clinton counseling stonewalling in the Whitewater case (that's the one connected to the documents that they took from Foster's office and later found on Hillary's nightstand). And Hamilton is the lawyer that helped keep the Foster photos under lock and key recently ... the photos that might have told us whether Foster was murdered ... because there is serious doubt (which I'll discuss in another post) about the nature of the wound.
One wonders given the history of the Clinton administration at witness intimidation, especially of women, what sort of *encouragement* Lisa was subjected to in order to get her to change her story so abruptly? Maybe the experience of Patrick Knowlton is a clue? Or Juanita Broaddrick? Or Paula Jones?
But Fiske and Starr didn't just ignore Lisa's early statements, they (or the FBI) directly tampered with evidence. The proof is here:
http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster...or_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm
That link shows images of two items ... a section of the handwritten notes made by the FBI agent interviewing Lisa Foster the night Vince died, and portions of the typed FD-302 report of that interview as published in IOC's reports. Shown is both the question (typed ahead of time by the agent) and the response to that question written by the agent based on Lisa's answer. The agent's raw notes clearly record Lisa said "he was fighting prescription".In the same place on the form, the typed FD-302 report says he was "fighting depression". One can only conclude that either the FBI tampered with the evidence or Fiske did (and that Starr either knew of this deception or was at best incompetent in his investigation).
The handwritten statement, "fighting prescription", is completely consistent with other facts. First, there are reports that he was worried about becoming addicted to sleeping pills.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984262-1,00.html "IN MID-1993, ... snip ... He got a prescription for sleeping pills, but then refused to take them, saying he was afraid he'd become addicted."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940701.htm "He would not take sleeping pills because he feared becoming addicted."
In fact, the FBI agent who interviewed Lisa Foster the night Foster died recorded the following:
So we find that Lisa said he was suffering from insomnia ... not depression. She never mentioned depression once ... never mentioned depression until 9 days later, after the mysterious meeting in the Whitehouse. She said he was afraid of addiction to sleeping pills. Fiske and Starr simply ignored this fact. They ignored the fact that the medicine Foster was prescribed is non-addictive and was routinely prescribed at that time for insomnia, unrelated to depression. Which is totally consistent with the story Lisa originally told investigators. Which is totally inconsistent with the story Fiske and Starr fed the public.
In a third clear instance of dishonesty, Fiske and the Clinton administration claimed that Foster's family and friends noted Foster's depression. That's a lie. During the first week after his death, before the claims of depression were made by the government, when those people were interviewed, NONE of them mentioned any signs of depression. All said they were stunned by his suicide. The Park Police conducted a 70 minute interview of the family and friends (including Foster's daughter and both sisters) who gathered at his house the night he died. If Foster had been as severely depressed in the weeks before he died as is now claimed, those interviewed that night should have described symptoms of clinical depression. They did not.
Here are some specific quotes from the Senate depositions and testimony of the Park Police regarding those interviews:
This was confirmed by an officer who answered a question posed by a Senate attorney in later hearings:
It is simply impossible to reconcile these published statements by the investigators who where there with the claim in the IOC reports that witnesses said Foster was depressed. They did not say that, until after a meeting in the Whitehouse a week later. A meeting that Fiske and Starr showed no interest in investigating.
For example, in his report, Starr cites Sheila Anthony, Foster's sister, saying that Vince told her 4 days before the death that he was depressed. But she specifically denied he was depressed when asked by FBI and Park Police investigators about depression the night of his death. Of course, Starr didn't mention that in his official report. She also didn't tell the investigators the night he died her later claim that she gave Vince the names of 3 psychiatrists (a note with 3 names on it was found in Foster's car ... not on his body). No, she only voiced those claims after the Whitehouse meeting, which she attended.
Sheila's husband, Beryl Anthony, also changed his story after the mysterious Whitehouse meeting. In an interview on July 22, when asked if Foster had been depressed during the two weeks prior to death, he said: "There is not a damn thing to it. That's a bunch of crap." But of course, on July 27th, soon after the meeting, he changed his story and told Park police that "he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression." Of course, Starr didn't mention the earlier statement in his official report.
Starr also didn't mention that Sheila was a high ranking member of Clinton's inner circle (the Assistant Attorney General in Clinton's Administration) who might have good reason to lie. Starr doesn't mention that her husband was a long time associate of the Clintons from Arkansas (a former Democrat Congressman from Arkansas and a former President of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) and might have good reasons to lie.
And Starr doesn't mention that Sheila transferred $286,000 to Lisa Foster four days before Vince's death. What was that about? What were Lisa and Vince involved in? A good investigator would have looked into that. But Starr and Fiske didn't. Couldn't that payout have been pertinent? A skeptic might think so. Is the timing just coincidence? A skeptic might wonder. We may never know, but we as skeptics don't have to believe the story they concocted and that you now defend as the truth. There are just too many hole in it ... too many clear efforts to lie to the public about the facts.
And let's continue describing those deception efforts.
To bolster the depression argument, Fiske and Starr cited a contact with a physician, Dr. Watkins, the day before Foster's death. What they don't mention is that the physician said Foster came in complaining of insomnia and that he prescribed medication to help Foster "sleep better". What they don't mention is that doctor indicated whatever depression Foster was experiencing was "mild" and that he was not "in crisis". The doctor did not say he was "clinically" depressed as Starr and Fiske suggested in their reports.
Starr compounded the lie when he stated "He was prescribed antidepressant medication". But he was not ... not, technically. Foster was prescribed medication (which just happened to also be used at certain dosages ... much higher than he was prescribed ... for depression) to treat insomnia (which that medication is said to help even without depression being diagnosed). Starr LIES when he states in his report that "Foster had called a family doctor for antidepressant medication the day before his death." He did not do that. The doctor stated in both notes and interviews with the FBI that Foster contacted him ... with concern about insomnia. The doctor's notes show no indication that Foster "asked" for "antidepressant medication." The doctor prescribed the drug he did because it is known to be effective against INSOMNIA (which Foster did complain about) at precisely the dosage the doctor prescribed. Furthermore, it is not addictive and that was clearly another of Foster's concerns. Starr didn't mention any of this in his report. At best, Starr committed another lie by omission.
Here is what the report of the FBI interview with Foster's doctor, Dr. Watkins, shortly after Foster's death, stated (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_/ai_17817574 ):
So Foster's doctor told the FBI that he did NOT think Foster was significantly depressed. That stands in direct contradiction to the claim by Fiske and Starr that Foster was "clinically depressed". "Clinical depression" refers to MAJOR depression, not mild depression. Look it up, folks.
Beyond that, the doctor made no further statements ... until, that is, Starr (during his investigation) claimed that the doctor provided him with a note he'd typed shortly after the death. But it only confirms the above facts, not the IOC's suicide scenario. Here's what that note said according to Starr's report:
Again, it says Foster complained about insomnia, not depression. Any depression he did have was described as only "mild". Not "clinical". And the medication and dosage was one routinely used for insomnia ... not depression. Look it up.
The rest of Fiske's and Starr's so-called *evidence* pointing to "clinical depression" is that Foster complained of being overworked in the days before he died. Well guess what? Who at the Whitehouse doesn't complain of being overworked? It is known for long hours. In fact, who anywhere doesn't complain about long hours? And again, the IOC's claims in this regard are mostly based on testimony by people whose stories changed after a meeting in the Whitehouse a week after the death. And Fiske and Starr don't mention any of the MANY witnesses who indicated just the opposite of his conclusion ... that Foster was not depressed or in any state of crisis.
For example, three secretaries in the White House Office of Legal Counsel were interviewed by the Park Police two days after the death (according to Park Police notes). Here is what the notes recorded: "There was nothing unusual about his emotional state. In fact, over the last several weeks she did not notice any changes, either physically or emotionally. She noticed no weight loss." "Mr. Foster's demeanor seemed normal to her." "She stated that she did not note any unusual behavior by Mr. Foster on [the day he died]". That last was Foster's personal secretary. One would think she'd have notice major depression. This just doesn't match the suicide theory at all, folks. What it suggests is that Fiske and Starr lied.
Here's another example. In an interview with Federal agents in 1994, Web Hubbell described himself as ''best friends'' with Vince Foster. He recalled vacationing with Foster on the last weekend of his life. The agents wrote: ''Hubbell said that he was not aware that Foster was experiencing any type of stress." "Hubbell answered no to all questions concerning any noticeable changes in Foster's appearance, physical ailments, headaches, loss of appetite or any kind of stomach trouble.'' Fiske and Starr completely ignored such testimony time and again ... because they were clearly intent on building, out of whole cloth, a case that Foster was "clinically" depressed so they could explain his death away as a suicide.
And finally, what about Starr's so-called suicide *expert*? At the end of his report, Starr cites an *analysis* by Dr Berman and his conclusion that with "100% degree of medical certainty" the death was a suicide. Red flags should go up when ANY expert in something so nebulous as the psychology of suicide claims "100%" certainty. Especially when his claim is clearly based on only some of the facts and in large part based on the statements of witnesses whose stories radically changed well after the death. The truth is that Berman simply started with the assumption of suicide and never explored the alternatives, because that was the job Starr assigned.
Here's what another expert in suicide thought of Berman's conclusion in the Foster case (http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-critiquing-bermans-report-on-foster/ ):
And I have still more facts to prove the dishonesty of Fiske, Starr, the mainstream media, and their defenders in this thread.
Lab work done as a part of the autopsy of Foster immediately after his death included specific tests for the presence of antidepressants. The tests all came back negative. Starr never mentioned this in his report. Dr. Anh Hyunh, who did the blood toxicology, stated in the official report that no Trazodone or Valium-derivatives were found. It was not until a re-test of the blood months later by the FBI Lab that the presence of both Trazodone and Valium was reported - just before Fiske issued his June 30, 1994 report claiming Foster was clinically depressed. What a coincidence. Isn't it obvious by now, folks, that they lied to help confirm Fiske's claim? That second test is a little too convenient given that the tests were conducted by an FBI that is already shown to have altered witness statements to make it appear like Foster was clinically depressed. And we now know, thanks to the testimony of Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, who worked at FBI labs during this time, that the FBI Labs were routinely tampering with evidence. Whitehurst sued the FBI as a whistleblower regarding tampering and received a substantial cash settlement from the FBI, suggesting his allegations had merit.
Are you starting to get the picture yet, folks? The claims made by posters in this thread that Foster was clinically depressed are nothing short of lies. Or they show that those folks are woefully uninformed about the real facts in this case.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I'm puzzled why you folks are claiming there was no suicide note given that the Clinton administration claimed to have found one. And the facts surrounding that note suggest exactly the sort of conspiracy that you folks are trying to deny. Let's look at them.
Bernard Nussbaum opened and upended Foster's briefcase in front of Park Police, showing it to be empty. EMPTY. Days later, Stephen Neuwirth, Associate Counsel to the President, announced that a torn up suicide note was discovered in that same briefcase. How remarkable that neither Nussbaum or the Park Police noticed.
The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee concluded that Hillary was one of the first persons to see the alleged suicide note and that it was her instructions that Bill Clinton NOT be informed of its existence and that the note NOT be turned over to law enforcement. And it wasn't until about 28 hours later (4 hours after Bill learned about the note anyway). These facts are documented in the OIC report. Now a number of Clinton staffers swore under oath that the first lady had no role whatsoever in the handling of Foster's note. Yet a memo was discovered, written by White House lawyer Miriam Nemetz, who quotes then-White House chief of staff Mack McLarty saying Mrs. Clinton "was very upset and believed the matter required further thought and the president should not yet be told". I think those staffers should have been charged with perjury, don't you?
The IOC declared the note authentic, based on the opinion of Sergeant Larry Lockhart, the U.S. Capitol Police handwriting expert. Fiske and Starr used this to bolster their suicide theory. But Reed Irvine (of AIM) later met with Sergeant Larry Lockhart. He showed Lockhart a sheet of paper with 12 words that were found in both the Foster letter that had been used to authenticate the note and the note itself. They had been copied and enlarged. Lockhart was told that these words came from two documents, neither of which was identified. He was asked if, in his professional opinion, all 12 words had been written by the same person. Lockhart conclude "very possibly" and "probably" they were NOT. He pointed out indications of conscious efforts to imitate the handwriting. At that point he didn't know that he was reversing the opinion he gave the Park Police. When he was told that, he acknowledged that he had not used any enlargements for his 1993 analysis. Hmmmmm ...
The government refused to release photocopies of the reconstructed note and fought efforts by The Wall Street Journal to obtain a copy under the Freedom of Information Act. Eventually, however, a copy was leaked to the WSJ. Then, three noted and independent handwriting experts looked at the published note. All were board certified and all three declared the note an obvious forgery. Hmmmmmm ...
The note was undated and unsigned. It said nothing whatever about suicide or farewells to family and friends. Curiously, the beginning and the end of the note are written in first person but the middle part is written in third person (and, curiously, exonerates the Clintons of all sorts of allegations). Finally, note that the FBI failed to find Foster's fingerprints on the note. That in itself is very curious. Oh yes, the note was torn into pieces ... which the three experts said is a red flag.
Sorry, but the bogus suicide note is clear proof that the Clinton WhiteHouse, or some member of it, tried to tamper with evidence ... tried to make investigators believe Foster committed suicide. The fact that this note is so obviously bogus (that now even defenders of the official story pretend like no note existed) is reason enough to reopen the Foster case and find out what really happened.
Here's Miquel Rodriquez's testimony: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00277.htm. He's the man who ran the investigation for Starr until finally quitting in disgust, charging that it was nothing but a coverup. In it, he says the body was moved and the photos claimed by Starr to represent the crime scene were retaken, with the original photos disappearing.
Maybe you can tell us about the mysterious Sergeant Edwards? Who was he? At 6:26 pm he arrived at the scene and took charge -- only to disappear about 20 minutes later. Testimony by those who were there indicates that the original 7 polaroids of the body that were taken by Officer Ferstl were given to Edwards and then disappeared. For over 15 minutes Edwards was alone with Foster's body. Investigator Christine Hodakievic saw the body before and after Edwards was alone with it. When she saw photos of the body later, she said its appearance had been changed. For one thing, the head was moved. One more thing. Lead investigator Rolla said he didn't know who Edwards was and had never seen him before. And for all his involvement at the scene, there is no public record of Edwards being interviewed by the FBI or Fiske's/Starr's investigators. So perhaps you can help us out by explaining why not?
I hate to tell you but there is no question that photos of the crime scene have disappeared and what you think is the crime scene was not.
Again. That's easy to provide and isn't it curious that someone claiming to be as knowledgeable about this case as you wouldn't already know the following facts.
A Supplemental Criminal Incident Record of the U.S. Park Police states "Dr. Beyer stated that X-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head." Dr. Beyer was the Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner. That would certainly suggest x-rays were taken. The X-ray box on the autopsy report done by Dr Beyer was checked "yes." That would seem to suggest x-rays were taken.
But, curiously, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Dr. Beyer said that he had been planning to take X-rays but never did. He claimed the equipment was broken and had been for weeks. Asked whether Robert Fiske had ever talked to him he said "no". Asked whether Fiske had sent investigators to the hospital, or to the company that services the X-ray machine", he said "Not that I am aware of."
However, the Knowlton portion of the official report on the Foster death (you know who Knowlton is, right?) contains information which shows that there are maintenance records which indicate the X-Ray machine was, in fact, fully operable at the time the Foster autopsy was conducted. Dr Beyer lied. Starr knew this information but failed to investigate. Starr was corrupt.
According to Accuracy in Media, when Starr released his report about Foster, he refused to make public the reports written by three consultants that he had hired to study the case. AIM sued the OIC to obtain them. Turns out that in one report submitted by a Dr. Brian Blackbourne, the San Diego County medical examiner, Dr. Blackbourne reports meeting with Dr. James Beyer, the 75-year-old medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Foster. He wrote "I discussed the autopsy X-rays with him." When asked about that discussion of the X-rays, Dr. Blackbourne admitted that it was actually about the absence of X-rays. According to Blackbourne, Dr. Beyer explained their absence by claiming his X-ray machine was not working on the day he performed the autopsy. That was what he had told the FBI and a Senate committee. But AIM learned that the first call to service this brand new machine was made over three months after Foster’s death. On hearing that, Dr. Blackbourne asked, "Do you mean that they couldn’t take any X-rays for three months?" No, what it means is that Dr. Beyer was lying about the machine not working. And Starr’s investigators, and presumably Starr himself, knew that the claim that the machine was not working was false. We know that because the record of that first service call on Oct. 29 was included among the documents AIM obtained from the OIC. They had investigated Dr. Beyer’s excuse and had found the proof that it was false, but they did nothing about it. They never even mentioned it in their official report. Because Starr and his office were corrupt.
And there are more reasons to be skeptical about the government's story and particularly Beyer's. Beyer's autopsy report states the bullet exited the top of the back of the head. Here's a drawing from the autopsy: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/cmn_img/a5.gif . It shows a very large exit wound. Beyer also stated that he found no additional wounds on the body. Fiske and Starr promoted this version of the wound in their reports which officially indicated the wound was 1 by 1 ¼ inch in size. Fiske’s panel of pathologists concluded "There is no other trauma identified that would suggest a circumstance other than suicide."
However, the original report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene, lists the cause of death as a "self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck." Curiously enough, Dr. Haut’s report was not included in the documents released by the government. It was discovered in June 1997 at the National Archives by Patrick Knowlton.
And that's not all. Four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury. But Starr never mentioned this in his official report.
Now you'd think if there was a 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole in the back of Fosters head there would have been brain matter and blood all over the scene of the "suicide". But Corey Ashford, the Emergency Medical Services technician who had to pick up and move the body didn't observe any. He said he didn't get a drop of blood on his white uniform, or on his gloves. He said there was no blood on the ground underneath the body. Roger Harrison, another rescue worker who helped Cory, didn’t see any blood either. He saw no blood on the ground. No blood on the body. No blood on anybody who had touched it. Corey Ashford didn't see an exit wound either. Neither did emergency medical technician Richard Arthur who told the FBI he noted "what appeared to be a small-caliber bullet hole in Foster's neck on the right side, just under the jaw line about halfway between the ear and the tip of the chin." Nor did Sgt Gonzalez. In fact, NONE of the paramedics or others who where there at the scene reported seeing the 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole claimed by Fiske and Starr to be in the back of Foster’s skull. Nor did they find any bone fragments on the ground near the body. Or a bullet, despite repeated and extensive search efforts.
At the FairFax County Morgue, the doctor on duty was Julian Orenstein. In his FBI statement it says he lifted the body in order "to locate and observe the exit wound on the decedent's head." Notice that it doesn't actually say he saw the exit wound ... but you might think he did reading that. But he didn't. Contacted later, he admitted "I never saw one directly." And a copy of the handwritten notes of the FBI interviews, which Christopher Ruddy obtained via a FOIA lawsuit against the Office of the Independent Counsel does not mention Orenstein trying to locate an exit wound. Apparently, that was added to his statement after the fact. Again, tampering with evidence.
You must know who Dr. Lee is ... right? He's the expert Starr called in to review the case ... the one whose findings Starr quotes in his IOC report on Foster's death. He officially agreed with the suicide finding. But Dr Lee wrote a book, "Famous Crimes Revisited", years after Foster's death, where he "admitted that some of the evidence that Foster was murdered was 'compelling.'" According to http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/lee-denies-he-wants-new-foster-probe/, Dr Lee was interviewed by a Boston Globe reporter and during that interview said he would like to see a new Foster probe. Moreover, he said that in reaching his conclusions in the IOC report,
And what about the official autopsy photos? Given all of the above, and all the rest that Knowlton documents at his website, you'd think the government would want them released to stop all these allegations of foul play that are circulating. Clear autopsy photos showing only a wound where the official report claims there was a wound would likely do that. But in a recent FOIA ruling, the court refused to release them to the public. They said the privacy rights of the Foster family outweigh the public's interest in seeing them. Do you know that was the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled that a public figure's privacy rights under the FOIA can be extended after his death to members of his family? Do you know that the US government joined with the Foster family to prevent the release? It seems, they'd rather have these allegations floating about, discrediting the whole government, then clear the matter up by simply releasing four photos? This should make a real skeptic wonder. But then I think real skeptics are few and far between on this website.
The government claims the official 35 mm photos of Foster at the scene of the crime were "underexposed" and deemed useless. What a coincidence. In addition, a lot of polaroids were taken at the scene (based on statements to the FBI and other investigators). Apparently most of these polaroid photos just disappeared. What a coincidence. The rest have been tightly controlled by the government, with the government fighting every single attempt to get them released, even internally within the investigations. What a coincidence.
One of the surviving polaroid photos shows Foster's head (or at least the neck). When Miquel Rodriguez (Starr's top investigator who resigned saying there was a coverup) finally got hold of the original of this polaroid, he had the Smithsonian institution blow it up. The blowups show a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear. A wound never mentioned by Fiske or Starr in their reports. A wound consistent with the report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene, as well as the EMTs. A wound inconsistent with the official autopsy report.
A friend of Foster's, Joe Purvis, claimed that he was told by a staff member of Ruebel's Funeral Home in Little Rock that Foster had an entry wound deep at the back of the mouth, and an exit wound "the size of a dime" close to the neck at the hairline. What makes this claim significant is that it was made BEFORE Foster's autopsy report was released. Purvis' entry wound description matches that of all the named witnesses. But the exit wound description is nothing at all like Beyer/Fiske/Starr claimed. Because they LIED.
And if you can't see that, then frankly, you don't want to see it.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Fiske so botched the investigation that a second IOC was asked to look at the evidence. And what sort of investigation did Fiske run anyway? The sort of investigation that never bothered to interview Dr Haut, the only medical examiner to view Foster's body that night at Fort Marcy Park. Now I've already mentioned some things Haut said that run completely counter to the story told by Fiske. Here's another inconsistency. Haut stated that the body was found 10 to 20 yards from the first cannon one encounters in the park. This location was corroborated by Fairfax County rescue worker, George Gonzales, and several others. Their statements directly contradict Fiske's claim that the body was found deep inside the park at the base of the second cannon. So excuse me if I question the *independence* of a man appointed by Janet Reno (who herself was demonstrably corrupt) to investigate Bill Clinton (a proven liar).
And what about Starr? Well, for starters, we know he lied to the public about the Filegate files, telling the public that the illegally acquired files had been returned to FBI when in fact they remained in Whitehouse hands for years after the scandal broke. He also totally botched numerous other investigations, often failing to interview key witnesses or interviewing those who were implicated in wrong doing (including Hillary) in the most cursory manner possible. And Starr's IOC report on the Foster case was the first time in history that an independent panel of judges ruled that an addendum (Knowlton's ... see http://www.fbicover-up.com/dreyfus/dreyfus1.htm and http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm ), alleging that the FBI intimidated witnesses and covered up evidence, was ordered attached to the final report issued by an IOC. That's not something that judges would have done lightly and they were under no statutory obligation to do it.
Furthermore, as you can see from this and my other posts here, Fiske and Starr lied repeatedly (directly and by omission) regarding the facts in the Foster case. It is certainly damning that Fiske and Starr both failed to tell the three judge panel and the public about an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after the death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound, which directly contradicts Starr, Fiske and the official autopsy report. So I'm sorry but I don't believe Fiske or Starr were independent, honest brokers. Both were corrupt. Both clearly tried to hide the facts. And it doesn't take a genius to see this.
Finally, I'll just quote Miquel Rodriguez, who ran the investigation for Starr until quitting in disgust. Here's what Rodriquez concluded: "This whole notion of [Fiske and Starr] doing an honest investigation is laughable. … The FBI conducted the first investigation along with the Park Police. The FBI reinvestigated Foster's death under Independent Counsel Fiske, then, Kenneth Starr used the very same FBI agents in his investigation. … The American press misled the American public by reporting that there have been several independent investigations, when, in fact, all of the investigations were done by the FBI."
Of course, gdnp knows all this because we've had this conversation before. But he's still in denial.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Yes.
The civilian who first discovered Foster's body, identified as "CW" in his FBI interviews and deposition, maintained that he did NOT have a gun in his hands. In an interview reported here (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/vince.htm ), seven years after Foster's death, he said Foster was "Face straight up. Hands on each side of his body straight away." (Both are inconsistent with the photos released by Fiske and Starr ... photos that Starr's own investigator questioned). CW said "I looked to see if he had something in his hands that he could defend himself with - maybe a rock or something like that. ... snip ... that's why I was so adamant and so sure [that Foster had no gun]. Because I clearly looked at both hands. And they were straight down by his sides, fully extended, straight as can be, and both hands were palm up."
Congressman Burton stated on the floor of the House on October 26, 1995, that he and two other Congressmen went to CW's house and took a sworn statement from him in which he told them "He was within 18 inches of Mr. Foster's face. He looked very carefully and saw no gun in either hand . He was very clear in his statement, in the sworn statement before me and the FBI, that when he found Foster, both hands were palm up with the thumbs pointed out away from the body. When the police arrived on the scene, they found his right hand palm down with the thumb pointed in, the gun on the trigger finger, and the gun was partially obscured by his hand and his leg." The body was tampered with.
And there are other reasons to question your, Fiske's and Starr's gun claim.
Many months after the death, Lisa Foster was shown a silver gun by FBI agents and told that it was the gun found with her husband's body. But the gun seen in the so-called crime scene photo in Foster's hand is black. The gun is described as black in Starr's report. So why was the gun shown to Lisa Foster by the FBI a silver one?
And here is something even more curious. Starr claimed in his investigation that the reason the gun did not have Foster's fingerprints on it is that it was carried to Fort Marcy Park inside an oven mitt that Starr claimed was found in the glove compartment of Foster's car. Now, never mind the fact that Foster would have gotten fingerprints on the gun carrying it from the car to the location where he supposedly shot himself. The real problem here is that Starr provides as proof a photo which shows a big green oven mitt occupying most of the space in the glove compartment. And in that photo, the floor of the car below the glove compartment is clean ... sans debris. But other photos from that day show there was debris on the floor. According to Park Police records, Detective Braun emptied the glove box of all items PRIOR to detective Smith removing the debris from the passenger seat floor. Records show Braun emptying the glove box at 6:35 AM July 21st. Detective Smith's paperwork indicates he cleaned off the passenger side floor after noon on July 21st. So a photograph showing the glove box with items in it over a clean passenger floor contradicts the Park Police records. Such an after the fact photo (this was never mentioned by Fiske, by the way) can only have been staged by Starr. Furthermore, Detective Braun's inventory of the glove compartment did NOT record an oven mitt ... something that would be very hard to miss and unusual enough to have surely been listed. Face it, folks ... Starr tampered with the evidence. So how can you possibly believe anything claimed by Ken Starr or those using him to *debunk* the Foster allegations?
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
It's official: There Is Not A Conspiracy Theory On The Planet Earth That Galileo The Troll Will Not Buy Into.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
<crickets>
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
tl;dr
Galileo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,368
I don't buy into the OCT conspiracy theory. That's official.
Defending an innocent man is not a conspiracy theory.