Let's examine the veracity of what that website says about Ron Brown and Vince Foster. By the way, I'm not alleging any other deaths connected to Clinton than these two so don't try the red herring of tossing out the "the Clinton Death List".
Your link states:
eRumor Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash.
True.
A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound.
That's only partially True. Actually, a military photographer, five military pathologists, a civilian pathologist, plus an expert in wound ballistics, have all stated the wound and x-rays of the skull suggested gunshot as a distinct possibility and Brown should have been autopsied. In fact all the experts where gunshot is concerned in this case said that (except the head of AFIP who I've proven lied about the nature of the wound and his staff's conclusions in statements to the press). The allegation seems a little more credible when that is noted.
At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
This is incomplete in important details. Thus, I would judge it a lie by omission. Not only was Brown being investigated but his wife and son had already been indicted on related charges to some of the allegations that Ron faced. The list of alleged crimes was as long as his arm and he faced spending much of the rest of his life in jail if convicted of them. His situation was so serious that he'd just hired a $750 an hour attorney. And only days before his death, another 20 witnesses were subpoenaed regarding his dealings, making his situation even more dire. And while it is true that Brown publically spoke of his wilingness to cut a deal (turning state's evidence, in fact), unsaid is that doing so would have implicated a host of other people in very serious crimes. Motivation for murder?
The Truth: Brown and 34 others died on April 3, 1996 when the Air Force jet carrying crashed into a mountainside in Croatia.
This is again a lie by omission. Yes, the plane hit a moutainside. But a portable beacon at the airport they were flying to went missing before the crash. Aviation Week, a widely respected magazine in the industry at the time, stated that the flight path of the plane was consistent with being spoofed into flying into the mountain. And the man at the airport in charge of the beacon died of a "reported" suicide only days after the crash and before investigators could interview him. Aviation Week also reported that they simultaneously lost both transponder and voice contact with the plane when it was still 8 miles from the mountain, and that had never been explained. So the truth is that there was much more to the allegation than what this website noted. More than even I noted above.
The Air Force, in a 22-volume report issued in June of 1996, confirmed its initial judgment that the crash resulted from pilot errors and faulty navigation equipment.
Again, a lie by omission.
First, the report was the product of an Accident Investigation Board (AIB). This is normally the second phase of a Air Force crash investigation ... the first phase being the Safety Board. The Safety Board is supposed to determine the cause of the crash. But in the Brown crash, the cause was simply
assumed to be an accident and they skipped the first phase (for the first time in Air Force history other than one clear instance where a helicopter was shot down by friendly fire in Iraq). That in itself is suspicious.
Second, this report does not contain anything regarding the opinions expressed by pathologists during the examination about a possible bullet wound or the evidence (x-rays, photos) corroborating those opinions. That's strange, given that the official purpose of an AIB report is to aid lawyers in any legal matters following a crash. In fact, neither the Brown family or the other victims' families were ever told about the possibility of a bullet wound. They had to learn about it years later when the pathologists and photographer blew the whistle, and even then the government demonstrably continued to lie to them. For example, Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a lie filled letter to family members of the air crash victims attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. I've shown the nature of Peters' lies in past threads and in this thread. And posters like you have simply ignored that fact.
Third, the pathologist (Colonel Gormley) who signed off on the report's conclusion that Brown died due to blunt force trauma, has since retracted that conclusion in a document submitted to the court by Judicial Watch. He now admits that the reasons he cited for concluding it was a death due to blunt force trauma were false. He said he was "mistaken". He said that the nature of the wound and x-rays are actually a "red flag" suggesting the possibility of a bullet injury, and that Brown should have autopsied. This is all a matter of record, so why didn't your eRumor website note this? For that matter, why didn't you note this, Biscuit, given the number of times this fact has been pointed out by me at JREF? Are you in the habit of linking sources to prove things you know to be false?
Subsequent controversy erupted, however, over autopsy photos.
There was no autopsy so there could be no autopsy photos. This is either an attempt to deceive the reader into believing an autopsy was performed or an indication that your source is woefully ignorant of the facts in this case, Biscuit. And given that the issue of whether there was an autopsy has been thoroughly discussed at JREF in the past, you should have known this statement was false.
There is a hole in Ron Brown's skull which investigators say is consistent with a puncture that could have been caused by debris during the crash.
Which investigators? Name them? Colonel Cogswell was at the crash site and was specifically tasked with trying to locate debris that might have caused such a wound. He found nothing. He told Gormley to autopsy Brown when the wound was described to him. Dr Fackler said it was very usual for debris to cause such a perfectly round hole. Not impossible, but difficult to do. So did Dr Wecht. Dr Wecht also said that the small flecks of metal found near the wound and the lead snowstorm (small metalic density flecks) observed deep in the brain in the x-ray by him and other pathologists are consistent with … a bullet, not blunt force trauma.
Plus, the specific reasons given by Colonel Gormley in the official report for saying the wound had the characteristics of blunt force trauma turned out to be false. One stated reason was that he couldn't see brain matter in the hole. That he saw a bone plug that had been depressed slightly into the brain. But the other pathologists all said they clearly saw only brain matter in the wound, and the x-rays clearly show that the bone plug was displaced completely away from the hole. Gormley eventually admitted that he was ... "mistaken". That he was wrong in claiming only bone was visible in the wound. Now why can't you and your *source*, Biscuit?
Gormley said the second reason he judged Brown's death to be due to blunt force trauma in the official report is that x-rays didn't show any signs of gunshot. But again, several of the other pathologists disagreed. They specifically pointed out a characteristic that they call a "lead snowstorm" that they say is highly indicative of gunshot. And again, when confronted with these x-rays on live TV, Gormley admitted he was "mistaken". Thus, whatever the 22 volume (as if that's supposed to impress us) AIB reports states, it's filled with lies. It's not worth the paper it's printed on. Brown should have been autopsied and all the experts who were/are qualified to make that decision agree. So one would have to judge this eRumor claim laziness on their part or a lie by omission, at best.
Investigative reporter Christopher Ruddy came forward with an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in which he quoted Air Force pathologist, Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell as saying that the hole was perfectly round shape of a 45 caliber bullet. Cogswell had not actually examined the body.
It's true that Cosgwell didn't actually see the body. So what? He relied on photos of the wound and xrays of the skull to reach his conclusion. Which is basically all Gormley relied on since the photo of the wound is quite clear, he had to look at the same x-rays, and he performed no autopsy. And when all was said and done, Gormley had to admit he made a mistake. That the wound and x-rays clearly don't show the features he gave as his reasons for ruling it death by blunt force trauma. Indeed, they show just the opposite.
Later, another pathologist, Army Lt. Col. David Hause, said he had been working nearby the Ron Brown autopsy
Again, there was no autopsy. Only the exterior of Brown's body was examined ... and not thoroughly either. An autopsy would have required opening up the skull. This was not done. It looks to me like your source is trying to spread disinformation, Biscuit. And you, too.
, overheard discussion about the round hole,
Actually, he heard CO Janoski say "Wow, look at the hole in Ron Brown's head. It looks like a gunshot wound." And then walked over, looked at it and said it looked like a bullet hole to him, too. And he's an expert in gunshot wounds.
Air Force Col. William Gormley, the pathologist who actually did the Ron Brown autopsy
Still claiming there was an autopsy?
Your source is clearly LYING, Biscuit.
And you must have know that before linking it, since that claim has been thoroughly debunked here a JREF several times.
So what's that make you, Biscuit?
, said, however, that it is more of an indentation than a hole
Which Gormley later admitted was false … that it wasn't just an "indentation" but a *hole* in which brain matter could be seen. Hause's eyewitness examination contradicts Gormley. Hause states "what was immediately below the surface of the hole was
just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull". And it doesn't even take a trained pathologist to see in the side x-ray of Brown's skull that the bone that covered the hole was driven into the brain and displaced to the side. It had to have left brain matter visible in the hole. Look at the photo of the x-ray, Biscuit. It's clear as day.
Which raises the question, how could Gormley have made such a huge "mistake"? Perhaps it wasn't a "mistake" but deliberate? Afterall, he certainly was following a script a complicit Whitehouse might have wanted. A script that was would have been handed to his direct superior, Colonel Dickerson, when he went to the Whitehouse just before Brown's body arrived at Dover.
Gormley lied when he initially claimed there was only one set of x-rays. This cannot be a "mistake". CPO Janoski has sworn under oath that Major Sentell told her that a second set of x-rays were taken by Gormley because the first showed a "lead snowstorm". That would indicate something other than a "mistake" … but a coverup.
Gormley continued his bogus claims until finally he was confronted on live TV with incontrovertible evidence showing the falsehood of what he was claiming … the photos and x-rays. Then he had no choice but to admit he was "mistaken". Only then did his story start to change, culminating finally in a deposition (presumably under oath) to Judicial Watch that was submitted to a court stating that he was wrong. That what the wound and x-rays showed is a "red flag" indicating the need for a real autopsy.
In the documents submitted to a court, he admitted that he had consulted other high ranking pathologists (including Hause and Navy Commander Edward Kilbane) who were present during the external examination of Brown's body and they "agreed that [the hole in his head] look[ed] like a gunshot wound". He agreed that Brown should have been autopsied (but said he was under orders at the time from the White House and JCS not to autopsy the body). Now why didn't your source mention any of this, Biscuit?
,and that if there had been a bullet, there would have been either an exit wound or a bullet found in the body, and there were not.
Again, you wouldn't find a bullet in the body unless you autopsied it. And as for an exit wound, CPO Janoski stated under oath in documents submitted by Judicial Watch to the court that "Colonel Gormley did not conduct a thorough examination of Secretary Brown's remains for further evidence of a gunshot wound, as she had seen doctors do in other cases when visible evidence suggested such an injury." And Gormley later admitted that he didn't look for one. So once again, Biscuit, your so-called source is lying by omission and distorting the facts.
The Justice Department had opened an investigation into Brown's financial dealings.
LOL! THe DOJ's investigation of Brown's death (as with most of the Clinton scandals) was a complete sham. Janet Reno told the nation that the Justice Department had conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. However, no one from the Justice Department or FBI ever interviewed the military pathologists or military photographer, the key witnesses in the case. Now how could any HONEST person describe that as a "thorough review"? Hmmmmmm?
I think it's VERY CLEAR that your source, Biscuit, is a JOKE. And you should have known it by now.
And what about what your source's claims regarding the Vince Foster death?
It says ...
eRumor Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
True. Although again, there is much more to the background than that.
The Truth: Vince Foster was Deputy White House Counsel and the Clinton's lawyer. He was found dead in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. Three investigations into Foster's death, including one by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, have concluded that the death was a suicide.
True, although I've already noted in this thread why the three investigations weren't really independent. And neither could Starr really be described as "independent".
Critics of the investigations say Foster's death does not fit the facts of a suicide and that there are a lot of unanswered questions about his death, some of the activities at the White House after his body was found, and the investigations themselves. Although there are numerous theories about what may have happened to Foster and why, none of them has been proven.
Well that doesn't really say much, does it?
It doesn't begin to describe the sort of details I've mentioned in this thread and other threads.
And doesn't even attempt to address the questions that have been raised.
Perhaps because your source would have just as much trouble as the rest of you seem to have in answering the simple questions I posed earlier?
Like why the typed FD302 form in Starr's final report differs from what the handwritten notes of Lisa Foster's interview said she said?
Like explaining how an obviously forged "suicide note" (or "letter of resignation" if you are so inclined) could get into a briefcase that was in the WhiteHouse's possession after that briefcase had already been emptied in front of Park Police and found to contain nothing?
Like why the official doctor's description of the wound is at odds with everyone else in the case who had a chance to see it (the EMT's, the head of Starr's investigation, the only doctor to see Foster insitu at Marcy Park, etc)?
Like why the head of Starr's investigation would quit in disgust calling it a coverup?
Again, Biscuit, I'm left wondering why you even bothered to post such a lousy source as your rebuttal of what I've been saying. Is your case THAT weak?
I think we both know the answer to that.
