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

[CORed]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Wall 'O Text snipped

So, you think the same pile of crap that failed to convince anybody the last 16 times you posted it will work this time?

[CORed]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Strange how you seem to now be ignoring the notes from Foster's doctor where he goes into more detail about the phone conversation he had with Foster and what the specific prescription dosage was. You certainly seemed to be accepting of those notes as authentic before.

Or did you suddenly realize that those notes from Dr. Watkins where he said "[Foster] did feel that he had some mild depression" kind of makes all your flailing denials above rather foolish?

Come on, BAC, tell us: who do you think first broached the topic of depression during that phone conversation - Watkins, or Foster himself?

(I predict BAC will totally dodge this question, and instead post another gigantic cut-and-pasted screed trying desperately to wave Watkins' words away)



Yes. Back when I was a college student, when the Foster suicide occurred. I was upset that Bush was defeated in 1992, and didn't trust Clinton. Most of my life to that point had been lived under Reagan and/or Bush, and I was not pleased at the time with the prospect of a Democrat coming in and upending everything. The military cuts under Clinton just made things worse. So I was prepared to believe the worst about Clinton.

I wised up and grew out of believing in conspiracy theories long before I graduated, however.

As far as I'm concerned, the "evidence" that Foster wasn't depressed enough to commit suicide is irrelevant anyway. If BAC wants to convince me it was murder, he needs to present convincing evidence that somebody other than Foster pulled the trigger of the gun that killed him. I haven't seen any yet.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by CORed

As far as I'm concerned, the "evidence" that Foster wasn't depressed enough to commit suicide is irrelevant anyway.

Well now you've got me curious. Do you think that "evidence" Foster was depressed is also irrelevant to this story?

Originally Posted by CORed

If BAC wants to convince me it was murder, he needs to present convincing evidence that somebody other than Foster pulled the trigger of the gun that killed him. I haven't seen any yet.

So I have to name the killer before you'll even consider the possibility of murder?

Do you understand how absolutely illogical and unreasonable that is? That's just not the way homicide investigations work. If it were, we'd had a lot more murderers running around than we already do.

And I gather you don't accept Knowlton's analysis that Foster couldn't possibly have pulled the trigger, given the location of the gunshot residue on his hands?

Well how about if I just provide you with some material to suggest certain parties that might have had motive to want Foster dead?

Will you agree that Foster certainly would have known a lot about the Clintons, given that he'd been their friend, personal attorney and a business partner in various ventures (such as the Rose Law Firm) over the years? If the Clintons were involved in nefarious activities, isn't it likely their lawyer and business partner would have known? And if Foster was growing mentally unstable, unable to handle the pressure as your side of this debate insists, wouldn't he have posed a risk to the Clintons?

Now in an earlier post, I mentioned some Whitewater documents (they were billing records) found in the White House a considerable time after Foster's death. They were apparently originally in Vince Foster's office the night of his death, and then quickly disappeared, despite it being designated a possible crime scene by the Park Police. They were being sought under a subpoena, and here they finally turn up in the Clinton's White House residence, just after the statute of limitation of the crimes to which they pertained had elapsed. Documents that would have shown Hillary lied under oath during the Whitewater investigation. If Foster was growing unstable, his possession of those documents could have proven very inconvenient … especially since the Whitewater matter was still being investigated at the time. In fact, 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.

The FBI found various fingerprints on the billing records. Vince Foster's. Those of Carolyn Huber, the White House official who discovered the documents. Marc Rolfe, an employee of the law firm that took custody of the documents after they were discovered in the White House. Sandra Hatch, a secretary in the Rose Law Firm, where the documents were first produced. And Millie Alston, a White House official who had also worked at the Rose Law Firm. Oh … and also Hillary's. Michael Chertoff, the counsel for the Senate Whitewater Committee's republicans stated that only the President and Mrs. Clinton and one or two of their friends would have been interested in the documents and would have had access to the Book Room [where they were found]. Of that small group, only Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints were found. Hmmmmm….

Isn't it amazing that Vince Foster could leave the White House without leaving a video record or log entry showing that he left the White House? Isn't it amazing that Park Police would search his body at Fort Marcy Park and not find the keys to his car. They would only show up ... in the same pocket police had searched earlier ... after Craig Livingstone visited the morgue to supposedly identify a body that had already been identified earlier that evening ... the same Livingstone that was involved in Filegate (a illegal effort that was also traced back to Hillary by sworn testimony) … the same Livingstone that Hillary denied knowing but who multiple people, including Livingstone himself, said was hired by Hillary. And to add one more mystery to the mix, 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.

I mentioned earlier that despite her denials, 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. Williams had no official duties in that office. So what was she doing there? Do you think she went into that office without orders from Hillary? Don't be ridiculous. A Congressional committee found that Hillary called Maggie Williams at 10:13 pm the night Foster died and that right after talking with Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Williams proceeded to the White House and Mr. Foster's Office. The committee also discovered that after searching Foster's office, Williams called Hillary back and they talked for 11 minutes. Yet when Fiske investigated the Foster death, guess who he didn't depose? Neither Williams or Hillary.

Now Williams denied under oath that she took anything from Foster's office. She stated "I took nothing from Vince's office. I didn't go into Foster's office with anything in mind concerning any documents that might be in his office. I did not look at, inspect, or remove any documents." But Henry P. O'Neill, a Secret Service agent who was on duty that night, also testified under oath. He said "I saw Maggie Williams walk out of the suite and turn to the right in the direction that I was standing. She was carrying, what I would describe, in her arms and hands, as folders." Who should we believe? Maggie Williams, a proven liar about regarding not having made phone calls to Hillary, or a Secret Service agent?

I think it's rather clear who was lying here. Especially since later on, Williams 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 Hillary's White House residence. Of course, isn't it logical that given the fact that she'd already testified under oath that she took nothing out of Foster's office the night of his death, she couldn't very well admit to doing so that night during later questioning. That could have put her in jail for perjury. So she claimed to have removed them two days later instead, to explain their discovery in the Clinton residence.

But in any case, what would be so urgent as to require the removal of the documents at all, other than documents that might have put someone in jail? Obviously, Whitewater is one example where documents could have done this, documents that Foster possessed. The above clearly indicate there was certainly a lot more to the story than the nice tidy fiction that Fiske and Starr concocted.

Witnesses also saw Patsy Thomasson, director of the White House's Office of Administration, in Foster's office during the same timeframe. Again, she had no duties in that office. She was observed sitting at Foster's desk and going through his files, reportedly looking for the combination to Foster's safe. Coincidently, two envelopes reported under oath to be in the safe by Foster's secretary, Deborah Gorham, addressed to Janet Reno and to William Kennedy III, disappeared. When asked the next day about the safe opening, Mack McLarty, White House Chief of Staff, told reporters that Foster's office did not have a safe. But that claim was proven false in the final IOC report.

So who sent Patty to Foster's office? Hillary? Bill? Who told McLarty to lie about there being a safe? And what sort of envelope would have been addressed to Janet Reno, head of the Department of Justice? Or to William Kennedy III, associate White House Counsel and former Rose Law Firm partner? Something perhaps that would have incriminated someone in Whitewater crimes or perhaps Filegate (remember, William Kennedy is the person who told FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene that Craig Livingston was a Hillary Clinton hire)?

And let's talk about Craig Livingstone a little more. Secret Service memos indicated he was one of the first to be notified about Foster's death. He claimed he was told around 9 pm, then went to the morgue to identify the body, then went to Foster's home where he (and Kennedy) stayed until 2 am. Livingstone said he went home, got some sleep, then arrived back at the Foster home at 6:30 am. But he didn't go in. He stayed in his car til 8 am, then he drove to the Whitehouse and logged in (at 8:14 am). He admitted to visiting the White House Counsel's suite several times that morning but claimed he didn't go in Foster's office or remove any documents. But a Secret Service agent (Bruce Abbot) said he observed Livingstone exiting the West WIng carrying a “leather or vinyl-type briefcase, opening from the top, much in the fashion of a litigator’s bag or lawyer’s briefcase.” He returned, then later, accompanied by an individual not known to agent, left the building again. “I observed that [unknown] individual carrying one or perhaps two boxes with what appeared to be, looked to me to be loose-leaf binders,” he told Senate investigators. Just what was Livingstone moving around, CORed?

And speaking of Foster's materials possibly being moved, do you know that there were witnesses (two paramedics and two motorists) who testified they say a briefcase in Foster's car at Fort Marcy Park. But the Fiske report (and Starr report) did not list a briefcase as among the items found in the car. How very curious. A briefcase certainly is something Fiske and Starr should have noted.

Now besides Whitewater, what other motivations might someone have to silence Foster?

Well, there's the Clinton's blind trust, which all Presidents establish when they enter office. If the Clinton's were involved in shady business, that trust might reflect it. Foster was in charge of getting it completed and he was running 6 months behind schedule. Why did it take so extraordinarily long to get it finished (far longer than any previous President), when the Clintons came into office supposedly not even owning a house? Might it have had something to do with 1000% cattle future investments or some other shady dealings?

One way it could be a problem is if the list of assets was incomplete … fraudulent. For example, the Clinton's claimed to own no house. Yet Carolyn Huber later testified that a file cabinet in the private residence contained paperwork on the Clinton's "condo". What else wasn't listed? Obviously, inconsistencies like these would have caused Foster a great deal of problems. Were fraud every revealed, he could face jail. Others could face jail.

Both Web Hubbell and Marsha Scott, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence, testified to having long meetings with Foster before his death. I mentioned earlier what Hubbell said about Foster's state of mind during his trip with Foster the weekend prior to the death. Web Hubbell also said Bill Clinton called Foster for the first time in weeks the night before the death and spoke to him for 20-25 minutes. I seem to recall that according to Hubbell, Clinton invited Foster to a meeting with Bruce Lindsey and Hubbell … and Foster said no. Now if Foster was looking unreliable at the time, saying no to the Clintons might have been the last straw.

Marsha Scott's meeting was the day before Foster's death and behind closed doors in Foster's office. According to Linda Tripp it was 1-2 hours long and "highly unusual, both her coming to see him and anybody taking up that much time with Foster." Marsha at first told the FBI she couldn't remember what topics they talked about but in a second FBI interview told them she stopped by to ask how the weekend in Maryland (with Hubbell) had gone. Later, Marsha told the press that Foster was struggling with a decision, then refused to explain the nature of the decision. She also told them she saw no sign of depression at that meeting.

The night of Foster's death, Marsha went to the Foster's house then went to the White House residence and stayed there most of the night with the President and others. And do you know one of the people who was at that gathering in the White House just before Lisa Foster and Sheila Anthony changed their story about Foster's depression? Marsha Scott. She sure gets around and it's all a matter of public record. I think there was obviously a lot more going on here than meets the eye. Perhaps motive for murder (without saying exactly who pulled the trigger).

Speaking of which, isn't it curious that Nussbaum admitted that among the material removed from Foster's office after Foster's death were "personal files" (he refused to be more specific) "belonging to a client" (he refused to be more specific) that Foster was using to complete the Clinton blind trust? Now who might that be?

And isn't it curious that after all those months and months of delay, the blind trust was suddenly finished three DAYS after Foster's death, with Foster's "signature" supposedly on the documents? Aren't you the least bit skeptical about that timing, CORed?

Foster was involved in other matters. He had access to information on Travelgate. And on what really happened at Waco (about which he was reportedly quite upset). 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 purchased another ticket to Switzerland. But he never used this one and received a refund on July 8th. Can you tell us why he made all those brief trips to Switzerland? It obviously was business. And why did he cancel the one just before his death? Maybe it had something to do with the stress you folks say he was experiencing? Maybe it had something to do with a motive for murder.

In any case, there are all sorts of possible motives for Foster's death. He's just a man who knew more than was good for him. A man at the center. Much like Ron Brown was focal point for the Clintons and Clinton administration's criminal activities. And you just don't want to look any deeper than surface deep, because that's what Truthers do … or perhaps you have your own concerns about knowing too much.

[TraneWreck]

I think BAC is operating under the theory that if he types enough words, at some point a few of them will find themselves organized into a coherent argument.

So far it hasn't worked, but keep trying!

[Random]

I find the entire discussion about whether or not he was depressed to be pointless. Any scenario where Foster was murdered eventually brings you to a couple of people carrying a dead or prone man around a public park in broad daylight. It's unworkable and silly.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Random

I find the entire discussion about whether or not he was depressed to be pointless. Any scenario where Foster was murdered eventually brings you to a couple of people carrying a dead or prone man around a public park in broad daylight. It's unworkable and silly.

Ah! But that's just what THEY wanted you to think. A plan so crazy and incoherent that no one would believe it. Except a few dogged warriors for the Truth!

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Isn't it amazing that Vince Foster could leave the White House without leaving a video record or log entry showing that he left the White House?

I think this is my favorite crackpotty part of BAC's whole crackpotty theory. If there's no record of Foster leaving the White House, how did he get to the park where his body was found? Does BAC think he was actually killed in the White House, and then his body smuggled out, Goodfellas-style, in the trunk of a car or something?

[Random]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I think this is my favorite crackpotty part of BAC's whole crackpotty theory. If there's no record of Foster leaving the White House, how did he get to the park where his body was found? Does BAC think he was actually killed in the White House, and then his body smuggled out, Goodfellas-style, in the trunk of a car or something?

Wait, has BaC actually presented a theory? Most conspiracy nuts usually like to focus on complicated, irrelevant or confused details surrounding the case rather than presenting an alternate theory of events. An alternate theory of events can be evaluated and picked apart, while you can dither around lost photographs and conflicting memories of events forever.

The moon landing hoaxers like to talk about mislabled film canisters and funny shadows, but try to get them to talk about who would have had to have been involved in a hoax and who would have had to stay silent and the whole thing is quickly revealed as lunacy. When I think about all the manpower and resources that would have had to go into a fake moon landing, it seems that it would be easier to actually go to the moon.

The Holocaust deniers like to talk about finding no human soap, and confused recollections about who was working at what camp. Simple, direct questions like "where did those millions of Jews go?" usually get you a bunch of runaround about some people moved to Israel, and some to Miami and hey, did you know Hitler never wrote down anything where he specifically said he was going to kill millions of people?

A conspiracy theorist doesn't make a fire. He makes lots and lots of smoke and lets people infer the existence of a fire.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Random

I find the entire discussion about whether or not he was depressed to be pointless.

LOL!

How can a discussion of the assumption at the very heart of the government scenario be pointless? Because if Foster was not depressed, then the whole scenario concocted by the FBI, Clinton Administration, Fiske and Starr to explain his death falls apart. Because then they don't have an explanation at all.

How can can proving that the key witnesses for the government's scenario changed their stories 180 degrees a full week after the death, after a meeting in the Whitehouse, be pointless? That and many other facts I've presented in this thread (which haven't been been effectively been disputed) show witness and evidence tampering by the authorities who promoted the bogus notion that Foster was depressed. How can that be pointless?

I think it's rather illuminating to suddenly see so many posters show up on this thread saying the depression issue is irrelevant or pointless after the "it was suicide" crowd invested so much time in promoting that claim. I think what that shows is you've realized the evidence actually shows that Foster was not depressed, that the government and their *witnesses* lied about that, so now you are scurrying to find some way of making it unimportant.

Originally Posted by Random

Any scenario where Foster was murdered eventually brings you to a couple of people carrying a dead or prone man around a public park in broad daylight. It's unworkable and silly.

LOL! So how did he die if you can't show it was a suicide, Random?

How did he drive to the park when a search of his body at the site of his death found no car keys? When they only turned up in a pocket that had been searched, after a visit to the morgue by the infamous Craig Livingstone?

How did he shoot himself when the pattern of residue on his hands appears to make that *theory* "unworkable"? Isn't claiming suicide in that case, "silly"?

How do you explain the lack of soil on Foster's shoes if he walked to the site where his body was found? It must be YOUR theory that he levitated through the park.

How do you explain the failure to find a bullet or skull fragments at the site of his *suicide*, even after repeated extensive searches of the area? Perhaps it's your theory that a crow flew off with them.

How do you explain the various witnesses saying the body was in a different position than shown in the photographs in the IOC report? They were adament about this and there seems to be no reason to doubt their statements. Why do you?

How do you explain the pathologist lying about the x-ray machine and the fact that pathologist is the ONLY person, out of over two dozen who witnessed, examined or moved Foster's body, who says there was an exit wound in the back of Foster head. Many of the others said they saw a wound on the neck, instead? But your pathologist specifically ruled out the presence of any other injuries besides that big hole in the back of the head. You're faced with quite a quandry, aren't you?

How do you explain the big Green Oven Mitt and it's sudden appearance in the government scenario in an unsuccessful attempt to explain away the lack of fingerprints on the gun, after 2 other investigations had failed to even mention it and the Park Police inventory of the car listed no oven mitt? How do you explain the clear inconsistency between the photo of the oven mitt offered by Starr as proof of it's existance and what the other photos prove given the Park Police timeline for when they processed the evidence in the car?

You see, Random, I'll tell you what is totally silly. It's the desperation you and the others on this thread are now showing … your desperation not to address any of the verifiable facts in this case. What's silly is you making ANY comment when you apparently know so little about the case … and apparently don't want to know anything about it. What's silly ... or perhaps I should say funny ... is you and the others behaving like 9/11 Truthers in so very many ways.

[funk de fino]

Hows about BAC starts a poll thread to see who agrees?

Then we can see a real fact filled thread.

[BeAChooser]

fdf, I see you still don't want to talk about the oven mitt.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

is you and the others behaving like 9/11 Truthers in so very many ways.

You still trying this? Seriously, whatever your case may be throwing this out every post makes you look like a fool, no matter what pathetic little lists you make.

When you call people who criticize you 'truthers' you remind me of a kid I 'knew' back in middle school who heard the words 'slut' and though it was a cool insult. So he used them when talking about people he didn't like. Problem is, he didn't know that word actually meant so he was calling everyone, regardless of gender, a slut. (mind you, this was well before the term 'manslut' came into being). The gym teacher; 'slut'. The 60 year old (male) English teacher who handed out a lot of homework; a 'slut'. He really had no clue how much of an idiot he was making himself out to be. I don't know if someone clued him in or what but he stopped using it after a while. Right now, your constant laughable calling everyone else in this thread 'truthers' has me thinking you are that clueless 6th grader.

But hey, I could be wrong. Why don't you ask the people who actually deal with truthers on a daily basis: You know where the 9/11 Conspiracy forum is, I say you post a poll over there with a link back to this thread. Heck, you can even add your 'list' to make your case. I won't say a word in the thread so you can make your case without my opposition.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong and make that poll. I dare you. Don't forget the Planet X option - remember that should actually be funny, and that adding smileys doesn't actually make things funny.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

You still trying this? Seriously, whatever your case may be throwing this out every post makes you look like a fool, no matter what pathetic little lists you make.

Like I said and proved, kb, you started it.

I'm sure you don't like having the truth pointed out so plainly, but that doesn't change the reality.

You and your buddies are acting like Truthers.

In at least 10 identifiable ways.

All because you won't/can't debate the actual facts.

Now if you ever change you mind and actually want to discuss that green oven mitt. Or the wound in Foster's neck. Or the statement of the eyewitness who found Foster's body. Or that meeting in the Whitehouse a week after Foster's death. Or the *suicide* note. Or the blind trust and the behavior of Hillary's staff the night of the death. Or any of the other facts you currently are avoiding. Give me a ring.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Like I said and proved, kb, you started it.

I'm sure you don't like having the truth pointed out so plainly, but that doesn't change the reality.

You and your buddies are acting like Truthers.

In at least 10 identifiable ways.

So go ahead. Prove it to everyone. Make the poll in the 9/11 subforum.

You've chosen to speak for other so often, are you afraid your opinions might not mean anything to them? Go on. Put up your 10 points in a poll and prove I am a truther. What is stopping you?

[fullflavormenthol]

It doesn't matter. The fact is that he is well aware that he looks ridiculous calling everyone who doesn't buy into is CT a truther.

It is done as a slimy way to get around the rules of conduct on this forum. Simply put it is an ad hom that should be ignored. Paying attention to it plays into his game, and makes the thread longer. Personally I find a great way to shorten the length of this thread is to simply put him on ignore and discuss the issue of CT'ist so invested in longed debunk Arkansas Project nonsense that they simply can't let go of it.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

The fact is that he is well aware that he looks ridiculous calling everyone who doesn't buy into is CT a truther.

I'm not calling you Truthers because you don't buy into the allegation of foul play in the Foster case.

I'm calling you Truthers because of the way you go about not buying into the allegations.

You behave like Truthers when presented with facts that disprove the *it was just suicide* theory.

You display most or all of those 10 characteristics I noted that 911 Truthers show.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I'm not calling you Truthers because you don't buy into the allegation of foul play in the Foster case.

I'm calling you Truthers because of the way you go about not buying into the allegations.

You behave like Truthers when presented with facts that disprove the *it was just suicide* theory.

You display most or all of those 10 characteristics I noted that 911 Truthers show.

You posted gibberish screed like many a kook and claim it makes us something we are not. If you had the courage behind your convictions you would not hesitate to post that poll I suggested. You are afraid to put your petty insult in front of people experienced in dealing with truthers because you know it is an empty insult.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

You posted gibberish screed like many a kook and claim it makes us something we are not.

I direct our reader's attention once again to

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=490

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I direct our reader's attention once again to

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=490

All screed and gibberish you don't have the conviction to stand behind.

[fullflavormenthol]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

All screed and gibberish you don't have the conviction to stand behind.

Because like I have written way back in this thread, BAC doesn't actually debate. He puts out large walls of text in an attempt to filibuster. Like many conspiracy theorists he uses this technique so that even if you are able to answer 99% of the wall of text, there will always be one or two sentences that you miss and he will jump on has if you are avoiding it.

Just see his partisan obsession with the Clintons for what it is.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

fdf, I see you still don't want to talk about the oven mitt.

I did a Google search for "green oven mitt" and just ended up with a number of websites for shops selling kitchenware and the like.

Then I did a Google search for "green oven mitt" and Vince Foster and the only result I got was this very discussion thread at JREF and, as you yourself have complained, you're the only one talking about the "green oven mitt"!

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

if you are able to answer 99% of the wall of text

LOL! You haven't attempted to address, much less answered, even 1% of the facts I've posted.

[BeAChooser]

angrysoba, I see you still don't want to talk about the oven mitt. And you're wrong, Starr did. But what his photo of it in the glove compartment shows is clearly at odds with what other photos of the glove compartment and the official timeline of the investigation compiled by the Park Police shows. It also defies common sense to believe an oven mitt that occupied so much of the glove compartment wouldn't be listed in the inventory of the car and glove compartment, or that the Park Police officer who compiled that list would say there was nothing "unusual" in the glove compartment. You go on drinking the koolaide, Truther.

[CptColumbo]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

You go on drinking the koolaide, Truther.

LOL Firstly it wasn't koolaide that the members of Jonestown drank, it was Flavor Aid. Secondly the brand name is Kool-Aid. Try to get something right in your post for a change.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

angrysoba, I see you still don't want to talk about the oven mitt. And you're wrong, Starr did. But what his photo of it in the glove compartment shows is clearly at odds with what other photos of the glove compartment and the official timeline of the investigation compiled by the Park Police shows. It also defies common sense to believe an oven mitt that occupied so much of the glove compartment wouldn't be listed in the inventory of the car and glove compartment, or that the Park Police officer who compiled that list would say there was nothing "unusual" in the glove compartment. You go on drinking the koolaide, Truther.

Okay, so what is the significance of the oven mitt?

Explain how it relates to your theory and what the problem of its being in the glove compartment.

From what I have seen, Henry Lee looked at the oven mitt and found traces of lead from the gun in the oven mitt and the same on Vince Foster suggesting he had held the gun in the oven mitt at some point or else simply placed the gun in the glove compartment on top of the oven mitt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...wwtr971011.htm

The conspiracy theorists seem to be suggesting that the investigations concluded he had been wearing the oven mitt when he shot himself making it real crazy that the oven mitt found its way back to the glove compartment.

Quote:

Kenneth Starr included in his report the comment that glove box of Vincent Foster's car contained an oven mitt. Dr. Henry Lee had concluded that Vincent Foster had carried the dark blued steel revolver to Fort Marcy Park inside the oven mitt and that this explained the lack of fingerprints.

Of course, there is a huge logic flaw in the claim. Star reports that the oven mitt was left in the car, photographed inside the glove box by the Park Police the very next day. Foster would therefore have to have carried the dark blued steel revolver with him from the car, without the protection of the oven mitt, then placed it inside his mouth and pulled the trigger.

The presence of the oven mitt in the glove box therefore does not explain the lack of fingerprints on the dark blued steel revolver found next to Foster's body.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO...RUP/foster.php

This is a silly strawman, of course. If not an outright lie. Here is what Henry Lee has said in the Kenneth Starr investigation report that appears on the same bloody site:

Quote:

In his report to the OIC, Dr. Lee explained that "the
handle grip area of [the .38 Colt revolver] is textured
and is not typical of the type of surface which commonly
results in the development of identifiable latent
fingerprints." He also noted that the fingerprint
powder method was used when the Park Police initially
tested the gun; "although the fingerprint powder
method is one of the most common techniques used in the
latent print field, there are also newer technologies,
such as cyanoacrylate fuming, laser, and forensic
lighting techniques which could have been used in this
case. It is unknown at this time whether these
techniques would have provided additional information"
had they initially been employed.

The FBI Laboratory also noted that a lack of
fingerprints is not extraordinary and that "generally,
the determining factors in leaving latent prints are
having a transferable substance, i.e., sweat, sebaceous
oil or other substance on the fingers, and having a
surface that is receptive to receiving the substance
that forms the latent prints. A clean, smooth, flat
surface is most receptive for transfer of any substance
from the fingers," and the surface of the grip handle at
issue here was textured, not smooth.

Henry Lee didn't argue that the oven mitt explained the lack of fingerprints then, did he?

Here's what the significance of the oven mitt is:

Quote:

As noted, Dr. Lee also examined the oven mitt recovered
from Mr. Foster's car. He reported: "Dark particle
residues were located inside of the oven mitt.
Instrumental analysis revealed the presence of the
elements lead and antimony in these particles; this
finding could indicate that an item which had gunshot
residue on it, such as the revolver . . ., came in
contact with the interior of [the oven mitt]."

Dr. Lee further stated that "sunflower-type seed husks
were located on the inner surfaces of this oven mitt.
These sunflower seed particles were similar to the
sunflower seed husks found in Mr. Foster's front, left
pants pocket." Dr. Lee stated that "this finding
suggests that the sunflower seed husk found inside the
pants pocket could have been transferred from the oven
mitt through an intermediate object, such as the
revolver."

Virtually all theories that the manner of death was not
suicide assume that Mr. Foster did not previously
possess the gun recovered from his hand at Fort Marcy
Park. Apart from a variety of other compelling
circumstantial and testimonial evidence (discussed
below) that the gun belonged to Mr. Foster, the evidence
regarding the pants pocket and oven mitt also tends to
link Mr. Foster to the gun. Mr. Foster was found by
police and rescue personnel with the gun that fired the
fatal shot in his hand, and the oven mitt was found in
the glove compartment in his car. There is no evidence,
moreover, that anyone other than Mr. Foster did place or
would have placed this or any other gun into Mr.
Foster's pants pocket and into the oven mitt. Those
pieces of evidence, when considered together and with
all of the other evidence, tend to link Mr. Foster to
the gun and thus tend to refute a theory that the manner
of death was not suicide. The evidence regarding the
pants pocket and oven mitt does not itself compel a
finding as to location of death, but it is consistent
with a scenario in which Mr. Foster transported the gun
from the Foster home in the oven mitt, and carried the
gun in his pants pocket as he walked from his car in
Fort Marcy Park to the berm near the second cannon.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO...tarr_text.html

All it does is show that the oven mitt had been in contact with the gun, and the gun with his pocket. The fact that there was lead in the oven mitt doesn't mean the gun had been placed in the oven mitt after Vince Foster shot himself or any other cockamamie story. It means that the gun had contained a certain residue which had fallen off on the oven mitt and ended up on Foster's hands.

By the way, What Really Happened is probably one of the sites that I hate the most and even visiting it makes my skin crawl.

Now, I've answered your question on the oven mitt and like any other Truther factoid it took about ten minutes to discover the claim being made is ********. This is funny given that a conspiracy site features a completely made up theory and then the raw material which proves the made up theory is false.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Okay, so what is the significance of the oven mitt?

Seriously, angrysoba … why do I have to repeat what's already been posted many times on this thread? For example, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=135 , http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=173 , http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=290 , http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=336 , http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=409 , and http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=498 . Weren't you paying any attention at all? Go back an CAREFULLY read those posts, then we can *perhaps* hold an intelligent conversation.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

From what I have seen, Henry Lee looked at the oven mitt and found traces of lead from the gun in the oven mitt and the same on Vince Foster suggesting he had held the gun in the oven mitt at some point or else simply placed the gun in the glove compartment on top of the oven mitt.

I think I adequately dealt with the *great* Dr Lee in this post

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=516

Why don't you respond to what I noted about Dr Lee and his evidence in that post before we continue?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

The conspiracy theorists seem to be suggesting that the investigations concluded he had been wearing the oven mitt when he shot himself making it real crazy that the oven mitt found its way back to the glove compartment.

You misunderstood. What you quoted wasn't suggesting the oven mitt was worn by Foster to the location where he supposedly shot himself and then mysteriously found its way back to the car. They were demonstrating that an oven mitt in the case still doesn't explain the lack of fingerprints on the gun.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Lee didn't argue that the oven mitt explained the lack of fingerprints then, did he?

Given how little of the base documents (for example, Dr Lee's actual report) are still available on the internet, it's hard to say with any accuracy. Various reports indicate that was suggested by Dr. Lee. Certainly, Lee argued that the gun was carried in the oven mitt for some considerable time and then carried in Foster's pocket, which would explain the lack of fingerprints. But I'll grant you that at this point I can't find a direct quote showing Lee said the oven mitt explained the lack of fingerprints. We can only go by what Starr reports said he said while keeping in mind that I can show numerous portions of Starr's report that are incomplete and downright false.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Here's what the significance of the oven mitt is:

But you can't believe ANY of that until you can explain the inconsistencies that were pointed out in the posts I linked above. Because until you can do that, it's more likely that the oven mitt was fabricated evidence, like so much of the other evidence in this case (which you've also ignored). And if they are going to fabricate an oven mitt, then why not fabricate something inside it for a helpful dupe like Dr Lee to *discover* and thus link the gun to Foster … which, by the way, noone, including Foster's wife, had done (indeed, the testimony of Foster's wife makes it quite doubtful that was Foster's gun).

[BeAChooser]

So angrysoba … speaking of fabricated evidence ... do you want to discuss the so-called *suicide* note and it's implications?

[Random]

Let’s take a look at some of this "evidence".

1) The bullet was not found at the scene of the body and various people found little blood at the scene. Leaving aside any number of explanations and the obvious difficulties of carrying around a dead body in a public park in broad daylight, this would tend to indicate that Foster was killed somewhere else and the body transported.
2) Peoples recollections about which gun was found at the scene as well as the lack of fingerprints tend to indicate that the gun was swapped after the body was discovered if you leave out the Rashomon effect and the fact that the textured gun handle made for a poor surface for leaving fingerprints.

How the hell do these two pieces of “evidence” fit together? If you are going to fake a suicide, why put down one gun if you are going to replace it with another? Why take the risk of swapping guns afterwards? You don’t need to worry about the ballistics matching, since the bullet isn’t going to be at the staged suicide scene.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Random

Let’s take a look at some of this "evidence".

I've never mentioned the notion that the gun might have been "swapped". I can't control the illogical speculations of every person on earth. And you can't logically hold me to supporting that which I haven't even mentioned or that which is claimed by illogical people. I can only go by what the evidence does indeed show.

That, for one, the first witness to see Foster's body at the park (the Confidential Witness) is absolutely adament, under oath, that the body was in a different position than in Starr's photos, that the arms and hands were positioned differently than the government claims, and that neither hand held a gun.

That a witness (Patrick Knowlton) testified under oath that a mid-1980s brown Arkansas Honda was in parking spot that Mr. Foster's 1989 silver Honda car was later found at a time when Foster was already dead, and that a man acting suspicious backed a car into a parking spot three spots from the Arkansas car, with Knowlton's car parked in between. This witness, by the way, testified to being harrassed by people driving a government car regarding his testimony. He had statements from a journalist and a PHD who witnessed the harassment. He even submitted to a polygraph examination as proof the incident occurred.

That Foster car keys were not found at the park. A search of his body by Officer Rolla and two other Park Police turned up nothing. Rolla testified "I searched his pants pockets. I couldn't find a wallet or nothing in his pants pockets... we searched the car and we were puzzled why we found no keys to the car." The keys only turned up after Livingstone visited the morgue hours later.

And if there was any swapping of guns, it was by the FBI when they asked Lisa Foster to identify the purported suicide weapon. As the interview notes indicate, she was shown a gun that clearly was not the weapon supposedly found at the park. The gun in Foster's hand, as shown in the color photos in the Starr report, is clearly black. Members of Foster's family all agree Foster's gun was silver. The FBI showed Foster's widow a silver gun and told her it was the gun found at the scene. Why did the FBI make this substitution, Random?

[Random]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I've never mentioned the notion that the gun might have been "swapped". I can't control the illogical speculations of every person on earth. And you can't logically hold me to supporting that which I haven't even mentioned or that which is claimed by illogical people. I can only go by what the evidence does indeed show.

That, for one, the first witness to see Foster's body at the park (the Confidential Witness) is absolutely adament, under oath, that the body was in a different position than in Starr's photos, that the arms and hands were positioned differently than the government claims, and that neither hand held a gun.

That a witness (Patrick Knowlton) testified under oath that a mid-1980s brown Arkansas Honda was in parking spot that Mr. Foster's 1989 silver Honda car was later found at a time when Foster was already dead, and that a man acting suspicious backed a car into a parking spot three spots from the Arkansas car, with Knowlton's car parked in between. This witness, by the way, testified to being harrassed by people driving a government car regarding his testimony. He had statements from a journalist and a PHD who witnessed the harassment. He even submitted to a polygraph examination as proof the incident occurred.

That Foster car keys were not found at the park. A search of his body by Officer Rolla and two other Park Police turned up nothing. Rolla testified "I searched his pants pockets. I couldn't find a wallet or nothing in his pants pockets... we searched the car and we were puzzled why we found no keys to the car." The keys only turned up after Livingstone visited the morgue hours later.

And if there was any swapping of guns, it was by the FBI when they asked Lisa Foster to identify the purported suicide weapon. As the interview notes indicate, she was shown a gun that clearly was not the weapon supposedly found at the park. The gun in Foster's hand, as shown in the color photos in the Starr report, is clearly black. Members of Foster's family all agree Foster's gun was silver. The FBI showed Foster's widow a silver gun and told her it was the gun found at the scene. Why did the FBI make this substitution, Random?

So what does this all mean? If everything that you say is true, what actually happened that day? It's your evidence, why don't you put it together for us? Your side has had fifteen years to look over this stuff, has anyone presented a coherent alternate theory of events?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

So angrysoba … speaking of fabricated evidence ... do you want to discuss the so-called *suicide* note and it's implications?

No, just acknowledge that it wasn't argued that the lack of fingerprints was explained by the oven mitt. I quoted the relevant section of Starr's report in which Lee and the FBI explained it was the texture of the gun handle which explains the lack of fingerprints and the method used to attempt to extract one.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Random

Your side has had fifteen years to look over this stuff, has anyone presented a coherent alternate theory of events?

LOL! Your side has had fifteen years to present a coherent theory that matches the facts and has completely failed to do so. Even with the full power of the FBI, Park Police and 2 IOCs behind its efforts to do that. If you could, all these questions raised in this thread would disappear. If you could, then your side wouldn't be acting like Truthers.

Here you are, 15 years later, and you can't explain why we should believe the 3 witnesses Starr uses in his *it was suicide* scenario to claim Foster was depressed over the dozen or more who said he was not depressed. Why should we ignore what those 3 witnesses originally said (that Foster was not depressed) and believe what they suddenly began claiming a week after the death, right after a meeting in the Whitehouse that they or their spouses attended? What was discussed at that meeting, Random?

You can't explain how an big green oven mitt in glove compartment would not be considered "unusual", why it would not be mentioned by any of the investigations prior to Starr's, or why there is a discrepancy between what the photo Starr offered as proof of the oven mitt's existance shows, and what other photos of the car and the timeline from the Park Police for when they cleaned various portions of the car indicate. Why is that?

You can't explain the obvious tampering with the statement Lisa Foster gave investigators the night of Foster's death. The discrepancy between "fighting depression" and "fighting prescription". One fits with other facts. The other does not. And guess which one you've elected to believe?

You can't explain the so-called suicide note. In fact, now it seems no one on your side of the aisle wants to go anywhere near it with a 100 foot pole. If it was a forgery ... and now ALL the experts are saying it was ... then someone put that forgery in Foster's briefcase. And 15 years later your side isn't even interested in finding out who?

Sorry, Random, but I've heard this lame defense before. I hear it whenever you Truthers are backed into the corner by the evidence. I'm not here to lay out a scenario for you to pick apart. I don't know and could not know all the details of whatever happened. But a credible scenario is certainly possible. Nothing precludes it. The only thing I'm here to show is that the Starr investigation was a sham. Just like Starr's own top investigator said. I'm here to show that there is considerable data suggesting that Foster did not commit suicide. And if he didn't commit suicide then it was murder, however it was carried out.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I quoted the relevant section of Starr's report in which Lee and the FBI explained it was the texture of the gun handle which explains the lack of fingerprints and the method used to attempt to extract one.

And which gun would that be, AS? The black one or the silver one? The one that a witness testified under oath wasn't in his hand or the one in Starr's photo that doesn't look anything like the gun Lisa and her family said Foster owned? The one that made a big hole in the back of Foster's head (according to lying pathologist) or the one that made a hole in Foster's neck (according to numerous other *expert* witnesses)? The revolver or the semi-automatic that some witnesses noted? The gun that didn't match the ammunition in the car? Seriously, AS, which gun are we talking about here?

[BeAChooser]

And AS, why wouldn't you want to talk about the so-called suicide note? Wouldn't that piece of evidence just clinch it for our side in this debate?

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Tell you what ... let's just discuss the "green oven mitt". Want to do that?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

As a test, let's see you rebut the green oven mitt concern I raised.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

fdf, I see you still don't want to talk about the oven mitt

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

angrysoba, I see you still don't want to talk about the oven mitt

And today we get:

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

And AS, why wouldn't you want to talk about the so-called suicide note? Wouldn't that piece of evidence just clinch it for our side in this debate?

Oh boy, Its Whack-a-Mole.

[fullflavormenthol]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

And today we get...Oh boy, Its Whack-a-Mole.

The benefits of a wall of text filibuster approach. There is always something else to fall back on.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

The benefits of a wall of text filibuster approach. There is always something else to fall back on.

Gosh, where have I seen that tactic before.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Oh boy, Its Whack-a-Mole.

No, KB, I'm still here discussing the oven mitt. So this isn't Whack a Mole. I just thought your side might be capable of discussing more than one piece of evidence at a time. Silly me.

But I would note that your side doesn't seem to want to address all the facts I noted about the oven mitt ... such as the discrepancy of when Starr's photo was taken and what the police timeline says regarding when the passenger side floor was cleaned versus the glove compartment. You don't want to talk about how ridiculous the claim is that the police would say there was nothing unusual in a glove compartment containing a big green oven mitt. You don't want to talk about why the police, in inventoring the contents of the glove compartment, wouldn't list the oven mitt. Your side just wants to take the oven mitt as a given, and talk about the claims of Dr Lee and what he found inside that oven mitt. Whereas I wonder whether the oven mitt is fabricated *evidence* and Dr Lee the willing dupe *expert*.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Gosh, where have I seen that tactic before.

So this is going to be your latest excuse for not discussing any of the facts in the case? For not even discussing the so-called *suicide* note?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

And which gun would that be, AS? The black one or the silver one? The one that a witness testified under oath wasn't in his hand or the one in Starr's photo that doesn't look anything like the gun Lisa and her family said Foster owned? The one that made a big hole in the back of Foster's head (according to lying pathologist) or the one that made a hole in Foster's neck (according to numerous other *expert* witnesses)? The revolver or the semi-automatic that some witnesses noted? The gun that didn't match the ammunition in the car? Seriously, AS, which gun are we talking about here?

No idea. We are talking about the oven mitt and you're talking about bombs in the basement and other unrelated stuff.

Now, here's a yes or no question:

Was it the opinion of Starr and Lee that the reason why there were no fingerprints on the gun that is talked about in the report is because Foster had used an oven mitt to hold it?