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

Vince was shot twice. A shot to the back of the throat that resulted in a dime sized exit wound on the back of his neck. The other shot entered under his right jawline, going backward and upward, entering the base of the skull without exiting his skull. Vince was murdered without a doubt.;)
 
"Don't believe a word you hear. It was not suicide. It couldn't have been." -Assistant Attorney General Webster Hubbell, 7/20/93, cited in Esquire, 11/93.
 
Please bear in mind that the purpose of this catalog is rather modest. I merely want to highlight what I see as a large number of gross "peculiarities" surrounding the Foster case. I hope to convey to the reader some sense of the sheer weight of over 100 discrepancies and unanswered questions. Also bear in mind that the number "101" is itself a modest number. As a practical matter, I was forced to omit dozens of striking anomalies.

As you read this long list, consider that Vince Foster's death was almost immediately labeled a suicide by the U.S. Park Police. Normal procedure in the case of a violent death is to treat it as a homicide until all doubts are resolved. Despite this, a homicide investigation was never launched. Even before the death scene or the body had been inspected, a suicide confirmation process was under way. In her sworn Senate testimony, senior Park Police officer Cheryl Braun said, "We made that determination [of suicide] prior to going up and looking at the body." From that point on, all police and FBI efforts were directed toward collecting evidence that would support the suicide verdict. No effort has ever been made to seek or collect evidence supporting a possible homicide.

Edited by Gaspode: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed. Text copied from http://webspace.webring.com/people/mi/incindiary2/foster.html

Please don't copy large sections of text from a copyrighted source. As a guideline, quote a paragraph or two and provide a link to the original.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks for joining a thread, for which you didn't read through before posting. seeing that we addressed this already in the first few pages
 
Galileo said:
I don't buy into the OCT conspiracy theory. That's official.

Defending an innocent man is not a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Ya right; Vince ate a cheeseburger and fries and told Linda Tripp he'd back but decided he'd drive to a park and blow his brains on a steep hill 5 hours later.:p Total and complete nonsense from top to bottom. He was a mild mannered family man with three children. Just another homicide faked out.
 
7forever said:
Here's the link to 101 anomalies in the foster death.
Click to expand...
.
And where are the links to citations that show these "anomalies" weren't just pulled out of someone's ... fevered imagination?
.
 
TSR said:
.
And where are the links to citations that show these "anomalies" weren't just pulled out of someone's ... fevered imagination?
.
Click to expand...

You know your problem, TSR? Like most of the nay-sayers to the allegation of foul play in the death of Vince Foster, you're just lazy. You don't want to know the truth in the Vince Foster case so you close your eyes and then never open them. As an example of this, consider the first anomaly listed at the link 7forever cited, http://webspace.webring.com/people/mi/incindiary2/foster.html :

1. The man who discovered the body in Ft. Marcy Park says he was curious about the cause of death and looked closely for a gun. He emphatically says there was no gun in either hand. The FBI put great pressure on this witness to change his testimony. Why? Did he interrupt the staging of a suicide that was only completed after he left the scene?
Click to expand...

Notice that it claims the following as fact: (1) the man who discovered the body said he looked closely for a gun. (2) he emphatically said there was no gun in either hand. (3) the FBI put pressure on him to change his story. Now in this very thread I posted links to back up those three assertions so you apparently didn't bother to actually read this thread … suggesting, as I said, that you don't really want to know the facts.

Post #125 has a link to an interview with the civilian identified as "CW" (confidential witness) in his FBI interviews and depositions. In that interview, seven years after Foster's death, he stated he found Foster "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). In the interview, CW also 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." He also stated that the FBI interviewed him four times and he said "they asked me, I would say in the neighborhood of at least five or six times, 'Are you sure there was no gun in his hand?'" in the first of those interviews alone. And according to him in that link, they kept badgering him with the same question over and over in the other three interviews. Yes, they did pressure him to change his story.

Furthermore, as I noted in post #125,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." And I direct your attention to posts number #211 and #239 where I provided a link to Congressman Burton's statements to that effect.

So you really have no excuse for questioning the first item in that 101 peculiarities list, TSR. And if necessary I bet could prove you are just as close-minded and willfully ignorant about the facts with regards the rest.
 
The Amazing Hugh Sprunt

Vince Foster was shot twice resulting in a 'no exit wound' through his skull but a small exit wound on the back of his neck.

http://www.allanfavish.com/anatomy.htm

Those who examined this aspect of the autopsy report (186 KB) prior to Rob Bracci missed or misunderstood the potential significance of the doctor's location of the first entrance wound at the posterior oropharynx (as opposed to in the "posterior nasopharynx" - the back wall of the throat just above the oropharynx).

First, although the autopsy doctor stated that the first entrance wound (presumably an important location to identify in a gunshot autopsy) was in the "posterior oropharynx at a point 7.5" from the top of he head," the reviewing doctors' report did not mention the initial entrance wound in the posterior oropharynx. Indeed, the reviewing doctors omitted any reference to the posterior oropharynx as being part of the wound track!

Second, the reviewing doctors reported the first entrance wound as having been in the soft palate, not the posterior oropharynx ("the bullet perforated the soft palate" - the "defect" language of the autopsy doctor has vanished and been replaced with the word "perforated").
 
TSR said:
Try again.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. That should have been post #135, not #125, but then you'd have known which post I was referring to if you bothered to actually read this thread. Like I said, LAZY.

TSR said:
As to your "quotes" of Congressman Burton, why don't you cite the Congressional Record rather than a rather unreliable conspiracy site?
Click to expand...

Here, courtesy of C-SPAN (that reliable enough for you)?

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=7242191

You can even watch the video of him saying exactly what my "unreliable conspiracy site" quoted.

Like I said, LAZY. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
I'm sorry. That should have been post #135, not #125, but then you'd have known which post I was referring to if you bothered to actually read this thread. Like I said, LAZY.
Click to expand...
.
It's not my responsibility to research your claims for you.
.

BeAChooser said:
Here, courtesy of C-SPAN (that reliable enough for you)?

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=7242191

You can even watch the video of him saying exactly what my "unreliable conspiracy site" quoted.

Like I said, LAZY. :D
Click to expand...
.
Nope, there are several differences between what was said and what was transcribed.

Now, here's a question, granting for the sake of argument that all you claim is true: what happened next?

I mean, you supposedly have this smoking gun -- what has been done with it, and why haven't you made it your business that something did?

What's that? Every investigation into this situation has found that it was suicide?

Then what *was* your point?
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom