• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Where on earth did you get the idea that "committed suicide" = "guilty"? Yes, suicide is still on the books as a crime in some areas, but when people attempt suicide we generally try to help them, not prosecute them. One exception might be if the attempt injured or killed others around the attempted suicide.

And how do you propose to give Foster a "fair trial"? Even if we dig him up and prop him up in a courtroom, I doubt he'll have much to say. And what about the "jury of his peers"? To be fair, they will all have to be dead too. I personally would not want to be in that jury room if deliberations took any time at all - or ever.
 
Somebody will stundie that, I trust.
I already did. It was all I could do to try and comprehend it before making a response.

EDIT:

Back to the subject of Vince Foster, they found a ripped up letter of resignation in his suitcase. The letter had Foster blaiming himself for failures and attacking the WSJ and claiming there was an environment to ruin the lives of people in Washington. The lead up to his suicide is consistant with someone suffering depression.
 
Last edited:
And what about the "jury of his peers"? To be fair, they will all have to be dead too. I personally would not want to be in that jury room if deliberations took any time at all - or ever.


Judge: Have you reached a unanimous verdict?

Foreman: We have, your honor.

Judge: How say the jury?

Foreman: BRAAAAAAAAAAAAINS!!!
 
he died

idiots made up lies about it

Why do politically biased idiots make up lies? because they can
 
Showing evidence that someone is innocent of committing suicide is a conspiracy?

Under your logic, no defendent could ever plead not guilty of any crime. Because that would imply the prosecution was in on a conspiracy.

Worst non-sequiter ever (or did you intend to respond to someone else?)
 
a nice anecdote, but there is no evidence of that in the Foster family.
It's not anecdotal that .38 caliber ammo will work in a .38 regardless of its manufacture date. That's guns 101.

(Bolding mine)

Be fair. I think what he's trying to say is that there's no evidence that the Foster family is compatible with 1913 guns.
 
Last edited:
(Bolding mine)

Be fair. I think what he's trying to say is that there's no evidence that the Foster family is compatible with 1913 guns.


I actually find it more likely that someone in the Clinton administration would only have access to an ancient collectible gun than one they went shopping for themselves.
 
I already did. It was all I could do to try and comprehend it before making a response.

EDIT:

Back to the subject of Vince Foster, they found a ripped up letter of resignation in his suitcase. The letter had Foster blaiming himself for failures and attacking the WSJ and claiming there was an environment to ruin the lives of people in Washington. The lead up to his suicide is consistant with someone suffering depression.

They checked his briefcase twice, and no notes were found.
 
And how do you propose to give Foster a "fair trial"? Even if we dig him up and prop him up in a courtroom, I doubt he'll have much to say. And what about the "jury of his peers"? To be fair, they will all have to be dead too. I personally would not want to be in that jury room if deliberations took any time at all - or ever.

Pope Formosus was dug up, propped up, and put on trial by Pope Stephen:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nY...wMjIDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

This set a precedent which should be observed for Vince Foster.

btw - Pope Formosus reportedly did not have much to say in his defense. Since Formosus was convicted, I would think that you would relish the chance to prove Foster guilty as well.

:jaw-dropp

I would hope that you would observe legal precedent.
 
Ex-sqeeze me? Baking powder? No, they found a letter of resignation tore into 27 pieces. That is available if you look into the non-crazy sources.

The first two groups of people to search the briefcase did not find a torn note. In a fait trial, the defense would be able to have these people testify.

In that case the jury would decide if two groups of investigators really couldn't find a torn note in a briefcase, rather than a briefcase.

The first two groups of investigators could each testify that they searched the breifcase from top to bottom comprehensively.
 

Back
Top Bottom