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

[Galileo]

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.

Great post. This proves Vince Foster was not depressed and proves Foster had no motive to kill himself.

 

[Galileo]

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.

This is a great post. Miquel Rodriguez is an eyewitness to a conspiracy. When you have an eyewitness to a conspiracy, it is not a theory.

 

[Galileo]

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?

This is another smoking gun. Foster did not have a gun in his hand. The JREFers need to wake up.

 

[dudalb]

This is another smoking gun. Foster did not have a gun in his hand. The JREFers need to wake up.

 

[Galileo]

 

[fullflavormenthol]

MDC....I sense an in******** developing.

Nevertheless. I will do some more research into this incident and develop a reply after I have researched this further so that I can actually answer the issue brought up.

 

[VonKleist]

This is another smoking gun. Foster did not have a gun in his hand. The JREFers need to wake up.

Comic genius.

 

[Alt+F4]

...and he was the Whitewater attorney, and just part of a large list of dead people that got in the Clintons way.

And animals. Where was the investigation into the death of Buddy, the Clinton's labrador? Where was Socks the cat at the time of the supposed "car accident"? Why are you sheeple buying into "official police report"?

 

[Galileo]

Comic genius.

JREFers avoid facts and evidence like the plague, and instead parrot whatever the govenment tells us.

Did you notice that the first eyewitness to the scene said Foster did not have a gun in his hand?

If Foster had a fair trial, he could bring this witness into court, and win the case on this fact alone.

 

[Galileo]

And animals. Where was the investigation into the death of Buddy, the Clinton's labrador? Where was Socks the cat at the time of the supposed "car accident"? Why are you sheeple buying into "official police report"?

What's your evidence to these so-called conspiracies?

Frankly, your post is off-topic.

 

[VonKleist]

If Foster had a fair trial, he could bring this witness into court, and win the case on this fact alone.

stop. . . . please. . . . . . stop.

 

[Galileo]

stop. . . . please. . . . . . stop.

You don't think an eyewitness, a medic, who saw Foster's body without a gun in his hand, would undercut other government stooge witnesses in front of an impartial jury? At a minimum, it would raise reasonable doubt.

This is consistent with the fact that no fingerprints were found on the gun.

 

[A'isha]

Hey, BAC, if you're so eager to discuss the Foster case, why did you post all your same old canards afresh here in this thread, instead of continuing our previous conversation about it?

Especially regarding the "Foster wasn't depressed" stuff, which was the subject of my very last post in the above-linked thread, where I quoted and referenced all the places where you admitted that Foster's doctor was concerned that Foster was depressed and so prescribed him an antidepressant, because the "insomnia" you like to reference was a recognized symptom of depression.

And yet here you are, posting the same unoriginal dross you started with, as if that whole seven-page thread never happened. Curious.

 

[dudalb]

BAC should really rethink his positions, since the only guy who is giving him any support at JREF is one of the more infamous nutcase and/or trolls on the site.

 

[Galileo]

Hey, BAC, if you're so eager to discuss the Foster case, why did you post all your same old canards afresh here in this thread, instead of continuing our previous conversation about it?

BAC responded to comments posted by me and others in a thread I STARTED.

I have never heard of the thread you refer to, and I doubt BAC did either. I posted a film about Vince Foster. Is the film in your other thread? If not, then your post is totally irrelevant.

BAC did not start this thread, and no, there is no conspiracy going on. I never even heard of BAC until he posted in this thread.

Fail.



PS - BAC proved that Foster was not depressed, which is far beyond what is needed. YOU are the one making accusations, so YOU have the burden of proof.

 

[BeAChooser]

Hey, BAC, if you're so eager to discuss the Foster case, why did you post all your same old canards afresh here in this thread, instead of continuing our previous conversation about it?

Perhaps after pages and pages of going back and forth on that previous thread, I decided I'd said whatever needed to be said on the subject to you. Perhaps I decided I'd beat my head enough against your stonewall. Afterall, my goal in that thread was not to change your mind, since it's obvious that's impossible. Nor is that the goal now.

I have only one comment on what you wrote in those last two posts. When I wrote "It is admitted that Foster was having a LOT of trouble sleeping", you asked "It is? by who?" Now with all your apparent skewing of the facts, how could you be unaware that Lisa Foster told FBI agents:

"FOSTER complained to LISA FOSTER that he was suffering from insomnia, but he did not want to take sleeping pills because he was afraid that he would become addicted to them. FOSTER would get up in the morning and say to LISA FOSTER that he had not slept at all."

How could you be unaware that Dr Watkins confirmed this both in his notes and when he told the FBI that Foster came to him complaining of insomnia. The agent wrote:

He (BAC - meaning Dr Watkins) felt it was important for Foster to start sleeping better and thought if he got some rest he would feel a lot better.

What do you think insomnia is? And that statement clearly suggests that the Doctor felt that if Foster could just sleep better, he'd get better. Which again, doesn't suggest he was treating Foster for clinical depression like you kept claiming in that thread.

Now just incase others are new to this topic, I offer these links to a series of web pages that ask a number of very interesting questions about the Foster case, the evidence and the so-called investigations by Fiske and Starr:

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster...or_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/anatomy/implausible.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/fabricatedWoundPath/fabricatedWP.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/BeyersBizzareDrawing/BizzareDrawing.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/BoneFragment/boneFragment.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/glasses/bloodstainedGlasses.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/DrLeeDiscoversGunpowder/gunpowder.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/VegetationBlood/leafDisease.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/KnowltonAppendix/FullReport.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/xrays/noXrays.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/photographicEvidence/missingPhotos.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/starrOnSilverGun/starrGibberish.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/glasses/glasses.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/uncomprimisinglyThorough/anotherFib.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/TheManInFortMarcyPark/ManInPark.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/Dr_Hauts_report/Dr_Hauts_report.htm

I also highly recommend one read the full (500 page) report of anomalies and peculiarities put out by Patrick Knowlton (http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm ) regarding the Vince Foster case. It's pretty damning. For example checkout out this chapter on the depression claims: http://www.fbicover-up.com/report/ch11.pdf . Recall that the 3 judge panel ruled Starr had to attach a 20 page addendum by Knowlton (http://fbicover-up.com/starr/AddendumtoStarr.pdf ) to Starr's official report when it was released (although Starr found a devious way to get around even that). Ask yourself why the mainstream media to this day has largely ignored the Knowlton addendum (many of them never even mentioned it once)? Did you ever read or hear about it in the mainstream media? Could any of you link a single article in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, or Time Magazine that mentioned it? And you consider yourself well informed skeptics?

Accuracy In Media (AIM) also has some very good articles on the Vince Foster case. For example, here's a series dealing with what Miquel Rodriguez, the man who was Starr's top investigator, had to say.

http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-1/

http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-2/

http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-3/

http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-4/

Do you know that Rodriguez says he did extensive interviews with Time, Newsweek, ABC's Nightline, the Boston Globe, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the NewYork Times? He says he spent six hours with the New York Times reporter alone. And he says that not one of them aired or published a story of his account. He says several reporters told him point blank that editors spiked the story. But hey ... it's just a *silly* *conspiracy* and all these JREF posters echoing that sentiment are just here to look out for your *best* interests. Right?

 

[A'isha]

Perhaps after pages and pages of going back and forth on that previous thread, I decided I'd said whatever needed to be said on the subject to you. Perhaps I decided I'd beat my head enough against your stonewall. Afterall, my goal in that thread was not to change your mind, since it's obvious that's impossible. Nor is that the goal now.

How about at least apologizing for calling me a liar.

I have only one comment on what you wrote in those last two posts. When I wrote "It is admitted that Foster was having a LOT of trouble sleeping", you asked "It is? by who?" Now with all your apparent skewing of the facts, how could you be unaware that Lisa Foster told FBI agents:

Yes, we all know that you simultaneously believe Lisa Foster's description of her husband's insomnia means that the antidepressant he was taking (prescribed to him by a doctor who asked if he was suffering from depression when told about his symptoms) was solely to help him sleep, and that Lisa Foster's declaration that her husband wasn't taking any medication means that he wasn't taking antidepressants.

Be sure to let us know as soon as you resolve that discrepancy.

How could you be unaware that Dr Watkins confirmed this both in his notes and when he told the FBI that Foster came to him complaining of insomnia.

...which, strangely enough, prompted Dr. Watkins to ask Foster if he was depressed, for which insomnia is one of the symptoms.

What do you think insomnia is?

A symptom of depression, just as Dr. Watkins thought.

And that statement clearly suggests that the Doctor felt that if Foster could just sleep better, he'd get better. Which again, doesn't suggest he was treating Foster for clinical depression like you kept claiming in that thread.

Nope, like you thought.

In post 184 of that thread, gdnp posted "You have repeatedly said that Foster showed no signs of depression." He reproduced a list of depression symptoms from WebMD, including insomnia.

In the very next post, 185, I ask you a direct question: "Why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, do you think?"

In post 193, you answer my direct question: "Because Foster wasn't sleeping? "

Let me repeat that. I ask you "Why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, do you think?", and you reply "Because Foster wasn't sleeping?"

In other words, you yourself made the connection that Foster's doctor thought Foster might be suffering from depression to a degree that he, as a doctor, was concerned about, because of Foster's insomnia.

*snip list of links*

Stop regurgitating floods of stuff like that. We're discussing Foster's depression right now. Most of that crap was addressed in the early thread, too.

I also highly recommend one read the full (500 page) report of anomalies and peculiarities put out by Patrick Knowlton (http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm ) regarding the Vince Foster case.

Of course you do.

It's pretty damning.

No it's not. In fact, Knowlton agrees with the "official story" on some points that you yourself don't agree with, which makes me wonder why you trust him at all, since the Clintonite Conspiracy must have gotten to him at least a little for him to buy into their cover and not the Truth, right?

For example checkout out this chapter on the depression claims: http://www.fbicover-up.com/report/ch11.pdf . Recall that the 3 judge panel ruled Starr had to attach a 20 page addendum by Knowlton (http://fbicover-up.com/starr/AddendumtoStarr.pdf ) to Starr's official report when it was released (although Starr found a devious way to get around even that). Ask yourself why the mainstream media to this day has largely ignored the Knowlton addendum (many of them never even mentioned it once)? Did you ever read or hear about it in the mainstream media? Could any of you link a single article in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, or Time Magazine that mentioned it? And you consider yourself well informed skeptics?

That's because the attachment means nothing. Legally, Starr had to let anyone mentioned in the report submit their own statement. The judges on the IOC panel ruled that Knowlton had not been given that opportunity, and so Starr had to include Knowlton's statement as an addendum. They didn't rule at all that Knowlton was correct, or that his facts were the true facts of the matter. Any statement he wanted to make regarding the events which caused his name to be mentioned in the report would be attached.

Knowlton's attached statement thus has as little bearing on the truth of the case as any of the "witness statements" in Berg's lawsuit saying Obama isn't a citizen has on the truth of that case. By law, the statement had to be included, but it did not alter the verdict Starr reached in his report, nor did the judges say it did.

And, again, we went over this already. I even pointed you at the actual US law under which they ruled, US Code Section 594 h 2:
"Disclosure of information in reports. - The division of the
court may release to the Congress, the public, or any appropriate
person, such portions of a report made under this subsection as
the division of the court considers appropriate. The division of
the court shall make such orders as are appropriate to protect
the rights of any individual named in such report and to prevent
undue interference with any pending prosecution. The division of
the court may make any portion of a final report filed under
paragraph (1)(B) available to any individual named in such report
for the purposes of receiving within a time limit set by the
division of the court any comments or factual information that
such individual may submit. Such comments and factual
information, in whole or in part, may, in the discretion of the
division of the court, be included as an appendix to such final
report."

Accuracy In Media (AIM) also has some very good articles on the Vince Foster case.

For example, here's a series dealing with what Miquel Rodriguez, the man who was Starr's top investigator, had to say.

And, as I told you before, Rodriguez disagrees with both you and Knowlton about a lot of points, namely (and most importantly) whether Foster died in the park or died elsewhere and his already-dead body moved to the park.

I even point out how...hell, let me quote it:

In his giant-ass court filing (which bears, in its pedantic minutiae, no small resemblance to Groden and Livingston's Kennedy assassination conspiracy book), Knowlton goes to some great pains to try and establish the fact that Vince Foster had been dead for a while (per Knowlton's own claimed witness statement). Lots of dried congealed blood, no flows or pools when the body is moved, and so on.

And yet, in the transcription of his audio CD interview with former US attorney Miguel Rodriguez (who Knowlton says blows the murder cover-up wide open because Rodriguez refused to go along with the cover-up and was removed from Starr's investigation), Knowlton (as "narrator"), says very plainly that the Fiske and Starr report "falsely" said that a large quantity of blood was found with the body.

Rodriguez corrects Knowlton, saying "By the way, you know why there was blood,", and says there was lots of blood gushing out because the body was moved onto a slope:

"They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast. And then when they took the body and put it into the body bag, which was right – in other words they – it was on a slope – they pull it up onto the slope. When the body is horizontal or even at the top of the berm it's not quite horizontal it's a little bit of a back-slope – and all of a sudden the blood starts gushing out, there's a lot of blood then under the body. "

In other words, the "barely any blood, and what was there was old and dried" evidence Knowlton relies on to support his claim that Vince Foster was murdered long before he was supposed to have committed suicide was shot down by his own star witness!

If Knowlton (and the writers of those other conspiracy sites you favor) think Foster was murdered and moved to the park and that the whole thing about Foster shooting himself in the park and his body being found right where it fell is part of the coverup, why do you place such trust in Rodriguez, who buys into the "official theory" in that regard? Why is he right about one thing, but totally wrong about the other?

 

[Roadtoad]

Christ. Can't we leave the man alone? He's DEAD! Show a little respect for once!

Even as a right wing fundie, I didn't accept the conspiracy crap. There was NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yes, we all know that you simultaneously believe Lisa Foster's description of her husband's insomnia means that the antidepressant he was taking (prescribed to him by a doctor who asked if he was suffering from depression when told about his symptoms) was solely to help him sleep

Once again, you misrepresent facts.

First, while it is true that the drug Foster was prescribed is an antidepressant, it is also true that the drug was regularly prescribed for insomnia at that time, without depression even being a factor. The doctor in both his FBI interview and his notes stated that Foster came to him complaining of insomnia. He didn't say he came in complaining of depression. And the Dr's notes state that he thought if Foster could just sleep better, he'd feel "a lot better". So yes, the doctor could very well have prescribed the drug solely to treat Foster's insomnia. And what dosing information we have is totally consistent with that use.

Even if the doctor asked Foster if he was feeling depressed, we know that the doctor concluded that depression was only "mild" and "situational", and that the doctor judged Foster to not be "in crisis". The doctor stated that he prescribed the drug knowing it would take "10 days to two weeks" to have an antidepressant effect, but would immediately provide relief from the insomnia. If Foster's depression was clinical, don't you think he'd have prescribed something a little faster acting?

The plain and simple truth is that there is no evidence that Foster was suffering from clinical (i.e., MAJOR) depression ... other than the changed witness statements that resulted from that meeting in the Whitehouse with Hillary and other Clinton administration toadies about a week after Foster's death. Call me a skeptic, but I'm suspicious about what happened at the meeting. Too bad that Fiske, Starr and the media never bothered to investigate.

Very clearly, the doctor did not conclude that Foster was "clinically" depressed as Fiske, Starr, you and many in the media claimed. So it's unlikely the doctor would have prescribed an antidepressant, per se. The various medical sources I presented in the previous thread indicated that mild depression is generally not treated with antidepressants. Here are some more sources to compliment those:

http://www.nativeremedies.com/articles/self-help-mild-depression-treatment.html "Treating depression with antidepressants is not advisable if you are suffering from mild depression."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1681574/mild_depression_could_be_eased_by_antidepressants/ "Doctors are urged to avoid antidepressants as an initial treatment in mild depression under the current guidelines."

Note, folks, that all the above was proven in the previous thread. And some of it has been proven again in this one as well. So either ANTPogo failed to understand what was clearly stated and proven (in which case I'm pounding my head against a brick wall), or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts (which should be a consideration in believing what he has to say).

and that Lisa Foster's declaration that her husband wasn't taking any medication means that he wasn't taking antidepressants.

Again, you misrepresent facts that were already posted and proven. As point out previously, the FBI and Park Police interview notes from the night of Foster's death indicate Lisa Foster and the other family members were asked specifically asked if Vince was depressed and taking medication. The investigator told the Senate "I mentioned depression, did you see this coming, were there any signs, has he been taking any medication? No. All negative answers." Your really desperate if you think they answered "no" because they viewed antidepressants as something other than medication.

Now let me point out another piece of the puzzle that you've simply ignored. The Park Police notes say Lisa Foster said she and Vince had "gone away and had a nice weekend on July 17-18." Do you know that Foster's sister (Sheila) also told the FBI that on the day before his death "he [Foster] was feeling good and that the weekend had gone well." So here he had a "nice weekend" and was "feeling good" just a day before we are to believe he killed himself because of *major* depression.

Quote:
What do you think insomnia is?

A symptom of depression, just as Dr. Watkins thought.

But depression is not the only cause of insomnia. Anxiety and stress can also cause it, and Foster had those symptoms too.

Do you know the percent of people who are mildly depressed who commit suicide? It's VERY, VERY small. Almost indistiguishable from the risk of suicide in the general population. Look it up. And Foster was MILDLY depressed.

Stop regurgitating floods of stuff like that.

I wasn't posting that information to you, so just ignore them.

Legally, Starr had to let anyone mentioned in the report submit their own statement.

That is ABSOLUTELY FALSE, as was pointed out to you previously. There was no legal requirement that Starr attach submittals by those mentioned in the report to the report.

Here, from the controlling statute US Code Section 594 h 2 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=28&sec=594 ), that you yourself linked in the previous Foster thread D), is proof of that:

The division of the court may make any portion of a final report filed under paragraph (1)(B) available to any individual named in such report for the purposes of receiving within a time limit set by the division of the court any comments or factual information that such individual may submit. Such comments and factual information, in whole or in part, may, in the discretion of the division of the court, be included as an appendix to such final report.

Do you not understand that "Division of the court" doesn't refer to the independent counsel. If you think it does, you are wrong. It refers to the 3 judge panel that oversees the IOC. Here:

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/INDCOUNS.LO.htm

If there are grounds for further investigation, then the attorney general notifies a special three-judge panel which is responsible under the act for the appointment of an independent counsel. (This special panel is a division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It consists of three circuit judges or justices appointed for two years by the Chief Justice of the United States, one of whom shall be a judge of the D.C. Circuit. See, 28 U.S.C. 49.)

And notice in the statute, there is also no *requirement* that the judges attach Knowlton's addendum to Starr's report. It was left to the "DISCRETION" of the division of the court (i.e., the 3 judges) to order them attached to the IOC final report. You do know what discretion means, don't you?

And again note that this is the only time in history that an Independent Counsel has been ordered to attach evidence of a cover-up by his own investigators to his own report by the judge panel. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that is significant.

The judges on the IOC panel ruled that Knowlton had not been given that opportunity, and so Starr had to include Knowlton's statement as an addendum.

That is not what they ruled. Here is what the court actually ruled: http://www.fbicover-up.com/starr/OrderToAttach.pdf . It says nothing of what you claim. You are {wrong}.

They didn't rule at all that Knowlton was correct, or that his facts were the true facts of the matter.

And as pointed out to you previously, they also didn't rule that Starr was correct or presenting true facts either. But they must have felt there was enough basis to what Knowlton alleged to ORDER Starr (over his objections, by the way) to attach it to his final report, given that it contains the explosive charge that the IOC's effort was a cover up.

What a shame that Starr then pulled a fast one and released his report without it anyway. But no one cared. Perhaps because you could go to the Washington Post website where they claimed they had the "complete" Starr report and never know that Knowlton's 20 page addendum, much less his 550 page report, even existed. Here's more proof there was a media coverup: http://www.fbicover-up.com/press/index.htm . Read that, folks!

Any statement he wanted to make regarding the events which caused his name to be mentioned in the report would be attached.

You are {wrong}. The statute does not require that, as I proved above. You seem desperate to make Knowlton's addendum, not to mention his 550 page destruction of Starr's case, go away.

By law, the statement had to be included

{wrong}

And, again, we went over this already. I even pointed you at the actual US law under which they ruled, US Code Section 594 h 2:

You only prove you can't read, that you don't have a clue what "division of the court" means, and that you are {wrong}.

And, as I told you before, Rodriguez disagrees with both you and Knowlton about a lot of points

You also seem desperate to make what Rodriguez had to say go away. Take note folks ... what ANTPogo fears is probably something you should know ... especially when it's what Starr's own top investigator saying it.

And regardless of any differences in their theories about what actually happened to Foster, BOTH Knowlton and Rodriguez are 100% convinced that Foster's body was moved, that Starr lied repeatedly in his investigation, that Starr fabricated evidence, and that the IOC and FBI threatened and tried to intimidate them. Folks, be a little skeptical and ask yourself why ANTpogo wants you to ignore that?

While it is expected that people will disagree with each other and even that they may be insulted, the level of incivility in this post is unwarranted. BAC, I'm not going to infract you, but please do not engage it this level of attack. It is possible for someone to be wrong without being a liar.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[BeAChooser]

Once again, you misrepresent facts.

While it is expected that people will disagree with each other and even that they may be insulted, the level of incivility in this post is unwarranted. BAC, I'm not going to infract you, but please do not engage it this level of attack. It is possible for someone to be wrong without being a liar.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Fine, Tricky. I apologize and will give ANTpogo the benefit of the doubt.

He was just mistaken about the Knowlton appendix.

Even after being shown he was wrong the first time he made his claim.