WASHINGTON (AP) -- A military medical examiner said Thursday that an autopsy should have been performed on Commerce Secretary Ron Brown after he died in a plane crash to investigate a suspicious skull wound.
Authorities considered but ruled out the possibility that Brown had been shot. No autopsy was performed, and authorities concluded that Brown died of injuries sustained in the 1996 crash in Croatia.
Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, a deputy medical examiner at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, said Thursday he believes the head wound could have been caused by a bullet from a .45-caliber gun.
snip...
Cogswell acknowledged that he did not examine Brown's body.
snip...
The military pathologist who examined Brown's body concluded he died from multiple blunt force injuries as a result of the crash.
At the Pentagon, spokesman Michael Doubleday said the director of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Col. Michael Dickerson, as well as the pathologist who examined Brown's body, Col. William Gormley, stand by their conclusion.
snip...
snip...
Cogswell, a forensic pathologist, examined the mountaintop crash scene five days after the disaster in which Brown and 34 others died. He told the Tribune-Review he believed the wound was suspicious based on photographs and X-rays of the remains and conversations with those who examined the corpse.
snip...
Gormley told the newspaper he discounted the gunshot possibility because the skull was not penetrated and there was no exit wound.
Erich Junger, then the institute's chief forensic scientist and who observed Gormley's examination, said he saw no evidence of a gunshot wound. He said a piece of the aircraft or its contents likely hit Brown's head.
perhaps he was shot in the head, and the conspirators also crashed the plane, just in case the head-shot didn't stick.
btw....i missed the bit where this is remotely related to clinton making money on speaking engagements.
BAC?
I've made and previously posted a list of those characteristics.
Let's go over them:
One. Truthers invariably introduce only a small fraction of all the sourced facts cited during a debate on a given subject. You can go to the 9/11 threads to see the truth in this. In the case of Foster and Brown, I would bet I've posted at least 95% of the sourced facts that have been introduced on the topics.
Two. Truthers invariably focus on a very narrow set of the facts that are introduced on the topic by themselves or others and ignore the rest. Again, the 9/11 threads show the truth in this. In the case of Foster and Brown, I would bet my opponents have completely ignored at least 95% of the sourced material that I've offered in support of my position. Whereas I have directly addressed/disputed *at least* 95% of the claims they've made.
Three. Truthers often distort or lie about the facts they claim. Again, 9/11 threads prove this. This and previous Brown/Foster threads show which side of the debate is doing that too. Time and time again on these threads, I've pointed out distortions and lies made by my opponents. Just look at this thread.
Four. Truthers don't challenge the other side's facts with facts, but will go on regurgitating their same already disproven claims as if they are fact. And we've seen which side of the Brown/Foster debates has done that too (without naming names).
Five. Truthers are very illogical. They display that characteristic repeatedly. For example, to call a witness list that includes the first (and only) doctor to see Foster at the death site, all the EMS personnel, the first person to find Foster's body, another civilian who was at the park at the time Foster supposedly was killed, several Park police officers who witnessed the death scene, the FBI agents who took the statements of Foster's family members and his personal doctor, three experts in handwriting, and Starr's own top investigator before he quit the IOC in disgust charging a coverup ... a "poor" witness list … as one poster on this thread did in a past debate … is illogical. To imply that a "good" witness list is one consisting solely of Starr's 3 eyewitnesses to Foster's *clinical* depression, all of whom told the FBI and Park Police for days after Foster's death that he showed absolutely no sign of depression but then changed their account a week after a meeting in the Whitehouse … which that same poster did … is illogical. And there are numerous other examples I could cite.
Six. Truthers concoct all sorts of imaginary scenarios out of thin air as their substitute for providing facts. And my opponents in the Foster and Brown debates have done that over and over, especially in the Brown case. And related to this, Truthers toss out all sorts of red herrings and strawmen during debate. That's not a tactic *I* use. But many of my opponents have employed that tactic repeatedly.
Seven. Truthers often rely on demonstrably untrustworthy witnesses and *experts*. In previous threads I've proven the indication of unreliability in the 3 *key* witnesses used to claim Foster was depressed. The *doctor* that Starr uses as his expert, Dr Berman, on depression has been proven in the Foster threads to be highly unreliable and to make absolutely unscientific claims. The pathologist (Dr Beyer) who is relied on to support Starr's claim that the exit wound was a 1" x 1-1/4" hole in the back of Foster's head has been proven to be not only unreliable but a liar. And never mind the fact that every other witness in the Foster case, many of them medical professionals, directly contradicted the doctor's claim. My opponents in the Foster case ignore all those expert witnesses but accept only the 1 witness who is a demonstrable liar. My opponents ignore all the experts who stated that the so-called suicide note was forged. They ignore the statements of Starr's top investigator. They ignore the statements of the Foster's doctor. They ignore the statement of the expert on suicides that I offered in response to Dr Berman's silly claims. And on and on and on. Whereas I'm the one quoting the witness statements gathered by Park Police and the FBI the night Foster died. My opponents think everyone is lying except their cherry-picked couple of demonstrably unreliable witnesses. Now I ask you, who is closest to the characteristics of a truther?
Eight. Truthers fall back on personal attacks when their presentation of claimed facts falls flat on it's face. In these discussions, my opponents has steadfastly refused to discuss the facts. But I've been called every name in the book. In comparison, I've been the soul of politeness during these discussions.
Nine. Truthers like to play the innocent game and accuse their opponent of sinking to the level of debate they are actually already at in the debate. Recently, I've was accused of starting the Truther accusations in a thread, when in fact, it was those attacking me who started them. And I proved it.
Ten. Finally, Truthers often try to link their opponents to other unrelated matters or groups, that they think will discredit their opponents, rather than deal with the actual facts in the case at hand. For example, my opponents repeatedly tried to link the birther movement to the Foster case and me. And here you are trying to link the 9/11 Truther movement to Schippers. Sorry, but my comments with respect to the birther movement only show a healthy degree of skeptism. And Schipper's comments also only showed a healthy degree of skepticism.
Speaking of which, it's downright dishonest to call Schippers a "truther".
He does not have any of the above listed characteristics.
And, contrary to what you are attempting to make people believe, he doesn't believe that the US government planned 9/11 or the attack on the towers. Only that the Federal government ignored signs that a terrorist attack on Manhattan and Washington DC was going to happen. And then covered up their own incompetence. And that is entirely believeable.
He bases that belief on first hand knowledge and named sources.
There is good reason to believe that the FBI’s failure to apprehend suspected terrorists, who were linked to bin Laden and operating within the U.S., was the result of high-level blocks from the FBI command and Justice Department. Evidence for this comes from the authoritative testimony of U.S. attorney David Philip Schippers, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former President Bill Clinton. His long record of impeccable expertise and extensive experience makes him a highly credible source.
<snip>
Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text available elsewhere. Just cite a short quote and the link to the other source.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LashL
Now that doesn't sound like "truther" nonsense at all. But it does sound like the sort of incompetence and cover your butt nonsense we've come to expect from the Federal government. You might want to read that whole article but I bet you don't. Too bad you've so little interest in finding out what really went on. Just as little interest as you've shown regarding the truth about the Clinton administration and it's various misdeeds.
By the way, just to add more fuel to this fire, ever hear of FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds? Edmonds charged (among other things) that in April 2001, a long term FBI asset provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. The asset was previously a high level intelligence officer in Iraq. He learned that bin Laden was (1) planning a terrorist attack in the US targeting 4-5 major cities, (2) the attack would involve airplanes, (3) some of the people involved in the attack were already in the US, (4) and the attack would occur in the next few months. The agents reported this to their superior, the Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, by filing "302" forms. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge and after 9/11 the agents and translater were told to "keep quiet". And note that the 7/29/04 issue of the NYTimes concluded that none of Edmonds accusations are "disproved". This is from the book "The hidden history of 9-11-2001" By Paul Zarembka.
And I can keep adding to the evidence that Schippers was right in suggesting the FBI had forewarning. How about this …
CBS News reported in July 2001, that AG Ashcroft had stopped flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml ) but neither the FBI or DOJ would identify the nature of the threat other than to say it wasn't one specifically against him. It is later reported that he stopped flying in July based on threat assessments made on May 8. Curious coincidence, isn't it? The San Francisco Chronicle said this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/06/03/hsorensen.DTL ): "Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11 … snip … The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind. Why else would it have Ashcroft use a $1,600-plus per hour G-3 Gulfstream when he could have flown commercial, as he always did before, for a fraction of the cost?"
The truth, that you are trying desperately to avoid facing, is that David Schippers was a highly regarded, top level prosecutor and a lifelong Democrat (who even voted twice for Clinton so he's no right-winger), who was respected enough to be chosen as Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee when they investigated and charged Bill Clinton with impeachable offenses. And he did an outstanding job in that capacity although he was repeatedly prevented from fully investigating/presenting the facts by certain members of Congress. This is not a man whose claims about evidence should be taken lightly. He knows what evidence is and how to respect it. And despite your attempted smear, he is no Truther. He just believes, because of first hand knowledge, that there was more to the 9/11 story (and OKC story) than has been admitted by the government.
As for OKC (mentioned in the link you supplied to smear Schippers as a "truther"), when he states for the public record that he tried to get Attorney General Ashcroft to look at a large quantity of evidence indicating islamofanatic involvement in OKC (much of it from Jayna Davis) and Ashcroft simply refused to look at it, you should believe him and wonder why Ashcroft showed NO interest.
If you really want to inform yourself, go buy the book The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis. She lays out a good case that arab terrorists were involved in the OKC bombing using various evidence that the FBI, the Mainstream Media, the Clinton administration and even the Bush administration have simply ignored or in many cases tried to cover up over the years. Among the evidence are sworn affidavits she collected from very credible witnesses that clearly link McVeigh and Nichols to former Iraqi soldiers who settled in the US. So instead of Bill Clinton blaming conservative talk radio for motivating McVeigh's mass murder, perhaps Clinton should have been paying more attention to the islamofanatic terrorist problem. Because then we might not have suffered a 9/11 at all and the word "truther" might have a completely different connotation today … it might be associated with the likes of REAL investigative journalists like Davis who truly are seeking the truth.
I made mistakes from ignorance, inexperience and overwork
I did not knowingly violate any law or standard of conduct
No one in The White House, to my knowledge, violated any law or standard of conduct, including any action in the travel office. There was no intent to benefit any individual or specific group
The FBI lied in their report to the AG
The press is covering up the illegal benefits they received from the travel staff
The GOP has lied and misrepresented its knowledge and role and covered up a prior investigation
The Ushers Office plotted to have excessive costs incurred, taking advantage of Kaki and HRC
The public will never believe the innocence of the Clintons and their loyal staff
The WSJ editors lie without consequence
I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport
Sorry, Biscuit, but that doesn't really look like a resignation letter.
And even if by some stretch of imagination you still think it is, how do you explain the absense of Foster's fingerprints on it? That's according to the FBI (and according to a speech in Congress by Representative Burton of Indiana quoted here http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/hillprints.html ) So did Foster wear gloves while he wrote and handled this *resignation letter* or *suicide note*? Hmmmmmm?
And here's another mystery. Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann testified (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WW/white5.html ) that when the note was handed over to Lieutenant Megby, "a number of pieces of the note fell down on the floor and there was a scramble to pick them up"? He went on to add that "by the time it had been reassembled, the fingerprints of everybody in the Whitehouse were on it." If that's what happened, then explain why the FBI was unable to identify anybody's fingerprints on the note? Were all the people at the Whitehouse wearing gloves? Were none of their names in the FBI fingerprint database? Only Nussbaum's palmprint was identified by the FBI as being on the note.
And, regardless, the fact remains that multiple handwriting experts, including the one that the government used to authenticate the note, now say the note is likely a forgery. Isn't putting a fake and very depressed sounding *resignation letter* in Foster's briefcase (the one that had been previously searched and found to be empty by the Park Police) a clear sign of foul play?
During Senate hearings in 1995, Alaskan Republican Senator Frank Murkowski tore up a note into twenty-eight pieces and placed it in the bottom of a briefcase just like Fosters, that had been lent to him by the IOC's office. He then turned it over and the notes fell out. It is implausible that Nussbaum overlooked the note when he emptied the briefcase in the same manner in front of Park Police the night of Foster's death. FOCUS, on these facts, before you respond, Biscuit.
Why do I call it a suicide note? Because it was used by Fiske and Starr to suggest Foster was depressed enough to commit suicide. That was it's purpose. Which is why source after source (Reuters, CNN, The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, etc) all referred to it as a "suicide note" in the articles they published for public consumption. But yet you complain when I call it that? Why?
But I didn't claim they'd proved there was a bullet in Brown's head. Only that ALL the real experts in the case, when it comes to determining the cause of death, said the wound and x-rays suggest a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied as a result. Now will you join me in demanding they exhume Brown's body and do an autopsy? Or do you think your opinion is of equal weight to the opinion of forensic pathologists with years of experience in dealing with bullet wounds? Hmmmmm?
Sorry BaC but thats just, like, your opinion dude. It looks to me like the resignation letter of a depressed man disenchanted with his life and work. Just look at that last line.
We all know that this isn't a suicide note so would the rest of the members like to vote on who won BaC's "suicide note" challenge?
But ANTPogo, in a previous thread I linked you to a video clip that showed CPO Janoski and Colonel Cogswell saying exactly what Cashill quotes them saying. And you didn't claim the video didn't work. You didn't claim the video didn't show those two eyewitnesses saying what they've been quoted (by Cashill and others) to have said. I'm certain you would have taken great delight in embarrassing me if you could. But you didn't. You simply ignored the video. In which case, I have to believe you know that it showed those two saying exactly what was quoted by Cashill and others. In which case, Cashill is not a total liar. You really need to focus on the facts IN THIS CASE. Not try to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.
But ANTPogo, in a previous thread I linked you to a video clip that showed CPO Janoski and Colonel Cogswell saying exactly what Cashill quotes them saying. And you didn't claim the video didn't work. You didn't claim the video didn't show those two eyewitnesses saying what they've been quoted (by Cashill and others) to have said. I'm certain you would have taken great delight in embarrassing me if you could. But you didn't. You simply ignored the video. In which case, I have to believe you know that it showed those two saying exactly what was quoted by Cashill and others. In which case, Cashill is not a total liar. You really need to focus on the facts IN THIS CASE. Not try to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.
But ANTPogo, in a previous thread I linked you to a video clip that showed CPO Janoski and Colonel Cogswell saying exactly what Cashill quotes them saying. And you didn't claim the video didn't work. You didn't claim the video didn't show those two eyewitnesses saying what they've been quoted (by Cashill and others) to have said. I'm certain you would have taken great delight in embarrassing me if you could. But you didn't. You simply ignored the video. In which case, I have to believe you know that it showed those two saying exactly what was quoted by Cashill and others. In which case, Cashill is not a total liar. You really need to focus on the facts IN THIS CASE. Not try to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.
The point is not that Janoski and Cogswell actually said those things. In any case, aren't actually evidence that Brown was shot in the head, but merely evidence that two people who didn't actually examine Brown's body thought a wound looked like a gunshot wound, while the doctor who did examine the body said it wasn't. Even if we treat their claims with the highest credibility possible, and simply handwave things as a he-said-she-said set of dueling diagnoses, and needs more evidence to support the gunshot claim. And since the reality is that an actual postmortem examination by a qualified doctor says one thing, while ad hoc "I didn't do an a examination but..." statements say another, the weight of credibility is already farther towards the non-gunshot diagnosis, meaning you'd need that much more evidence that Ron Brown was killed by a gunshot to the head.
And that evidence simply does not exist.
The point is that Cashill is a liar and an incompetent, so that anything he says needs to be checked against other sources. And yet, instead of realizing that and going to those non-Cashill sources, you continue to repeat everything Cashill says. Why, for instance, are you quoting what Cashill says Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post stated, instead of going directly to Kurtz' article? Especially since known liar and incompetent Cashill injects his own stupid interpretation of Kurtz' words ("snickered", "preposterous certainty", etc).
Non-sequitor. You haven't answered the question. But let me clarify it.
Assuming that you looked at photos of the wound, would you then consider your opinion about the cause of the wound to be of equal significance/weight to that a highly experienced forensic pathologist? In other words, do you believe in the concept of experts? Or, to express my question another way … would you think you know enough about medicine to overrule your doctors if your doctors told you that you had a serious disease and needed treatment?
That's false. The opinion of highly trained and experienced forensic pathologists, after looking at photos and x-rays of a wound, is evidence. It's expert testimony. They can testify in court about they saw and believe. And these pathologists said they saw features in the wound and x-rays that made them think this might be a bullet wound. The only way to prove it, one way or the other, was to open up Brown's skull and take a look. They all, in the end, said that should have happened. But they were prevented from doing that on orders from the WhiteHouse, JCS and Commerce Department (according to a sworn statement from the pathologist who did the examination).
Colonel Cogswell … "Open him up. This man needs an autopsy."
Colonel Cogswell … "I talked to a few people who were there from our office and asked them ... if they thought this wound looked like a gunshot wound, or, `What do you think the hole looked like?' And the uniform response was, `Yeah, it looked like a gunshot wound.'"
Dr. Fackler (not a pathologists but former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory in San Francisco) … "I'm impressed by how very, very round that hole is. That's unusual except for a gunshot wound. It's unusual for anything else."
Dr. Fackler … "They didn't do an autopsy. My God. It's astounding."
Lt Col. Hause … "looked like a punched-out .45-caliber entrance hole." "I made the presumption the reason (Gormley) concluded it wasn't a gunshot wound, (and) therefore there was no need to go further, was that he [Gormley] looked at the X-rays." "Secretary Brown's body should be exhumed and an autopsy performed by pathologists not associated with AFIP."
Coroner Cyril Wecht … "It's not even arguable in the field of medical legal investigations whether an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown. I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied."
Coroner Cyril Wecht … "There was more than enough evidence of a possible homicide to call in the FBI so that (the autopsy could have been conducted) and a gunshot could have been ruled out." (Wecht did not rule out the possibility that a piece of the aircraft could have caused the hole, but agreed with Cogswell that such a "perfectly circular" hole would be difficult to achieve with parts of the plane.)
Maj. Thomas Parsons … concluded that Gormley's findings simply could not be substantiated, that the possibility of a gunshot could not be ruled out, and that an autopsy should have been conducted.
Colonel Gormley … Eventually admitted in a deposition that the hole in the crown of Ron Brown's head looked like an entrance wound from a gunshot, and that it was a "red flag" for a forensic pathologist which should have triggered a further inquiry. Admitted that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they "agreed that [the hole in his head] look[ed] like a gunshot wound, at least an entrance gunshot wound."
And since you haven't seen the pictures, here are the images of the head x-rays and the image of Brown's head wound:
Look at them. You don't even have to be a forensic pathologist to see that the bone plug is offset from the wound and not on the surface of the hole as Gormley claimed in the official report. You don't have to be an expert to see that the hole is a perfect circle or see the specks of metallic density material inside the skull in the x-ray that the pathologists mentioned. You don't have to be an expert to see brain matter in the hole, again contrary to what Gormley claimed in the official report.
Are you sure? Perhaps he uses both Miguel and Miquel … depending on whether he's talking to gringos or not. The AIM website spelled his name Miquel in an article on an interview he gave to them. http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-1/ You want to claim they went to all that trouble and got his name wrong? You want to claim he didn't then correct them?
But, in any case, isn't that a rather irrelevant comment? The fact is, whether his name is Miguel or Miquel, he was Starr's lead investigator in the Foster case and he quit while publically saying he thought the whole investigation was a sham. Hard to ignore that fact … but you're certainly trying.
No, Miquel Rodriguez did NOT conclude it was a suicide. He expressed serious doubts about that. Didn't you bother reading the interview I posted by him earlier? Or were you too busy trying to regurgitate what you already *know*?
They were not independent investigations. They were all conducted by the same parties that evidence shows manipulated evidence. Therefore, their conclusion are suspect. Why must I go over all the facts regarding this yet again? Do you never pay attention during debates? Do you never look back at past threads before involving yourself in a debate?
Here is what Rodriguez said about that claim:
This whole notion of [Fiske and Starr] doing an honest investigation is laughable. … The FBI conducted the first investigation along with the Park Police. The FBI reinvestigated Foster's death under Independent Counsel Fiske, then, Kenneth Starr used the very same FBI agents in his investigation. … The American press misled the American public by reporting that there have been several independent investigations, when, in fact, all of the investigations were done by the FBI.
Now think about the reason there were three investigations anyway. The first obviously left enough doubts that Fiske was asked to take a look. But Fiske's also didn't satisfy, leading to yet another. And just like Fiske's, Starr's relied on the exact same material (from the Park Police and FBI) that the first one had, plus a few additions (like the green oven mitt) that Starr concocted (and I use that word intentionally) to beef up the same dubious conclusion.
Now you'd think that three times would be a charm.
But Starr's investigation was so questionable that for the first time in history, an independent panel of judges overseeing an IOC ruled that an addendum (Knowlton's), alleging that the FBI intimidated witnesses and covered up evidence, be attached to the final report issued by Starr. This is not something the panel had to do or would have done lightly.
And imagine what that panel of judges might have done had they learned at the time that both Fiske and Starr failed to tell them (and the public) about an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after the death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound, which directly contradicts Starr, Fiske and the official autopsy report?
In any case, all three investigations ignored the same massive body of facts that I've spent post after post pointing out to you and your peers here at JREF, i.e., the facts you clearly want to avoid discussing directly. There weren't really three independent, separate investigations, but a string of investigations that all relied on the exact same incomplete set of data and outright lies or fabrications, to reach the same bogus conclusion. Not the honest investigation you pretend.
By the way, there were also some Congressional investigations but those occurred in a very political context and that alone makes their results questionable, since clearly most in the government at that time were seeking to sweep this matter under the rug by hook or crook, just as they were so many of the other scandals. And remember, Filegate (the collection of files, not the scandal itself) had already occurred by this time so maybe some of those Congressmen were given good reasons to find, see, hear nothing. And once again, these investigations also relied on the same questionable Park Police and FBI sources, and worked closely with Fiske's investigation to reach their conclusions. So it's no surprise they essentially backed up the other three's conclusions (although they did learn some of the discrepancies that I pointed out earlier ... and then promptly ignored them).
Non-sequitor. You haven't answered the question. But let me clarify it.
Assuming that you looked at photos of the wound, would you then consider your opinion about the cause of the wound to be of equal significance/weight to that a highly experienced forensic pathologist? In other words, do you believe in the concept of experts? Or, to express my question another way … would you think you know enough about medicine to overrule your doctors if your doctors told you that you had a serious disease and needed treatment?
You're right. I haven't answered your irrelevant and frankly dishonest question. You may recall that this started because I pointed out that most of the "facts" you were trumpeting were actually opinions. That was correct. Expert opinions are still opinions. Now you're trying to turn this into me against the expert pathologists. I'm not playing.
1. Several experts say the hole shown in photos of Ron Brown's head looked like a bullet hole.
You're right. I haven't answered your irrelevant and frankly dishonest question. You may recall that this started because I pointed out that most of the "facts" you were trumpeting were actually opinions. That was correct. Expert opinions are still opinions. Now you're trying to turn this into me against the expert pathologists. I'm not playing.
1. Several experts say the hole shown in photos of Ron Brown's head looked like a bullet hole.
Hey NoJesus you're not playing to the script, look at the walls of text BAC is posting, he's done this so many times he has all the 'replies' canned. LOL oh and you do seem to be forgetting that a BAC opinion of someone elses opinion = fact.
The opinion of a highly trained experienced forensic pathologists, after doing an in person examination of the body and the indentation in the skull, is better evidence.
No, Miquel Rodriguez did NOT conclude it was a suicide. He expressed serious doubts about that. Didn't you bother reading the interview I posted by him earlier? Or were you too busy trying to regurgitate what you already *know*?
The Ken star investigation DID conclude that there was no foul play and the death of Vincent Foster was suicide. This is the same conclusion every single investigation has reached.
1. The national park police with FBI help.
On August 10, 1993, the Department of Justice, FBI, and Park Police jointly announced the results of the death and note investigations. The Park Police concluded that Mr. Foster committed suicide by gunshot in Fort Marcy Park. Robert Langston, Chief of the Park Police, explained:
"The condition of the scene, the medical examiner's findings and the information gathered clearly indicate that Mr. Foster committed suicide. Without an eyewitness, the conclusion of suicide is deducted after a review of the injury, the presence of the weapon, the existence of some indicators of a reason, and the elimination of murder. Our investigation has found no evidence of foul play. The information gathered from associates, relatives and friends provide us with enough evidence to conclude that Mr. Foster's ... that Mr. Foster was anxious about his work and he was distressed to the degree that he took his own life."
On June 30, 1994, Mr. Fiske issued a report concluding that "[t]he overwhelming weight of the evidence compels the conclusion . . . that Vincent Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993."
Mr. Clinger issued a report on August 12, 1994, concluding that "all available facts lead to the undeniable conclusion that Vincent W. Foster, Jr. took his own life in Fort Marcy Park, Virginia on July 20, 1993."
4. The United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The Committee concluded its inquiry with a report issued on January 3, 1995, stating that "[t]he evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion of the Park Police that on July 20, 1993, Mr. Foster died in Fort Marcy Park from a self-inflicted gun shot wound to the upper palate of his mouth." The additional views of Senators D'Amato, Faircloth, Bond, Hatch, Shelby, Mack, and Domenici stated that "[w]e agree with the majority's conclusion that on July 20, 1993 Vincent Foster took his own life in Fort Marcy Park."
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
The AIM website spelled his name Miquel in an article on an interview he gave to them. http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-1/ You want to claim they went to all that trouble and got his name wrong? You want to claim he didn't then correct them? 
