So you want to keep digging that hole you're in, eh? Very well.
Why would Rodriquez lie? Why would Dr Haut? Why would the various EMTs? All of these people say there was a neck wound. Seems to me it's less likely that all of them are lying than just the coroner … Dr Beyer. Wouldn't you agree?
But in any case, Tricky, we really don't have to know why Dr Beyer lied at this time. There could be any number of reasons but it's not important because what matters is whether he lied, not why. Perhaps if the photos of Foster's head are eventually released and a neck wound is evident, then it will matter because then Beyer may find himself on trial for covering up a murder. Then we might find out the reason why he lied. Perhaps he'll tell us he or his family was threatened. Or we'll discover he was paid off. Or some other excuse. But in any case, he'll then be going to jail not just for lying about a neck wound, but for lying about a number of things which I mentioned in post #133 of this thread (and in other posts and threads that you must have read). Since you seem to have forgotten them (or you simply ignored them), let me review them again. For your own sake.
First, the Supplemental Criminal Incident Record of the U.S. Park Police states "Dr. Beyer stated that X-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head." That would certainly suggest x-rays were taken. Indeed, the X-ray box on the autopsy report filled out by Dr Beyer was checked "yes," indicating x-rays were taken. But, curiously, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Dr. Beyer said that he had been planning to take X-rays but never did. He claimed the equipment was broken and had been for weeks. However, the Knowlton appendix to the official report on the Foster death contains information which shows that there are maintenance records which indicate the X-Ray machine was, in fact, fully operable at the time the Foster autopsy was conducted. In short, Dr Beyer lied.
When Starr released his report about Foster, he refused to make public the reports written by three consultants that he had hired to study the case. Accuracy in Media (AIM) sued the OIC to obtain them. Turns out that in one report submitted by a Dr. Brian Blackbourne, the San Diego County medical examiner, Dr. Blackbourne reports meeting with Dr. James Beyer. He wrote "I discussed the autopsy X-rays with him." When asked about that discussion of the X-rays, Dr. Blackbourne admitted that it was actually about the absence of X-rays. According to Blackbourne, Dr. Beyer explained their absence by claiming his X-ray machine was not working on the day he performed the autopsy. But AIM learned that the first call to service this brand new machine was made over three months AFTER Foster’s death. On hearing that, Dr. Blackbourne asked, "Do you mean that they couldn’t take any X-rays for three months?" No, what it means is that Dr. Beyer was lying about the machine not working. And only a Truther would suggest otherwise at this point in this debate, Tricky.
And by the way, Starr’s investigators, and presumably Starr himself, knew that the claim that the x-ray machine was not working was false. We know that because the record of that first service call on Oct. 29 was included among the documents AIM obtained from the OIC. They had investigated Dr. Beyer’s excuse and had found the proof that it was false, but they did nothing about it. They never even mentioned it in their official report. This is yet more proof that Starr and his office were corrupt ... just like Miquel Rodriguez said. Just like I've been saying.
And as I pointed out in my earlier post, Beyer's autopsy report states the bullet exited the top of the back of the head. The drawing that Beyer made during the so-called autopsy shows a very large exit wound. Beyer stated that he found no additional wounds on the body. NONE. However, the original report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene, lists the cause of death as a "self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck." Curiously enough, Dr. Haut’s report was not included in the documents released by the government. It was discovered in June 1997 at the National Archives by Patrick Knowlton. How's that for a coverup?
It is an established fact that four of the rescue workers testified UNDER OATH in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury. But again, Starr never mentioned this in his official report. More coverup.
Now you'd think if there was a 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole in the back of Foster's head there would have been brain matter and blood all over the scene of the "suicide". But Corey Ashford, the Emergency Medical Services technician who had to pick up and move the body didn't observe any. He said he didn't get a drop of blood on his white uniform, or on his gloves. He said there was no blood on the ground underneath the body. Roger Harrison, another rescue worker who helped Cory, didn’t see any blood either. He saw no blood on the ground. No blood on the body. No blood on anybody who had touched it. Corey Ashford didn't see an exit wound either. Neither did emergency medical technician Richard Arthur who told the FBI he noted "what appeared to be a small-caliber bullet hole in Foster's neck on the right side, just under the jaw line about halfway between the ear and the tip of the chin." Sergeant John Rolla, who palpitated the back of Foster's head, didn't find a wound. Nor did Sergeant Gonzalez. In fact, NONE of the paramedics and others who where there at the death scene the night of Foster's death reported seeing the 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole claimed by Fiske and Starr. Now are you going to act like a Truther, Tricky, and continue to just ignore all these facts?
At the FairFax County Morgue, the doctor on duty was Julian Orenstein. In his FBI statement it says he lifted the body in order "to locate and observe the exit wound on the decedent's head." Notice that it doesn't actually say he saw the exit wound ... but you might think he did reading that. But he didn't. Contacted later, he admitted "I never saw one directly." And a copy of the handwritten notes of the FBI interviews, which Christopher Ruddy obtained via a FOIA lawsuit against the Office of the Independent Counsel does not mention Orenstein trying to locate an exit wound. Apparently, that was added to his statement after the fact. Again, more tampering with evidence by the IOC. Are you going to ignore this instance too, Tricky? Only a Truther would do that.
A friend of Foster's, Joe Purvis, claimed that he was told by a staff member of Ruebel's Funeral Home in Little Rock that Foster had an entry wound deep at the back of the mouth, and an exit wound "the size of a dime" close to the neck at the hairline. What makes this claim significant is that it was made BEFORE Foster's autopsy report was released, and Purvis' entry wound description matches that of all the witnesses I've named. Not your *witness*.
And what about the official autopsy photos, Tricky? You care to comment on the fact that the government could shut down these allegations of foul play and prove all my witnesses are lying simply by releasing the photos that show Foster's head and neck? You'd think the government would want to do that. Clear autopsy photos showing only a wound where the official report claims there was a wound would do that. But the court (at the behest of the government, Lisa Foster and her ex-Clinton attorney Hamilton) refused to release them to the public. The court said the privacy rights of the Foster family outweigh the public's interest in seeing them. And that was the first time that the Supreme Court had every ruled that a public figure's privacy rights under the FOIA could be extended after his death to members of his family. See how coverups work, Tricky?
What about the 35 mm photos? You want to take a stab at that? The government claims the official 35 mm photos of Foster at the scene of the crime were "underexposed" and deemed useless. In addition, a lot of polaroids were taken at the scene (based on statements by the FBI and other investigators). But apparently most of these polaroid photos simply disappeared. What a coincidence. The rest have been tightly controlled by the government, with the government fighting every single attempt to get them released, even internally within the investigations. One of the surviving polaroid photos apparently shows Foster's head (or at least the neck). According to Miquel Rodriguez (Starr's top investigator), when he finally got hold of the original of this polaroid, he had the Smithsonian institution blow it up. He says the blowups show a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear. A wound consistent with the report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene, as well as a half dozen other eye witnesses. A wound never mentioned by Fiske or Starr in their reports. A wound never mentioned by Dr Beyer. Tricky, surely you aren't going to continue to *believe* (like a Truther) that Dr Beyer didn't lie and that Rodriguez, Dr Haut and the EMTs are all liars.
And wait, I'm not done stating reasons why Beyer is not to be trusted. Do you know that on January 20, 1994, in an interview six months after Foster's death, Dr Bayer said that an FBI agent, a Secret Service and Park Police were present when he conducted his autopsy. You'd think that would be something he could keep straight for 6 months. Yet later, when the Park Police admitted that only their officers were present and the FBI admitted none of theirs were present, Dr Beyer was forced to recant his earlier claim and admit that only Park Police were present. Even more curious is in that same January 1994 interview, Beyer stated he and not ruled Foster's death a suicide, only that the death was "consistent with a self-inflicted gunshot". But in his Senate hearing testimony in 1994, Beyer was emphatic that he ruled the Foster death a suicide. Is he misremembering, lying or is YOUR witness just plain incompetent, Tricky?
Speaking of which, Tricky, didn't I mention that Dr Beyer made very serious mistakes on other cases in the past? Indeed I did. And in one case, a body had to be exhumed and reexamined, and when it was, his ruling of suicide was changed to murder. Given all of the above, why in heaven's name do you continue to believe that Beyer is honest and his analysis correct?
Yes, Tricky, why o why were there that many? Think about it for a minute. Obviously there were questions and inconsistencies that were not resolved by the earlier investigations. Problems with those investigations. And just as obviously, there are STILL unresolved questions and inconsistencies in what the government claims to be the facts and the explanation for Foster's death. Questions and inconsistencies that, like a Truther, you are STILL studiously avoiding. Or so I've noticed.
My friends have been convinced, Tricky. You, and the other would be Truthers on this thread, I would not call a friend. But I would suggest you might be admirers of the Clintons or supporters of the democratic party and it's policies. And you must realize that a public learning the full story in the Foster case would not be good for either the Clintons or the democratic party.
There you go again, acting like a Truther. Many of these facts are from Knowlton's appendix to the IOC report. Many are from legitimate media outlets. Many are from transcripts of senate hearings, FBI reports and police reports Many are from interviews with the witnesses who were there and people like US Attorney Rodgriguez, Starr's top investigator. Don't you know it's fallacious to attack the messenger and not the message? Even more so when you attack the messenger in a dishonest fashion by accusing him of being something he is not.
But I have answered this question, Tricky … on this and other Foster (and Brown) threads. You just chose, like a Truther would, to ignore what I posted. I can't do anything about that.
And I call you a Truther because your statement is not only false but once again is an effort to avoid actually challenging specifics.
But I have answered them on this and other threads. You simply have ignored my answers because you didn't like my answers.
LOL! Minutiae like the location of the exit wound and *overwhelming issues* like the size of the conspiracy.
I've given numerous reasons in this and other threads why Starr and Fiske were not deserving of trust. They clearly tampered with Lisa Foster's witness statement from the night of Foster's death. Starr introduced the bogus oven mitt which no other evidence shows existed and that evidence in fact directly proves didn't exist. He hid crucial information from the judges overseeing his effort, like an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after Foster's death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound. He repeatedly failed to note crucial information in his report, just some of which I indicated earlier in this post. He ignored facts proving that Dr Beyer lied. He lied about what the Foster's doctor said about depression and the medications Foster was taking. And more. You simply ignored all those facts. Like a Truther.
I'll ask you again. WHAT reputable sources? Here's another fact for you to consider. Starr told the public that the Filegate FBI files had been removed from the Whitehouse and returned to the FBI when that wasn't true. We learned years later in an TV interview with Starr's successor (RAY) that the FBI files were still in the Whitehouse. Why did Starr lie, if not to protect the Clintons, Tricky?
Did he really try all that hard? He himself admitted that he was ready to close up the IOC shop and return to private practice when Monica surfaced. And then what did he do? He totally screwed up the investigation. He told Bill Clinton before he was interviewed under oath about the stain on the dress, rather than do what any competent lawyer would have done which is trap Clinton into lying under oath using the fact that he didn't know Monica had kept the dress proving he'd been lying.
And Starr spent all of 10 minutes interviewing Hillary in Filegate, even though several witnesses testified under oath that she was the mastermind behind the whole illegal activity. He failed to ask Linda Tripp, one of the key witnesses in the scandal, rather obvious and critical questions. He never did learn who hired Mark Livingstone (although now we know it was Hillary, according to Livingstone himself). And he never pursued the allegations of illegality in Chinagate, even though that was surely more important than Monica. Yes, "get serious!" Starr wasn't out to convict the Clinton's of anything … other than lying about an affair with an intern. And that was only a distraction to take public attention off another growing scandal … the death of Ron Brown.
Now I'm sure you will ask, why would Starr do that? Who knows what hold the Clintons had on him. He was, afterall, the 2nd person on the list of possible IOC candidates (after Fiske) that the Clintons offered when the whole sorted saga began. I have trouble believing the Clintons would have picked anyone they didn't have some control over. How else can one explain the obvious incompetence shown by this man who we were all told was so competent? What else explains Starr choosing as his right-hand man, Deputy Independent Counsel Mark H. Tuohey III, who was a left-wing Democrat with close ties to the Clinton White House? What else explains Nolanda Hill's observation that "when Starr was appointed, they were opening champagne bottles in the White House"?
Maybe it had to do with a threat to his person or family? Or a promised reward? Or maybe it was just in his character? Maybe as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote "He will never confront the U.S. Justice Department, the FBI, and the institutions of permanent government in Washington. His whole career has been built on networking, by ingratiating himself. His natural loyalties lie with the politico-legal fraternity that covered up the Foster case in the first place." You claim Starr was a man who was out to get the Clinton's, yet when all was said and done, he made an overture for dinner with Senator Hillary Clinton and said nice things about Clinton. Curious indeed.
Maybe it had to do with one of Starr's business dealings? Do you know that in his private legal practice, during the time he was investigating the Clintons, he represented (and won a lawsuit for) a company owned by China's Peoples Liberation Army and arms dealer Wang Jun? Wang Jun was a Chinese military intelligence operative and one of the big participants in the Chinagate scandal. This fact was known at the time. Starr should have recused himself because of this alone. But he didn't. A real skeptic might reasonably wonder why? But not you Tricky because you aren't a real skeptic.
So now, finding yourself unable to challenge the many actual facts I've noted, you've decided to engage in personal attacks on my intelligence as your debating tactic? How Truther-like.
Yes, how utterly Truther-like your behavior has become. When I ask you to stop hiding behind vagueness and name your "reputable" sources, you instead simply spout more vagueness and make a gross misrepresentation concerning my contributions to this discussion that anyone who actually reads this thread will see is untrue. Which is truly characteristic of the way 911 Truthers debate. Frankly, Tricky, I'm surprised that you're so invested in this matter that you'd destroy your reputation here at JREF by debating like a 9/11 Truther.
The only time you've engaged in actual debate about facts in the Foster case was once … on this thread (
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129329 ) … where everyone can see I responded to EVERY point you made in every post you made. It was YOU who ignored most of the points I made. And anyone reading that thread (I hope everyone does) will also see that most of your so-called *points* bear striking resemblance to the type of arguments and debating style of 911 Truthers. The same type of arguments and dishonesty that you are trying again in this thread. That's another thing we know about Truthers, Tricky. They never learn. So you just go on digging the hole where your credibility is headed.
LOL! Now you are going to engage in semantics as your defense. Sort of like redefining "is"? And notice, folks. Tricky is once again avoiding the question of why the witnesses I've cited are questionable. And I predict he'll go on doing that because that's the way Truthers debate. And we all know it.
