snagswolf
14th November 2007, 06:38 AM
First of all, let me preface this by saying that I've spent a lot of time on other forums debunking the 9/11 truthers, and that this forum has provided some of the info I use to do that. So thanks to you all.
9/11 conspiracies can be debunked by laying out the facts, and in my opinion, 9/11 conspiracy theorists must ignore these facts in order to come to the conclusions they arrive at.
In that spirit, I'd like to discuss some of the aspects of the Vince Foster case. I'd like to get all your opinions on this, and perhaps provide me with some information I'm not aware of. I did a forum search on this subject before making this thread, and didn't find anything, but if I missed one I apologize, and any links to existing threads would be appreciated.
I didn't really pay much attention to the Vince Foster case when it was going on. Heard about it, but didn't concern myself with the details. But I recently decided to take a closer look at it.
Started off by reading the Office of Independent Council (OIC) Report, from Ken Starr, and from that it seemed fairly straight forward. From there, I took a look at the conspiracy websites, and what they were claiming. For the most part, they were a lot like the 9/11 conspiracy websites I'm familiar with. All kinds of claims that weren't backed up with any supporting documentation.
But there were two items presented that I'm having a problem with, and if any of you have more information about them, I'd appreciate it.
The first is Miquel Rodriquez. Rodriquez was the lead federal prosecutor in charge of Ken Starr's Foster investigation. At least he was until he resigned. Rodriquez claims the reason he resigned was because he wouldn't go along with the coverup that was happening. He claims he was being pressured to come to the conclusion that it was a suicide, when the evidence he saw didn't fit that scenario.
Rodriquez's statements jump out at me because of two reasons. First, he's someone who was actually involved in the case and saw things first hand, and second, he's still a U.S. Attorney (from what I can determine.)
Is anyone aware of any reason why Rodriquez would be lying about this?
The second item that jumped out at me was the testimony of Patrick Knowlton. Knowlton stopped at Fort Marcy Park that day, a few hours before Vince Foster's body was discovered. He claims there was a man there in the parking lot who stared at him threateningly. But more importantly, in my opinion, he also claims that Vince Foster's car wasn't there. (At a time when forensic evidence shows that Foster was already dead.)
Knowlton claims that the car parked in the spot where Vince Foster's car was later found, was brown and a 80's model Honda, not the gray 90's model Honda that Foster owned.
This could easily be written off as just a mistake, but other witnesses in the park that day also said they saw a brown 80's model Honda parked in that spot.
Knowlton also claims that he was intimidated by the FBI (and supposedly has witnesses to back this up), and urged to change his story.
So I ask myself, and you, again, what reason does Knowlton have to lie?
One interesting footnote to Knowlton's testimony, is that it's actually part of Ken Starr's report on the Vince Foster case, even though Ken Starr fought to have it excluded. Knowlton's testimony, and his charges that Ken's Starr's investigation ignored his testimony, were so credible that a three-judge panel ordered that it be included as an appendix to Starr's report on the Vince Foster case.
Link to Knowlton's appendix to the Starr report:
http://www.fbicover-up.com/starr/AddendumtoStarr.pdf (I know, it's a conspiracy website link. But it's the only place I could find it.)
To me, these two items raise serious questions about the conclusions made in this case. I'm not here to provide any alternate theories. But I think we, as skeptics, should be looking at it.
And again, I may be completely off base here. Some of you may present evidence that Rodriguez is a complete nut, or that Knowlton was paid off by Richard Scaife. Or that Rodriguez and Knowlton never said these things. My mind is open on this.
9/11 conspiracies can be debunked by laying out the facts, and in my opinion, 9/11 conspiracy theorists must ignore these facts in order to come to the conclusions they arrive at.
In that spirit, I'd like to discuss some of the aspects of the Vince Foster case. I'd like to get all your opinions on this, and perhaps provide me with some information I'm not aware of. I did a forum search on this subject before making this thread, and didn't find anything, but if I missed one I apologize, and any links to existing threads would be appreciated.
I didn't really pay much attention to the Vince Foster case when it was going on. Heard about it, but didn't concern myself with the details. But I recently decided to take a closer look at it.
Started off by reading the Office of Independent Council (OIC) Report, from Ken Starr, and from that it seemed fairly straight forward. From there, I took a look at the conspiracy websites, and what they were claiming. For the most part, they were a lot like the 9/11 conspiracy websites I'm familiar with. All kinds of claims that weren't backed up with any supporting documentation.
But there were two items presented that I'm having a problem with, and if any of you have more information about them, I'd appreciate it.
The first is Miquel Rodriquez. Rodriquez was the lead federal prosecutor in charge of Ken Starr's Foster investigation. At least he was until he resigned. Rodriquez claims the reason he resigned was because he wouldn't go along with the coverup that was happening. He claims he was being pressured to come to the conclusion that it was a suicide, when the evidence he saw didn't fit that scenario.
Rodriquez's statements jump out at me because of two reasons. First, he's someone who was actually involved in the case and saw things first hand, and second, he's still a U.S. Attorney (from what I can determine.)
Is anyone aware of any reason why Rodriquez would be lying about this?
The second item that jumped out at me was the testimony of Patrick Knowlton. Knowlton stopped at Fort Marcy Park that day, a few hours before Vince Foster's body was discovered. He claims there was a man there in the parking lot who stared at him threateningly. But more importantly, in my opinion, he also claims that Vince Foster's car wasn't there. (At a time when forensic evidence shows that Foster was already dead.)
Knowlton claims that the car parked in the spot where Vince Foster's car was later found, was brown and a 80's model Honda, not the gray 90's model Honda that Foster owned.
This could easily be written off as just a mistake, but other witnesses in the park that day also said they saw a brown 80's model Honda parked in that spot.
Knowlton also claims that he was intimidated by the FBI (and supposedly has witnesses to back this up), and urged to change his story.
So I ask myself, and you, again, what reason does Knowlton have to lie?
One interesting footnote to Knowlton's testimony, is that it's actually part of Ken Starr's report on the Vince Foster case, even though Ken Starr fought to have it excluded. Knowlton's testimony, and his charges that Ken's Starr's investigation ignored his testimony, were so credible that a three-judge panel ordered that it be included as an appendix to Starr's report on the Vince Foster case.
Link to Knowlton's appendix to the Starr report:
http://www.fbicover-up.com/starr/AddendumtoStarr.pdf (I know, it's a conspiracy website link. But it's the only place I could find it.)
To me, these two items raise serious questions about the conclusions made in this case. I'm not here to provide any alternate theories. But I think we, as skeptics, should be looking at it.
And again, I may be completely off base here. Some of you may present evidence that Rodriguez is a complete nut, or that Knowlton was paid off by Richard Scaife. Or that Rodriguez and Knowlton never said these things. My mind is open on this.