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

[BeAChooser]

Nope, there are several differences between what was said and what was transcribed.

Here's the excerpt I quoted from my "unreliable conspiracy" sources regarding Burton's statement on the floor of the House:

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."

Here's the excerpt from the C-SPAN transcript of the speech:

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.

EXACTLY the same.

And I also listened to the video clip of Burton speaking and he said EXACTLY those words. But if you want to stick your head in the ground, no one can stop you. If you are too lazy to look into this, I can't change that. But I can point it out. If you want to PRETEND like the Clinton DOJ , the Bush DOJ or the Obama DOJ are unaware of these facts, go ahead. That doesn't change the facts that you immediately dismissed out of hand because you wish to stick your head in the ground and accept the conclusions of investigations that have already been demonstrated as highly flawed in the above thread, which you clearly were too lazy to read.

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

You are just lazy. As I pointed out in post #134, Fiske botch his investigation so badly that a second IOC was asked to look at the evidence. Then Starr botched his investigation so badly that his chief investigator ended up calling it a coverup. His name was Miquel Rodriguez and here's what he 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." And multiple facts (such as the FBI tampering with witness statements) proves they weren't independent either.

Starr's investigation was so questionable that for the first time in history the independent panel of judges overseeing an IOC ruled that an addendum (Knowlton's, which you also clearly haven't bothered to read), 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 could see from my posts in this thread if you ever bothered to actually read them, Fiske and Starr lied repeatedly (directly and by omission) regarding the facts. They even 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 the FBI, Fiske or Starr were independent, honest brokers like you claim. All were corrupt. All clearly tried to hide the facts and tamper with evidence. And it doesn't take a genius to see this.

But it does take someone who isn't so lazy (or politically biased) that he won't even read this thread in it's entirety before commenting.

 

[TSR]

So I'm sorry but I don't believe the FBI, Fiske or Starr were independent, honest brokers like you claim. All were corrupt. All clearly tried to hide the facts and tamper with evidence. And it doesn't take a genius to see this.

.
And you are certainly welcome to your opinion, no matter what the facts say.

But let me ask you: you are accusing people of criminal acts. Why have you not brought these to the attention of law enforcement?

Before you even try: we have been through a Republican administration which would have been more than happy to have it proven that the Democratic administration had done this, so why haven't any charges been lodged?

Is it because you are talking through the hole in your keyboard, and haven't the balls to file a complaint?
.

 

[BeAChooser]

.
And you are certainly welcome to your opinion, no matter what the facts say.

LOL! My view is not just a matter of opinion because I am the one supporting my position with verifiable, sourced, reliable facts. Lots and lots of them. Like I just proved in the one instance we've discussed. As anyone can see, it is you who has walk into this thread dismissing the whole allegation without even reading the thread or knowing the facts. And you expect us to take you seriously … and jump just because you say jump?

we have been through a Republican administration which would have been more than happy to have it proven that the Democratic administration had done this

GARBAGE. Bush campaigned for office saying he was going to "move on" and that's exactly what he did on all the crimes that were committed during the Clinton years. He ignored them. That's politics and Bush was every bit a political animal. He did that because he wanted to accomplish his agenda. Democrats (and the liberal mainstream media) had promised to prevent that if he didn't "move on". They so loved Clinton. Besides, do you honestly think Bush has no skeletons that could have been pulled out if push really ma to shove (and I'm not just talking about his Guard record but serious topics such as Mena)? Don't you remember Stephanopoulos warning republicans that Clinton was prepared for Mutual Assured Destruction if they went after him? And after 9/11 it was too late to think of ever bringing up the subject again during his administration. A war trumps a little thing like a murdered Friend of Clinton.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

What the hell ever. Seriously to claim that the Republican controlled government couldn't go after Clinton during the Bush Administration is just being partisan. Dude the Republicans blamed 9/11 on Clinton, hell they even made a fictional movie in which Clinton called off the CIA when they had Osama cornered. (Path to 9/11)

So to claim that they wouldn't go after Clinton during the "Stick a boot up you (rule 10), its the American way!" and "Freedom Fries" years is to engage in intellectual evasion.

 

[BeAChooser]

Seriously to claim that the Republican controlled government couldn't go after Clinton during the Bush Administration is just being partisan.

No, it's just citing the facts and using common sense (which apparently you lack). Bush did indeed campaign on a promise to "move on" where all these allegations were concerned. Democrats did indeed threaten "mutual assured destruction" if Clinton was pursued, and had everything they'd found in the thousands of FBI files they'd illegally obtained during the Filegate scandal to use as ammunition. The mainstream media was decidedly biased in favor of Clinton and democrats, and would have crucified Bush had his administration investigated further. And it's a fact that Bush was indeed a very skilled politician, was very interested in getting his own agenda passed, and knew that if he pursued any democrats criminally, Congress and the media would declare war on him and make it impossible to get his agenda passed. And another kind of war did in fact intercede to make any thought of looking into these matters moot in late 2001.

Dude the Republicans blamed 9/11 on Clinton, hell they even made a fictional movie in which Clinton called off the CIA when they had Osama cornered. (Path to 9/11)

Don't you want to discuss the fact that the first person to see Foster's body testified under oath that Foster's body was not in the position that the FBI and government later claimed? Don't you want to discuss the fact that more than half a dozen emergency responders (a doctor and various EMTs) all said that Foster had a wound in the neck that the official autopsy report didn't report and in fact ruled out? Don't you want to discuss the fact that the FBI tampered with witness testimony regarding the state of mind of Foster, altering the statement that Foster's wife gave to make it look like Foster was depressed? Don't you want to discuss the fact that prior to a meeting in the Whitehouse with several of the witnesses (who happened to work for Clinton) more than a week after the death, all the witnesses had told the Park Police and FBI that Foster showed no sign of depression? Then, curiously, those few witnesses who went to the Whitehouse meeting suddenly changed their statements a 180 degrees? Don't you want to discuss the so-called suicide note and the fact that even the man who the government used to claim it was authentic now says it has the characteristics of a forgery? Tell me, why do the defenders of the government in the Vince Foster case act like a bunch of Truthers? Why do they consistently go out of their way to ignore what the actual facts and evidence show and instead use the tactics of Truthers? Hmmmmmm?

 

[A'isha]

Oh look, BAC found a friend to help him out with his crazy theories. And so far he's as adept at looking at the evidence surrounding Foster's death as he is at looking at the evidence surrounding JFK's death.

Don't you want to discuss the fact that the first person to see Foster's body testified under oath that Foster's body was not in the position that the FBI and government later claimed? Don't you want to discuss the fact that more than half a dozen emergency responders (a doctor and various EMTs) all said that Foster had a wound in the neck that the official autopsy report didn't report and in fact ruled out? Don't you want to discuss the fact that the FBI tampered with witness testimony regarding the state of mind of Foster, altering the statement that Foster's wife gave to make it look like Foster was depressed? Don't you want to discuss the fact that prior to a meeting in the Whitehouse with several of the witnesses (who happened to work for Clinton) more than a week after the death, all the witnesses had told the Park Police and FBI that Foster showed no sign of depression? Then, curiously, those few witnesses who went to the Whitehouse meeting suddenly changed their statements a 180 degrees? Don't you want to discuss the so-called suicide note and the fact that even the man who the government used to claim it was authentic now says it has the characteristics of a forgery? Tell me, why do the defenders of the government in the Vince Foster case act like a bunch of Truthers? Why do they consistently go out of their way to ignore what the actual facts and evidence show and instead use the tactics of Truthers? Hmmmmmm?

Trying to pretend that pretty much every single one of those "points" weren't actually addressed in this very thread, are we, BAC?

You face a Sisyphean task arguing with BAC, fullflavormenthol. Good luck.

 

[BeAChooser]

Oh look, BAC found a friend to help him out with his crazy theories. And so far he's as adept at looking at the evidence surrounding Foster's death as he is at looking at the evidence surrounding JFK's death.

Now, ANTPogo, there you go acting like a Truther. I have never once had anything to say about JFK's death in the way of a conspiracy theory. So why suggest I did? And I have no relation whatsoever with anyone else on this thread. I have no control over what anyone else claims. I stated only the facts I know.

I think our readers need to know where YOU are coming from. In this and past threads on this subject (like (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129329 ), you've demonstrated that you don't want to have an honest discussion. They need only read this thread, starting at post #153, where you joined in. Time and again, you introduced disinformation of all sorts (that I then corrected) on topics like the medicines that Foster took, what interactions Foster had with his doctor, what the judge's prerogatives were in attaching the Knowlton report to Starr's report, what Starr and Rodriguez said on the record, and even what I had said previously on this topic.

And you've shown a distinct lack of interest in numerous facts, even when you were directly asked about them. Like the "oven mitt" (that Starr gave as the explanation for why the gun had no finger prints on it) which photographs taken at the time and evidence lists compiled by the investigating police prove could not have been in the glove compartment at the time Ken Starr claimed it was found there (a oven mitt that curiously Fiske never even mentioned in his report at all). Like the evidence indicating there was a neck wound. You simply ignore these facts like Truthers ignore facts that don't fit their preconceptions about 9/11.

ANTPogo, you are a classic case of someone arguing against the Foster allegations like a truther would argue against the 9/11 evidence.

 

[A'isha]

That's nice, dear.

 

[TSR]

LOL! My view is not just a matter of opinion because I am the one supporting my position with verifiable, sourced, reliable facts. Lots and lots of them. Like I just proved in the one instance we've discussed. As anyone can see, it is you who has walk into this thread dismissing the whole allegation without even reading the thread or knowing the facts. And you expect us to take you seriously … and jump just because you say jump?

.
No, I expect no one to take *you* seriously, since you have all of these "verifiable, sourced, reliable facts" and yet you can't bring an actual case against anyone. It seems you haven't the balls to actually do anything other than whine on an internet forum.

You *do* realize that this makes you (according to your own testimony) an accessory after the fact?
.

 

[BeAChooser]

TSR, in post #282, you suggested by implication that my opinion is contrary to what the "facts say", that the FBI, Fiske and Starr were independent, honest brokers who didn't try to hide the facts or tamper with evidence.

Well I'm still waiting for you to address the following. Starr's case requires there be an inch diameter hole in the back of Foster's head. Because that's Starr's claim. But that foundation is on quicksand because not one of the eyewitnesses saw that wound, the pathologist who described it in his autopsy has been proven a liar, and because many of the eyewitnesses instead said there was an exit wound in Foster's neck, which the IOC specifically ruled out. And Starr's top investigator, Rodriguez, said the one photo he had access to showed a wound ... in Foster's neck. Comment? Or will you do what Truthers always do?

Or how about this? 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 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 of Foster's car. 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. And 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 in his report) can only have been staged by Starr. Furthermore, Detective Braun's inventory of the glove compartment did NOT record an oven mitt at all ... something that would be very hard to miss and unusual enough to have surely been listed. Do you have an explanation other than the sort of woo we've come to expect from Truthers?

 

[TSR]

Blah blah blah.

.
You have all this knowledge, which makes you an accessory after the fact, unless you share these "facts" with LE. I'm not LE. It's not my responsibility to address any of your delusions.

It *is*, however, your responsibility to report a crime of which you have knowledge. What did the police say when you told them about this murder -- you *did* tell them it was a murder, didn't you? Or do you believe the fact that lying to the cops is itself a crime mean you don't have to do anything but whine about **** when you could be bringing a bunch of murderers to justice?

Don't you care about the truth?
.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Blah blah blah.

See folks? TSR is actually hiding from the facts.

 

[A'isha]

See folks? TSR is actually hiding from the facts.

What facts?

Let's enter the realm of sheer fantasy for a moment, and assume that every single one of your claims is, in fact, true. What now? What do we do with this knowledge?

You sure aren't doing anything with it, BAC. What do you expect us to do? The same nothing you're doing with it?

If so, why are you posting about this so vehemently (and interminably)? What's the point?

 

[TSR]

See folks? TSR is actually hiding from the facts.

.
See folks? BAC is every bit as much of a criminal as those he/she pretends to despise.
.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
See folks? TSR is actually hiding from the facts.

What facts?

See what I mean, folks? This is a thread full of sourced facts that indicate the FBI, Fiske and Starr investigations were dishonest and that those parties even went so far as to fabricate evidence, and all ANTPogo can do is act like a Truther. Fascinating.

 

[BeAChooser]

.
See folks? BAC is every bit as much of a criminal as those he/she pretends to despise.
.

Go on, TSR, act like a Truther.

Or will you finally realize that's a losing tactic and address the fact that Starr's case requires there be an inch diameter hole in the back of Foster's head but not one of the eyewitnesses saw that wound? Address the fact that several saw a wound in the neck that the IOC reports specifically ruled out. Address the fact that the chief investigator for Starr is on record saying Starr's effort was a coverup and that he personally found a wound in the neck on one of the photos of Foster that the government has refused to make public.

Will you continue to act like a Truther or will you finally address the question of why an oven mitt wasn't mentioned until Starr's report and why the photo that Starr offered of the oven mitt in the glove compartment is totally inconsistent with previous photographic evidence, official timelines, and lists compiled by the Park Police of what was found in the glove compartment?

Just to start.

 

[TSR]

Will you continue to withhold information about a crime from the police in violation of the law?

You know what that makes you, because I explained it earlier, but perhaps you only understand 'murrican and not proper English, so let me spell it out:

BAC betends bad mans make murder

BAC betends BAC knows all about this.

BAC should tell law mans, because murder very very bad, but lets bad mans get away with it instead

BAC knows law mans would laugh at or put BAC in a cage, so BAC doesn't tell law mans but betends BAC is smart on interwebs and this makes BAC feel better about BAC's utter failure in life.



sorry, I couldn't only use words with one syllab... small sounds. Was this simple enough for you, or will you need mommy to splain?


no, wait -- mommy would know about BAC lying then so BAC will ignore the point once again, and betend no one else sees it

 

[A'isha]

See what I mean, folks? This is a thread full of sourced facts that indicate the FBI, Fiske and Starr investigations were dishonest and that those parties even went so far as to fabricate evidence, and all ANTPogo can do is act like a Truther. Fascinating.

Yes, yes, terrible insults. I'm weeping inside.

Now, what about the rest of my post, BAC? You gonna answer those questions, or not?

Here, I'll even helpfully quote it for you.

Let's enter the realm of sheer fantasy for a moment, and assume that every single one of your claims is, in fact, true. What now? What do we do with this knowledge?

You sure aren't doing anything with it, BAC. What do you expect us to do? The same nothing you're doing with it?

If so, why are you posting about this so vehemently (and interminably)? What's the point?

 

[BeAChooser]

Sigh.

For the record, ANTpogo and TSR have no idea what I have or have not done in an effort to bring this matter to the attention of authorities. Let's just say I've done more than they suggest. But I'm not going to spell those things out since they'd neither be provable (without giving my name and I don't intend to do that) nor would they prove anything with regard to the veracity of the allegations of foul play which is really the topic of this thread … not what I've done or not done.

I hazard to suggest that it is obvious (to all but Truthers) that the authorities aren't going to pay any mind to the complaints of a lone private citizen as they have already demonstrated they will ignore and are ignoring complaints from Starr's own top investigator (Miquel Rodriguez who also a US Attorney), various eye witnesses (one of whom, Patrick Knowlton, went as gone as far as to take the matter to court in order to force Starr to at least include certain factual information in his official report), as well as various journalists, media personalities (some who were/are rather well known, such as Larry Elders) and authors. So at this point, the only thing I think we can do is try to motivate the public at large to take up the issue by bringing the real facts in the case to their attention. And the only way little lo' me can hope to have any impact on that that is through the internet, on forums like this that at least purport to be filled with truth seeking skeptics.

In any case, I trust our readers can see through the dishonest and Truther-like tactic that ANTpogo and TSR are employing to desperately avoid discussing the actual facts in the case.

 

[TSR]

In any case, I trust our readers can see through the dishonest and Truther-like tactic that ANTpogo and TSR are employing to desperately avoid discussing the actual facts in the case.

.
You mean the fact that you haven't any facts to discuss that make any difference to what actually happened?

Why don't you answer ANTPogo's questions? Or is that not a discussion *you* want to have?

Here, let me translate again:

BAC says bad mans make murder.

What does BAC want law mans to do, and why BAC not tell BACs mommy to help BAC do more than stamp feets and wave hands?

.