The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)

Galileo · May 14, 2009

oldhat said:
How many people were involved in the conspiracy?

three people max.

oldhat · May 14, 2009

Since you were too lazy or fearful that it might make your conspiracy theory look like a Rube Goldberg contraption, I took the liberty of going through your sources and making a rough tally of the people -- at a bare minimum -- who would have to be involved for the conspiracy to succeed. And this is by no means exhaustive, I didn't read the rambling 511 page motion Patrick Knowlton filed in the three US District courts in the District of Columbia, the US District Court for Eastern District of Virginia, the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the DC Circuit's Special Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels and the United States Supreme Court because it got tossed out more or less immediately. The one where he complained about being followed and said shadowy people were watching him.

Anyway, here is a list of a minimum number of conspirators, based on your own sources:

Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Robert Fiske
Ken Starr
Lisa Foster, Vince Foster's wife
James Hamilton, Lisa Foster's lawyer
Shiela Anthony, Lisa Foster's sister
Beryl Anthony, Sheila Anthony's husband
Dr. Henry Lee, forensics expert
Dr. Brian D. Blackbourne, forensics expert
Dr. Alan L. Berman, Vince Foster's prescribing doctor
Stephen Neuwirth, White House attorney
Sergeant Larry Lockhart, U.S. Capitol Police
Officer John Rolla, Park Police
Dr. Donald Haut, medical examiner
Mark Touhey, Ken Starr's assistant
The Time Magazine editorial board
The Newsweek Magazine editorial board
Nightline/ABC News editorial board
The New York Times editorial board
The Boston Globe editorial board
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial board
Investigator Cheryl Braun, Park Police
Dr. James Beyer, Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner
Dr. Julian Orenstein, Fairfax County morgue
Attorney General Janet Reno
Chief White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum
Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heyman
Chief Robert Langston, Park Police
Harper's Magazine
The Atlantic
The New Republic
The Nation
The New York Review of Books
The New Yorker
Sidney Blumenthal, writing for the New Yorker
White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers
Maj. Robert Hines, Park Police spokesman
The FBI laboratory
Walter Pincus, Washington Post reporter
Roderick C. Lankler, former New York City D.A.
ABC News
The New York Daily News
The Senate Banking and Urban Affairs Committee
Jim McDougal
Susan McDougal
Assistant Attorney General Webster Hubbell
William Kennedy III
Craig Livingstone
Marsha Scott
Helen Dickey, White House secretary

SmartyPants · May 14, 2009

Galileo said:
Do you not realize that a couple hundred million Americans work hard every day, run errands, talk on the phone, etc., then suddenly become calm in the evening before they go to sleep? Some people get home and relax, kick back in a chair, or crack open a beer. Some people with insomnia don't get enough sleep and are calm in the morning as well.

A lot of calm people have been murdered by sudden gunshots.

Do you not realize that I'm not talking about a couple hundred million Americans who work hard every day, run errands, talk on the phone, etc., then suddenly become calm in the evening before they go to sleep?

BeAChooser · May 15, 2009

oldhat said:
Since you were too lazy or fearful that it might make your conspiracy theory look like a Rube Goldberg contraption,

Those are mighty strong words coming from someone, who as anyone reading this thread can see, was either too lazy or too fearful to even touch the scores and scores of facts I cited.

Mighty strong words coming from someone who actually made up some claims about a witnesses' testimony in order to try and steer folks away from looking into this issue.

oldhat said:
Anyway, here is a list of a minimum number of conspirators, based on your own sources:

Bill Clinton

We already know that Bill lied to just about everyone who could possibly be lied to in a dozen scandals or so, and was more than adept at covering up nefarious activity. Bill is already implicated in coverups. What's one more? And being the President would give him considerable leverage in covering one up. How can you be so sure he didn't do so in this case? If for no other reason than to protect Hillary? He must have been aware of some of the things Hillary was up to given that they were man and wife. Surely Bill knew about the Whitewater documents (that Foster was reportedly working on) that Hillary denied having but which eventually were found on a nightstand in her and Bill's private quarters. Or are you claiming he was unaware of this? Clueless? How can you be sure that Foster's death didn't have something to do with Bill directly? Foster was working on Clinton's blind trust (which by the way was long overdue in being finished so perhaps there was a ... *problem*). He was the Clinton's personal attorney and certainly had to know where some of their proverbial bodies were buried. If not real ones. If he was becoming unreliable due to stress (that's your claim, right?), then who can be sure what Bill's reaction would have been? Afterall, Bill was a man who was known to get almost violent when discussing people he perceived to be "enemies". Or are you just protective of Bill Clinton in general and would never accept the possibility that he might have committed misdeeds or lies or coverups? I bet you'd defend him against accusations of misdeeds in ChinaGate, CampaignFinanceGate, RapeGate or the death of Ron Brown, too? Right?

oldhat said:
Hillary Clinton

Evidence has already been presented that Hillary has lied about facts in various nefarious scandals involving Foster, and was involved in something nefarious in this instance. Why else would she be calling lawyers late at night and directing her aides to remove items from what might well have been a crime scene? Why else would she be advising everyone to keep the existence of the suicide note from the President? But I notice you completely ignored that evidence in your haste to "move on".

oldhat said:
Robert Fiske
Ken Starr

I've already provided various hard evidence suggesting these two were involved in a coverup. What else can I say, if you won't even attempt to challenge that evidence? Other than ... coward?

oldhat said:
Lisa Foster, Vince Foster's wife

How much pressure do you have to put on the widow of a man who may have been murdered to get her to change her story a week after his death? To get her to stop looking for answers? Perhaps not all that much. Afterall, if someone was willing to kill her husband. And then there's that $286,000 payment.

oldhat said:
James Hamilton, Lisa Foster's lawyer

Oh yes, there's an upstanding individual. We already have proof of his advising Clinton to stonewall (i.e., that's another name for *coverup*) in the Whitewater scandal.

oldhat said:
Shiela Anthony, Lisa Foster's sister

She was Vince's sister. And she was more than just a sister. She was a top echelon member of the Clinton inner circle. Probably involved in various nefarious activities or aware of them. Like that $286,000 payment to Lisa. And another person who completely changed her story a week after Vince's death, after a meeting in the Whitehouse with a few other people who then changed their story regarding Foster's claimed depression, too.

oldhat said:
Beryl Anthony, Sheila Anthony's husband

Again, you minimize this man's resume. He was a close friend of the Clintons and part of their campaign efforts. And one of those who was at that Whitehouse meeting and completely changed his story about Foster's state of mind after that meeting. Sure would have liked to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting.

oldhat said:
Dr. Henry Lee, forensics expert

Dr Lee was just incompetent. We already know that from his performance in the Simpson case. Or he was seeking to please Starr and just gave Starr the answer he knew Starr wanted to hear based on the information Starr provided. He didn't necessarily have to be part of a coverup at the time. In fact, how could he be, given that he wrote a book (I mentioned it but obviously you don't want to discuss it) in which he states some of the evidence that Foster was murdered is "compelling".

oldhat said:
Dr. Brian D. Blackbourne, forensics expert

You obviously didn't actually read what Dr Blackbourne said about this case if you think I'm claiming he was part of a coverup.

oldhat said:
Dr. Alan L. Berman, Vince Foster's prescribing doctor

Again, you get the facts wrong. Berman was not Foster's prescribing doctor. Just someone trying to please Starr by telling Starr what he thought Starr wanted to hear based solely on what Starr told him (which wasn't nearly everything).

oldhat said:
Stephen Neuwirth, White House attorney

No idea whether he's part of a coverup or just a patsy who was told to tell the public that a suicide note was found. If you think I suggested he was knowingly part of a coverup, your comprehension level is rather low.

oldhat said:
Sergeant Larry Lockhart, U.S. Capitol Police

Likewise. You clearly didn't actually read what I wrote about Lockhart. I merely suggested he was incompetent. And he later admitted that he didn't do what a good handwriting expert would have done ... blow up portions of the note and authentication writings and compare them.

oldhat said:
Officer John Rolla, Park Police
Dr. Donald Haut, medical examiner

Funny how you keep naming names of people who actually made statements questioning the official story. I may be saying they are incompetent and not rock the boat types if it might damage their career, but it's hard to see how you could claim I'm saying they were actively part of a coverup. They revealed too many facts that clearly those interested in covering a murder up would not have wanted revealed. For example, both say there clearly was no wound like Starr described in Foster's head. Haut said the wound was mouth to neck. Rolla said he searched Foster's pockets at the scene and found no car keys. But then I guess you just didn't bother to actually read what I quoted those individuals saying or anything else they actually said.

oldhat said:
Mark Touhey, Ken Starr's assistant

Although I never mentioned Touhey, if Starr was dirty, it's not inconceivable that his assistant was corrupt too ... or so desperate to further his career that he'd look the other way. We do have Miquel Rodriguez's statement that Touhey squelched his efforts to issue subpoenas and call witnesses. Touhey is the person who criticized Rodriguez's efforts to get a photo of Foster's neck enlarged. And then covered up what Rodriguez said he found in the photo.

oldhat said:
The Time Magazine editorial board
The Newsweek Magazine editorial board
Nightline/ABC News editorial board
The New York Times editorial board
The Boston Globe editorial board
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial board
... snip ...
Harper's Magazine
The Atlantic
The New Republic
The Nation
The New York Review of Books
The New Yorker
... snip ...
ABC News
The New York Daily News

Oh come now. Surely you aren't so naive as to think the editorial board of these mainstream sources are unbiased? Surely you aren't so naive as to think they reported things that might actually hurt the Clintons' and democrat agendas? Let me ask you a question, OH. How many of them even mentioned the pathologists in the Ron Brown case who expressed concern about the nature of the wound in Ron Brown's head and what the x-ray seemed to show? How many of them actually mentioned Rapegate? How many of them provided the full story in Filegate? How many of them published the Knowlton addendum, or even mentioned it's existance? Hmmmmmmm?

oldhat said:
Investigator Cheryl Braun, Park Police

I guess you are unaware that she testified that the determination the death was a suicide was made before they went up and saw the body. A stupid thing to admit if she was part of a coverup. Also if she was part of a coverup, you'd think she would have included that oven mitt in her inventory. But perhaps the oven mitt idea just didn't occur to anyone until Starr came on board so she no orders to include it.

In any case, am I just wasting my time with you like I was with ANTpogo? I think I've almost made up my mind about you, oldhat.

oldhat said:
Dr. James Beyer, Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner

Yes, there's a good chance he's part of the coverup since we know he lied about a number of things. Like the x-ray machine. And I can't help but notice that you don't want to discuss the many discrepancies and clear lies in his statements. And I just mentioned a few of them. You just want to sweep them all under the rug and PRETEND like they don't exist. And try this desperate tactic.

oldhat said:
Dr. Julian Orenstein, Fairfax County morgue

Again, you name someone who actually volunteered information that places the government's scenario in doubt. Again, you demonstrate that you didn't read what I wrote but merely scanned through what I wrote looking for names you could add to your list. DESPERATE.

oldhat said:
Attorney General Janet Reno

You really think Janet Reno was an honest broker?

oldhat said:
Chief White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum

Or Mr Nussbaum?

Remember, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee discovered a WhiteHouse document with Nussbaum saying Hillary Clinton had personally recommended the hiring of Craig Livingstone. Nussbaum denied that, yet years later Livingstone admitted that Hillary hired him. Nussbaum clearly lied to protect Hillary Clinton.

And also in Filegate, the very first file the WhiteHouse got was that of Billy Dale of Travelgate fame (surely you remember the effort to smear Dale). And Nussbaum was the one who requested it. So yes, Nussbaum was quite capable of engaging in nefarious acts to protect the Clintons. Even cover up.  

oldhat said:
Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heyman

I didn't mention this guy, but since you want to talk about him ...

Philip Heyman called Bernard Nussbaum and asked him why he was keeping the Park Police out of Foster's office. He reportedly said to Nussbaum "Bernie, are you hiding something?” You really don't know much about this case, do you. And you're too lazy to find out. So you embarrass yourself over and over. Which is fine with me.

Folks, are you getting a clear picture of oldhat yet?

oldhat said:
Chief Robert Langston, Park Police

Again someone I never mentioned. But yes, the head of the Park Police might be involved in a coverup. Afterall, it's hard to reconcile his statement that "The condition of the scene, the medical examiner's findings and the information gathered clearly indicate that Mr. Foster committed suicide. ... Our investigation has found no evidence of foul play" with the facts noted in this and the previous Foster thread. And when the boss says jump, often times the employees jump ... if they want to keep their jobs. A fact that's helpful if you want to coverup something nefarious.

oldhat said:
Sidney Blumenthal, writing for the New Yorker

ROTFLOL! Surely you aren't claiming Sidney would be incapable of lying to protect the Clintons? Don't you remember? He was one of the 3 people called in the impeachment and he clearly lied under oath in an impeachment where the charge was lying under oath in order to protect a Clinton? Now remind me what he had to do with the Foster case.

oldhat said:
White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers

I never mentioned her but since you have ... here's something she said:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/myers3.html

I mean, [of] however many people working in the White House complex, Vince was about the last guy that you would have expected to hear this about.

Guess she didn't think he was depressed either.

oldhat said:
Maj. Robert Hines, Park Police spokesman

Spokespersons tend to just say just what they are told.

oldhat said:
The FBI laboratory

Like I already pointed out, a Whistleblower won a large settlement against the FBI laboratory for tampering with evidence at that very time in our history. There's plenty of evidence to show the laboratory was not above suspicion. Including evidence already presented on this thread in the Foster case that you simply ignored.

oldhat said:
Walter Pincus, Washington Post reporter

Did I mention this guy? But in any case, we all know that Washington Post reporters are easily manipulated and more than eager to protect democrats from any and all accusations. Did I also not mention that that Washington Post is one of the media outlets that claimed to publish the Starr report in its entirety ... but happened to leave the Knowlton addendum out?

oldhat said:
Roderick C. Lankler, former New York City D.A.

Another name I didn't mention.

But he was one of the IOC staff members who worked for both Fiske and Starr ... so yes I suppose he'd have to know that a coverup was underway. Rodriguez said Lankler was totally against using different FBI agents to investigate the death during the Starr effort than were used during the Fiske effort. Went nuts when it was suggested. You didn't know they used the same FBI investigators in both investigations?

And all this time you thought those were two independent investigations.

oldhat said:
The Senate Banking and Urban Affairs Committee

I tire of you, OH. It's just one strawman after another.

oldhat said:
Jim McDougal

Although I don't recall mentioning Jim McDougal in this or the previous Foster thread, he certainly wasn't above lying to protect himself or the Clintons. He was indicted on 19 counts, including making false statements, in the Whitewater scandal. He was convicted of some of those counts and was serving 3 years in prison when he suddenly died of a heart attack, just prior to being called before Starr's grand jury to testify again.

oldhat said:
Susan McDougal

Although I don't recall mentioning Susan McDougal in this or the previous Foster thread, she certainly wasn't above lying to protect the Clintons and herself? Afterall, she was involved in Whitewater too ... you remember, the scandal related to the documents that Williams admitted she took from Foster's office (apparently under Hillary's orders) immediately after his death. And she watched her husband die in prison under the care of Clinton's administration. That might induce further silence.

oldhat said:
Assistant Attorney General Webster Hubbell

Hubbell? The guy I pointed out who went away with Foster the weekend before his death and said he saw no sign of stress or depression? Like I said, you didn't even bother to read what I posted, did you.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your list, because I've already proven what I need to prove about you. And I'm now as done with you as I am with ANTpogo. Debating you clearly is a waste of time and what needed to be said has been said. And I think most can see that. And ironically, I think your effort only succeeded in making my case stronger. Congratulations. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser · May 15, 2009

Just so everyone knows, I probably won't be able to post on the forum for the next week and a half.

Have a nice vacation ... and be sure to marshall your arguments for when I get back.

Arus808 · May 15, 2009

what arguments. the case has been proven to be a suicide. your posturing is just entertainment to see you and Galileo flounder like the flat fish you are

oldhat · May 15, 2009

BAC, to explain why I posted names of people that you consider corroborated the official report, what I did was go through your posts on this thread chronologically and read the links you posted in the order you posted them. Every time the author of the text in a link made an accusation that an individual or organization was a part of the conspiracy (i.e. changed their story under pressure and stayed mum, lied to protect either themselves or someone else, misled an investigator, etc.), I added it to the list. If there were names mentioned without any accusation, I didn't add them. I was just going by what the author said, taking it at face value.

So why does BAC claim that there are names on the list that shouldn't be there? It makes sense after you take a step back and look at the sources. Certain individuals were either conspiring against Foster or corroborating the official story depending on which source you're reading. Unfortunately, BAC, you can't have it both ways.

Take Dr. Blackbourne for instance. You wrote, BAC:

You obviously didn't actually read what Dr Blackbourne said about this case if you think I'm claiming he was part of a coverup.

But you said this:

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 your source, AIM, said this:

That was what Ken Starr wanted. He relied on Drs. Lee, Berman and Blackbourne to put an authoritative stamp of approval on his costly, inept investigation of Foster's death.

So was he or wasn't he in on it?

In regards to Inspector Taut and Officer Rolla you said:

Funny how you keep naming names of people who actually made statements questioning the official story. I may be saying they are incompetent and not rock the boat types if it might damage their career, but it's hard to see how you could claim I'm saying they were actively part of a coverup.

But you are saying they're part of a coverup. You and your sources are saying that these people volunteering information and then changed their story under pressure or knowingly lied to investigators. But even in doing so they're not part of the conspiracy?

You say one thing in the thread and your sources say another thing in the articles. This goes for Cheryl Braun and Julian Orenstein, too. Did you read this stuff (which is dreadful prose, by the way)? It's almost like you're cherry picking facts from each article in order to build a case and ignoring the stuff that doesn't work.

There's no coherent narrative to any of this. In order for your theory to work, the conspirators simultaneously have to be the most cunning, ingenious and vicious villains outside S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (zero leaks for 15 years, zero hard evidence) and the most incompetent gangs of Keystone Kops ever (BAC, did you get to the part about the wine cooler bottle the litterbug assassin hypothetically left behind at the scene of the crime -- I mean, it's really just pathetic when you theory calls for a black ops hitman who must've been slugging bottles of Boons while on the job).

It you focus on exclusively on minutia like an oven mitt, I suppose you could fool yourself into believing there's some hard hitting physical evidence, when in fact there is none. Your best "evidence" is raising a question about the chain of custody of an oven mitt that was at best incidental to Foster's suicide.

The rest of your "evidence" is innuendos and a list of people who had to be involved that's approximately a mile long. The guys who write these articles contradict each other. You've accused essentially the entire news industry of being in on the conspiracy. Cops were in on it. The Republican Party establishment, who hated Clinton's guts, was in on it for some reason. The FBI was in on it. Basically every doctor who had anything to do with the case was in on it. The list goes on and on.

What are the odds that you and a handful of people on the fringes of the internet are really onto something that five separate investigations missed and 99% of the country accepts without hesitation? Unless you really are standing there all alone, like the Last Honest Man or whatever inner fantasy you're trying to stroke?

I know Clinton got a blowjob by a fat girl and it was really upsetting to you but the Clinton Wars are over. You lost, get over it.

A'isha · May 15, 2009

oldhat said:
So why does BAC claim that there are names on the list that shouldn't be there? It makes sense after you take a step back and look at the sources. Certain individuals were either conspiring against Foster or corroborating the official story depending on which source you're reading. Unfortunately, BAC, you can't have it both ways.

Hey, just look at what he's said about Sheila Anthony, Vince Foster's sister.

According to him, she spent a quarter of a million dollars before the "murder" to get Lisa Foster to agree to the "depressed and suicidal" cover story, and spent time looking up and calling psychiatrists on behalf of her brother days before he died to try an establish a cover story that he was depressed and seeking medical treatment...and yet when the "murder" actually happened, she apparently totally forgot about the cover story, and (according to BAC and his conspiracy websites, at least) didn't tell any of the investigators about the "depressed and suicidal" thing for over a week, and even then she spoke about it only after some Big Mysterious Meeting with "lawyers".

Worst. Cover-up. Ever.

I know Clinton got a blowjob by a fat girl and it was really upsetting to you but the Clinton Wars are over. You lost, get over it.

I also like how apparently everyone in the Clinton Administration managed to murder Vince Foster and keep it all under wraps, and yet were somehow totally unable or unwilling to keep the Monica Lewinsky thing secret.

kookbreaker · May 15, 2009

BeAChooser said:
How much pressure do you have to put on the widow of a man who may have been murdered to get her to change her story a week after his death? To get her to stop looking for answers? Perhaps not all that much. Afterall, if someone was willing to kill her husband. And then there's that $286,000 payment.

This is just sickening, and a true example of conspiracy thinking at its most loathsome. Just like the 911 truthers happily and gleefully posit that a man sent his young son off to die in the planes, BeAChooser gushes at the very thought that a wife would allow her husband's killers to go free.

I've known of widows to spend decades seeking justice for their murdered husbands, even facing down murderous groups and crowds. Yet BeAChooser has such a low opinion of everyone except himself that they would happily forget about their loved ones for a small amount of cash that might last a few years (oh, and that came from another loved one of the victim)

Conspiracy theories are the opiates of the self-impressed and this tactic is the mainlined herion of that mindset. In their world, everyone is mercenary and willing to sell out their own mothers for a few bucks, but not the OH SO NOBLE conspiracy theorist! He's incorruptible (although contemptible) and will expose the horrid family members from their dastardly deeds. And he'll do it for free! All you have to do is put up with his sickening accusations for his own self-satisfaction.

CORed · May 16, 2009

Galileo said:
The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4113276458031151696&q=source:011312915067665507521&hl=en

Conspiracy or not?

What do the JREFers think on this one?

The 90's called. They want their idiotic conspiracy theory back.

BeAChooser · May 27, 2009

I'm back.

oldhat said:
It you focus on exclusively on minutia like an oven mitt

Anyone reading this thread can see the two-fold dishonesty in your statement.

First, I haven't focused "exclusively" on the oven mitt. To suggest I have is being completely dishonest because it is but one of many items I have discussed in detail during this thread and the previous one. Items that you simply ignore.

Second, if the oven mitt photos point to fabrication of evidence by the IOC, that is hardly "minutia" or "at best incidental". That is very significant. It puts the government's whole case in doubt.

And you can't simply sweep this all away by claiming it's just a "question" in the chain of custody. Because the oven is not the only fabricated evidence that we already know about.

We know that the suicide note was fabricated ... and know you don't want to discuss that at all.

We know that the FBI (or IOC) tampered with the statement made by Lisa Foster the night of Foster's death ... and you don't want to discuss that either.

We know that multiple witnesses said the body was in a different position when they first saw it from that depicted in the photos that the IOC claim show the body as it was found ... and you ignore that.

We know that ALL the witnesses (the only doctor to actually visit the scene, all the EMS personnel, several police officers, a mortuary employee, and several others) said the wound was different than what was described in the IOC report ... and you turn a blind eye to that.

We know that the doctor who did the autopsy lied about various things, including the x-rays ... and that's not a topic you want to discuss.

We know that Starr's top investigator says the government tampered with and ignored evidence. He also says the wound is different than described in Fiske and Starr's reports. But you want to ignore him too.

We know that Patrick Knowlton says the FBI tampered with his statements and later harassed and intimidated him ... but you close your ears to that too.

And I could go on and on.

These are not minutia or incidentals. These are facts that strike at the heart of the government's hypothetical scenario.

If anything, it is YOU who is focusing exclusively on the oven mitt, oldhat. And everyone can see your desperation now.

oldhat said:
I know Clinton got a blowjob by a fat girl and it was really upsetting to you

And that statement is just as dishonest as the other one. Because the concerns about Clinton were about far more than a BJ. Indeed, your statement says more about your rank partisanship than anything else.

BeAChooser · May 27, 2009

ANTPogo said:
Hey, just look at what he's said about Sheila Anthony, Vince Foster's sister. According to him, she spent a quarter of a million dollars before the "murder" to get Lisa Foster to agree to the "depressed and suicidal" cover story

I never said that. Stop throwing out strawmen and address what I actually did say. I simply asked you why Sheila gave Lisa a quarter million dollars just before his death? And you still haven't answered. And Fiske and Starr showed absolutely no interest in this unusual transaction. Yet it might have a bearing on what was really going on here. If it wasn't suicide.

ANTPogo said:
and (according to BAC and his conspiracy websites, at least) didn't tell any of the investigators about the "depressed and suicidal" thing for over a week

I challenge you to find ONE statement by her in any source you think reliable that shows she mentioned depression to investigators before that meeting in the Whitehouse a week after his death took place. Go ahead.

ANTPogo said:
and even then she spoke about it only after some Big Mysterious Meeting with "lawyers".

And I challenge you to provide a transcript for that meeting. Or just tell us what Lisa Foster, Sheila Anthony, their lawyers, and whoever else was at that meeting (you can name them, right?) discussed? You can do that, can't you? Or am I correct in describing it as "mysterious"?

ANTPogo said:
Worst. Cover-up. Ever.

It doesn't have to be very good when the government controls the investigatory bodies and the mainstream media is no longer interested in real journalism and being non-partisan. It doesn't have to be very good when they have helpful lackeys like you to dissuade a dumbed down public from taking any interest in the issue.

ANTPogo said:
I also like how apparently everyone in the Clinton Administration managed to murder Vince Foster and keep it all under wraps, and yet were somehow totally unable or unwilling to keep the Monica Lewinsky thing secret.

I've already addressed that. Weren't you listening?

Notice that Monica Lewinsky didn't come to light until allegations of foul play in the death of Ron Brown by military and civilian pathologists were starting to get attention in some portions of the media and the black community. That drove those allegations from the public's attention because seamy sex will trump mass murder any day of the week. I suggest Starr knew that.

oldhat · May 27, 2009

http://web.archive.org/web/20040223081215/http://archives.cjr.org/year/96/2/foster.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/m...ltural-witch-hunt-is-dead.html?pagewanted=all

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/14/archive/print.html

Read these, please.

David Brock admitted to making this crap up with Ted Olsen.

You're loopier than I thought if you think Bill Clinton shot down an Air Force jet in Croatia by remote control or whatever theory you've culled from ca. 1996 Usenet archives.

BeAChooser · May 27, 2009

kookbreaker said:
This is just sickening, and a true example of conspiracy thinking at its most loathsome.

So KB, can you tell us what the quarter million dollar payment to Lisa was for? Or are you going to just ignore that question too? Like you've ignored the oven mitt. Like you've ignored the suicide note. Like you've ignored the sudden change in the witness statements a week after Foster's death. Like you've ignored the statement of the first witness at the scene, the only doctor to visit the scene, the statements of the EMTs, the statement of the mortuary employee, the statements of Starr's own top investigator?

And which is more sickening and loathsome, folks? Someone who asks a reasonable question or someone who ignores crucial evidence that seems to point to murder? What is kookbreaker really trying to protect? Foster's family ... or the democrat party? I suggest it's the latter.

kookbreaker said:
BeAChooser gushes at the very thought that a wife would allow her husband's killers to go free.

No, I actually think Lisa Foster was intimated and threatened by people who controlled the instruments of justice in this country. Tell me, KB, are you aware that Lisa remarried ... interestingly enough to a Clinton associate ... Arkansas Judge James Maxwell Moody. Do you know the son of Judge Moody, Neil Moody, died under curious circumstances in 1996, eight months after Lisa and the Judge married? He reportedly found a document in Lisa's private papers at Lisa's house where the Judge and Neil were then residing. He reportedly told a friend it would change history. He was reportedly in contact with a columnist about it. On the eve of the Democrat Convention where Clinton was nominated for a second term, Neil died in a car crash. The car went out of control (for an unknown reason) and ran into a brick wall at very high speed. Neil was seen sitting in his car, arguing with another person, just prior to that crash.

Copyright 1996 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
August 26, 1996, Monday

HEADLINE: POLICE BEAT

BYLINE: Democrat-Gazette Staff

Man dies as truck crashes into wall

A Little Rock man died Sunday after his truck left University Avenue and struck a retaining wall.

Neal C. Moody, 30, of 1413 Pine Valley Road was driving south in the 100 block of University Avenue in his 1995 Isuzu Trooper at 4 a.m. Sunday.

Moody's truck left the road, crossed the driveway of Bennigan's, struck a curb and became airborne for 22 feet. The vehicle came down and traveled 108 feet until it struck a wall. Moody was pronounced dead at 4:24 a.m. at St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center.

The police report said the investigation was turned over to the detective's office because of witness statements and a "suspicious document" found on Moody.

You going to just ignore that too?

kookbreaker said:
Yet BeAChooser has such a low opinion of everyone except himself

Quite trying to use personal attacks on me as your argument against the facts I've laid out. If you can't tell us why Lisa received the payment, just admit it. If you can't challenge the actual facts, just admit it. Stop hiding behind ad-hominens and debate the facts.

oldhat · May 27, 2009

The list of copnspirators just keeps expanding. Funny how often people are willing to kill family members to protect Bill Clinton.

Only on Planet Conspiracy does a "suspicious document" found at a car accident automatically mean a signed, notarized document detailing Lisa Foster's complicity in the massive murderious conspiracy that took her husband's life.

The idea that one of BAC's wholly unreliable and partisan rightwing newsletters unearthed some mindblowing factoid about the oven mitt and that magically discredits five separate investigations is laughable. Citing AIM and WhatReallyHappened.com is about as credible as me citing Socialist Worker and Lyndon LaRouche Monthly.

kookbreaker · May 27, 2009

Double post

kookbreaker · May 27, 2009

BeAChooser said:
So KB, can you tell us what the quarter million dollar payment to Lisa was for?

No, nor do I care. Its minutia. Just a petty attempt by you to slander the widow for her lack of agreement with your madness.

Or are you going to just ignore that question too? Like you've ignored the oven mitt. Like you've ignored the suicide note. Like you've ignored <snip>

Blah! Blah! Blah! If I ignore it that is because it is IRRELEVANT. These are petty, petty details you bawl on and on about because you haven't got squat in the way of real evidence that points to murder. You have no witnesses, no motive, no murder suspects, nothing at all that points to murder so you harp on and on and on about 'oven mitts'.

And which is more sickening and loathsome, folks? Someone who asks a reasonable question or someone who ignores crucial evidence that seems to point to murder?

You are not asking reasonable questions, so that removes you from your own categories.

What is kookbreaker really trying to protect? Foster's family ... or the democrat party? I suggest it's the latter.

I suggest that for someone who whines about ad hominens, you sure do employ them.

I also know many Republicans, and they are more concerned with nuttery like this reflecting badly on their own party. Seems like the Democratic party isn't the one needing protecting.

No, I actually think Lisa Foster was intimated and threatened by people who controlled the instruments of justice in this country.

Theatened, or took money? You want it both ways. Spare me.

Tell me, KB, are you aware that Lisa remarried ...

OH NOOOES!!!!! THAT IS NOT ALLOWED!!!!!!!

So what? Maureen Faulkner may have dated or even been engaged after here husband was murdered. Does that mean her efforts to see justice for her murdered husband are just grandstanding? I don't think so.

In your fantasy world, everyone is corrupt but you. Widows can be bought off with a few nickles and some judicial threats that somehow carry through a polar opposite administration. Its laughable.

interestingly enough to a Clinton associate ... A <snip>

Another murder fantasy.

You going to just ignore that too?

Its irrelevant, just more of your laughable fantasy.

QUOTE]
Quite trying to use personal attacks on me as your argument against the facts I've laid out.
[/QUOTE]

You are the slave to your pet hatreds and that needs to be exposed. Like any nutbar conspiracy theorist you assume everyone in the world, including widows of murdered husbands, has a price...except yourself of course.

If you can't tell us why Lisa received the payment, just admit it.

Q.E.D.

If you can't challenge the actual facts, just admit it. Stop hiding behind ad-hominens and debate the facts.

Its not an ad hominen to point out your are making vile accusations with your insipid insinuations. That's just pointing out what kind of person you are. The work has already been done destroying your claims, you are just trying to stir up the muck, for your own self-aggrandizement.

A'isha · May 27, 2009

BeAChooser said:
I never said that. Stop throwing out strawmen and address what I actually did say.

You don't get to toss out slimy innuendos and then act all offended when I call you on it, BAC. You were "just asking questions" in the same manner 9/11 Truthers do.

You think Sheila Anthony's "payment" to Lisa Foster had some influence on Lisa Foster meekly accepting her husband's "murder". Period.

I simply asked you why Sheila gave Lisa a quarter million dollars just before his death? And you still haven't answered.

That's because I don't care. You brought it up in connection with Foster's death, so you explain it. If you think it has something to do with the "coverup" of Foster's death, then tell us what you think and why.

I challenge you to find ONE statement by her in any source you think reliable that shows she mentioned depression to investigators before that meeting in the Whitehouse a week after his death took place. Go ahead.

You're the one who speculated that her calling a psychiatrist on behalf of her brother before his death meant she was laying down a "cover story". That is, at the very least, wildly inconsistent with your claim that her (and others) not telling investigators that her brother was depressed means that no one even hinted that Foster was depressed before his death and Starr made the whole thing up after the fact to protect the murderous Clintons.

And I challenge you to provide a transcript for that meeting. Or just tell us what Lisa Foster, Sheila Anthony, their lawyers, and whoever else was at that meeting (you can name them, right?) discussed? You can do that, can't you? Or am I correct in describing it as "mysterious"?

I don't know what was said in the meeting. And thus, I don't make even a single tiny claim about that meeting, because any speculation would be utterly unfounded.

You don't know what was said at that meeting either. So what makes you think your speculations about it are different and have any relation to reality whatsoever?

I've already addressed that. Weren't you listening? Notice that Monica Lewinsky didn't come to light until allegations of foul play in the death of Ron Brown by military and civilian pathologists were starting to get attention in some portions of the media and the black community. That drove those allegations from the public's attention because seamy sex will trump mass murder any day of the week. I suggest Starr knew that.

Ah, so the media isn't interested in real journalism and being non-partisan, which is why they had to be distracted from delving too deeply into the Foster and Brown "murders".

Of course.

BeAChooser · May 27, 2009

oldhat said:
http://web.archive.org/web/200402230...6/2/foster.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/ma...pagewanted=all

http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...ive/print.html

Read these, please.

David Brock admitted to making this crap up with Ted Olsen.

Your links don't back up your statement. Nor do they dismantle any of the facts I listed. Nor do they answer any of the questions I posed. They ignore them, just like you have been doing. They attempt to use adhominems and unsupported smears as the basis of argument ... just like you have been doing. And they are all far left of center ... which I suspect characterizes you, as well. I'll prove it. Let's look specifically at your "sources".

Consider the first one. It's a hit piece in the Columbia Journalism Review (a publisher about as left of center as they come, by the way) written by a highly partisan (to the left) women named Trudy Lieberman, who is such a *journalistic* icon that she writes for "Consumer Reports".

Time and again she's come to the defense of democrat agendas and specific democrats. Most of her articles focus on health care (which of course makes her an expert on Foster's death ...

) and it's no surprise she's a BIG proponent of the democrat party's plans to socialize medicine. She also likes to take swipes at the "right wing" media and "right wing" think tanks, and seems to think there's no liberal bias in the mainstream media. Oh yeah, she's a *totally* unbiased fountain of *truth* and well qualified to pontificate on Vince Foster's death.

.

Now in the article of hers that you linked, she goes after Christopher Ruddy. Does she actually show that anything reported by Ruddy about Vince Foster (or Ron Brown, for that matter) is false? Not really. The only actual claimed fact she challenges is that Ruddy reported Foster was left handed, when it turns out he is right handed (and she obviously just got this from the 60 minutes piece she cited ... which may be her sole source of information on this topic). Note that while she admitted Ruddy acknowledges that specific error, she fails to mention that Ruddy attributed the error to the "The Boston Globe". So it looks like he was not the only one to report Foster was left handed ... some very liberal sources apparently did too ... even before Ruddy did.

Other than that one specific item, Trudy Lieberman doesn't show that anything Ruddy claimed to be a fact in his reports about Foster is false. She only points to a "60 Minutes" piece (now there's a liberally partisan source if there ever was one) and claims it picked Ruddy's theories about Foster's death "apart". But is that true? Did they really do that? Or is she misrepresenting the facts?

Apparently Congressman Burton thinks she is. Here's what Congressman Burton thought of that "60 Minutes" *report* on Foster's death (he stated this on the floor of the House of Representatives, by the way) ... http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/burton_cbs.html :

I watched Mike Wallace start doing a 20 minute segment on the death of Vince Foster. I have never seen so much misinformation and so much bias in reporting as I saw during that 20 minute segment.

Hmmmmm. Maybe that 60 Minute report wasn't very good. Read the rest of Burton's speech and you'll see that he went into great detail about the flaws in the "60 Minute" report ... unlike what Trudy and oldhat have done where their complaints about the Foster allegations are concerned. For example, he points out that 60 minutes never mentions or interviewed the Confidential Witness. Why is that important? Decide for yourself:

Mike Wallace went into great detail during this interview about how the gun was found in Foster's right hand. He said critics of the investigation incorrectly stated that Foster was left-handed. Well, that misses the point entirely. When the confidential witness discovered the body, he looked very carefully. 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.

Here's another example pointed out by Representative Burton:

Mike Wallace made a big issue out of the amount of blood around the body. He interviewed the medical examiner, who said there was sufficient blood underneath the head and shoulders to conclude that he died at that spot. This misses the key point. There would have been blood underneath Foster's head, whether he shot himself at the spot or was moved there. The key point is there was no blood spattered on anything behind where Foster was sitting. Anytime someone shoots himself through the mouth, there would be blood splattered all over above him, and there was nothing above him that had any blood on it whatsoever. The vegetation on the path behind Foster was clean.

The first emergency medical services person who arrived at the park, George Gonzalez, commented that it was very unusual for a suicide victim's body to be laid out so neatly, with the feet together and the hands neatly at his side. He told this to the staff of the Committee
on Government Operations, and he said: `I find it odd to have the body laid out like it was. I wouldn't expect the hand or body in the position found, the hands perfectly at the side.' `60 Minutes,' incidentally, did not interview Mr. Gonzalez.

And those are only a couple of Burton's criticisms. Burton summarizes the facts that "60 Minutes" overlooked thus:

First, the eyewitness who found the body testified that he is sure there was no gun in Foster's hand and the hands were in a different position than when the police arrived. That was not mentioned on `60 Minutes.'

Second, the confidential witness said there were no bloodstains on the face when he found the body. There were bloodstains on the cheek when the police arrived, indicating it had been moved. When they moved his body, his head went over to the side and blood drained out on the face.

Third, the confidential witness testified he saw a wine cooler bottle close to Foster's body in the park, and a package of similar wine cooler bottles in a car in the parking lot that did not belong to Foster. Where did they come from? Where did that bottle go?

Fourth, despite extensive searchers of the park, the FBI has been unable to find the bullet that killed Vince Foster, and they are still looking for it. Evidently the independent counsel sent them back out there 2 or 3 weeks ago to look for it again.

Fifth, no skull fragments were ever found at the site where Foster's body was found, even though there definitely would have been skull fragments from that kind of a wound.

Sixth, there were no fingerprints on the gun. Get this: The gun was in his hand, and there were no fingerprints on the gun. The FBI said they probably, get this, `melted off in the heat.' And yet when they took the gun apart, they found fingerprints there from the time the gun was made at the factory.

Seventh, there were no fingerprints on the suicide note (please see this link for evidence note was forged.) found in Foster's briefcase in his White House office. It was torn up into 28 pieces, and the first few times the briefcase was searched, they could not find the note at all, even though they turned it upside down, and there were no fingerprints on it.

Eighth, the coroner who conducted the autopsy of Foster's body has made glaring errors of high profile cases in the past. In one case, a body had to be exhumed and reexamined in order to change the ruling from suicide to murder.

Ninth, security guards working at the Saudi Arabian Ambassador's residence across the street from the park, within 100 yards, 300 feet, with guards outside all day and night, heard no gunshot.

Tenth, Foster's shoes were completely clean, with no grass or dirt stains, even though he was supposed to have walked 700 yards through the park to the second cannon.

No. 11, the FBI never made any attempt to identify the carpet fibers or the blond hair on Foster's clothing.

No. 12, the police photos at the death scene did not turn out, leaving a serious lack of documentation of the death scene.

Obviously things aren't quite as cut and dry as Trudy Lieberman,"60 Minutes", and oldhat want viewers and readers to believe. Are they, folks.

Why didn't Trudy respond to these specifics concerns? Why didn't "60 minutes"? In fact, with regards to item ten above, why didn't Mike Wallace mention the fact that he himself did an experiment where he walked the trail to the death site ... and picked up dirt on his shoes? Why won't oldhat respond to these specific concerns, folks?

Could it be that all these detractors really can do to discredit these fact-based allegations is try and link Ruddy to "right wing" sponsors like Scaife and imply that's proof enough that the allegation is false and fabricated? That appears to be the sum total of their argument. Their case is that thin. You'd think the logical flaw in that sort of reasoning would be obvious to such *smart* people. But apparently not. Blinded by partisanship, I suspect.

And just for the record, here are other flaws in the "60 Minutes" *debunking* of the Foster allegations ... flaws not mentioned in Burton's 15 minute speech ... flaws ignored by Trudy ... flaws that oldhat and his friends on this thread are desperate to avoid.

During the "60 Minutes" segment, Mike Wallace interviewed James Hamilton, whom he called the "Foster family lawyer". He forgot to mention that Hamilton was also the Clinton-Gore Transition Counsel for Nomination and Confirmation in 1992 ... a fact that might constitute a serious bias (Don't you think?). In fact, years later it was revealed that Hamilton had advised Clinton to stonewall in the Whitewater matter. That's how protective of the Clintons he was at the time ... willing enough to obstruct justice and violate the law. Wallace also failed to mention that Hamilton was present at that meeting in the Whitehouse that occurred just before Lisa, Sheila and her husband changed their stories about Vince's depression. Actually, Wallace never even mentioned that meeting. That's how biased Wallace was. And when introducing Hamilton, Wallace stated, as if it were established fact, that Foster was in a "clinical depression". But as I've amply demonstrated in this thread, that's simply not true. And certainly, being just a wonderful journalist, Wallace knew he was misrepresenting the truth. So Wallace lied. That's how protective he was of the Clintons.

Here are more items Wallace ignored or misrepresented:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n46_v11/ai_17817574/ notes that Wallace showed a portion of his interview with Ruddy, where he tells Ruddy, "You know and I know that there was blood all over the back of the shirt." Ruddy replies that "Dr. Haut [the only doctor to view the body at the official death scene], in his FBI report and his interview with me, said there was not a lot of blood behind the body." Wallace then says, as if its established fact, that "Dr. Haut says Chris Ruddy simply got it wrong." But according to Haut's own FBI interview: "Haut did not recall seeing blood on the decedent's shirt or face and no blood was recalled on the vegetation around the body. . . Although the volume of blood was small . . . the blood was matted and clotted under the head. . . . Haut believed that the wound was consistent with a low-velocity weapon." Clearly, Wallace misrepresented Haut's actual testimony again. He LIED.

That source also shows that Wallace further misrepresented the facts when he stated that "Dr. Donald Haut, the Fairfax County Medical Examiner, arrived at the scene to examine the body. At that point, Foster's body was rolled over and those present observed a large pool of blood on the ground where Foster's head had been." As you can see from the Haut's FBI interview statements, not only was there no "large" volume of blood but the blood evidence wasn't even liquid. Wallace seems to have lied again, oldhat. Why aren't you and Trudy worried about this?

How about CBS' motivation for ignoring all the above? Do you know that Don Hewitt, Executive Producer of "60 Minutes", admitted to helping Bill Clinton win the nomination in 1992? How's that for bias? Here's what Hewitt said back then (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/ARCHIVE/CLINTON_CHRONICLES.html ):

And they came to us because they were in big trouble in New Hampshire. They were about to lose right there and they needed some first aid. They needed some bandaging. What they needed was a paramedic. So they came to us and we did it and that's what they wanted to do. When I told Tim Russer that I was persona-non-grata at the White House, he said, "Why?" I said, "The Gennifer Flowers interview." He said, "You got him the nomination." I said, "I know that." As far as I know from the conversations I've had, Bernie Nussbaum knew that, Gergen knows that, Lloyd Cutler certainly knows it 'cause Lloyd had a hand in his coming on that night.

You know it was strong medicine the way I edited it but he was a very sick candidate. He needed very strong medicine, and I'm not in the business of doctoring candidates but he got up out of a sick bed that night and walked to the nomination and as I said to Mandy, "You know if I'd edited it your way, you know where you'd be today? You'd still be up in New Hampshire looking for the nomination." He became the
candidate that night.

This was a conspiracy to destroy Ruddy, folks.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/how-cbs-nailed-chris-ruddy/ "How CBS Nailed Chris Ruddy"

A conspiracy that required 300 to 400 edits in which Ruddy was hardly allowed to utter a complete sentence. So is that the best you can do, oldhat? Apparently so, given the content of your other *sources*.

Let's look at the second one ... the New York Times (another great bastion of *truth*

) article. Does that article prove what you claimed? No, it does not. It doesn't even mention the Foster case or any specific facts claimed in this thread about the Foster case. Not one word. It's just another hit piece on Scaife and the so-called "right wing". You've got to do better than that, oldhat.

How about your third source ... the one in "salon" (now there's an *unbiased* source for you, folks.

)? Again, is there mention of the Vince Foster case in the article? No. Not one word. So of the three *sources* you offer, only one says anything about the Foster case, and that one simply misrepresents it. You really know how to debate the facts, oldhat. (sarcasm) Thanks for demonstrating that so effectively.

By the way, what do you really know about your chief witness for the defense, David Brocks?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020527/hitchens "The Real David Brock". As Hitchens asks, "who is such a sap as to take the word of such a person?"

http://www.slate.com/?id=2063759 "David Brock, Liar"

oldhat said:
You're loopier than I thought if you think Bill Clinton shot down an Air Force jet in Croatia by remote control or whatever theory you've culled from ca. 1996 Usenet archives.

If you want to debate the facts and sources on the topic of Ron Brown, I'll be more than happy to oblige. Read these, then feel free to post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134001

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121045

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011

For some reason, however, I suspect you'll be no more willing to debate the facts on that topic than on this one.

BeAChooser · May 27, 2009

oldhat said:
The idea that one of BAC's wholly unreliable and partisan rightwing newsletters unearthed some mindblowing factoid

Sorry, OH, but you haven't shown the facts in any source I cited (and you completely mischaracterize them, btw, in an obvious and desperate attempt to make this go away) are wrong.

oldhat said:
five separate investigations

Go ahead. List them. I bet I can prove they aren't quite as "separate" as you want people to believe.

The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)

Illuminator

Muse

Thinker

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Muse

Miss Schoolteacher

Evil Fokker

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Muse

Banned

Muse

Evil Fokker

Evil Fokker

Miss Schoolteacher

Banned

Banned