For the record, here is gnome's first response on the other thread concerning the Brown allegation and my reply to him. I decided to repost it here, since he's probably not the only one to have bought what Snopes says about the Ron Brown matter.
**************
I see the topic of Clinton murders has come up. I should bring out this as I always do...
Nearly everyone who brings this up has done so because they encountered the article that led Snopes to delve into the matter:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
I have found it helpful in discussing the matter.
Snopes sometimes gets things right and sometimes it gets things wrong. First of all, let's be clear that I'm not a proponent of this bodycount nonsense. I do think there was something nefarious about the deaths of Ron Brown (and perhaps Vince Foster).
Let's look at specifically what Snopes says in critique of the Brown allegation:
What "new evidence"? Ron Brown and 34 others were killed in a plane crash in Croatia on 3 April 1996. The plane slammed into a mountain while on landing approach. There were no survivors.
No new evidence? How can snopes be unaware that for over a year no one other than a select few knew what the x-rays and photos showed, or what the pathologists and photographer had noted at the examination of Brown's body? Snopes just repeats the government story as if it is fact. But that's not convincing. Especially when they get things such as "there were no survivors" wrong. A Commerce Department document was uncovered by Judicial Watch. The document, a chronology of events in the matter, was prepared for Secretary of State Warren Christopher. The log includes the following item 40 minutes after the wreckage was discovered: "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash." The government never mentioned in ANY forum the second survivor. They did mention that Sergeant Kelly had survived the crash.
A lot has been made of an x-ray of Brown's skull in which what looks like a round entry wound appears. Closer examination of Brown's skull by military officials revealed no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments and, even more telling, no exit wound.
This is a complete and utter lie. Every single pathologist in the case and every single pathologist who has looked at the x-ray and photo of Brown's head and made a public statement (except the head of AFIP, Dickerson, who can be shown to have lied about the nature of the wound and the opinions of his staff) has stated Brown should have been autopsied based on the suspicious nature of the wound.
Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds, remembers looking at the wound and saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." He said the wound "looked like a punched-out .45-caliber entrance hole". Chief Petty Officer Janoski, the official photographer, says the wound, which is documented in the pictures she took, was "perfectly circular" and "inwardly beveling", which she says led her to the conclusion that it appeared t be a bullet wound. Lt. Colonel Cogswell, another top pathologist at Dover, said that the wound when described to him over the phone by Gormley sounded like a gunshot wound and that Brown needed an autopsy.
Janoski, the photographer, signed a sworn statement six months after Brown's death that she was told by Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was at the examination, that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" (indicative of gunshot) was discovered in the x-rays. Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. Sentell declined comment.
After talking to Sentell, Janoski says she realized that she had taken slides photos of the first set of x-rays while they were displayed on a light table in the examination room. She located the slides and showed them to Cogswell. After looking at the pictures and x-rays slides, Cogswell decided that an autopsy should have been performed and began to say so publicly. He even included this case in a talk he gave on "mistakes in forensic pathology" at professional conferences and training courses. He reportedly told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both are contrary to what Gormley was then claiming and what Snopes claims.
On December 5, 1997, AFIP imposed a gag order on Cogswell, forcing him to refer all press inquiries on the Brown case to AFIP's public affairs office. Cogswell was told he could leave his office only with the permission of Dr. Jerry Spencer, Armed Forces Medical Examiner. He was escorted to his house by military police, who, without a warrant, seized all of his case materials on the Brown crash.
Lt. Col. David Hause decided to come forward and publically agreed with Cogswell that an autopsy should have been performed. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley. "What was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole, he said. Hause has stated that "by any professional standard" Brown should have received an autopsy and that the AFIP's actions against Cogswell are a classic case of "shooting the messenger." After he talked to the press, the gag order was extended to include ALL AFIP personnel. They were ordered to turn in "all slides, photos, x-rays and other materials" related to the Brown case. All personnel at the AFIP were prohibited from talking to the press and had to stay at their work stations for the duration of their working day. All personnel, including ranking officers, had to obtain permission to leave for lunch! But by then, the photos and the x-ray slides were already in the public domain. And in case you are wondering, Alan Keyes, a spokesman for the AFIP, has acknowledged that the internet photos are legitimate.
On December 11, 1997, despite the gag order, Gormley was allowed to give a live interview on Black Entertainment Television. Members of the black community, who had heard rumors about the possibility of a gun shot wound in Brown's head, had begun to ask for an investigation. This appears to be a clear attempt at "damage control". Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound. He also stated that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He denied that two sets of x-rays existed. Then, on live TV, he was confronted with a photograph taken during the examination (by Janoski) that showed brain matter visible in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry. Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's x-ray slides. He immediately changed his story and claimed that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janoski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute.
Colonel Gormley has since 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 looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confessed that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the White House! Cabinet members such as Ron Brown are covered by federal laws that deal with assassinations of federal officials and certain acts of terrorism. As such, the matter should have been referred to the FBI as soon as an apparent gunshot wound was discovered. Why wasn't it?
On January 9, 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP had convened a review panel of ALL its pathologists, including Cogswell and Hause. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the UNANIMOUS conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. According to Cogswell, however, he refused, following the advice of his lawyer, to participate in the review because he thought it would be unfair and biased. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that ALL of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and a new name ... Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons have cooberated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly says AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... a clear lie.
In a press statement, the AFIP reportedly said that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory. Janoski said she was present for the entire examination and did not observe ANY forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue.
Janet Reno told the nation that the Justice Department 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 interviewed the military pathologists. The review was conducted by the same AFIP personnel responsible for the decision not to autopsy.
Sorry, but Snopes is simply WRONG as to what the eyewitnesses found and what the photos and x-rays showed. And as to the lack of an "exit wound", none was ever looked for. Janoski has testified that Brown's body was never examined or photographed for an exit wound and Gormley admits he didn't look for one. The assertion is a red herring on the part of Snopes.
And by the way, Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-ray slide and wound photos to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory. Fackler said "It's round as hell. ... That's unusual except for a gunshot wound." He also said brain matter was visible. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God." he said. Ruddy also showed the x-ray and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." If the metal is from a bullet, he said the array of fragments would indicate a shot fired BEFORE the crash. Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable.
Simply imagining a scenario under which Ron Brown could have been shot takes one into the realm of the absurd. Was he shot in the head during the flight, in full view of thirty-four other witnesses?
Shouldn't we find out whether there was a crime before dismissing it as impossible? Isn't that the way criminal investigations usually work? How absurd is it that both voice and transponder communication would cease when the plane was still 8 miles from the mountain it supposedly just hit by accident? But that's the case. How absurd is it that the chief maintenance officer at the airport who was in charge of the airport beacons and the backup portable one would commit suicide over a girlfriend just a day after the crash and before investigators could interview him? How absurd is it that Aviation Week would conclude that the flight trajectory of the plane prior to the crash was consistent with being spoofed by a portable beacon? How absurd is it that the Clintons and government spokespersons would claim it was the worst weather in a century yet the Air Force report would say weather played no significant role in the crash and planes landed without incident both before and after the crash occurred? How absurd is it that the Clinton administration would want to silence someone who was threatening to take their whole criminal affair down with him by turning states evidence in Chinagate? How absurd is it that Clinton defenders would now refuse to discuss the above facts but instead simply regurgitate a government report that has already been proven flawed and incomplete?
(If so, how did they get off the plane?)
The rear door of the aircraft was found open when rescuers arrived. The Associated Press reported that the first Croatians to arrive at the crash site (officially to be the first people to arrive at the crash site) were met by several Americans. Is it absurd to think that if someone was going to spoof a plane into hitting a mountain they would have someone standing by to make sure the target actually was killed? Who knows, perhaps Brown wasn't shot on the plane but at the crash site by this *clean up* crew. What Snopes doesn't even try to explain is why two separate airports and an AWACS all lost contact with the plane at the same time when it was still 7 to 8 miles from the crash site.
Did the killers shoot him before the flight, then bundle his body into a seat (just like "Weekend at Bernie's") and hope nobody noticed the gaping hole in his head?
Why would they have to hope when they controlled the investigation and had their man examine the body. If Janoski hadn't been standing nearby and taken photos of the first set of x-rays, noone would ever have known the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound or that there was a first set of x-rays. Gormley, the proven liar, would have made sure of that.
See what the Air Force had to say about this crash.
Funny that Snopes would reference a report that never even mentioned the statements of the pathologists about bullets and autopsies, and that completely skipped the section that usually determines the cause of the crash.
Snopes? You going to have to do better than that if you want to put this to rest, gnome.
).
