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

[kookbreaker]

Along with the rest of this thread? Is that your plan, KB?

Your bowl of drama flakes is overflowing.

If you folks start debating the actual facts, all of them, and stop acting like Truthers.

There you go again.

For example, KB, would you like to discuss the so-called "suicide note"?

Only to see you dance away from yet something else? Try that Gish Gallop on someone who hasn't read this thread.

 

[Disbelief]

If you folks start debating the actual facts, all of them, and stop acting like Truthers.

For example, KB, would you like to discuss the so-called "suicide note"?

To a lurker of this thread, you appear to be displaying more truther characteristics than anyone else.

I do not think you have swayed anyone with your constant wall of text.

 

[BeAChooser]

To a lurker of this thread, you appear to be displaying more truther characteristics than anyone else.

I do not think you have swayed anyone with your constant wall of text.

LOL! So tell me, how do you explain the so-called suicide note?

And remember, you are going to try and respond like something other than a Truther.

Do you think you can do it?

Call me skeptical.

 

[TraneWreck]

I have a distant cousin whose parents raised him without the internet. He is a documented genius and has devoured endless books, treatises, and tomes.

I showed him this thread and he concluded that "LOL" means, "my brain doesn't work."

 

[kookbreaker]

And remember, you are going to try and respond like something other than a Truther.

By your standards anyone who disagrees with you is a 'truther' so that is impossible. I doubt there is anyone who has posted in this thread since you started immaturely using that term that you have *not* called a 'truther'.

 

[Pacal]

By your standards anyone who disagrees with you is a 'truther' so that is impossible. I doubt there is anyone who has posted in this thread since you started immaturely using that term that you have *not* called a 'truther'.

Which is why I see no reason to reply to BeAChooser

 

[BeAChooser]

Which is why I see no reason to reply to BeAChooser

Sure, the facts you can't dispute having nothing whatsoever to do with that.

 

[CptColumbo]

Which is why I see no reason to reply to BeAChooser

Well, he/she hasn't produced any actual evidence and has resorted to name calling and the equivalent of nah-uh. BAC is just boring. Boring as a lecture by Professor McBoring, from the University of Dullsville, on how bored the pygmy tribes of of Borneo get during, what they call, "the bored time."

 

[Disbelief]

LOL! So tell me, how do you explain the so-called suicide note?

And remember, you are going to try and respond like something other than a Truther.

Do you think you can do it?

Call me skeptical.

Well, I do not really care about the case but was lurking in the thread and was fascinated by your odd behavior. If you will note, I was not making an in depth analysis of the evidence but just commenting on your actions and penchant for claiming others were truthers.

So, here are a few ways that you are acting like one.

1. Hubris
2. Repetitive use of smileys when totally unwarranted.
3. Throwing out walls of text.
4. Repetitive use of ad homs.
5. Using post count as a measuring stick.

 

[catsmate]

Well, I do not really care about the case but was lurking in the thread and was fascinated by your odd behavior. If you will note, I was not making an in depth analysis of the evidence but just commenting on your actions and penchant for claiming others were truthers.

So, here are a few ways that you are acting like one.

1. Hubris
2. Repetitive use of smileys when totally unwarranted.
3. Throwing out walls of text.
4. Repetitive use of ad homs.
5. Using post count as a measuring stick.

DOC syndrome.
And don't forget putting 'LOL' in every post in juvenile attempt to ridicule others.

 

[BeAChooser]

If you will note, I was not making an in depth analysis of the evidence

LOL! You're not making ANY analysis of the evidence. You are avoiding it just like everyone else.

 

[BeAChooser]

Come on, Disbelief.

Show us all how knowledgeable you are about the so-called suicide note.

Now THAT might demonstrate you aren't a Foster Truther.

Do you think you can do that?

Or will you go on hiding?

 

[Disbelief]

LOL! You're not making ANY analysis of the evidence. You are avoiding it just like everyone else.

6. Pathetic reading comprehension.
7. Quote mining.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

6. Pathetic reading comprehension.
7. Quote mining.

8.) The belief that there is a vast audience of lurkers completely on their side.
9.) The inability to critically evaluate source material, and organizations/individuals providing that material.

 

[BeAChooser]

Tell you what, Disbelief. Even though you obviously don't want to discuss the so-called suicide note, let's do it anyway. Just to show our readers how you response to the presentation of actual facts directed at you. Just to show our readers that you, like 9/11 Truthers, can't deal with facts in any sort of rational manner. At least that's my prediction based on your posts so far.

But why is the so-called suicide note important? Because if it's a forgery, then that clearly means someone in the Clinton WhiteHouse tampered with Foster's briefcase. That clearly means someone was trying to make people believe Foster was in a suicidal frame of mind. That clearly means the FBI, Fiske and Starr, through incompetence or corruption, went along that deception and didn't care once it was exposed.

So, let's see if you really belong on a skeptics forum, Db.



In case you've never seen it, here's the note:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NOTE/forg.gif

It was torn into 28 pieces … which makes it quite surprising (as discussed below) that nothing fell out of the briefcase when Nussbaum, saying "it's empty", turned it upside down and shook it in front of the Park Police a couple days before the note was discovered. A congressman, Frank Murkowski, tried to duplicate that stunt a few years later during the Senate hearings on Foster, just to see what would happen. And lots of pieces of yellow paper fell out in front of everyone at the hearing.

In fact, here's how Mr Neuwirth described finding the note in the first place (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/committee.pdf ): "On Monday the 26th at Mr. Nussbaum’s request I was preparing an inventory of the contents of Mr. Foster’s office. One of the things that I did in connection with that inventory was to put into a box toward the latter part of my inventory process items that belonged to Mr. Foster personally, like photographs. And in the process of putting materials in that box I saw the brief bag leaning against the back wall of Mr. Foster’s office. I understood it to be empty. I knew that it belonged to Mr. Foster. I picked it up and brought it to put into the box. I had laid two large—one or two or maybe even three large black and white photographs of Mr. Foster and his daughter with the President on the top of the box, and in an effort to avoid damaging those photographs, I turned the briefcase to fit it or the brief bag to fit it into the box, and in the process of turning it, scraps of paper fell out of the brief bag." Apparently, the pieces of note were quite easy to dislodge from the briefcase.

Furthermore, the note was on yellow legal paper, which makes it unlikely that Nussbaum would have missed seeing it when he looked inside the briefcase. Especially since Detective Markland of the Park Police told the Washington Post that Nussbaum searched the briefcase not once, but twice. Foster's secretary certainly had no trouble seeing the pieces of yellow paper in the briefcase when she happened to glance inside it days later … just before the note was supposedly *discovered*.

Then there is the puzzle of the fingerprints, or rather lack of fingerprints. The FBI analysis of the note reported no fingerprints were found. Isn't that a little surprising? That means Foster must have worn gloves every time he touched the note … even when he supposedly tore it up. How else would he not leave fingerprints on it? Vincent Scalice, a police detective and handwriting expert, said that had Foster torn the note with his bare hands, there "would have been numerous latent impressions". So Foster must have worn gloves. But why he do that, Db? That's seems more than a little odd, don't you think?

And the fingerprint puzzle is even deeper than that. Mr Neuwirth didn't mention wearing gloves as he tried to reassemble the note. And do you know that later on Philip Heymann, Deputy Attorney General at the time, testified under oath that while viewing the note "a number of pieces of the note fell down on the floor and there was a scramble to pick them up." He testified "by the time it had been reassembled, the fingerprints of everybody in the White House were on it." Now how can that be when the FBI reported there were no fingerprints on the note, Db?

And just look at the note. Content-wise, it's as if the central portion was inserted just to defend the Clintons from various allegations after the beginning and end were written. And the three sections seem to be written in different styles of language and handwriting.

Plus the timeline of the note's *discovery* and handling is suspicious. Let's look at that timeline:

1) July 20, 1993 … Foster is found dead at Fort Marcy Park. White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, Hillary's Chief of Staff Maggie Williams, and her aide Patsy Thomasson enter Foster's office. They open a safe in the office which the White House at first claims doesn't exist (but later admits does). Foster's secretary, Deborah Gorham, later reveals that two unmailed letters from Foster to Janet Reno and Kennedy which were in the safe have disappeared. A Secret Service agent testifies under oath that he saw Williams removing files from the office. She denies it.

2) July 21, 1993 … Park Police investigators arrive at the White House but are denied access to Foster's office or the right to conduct interviews. A secret Service agent observes Craig Livingston removing various files and documents from the area of Foster's office. He denies it. Nussbaum finally makes an agreement with the DOJ on how to search Foster's office ... then unilaterally breaks that agreement leading the Deputy Attorney General to ask "Bernie, are you hiding something?"

3) July 22, 1993 …. White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum conducts the "official" search of Foster's office in front of Park Police, FBI and DOJ personnel. They search for a suicide note. Nussbaum turns Foster's briefcase upside down in front of everyone to prove it is empty. More documents are seen being removed from the Office without being inventoried by Park Police. Beryl Anthony, who was married to Foster's sister, Sheila, the Assistant Attorney General in Clinton Administration, is asked if Foster had been depressed during the two weeks prior to death, Beryl is quoted saying: "There is not a damn thing to it. That's a bunch of crap."

4) July 26, 1993 … Associate White House counsel Stephan Neuwirth claims to have found a torn yellow note in Foster's briefcase. But noone outside the Whitehouse inner circle is told. Hillary is shown the note by Nussbaum after Neuwirth reassembles it, and a Whitehouse phone log shows Hillary and Bill having a 9 minute phone conversation shortly afterwords.

5) July 27, 1993 … Lisa Foster views the *suicide* note in the Whitehouse (at that mysterious meeting she, her lawyer and sister in law attend). At 8 pm, 27 hours after the supposed discovery of the note, Park Police are finally notified about it's existance. Park Police take custody of the note. Beryl Anthony changes his story about Foster's depression. He tells the Park Police "that he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression" and he claimed that his wife had given Mr Foster a list of three counselors, psychiatrists or other doctors to contact.

6) July 29, 1993 … Lisa Foster changes her story about Foster's depression in a session with Park Police with her lawyer present. The deposition of the officer who conducted the *interview* reveals "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. The officer 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."

7) August 9, 1993 … FBI concludes investigation into the torn note. The DOJ and FBI conclude there is insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone "beyond a reasonable doubt" for obstruction of justice in regards to it, or any of the other documents that were removed from Foster's office and withheld from the OIC and Congress. Never mind that among other things, a number of Clinton staffers swore under oath that the first lady had no role whatsoever in the handling of Foster's *suicide* note and that a memo was discovered (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/27/whitewater/index.shtml ), 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".

8) August 10, 1993 … Contents of torn note are revealed to the press for the first time, but both the Park Police and FBI reports on it are withheld.

9) March 14, 1994 … New York Daily News, using its leaked copy of the Park Police findings, discloses that the authentication of the torn-up note was performed by Sergeant Larry Lockhart of the US Capitol Police. No explanation is given why he was chosen for this task and it's later revealed that Lockhart had no formal qualifications as a handwriting examiner. Senate documents also later reveal that he used only one document purportedly written by Foster for comparison purposes, which he himself admits isn't good procedure. It's also revealed that Fiske sent the note, with the same known sample that Lockhart had used, along with several canceled checks bearing Foster's signature, to the FBI lab. Of course, the note wasn't signed so it's not clear what use Foster's signature would have been. But in any case, using only this evidence, the FBI lab pronounces the note authentic, with no explanation as to how this was determined.

And that's where things stands until ...

10) August 2, 1995 … The Wall Street Journal under the heading "The Note that Won't Go Away," leaks a photo of the "suicide" note on its editorial page.

11) October 25, 1995 … three board certified independent handwriting experts hold a press conference announcing the findings of three handwriting experts … that the torn note is a forgery. The three are Professor Reginald Alton, a renowned lecturer on handwriting, manuscript authentication, and forgery at Oxford University; Ronald Rice of Boston, who wrote the course on handwriting examination for the American Board of Forensic Examiners; and retired police detective Vincent Scalice of New York, a certified member of that board who, like the other two, has given expert handwriting testimony in numerous court cases. They all agree that the note was not even a good forgery. Each gave detailed reasons for his conclusions. You can find their statements here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NOTE/note.html .

Or to summarize:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/foster-suicide-note-was-a-forgery-say-experts-1579504.html

26 October 1995

Washington (Reuter) - Someone forged the torn-up suicide note that was discovered after White House lawyer Vincent Foster was found with a fatal gunshot wound, a group of handwriting experts said yesterday.

Three handwriting specialists presented analysis at a news conference of the note found in Foster's briefcase after the deputy White House counsel was found dead on 20 July 1993 in a park near Washington. They said it appeared the note was not written by Foster but was a forgery.

… snip …

The handwriting specialists, former New York police department homicide expert Vincent Scalice, Oxford University manuscript expert Reginald Alton, and Boston private investigator Ronald Rice, said comparisons with a letter Foster had written had enough differences in style and letters to conclude the suicide note was not written by Foster.

Now you'd think this would be news? No, the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two newspapers which gave the most coverage to the discovery of the "suicide" note, were ignored it. So did mainstream TV and radio news programs, mainstream news magazines, and virtually every mainstream newspaper in US. They all ignored this revelation and instead continued to write about the Foster case as though the three handwriting experts had never concluded that a primary piece of evidence, discovered by Clinton's Whitehouse lawyers and used by Fiske to explain Foster's death as a suicide, was a rather obvious forgery.

And here's another twist (http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1995/08a.html ). Reed Irvine (of AIM) met with Sergeant Larry Lockhart, the U.S. Capitol Police handwriting expert who the government said concluded that the note was written by Foster. 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 Foster's handwriting by the person who wrote the note. 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.

Now try to tell me with a straight fact that you don't find any of the above suspicious, Db.

Or just go on ignoring it … like a Truther would do.

But don't think that's the extent of the mystery surrounding the note, Foster's briefcase, and the search of Foster's office.

Indeed, the Final Report of the Special Committee investigating Whitewater (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/committee.pdf ) contains discrepancies in the accounts of those who were in Foster's office the night he died and involved in the matter later on over the next several days and years. Their stories didn't even agree as to who entered Foster's office first, much less what they did once they were there.

If you dare face the truth, read that report, Db, and you'll find dozens of facts suggesting Nussbaum lied over and over in the Foster matter. For example, he failed to disclose the existance of Travel Office documents that he apparently found in Foster's briefcase. Travelgate was a matter that was being investigated at the time with a promise of cooperation from Bill Clinton. Yet, according to the linked Senate report:

In fact, the Justice Department official responsible for the investigation, Office of Professional Responsibility Counsel Michael E. Shaheen, Jr., found out about the existence of Mr. Foster’s notebook through a press report in July 1995. Mr. Shaheen, enraged at Mr. Nussbaum’s concealment of the notebook, wrote a memo to Mr. Margolis on the subject. It stated in part:

We were stunned to learn of the existence of this document since it so obviously bears directly on the inquiry we were directed to undertake in late July and August 1993, by then DAG Philip Heymann—that is, to review the conduct of the FBI in connection with its contacts with the White House on the Travel Office matter and to determine what Vince Foster meant by the statement in his note that ‘‘the FBI lied in their report to the AG.’’

In a July 13, 1993 letter, President Clinton informed then Congressman Jack Brooks that the Attorney General was in the process of reviewing matters relating to the Travel Office, ‘‘and you can be assured that [she] will have the Administration’s full cooperation in investigating those matters which the Department wishes to review.’’ While these may have been Mr. Clintons’ views, the White House personnel with whom we dealt apparently did not share his commitment to full cooperation with respect to our investigation. The recent disclosure of the Foster notebook confirms this.

Mr. Shaheen, after outlining specific instances of noncooperation by the White House, concluded, ‘‘The fact that we have just now learned of the existence of obviously relevant notes written by Mr. Foster on the subject of the FBI report is yet another example of the lack of cooperation and candor we received from the White House throughout our inquiry.’’

Here's another example:

Mr. Nussbaum testified that he did not recall, during the course of his review on July 22, ever picking the briefcase up off the floor or looking into the briefcase as he was pulling out the files. Agent Salter testified, however, that Mr. Nussbaum picked up the bag, opened it by the handles, tilted it, and looked inside. Mr. Adams, Agent Condon, Agent Flynn, Captain Hume, Detective Markland, and Mr. Spafford all confirmed that Mr. Nussbaum picked up the bag.

Detective Markland testified that Mr. Nussbaum told the law enforcement officials that the briefcase was empty:

He would reach down, take papers out of the briefcase, put them on the desk, go through them, put them in the appropriate piles. When he got done, he said that’s it, it’s empty. After that he picked up the briefcase with both hands, spread it apart a little bit, tilted it, put it back down and shoved it to the back of the room. I could see the briefcase lifted off the floor by him and tilted, put it down, said it was empty two times and moved it back.

Detective Markland was certain that Mr. Nussbaum had looked in the bottom of the briefcase. ‘‘He had a clear view of the briefcase on the floor so that he had it spread open with both hands and was looking down into the briefcase.’’

Agent Salter similarly confirmed that Mr. Nussbaum ‘‘stated that it was empty and he turned and placed it behind him against the wall.’’ Mr. Margolis likewise testified that ‘‘he did take files out of it, a number of files out of it, and then he told us, I don’t remember the exact language, but told us that that was it, that there was nothing more.’’

Mr. Nussbaum contended that he did not recall the process described by Detective Markland, and his White House colleagues concurred in Mr. Nussbaum’s testimony that he did not state that the briefcase was empty.

The general impression of those at the review was that the briefcase was empty when Mr. Nussbaum was finished. Thus, when Mr. Burton found out that Mr. Neuwirth had discovered a note in the briefcase, he said, ‘‘Well, you’ve really got to explain this because I saw Bernie empty it. How could it have been in that briefcase?’’

The law enforcement officials present at the review agreed with Mr. Burton’s assessment. After the note was discovered, Captain Hume was skeptical that Mr. Nussbaum would not have seen a note in the briefcase on July 22. Major Hines agreed with Captain Hume that ‘‘our oldest, blindest detective would have found the note.’’ Detective Markland likewise testified that it was impossible for Mr. Nussbaum to miss a torn up note in the briefcase because ‘‘he is looking for documents, he has a co-worker and friend who is dead. One of the things he may be looking for could presumably be ripped up, he is not a stupid person. And he physically picked up the briefcase at one point and tilted it and I saw it come off the floor and tilt, and then he put it down and said it is empty.’’ Detective Markland was blunt in his testimony:

Q: Do you think he [Nussbaum] was lying?
A: Yes, I think it would have been impossible for him to miss that many torn scraps of yellow paper out of a briefcase that he was searching on the 22nd.

And then the report goes on to indicate some evidence that suggests there was indeed some scraps of paper in the briefcase at the time Nussbaum first searched it and he knew it at the time but hid that from the police. In which case, what was Bernie hiding, Db? And what did the real note (the one really written by Foster) say? Hmmmmmmm?

In any case, now the question is whether YOU will respond to the above?

Or will you go on drinking the Foster Koolaid like the rest of the Foster Truthers on this thread?

Will you keep hiding behind a string of transparently bogus rationalizations?

 

[CptColumbo]

Tell you what, Disbelief. Even though you obviously don't want to discuss the so-called suicide note, let's do it anyway. Just to show our readers how you response to the presentation of actual facts directed at you. Just to show our readers that you, like 9/11 Truthers, can't deal with facts in any sort of rational manner. At least that's my prediction based on your posts so far.

But why is the so-called suicide note important? Because if it's a forgery, then that clearly means someone in the Clinton WhiteHouse tampered with Foster's briefcase. That clearly means someone was trying to make people believe Foster was in a suicidal frame of mind. That clearly means the FBI, Fiske and Starr, through incompetence or corruption, went along that deception and didn't care once it was exposed.

So, let's see if you really belong on a skeptics forum, Db.



In case you've never seen it, here's the note:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NOTE/forg.gif

It was torn into 28 pieces … which makes it quite surprising (as discussed below) that nothing fell out of the briefcase when Nussbaum, saying "it's empty", turned it upside down and shook it in front of the Park Police a couple days before the note was discovered. A congressman, Frank Murkowski, tried to duplicate that stunt a few years later during the Senate hearings on Foster, just to see what would happen. And lots of pieces of yellow paper fell out in front of everyone at the hearing.

In fact, here's how Mr Neuwirth described finding the note in the first place (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/committee.pdf ): "On Monday the 26th at Mr. Nussbaum’s request I was preparing an inventory of the contents of Mr. Foster’s office. One of the things that I did in connection with that inventory was to put into a box toward the latter part of my inventory process items that belonged to Mr. Foster personally, like photographs. And in the process of putting materials in that box I saw the brief bag leaning against the back wall of Mr. Foster’s office. I understood it to be empty. I knew that it belonged to Mr. Foster. I picked it up and brought it to put into the box. I had laid two large—one or two or maybe even three large black and white photographs of Mr. Foster and his daughter with the President on the top of the box, and in an effort to avoid damaging those photographs, I turned the briefcase to fit it or the brief bag to fit it into the box, and in the process of turning it, scraps of paper fell out of the brief bag." Apparently, the pieces of note were quite easy to dislodge from the briefcase.

Furthermore, the note was on yellow legal paper, which makes it unlikely that Nussbaum would have missed seeing it when he looked inside the briefcase. Especially since Detective Markland of the Park Police told the Washington Post that Nussbaum searched the briefcase not once, but twice. Foster's secretary certainly had no trouble seeing the pieces of yellow paper in the briefcase when she happened to glance inside it days later … just before the note was supposedly *discovered*.

Then there is the puzzle of the fingerprints, or rather lack of fingerprints. The FBI analysis of the note reported no fingerprints were found. Isn't that a little surprising? That means Foster must have worn gloves every time he touched the note … even when he supposedly tore it up. How else would he not leave fingerprints on it? Vincent Scalice, a police detective and handwriting expert, said that had Foster torn the note with his bare hands, there "would have been numerous latent impressions". So Foster must have worn gloves. But why he do that, Db? That's seems more than a little odd, don't you think?

And the fingerprint puzzle is even deeper than that. Mr Neuwirth didn't mention wearing gloves as he tried to reassemble the note. And do you know that later on Philip Heymann, Deputy Attorney General at the time, testified under oath that while viewing the note "a number of pieces of the note fell down on the floor and there was a scramble to pick them up." He testified "by the time it had been reassembled, the fingerprints of everybody in the White House were on it." Now how can that be when the FBI reported there were no fingerprints on the note, Db?

And just look at the note. Content-wise, it's as if the central portion was inserted just to defend the Clintons from various allegations after the beginning and end were written. And the three sections seem to be written in different styles of language and handwriting.

Plus the timeline of the note's *discovery* and handling is suspicious. Let's look at that timeline:

1) July 20, 1993 … Foster is found dead at Fort Marcy Park. White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, Hillary's Chief of Staff Maggie Williams, and her aide Patsy Thomasson enter Foster's office. They open a safe in the office which the White House at first claims doesn't exist (but later admits does). Foster's secretary, Deborah Gorham, later reveals that two unmailed letters from Foster to Janet Reno and Kennedy which were in the safe have disappeared. A Secret Service agent testifies under oath that he saw Williams removing files from the office. She denies it.

2) July 21, 1993 … Park Police investigators arrive at the White House but are denied access to Foster's office or the right to conduct interviews. A secret Service agent observes Craig Livingston removing various files and documents from the area of Foster's office. He denies it. Nussbaum finally makes an agreement with the DOJ on how to search Foster's office ... then unilaterally breaks that agreement leading the Deputy Attorney General to ask "Bernie, are you hiding something?"

3) July 22, 1993 …. White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum conducts the "official" search of Foster's office in front of Park Police, FBI and DOJ personnel. They search for a suicide note. Nussbaum turns Foster's briefcase upside down in front of everyone to prove it is empty. More documents are seen being removed from the Office without being inventoried by Park Police. Beryl Anthony, who was married to Foster's sister, Sheila, the Assistant Attorney General in Clinton Administration, is asked if Foster had been depressed during the two weeks prior to death, Beryl is quoted saying: "There is not a damn thing to it. That's a bunch of crap."

4) July 26, 1993 … Associate White House counsel Stephan Neuwirth claims to have found a torn yellow note in Foster's briefcase. But noone outside the Whitehouse inner circle is told. Hillary is shown the note by Nussbaum after Neuwirth reassembles it, and a Whitehouse phone log shows Hillary and Bill having a 9 minute phone conversation shortly afterwords.

5) July 27, 1993 … Lisa Foster views the *suicide* note in the Whitehouse (at that mysterious meeting she, her lawyer and sister in law attend). At 8 pm, 27 hours after the supposed discovery of the note, Park Police are finally notified about it's existance. Park Police take custody of the note. Beryl Anthony changes his story about Foster's depression. He tells the Park Police "that he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression" and he claimed that his wife had given Mr Foster a list of three counselors, psychiatrists or other doctors to contact.

6) July 29, 1993 … Lisa Foster changes her story about Foster's depression in a session with Park Police with her lawyer present. The deposition of the officer who conducted the *interview* reveals "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. The officer 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."

7) August 9, 1993 … FBI concludes investigation into the torn note. The DOJ and FBI conclude there is insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone "beyond a reasonable doubt" for obstruction of justice in regards to it, or any of the other documents that were removed from Foster's office and withheld from the OIC and Congress. Never mind that among other things, a number of Clinton staffers swore under oath that the first lady had no role whatsoever in the handling of Foster's *suicide* note and that a memo was discovered (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/27/whitewater/index.shtml ), 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".

8) August 10, 1993 … Contents of torn note are revealed to the press for the first time, but both the Park Police and FBI reports on it are withheld.

9) March 14, 1994 … New York Daily News, using its leaked copy of the Park Police findings, discloses that the authentication of the torn-up note was performed by Sergeant Larry Lockhart of the US Capitol Police. No explanation is given why he was chosen for this task and it's later revealed that Lockhart had no formal qualifications as a handwriting examiner. Senate documents also later reveal that he used only one document purportedly written by Foster for comparison purposes, which he himself admits isn't good procedure. It's also revealed that Fiske sent the note, with the same known sample that Lockhart had used, along with several canceled checks bearing Foster's signature, to the FBI lab. Of course, the note wasn't signed so it's not clear what use Foster's signature would have been. But in any case, using only this evidence, the FBI lab pronounces the note authentic, with no explanation as to how this was determined.

And that's where things stands until ...

10) August 2, 1995 … The Wall Street Journal under the heading "The Note that Won't Go Away," leaks a photo of the "suicide" note on its editorial page.

11) October 25, 1995 … three board certified independent handwriting experts hold a press conference announcing the findings of three handwriting experts … that the torn note is a forgery. The three are Professor Reginald Alton, a renowned lecturer on handwriting, manuscript authentication, and forgery at Oxford University; Ronald Rice of Boston, who wrote the course on handwriting examination for the American Board of Forensic Examiners; and retired police detective Vincent Scalice of New York, a certified member of that board who, like the other two, has given expert handwriting testimony in numerous court cases. They all agree that the note was not even a good forgery. Each gave detailed reasons for his conclusions. You can find their statements here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NOTE/note.html .

Or to summarize:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/foster-suicide-note-was-a-forgery-say-experts-1579504.html




Now you'd think this would be news? No, the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two newspapers which gave the most coverage to the discovery of the "suicide" note, were ignored it. So did mainstream TV and radio news programs, mainstream news magazines, and virtually every mainstream newspaper in US. They all ignored this revelation and instead continued to write about the Foster case as though the three handwriting experts had never concluded that a primary piece of evidence, discovered by Clinton's Whitehouse lawyers and used by Fiske to explain Foster's death as a suicide, was a rather obvious forgery.

And here's another twist (http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1995/08a.html ). Reed Irvine (of AIM) met with Sergeant Larry Lockhart, the U.S. Capitol Police handwriting expert who the government said concluded that the note was written by Foster. 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 Foster's handwriting by the person who wrote the note. 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.

Now try to tell me with a straight fact that you don't find any of the above suspicious, Db.

Or just go on ignoring it … like a Truther would do.

But don't think that's the extent of the mystery surrounding the note, Foster's briefcase, and the search of Foster's office.

Indeed, the Final Report of the Special Committee investigating Whitewater (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/committee.pdf ) contains discrepancies in the accounts of those who were in Foster's office the night he died and involved in the matter later on over the next several days and years. Their stories didn't even agree as to who entered Foster's office first, much less what they did once they were there.

If you dare face the truth, read that report, Db, and you'll find dozens of facts suggesting Nussbaum lied over and over in the Foster matter. For example, he failed to disclose the existance of Travel Office documents that he apparently found in Foster's briefcase. Travelgate was a matter that was being investigated at the time with a promise of cooperation from Bill Clinton. Yet, according to the linked Senate report:



Here's another example:



And then the report goes on to indicate some evidence that suggests there was indeed some scraps of paper in the briefcase at the time Nussbaum first searched it and he knew it at the time but hid that from the police. In which case, what was Bernie hiding, Db? And what did the real note (the one really written by Foster) say? Hmmmmmmm?

In any case, now the question is whether YOU will respond to the above?

Or will you go on drinking the Foster Koolaid like the rest of the Foster Truthers on this thread?

Will you keep hiding behind a string of transparently bogus rationalizations?

Not caring in 3...2...1. Awww, too late. I was already there.

 

[BeAChooser]

Not caring in 3...2...1. Awww, too late. I was already there.

Don't care and yet you're still posting on this thread. Curious.

 

[Disbelief]

8.) The belief that there is a vast audience of lurkers completely on their side.
9.) The inability to critically evaluate source material, and organizations/individuals providing that material.

10.) Slow learner.

 

[CptColumbo]

Don't care and yet you're still posting on this thread. Curious.

I enjoy watching a good train wreck.

 

[BeAChooser]

10.) Slow learner.

Nah. I had you identified from your first post, Db. Truther thru and thru. The facts in this case simply terrify you. Which is why you won't go there.