Quote:
Well what made you wise up? Surely you can identify that moment because it had to be a real eyeopener.
I can, actually. Thanksgiving 1997. My uncle was visiting from New Mexico, and for amusement purposes brought along copies of a militia newspaper published in the little town in New Mexico he lived in (Tijeras, New Mexico's own "The Free American"). In those issues was a crazed froth mixing conspiracy theories about how Russian tanks were sighted being transported on US railways, plans for Clinton to declare martial law and round up all good patriots into camps, and how Clinton and his drug-dealing Arkansas buddies had killed a whole slew of people, including Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
LOL! So as a result of an encounter in college with a newspaper published by some nuts, you decided not to even look at 95% of the evidence in either the Foster or Brown cases. I see. That doesn't reflect well on your judgement. One can't stop nuts from latching onto theories that they think serve their *cause* and repeating them, or even exaggerating the details of those theories. I have no idea whether those "militia newspapers" treated the Brown and Foster cases in a fair manner or not. I rather it doubt they did though. But I wouldn't simply dismiss something because it was carried in a "militia newspaper". If you'd been a proper skeptic, you'd have learned that Starr's top investigator was saying that Starr's investigation was a sham. That being the case, I'd certainly have look into the matter further … using more credible sources than some nutty "militia newspaper".
Now I have openly attacked the nuttiness of the Clinton Death List on this and other forums. Yet both the Ron Brown and Vince Foster deaths are included in that list. The list is certainly wacky, but that doesn't mean specific deaths on it might not have been murders that were in some way connected to the Clintons or covered up. There might be grains of truth in the chaff. It is a false logic to rule that out simply because wackos repeat or embellish something. You shouldn't make up your mind wholesale about something based on the presentation in some silly newspaper that was probably published in the basement of a complete nut. That doesn't demonstrate very good judgement. It makes you look like you make judgments the way Truthers make them. And defend them the way they do.
Coming right on the heels of this being released in the Washington Post, it made me take a good long look at just what people like these militia nutcases believed, and why...including the whole "Clinton had people killed" theory.
So because that militia newspaper looked kooky compared to that article in the Washington Post, you've ever since decided that all arguments suggesting foul play in the Foster case must be equally nutty. Shall I point out just some of the problems in relying on that Washington Post article for your belief about Foster's death? Let's see if some facts here will finally cause you to have some doubts?
First, the Washington Post was and is a liberally biased news source that was in full Clinton defense mode at that time? Do I need to list some of the assorted bias about the impeachment and other Clinton scandals that the WP showed over the years? Or will you acknowledge that bias?
Two, all that article does is regurgitate claims from the Starr report and accept them as God's truth, even though most of those claims I've already carefully demonstrated in this thread are either outright lies, complete distortions, or very incomplete descriptions of the facts (i.e., lies by omission). And you've basically ignored my arguments to that effect in this thread. Should we just assume you swallowed the WP's koolaide like a good Vince Foster Truther?
For example, the article mentions the oven mitt but you won't even discuss evidence that clearly shows that oven mitt evidence was a fabrication on Starr's part. You don't want to touch it.
The article accepts without even blinking the ridiculous assertion of Dr Berman that "to a 100 percent degree of medical certainty, the death of Vince Foster was a suicide". That statement alone is clearly scientific nonsense given the facts I've pointed out (and you don't want to discuss). In fact, Berman admitted in later interviews that he based his conclusions only on what Starr told him and admitted that Starr had not told him many, many important facts about the case. Garbage in, garbage out.
The article mentions Starr consulting the "renowned" "Henry Lee" and says Lee "determined that the condition of the body and other physical evidence
unequivocably demonstrate that Foster shot himself while seated on a grassy rise in the park". LOL! Do you know ANYTHING about the illustrious Dr Lee? Apparently not.
Dr Lee was just plain incompetent. We already know that *unequivocably* from his performance in the Simpson murder case. It should be obvious that he was merely seeking to please Starr and just gave Starr the answer he knew Starr wanted to hear based on the information Starr that provided him (which again was very incomplete and possibly tampered with).
Do you know that Dr Lee later stated in a book he wrote in 2001 ("Famous Crimes Revisited") that some of the evidence that Foster was murdered is "compelling"? His word. He has two lists in the book, one for evidence supporting murder and one supporting suicide. Even though those lists omit some of the most compelling evidence for murder and include items under suicide that are quite questionable given the material I've presented in this thread, the murder list is still stronger than the suicide list.
Do you know that he was approached at a convention by a reporter for the Boston Globe in 2001 and asked how he felt about reopening the Foster investigation and he's quoted as saying "As a scientist, I can only give a recommendation.
But I would like to see the case reopened, but I don't think it will happen." Now why would an *expert* who the Washington Post declared "unequivocally" demonstrated that Foster shot himself, be that uncertain about it?
Your Washington Post article states that Lee found traces of lead from the gun in the oven mit and Foster's front pocket, and that "Lee found gunshot residue on both hands." In fact, Dr Lee even stated his opinion that the reason there were no fingerprints on the gun is that it was carried in the oven mitt. But the oven mitt was supposedly found in the car, not at the suicide site. So one might reasonably ask Dr Lee how the gun got to the site without getting Foster's finger prints on it, because Foster wasn't wearing any gloves. Apparently, Starr didn't think to ask him this. What a sharp investigator.
And shouldn't it be pointed out that the oven mitt wasn't in the chain of custody, protected from tampering, for about 7 months after Foster's death? How could it be, given the fact that it wasn't even listed as being in the glove compartment or in the car by the Park Police when they inventoried the contents of both? In fact, as I noted earlier, the Park Police said there was "nothing out of the ordinary" in the glove compartment. An oven mitt wouldn't be out of the ordinary?
How can we therefore trust any evidence claimed to be inside this big green oven mitt? How do we know it wasn't planted, along with the oven mitt? And by the way, the Starr report says Foster had his daughter and son in the car when he drove to work that day. Any testimony that they saw him carry a big green oven mitt out the door? No. None whatsoever. Did those two report anything unusual about their dad's behavior that morning. No. Nothing whatsoever.
As to the gunshot residue "Lee found … snip … on both hands," how did Lee manage that incredible feat? Was Foster's body still available to examine when Starr hired Lee? I heard that it was either cremated or buried (depending on the source) long before that, and I heard nothing about it being exhumed. Or perhaps they cut off Foster's hands and saved them? First time I've heard that possibility, too. Now was the Washington Post just making up things for it's article or is there something I missed here?
And I've already noted earlier in this thread the problems with that gunshot residue evidence on the hand. For one thing, Foster couldn't have shot himself as claimed and gotten residue in the locations on the hands where it was found. I point you to the Knowlton report … the one a three judge panel ruled Starr must attach to his report when he published it (even though Starr didn't in the end). The report you just dismiss out of hand.
Let's continue. I think I've made my point but let's add a few more doubts about the veracity and completeness of your WP article to this growing pile.
Why doesn't the Washington Post article, for completeness sake, mention that Starr's top investigator, Miquel Rodriguez, said Starr's investigation was a sham and that there weren't four independent investigations as the WP claims? Don't good journalists seek to tell both sides of the story?
Why does the article state as fact that Foster was depressed without noting ANY of the evidence to the contrary … like I've done on this thread? Just to give both sides of the story like good journalist should? The WP article mentions that Starr's report said Foster was "clinically" depressed. Did any of WP's *fine* *journalist* (sarcasm) take the time to look at what that term actually means? What the DSM guidelines are for that diagnosis? Apparently not, because if they had, and had looked at the dozen or more witness statements from the time of Foster's death … rather than just read what Dr Berman (Mr 100% certainty) and accept it as gospel, they might have had some doubts. And like good journalists would have indicated that.
The WP article regurgitates the claim that Foster's sister said he told her he was depressed 4 days before death, and that he cried at dinner with his wife 4 days before his death, yet never mentions that both the sister and the wife never made these claims until more than a week after his death, after a mysterious meeting in the Whitehouse they had attended. That in the week prior to that, they had vehemently denied Foster showed ANY signs whatsoever of depression or unusual behavior. Did the WP reporter think those facts were totally unimportant to the story? Isn't this a clear example of either completely incompetent journalism or very selective, biased journalism? Given this, how can you, ANTpogo, judge that the WP is any more reliable than that "militia newspaper" you slammed?
I'll give you another example. The WP article mentions that Foster "wrote a note that he 'was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport.'" This is mentioned as evidence he was "clinically" depressed. But those words are from the so-called suicide note that not one of you Vince Foster Truthers will even try to defend as authentic anymore. Looks to me like the WP simply drank the koolaide. Apparently they were too lazy to look into what three REAL handwriting experts had said about the note well before that WP article came out. Apparently you must have missed the WP article where the WP retracted that claim after noting that even the Police Officer who Starr used to verify the note's authenticity is now on the record doubting his conclusion. Oh wait … that's right … the WP post, *fine* paper that it is, never even bothered to report that fact to the public, did they? So how could they retract what they first claimed as fact, but isn't?
I could on and on listing inaccuracies, oversights and either sloppy or biased journalism in that WP article you apparently soooooo admire.
But I think you should get the picture by now, ANTpogo.
Not that it will make you change your tune.
Because Vince Foster Truthers NEVER do.
