The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995) [Archive]

Praktik

20th April 2009, 01:29 PM

Well Galileo, let's take a look at the people who created this film - after all, CTers are always telling us to "see who pulls the strings" and to "connect the dots" aren't they?

The company behind the film is called "Citizens for Honest Government" - something of a red flag given their previous movie was done in 1994 and called "The Clinton Chronicles". No other movie by them shows up in the IMDB database - could it be this group was created for the sole purpose of propagandizing anti-Clinton films?

It certainly looks like it.

let's take a closer look at Citizens for Honest Government, according to sourcewatch: (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_for_Honest_Government)

between 1994 and 1996 "covertly paid more than $200,000 to individuals who made damaging allegations" about President Bill Clinton's "personal conduct," as "part of a covert and sophisticated political propaganda effort to influence public opinion against President Clinton," Murray Waas reported March 1998 in Salon.[2] Documentation of the payments "detailed in the organization's confidential accounting ledgers and other internal records" were said to have been obtained by the journalist.
...
The ledgers listed them as 'expert witnesses'," Waas wrote. "A spokesman for Falwell, Mark DeMoss, said in an interview that Falwell was unaware of the payments made by Citizens to its 'expert witnesses'."[2]

However, DeMoss and CHG president Patrick Matrisciana "gave conflicting accounts of Falwell's relationship with Matrisciana and Citizens for Honest Government. Initially, he said, 'The Rev. Falwell and Pat Matrisciana have had a relationship for over 20 years, and Rev. Falwell thought that there might be merit to what Pat had produced.' But in a subsequent interview, Demoss said that Falwell and Matrisciana had only 'met each other about twice' in their lives.

"According to Demoss and Matrisciana, the two men agreed that Falwell would promote The Clinton Chronicles on Falwell's 'Old Time Gospel Hour' television show, as well as for a special half-hour infomercial," Waas wrote.[2]

"However," Waas wrote, "a direct-mail fund-raising appeal by Falwell suggests that Falwell was indeed involved with the video much earlier than he has acknowledged. The fund-raising appeal also shows that Falwell subsidized the production of the video as well. In the August 1994 direct-mail solicitation, Falwell asked supporters to 'help me produce a national television documentary which will expose shocking new facts about Bill Clinton.' The letter stated that Falwell was ready to make it available 'as soon a I can raise approximately $40,000 needed to produce this videoMore here from public eye: (The Jan./Feb. 1998 issue of Citizens Intelligence Digest featured a posed photograph of John Wheeler Jr., director of publications for Citizens for Honest Government, handing "The Citizens Presidential Impeachment Indictment," to Rep. Bob Barr, at a "Strategy Briefing Breakfast" held in Washington, DC on Nov. 7, 1997. Flanking the two was Howard Phillips, president of the Conservative Caucus, and a leading player in the hard core theocratic wing of the fundamentalist Christian Right. That same issue of Citizens Intelligence Digest also featured an article by Christopher Ruddy suggesting that Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was assassinated. Along with Ruddy, other "Contributing Writers" to the newsletter included Rep. William Dannemeyer, Joseph Farah, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Timothy LaHaye, apocalyptic fundamentalist author Chuck Missler, anti-gay author Dr. Stanley Monteith, and Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, which is to the right of the National Rifle Association.)

The Jan./Feb. 1998 issue of Citizens Intelligence Digest featured a posed photograph of John Wheeler Jr., director of publications for Citizens for Honest Government, handing "The Citizens Presidential Impeachment Indictment," to Rep. Bob Barr, at a "Strategy Briefing Breakfast" held in Washington, DC on Nov. 7, 1997. Flanking the two was Howard Phillips, president of the Conservative Caucus, and a leading player in the hard core theocratic wing of the fundamentalist Christian Right. That same issue of Citizens Intelligence Digest also featured an article by Christopher Ruddy suggesting that Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was assassinated. Along with Ruddy, other "Contributing Writers" to the newsletter included Rep. William Dannemeyer, Joseph Farah, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Timothy LaHaye, apocalyptic fundamentalist author Chuck Missler, anti-gay author Dr. Stanley Monteith, and Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, which is to the right of the National Rifle Association.

Citizens for Honest Government is an example of the practical linkage among the Republican Party, the conservative Christian Right, Christian Right theocrats, and hard right conspiracism.So you can go ahead and chide people who chose not to see this movie as being ignorant for refusing to do so, but then again, I don't have to read every Anne Coulter book to know whats in them, do I?

There are some times when your internal censor is actually useful - and in this case the exercising of this function will save anyone who implements it from the pain and suffering involved with watching any of these hit pieces manufactured by the far-right web of interests responsible for their production.

I am not sure if you are American or not (I am not either) but a deeper awareness of the American political scene may have given you the knowledge necessary to discern the source of this film and to therefore approach it with a little less gullibility than you have. I mean heck, even if you're a right-winger or what not there's plenty of sane, articulate, responsible conservatives you can source your info from - there's no need to dig in the Falwell ditch...;)

The_Animus

20th April 2009, 01:35 PM

Galileo

20th April 2009, 01:41 PM

Are you kidding me? He was practically non-functional with depression.

lack of prints means nothing. Very, very few investigations end up with prints on a gun.

The bullet wasn't found because it went through his head and went who-knows-where, even if it were in one piece finding it would have gone beyond needle-in-a-haystack.

The film is doing nothing but nitpicking and whining over a very open and shut case. Occam's razor and the complete and utter lack of evidence that anyone else was involved, along with the nature of the wound, etc. is what is needed.

We don't do trials for suicide. Investigations determine that and three investigations determined that was the case.

That's what you say, but give Foster a chance to defend himself with counsel in front of a jury. At the bare minimum, there is no proof and reasonable doubt he killed himself.

No suicide note either.

This should just be classified an an unsolved murder and possible suicide. Not likely, but possible. More investigation may be able to prove that suicide was very improbable.

kookbreaker

20th April 2009, 01:43 PM

What a wonderful set of responses. Almost none of them have any value at all and ignore the topic completely and instead vomit sarcasm and thinly veiled insults.

Congratulation. Giving the JREF a good name.

First, read Galileo's posts and how is he all but admitted to being a troll. We don't have to coddle such people's nonsense posts to fit some JREF quality requirement you invented.

Second, Vince Foster has been done to death. Its purely fueled innuendo from hard right wingers who don't give a damn about Foster and have caused his family much grief with their gibberish.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 01:43 PM

I think much of the sarcasm can be forgiven, given that this theory played itself out by the late 90's and was a favorite of the evangelical right. The most modern equivalent of this type of CT is the birther nonsense. The key to debunking the Vince Foster nonsense is to look at the organizations that originally pushed them, and what other nonsense got pushed. Hint: some of the groups pushing this CT also pushed the "government is using black helicopters to kidnap children for Satanic sacrifice"

Galileo

20th April 2009, 01:43 PM

Galileo

20th April 2009, 01:45 PM

Galileo

20th April 2009, 01:47 PM

kookbreaker

20th April 2009, 01:48 PM

That's what you say, but give Foster a chance to defend himself with counsel in front of a jury. At the bare minimum, there is no proof and reasonable doubt he killed himself.

Again, in this nation (and probably most nations) we don't do anything like that.

No suicide note either.

So? Very few suicides have notes. 12% to 37% of suicides leave notes.

This should just be classified an an unsolved murder and possible suicide. Not likely, but possible.

Nonsense. There is no evidence that anyone else was involved. None. Zip. Nothing. Without such evidence you cannot begin to suggest criminal intent. We don't work that way, at least in this country.

More investigation may be able to prove that suicide was very improbable.

Three investigations already disgree with you. Like most CT'ers you ignore the evidence they came up with and instead dream up fantasies with zero evidence.

You couldn't even come up with your own tale, you had to grab one from some theorcratic group, not very 'Galileo' of you, galileo.

Galileo

20th April 2009, 01:54 PM

Again, in this nation (and probably most nations) we don't do anything like that.

So? Very few suicides have notes. 12% to 37% of suicides leave notes.

Nonsense. There is no evidence that anyone else was involved. None. Zip. Nothing. Without such evidence you cannot begin to suggest criminal intent. We don't work that way, at least in this country.

Three investigations already disgree with you. Like most CT'ers you ignore the evidence they came up with and instead dream up fantasies with zero evidence.

You couldn't even come up with your own tale, you had to grab one from some theorcratic group, not very 'Galileo' of you, galileo.

most murdered people don't leave suicide notes either. Close to 0% of them.

The investigations were done by the government, not by an impartial panel.

The defense had no chance for voir dire to determine this.

Sorry, there is too much missing evidence to prove a suicide.

gdnp

20th April 2009, 02:00 PM

What a wonderful set of responses. Almost none of them have any value at all and ignore the topic completely and instead vomit sarcasm and thinly veiled insults.

Congratulation. Giving the JREF a good name.

Here's a link to the Starr report (http://www.fbicover-up.com/starr/DeathReport.pdf), 143 page PDF.

If you go to page 110, under "conclusions" you will see the statement "The available evidence points clearly to suicide as the manner of death."

You will also see "all this evidence, taken together, leads to the conclusion that the shot was fired by Mr. Foster where he was found in Fort Marcy Park".

And "The evidence with respect to state of mind also points to suicide".

And finally "In sum, based on all of the available evidence, which is considerable, the OIC agrees with every official entity that has examined the issue: Mr. Foster committed suicide by gunshot in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993"

kookbreaker

20th April 2009, 02:03 PM

most murdered people don't leave suicide notes either. Close to 0% of them.

Well then by your logic all suicides that don't leave notes are porbable murders. Better call your local law enforcement and tell them they need to do this.

The investigations were done by the government, not by an impartial panel.

Impartial panels don't do this. Three very different agencies investigated, one of them independent prosecutor and determined it was a suicide.

The defense had no chance for voir dire to determine this.

This was not a trial. Ergo your comment is irrelevant.

Sorry, there is too much missing evidence to prove a suicide.

There is more than enough evidence, whereas there is exactly zero evidence that it was murder beyond the slanderous whispers of fanatics.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 02:06 PM

What do alleged black helicopters have to do with this case? I am saying that Foster is innocent.
This time re-read the post, and understand what is being communicated. Remember, a response that lacks the ability to communicate a relevent counterpoint the original post is not really a response at all.

I am refering to the those who originated these theories. And Foster is not on trial, except in your own mind.

Galileo

20th April 2009, 02:10 PM

Here's a link to the Starr report (http://www.fbicover-up.com/starr/DeathReport.pdf), 143 page PDF.

If you go to page 110, under "conclusions" you will see the statement "The available evidence points clearly to suicide as the manner of death."

You will also see "all this evidence, taken together, leads to the conclusion that the shot was fired by Mr. Foster where he was found in Fort Marcy Park".

And "The evidence with respect to state of mind also points to suicide".

And finally "In sum, based on all of the available evidence, which is considerable, the OIC agrees with every official entity that has examined the issue: Mr. Foster committed suicide by gunshot in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993"

The conclusion was not made by an impartial panel, it was made by a government bureacrat.

Galileo

20th April 2009, 02:14 PM

Well then by your logic all suicides that don't leave notes are porbable murders. Better call your local law enforcement and tell them they need to do this.

Impartial panels don't do this. Three very different agencies investigated, one of them independent prosecutor and determined it was a suicide.

This was not a trial. Ergo your comment is irrelevant.

There is more than enough evidence, whereas there is exactly zero evidence that it was murder beyond the slanderous whispers of fanatics.

by your logic, all those who don't leave suicide notes committed. What about those who did, were they murdered?

kookbreaker

20th April 2009, 02:15 PM

by your logic, all those who don't leave suicide notes committed. What about those who did, were they murdered?

These sentences make no sense. Please try again.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 02:17 PM

So you want us to declare all suicides murders?

Galileo

20th April 2009, 02:30 PM

These sentences make no sense. Please try again.

you are trying to distort what I say.

I say there is too much missing evidence to classify this case as a suicide.

missing suicide note

no prints on gun

no photos of crime scene

no evidence that Foster owned a gun made in 1913

no evidence that gun was the murder weapon

no eyewitness

very weak evidence he was depressed, and a lot of evidence he wasn't depresses

no motive for suicide

missing X-ray photos

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 02:43 PM

you are trying to distort what I say.

I say there is too much missing evidence to classify this case as a suicide.

I will go ahead and take a stab at some for kicks...

missing suicide note

It has been established that many suicides don't have a note, and so it is a non-issue as much. Someone distraught enough to kill themselves cannot be expected to be in the right mind to leave a note. Common courtesy..yes, requirement for a suicide? No.

no prints on gun

BUT Powder residue found on his hand. You fail to mention this. The no prints can also mean that no full prints survived. That isn't uncommon in any crime scene, but the powder residue is important. It means he fired the gun.

no photos of crime scene

Please back this claim up, because it makes no since given that there was an official investigation.

no evidence that gun was the murder weapon

Except for the gun shot wound and the powder residue on the hand...yes besides all that there is no evidence.

no eyewitness

Quick call the authorities! Tell them to open a murder investigation in every suicide case in which someone else wasn't watching.

very weak evidence he was depressed, and a lot of evidence he wasn't depresses

He was prescribed Trazodone by his doctor shortly before his death, and in fact there is evidence of years of struggling with clinical depression.

no motive for suicide

Other than suffering from clinical depression....no motive whatsoever.

missing X-ray photos

Evidence?

Galileo

20th April 2009, 03:00 PM

I will go ahead and take a stab at some for kicks...

It has been established that many suicides don't have a note, and so it is a non-issue as much. Someone distraught enough to kill themselves cannot be expected to be in the right mind to leave a note. Common courtesy..yes, requirement for a suicide? No.

BUT Powder residue found on his hand. You fail to mention this. The no prints can also mean that no full prints survived. That isn't uncommon in any crime scene, but the powder residue is important. It means he fired the gun.

Please back this claim up, because it makes no since given that there was an official investigation.

Except for the gun shot wound and the powder residue on the hand...yes besides all that there is no evidence.

Quick call the authorities! Tell them to open a murder investigation in every suicide case in which someone else wasn't watching.

He was prescribed Trazodone by his doctor shortly before his death, and in fact there is evidence of years of struggling with clinical depression.

Other than suffering from clinical depression....no motive whatsoever.

Evidence?

There's no evidence at all that Foster had clinical depression. You just made that up after he got killed.

If you want to prove a suicide, you need proof.

Praktik

20th April 2009, 03:02 PM

Whoa nellie. I focus on the evidence. It doesn't matter if Hitler told me about the evidence. If Hitler provided the evidence, that is thing, but if Hitler merely pointed me to the evidnece, then that is OK. You are the one claiming a conspiracy, I say Foster is innocent.

You should focus on evidence instead of character assassination and telling me conspiracy theories about who made the film.

lol @ character assassination. Where did I do that?

All I did was connect the dots!

Look - I understand what you're saying, the evidence is the evidence. But it is equally foolish to suggest that all sources are equal. Maybe in a perfect world we wouldn't have to fact-check and worrie about where we source our info - but we do.

I mean, do I need to read all of a Coulter book to give her a fair shake? I know where she's coming from and what her bias is.

Given the history of these "film" makers isnt it obvious that they are going to have a very slanted interpretation of the facts?

Do you think these people were even capable of making a balanced film about the clintons?

Praktik

20th April 2009, 03:04 PM

The conclusion was not made by an impartial panel, it was made by a government bureacrat.

Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind?

Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film?

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 03:11 PM

There's no evidence at all that Foster had clinical depression. You just made that up after he got killed.

I made it up? I didn't make anything up. He had a history of clinical depression, that is on record.

If you want to prove a suicide, you need proof.

Gun powder residue on the hand, history of clinical depression, wound consistant with self-infliction. That is called evidence.

Galileo

20th April 2009, 03:11 PM

Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind?

Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film?

there ya go, attacking the filmmaker instead of the evidence.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 03:12 PM

Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind?

Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film?
You should look into the Arkansas Project, the implication is that people began pushing this CT and other for completely partisan reasons.

Praktik

20th April 2009, 03:21 PM

there ya go, attacking the filmmaker instead of the evidence.

There YOU go, attacking the government bureaucrat instead of analyzing the evidence..

Lol - look I really dont want to play games but is it your position is that the politics and outlook of people producing political material are irrelevant?

Dont you think thats going to have some bearing on the selection and portrayal of facts?

Like, if a born-again Christian made a movie he claimed PROVED that Noah's Ark was real, wouldn't I understandably approach his film with some skepticism?

Now this is not to say that you should ignore the movie - like heck, I would still WATCH it - but I'd do so with a doubting eye.

And knowing the people behind this movie - I am HIGHLY dubious about the whole project.

Here's another way to put it - if Limbaugh was to come out with a book talking about how great the Bush foreign policy was - would you approach that neutrally? Or would you approach the book with some skepticism, knowing Limbaugh's history?

And you didn't answer my question: why are the motivations of the "government bureaucrat" suspect, but the motivations of the filmmakers off limits for discussion?

applecorped

20th April 2009, 03:24 PM

I focus on the evidence. It doesn't matter if Hitler told me about the evidence.

:jaw-dropp:eek::eye-poppi:boggled::confused::rolleyes::boxedin::covere yes

Praktik

20th April 2009, 03:25 PM

What if Daniel Pipes came out with a movie talking about how great the state of Israel and their policies are - would you approach that neutrally?

Galileo

20th April 2009, 03:26 PM

You should look into the Arkansas Project, the implication is that people began pushing this CT and other for completely partisan reasons.

I am not pushing a CT. I am defending a innocent man.

applecorped

20th April 2009, 03:27 PM

Or rather, underexposure, such as what apparently 'accidently' occurred to all the crime scene photos.

Putting quotes around 'ACCIDENTLY' has made me rethink the whole suicide explanation. It must be lies!!!!!!!.:rolleyes:

Galileo

20th April 2009, 03:28 PM

There YOU go, attacking the government bureaucrat instead of analyzing the evidence..

Lol - look I really dont want to play games but is it your position is that the politics and outlook of people producing political material are irrelevant?

Dont you think thats going to have some bearing on the selection and portrayal of facts?

Like, if a born-again Christian made a movie he claimed PROVED that Noah's Ark was real, wouldn't I understandably approach his film with some skepticism?

Now this is not to say that you should ignore the movie - like heck, I would still WATCH it - but I'd do so with a doubting eye.

And knowing the people behind this movie - I am HIGHLY dubious about the whole project.

Here's another way to put it - if Limbaugh was to come out with a book talking about how great the Bush foreign policy was - would you approach that neutrally? Or would you approach the book with some skepticism, knowing Limbaugh's history?

And you didn't answer my question: why are the motivations of the "government bureaucrat" suspect, but the motivations of the filmmakers off limits for discussion?

I have not alluded to any motivation of government bureaucrats. I am just saying they are not impartial.

Juries are made up of impartial panels, not government bureaucrats.

The government should set up an impartial panel to judge the facts whenever they do an investigation into someone's guilt.

Praktik

20th April 2009, 03:35 PM

I have not alluded to any motivation of government bureaucrats. I am just saying they are not impartial..

Yes you did, and right there you did it again. By saying the government bureaucrat was not "impartial" you were impugning his/her motivations (based on what you haven't said, apart from the fact they work for the government).

But when I question the motivations of the film-makers, with evidence, its an "attack".

Why this incongruity? Can't you see how you're engaging in the same behaviour you're decrying in me?

cwalner

20th April 2009, 03:38 PM

That's what you say, but give Foster a chance to defend himself with counsel in front of a jury.

I agree, in every case of suspected suicide, we should send it to trial and determine for sure if the person is actually guilty of suicide. However, I think we should go one step further and make suicide a capital offense. Everybody found guilty of suicide should be put to death.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 03:39 PM

I am not pushing a CT. I am defending a innocent man.
You're pushing an alternative theory to the one that is accepted, I am merely pointing out the origins of this alternative theory. This is completely relevant to the discussion, but of course it does cast doubt on the alternative theory you are pushing, and so I understand your objections.

Nevertheless you are pushing a CT, and hiding behind supposed altruistic motivations to defend a suicide victim isn't going to change that.

Galileo

20th April 2009, 03:45 PM

Yes you did, and right there you did it again. By saying the government bureaucrat was not "impartial" you were impugning his/her motivations (based on what you haven't said, apart from the fact they work for the government).

But when I question the motivations of the film-makers, with evidence, its an "attack".

Why this incongruity? Can't you see how you're engaging in the same behaviour you're decrying in me?

wrong, people can be impartial without having sinister motives.

YOU are the one who is impugning the motivation of Foster by claiming he had a motivation to kill himself.

Galileo

20th April 2009, 03:47 PM

You're pushing an alternative theory to the one that is accepted, I am merely pointing out the origins of this alternative theory. This is completely relevant to the discussion, but of course it does cast doubt on the alternative theory you are pushing, and so I understand your objections.

Nevertheless you are pushing a CT, and hiding behind supposed altruistic motivations to defend a suicide victim isn't going to change that.

No, I am claiming that Foster is innocent.

Praktik

20th April 2009, 03:53 PM

wrong, people can be impartial without having sinister motives.

YOU are the one who is impugning the motivation of Foster by claiming he had a motivation to kill himself.

Where did I say anything about the facts of the case?

My only contribution was to shed light on the motivations of those who made the film: a collection of hyper-partisan, ideologically rigid hard core conservatives.

But now that you went there - yes, my conclusion so far is that he did committ suicide. This movie has not changed my mind. But how does that impugn Foster's motives? I feel pity for suicide victims and don't attach a moral judgment to it... Some people committ suicide.

Its sad.

Galileo

20th April 2009, 04:04 PM

Where did I say anything about the facts of the case?

My only contribution was to shed light on the motivations of those who made the film: a collection of hyper-partisan, ideologically rigid hard core conservatives.

But now that you went there - yes, my conclusion so far is that he did committ suicide. This movie has not changed my mind. But how does that impugn Foster's motives? I feel pity for suicide victims and don't attach a moral judgment to it... Some people committ suicide.

Its sad.

You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.

Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 04:07 PM

You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.

Gun powder residue on his hand, gun shot wound consistant with self-infliction, history of clinical depression. Yeah no evidence....:rolleyes:

Praktik

20th April 2009, 04:19 PM

You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.

Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence.

I'm not arguing the evidence of the suicide, that is correct. But my contribution was nonetheless valid, and you have yet to demonstrate why discussion of the motives of the film-makers is invalid.

And if all evidence is to be approached from a mythic position of neutrality - then how do you justify the condemnation of conclusions based solely on the fact they originated - in one of three investigatons - by a "government bureaucrat"?

If that isn't evidence, then what about the conclusions drawn by a band of right-wing fanatics?

applecorped

20th April 2009, 04:28 PM

You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.

Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence.

You want a YouTube video of the suicide/murder/assassination/alien abduction, anal probing/staged suicide, don't you?

Galileo

20th April 2009, 04:33 PM

You want a YouTube video of the suicide/murder/assassination/alien abduction, anal probing/staged suicide, don't you?

I'd rather have an eyewitness, or at least someone who heard gunshots.

Galileo

20th April 2009, 04:35 PM

Gun powder residue on his hand, gun shot wound consistant with self-infliction, history of clinical depression. Yeah no evidence....:rolleyes:

not evidence. There were no prints on the gun.

Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 04:50 PM

not evidence. There were no prints on the gun.

Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993.
He used a .38 cal revolver. Last time I checked .38 cal ammo is not uncommon in the post-1913 world. Unless you are claiming that he somehow had working antique ammunition in his possession at the time?

The chemical composition of gun power does not change depending on the type of gun that is used, especially when it uses a standard ammunition.

So it is evidence. What is that evidence again? Oh yeah, gun powder residue on his hand and a wound that is consistent with self-infliction. BTW...he had a history of clinical depression.

kookbreaker

20th April 2009, 05:01 PM

not evidence.

Your opinion, not shared by the vast majority of experts in the field.

There were no prints on the gun.

Its is rare to get prints. This has already been explained to you.

Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993.

Ah yes, I remember those old 1913 guns. You used the ammo that came with them and threw them away. Couldn't reload them in those days. :rolleyes:

SmartyPants

20th April 2009, 05:06 PM

So let me get this straight: All deaths without an eyewitness, or a witness hearing gunshots, must automatically assumed to be murders?

And by the way, Foster having clinical depression only helps prove the fact that he committed suicide. It is not, however, required. Motive helps in proving a case, but it does not actually PROVE the case as some many CTists seem to believe.

applecorped

20th April 2009, 05:09 PM

I'd rather have an eyewitness, or at least someone who heard gunshots.

So, if a tree falls in the forest.....................really?

kookbreaker

20th April 2009, 05:16 PM

I'd rather have an eyewitness, or at least someone who heard gunshots.

gunshots?

Arus808

20th April 2009, 05:19 PM

Ah yes, I remember those old 1913 guns. You used the ammo that came with them and threw them away. Couldn't reload them in those days. :rolleyes:

I love this. I have a 1899 Winchester bolt action rifle (.22 caliber). original, condition excellent. owned by my great grandfather, passed down to my father, and now it belongs to me. Great condition. I took it out to practice firing with it back in 2005. The bullets we used? Made the day before we went to the firing range.

so what is Gallileo trying to say here????

that bullets and gun powder from 2005 shouldn't work in a 106 year old gun?

Drudgewire

20th April 2009, 05:21 PM

I love this. I have a 1899 Winchester bolt action rifle (.22 caliber). original, condition excellent. owned by my great grandfather, passed down to my father, and now it belongs to me. Great condition. I took it out to practice firing with it back in 2005. The bullets we used? Made the day before we went to the firing range.

so what is Gallileo trying to say here????

that bullets and gun powder from 2005 shouldn't work in a 106 year old gun?

The main reason I haven't bought a 1911 yet is because I can't find .45 ammo made in the early 20th century. :p

Galileo

20th April 2009, 05:30 PM

I love this. I have a 1899 Winchester bolt action rifle (.22 caliber). original, condition excellent. owned by my great grandfather, passed down to my father, and now it belongs to me. Great condition. I took it out to practice firing with it back in 2005. The bullets we used? Made the day before we went to the firing range.

so what is Gallileo trying to say here????

that bullets and gun powder from 2005 shouldn't work in a 106 year old gun?

a nice anecdote, but there is no evidence of that in the Foster family.

Drudgewire

20th April 2009, 05:35 PM

a nice anecdote, but there is no evidence of that in the Foster family.

It's not anecdotal that .38 caliber ammo will work in a .38 regardless of its manufacture date. That's guns 101.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 05:38 PM

It was a .38 cal revolver. It uses .38 cal ammo. They still make .38 cal guns, and still make .38 cal ammo.

Drudgewire

20th April 2009, 06:05 PM

Just so we're clear:

This is one of the first .38 specials, designed by Smith & Wesson in 1899.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/sw38mp.jpg

This is the Colt Police Positive, chambered in .38 special. Colt was manufacturing these in 1913.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/400px-PolicePositive.jpg

And this is my carry gun, a S&W 642 airweight. It has the Clinton safety lock meaning it was manufactured after 1998.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/swbox3.jpg

THEY ALL FIRE THE EXACT SAME BULLET!!

Arus808

20th April 2009, 06:14 PM

a nice anecdote, but there is no evidence of that in the Foster family.

anecdotal, but you MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT, which of course is not surprising

106 year old .22 caliber rifle made in 1899. FIRES .22 caliber bullets.

Do you honestly think that this rifle WOULD ONLY be able to shoot bullets MADE in 1899 ? That any bullet MADE after 1899 could not be used?

This only proves that you DO NOT know a thing about firearms

Elizabeth I

20th April 2009, 06:23 PM

Where on earth did you get the idea that "committed suicide" = "guilty"? Yes, suicide is still on the books as a crime in some areas, but when people attempt suicide we generally try to help them, not prosecute them. One exception might be if the attempt injured or killed others around the attempted suicide.

And how do you propose to give Foster a "fair trial"? Even if we dig him up and prop him up in a courtroom, I doubt he'll have much to say. And what about the "jury of his peers"? To be fair, they will all have to be dead too. I personally would not want to be in that jury room if deliberations took any time at all - or ever.

AJM8125

20th April 2009, 06:31 PM

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 06:32 PM

Somebody will stundie that, I trust.
I already did. It was all I could do to try and comprehend it before making a response.

EDIT:

Back to the subject of Vince Foster, they found a ripped up letter of resignation in his suitcase. The letter had Foster blaiming himself for failures and attacking the WSJ and claiming there was an environment to ruin the lives of people in Washington. The lead up to his suicide is consistant with someone suffering depression.

AJM8125

20th April 2009, 06:35 PM

I already did. It was all I could do to try and comprehend it before making a response.

Thanks. I didn't want to be rude and stundie the hell out that one myself.

Drudgewire

20th April 2009, 06:37 PM

And what about the "jury of his peers"? To be fair, they will all have to be dead too. I personally would not want to be in that jury room if deliberations took any time at all - or ever.

Judge: Have you reached a unanimous verdict?

Foreman: We have, your honor.

Judge: How say the jury?

Foreman: BRAAAAAAAAAAAAINS!!!

Elizabeth I

20th April 2009, 06:39 PM

Judge: Have you reached a unanimous verdict?

Foreman: We have, your honor.

Judge: How say the jury?

Foreman: BRAAAAAAAAAAAAINS!!!

:D

beachnut

20th April 2009, 07:10 PM

he died

idiots made up lies about it

Why do politically biased idiots make up lies? because they can

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 07:36 PM

he died

idiots made up lies about it

Why do politically biased idiots make up lies? because they can
Accurate and to the point.

Mr.D

20th April 2009, 07:54 PM

Showing evidence that someone is innocent of committing suicide is a conspiracy?

Under your logic, no defendent could ever plead not guilty of any crime. Because that would imply the prosecution was in on a conspiracy.

Worst non-sequiter ever (or did you intend to respond to someone else?)

Mr.D

20th April 2009, 08:17 PM

a nice anecdote, but there is no evidence of that in the Foster family.

It's not anecdotal that .38 caliber ammo will work in a .38 regardless of its manufacture date. That's guns 101.

(Bolding mine)

Be fair. I think what he's trying to say is that there's no evidence that the Foster family is compatible with 1913 guns.

Drudgewire

20th April 2009, 08:32 PM

(Bolding mine)

Be fair. I think what he's trying to say is that there's no evidence that the Foster family is compatible with 1913 guns.

I actually find it more likely that someone in the Clinton administration would only have access to an ancient collectible gun than one they went shopping for themselves.

SezMe

20th April 2009, 09:28 PM

Showing evidence that someone is innocent of committing suicide is a conspiracy?

You should focus on evidence instead of character assassination and telling me conspiracy theories about who made the film.

I am not pushing a CT. I am defending a innocent man.
Really? Who was it that created the thread in the Conspiracy Theories forum?

Galileo

20th April 2009, 10:07 PM

I already did. It was all I could do to try and comprehend it before making a response.

EDIT:

Back to the subject of Vince Foster, they found a ripped up letter of resignation in his suitcase. The letter had Foster blaiming himself for failures and attacking the WSJ and claiming there was an environment to ruin the lives of people in Washington. The lead up to his suicide is consistant with someone suffering depression.

They checked his briefcase twice, and no notes were found.

Galileo

20th April 2009, 10:08 PM

Somebody will stundie that, I trust.

the gunpowder was not carbon 14 dated.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 10:13 PM

They checked his briefcase twice, and no notes were found.
Ex-sqeeze me? Baking powder? No, they found a letter of resignation tore into 27 pieces. That is available if you look into the non-crazy sources.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 10:14 PM

the gunpowder was not carbon 14 dated.
AJM8125: This one is for you to stundie.

AJM8125

20th April 2009, 10:22 PM

AJM8125: This one is for you to stundie.

Nope. He's had enough time to research firearms. Now he's just teasing. :crc:

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 10:39 PM

Nope. He's had enough time to research firearms. Now he's just teasing. :crc:
Yeah, I get the impression he is just messing with us anyway.

Galileo

20th April 2009, 11:35 PM

And how do you propose to give Foster a "fair trial"? Even if we dig him up and prop him up in a courtroom, I doubt he'll have much to say. And what about the "jury of his peers"? To be fair, they will all have to be dead too. I personally would not want to be in that jury room if deliberations took any time at all - or ever.

Pope Formosus was dug up, propped up, and put on trial by Pope Stephen:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nY_YjyW75L8C&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=pope+formosus+dug+up+propped+up&source=bl&ots=SXXDwpJHq4&sig=BML3-8TElEeLDKOMwJcQy-pVG0Y&hl=en&ei=vWftSdCzFNWEtweCwMjIDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

This set a precedent which should be observed for Vince Foster.

btw - Pope Formosus reportedly did not have much to say in his defense. Since Formosus was convicted, I would think that you would relish the chance to prove Foster guilty as well.

:jaw-dropp

I would hope that you would observe legal precedent.

Galileo

20th April 2009, 11:39 PM

Ex-sqeeze me? Baking powder? No, they found a letter of resignation tore into 27 pieces. That is available if you look into the non-crazy sources.

The first two groups of people to search the briefcase did not find a torn note. In a fait trial, the defense would be able to have these people testify.

In that case the jury would decide if two groups of investigators really couldn't find a torn note in a briefcase, rather than a briefcase.

The first two groups of investigators could each testify that they searched the breifcase from top to bottom comprehensively.

fullflavormenthol

20th April 2009, 11:58 PM

Okay. I am calling it. Time of death of any actual discussion...1:56 am CST. This thread has competely jumped the shark. The suggestion has been made to dig up Vince Foster, and it is now obvious Galileo hasn't actually read the Starr Report.

So we are done here. Good day.

Arus808

20th April 2009, 11:59 PM

Pope Formosus was dug up, propped up, and put on trial by Pope Stephen:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nY_YjyW75L8C&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=pope+formosus+dug+up+propped+up&source=bl&ots=SXXDwpJHq4&sig=BML3-8TElEeLDKOMwJcQy-pVG0Y&hl=en&ei=vWftSdCzFNWEtweCwMjIDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

This set a precedent which should be observed for Vince Foster.

btw - Pope Formosus reportedly did not have much to say in his defense. Since Formosus was convicted, I would think that you would relish the chance to prove Foster guilty as well.

:jaw-dropp

I would hope that you would observe legal precedent.

ARe you F****** kidding me? Did you bother to read that excerpt? The body didn't testify, but freaking appointed deacon to speak on A DEAD PERSON's BEHALF. wow, you dont EVEN READ THE FREAKING SOURCE YOU'RE QUOTING

YOU are seriously deluded, and a liar.

fullflavormenthol

21st April 2009, 12:02 AM

ARe you F****** kidding me? Did you bother to read that excerpt? The body didn't testify, but freaking appointed deacon to speak on A DEAD PERSON's BEHALF. wow, you dont EVEN READ THE FREAKING SOURCE YOU'RE QUOTING

YOU are seriously deluded, and a liar.
Well I don't believe he read the source documents to the case he is writing about. I honestly believe he found a video and decided to pick a fight over it.

Galileo

21st April 2009, 12:10 AM

ARe you F****** kidding me? Did you bother to read that excerpt? The body didn't testify, but freaking appointed deacon to speak on A DEAD PERSON's BEHALF. wow, you dont EVEN READ THE FREAKING SOURCE YOU'RE QUOTING

YOU are seriously deluded, and a liar.

I did read it. Most defendents let their legal council do most of the talking at trial. That's what Pope Formosus did. Remember, Formosus was in an ecclesiastical court, so having a clergyman for counsel is not out of the ordinary.

And just like Formosus was granted his 6th amendment rights and allowed to wear his papal vestments, Foster should be allowed to wear a suit and tie, so as to not prejudice the jury by his appearance.

AJM8125

21st April 2009, 12:12 AM

Well I don't believe he read the source documents to the case he is writing about. I honestly believe he found a video and decided to pick a fight over it.

In other news, I think the new Dodge Challenger is really cool and I would like to own one.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683249ed71bedaee9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16103)

Redtail

21st April 2009, 12:13 AM

In other news, I think the new Dodge Challenger is really cool and I would like to own one.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683249ed71bedaee9.jpg

Yeah that's hot. I hope the do the retro thing with the Road Runner.

AJM8125

21st April 2009, 12:20 AM

Yeah that's hot. I hope the do the retro thing with the Road Runner.

With the big ass wing. I think that's going to call for a retro Mopar B-body (Coronet, Fury, GTX) The current Charger would just look stupid with that wing, IMO.

Galileo

21st April 2009, 12:29 AM

In other news, I think the new Dodge Challenger is really cool and I would like to own one.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683249ed71bedaee9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16103)

Very funny.

Please respect the dead and their families.

This is not a joke, we are talking about precious human lives here.

Vince Foster deserves justice from an impartial panel, not from government bureaucrats.

AJM8125

21st April 2009, 12:33 AM

Very funny.

Please respect the dead and their families.

This is not a joke, we are talking about precious human lives here.

Vince Foster deserves justice from an impartial panel, not from government bureaucrats.

Back in the day, Dodge did make a hearse.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683249ed76cb7917b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16104)

Arus808

21st April 2009, 12:40 AM

Very funny.

Please respect the dead and their families.

This is not a joke, we are talking about precious human lives here.

Vince Foster deserves justice from an impartial panel, not from government bureaucrats.

sorry, but you and those who have HARASSED foster's family over this stupidity are the ones who disrespected Foster and his family

Three SEPERATE investigations occured, all LEAD to the same conclusion. He comitted suicide and there is EVIDENCE that supports this

YOU again ignore EVIDENCE as you havE WITH everything else.

Praktik

21st April 2009, 04:06 AM

Im still not sure how familiar with American politics Galileo is - I mean, Falwell??

That should be a huge red flag. Galileo, are you familiar with Falwell and the strain of fanatical, retrograde conservatism he represents? There is no way he and his network of friends on this could make an impartial, worthwile movie about ANY democrat, with the possible exception of Zell Miller.

This guy couldn't make an unbiased movie about figs. He'd find some way to fit in his craziness somewhere. And switch that "i" in figs for an "a", and you can bet he'd make a stinker about them too...

It would seriously be like, say, the craziest faction that supported Haider in Austria - and i'm not talking about his "normal supporters", but the craziest of the crazy - making a movie about someone in the Green party, or Tony Blair even....

Elizabeth I

21st April 2009, 05:13 AM

Back in the day, Dodge did make a hearse.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683249ed76cb7917b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16104)

My seventh-grade science teacher drove a retired hearse. He had painted it bright yellow.

gdnp

21st April 2009, 06:55 AM

The conclusion was not made by an impartial panel, it was made by a government bureacrat.

So the office of independent council is not independent enough for you? :rolleyes:

The Central Scrutinizer

21st April 2009, 07:03 AM

That's what you say, but give Foster a chance to defend himself with counsel in front of a jury. At the bare minimum, there is no proof and reasonable doubt he killed himself.

No suicide note either.

This should just be classified an an unsolved murder and possible suicide. Not likely, but possible. More investigation may be able to prove that suicide was very improbable.

We've already told you that Hillary had him killed because he was going to expose their hot lesbian affair.

Why can't you accept the truth?

The Central Scrutinizer

21st April 2009, 07:05 AM

Back in the day, Dodge did make a hearse.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683249ed76cb7917b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16104)

When I was in high school, there was a kid that drove a hearse to school every day. :eek:

kookbreaker

21st April 2009, 07:08 AM

When I was in high school, there was a kid that drove a hearse to school every day. :eek:

There's always one who does that at every high school. Its like they are passed out as part of a national program or something.

Praktik

21st April 2009, 07:13 AM

When I was in high school, there was a kid that drove a hearse to school every day. :eek:

Was he also dating an 80-year old girlfriend??

;)

gdnp

21st April 2009, 07:20 AM

not evidence. There were no prints on the gun.

Read the Starr report. The investigators report that Foster was found with the gun in his hand. Do you have any evidence to contradict this?

Galileo

21st April 2009, 09:55 AM

Read the Starr report. The investigators report that Foster was found with the gun in his hand. Do you have any evidence to contradict this?

any decent defense attorney could pick that apart in front of a jury.

kookbreaker

21st April 2009, 09:57 AM

any decent defense attorney could pick that apart in front of a jury.

Feel free to have any decent defense attorney come here and do that. Because right now you are failing miserably at making a case.

gdnp

21st April 2009, 10:25 AM

any decent defense attorney could pick that apart in front of a jury.

Talk is cheap. Please enlighten us. Show us the evidence that contradicts the conclusion of the OIC report.

WildCat

21st April 2009, 10:55 AM

OK, this is my final answer!

Col. Mustard killed Vince Foster, in the library, with the lead pipe.

WildCat

21st April 2009, 10:59 AM

Drudgewire

21st April 2009, 11:05 AM

Oh yeah? But what if it was a .357 magnum firing .38 special?

CONSPIRACY!!!!1!!!!1!11

And I would have gotten away with it if not for you meddling kids. :mad:

But kudos for removing the "q" in the image tags.

Galileo

21st April 2009, 11:09 AM

Talk is cheap. Please enlighten us. Show us the evidence that contradicts the conclusion of the OIC report.

The evidence is in the film.

fullflavormenthol

21st April 2009, 12:50 PM

The evidence is in the film.
No...the film is a partisan CT video, which ignores evidence.

The_Animus

21st April 2009, 04:26 PM

First, read Galileo's posts and how is he all but admitted to being a troll. We don't have to coddle such people's nonsense posts to fit some JREF quality requirement you invented.

Second, Vince Foster has been done to death. Its purely fueled innuendo from hard right wingers who don't give a damn about Foster and have caused his family much grief with their gibberish.

I was under the impression that this was a forum which discussed a wide variety of topics. I was also under the impression that even if someone else has discussed a topic, others who have not were still free to discuss it as well.

I read Galileo's posts and I found someone who watched a video on Vince Foster and wanted to discuss what was in the video.

And lastly, staying on topic and not insulting members is a JREF quality requirement within the forum rules.

However, it seems after the initial dozen or so posts that were nothing but insults and sarcasm discussion about the topic started up.

Arus808

21st April 2009, 05:05 PM

His question was answered on page 1. He was told to read the three investigative reports done on the suicide. He has not done so, the rest of the pages, shows that he cares nothing for what we say, and that he only posts to troll for answers. So we meet his derision with our own derision

kookbreaker

21st April 2009, 05:30 PM

I was under the impression that this was a forum which discussed a wide variety of topics. I was also under the impression that even if someone else has discussed a topic, others who have not were still free to discuss it as well.

This is true, but it assumes the original poster is actually seeking discussion and not being disingenuous and throwing turds in an effort to 'pwn' forum regulars. I am sorry if you cannot make that distinction, but we can.

I read Galileo's posts and I found someone who watched a video on Vince Foster and wanted to discuss what was in the video.

Then your powers of observation would seem to be poor.

And lastly, staying on topic and not insulting members is a JREF quality requirement within the forum rules.

However, it seems after the initial dozen or so posts that were nothing but insults and sarcasm discussion about the topic started up.

When you have the situation as I described, that is going to happen. An honest inquirer would get answers, even Galileo got proper answers. But you can see the results.

gdnp

21st April 2009, 10:58 PM

The evidence is in the film.

"watch the film" is not an argument. It is a cop out. I don't have an hour an a quarter to spare right now. You have seen it, so summarize it for us.

For example, the OIC report documents the evidence that Foster was depressed. It seems compelling to me. Is this disproven in the film? what is the evidence?

chuck4842

22nd April 2009, 04:51 PM

His body was found with arms straight at side and gun in hand. NOBODY can shoot theirself in the head and lay down perfectly without at least an accomplice, and he was the Whitewater attorney, and just part of a large list of dead people that got in the Clintons way. Hooray! Long Live The Monopolers!

BeAChooser

6th May 2009, 10:48 AM

The man suffered from clinical depression and had even told his doctor it had gotten real bad the day before.

The evidence shows that Foster was very depressed and committed suicide.

He was practically non-functional with depression.

He had a history of clinical depression, that is on record.

He was prescribed Trazodone by his doctor shortly before his death, and in fact there is evidence of years of struggling with clinical depression.

I've let you folks post enough disinformation, I think. Now to examine the veracity of the above claim about clinical depression. The entire "suicide" scenario promoted by the Clinton administration (and it's many supporters), and by Fiske and Starr, hinges on this claim. If it's not true ... ? ;)

First, Fiske and Starr claimed, as evidence of Foster's depression, that Foster had lost weight. That it was obvious to many. But Foster's medical records are actually consistent with Foster losing no weight between the time he took the job in Washington and died. They indicate that on December 31, 1992, at a physical the month before he went to Washington, he weighed 194 pounds. Foster's autopsy weight was 197 pounds. In short, Fiske and Starr misled the public about this. They lied.

The second major claim used by the FBI, Fiske and Starr to support the suicide scenario is that Lisa Foster said her husband was "fighting depression." There are a number of problems with this assertion, however. To begin with, that's not what she told investigators in the days following Vince's death (which Starr and Fiske didn't mention in their reports). The night of the death, when asked by the Park Police and FBI if her husband had been taking any medication, specifically any anti-depressant medication, she said emphatically "NO".

In fact, she didn't mention the word depression until 9 days later ... in a session with Park Police in her attorney's office that occurred three days after the discovery of the torn suicide note and two days after a meeting that she and her attorney attended in the Whitehouse (to supposedly discuss that note). She then told Park Police that Foster had taken Trazodone [Desyrel] the night before he died. When asked how she knew this, the investigator's notes say "LF [Lisa Foster] told VF [Vince Foster] to take one and she also saw him take it." In his deposition, the officer who conducted the *interview* said "You know, we didn't have to question her a whole lot." He said the widow gave more of a verbal statement than an interview. He thought "she had gone over it with her lawyer so many times she had it down pat. ... I don't think we ever asked her a direct question." And the investigators did not interview any of Foster's children because the attorney "would not make them accessible to us."

What about this attorney of Lisa's ... James Hamilton? What do we know about him? He was general counsel of the Clinton transition team and the author of a memo to Clinton counseling stonewalling in the Whitewater case (that's the one connected to the documents that they took from Foster's office and later found on Hillary's nightstand). And Hamilton is the lawyer that helped keep the Foster photos under lock and key recently ... the photos that might have told us whether Foster was murdered ... because there is serious doubt (which I'll discuss in another post) about the nature of the wound.

One wonders given the history of the Clinton administration at witness intimidation, especially of women, what sort of *encouragement* Lisa was subjected to in order to get her to change her story so abruptly? Maybe the experience of Patrick Knowlton is a clue? Or Juanita Broaddrick? Or Paula Jones?

But Fiske and Starr didn't just ignore Lisa's early statements, they (or the FBI) directly tampered with evidence. The proof is here:

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/prescription_For_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm

That link shows images of two items ... a section of the handwritten notes made by the FBI agent interviewing Lisa Foster the night Vince died, and portions of the typed FD-302 report of that interview as published in IOC's reports. Shown is both the question (typed ahead of time by the agent) and the response to that question written by the agent based on Lisa's answer. The agent's raw notes clearly record Lisa said "he was fighting prescription".In the same place on the form, the typed FD-302 report says he was "fighting depression". One can only conclude that either the FBI tampered with the evidence or Fiske did (and that Starr either knew of this deception or was at best incompetent in his investigation).

The handwritten statement, "fighting prescription", is completely consistent with other facts. First, there are reports that he was worried about becoming addicted to sleeping pills.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984262-1,00.html "IN MID-1993, ... snip ... He got a prescription for sleeping pills, but then refused to take them, saying he was afraid he'd become addicted."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940701.htm "He would not take sleeping pills because he feared becoming addicted."

In fact, the FBI agent who interviewed Lisa Foster the night Foster died recorded the following:

"FOSTER complained to LISA FOSTER that he was suffering from insomnia, but he did not want to take sleeping pills because he was afraid that he would become addicted to them."

So we find that Lisa said he was suffering from insomnia ... not depression. She never mentioned depression once ... never mentioned depression until 9 days later, after the mysterious meeting in the Whitehouse. She said he was afraid of addiction to sleeping pills. Fiske and Starr simply ignored this fact. They ignored the fact that the medicine Foster was prescribed is non-addictive and was routinely prescribed at that time for insomnia, unrelated to depression. Which is totally consistent with the story Lisa originally told investigators. Which is totally inconsistent with the story Fiske and Starr fed the public.

In a third clear instance of dishonesty, Fiske and the Clinton administration claimed that Foster's family and friends noted Foster's depression. That's a lie. During the first week after his death, before the claims of depression were made by the government, when those people were interviewed, NONE of them mentioned any signs of depression. All said they were stunned by his suicide. The Park Police conducted a 70 minute interview of the family and friends (including Foster's daughter and both sisters) who gathered at his house the night he died. If Foster had been as severely depressed in the weeks before he died as is now claimed, those interviewed that night should have described symptoms of clinical depression. They did not.

Here are some specific quotes from the Senate depositions and testimony of the Park Police regarding those interviews:

One of the last things I got from Mrs. Foster - I asked her was he - did you see this coming, was [sic] there any signs of this. ... everyone said no, no, no, no, he was fine. This is out of the blue. ... [Foster's sister, Sheila Anthony] was talking with us. ... I spoke with her, [the other Park Police Investigator present in the Foster home] spoke with her. She was very cordial. I remember asking her, did you see any of this coming, and she stated, no. Nobody would say anything about depression or that they noticed some signs, they were worried." "[We] asked, was there anything, did you see this forthcoming [sic], was there anything different about him, has he been depressed, and all the answers were no."

This was confirmed by an officer who answered a question posed by a Senate attorney in later hearings:

Q: Did anyone at the notification [the death notification and initial interviews at the Foster home, 9:00 - 10:10 PM EDT on July 20] mention depression or anti depressant medication that Foster might have been taking?

A: I mentioned depression, did you see this coming, were there any signs, has he been taking any medication? No. All negative answers.

It is simply impossible to reconcile these published statements by the investigators who where there with the claim in the IOC reports that witnesses said Foster was depressed. They did not say that, until after a meeting in the Whitehouse a week later. A meeting that Fiske and Starr showed no interest in investigating.

For example, in his report, Starr cites Sheila Anthony, Foster's sister, saying that Vince told her 4 days before the death that he was depressed. But she specifically denied he was depressed when asked by FBI and Park Police investigators about depression the night of his death. Of course, Starr didn't mention that in his official report. She also didn't tell the investigators the night he died her later claim that she gave Vince the names of 3 psychiatrists (a note with 3 names on it was found in Foster's car ... not on his body). No, she only voiced those claims after the Whitehouse meeting, which she attended.

Sheila's husband, Beryl Anthony, also changed his story after the mysterious Whitehouse meeting. 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, soon after the meeting, he changed his story and told Park police that "he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression." Of course, Starr didn't mention the earlier statement in his official report.

Starr also didn't mention that Sheila was a high ranking member of Clinton's inner circle (the Assistant Attorney General in Clinton's Administration) who might have good reason to lie. Starr doesn't mention that her husband was a long time associate of the Clintons from Arkansas (a former Democrat Congressman from Arkansas and a former President of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) and might have good reasons to lie.

And Starr doesn't mention that Sheila transferred $286,000 to Lisa Foster four days before Vince's death. What was that about? What were Lisa and Vince involved in? A good investigator would have looked into that. But Starr and Fiske didn't. Couldn't that payout have been pertinent? A skeptic might think so. Is the timing just coincidence? A skeptic might wonder. We may never know, but we as skeptics don't have to believe the story they concocted and that you now defend as the truth. There are just too many hole in it ... too many clear efforts to lie to the public about the facts.

And let's continue describing those deception efforts.

To bolster the depression argument, Fiske and Starr cited a contact with a physician, Dr. Watkins, the day before Foster's death. What they don't mention is that the physician said Foster came in complaining of insomnia and that he prescribed medication to help Foster "sleep better". What they don't mention is that doctor indicated whatever depression Foster was experiencing was "mild" and that he was not "in crisis". The doctor did not say he was "clinically" depressed as Starr and Fiske suggested in their reports.

Starr compounded the lie when he stated "He was prescribed antidepressant medication". But he was not ... not, technically. Foster was prescribed medication (which just happened to also be used at certain dosages ... much higher than he was prescribed ... for depression) to treat insomnia (which that medication is said to help even without depression being diagnosed). Starr LIES when he states in his report that "Foster had called a family doctor for antidepressant medication the day before his death." He did not do that. The doctor stated in both notes and interviews with the FBI that Foster contacted him ... with concern about insomnia. The doctor's notes show no indication that Foster "asked" for "antidepressant medication." The doctor prescribed the drug he did because it is known to be effective against INSOMNIA (which Foster did complain about) at precisely the dosage the doctor prescribed. Furthermore, it is not addictive and that was clearly another of Foster's concerns. Starr didn't mention any of this in his report. At best, Starr committed another lie by omission.

Here is what the report of the FBI interview with Foster's doctor, Dr. Watkins, shortly after Foster's death, stated (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_/ai_17817574 ):

"[Watkins recalled that] Foster sounded a little tired . . . Watkins prescribed desyrel, 50 milligram tablets. . . . Watkins knew that it took 10 days to two weeks to take effect [as an antidepressant] but helps with insomnia, sometimes the very first day. . . . He felt it was important for Foster to start sleeping better and thought if he got some rest he would feel a lot better. He did not think that Foster was significantly depressed nor had Foster given the impression that he was 'in crisis.' From what Foster told him, Foster's condition sounded mild and situational. . . . Foster was not one to come to Watkins with stress-related problems. . . . Lisa [Foster's widow] told him that they had gone away and had a nice weekend on July 17-18. . . . He had the distinct impression . . . that Lisa was taken completely by surprise by this."

So Foster's doctor told the FBI that he did NOT think Foster was significantly depressed. That stands in direct contradiction to the claim by Fiske and Starr that Foster was "clinically depressed". "Clinical depression" refers to MAJOR depression, not mild depression. Look it up, folks.

Beyond that, the doctor made no further statements ... until, that is, Starr (during his investigation) claimed that the doctor provided him with a note he'd typed shortly after the death. But it only confirms the above facts, not the IOC's suicide scenario. Here's what that note said according to Starr's report:

"I talked to Vince on 7/19/93, at which time he complained of anorexia and insomnia. He had no GI (gastrointestinal) symptoms. We discussed the possibility of taking Axid or Zantac to help with any ulcer symptoms as he was under a lot of stress. He was concerned about the criticism they were getting and the long hours he was working at the White House. He did feel that he had some mild depression. I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg."

Again, it says Foster complained about insomnia, not depression. Any depression he did have was described as only "mild". Not "clinical". And the medication and dosage was one routinely used for insomnia ... not depression. Look it up.

The rest of Fiske's and Starr's so-called *evidence* pointing to "clinical depression" 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 long hours. In fact, who anywhere doesn't complain about long hours? And again, the IOC's claims in this regard are mostly based on testimony by people whose stories changed after a meeting in the Whitehouse a week after the death. And Fiske and Starr don'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, three secretaries in the White House Office of Legal Counsel were interviewed by the Park Police two days after the death (according to Park Police notes). Here is what the notes recorded: "There was nothing unusual about his emotional state. In fact, over the last several weeks she did not notice any changes, either physically or emotionally. She noticed no weight loss." "Mr. Foster's demeanor seemed normal to her." "She stated that she did not note any unusual behavior by Mr. Foster on [the day he died]". That last was Foster's personal secretary. One would think she'd have notice major depression. This just doesn't match the suicide theory at all, folks. What it suggests is that Fiske and Starr lied.

Here's another 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.'' Fiske and Starr completely ignored such testimony time and again ... because they were clearly intent on building, out of whole cloth, a case that Foster was "clinically" depressed so they could explain his death away as a suicide.

And finally, what about Starr's so-called suicide *expert*? 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. The truth is that Berman simply started with the assumption of suicide and never explored the alternatives, because that was the job Starr assigned.

Here's what another expert in suicide thought of Berman's conclusion in the Foster case (http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-critiquing-bermans-report-on-foster/ ):

"Dr. Berman opines Mr. Foster committed suicide. He seems to have based this on direct and circumstantial physical evidence more than on the state of mind of the decedent. Dr. Berman relied on physical evidence (BAC - false or incomplete evidence provided by Starr) after Mr. Foster's death as much as state-of-the-mind findings before his death. In this sense, Dr. Berman fell victim to the petitio principii fallacy [begging the question] in that he assumed suicide and then fit all of his state-of-the-mind conclusions into this assumption. ... snip ...

"Dr. Berman did not seem to rely on empirical predictive criteria but based a great deal of his effort on recreating a psychodynamic formulation consistent with a presumption of suicide. In the past, Dr. Berman did excellent psychological autopsies grounded on empirical predictive criteria. Dr. Berman opined a 100% certainty that Mr. Foster committed suicide. The empirical findings do not support Dr. Berman's opinion of 100% certainty. Dr. Berman neglected to mention that 80% of all suicides have either threatened or discussed suicide before the event. Dr. Berman neglected to take into account the great number of future-oriented statements Mr. Foster made, including the night before his death (Brugh boat comment) and his last words to Linda Tripp — 'I'll be back.' Dr. Berman did not discuss the many protective factors in Mr. Foster's life. By not accounting for these matters he overstated the possibility of suicide."

And I have still more facts to prove the dishonesty of Fiske, Starr, the mainstream media, and their defenders in this thread.

Lab work done as a part of the autopsy of Foster immediately after his death included specific tests for the presence of antidepressants. The tests all came back negative. Starr never mentioned this in his report. Dr. Anh Hyunh, who did the blood toxicology, stated in the official report that no Trazodone or Valium-derivatives were found. It was not until a re-test of the blood months later by the FBI Lab that the presence of both Trazodone and Valium was reported - just before Fiske issued his June 30, 1994 report claiming Foster was clinically depressed. What a coincidence. Isn't it obvious by now, folks, that they lied to help confirm Fiske's claim? That second test is a little too convenient given that the tests were conducted by an FBI that is already shown to have altered witness statements to make it appear like Foster was clinically depressed. And we now know, thanks to the testimony of Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, who worked at FBI labs during this time, that the FBI Labs were routinely tampering with evidence. Whitehurst sued the FBI as a whistleblower regarding tampering and received a substantial cash settlement from the FBI, suggesting his allegations had merit.

Are you starting to get the picture yet, folks? The claims made by posters in this thread that Foster was clinically depressed are nothing short of lies. Or they show that those folks are woefully uninformed about the real facts in this case. :D

BeAChooser

6th May 2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:
missing suicide note

It has been established that many suicides don't have a note, and so it is a non-issue as much. Someone distraught enough to kill themselves cannot be expected to be in the right mind to leave a note. Common courtesy..yes, requirement for a suicide? No.

I'm puzzled why you folks are claiming there was no suicide note given that the Clinton administration claimed to have found one. And the facts surrounding that note suggest exactly the sort of conspiracy that you folks are trying to deny. Let's look at them.

Bernard Nussbaum opened and upended Foster's briefcase in front of Park Police, showing it to be empty. EMPTY. Days later, Stephen Neuwirth, Associate Counsel to the President, announced that a torn up suicide note was discovered in that same briefcase. How remarkable that neither Nussbaum or the Park Police noticed.

The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee concluded that Hillary was one of the first persons to see the alleged suicide note and that it was her instructions that Bill Clinton NOT be informed of its existence and that the note NOT be turned over to law enforcement. And it wasn't until about 28 hours later (4 hours after Bill learned about the note anyway). These facts are documented in the OIC report. Now a number of Clinton staffers swore under oath that the first lady had no role whatsoever in the handling of Foster's note. Yet a memo was discovered, written by White House lawyer Miriam Nemetz, who quotes then-White House chief of staff Mack McLarty saying Mrs. Clinton "was very upset and believed the matter required further thought and the president should not yet be told". I think those staffers should have been charged with perjury, don't you?

The IOC declared the note authentic, based on the opinion of Sergeant Larry Lockhart, the U.S. Capitol Police handwriting expert. Fiske and Starr used this to bolster their suicide theory. But Reed Irvine (of AIM) later met with Sergeant Larry Lockhart. He showed Lockhart a sheet of paper with 12 words that were found in both the Foster letter that had been used to authenticate the note and the note itself. They had been copied and enlarged. Lockhart was told that these words came from two documents, neither of which was identified. He was asked if, in his professional opinion, all 12 words had been written by the same person. Lockhart conclude "very possibly" and "probably" they were NOT. He pointed out indications of conscious efforts to imitate the handwriting. At that point he didn't know that he was reversing the opinion he gave the Park Police. When he was told that, he acknowledged that he had not used any enlargements for his 1993 analysis. Hmmmmm ...

The government refused to release photocopies of the reconstructed note and fought efforts by The Wall Street Journal to obtain a copy under the Freedom of Information Act. Eventually, however, a copy was leaked to the WSJ. Then, three noted and independent handwriting experts looked at the published note. All were board certified and all three declared the note an obvious forgery. Hmmmmmm ...

The note was undated and unsigned. It said nothing whatever about suicide or farewells to family and friends. Curiously, the beginning and the end of the note are written in first person but the middle part is written in third person (and, curiously, exonerates the Clintons of all sorts of allegations). Finally, note that the FBI failed to find Foster's fingerprints on the note. That in itself is very curious. Oh yes, the note was torn into pieces ... which the three experts said is a red flag.

Sorry, but the bogus suicide note is clear proof that the Clinton WhiteHouse, or some member of it, tried to tamper with evidence ... tried to make investigators believe Foster committed suicide. The fact that this note is so obviously bogus (that now even defenders of the official story pretend like no note existed) is reason enough to reopen the Foster case and find out what really happened.

Quote:
no photos of crime scene

Please back this claim up, because it makes no since given that there was an official investigation.

Here's Miquel Rodriquez's testimony: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00277.htm. He's the man who ran the investigation for Starr until finally quitting in disgust, charging that it was nothing but a coverup. In it, he says the body was moved and the photos claimed by Starr to represent the crime scene were retaken, with the original photos disappearing.

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. Testimony by those who were there indicates that the original 7 polaroids of the body that were taken by Officer Ferstl were given to Edwards and then 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's/Starr's investigators. So perhaps you can help us out by explaining why not?

I hate to tell you but there is no question that photos of the crime scene have disappeared and what you think is the crime scene was not.

Quote:
missing X-ray photos

Evidence?

Again. That's easy to provide and isn't it curious that someone claiming to be as knowledgeable about this case as you wouldn't already know the following facts.

A Supplemental Criminal Incident Record of the U.S. Park Police states "Dr. Beyer stated that X-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head." Dr. Beyer was the Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner. That would certainly suggest x-rays were taken. The X-ray box on the autopsy report done by Dr Beyer was checked "yes." That would seem to suggest x-rays were taken.

But, curiously, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Dr. Beyer said that he had been planning to take X-rays but never did. He claimed the equipment was broken and had been for weeks. Asked whether Robert Fiske had ever talked to him he said "no". Asked whether Fiske had sent investigators to the hospital, or to the company that services the X-ray machine", he said "Not that I am aware of."

However, the Knowlton portion of the official report on the Foster death (you know who Knowlton is, right?) contains information which shows that there are maintenance records which indicate the X-Ray machine was, in fact, fully operable at the time the Foster autopsy was conducted. Dr Beyer lied. Starr knew this information but failed to investigate. Starr was corrupt.

According to Accuracy in Media, when Starr released his report about Foster, he refused to make public the reports written by three consultants that he had hired to study the case. AIM sued the OIC to obtain them. Turns out that in one report submitted by a Dr. Brian Blackbourne, the San Diego County medical examiner, Dr. Blackbourne reports meeting with Dr. James Beyer, the 75-year-old medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Foster. He wrote "I discussed the autopsy X-rays with him." When asked about that discussion of the X-rays, Dr. Blackbourne admitted that it was actually about the absence of X-rays. According to Blackbourne, Dr. Beyer explained their absence by claiming his X-ray machine was not working on the day he performed the autopsy. That was what he had told the FBI and a Senate committee. But AIM learned that the first call to service this brand new machine was made over three months after Foster’s death. On hearing that, Dr. Blackbourne asked, "Do you mean that they couldn’t take any X-rays for three months?" No, what it means is that Dr. Beyer was lying about the machine not working. And Starr’s investigators, and presumably Starr himself, knew that the claim that the machine was not working was false. We know that because the record of that first service call on Oct. 29 was included among the documents AIM obtained from the OIC. They had investigated Dr. Beyer’s excuse and had found the proof that it was false, but they did nothing about it. They never even mentioned it in their official report. Because Starr and his office were corrupt.

And there are more reasons to be skeptical about the government's story and particularly Beyer's. Beyer's autopsy report states the bullet exited the top of the back of the head. Here's a drawing from the autopsy: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/cmn_img/a5.gif . It shows a very large exit wound. Beyer also stated that he found no additional wounds on the body. Fiske and Starr promoted this version of the wound in their reports which officially indicated the wound was 1 by 1 ¼ inch in size. Fiske’s panel of pathologists concluded "There is no other trauma identified that would suggest a circumstance other than suicide."

However, the original report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene, lists the cause of death as a "self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck." Curiously enough, Dr. Haut’s report was not included in the documents released by the government. It was discovered in June 1997 at the National Archives by Patrick Knowlton.

And that's not all. Four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury. But Starr never mentioned this in his official report.

Now you'd think if there was a 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole in the back of Fosters head there would have been brain matter and blood all over the scene of the "suicide". But Corey Ashford, the Emergency Medical Services technician who had to pick up and move the body didn't observe any. He said he didn't get a drop of blood on his white uniform, or on his gloves. He said there was no blood on the ground underneath the body. Roger Harrison, another rescue worker who helped Cory, didn’t see any blood either. He saw no blood on the ground. No blood on the body. No blood on anybody who had touched it. Corey Ashford didn't see an exit wound either. Neither did emergency medical technician Richard Arthur who told the FBI he noted "what appeared to be a small-caliber bullet hole in Foster's neck on the right side, just under the jaw line about halfway between the ear and the tip of the chin." Nor did Sgt Gonzalez. In fact, NONE of the paramedics or others who where there at the scene reported seeing the 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole claimed by Fiske and Starr to be in the back of Foster’s skull. Nor did they find any bone fragments on the ground near the body. Or a bullet, despite repeated and extensive search efforts.

At the FairFax County Morgue, the doctor on duty was Julian Orenstein. In his FBI statement it says he lifted the body in order "to locate and observe the exit wound on the decedent's head." Notice that it doesn't actually say he saw the exit wound ... but you might think he did reading that. But he didn't. Contacted later, he admitted "I never saw one directly." And a copy of the handwritten notes of the FBI interviews, which Christopher Ruddy obtained via a FOIA lawsuit against the Office of the Independent Counsel does not mention Orenstein trying to locate an exit wound. Apparently, that was added to his statement after the fact. Again, tampering with evidence.

You must know who Dr. Lee is ... right? He's the expert Starr called in to review the case ... the one whose findings Starr quotes in his IOC report on Foster's death. He officially agreed with the suicide finding. But Dr Lee wrote a book, "Famous Crimes Revisited", years after Foster's death, where he "admitted that some of the evidence that Foster was murdered was 'compelling.'" According to http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/lee-denies-he-wants-new-foster-probe/, Dr Lee was interviewed by a Boston Globe reporter and during that interview said he would like to see a new Foster probe. Moreover, he said that in reaching his conclusions in the IOC report,

he had never read the statements given by the witnesses, including those who saw the body at the crime scene and even the medical examiner who performed the autopsy. He first said he didn't know that this medical examiner, Dr. James Beyer, had lied to explain the absence of x-rays of Foster's head, but later in the interview he let it slip that he had been told that the machine "chewed up the x-rays." He claimed he didn't know that Dr. Beyer's office did not request a service call to fix the x-ray machine until over three months after Foster's death. He also claimed he didn't know that the Park Police officer who tried to find an exit wound by feeling the back of Foster's head could find only a soft spot, no hole.

And what about the official autopsy photos? Given all of the above, and all the rest that Knowlton documents at his website, you'd think the government would want them released to stop all these allegations of foul play that are circulating. Clear autopsy photos showing only a wound where the official report claims there was a wound would likely do that. But in a recent FOIA ruling, the court refused to release them to the public. They said the privacy rights of the Foster family outweigh the public's interest in seeing them. Do you know that was the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled that a public figure's privacy rights under the FOIA can be extended after his death to members of his family? Do you know that the US government joined with the Foster family to prevent the release? It seems, they'd rather have these allegations floating about, discrediting the whole government, then clear the matter up by simply releasing four photos? This should make a real skeptic wonder. But then I think real skeptics are few and far between on this website.

The government claims the official 35 mm photos of Foster at the scene of the crime were "underexposed" and deemed useless. What a coincidence. In addition, a lot of polaroids were taken at the scene (based on statements to the FBI and other investigators). Apparently most of these polaroid photos just disappeared. What a coincidence. The rest have been tightly controlled by the government, with the government fighting every single attempt to get them released, even internally within the investigations. What a coincidence.

One of the surviving polaroid photos shows Foster's head (or at least the neck). When Miquel Rodriguez (Starr's top investigator who resigned saying there was a coverup) finally got hold of the original of this polaroid, he had the Smithsonian institution blow it up. The blowups show a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear. A wound never mentioned by Fiske or Starr in their reports. A wound consistent with the report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene, as well as the EMTs. A wound inconsistent with the official autopsy report.

A friend of Foster's, Joe Purvis, claimed that he was told by a staff member of Ruebel's Funeral Home in Little Rock that Foster had an entry wound deep at the back of the mouth, and an exit wound "the size of a dime" close to the neck at the hairline. What makes this claim significant is that it was made BEFORE Foster's autopsy report was released. Purvis' entry wound description matches that of all the named witnesses. But the exit wound description is nothing at all like Beyer/Fiske/Starr claimed. Because they LIED.

And if you can't see that, then frankly, you don't want to see it. :D

BeAChooser

6th May 2009, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Galileo
The conclusion was not made by an impartial panel, it was made by a government bureacrat.

So the office of independent council is not independent enough for you?

:rolleyes:

Fiske so botched the investigation that a second IOC was asked to look at the evidence. And what sort of investigation did Fiske run anyway? The sort of investigation that never bothered to interview Dr Haut, the only medical examiner to view Foster's body that night at Fort Marcy Park. Now I've already mentioned some things Haut said that run completely counter to the story told by Fiske. Here's another inconsistency. Haut 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 that the body was found deep inside the park at the base of the second cannon. So excuse me if I question the *independence* of a man appointed by Janet Reno (who herself was demonstrably corrupt) to investigate Bill Clinton (a proven liar).

And what about Starr? Well, for starters, we know he lied to the public about the Filegate files, telling the public that the illegally acquired files had been returned to FBI when in fact they remained in Whitehouse hands for years after the scandal broke. He also totally botched numerous other investigations, often failing to interview key witnesses or interviewing those who were implicated in wrong doing (including Hillary) in the most cursory manner possible. And Starr's IOC report on the Foster case was the first time in history that an independent panel of judges ruled that an addendum (Knowlton's ... see http://www.fbicover-up.com/dreyfus/dreyfus1.htm and http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm ), alleging that the FBI intimidated witnesses and covered up evidence, was ordered attached to the final report issued by an IOC. That's not something that judges would have done lightly and they were under no statutory obligation to do it.

Furthermore, as you can see from this and my other posts here, Fiske and Starr lied repeatedly (directly and by omission) regarding the facts in the Foster case. It is certainly damning that Fiske and Starr both failed to tell the three judge panel and the public about an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after the death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound, which directly contradicts Starr, Fiske and the official autopsy report. So I'm sorry but I don't believe Fiske or Starr were independent, honest brokers. Both were corrupt. Both clearly tried to hide the facts. And it doesn't take a genius to see this.

Finally, I'll just quote Miquel Rodriguez, who ran the investigation for Starr until quitting in disgust. Here's what Rodriquez concluded: "This whole notion of [Fiske and Starr] doing an honest investigation is laughable. … The FBI conducted the first investigation along with the Park Police. The FBI reinvestigated Foster's death under Independent Counsel Fiske, then, Kenneth Starr used the very same FBI agents in his investigation. … The American press misled the American public by reporting that there have been several independent investigations, when, in fact, all of the investigations were done by the FBI."

Of course, gdnp knows all this because we've had this conversation before. But he's still in denial. :rolleyes:

BeAChooser

6th May 2009, 11:06 AM

The investigators report that Foster was found with the gun in his hand. Do you have any evidence to contradict this?

Yes.

The civilian who first discovered Foster's body, identified as "CW" in his FBI interviews and deposition, maintained that he did NOT have a gun in his hands. In an interview reported here (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/vince.htm ), seven years after Foster's death, he said Foster was "Face straight up. Hands on each side of his body straight away." (Both are inconsistent with the photos released by Fiske and Starr ... photos that Starr's own investigator questioned). CW said "I looked to see if he had something in his hands that he could defend himself with - maybe a rock or something like that. ... snip ... that's why I was so adamant and so sure [that Foster had no gun]. Because I clearly looked at both hands. And they were straight down by his sides, fully extended, straight as can be, and both hands were palm up."

Congressman Burton stated on the floor of the House on October 26, 1995, that he and two other Congressmen went to CW's house and took a sworn statement from him in which he told them "He was within 18 inches of Mr. Foster's face. He looked very carefully and saw no gun in either hand . He was very clear in his statement, in the sworn statement before me and the FBI, that when he found Foster, both hands were palm up with the thumbs pointed out away from the body. When the police arrived on the scene, they found his right hand palm down with the thumb pointed in, the gun on the trigger finger, and the gun was partially obscured by his hand and his leg." The body was tampered with.

And there are other reasons to question your, Fiske's and Starr's gun claim.

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. But the gun seen in the so-called crime scene photo in Foster's hand is black. The gun is described as black in Starr's report. So why was the gun shown to Lisa Foster by the FBI a silver one?

And here is something even more curious. 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 the fact 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. 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, by the way) 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, folks ... Starr tampered with the evidence. So how can you possibly believe anything claimed by Ken Starr or those using him to *debunk* the Foster allegations? :rolleyes:

Galileo

6th May 2009, 11:38 AM

good work, BeAChooser!

dudalb

6th May 2009, 03:04 PM

It's official: There Is Not A Conspiracy Theory On The Planet Earth That Galileo The Troll Will Not Buy Into.

BeAChooser

6th May 2009, 05:21 PM

Elizabeth I

6th May 2009, 07:38 PM

tl;dr

Galileo

6th May 2009, 08:17 PM

It's official: There Is Not A Conspiracy Theory On The Planet Earth That Galileo The Troll Will Not Buy Into.

I don't buy into the OCT conspiracy theory. That's official.

Defending an innocent man is not a conspiracy theory.

Galileo

6th May 2009, 08:40 PM

I've let you folks post enough disinformation, I think. Now to examine the veracity of the above claim about clinical depression. The entire "suicide" scenario promoted by the Clinton administration (and it's many supporters), and by Fiske and Starr, hinges on this claim. If it's not true ... ? ;)

First, Fiske and Starr claimed, as evidence of Foster's depression, that Foster had lost weight. That it was obvious to many. But Foster's medical records are actually consistent with Foster losing no weight between the time he took the job in Washington and died. They indicate that on December 31, 1992, at a physical the month before he went to Washington, he weighed 194 pounds. Foster's autopsy weight was 197 pounds. In short, Fiske and Starr misled the public about this. They lied.

The second major claim used by the FBI, Fiske and Starr to support the suicide scenario is that Lisa Foster said her husband was "fighting depression." There are a number of problems with this assertion, however. To begin with, that's not what she told investigators in the days following Vince's death (which Starr and Fiske didn't mention in their reports). The night of the death, when asked by the Park Police and FBI if her husband had been taking any medication, specifically any anti-depressant medication, she said emphatically "NO".

In fact, she didn't mention the word depression until 9 days later ... in a session with Park Police in her attorney's office that occurred three days after the discovery of the torn suicide note and two days after a meeting that she and her attorney attended in the Whitehouse (to supposedly discuss that note). She then told Park Police that Foster had taken Trazodone [Desyrel] the night before he died. When asked how she knew this, the investigator's notes say "LF [Lisa Foster] told VF [Vince Foster] to take one and she also saw him take it." In his deposition, the officer who conducted the *interview* said "You know, we didn't have to question her a whole lot." He said the widow gave more of a verbal statement than an interview. He thought "she had gone over it with her lawyer so many times she had it down pat. ... I don't think we ever asked her a direct question." And the investigators did not interview any of Foster's children because the attorney "would not make them accessible to us."

What about this attorney of Lisa's ... James Hamilton? What do we know about him? He was general counsel of the Clinton transition team and the author of a memo to Clinton counseling stonewalling in the Whitewater case (that's the one connected to the documents that they took from Foster's office and later found on Hillary's nightstand). And Hamilton is the lawyer that helped keep the Foster photos under lock and key recently ... the photos that might have told us whether Foster was murdered ... because there is serious doubt (which I'll discuss in another post) about the nature of the wound.

One wonders given the history of the Clinton administration at witness intimidation, especially of women, what sort of *encouragement* Lisa was subjected to in order to get her to change her story so abruptly? Maybe the experience of Patrick Knowlton is a clue? Or Juanita Broaddrick? Or Paula Jones?

But Fiske and Starr didn't just ignore Lisa's early statements, they (or the FBI) directly tampered with evidence. The proof is here:

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/prescription_For_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm

That link shows images of two items ... a section of the handwritten notes made by the FBI agent interviewing Lisa Foster the night Vince died, and portions of the typed FD-302 report of that interview as published in IOC's reports. Shown is both the question (typed ahead of time by the agent) and the response to that question written by the agent based on Lisa's answer. The agent's raw notes clearly record Lisa said "he was fighting prescription".In the same place on the form, the typed FD-302 report says he was "fighting depression". One can only conclude that either the FBI tampered with the evidence or Fiske did (and that Starr either knew of this deception or was at best incompetent in his investigation).

The handwritten statement, "fighting prescription", is completely consistent with other facts. First, there are reports that he was worried about becoming addicted to sleeping pills.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984262-1,00.html "IN MID-1993, ... snip ... He got a prescription for sleeping pills, but then refused to take them, saying he was afraid he'd become addicted."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940701.htm "He would not take sleeping pills because he feared becoming addicted."

In fact, the FBI agent who interviewed Lisa Foster the night Foster died recorded the following:

So we find that Lisa said he was suffering from insomnia ... not depression. She never mentioned depression once ... never mentioned depression until 9 days later, after the mysterious meeting in the Whitehouse. She said he was afraid of addiction to sleeping pills. Fiske and Starr simply ignored this fact. They ignored the fact that the medicine Foster was prescribed is non-addictive and was routinely prescribed at that time for insomnia, unrelated to depression. Which is totally consistent with the story Lisa originally told investigators. Which is totally inconsistent with the story Fiske and Starr fed the public.

In a third clear instance of dishonesty, Fiske and the Clinton administration claimed that Foster's family and friends noted Foster's depression. That's a lie. During the first week after his death, before the claims of depression were made by the government, when those people were interviewed, NONE of them mentioned any signs of depression. All said they were stunned by his suicide. The Park Police conducted a 70 minute interview of the family and friends (including Foster's daughter and both sisters) who gathered at his house the night he died. If Foster had been as severely depressed in the weeks before he died as is now claimed, those interviewed that night should have described symptoms of clinical depression. They did not.

Here are some specific quotes from the Senate depositions and testimony of the Park Police regarding those interviews:

This was confirmed by an officer who answered a question posed by a Senate attorney in later hearings:

It is simply impossible to reconcile these published statements by the investigators who where there with the claim in the IOC reports that witnesses said Foster was depressed. They did not say that, until after a meeting in the Whitehouse a week later. A meeting that Fiske and Starr showed no interest in investigating.

For example, in his report, Starr cites Sheila Anthony, Foster's sister, saying that Vince told her 4 days before the death that he was depressed. But she specifically denied he was depressed when asked by FBI and Park Police investigators about depression the night of his death. Of course, Starr didn't mention that in his official report. She also didn't tell the investigators the night he died her later claim that she gave Vince the names of 3 psychiatrists (a note with 3 names on it was found in Foster's car ... not on his body). No, she only voiced those claims after the Whitehouse meeting, which she attended.

Sheila's husband, Beryl Anthony, also changed his story after the mysterious Whitehouse meeting. 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, soon after the meeting, he changed his story and told Park police that "he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression." Of course, Starr didn't mention the earlier statement in his official report.

Starr also didn't mention that Sheila was a high ranking member of Clinton's inner circle (the Assistant Attorney General in Clinton's Administration) who might have good reason to lie. Starr doesn't mention that her husband was a long time associate of the Clintons from Arkansas (a former Democrat Congressman from Arkansas and a former President of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) and might have good reasons to lie.

And Starr doesn't mention that Sheila transferred $286,000 to Lisa Foster four days before Vince's death. What was that about? What were Lisa and Vince involved in? A good investigator would have looked into that. But Starr and Fiske didn't. Couldn't that payout have been pertinent? A skeptic might think so. Is the timing just coincidence? A skeptic might wonder. We may never know, but we as skeptics don't have to believe the story they concocted and that you now defend as the truth. There are just too many hole in it ... too many clear efforts to lie to the public about the facts.

And let's continue describing those deception efforts.

To bolster the depression argument, Fiske and Starr cited a contact with a physician, Dr. Watkins, the day before Foster's death. What they don't mention is that the physician said Foster came in complaining of insomnia and that he prescribed medication to help Foster "sleep better". What they don't mention is that doctor indicated whatever depression Foster was experiencing was "mild" and that he was not "in crisis". The doctor did not say he was "clinically" depressed as Starr and Fiske suggested in their reports.

Starr compounded the lie when he stated "He was prescribed antidepressant medication". But he was not ... not, technically. Foster was prescribed medication (which just happened to also be used at certain dosages ... much higher than he was prescribed ... for depression) to treat insomnia (which that medication is said to help even without depression being diagnosed). Starr LIES when he states in his report that "Foster had called a family doctor for antidepressant medication the day before his death." He did not do that. The doctor stated in both notes and interviews with the FBI that Foster contacted him ... with concern about insomnia. The doctor's notes show no indication that Foster "asked" for "antidepressant medication." The doctor prescribed the drug he did because it is known to be effective against INSOMNIA (which Foster did complain about) at precisely the dosage the doctor prescribed. Furthermore, it is not addictive and that was clearly another of Foster's concerns. Starr didn't mention any of this in his report. At best, Starr committed another lie by omission.

Here is what the report of the FBI interview with Foster's doctor, Dr. Watkins, shortly after Foster's death, stated (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_/ai_17817574 ):

So Foster's doctor told the FBI that he did NOT think Foster was significantly depressed. That stands in direct contradiction to the claim by Fiske and Starr that Foster was "clinically depressed". "Clinical depression" refers to MAJOR depression, not mild depression. Look it up, folks.

Beyond that, the doctor made no further statements ... until, that is, Starr (during his investigation) claimed that the doctor provided him with a note he'd typed shortly after the death. But it only confirms the above facts, not the IOC's suicide scenario. Here's what that note said according to Starr's report:

Again, it says Foster complained about insomnia, not depression. Any depression he did have was described as only "mild". Not "clinical". And the medication and dosage was one routinely used for insomnia ... not depression. Look it up.

The rest of Fiske's and Starr's so-called *evidence* pointing to "clinical depression" 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 long hours. In fact, who anywhere doesn't complain about long hours? And again, the IOC's claims in this regard are mostly based on testimony by people whose stories changed after a meeting in the Whitehouse a week after the death. And Fiske and Starr don'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, three secretaries in the White House Office of Legal Counsel were interviewed by the Park Police two days after the death (according to Park Police notes). Here is what the notes recorded: "There was nothing unusual about his emotional state. In fact, over the last several weeks she did not notice any changes, either physically or emotionally. She noticed no weight loss." "Mr. Foster's demeanor seemed normal to her." "She stated that she did not note any unusual behavior by Mr. Foster on [the day he died]". That last was Foster's personal secretary. One would think she'd have notice major depression. This just doesn't match the suicide theory at all, folks. What it suggests is that Fiske and Starr lied.

Here's another 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.'' Fiske and Starr completely ignored such testimony time and again ... because they were clearly intent on building, out of whole cloth, a case that Foster was "clinically" depressed so they could explain his death away as a suicide.

And finally, what about Starr's so-called suicide *expert*? 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. The truth is that Berman simply started with the assumption of suicide and never explored the alternatives, because that was the job Starr assigned.

Here's what another expert in suicide thought of Berman's conclusion in the Foster case (http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-critiquing-bermans-report-on-foster/ ):

And I have still more facts to prove the dishonesty of Fiske, Starr, the mainstream media, and their defenders in this thread.

Lab work done as a part of the autopsy of Foster immediately after his death included specific tests for the presence of antidepressants. The tests all came back negative. Starr never mentioned this in his report. Dr. Anh Hyunh, who did the blood toxicology, stated in the official report that no Trazodone or Valium-derivatives were found. It was not until a re-test of the blood months later by the FBI Lab that the presence of both Trazodone and Valium was reported - just before Fiske issued his June 30, 1994 report claiming Foster was clinically depressed. What a coincidence. Isn't it obvious by now, folks, that they lied to help confirm Fiske's claim? That second test is a little too convenient given that the tests were conducted by an FBI that is already shown to have altered witness statements to make it appear like Foster was clinically depressed. And we now know, thanks to the testimony of Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, who worked at FBI labs during this time, that the FBI Labs were routinely tampering with evidence. Whitehurst sued the FBI as a whistleblower regarding tampering and received a substantial cash settlement from the FBI, suggesting his allegations had merit.

Are you starting to get the picture yet, folks? The claims made by posters in this thread that Foster was clinically depressed are nothing short of lies. Or they show that those folks are woefully uninformed about the real facts in this case. :D

Great post. This proves Vince Foster was not depressed and proves Foster had no motive to kill himself.

Galileo

6th May 2009, 08:51 PM

I'm puzzled why you folks are claiming there was no suicide note given that the Clinton administration claimed to have found one. And the facts surrounding that note suggest exactly the sort of conspiracy that you folks are trying to deny. Let's look at them.

Bernard Nussbaum opened and upended Foster's briefcase in front of Park Police, showing it to be empty. EMPTY. Days later, Stephen Neuwirth, Associate Counsel to the President, announced that a torn up suicide note was discovered in that same briefcase. How remarkable that neither Nussbaum or the Park Police noticed.

The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee concluded that Hillary was one of the first persons to see the alleged suicide note and that it was her instructions that Bill Clinton NOT be informed of its existence and that the note NOT be turned over to law enforcement. And it wasn't until about 28 hours later (4 hours after Bill learned about the note anyway). These facts are documented in the OIC report. Now a number of Clinton staffers swore under oath that the first lady had no role whatsoever in the handling of Foster's note. Yet a memo was discovered, written by White House lawyer Miriam Nemetz, who quotes then-White House chief of staff Mack McLarty saying Mrs. Clinton "was very upset and believed the matter required further thought and the president should not yet be told". I think those staffers should have been charged with perjury, don't you?

The IOC declared the note authentic, based on the opinion of Sergeant Larry Lockhart, the U.S. Capitol Police handwriting expert. Fiske and Starr used this to bolster their suicide theory. But Reed Irvine (of AIM) later met with Sergeant Larry Lockhart. He showed Lockhart a sheet of paper with 12 words that were found in both the Foster letter that had been used to authenticate the note and the note itself. They had been copied and enlarged. Lockhart was told that these words came from two documents, neither of which was identified. He was asked if, in his professional opinion, all 12 words had been written by the same person. Lockhart conclude "very possibly" and "probably" they were NOT. He pointed out indications of conscious efforts to imitate the handwriting. At that point he didn't know that he was reversing the opinion he gave the Park Police. When he was told that, he acknowledged that he had not used any enlargements for his 1993 analysis. Hmmmmm ...

The government refused to release photocopies of the reconstructed note and fought efforts by The Wall Street Journal to obtain a copy under the Freedom of Information Act. Eventually, however, a copy was leaked to the WSJ. Then, three noted and independent handwriting experts looked at the published note. All were board certified and all three declared the note an obvious forgery. Hmmmmmm ...

The note was undated and unsigned. It said nothing whatever about suicide or farewells to family and friends. Curiously, the beginning and the end of the note are written in first person but the middle part is written in third person (and, curiously, exonerates the Clintons of all sorts of allegations). Finally, note that the FBI failed to find Foster's fingerprints on the note. That in itself is very curious. Oh yes, the note was torn into pieces ... which the three experts said is a red flag.

Sorry, but the bogus suicide note is clear proof that the Clinton WhiteHouse, or some member of it, tried to tamper with evidence ... tried to make investigators believe Foster committed suicide. The fact that this note is so obviously bogus (that now even defenders of the official story pretend like no note existed) is reason enough to reopen the Foster case and find out what really happened.

Here's Miquel Rodriquez's testimony: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00277.htm. He's the man who ran the investigation for Starr until finally quitting in disgust, charging that it was nothing but a coverup. In it, he says the body was moved and the photos claimed by Starr to represent the crime scene were retaken, with the original photos disappearing.

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. Testimony by those who were there indicates that the original 7 polaroids of the body that were taken by Officer Ferstl were given to Edwards and then 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's/Starr's investigators. So perhaps you can help us out by explaining why not?

I hate to tell you but there is no question that photos of the crime scene have disappeared and what you think is the crime scene was not.

Again. That's easy to provide and isn't it curious that someone claiming to be as knowledgeable about this case as you wouldn't already know the following facts.

A Supplemental Criminal Incident Record of the U.S. Park Police states "Dr. Beyer stated that X-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head." Dr. Beyer was the Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner. That would certainly suggest x-rays were taken. The X-ray box on the autopsy report done by Dr Beyer was checked "yes." That would seem to suggest x-rays were taken.

But, curiously, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Dr. Beyer said that he had been planning to take X-rays but never did. He claimed the equipment was broken and had been for weeks. Asked whether Robert Fiske had ever talked to him he said "no". Asked whether Fiske had sent investigators to the hospital, or to the company that services the X-ray machine", he said "Not that I am aware of."

However, the Knowlton portion of the official report on the Foster death (you know who Knowlton is, right?) contains information which shows that there are maintenance records which indicate the X-Ray machine was, in fact, fully operable at the time the Foster autopsy was conducted. Dr Beyer lied. Starr knew this information but failed to investigate. Starr was corrupt.

According to Accuracy in Media, when Starr released his report about Foster, he refused to make public the reports written by three consultants that he had hired to study the case. AIM sued the OIC to obtain them. Turns out that in one report submitted by a Dr. Brian Blackbourne, the San Diego County medical examiner, Dr. Blackbourne reports meeting with Dr. James Beyer, the 75-year-old medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Foster. He wrote "I discussed the autopsy X-rays with him." When asked about that discussion of the X-rays, Dr. Blackbourne admitted that it was actually about the absence of X-rays. According to Blackbourne, Dr. Beyer explained their absence by claiming his X-ray machine was not working on the day he performed the autopsy. That was what he had told the FBI and a Senate committee. But AIM learned that the first call to service this brand new machine was made over three months after Foster’s death. On hearing that, Dr. Blackbourne asked, "Do you mean that they couldn’t take any X-rays for three months?" No, what it means is that Dr. Beyer was lying about the machine not working. And Starr’s investigators, and presumably Starr himself, knew that the claim that the machine was not working was false. We know that because the record of that first service call on Oct. 29 was included among the documents AIM obtained from the OIC. They had investigated Dr. Beyer’s excuse and had found the proof that it was false, but they did nothing about it. They never even mentioned it in their official report. Because Starr and his office were corrupt.

And there are more reasons to be skeptical about the government's story and particularly Beyer's. Beyer's autopsy report states the bullet exited the top of the back of the head. Here's a drawing from the autopsy: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/cmn_img/a5.gif . It shows a very large exit wound. Beyer also stated that he found no additional wounds on the body. Fiske and Starr promoted this version of the wound in their reports which officially indicated the wound was 1 by 1 ¼ inch in size. Fiske’s panel of pathologists concluded "There is no other trauma identified that would suggest a circumstance other than suicide."

However, the original report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene, lists the cause of death as a "self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck." Curiously enough, Dr. Haut’s report was not included in the documents released by the government. It was discovered in June 1997 at the National Archives by Patrick Knowlton.

And that's not all. Four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury. But Starr never mentioned this in his official report.

Now you'd think if there was a 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole in the back of Fosters head there would have been brain matter and blood all over the scene of the "suicide". But Corey Ashford, the Emergency Medical Services technician who had to pick up and move the body didn't observe any. He said he didn't get a drop of blood on his white uniform, or on his gloves. He said there was no blood on the ground underneath the body. Roger Harrison, another rescue worker who helped Cory, didn’t see any blood either. He saw no blood on the ground. No blood on the body. No blood on anybody who had touched it. Corey Ashford didn't see an exit wound either. Neither did emergency medical technician Richard Arthur who told the FBI he noted "what appeared to be a small-caliber bullet hole in Foster's neck on the right side, just under the jaw line about halfway between the ear and the tip of the chin." Nor did Sgt Gonzalez. In fact, NONE of the paramedics or others who where there at the scene reported seeing the 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole claimed by Fiske and Starr to be in the back of Foster’s skull. Nor did they find any bone fragments on the ground near the body. Or a bullet, despite repeated and extensive search efforts.

At the FairFax County Morgue, the doctor on duty was Julian Orenstein. In his FBI statement it says he lifted the body in order "to locate and observe the exit wound on the decedent's head." Notice that it doesn't actually say he saw the exit wound ... but you might think he did reading that. But he didn't. Contacted later, he admitted "I never saw one directly." And a copy of the handwritten notes of the FBI interviews, which Christopher Ruddy obtained via a FOIA lawsuit against the Office of the Independent Counsel does not mention Orenstein trying to locate an exit wound. Apparently, that was added to his statement after the fact. Again, tampering with evidence.

You must know who Dr. Lee is ... right? He's the expert Starr called in to review the case ... the one whose findings Starr quotes in his IOC report on Foster's death. He officially agreed with the suicide finding. But Dr Lee wrote a book, "Famous Crimes Revisited", years after Foster's death, where he "admitted that some of the evidence that Foster was murdered was 'compelling.'" According to http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/lee-denies-he-wants-new-foster-probe/, Dr Lee was interviewed by a Boston Globe reporter and during that interview said he would like to see a new Foster probe. Moreover, he said that in reaching his conclusions in the IOC report,

And what about the official autopsy photos? Given all of the above, and all the rest that Knowlton documents at his website, you'd think the government would want them released to stop all these allegations of foul play that are circulating. Clear autopsy photos showing only a wound where the official report claims there was a wound would likely do that. But in a recent FOIA ruling, the court refused to release them to the public. They said the privacy rights of the Foster family outweigh the public's interest in seeing them. Do you know that was the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled that a public figure's privacy rights under the FOIA can be extended after his death to members of his family? Do you know that the US government joined with the Foster family to prevent the release? It seems, they'd rather have these allegations floating about, discrediting the whole government, then clear the matter up by simply releasing four photos? This should make a real skeptic wonder. But then I think real skeptics are few and far between on this website.

The government claims the official 35 mm photos of Foster at the scene of the crime were "underexposed" and deemed useless. What a coincidence. In addition, a lot of polaroids were taken at the scene (based on statements to the FBI and other investigators). Apparently most of these polaroid photos just disappeared. What a coincidence. The rest have been tightly controlled by the government, with the government fighting every single attempt to get them released, even internally within the investigations. What a coincidence.

One of the surviving polaroid photos shows Foster's head (or at least the neck). When Miquel Rodriguez (Starr's top investigator who resigned saying there was a coverup) finally got hold of the original of this polaroid, he had the Smithsonian institution blow it up. The blowups show a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear. A wound never mentioned by Fiske or Starr in their reports. A wound consistent with the report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene, as well as the EMTs. A wound inconsistent with the official autopsy report.

A friend of Foster's, Joe Purvis, claimed that he was told by a staff member of Ruebel's Funeral Home in Little Rock that Foster had an entry wound deep at the back of the mouth, and an exit wound "the size of a dime" close to the neck at the hairline. What makes this claim significant is that it was made BEFORE Foster's autopsy report was released. Purvis' entry wound description matches that of all the named witnesses. But the exit wound description is nothing at all like Beyer/Fiske/Starr claimed. Because they LIED.

And if you can't see that, then frankly, you don't want to see it. :D

This is a great post. Miquel Rodriguez is an eyewitness to a conspiracy. When you have an eyewitness to a conspiracy, it is not a theory.

Galileo

6th May 2009, 08:56 PM

Yes.

The civilian who first discovered Foster's body, identified as "CW" in his FBI interviews and deposition, maintained that he did NOT have a gun in his hands. In an interview reported here (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/vince.htm ), seven years after Foster's death, he said Foster was "Face straight up. Hands on each side of his body straight away." (Both are inconsistent with the photos released by Fiske and Starr ... photos that Starr's own investigator questioned). CW said "I looked to see if he had something in his hands that he could defend himself with - maybe a rock or something like that. ... snip ... that's why I was so adamant and so sure [that Foster had no gun]. Because I clearly looked at both hands. And they were straight down by his sides, fully extended, straight as can be, and both hands were palm up."

Congressman Burton stated on the floor of the House on October 26, 1995, that he and two other Congressmen went to CW's house and took a sworn statement from him in which he told them "He was within 18 inches of Mr. Foster's face. He looked very carefully and saw no gun in either hand . He was very clear in his statement, in the sworn statement before me and the FBI, that when he found Foster, both hands were palm up with the thumbs pointed out away from the body. When the police arrived on the scene, they found his right hand palm down with the thumb pointed in, the gun on the trigger finger, and the gun was partially obscured by his hand and his leg." The body was tampered with.

And there are other reasons to question your, Fiske's and Starr's gun claim.

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. But the gun seen in the so-called crime scene photo in Foster's hand is black. The gun is described as black in Starr's report. So why was the gun shown to Lisa Foster by the FBI a silver one?

And here is something even more curious. 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 the fact 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. 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, by the way) 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, folks ... Starr tampered with the evidence. So how can you possibly believe anything claimed by Ken Starr or those using him to *debunk* the Foster allegations? :rolleyes:

This is another smoking gun. Foster did not have a gun in his hand. The JREFers need to wake up.

dudalb

6th May 2009, 10:33 PM

This is another smoking gun. Foster did not have a gun in his hand. The JREFers need to wake up.

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

Galileo

6th May 2009, 10:38 PM

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

:dl::k::pigsfly:k::dl::k:

fullflavormenthol

6th May 2009, 10:46 PM

MDC....I sense an in******** developing.

Nevertheless. I will do some more research into this incident and develop a reply after I have researched this further so that I can actually answer the issue brought up.

garethdjb

7th May 2009, 02:49 AM

This is another smoking gun. Foster did not have a gun in his hand. The JREFers need to wake up.

Comic genius.

Alt+F4

7th May 2009, 08:00 AM

...and he was the Whitewater attorney, and just part of a large list of dead people that got in the Clintons way.

And animals. Where was the investigation into the death of Buddy, the Clinton's labrador? Where was Socks the cat at the time of the supposed "car accident"? Why are you sheeple buying into "official police report"?

Galileo

7th May 2009, 08:21 AM

Comic genius.

JREFers avoid facts and evidence like the plague, and instead parrot whatever the govenment tells us.

Did you notice that the first eyewitness to the scene said Foster did not have a gun in his hand?

If Foster had a fair trial, he could bring this witness into court, and win the case on this fact alone.

Galileo

7th May 2009, 08:25 AM

And animals. Where was the investigation into the death of Buddy, the Clinton's labrador? Where was Socks the cat at the time of the supposed "car accident"? Why are you sheeple buying into "official police report"?

What's your evidence to these so-called conspiracies?

Frankly, your post is off-topic.

garethdjb

7th May 2009, 08:44 AM

If Foster had a fair trial, he could bring this witness into court, and win the case on this fact alone.

:dl: stop. . . . :dl: please. . . :dl:. . . stop.

Galileo

7th May 2009, 08:56 AM

:dl: stop. . . . :dl: please. . . :dl:. . . stop.

You don't think an eyewitness, a medic, who saw Foster's body without a gun in his hand, would undercut other government stooge witnesses in front of an impartial jury? At a minimum, it would raise reasonable doubt.

This is consistent with the fact that no fingerprints were found on the gun.

ANTPogo

7th May 2009, 12:09 PM

Hey, BAC, if you're so eager to discuss the Foster case, why did you post all your same old canards afresh here in this thread, instead of continuing our previous conversation about it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129329&page=7)?

Especially regarding the "Foster wasn't depressed" stuff, which was the subject of my very last post in the above-linked thread, where I quoted and referenced all the places where you admitted that Foster's doctor was concerned that Foster was depressed and so prescribed him an antidepressant, because the "insomnia" you like to reference was a recognized symptom of depression.

And yet here you are, posting the same unoriginal dross you started with, as if that whole seven-page thread never happened. Curious.

dudalb

7th May 2009, 12:15 PM

BAC should really rethink his positions, since the only guy who is giving him any support at JREF is one of the more infamous nutcase and/or trolls on the site.

Galileo

7th May 2009, 12:39 PM

Hey, BAC, if you're so eager to discuss the Foster case, why did you post all your same old canards afresh here in this thread, instead of continuing our previous conversation about it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129329&page=7)?

BAC responded to comments posted by me and others in a thread I STARTED.

I have never heard of the thread you refer to, and I doubt BAC did either. I posted a film about Vince Foster. Is the film in your other thread? If not, then your post is totally irrelevant.

BAC did not start this thread, and no, there is no conspiracy going on. I never even heard of BAC until he posted in this thread.

Fail.

:jaw-dropp

PS - BAC proved that Foster was not depressed, which is far beyond what is needed. YOU are the one making accusations, so YOU have the burden of proof.

BeAChooser

8th May 2009, 10:42 AM

Hey, BAC, if you're so eager to discuss the Foster case, why did you post all your same old canards afresh here in this thread, instead of continuing our previous conversation about it?

Perhaps after pages and pages of going back and forth on that previous thread, I decided I'd said whatever needed to be said on the subject to you. Perhaps I decided I'd beat my head enough against your stonewall. Afterall, my goal in that thread was not to change your mind, since it's obvious that's impossible. Nor is that the goal now.

I have only one comment on what you wrote in those last two posts. When I wrote "It is admitted that Foster was having a LOT of trouble sleeping", you asked "It is? by who?" Now with all your apparent skewing of the facts, how could you be unaware that Lisa Foster told FBI agents:

"FOSTER complained to LISA FOSTER that he was suffering from insomnia, but he did not want to take sleeping pills because he was afraid that he would become addicted to them. FOSTER would get up in the morning and say to LISA FOSTER that he had not slept at all."

How could you be unaware that Dr Watkins confirmed this both in his notes and when he told the FBI that Foster came to him complaining of insomnia. The agent wrote:

He (BAC - meaning Dr Watkins) felt it was important for Foster to start sleeping better and thought if he got some rest he would feel a lot better.

What do you think insomnia is? And that statement clearly suggests that the Doctor felt that if Foster could just sleep better, he'd get better. Which again, doesn't suggest he was treating Foster for clinical depression like you kept claiming in that thread.

Now just incase others are new to this topic, I offer these links to a series of web pages that ask a number of very interesting questions about the Foster case, the evidence and the so-called investigations by Fiske and Starr:

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/prescription_For_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/anatomy/implausible.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/fabricatedWoundPath/fabricatedWP.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/BeyersBizzareDrawing/BizzareDrawing.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/BoneFragment/boneFragment.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/glasses/bloodstainedGlasses.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/DrLeeDiscoversGunpowder/gunpowder.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/VegetationBlood/leafDisease.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/KnowltonAppendix/FullReport.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/xrays/noXrays.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/photographicEvidence/missingPhotos.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/starrOnSilverGun/starrGibberish.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/glasses/glasses.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/uncomprimisinglyThorough/anotherFib.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/TheManInFortMarcyPark/ManInPark.htm

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster/pages/Dr_Hauts_report/Dr_Hauts_report.htm

I also highly recommend one read the full (500 page) report of anomalies and peculiarities put out by Patrick Knowlton (http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm ) regarding the Vince Foster case. It's pretty damning. For example checkout out this chapter on the depression claims: http://www.fbicover-up.com/report/ch11.pdf . Recall that the 3 judge panel ruled Starr had to attach a 20 page addendum by Knowlton (http://fbicover-up.com/starr/AddendumtoStarr.pdf ) to Starr's official report when it was released (although Starr found a devious way to get around even that). Ask yourself why the mainstream media to this day has largely ignored the Knowlton addendum (many of them never even mentioned it once)? Did you ever read or hear about it in the mainstream media? Could any of you link a single article in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, or Time Magazine that mentioned it? And you consider yourself well informed skeptics? ;)

Accuracy In Media (AIM) also has some very good articles on the Vince Foster case. For example, here's a series dealing with what Miquel Rodriguez, the man who was Starr's top investigator, had to say.

http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-1/

http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-2/

http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-3/

http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-4/

Do you know that Rodriguez says he did extensive interviews with Time, Newsweek, ABC's Nightline, the Boston Globe, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the NewYork Times? He says he spent six hours with the New York Times reporter alone. And he says that not one of them aired or published a story of his account. He says several reporters told him point blank that editors spiked the story. But hey ... it's just a *silly* *conspiracy* and all these JREF posters echoing that sentiment are just here to look out for your *best* interests. Right? :rolleyes:

ANTPogo

8th May 2009, 12:00 PM

Perhaps after pages and pages of going back and forth on that previous thread, I decided I'd said whatever needed to be said on the subject to you. Perhaps I decided I'd beat my head enough against your stonewall. Afterall, my goal in that thread was not to change your mind, since it's obvious that's impossible. Nor is that the goal now.

How about at least apologizing for calling me a liar.

I have only one comment on what you wrote in those last two posts. When I wrote "It is admitted that Foster was having a LOT of trouble sleeping", you asked "It is? by who?" Now with all your apparent skewing of the facts, how could you be unaware that Lisa Foster told FBI agents:

Yes, we all know that you simultaneously believe Lisa Foster's description of her husband's insomnia means that the antidepressant he was taking (prescribed to him by a doctor who asked if he was suffering from depression when told about his symptoms) was solely to help him sleep, and that Lisa Foster's declaration that her husband wasn't taking any medication means that he wasn't taking antidepressants.

Be sure to let us know as soon as you resolve that discrepancy.

How could you be unaware that Dr Watkins confirmed this both in his notes and when he told the FBI that Foster came to him complaining of insomnia.

...which, strangely enough, prompted Dr. Watkins to ask Foster if he was depressed, for which insomnia is one of the symptoms.

What do you think insomnia is?

A symptom of depression, just as Dr. Watkins thought.

And that statement clearly suggests that the Doctor felt that if Foster could just sleep better, he'd get better. Which again, doesn't suggest he was treating Foster for clinical depression like you kept claiming in that thread.

Nope, like you thought.

In post 184 of that thread, gdnp posted "You have repeatedly said that Foster showed no signs of depression." He reproduced a list of depression symptoms from WebMD, including insomnia.

In the very next post, 185, I ask you a direct question: "Why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, do you think?"

In post 193, you answer my direct question: "Because Foster wasn't sleeping? "

Let me repeat that. I ask you "Why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, do you think?", and you reply "Because Foster wasn't sleeping?"

In other words, you yourself made the connection that Foster's doctor thought Foster might be suffering from depression to a degree that he, as a doctor, was concerned about, because of Foster's insomnia.

*snip list of links*

Stop regurgitating floods of stuff like that. We're discussing Foster's depression right now. Most of that crap was addressed in the early thread, too.

I also highly recommend one read the full (500 page) report of anomalies and peculiarities put out by Patrick Knowlton (http://www.fbicover-up.com/proof/index.htm ) regarding the Vince Foster case.

Of course you do.

It's pretty damning.

No it's not. In fact, Knowlton agrees with the "official story" on some points that you yourself don't agree with, which makes me wonder why you trust him at all, since the Clintonite Conspiracy must have gotten to him at least a little for him to buy into their cover and not the Truth, right?

For example checkout out this chapter on the depression claims: http://www.fbicover-up.com/report/ch11.pdf . Recall that the 3 judge panel ruled Starr had to attach a 20 page addendum by Knowlton (http://fbicover-up.com/starr/AddendumtoStarr.pdf ) to Starr's official report when it was released (although Starr found a devious way to get around even that). Ask yourself why the mainstream media to this day has largely ignored the Knowlton addendum (many of them never even mentioned it once)? Did you ever read or hear about it in the mainstream media? Could any of you link a single article in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, or Time Magazine that mentioned it? And you consider yourself well informed skeptics? ;)

That's because the attachment means nothing. Legally, Starr had to let anyone mentioned in the report submit their own statement. The judges on the IOC panel ruled that Knowlton had not been given that opportunity, and so Starr had to include Knowlton's statement as an addendum. They didn't rule at all that Knowlton was correct, or that his facts were the true facts of the matter. Any statement he wanted to make regarding the events which caused his name to be mentioned in the report would be attached.

Knowlton's attached statement thus has as little bearing on the truth of the case as any of the "witness statements" in Berg's lawsuit saying Obama isn't a citizen has on the truth of that case. By law, the statement had to be included, but it did not alter the verdict Starr reached in his report, nor did the judges say it did.

And, again, we went over this already. I even pointed you at the actual US law under which they ruled, US Code Section 594 h 2 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=28&sec=594):
"Disclosure of information in reports. - The division of the
court may release to the Congress, the public, or any appropriate
person, such portions of a report made under this subsection as
the division of the court considers appropriate. The division of
the court shall make such orders as are appropriate to protect
the rights of any individual named in such report and to prevent
undue interference with any pending prosecution. The division of
the court may make any portion of a final report filed under
paragraph (1)(B) available to any individual named in such report
for the purposes of receiving within a time limit set by the
division of the court any comments or factual information that
such individual may submit. Such comments and factual
information, in whole or in part, may, in the discretion of the
division of the court, be included as an appendix to such final
report."

Accuracy In Media (AIM) also has some very good articles on the Vince Foster case.

For example, here's a series dealing with what Miquel Rodriguez, the man who was Starr's top investigator, had to say.

And, as I told you before, Rodriguez disagrees with both you and Knowlton about a lot of points, namely (and most importantly) whether Foster died in the park or died elsewhere and his already-dead body moved to the park.

I even point out how...hell, let me quote it:

In his giant-ass court filing (which bears, in its pedantic minutiae, no small resemblance to Groden and Livingston's Kennedy assassination conspiracy book), Knowlton goes to some great pains to try and establish the fact that Vince Foster had been dead for a while (per Knowlton's own claimed witness statement). Lots of dried congealed blood, no flows or pools when the body is moved, and so on.

And yet, in the transcription of his audio CD interview with former US attorney Miguel Rodriguez (who Knowlton says blows the murder cover-up wide open because Rodriguez refused to go along with the cover-up and was removed from Starr's investigation), Knowlton (as "narrator"), says very plainly that the Fiske and Starr report "falsely" said that a large quantity of blood was found with the body.

Rodriguez corrects Knowlton, saying "By the way, you know why there was blood,", and says there was lots of blood gushing out because the body was moved onto a slope:

"They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast. And then when they took the body and put it into the body bag, which was right – in other words they – it was on a slope – they pull it up onto the slope. When the body is horizontal or even at the top of the berm it's not quite horizontal it's a little bit of a back-slope – and all of a sudden the blood starts gushing out, there's a lot of blood then under the body. "

In other words, the "barely any blood, and what was there was old and dried" evidence Knowlton relies on to support his claim that Vince Foster was murdered long before he was supposed to have committed suicide was shot down by his own star witness!

If Knowlton (and the writers of those other conspiracy sites you favor) think Foster was murdered and moved to the park and that the whole thing about Foster shooting himself in the park and his body being found right where it fell is part of the coverup, why do you place such trust in Rodriguez, who buys into the "official theory" in that regard? Why is he right about one thing, but totally wrong about the other?

Roadtoad

8th May 2009, 12:11 PM

Christ. Can't we leave the man alone? He's DEAD! Show a little respect for once!

Even as a right wing fundie, I didn't accept the conspiracy crap. There was NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

BeAChooser

9th May 2009, 07:29 PM

Yes, we all know that you simultaneously believe Lisa Foster's description of her husband's insomnia means that the antidepressant he was taking (prescribed to him by a doctor who asked if he was suffering from depression when told about his symptoms) was solely to help him sleep

Once again, you misrepresent facts.

First, while it is true that the drug Foster was prescribed is an antidepressant, it is also true that the drug was regularly prescribed for insomnia at that time, without depression even being a factor. The doctor in both his FBI interview and his notes stated that Foster came to him complaining of insomnia. He didn't say he came in complaining of depression. And the Dr's notes state that he thought if Foster could just sleep better, he'd feel "a lot better". So yes, the doctor could very well have prescribed the drug solely to treat Foster's insomnia. And what dosing information we have is totally consistent with that use.

Even if the doctor asked Foster if he was feeling depressed, we know that the doctor concluded that depression was only "mild" and "situational", and that the doctor judged Foster to not be "in crisis". The doctor stated that he prescribed the drug knowing it would take "10 days to two weeks" to have an antidepressant effect, but would immediately provide relief from the insomnia. If Foster's depression was clinical, don't you think he'd have prescribed something a little faster acting?

The plain and simple truth is that there is no evidence that Foster was suffering from clinical (i.e., MAJOR) depression ... other than the changed witness statements that resulted from that meeting in the Whitehouse with Hillary and other Clinton administration toadies about a week after Foster's death. Call me a skeptic, but I'm suspicious about what happened at the meeting. Too bad that Fiske, Starr and the media never bothered to investigate.

Very clearly, the doctor did not conclude that Foster was "clinically" depressed as Fiske, Starr, you and many in the media claimed. So it's unlikely the doctor would have prescribed an antidepressant, per se. The various medical sources I presented in the previous thread indicated that mild depression is generally not treated with antidepressants. Here are some more sources to compliment those:

http://www.nativeremedies.com/articles/self-help-mild-depression-treatment.html "Treating depression with antidepressants is not advisable if you are suffering from mild depression."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1681574/mild_depression_could_be_eased_by_antidepressants/ "Doctors are urged to avoid antidepressants as an initial treatment in mild depression under the current guidelines."

Note, folks, that all the above was proven in the previous thread. And some of it has been proven again in this one as well. So either ANTPogo failed to understand what was clearly stated and proven (in which case I'm pounding my head against a brick wall), or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts (which should be a consideration in believing what he has to say). :D

and that Lisa Foster's declaration that her husband wasn't taking any medication means that he wasn't taking antidepressants.

Again, you misrepresent facts that were already posted and proven. As point out previously, the FBI and Park Police interview notes from the night of Foster's death indicate Lisa Foster and the other family members were asked specifically asked if Vince was depressed and taking medication. The investigator told the Senate "I mentioned depression, did you see this coming, were there any signs, has he been taking any medication? No. All negative answers." Your really desperate if you think they answered "no" because they viewed antidepressants as something other than medication. :rolleyes:

Now let me point out another piece of the puzzle that you've simply ignored. The Park Police notes say Lisa Foster said she and Vince had "gone away and had a nice weekend on July 17-18." Do you know that Foster's sister (Sheila) also told the FBI that on the day before his death "he [Foster] was feeling good and that the weekend had gone well." So here he had a "nice weekend" and was "feeling good" just a day before we are to believe he killed himself because of *major* depression. :rolleyes:

Quote:
What do you think insomnia is?

A symptom of depression, just as Dr. Watkins thought.

But depression is not the only cause of insomnia. Anxiety and stress can also cause it, and Foster had those symptoms too.

Do you know the percent of people who are mildly depressed who commit suicide? It's VERY, VERY small. Almost indistiguishable from the risk of suicide in the general population. Look it up. And Foster was MILDLY depressed.

Stop regurgitating floods of stuff like that.

I wasn't posting that information to you, so just ignore them. :D

Legally, Starr had to let anyone mentioned in the report submit their own statement.

That is ABSOLUTELY FALSE, as was pointed out to you previously. There was no legal requirement that Starr attach submittals by those mentioned in the report to the report.

Here, from the controlling statute US Code Section 594 h 2 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=28&sec=594 ), that you yourself linked in the previous Foster thread (:D), is proof of that:

The division of the court may make any portion of a final report filed under paragraph (1)(B) available to any individual named in such report for the purposes of receiving within a time limit set by the division of the court any comments or factual information that such individual may submit. Such comments and factual information, in whole or in part, may, in the discretion of the division of the court, be included as an appendix to such final report.

Do you not understand that "Division of the court" doesn't refer to the independent counsel. If you think it does, you are wrong. It refers to the 3 judge panel that oversees the IOC. Here:

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/INDCOUNS.LO.htm

If there are grounds for further investigation, then the attorney general notifies a special three-judge panel which is responsible under the act for the appointment of an independent counsel. (This special panel is a division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It consists of three circuit judges or justices appointed for two years by the Chief Justice of the United States, one of whom shall be a judge of the D.C. Circuit. See, 28 U.S.C. 49.)

And notice in the statute, there is also no *requirement* that the judges attach Knowlton's addendum to Starr's report. It was left to the "DISCRETION" of the division of the court (i.e., the 3 judges) to order them attached to the IOC final report. You do know what discretion means, don't you?

And again note that this is the only time in history that an Independent Counsel has been ordered to attach evidence of a cover-up by his own investigators to his own report by the judge panel. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that is significant.

The judges on the IOC panel ruled that Knowlton had not been given that opportunity, and so Starr had to include Knowlton's statement as an addendum.

That is not what they ruled. Here is what the court actually ruled: http://www.fbicover-up.com/starr/OrderToAttach.pdf . It says nothing of what you claim. You are {wrong}.

They didn't rule at all that Knowlton was correct, or that his facts were the true facts of the matter.

And as pointed out to you previously, they also didn't rule that Starr was correct or presenting true facts either. But they must have felt there was enough basis to what Knowlton alleged to ORDER Starr (over his objections, by the way) to attach it to his final report, given that it contains the explosive charge that the IOC's effort was a cover up.

What a shame that Starr then pulled a fast one and released his report without it anyway. But no one cared. Perhaps because you could go to the Washington Post website where they claimed they had the "complete" Starr report and never know that Knowlton's 20 page addendum, much less his 550 page report, even existed. Here's more proof there was a media coverup: http://www.fbicover-up.com/press/index.htm . Read that, folks!

Any statement he wanted to make regarding the events which caused his name to be mentioned in the report would be attached.

You are {wrong}. The statute does not require that, as I proved above. You seem desperate to make Knowlton's addendum, not to mention his 550 page destruction of Starr's case, go away. :D

By law, the statement had to be included

{wrong}

And, again, we went over this already. I even pointed you at the actual US law under which they ruled, US Code Section 594 h 2:

You only prove you can't read, that you don't have a clue what "division of the court" means, and that you are {wrong}.

And, as I told you before, Rodriguez disagrees with both you and Knowlton about a lot of points

You also seem desperate to make what Rodriguez had to say go away. Take note folks ... what ANTPogo fears is probably something you should know ... especially when it's what Starr's own top investigator saying it. :D

And regardless of any differences in their theories about what actually happened to Foster, BOTH Knowlton and Rodriguez are 100% convinced that Foster's body was moved, that Starr lied repeatedly in his investigation, that Starr fabricated evidence, and that the IOC and FBI threatened and tried to intimidate them. Folks, be a little skeptical and ask yourself why ANTpogo wants you to ignore that? :D

While it is expected that people will disagree with each other and even that they may be insulted, the level of incivility in this post is unwarranted. BAC, I'm not going to infract you, but please do not engage it this level of attack. It is possible for someone to be wrong without being a liar.

BeAChooser

9th May 2009, 07:57 PM

Once again, you misrepresent facts.
While it is expected that people will disagree with each other and even that they may be insulted, the level of incivility in this post is unwarranted. BAC, I'm not going to infract you, but please do not engage it this level of attack. It is possible for someone to be wrong without being a liar.

Fine, Tricky. I apologize and will give ANTpogo the benefit of the doubt.

He was just mistaken about the Knowlton appendix.

Even after being shown he was wrong the first time he made his claim.

:D

TS-

9th May 2009, 09:38 PM

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1681574/mild_depression_could_be_eased_by_antidepressants/ "Doctors are urged to avoid antidepressants as an initial treatment in mild depression under the current guidelines."

???
You seem to have removed a bit of the context in that link;

"Researchers say antidepressants can help mild to moderate depression and should not just be used in bad cases, BBC News reported.

Doctors are urged to avoid antidepressants as an initial treatment in mild depression under the current guidelines.

However, a study funded by the NHS looked at 200 patients from across England and found the drugs, called SSRIs, were more effective than GP advice and support alone."

You shouldn't have bothered quoting so selectively- you could have used this as support for your agument if you'd been so inclined.

~~~~~

That aside, what drug was Foster prescribed?

ANTPogo

10th May 2009, 08:17 AM

That aside, what drug was Foster prescribed?

Desyrel (trazodone) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trazodone)

ANTPogo

10th May 2009, 09:49 AM

First, while it is true that the drug Foster was prescribed is an antidepressant, it is also true that the drug was regularly prescribed for insomnia at that time, without depression even being a factor.

Which is an off-label use of the drug, and involves dosages much lower than the dosages prescribed for depression. Foster was prescribed a dose much higher than the insomnia dose, but fully in line with the depression dose.

The doctor in both his FBI interview and his notes stated that Foster came to him complaining of insomnia. He didn't say he came in complaining of depression.

And yet, when Foster did this, the doctor then asked him if Foster was depressed because insomnia is one of the markers for depression (as you yourself noticed...and you still haven't apologized for calling me a liar when I first pointed that out to you).

So yes, the doctor could very well have prescribed the drug solely to treat Foster's insomnia. And what dosing information we have is totally consistent with that use.

No it's not. Insomnia dosages for trazodone are 25 to 50 mg, rarely exceeding 100mg. Depression dosages are 150mg to start, with the dosage to be increased once the doctor has seen how the patient handles the medication.

Foster was prescribed 150mg.

Even if the doctor asked Foster if he was feeling depressed, we know that the doctor concluded that depression was only "mild" and "situational", and that the doctor judged Foster to not be "in crisis". The doctor stated that he prescribed the drug knowing it would take "10 days to two weeks" to have an antidepressant effect, but would immediately provide relief from the insomnia. If Foster's depression was clinical, don't you think he'd have prescribed something a little faster acting?

There ISN'T anything faster-acting. Antidepressants take days to weeks to take effect - it's not a one-pill treatment, but one that requires on building up medication in the body over time.

Let's look again at what the doctor said.

What the FBI wrote, as quoted by you:
[Watkins recalled that] Foster sounded a little tired . . . Watkins prescribed desyrel, 50 milligram tablets. . . . Watkins knew that it took 10 days to two weeks to take effect [as an antidepressant] but helps with insomnia, sometimes the very first day. . . . He felt it was important for Foster to start sleeping better and thought if he got some rest he would feel a lot better. He did not think that Foster was significantly depressed nor had Foster given the impression that he was 'in crisis.' From what Foster told him, Foster's condition sounded mild and situational. . . . Foster was not one to come to Watkins with stress-related problems. . . . Lisa [Foster's widow] told him that they had gone away and had a nice weekend on July 17-18. . . . He had the distinct impression . . . that Lisa was taken completely by surprise by this."

What Watkins himself wrote, in his Starr Report note (taken from the Starr Report itself, since when you post this you often leave out the "increase to three" part):
I talked to Vince on 7/19/93, at which time he complained of anorexia and insomnia. He had no GI [gastrointestinal] symptoms. We discussed the possibility of taking Axid or Zantac to help with any ulcer symptoms as he was under a lot of stress. He was concerned about the criticism they were getting and the long hours he was working at the White House. He did feel that he had some mild depression. I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg. He was to start with one at bedtime and move up to three. . . . I received word at 10:20 p.m. on 7/20/93 that he had committed suicide.

Keep in mind that Watkins diagnosed Foster over the phone. Watkins was back in Arkansas, Foster in DC. Foster called up Watkins, and said he was suffering from anorexia and insomnia. Watkins knew those were symptoms of depression, so he asked Foster flat-out about that. Foster directly told him he thought he had mild depression.

Over the phone, Foster didn't seem that bad to the doctor...but remember, this was over the phone. Watkins hadn't seen Foster, didn't get a good look at him, and only spoke with him briefly...and yet he still concluded Foster was at least partly depressed. Watkins prescribed Desyrel, because it could be used to treat both insomnia and depression - it'd take a little while for the antidepressent part that Watkins explicitly prescribed the drug for (in his note, he directly associates Foster's admission of depression with what he prescribed to Foster), but the insomnia part would take effect right away. And he prescribed a depression dose - 150mg (a 50mg pill taken three times a day).

But Foster killed himself the very next day, never either following up with Watkins, or seeing a doctor there in DC.

The plain and simple truth is that there is no evidence that Foster was suffering from clinical (i.e., MAJOR) depression ... other than the changed witness statements that resulted from that meeting in the Whitehouse with Hillary and other Clinton administration toadies about a week after Foster's death.

You mean other than all the evidence listed in the State of Mind section of the Starr Report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/docs/fosterix.htm), such as Foster's self-admitted stress about his job and mistakes he was making, his calling his sister the Friday before he killed himself telling her he felt depressed to the point where she gave him the names of psychiatrists to call, the above-mentioned Watkins prescribing an antidepressant, and what Dr. Alan Berman, a psychiatrist and consultant, had said on the subject after reviewing all that evidence?

Very clearly, the doctor did not conclude that Foster was "clinically" depressed as Fiske, Starr, you and many in the media claimed.

...which is irrelevant, since no one is saying that Foster's ultimate state of mind diagnosis comes from a single doctor two thousand miles away from Foster who only spoke with him once over the phone during this period.

So it's unlikely the doctor would have prescribed an antidepressant, per se.

...except that the doctor pretty much flat-out said Foster told him he was depressed when the doctor asked him directly, when the doctor prescribed the antidepressant in dosages that aren't consistent with simple treatment of insomnia.

http://www.nativeremedies.com/articles/self-help-mild-depression-treatment.html "Treating depression with antidepressants is not advisable if you are suffering from mild depression."

You're quoting a site dedicated to promoting "alternative" and herbal remedies instead of prescription drugs as evidence for your claim? Really?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1681574/mild_depression_could_be_eased_by_antidepressants/ "Doctors are urged to avoid antidepressants as an initial treatment in mild depression under the current guidelines."

Researchers say antidepressants can help mild to moderate depression and should not just be used in bad cases, BBC News reported.

Doctors are urged to avoid antidepressants as an initial treatment in mild depression under the current guidelines.

However, a study funded by the NHS looked at 200 patients from across England and found the drugs, called SSRIs, were more effective than GP advice and support alone.

That's some of the most horrific out-of-context quoting I've ever seen, BAC. And that's not even considering the fact that the "guidelines" are the UK's NHS guidelines, not those of the United States.

Note, folks, that all the above was proven in the previous thread. And some of it has been proven again in this one as well. So either ANTPogo failed to understand what was clearly stated and proven (in which case I'm pounding my head against a brick wall), or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts (which should be a consideration in believing what he has to say). :D

I'm just going to leave this paragraph of BAC's here, right under the two above links he tried to use as "evidence".

Again, you misrepresent facts that were already posted and proven. As point out previously, the FBI and Park Police interview notes from the night of Foster's death indicate Lisa Foster and the other family members were asked specifically asked if Vince was depressed and taking medication. The investigator told the Senate "I mentioned depression, did you see this coming, were there any signs, has he been taking any medication? No. All negative answers." Your really desperate if you think they answered "no" because they viewed antidepressants as something other than medication. :rolleyes:

Except we know from the doctor that Foster was taking a medication, and said medication was an antidepressant, and it was prescribed because Foster himself told the doctor he was feeling a little depressed.

Now let me point out another piece of the puzzle that you've simply ignored. The Park Police notes say Lisa Foster said she and Vince had "gone away and had a nice weekend on July 17-18." Do you know that Foster's sister (Sheila) also told the FBI that on the day before his death "he [Foster] was feeling good and that the weekend had gone well." So here he had a "nice weekend" and was "feeling good" just a day before we are to believe he killed himself because of *major* depression. :rolleyes:

On Friday, Foster called his sister and told her he was depressed. She gave him the phone numbers of three psychiatrists to call. Phone records apparently indicate he actually tried to call one that day. Saturday and Sunday he apparently had good days. Monday (a work day again...and remember, Foster was suffering from a lot of anxiety about his job) Foster called Watkins back in Arkansas, and admitted to the doctor he was feeling depressed, and got a prescription. Tuesday he killed himself.

Have you ever suffered from depression, BAC? I have. It's not a 24/7 thing. There are periods where depressed people can feel good and have a good time. The problem is that such bright periods are overshadowed and outnumbered by the darker periods.

The fact that Foster had a good weekend sandwiched by depression concerns large enough to consider help from psychiatrists is hardly the kind of "he was FINE!" smoking gun you make it out to be.

But depression is not the only cause of insomnia. Anxiety and stress can also cause it, and Foster had those symptoms too.

ME: "Why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, do you think?"

YOU: "Because Foster wasn't sleeping? "

You seem to be hung up on what I said regarding Knowlton's appendix to the Starr Report. You keep claiming that the judges allowing the statement to be attached means that there must be some merit in Knowlton's claims. That's false, since the law under which the attachment was made simply lets the panel of judges overseeing the independent counsel send out the final report to anyone specifically "named in the report", so said person can respond with their own comments. To my knowledge, Knowlton is the only one who did so, and thus the judges attached his response.

You harp on the "in their discretion" part, like the only reason the judges would have allowed something which is (in your view) as damning as Knowlton's statement to be attached unless the judges bought into Knowlton's claims.

That is not what they ruled. Here is what the court actually ruled: http://www.fbicover-up.com/starr/OrderToAttach.pdf . It says nothing of what you claim. You are {wrong}.

It doesn't say anything at all, actually - only that in the matter of Knowlton's motion to have his statement added per the exact law I posted, it's approved and the letter from Knowlton's attorney will be attached.

And as pointed out to you previously, they also didn't rule that Starr was correct or presenting true facts either. But they must have felt there was enough basis to what Knowlton alleged to ORDER Starr (over his objections, by the way) to attach it to his final report, given that it contains the explosive charge that the IOC's effort was a cover up.

This is an incredible leap to make, especially since Knowlton's own petition simply asks that the attachment be made "[t]o assure that the report is full and complete and to afford [him] a measure of fairness (citing In re North, 10 F. 3rd 831, 835 (D.C. Cir. 1993)), and says specifically

"In re North, Id. Mr. Knowlton merely seeks to refute allegations that he is:

(1) A liar and perjurer;

(2) A homosexual; and

(3) Mentally unstable."

In other words, Knowlton says (paraphrasing, of course)) "Starr's report contains these allegations, and I ask the court to attach my statement SPECIFICALLY TO REFUTE THESE ALLEGATIONS," and the court agrees to that, and only that (if they were ruling on anything other than Knowlton's specified request, their answer would have said so, rather than simply saying "we agree to the reasons Knowlton submitted").

Nothing about Starr's overall conclusions, or that there was a coverup of a Foster murder.

You also seem desperate to make what Rodriguez had to say go away. Take note folks ... what ANTPogo fears is probably something you should know ... especially when it's what Starr's own top investigator saying it. :D

Yes, I'm so eager to hide from what Rodriquez said that I quote him at length in my posts here. You totally got me.

TS-

10th May 2009, 09:49 AM

Desyrel (trazodone) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trazodone)
Thanks. I ask because if it is something only used as an anti-depressant it implies that he wasn't prescribed it just so he could get some sleep- more that he couldn't sleep because he was having other problems, as inferred by others in this thread.

As it is it's not completely clear, though it seems that way to someone like me with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever. We have a few people with medical expertise here on JREF, I wonder is some of them could supply some clarification.

BeAChooser

10th May 2009, 10:52 AM

You seem to have removed a bit of the context in that link

You seem to be a bit removed from the context of WHEN the doctor prescribed the drug for Foster. True, the link I posted is saying CURRENT studies indicate antidepressants might help for mild depression but the important part is that before this, guidelines indicated they should not be used. Now do you understand?

what drug was Foster prescribed?

Didn't you bother to read this or the other thread that was linked above? If not, why are you jumping into this discussion without the "context"? :D

ANTPogo

10th May 2009, 11:46 AM

You seem to be a bit removed from the context of WHEN the doctor prescribed the drug for Foster. True, the link I posted is saying CURRENT studies indicate antidepressants might help for mild depression but the important part is that before this, guidelines indicated they should not be used. Now do you understand?

Again, this applies to the UK's National Health System. I'd like you to note the most recent (2008) edition of Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/078177327X), which says "The treatment of minor depressive disorder can include psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, or both....Patients with minor depressive disorder are probably responsive to pharmacotherapy, particularly selective serotonin reintake inhibitors (SSRIs) and buproprion (Wellbutrin). (http://www.synopsisofpsychiatry.com/pt/re/saddock/searchresults.htm;jsessionid=KHgQSHGqFL21Dh6GTB27C MvfTGCH2NzK6T1MyfzKmFnZ2QC5QBJw!-634287438!181195629!8091!-1?bookaccessionpath=01273127-10th_Edition-3&index=1&results=1&searchid=1)"

This book is described as "The best-selling general psychiatry text since 1972, Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry is now in its thoroughly updated Tenth Edition. This complete, concise overview of the entire field of psychiatry is a staple board review text for psychiatry residents and is popular with a broad range of students in medicine, clinical psychology, social work, nursing, and occupational therapy, as well as practitioners in all these areas. The book is DSM-IV-TR compatible and replete with case studies and tables, including ICD-10 diagnostic coding tables."

It's published in the United States, and contradicts the NHS "guidelines" you seem to place so much faith in as yet another "smoking gun" to prove that Vince Foster couldn't have been depressed.

TS-

10th May 2009, 12:19 PM

Ah, I missed ANTPogo's post above mine. I should have known that the issue had come up before.
You seem to be a bit removed from the context of WHEN the doctor prescribed the drug for Foster. True, the link I posted is saying CURRENT studies indicate antidepressants might help for mild depression but the important part is that before this, guidelines indicated they should not be used. Now do you understand?

Briefly ignoring the post above this one, it specifically says it wasn't reccomended for MILD depressions. Considering that it is generally accepted that this person killed himself, you have to understand that people will come to the conclusion that he was in dire straits.

Also, they were medical standards from a different country.

Didn't you bother to read this or the other thread that was linked above? If not, why are you jumping into this discussion without the "context"? :D
As I'm sure you understand, I was actually seeking context. It is a concept with which you should become more familiar...

The actual medication and the method of its prescription, as mentioned in post #163, were unclear from the posts I read in this thread, including yours. I did a quick CTRL+F search in some of the links you posted and it wasn't addressed in detail there either. Coincidence, I'm sure.

If I may make a suggestion, you may want to abandon the line of reasoning that Foster wasn't really depressed. It is not integral to your conspiracy theory, and when you leave out important details to promote that aspect of the CT, you look deceptive as soon as anyone calls you out on it.

Galileo

10th May 2009, 05:03 PM

Which is an off-label use of the drug, and involves dosages much lower than the dosages prescribed for depression. Foster was prescribed a dose much higher than the insomnia dose, but fully in line with the depression dose.

And yet, when Foster did this, the doctor then asked him if Foster was depressed because insomnia is one of the markers for depression (as you yourself noticed...and you still haven't apologized for calling me a liar when I first pointed that out to you).

No it's not. Insomnia dosages for trazodone are 25 to 50 mg, rarely exceeding 100mg. Depression dosages are 150mg to start, with the dosage to be increased once the doctor has seen how the patient handles the medication.

Foster was prescribed 150mg.

There ISN'T anything faster-acting. Antidepressants take days to weeks to take effect - it's not a one-pill treatment, but one that requires on building up medication in the body over time.

Let's look again at what the doctor said.

What the FBI wrote, as quoted by you:

What Watkins himself wrote, in his Starr Report note (taken from the Starr Report itself, since when you post this you often leave out the "increase to three" part):

Keep in mind that Watkins diagnosed Foster over the phone. Watkins was back in Arkansas, Foster in DC. Foster called up Watkins, and said he was suffering from anorexia and insomnia. Watkins knew those were symptoms of depression, so he asked Foster flat-out about that. Foster directly told him he thought he had mild depression.

Over the phone, Foster didn't seem that bad to the doctor...but remember, this was over the phone. Watkins hadn't seen Foster, didn't get a good look at him, and only spoke with him briefly...and yet he still concluded Foster was at least partly depressed. Watkins prescribed Desyrel, because it could be used to treat both insomnia and depression - it'd take a little while for the antidepressent part that Watkins explicitly prescribed the drug for (in his note, he directly associates Foster's admission of depression with what he prescribed to Foster), but the insomnia part would take effect right away. And he prescribed a depression dose - 150mg (a 50mg pill taken three times a day).

But Foster killed himself the very next day, never either following up with Watkins, or seeing a doctor there in DC.

You mean other than all the evidence listed in the State of Mind section of the Starr Report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/docs/fosterix.htm), such as Foster's self-admitted stress about his job and mistakes he was making, his calling his sister the Friday before he killed himself telling her he felt depressed to the point where she gave him the names of psychiatrists to call, the above-mentioned Watkins prescribing an antidepressant, and what Dr. Alan Berman, a psychiatrist and consultant, had said on the subject after reviewing all that evidence?

...which is irrelevant, since no one is saying that Foster's ultimate state of mind diagnosis comes from a single doctor two thousand miles away from Foster who only spoke with him once over the phone during this period.

...except that the doctor pretty much flat-out said Foster told him he was depressed when the doctor asked him directly, when the doctor prescribed the antidepressant in dosages that aren't consistent with simple treatment of insomnia.

You're quoting a site dedicated to promoting "alternative" and herbal remedies instead of prescription drugs as evidence for your claim? Really?

That's some of the most horrific out-of-context quoting I've ever seen, BAC. And that's not even considering the fact that the "guidelines" are the UK's NHS guidelines, not those of the United States.

I'm just going to leave this paragraph of BAC's here, right under the two above links he tried to use as "evidence".

Except we know from the doctor that Foster was taking a medication, and said medication was an antidepressant, and it was prescribed because Foster himself told the doctor he was feeling a little depressed.

On Friday, Foster called his sister and told her he was depressed. She gave him the phone numbers of three psychiatrists to call. Phone records apparently indicate he actually tried to call one that day. Saturday and Sunday he apparently had good days. Monday (a work day again...and remember, Foster was suffering from a lot of anxiety about his job) Foster called Watkins back in Arkansas, and admitted to the doctor he was feeling depressed, and got a prescription. Tuesday he killed himself.

Have you ever suffered from depression, BAC? I have. It's not a 24/7 thing. There are periods where depressed people can feel good and have a good time. The problem is that such bright periods are overshadowed and outnumbered by the darker periods.

The fact that Foster had a good weekend sandwiched by depression concerns large enough to consider help from psychiatrists is hardly the kind of "he was FINE!" smoking gun you make it out to be.

ME: "Why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, do you think?"

YOU: "Because Foster wasn't sleeping? "

You seem to be hung up on what I said regarding Knowlton's appendix to the Starr Report. You keep claiming that the judges allowing the statement to be attached means that there must be some merit in Knowlton's claims. That's false, since the law under which the attachment was made simply lets the panel of judges overseeing the independent counsel send out the final report to anyone specifically "named in the report", so said person can respond with their own comments. To my knowledge, Knowlton is the only one who did so, and thus the judges attached his response.

You harp on the "in their discretion" part, like the only reason the judges would have allowed something which is (in your view) as damning as Knowlton's statement to be attached unless the judges bought into Knowlton's claims.

It doesn't say anything at all, actually - only that in the matter of Knowlton's motion to have his statement added per the exact law I posted, it's approved and the letter from Knowlton's attorney will be attached.

This is an incredible leap to make, especially since Knowlton's own petition simply asks that the attachment be made "[t]o assure that the report is full and complete and to afford [him] a measure of fairness (citing In re North, 10 F. 3rd 831, 835 (D.C. Cir. 1993)), and says specifically

"In re North, Id. Mr. Knowlton merely seeks to refute allegations that he is:

(1) A liar and perjurer;

(2) A homosexual; and

(3) Mentally unstable."

In other words, Knowlton says (paraphrasing, of course)) "Starr's report contains these allegations, and I ask the court to attach my statement SPECIFICALLY TO REFUTE THESE ALLEGATIONS," and the court agrees to that, and only that (if they were ruling on anything other than Knowlton's specified request, their answer would have said so, rather than simply saying "we agree to the reasons Knowlton submitted").

Nothing about Starr's overall conclusions, or that there was a coverup of a Foster murder.

Yes, I'm so eager to hide from what Rodriquez said that I quote him at length in my posts here. You totally got me.

If someone might be a little depressed or had a bad day at the office, that doesn't mean they will committ suicide with a gun manufactured in 1913.

You need to prove that every person who gets a little bummed out kills themself, for your argument to carry any weight.

BeAChooser

11th May 2009, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
First, while it is true that the drug Foster was prescribed is an antidepressant, it is also true that the drug was regularly prescribed for insomnia at that time, without depression even being a factor.

Which is an off-label use of the drug, and involves dosages much lower than the dosages prescribed for depression. Foster was prescribed a dose much higher than the insomnia dose, but fully in line with the depression dose.

Folks, the above is an excellent example of how ANTpogo is misrepresenting the facts in this debate. But, remember, Tricky insists I accept that he could just be *mistaken* and not doing it deliberately. It could be a mistake even though in the earlier Foster thread that he linked to this one with such vigor I provided over a dozen sources that completely contradict what he says. Let's review what was on that thread (which ANTpogo obviously must have read ... being such an informed person).

First, it was noted that according to Foster's doctor, the initial dose Foster was prescribed was one 50 mg tablet of Desyrel (also known as Trazodone), to be taken at bedtime. The doctor said Foster could increase that to 3 tablets (i.e., 150 mg). Now is this more in line with an insomnia dose or a depression dose, as ANTpogo claims is the case? Let's see.

Here are the sources I supplied on that earlier thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129329&page=5 ). The first clearly says that the 50mg starting dose prescribed for Foster is more in line with the dose for insomnia than depression, contrary to what ANTpogo claims.

http://mental-health.emedtv.com/desyrel/desyrel-dosage.html

The recommended starting Desyrel dose when treating depression is 150 mg per day (divided into two or three doses per day). ... snip ... The maximum recommended dose of Desyrel is 400 mg total per day, although people who have been hospitalized due to their depression may take up to 600 mg per day.

... snip ...

Usually, the dose of Desyrel for insomnia is lower, starting with Desyrel 25 mg or 50 mg at bedtime.

The second source says the same thing ... that the initial dose, if used for depression is 150 mg, not 50 mg. And portions of that dose are to be administered throughout the day, not just at bedtime. And the dose is increased from that up to a maximum dose of 400mg/day in divided doses.

http://www.rxlist.com/desyrel-drug.htm

DESYREL is indicated for the treatment of depression. ... snip ... An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested. The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for outpatients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.

All of which clearly suggests that Foster wasn't being prescribed the drug for reasons of depression, like ANTpogo claims.

Here's another citation contrary to ANTpogo's claim.

http://www.psychatlanta.com/documents/trazadone.pdf

When prescribed for insomnia and sleep disturbance, the usual dose for trazodone is 50–100 mg at bedtime, but some patients may need doses as high as 150–200 mg. ... snip ... For treatment of depression, trazodone is gradually increased to the effective therapeutic dosage of 300–400 mg, although some individuals may require dosages up to 600 mg.

Yes, that source indicates the dose Foster was prescribed is fully in line with the insomnia dosage and much too small to be a therapeutic depression dose. ANTpogo is obviously in denial.

And I'm not done. Here are more sources that I presented on that previous thread, which back up my side of this argument and debunk ANTpogo's side:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4gItF4QOIT8C&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=desyrel+insomnia+dosage&source=web&ots=Q4UXyn0pdt&sig=itZhyGcmho-jO1KS2YHk63K7ps8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPP1,M1

Symptom-Focused Psychiatric Drug Therapy for Managed Care, By Sonny Joseph ... snip ... For treatment of insomnia and as an adjunctive medication, the dosage range is 50 to 150 mg, given at bedtime for insomnia, and in divided doses for other purposes.

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=3&gl=us

Two of the most commonly used medications for insomnia in the United States are ... snip ... and the antidepressant trazodone (Desyrel) used in the range of 25 to 150 mg, which is lower than its effective antidepressant dose.

http://www.pdrhealth.com/drugs/rx/rx-mono.aspx?contentFileName=Des1128.html&contentName=Desyrel&contentId=173

Desyrel is prescribed [b]for the treatment of depression. ... snip ...
The usual starting dosage is a total of 150 milligrams per day, divided into 2 or more smaller doses. Your doctor may increase your dose by 50 milligrams per day every 3 or 4 days. Total dosage should not exceed 400 milligrams per day, divided into smaller doses.

http://www.inhousedrugstore.com/anti-depressants/desyrel.html

The daily dosage is usually administered in three divided doses. ... snip ... Depression - The optimal dosage is between 300 - 400 mg/day. It is suggested that a starting dose of 150 mg/day is given for the first week, increasing to 300 mg/day or higher according to the clinical response (600 mg/day dosage has been reported).

http://www.realmentalhealth.com/medications/trazodone.asp

For relief of depression. ... snip ... An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested. The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for out patients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.

http://www.druglib.com/druginfo/desyrel/indications_dosage/

DESYREL is indicated for the treatment of depression. ...snip ... An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested. The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for outpatients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.

http://www.drugs.com/cons/desyrel.html

Adults—Oral, to start, 50 milligrams per dose taken three times a day, or 75 milligrams per dose taken two times a day. Your doctor may increase your dose if needed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jGkgR18XMG8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=trazodone+dosage+%22for+insomnia%22&source=web&ots=n2441v8UfM&sig=Wn1sSOqsyEMbZf4Wlb3tDW-vfsw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

The main indication for the use of trazodone is major depressive disorder. There is a clear dose-response relationship, with dosages of 250 to 600 mg a day being necessary for trazodone to have therapeutic benefit.

Are you folks starting to get the picture? If not, here are some more:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/508820

The dose of trazodone needed to induce and maintain sleep is not well understood. Thus, clinicians use anywhere from 25 mg to 150 mg taken at bedtime as a hypnotic dose.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bc5a31tdklIC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=trazodone+dosage+%22for+insomnia%22&source=web&ots=OyWSXlqSdd&sig=FexLFdy-PGK8Awx6-7gaIiIrnz8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA85,M1

Mood Disorders By S. Nassir Ghaemi ... snip ... Trazodone was dosed similarly to TCAs, requiring about 300 mg/day or more for effect, which often led to sedation. As a result, trazodone soon developed a niche as a sleep aid, especially in low doses (25 to 150 mg/day).

http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/diagnosis/organ_system/psychiatric/insomnia.html

Trazodone (25-200 mg qhs) most common antidepressant used for treatment of insomnia.

And what was ANTpogo's response to all the above in the previous thread? To link ONE source (http://www.fpnotebook.com/Psych/Pharm/Dsyrl.htm ) that states the starting dose for "major depression" is "50 to 150 mg per day in divided doses" and claim victory. Never mind that it states the dose for insomnia is 25-100 mg at bedtime, once per day. Never mind that it also says the "effective" dose for depression is 400 to 600 mg in divided doses, nowhere near what Foster's doctor told Foster to ramp up to in terms of dosage. Never mind that I could go on all day listing sources that agree with my side, not his. Would you like to see some more? Sure, why not ...

http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?id=2842&t=CFIDS_FM

Drugs commonly used as sleep aids ... Desyrel 50-150 mg

http://www.medicinenet.com/trazodone/article.htm

For the treatment of depression, the dose for adults is 150-600 mg per day. The initial starting dose usually is 150 mg per day. ... snip ... Doses of 25-75 mg are prescribed for insomnia.

;)

Even if we accept the possibility that ANTpogo is so driven to believe Foster's death was a suicide that he is willing to believe his one source over a dozen others (and I could have supplied hundreds more), it's hard to see where he got the idea that "Foster was prescribed a dose much higher than the insomnia dose." That simply isn't true. Even his own source didn't say that, folks. Do you see why debating him really is like beating one's head against a brick wall? :D

Insomnia dosages for trazodone are 25 to 50 mg, rarely exceeding 100mg.

And yet I have no trouble whatsoever finding sources that say that isn't true at all ... finding posters on the internet medical forums stating they were prescribed 100 mg or 150 mg for insomnia ... finding websites with recommended dosages of up to 150 mg (just like Foster's prescription) for insomnia. Would you like some more citations that you can simply ignore ... since that seems to be your only defense against the truth, ANTpogo? Sure thing ...

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1427983

Nine volunteer poor sleepers, of mean age 61 years, took trazodone 150 mg nightly for 3 weeks, preceded by 2 weeks and followed by 1 week of matching blanks, in order to examine the effects of electrophysiologically-recorded and subjectively-rated sleep.

http://www.abconlinepharmacy.com/ns/customer/product4354-c-p1

Desyrel/Trazodone 150mg tablets can also be prescribed to induce sleep for people who experience insomnia.

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Mental/Archive/Doctors/Q193243.html

My pshychiatrist put me on 150 mg of trazodone at bedtime to induce sleep.

http://www.druginfonet.com/index.php?pageID=faq/new/DRUG_FAQ/Trazadone.htm

I have taken 150 mg. of trazadone at bedtime for several years.

... snip ...

I take 150 mg at bedtime every day.

https://www.iguard.org/drugs/comment.html?page=8;order=1;rid=16364

I have recently been prescribed Trazodone 150mg. to help with my insomnia.

... snip ...

I was also prescribed Trazodone, 150 mg., for restlessness and insomnia.

Try it yourself. You'll have no trouble finding this "rare" dosage. :rolleyes:

:D

Over the phone, Foster didn't seem that bad to the doctor...but remember, this was over the phone. Watkins hadn't seen Foster, didn't get a good look at him, and only spoke with him briefly...and yet he still concluded Foster was at least partly depressed.

"mildly" was his term. "situational" was his term. "not in crisis" was his term. Getting "a lot better" if he just got some sleep was his conclusion. The funny thing is that of all the people that Foster actually did have face to face, daily contact with, NOT ONE said he was depressed or showed signs of depression when interviewed by FBI and Park Police investigators immediately after the death. I quoted a number of them (quotes which you simply ignore and dismiss out of hand). Fact is, the word depression didn't enter the picture until after that meeting in the Whitehouse with a couple folks who then changed their story: Sheila Anthony, her husband and Lisa Foster. Curious, that meeting.

Watkins prescribed Desyrel, because it could be used to treat both insomnia and depression

No, that's only your interpretation. Watkins said nothing about needing to treat any depression in either FBI interview or notes. He said the depression was "situational", meaning that he felt it would go away if the situation changed ... like Foster getting some more sleep (which he specifically mentioned). And as the numerous sources I supplied (and that you simply ignore) prove, the dosage of the drug he prescribed does not fit the interpretation that he'd decided this was clinical depression requiring serious long term drug intervention. You're desperate, ANTpogo, and any real skeptic on this forum can see it.

the antidepressent part that Watkins explicitly prescribed the drug for (in his note, he directly associates Foster's admission of depression with what he prescribed to Foster)

No he didn't "explicitly prescribe" the drug for depression and no he didn't "directly associate" it with depression. You are {wrong}.

You mean other than all the evidence listed in the State of Mind section of the Starr Report

Which is just concocted nonsense (not evidence). And it's as concocted as the oven mitt evidence. :D

such as Foster's self-admitted stress about his job and mistakes he was making

Oh my he was stressed and making mistakes. We should all commit suicide, I guess, because we are all pretty stressed right now. :rolleyes:

And more likely, his death was in some way related to the things he couldn't talk about that he was doing for the Clintons. Perhaps something to do with their blind trust ... which was behind schedule in being completed for some unknown reason? Or perhaps something to do with all that material that Clinton administration staffers were observed removing from Foster's office after his death (which the staffers later denied doing under oath)? :D

his calling his sister the Friday before he killed himself telling her he felt depressed to the point where she gave him the names of psychiatrists to call

Funny that she didn't mention that to the investigators the first week after his death. Not till after that meeting in the Whitehouse. And say, what was that $286,000 payment to Lisa that Sheila handled about? :D

the above-mentioned Watkins prescribing an antidepressant

You mean prescribing one of the drugs most commonly prescribed for insomnia.

and what Dr. Alan Berman, a psychiatrist and consultant, had said on the subject after reviewing all that evidence?

Yeah ... the quack who could say with "100% certainty" it was a suicide. Despite all the facts I've brought to light here in this and the other thread. And that's not evidence. That's just a conclusion. :rolleyes:

when the doctor prescribed the antidepressant in dosages that aren't consistent with simple treatment of insomnia.

You keep repeating this {wrong}. I wonder if Tricky can now see you are {wrong}? :D

Except we know from the doctor that Foster was taking a medication, and said medication was an antidepressant, and it was prescribed because Foster himself told the doctor he was feeling a little depressed.

But I thought you just got done telling us what the doctor said is "irrelevant". :rolleyes: And you've offered no evidence that the doctor prescribed the medication because Foster said he was a little depressed. You {wrong} again?

Quote:
Now let me point out another piece of the puzzle that you've simply ignored. The Park Police notes say Lisa Foster said she and Vince had "gone away and had a nice weekend on July 17-18." Do you know that Foster's sister (Sheila) also told the FBI that on the day before his death "he [Foster] was feeling good and that the weekend had gone well." So here he had a "nice weekend" and was "feeling good" just a day before we are to believe he killed himself because of *major* depression.

On Friday, Foster called his sister and told her he was depressed.

Yes, curious that we have such a dramatic change in what Sheila Anthony (who held a high office in the Clinton Department of Justice, by the way) said. For 8 days the record shows her saying one thing, then on day nine, shortly after a meeting in the Whitehouse attended by all those who dramatically changed their stories, she suddenly offers a completely different account. You don't have to be a skeptic to figure this out. :D

She gave him the phone numbers of three psychiatrists to call. Phone records apparently indicate he actually tried to call one that day.

Do they? Prove it.

All we really know for certain (given Fiske's and Starr's ability to make up evidence like claiming Lisa Foster's "fighting depression" and the oven mitt) (and given and someone else's ability to create evidence like the suicide note) is that Foster never talked to any of them. Now a psychiatrist reportedly did tell the FBI he was contacted by Foster sister, Sheila on July 16th. But perhaps Shiela was only laying the groundwork for a later suicide claim?

You know there are some very odd things about the note with the names of the psychiatrists. The Washington post reported on July 28 that "White House official searching the office of Vincent Foster, Jr. last week found a note indicating the 48 year- old deputy White House counsel may have considered psychiatric help shortly before he died". Then 2 days later a Washington Post article said the note was found in Foster automobile at Fort Marcy Park, and contained the name of TWO psychiatrists, not three. Then when the police report was issued, there were suddenly 3 names. And Miquel Rodriguez (Starr's top investigator for a time) and others in the OIC's office have noted that the name not originally reported by the Washington post looks as if it was written by a different hand ... and not Foster's. And isn't it odd that the first time this note is mentioned in police records is July 27th, a week after the police had evidence from the car in hand. Did you know that, ANTpogo? Now you do. :D

You seem to be hung up on what I said regarding Knowlton's appendix to the Starr Report. You keep claiming that the judges allowing the statement to be attached means that there must be some merit in Knowlton's claims.

Well, you have to admit that judges don't normally allow just anything to be attached to important government reports. And this was highly inflammatory ... accusing the OIC itself of a coverup and witness intimidation.

the law under which the attachment was made simply lets the panel of judges overseeing the independent counsel send out the final report to anyone specifically "named in the report", so said person can respond with their own comments. To my knowledge, Knowlton is the only one who did so, and thus the judges attached his response.

This is just more spin. But at least now you aren't falsely claiming that any thing submitted had to be attached to the report, *by law*. :rolleyes:

It says nothing of what you claim. You are {wrong}.

It doesn't say anything at all, actually

Then you admit that your bold claim was {wrong}. :D

In other words, Knowlton says (paraphrasing, of course))

Why paraphrase, when you can just cite exactly what Knowlton says? So you can put in quotes a statement that Knowlton did not make? :rolleyes:

BeAChooser

11th May 2009, 06:53 PM

If I may make a suggestion, you may want to abandon the line of reasoning that Foster wasn't really depressed.

That's not my claim. Again, you don't don't seem to have understood anything I wrote. My claim, as I stated quite clearly, is that he was not "clinically" depressed as Fiske, Starr, ANTpogo and all the *it was suicide* crowd claim. You do understand what is meant by "clinically", right?

BeAChooser

11th May 2009, 06:56 PM

ANTPogo

12th May 2009, 07:18 AM

First, it was noted that according to Foster's doctor, the initial dose Foster was prescribed was one 50 mg tablet of Desyrel (also known as Trazodone), to be taken at bedtime. The doctor said Foster could increase that to 3 tablets (i.e., 150 mg).

No, the doctor didn't say he "could increase that to 3", implying he was giving Foster just 50mg and if that didn't help he could take more. The doctor said "I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg. He was to start with one at bedtime and move up to three."

Note the lack of any option given to Foster there. The doctor wanted Foster on 150mg of Desyrel.

The recommended starting Desyrel dose when treating depression is 150 mg per day (divided into two or three doses per day). ... snip ... The maximum recommended dose of Desyrel is 400 mg total per day, although people who have been hospitalized due to their depression may take up to 600 mg per day.

What did the doctor prescribe Foster again? "I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg. He was to start with one at bedtime and move up to three."

150mg a day. And remember, the doctor prescribed this for Foster after a daytime call. I don't know how many prescriptions you've taken, BAC, but in the past when I've been given a medication in the afternoon that I'm supposed to take three times a day, I start with the one evening dose that first day, and don't take all three doses at once.

The second source says the same thing ... that the initial dose, if used for depression is 150 mg, not 50 mg.

Which is exactly what Foster was prescribed. Three 50mg pills equals 150mg, you know.

DESYREL is indicated for the treatment of depression. ... snip ... An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested. The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for outpatients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.

Which, again, is what Foster was prescribed. 150mg a day, taken in divided doses (three 50mg pills).

When prescribed for insomnia and sleep disturbance, the usual dose for trazodone is 50–100 mg at bedtime, but some patients may need doses as high as 150–200 mg. ... snip ... For treatment of depression, trazodone is gradually increased to the effective therapeutic dosage of 300–400 mg, although some individuals may require dosages up to 600 mg.

The part that you didn't quote from that 2007 pamphlet explains that trazodone was once used widely for depression, but was replaced by modern drugs...drugs developed after Foster's death in 1993. Now trazodone is used only off-label for insomnia, but back then it was a common antidepressant.

And in any case, note where it says "gradually increased to...300-400 mg"? Increased from what, do you think? Especially in light of everything below.

Symptom-Focused Psychiatric Drug Therapy for Managed Care, By Sonny Joseph ... snip ... For treatment of insomnia and as an adjunctive medication, the dosage range is 50 to 150 mg, given at bedtime for insomnia, and in divided doses for other purposes.

Foster was prescribed divided doses as in "other purposes" (like for depression), not a single dose (like for insomnia).

Two of the most commonly used medications for insomnia in the United States are ... snip ... and the antidepressant trazodone (Desyrel) used in the range of 25 to 150 mg, which is lower than its effective antidepressant dose.

It gives a range for insomnia, the maximum of which is the starting dose for depression (according to all these other sources that you quoted). Foster was prescribed 150mg. So this quote is a wash (though it's unlikely for a doctor to immediately prescribe the maximum dosage).

Desyrel is prescribed for the treatment of depression. ... snip ...
The usual starting dosage is a total of 150 milligrams per day, divided into 2 or more smaller doses. Your doctor may increase your dose by 50 milligrams per day every 3 or 4 days. Total dosage should not exceed 400 milligrams per day, divided into smaller doses.

Which, again, is what Foster was prescribed. 150mg a day, taken in divided doses (three 50mg pills).

he daily dosage is usually administered in three divided doses. ... snip ... Depression - The optimal dosage is between 300 - 400 mg/day. It is suggested that a starting dose of 150 mg/day is given for the first week, increasing to 300 mg/day or higher according to the clinical response (600 mg/day dosage has been reported).

Which, again, is what Foster was prescribed. 150mg a day.

For relief of depression. ... snip ... An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested. The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for out patients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.

Which, once again, is what Foster was prescribed. 150mg a day, taken in divided doses (three 50mg pills).

DESYREL is indicated for the treatment of depression. ...snip ... An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested. The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for outpatients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.

Which, shockingly yet again, is what Foster was prescribed. 150mg a day, taken in divided doses (three 50mg pills).

Adults—Oral, to start, 50 milligrams per dose taken three times a day, or 75 milligrams per dose taken two times a day. Your doctor may increase your dose if needed.

Gasp! And Foster was prescribed three 50mg doses a day!

The main indication for the use of trazodone is major depressive disorder. There is a clear dose-response relationship, with dosages of 250 to 600 mg a day being necessary for trazodone to have therapeutic benefit.

Main, but not only. An odd thing for you to quote in "support" of your position, since your entire argument is based on the fact that Desyrel has other uses. It also doesn't contradict all the other sources which say Desyrel should be started at 150mg (what Foster was prescribed), and increased only after physician review, to get to the higher dosages.

*snip list of links showing a range of dosages for insomnia, with the max at 150mg*

Again, it's extremely unlikely that a doctor would immediately prescribe the maximum dose of anything for a patient - if Watkins did so, it would make his prescription for Foster extremely unusual. Especially in light of the fact that Foster admitted to depression, and if Watkins gave him a prescription for depression, then the prescription would be utterly bog-standard and not unusual at all.

For the treatment of depression, the dose for adults is 150-600 mg per day. The initial starting dose usually is 150 mg per day. ... snip ... Doses of 25-75 mg are prescribed for insomnia.

You not only quoted this, you added a smiley afterwards. And yet, Foster's prescription was for 150mg, the depression dose listed, and twice the maximum listed right there for insomnia!

Even if we accept the possibility that ANTpogo is so driven to believe Foster's death was a suicide that he is willing to believe his one source over a dozen others (and I could have supplied hundreds more),

Yes, all those sources which say the depression dose for Desyrel is 150mg in divided doses, when Foster's doctor prescribed exactly that.

And yet I have no trouble whatsoever finding sources that say that isn't true at all ... finding posters on the internet medical forums stating they were prescribed 100 mg or 150 mg for insomnia ...

"Rarely" is not "never". And scouring internet message boards to cherrypick anecdotal anyonymous posters isn't exactly a good statistical study of dosage variation.

finding websites with recommended dosages of up to 150 mg (just like Foster's prescription) for insomnia.

"Up to" is not "starting". 150 mg for insomnia right off the bat is odd. 150 mg for depression right off the bat, though, is exactly in line with all those sources you quoted above.

No, that's only your interpretation. Watkins said nothing about needing to treat any depression in either FBI interview or notes.

"He did feel that he had some mild depression. I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg. He was to start with one at bedtime and move up to three."

No he didn't "explicitly prescribe" the drug for depression and no he didn't "directly associate" it with depression. You are {wrong}.

I'm sure you think pretending to have "edited" your accusations like you did when Tricky admonished you is quite clever.

Oh my he was stressed and making mistakes. We should all commit suicide, I guess, because we are all pretty stressed right now. :rolleyes:

Taking a page from Galileo, I see.

And more likely, his death was in some way related to the things he couldn't talk about that he was doing for the Clintons. Perhaps something to do with their blind trust ... which was behind schedule in being completed for some unknown reason? Or perhaps something to do with all that material that Clinton administration staffers were observed removing from Foster's office after his death (which the staffers later denied doing under oath)?

"We discussed the possibility of taking Axid or Zantac to help with any ulcer symptoms as he was under a lot of stress. He was concerned about the criticism they were getting and the long hours he was working at the White House. He did feel that he had some mild depression."

Funny that she didn't mention that to the investigators the first week after his death. Not till after that meeting in the Whitehouse. And say, what was that $286,000 payment to Lisa that Sheila handled about?

Are you really suggesting that Foster's sister paid off Foster's wife to cover up his death?

You mean prescribing one of the drugs most commonly prescribed for insomnia.

No, I mean prescribing one of the drugs most commonly prescribed in 1993 for depression.

Yeah ... the quack who could say with "100% certainty" it was a suicide. Despite all the facts I've brought to light here in this and the other thread. And that's not evidence. That's just a conclusion.

Dr. Bermanis the executive director of the American Association of Suicidology (http://www.suicidology.org/web/guest/home). His bio reads "Director of the National Center for the Study and Prevention of Suicide at the Washington School of Psychiatry (1991-1995) and a tenured full-professor of Psychology at American University (1969-1991). Lanny has published 7 books, the latest being the 2nd edition of Adolescent Suicide: Assessment and Intervention, and more than 100 peer-reviewed articles in Suicidology and suicide prevention. He is the recipient of both AAS’s Shneidman and Dublin Awards for outstanding research contributions to Suicidology and to suicide prevention and a past-president (1984-1985) of AAS. Board certified as an ABPP diplomate in clinical psychology, he is an elected Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the International Academy of Suicide Research. He holds a BA degree from the Johns Hopkins University and a Ph.D. from the Catholic University of America."

But I'm sure he knows much less about suicide than you do, BAC.

But I thought you just got done telling us what the doctor said is "irrelevant".

No, I said that the fact that Watkins didn't conclude that Foster was clinically depressed is irrelevant, since Watkins was given neither the time nor opportunity to diagnose Foster properly.

And you've offered no evidence that the doctor prescribed the medication because Foster said he was a little depressed.

"[H]e was under a lot of stress. He was concerned about the criticism they were getting and the long hours he was working at the White House. He did feel that he had some mild depression. I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg. He was to start with one at bedtime and move up to three."

Yes, curious that we have such a dramatic change in what Sheila Anthony (who held a high office in the Clinton Department of Justice, by the way) said. For 8 days the record shows her saying one thing, then on day nine, shortly after a meeting in the Whitehouse attended by all those who dramatically changed their stories, she suddenly offers a completely different account. You don't have to be a skeptic to figure this out.

All we really know for certain (given Fiske's and Starr's ability to make up evidence like claiming Lisa Foster's "fighting depression" and the oven mitt) (and given and someone else's ability to create evidence like the suicide note) is that Foster never talked to any of them. Now a psychiatrist reportedly did tell the FBI he was contacted by Foster sister, Sheila on July 16th. But perhaps Shiela was only laying the groundwork for a later suicide claim?

So, you are claiming that Foster's sister was somehow both involved in the coverup of Foster's death by calling a psychiatrist on behalf of her brother the Friday before his death to "lay the groundwork" for a suicide claim...and yet spending eight days after his death denying that he was depressed and therefore potentially suicidal?

You know there are some very odd things about the note with the names of the psychiatrists. The Washington post reported on July 28 that "White House official searching the office of Vincent Foster, Jr. last week found a note indicating the 48 year- old deputy White House counsel may have considered psychiatric help shortly before he died". Then 2 days later a Washington Post article said the note was found in Foster automobile at Fort Marcy Park, and contained the name of TWO psychiatrists, not three. Then when the police report was issued, there were suddenly 3 names. And Miquel Rodriguez (Starr's top investigator for a time) and others in the OIC's office have noted that the name not originally reported by the Washington post looks as if it was written by a different hand ... and not Foster's. And isn't it odd that the first time this note is mentioned in police records is July 27th, a week after the police had evidence from the car in hand.

So, news items from just a week after the death of a political figure are such an accurate, impeachable resource that contradictions mean coverup? And police investigators poring through reams of evidence should have fully catalogued everything in less than a week, so the first mention of the details of a particular item coming just eight days after it was collected from the crime scene is so suspicious as to cast doubt on its entire provenance?

Well, you have to admit that judges don't normally allow just anything to be attached to important government reports.

How many submitted attachments did the panel of judges deny, BAC? How many were there total?

This is just more spin. But at least now you aren't falsely claiming that any thing submitted had to be attached to the report, *by law*.

That wasn't my claim. I said that Starr had to let anyone named submit a statement. The judges ruled that the statement should be attached to the report...exactly as per the law I quoted.

Then you admit that your bold claim was {wrong}.

What bold claim? You're the one trying to say that the judges agreeing to have Knowlton's statement defending himself against accusations of perjury, mental instability, and homosexuality somehow means that the judges agreed with everything Knowlton claimed and concluded in his rambling, self-contradictory statement.

Why paraphrase, when you can just cite exactly what Knowlton says? So you can put in quotes a statement that Knowlton did not make?

If you spent a little more time reading my posts and less time making pathetic "edits" to your accusations, you might have seen where I did just that right above the sentence you quoted.

Here, I'll even do it again:

"In re North, Id. Mr. Knowlton merely seeks to refute allegations that he is:

(1) A liar and perjurer;

(2) A homosexual; and

(3) Mentally unstable."

BeAChooser

12th May 2009, 01:06 PM

The doctor said "I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg. He was to start with one at bedtime and move up to three."

Regardless, the dose was fully within the dose recommended by countless doctors for treating insomnia (as my links prove) and well below the effective dose for treating depression (as my links prove). Which is directly counter to what you claimed. :)

Note the lack of any option given to Foster there. The doctor wanted Foster on 150mg of Desyrel.

Regardless, the dose was fully within the the dose routinely recommended for treating insomnia. And if depression was the concern, wouldn't the doctor have left "no option" about moving the dose up to what the literature says is the effective therapeutic dose for Desyrel ... some 400 mg or so? :D

There are several other things that are odd about Dr Watkin's note (as opposed to his FBI testimony which was taken a week after Foster's death). Don't any of you so-called skeptics find it curious that Dr Watkins would write this note to himself the day after he heard of Foster's deat, but would not tell authorities about it? Fiske never mentioned such a note. No, this note does not surface until Starr's investigation, much, much later. One wonders, with Starr creating bogus evidence like the oven mitt, might a note from the doctor be equally after-the-fact bogus evidence?

What did the doctor prescribe Foster again?

Tell me something, ANTpogo. Are you aware that Dr Watkins had previously prescribed sleeping pills for Foster? The FBI interview of Lisa Foster on May 9, 1993 states "In terms of other drugs which may have been prescribed for Foster in the past, Lisa Foster is aware of the sleeping pill Restoril having been prescribed." And given that we have both Lisa and the doctor also saying that Foster was concerned about becoming addicted to the sleeping pills, isn't it more likely that Dr Watkins was prescribing a replacement to the Restoril ... one that isn't habit forming? Like Desyrel? :D

I don't know how many prescriptions you've taken, BAC, but in the past when I've been given a medication in the afternoon that I'm supposed to take three times a day, I start with the one evening dose that first day, and don't take all three doses at once.

See the desperation, folks? Now ANTpogo wants you to believe that Dr Watkins started Foster out on a dose of 150 mg per day, even though the doctor stated that "I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg." :rolleyes:

Doesn't ANTpogo know (he should) that Foster was only prescribed 30 50 mg tablets? Is ANTpogo claiming that Foster was only prescribed 10 days medication for "clinical" depression? :rolleyes:

Which, again, is what Foster was prescribed. 150mg a day, taken in divided doses (three 50mg pills).

I guess ANTpogo is also unaware that the FBI is reported to have interviewed the owner of the prescribing pharmacy as part of the Fiske investigation. That certainly seems likely. According to http://www.electric-america.com/99/Foster_coverup.htm

in the words of the FBI interview of the owner of the pharmacy, the prescription indicated "one to three tablets or 50 to 150 milligrams was prescribed to be taken prior to bedtime."

That doesn't say "divided doses" and nothing that Watkins is reported to have said or written called for "divided doses" either. You are now so desperate you are simply making things up ... fabricating things just like Starr clearly did.

Now trazodone is used only off-label for insomnia, but back then it was a common antidepressant.

Back in 1993, it was also a common insomnia drug.

Foster was prescribed divided doses as in "other purposes" (like for depression), not a single dose (like for insomnia).

{WRONG} There no evidence, whatsoever, that Foster was prescribed "divided doses". See what I mean about beating one's head against ANTpogo's partisan delusions, folks? There really isn't much point in continuing this with him, is there. No more than there was on the previous thread, when he began to do the same thing. :)

And scouring internet message boards to cherrypick anecdotal anyonymous posters isn't exactly a good statistical study of dosage variation.

;) I notice you didn't come up with any more sources to support your claim that "Foster was prescribed a dose much higher than the insomnia dose". Having trouble locating them? ROTFLOL! And I didn't have to do much "scouring" ... just look at the first few pages among hundreds of hits that came up in my search. :D

And say, what was that $286,000 payment to Lisa that Sheila handled about?

Are you really suggesting that Foster's sister paid off Foster's wife to cover up his death?

I'm just asking you to explain a $286,000 dollar payment that was made to Lisa Foster by Sheila Foster from a DNC account just a week before Foster died. Can't you do that? :D

Quote:
You mean prescribing one of the drugs most commonly prescribed for insomnia.

No, I mean prescribing one of the drugs most commonly prescribed in 1993 for depression.

But it was also commonly prescribed for insomnia back then too.

Quote:
Yeah ... the quack who could say with "100% certainty" it was a suicide. Despite all the facts I've brought to light here in this and the other thread. And that's not evidence. That's just a conclusion.

Dr. Bermanis the executive director of the American Association of Suicidology.

Ok, a "quack" with *credentials* then.

Read this folks: http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-dr-alan-bermans-loud-silence/

No, I said that the fact that Watkins didn't conclude that Foster was clinically depressed is irrelevant, since Watkins was given neither the time nor opportunity to diagnose Foster properly.

And yet you, Fiske and Starr claim he prescribed Desyrel to treat clinical depression. See the inconsistency here, folks?

Quote:
Yes, curious that we have such a dramatic change in what Sheila Anthony (who held a high office in the Clinton Department of Justice, by the way) said. For 8 days the record shows her saying one thing, then on day nine, shortly after a meeting in the Whitehouse attended by all those who dramatically changed their stories, she suddenly offers a completely different account. You don't have to be a skeptic to figure this out.

Quote:
All we really know for certain (given Fiske's and Starr's ability to make up evidence like claiming Lisa Foster's "fighting depression" and the oven mitt) (and given and someone else's ability to create evidence like the suicide note) is that Foster never talked to any of them. Now a psychiatrist reportedly did tell the FBI he was contacted by Foster sister, Sheila on July 16th. But perhaps Shiela was only laying the groundwork for a later suicide claim?

So, you are claiming that Foster's sister was somehow both involved in the coverup of Foster's death by calling a psychiatrist on behalf of her brother the Friday before his death to "lay the groundwork" for a suicide claim...and yet spending eight days after his death denying that he was depressed and therefore potentially suicidal?

There is no question that for 8 days after Foster's death, Sheila Anthony never mentioned depression once to investigators and specifically denied it, when asked if he was depressed or on medication for depression. That's a undeniable fact. It's a matter of public record and easily proven to be fact.

Now she and a pathologist CLAIM they had a conversation on July 16th about Foster's depression. But that claim only surfaced after a meeting in the Whitehouse a week after Foster's death (which coincidentally included a number of other people who suddenly changed their stories after the meeting about depression). Tell me folks ... is it beyond the realm of possibility that this conversation never actually took place?

Afterall, I've already presented evidence that the FBI and OIC altered a statement from Lisa Foster regarding depression. Notice how none of the suicide proponents on this thread seem to want to discuss that evidence? :D

Afterall, a supposed suicide note appeared in the Whitehouse about the same time as that meeting where everyone changed their story about depression. It was a suicide note that is so obviously bogus that you may noticed none of the suicide proponents on this thread now want to even discuss it. But Starr claimed it was authentic. :rolleyes:

Afterall, we have Lisa Foster being pressured by the FBI and IOC to say the black gun supposedly found in Foster's hand was the silver gun she brought to Washington. And suddenly changing her statements about depression after that mysterious meeting in the Whitehouse. Notice how none of the suicide proponents wanted to really talk about that? :D Notice that none of them wanted to talk about the statements under oath by the first person to see Foster's body that there was no gun in Foster's hand? :D Notice that none of them want to talk about the evidence (statements by multiple individuals who were at the Park) that Foster's body was moved between the time it was found and the photographs the IOC claims show a gun? :D Notice that none of the suicide proponents want to go anywhere near testimony that the original photos disappeared? Or that x-rays disappeared. :D

Afterall, we have Patrick Knowlton charging that the IOC and FBI tampered with his testimony. Notice how ANTpogo is attempting to discredit Knowlton ... by continuing the smears and insinuations the IOC started? :D

Afterall, we have Starr's top investigator charging that the evidence of a bullet wound in the head is fabricated, and that the real evidence (both witness statements and a photograph) clearly show a bullet wound in the neck ... which Fiske and Starr denied exists. Notice how none of the suicide proponents wanted to discuss this either. :D Notice how the government would rather let these allegations continue to be voiced than silence them by releasing one photo of the wound that was supposedly in Foster's head? :D

Afterall, we have the oven mitt, that Starr introduced to explain the lack of fingerprints on the alleged suicide gun. Again, notice how none of the suicide proponents want to go there. :D But I'm happy to go there. :D For example, here's the picture that Starr provided of the oven mitt:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/FAVISH/2400b.jpg

Notice where he claimed they found the mitt? In the glove compartment. But ask yourself ... how did Foster get the gun to the supposed suicide location deep in the park where he supposedly shot himself without getting finger prints on it? He wore no gloves.

There is even more mystery to this oven mitt *evidence*. Here's a picture of the car taken when it was still at Fort Marcy Park:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/FAVISH/2112mid4.jpg

Notice the material on the floor of the front passenger seat? Now look back and observe that the picture Starr offered as the oven mitt evidence has no debris on the floor? Obviously, Starr's oven mitt photo would have to have been taken after the floor was cleaned of debris. But do you know it's a matter of public record that Detective Braun emptied the glovebox (her list of items does not include an oven mitt, by the way) six hours before records indicate detective Smith removed and catalogued the debris on the passenger side floor (a list that also did not include an oven mitt). You don't have to be much of a skeptic, folks, to know this is clear proof that Starr fabricated the oven mitt evidence.

And if the IOC was willing to fake evidence like this, do you really imagine they wouldn't be willing to claim a conversation between two people which was never recorded, it they thought it would help bolster their tenuous theory? :D

Quote:
This is just more spin. But at least now you aren't falsely claiming that any thing submitted had to be attached to the report, *by law*.

That wasn't my claim.

FALSE. That's exactly what you were trying to claim. Here is what you wrote: "Any statement he wanted to make regarding the events which caused his name to be mentioned in the report would be attached. ... snip ... By law, the statement had to be included".

The judges ruled that the statement should be attached to the report...exactly as per the law I quoted.

FALSE AGAIN. The law does not say the statement must be attached to the report. The law says that's up to the DISCRETION of the judges. Which you initially and clearly tried to claim wasn't the case. You are {wrong}.

I'm done with you, ANTpogo. It's as much a waste of time to continue discussing this with you now as it was the first time. But I hope others found our exchange quite illuminating. :)

BeAChooser

12th May 2009, 01:09 PM

Now, for the benefit of other readers and REAL skeptics, some more witness statements regarding Foster's REAL mental state (as opposed to the one concocted by the Clinton Adminstration, the IOCs, and the Clinton/Obama supporters on this thread):

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-critiquing-bermans-report-on-foster/

- President Clinton spoke on the phone to Foster for 20-25 minutes the night before he died. "He described no symptoms or behavioral problems other than that Mr. Foster seemed tired."

- Marsha Scott, aide to the President, had a long meeting with Foster on July 19. She did not see any depression.

- David Watkins, Assistant to the President for Management and Administration, saw Foster every day and noticed nothing unusual about his mood or behavior.

- Betsy Pond, White House Counsel Nussbaum's secretary, saw nothing wrong with Foster's mental state.

- Nancy Hernreich, Deputy Assistant to the President, saw no changes.

- Beth Nolan, Associate White House Counsel, noticed nothing different.

- Bernard Nussbaum, White House Counsel, did not see Foster as mentally troubled, but "he did see a marked diminution of Foster's work in the final weeks."

And from the same source, let me indicate a few other factors that suggest this wasn't a case of suicide:

NO SUICIDE THREAT OR ALLUSIONS TO SUICIDE: No one ever heard Mr. Foster threaten or discuss suicide. A full 80% of all successful suicides have either threatened or alluded to suicide. ... snip ...

NO SUICIDE NOTE: It is true that only 12-20% of people who commit suicide leave a note. It is also true Mr. Foster was passionately committed to his children and family. He was of an orderly mind and was compassionate and empathic. One would expect, if not a note, a distinct effort to put his financial and other affairs in order.

NO SUICIDE ATTEMPTS OR RISKY IMPULSIVE ACTIONS IN RESPECT TO HIS HEALTH AND SAFETY ... snip ...

FUTURE ORIENTATION: Mr. Foster anticipated and planned. The indications for future orientation are many. Examples include speaking to Brugh (his youngest son) on the 19th about buying a boat, planning to take his sister and niece to the White House Mess on the 21st, and arranging lunch with Mr. Lyons the following week. On the 19th of July, he agreed to a meeting with President Clinton on the 21st. On the 19th or 20th he wrote a matter-of-fact letter to his mother regarding some oil leases. His mother was to sign and return the oil leases. The last thing he said as he left the White House was, "I'll be back." ... snip ...

MENTAL STATE ON THE MORNING OF THE 20TH OF JULY 1993: According to his wife and children he was actually in better spirits that morning than he had been in the last week. ... snip ... No one in the office felt he was depressed, unusual or troubled on the 20th. He even ate his usual lunch and read his usual newspaper.

:D

oldhat

12th May 2009, 02:40 PM

MENTAL STATE ON THE MORNING OF THE 20TH OF JULY 1993: According to his wife and children he was actually in better spirits that morning than he had been in the last week. ... snip ... No one in the office felt he was depressed, unusual or troubled on the 20th. He even ate his usual lunch and read his usual newspaper.

Did you know psychiatrists and social workers are trained to look for this when treating suicidal patients? It's a serious warning sign if a suicidal person suddenly appears happy or in better spirits. It's an red light indicator that a suicidal person has finally settled on a method and a time to commit suicide after going through the agonizing process of deciding where and how to do it. The relief comes from secretly knowing "it will all be over soon."

BeAChooser, have you ever heard of Charles Koch or David Brock?

Galileo

12th May 2009, 03:12 PM

Galileo, could I ask you please not to quote long posts in their entirety just to post one liners? If need be, copy the first line of the post, then put "... snip ..." and then copy the last line of the post you want to respond to, before typing your comment. Thanks.

OK, will do. I appreciate your research and expertise regarding the Vince Foster case. I initially only belived there was reasonable doubt as to whether Foster committed suicide. Now I am convinced he did not commit suicide.

Your evidence is very strong.

Galileo

12th May 2009, 03:13 PM

Did you know psychiatrists and social workers are trained to look for this when treating suicidal patients? It's a serious warning sign if a suicidal person suddenly appears happy or in better spirits. It's an red light indicator that a suicidal person has finally settled on a method and a time to commit suicide after going through the agonizing process of deciding where and how to do it. The relief comes from secretly knowing "it will all be over soon."

BeAChooser, have you ever heard of Charles Koch or David Brock?

you remind me of the kooks who argue that cold weather is evidence for global warming.

Galileo

12th May 2009, 03:25 PM

You don't have to be much of a skeptic, folks, to know this is clear proof that Starr fabricated the oven mitt evidence.

BeAChooser;

This was a great post. Please be aware that according to JRERer doctrine, evidence is never fabricated, even when there is evidence that evidence was fabricated.

SmartyPants

12th May 2009, 03:47 PM

you remind me of the kooks who argue that cold weather is evidence for global warming.

Uh, no, sorry. oldhat's assertion is common knowledge within the psychological community. I have a BS in Psychology, and this something you pretty much learn the first week in an abnormal psych class.

But since I doubt you'll take my word for it, here (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001554.htm) are (http://www.bipolar.com/living_with_bipolar_disorder/understanding_suicide.html) some (http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/Suicide/hic_Recognizing_Suicidal_Behavior.aspx) links (http://www3.acep.org/patients.aspx?id=36758)you (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/suicide-and-suicidal-behavior/overview.html) can (http://pennstatehershey.org/healthinfo/hie/1/001554.htm) look (http://healthguide.howstuffworks.com/suicide-and-suicidal-behavior-dictionary.htm) at (http://apps.uwhealth.org/health/hie/1/001554.htm). You'll notice the numerous references to calmness after making the decision to kill oneself.

I mean, really, it's laughable that anyone would scoff at this.

Furthermore, Foster didn't have to be depressed or diagnosed with depression to want to kill himself. Check under the "Causes" sections of the links I've posted. There are other reasons why Foster may have wanted to commit suicide, although he certainly was depressed, so your argument continues to weaken. When you exhibit obvious warning signs of suicidal behavior along with the fact that he's physically linked to the gun, then it's pretty obvious how he died.

ANTPogo

12th May 2009, 03:58 PM

FALSE. That's exactly what you were trying to claim. Here is what you wrote: "Any statement he wanted to make regarding the events which caused his name to be mentioned in the report would be attached. ... snip ... By law, the statement had to be included".

FALSE AGAIN. The law does not say the statement must be attached to the report. The law says that's up to the DISCRETION of the judges. Which you initially and clearly tried to claim wasn't the case. You are {wrong}.

Here's what I actually said, before you edited to falsely claim I said something I didn't.

That's because the attachment means nothing. Legally, Starr had to let anyone mentioned in the report submit their own statement. The judges on the IOC panel ruled that Knowlton had not been given that opportunity, and so Starr had to include Knowlton's statement as an addendum. They didn't rule at all that Knowlton was correct, or that his facts were the true facts of the matter. Any statement he wanted to make regarding the events which caused his name to be mentioned in the report would be attached.

Knowlton's attached statement thus has as little bearing on the truth of the case as any of the "witness statements" in Berg's lawsuit saying Obama isn't a citizen has on the truth of that case. By law, the statement had to be included, but it did not alter the verdict Starr reached in his report, nor did the judges say it did.

First you took my statement that the content of Knowlton's statement was irrelevant to the attachment order itself because they weren't ruling on the merits or veracity of the statement, only that "the report is full and complete and to afford [him] a measure of fairness" (ie, Knowlton could have written "I am a fish" on his statement, and if the judges said it should be attached to make sure Knowlton got treated fairly, then it would be attached - and, in fact, Knowlton's request to the panel was specifically about defending himself from allegations of being insane, gay, and a liar, which is why judges let him have his say, not because they thought he had blown the lid off of Starr's coverup).

Then you took another statement of mine that because the judges ordered the statement attached, then Starr had to, by the wording of the cited law, include the statement in his report, and yet the ordered attachment didn't change the conclusions of Starr's report in any way, shape, or form (nor did the judges say anything to even imply that in their ruling).

Then you edited out all the context to make it look like I was really claiming that the law itself said that if Knowlton wanted to make a statement, period, then it would automatically have to be included with the report. And then you try to reinforce your chopping and twisting of my words by pretending I've been ignoring the judges' role in all this when the very bit you sliced out talks about how the only reason Knowlton's statement was even included was because the judges ruled that it should be.

I'm done with you, ANTpogo. It's as much a waste of time to continue discussing this with you now as it was the first time. But I hope others found our exchange quite illuminating.

Yes, I hope they read the above bit especially, and find it enlightening.

I sure did.

Galileo

12th May 2009, 04:26 PM

Uh, no, sorry. oldhat's assertion is common knowledge within the psychological community. I have a BS in Psychology, and this something you pretty much learn the first week in an abnormal psych class.

But since I doubt you'll take my word for it, here (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001554.htm) are (http://www.bipolar.com/living_with_bipolar_disorder/understanding_suicide.html) some (http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/Suicide/hic_Recognizing_Suicidal_Behavior.aspx) links (http://www3.acep.org/patients.aspx?id=36758)you (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/suicide-and-suicidal-behavior/overview.html) can (http://pennstatehershey.org/healthinfo/hie/1/001554.htm) look (http://healthguide.howstuffworks.com/suicide-and-suicidal-behavior-dictionary.htm) at (http://apps.uwhealth.org/health/hie/1/001554.htm). You'll notice the numerous references to calmness after making the decision to kill oneself.

I mean, really, it's laughable that anyone would scoff at this.

Furthermore, Foster didn't have to be depressed or diagnosed with depression to want to kill himself. Check under the "Causes" sections of the links I've posted. There are other reasons why Foster may have wanted to commit suicide, although he certainly was depressed, so your argument continues to weaken. When you exhibit obvious warning signs of suicidal behavior along with the fact that he's physically linked to the gun, then it's pretty obvious how he died.

So Foster killed himself because he was calm? Check!

oldhat

12th May 2009, 04:58 PM

So Foster killed himself because he was calm? Check!

No, you're really belying your ignorance about how people with mental illness behave. The stereotype of someone moping around in a bathrobe crying "woe is me," is just that, a stereotype. Most people with depression appear more or less normal. They get dressed. They go to work. But their inner lives are hell. Depression isn't "being sad." Sadness and depression are two separate things.

Vince Foster killed himself because:

1. He had clinical depression due to work stress. He felt he was a failure at work due to the "Travelgate" non-scandal and he felt persecuted by the WSJ.
2. He and his doctor hadn't reached a therapeutic blood level of Trazodone. This can take anywhere from two weeks to two months or more, Foster was taking Trazodone for days.
3. Most crucially, he had instant access to a firearm.

The risk of a suicidal person completing suicide goes up astronomically if that person has a firearm at hand. This is why if a suicidal person calls a suicide prevention line or 911, the first question the operator asks is "Do you have a firearm with you?"

I want to ask Galileo and BAC again, do either of you know who Charles Koch and David Brock are? They are two important figures when it comes to the creation of the right wing's Clinton mythology. You're not getting the full picture of how the Vince Foster suicide story got started if you don't know who they are.

Galileo

12th May 2009, 05:26 PM

No, you're really belying your ignorance about how people with mental illness behave. The stereotype of someone moping around in a bathrobe crying "woe is me," is just that, a stereotype. Most people with depression appear more or less normal. They get dressed. They go to work. But their inner lives are hell. Depression isn't "being sad." Sadness and depression are two separate things.

Vince Foster killed himself because:

1. He had clinical depression due to work stress. He felt he was a failure at work due to the "Travelgate" non-scandal and he felt persecuted by the WSJ.
2. He and his doctor hadn't reached a therapeutic blood level of Trazodone. This can take anywhere from two weeks to two months or more, Foster was taking Trazodone for days.
3. Most crucially, he had instant access to a firearm.

The risk of a suicidal person completing suicide goes up astronomically if that person has a firearm at hand. This is why if a suicidal person calls a suicide prevention line or 911, the first question the operator asks is "Do you have a firearm with you?"

I want to ask Galileo and BAC again, do either of you know who Charles Koch and David Brock are? They are two important figures when it comes to the creation of the right wing's Clinton mythology. You're not getting the full picture of how the Vince Foster suicide story got started if you don't know who they are.

Foster did not have mental illness. That is just an ad hoc explanation.

Foster was probably taken out because he was honest and knew too much about the Waco mass murder and the FBI involvement in the '93 WTC bombing.

SmartyPants

12th May 2009, 06:07 PM

So Foster killed himself because he was calm? Check!

Uh, no. This has already been explained. He didn't kill himself because he was calm. Assuming it was depression and the current, dire circumstances of his life (Causes), he killled himself. The decision to kill himself ridded him (Symptom) of the anxiety of trying to make such a decision and the other circumstances of his life (Causes). He was no longer anxious about his state because "he knew it (his life) was going to end soon." No more worries (Symptom) about his life (Cause). He could breathe easier (Symptom).

Didn't kill himself BECAUSE he was calm. K, ya got that? I assume you can tell the difference between "Causes" and "Symptons." Or maybe not.

Also, what oldhat said.

SmartyPants

12th May 2009, 06:12 PM

Foster did not have mental illness. That is just an ad hoc explanation.

Again, Foster didn't need to be diagnosed with a mental illness in order to kill himself. Check the "Causes" sections of the links I've posted for you. I've noticed it's gone from his actual diagnoses to the broad field of mental illness, by the way.

Foster was probably taken out because he was honest and knew too much about the Waco mass murder and the FBI involvement in the '93 WTC bombing.

Are you going to provide evidence of this? Are going to knock down the suicide evidence we've provided? Or are you just going to continue shouting what's clearly not true, hoping we believe it?

oldhat

12th May 2009, 09:03 PM

I'm not saying Vince Foster had a mental illness to make it sound like he was crrrrrraaaaazzzzy or expand the definition of what he had. He wasn't crazy. But he was clinically depressed. I was trying to put his condition into the context of what it was -- a serious medical condition that can be fatal if left untreated -- and what is wasn't. Like a simple case of the blues.

But do you know what is crrrrrraaaaazzzzy? Believing a patently untrue conspiracy theory about the Clintons cooked up by David Brock and his paymasters at the American Spectator. And if you don't believe me that he helped knowingly invent the Vince Foster conspiracy theory, read his book. The one he wrote after the crisis of conscience he had, after spreading so many absurd lies about the Clintons. Utter nonsense like them running Columbian cocaine out of the govenor's mansion and murdering people with freight trains. Yeah, freight trains.

Crrrrrraaaaaazzzzy!

Galileo

13th May 2009, 10:56 AM

Uh, no. This has already been explained. He didn't kill himself because he was calm. Assuming it was depression and the current, dire circumstances of his life (Causes), he killled himself. The decision to kill himself ridded him (Symptom) of the anxiety of trying to make such a decision and the other circumstances of his life (Causes). He was no longer anxious about his state because "he knew it (his life) was going to end soon." No more worries (Symptom) about his life (Cause). He could breathe easier (Symptom).

Didn't kill himself BECAUSE he was calm. K, ya got that? I assume you can tell the difference between "Causes" and "Symptons." Or maybe not.

Also, what oldhat said.

so all calm people have symptoms of clinical depression and are a threat to commit suicide at a moment's notice?

That would make a good defense for a common murderer.

"Jury, the person who was killed was calm! He had clinical depression and committed suicide! It was not a murder!"

BeAChooser

13th May 2009, 12:16 PM

When you exhibit obvious warning signs of suicidal behavior along with the fact that he's physically linked to the gun, then it's pretty obvious how he died.

And what were those obvious warning signs ... that no one apparently noticed until after that meeting in the Whitehouse a week later? :D

And by the way, can you give us the "obvious" explanation for the oven mitt?

oldhat

13th May 2009, 12:39 PM

And what were those obvious warning signs ... that no one apparently noticed until after that meeting in the Whitehouse a week later? :D

He had clinical depression, he was carrying a loaded gun around with him. He even wrote a suicide note about how he felt persecuted. Then he killed himself.

What else do you need?

Do you think suicidal people walk around with nooses around their heads and announce their intentions to their co-workers?

Do you know how batty a conspiracy theory has to be if it requires Ken Starr to be in cahoots with Bill Clinton in the cover-up portion? Ken Starr? Do you know how little sense that makes? Were you alive during any portion of the 1990s?

Also, how come you still haven't answered my questions about how David Brock, Charles Koch and Richard Mellon Scaife all tie into the spreading of this rumor? Do you know what the Arkansas Project was?

All you're doing is recycling lies created by Republican partisans with huge axes to grind. Specifially Charles Koch and Richard Mellon Scaife. Ted Olsen literally created this story out of thin air. Read "Blinded By The Right" by David Brock if you're serious about doing "research." I know you won't but it's worth trying.

BeAChooser

13th May 2009, 01:46 PM

Vince Foster killed himself because:

1. He had clinical depression

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. There has been no evidence offered to prove he had "clinical" depression. NONE. The doctor said his depression was "mild" and situational, which is not the same as "clinical" depression. No one even said he was depressed at all ... until a week after he died ... until after a meeting at the whitehouse that *believers* like you clearly don't want to talk about. A meeting that was supposedly convened to discuss the bogus suicide note, that *believers* like you also don't want to talk about. :D

2. He and his doctor hadn't reached a therapeutic blood level of Trazodone.

It was at the level needed to help him sleep (the other common use of trazodone that you apparently are just going to ignore) ... which the doctor said Foster called complaining about and which the doctor thought would make Foster feel a "lot better".

Foster was taking Trazodone for days.

FALSE. Foster was only prescribed 30 pills and investigators said there were 29 pills still in the bottle. At least *try* to get the facts right. :rolleyes:

3. Most crucially, he had instant access to a firearm.

Now I already posted some questions about the gun ... THAT ALL OF YOU SIMPLY IGNORED. And I can't help but notice that you also don't want to talk about the oven mitt (how'd Foster not get his fingerprints on the gun since he wore no gloves), or the testimony of the first witness' to see Foster's body (there was no gun in Foster's hand), or Dr Haut's report (that the exit wound was in his neck, not his head, and that the wound was made by a low velocity round which is inconsistent with claimed suicide weapon), or the other witness statements (which also all placed the exit wound on the neck and ruled out an exit wound at the back of the head), or Miquel Rodriguez's analysis of the one available photo (which he said shows a wound in the neck).

Let me add more questions. Why was there no blood on the gun, oldhat? Why was there no blood on Foster's hand or the white sleeve of his shirt? Why did witness after witness say there was no blood at the supposed suicide location before the body was moved (surely with the 1" by 1-1/4" hole that Fiske and Starr claimed was in the top of Foster's head there would have been lots of blood all over)? Why was no bullet found despite repeated and extensive searches of the area?

How do you explain the fact that no matching bullets were found for the claimed suicide gun either at Foster's house or in his car? The claimed suicide weapon is a .38 revolver built from parts taken from two guns and has no serial number. Was this really the gun in Foster household like you seem to believe, oldhat? In ALL documents and witness statements in the weeks and months following Foster's death, the gun was described as BLACK. The photos published by the IOC showed it to be BLACK. Yet Lisa Foster testified that the ONLY gun in their house was a chrome plated, "silver" colored one. A little odd, don't you think?

Even more odd is why FBI agents, when interviewing Lisa Foster in an effort to get her to identify the suicide weapon, described the gun to her as "silver colored", not just once but repeatedly? In fact, the agents wrote down that "LISA FOSTER believes that the gun found at Fort Marcy Park may be the silver gun which she brought up with her other belongings when she permanently moved to Washington." You'd think that the agents would have known the gun supposedly found at Fort Marcy Park was black. :rolleyes:

You see, there is a lot to this story (just in the gun issue alone) that you are simply ignoring ... because you are DESPERATE to label Foster's death a suicide. One begins to wonder why you are so obviously desperate? :D

I want to ask Galileo and BAC again, do either of you know who Charles Koch and David Brock are?

Do you know who Ron Brown was, oldhat? You're not getting the full picture of what the Clintons were capable of doing unless you know the facts in that case too. :D

BeAChooser

13th May 2009, 01:49 PM

Are going to knock down the suicide evidence we've provided?

SP, you haven't provided any "evidence" at all. But you sure are desperate to ignore a lot. For example, ... that oven mitt ... got an explanation? :D

BeAChooser

13th May 2009, 02:37 PM

Do you know how batty a conspiracy theory has to be if it requires Ken Starr to be in cahoots with Bill Clinton in the cover-up portion?

What's the problem, oldhat? Having trouble actually dealing with the facts in the Foster case?

So you think Starr is above suspicion?

Then I assume you can explain the oven mitt? And what Miquel Rodriguez' (Starr's own investigator) had to say about Starr's investigation? And you can explain why Starr failed to tell the three judge panel and the public about an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after Foster's death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound, which directly contradicts Starr's report which says there was an exit wound over an inch in diameter in the back of the head?

I assume you can explain why it is that Starr told the public that the FBI files in Filegate had been returned to the FBI, when we learned years later, during an interview with IOC Ray, that the files were still in White House hands? Clearly, Starr lied. I assume you can explain why Starr spent just a few minutes questioning Hillary Clinton during his Filegate investigation, even though he had sworn testimony at the time that she was the mastermind behind the activity and had clearly lied about certain facts in the case? He also failed to ask the key witness, Linda Tripp, numerous important questions. Tripp commented about this later on, expressing her surprise at how little he delved into the matter. Most of the missing files in Filegate were discovered not by Starr, but by that little outfit, Judicial Watch. And Starr never did learn who hired Mark Livingstone (you know who he is, don't you?). Turns out it was Hillary ... or so admits Livingstone now. Yet Hillary claimed she didn't even know Mark Livingstone ... even though there were numerous pictures of the two together. Guess Starr never asked her about that.

It's not so implausible that Starr was Clinton's man from the beginning. Afterall, Starr was the name recommended by Janet Reno for the job of IOC, and you can be sure that Janet didn't do anything that Clinton didn't fully vet before hand. The truth is that Starr didn't spend much time investigating anything that didn't involve turning the impeachment of Clinton into just a sex scandal ... which he and Clinton may have known could be minimized by a friendly media. I think that was his purpose.

I think that explains why Starr failed to investigate other far more serious scandals ... like CampaignFinanceGate, Chinagate and Ron Brown's death (which may have been related to the other two). Is it just coicidence that Starr was all ready to close up shop and go home, when the Ron Brown scandal broke and began to get some play by the media and in the black community? Then, all of a sudden, he "discovered" Monica and any rumors that Ron Brown's death wasn't an accident just disappeared from view. My bet is that Clinton and Starr realized that a sleazy sex scandal that probably wouldn't lead to anything would trump a mass murder allegation in the press and public's mind any day of the week. And they were right. And even then, Starr blew the Monica investigation. Rather than trap Clinton with his knowledge of the blue dress' existance and what it showed, he told Clinton they had the dress and thereby lost any chance of catching Clinton committing perjury. I don't believe an honest prosecutor would have done that.

All you're doing is recycling lies created by Republican partisans with huge axes to grind.

The facts I've posted are completely verifiable, oldhat. You haven't posted anything to prove otherwise. You're just unable to explain them ... except by concocting a claim that Foster was "clinically depressed". Just like Fiske and Starr did. And even then you have to completely ignore 99% of the facts I've posted. Just like Fiske and Starr did. Let's see if you address some of questions I asked about the gun and wound ... or you go on ignoring them. Let's see if you do that, or keep posting your David Brock red herring instead of dealing with the facts. :D

oldhat

13th May 2009, 04:03 PM

It's not so implausible that Starr was Clinton's man from the beginning.

This is just insane.

So you think Starr is above suspicion?

Yes, I believe he is "above suspicion." I do not believe Ken Starr conspired with Bill Clinton in a contract murder of Vince Foster.

What you're doing is taking bits and pieces of things that don't seem congruous to you, as a layman with no training in psychiatry or forensics, and turning them into a conspiracy. You're refusing to look at the big picture, like your fixation on the Oven Mitt™.

Option 1: A lawyer has been dogged in the press for months because of a political "scandal." He exhibits symptoms of depression and calls his doctor. He is prescribed an anti-depressant but does not take it long enough for it to develop a therapeutic blood level. His wife corroborates the fact that he's been depressed. He, according to the letter he wrote and tore up in frustration, says he feels like a failure. He owns a handgun. He goes to a park and shoots himself with the handgun.

Option 2: The President of the United States hatches a scheme and orders the murder of Vince Foster, by someone. The unknown conspirators are told to make it look like a suicide. This conspiracy, at a minimum, necessitates cooperation from people within Secret Service, the FBI, the Park Police, the Washington D.C. police, the White House staff, Robert Fiske and even the President's arch political enemy Ken Starr. The conspiracy is so successful and so leak free despite the dozens of people (at a minimum) who had to have been involved, there is no affirmative evidence left behind whatsoever and five separate investigations all rule Foster's death a suicide.

By the way, David Brock's book isn't a red herring, in fact, it's pretty frickin' germane to this theory of yours, in that he admits to helping fabricate the Vince-Foster-was-murdered story as a political smear and then spreading it in the Spectator. He admits it! Once again: He admits helping fabricate this theory! David Brock's book is much more germane than your weird innuendos, like the Oven Mitt of Doom. It's filled with falsifiable statements. Try reading it!

Here's a simple question for you BAC:

If there was a conspiracy, who did it and what's your evidence? Otherwise you're JAQ'ing off.

SmartyPants

13th May 2009, 04:21 PM

so all calm people have symptoms of clinical depression and are a threat to commit suicide at a moment's notice?

That would make a good defense for a common murderer.

"Jury, the person who was killed was calm! He had clinical depression and committed suicide! It was not a murder!"

Okay, you clearly didn't read anything in the links. What they said were, people with a history of depression/mental illness, anxiety and sucidial behavior who suddenly become calm seem to be at risk to commit suicide. Why? Because the sudden calmness indicates that he or she has made the decision to commit suicide and are therefore calm, knowing that the decision is out of the way and the suffering will end soon. How you got "all calm people have symptoms of clinical depression are a threat to commit suicide at a moment's notice," I don't know. Actually, I do know: It's a not so clever attempt to misrepresent what is common knowledge. Either that, or you're a walking non sequitur.

SmartyPants

13th May 2009, 04:27 PM

SP, you haven't provided any "evidence" at all. But you sure are desperate to ignore a lot. For example, ... that oven mitt ... got an explanation? :D

You're being quite selective on my postings. I'm talking about suicidal behavior, and I have provided links (i.e. evidence) that demonstrate one doesn't necessarily have to be clinically depressed to commit suicide (although Foster was, and that certainly helps), and that there often (not always) is a period of calmness before one commits suicide.

If you want something about oven mitts, ask someone else. Others sure have posted enough about the physical evidence. Why don't you ask them?

Oh, I see...it would be easier to ask someone who hasn't posted about it, accuse of him ignoring it, then you yourself ignore my postings on something entirely different.

BeAChooser

13th May 2009, 04:59 PM

This is just insane.

Then you should have no trouble explaining the facts I noted about Starr's investigations.

Don't avoid the questions ... answer them.

Why don't we start with these three:

Why did he lie to the public about the Filegate files being returned?

Why wasn't the oven mitt that he claimed was in Foster's glove compartment (to explain the lack of fingerprints on the gun) listed by the police anywhere in their records? They inventoried the contents of the glove compartment and no oven mitt is mentioned. It's hard to miss that oven mitt. :D

How can the photo that Starr claimed showed the mitt in the glove compartment have a clean passenger side floor when records show that the glove compartment was emptied and inventoried before the floor on the passenger side was cleared of debris?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So you think Starr is above suspicion?

Yes, I believe he is "above suspicion."

Then you should have no trouble answering those questions. You going to answer them or run from them, like you have so many others questions? :D

Option 1: A lawyer has been dogged in the press for months because of a political "scandal." He exhibits symptoms of depression and calls his doctor. He is prescribed an anti-depressant but does not take it long enough for it to develop a therapeutic blood level. His wife corroborates the fact that he's been depressed. He, according to the letter he wrote and tore up in frustration, says he feels like a failure. He owns a handgun. He goes to a park and shoots himself with the handgun.

ROTFLOL! See how desperate the *it was suicide* crowd is, folks? As I said at the beginning of this this thread, their entire explanation rests on claiming "he was depressed" ... even though NO ONE said he was depressed before that mysterious meeting in the Whitehouse a week after Foster died.

Outside of that claim (and it's nothing more than a claim), they have no evidence that Foster committed suicide.

They don't want to talk about the other use for trazadone (to fight insomnia).

They don't want to talk about the doctor clearly stating that he was treating Foster's sleeping problems.

They don't want to talk about Foster's previous sleeping pill prescription problems.

They don't want to talk about Foster saying he was feeling better and acting quite normal in the days before he died.

They don't want to talk about what other people (besides those few who changed their story a week after his death, after a meeting in the Whitehouse) said about Foster NOT being depressed.

They don't want to talk about what witnesses, doctors, EMTs and a photo indicated was the true nature of Foster's wounds.

They don't want to talk about the true nature of the gun and the fabrication of evidence where that is concerned.

They don't want to talk about what Starr's own investigator said about the investigation being a coverup.

They don't want to talk about the numerous investigators who said the body appeared to have been moved before the photos that Fiske and Starr show the body as it was found were taken.

They don't want to talk about what the man who first found Foster's body said under oath ... that there was no gun in either of Foster's hands and that the position of the body was different in the photos than what he saw.

They don't want to talk about the missing photos and x-rays.

They don't want to talk about the obvious lies by Dr Bergan regarding the wound and x-rays.

They don't want to talk about the bogus suicide note.

They don't want to talk about the alteration of Lisa Fosters statement to the FBI.

They don't want to the intimidation of other witnesses such as Patrick Knowlton.

They don't want to talk about Clinton staffers removing material from Foster's office then lying under oath about doing it.

They don't want to talk about $286000 payment made to Lisa Foster.

They don't want to talk about what Foster was working on for the Clintons.

And I could go on and on and on regarding facts that they simply don't want to talk about.

Their entire defense of the "it was suicide" claim is to simply keep repeating "it was suicide" and hope you'll believe it. That's how desperate they are.

:rolleyes:

oldhat

13th May 2009, 05:45 PM

So you're solidly in the Option 2 camp I take it?

Who did it? Who pulled the trigger? What's your evidence?

I am admittedly intrigued by the oven mitt. You appear to have spent a good amount of time studying the issue. Can you explain what the mysterious oven mitt proves?

http://studentblog.registrar.ualberta.ca/dylan/images/71195.jpg

Your evidence was gone over again and again in five separate investigations. Are you telling everyone all five investigations were compromised?

How far does this conspiracy go? How many people were involved in your estimation? Please give me a number.

BeAChooser

13th May 2009, 06:51 PM

Can you explain what the mysterious oven mitt proves?

Are you really this dense? I think I made it very clear what it proves.

oldhat

13th May 2009, 07:33 PM

Are you really this dense? I think I made it very clear what it proves.

It proves you think your perception of a chain of custody discrepancy over an incidental oven mitt disproves the entire body of evidence that Vince Foster killed himself.

Your conspiracy theory is too far fetched for anyone to take seriously besides the most paranoid of CTers and rightwing loonies. Hundreds of participants. Five investigations compromised. Half a dozen agencies (at least) all working in perfect coordination, leaving no affirmative evidence behind (a footprint, a fingerprint in Foster's car, anything). No leaks. Ever. First time in history.

The president conspiring with the man who later impeached him, in order to cover up the assassination they planned together.

I mean, it almost sounds crazy.

Ted Olsen made this garbage up! David Brock made it up! They knew it was fake! It's in the book! Why do you refuse to admit this?

Galileo

13th May 2009, 10:03 PM

Okay, you clearly didn't read anything in the links. What they said were, people with a history of depression/mental illness, anxiety and sucidial behavior who suddenly become calm seem to be at risk to commit suicide. Why? Because the sudden calmness indicates that he or she has made the decision to commit suicide and are therefore calm, knowing that the decision is out of the way and the suffering will end soon. How you got "all calm people have symptoms of clinical depression are a threat to commit suicide at a moment's notice," I don't know. Actually, I do know: It's a not so clever attempt to misrepresent what is common knowledge. Either that, or you're a walking non sequitur.

Do you not realize that a couple hundred million Americans work hard every day, run errands, talk on the phone, etc., then suddenly become calm in the evening before they go to sleep? Some people get home and relax, kick back in a chair, or crack open a beer. Some people with insomnia don't get enough sleep and are calm in the morning as well.

A lot of calm people have been murdered by sudden gunshots.

Galileo

13th May 2009, 10:11 PM

If there was a conspiracy, who did it and what's your evidence? Otherwise you're JAQ'ing off.

Foster could have been killed by a lone nut, just like JFK, RFK, Huey Long, Spencer Perseval and MLK.

What's your evidence of a conspiracy?

oldhat

13th May 2009, 10:35 PM

Foster could have been killed by a lone nut, just like JFK and MLK.

Sure, he also could have been killed by a space alien with a death ray from Planet QX119, but there's no evidence for that, is there?

What's your evidence of a conspiracy?

None, because there wasn't a conspiracy.

Stop deliberately misconstruing SP's words. You're talking like Foster's state of mind was one of uninterrupted serenity before he died. It wasn't. He was despondent and considering resigning his job. Being in a depressed funk to the point of bursting into tears at one's dinner table in front of one's wife (which is what Vince Foster did in the week before he died) and suddenly appearing to be in "better spirits" or even "calm" the day someone dies of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound is perfectly consistent with suicidal behavior. We spelled this out for you upthread.

BAC, stop regurgitating whatever you picked up from your no doubt dog-eared copy of that Chistopher Ruddy book and passing it off as critical thinking.

Galileo

13th May 2009, 10:42 PM

Sure, he also could have been killed by a space alien with a death ray from Planet QX119, but there's no evidence for that, is there?

None, because there wasn't a conspiracy.

Stop deliberately misconstruing SP's words. You're talking like Foster's state of mind was one of uninterrupted serenity before he died. It wasn't. He was despondent and considering resigning his job. Being in a depressed funk to the point of bursting into tears at one's dinner table in front of one's wife (which is what Vince Foster did in the week before he died) and suddenly appearing to be in "better spirits" or even "calm" the day someone dies of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound is perfectly consistent with suicidal behavior. We spelled this out for you upthread.

BAC, stop regurgitating whatever you picked up from your no doubt dog-eared copy of that Chistopher Ruddy book and passing it off as critical thinking.

Foster was found laying dead with no gun in his hand. He must have been shot. It was either a lone nut or a conpiracy.

Galileo

13th May 2009, 10:47 PM

Oops, I forgot about good old Abe Lincoln. He was also shot by a lone nut, just like Vince Foster.

oldhat

13th May 2009, 10:58 PM

Foster was found laying dead with no gun in his hand. He must have been shot. It was either a lone nut or a conpiracy.

Jeebus, you make me want to reach through the screen and shake you by the collar.

No, you're just factually 100% wrong. He was found with the gun in his hand.

You know so little about this case, I think you should remove yourself from this thread and let BAC do the rocking on this hobby horse.

Galileo

13th May 2009, 11:07 PM

Jeebus, you make me want to reach through the screen and shake you by the collar.

No, you're just factually 100% wrong. He was found with the gun in his hand.

You know so little about this case, I think you should remove yourself from this thread and let BAC do the rocking on this hobby horse.

No, the first witness to the scene found that no gun was in his hand. It must have been placed there later. That's what the evidence says. Please follow the evidence, and it will lead you to truth.

oldhat

14th May 2009, 07:18 AM

No, the first witness to the scene found that no gun was in his hand. It must have been placed there later. That's what the evidence says. Please follow the evidence, and it will lead you to truth.

No, if you read the report, you'd know that the guy who found Foster's body specifically stated he focused on his head and face and not his limbs before he went to get help. He said he didn't think there was a gun but there could have been. The police found a gun in his hand.

Stop making things up.

BeAChooser

14th May 2009, 07:48 AM

Your conspiracy theory is too far fetched for anyone to take seriously besides the most paranoid of CTers and rightwing loonies.

Then why are you bothering to even debate me? I tend to ignore total loonies. Haven't yet decided about you. :D

BeAChooser

14th May 2009, 07:51 AM

BAC, stop regurgitating whatever you picked up from your no doubt dog-eared copy of that Chistopher Ruddy book and passing it off as critical thinking.

For the record, I don't have Christopher Ruddy's book. Never even read it.

Any other strawmen you'd like to throw out before we get back to discussing the actual facts?

Oh that's right ... you don't want to do that. You're into ignoring the facts. :D

oldhat

14th May 2009, 09:04 AM

Then why are you bothering to even debate me? I tend to ignore total loonies. Haven't yet decided about you. :D

OK, let's say your theory is true. Everything, from the dreaded ambulatory oven mitt to corrupt medical examiners.

How many people were involved in the conspiracy and subsequent cover up? Give me a number.

BeAChooser

14th May 2009, 10:07 AM

if you read the report, you'd know that the guy who found Foster's body specifically stated he focused on his head and face and not his limbs before he went to get help. He said he didn't think there was a gun but there could have been. ... Stop making things up.

I won't use the word {wrong} to describe you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You must have just misunderstood what the person who found Foster's body is reported to have said. You must have just failed to read or understand what I posted earlier in this thread on that subject. Or perhaps you are just a little delusional because you are so vested in the "it was a suicide" defense of the Clinton administration by Fiske and Starr? In any case, here are the real facts concerning CW's statements ... offered only to help you become a better skeptic. Note that these accounts don't agree with your version AT ALL. In fact, I suspect you can't back up your version with a single source.

The civilian who first discovered Foster's body, is identified as "CW" in his FBI interviews and deposition. Contrary to your claim, he has adamantly maintained that Foster did not have a gun in his hands and that he looked carefully at Foster's arms and hands.

For example, in an radio interview (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/vince.htm ) seven years after Foster's death, CW said Foster was found "Face straight up. Hands on each side of his body straight away." Both claims are inconsistent with the photos released by Fiske and Starr ... photos whose legitimacy was even questioned by Starr's own top investigator after he quit in disgust.

CW said in that interview "I looked to see if he had something in his hands that he could defend himself with - maybe a rock or something like that. ... snip ... that's why I was so adamant and so sure [that Foster had no gun]. Because I clearly looked at both hands. And they were straight down by his sides, fully extended, straight as can be, and both hands were palm up."

And it's not like CW just saw the body then ran to get help. He's has stated in his various interviews that he stood over the body between one and two minutes. So you see, oldhat, you are simply mistaken about CW's actions and his degree of uncertainty in this matter.

And as I pointed out earlier in this thread (you must have just missed it), Congressman Burton stated on the floor of the House of Representatives (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/burton_cbs.html ), that he and two other Congressmen went to CW's house and took a sworn statement from CW. Burton said "When the confidential witness discovered the body, he looked very carefully. He was within 18 inches of Mr. Foster's face. He looked very carefully and saw no gun in either hand. He was very clear in his statement, in the sworn statement before me and the FBI, that when he found Foster, both hands were palm up with the thumbs pointed out away from the body. When the police arrived on the scene, they found his right hand palm down with the thumb pointed in, the gun on the trigger finger, and the gun was partially obscured by his hand and his leg." If we believe Burton, then very clearly, CW said he look carefully at "the limbs" and he was certain there was no gun. In which case, the body was tampered with between the time he saw it and when the photos that Fiske and Starr published were made. In which case, you are {wrong}.

CW's sworn testimony disagrees with the government's claims in other ways, too. The government claimed the body could not have been moved to the park because the vegetation around it was not trampled. But Burton points out that CW said the vegetation was trampled. Also, CW told the FBI he observed a wine cooler bottle near the body when he arrived. But Park Police claimed not to have found one. And Burton states that CW said that on leaving the park, "he looked inside the white Nissan parked in the lot and saw a half-full package of wine cooler bottles, very similar to the one beside the body, a briefcase, and a suit jacket that looked similar to Foster's suit pants." Significant, given that Foster's car was not a white Nissan. It was a gray Honda.

In fact, CW is not the only person to question the car evidence claimed by authorities in this case. Patrick Knowlton had a lot to say about that (http://nick.assumption.edu/WebVAX/WWeekly/WW18Dec95Foster.html and http://www.fbicover-up.com/Miquel/Miquel.htm and http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n24_v49/ai_20106339/pg_2/?tag=content;col1 ). Knowlton said that when he stopped at the park to use the *facilities*, a suspicious-looking man in a blue car appeared to be monitoring him. He also made some observations about the cars in the parking lot at the time Foster was supposedly dead. Those observations do not match the government's story. For example, he said he saw an older brown car in the parking spot where the government claimed Foster's newer grey car was found. After viewing photos of Foster's grey 1989 Honda, he told the FBI that the car he saw in that spot was definitely not Foster's. And other witnesses corroborate Knowlton's version. Not one witness said they saw a grey car. They ALL (even police and medical personnel) say that the car was brown.

Moreover, Knowlton says the FBI's "302" report of his interview with them claims he said things he did not say and alters the substance of things he did say ... all in an effort to make his eyewitness testimony less significant and to dismiss him as a witness. And he has charged that the FBI, Fiske and Starr attempted to intimidate and discredit him. That's a charge that Starr's own top investigator finds credible. That's a charge that the three judge panel monitoring the IOC apparently found credible enough to order Starr attach an addendum by Knowlton making that charge to his final report. An order that Starr then ignored when he released the report to the media.

But back to CW, man of the hour. Appears you're the last person who should be chastising someone for knowing "so little about this case". :D

oldhat

14th May 2009, 10:24 AM

OK, let's say your theory is true. Everything, from the dreaded ambulatory oven mitt to corrupt medical examiners.

How many people were involved in the conspiracy and subsequent cover up? Give me a number.

Still waiting.

BeAChooser

14th May 2009, 10:58 AM

Still waiting.

Still waiting to hear you say you were *mistaken* about CW's testimony. :D

oldhat

14th May 2009, 11:06 AM

Still waiting to hear you say you were *mistaken* about CW's testimony. :D

Yes I was mistaken about CW's testimony and the oven mitt and Ken Starr secretly working for Bill Clinton.

Now please tell me how many agencies and people were involved in the conspiracy, in your estimation. Give me a number.

P.S. Why do none of your links cite primary sources, i.e. the investigations? Your links range from Holocaust-denying and rabidly anti-Semitic WhatReallyHappened.com to the black helicopter boosters at the prestigious American Patriot Friends Network to the non-existent Washington Weekly, which appeared to be some kind of Bircher newsletter from 10 years ago. Can't you come up with something better than that slop?

The Central Scrutinizer

14th May 2009, 11:09 AM

The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4113276458031151696&q=source%3A011312915067665507521&hl=en

Conspiracy or not?

What do the JREFers think on this one?

He committed suicide. Period.

Mods, you may close this thread

BeAChooser

14th May 2009, 11:47 AM

P.S. Why do none of your links cite primary sources, i.e. the investigations?

You don't consider taped interviews with Starr's own top investigator a primary source? :rolleyes:

You don't consider a taped interview with Patrick Knowlton a primary source? :rolleyes:

The truth is that you haven't discredited a single thing I've posted, OH.

The truth is that I caught you red handed completely fabricating witness statements in your desperate effort to make this go away.

ANYONE can go out and easily verify the facts I've noted from multiple, reputable sources. The truth is that you have backed yourself into a corner and now your only defense is to whine *it was suicide* and CLAIM (without any substantiation) that all *my* sources are "slop". But I really think a discerning reader can ferret out the lack of truth in your claim. In fact, I think you've actually helped me make my case regarding Vince Foster. :D

BeAChooser

14th May 2009, 11:48 AM

He committed suicide. Period.

So CS ... you going to completely ignore the oven mitt too? :D

BeAChooser

14th May 2009, 11:50 AM

Mods, you may close this thread

So CS ... you trying to aid the coverup? :D

oldhat

14th May 2009, 11:51 AM

How many people were involved in the conspiracy?

BeAChooser

14th May 2009, 12:36 PM

How many people were involved in the conspiracy?

Foster supposedly left the White House without leaving a video record or log entry showing that he left the White House.

When emergency workers first examined Foster's car in the Fort Marcy Park parking lot, they found the car doors locked. Yet when police checked it, less than an hour later, the doors were unlocked. Park Police searched Foster's pockets at Fort Marcy Park and did not find any car keys. But those keys turned up later in his pockets after Craig Livingstone of Filegate fame, who according to Livingston was hired by Hillary, visited the morgue to identify a body that had already been identified earlier. When Livingstone was questioned by Fiske's people, he gave statements that contradicted the account being given by the White House. A law enforcement source at the interrogation was quoted saying "it was clear to everyone in the room, including (Livingstone's) attorney, that he was not telling the truth". Yet when Livingstone asked to stop the questioning, Fiske's people let him leave. Then during a second interview, his story was more in line with White House claimed happened. At the second meeting, Livingstone's new attorney told investigators that Livingstone had been confused about the times, but had written a memo-to-file detailing the chronology of his activities. But then he claimed the memo had *disappeared*. When investigators asked for a set of all Livingstone's memos to file, they were told he hadn't written any before or since. But despite all this, Fiske accepted Livingstone's account at face value. :rolleyes:

Hillary's Chief of Staff, Margaret Williams, was observed by the Secret Service removing thick folders full of material from Foster's office just a few hours after his death ... before Park Police sealed the office. She later denied under oath removing anything from Foster's office. But she had no official duties in Foster's office. The sealing of the office was apparently delayed by Hillary and Nussbaum. It's a matter record that Hillary called Williams at 10:13 pm the night Foster died and that right after that conversation, Williams went to Foster's office. After searching the office, Williams called Hillary back and they talked for 11 minutes. Yet, neither Fiske or Starr ever questioned Williams.

At 11:19 pm Hillary called a New York lawyer named Susan Thomases. Three minutes after Williams spoke to Hillary following her search of Foster's office, she also called Thomases and spoke with her for 20 minutes. When first confronted by the Congressional committee, Williams denied having called Thomases at all. She and her lawyer stated that her phone records were not available. The committee obtained the records a week later, and they proved that Williams lied. Neither Fiske or Starr ever interviewed the mysterious Thomases either.

Williams later admitted to Whitewater investigators that Hillary ordered her to take sensitive documents from Foster's office two days after his death and store them in her bedroom closet for safekeeping. What a coincidence that a document connected to Whitewater, with Hillary's fingerprints on it, magically appeared in the White House residence a few days after the statute of limitation on the Whitewater matter expired.

Patsy Thomasson, director of the White House's Office of Administration, was also in Foster's office during the same timeframe and likewise had no duties in that office. Thomasson sat at Foster's desk, went through his files, and reportedly looked for the combination to Foster's safe. Mack McLarty, White House Chief of Staff, told reporters that Foster's office did not have a safe but the final IOC report admits he did. two envelopes reported to be in the safe by Foster's secretary, Deborah Gorham, addressed to Janet Reno and to William Kennedy III, disappeared.

Bernard Nussbaum went into Foster's office before the Park Police arrived. He was Foster's superior so perhaps he had a reason. But it was something involving Hillary since numerous phone calls between Hillary and Nussbaum were logged in the hours after Foster's death. When Park Police arrived, Nussbaum prevented them from entering the office, citing "national security". Yet he had allowed Patsy Thomasson into the office even though she had NO security clearance.

So how many people were involved, OldHat? As many as needed to explain the curious behavior of these Clinton administration officials and their lies? :D

Galileo

14th May 2009, 01:17 PM

How many people were involved in the conspiracy?

three people max.

oldhat

14th May 2009, 02:20 PM

Since you were too lazy or fearful that it might make your conspiracy theory look like a Rube Goldberg contraption, I took the liberty of going through your sources and making a rough tally of the people -- at a bare minimum -- who would have to be involved for the conspiracy to succeed. And this is by no means exhaustive, I didn't read the rambling 511 page motion Patrick Knowlton filed in the three US District courts in the District of Columbia, the US District Court for Eastern District of Virginia, the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the DC Circuit's Special Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels and the United States Supreme Court because it got tossed out more or less immediately. The one where he complained about being followed and said shadowy people were watching him.

Anyway, here is a list of a minimum number of conspirators, based on your own sources:

Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Robert Fiske
Ken Starr
Lisa Foster, Vince Foster's wife
James Hamilton, Lisa Foster's lawyer
Shiela Anthony, Lisa Foster's sister
Beryl Anthony, Sheila Anthony's husband
Dr. Henry Lee, forensics expert
Dr. Brian D. Blackbourne, forensics expert
Dr. Alan L. Berman, Vince Foster's prescribing doctor
Stephen Neuwirth, White House attorney
Sergeant Larry Lockhart, U.S. Capitol Police
Officer John Rolla, Park Police
Dr. Donald Haut, medical examiner
Mark Touhey, Ken Starr's assistant
The Time Magazine editorial board
The Newsweek Magazine editorial board
Nightline/ABC News editorial board
The New York Times editorial board
The Boston Globe editorial board
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial board
Investigator Cheryl Braun, Park Police
Dr. James Beyer, Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner
Dr. Julian Orenstein, Fairfax County morgue
Attorney General Janet Reno
Chief White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum
Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heyman
Chief Robert Langston, Park Police
Harper's Magazine
The Atlantic
The New Republic
The Nation
The New York Review of Books
The New Yorker
Sidney Blumenthal, writing for the New Yorker
White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers
Maj. Robert Hines, Park Police spokesman
The FBI laboratory
Walter Pincus, Washington Post reporter
Roderick C. Lankler, former New York City D.A.
ABC News
The New York Daily News
The Senate Banking and Urban Affairs Committee
Jim McDougal
Susan McDougal
Assistant Attorney General Webster Hubbell
William Kennedy III
Craig Livingstone
Marsha Scott
Helen Dickey, White House secretary

SmartyPants

14th May 2009, 02:56 PM

Do you not realize that a couple hundred million Americans work hard every day, run errands, talk on the phone, etc., then suddenly become calm in the evening before they go to sleep? Some people get home and relax, kick back in a chair, or crack open a beer. Some people with insomnia don't get enough sleep and are calm in the morning as well.

A lot of calm people have been murdered by sudden gunshots.

Do you not realize that I'm not talking about a couple hundred million Americans who work hard every day, run errands, talk on the phone, etc., then suddenly become calm in the evening before they go to sleep?

BeAChooser

14th May 2009, 06:55 PM

Since you were too lazy or fearful that it might make your conspiracy theory look like a Rube Goldberg contraption,

Those are mighty strong words coming from someone, who as anyone reading this thread can see, was either too lazy or too fearful to even touch the scores and scores of facts I cited.

Mighty strong words coming from someone who actually made up some claims about a witnesses' testimony in order to try and steer folks away from looking into this issue.

:D

Anyway, here is a list of a minimum number of conspirators, based on your own sources:

Bill Clinton

We already know that Bill lied to just about everyone who could possibly be lied to in a dozen scandals or so, and was more than adept at covering up nefarious activity. Bill is already implicated in coverups. What's one more? And being the President would give him considerable leverage in covering one up. How can you be so sure he didn't do so in this case? If for no other reason than to protect Hillary? He must have been aware of some of the things Hillary was up to given that they were man and wife. Surely Bill knew about the Whitewater documents (that Foster was reportedly working on) that Hillary denied having but which eventually were found on a nightstand in her and Bill's private quarters. Or are you claiming he was unaware of this? Clueless? How can you be sure that Foster's death didn't have something to do with Bill directly? Foster was working on Clinton's blind trust (which by the way was long overdue in being finished so perhaps there was a ... *problem*). He was the Clinton's personal attorney and certainly had to know where some of their proverbial bodies were buried. If not real ones. If he was becoming unreliable due to stress (that's your claim, right?), then who can be sure what Bill's reaction would have been? Afterall, Bill was a man who was known to get almost violent when discussing people he perceived to be "enemies". Or are you just protective of Bill Clinton in general and would never accept the possibility that he might have committed misdeeds or lies or coverups? I bet you'd defend him against accusations of misdeeds in ChinaGate, CampaignFinanceGate, RapeGate or the death of Ron Brown, too? Right? :D

Hillary Clinton

Evidence has already been presented that Hillary has lied about facts in various nefarious scandals involving Foster, and was involved in something nefarious in this instance. Why else would she be calling lawyers late at night and directing her aides to remove items from what might well have been a crime scene? Why else would she be advising everyone to keep the existence of the suicide note from the President? But I notice you completely ignored that evidence in your haste to "move on". :D

Robert Fiske
Ken Starr

I've already provided various hard evidence suggesting these two were involved in a coverup. What else can I say, if you won't even attempt to challenge that evidence? Other than ... coward? ;)

Lisa Foster, Vince Foster's wife

How much pressure do you have to put on the widow of a man who may have been murdered to get her to change her story a week after his death? To get her to stop looking for answers? Perhaps not all that much. Afterall, if someone was willing to kill her husband. And then there's that $286,000 payment. :D

James Hamilton, Lisa Foster's lawyer

Oh yes, there's an upstanding individual. We already have proof of his advising Clinton to stonewall (i.e., that's another name for *coverup*) in the Whitewater scandal.

Shiela Anthony, Lisa Foster's sister

She was Vince's sister. And she was more than just a sister. She was a top echelon member of the Clinton inner circle. Probably involved in various nefarious activities or aware of them. Like that $286,000 payment to Lisa. And another person who completely changed her story a week after Vince's death, after a meeting in the Whitehouse with a few other people who then changed their story regarding Foster's claimed depression, too.

Beryl Anthony, Sheila Anthony's husband

Again, you minimize this man's resume. He was a close friend of the Clintons and part of their campaign efforts. And one of those who was at that Whitehouse meeting and completely changed his story about Foster's state of mind after that meeting. Sure would have liked to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting. :D

Dr. Henry Lee, forensics expert

Dr Lee was just incompetent. We already know that from his performance in the Simpson case. Or he was seeking to please Starr and just gave Starr the answer he knew Starr wanted to hear based on the information Starr provided. He didn't necessarily have to be part of a coverup at the time. In fact, how could he be, given that he wrote a book (I mentioned it but obviously you don't want to discuss it) in which he states some of the evidence that Foster was murdered is "compelling".

Dr. Brian D. Blackbourne, forensics expert

You obviously didn't actually read what Dr Blackbourne said about this case if you think I'm claiming he was part of a coverup. :rolleyes:

Dr. Alan L. Berman, Vince Foster's prescribing doctor

Again, you get the facts wrong. Berman was not Foster's prescribing doctor. Just someone trying to please Starr by telling Starr what he thought Starr wanted to hear based solely on what Starr told him (which wasn't nearly everything). :D

Stephen Neuwirth, White House attorney

No idea whether he's part of a coverup or just a patsy who was told to tell the public that a suicide note was found. If you think I suggested he was knowingly part of a coverup, your comprehension level is rather low.

Sergeant Larry Lockhart, U.S. Capitol Police

Likewise. You clearly didn't actually read what I wrote about Lockhart. I merely suggested he was incompetent. And he later admitted that he didn't do what a good handwriting expert would have done ... blow up portions of the note and authentication writings and compare them.

Officer John Rolla, Park Police
Dr. Donald Haut, medical examiner

Funny how you keep naming names of people who actually made statements questioning the official story. I may be saying they are incompetent and not rock the boat types if it might damage their career, but it's hard to see how you could claim I'm saying they were actively part of a coverup. They revealed too many facts that clearly those interested in covering a murder up would not have wanted revealed. For example, both say there clearly was no wound like Starr described in Foster's head. Haut said the wound was mouth to neck. Rolla said he searched Foster's pockets at the scene and found no car keys. But then I guess you just didn't bother to actually read what I quoted those individuals saying or anything else they actually said. :D

Mark Touhey, Ken Starr's assistant

Although I never mentioned Touhey, if Starr was dirty, it's not inconceivable that his assistant was corrupt too ... or so desperate to further his career that he'd look the other way. We do have Miquel Rodriguez's statement that Touhey squelched his efforts to issue subpoenas and call witnesses. Touhey is the person who criticized Rodriguez's efforts to get a photo of Foster's neck enlarged. And then covered up what Rodriguez said he found in the photo.

The Time Magazine editorial board
The Newsweek Magazine editorial board
Nightline/ABC News editorial board
The New York Times editorial board
The Boston Globe editorial board
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial board
... snip ...
Harper's Magazine
The Atlantic
The New Republic
The Nation
The New York Review of Books
The New Yorker
... snip ...
ABC News
The New York Daily News

Oh come now. Surely you aren't so naive as to think the editorial board of these mainstream sources are unbiased? Surely you aren't so naive as to think they reported things that might actually hurt the Clintons' and democrat agendas? Let me ask you a question, OH. How many of them even mentioned the pathologists in the Ron Brown case who expressed concern about the nature of the wound in Ron Brown's head and what the x-ray seemed to show? How many of them actually mentioned Rapegate? How many of them provided the full story in Filegate? How many of them published the Knowlton addendum, or even mentioned it's existance? Hmmmmmmm? :rolleyes:

Investigator Cheryl Braun, Park Police

I guess you are unaware that she testified that the determination the death was a suicide was made before they went up and saw the body. A stupid thing to admit if she was part of a coverup. Also if she was part of a coverup, you'd think she would have included that oven mitt in her inventory. But perhaps the oven mitt idea just didn't occur to anyone until Starr came on board so she no orders to include it. :D In any case, am I just wasting my time with you like I was with ANTpogo? I think I've almost made up my mind about you, oldhat. ;)

Dr. James Beyer, Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner

Yes, there's a good chance he's part of the coverup since we know he lied about a number of things. Like the x-ray machine. And I can't help but notice that you don't want to discuss the many discrepancies and clear lies in his statements. And I just mentioned a few of them. You just want to sweep them all under the rug and PRETEND like they don't exist. And try this desperate tactic. :rolleyes:

Dr. Julian Orenstein, Fairfax County morgue

Again, you name someone who actually volunteered information that places the government's scenario in doubt. Again, you demonstrate that you didn't read what I wrote but merely scanned through what I wrote looking for names you could add to your list. DESPERATE. :D

Attorney General Janet Reno

You really think Janet Reno was an honest broker? :rolleyes:

Chief White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum

Or Mr Nussbaum? :rolleyes:

Remember, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee discovered a WhiteHouse document with Nussbaum saying Hillary Clinton had personally recommended the hiring of Craig Livingstone. Nussbaum denied that, yet years later Livingstone admitted that Hillary hired him. Nussbaum clearly lied to protect Hillary Clinton.

And also in Filegate, the very first file the WhiteHouse got was that of Billy Dale of Travelgate fame (surely you remember the effort to smear Dale). And Nussbaum was the one who requested it. So yes, Nussbaum was quite capable of engaging in nefarious acts to protect the Clintons. Even cover up.  Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heyman

I didn't mention this guy, but since you want to talk about him ...

Philip Heyman called Bernard Nussbaum and asked him why he was keeping the Park Police out of Foster's office. He reportedly said to Nussbaum "Bernie, are you hiding something?” You really don't know much about this case, do you. And you're too lazy to find out. So you embarrass yourself over and over. Which is fine with me. :D

Folks, are you getting a clear picture of oldhat yet? :D

Chief Robert Langston, Park Police

Again someone I never mentioned. But yes, the head of the Park Police might be involved in a coverup. Afterall, it's hard to reconcile his statement that "The condition of the scene, the medical examiner's findings and the information gathered clearly indicate that Mr. Foster committed suicide. ... Our investigation has found no evidence of foul play" with the facts noted in this and the previous Foster thread. And when the boss says jump, often times the employees jump ... if they want to keep their jobs. A fact that's helpful if you want to coverup something nefarious.

Sidney Blumenthal, writing for the New Yorker

ROTFLOL! Surely you aren't claiming Sidney would be incapable of lying to protect the Clintons? Don't you remember? He was one of the 3 people called in the impeachment and he clearly lied under oath in an impeachment where the charge was lying under oath in order to protect a Clinton? Now remind me what he had to do with the Foster case. :D

White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers

I never mentioned her but since you have ... here's something she said:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/myers3.html

I mean, [of] however many people working in the White House complex, Vince was about the last guy that you would have expected to hear this about.

Guess she didn't think he was depressed either. :D

Maj. Robert Hines, Park Police spokesman

Spokespersons tend to just say just what they are told.

The FBI laboratory

Like I already pointed out, a Whistleblower won a large settlement against the FBI laboratory for tampering with evidence at that very time in our history. There's plenty of evidence to show the laboratory was not above suspicion. Including evidence already presented on this thread in the Foster case that you simply ignored. :D

Walter Pincus, Washington Post reporter

Did I mention this guy? But in any case, we all know that Washington Post reporters are easily manipulated and more than eager to protect democrats from any and all accusations. Did I also not mention that that Washington Post is one of the media outlets that claimed to publish the Starr report in its entirety ... but happened to leave the Knowlton addendum out? :D

Roderick C. Lankler, former New York City D.A.

Another name I didn't mention. :rolleyes: But he was one of the IOC staff members who worked for both Fiske and Starr ... so yes I suppose he'd have to know that a coverup was underway. Rodriguez said Lankler was totally against using different FBI agents to investigate the death during the Starr effort than were used during the Fiske effort. Went nuts when it was suggested. You didn't know they used the same FBI investigators in both investigations? :D And all this time you thought those were two independent investigations. :rolleyes:

The Senate Banking and Urban Affairs Committee

I tire of you, OH. It's just one strawman after another.

Jim McDougal

Although I don't recall mentioning Jim McDougal in this or the previous Foster thread, he certainly wasn't above lying to protect himself or the Clintons. He was indicted on 19 counts, including making false statements, in the Whitewater scandal. He was convicted of some of those counts and was serving 3 years in prison when he suddenly died of a heart attack, just prior to being called before Starr's grand jury to testify again.

Susan McDougal

Although I don't recall mentioning Susan McDougal in this or the previous Foster thread, she certainly wasn't above lying to protect the Clintons and herself? Afterall, she was involved in Whitewater too ... you remember, the scandal related to the documents that Williams admitted she took from Foster's office (apparently under Hillary's orders) immediately after his death. And she watched her husband die in prison under the care of Clinton's administration. That might induce further silence. :)

Assistant Attorney General Webster Hubbell

Hubbell? The guy I pointed out who went away with Foster the weekend before his death and said he saw no sign of stress or depression? Like I said, you didn't even bother to read what I posted, did you. :D

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your list, because I've already proven what I need to prove about you. And I'm now as done with you as I am with ANTpogo. Debating you clearly is a waste of time and what needed to be said has been said. And I think most can see that. And ironically, I think your effort only succeeded in making my case stronger. Congratulations. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser

14th May 2009, 06:57 PM

Just so everyone knows, I probably won't be able to post on the forum for the next week and a half.

Have a nice vacation ... and be sure to marshall your arguments for when I get back. :D

Arus808

14th May 2009, 08:01 PM

what arguments. the case has been proven to be a suicide. your posturing is just entertainment to see you and Galileo flounder like the flat fish you are

oldhat

14th May 2009, 08:54 PM

BAC, to explain why I posted names of people that you consider corroborated the official report, what I did was go through your posts on this thread chronologically and read the links you posted in the order you posted them. Every time the author of the text in a link made an accusation that an individual or organization was a part of the conspiracy (i.e. changed their story under pressure and stayed mum, lied to protect either themselves or someone else, misled an investigator, etc.), I added it to the list. If there were names mentioned without any accusation, I didn't add them. I was just going by what the author said, taking it at face value.

So why does BAC claim that there are names on the list that shouldn't be there? It makes sense after you take a step back and look at the sources. Certain individuals were either conspiring against Foster or corroborating the official story depending on which source you're reading. Unfortunately, BAC, you can't have it both ways.

Take Dr. Blackbourne for instance. You wrote, BAC:

You obviously didn't actually read what Dr Blackbourne said about this case if you think I'm claiming he was part of a coverup.

But you said this:

According to Accuracy in Media, when Starr released his report about Foster, he refused to make public the reports written by three consultants that he had hired to study the case. AIM sued the OIC to obtain them. Turns out that in one report submitted by a Dr. Brian Blackbourne, the San Diego County medical examiner, Dr. Blackbourne reports meeting with Dr. James Beyer, the 75-year-old medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Foster. He wrote "I discussed the autopsy X-rays with him." When asked about that discussion of the X-rays, Dr. Blackbourne admitted that it was actually about the absence of X-rays. According to Blackbourne, Dr. Beyer explained their absence by claiming his X-ray machine was not working on the day he performed the autopsy. That was what he had told the FBI and a Senate committee. But AIM learned that the first call to service this brand new machine was made over three months after Foster’s death. On hearing that, Dr. Blackbourne asked, "Do you mean that they couldn’t take any X-rays for three months?" No, what it means is that Dr. Beyer was lying about the machine not working.

And your source, AIM, said this: (http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-critiquing-bermans-report-on-foster)

That was what Ken Starr wanted. He relied on Drs. Lee, Berman and Blackbourne to put an authoritative stamp of approval on his costly, inept investigation of Foster's death.

So was he or wasn't he in on it?

In regards to Inspector Taut and Officer Rolla you said:

Funny how you keep naming names of people who actually made statements questioning the official story. I may be saying they are incompetent and not rock the boat types if it might damage their career, but it's hard to see how you could claim I'm saying they were actively part of a coverup.

But you are saying they're part of a coverup. You and your sources are saying that these people volunteering information and then changed their story under pressure or knowingly lied to investigators. But even in doing so they're not part of the conspiracy?

You say one thing in the thread and your sources say another thing in the articles. This goes for Cheryl Braun and Julian Orenstein, too. Did you read this stuff (which is dreadful prose, by the way)? It's almost like you're cherry picking facts from each article in order to build a case and ignoring the stuff that doesn't work.

There's no coherent narrative to any of this. In order for your theory to work, the conspirators simultaneously have to be the most cunning, ingenious and vicious villains outside S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (zero leaks for 15 years, zero hard evidence) and the most incompetent gangs of Keystone Kops ever (BAC, did you get to the part about the wine cooler bottle the litterbug assassin hypothetically left behind at the scene of the crime -- I mean, it's really just pathetic when you theory calls for a black ops hitman who must've been slugging bottles of Boons while on the job).

It you focus on exclusively on minutia like an oven mitt, I suppose you could fool yourself into believing there's some hard hitting physical evidence, when in fact there is none. Your best "evidence" is raising a question about the chain of custody of an oven mitt that was at best incidental to Foster's suicide.

The rest of your "evidence" is innuendos and a list of people who had to be involved that's approximately a mile long. The guys who write these articles contradict each other. You've accused essentially the entire news industry of being in on the conspiracy. Cops were in on it. The Republican Party establishment, who hated Clinton's guts, was in on it for some reason. The FBI was in on it. Basically every doctor who had anything to do with the case was in on it. The list goes on and on.

What are the odds that you and a handful of people on the fringes of the internet are really onto something that five separate investigations missed and 99% of the country accepts without hesitation? Unless you really are standing there all alone, like the Last Honest Man or whatever inner fantasy you're trying to stroke?

I know Clinton got a blowjob by a fat girl and it was really upsetting to you but the Clinton Wars are over. You lost, get over it.

ANTPogo

15th May 2009, 05:56 AM

So why does BAC claim that there are names on the list that shouldn't be there? It makes sense after you take a step back and look at the sources. Certain individuals were either conspiring against Foster or corroborating the official story depending on which source you're reading. Unfortunately, BAC, you can't have it both ways.

Hey, just look at what he's said about Sheila Anthony, Vince Foster's sister.

According to him, she spent a quarter of a million dollars before the "murder" to get Lisa Foster to agree to the "depressed and suicidal" cover story, and spent time looking up and calling psychiatrists on behalf of her brother days before he died to try an establish a cover story that he was depressed and seeking medical treatment...and yet when the "murder" actually happened, she apparently totally forgot about the cover story, and (according to BAC and his conspiracy websites, at least) didn't tell any of the investigators about the "depressed and suicidal" thing for over a week, and even then she spoke about it only after some Big Mysterious Meeting with "lawyers".

Worst. Cover-up. Ever.

I know Clinton got a blowjob by a fat girl and it was really upsetting to you but the Clinton Wars are over. You lost, get over it.

I also like how apparently everyone in the Clinton Administration managed to murder Vince Foster and keep it all under wraps, and yet were somehow totally unable or unwilling to keep the Monica Lewinsky thing secret.

kookbreaker

15th May 2009, 07:29 AM

How much pressure do you have to put on the widow of a man who may have been murdered to get her to change her story a week after his death? To get her to stop looking for answers? Perhaps not all that much. Afterall, if someone was willing to kill her husband. And then there's that $286,000 payment. :D

This is just sickening, and a true example of conspiracy thinking at its most loathsome. Just like the 911 truthers happily and gleefully posit that a man sent his young son off to die in the planes, BeAChooser gushes at the very thought that a wife would allow her husband's killers to go free.

I've known of widows to spend decades seeking justice for their murdered husbands, even facing down murderous groups and crowds. Yet BeAChooser has such a low opinion of everyone except himself that they would happily forget about their loved ones for a small amount of cash that might last a few years (oh, and that came from another loved one of the victim)

Conspiracy theories are the opiates of the self-impressed and this tactic is the mainlined herion of that mindset. In their world, everyone is mercenary and willing to sell out their own mothers for a few bucks, but not the OH SO NOBLE conspiracy theorist! He's incorruptible (although contemptible) and will expose the horrid family members from their dastardly deeds. And he'll do it for free! All you have to do is put up with his sickening accusations for his own self-satisfaction.

CORed

16th May 2009, 03:24 PM

The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4113276458031151696&q=source%3A011312915067665507521&hl=en

Conspiracy or not?

What do the JREFers think on this one?

The 90's called. They want their idiotic conspiracy theory back.

BeAChooser

26th May 2009, 05:29 PM

I'm back.

It you focus on exclusively on minutia like an oven mitt

Anyone reading this thread can see the two-fold dishonesty in your statement.

First, I haven't focused "exclusively" on the oven mitt. To suggest I have is being completely dishonest because it is but one of many items I have discussed in detail during this thread and the previous one. Items that you simply ignore.

Second, if the oven mitt photos point to fabrication of evidence by the IOC, that is hardly "minutia" or "at best incidental". That is very significant. It puts the government's whole case in doubt.

And you can't simply sweep this all away by claiming it's just a "question" in the chain of custody. Because the oven is not the only fabricated evidence that we already know about.

We know that the suicide note was fabricated ... and know you don't want to discuss that at all.

We know that the FBI (or IOC) tampered with the statement made by Lisa Foster the night of Foster's death ... and you don't want to discuss that either.

We know that multiple witnesses said the body was in a different position when they first saw it from that depicted in the photos that the IOC claim show the body as it was found ... and you ignore that.

We know that ALL the witnesses (the only doctor to actually visit the scene, all the EMS personnel, several police officers, a mortuary employee, and several others) said the wound was different than what was described in the IOC report ... and you turn a blind eye to that.

We know that the doctor who did the autopsy lied about various things, including the x-rays ... and that's not a topic you want to discuss.

We know that Starr's top investigator says the government tampered with and ignored evidence. He also says the wound is different than described in Fiske and Starr's reports. But you want to ignore him too.

We know that Patrick Knowlton says the FBI tampered with his statements and later harassed and intimidated him ... but you close your ears to that too.

And I could go on and on.

These are not minutia or incidentals. These are facts that strike at the heart of the government's hypothetical scenario.

If anything, it is YOU who is focusing exclusively on the oven mitt, oldhat. And everyone can see your desperation now. :D

I know Clinton got a blowjob by a fat girl and it was really upsetting to you

And that statement is just as dishonest as the other one. Because the concerns about Clinton were about far more than a BJ. Indeed, your statement says more about your rank partisanship than anything else.

BeAChooser

26th May 2009, 05:50 PM

Hey, just look at what he's said about Sheila Anthony, Vince Foster's sister. According to him, she spent a quarter of a million dollars before the "murder" to get Lisa Foster to agree to the "depressed and suicidal" cover story

I never said that. Stop throwing out strawmen and address what I actually did say. I simply asked you why Sheila gave Lisa a quarter million dollars just before his death? And you still haven't answered. And Fiske and Starr showed absolutely no interest in this unusual transaction. Yet it might have a bearing on what was really going on here. If it wasn't suicide.

and (according to BAC and his conspiracy websites, at least) didn't tell any of the investigators about the "depressed and suicidal" thing for over a week

I challenge you to find ONE statement by her in any source you think reliable that shows she mentioned depression to investigators before that meeting in the Whitehouse a week after his death took place. Go ahead.

and even then she spoke about it only after some Big Mysterious Meeting with "lawyers".

And I challenge you to provide a transcript for that meeting. Or just tell us what Lisa Foster, Sheila Anthony, their lawyers, and whoever else was at that meeting (you can name them, right?) discussed? You can do that, can't you? Or am I correct in describing it as "mysterious"?

Worst. Cover-up. Ever.

It doesn't have to be very good when the government controls the investigatory bodies and the mainstream media is no longer interested in real journalism and being non-partisan. It doesn't have to be very good when they have helpful lackeys like you to dissuade a dumbed down public from taking any interest in the issue. :D

I also like how apparently everyone in the Clinton Administration managed to murder Vince Foster and keep it all under wraps, and yet were somehow totally unable or unwilling to keep the Monica Lewinsky thing secret.

I've already addressed that. Weren't you listening? :rolleyes: Notice that Monica Lewinsky didn't come to light until allegations of foul play in the death of Ron Brown by military and civilian pathologists were starting to get attention in some portions of the media and the black community. That drove those allegations from the public's attention because seamy sex will trump mass murder any day of the week. I suggest Starr knew that.

oldhat

26th May 2009, 06:07 PM

http://web.archive.org/web/20040223081215/http://archives.cjr.org/year/96/2/foster.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/magazine/ding-dong-the-cultural-witch-hunt-is-dead.html?pagewanted=all

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/14/archive/print.html

Read these, please.

David Brock admitted to making this crap up with Ted Olsen.

You're loopier than I thought if you think Bill Clinton shot down an Air Force jet in Croatia by remote control or whatever theory you've culled from ca. 1996 Usenet archives.

BeAChooser

26th May 2009, 06:14 PM

This is just sickening, and a true example of conspiracy thinking at its most loathsome.

So KB, can you tell us what the quarter million dollar payment to Lisa was for? Or are you going to just ignore that question too? Like you've ignored the oven mitt. Like you've ignored the suicide note. Like you've ignored the sudden change in the witness statements a week after Foster's death. Like you've ignored the statement of the first witness at the scene, the only doctor to visit the scene, the statements of the EMTs, the statement of the mortuary employee, the statements of Starr's own top investigator?

And which is more sickening and loathsome, folks? Someone who asks a reasonable question or someone who ignores crucial evidence that seems to point to murder? What is kookbreaker really trying to protect? Foster's family ... or the democrat party? I suggest it's the latter. :D

BeAChooser gushes at the very thought that a wife would allow her husband's killers to go free.

No, I actually think Lisa Foster was intimated and threatened by people who controlled the instruments of justice in this country. Tell me, KB, are you aware that Lisa remarried ... interestingly enough to a Clinton associate ... Arkansas Judge James Maxwell Moody. 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.

Copyright 1996 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
August 26, 1996, Monday

HEADLINE: POLICE BEAT

BYLINE: Democrat-Gazette Staff

Man dies as truck crashes into wall

A Little Rock man died Sunday after his truck left University Avenue and struck a retaining wall.

Neal C. Moody, 30, of 1413 Pine Valley Road was driving south in the 100 block of University Avenue in his 1995 Isuzu Trooper at 4 a.m. Sunday.

Moody's truck left the road, crossed the driveway of Bennigan's, struck a curb and became airborne for 22 feet. The vehicle came down and traveled 108 feet until it struck a wall. Moody was pronounced dead at 4:24 a.m. at St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center.

The police report said the investigation was turned over to the detective's office because of witness statements and a "suspicious document" found on Moody.

You going to just ignore that too?

Yet BeAChooser has such a low opinion of everyone except himself

Quite trying to use personal attacks on me as your argument against the facts I've laid out. If you can't tell us why Lisa received the payment, just admit it. If you can't challenge the actual facts, just admit it. Stop hiding behind ad-hominens and debate the facts.

oldhat

26th May 2009, 07:13 PM

The list of copnspirators just keeps expanding. Funny how often people are willing to kill family members to protect Bill Clinton.

Only on Planet Conspiracy does a "suspicious document" found at a car accident automatically mean a signed, notarized document detailing Lisa Foster's complicity in the massive murderious conspiracy that took her husband's life.

The idea that one of BAC's wholly unreliable and partisan rightwing newsletters unearthed some mindblowing factoid about the oven mitt and that magically discredits five separate investigations is laughable. Citing AIM and WhatReallyHappened.com is about as credible as me citing Socialist Worker and Lyndon LaRouche Monthly.

kookbreaker

27th May 2009, 11:23 AM

Double post

kookbreaker

27th May 2009, 11:36 AM

So KB, can you tell us what the quarter million dollar payment to Lisa was for?

No, nor do I care. Its minutia. Just a petty attempt by you to slander the widow for her lack of agreement with your madness.

Or are you going to just ignore that question too? Like you've ignored the oven mitt. Like you've ignored the suicide note. Like you've ignored <snip>

Blah! Blah! Blah! If I ignore it that is because it is IRRELEVANT. These are petty, petty details you bawl on and on about because you haven't got squat in the way of real evidence that points to murder. You have no witnesses, no motive, no murder suspects, nothing at all that points to murder so you harp on and on and on about 'oven mitts'.

And which is more sickening and loathsome, folks? Someone who asks a reasonable question or someone who ignores crucial evidence that seems to point to murder?

You are not asking reasonable questions, so that removes you from your own categories.

What is kookbreaker really trying to protect? Foster's family ... or the democrat party? I suggest it's the latter. :D

I suggest that for someone who whines about ad hominens, you sure do employ them.

I also know many Republicans, and they are more concerned with nuttery like this reflecting badly on their own party. Seems like the Democratic party isn't the one needing protecting.

No, I actually think Lisa Foster was intimated and threatened by people who controlled the instruments of justice in this country.

Theatened, or took money? You want it both ways. Spare me.

Tell me, KB, are you aware that Lisa remarried ...

OH NOOOES!!!!! THAT IS NOT ALLOWED!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

So what? Maureen Faulkner may have dated or even been engaged after here husband was murdered. Does that mean her efforts to see justice for her murdered husband are just grandstanding? I don't think so.

In your fantasy world, everyone is corrupt but you. Widows can be bought off with a few nickles and some judicial threats that somehow carry through a polar opposite administration. Its laughable.

interestingly enough to a Clinton associate ... A <snip>

Another murder fantasy.

You going to just ignore that too?

Its irrelevant, just more of your laughable fantasy.

QUOTE]
Quite trying to use personal attacks on me as your argument against the facts I've laid out.
[/QUOTE]

You are the slave to your pet hatreds and that needs to be exposed. Like any nutbar conspiracy theorist you assume everyone in the world, including widows of murdered husbands, has a price...except yourself of course. :rolleyes:

If you can't tell us why Lisa received the payment, just admit it.

Q.E.D.

If you can't challenge the actual facts, just admit it. Stop hiding behind ad-hominens and debate the facts.

Its not an ad hominen to point out your are making vile accusations with your insipid insinuations. That's just pointing out what kind of person you are. The work has already been done destroying your claims, you are just trying to stir up the muck, for your own self-aggrandizement.

ANTPogo

27th May 2009, 12:14 PM

I never said that. Stop throwing out strawmen and address what I actually did say.

You don't get to toss out slimy innuendos and then act all offended when I call you on it, BAC. You were "just asking questions" in the same manner 9/11 Truthers do.

You think Sheila Anthony's "payment" to Lisa Foster had some influence on Lisa Foster meekly accepting her husband's "murder". Period.

I simply asked you why Sheila gave Lisa a quarter million dollars just before his death? And you still haven't answered.

That's because I don't care. You brought it up in connection with Foster's death, so you explain it. If you think it has something to do with the "coverup" of Foster's death, then tell us what you think and why.

I challenge you to find ONE statement by her in any source you think reliable that shows she mentioned depression to investigators before that meeting in the Whitehouse a week after his death took place. Go ahead.

You're the one who speculated that her calling a psychiatrist on behalf of her brother before his death meant she was laying down a "cover story". That is, at the very least, wildly inconsistent with your claim that her (and others) not telling investigators that her brother was depressed means that no one even hinted that Foster was depressed before his death and Starr made the whole thing up after the fact to protect the murderous Clintons.

And I challenge you to provide a transcript for that meeting. Or just tell us what Lisa Foster, Sheila Anthony, their lawyers, and whoever else was at that meeting (you can name them, right?) discussed? You can do that, can't you? Or am I correct in describing it as "mysterious"?

I don't know what was said in the meeting. And thus, I don't make even a single tiny claim about that meeting, because any speculation would be utterly unfounded.

You don't know what was said at that meeting either. So what makes you think your speculations about it are different and have any relation to reality whatsoever?

I've already addressed that. Weren't you listening? :rolleyes: Notice that Monica Lewinsky didn't come to light until allegations of foul play in the death of Ron Brown by military and civilian pathologists were starting to get attention in some portions of the media and the black community. That drove those allegations from the public's attention because seamy sex will trump mass murder any day of the week. I suggest Starr knew that.

Ah, so the media isn't interested in real journalism and being non-partisan, which is why they had to be distracted from delving too deeply into the Foster and Brown "murders".

Of course.

BeAChooser

27th May 2009, 02:51 PM

http://web.archive.org/web/200402230...6/2/foster.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/ma...pagewanted=all

http://archive.salon.com/politics/fe...ive/print.html

Read these, please.

David Brock admitted to making this crap up with Ted Olsen.

Your links don't back up your statement. Nor do they dismantle any of the facts I listed. Nor do they answer any of the questions I posed. They ignore them, just like you have been doing. They attempt to use adhominems and unsupported smears as the basis of argument ... just like you have been doing. And they are all far left of center ... which I suspect characterizes you, as well. I'll prove it. Let's look specifically at your "sources".

Consider the first one. It's a hit piece in the Columbia Journalism Review (a publisher about as left of center as they come, by the way) written by a highly partisan (to the left) women named Trudy Lieberman, who is such a *journalistic* icon that she writes for "Consumer Reports". :rolleyes: Time and again she's come to the defense of democrat agendas and specific democrats. Most of her articles focus on health care (which of course makes her an expert on Foster's death ... :rolleyes:) and it's no surprise she's a BIG proponent of the democrat party's plans to socialize medicine. She also likes to take swipes at the "right wing" media and "right wing" think tanks, and seems to think there's no liberal bias in the mainstream media. Oh yeah, she's a *totally* unbiased fountain of *truth* and well qualified to pontificate on Vince Foster's death. :rolleyes:.

Now in the article of hers that you linked, she goes after Christopher Ruddy. Does she actually show that anything reported by Ruddy about Vince Foster (or Ron Brown, for that matter) is false? Not really. The only actual claimed fact she challenges is that Ruddy reported Foster was left handed, when it turns out he is right handed (and she obviously just got this from the 60 minutes piece she cited ... which may be her sole source of information on this topic). Note that while she admitted Ruddy acknowledges that specific error, she fails to mention that Ruddy attributed the error to the "The Boston Globe". So it looks like he was not the only one to report Foster was left handed ... some very liberal sources apparently did too ... even before Ruddy did.

Other than that one specific item, Trudy Lieberman doesn't show that anything Ruddy claimed to be a fact in his reports about Foster is false. She only points to a "60 Minutes" piece (now there's a liberally partisan source if there ever was one) and claims it picked Ruddy's theories about Foster's death "apart". But is that true? Did they really do that? Or is she misrepresenting the facts?

Apparently Congressman Burton thinks she is. Here's what Congressman Burton thought of that "60 Minutes" *report* on Foster's death (he stated this on the floor of the House of Representatives, by the way) ... http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/burton_cbs.html :

I watched Mike Wallace start doing a 20 minute segment on the death of Vince Foster. I have never seen so much misinformation and so much bias in reporting as I saw during that 20 minute segment.

Hmmmmm. Maybe that 60 Minute report wasn't very good. Read the rest of Burton's speech and you'll see that he went into great detail about the flaws in the "60 Minute" report ... unlike what Trudy and oldhat have done where their complaints about the Foster allegations are concerned. For example, he points out that 60 minutes never mentions or interviewed the Confidential Witness. Why is that important? Decide for yourself:

Mike Wallace went into great detail during this interview about how the gun was found in Foster's right hand. He said critics of the investigation incorrectly stated that Foster was left-handed. Well, that misses the point entirely. When the confidential witness discovered the body, he looked very carefully. He was within 18 inches of Mr. Foster's face. He looked very carefully and saw no gun in either hand . He was very clear in his statement, in the sworn statement before me and the FBI, that when he found Foster, both hands were palm up with the thumbs pointed out away from the body. When the police arrived on the scene, they found his right hand palm down with the thumb pointed in, the gun on the trigger finger, and the gun was partially obscured by his hand and his leg.

Here's another example pointed out by Representative Burton:

Mike Wallace made a big issue out of the amount of blood around the body. He interviewed the medical examiner, who said there was sufficient blood underneath the head and shoulders to conclude that he died at that spot. This misses the key point. There would have been blood underneath Foster's head, whether he shot himself at the spot or was moved there. The key point is there was no blood spattered on anything behind where Foster was sitting. Anytime someone shoots himself through the mouth, there would be blood splattered all over above him, and there was nothing above him that had any blood on it whatsoever. The vegetation on the path behind Foster was clean.

The first emergency medical services person who arrived at the park, George Gonzalez, commented that it was very unusual for a suicide victim's body to be laid out so neatly, with the feet together and the hands neatly at his side. He told this to the staff of the Committee
on Government Operations, and he said: `I find it odd to have the body laid out like it was. I wouldn't expect the hand or body in the position found, the hands perfectly at the side.' `60 Minutes,' incidentally, did not interview Mr. Gonzalez.

And those are only a couple of Burton's criticisms. Burton summarizes the facts that "60 Minutes" overlooked thus:

First, the eyewitness who found the body testified that he is sure there was no gun in Foster's hand and the hands were in a different position than when the police arrived. That was not mentioned on `60 Minutes.'

Second, the confidential witness said there were no bloodstains on the face when he found the body. There were bloodstains on the cheek when the police arrived, indicating it had been moved. When they moved his body, his head went over to the side and blood drained out on the face.

Third, the confidential witness testified he saw a wine cooler bottle close to Foster's body in the park, and a package of similar wine cooler bottles in a car in the parking lot that did not belong to Foster. Where did they come from? Where did that bottle go?

Fourth, despite extensive searchers of the park, the FBI has been unable to find the bullet that killed Vince Foster, and they are still looking for it. Evidently the independent counsel sent them back out there 2 or 3 weeks ago to look for it again.

Fifth, no skull fragments were ever found at the site where Foster's body was found, even though there definitely would have been skull fragments from that kind of a wound.

Sixth, there were no fingerprints on the gun. Get this: The gun was in his hand, and there were no fingerprints on the gun. The FBI said they probably, get this, `melted off in the heat.' And yet when they took the gun apart, they found fingerprints there from the time the gun was made at the factory.

Seventh, there were no fingerprints on the suicide note (please see this link for evidence note was forged.) found in Foster's briefcase in his White House office. It was torn up into 28 pieces, and the first few times the briefcase was searched, they could not find the note at all, even though they turned it upside down, and there were no fingerprints on it.

Eighth, the coroner who conducted the autopsy of Foster's body has made glaring errors of high profile cases in the past. In one case, a body had to be exhumed and reexamined in order to change the ruling from suicide to murder.

Ninth, security guards working at the Saudi Arabian Ambassador's residence across the street from the park, within 100 yards, 300 feet, with guards outside all day and night, heard no gunshot.

Tenth, Foster's shoes were completely clean, with no grass or dirt stains, even though he was supposed to have walked 700 yards through the park to the second cannon.

No. 11, the FBI never made any attempt to identify the carpet fibers or the blond hair on Foster's clothing.

No. 12, the police photos at the death scene did not turn out, leaving a serious lack of documentation of the death scene.

Obviously things aren't quite as cut and dry as Trudy Lieberman,"60 Minutes", and oldhat want viewers and readers to believe. Are they, folks.

Why didn't Trudy respond to these specifics concerns? Why didn't "60 minutes"? In fact, with regards to item ten above, why didn't Mike Wallace mention the fact that he himself did an experiment where he walked the trail to the death site ... and picked up dirt on his shoes? Why won't oldhat respond to these specific concerns, folks?

Could it be that all these detractors really can do to discredit these fact-based allegations is try and link Ruddy to "right wing" sponsors like Scaife and imply that's proof enough that the allegation is false and fabricated? That appears to be the sum total of their argument. Their case is that thin. You'd think the logical flaw in that sort of reasoning would be obvious to such *smart* people. But apparently not. Blinded by partisanship, I suspect. :D

And just for the record, here are other flaws in the "60 Minutes" *debunking* of the Foster allegations ... flaws not mentioned in Burton's 15 minute speech ... flaws ignored by Trudy ... flaws that oldhat and his friends on this thread are desperate to avoid.

During the "60 Minutes" segment, Mike Wallace interviewed James Hamilton, whom he called the "Foster family lawyer". He forgot to mention that Hamilton was also the Clinton-Gore Transition Counsel for Nomination and Confirmation in 1992 ... a fact that might constitute a serious bias (Don't you think?). In fact, years later it was revealed that Hamilton had advised Clinton to stonewall in the Whitewater matter. That's how protective of the Clintons he was at the time ... willing enough to obstruct justice and violate the law. Wallace also failed to mention that Hamilton was present at that meeting in the Whitehouse that occurred just before Lisa, Sheila and her husband changed their stories about Vince's depression. Actually, Wallace never even mentioned that meeting. That's how biased Wallace was. And when introducing Hamilton, Wallace stated, as if it were established fact, that Foster was in a "clinical depression". But as I've amply demonstrated in this thread, that's simply not true. And certainly, being just a wonderful journalist, Wallace knew he was misrepresenting the truth. So Wallace lied. That's how protective he was of the Clintons.

Here are more items Wallace ignored or misrepresented:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n46_v11/ai_17817574/ notes that Wallace showed a portion of his interview with Ruddy, where he tells Ruddy, "You know and I know that there was blood all over the back of the shirt." Ruddy replies that "Dr. Haut [the only doctor to view the body at the official death scene], in his FBI report and his interview with me, said there was not a lot of blood behind the body." Wallace then says, as if its established fact, that "Dr. Haut says Chris Ruddy simply got it wrong." But according to Haut's own FBI interview: "Haut did not recall seeing blood on the decedent's shirt or face and no blood was recalled on the vegetation around the body. . . Although the volume of blood was small . . . the blood was matted and clotted under the head. . . . Haut believed that the wound was consistent with a low-velocity weapon." Clearly, Wallace misrepresented Haut's actual testimony again. He LIED.

That source also shows that Wallace further misrepresented the facts when he stated that "Dr. Donald Haut, the Fairfax County Medical Examiner, arrived at the scene to examine the body. At that point, Foster's body was rolled over and those present observed a large pool of blood on the ground where Foster's head had been." As you can see from the Haut's FBI interview statements, not only was there no "large" volume of blood but the blood evidence wasn't even liquid. Wallace seems to have lied again, oldhat. Why aren't you and Trudy worried about this? :D

How about CBS' motivation for ignoring all the above? Do you know that Don Hewitt, Executive Producer of "60 Minutes", admitted to helping Bill Clinton win the nomination in 1992? How's that for bias? Here's what Hewitt said back then (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/ARCHIVE/CLINTON_CHRONICLES.html ):

And they came to us because they were in big trouble in New Hampshire. They were about to lose right there and they needed some first aid. They needed some bandaging. What they needed was a paramedic. So they came to us and we did it and that's what they wanted to do. When I told Tim Russer that I was persona-non-grata at the White House, he said, "Why?" I said, "The Gennifer Flowers interview." He said, "You got him the nomination." I said, "I know that." As far as I know from the conversations I've had, Bernie Nussbaum knew that, Gergen knows that, Lloyd Cutler certainly knows it 'cause Lloyd had a hand in his coming on that night.

You know it was strong medicine the way I edited it but he was a very sick candidate. He needed very strong medicine, and I'm not in the business of doctoring candidates but he got up out of a sick bed that night and walked to the nomination and as I said to Mandy, "You know if I'd edited it your way, you know where you'd be today? You'd still be up in New Hampshire looking for the nomination." He became the
candidate that night.

This was a conspiracy to destroy Ruddy, folks.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/how-cbs-nailed-chris-ruddy/ "How CBS Nailed Chris Ruddy"

A conspiracy that required 300 to 400 edits in which Ruddy was hardly allowed to utter a complete sentence. So is that the best you can do, oldhat? Apparently so, given the content of your other *sources*.

Let's look at the second one ... the New York Times (another great bastion of *truth* :rolleyes:) article. Does that article prove what you claimed? No, it does not. It doesn't even mention the Foster case or any specific facts claimed in this thread about the Foster case. Not one word. It's just another hit piece on Scaife and the so-called "right wing". You've got to do better than that, oldhat.

How about your third source ... the one in "salon" (now there's an *unbiased* source for you, folks. :rolleyes:)? Again, is there mention of the Vince Foster case in the article? No. Not one word. So of the three *sources* you offer, only one says anything about the Foster case, and that one simply misrepresents it. You really know how to debate the facts, oldhat. (sarcasm) Thanks for demonstrating that so effectively. :D

By the way, what do you really know about your chief witness for the defense, David Brocks?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020527/hitchens "The Real David Brock". As Hitchens asks, "who is such a sap as to take the word of such a person?"

http://www.slate.com/?id=2063759 "David Brock, Liar"

:D

You're loopier than I thought if you think Bill Clinton shot down an Air Force jet in Croatia by remote control or whatever theory you've culled from ca. 1996 Usenet archives.

If you want to debate the facts and sources on the topic of Ron Brown, I'll be more than happy to oblige. Read these, then feel free to post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134001

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121045

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119618

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90750

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87011

For some reason, however, I suspect you'll be no more willing to debate the facts on that topic than on this one. ;)

BeAChooser

27th May 2009, 02:53 PM

The idea that one of BAC's wholly unreliable and partisan rightwing newsletters unearthed some mindblowing factoid

Sorry, OH, but you haven't shown the facts in any source I cited (and you completely mischaracterize them, btw, in an obvious and desperate attempt to make this go away) are wrong.

five separate investigations

Go ahead. List them. I bet I can prove they aren't quite as "separate" as you want people to believe. :D

ANTPogo

27th May 2009, 04:21 PM

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n46_v11/ai_17817574/ notes that Wallace showed a portion of his interview with Ruddy, where he tells Ruddy, "You know and I know that there was blood all over the back of the shirt." Ruddy replies that "Dr. Haut [the only doctor to view the body at the official death scene], in his FBI report and his interview with me, said there was not a lot of blood behind the body." Wallace then says, as if its established fact, that "Dr. Haut says Chris Ruddy simply got it wrong." But according to Haut's own FBI interview: "Haut did not recall seeing blood on the decedent's shirt or face and no blood was recalled on the vegetation around the body. . . Although the volume of blood was small . . . the blood was matted and clotted under the head. . . . Haut believed that the wound was consistent with a low-velocity weapon."

(snip)

That source also shows that Wallace further misrepresented the facts when he stated that "Dr. Donald Haut, the Fairfax County Medical Examiner, arrived at the scene to examine the body. At that point, Foster's body was rolled over and those present observed a large pool of blood on the ground where Foster's head had been." As you can see from the Haut's FBI interview statements, not only was there no "large" volume of blood but the blood evidence wasn't even liquid.

Former Starr assistant Miguel Rodriguez, who both BAC and his favored source Patrick Knowlton agree blew the "coverup" wide open:

"By the way, you know why there was blood. They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast. And then when they took the body and put it into the body bag, which was right – in other words they – it was on a slope – they pull it up onto the slope. When the body is horizontal or even at the top of the berm it's not quite horizontal it's a little bit of a back-slope – and all of a sudden the blood starts gushing out, there's a lot of blood then under the body. "

Which of your sources are we to believe, BAC? The one that said "the volume of blood was small" and what there was was "matted and clotted", or the one that said there was "a lot of blood" that was "gushing out"?

Is Rodriguez secretly in on the conspiracy too? Or is it Haut who's really in on the conspiracy?

Can you enlighten us, BAC?

BeAChooser

27th May 2009, 06:27 PM

You have no witnesses

That is completely false. There are all sorts of witnesses (CW, Patrick Knowlton, Dr Haut, the EMS personnel, certain Park Police members, FBI agent testimony, Starr's own top investigator, etc. etc. etc.). A fact pointed out repeatedly in this thread. So if there is no such thing as a liar on this forum, we can only assume you didn't bother to read or understand a single post I made. You just ignore what I noted those witnesses saying. Perhaps because they don't fit in with your suicide "madness"? :D

no motive

Not true. Vince Foster was involved in a variety of activities that might have gotten him killed. The Clinton's finances and their blind trust, for instance. Why did it take so extraordinarily long to get it finalized (far longer than previous Presidents) ... when the Clintons came into office not even owning a house? There were reports of a possible affair between Vince and Hillary. Foster had access to information on Travelgate. And on what really happened at Waco (about which he was reportedly quite upset). He was involved with Hillary in Whitewater. In fact, it appears that Whitewater related documents that Hillary claimed she didn't have (there was a court order to turn them over) were kept in Foster's office and removed immediately after his death (and then magically found their way into the Clinton's Whitehouse bedroom where they were later *discovered* ... after the statute of limitations on the Whitewater crimes expired).

We also know that Foster made a number of overnight (i.e., one day) trips to Switzerland between 1991 and 1993. On July 1, 1998, just weeks before he died, he apparently purchased another ticket to Switzerland. But he never used that one. Can you tell us why he made all those trips to Switzerland but canceled the one just before his death? Maybe it had something to do with the stress you folks say he was experiencing? Or is that just as mysterious and "irrelevant" as the $286,000 payment to Lisa that you want to ignore? Could it have something to do with Leo Wanta? Do you know who Wanta is, KB? If not, maybe you should investigate. Maybe start here: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/17/203006.shtml and here http://www.rense.com/general70/formerambassadorsays.htm . Perhaps the "motive" had to do with why the US government has been admitting there are trillions and trillions of dollars unaccounted for? Such monetary losses aren't something I just made up, KB. They've been reported in various quite respectable publications. Like the Washington Times. And the Washington Post. :D

So you see, there are all sorts of possible motives. :D

no murder suspects, nothing at all that points to murder so you harp on and on and on about 'oven mitts'.

Yes, KB ... bury your head ... rather than deal with what that oven mitt and so much other evidence is trying to tell you.

You are not asking reasonable questions

So now it's unreasonable to ask why the eyewitness testimony of so many differs from what Fiske and Starr reported? It's unreasonable to ask how Foster got a gun to the death site without putting a fingerprint on it? To ask how he got to the death site without soiling his shoes? To ask why the witnesses say the body is in a different position in Fiske/Starr's photographs than what they observed when they first arrived. To ask why the description of the wound by the doctor at the site and the EMS personnel who moved Foster differs from what Fiske and Starr claimed it was? To ask why the government fought the release of even one photo of Foster's head, when that alone might have debunked the allegations? What's next, liberal ... government thought control so questions like that are "unreasonable"? :D

Quote:
What is kookbreaker really trying to protect? Foster's family ... or the democrat party? I suggest it's the latter.

I suggest that for someone who whines about ad hominens, you sure do employ them.

Given your behavior on this thread, I think that's a quite reasonable question. And even if it's vaguely ad hominen, at least I don't employ them EXCLUSIVELY as my basis of argument. :)

Theatened, or took money? You want it both ways. Spare me.

Why can't it be both ways? It wouldn't be a first time folks have been threatened and given money to help shut them up. And do you think the Clinton administration was above intimidating people that threatened them? Tell that to Broaddrick. Willey. Knowlton. Noland Hill. Gennifer Flowers. Katherine Prudhomme. The pathologists and photographer in the Ron Brown case. For that matter, try telling that to the Democrat who led the Impeachment Investigation of Clinton, David Schippers (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_1_17/ai_72273372 ). :rolleyes:

In your fantasy world, everyone is corrupt but you.

You really need to stop with the personal attacks, KB. And deal with the facts. But then it seems that according to you, all facts are "irrelevant". :rolleyes:

Like any nutbar conspiracy theorist

Come on, KB. Is this all you have? :rolleyes:

BeAChooser

27th May 2009, 06:34 PM

You don't get to toss out slimy innuendos and then act all offended when I call you on it, BAC.

So asking a simple question that any good investigator would have asked in a situation like that which surrounds Vince Foster's death is "slimy"? :rolleyes: Can you tell us why Lisa never mentioned depression until a week after Foster's death? Hmmmmm?

You were "just asking questions" in the same manner 9/11 Truthers do.

Wrong. If anything, you are the ones acting like 9/11 Truthers. Go to those threads and you'll find them ignoring the facts ... just like you. You'll find them concocting scenarios out of thin air ... just like you. I'm the one with the witnesses and facts on my side here (and in the Ron Brown case). I'm the one with the experts who haven't proven to be liars. Just like those who have to debunk the Truthers when they misrepresent the facts.

You think Sheila Anthony's "payment" to Lisa Foster had some influence on Lisa Foster meekly accepting her husband's "murder". Period.

And how do you know it didn't. Again, why was Lisa given $286,000 dollars just before Vince's death? Was it a legal transaction ... or one that she might have wanted to hide? A good investigator would have delved into that ... and into the subject of that meeting in the Whitehouse that occurred just before Lisa and Sheila (and her husband) suddenly changed their stories about Foster's depression. But then Fiske and Starr were anything but ...

Quote:
I simply asked you why Sheila gave Lisa a quarter million dollars just before his death? And you still haven't answered.

That's because I don't care.

But a REAL skeptic would. You're at the wrong forum. :D

Quote:
I challenge you to find ONE statement by her in any source you think reliable that shows she mentioned depression to investigators before that meeting in the Whitehouse a week after his death took place. Go ahead.

You're the one who speculated that her calling a psychiatrist on behalf of her brother before his death meant she was laying down a "cover story".

Folks, that's just another way of admitting "I can't find one." :D

I don't know what was said in the meeting. And thus, I don't make even a single tiny claim about that meeting, because any speculation would be utterly unfounded.

Folks, that's just another way of saying "I don't care." :D

Quote:
I've already addressed that. Weren't you listening? Notice that Monica Lewinsky didn't come to light until allegations of foul play in the death of Ron Brown by military and civilian pathologists were starting to get attention in some portions of the media and the black community. That drove those allegations from the public's attention because seamy sex will trump mass murder any day of the week. I suggest Starr knew that.

Ah, so the media isn't interested in real journalism and being non-partisan, which is why they had to be distracted from delving too deeply into the Foster and Brown "murders".

Again, you demonstrate you aren't listening. The black community was beginning to ask questions. For example, BET interviewed the pathologist (or should I say stooge) who examined Brown's body (at a time when the government had issued a gag order on all the whistleblowers ... pathologists and photographer ... at AFIP). And BET caught him lying on camera about the case. He had to literally change his story mid-stride ... when confronted with photos of the wound and x-ray that proved his earlier claims false ... to another story that also conflicts with the facts and witness statements. And SOME in the media were beginning to notice. But not after Monica and her sex scandal surfaced. Not after Bill met with the black caucus and Jessie Jackson in the Whitehouse (and gave them some goodies). :D

BeAChooser

27th May 2009, 06:52 PM

"By the way, you know why there was blood. They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast. And then when they took the body and put it into the body bag, which was right – in other words they – it was on a slope – they pull it up onto the slope. When the body is horizontal or even at the top of the berm it's not quite horizontal it's a little bit of a back-slope – and all of a sudden the blood starts gushing out, there's a lot of blood then under the body. "

Which of your sources are we to believe, BAC?

Why not both since they describe different time periods of the investigation. Haut's testimony pertains to where Foster's body was supposedly originally seen by him. Before it was moved by EMS personnel. At that location, when they turned the body over, he said he saw little blood and it was coagulated. And Foster's shirt was clean. AFTER the EMS personnel moved the body, however, to the top of the ridge, the blood started flowing from the body. Why are those two versions at all inconsistent? Perhaps because you don't understand what either was actually talking about? :D

kookbreaker

27th May 2009, 06:52 PM

That is completely false.

No. It is true. Your alleged witness list is so poor that the vast majority of hardcore Republicans consider it to be nonsense.

Not true. Vince Foster was involved in a variety of activities that might have gotten him killed.

No. You think he was involved with these things. But they are products of your imagination.

We also know that Foster made a number of overnight (i.e., one day) trips to Switzerland between 1991 and 1993. On July 1, 1998, just weeks before he died, he apparently purchased another ticket to Switzerland. But he never used that one. Can you tell us why he made all those trips to Switzerland but canceled the one just before his death? Maybe it had something to do with the stress you folks say he was experiencing? Or is that just as mysterious and "irrelevant" as the $286,000 payment to Lisa that you want to ignore?

Again you make sleazy insinuations, without anything real.

Yes, KB ... bury your head ... rather than deal with what that oven mitt and so much other evidence is trying to tell you.

:rolleyes:

And your oven mitt is sooooooooo convincing that you've managed to convince.....Galileo. Congratulations. You must be so proud.

Given your behavior on this thread, I think that's a quite reasonable question.

My behavior in this thread? Dude, most of my posts were countering your buddy Galileo's trollery and nonsense. Then you barge in replying to me (and Fullmenthol) trying to declare that Foster wasn't depressed. And antic which you failed utterly at (but not by my hand). I didn't return to the thread until you sleazily implied that Foster's widow is taking money to keep quiet, a sleazy insinuation worthy of the Ramona Africa crowd. I called you on it, and you whined. Get over it.

I know Republicans who absolutely LOATHE Clinton, but if you bring up Foster they shake their heads and gripe about 'that kook nonsense' the same way the Average Democrat rolled their eyes at 'Bush is gonna declare Martial Law before the inauguration' kooks.

You've thrown out lots of names, and lots of allegations and seem to consider that some kind of excellent arguement, but your sources stink, your allegations are empty, slanderous and sleazy. You've managed to convince nobody except an admitted troll. Oh wait, he was already convinced.

Way to go.

I'm out of this thread now. You've proven that you share the characteristics of almost all Conspiracy nuts where only they are pure and every other person can be bought off, cheap. I don't need to do any more.

oldhat

27th May 2009, 06:58 PM

LOL, I knew Holocaust-denying Rense.com was going to make an appearance in this thread eventually. Great job, BAC, raising a glass to you for helping me win a bet with myself! Also, you're citing Newsmax, which is owned by, you guessed it, Christopher Ruddy.

BTW, do you have any sources whatsoever that aren't sourced by Chris Ruddy and/or UFO websites? In the interest of credibility?

Let me get this straight, now you're saying Swiss bankers were involved in the conspiracy? That seems to be what you're implying but won't outright say because you don't have any evidence.

It's amusing how you never exactly come out and say who did what and who pulled the trigger and what the quarter million dollars were for but instead just sprinkle little insinuations and innuendos and annoying little :D around your posts like scattering chickenfeed.

P.S. BAC, David Brock admitted to making this conspiracy up. I'm not sure why you're fixated on the oven mitt and refuse to even acknowledge Brock's damning statements on the fabrication of this conspiracy theory. It's in his book. Read the Vanity Fair article for starters. I know you won't but you should. It's not long.

ANTPogo

27th May 2009, 10:58 PM

Why not both since they describe different time periods of the investigation. Haut's testimony pertains to where Foster's body was supposedly originally seen by him. Before it was moved by EMS personnel. At that location, when they turned the body over, he said he saw little blood and it was coagulated. And Foster's shirt was clean. AFTER the EMS personnel moved the body, however, to the top of the ridge, the blood started flowing from the body. Why are those two versions at all inconsistent? Perhaps because you don't understand what either was actually talking about? :D

Let me try and make this nice and clear for you.

The theory you promote, cribbed from Knowlton and all those conspiracy websites, argues that Foster was murdered because when his body was found in the park, the blood which should have surrounded the body had he shot himself then and there is either nonexistent or old and dried, "proving" that Foster was killed elsewhere long before his "supposed" suicide and his corpse dumped in the park.

Unfortunately for that theory, as Rodriguez notes, his body was actually full of liquid blood that gushed out as soon as his body was moved, soaking his clothes.

Even worse, since his blood did gush out of his body and soak his clothes as soon as the body was moved, and his shirt was not all bloody when he was first found, it means that Foster wasn't killed long before his "supposed" suicide and his corpse dumped in the park, but instead died right there where his body was found and he died right when the "official theory" said he died (else his clothes would have been all bloody and no blood would have gushed out easily when his body was moved, in contrast with the way things actually were).

So asking a simple question that any good investigator would have asked in a situation like that which surrounds Vince Foster's death is "slimy"?

"Just Asking Questions" doesn't work for Truthers, and it won't work for you.

Wrong. If anything, you are the ones acting like 9/11 Truthers. Go to those threads and you'll find them ignoring the facts ... just like you. You'll find them concocting scenarios out of thin air ... just like you.

You're the one creating a conspiracy theory where everyone from Foster's own wife and sister to his long-time family doctor back in Arkansas to random DC psychiatrists is in on the cover-up, where Foster's sister paid half a million dollars to his wife to ensure her agreement in said cover-up, where Foster's murdered corpse had to have been drained of blood and his clothes dry cleaned before being smuggled out of the White House to be dumped in the park (where it was refilled with blood so it could gush out when the body was moved a second time after being found there), and where some mysterious meeting between lawyers is where the apparently the entire plot was cooked up a week after the fact. And you accuse me of "concocting theories out of thin air"?

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

And how do you know it didn't.

Your theory, you provide evidence. And "how do you know my utterly baseless theory isn't true, huh?" isn't evidence, no matter what you might think.

But a REAL skeptic would. You're at the wrong forum.

Your theory, you provide evidence.

I think you're at the wrong forum, if you honestly believe it doesn't work that way.

Folks, that's just another way of admitting "I can't find one."

Your theory, you provide evidence.

Folks, that's just another way of saying "I don't care."

Your theory, you provide evidence.

I can do this all day if you like, though I'd rather not.

Again, you demonstrate you aren't listening. The black community was beginning to ask questions. For example, BET interviewed the pathologist (or should I say stooge) who examined Brown's body (at a time when the government had issued a gag order on all the whistleblowers ... pathologists and photographer ... at AFIP). And BET caught him lying on camera about the case. He had to literally change his story mid-stride ... when confronted with photos of the wound and x-ray that proved his earlier claims false ... to another story that also conflicts with the facts and witness statements. And SOME in the media were beginning to notice. But not after Monica and her sex scandal surfaced. Not after Bill met with the black caucus and Jessie Jackson in the Whitehouse (and gave them some goodies).

So now your theory includes the idea that the media can only cover one story at a time, and so in order to cover the Monica Lewinsky thing at all, they had to drop the Ron Brown (and presumably Vince Foster) investigations completely?

I don't even know what to say any more.

BeAChooser

28th May 2009, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
That is completely false.

No. It is true. Your alleged witness list is so poor

Get that folks? According to KB, a witness list that includes the first (and only) doctor to see Foster at the death site, all the EMS personnel, the first person to find Foster's body, another civilian who was at the park at the time Foster supposedly was killed, several Park police officers who witnessed the death scene, the FBI agents who took the statements of Foster's family members and his personal doctor, three experts in handwriting, and Starr's own top investigator before he quit the IOC in disgust charging a coverup ... is "poor". :rolleyes: See how desperate KB has become? :D

You think he was involved with these things. But they are products of your imagination.

Wrong, KB.

For example, it is established fact that Foster was involved in dealing with Whitewater for the Clintons, and that there were Whitewater related documents in his office at the time of his death. These were documents that a court had ordered be turned over as evidence in a criminal matter. These were documents that were then moved to the Clinton's Whitehouse residence after Foster's death and kept there until their *discovery* shortly after the statute of limitation on Whitewater had expired. In fact, it's a story of lies and liars. Par for the Clinton Administration.

Read this (a liberal source): http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/03/us/whitewater-affair-white-house-new-misstatements-admitted-handling-foster-s-files.html?sec=health "THE WHITEWATER AFFAIR: WHITE HOUSE; New Misstatements Admitted In Handling of Foster's Files ... snip ... August 3, 1994"

Read this (a liberal source): http://www-cgi.cnn.com/US/9511/whitewater/11-30/index.html "Whitewater panel to question Hillary Clinton, November 30, 1995"

Read this (another liberal source): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/01301996.html "The Whitewater Lost And Found Records, January 30, 1996".

Read this (still another liberal source): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whitewater/june96/senate_report_6-18.html "OPENING THE FLOOD GATES?, JUNE 18, 1996"

Read this (again, a liberal source): http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804EFD91F39F936A35755C0A9609582 60&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Clinton,%20Hillary%20Rodham "Hillary Clinton's Fingerprints Among Those Found on Papers ... snip ... June 5, 1996"

And I could go on and on and on posting sources to back up what I stated.

And guess what job that proven liar, Maggie Williams, got during Hillary's campaign? Campaign manager, of course. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=68428 ;)

And guess who advised the Clinton's to stonewall the Whitewater investigation? Why Lisa Foster's lawyer, of course. ;)

You don't have to be a genius to put 2 and 2 together here, KB. :D

As for the other statements I made, they as just as verifiable.

For example, we not only KNOW that Foster was responsible for preparing the Clinton's blind trust and that he was months late (how can you not be aware of that), but also that three days after his death, the trust declarations were suddenly delivered to the trustees, with Vince Foster's "signature" on them. What a coincidence. He probably knew more about the Clinton's shady dealings (like those 1000% cattle future investments) than anyone else. Which might be reason enough for the Clinton's to worry if he was starting to become unreliable.

For example, we know that Foster wrote a memo in which he stated “Whitewater is a can of worms that you should NOT open!” (The Washington Times, July 15, 1995). He probably knew more about the Clinton's involvement in Whitewater than anyone else. Which might be reason enough for the Clinton's to worry if he was starting to become unreliable.

Now I can't stop you from ignoring facts like these or being incapable of connecting dots. But I can demonstrate your ignorance (or desperation) when you make statements like you just did.

Again you make sleazy insinuations, without anything real.

Tell that to the London Sunday Telegraph which discovered and reported Foster's trips to Switzerland. Here, from their May 22, 1995 article:

The records show that Foster bough a ticket to Switzerland during that early phase of the Clinton presidential bid -- traveling on American Airlines from Little Rock to Paris with a connection to Geneva on Swiss Air. The return flight was booked for November 3, giving him less than one full day on the ground in Switzerland. The cost was $1490.

A year later he did exactly the same thing, darting in and out of the country on December 7, 1992 -- during the presidential transition period -- he bought a ticket from Little Rock to Geneva, via Paris, returning on December 9.

Finally, on July 1, 1993, he purchased a ticket through the White House Travel Office from Washington to Geneva on TWA and Swiss Air, reimbursing the White House from his personal American Express card. But he never made the trip and was refunded by Swiss Air on July 8.

Why'd he take those brief trips to Switzerland, KB? Are you going to keep your head in the ground? Are you gullible enough to believe he was just sightseeing? :D

Then you barge in replying to me (and Fullmenthol) trying to declare that Foster wasn't depressed.

Stop misrepresenting what I said. I said (in fact I PROVED) he wasn't "clinically depressed", as claimed in the Fiske and Starr reports.

I didn't return to the thread until you sleazily implied that Foster's widow is taking money to keep quiet

Stop misrepresenting what I said. I also said we need to know why she reportedly received $286,000 just before Foster's death because that might have some bearing on the reason for his death ... if it was murder. The truth is we don't know the facts. But if Fiske or Starr had been good investigators, we would. And we might now be looking at Foster's death in a new light.

Tell me, KB. Would you join me in asking the government to release the photos of Foster's body? If your side of this debate is correct, those photos will clearly show a 1 inche hole in the back of Foster's head where the Fiske and Starr reports claimed the bullet exited his body. If my side (with all the eyewitnesses I named) is correct, they will not show such a hole but instead show a wound in the neck (whose existance Fiske and Starr ruled out). We could settle this debate with that simple act. So will you join me in demanding the photos be released? Or are you still hiding?

You've managed to convince nobody except an admitted troll.

Then why are you so concerned? Why don't you just ignore me? Oh wait, you can't, can you. :D

I'm out of this thread now.

Bye bye. :D

BeAChooser

28th May 2009, 10:48 AM

P.S. BAC, David Brock admitted to making this conspiracy up.

So you've claimed. But for some reason you don't seem able to actually provide a source that says that or quotes him saying that. :D

I'm not sure why you're fixated on the oven mitt

Really? You can't understand why evidence showing that Starr fabricated evidence to bolster the suicide myth is important? :rolleyes:

and refuse to even acknowledge Brock's damning statements on the fabrication of this conspiracy theory.

You haven't actually quoted any "damning statements". But I have posted several sources that seem to show David Brock is a well established liar. :D

It's in his book.

Then quote to us from his book. Don't be shy.

Read the Vanity Fair article for starters.

Go ahead and link us to it. Bet it doesn't say what you claimed either. Ball's in your court. :D

BeAChooser

28th May 2009, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Why not both since they describe different time periods of the investigation. Haut's testimony pertains to where Foster's body was supposedly originally seen by him. Before it was moved by EMS personnel. At that location, when they turned the body over, he said he saw little blood and it was coagulated. And Foster's shirt was clean. AFTER the EMS personnel moved the body, however, to the top of the ridge, the blood started flowing from the body. Why are those two versions at all inconsistent? Perhaps because you don't understand what either was actually talking about?

Let me try and make this nice and clear for you.

Folks, that's just another way of saying .... "oooops!" :D

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So asking a simple question that any good investigator would have asked in a situation like that which surrounds Vince Foster's death is "slimy"?

"Just Asking Questions" doesn't work for Truthers, and it won't work for you.

Except you are the one acting like a Truther. :D

Quote:
Wrong. If anything, you are the ones acting like 9/11 Truthers. Go to those threads and you'll find them ignoring the facts ... just like you. You'll find them concocting scenarios out of thin air ... just like you.

You're the one creating a conspiracy theory where everyone from Foster's own wife and sister

I'm the one arguing with the actual facts and eyewitness statements. You're the one taking at face value statements by Foster's wife and sister (who was deeply involved in the Clinton's affairs) that changed 180 degrees between the night of his death and a week later ... just after a meeting in the Whitehouse where everyone who did change their story was present.

to his long-time family doctor back in Arkansas

Who didn't say Foster was "clinically depressed" (as you and Starr claim) but said has mildly depressed (which is not the same thing). I'm the one taking the doctor's statements as as they stand ... without throwing in my own interpretation of what he really meant to say.

where Foster's sister paid half a million dollars to his wife

At least make an attempt to regurgitate the facts correctly. :rolleyes:

to ensure her agreement in said cover-up

Payment OR NOT, it may be related to the reason for a murder. It may be why she might want the public to believe it was suicide because obviously she was involved since the payment was made to her. The fact is we don't know all the facts in regard to this case. You claim we do, but clearly we don't. We don't know why the payment was made. Perhaps it involved something illegal. In which case that could be used as leverage to keep both Lisa and Sheila quiet. As leverage to make them both (and Sheila's husband) change their stories so dramatically. This should be obvious.

where Foster's murdered corpse had to have been drained of blood

No one has alleged that. Again, you completely misrepresent the actual statements of the witnesses like Dr Haut and the EMS personnel, of Rodriguez, of Knowlton. One would think that you'd be smart enough to just say "oooops" and drop the matter before providing even further evidence of how desperate you are in this debate. Why are you so concerned that Foster's death be a suicide? I asked KB, now I'll ask you. Will you join me in demanding that the photos of Foster's corpse be released? So we can see if there was a wound in the back of Foster's head or whether it was in the neck?

and his clothes dry cleaned before being smuggled out of the White House

Obviously that didn't happen since they found carpet fibers on Foster's clothes. But his shoes were spotless. Neither Mike Wallace or several other investigators were able to reproduce that after walking the route that Foster is claimed to have walked enroute to the *suicide* site. :D

where some mysterious meeting between lawyers

Well at least you are starting to admit it was mysterious. And still is because obviously you can't tell us what it was about or what was said at the meeting. We can only gauge what was said based on the behavior of those who attended the meeting. And they all changed their story about Foster's depression 180 degrees after the meeting. Be a REAL skeptic and connect the dots. :D

And you accuse me of "concocting theories out of thin air"?

None of the above are theories. They are facts. A theory would be saying Foster shot himself because of he was depressed. A theory that seems counter to many of those facts. As noted by me and ignored by you.

Quote:
Folks, that's just another way of admitting "I can't find one."

Your theory, you provide evidence.

You're asking me to provide evidence of statements that you claim exist, but that I assert don't exist? You want proof of nonexistence by my finding a statement proving existence? Surely you can see the logical flaw in that? Like you said ... "I don't even know what to say any more." :D