Hillary as Secretary Of State? Change?

[A'isha]

Perhaps because most are Obama supporters who would find it inconvenient to acknowledge that Obama has made a really poor choice for Secretary of State?

I am an Obama supporter. I think he made a really poor choice for Secretary of State. I didn't like Hillary Clinton as a senator (as a video game journalist, I was extremely irked by her "video games are EVIL" stance), I didn't like her as a presidential candidate (I thought she prized loyalty over competence, to the detriment of her campaign and the detriment of the nation if she were elected), and I don't like her as Secretary of State (I don't think she will be able to subsume her own policy desires and political ambitions to drive Obama's presidential agenda forward).

However, I don't think she ordered Vince Foster bumped off.

Did I make your head explode, BAC? "I love teh Clintons!" and "ZOMG mass murderess!" aren't the only two opinions one can have about Hillary, you know.

And what in the world did Hillary and Williams discuss both before and after Foster's office was searched the night that Foster died?

"Dammit, where DID he hide my "ABBA's Greatest Hits" album?"

 

[gdnp]

Foster's family could have lots of reasons for choosing not to investigate further ... for choosing to even hinder investigations. Just like the Brown family.

For starters, maybe they just trust authority or trusted Starr? He looks trustworthy. But does that change any of the facts I noted? No. It does not. You just continue to ignore those facts. Maybe they did too? And those facts suggest Starr (and Fiske) weren't worthy of trust at all ... that they LIED. So that would make the family gullible. Like you.

Maybe they really would be emotionally hurt seeing photos of their husband's/father's/brother's crime scene or autopsy photos placed in the public domain? So they resist efforts to have those photos released. That doesn't mean the photos wouldn't prove Starr's story a lie. It just means they are emotionally sensitive people. I feel for them but I don't think their emotional needs transcend the needs of the nation. Certainly this was the first time that they have in a case like this. Curious.

Maybe they just wanted this nightmare over so they could move on with their lives. That's actually a common reaction. People don't want to dredge up even worse nightmares ... or facts that might perhaps even sully the name of the dead loved one (Foster was involved in some of the scandals). Note that Lisa apparently suffered a breakdown after the death. She considered suicide. She underwent therapy and took rather heavy medications. Maybe the doctors advised her to "move on" for health reasons. Since then she has remarried ... interestingly enough to a Clinton associate ... Arkansas Judge James Maxwell Moody, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton shortly before they were married. I hope she's happy. But that doesn't alter the facts I've noted which indicate Fiske and Starr lied.

Maybe they feared for their own lives? Afterall, if Starr and the FBI could threaten and intimidate a Deputy US Attorney (that's what Rodriguez said happened to him) and other witnesses ... like Patrick Knowlton (who got the facts about his intimidation attached to Starr's report through a court order) ... who knows what pressure might be brought to bear on an ordinary family member? David Schippers (you remember who he is?) said in his book on Clinton's impeachment, that the intimidation by the Clinton machine against Broaddrick and others was worse than what the mob did (and he was a lawyer who specialized in putting mobsters in jail). And we know how the Clinton administration intimidated people in the Ron Brown case. So maybe Foster's wife and family feared for their lives or livelihood?

Remember, Lisa and Foster's sister (Sheila Foster Anthony) were part of the Clinton inner circle. Sheila Anthony was an Assistant Attorney General in Clinton's adminstration. She might know the lengths to which the Clintons would go to protect themselves, having had to deal with previous scandals. Who knows what Vince told Lisa about all his work for the Clintons. And valid or not, the Clinton death list was out there being discussed. That might be a reason for them to fear their own safety. (Remember Linda Tripp describing how that list was left on her desk at work during Filegate?) And this was after the Ron Brown allegations surfaced. If that allegation was true, no one could be considered safe.

And here's something interesting. Do you know the son of Judge Moody, Neil Moody, died under curious circumstances in 1996, eight months after Lisa and the Judge married? He reportedly found a document in Lisa's private papers at Lisa's house where the Judge and Neil were then residing. He reportedly told a friend it would change history. He was reportedly in contact with a columnist about it. On the eve of the Democrat Convention where Clinton was nominated for a second term, Neil died in a car crash. The car went out of control (for an unknown reason) and ran into a brick wall at very high speed. Neil was seen sitting in his car, arguing with another person, just prior to that crash. Here is what was posted at FreeRepublic about that incident:



Just food for thought.

Or maybe family members were part of the conspiracy or coverup ... bought off in some manner. Afterall, Lisa Foster and Vince's sister both changed their stories about Foster being depressed after attending a meeting in the Whitehouse where the *suicide* note was discussed. What else was discussed at that meeting? Lisa and Sheila didn't say. But they did change their stories right after that. That's a fact. It's also a fact that Sheila Anthony transferred $286,000 from a DNC account to Lisa, four days before Foster's death. Why? Was it just a coincidence? Or could money and appointments have bought silence for something? Could Vince have been fretting over that? Could Lisa's breakdown have been partly due to guilt about that?

Note that four days before Foster died, Sheila reportedly did something else. She supposedly called a psychiatrist, Dr, Robert Hedaya, who later told the FBI that she said Foster (who she did not name) was working on "Top Secret" matters at the White House and "that his depression was directly related to highly sensitive and confidential matters". Yet, on the night of his death, Sheila was specifically asked by investigators if she saw any signs of this (Vince's death) coming and she said "no". She never mentioned depression to the investigators. Not once. How odd. Also odd is that Park Police lead investigator, John Rolla, filed a report only a couple of days after the death in which he said he called each of the 3 psychiatrists names that was found on the note in Foster's wallet (that was curiously in the car and not on him), and Hedaya made no mention of Sheila's call, saying only that he had not talked to Foster. Odd. You’d think he would have responded to the inquiring policeman, “No, Mr. Foster didn’t call me about an appointment, but his sister did just this past Friday.”

And the story of Sheila's husband, Beryl Anthony, changed too. 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, after the torn note meeting which Sheila attended, he changed his story and told Park police that "that he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression."

How about the lawyer that Webb Hubbell (now there's an honest guy ... ... and one who facts show followed orders from Hillary) arranged to represent the Foster family the very night he was killed? His name was James Hamilton. He was general counsel of the Clinton transition team. He was the lawyer who was advising the Clintons at the time to stonewall (i.e., obstruct justice) in the Whitewater matter. Note that it was Whitewater documents that were probably taken from Foster's office the night he died. Note that after representing the Foster family, Hamilton was appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Is there finally something here to make you suspicious?

By the way Tricky, why did Foster make repeated trips to Geneva Switzerland? He bought a ticket for such a trip on July 1st, the month he died. But he never went and 12 days after he was refunded the cost of the trip by Swiss Air he was dead. In all the investigations by Fiske and Starr, those trips to Switzerland have never been mentioned. Odd.

Sure are a lot of "whys," "coulds," "Ifs," and "maybes" for someone who claims to deal in facts.

 

[gdnp]

BAC, could you reconcile these two quotes for me:

Everyone involved ... Foster's wife, Foster's family, Foster's friends, Foster's workmates ... all said at the time of his death when questioned by Park Police and the FBI that Foster was NOT depressed or showing any indication of being depressed. His death came as a complete surprise. Even his doctor only indicated "mild" depression after the doctor said Foster came to him with complaints of insomnia.

Note that four days before Foster died, Sheila reportedly did something else. She supposedly called a psychiatrist, Dr, Robert Hedaya, who later told the FBI that she said Foster (who she did not name) was working on "Top Secret" matters at the White House and "that his depression was directly related to highly sensitive and confidential matters". Yet, on the night of his death, Sheila was specifically asked by investigators if she saw any signs of this (Vince's death) coming and she said "no". She never mentioned depression to the investigators.

You see, it seems you are using the statements of family members at the time of his death in an attempt to prove that Foster was not really depressed, and that all these people were either threatened or bribed into changing there story. Yet Foster's sister discussed Foster's depression with a psychiatrist 4 days before he died. Why did she do this, BAC? Do people usually call psychiatrists to discuss the depression of people who are not depressed? Curious. Doesn't that that make you a bit suspicious, BAC?

As Tricky pointed out more eloquently than I could, your story is self-contradictory. You cherry pick "facts" to support one portion of your conspiracy theory and conveniently ignore them when they disprove another portion. You accept as gospel the statements of a person when they support your theory, yet when they say something that you cannot reconcile you dismiss them as liars.

 

[BeAChooser]

(despite the lack of incentive to participate in said conspiracy, or to maintain said conspiracy to the present day).

An unsupported claim. Just as I could think of many reasons members of Foster's family wouldn't want to investigate, I can think of many reasons various organizations would follow the direction of a few individuals in the Whitehouse, FBI, DOJ and media. And maintain said conspiracy to the present day. Regardless of the incentive, the facts remain. Starr lied. Why'd he lie? This is the question that you and Tricky continue to avoid.

Quote:
And apparently you didn't bother to listen to Rodriguez saying that only a few people in the FBI would have to know about the coverup because the rest would just do what they were ordered to do.

Because that's not the issue at hand.

Sure it is. You allege that vast numbers had to be in on the conspiracy. As Rodriguez says, only a few have to be in on the details. The rest just went along with the flow as ordered. As they did in the Ron Brown case.

And in any case, it's demonstrably false, as seen in the 9/11 case

That's nothing more than a red herring. The two are not comparable.

We aren't talking about an event that was witnessed by millions and experienced by tens of thousands. Foster's death happened in the dead of night with no known witnesses. To someone, if we are to believe the official story, who left the Whitehouse without logging out or being videotaped leaving. To someone, who unlike the 9/11 victims, was involved in handling scandals (and their finances) that might have brought the Clintons ruin had the details come out.

And unlike 9/11, there were no cameras recording the death of Foster. 9/11 truthers are arguing against what those cameras clearly show. And the government was willing to release images from the 9/11 event ... even quite gruesome ones. But in the Foster case, even though there are photos of the body after the event that the government could use to conclusively prove the allegation false, it has prevented the release of those photos.

And, unlike 9/11, it has claimed the film/cameras that were supposed to record the crime scene and body were faulty. It has claimed that other images (like those of the body in the location it was originally found) have simply disappeared. And does the 9/11 case have insiders in the investigation blowing the whistle ... alleging coverup? I don't believe that's the case. But that's exactly the case in the Vince Foster (and Ron Brown) situations.

I'm trying to find a way to contribute to one of your threads in a way that doesn't involve me simply posting "Yeah, pretty much what everyone else said." It isn't easy; your theories were pretty seriously eviscerated there.

Yeah. Sure. I've heard that one before.

I tell you what. Just search for my list of 50 incriminating items in the Brown case and see if you can disprove any of them. Just like here, its the facts that count. The facts that lead to truth.

Let's take a look at what Rodriguez said again, using your very own quote from the post I'm responding to, and highlight a few different sentences.

You mean highlight the sentences that say there was blood, yet ignore those that say there was little or no blood before the body was MOVED TO A NEW LOCATION (which, by the way, would no longer be the crime scene)?

You say "He notes that there wasn't blood found under the body when it was moved from that location." Rodriguez says "The fact is, a number of people have said there was a small amount where the body was originally found."

He also said that in the original location "there was no virtually no blood anywhere." Do you know the difference between a small amount of blood and a large amount of blood ... which is what you and Starr have alleged? Apparently that's lost on you.

You say "He notes that all the EMT's at the scene observed these facts." Rodriguez says "Later the EMT sees blood, then Haut sees blood."

"These facts" referred to the body in the ORIGINAL location, before it was moved. There the EMTS said they saw little or no blood. Once the body was moved, they (and Haut) saw lots of blood. After it drained out of the body because it was positioned head down on a slope ... not the crime scene. Do you not understand the distinction here? You might if you take off your Cult blinders.

If he was shot elsewhere, wouldn't the blood have poured out of his wound and smeared on his clothes then

Well that might depend on how he was transported to the site. Maybe they kept the wound up rather than down. You are just speculating, ANTPogo. Anybody can speculate. The EMT's weren't, however. They were recording what they saw and they saw no blood when they arrived and moved the body from the original location. So were the other witnesses. Like Knowlton, who said Foster's car wasn't at Marcy Park even after the claimed time of his death. Like the civilian who discovered Foster's body and who adamantly says he did NOT have a gun in his hand. Like Rolla and Haut, who said the body was moved (even though Starr claimed it wasn't). Like the FBI agents who interviewed the family and friends and recorded that Foster did not seem depressed, even though later on Starr claimed they did say that.

Doesn't the fact that the blood only came out when he was moved after the "official" discovery of the body indicate it hadn't been otherwise moved since the time he was shot?

Apparently a trained investigator like Rodriguez doesn't agree with your *expertise*. But since you claim to be an expert, perhaps you can help us out.

How do you explain the FBI testing Foster's shoes right after the death and finding no trace of the soil from the Park even though he would have had to walk a long distance in that soil and independent tests showed the soil would have adhered? (Note that later the FBI did *new* tests of Foster's shoes and claimed they did find soil ... much like the drug evidence that first wasn't there then miraculously was after *new* tests ... much like the car keys that weren't in his pocket then were after Livingstone visited the morgue ... much like the suicide note that wasn't in the briefcase then mysteriously was a few days later.)

How do you explain the failure to find any bullet at the crime scene? Or the fragment of his skull that was missing from that claimed 1 inch diameter hole? Missing even though though they sifted the soil at the supposed crime scene? Or fingerprint from Foster on the gun even though we wasn't wearing gloves?

How do you explain Haut and the EMTs describing wounds that differed from what the official report claimed ... most importantly an exit wound in the neck? In fact, over 20 people saw the body at the park and nobody reported the large exit wound at the back of the head as claimed in the autopsy.

How do you explain initial reports that there were two wounds ... one from a .38 caliber and one a .22 caliber? How do you explain Haut saying the wound was created by a low velocity weapon when a .38 is a high velocity weapon and the shells found for the gun in the car were high velocity rounds?

And 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. The original 7 polaroids of the body that were taken by Officer Ferstl were given to Edwards. Those polaroids 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 investigators. So perhaps you can help us out by explaining why not?

That will do for starters ...

I'm not the one mischaracterizing what Rodriguez said.

Yes you are. Which is why you and Rodriguez are on entirely different sides in this controversy. I'll stand by what Rodriquez said ... which I quoted above. You simply wave your hands and CLAIM to be telling folks what Rodriguez *really* said.

Quote:
False. This is an outright LIE. Here is what Rodriquez said about the blood from a link I provided earlier (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00277.htm ):

A New Zealand website reproducing a press release from AIM?

Did you actually read Rodriquez's interview at Knowlton's site like you claimed you did? It shows Rodriguez making exactly the same statements that are quoted at the New Zealand website? Or did you not notice before you insinuated it was fake? As anyone can see, this (http://www.fbicover-up.com/Miquel/Miquel.htm#audio ) has the same statements by Rodriguez as quoted in the New Zealand/AIM link. Apparently you can even link to the recording to prove that's accurate ... if you must.

Very good. That is indeed an accurate, if choppy, summation of what Rodriguez said.

Oh. Is that why earlier you claimed that

as Rodriguez explains in the passage Knowlton himself quotes, the lack of blood was due to the way the body fell after Foster shot himself

For your information, that was a LIE. Because that is NOT what Rodriguez said. That's you making up things. For one, Rodriguez doesn't buy the "shot himself" claim AT ALL. Nor is Rodriguez convinced that Foster was killed at Marcy Park.

Now, what does insomnia and anorexia have to do with depression? In other words, what about insomnia and anorexia might have prompted Foster's doctor to ask him about depression?

That's you conjecturing ... while ignoring the documented fact that the doctor prescribed the drug for insomnia, not because of depression. That's you conjecturing while ignoring that Starr LIED about that. That's you conjecturing, while ignoring that all the family, friends and workmates said, when interviewed in the immediate aftermath, that they saw nothing to indicate depression. That you conjecturing ,while ignoring that Starr LIED about that. Conjecture all you want. You don't prove anything. You don't change the facts. But you do show your desperation.

Quote:
"Controversial investigative journalist Chris Ruddy produced photographs last months purportedly showing a .45 caliber bullet hole in the top of Brown's head. Ruddy quoted a medical examiner at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, as saying, "The whole thing stinks," and claiming he was overruled in calling for a post-mortem investigation."

(from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...justice.brown/)

Can you prove that report appeared on CNN news (you know, the TV?)? Because the website is not mainstream news. The website is seen by very few people overall ... especially back in 1998.

Furthermore, why are there no details in that CNN report? Why does it describe Ruddy as "controversial"? Why is there no mention that Cogswell was not the only pathologist concerned about a bullet wound? Why is there no mention that the government was caught lying about the wound? That doesn't sound like very good journalism. Especially when it leads off with "Justice Concludes No Evidence Of Crime In Ron Brown Death" but fails to mention that the DOJ didn't even interview the pathologists who blew the whistle. Now is the fact that CNN failed to mention this proof that didn't occur? Or is it further proof the mainstream was biased ... part of the Cult of Clinton?

Given your love for sources like Free Republic and AIM, surely a transcript of John Gibson on the Fox News Channel is good enough for you:

Must I point out to you that Fox News was not around back in 1995 when Rodriguez resigned? Here's the challenge. Find a mainstream source from when he resigned that reported what he said. Not what FOX News (and by the way, Fox News is not considered mainstream by most folks on your side at JREF) reported in 2003 when interviewing someone you call a CTer.

Quote:
Oh. So now you insinuating that what I quoted earlier regarding the response of family and friends to investigators the night of Foster's death is fake too?

I take it that's a "no, I can't find it on a non-conspiracy website", then?

I take it you couldn't locate the Senate investigation report on Foster? Even though Newsweek mentioned it? Even though the Washington Post mentioned it? Just because you can't find it on the web, does that mean it didn't happen? Just because you can't find transcripts of the FBI interviews on "non-conspiracy websites", is that proof no one was interviewed? Apparently, you think so. And apparently you think this (http://www.fbicover-up.com/dreyfus/dreyfus1.htm ) is just the vidid imagination of one person. Well I don't. Perhaps because unlike you, I'm a skeptic where the Clinton's are concerned.

What do you want, the Fiske Report, or Starr's later report?

Apparently you don't even know what I was talking about.

By the way, why didn't you link Knowlton's attachment that the three judge panel ordered Starr to attach to his final report?

Or Knowlton's report on the deficiencies in Starr's report? Maybe that would be more useful to real skeptics. Here:

http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm

 

[BeAChooser]

I didn't like Hillary Clinton as a senator (as a video game journalist, I was extremely irked by her "video games are EVIL" stance)

(I don't think she will be able to subsume her own policy desires and political ambitions to drive Obama's presidential agenda forward).

Well if that's true and I'm right, what does that portend?

However, I don't think she ordered Vince Foster bumped off.

I never said or suggested that she did. Nice strawman.

Quote:
And what in the world did Hillary and Williams discuss both before and after Foster's office was searched the night that Foster died?

"Dammit, where DID he hide my "ABBA's Greatest Hits" album?"

Is that why both called Susan Thomases late at night and Williams later denied calling Thomases ... under oath? You make light of this but that says more about you than me.

 

[BeAChooser]

Sure are a lot of "whys," "coulds," "Ifs," and "maybes" for someone who claims to deal in facts.

I was asked to speculate. The fact remains that I'm the only one citing the actual facts on this thread. Your side's arguments are mostly composed of nothing but speculation couched in certainties which they don't deserve.

 

[BeAChooser]

You see, it seems you are using the statements of family members at the time of his death in an attempt to prove that Foster was not really depressed, and that all these people were either threatened or bribed into changing there story. Yet Foster's sister discussed Foster's depression with a psychiatrist 4 days before he died.

No, it's only CLAIMED that Foster's sister discussed depression with a psychiatrist 4 days before he died. Curiously enough, at the time of Foster's death, and even days after, neither that sister or the doctor mentioned this supposed conversation or depression. It didn't get mentioned until much later ... after that meeting to discuss the suicide note in the Whitehouse. So perhaps this was just more of the orchestrated coverup.

Why do you ignore the fact that Lisa, the sister and her husband all changed their stories 180 degrees after that meeting in the Whitehouse a week or so after Foster's death? A meeting where an apparently bogus suicide note was discussed.

 

[A'isha]

An unsupported claim. Just as I could think of many reasons members of Foster's family wouldn't want to investigate, I can think of many reasons various organizations would follow the direction of a few individuals in the Whitehouse, FBI, DOJ and media.

And the Republicans, who hated Clinton and even impeached him, had what incentive to maintain this "conspiracy" once they dominated the Executive Branch (and thus the Department of Justice and the FBI) once they came to power in January 2001?

And maintain said conspiracy to the present day. Regardless of the incentive, the facts remain. Starr lied. Why'd he lie? This is the question that you and Tricky continue to avoid.

Because you haven't offered any proof that Starr "lied"? So far, you have a note from Foster's doctor that Starr himself reproduced in his report, and the claim that Starr didn't tell the truth when he said lots of blood was found with Starr's body supported by Rodriguez's statement that...lots of blood was found with Starr's body.

Hardly compelling evidence that Starr was engaged in a cover-up of the Truth.

Sure it is. You allege that vast numbers had to be in on the conspiracy. As Rodriguez says, only a few have to be in on the details. The rest just went along with the flow as ordered. As they did in the Ron Brown case.

Those damn FBI sheep, going along with the conspirators, just as they did during 9/11!

I tell you what. Just search for my list of 50 incriminating items in the Brown case and see if you can disprove any of them. Just like here, its the facts that count. The facts that lead to truth.

You seem awfully intent on diverting me to your Ron Brown idiocy.

All in good time.

You mean highlight the sentences that say there was blood, yet ignore those that say there was little or no blood before the body was MOVED TO A NEW LOCATION

Yes, the blood that Knowlton insists was not present at all because its presence completely dismantles his theory that Foster was murdered long before the "official account" has him committing suicide and at a site other than the one the "official account" has Foster committing suicide at. The blood that Rodriguez goes to some pain to explain the actual presence of.

(which, by the way, would no longer be the crime scene)?

You and Knowlton seem to have this odd conception of a "crime scene", thinking it's the state of the location of a crime at the exact and permanent snapshot in time where it was first discovered by an outside witness.

It's not.

It's the physical location where a crime is presumed to have been committed, and everything present at that location at the time the crime is presumed to have happened.

An example: a body with a gunshot wound in the head is located sitting in a car that's embedded in muck underwater. Divers examine the body and car, but are unable to glean much information from it in its location and position. The police call in a crane to pull the car from the underwater muck. As the car is suspended from the crane over the shore, the muck and water that had seeped into the car drain out of the car and form a muddy puddle on the shore underneath the suspended car. Investigators searching through that muck pile under the suspended car find a pistol that is eventually matched to the bullet found in the victim's head.

I, as an investigator on the case, write in my report "The presumed murder weapon was found at the scene of the crime." Have I lied?

He also said that in the original location "there was no virtually no blood anywhere." Do you know the difference between a small amount of blood and a large amount of blood ... which is what you and Starr have alleged?

Yes. Do you know the difference between no blood in a body killed long before and at a different location, and a large amount of blood flowing from a body that's been moved at a crime scene?

"These facts" referred to the body in the ORIGINAL location, before it was moved. There the EMTS said they saw little or no blood.

SOME EMTs saw.

Once the body was moved, they (and Haut) saw lots of blood. After it drained out of the body because it was positioned head down on a slope ...

Blood that, despite Knowlton's (and your) desperate claims, was in the body before it was found.

not the crime scene.

Yes, the crime scene.

Well that might depend on how he was transported to the site. Maybe they kept the wound up rather than down.

Conspirators clever enough to keep the hole in Foster (and this is ignoring the claimed "neck wound", which makes this task even more difficult) from leaking blood all over the place as the body was planted in the park, conspirators clever enough to keep blood from a long-dead body from congealing so it flowed freely when moved after it was discovered at the park, and yet conspirators dumb enough to keep a doctor's note that shot holes in their "Foster was depressed" official story concealed (if not forged) just long enough to publish it in the official report that lied about the circumstances of Foster's death.

It's apparently really hard to find good help these days.

You are just speculating, ANTPogo. Anybody can speculate. The EMT's weren't, however. They were recording what they saw and they saw no blood when they arrived and moved the body from the original location.

Not all EMTs, as Rodriguez himself points out.

Like the FBI agents who interviewed the family and friends and recorded that Foster did not seem depressed, even though later on Starr claimed they did say that.

Or Foster's doctor, who said Foster reported feeling depressed?

Apparently a trained investigator like Rodriguez doesn't agree with your *expertise*.

And here I thought he was a US Attorney. Now he's a trained investigator?

That will do for starters ...

Again, one thing at a time. You're still trying to address why Rodriguez saying the body was full of blood that didn't leak out until the body was moved doesn't sink Knowlton's claim that the body wasn't full of blood that didn't leak out at all.

Then we can get to your 9/11 Truther-esque claims that every witness is telling the complete objective truth, and not what they saw and recalled later, so you can point out "inconsistencies in the official account."

Yes you are. Which is why you and Rodriguez are on entirely different sides in this controversy. I'll stand by what Rodriquez said ... which I quoted above. You simply wave your hands and CLAIM to be telling folks what Rodriguez *really* said.

I quoted what Rodriguez said in post 145 of this thread, made on November 26th.

You didn't quote him (using the exact same quote I did) until post 193, made today, December 3rd.

If you're going to pretend I'm dismissing Rodriguez's actual words and substituting my own paraphrases, you might want to double check things like that.

Did you actually read Rodriquez's interview at Knowlton's site like you claimed you did?

No, I simply cut and pasted his words with my eyes closed. Pretty cool how I managed to do that, isn't it?

It shows Rodriguez making exactly the same statements that are quoted at the New Zealand website? Or did you not notice before you insinuated it was fake?

Actually, I was mocking your constant use of websites that quote other websites that quote other websites that uncritically reproduce claims made by biased conspiracy sites run by crackpots with bizarre agendas.

As anyone can see, this (http://www.fbicover-up.com/Miquel/Miquel.htm#audio ) has the same statements by Rodriguez as quoted in the New Zealand/AIM link. Apparently you can even link to the recording to prove that's accurate ... if you must.

I don't doubt that Rodriguez said such things. In fact, I rely on it, since it proves what a selectively-quote-mining crackpot Knowlton is.

For your information, that was a LIE. Because that is NOT what Rodriguez said. That's you making up things. For one, Rodriguez doesn't buy the "shot himself" claim AT ALL. Nor is Rodriguez convinced that Foster was killed at Marcy Park.

It was not my intention to say that the words in question were a direct quote by Rodriguez, but merely to separate the logical conclusion of his statement from my own words via the punctuation chosen.

I had thought that was obvious, but rest assured I shall be sure to avoid that in future responses to you.

That's you conjecturing ... while ignoring the documented fact that the doctor prescribed the drug for insomnia, not because of depression. That's you conjecturing while ignoring that Starr LIED about that. That's you conjecturing, while ignoring that all the family, friends and workmates said, when interviewed in the immediate aftermath, that they saw nothing to indicate depression. That you conjecturing ,while ignoring that Starr LIED about that. Conjecture all you want. You don't prove anything. You don't change the facts. But you do show your desperation.

I'm not conjecturing anything. I'm asking you why YOU posted what you did, and what YOU think Foster's doctor was thinking when he (presumably) asked Foster about depression.

A question you still haven't answered.

Can you prove that report appeared on CNN news (you know, the TV?)? Because the website is not mainstream news. The website is seen by very few people overall ... especially back in 1998.

Furthermore, why are there no details in that CNN report? Why does it describe Ruddy as "controversial"? Why is there no mention that Cogswell was not the only pathologist concerned about a bullet wound? Why is there no mention that the government was caught lying about the wound? That doesn't sound like very good journalism. Especially when it leads off with "Justice Concludes No Evidence Of Crime In Ron Brown Death" but fails to mention that the DOJ didn't even interview the pathologists who blew the whistle. Now is the fact that CNN failed to mention this proof that didn't occur? Or is it further proof the mainstream was biased ... part of the Cult of Clinton?

Your challenge to me said nothing about any of that. You asked me for a
"mainstream" media mention of the Army pathologist that thought Brown had a bullet hole in his head. I did exactly that.

Must I point out to you that Fox News was not around back in 1995 when Rodriguez resigned? Here's the challenge. Find a mainstream source from when he resigned that reported what he said. Not what FOX News (and by the way, Fox News is not considered mainstream by most folks on your side at JREF) reported in 2003 when interviewing someone you call a CTer.

Again, you wanted me to find a mainstream "mention" of Rodriguez's claims, with no other requirements attached. I did exactly that.

I hope you aren't tiring yourself out, moving those goalposts.

I take it you couldn't locate the Senate investigation report on Foster? Even though Newsweek mentioned it? Even though the Washington Post mentioned it?

Perhaps if you were a bit more specific about the "Senate investigation report" you're seeking, if it's not the Fiske or Starr reports?

By the way, why didn't you link Knowlton's attachment that the three judge panel ordered Starr to attach to his final report?

Because the panel made no judgment whatsoever on the truth or accuracy of Knowlton's statement, and merely ruled on whether Knowlton, as a witness named in the initial report, had the right to have his full witness statement included as an appendix to that report, which apparently the relevant statute provided for.

Still, it's interesting how the same conspiracy that managed to keep the blood inside Foster's perforated body for quite a long time while it was carted from place to place and put the muscle on the FBI to keep things quiet completely failed to exclude Knowlton's damning witness statement from the official report which opened them up to that three-judge panel forcing the full statement to be appended to that report.

Must have been the same incompetents that let Foster's doctor's note get published in that report, too.

Or Knowlton's report on the deficiencies in Starr's report? Maybe that would be more useful to real skeptics. Here:

http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm

That's because Knowlton is an untrustworthy fact-ignoring quote-mining fool.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I

Speaking of blackmail, that would be a plausible explanation for Mr. Foster's death: maybe he wasn't depressed but rather was being blackmailed by somebody and decided to kill himself rather than face the shame.

And thus the care taken by Hillary and her people to get as much, record wise, from that local squirreled away before the site of the suicide became inaccessible as a crime scene the cops were investigating.

A much more plausible scenario than Hillary having him killed.

 

[Darth Rotor]

LOL. Right, BAC. Most of the people here are in the Cult of Clinton.

I was accused of being a Clintoninte by BAC when I called BS on his Ron Brown dead by deliberate murder in Dubrovnik rubbish, which beachnut kindly put to bed with a multi page series of posts.

That is so funny it's hard to laugh. Me, a Clinton lover. *Snort*

What is funny is that since then, I found out my work associate Gary was actually on scene at the crash site when he was in the Air Force. Part of the investigation team. It came up in conversation, I showed him the silliness, and he did a face palm.

DR

 

[Tricky]

That is so funny it's hard to laugh. Me, a Clinton lover. *Snort*

What is funny is that since then, I found out my work associate Gary was actually on scene at the crash site when he was in the Air Force. Part of the investigation team. It came up in conversation, I showed him the silliness, and he did a face palm.

Then Gary is obviously in on the conspiracy. Now that he realizes that you know about the conspiracy, you are history. The Clinton Mob is on their way right now to rub you out. Got any last words?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Then Gary is obviously in on the conspiracy. Now that he realizes that you know about the conspiracy, you are history. The Clinton Mob is on their way right now to rub you out. Got any last words?

I'll be happy to teach that load of "rhymes with punts" about sight alignment and trigger control from a target's perspective.

 

[A'isha]

Then Gary is obviously in on the conspiracy. Now that he realizes that you know about the conspiracy, you are history. The Clinton Mob is on their way right now to rub you out. Got any last words?

Don't worry, though. When you're bumped off under mysterious circumstances, the conspirators' official report of your death will undoubtedly and conveniently include the one piece of evidence needed to break the cover-up wide open, just waiting for some intrepid website investigator to find it.

 

[gdnp]

Don't worry, though. When you're bumped off under mysterious circumstances, the conspirators' official report of your death will undoubtedly and conveniently include the one piece of evidence needed to break the cover-up wide open, just waiting for some intrepid website investigator to find it.

I would suggest avoiding any locations Angela Lansbury is known to frequent.

 

[Tricky]

Don't worry, though. When you're bumped off under mysterious circumstances, the conspirators' official report of your death will undoubtedly and conveniently include the one piece of evidence needed to break the cover-up wide open, just waiting for some intrepid website investigator to find it.

No doubt.

The officials coronor report says "Death by drinking too much beer", yet it has been shown that the only alcohol in the vicinity is Guinness, and it it is a proven fact that Guinness is not beer!

 

[gdnp]

No, it's only CLAIMED that Foster's sister discussed depression with a psychiatrist 4 days before he died. Curiously enough, at the time of Foster's death, and even days after, neither that sister or the doctor mentioned this supposed conversation or depression. It didn't get mentioned until much later ... after that meeting to discuss the suicide note in the Whitehouse. So perhaps this was just more of the orchestrated coverup.

So just to get this straight, you are now alleging that Foster's sister did not contact a psychiatrist 4 days before his death: that this story was fabricated with the complicity of the sister and the psychiatrist as part of a cover-up?

I am still waiting for that list of all of the people who must be involved in the cover-up. Is the psychiatrist that may or may not have been contacted by the sister the same as the psychiatrist that prescribed the antidepressants, or different? Are there any others that need to be added to the list?

 

[tomwaits]

Reading the title of this thread, I thought it might be an interesting discussion on the picking of Hillary as SecState and what that meant in relation to Obama's campaign promises. Much to my chagrin, it turned out to be a BAC rant about how the Clintons are murderers. Oh well.

 

[BeAChooser]

And the Republicans, who hated Clinton and even impeached him

It wasn't a matter of hate. It was a matter of what the facts showed. And by the way, David Schippers, who developed the case against Clinton, was not a republican. He was a democrat who voted for Clinton twice. And he wrote afterwords that the Senate sabotaged the impeachment and prevented him from investigating and presenting the real case against Clinton. Instead they limited him to the stupidity of Monica and the dress.

had what incentive to maintain this "conspiracy" once they dominated the Executive Branch

I've already answered that on this thread. Did you ignore that or did you not notice? I suggest you go back and find my response and then challenge the logic of what I wrote ... if you can.

Because you haven't offered any proof that Starr "lied"?

[shakes head] You haven't been paying attention at all, have you?

Starr's entire case for depression was based on claims by just a few people made well after the death ... in fact, only after a meeting with most of those so-called *witnesses* in attendance, which occurred at the Whitehouse about a week after Foster's death. Up until that time, depression had not been mentioned by those witnesses. And by the way, that meeting of Clinton insiders was reportedly to discussed what to do about the *suicide* note ... or I should say the now clearly bogus suicide note.

Starr cites Sheila Anthony, Foster's sister, saying that Vince told her 4 days before the death that he was depressed. Yet she denied he was depressed when specifically asked about depression the night of his death. Starr doesn't mention this. A lie by omission. She didn't tell the investigators the night Foster died her later claim that she gave Vince the names of 3 psychiatrists. Starr doesn't mention this. A lie by omission. Sheila didn't change her story until after the meeting in the Whitehouse. And neither did her husband who also vehemently denied that Foster was depressed just a couple days after the death. Starr doesn't mention this. A lie by omission. Starr also doesn't mention that Sheila was a high ranking member of Clinton's inner circle and her husband was a long time associate of Clintons from Arkansas.

Starr cites Lisa Foster saying Vince cried with her at dinner 4 days before his death. Yet Lisa specifically denied that Vince showed any signs of depression when she was questioned by investigators the night of his death. Starr doesn't mention this. A lie by omission. Lisa first mentioned depression after the meeting in the Whitehouse a week later. Starr doesn't mention this. A lie by omission. Starr doesn't explore why she changed her story all of a sudden. Starr doesn't investigate this meeting where apparently the bogus suicide note was discussed. Starr even ignores the evidence that clearly shows the note was bogus. A lie by omission.

Starr cites a contact with a physician the day before Foster's death, but what Starr doesn't mention is that the physician said Foster came in complaining of insomnia, was only mildly depressed, and that he prescribed medication to help Foster sleep better[/]b. A lie by omission. Instead, Starr compounds the lie when he states "He was prescribed antidepressant medication". He was not. He was prescribed medication (which just happened to also be used at certain dosages ... not the one prescribed ... for depression) to treat insomnia. Starr lies in his report when he states "Foster had called a family doctor for antidepressant medication the day before his death. " He did not. He contacted the doctor with concern about insomnia and the doctor's notes don't indicate that Foster ASKED for "antidepressant medication." The doctor prescribed the drug he did because it is known to be effective against INSOMNIA at the dosage the doctor prescribed. Starr didn't mention this. Starr committed a lie by omission.

The rest of Starr's so-called *evidence* pointing to "clinical depression" in his report 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 looooong hours. In fact, who anywhere doesn't complain about that. And again, Starr's claims in this regard are mostly based on testimony by people whose stories changed after a meeting in the Whitehouse. And Starr doesn'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, 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.'' Starr completely ignored such testimony time and again ... because Starr was clearly intent on building, out of whole cloth, a case that Foster was "clinically" depressed ... regardless of the actual facts.

And 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. Again, Berman simply started with the assumption of suicide and never explored the alternatives.

the claim that Starr didn't tell the truth when he said lots of blood was found with Starr's body supported by Rodriguez's statement that...lots of blood was found with Starr's body.

You misrepresent what Starr and Rodriguez said. Starr said lots of blood was found while implying that it was where Foster's body was originally found. But that's untrue. Even the medical examiner and lead investigator said the body was moved. As Rodriguez noted, little blood was found at that original location. The EMTs corroborate this fact. Lots of blood was only found at the location the body was moved to ... where the FBI took photos to replace those taken of the original location that curiously disappeared, thanks to the mysterious Sergeant Edwards ... who, by the way, Starr and Fiske never bothered to interview. That should raise a red flag in ANY real skeptic.

And someone else that Fiske never bothered to interview is Dr Haut, the only medical examiner to view Foster's body that night at Fort Marcy Park. He stated that the body was found 10 to 20 yards from the first cannon one encounters in the park. This location was corroborated by Fairfax County rescue worker, George Gonzales, and several others. Their statements directly contradict Fiske's claim (regurgitated by Starr) that the body was found deep inside the park at the base of the second cannon.

And here is something even more curious. A Secret Service memo from the night of Foster's death

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/MISC/2551.gif

that states "Park Police discovered the body of Vincent Foster in his car." It also states that "a .38 cal. revolver was in the car" Do you have any explanation why the Secret Service would have gotten these details soooooo wrong? Are they in the habit of misquoting Police who call them? Are the Park Police in the habit of getting the details so wrong?

Those damn FBI sheep, going along with the conspirators, just as they did during 9/11!

Instead of throwing out red herrings regarding 9/11, why don't you tell us why 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? You do know, don't you, that the gun seen in the so-called crime scene photo in Foster hand is black? You do know, don't you, that the gun is described as black in Starr's report? So why was the gun she was shown by the FBI a silver one?

You and Knowlton seem to have this odd conception of a "crime scene", thinking it's the state of the location of a crime at the exact and permanent snapshot in time where it was first discovered by an outside witness.

So you don't mind the apparent fact that the body was moved to a new location, photographed there, and that new location was then called "the crime scene" by Starr? Do you understand that one reason you might move a body is to hide a crime. Note that the bullet was never find. Despite sifting the soil at the location and using metal detectors.

Do you know the difference between no blood in a body

Who claimed there was no blood "in" the body? Certainly Knowlton didn't. Why do you continue to mischaracterize what Knowlton and Rodriguez claimed? I think we know why.

(and this is ignoring the claimed "neck wound", which makes this task even more difficult)

Just so everyone knows, the only medical examiner to visit Fort Marcy Park, Dr Haut, stated in his official report there was a gunshot wound from mouth to neck. This is a fact that Starr never mentioned in his report ... yet another lie by omission. Furthermore, other eyewitnesses to the body said there was a neck wound. So this allegation is not merely "claimed" as ANTPogo would dishonestly like you to believe, folks.

conspirators clever enough to keep blood from a long-dead body from congealing so it flowed freely when moved after it was discovered at the park

So are you claiming that blood won't flow from a body that's been dead 2 to 3 hours (the official claim for how long Foster was dead before his body was discovered and investigated) if it's moved? Would you like to bet your continued presence on this forum on the validity of that claim?

It's apparently really hard to find good help these days.

It always has been true that small things trip up big conspiracies. And that criminals generally make mistakes. And it's also true that that this isn't the first time the Clintons used the organs of law enforcement to obstruct an investigation related to them.

They were recording what they saw and they saw no blood when they arrived and moved the body from the original location.

Not all EMTs, as Rodriguez himself points out.

Go ahead, name the EMT that said there was lots of blood at the location Foster's body was originally found. Name the EMT that said Foster had a huge wound in his head. Name the EMT who said it looked like a suicide and not a homicide (which is what several of them actually recorded). Go ahead.

Or Foster's doctor, who said Foster reported feeling depressed?

But reported it as mild depression and said Foster was not in crisis. Who prescribed medication that was clearly intended to treat Foster's insomnia. A fact that Starr lied about. A lie that you are continuing to promote.

Quote:
Apparently a trained investigator like Rodriguez doesn't agree with your *expertise*.

And here I thought he was a US Attorney. Now he's a trained investigator?

He was trained enough investigator that Starr hired him to lead the investigation into Foster's death. But ok, would you like to hear from some more trained investigators?

Do you know that in 1994 the Western Journalism Center hired Vincent Scalise, a former NYC detective, Fred Santucci, a former forensic photographer for NYC, and Richard Saferstein, the former head of the New Jersey State Crime Lab and asked them to investigate the Foster case? Here were some of their conclusions. Homicide cannot be ruled out. The position of the arms and legs of the corpse are inconsistent with suicide. The position of Fosters' hand on the gun is inconsistent with suicide. It is "inconceivable" that the gun's discharge knocked Foster's glasses as far as it was claimed. The lack of blood and brain tissue at the site suggests Foster was carried to the scene. The absence of soil on Foster's shoes is inconsistent with the scenario that he walked to a location deep in the park.

It was not my intention to say that the words in question were a direct quote by Rodriguez

Really? So you didn't really mean it when you stated:

as Rodriguez explains in the passage Knowlton himself quotes, the lack of blood was due to the way the body fell after Foster shot himself

We'll keep your *intentions* in mind the next time you claim someone "explains" anything.

I'm not conjecturing anything.

Oh, so now we are also to believe that in pointing out that Foster's doctor mentioned depression, you weren't conjecturing that Starr's claim of clinical depression was correct?

Your challenge to me said nothing about any of that. You asked me for a "mainstream" media mention of the Army pathologist that thought Brown had a bullet hole in his head. I did exactly that.

But you didn't provide one. The internet is not mainstream ... not unless you can prove that article made it to TV. Obviously you can't, nor can you tell us why that CNN article left out so many very important details in the story. I think we can conclude you aren't confident enough to defend your mainstream, non-conspiracy, news sources as a reliable source of information.

Again, you wanted me to find a mainstream "mention" of Rodriguez's claims, with no other requirements attached. I did exactly that.

So in other words, you were just parsing the words and not looking at the intent ... much like Clinton did with "is". And by the way, I would again note that most people on your side of this debate would maintain that Fox News is not mainstream. I also note that you ignore the fact your mention occurred almost a decade after the event. Surely you could come up with a citation from about the time Rodriguez quit ... if the mainstream is as good a source of information as you claim.

Perhaps if you were a bit more specific about the "Senate investigation report" you're seeking, if it's not the Fiske or Starr reports?

See? You doesn't even know what I'm talking about. Even though the Senate investigation was mentioned in liberal "mainstream" sources.

Quote:
By the way, why didn't you link Knowlton's attachment that the three judge panel ordered Starr to attach to his final report?

Because the panel made no judgment whatsoever on the truth or accuracy of Knowlton's statement

They didn't rule on the truth or accuracy of Starr's report either.

and merely ruled on whether Knowlton, as a witness named in the initial report, had the right to have his full witness statement included as an appendix to that report, which apparently the relevant statute provided for.

That's incorrect. There was no legal requirement that the judges attach Knowlton's addendum to Starr's report. The IOC law just allows persons named in the report to submit comments and factual information. It is left to the DISCRETION of the court to order them attached to the IOC report. And again note that this is the only time an Independent Counsel has been ordered to attach evidence of a cover-up by his own investigators to his own report. That is not something that a three judge panel would likely do lightly so I posit that they did see some merit (accuracy) in Knowlton's concerns. And did you notice that Knowlton's website states this event has not been reported to the public by a single newspaper. Even now. And you claim the mainstream media reports all?

Quote:
Or Knowlton's report on the deficiencies in Starr's report? Maybe that would be more useful to real skeptics. Here:

http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm
That's because Knowlton is an untrustworthy fact-ignoring quote-mining fool.

Who somehow managed to convince the three judge panel to order Starr to attach an addendum charging the OIC office with witness intimidation and evidence tampering.

Who somehow has Starr's top investigator supporting his assertions.

Apparently even former FBI Director William Sessions, who coincidentally (?) was fired by Clinton a day before Foster's death, said the investigation was "compromised from the beginning."

Sorry, ANTpogo, but you are the one proving yourself to be untrustworthy and fact-ignoring.

Now in closing, would you like one more example of Starr tampering with evidence in this case? 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 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. But 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) 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, ANTPogo ... Starr tampered with the evidence.

 

[BeAChooser]

I called BS on his Ron Brown dead by deliberate murder in Dubrovnik rubbish, which beachnut kindly put to bed with a multi page series of posts.

Not to get off-topic, but beachnut did no such thing. What beachnut did was plagerize text and photos from what I believe was www.flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_jul-aug96.pdf, "July-August 1996, Flight Safety Digest". Much of that material I showed was flawed. And then beachnut ran when I suggested that he was dishonoring his CLAIMED pilot "friend" by allowing him to be smeared as a bad pilot. When I asked him if as a CLAIMED "friend" of the family he had ever told the family that they were lied to in the AIB report. When I asked him whether as a CLAIMED "friend" he ever told the family that military pathologists and a military photographer suspected foul play. When I asked how his CLAIMED "friend's" family felt about being lied to by the acting Secretary of the Air Force, who sent a letter I proved was filled with lies. For those who'd like to verify this, just go here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 or here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2905050 .

The truth is that all beachnut (and YOU) ever did was regurgitate the "official story" ... which I showed in those threads is incomplete AT BEST. An official story that leaves out a host of very important and quite incriminating facts ... just like Fiske and Starr's reports on Foster. Lies by omission, if nothing else.

What is funny is that since then, I found out my work associate Gary was actually on scene at the crash site when he was in the Air Force. Part of the investigation team. It came up in conversation, I showed him the silliness, and he did a face palm.

Yeah. You've claimed that before. But like beachnut, when I asked for details of what G told you, you ran. But I'm still interested. If you want to post what G told you on one of the above Ron Brown threads, I'm all ears. I bet I can point out a number of omissions that would qualify as lies by him. Care to test me? But let's do it on a Ron Brown thread and get back on topic here.

 

[gdnp]

OK, I see, BAC...Starr leaves out details that you think are crucial, and thus has committed "lies of omission". You have, however, failed to demonstrate a single lie. At least any that I could find in your latest diatribe.

Starr cites a contact with a physician the day before Foster's death, but what Starr doesn't mention is that the physician said Foster came in complaining of insomnia, was only mildly depressed, and that he prescribed medication to help Foster sleep better[/]b. A lie by omission. Instead, Starr compounds the lie when he states "He was prescribed antidepressant medication". He was not. He was prescribed medication (which just happened to also be used at certain dosages ... not the one prescribed ... for depression) to treat insomnia.

No matter how many times you repeat this, you are still wrong. Foster was prescribed an antidepressant that can also be used for insomnia. There are plenty of other insomnia drugs that are not antidepressants. Benzodiazapines like valium and barbiturates, for example, are useful as sleeping pills but are also depressants, and thus not a good choice for a patient who is already depressed. It would appear that the psychiatrist thought that Foster's anorexia and insomnia may have been related to depression, and thus decided to treat both the depression and the insomnia with a single drug. Such "dual treatment" is not uncommon. For example, if a patient has hypertension and a heart arrhythmia, a cardiologist may prescribe a drug that both regularizes the heart rate and lowers the blood pressure. The same drug would not be used in a patient whose blood pressure is too low, or a patient with high blood pressure and an abnormally low heart rate.

When treating depression the doctor must make similar decisions. If the patient is depressed and has insomnia he may be treated with a relatively sedating drug. If he has depression and anxiety he may be treated with a drug with anxiolytic properties. If he has depression and hypersomnolence he may be treated with an antidepressant which is relatively stimulating.

Your distinction between clinical depression and situational depression is also meaningless. Both can be mild or severe. Both can be treated with antidepressants. A life stress may unmask an otherwise well compensated depression, much as pregnancy can unmask a tendency towards diabetes that resolves after delivery but recurs later in life. Patients with situational depressions, such as those caused by severe job stress, may become suicidal. Look at the suicide rate of men after the loss of a spouse. So even if Foster did not meet the criteria for major depression (a diagnosis difficult to make over the internet) it does not mean that he was not suicidal.

Depressed patients can be quite adept at hiding their depression. Since it is a mental illness the denial can be quite strong. The stigma attached may also lead family members to deny the depression, or if they see it to cover for the patient when dealing with outsiders. Might one of these account for why family members denied Foster's depression on the night of the shooting? Those in denial might have wished to keep up the facade to assuage their guilt for not having intervened earlier. Those who saw the depression and were trying to cover for Foster--like his sister--may have still been in "cover-up" mode and only after the shock of the suicide had sunken in realized that it was pointless to continue to do so.

Utter speculation, as is most of what you posted. The only way to tease these things out would be to actually talk to the people involved. Like the investigators did. And you and I didn't. Thus without better reason to doubt their conclusions than you have been able to provide, I choose to lean heavily towards believing the conclusions in the report.