The Washington Post Is Not A Reliable Source Of News

[BeAChooser]

Got anything that's not a whack-a-doodle CT?

Perhaps God was thinking of you when he created the river DENIAL.

You too, Platypus.

 

[Spindrift]

Perhaps God was thinking of you when he created the river DENIAL.

You too, Platypus.

Oh, that's witty! And so original.

The WP is 'dishonest' because it doesn't buy into your favorite CTs? How convenient.

That leaves no doubt that Lisa made the right decision moving this thread.

 

[Ausmerican]

Perhaps God was thinking of you when he created the river DENIAL.

You too, Platypus.

I believe the joke is "Denial aint just a river in Egypt anymore."
"God" doesn't make rivers even if you believe in him. things like erosion and lower comparative ground levels do.
"God certainly doesn't name rivers.
The river in question is named The Nile. This is why this joke generally only works as a spoken word routine.
Please try at least.

 

[randman]

Well, Ron Brown was being indicted on a ton of stuff and conveniently for some, dies in a plane crash.

If you want to accept no skullduggery was involved in his death, fine, but there was a reason he was being indicted. Reporting he had a likely political future from that point on and so forth is rewriting history.

 

[BeAChooser]

You may present any information you care to to support your claim. Even if it was removed from the thread you started in Forum Managment. The information was removed from there because it wasn't about forum management, but rather supporting an opinion you hold about a news organization. This thread, however, is about that opinion about that news organization, so therefore it IS on topic to present here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

Thank you. A ray of light. That being the case, I will repeat portions of several posts that were moved to AAH from the management thread regarding this thread. These posts showed specifically how the WP Failed The Public Trust in it's reporting of Ron Brown's death. The sourced material in these posts also proves that Tricky tried to lie to this forum on this thread when he claimed that "the xray of Browns head showed no bone fragments, no metal fragments and no exit wound."

First, I'll repeat most of a response I made to Spaaron22, in response to a question he asked about my "evidence". This material proves that highly regarded military and civilian forensic pathologists … recognized experts in gunshot … did say the wound looked like a bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied. This material also proves that the Whitehouse did play a significant role in not allowing an autopsy. And it notes how the Washington Post failed to report this material or even distorted it in it's reporting.

To begin with, Colonel Cogswell was a forensic pathologist with the Armed Forces Institute Of Pathology in Dover at the time Brown died. He was the pathologist who went to the crash site to see if he could find anything in the way of debris that might have made the hole in Brown's head. He didn't, by the way. Here's what he said:

"Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 3, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/03/35938

In several interviews, Cogswell repeatedly referred to the wound as "an apparent gunshot wound."

... snip ...

"Open him up. This man needs an autopsy," Cogswell said he told Gormley.

... snip ...

He also reviewed the photographic and X-ray evidence. "I talked to a few people who were there from our office and asked them ... if they thought this wound looked like a gunshot wound, or, `What do you think the hole looked like?' And the uniform response was, `Yeah, it looked like a gunshot wound.'" he said.

Now Cogswell was so well regarded that he routinely gave talks on mistakes in pathology at conferences on forensic pathology. In one of his slide shows, he told

his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows the defect at the top of the head, and something perhaps more sinister. Inside the left side of Brown's head, in the area behind his eye socket, "there are multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density on X-ray. That's what we might describe as a `lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound."

Now keep in mind that those are simply facts reported by a journalist quoting someone considered an expert on bullet wounds who was in a position at the time to see the actual evidence first hand. Whether you wish to believe his expertise or not, the fact is he did make such statements as he repeated them in radio and TV interviews. The fact is the Washington Post, were it a reliable, trustworthy news organization, should have passed those statements on to the public. Instead, it lied by omission.

Here's another expert who came forward:

"Second Expert: Brown's Wound Appeared to be From Gunshot" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 9, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/09/34206

A second Armed Forces medical examiner has stepped forward to publicly confirm key statements made by a colleague about the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. U.S. Army Lt. Col. David Hause (pronounced "hoss"), a deputy armed forces medical examiner, told the Tribune-Review he personally examined a suspicious head wound on Brown's corpse while it was being examined at Dover Air Force Base, Del. He said several allegations made by Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell in a Tribune-Review article last week are true.

... snip ...

Cogswell was not present at Dover when the wound was examined, but Hause was. According to Hause, his examination table was only two tables away from the one on which Brown's body was laid out. "A commotion" erupted, he said, when someone said, "Gee, this looks like a gunshot wound." Hause said he left his examination table to view the wound. He remembers saying, "Sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too."

... snip ...

Additionally, Cogswell and another expert consulted by the Tribune-Review said a side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain. 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.

... snip ...

According to Hause, all that remains of the head X-rays are photographic slide images in the possession of Cogswell and copies of images possessed by the Tribune-Review. Hause said the disturbing facts raised by Cogswell, including the missing X-rays, have not drawn an appropriate reaction from AFIP officials.

... snip ...

On Friday, Hause said a commotion developed in the office when a military police officer showed up and asked Cogswell to accompany him to Cogswell's home to retrieve all slides and photos in his possession relating to AFIP cases. "One of the things I'm wondering is why all the attention is focused on Cogswell, who never had the original X-rays," Hause said.

Again, that's not CT the Washington Post can choose not to report. Those are simply facts in the case that need to be reported. To let the public draw it's own conclusions.

Here's a report of a third military pathologist going public in the matter:

"Pathologists Dispute Claims in Brown Probe" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGE TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 11, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/11/32000

One of the officers, Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons, for the first time spoke publicly on the matter Saturday. The forensic pathologist joined two other AFIP medical examiners in disputing government claims about Brown's death

Parsons also confirmed that even back then the Washington Post reporting on the case was filled with outright lies about the case. The above source notes …

On Friday, Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher wrote that Cogswell's claims had prompted AFIP to convene an internal panel of its pathologists to review the Brown matter. Fletcher reported that the panel "unanimously backed" the findings of Col. William Gormley, the Air Force pathologist who examined Brown's body and concluded that he died of blunt force injuries during the plane crash. Gormley also ruled that the circular wound was not caused by a gunshot.

The Post article quoted Gormley as stating that "there is no doubt in anybody's mind" that Brown died of blunt force injuries and that he had not been shot. But quite obviously there was doubt and the Washington Post would have known that if they'd even stuck their nose out the door of their office or logged on to the internet.

Citing AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, *journalist* Fletcher reported that "the group (of pathologists) issued a report reaffirming the initial Air Force conclusion that Brown's death was accidental." Fletcher's report also stated that Hause had changed his mind and was now affirming Gormley's findings. But contradicting these claims are quoted statements by Hause and Parsons, both of whom participated in AFIP's internal review. Both officers concluded that Gormley's findings simply could not be substantiated, that the possibility of a gunshot could not be ruled out, and that an autopsy should have been conducted. Now how could the Washington Post, with all it's vast reporter resources, not have known that? Not possible.

As noted in Ruddy's Chicago Tribune article,

"Fletcher's article in the Washington Post, in which Colonel Dickerson said I concurred in this `unanimous' finding, contains a lie," Hause told the Tribune-Review. The Post report Friday morning left him "fuming," Hause said, and that evening he prepared a point-by-point statement countering AFIP's claims.

Hause said he was never informed a report was to be issued on the Brown case, nor did he ever see the report that AFIP claims he signed off on.

... snip ...

Hause also says he advised Spencer that Gormley should have conducted an autopsy, and that "Secretary Brown's body should be exhumed and an autopsy performed by pathologists not associated with AFIP."

Parsons, another participant in the internal review, told the Tribune-Review that he, too, could not back Gormley's findings. Reached at his home Saturday, the Air Force major also said he had never reviewed nor signed off on any such report, and had no idea what the report contained. Parsons said the statement in Friday's Post that all panelists had agreed with Gormley's findings "was not true."

Yet the Washington Post never bothered to report to the public anything other than Fletcher's initial dishonest article. It deliberately left the public thinking the pathologists at AFIP had agreed with the "official" report, when they clearly did not. That's not CT. That's a fact, which again demonstrates the utter unreliability of the Washington Post as a source of information.

Here's a fourth military eyewitness who came forward at the time:

"Fourth Expert Claims Probe of Brown's Death Botched" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 13, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/13/173306

The head of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology's forensic photography unit, like three senior officials before her, has come forward to publicly claim that the military improperly handled the investigation of the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, a 22-year Navy veteran, also says she was told missing evidence of a possible homicide had been purposely destroyed. Janoski, the senior enlisted person at AFIP's Rockville, Md., offices, was present when Brown's body was examined by military pathologists at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

... snip ...

Janoski said she was stunned that AFIP's inquiry focused on the actions of Cogswell when she felt the real issue was AFIP's handling of Brown's death. "The investigation is nothing more than a witch hunt. (AFIP) should be investigating what happened to the missing head X-rays. No one at AFIP seems to care that Brown did not receive an autopsy," Janoski said.

... snip ...

"Wow, look at the hole in Ron Brown's head. It looks like a gunshot wound," Janoski recalls exclaiming.

... snip ...

Gormley, who has approximately 25 years of experience in pathology, has said that he, too, identified the wound as a "red flag" and that he consulted with other pathologists present, including Hause and Navy Cmdr. Edward Kilbane. "They agreed it looked like an entrance gunshot wound," Gormley recalled in a recent television interview.

... snip ...

Janoski alleges [Major] Sentell [, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown,] told her the original X-rays of Brown's head had been replaced in the case file. Janoski said she remembers that Sentell specifically told her "the first head X-ray that showed a `lead snowstorm' was destroyed, and a second X-ray, that was less dense, was taken."

Janoski said she had to ask "What are you talking about?" in reference to Sentell's phrase "lead snowstorm." According to Janoski, Sentell explained that a lead snowstorm is the description of a pattern of metal fragments that appears on an X-ray after a bullet has disintegrated inside a body.

Again, these are just statements of facts regarding what one of the witnesses to the examination of the body and who was directly involved in recording that examination stated for publication (she also stated these things under oath, by the way). And NOTHING was ever offered in any mainstream source or by anyone here at JREF during discussions about that to dispute her claimed facts.

How about this transcript of an interview that CPO Janoski gave to the Washington Weekly? Again, nothing in it has every been shown to be false or a misrepresentation of what CPO Janoski actually said.

"Kathleen Janoski Describes Cover-Up in Ron Brown Investigation" By Carl of Oyster Bay, FOR THE WASHINGTON WEEKLY, April 26, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/26/01704

GRANT: We do have here on the line, Chief Petty Officer, United States Navy and chief of forensic photography with Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Kathleen Janoski. … snip ...

JANOSKI: … snip ... Essentially what's happening is that I'm being punished as a whistleblower because I went on record with The Pittsburgh Tribune Review back in January. I used to be chief of forensic photography but I was kicked out of my office with essentially 32 hours notice and forced to walk away from a quarter million dollar inventory that I'm still assigned responsibility for.

... snip ...

JANOSKI: It's actually the Army and the Air Force Colonel who's in charge of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. What it is - there's four of us altogether, (Lt. Col. Steve) Cogswell, (Lt. Col. David) Hause, myself and (Air Force Major Thomas) Parsons. And we all went on the record saying that Ron Brown had what appeared to be an apparent gunshot wound to the head - and that Ron Brown needed an autopsy, which he did not receive.

... snip ...

JANOSKI: … snip … It was a hole in his skull. It was perfectly round, inwardly beveling and it's diameter was .45 inches. And it had punctured the skull. Brain was showing. And that's essentially what we said: that Ron Brown had a wound that appeared consistent with an apparent gunshot wound and that he needed an autopsy. (Janoski has FBI training in gunshot wound analysis). And because of that we're essentially being punished by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

... snip ...

JANOSKI: Well, what happened was - we have a Naval criminal investigative agent who's assigned to our office. And about six months after the crash she told me that the first set of x-rays were deliberately destroyed because they showed a "lead snowstorm". And a second set of x-rays were taken and they were deliberately made less dense to try to diminish or eradicate that "lead snowstorm". A Naval criminal investigative agent assigned to my office told me this.

GRANT: Now initially you had declined to be interviewed but you changed your mind shortly before a gag order was issued and you came forward, you said, because the AFIP had failed to properly investigate possible wrongdoing by it's own officials in the Brown case. And because of the way the military treated two AFIP pathologists. We have talked to Lt. Col Steve Cogswell and Lt. Col. David Hause. Now, I understand that after they both went public, bad things happened to them.

JANOSKI: Yes, yes. We were all supposed to go to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in February. We had our tickets, we had our reservations, we'd paid our registration fees. And right before we were supposed to leave, the director of AFIP canceled our orders immediately. Also, Dr. Cogswell was forbidden to lecture, forbidden to go on trips. Cogswell, Hause and Parsons were no longer permitted to do any autopsies. And also Dr. Cogswell was kicked out of his office at the same time I was. And he's been re-assigned, they re-assigned him to oral pathology. So they have a medical examiner working with a bunch of dentists right now. He's very ill-equipped to work in that area. So essentially what they're doing is something that's typical in punishing a whistleblower. They're setting him up for failure.

So again. Those are just facts, corroborated in multiple sources and interviews. Facts that if the Washington Post were acting responsibly and reliably, it would have passed on to the public … so that the public could reach an informed conclusion.

And note that I'm operating at a disadvantage here because nearly two decades have passed and much of what was once available on the internet has gone down the black hole. There once were many other sources (few of them in the liberal mainstream media, however) that reported facts such as these, as well as transcripts of most of the depositions done by Judicial Watch in the matter. Transcripts of what Janoski testified to, for example. Now, one can barely find anything. But fortunately I saved at least a few items.

Even Free Republic has been deleting material from it's archives. One example is Wesley Phelan's very interesting interview of CPO Janoski in an article titled "The Botched Ron Brown Investigation: An Interview with AFIP Forensic Photographer Kathleen Janoski". Again, there is nothing in his interview of her that contradicts what Ruddy or Newsmax reported in their articles, and there are even more details about what happened. I can't prove the article existed with a link now, so you'll just have to take my word for it. But here's a bit of it from my archives. The portion I've highlighted in red pertains to the question of whether the Whitehouse ordered there be no autopsy (the rest of what I quote are just interesting facts that again the Washington Post mostly never reported to it's gullible readers):

JANOSKI: … snip ... About 6 months after the crash I had a conversation with Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigative agent. She told me the first set of head x-rays on Ron Brown were deliberately destroyed because they showed a lead snowstorm. I said, "What are you talking about?" She explained to me what a lead snowstorm is: metal fragments breaking up from a bullet. And she proceeded to tell me that the first set of x-rays was deliberately destroyed and a second set was taken. The exposure was changed in an attempt to eradicate or diminish the metal fragments.

When I went on the record with Ruddy, he put that in the story in an article on January 13. He called Sentell and told her what I was saying. I believe she had no comment, or said she could not comment. So she was aware of what I had told Ruddy.

QUESTION: Have you spoken to her since?

JANOSKI: No, because once that story broke I was ostracized. I was the last one to go on the record. They weren't treating me that well, but not as bad as Cogswell, Hause and Parsons.

QUESTION: Who is "they"?

JANOSKI: The Armed Forces Medical Examiner, Dr. Jerry Spencer. Also, a lot of people in the office were avoiding me. There were two factions in the office, and you knew who was on which side in this issue.

Anyway, it was at that point, after the NCIS agent told me this that I went back to my office and pulled out the 35 millimeter slides I had taken when the x-rays were up on the light box. I had photographed them when they were in the light box. I had done that because I was testing out the exposure system on my Nikon F4. It has three exposure systems. I had just gotten out of the FBI Academy for a 2-week school for police photography. It was drilled into our heads to shoot the hell out of everything. If you ever have a doubt about the value of a particular photo, take it anyway. You might see something you think is innocuous at a crime scene, but it may be important later. Film is cheap. All these concepts were drilled into our heads. So I was taking a lot of pictures of this particular crash, or rather, the events at Dover.

… snip ...

JANOSKI: … snip ... She is a sworn law enforcement officer. She was telling me that a piece of evidence was destroyed. I was so stunned by it. I was also stunned when she said there was another set of x-rays. The only set I saw was the one up in the light box in the morgue.

… snip …

QUESTION: How many x-rays are in Ron Brown's file currently?

JANOSKI: There are 15 x-rays in Ron Brown's file - - arms, legs, pelvis, stuff like that. He had a broken pelvis, but when you look at the x-rays actually in his file, none of the injuries were serious enough to kill him. That's especially why Ron Brown needed an autopsy. He might have an internal decapitation, a ripped aorta, or bleeding into the chest cavity. That's why you do autopsies - - to find out the exact cause and manner of death.

QUESTION: Would it have been ordinary, even without the head wound, for a person of his stature coming in with those apparent injuries in the x-rays to have an autopsy?

JANOSKI: I would say good forensic pathology would have caused an autopsy to occur, regardless of who he was. He needed an autopsy plain and simple. It is a gross miscarriage of good forensic investigation that he did not get one. You could have a homeless guy dead on the streets of D.C., and he's going to get an autopsy. Yet we have a dead cabinet member without one?

QUESTION: Some might say too many bodies came through that day, that it was not possible to do autopsies.

JANOSKI: That's baloney. I was told there was a lot of pressure from the White House to get the bodies out.

QUESTION: Can you say who told you that?

JANOSKI: Yes. It was an investigator by the name of Bob Veasey. He told me there was a lot of pressure from the White House to get the bodies out.

QUESTION: Did that mean to get them buried?

JANOSKI: Get them in, get them out. Get them into the embalming and casketing area. Get them out of the morgue.

QUESTION: Was he more specific than just the White House? Might he have mentioned a name?

JANOSKI: No. I was also told I was taking too long to take photographs. There was a real hurry to move this guy out. I was the senior photographer, and I had 4 guys working for me. Being in the navy so long, I had the feeling the senior person has the responsibility, but they also have the accountability. I decided I was going to photograph Ron Brown's body. If something happened like somebody's film didn't turn out, I didn't want them to have to bear that burden. So I took it upon myself. Since I didn't want to be the photographer whose film didn't turn out, with a dead cabinet member, and I'd have to look for another day job, I was very careful in what I did. I took a lot of photographs. I figured, if this role of film gets destroyed in processing, I'm going to have another roll of film to back it up. I was determined we wouldn't have something similar to Vince Foster's crime scene, where everything comes out underexposed.

… snip …

QUESTION: Had there ever been any indication that the White House was exerting pressure in any case before this?

JANOSKI: Not that I know of. The actual team leader of this mission was a Navy commander by the name of Edward Kilbane. He had actually gone to the West Wing of the White House before the bodies came to Dover. I saw him in his dress blue uniform, and I asked him why he was all dressed up. And he said he had to go to the West Wing of the White House.

… snip …

QUESTION: Why did Edward Kilbane have that visit to the White House?

JANOSKI: I would say it was probably some kind of meeting to coordinate bringing the bodies back. … snip … There was a meeting, I believe it was before the bodies came back, to plan everything.

QUESTION: Was that in the White House?

JANOSKI: I believe the FOIA document said West Wing, but I'm sure it said White House. I don't have it handy right now.

QUESTION: Was that the meeting Kilbane attended?

JANOSKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Had you worked with Kilbane for sometime?

JANOSKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Did you find him to be trustworthy?

JANOSKI: No.

QUESTION: In what sense no?

JANOSKI: I often had difficulty with him. If I needed a decision made, he would come back and say, "Let me think about that and I'll get back to you." And he never would. I'd have to keep pestering him for an answer. I always had the impression that his decision was going to be made on political correctness - - whichever way the prevailing winds were blowing. It wasn't going to be made on right or wrong.

Again, those are just facts. They are not CT. CT is what inferences you make from those facts. Those are statements by an, up till then, well regarded military officer who was directly involved in what occurred (contrary to what Upchurch claimed). By the way, Janoski was a democrat who voted for Clinton in the previous election so it's difficult to claim she was a right wing wacko with an axe to grind against democrats and Clinton. And her statments do suggest that the WhiteHouse played a significant role in what happened to the bodies at Dover.

And if you have an interest in reading the rest of what Janoski said in that interview (there is pretty damning stuff regarding the way the Clinton administration treated all the above military officers), let me know. I might be able to locate a copy of it on the internet if I really searched or I suppose I could post the transcript here. But in any case, its unreported by that bastion of journalistic *truth* so admired by you on the left, the Washington Post. In fact, this following little exerpt from that interview is ironic given the topic of this thread:

JANOSKI: There was an internal investigation convened almost immediately. I was given a list of questions I had to answer. Most of the questions pertained to how Ruddy got the story. Cogswell , Hause, and Parsons got similar questions. … snip …

… snip ...

JANOSKI: Yes. I was given this list of questions, so I went to see a couple of Navy lawyers down at the Washington Navy Yard. These schmucks had been watching too many episodes of JAG. One of them said, "It's not news unless it's in the Washington Post."

Now isn't that hilarious? You folks starting to get the picture? Because none of what happened to Janoski or what she said was ever reported in the Washington Post. The Washington Post let the careers of several fine military officers who did nothing wrong be destroyed. Shame on it's staff. Shame on it's owners. Shame on those who defend it.

And do you think I'm finished? Not a chance.

The following excerpt is from a document submitted by Judicial Watch to a court in a lawsuit on behalf of Janoski and Cogswell. This document refers to various "exhibits", including sworn testimony by the photographer, as well as a TV interview of Colonel Gormley where he was reported in various sources to have changed his story. And, of course, it is a crime for a lawyer to knowingly submit false information to a court so I would hazard that Klayman didn't just make this up either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/cases/other/ronbrown/rbrown.htm

Colonel Gormley has offered inconsistent and changing explanations for his omissions. First, he stated that the wound in Secretary Brown's skull, which he examined after it was pointed out to him by Chief Janoski, was not a bullet wound because it did not penetrate the skull and because the brain was not visible. See Exhibit 15. He has subsequently admitted that a photograph of the wound, as well as photographs of Secretary Brown's X-rays, showed that the skull was penetrated and that Secretary Brown's brain was visible. Transcript of Television Interview with Colonel William Gormley, Black Entertainment Television, December 11, 1997, attached as Exhibit 18 at 18. He also has admitted that the hole in the crown of Ron Brown's head looked like an entrance wound from a gunshot, and that it was a "red flag" for a forensic pathologist which should have triggered a further inquiry. Exhibit 18 at 19. In fact, and even more damning, Colonel Gormley now admits that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they "agreed that [the hole in his head] look[ed] like a gunshot wound, at least an entrance gunshot wound." Exhibit 18 at 19. Finally, Colonel Gormley confesses that, even in such extraordinary circumstances, no autopsy of Secretary Brown was ever requested"

And in case some of this thread's readers haven't seen them, here are the images of the head x-rays and the image of Brown's head wound which are mentioned above:

http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_2.jpg

http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_1.jpg

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/browng03.gif

They show that Tricky is wrong. Whether there was a displaced bone plug from the wound in his head is simply a matter of fact, one way or the other. No *interpretation* is needed if the x-rays and photos of the wound, for example, clearly show a displaced bone plug. And those do. You can see the bone plug that is displaced into the skull in the first photo. It is clear as day, even to a layperson. And numerous forensic pathologists have noted this fact in those few papers that actually did cover the story accurately. Colonel Cogswell was one of them. Now officially, and as reported by the mainstream media (and by that I mean the left leaning media that dominated the 1990s … remember, Fox News didn't even exist back then … and to a great extent still dominates TV and large newspapers), there was no bone plug. They reported what the official report said on Brown's death and what the statements that the pathologist who had responsibility for examining Brown's body at Dover AFB, Colonel Gormley, initially said.

Now one can't really blame the media for initially reporting no bone plug because there was no contradictory evidence at that time. But one can blame the mainstream media for not telling the public later on what the pathologists said and what the x-rays showed when those became a matter of public record a few years after Brown's death. The mainstream media never bothered to set the record straight. And therein lies the proof of it's unreliability as a source of information free of partisan political influence.

Gormley's official description of the wound was that he saw only bone, not brain matter. He said there was "no open communication with the inside of the head". That there was no penetration of the skull. And he said this was one of the primary reasons he ruled the death an accident due to blunt force trauma. He repeated this claim not only in the official AIB report but for years later on live TV and in multiple press releases by AFIP. But you can see that he was lying by simply looking at those images of the wound and the x-rays of the head. Brain matter is clearly visible (even to a layperson) and numerous top forensic pathologists noted this fact. In one of the posts I linked to you above, Lt. Colonel Hause, who was at the examination and saw Brown's wound first hand, is quoted saying that "What was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole. Janoski, the military photographer who had witnessed numerous autopsies involving gunshot, said exactly the same thing. This is noted in several articles that I linked. I heard her and Cogswell say this on live radio and in a video clip that used to be available on the internet. Even Colonel Gormley eventually admitted this (see http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/cases/other/ronbrown/rbrown.htm ), after he was confronted on live television with photos of the x-rays and wound.

Any source (like Tricky or a recent mainstream new article) claiming there was no displaced bone plug and no brain matter visible in the wound is simply lying.

The second photo, according to statements from multiple forensic pathologists, shows what is termed a "lead snowstorm" … small metal fragments resulting from a penetrating bullet wound … in the brain. Even a layperson can see them located above and behind the eyesocket on the right side of the image. They are clear as day. And Colonel Cogswell, a trained forensic pathologist who at the time was considered one of the best in the military where gunshot was concerned, went on record in various forums, including video that unfortunately I can no longer show you since it's disappeared down the internet's black hole, stating that fact. A "lead snowstorm" is a characteristic of high velocity gunshot wounds. That is a fact. CPO Janoski testified under oath that Major Sentell told her that "the first head x-ray showed a 'lead snowstorm' so Gormley made a second x-ray that was less dense to hide this. Janoski said she had to ask "What are you talking about?" in reference to Sentell's phrase "lead snowstorm." And according to Janoski, Sentell explained that a lead snowstorm is the description of a pattern of metal fragments that appears on an X-ray after a bullet has disintegrated inside a body. And that is what an honest journalist reported and I know he's honest because back in the 1990s I heard Janoski on live radio and in a video interview state exactly what that journalist reported. Whereas the dishonest mainstream media, like the Washington Post, controlled by democrat friendly people, NEVER reported what Janoski said.

Have you ever heard of Ceril Wecht? Back in the 1990s, he was one of the most renown civilian forensic pathologists in the US. He's still quoted today by the mainstream media when they need an expert to pontificate on some murder case. Here's what he had to say back in the 90s after seeing the photos of the wound and x-rays I've linked here:

"Wecht: Autopsy Needed in Brown Case" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 17, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/17/32921

Most bothersome, Wecht said, was his identification of almost a half-dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver-colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the circular wound itself and near the hole. These "do suggest metallic fragments," he said. "Little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone," he explained.

These flecks should have been collected for further analysis, Wecht said, though he noted they aren't by themselves proof of a gunshot. "It just makes it more consistent with one," he said. If the metal is from a bullet, he believes the array of fragments in the scalp would indicate a shot was fired before the crash.

Wecht said a review of a photographic image of the first frontal X-ray of Brown's head may show, as Cogswell first suggested, "what we say in the jargon of forensic pathology is a lead snowstorm" of fragments left by a disintegrating bullet.

So for Tricky to claim there were no metal fragments is dishonest given that he's been on threads where the above has been presented. And for the Washington Post not to report the statements of these experts in this regard strongly suggests the Washington Post is not to be trusted as news source.

The Tribune-Review, in contrast, also reported that Dr. Cyril Wecht reviewed the evidence in the Brown case and concluded that there was "more than enough" evidence Brown was assassinated and that an autopsy and FBI investigation should have been conducted. That's simply a fact that the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media never reported. For some reason, the mainstream media will use Wecht as an authority on any case except the Ron Brown case. I think that reason is their politics.

And do you know that after the Whistleblowers came forward, all the original x-rays that were taken of Brown's head (both sets) disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP. That too is an established fact that the mainstream media chose not to report. Go ahead, try an find mention of that in any mainstream source. The only reason we can see them now is via the photos Janoski took when they were on a light table at Dover. Years later that film was given to a few members of the press before the government could seize it (like they did all the other original evidence in the case). And by the way, the spokesperson for AFIP at one point publically admitted that the Janoski's photos are authentic images of the wound and x-rays so that's not an defense either. This isn't CT. These are simple, quite verifiable facts.

And if black and white articles by real journalists and photos of the wound don't convince you, what will? Perhaps you needed to listen to audio and video tapes of some of these same pathologists and the photographer being interviewed. Unfortunately, the passage of time has made it next to impossible to link such material via the internet. This, for example, was CPO Janoski and Lt. Colonel Cogswell speaking on camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1bpzsxk0Vw . And Christopher Ruddy and Klaymen were interviewed by George Putnam in these two videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etk3Db2FGbU&NR=1 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuceJwHMx2g&feature=related . As you can see these videos have all been removed now. But I posted them on this forum when they were still working, and noone challenged them or pointed to anything in them that differed in any way from what Christopher Ruddy, Carl Limbaucher and Wesley Phelan reported in their newpaper articles. JREF's so-called *skeptics* just ignored them like you folks (many of the same people) are trying to do to rest of the material now. But if someone really want to verify those video interviews, I suppose they might still be able to purchase the video on the Brown conspiracy that Newsmax once sold. But I won't hold my breath expecting any of you to do that.

And here's another source I offered in response to Spaaron22's specific question about whether these experts said the Whitehouse ordered there be no autopsy.

http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/16/02052

"We know that Colonel William Gormley himself admitted on Black Entertainment Television that it was the White House, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commerce, and Transportation Departments which called the AFIP off from conducting an autopsy," says Klayman.

It directly quotes Klayman who deposed Gormley saying that. See, I can offer lots of evidence to show the claim I never provide evidence is a complete lie. Because all of this evidence has been posted before at JREF.

Finally, for those here who actually have an open mind (and, again, I will note that spaaron22 seems to be alone in that), here is a more comprehensive list of articles on the matter:

http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/1/31/173313

In those sources you will find lots and lots and lots of facts that for the most part the Washington Post simply ignored in all it's reporting over the years on Brown and his death. Now I ask you … how could any responsible news organization today fail to at least tell it's readers the full story considering it's potential importance to the country? How could any truly reliable news organization simply dismiss it in the manner they did in the Washington Post article linked in this thread's OP? To think they could fail to report the above and still be considered reliable is "cognitive dissonance" of the first order. When all is said and done, they are not much better or reliable than … World News Daily. And that's the inescapable conclusion by an rational skeptic.

 

[BeAChooser]

Here's another post that I'm going to move here in response to the doubts expressed about the evidence. Poster Emet, on the other thread, tried to dismiss the Brown allegations by claiming:

The WaPo article discussed the issue on page 4.

Here was my response (slightly altered for use in this thread):

LOL! Oh sure, if you call this bit of tripe an honest and complete discussion of the topic:

Morris L. Reid was Brown’s confidential assistant and was slated to be on the plane, but Brown sent him ahead to Dubrovnik. About a minute after the plane disappeared from radar, panic set in, he said. “It turned into devastation.”

The conspiracy theories, Reid said, are for him “never anything to consider, given my proximity to the situation.” The downed plane had American pilots flying in bad weather into an unknown area. “I was on a Croatian government plane with experienced pilots who had flown in those conditions. That is the only explanation why my plane landed one hour and 30 minutes before his crashed.”

Once, a radio interviewer raised the question of a conspiracy to Michael Brown. “It threw me,” Brown said. “At this time we’ve seen no evidence that there was some kind of conspiracy.” The family didn’t discount the notion out of hand, but the broader point, he thinks, is that the nation saw a black political leader “command so much respect and authority on a political level in all communities,” and it was hard to deal with the enormous sense of promise lost.

It’s something Michael Brown has had to contend with — personally and professionally — for years.

Morris Reid was not mentioned even ONCE in any article that I can find which was written contempary with Brown's death or during the investigation that followed. Not once. But yet he's suddenly offered as THE expert on what happened by the Washington Post? LOL!

Now let's look at what Reid claims to be fact.

Reid throws out the statement "About a minute after the plane disappeared from radar, panic set in, he said." What fails to mention ... what the Washington Post fails to mention ... is that according to Aviation Week (April 8, 1996 - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/h1.gif ), they lost both transponder and voice contact when the plane when it was still 8 miles from the crash site. At the same time. Why did they lose communication well before the plane reached the mountain, if it was just an accident where they ran into a mountain? This is never been explained and I rather doubt Reid could now offer a credible explanation. Can [any of you]?

Reid is quoted saying "The downed plane had American pilots flying in bad weather into an unknown area." Yet, the official Air Force report says weather was "not a substantially contributing factor," with visibility of 8 kilometers and winds at 14 mph. In fact, several planes landed before and after the crash. So Reid's claim is a red herring. Furthermore, these pilots were among the most highly trained in the Air Force. The pilot was an "evaluator", the most senior pilot flying that type of plane. He had nearly 3,000 flight hours on the plane and his co-pilot had more. The plane also was equipped with a ground-proximity warning device that would warn a pilot to pull up immediately when it detects approaching terrain.

Reid says "I was on a Croatian government plane with experienced pilots who had flown in those conditions. That is the only explanation why my plane landed one hour and 30 minutes before his crashed.” Apparently Reid is considered an expert on flying by the Washington Post since he *knows* the only explanation why his plane landed safely and Brown's didn't. … snip …

Next, the WP article quotes Michael Brown on the controversy, as if he's an expert too. It quotes Michael saying "At this time we’ve seen no evidence that there was some kind of conspiracy.” LOL!

Perhaps Michael said that's because the official report that the government published on the crash and sent to the families of those who died in the crash didn't mention the statements of the pathologists about a bullet wound, nor did it contain images of the x-rays which contradicted the statements Colonel Gormley made, the government's *expert*, made at the time in the report.

Perhaps Michael said that because when the controversy did surface, the Acting Secretary of the Air Force, Mr Peters, sent a letter to the families of all those who died … including Brown's … a letter that was full of lies. Here, let me demonstrate:

For example, Peters stated in the letter that "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown’s injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." But both statements are absolute and demonstrable lies. Nothing less. Gormley did NOT carefully consider the possibility of gunshot. Never. In fact, when the possibility of gunshot was first raised at the examination by the official military photographer (CPO Janoski) upon seeing the wound, the examining pathologist (Colonel Gormley) told her to "shut up". That's what Janoski swore under oath to be fact. And Gormley did absolutely nothing to investigate the possibility, even after two other high ranking pathologists (Lt. Colonel Hause and Navy Commander Kilbane) who were present at the examination agreed that it looked like a gunshot wound. Nor did he do anything even after yet a third pathologist (Colonel Cogswell) to whom the wound was described over the phone told him "the man needs an autopsy."

Furthermore, contrary to Peter's claim, the X-rays did NOT rule out the possibility of gunshot. This is a clear lie. In fact, Colonel Cogswell, looking at the x-rays later on, identified what he called a lead snowstorm (a consequence of gunshot) in one of x-rays. Colonel Cogswell at the time was rated one of the Air Force's top pathologists where gunshot is concerned. He gave talks at symposiums on the subject of mistakes in pathology, and he identified the Brown case as one such mistake to his audiences, telling them that the frontal head X-ray showed "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density on X-ray" behind the eye socket. He said "that's what we might describe as a `lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound." Plus the bone plug was displaced inward and away from the entry hole, allowing the possibility of gunshot wound. Cogswell conclude that Brown's body should have been autopsied.

Peters letter also said "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown’s death — or the death of any other person on the aircraft — medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." This too is a clear lie given that calls for an autopsy were demonstrably voiced repeatedly during the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be totally bogus.

And before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," Peters revealed the true purpose of his letter: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Like the Washington Post?

Or perhaps Michael Brown now claims there was not evidence of a conspiracy since he and his family got such a sweet deal in the matter and he doesn't want to rock the boat? Afterall, he got off almost scott free on serious criminal charges for which he and his mom had already been indicted. His mother got a complete pass. And he then went to work for the democratic party and has worked for them ever since. Not to mention the more than $14 million dollars his family was paid by the government for Brown's death. A payment that was made with the stipulation that the families would drop all lawsuits (and thus stop all investigations).

Finally, the Washington Post completes it's *thorough* (according to Emet) discussion of the death by stating "The family didn’t discount the notion out of hand". Is that supposed to be enough evidence that we can rule out the possibility of foul play? Is that supposed to be the WP's idea of adequately covering the subject? … snip ...

Here are the facts where the doubts of the Brown family are concerned. Brown's daughter, Tracey, said that the family hired their own forensic pathologist after the bullet wound controversy surfaced and that one of the key reasons they were satisfied that Brown was not shot is that the pathologist told them there was no exit wound. But CPO Janoski has testified that Brown's body was never examined or photographed for an exit wound and Gormley admitted that he didn't look for one. In short, whoever that pathologist was, if there indeed was one, either accepted the government's original claim there was no exit wound, or investigated and then lied to the Brown family. And like I already noted, there may be other reasons the Brown family remained silent.

Now ask yourself. Why didn't the Washington Post article mention any of this? … snip …

And by the way, Emet went on to add this claim:

The pathologist who examined the body stood by his original conclusion.

And that's a lie. As I noted earlier in this thread, citing a court document, Gormley eventually retracted his original conclusion and admitted that the nature of the wound was a "red flag" and that Brown should have been autopsied. I also proved above that the reasons Gormley gave for officially ruling the death an accident due to blunt force trauma were completely untrue. Why can't you folks deal with the actual facts? You are acting like 9/11 Truthers, if you ask me.

 

[Tricky]

Gosh, all of your sources are Newsmax or similar right-wing hate sites, BAC. Even if the Washinton Post were somehow trying to cover up this evidence, what about all the other respected news sources in the country? Why hasn't this caught the eye of some investigative reporters out to be the next Woodward and Bernstein? Oh. I forgot. They're all in on it. Snopes is in on it. Wikepedia is in on it. I guess that's why this is in Conspiracy Theories. You have no credible sources.

 

[randman]

Gosh, all of your sources are Newsmax or similar right-wing hate sites, BAC. Even if the Washinton Post were somehow trying to cover up this evidence, what about all the other respected news sources in the country? Why hasn't this caught the eye of some investigative reporters out to be the next Woodward and Bernstein? Oh. I forgot. They're all in on it. Snopes is in on it. Wikepedia is in on it. I guess that's why this is in Conspiracy Theories. You have no credible sources.

Because they cover up stuff all the time. You have just bought into a narrative that such things do not happen. Plenty of stories are killed by mutual agreement across the board. In fact, if it weren't for the internet, even more would be silenced. The whole Monica thing only came out because of Drudge. The MSM media sat on it and did not intend to release it. That's just a small example but there are tons and tons of newsworthy items not reported and even hot stories, certain facts concealed.

Back during Iran/Contra, we heard in the US many specifics but there were some specifics anyone could find out, reported and documented to a degree in legal proceedings, details which put the first president Bush, then VP and Mr Not in the Loop, squarely on the scene, at least as far as the CIA's covert support for the Contras.

I don't think the Boland legislation was legal in the first place but any media source with it's salt could have proven Bush was involved. This just isn't me talking of what I've read either.

But this little episode was completely unreported in the American media. Maybe there were good reasons. Patriotic Americans were asked to do something for their country and didn't need to be put through the ringer just for allowing the CIA to use some of their assets.

 

[Upchurch]

Because they cover up stuff all the time. You have just bought into a narrative that such things do not happen. Plenty of stories are killed by mutual agreement across the board. In fact, if it weren't for the internet, even more would be silenced. The whole Monica thing only came out because of Drudge. The MSM media sat on it and did not intend to release it. That's just a small example but there are tons and tons of newsworthy items not reported and even hot stories, certain facts concealed.

And some are simply made up and the gullible just buy into it because of selection bias.

Are you sure stories are killed by mutual agreement across the board, or is that something you have been led to believe by the fringe media of your choice?

 

[randman]

And some are simply made up and the gullible just buy into it because of selection bias.

Are you sure stories are killed by mutual agreement across the board, or is that something you have been led to believe by the fringe media of your choice?

I am sure. There are lots of various mechanisms involved, but yes, some stories are killed with the mainstream media sources going along with it. The internet has changed some things somewhat, but whether because there is another hot story or the media is asked frankly to leave it alone or for whatever reasons, some stories are killed.

 

[Upchurch]

I am sure.

How? You were easily taken in by WND. How do you know this isn't just another CT meme?

 

[randman]

How? You were easily taken in by WND. How do you know this isn't just another CT meme?

WND is a good example of what I am talking about in how they have often broken or reported on stories that the MSM wouldn't touch and WND turned out to be correct. It's just your bias to consider them a poor enws organization.

A good example is the Echelon spy system. WND reported on it for years and was blasted as just feeding a conspiracy fantasy. Most American media wouldn't touch it.

Wonder why?

Even when the Europeans officially acknowledged it's existence due to their complaining about it, the American media was very slow to report on it. It was the sort of thing you see in movies.

But WND was right all along. Eventually even Dan Rather reported on it.

Of course, the anti conspiracy thing is so deeply ingrained among much of the public (other half goes the other way), that many likely still imagine it's just a conspiracy theory.

 

[Spindrift]

WND is a good example of what I am talking about in how they have often broken or reported on stories that the MSM wouldn't touch and WND turned out to be correct. It's just your bias to consider them a poor enws organization.

A good example is the Echelon spy system. WND reported on it for years and was blasted as just feeding a conspiracy fantasy. Most American media wouldn't touch it.

Wonder why?

Even when the Europeans officially acknowledged it's existence due to their complaining about it, the American media was very slow to report on it. It was the sort of thing you see in movies.

But WND was right all along. Eventually even Dan Rather reported on it.

Of course, the anti conspiracy thing is so deeply ingrained among much of the public (other half goes the other way), that many likely still imagine it's just a conspiracy theory.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

 

[randman]

Another good example that many alternative media reported on was the war in the south of the Sudan. It was a near MSM media blackout for a number of years despite other media widely reporting it.

Wasn't until guys like Sharpton, believe it or not, that complained about modern slavery going on (had been for years) was the American media that interested despite a veritable genocide of Christians and animists.

Curiously, when other Muslims in Darfur started being targeted, the leftist media finally got on board in a larger way.

 

[randman]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

They've been right on a lot of things the MSM media wouldn't touch and then came very late in the game to.

 

[Ausmerican]

WND is a good example of what I am talking about in how they have often broken or reported on stories that the MSM wouldn't touch and WND turned out to be correct. It's just your bias to consider them a poor enws organization.

A good example is the Echelon spy system. WND reported on it for years and was blasted as just feeding a conspiracy fantasy. Most American media wouldn't touch it.

Wonder why?

Even when the Europeans officially acknowledged it's existence due to their complaining about it, the American media was very slow to report on it. It was the sort of thing you see in movies.

But WND was right all along. Eventually even Dan Rather reported on it.

Of course, the anti conspiracy thing is so deeply ingrained among much of the public (other half goes the other way), that many likely still imagine it's just a conspiracy theory.

One example? Even the National Enquirer has a better record than that. So we can rate WND as just below the Enquirer as a news source? Or do you have more examples?

 

[randman]

One example? Even the National Enquirer has a better record than that. So we can rate WND as just below the Enquirer as a news source? Or do you have more examples?

Bush wouldn't have even been elected had not WND reported on overseas ballots sitting on ships. Not even the idiotic RNC and GOP establishment would get involved, it appeared at least, until consistent reporting of that on WND.

Btw, WND's editor did not endorse Bush and stated he didn't even understand the Constitution.

There are numerous examples all the time. You just don't like them because they are Christian libertarian in their editorial outlook.

 

[randman]

btw, do you really think the MSM was unaware of John Edward's love-child and affairs when he was a candidate?

That's a good example of their killing or sitting on a story; in that case for political reasons.

 

[Spindrift]

They've been right on a lot of things the MSM media wouldn't touch and then came very late in the game to.

The few times they may be accidentally correct don't outweigh the willful wrongs.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

The confirmation bias permeating this thread is legendary.