WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE SUICIDE?
Michael Rivero
WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE SUICIDE?
Last week, a Zogby Poll concluded that an estimated 170 million
Americans, 2/3 of the population, do NOT believe the story that Vincent
Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.
Many of those people, perhaps lacking many of the facts available
here on the internet, aren't cerytain if this means there was,
beyond a reasonable doubt, a murder.
Given these poll results, it hardly comes as a surprise to see the
recent revival of a "fallback position" that had enjoyed a brief vogue
right after it became apparent there was a cover up, back in late 1994
and early 1995.
This "fallback position" seeks to limit the damage from the explosure of
the cover up by claiming that Vincent Foster actually DID kill himself,
but someplace other than Fort Marcy Park, but was moved for some reason.
This already once discredited theory is being dusted off apparently as a
tactic to delay the formation of concensus, i.e. to maximise the confusion and
keep the issue "muddied" just a tad longer.
But the claim that a suicide is being covered up with yet another
manufactured suicide has never made sense, nor does it fit the available
evidence, and here's why.
One of the facts that has been clearly established by the eyewitness
testimony is the surprisingly little blood evident on the body when it was
found. Described as a "trickle", the absence of blood was cited as
an area of concern by several of the witnesses who doubted that they
were looking at a suicide, including Paramedics Corey Ashford and Richard
Arthur, as well as Dr Julian Orenstein of the Fairfax Hospital who certified
the death.
Vincent Scalice, a retired New York Police detective with over 30 years
experience, described the lack of blood as inconsistant with a genuine suicide
and concluded (as I have) that the lack of blood strongly indicated that
Foster's heart had already stopped when the headshot was fired.
One thing is very clear. When Vincent Foster was transported to the morgue,
his wounds bled profusely, staining his skin and clothing. Clearly,
had Vincent Foster been transported to Fort Marcy Park with any perforating
injuries, he would likewise have bled. Therefore, the absence of copious
bleeding from the headshot wound proves that the wound was inflicted where
Foster's body was actually found at Fort Marcy Park.
So, here is the flaw in the claim that Foster actually killed himself, but
was then moved. If Foster committed suicide, but DIDN'T fire the gunshot
through his own head, just how DID he kill himself, and why was it necessary
to obscure the cause of death?
There are no ligature marks to suggest that Foster hanged himself. But if he
had, just bring the rope with the body and tie it to a tree limb.
No stab wounds. But if Foster had stabbed himself to death (as another
of autopsist James C. Beyer's cases was falsely claimed to have done) just
bring the knife with the body and leave it at the scene.
No lethal levels of self administered drugs were found in his bloodstream
(and even if there were, why hide them; it's a common method of suicide).
Those who claim that Foster actually did commit suicide but someplace
else have tried to explain the movement of the body by the theory that
Foster killed himself someplace "embarrasing" but fail utterly to explain
just how Foster was able to kill himself and more importantly, why it
was necessary to stage a new cause of death with the headshot at Fort Marcy
Park.
Logicly, there is only one reason for a phony cause of death to be
manufactured, and that is if the real cause of death is something
inconsistant with suicide, something that MUST be concealed.
Had Foster really killed himself, then the real cause of death, what
ever it was, could have been transported with the body and the forensics
would have matched up. In a genuine suicide, all the pieces would fit.
There is no NEED to fake a different method of suicide.
But the manufacturing of an "obvious" cause of death, the planting
of the gun, and the fabrication of Lisa Foster's testimony to link
the gun with Vincent Foster are all consistant with the concealment
of a cause of death that is inconsistant with the claim of suicide.
Therefore, Vincent Foster was murdered. Of that there can be no doubt.
Vincent Foster was last seen aline inside the White House. The
investigation into his murder has to begin there.
--
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/ciavideo.html
Awarded a Lycos "Top 5%" of the web!
Rick Hodges
Michael Rivero wrote:
>
> WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE SUICIDE?
>
> Last week, a Zogby Poll concluded that an estimated 170 million
> Americans, 2/3 of the population, do NOT believe the story that Vincent
> Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.
>
> Many of those people, perhaps lacking many of the facts available
> here on the internet,
That's a good one! Lacking the facts available on the internet!
We should amend the old saying: Believe half of what you read, none of
what you hear, and the opposite of what you read on the internet.
-Rick
David Martin
A blueprint for ignorance and oppression.
DC Dave
DSharp673
I do not understand how anyone can remain on the CAS or CS
lists when Ray Heizer, the primary CAS & CS sheriff, has
publicly admitted that he supports the government's fallback
postion that Foster may have committed suicide but the body was
moved.
Heizer has also publicly stated that suicide should be assumed
until murder can be proved.
In addition to being a silly argument, I have to ask the so-called
Clinton critic Ray Heizer one question. How does your "suicide?
maybe; body moved" theory implicate President Clinton?
If your primary objective is get Clinton impeached, why would
you endorse such a weak argument?
How can anyone remain on the CAS & CS lists now? Your leader
is working for the other side.
Dave Sharp
[Michael Rivero wrote:]
>WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE
> SUICIDE?
>
>
>
> Last week, a Zogby Poll concluded that an estimated 170 million
> Americans, 2/3 of the population, do NOT believe the story that
> Vincent
> Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.
>
> Many of those people, perhaps lacking many of the facts
> available here on the internet, aren't cerytain if this means there
Ray Heizer
In article <6der2g$1o2$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
(Michael Rivero) wrote:
< WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE SUICIDE?
snip
< So, here is the flaw in the claim that Foster actually killed himself, but
< was then moved. If Foster committed suicide, but DIDN'T fire the gunshot
< through his own head, just how DID he kill himself, and why was it necessary
< to obscure the cause of death?
<
< There are no ligature marks to suggest that Foster hanged himself. But if he
< had, just bring the rope with the body and tie it to a tree limb.
<
< No stab wounds. But if Foster had stabbed himself to death (as another
< of autopsist James C. Beyer's cases was falsely claimed to have done) just
< bring the knife with the body and leave it at the scene.
<
< No lethal levels of self administered drugs were found in his bloodstream
< (and even if there were, why hide them; it's a common method of suicide).
<
< Those who claim that Foster actually did commit suicide but someplace
< else have tried to explain the movement of the body by the theory that
< Foster killed himself someplace "embarrasing" but fail utterly to explain
< just how Foster was able to kill himself and more importantly, why it
< was necessary to stage a new cause of death with the headshot at Fort Marcy
< Park.
<
< Logicly, there is only one reason for a phony cause of death to be
< manufactured, and that is if the real cause of death is something
< inconsistant with suicide, something that MUST be concealed.
snip
-- One hypothetical reason why a manufactured suicide might be used to
cover a real suicide would be that the suicide location was horribly
inconvenient and that the weapon used was traceable.
-- A purely hypothetical example of that, which I do not necessarily
endorse, and put on the table merely as an example is as follows:
o Foster is called to the Oval Office at 1:05 pm for a tense meeting and
finally fired by Clinton for xxx about 2:30.
o Foster leaves the Oval Office in deep humiliation and despair, grabs a
legally registered 9 mm pistol from the USSS agent outside the door, and,
during a struggle, shoots himself in the neck (a smallish wound that
doesn't bleed a lot, but kills him).
o After consultations all around, the body is moved to FMP.
o An untracable drop gun is fired into his mouth and hastily planted in
his hand about 6:00 after the body is inconveniently discovered by CW
before a substitute gun from the Foster residence can be spirited out
since Lisa was at home until about 5-6.
-- Hypotheticals aside, my working assumption remains murder. However,
since I don't have all the facts as to the where, why, when and how, and
since murder would have to be proven in court _beyond_a_reasonable_doubt_,
I leave the possibility of suicide open.
-- If you know the where, why, when and how, please advise.
-- Bottom line: Since the body was clearly moved, and hence Fiske/Starr
are clearly wrong, the investigation needs to be re-opened and done right
top get the true facts.
-- Meanwhile: Suicide? Maybe. Fort Marcy Park? No way.
j...@inxpress.net
DSharp673 wrote:
>
> I do not understand how anyone can remain on the CAS or CS
> lists when Ray Heizer, the primary CAS & CS sheriff, has
> publicly admitted that he supports
There many, many things that you don't understand, "Dave".
=======================================================================
"... gift of Mr. and Mrs. C. Joseph Giroir, Jr., in honor of
Dr. and Mrs. Mochtar Riady" -- caption describing the
Smithsonian's Hall of Presidents bust of William J. Clinton
"In a world of infinite possibilities, Lippo leaves nothing
to chance." http://www.lippo.co.id/Main.htm
Billy Beck
rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) wrote:
>-- Hypotheticals aside, my working assumption remains murder. However,
>since I don't have all the facts as to the where, why, when and how, and
>since murder would have to be proven in court _beyond_a_reasonable_doubt_,
>I leave the possibility of suicide open.
>
>-- If you know the where, why, when and how, please advise.
>
>-- Bottom line: Since the body was clearly moved, and hence Fiske/Starr
>are clearly wrong, the investigation needs to be re-opened and done right
>top get the true facts.
>
>-- Meanwhile: Suicide? Maybe. Fort Marcy Park? No way.
Agreed.
(Recall: I, myself, have repeated stated that I would immediately
endorse a ruling of suicide if the evidence clearly and unequivocally
mandated that conclusion. All anyone ever has to do is explain it to
me so that it makes sense.)
Inlookers should clearly note that this is a simple matter of
clear thinking. The implications run to honest and diligent
investigations for no other purpose than to get at the factual truth
of the matter.
They may ask themselves what to make of the various insinuations
and flat-out cranked assertions currently soaking up far more
bandwidth than they're worth around here.
Billy
VRWC fronteer - sigdiv
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/clinton/vrwc.htm
Mitchell Holman
In article <6der2g$1o2$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) wrote:
}
}
}
}
}WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE SUICIDE?
}
}
}
}Americans, 2/3 of the population, do NOT believe the story that Vincent
}Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.
What is a "Zogby"?
Gary Cruse
On 2 Mar 1998 18:39:24 GMT, dsha...@aol.com (DSharp673) graced us
all with:
>
>If your primary objective is get Clinton impeached, why would
>you endorse such a weak argument?
>
>How can anyone remain on the CAS & CS lists now? Your leader
>is working for the other side.
What we are primarily interested in is truth. The facts of
Vince Foster, for instance, do not support an argument that he
committed suicide in FMP. So we construct an argument to better
fit the facts.
At this stage, we believe that the facts point to a coverup that
originates with Clinton. This argument, and similarly-arrived-at
arguments arising from Whitewater, provide for many of us a
preponderance of evidence sufficient to argue for the removal of
Clinton from office.
That removal becomes our objective.
In your case, the objective dictates what you will or will not
accept as truth. Your method involves accepting or rejecting
facts based on support of your argument, not moditying your
argument to accomodate facts. But facts and truth exist in the real
world. They are not virtual particles that spring into existence or
fall back into nonbeing depending on what you want to believe .
What you do is to pick the conclusion you want first, then to
argue for it regardless of the facts. This can lead to insurmountable
contradictions from which you cannot escape. And that leads
to the hysterical blathering so common to your posts.
By having the horse back in front of the cart, you can better
defend your ideas to others and maybe even persuade them.
--
Gary Cruse vwrc-alarmist
What China got for the money:
Young, handsome, and concerned, Clinton has grown used
to the forgiveness that we readily grant him in the hope that
we too will not be challenged to improve our character.
--Jonathan Rosenblum, Jerusalem Post
Ray Heizer
In article <34FB03...@inxpress.net>, j...@inxpress.net wrote:
< DSharp673 wrote:
< >
< > I do not understand how anyone can remain on the CAS or CS
< > lists when Ray Heizer, the primary CAS & CS sheriff, has
< > publicly admitted that he supports
<
< There many, many things that you don't understand, "Dave".
-- Well "Dave" is half right. Everyone did leave CS. Did you ever hear the
one about a million monkeys sitting at keyboards ... ;-)
Freedom
The Alphabits in <34FAFC...@erols.com>, dcd...@erols.com 's cereal
bowl - spelled out the following
> >
> > That's a good one! Lacking the facts available on the internet!
> >
> > We should amend the old saying: Believe half of what you read, none of
> > what you hear, and the opposite of what you read on the internet.
> >
> > -Rick
>
> A blueprint for ignorance and oppression.
>
Ya know what.. This comment by *rick* just hit my last nerve.
I just started up my business here in BC - and I used a traditional and
common method of buying my equipment.
I asked somebody who I knew to buy it for me.
They did.
AND they ripped me off of about $1000.00
Then... I find out after talking with some people I met on the Internet -
who sell their products via a webpage - *that* I was ripped off. Than
Goodness for them - otherwise I wouldnt have even known I was *took* for
all that money.
Interesting ain't it?
The Net - with all it's scams and the *dangers* that the Whitehouse
etc... talk about - WAS ACTUALLY a SAFER way for me to conduct business
than the traditional face to face encounter I had with a real time
person.
Yo Rick,
Take your sanctimonious bullshit about the innacuracies and dishonesty of
the Internet and the contents of the NET and the people who use the net
for transmitting information and stick up you big fat Hairy Ass!
I trust stuff I read on this group - and the people I have engaged in e-
commerce with MUCH more than tradional mainstream media and the average
sales rep I can meet down the street.
MW
Gary - KJ6Q
Freedom wrote in message ...
>The Alphabits in <34FAFC...@erols.com>, dcd...@erols.com 's
cereal
>bowl - spelled out the following
>I trust stuff I read on this group - and the people I have engaged in
e-
>commerce with MUCH more than tradional mainstream media and the average
>sales rep I can meet down the street.
>
>MW
>
GEE, if he's not a liberal, just wait til he meets KKKennemur,
Kilpatrick, and the Weasels...
--
Gary - KJ6Q
====================
THIS generation whines about Social Security and Medicare,
THEN "buys" THEIR security by saddling future generations
with NAFTA and GATT... All, "for the children..."
John R. Rybock
>
>
>
> Last week, a Zogby Poll concluded that an estimated 170 million
>Americans, 2/3 of the population, do NOT believe the story that Vincent
>Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.
>
Gee, a voluntary internet poll... about as scientific as that local AM news
show's poll about "Whites after Labor Day: OK or Stay Away?"
Jim Ward
Michael Rivero wrote in message <6der2g$1o2$1...@blaze.accessone.com>...
>
>
>
>
>WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE SUICIDE?
>
>
> Vincent Foster was last seen aline inside the White House. The
>investigation into his murder has to begin there.
>
Just out of curiousity, wasn't Linda Tripp the last person to see him alive?
Rack Jite
Comes Rack Jite's conservatively incorrect reply to whatever it was
"John R. Rybock" <ryb...@mindless.com> was saying...
*> Last week, a Zogby Poll concluded that an estimated 170 million
*>Americans, 2/3 of the population, do NOT believe the story that Vincent
*>Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.
*Gee, a voluntary internet poll... about as scientific as that local AM news
*show's poll about "Whites after Labor Day: OK or Stay Away?"
You know there's something very very wrong with the Zogby Poll when
Rush Limbaugh claims it the only poll he believes. :)
-
"Son, never lose sight of the connection between supermarket tabloids,
professional wrestling, evangelism and supply side economics." Father Jite
Conservatively Incorrect ----> http://www.dragonfire.net/~RJ/
M Soja
On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:33:10 -0600, Jim Ward posted:
>Just out of curiousity, wasn't Linda Tripp the last person to see him alive?
Supposedly so. Would you like to make a case that she carted him out
of the White House herself in order to embarrass the president?
Ray Heizer
In article <3502a137...@news.newsguy.com>, ms...@javanet.com (M
Soja) wrote:
-- Actually he was reportedly seen by Tom Castleton (an aide) and John
Skyles of the USSS-UD after he was last seen by Tripp.
Paula
Aw, man! I just know that Linda Tripp wanted to hold the distinction of
having seen him last... She seems to have this overwhelming urge to be
the front and center catalyst for these oh-so-entertaining political
scandals. That explains why she up and jump-started this Lewinsky
controversy. What a pathetic creature this Tripp is...
mho ~P
--
8.9cpm flat rate state-to-state; low in-state rates
(5.76cpm in California); 8.9cpm 800/888 business
& residential; no prepay requirement or monthly fees.
http://www.worldtelinc.com/web/rep/pauappley-p1.shtml
Click on Application Forms to sign up!
Guru165871
In article <rayheizer-020...@j75.value.net>, rayh...@value.net (Ray
Heizer) writes:
>-- Hypotheticals aside, my working assumption remains murder.
>However, since I don't have all the facts as to the where, why,
>when and how, and since murder would have to be proven in
>court _beyond_a_reasonable_doubt_, I leave the possibility of
>suicide open.
The evidence is abundant that the Foster body was not only
moved, but at the very least "assisted" in "suicide" (if not
suicidED, i.e., murdered); what isn't abundant is evidence of
who did it and for what reason.
The leading "murder" theory has it being carried out by the
Israeli Mossad to cover up his having sold pirated copies of
PROMIS to them. I think that's rather thin, especially since
Mossad hits usually aren't even suspected as anything other
than accidents, diseases, and/or acts of God. I would be
heartily disappointed to think they had gotten this sloppy.
I personally suspect a Dixie Mafia hit, not only for the act's
sloppiness, but also because when Jerry Parks heard of it,
he immediately went into sphinctre-pucker and said that he
was "next." Parks may have been involved in tracking the
Bimbo-Bubba liaisons in Arkansas on behalf of Hillary, but
he also had extensive knowledge of BeelzeBubba's Dixie
Mafia connections and Mena activities. CIA probably
entrusted the DM for these hits, to lend plausible deniability,
but they were probably furious that the DM was this
completely unprofessional. I think once the appropriate
loose ends are tied up to completely sever CIA from the DM,
the DM operatives who did it will be tossed out into the cold.
It'll probably end up some gaggle of toothless Ozark assfucks
straight out of Deliverance did the job, and won't live to tell
the whole tale of how, why, and for whom. But just in case,
the Company had better start packing up the Berryville
facility...
Five centuries of penitentiaries
So let the guilty hang, in the Year of the Boomerang
Knopp
In article
<FCDCF511DA5FDE28.0EE41A8E...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> In article <6der2g$1o2$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
(Michael Rivero) wrote:
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE SUICIDE?
> }
> }
> }
> } Last week, a Zogby Poll concluded that an estimated 170 million
> }Americans, 2/3 of the population, do NOT believe the story that Vincent
> }Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.
>
>
> What is a "Zogby"?
It's similiar to a "Gallup", but typically more reliable.
--
Please remove PEZ from the address to reply via E-Mail. This is a
"Spam-Buster".
Secret Squirrel
You'd best not be talking too openly about The Company on this
newsgroup, or you'll have a few well-known participants here coming
for you with a rope.
Bill Kasper
On a bronze plaque in Wash. D.C are the immortal words of guru1...@aol.com
(Guru165871) :
<snip>
=
=The leading "murder" theory has it being carried out by the
=Israeli Mossad to cover up his having sold pirated copies of
=PROMIS to them. I think that's rather thin, especially since
=Mossad hits usually aren't even suspected as anything other
=than accidents, diseases, and/or acts of God. I would be
=heartily disappointed to think they had gotten this sloppy.
=
=I personally suspect a Dixie Mafia hit, not only for the act's
<snip>
Two words:
Blind Trust
It makes the most sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper, Militia of One,
SIGINT, Mechanized Information Cavalry, VR-WC->
"Get Mean-spirited"
Martin McPhillips
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 03:19:43 GMT, bill....@usa.remove-this.net (Bill Kasper)
wrote:
>On a bronze plaque in Wash. D.C are the immortal words of guru1...@aol.com
>(Guru165871) :
><snip>
>=
>=The leading "murder" theory has it being carried out by the
>=Israeli Mossad to cover up his having sold pirated copies of
>=PROMIS to them. I think that's rather thin, especially since
>=Mossad hits usually aren't even suspected as anything other
>=than accidents, diseases, and/or acts of God. I would be
>=heartily disappointed to think they had gotten this sloppy.
>=
>=I personally suspect a Dixie Mafia hit, not only for the act's
><snip>
>
> Two words:
> Blind Trust
>
> It makes the most sense.
That's Rivero's pet theory and it barely makes
the "most sense," let alone any sense at all.
Assets that need to be concealed because they
are *very* ill-gotten gains would hardly be stuck
into something as public as a "blind trust."
They wouldn't be disclosed at all, or put anywhere
where they might be disclosed.
The underlying motive for the murder of
Foster is "staying at the top of the world."
But beyond that, the Foster murder is not
simply a "cover up," it *is* the cover up.
It is the hub of the wheel from which radiate
all of the lies that cover up the "Secret Life"
of Bill Clinton.
Foster *is* the cover up. It is the means by
which Clinton was able to create the vast machinery
needed to conceal all of his crimes.
When you are president and you have someone
murdered "in plain sight," and it's a complete mess,
yet you marshal the forces required to supress
the truth about it, you have put into place the
machinery by which you can do almost *anything*
and get away with it.
With the "brilliant" success of managing the facts around
the Foster murder you have built a machine that
has not only successfully manufactured a Big Lie,
but a factory that can now begin to shape and change
the very appearance of reality itself.
And inside that factory is, in descending order, murder,
bribery, intimidation, blackmail, and public relations
smears.
If James Carville and Paul Begala want to know what
they are the front men for, let them open their eyes.
Mitchell Holman
In article <PEZkknopp-ya024080...@news.netaxs.com>, PEZk...@citynet.net (Knopp) wrote:
}In article
}<FCDCF511DA5FDE28.0EE41A8E...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
}t>, ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
}
}> In article <6der2g$1o2$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
}(Michael Rivero) wrote:
}> }
}> }
}> }
}> }
}> }WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE SUICIDE?
}> }
}> }
}> }
}> } Last week, a Zogby Poll concluded that an estimated 170 million
}> }Americans, 2/3 of the population, do NOT believe the story that Vincent
}> }Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.
}>
}>
}> What is a "Zogby"?
}
}It's similiar to a "Gallup", but typically more reliable.
}
Translation: It may be mediocre and unknown, but it
tells you what you want to hear.
Mitchell Holman
"This is Rush Limbaugh, and you are the wisest, most intelligent, most educated,
most politically savvy and involved audience in all of the United States media."
Rush Limbaugh, pandering to his audience, Feb 1, 1996
Knopp
In article
<FAB3F61E8E7709EB.84739B82...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> In article <PEZkknopp-ya024080...@news.netaxs.com>,
PEZk...@citynet.net (Knopp) wrote:
> }In article
> }<FCDCF511DA5FDE28.0EE41A8E...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
<SNIP>
> }> What is a "Zogby"?
> }
> }It's similiar to a "Gallup", but typically more reliable.
> Translation: It may be mediocre and unknown, but it
> tells you what you want to hear.
Translation: Mitch doesn't know what the hell he's talking about so he
attacks instead of speaking of that which he knows.
Zogby is a well known polling company who happens to not have been
"mediocre" (unlike most of the other polling companies) when they came the
closest to any other firm in predicting the margin of victory for Clinton
in the last election.
Mike~Schneider
In article <34FAF5...@aopala.org>, Rick Hodges
<rick....@aopala.org> wrote:
> Michael Rivero wrote:
> >
> > WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE SUICIDE?
> >
> > Last week, a Zogby Poll concluded that an estimated 170 million
> > Americans, 2/3 of the population, do NOT believe the story that Vincent
> > Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.
> >
> > Many of those people, perhaps lacking many of the facts available
> > here on the internet,
>
> That's a good one! Lacking the facts available on the internet!
>
> We should amend the old saying: Believe half of what you read, none of
> what you hear, and the opposite of what you read on the internet.
>
> -Rick
Guess what, Rick?
I took your advice. Right *now* while reading *you* on the internet.
Now blow.... (like a Lewinsky).
---------------------------------------------------------------
D#lete whatever appears before "@mindspring.com" and replace it
with "mike5" in order to reply email.
JPFO Wearables! http://www.jpfo.org/jpfowear.htm
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
A Military Action: http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
"Kings of the High Frontier" -- Victor Koman, 1997 Prometheus Award
See Claire Wolfe's review; order: http://www.pulpless.com/king.html
Law is an internally flawed, hopelessly corrupted, artificially
contrived, and in many cases immoral repository of conflicting and
philosophically retarded bullshit meant for those poor weak individuals
who do not have the personal fortitude to forge a set of morals and live
by them. It is pale, and to many of us, ludicrous in its shallowness.
-- Bill Kasper.
Mike~Schneider
In article <19980302183...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
dsha...@aol.com (DSharp673) wrote:
> I do not understand how anyone can remain on the CAS or CS
> lists when Ray Heizer, the primary CAS & CS sheriff, has
> publicly admitted that he supports the government's fallback
> postion that Foster may have committed suicide but the body was
> moved.
And along comes the "friend" Rivero surely needs less than any enemy.
See, *all* threads in the clinton.whitewater group must become Ray vs
Dave threads or DSharp vs *everybody* threads, right Sharp?
You little fucker; just run around and piss on EVERYTHING.
Mike~Schneider
In article <34fccd71...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net (Martin
McPhillips) wrote:
> Foster *is* the cover up. It is the means by
> which Clinton was able to create the vast machinery
> needed to conceal all of his crimes.
>
> When you are president and you have someone
> murdered "in plain sight," and it's a complete mess,
> yet you marshal the forces required to supress
> the truth about it, you have put into place the
> machinery by which you can do almost *anything*
> and get away with it.
>
> With the "brilliant" success of managing the facts around
> the Foster murder you have built a machine that
> has not only successfully manufactured a Big Lie,
> but a factory that can now begin to shape and change
> the very appearance of reality itself.
It's "Dark City", spreading over the face of the Earth.
> And inside that factory is, in descending order, murder,
> bribery, intimidation, blackmail, and public relations
> smears.
>
> If James Carville and Paul Begala want to know what
> they are the front men for, let them open their eyes.
Rob Robertson
Mike~Schneider wrote:
>
> In article <19980302183...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> dsha...@aol.com (DSharp673) wrote:
>
> > lists when Ray Heizer, the primary CAS & CS sheriff, has
> > publicly admitted that he supports the government's fallback
> > postion that Foster may have committed suicide but the body was
> > moved.
>
>
> See, *all* threads in the clinton.whitewater group must become Ray vs
> Dave threads or DSharp vs *everybody* threads, right Sharp?
Dave Sharp is working under the impression that there is a
'vast everybody-but-me conspiracy'. They could be right, too.
> You little fucker; just run around and piss on EVERYTHING.
That seems to be the strategy, and it seems to be working.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> D#lete whatever appears before "@mindspring.com" and replace it
> with "mike5" in order to reply email.
>
> JPFO Wearables! http://www.jpfo.org/jpfowear.htm
> Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
> A Military Action: http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
> "Kings of the High Frontier" -- Victor Koman, 1997 Prometheus Award
> See Claire Wolfe's review; order: http://www.pulpless.com/king.html
>
> Law is an internally flawed, hopelessly corrupted, artificially
> contrived, and in many cases immoral repository of conflicting and
> philosophically retarded bullshit meant for those poor weak individuals
> who do not have the personal fortitude to forge a set of morals and live
> by them. It is pale, and to many of us, ludicrous in its shallowness.
>
> -- Bill Kasper.
_
Rob
"It's nice to share"
Jot
Guru165871
In article <6646100a9c203e5d...@anonymous.poster>, Secret Squirrel
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>You'd best not be talking too openly about The Company on this
>newsgroup, or you'll have a few well-known participants here coming
>for you with a rope.
They'll have to ply their kink elsewhere. I've got people to ruin
and projects to sabotage.
Guru165871
In article <34fcc776...@news.xtra.co.nz>, bill....@usa.remove-this.net
(Bill Kasper) writes:
> Two words:
> Blind Trust
>
> It makes the most sense.
What a way to keep it "blind," ROFL...
Guru165871
>If James Carville and Paul Begala want to know what
>they are the front men for, let them open their eyes.
They've already opened up, not only their eyes but their
pants; but if they ever so slightly open up their defenses,
"they be toasted oats."
Michael Rivero
In article <rayheizer-020...@j75.value.net>,
Ray Heizer <rayh...@value.net> wrote:
>In article <6der2g$1o2$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
>
>< WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE SUICIDE?
>
>
>< So, here is the flaw in the claim that Foster actually killed himself, but
>< was then moved. If Foster committed suicide, but DIDN'T fire the gunshot
>< through his own head, just how DID he kill himself, and why was it necessary
>< to obscure the cause of death?
><
>< There are no ligature marks to suggest that Foster hanged himself. But if he
>< had, just bring the rope with the body and tie it to a tree limb.
><
>< No stab wounds. But if Foster had stabbed himself to death (as another
>< of autopsist James C. Beyer's cases was falsely claimed to have done) just
>< bring the knife with the body and leave it at the scene.
><
>< No lethal levels of self administered drugs were found in his bloodstream
>< (and even if there were, why hide them; it's a common method of suicide).
><
>< Those who claim that Foster actually did commit suicide but someplace
>< else have tried to explain the movement of the body by the theory that
>< Foster killed himself someplace "embarrasing" but fail utterly to explain
>< just how Foster was able to kill himself and more importantly, why it
>< was necessary to stage a new cause of death with the headshot at Fort Marcy
>< Park.
><
>< Logicly, there is only one reason for a phony cause of death to be
>< manufactured, and that is if the real cause of death is something
>< inconsistant with suicide, something that MUST be concealed.
>
>snip
>
>-- One hypothetical reason why a manufactured suicide might be used to
>cover a real suicide would be that the suicide location was horribly
>inconvenient and that the weapon used was traceable.
>
>-- A purely hypothetical example of that, which I do not necessarily
>endorse, and put on the table merely as an example is as follows:
>
>o Foster is called to the Oval Office at 1:05 pm for a tense meeting and
>finally fired by Clinton for xxx about 2:30.
>
>o Foster leaves the Oval Office in deep humiliation and despair, grabs a
>legally registered 9 mm pistol from the USSS agent outside the door, and,
>during a struggle, shoots himself in the neck (a smallish wound that
>doesn't bleed a lot, but kills him).
>
>o After consultations all around, the body is moved to FMP.
>
Ray, you're not paying attention.
The blood forensics prove two things.
The hadshot was administered post mortem, and while Foster's
body was already at Fort Marcy Park.
Foster did NOT die of the gunshot into his head. He was not transported
anywhere with a hole in him, and when he was moved from Fort Marcy
Park to the morgue, he DID bleed which rules out his bleeding someplace
else and being cleaned up.
So, how DID he die, and just why was it necessary to mask how he
died behind a manufactured gunshot to the head?
Because the real cause of death cannot be construed as suicide, that's
why.
--
Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/ciavideo.html
Awarded a Lycos "Top 5%" of the web!
Michael Rivero
In article <19980303133...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Guru165871 <guru1...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <rayheizer-020...@j75.value.net>, rayh...@value.net (Ray
>Heizer) writes:
>
>>-- Hypotheticals aside, my working assumption remains murder.
>>However, since I don't have all the facts as to the where, why,
>>when and how, and since murder would have to be proven in
>>court _beyond_a_reasonable_doubt_, I leave the possibility of
>>suicide open.
>
>The evidence is abundant that the Foster body was not only
>moved, but at the very least "assisted" in "suicide" (if not
>suicidED, i.e., murdered); what isn't abundant is evidence of
>who did it and for what reason.
>
>
What with all the fallbacks being dragged out again in the wake
of the Zogby Poll it was only a matter of time before this one
came back out of the storage shed and was dusted off.
The Mossad theory isn't "leading". It's an attempt to point the
finger of blame across a national border at a conveniently
unreachable foreign villian, in essence a dead end.
The problem with the "Mossad did it" theory is that it requires the
Mossad to eschew a far more practical location for the hit in favor of having
to penetrate the White House itself, commit the murder, then spirit
the body out past the Secret Service and the video cameras installed by the
Mitre Corporation (the same cameras which along with the logbooks do NOT show
Vincent Foster leaving the most secure private residence in America
after 1 PM July 20th 1993).
The problem with the "Mossad did it" theory is that it requires the
willing participation of the FBI, the Park Police, the Fairfax County
Medical Examiner's office (at least the autopsist), and the entire
media to cover up for a foreign government.
The problem with the "Mossad did it" theory is that it doesn't
explain why the Mossad, just a plane flight away from immunity, would
even bother to stage a phony suicide. Phony suicides are the hallmark
of a perpetrator who must remain near the scene of the crime.
The Mossad is thought to have been the group that killed Gerald Bull,
the artillary designer. Gerald was shot several times in front of
his home and just left there. No cover up. No planted gun. No traces.
Why would the Mossad handle Foster any differently?
Normal police procedure when investigating a murder is to start where the
victim was last seen alive, which in this case would be inside the White
House, and to look for any unusual or anomaloous aspect of their lives
that might serve as a clue to the motive behind the homicide. In Foster's
case, such an anomaly exists in the Clinton Presidential Blind trust.
One of the requirements imposed on the Presidency is that the personal wealth
of the first family be placed in a blind trust for the term of office.
The reasons for this step should be obvious. The first family, with access
to inside information, is in a position to personally profit from that
information. There's a name for that. It's called "insider trading" and
it's a crime.
The reason that the trust is "blind", with the first family unaware of
just exactly how their funds are invested, is to prevent awareness of
personal welfare from influencing matters of National Policy.
Since it's inception, each President has had the blind trust completed
and in the hands of a trustee at inauguration time., as required.
With one exception.
The trust declarations for Bill Clinton's assets were not delivered to
the trustee's office on Inauguration Day. Or the day after. Or the day
after that, or the next week, or the week after that, or the next month,
or the month after that!
On July 20th, 1993, six months to the day after Bill Clinton vowed to
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, the trust declarations
still languished, unfinished, on the desk of the man tasked to complete
them, White House Deputy Council Vincent W. Foster.
It is a minor but salient point that the blind trust is considered
the President's personal business, to be completed with his own lawyer
prior to assuming office. As Vincent Foster was part of the White House staff,
and paid for by the taxpayer, it was inappropriate for him to be working on
Clinton's personal business. Admittedly a technical matter, but germaine.
But, appropriate or not, Foster had the job of completing the six month
late trust declarations.
What is a trust declaration? A trust declaration is a list. A list
of assets. A house. A condo. These bank accounts. Those stocks.
The Clintons do not claim to be exceptionally wealthy compared to
other presidents. Indeed, the Clinton's public posture is of relative
poverty. Why then would a simple listing of their assets drag on for
six months?
Vincent Foster, the man tasked with making up that list of assets
and submitting them, delayed completion for 6 months. Why?
There is only one way that a list of assets can have a problem, and that's
if the list is incomplete, or fraudulent. As the preparer, had Vincent Foster
submitted trust declarations he knew to be incomplete or fraudulent, he would
face criminal prosecution were the fraud uncovered.
That the trust does not include all the Clinton assets was revealed by
Carolyn Huber's testimony regarding a file cabinet in the private residence
with (among other items) paperwork on the Clinton's "condo", an asset which
should be under the care of the trustees.
What assets would not be in the trust, and why?
Assets whoes origins don't bear close scrutiny, for one. With recent
revelations of highly questionable donations from Lippo Group, money
laundering through a California Buhddist Temple, and four dead 1992
Clinton Campaign fundraisers, the reports of cash flowing from the
CIA's gun and drug operation at Mena airport gain credability. It's
certain that such tainted assets would not look good on the trust declarations.
That Clinton took cash from at least two drug criminals is now proven
fact.
The Clintons, in particular Hillary, have a prior history of highly
questionable stock and commodities trading practices, of which
"Cattle-gate" is the most famous. A lesser well known fact is that
during the abortive health care reform, Hillary Clinton made a small
profit by short-selling pharmaceutical stocks. That's insider trading, it's
illegal, and it's the very activity the blind trust (still incomplete
at the time) was intended to prevent.
Knowing that the trust is fraudlent, and knowing that Foster was in a
position to know of the fraud, his obvious reluctance to complete the
declarations becomes understandable. Were the fraud ever revealed, Foster
himself would face jailtime. Resignation would be preferable.
That Foster's resignation would have been a problem is clear. It would have
brought even more attention to the already late blind trust and what it
contained, or to be more accurate, what it didn't contain.
In the days before Foster's murder, both Webster Hubbell and Marsha Scott
had long private meetings with Vincent Foster. Marsha admitted to the press
that Vincent was struggling with a decision. What that decision was is
never explained, as her entire FBI interview was redacted on the grounds
of "National Security".
Had Foster resigned, and the trust declarations been submitted anyway on the
paperwork he had worked on, the same self-preservation that led him to resign
would have forced him to speak out.
Had that happened, and an investigation into the blind trust resulted,
the money trail through the Clintons to ADFA, and back to Mena, would have
been laid bare.
But what actually occured is that on the day before his scheduled meeting
with Bill Clinton, Vincent Foster's body was found in Fort Marcy Park.
The official explanation is that Foster inserted a .38 revolver into his
mouth and pulled the trigger, without getting any of his fingerprints or
his blood on the gun, or bullet fragments or powder from that gun in his
wounds. A dubious claim, to say the least.
Three days after Vincent Foster's murder, the much delayed trust declarations
were delivered to the trustee's office. The paperwork carried Vincent Foster's
signature. Whoever completed those papers remains a mystery, but one thing
is clear. The paperwork and records for the blind trust had to have been
among the boxes of records looted from Vincent's office prior to it's being
sealed by the investigating officers.
That proves that the blind trust documents were of paramount importance
to whoever directed the illegal looting of Vincent Foster's office!
n_me...@hotmail.com
In article <34fb13d0...@news.mindspring.com>,
wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
> rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) wrote:
>
> >-- Bottom line: Since the body was clearly moved, and hence Fiske/Starr
> >are clearly wrong, the investigation needs to be re-opened and done right
> >top get the true facts.
> >
> >-- Meanwhile: Suicide? Maybe. Fort Marcy Park? No way.
>
> Agreed.
>
> (Recall: I, myself, have repeated stated that I would immediately
> endorse a ruling of suicide if the evidence clearly and unequivocally
> mandated that conclusion. All anyone ever has to do is explain it to
> me so that it makes sense.)
>
Of course it wasn't a suicide. But you and Ray wouldn't know a conspiracy if
it hit you square in the ass.
Fact: Foster found some interesting trip records when investigating the
travel office. He and Hubbel spoke of the Promis software that Webb was
investigating at justice. Nate Landow, who's been playing both ends against
the middle finds out how much they know. A week later Foster ends up dead.
Fact: Scaife offers some major hush money to Starr, and Starr comes up with
this suicide nonsense.
Fact: Scaife also pays Ruddy, Davidson, and Irvine to run around looking
like some fucking nutcases.
Put two and two together. It's the oldest intellegence trick in the world.
If you want people to stop looking at a crime, get some real idiots to
investigate. If any of them get too close, kill them (Sandy Hume) or pay
them off.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Ray Heizer
In article <6dk3st$7bn$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
(Michael Rivero) wrote:
< In article <rayheizer-020...@j75.value.net>,
Inconvenient snip restored:
< *>o An untracable drop gun is fired into his mouth and hastily planted in
< *>his hand about 6:00 after the body is inconveniently discovered by CW
< *>before a substitute gun from the Foster residence can be spirited out
< *>since Lisa was at home until about 5-6.
<
<
< Ray, you're not paying attention.
<
< The blood forensics prove two things.
<
< The hadshot was administered post mortem, and while Foster's
< body was already at Fort Marcy Park. <----- see above restoration
<
< Foster did NOT die of the gunshot into his head. He was not transported
< anywhere with a hole in him, and when he was moved from Fort Marcy
< Park to the morgue, he DID bleed which rules out his bleeding someplace
< else and being cleaned up.
<
< So, how DID he die, and just why was it necessary to mask how he
< died behind a manufactured gunshot to the head?
<
< Because the real cause of death cannot be construed as suicide, that's
< why.
-- My hypothetical was, and remains, purely that: a hypothetical. But it
did clearly set forth a SMALL wound that did not bleed much, followed
later by a, more damaging wound which bleeds extensively (see above
restored inconvenient text you so conveniently snipped).
-- An initial small 9 mm puncture-type wound in the jaw might well account
for the blood deposited on the shirt in the ribcage area, the blood on the
shoulder and the blood on the eyeglasses (all before or during transport
to the FMP site). The later, more massive .38 wound would account for the
more copious bleeding during body movement after discovery and to the
morgue.
-- But again, let me state my hypthetical is just that ... a hypothetical.
No one knows how, where, when or why Foster died. We just all agree he did
not die at FMP.
Guru165871
In article <6dk4ea$a11$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael
Rivero) writes:
> That proves that the blind trust documents were of paramount importance
>to whoever directed the illegal looting of Vincent Foster's office!
When did the blind trust declaration finally get completed, and why
could Foster not have done whatever was done by whoever did
complete it?
Knopp
In article <6dkem3$ugu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, n_me...@hotmail.com wrote:
<SNIP>
> Put two and two together. It's the oldest intellegence trick in the world.
> If you want people to stop looking at a crime, get some real idiots to
> investigate. If any of them get too close, kill them (Sandy Hume) or pay
> them off.
How does Sandy Hume play into this conspiracy? I've heard rumors that
people have suspected that he was killed...but what are the particulars?
Ray Heizer
In article <34fdf662...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
bill.kasper@usa.-remove-this-.net wrote:
< rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) felt the wrath of my nitpicking:
< <snip>
< =-- An initial small 9 mm puncture-type wound in the jaw might well account
< =for the blood deposited on the shirt in the ribcage area, the blood on the
< =shoulder and the blood on the eyeglasses (all before or during transport
< =to the FMP site). The later, more massive .38 wound would account for the
< =more copious bleeding during body movement after discovery and to the
< =morgue.
< <snip>
<
< The .38 and 9mm rounds are virtually identical diameters, and very, very
< similar ballistically.
<
< If the small neck wound were any sort of gunshot, it would most
likely be a
< sub-sonic .22 round (fired from a silenced handgun). This causes very little
< surface trauma, especially if solid-point bullets are used.
-- Sorry. I'll take your word on that and stand corrected, since the hole
in the jaw was clearly described by AEP, who claimed to have seen the photo, as:
"... a dime-sized wound ... suggestive of a .22 caliber
gunshot fired at point blank range into the flesh." (page 140)
-- Regards to your buddy, Sharp.
Michael Rivero
In article <34fccd71...@news.nyct.net>,
Martin McPhillips <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 03:19:43 GMT, bill....@usa.remove-this.net (Bill Kasper)
>wrote:
>
>>On a bronze plaque in Wash. D.C are the immortal words of guru1...@aol.com
>>(Guru165871) :
>><snip>
>>=
>>=The leading "murder" theory has it being carried out by the
>>=Israeli Mossad to cover up his having sold pirated copies of
>>=PROMIS to them. I think that's rather thin, especially since
>>=Mossad hits usually aren't even suspected as anything other
>>=than accidents, diseases, and/or acts of God. I would be
>>=heartily disappointed to think they had gotten this sloppy.
>>=
>>=I personally suspect a Dixie Mafia hit, not only for the act's
>><snip>
>>
>> Blind Trust
>>
>> It makes the most sense.
>
>the "most sense," let alone any sense at all.
>
>Assets that need to be concealed because they
>are *very* ill-gotten gains would hardly be stuck
>into something as public as a "blind trust."
>
>They wouldn't be disclosed at all, or put anywhere
>where they might be disclosed.
That's my point. Foster, as a long time friend of the Clintons,
knew what their finances were all about. If the reports from the
late Jerry Parks are to be believed, Vincent was involved
in the direct pipeline from Mena.
Foster, as preparer of the trust, would be under pressure to execute
the trust exactly as you stated. Conceal the real assets, Don't
let them be shown. But had he done so, and were the deception
ever revealed, Foster would go to jail for knowingly submitting
a fraudulent trust declaration. Given how many other of Bill's
associates are in jail, Foster had reason to be concerned, and
probably viewed resignation as preferable.
Three things arer clear.
1. The trust declarations were 6 months later. This proves there was
a reason for Foster not to complete them.
2. The Trust declarations, by virtue of Carolyn Huber's testimony
about a file cabinet full of financial papers in the residence,
is KNOWN to be incomplete.
3. The Blind Trust was completed by an unknown party three days AFTER
Foster's death, on paperwork looted from his office in violation
of the order to seal it. This proves that the trust was an issue
of importance to those who looted his office.
The money seems to be a major aspect of all that is going on. Janet
Reno won't appoint an IC to look into campaign contributions even though it's
proven Clinton's campaing took money from drug runners, and four of
his fundraisers who handled that cash are now all dead via three plane
crashes and a "Fosterization".
Follow the money. Follow it back to it's source. That's what ALL
these deaths are covering up.
Vincent Foster
C. Victor Raiser II
Ed Willey
Hershel Friday
Ron Brown
Michael Rivero
In article <19980304225...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Guru165871 <guru1...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <6dk4ea$a11$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael
>Rivero) writes:
>
>>to whoever directed the illegal looting of Vincent Foster's office!
>
Three days after his murder, on paperwork looted from his office
in violation of the order to seal the office.
>and why
>could Foster not have done whatever was done by whoever did
>complete it?
Had Foster submitted a trust he knew to be fraudulent and been caught,
he would go to jail. The declarations submitted right after his death
are on paperwork he had started and supposedly has his signature. If
a fraud is discovered, the dead guy gets blamed. Whoever actually did the work
is insulated.
Michael Rivero
In article <rayheizer-040...@j84.value.net>,
Ray Heizer <rayh...@value.net> wrote:
>
>-- My hypothetical was, and remains, purely that: a hypothetical. But it
>did clearly set forth a SMALL wound that did not bleed much, followed
>later by a, more damaging wound which bleeds extensively (see above
>restored inconvenient text you so conveniently snipped).
>
Um, Ray?
It's obvious you are not a shooter.
The difference in size between a .38 and a 9mm is slight. And
I can assure you, an FMJ 9mm makes a hole that is large enough to bleed
copiously. And the Secret Service use hollow points. Messy.
And if there is a 9mm hole under the jaw, why add one through the head?
Committing suicide by shooting oneself up under the chin is common
enough. The fact that a wound had to be added over and above the neck
wound means that there is something about the neck wound that did not
lend itself to suicide.
>
>No one knows how, where, when or why Foster died.
Please do not speak for me. I know for a fact that Foster did not commit
suicide.
I know for a fact he died of some means that cannot be construed as suicide.
I know that Foster did not have any holes in him when he was moved to Fort
Marsyt Park.
I know that the headshot was inflicted Post mortem.
I know there is a cover up.
I know the cover up means murder.
Michael Rivero
That's why after Heizer threw me off CAS, I never tried to
go back.
CAs and CS are "corrals", tying up people in endless debates in a private
list where they cannot "contaminate" the public at large with their
ideas.
In article <19980302183...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
DSharp673 <dsha...@aol.com> wrote:
>I do not understand how anyone can remain on the CAS or CS
>lists when Ray Heizer, the primary CAS & CS sheriff, has
>publicly admitted that he supports the government's fallback
>postion that Foster may have committed suicide but the body was
>moved.
>
>Heizer has also publicly stated that suicide should be assumed
>until murder can be proved.
>
>In addition to being a silly argument, I have to ask the so-called
>Clinton critic Ray Heizer one question. How does your "suicide?
>maybe; body moved" theory implicate President Clinton?
>
>If your primary objective is get Clinton impeached, why would
>you endorse such a weak argument?
>
>How can anyone remain on the CAS & CS lists now? Your leader
>is working for the other side.
>
>Dave Sharp
>
>[Michael Rivero wrote:]
>>WHY MANUFACTURE A SUICIDE TO COVER A GENUINE
>> SUICIDE?
>>
>>
>>
>> Last week, a Zogby Poll concluded that an estimated 170 million
>> Americans, 2/3 of the population, do NOT believe the story that
>> Vincent
>> Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.
>>
>> Many of those people, perhaps lacking many of the facts
>> available here on the internet, aren't cerytain if this means there
>> was, beyond a reasonable doubt, a murder.
>>
>> Given these poll results, it hardly comes as a surprise to see the
>> recent revival of a "fallback position" that had enjoyed a brief
>> vogue right after it became apparent there was a cover up, back
>> in late 1994 and early 1995.
>>
>> This "fallback position" seeks to limit the damage from the
>> explosure of the cover up by claiming that Vincent Foster
>> actually DID kill himself, but someplace other than Fort Marcy
>> Park, but was moved for some reason. This already once
>> discredited theory is being dusted off apparently as a tactic to
>> delay the formation of concensus, i.e. to maximise the confusion
>>and keep the issue "muddied" just a tad longer.
>>
>> But the claim that a suicide is being covered up with yet another
>>manufactured suicide has never made sense, nor does it fit the
>> available evidence, and here's why.
>>
>> One of the facts that has been clearly established by the
>> eyewitness testimony is the surprisingly little blood evident on
>> the body when it was found. Described as a "trickle", the
>> absence of blood was cited as an area of concern by several of
>> the witnesses who doubted that they were looking at a suicide,
>> including Paramedics Corey Ashford and Richard Arthur, as
>> well as Dr Julian Orenstein of the Fairfax Hospital who certified
>> the death.
>>
>> Vincent Scalice, a retired New York Police detective with over
>> 30 years experience, described the lack of blood as inconsistant
>> with a genuine suicide and concluded (as I have) that the lack of
>> blood strongly indicated that Foster's heart had already stopped
>> when the headshot was fired.
>>
>> One thing is very clear. When Vincent Foster was transported
>> to the morgue, his wounds bled profusely, staining his skin and
>> clothing. Clearly, had Vincent Foster been transported to Fort
>> Marcy Park with any perforating injuries, he would likewise
>> have bled. Therefore, the absence of copious bleeding from the
>> headshot wound proves that the wound was inflicted where
>>Foster's body was actually found at Fort Marcy Park.
>>
>> So, here is the flaw in the claim that Foster actually killed himself,
>> but was then moved. If Foster committed suicide, but DIDN'T
>> fire the gunshot through his own head, just how DID he kill
>> himself, and why was it necessary to obscure the cause of death?
>>
>> There are no ligature marks to suggest that Foster hanged
>> himself. But if he had, just bring the rope with the body and tie it
>> to a tree limb.
>>
>> No stab wounds. But if Foster had stabbed himself to death (as
>> another of autopsist James C. Beyer's cases was falsely claimed
>> to have done) just bring the knife with the body and leave it at
>> the scene.
>>
>> No lethal levels of self administered drugs were found in his
>> bloodstream (and even if there were, why hide them; it's a
>> common method of suicide).
>>
>> Those who claim that Foster actually did commit suicide but
>> someplace else have tried to explain the movement of the body
>> by the theory that Foster killed himself someplace "embarrasing"
>> but fail utterly to explain just how Foster was able to kill himself
>> and more importantly, why it was necessary to stage a new cause
>> of death with the headshot at Fort Marcy Park.
>>
>> Logicly, there is only one reason for a phony cause of death to
>> be manufactured, and that is if the real cause of death is
>> something inconsistant with suicide, something that MUST be
>> concealed.
>>
>> Had Foster really killed himself, then the real cause of death,
>> what ever it was, could have been transported with the body and
>> the forensics would have matched up. In a genuine suicide, all
>> the pieces would fit. There is no NEED to fake a different
>> method of suicide.
>>
>> But the manufacturing of an "obvious" cause of death, the
>> planting of the gun, and the fabrication of Lisa Foster's testimony
>> to link the gun with Vincent Foster are all consistant with the
>> concealment of a cause of death that is inconsistant with the claim
>> of suicide.
>>
>> Therefore, Vincent Foster was murdered. Of that there can be
>> no doubt. \
>>
>> Vincent Foster was last seen aline inside the White House. The
>>investigation into his murder has to begin there.
Michael Rivero
In article <rayheizer-030...@a223.value.net>,
Ray Heizer <rayh...@value.net> wrote:
>In article <3502a137...@news.newsguy.com>, ms...@javanet.com (M
>Soja) wrote:
>
>< On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:33:10 -0600, Jim Ward posted:
><
>< >Just out of curiousity, wasn't Linda Tripp the last person to see him alive?
><
>< Supposedly so. Would you like to make a case that she carted him out
>< of the White House herself in order to embarrass the president?
>
>-- Actually he was reportedly seen by Tom Castleton (an aide) and John
>Skyles of the USSS-UD after he was last seen by Tripp.
Skyles saw him earlier in the day, didn't actually note a time but
said it was "midday". But Skyles worked an early shift starting at
sunrise, and his midday was before lunch. Most likely, Skyles saw Foster
either going to or coming back from the ceremony announcing Louis Freeh
as the new director of the FBI.
No record exists of Vincent Foster leaving the White House under his
own power after 1PM on July 20th, 1993.
Michael Rivero
In article <rayheizer-040...@j84.value.net>,
Which again begs the question, why was it necessary to fake a shot
through Foster's head with a gunshot wound already to the neck?
Shooting oneself up under the jaw is a common form of suicide, so
the only reason for the head wound to be added is if the neck wound
cannot be made to look like a suicide wound.
The vital clue lies in the description of Vincent Foster's wound
on page two of the report signed by Dr. Donald Haut which reports
that Foster's wound went from mouth TO neck. The neck wound is an EXIT
wound, most likely a ricochet off the base of the skull, which
is not easily penetrated by a .22 (the size of the wound as described
by one of the paramedics).
I checked with some pathologists, who confirmed that a .22 fired into
the mouth stands a very good chance of NOT penetrating the thick
bone at the base of the skull. It would ricochet down and out,
creating an ugly and painful, but NON fatal wound.
So, one theory that explains the two wounds is that the wound track from
mouth to neck was the attempt to manufacture a suicide injury to mask the real
cause of death, but the .22 unexpectedly came out the wrong place.
(One witness reported a vomit stain on Foster's shoulder, yet Foster's
stomach still contained his lunch. One of the "perps" puked on the body,
probably right about the time they saw the hole on the neck).
So, a gunshot wound, but in the wrong place to claim suicide.
An "alteration" had to be made.
Prior to the body's delivery to Beyer, nobody reported a gunshot wound
out the back of the head. EMS Sargeant Gonzalas stated he did NOT see
a gunshot wound out the back of the head. John Rolla did not report
a gunshot wound out the back of the head. Another EMS Technician, Cory
Ashford, testified that there was NO exit wound at the back of the head
while Vincent Foster was at Fort Marcy Park! Outside of the obviously
altered page one of Dr. haut's report, there isn't a single official
record of a gunshot wound exiting the back of Foster's head while he's still
at Fort Marcy Park.
As for the neck wound, EMS Technician Richard Arthur described the
gunshot wound in some detail, placing it under the right ear. Dr. Donald
Haut, the Fairfax County Medical Examiner, signed a report that describes
on the unaltered page two a gunshot wound mouth-to-neck.
Certainly, on the unaltered backside of Haut's report, where he has ample
room to describe the injuries, he makes mention ONLY of the gunshot
wound mouth-to-neck. Not a word is mentioned about a bullet track
upward from the mouth and out the back of the head, a wound that would
be far more lethal than the mouth-to-neck wound.
A strange ommission for the Medical Examiner of all of Fairfax County.
John Rolla may have also seen a neck wound, but of course, that portion
of his interview has been redacted. Why? The mere fact of the redaction
proves a cover up. The word "redact" means "to edit". Why are the witness
statements being edited? Why is John Rolla's descriptions of Foster's
wounds blacked out?
So, ignoring the newspaper stories of a photo, and ignoring the obvious
alteration to the front of the Haut Report, we have two people who saw
a neck wound, four who didn't notice a head wound, and one who flat out
has stated under oath that there was no wound to the back of the head.
It is not until the body arrives at Dr. Beyer's morgue that the neck
wound seen by Arthur and Haut seems to go away and the wound out the
back of the head shows up.
On the wounds description page in the Beyer autopsy, the box for
neck wounds has been left blank.
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/AUTOPSY/a7.gif
But the wound that Beyer DOES describe is rather odd. Supposedly, the
wound is the result of a soft nosed unjacketed lead bullet being fired
through two dense bones, first at the base of the skull and then at
the rear. There should be metal fragments all over the wound track.
For a comparison, take a look at the X-ray taken of John Kennedy's
skull following his assasination. It's at
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/POLITICS/JFK/Xray.gif. Metal fragments
are seen throughout the interior of the skull, and this is from a full
metal jacket round, the type that LIMITS fragmentation!
Yet in describing the wound track, Beyer notes near the bottom of
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/AUTOPSY/a2.gif
that no metallic fragments were recovered during the examination! There
should have been lead scrapings all over the bone perforations!
Finally, Beyer himself checked and signed the boxes on
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/AUTOPSY/a7.gif
indicating that X-rays had been taken. Park Police Detective James G.
Morrissette was told by Dr. Beyer that the X-rays showed no bullet
fragments at all. Again, with the type of ammunition on the gun wound
with Foster's body, this is impossible.
Of course, the X-rays are not to be found. Beyer claimed that they
hadn't been taken, and that his X-ray machine was broken, although the
service records on that machine do not bear out this claim.
And now it turns out that Beyer was also the last person known to be in
possession of the now-vanished crime scene photographs. Rolla was unable
to attend the autopsy of Vincent Foster because the autopsy was moved up
24 hours unexpectedly. As Rolla stated in his testimony,"Normally you
like to have at least one of the scene investigators at the autopsy to
answer questions for the medical examiner [Dr. James C. Beyer], but he had
the photographs and copies of the reports." Rolla stated that the photos
were inside the case jacket when the jacket went to Beyer. After it had
come back, the photos were gone. Note also that whereas it is normal to
have investigators present for the autopsy, the last minute schedule change,
moving the Foster up a day, meant that Beyer performed a significant part
of the autopsy unobserved.
Clearly, something is very wrong here and the preponderence of evidence
points to Beyer as author of the deception. Certainly, he was well positioned
to tamper with Dr. Haut's original report, altering the page 1 description.
Beyer's past history isn't the most reassuring. Indeed he seems to be
the Virginia version of the infamous Dr. Fahmy Malek, the Arkansas
M.E. who ignored clear evidence of homocide in the deaths of Don Henry
and Kevin Ives and in one case ruled that a man who had been beheaded was dead
of natural causes.
Beyer himself, in the case of Tommy Burkett, ignored a broken jaw in order
to rule that Burkett had killed himself with a gun. Despite having shown
the autopsy photos to Burkett's father, Beyer later claimed (as he did with
the Foster X-rays) that they had never really existed. After a second
autopsy, the case was reopened as a homocide.
Likewise, in 1989 there was an autopsy on establishing the death of a man
named Tim Easley. Dr. Beyer, the coroner, ruled that Easley killed himself
by stabbing himself in the chest. He failed to notice a defensive wound on
the man's hand. The case was reopened, and, after an outside expert reviewed
the case, Easley's girlfriend confessed to murdering him.
In short, Dr. Beyer's consistant performance (indeed his "specialty")
appears to be the coverup of murder by declaration of suicide!
In the case of Vincent Foster, the question must be asked if Dr. Beyer,
given his past history, changed a non-fatal neck wound seen by witnesses
at Fort Marcy Park into a fatal headshot needed for the suicide cover up.
Back to the original point, the fact that wound(s) are being manufactured
means that Foster died by means other than suicide; means that had to
be concealed.
Ray Heizer
In article <6dlgp8$ed6$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
(Michael Rivero) wrote:
-- To be a bit more precise, S. Hrg. 104-869, Vol. XII, page 439, 2/18/96
testimony:
Cheroff: Are there also file cabinets in that room?
Huber: Yes, I have a file cabinet in there.
Cheroff: Do the Clintons have a file cabinet?
Huber: Well, its theirs.
Cheroff: How many file cabinets are there?
Huber: I have two in there.
Cheroff: Can you tell us what's contained in the file cabinets?
Huber: One cabinet has all their personal matters that I take care of
like, for instance, their condominium, their insurance papers, last year's
paid bills and that type thing, I keep in there.
Cheroff: So would you say it is their current financial records?
Huber: Yes, the current one, not the old ones.
[ Other cabinet had maps and travel brochures ]
-- Hidden in plain sight I guess. ;-) ... How else are the president's
bills and such supposed to be handled during his term?
<
< 3. The Blind Trust was completed by an unknown party three days AFTER
< Foster's death, on paperwork looted from his office in violation
< of the order to seal it. This proves that the trust was an issue
< of importance to those who looted his office.
<
< The money seems to be a major aspect of all that is going on. Janet
< Reno won't appoint an IC to look into campaign contributions even though it's
< proven Clinton's campaing took money from drug runners, and four of
< his fundraisers who handled that cash are now all dead via three plane
< crashes and a "Fosterization".
<
< Follow the money. Follow it back to it's source. That's what ALL
< these deaths are covering up.
<
< Vincent Foster
<
< C. Victor Raiser II
<
< Ed Willey
<
< Hershel Friday
<
< Ron Brown
-- You can go on about that forever. I find the never explained
handwritten note in Foster's wallet to be far more intriguing:
2/80 C or H 1000 LR [ Note: Chelsea, turned 18 in late 2/98 ]
2/80 C or B 100 N
3/80 C or Bor H 50 Bentonville
3/80 C or B 50 Hot Sp
12/83 C or H
C or B
C or B
C or B
C or B
C or B
C or B
C or B
C or B
Ray Heizer
In article <6dlj6e$js9$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
(Michael Rivero) wrote:
<big snip>
-- Maybe an inconvenient, traceable gun caused the wound.
-- It's a hypothetical Mike. Relax, go outside and smell the flowers. We
all agree it is not as Starr and Fiske wrote it and therefore we have a
coverup that needs to be uncovered and done right, be it suicide elsewhere
or murder.
Bill Kasper
rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) felt the wrath of my nitpicking:
<snip>
=-- An initial small 9 mm puncture-type wound in the jaw might well account
=for the blood deposited on the shirt in the ribcage area, the blood on the
=shoulder and the blood on the eyeglasses (all before or during transport
=to the FMP site). The later, more massive .38 wound would account for the
=more copious bleeding during body movement after discovery and to the
=morgue.
<snip>
The .38 and 9mm rounds are virtually identical diameters, and very, very
similar ballistically.
If the small neck wound were any sort of gunshot, it would most likely be a
sub-sonic .22 round (fired from a silenced handgun). This causes very little
surface trauma, especially if solid-point bullets are used.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper, Militia of One,
SIGINT, Mechanized Information Cavalry, VR-WC->
"Get Mean-spirited"
HrtShpdBox
Please help a complete novice jumping right into the middle of your discussion
- help me because I'm missing the groundwork here.
1. Is it absolutely, irrefutably true that VF was found with no gun in either
hand, and that a gun later "appears"?
2. The note from VFs wallet, referred to here some posts back, with dates and
cryptic dollar amounts and locations, does it irrefutably exist (or did it) ?
3. Is it true that the 6 month late blind trust was really filed three days
after VFs death? Is it certain that this (along with pertinent notes about it)
would have been among the papers filched from his WH office by Hillary's
lackeys?
4. Would not the items above, if true, all be particularly germane to an
investigation of VFs death by the OIC? If so, whose side is the OIC on,
anyway? Just how poor was the investigation he conducted of this?
I appreciate any feedback.
Jim Ward
Michael Rivero wrote in message <6dli45$hnv$1...@blaze.accessone.com>...
> In article <rayheizer-030...@a223.value.net>,
> Ray Heizer <rayh...@value.net> wrote:
> >In article <3502a137...@news.newsguy.com>, ms...@javanet.com (M
> >Soja) wrote:
> >
> >< On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:33:10 -0600, Jim Ward posted:
> ><
> >< >Just out of curiousity, wasn't Linda Tripp the last person to see him
alive?
> ><
> >< Supposedly so. Would you like to make a case that she carted him out
> >< of the White House herself in order to embarrass the president?
> >
> >-- Actually he was reportedly seen by Tom Castleton (an aide) and John
> >Skyles of the USSS-UD after he was last seen by Tripp.
>
>
> Skyles saw him earlier in the day, didn't actually note a time but
>said it was "midday". But Skyles worked an early shift starting at
>sunrise, and his midday was before lunch. Most likely, Skyles saw Foster
>either going to or coming back from the ceremony announcing Louis Freeh
>as the new director of the FBI.
>
>
> No record exists of Vincent Foster leaving the White House under his
>own power after 1PM on July 20th, 1993.
>
Yep, and my point was that the LAST person to see him alive was Linda Tripp,
according to her own testimony. No accusation, just an observation.
Guru165871
In article <6dlgvc$euu$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael
Rivero) writes:
> >and why
> >could Foster not have done whatever was done by whoever did
> >complete it?
>
> Had Foster submitted a trust he knew to be fraudulent and been caught,
>he would go to jail. The declarations submitted right after his death
>are on paperwork he had started and supposedly has his signature. If
>a fraud is discovered, the dead guy gets blamed. Whoever actually did the
>work
>is insulated.
Pretty sneaky. And that's a smoking gun right there, begging for
Starr's attention, and further proof that Starr's just an errand-boy
(and a public scapegoat for Tricky Slick's sycophants).
Guru165871
In article <6dlhjc$ggi$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael
Rivero) writes:
> Committing suicide by shooting oneself up under the chin is common
>enough. The fact that a wound had to be added over and above the neck
>wound means that there is something about the neck wound that did not
>lend itself to suicide.
It's it obvious? Foster tried to make his own suicide look like a
murder by shooting himself TWICE!!! ROFLMAO...
ding...@erinet.com
Michael Rivero wrote:
>
> That's why after Heizer threw me off CAS, I never tried to
> go back.
>
> CAs and CS are "corrals", tying up people in endless debates in a private
> list where they cannot "contaminate" the public at large with their
> ideas.
>
You mean like "censorship"? Or was it more like clogging
the list with topics that other list members had little or
no interest in? Sorta like Huggie tried to do--tho' I have to
say you would be a gentleman about it, and not throw a tantrum
like Huggie.
David Martin
Which begs the question, of course, of the matter of the video
surveillance record, the question the authorities have so assiduously
avoided. As I have noted previously, even Christopher Ruddy told me
that his White House source told him that there were no such
surveillance cameras. He apparently trusted his White House source and
I was deflected from that particular scent at the time.
Jim Ward
David Martin wrote in message <34FEE3...@erols.com>...
I find the idea that the White House does not maintain a camera surveillance
system rather hard to believe. A camera system certainly exists to watch
the exterior of the White House, why not the interior?
Michael Rivero
>
>-- Maybe an inconvenient, traceable gun caused the wound.
>
>-- It's a hypothetical Mike. Relax, go outside and smell the flowers. We
>all agree it is not as Starr and Fiske wrote it and therefore we have a
>coverup that needs to be uncovered and done right, be it suicide elsewhere
>or murder.
Ray, you're grasping at straws here.
Even .22 caliber bullets leave holes that bleed. Placed right,
a .22 is just as lethal as a larger bullet (and easier to silence).
A .22 is about 2/3 the diameter of a .38, but the size of the hole
isn't the only determining factor. A gunshot of ANY size, fired up
into the roof of the mouth (especially if it then ricochets back
down towards the neck) passes through the sinus cavities, and any schoolchild
who has dealt with the neighborhood bully can tell you how a small
injury to the nose results in a great deal of blood. A .22 bullet
passing through the sinuses will fragment those paper thin bones.
Those bone shards will cause far more damage than just the .22 will.
The same lack of bloodstains that prevent Foster from being transported
to Fort Marcy Park with a .38 hole in his head also apply to
Foster being transported to Fort Marcy Park with a .22 hole in his head.
Likewise, the "trickle" of blood that signals that Foster's heart
was already stopped applies whether we are dealing with a .38 through
the sinus cavities, a .22 through the sinus cavities (and back down).
Foster was last seen inside the White House. Your original speculation
was that Foster grabbed a "small" 9mm from a Secret Service agent
and shot himself (until you learned that 9mm isn't that small
and the SS use hollow points). So this leaves you with a problem.
Just what .22 is inside the White House? Nobody but the SS is allowed
to have firearms (hell they won't even let Hillary have heavy ashtrays).
Who smuggled a gun in past the SS and how did Foster know where it
was, given that it wasn't his?
Both the wound through the back of the head and the .22 wound to the neck
both appear to have been inflicted post mortem, and at least the .22
was inflicted at the park, the supposed .38 doesn't appear until the
body is at Dr. Beyer's autopsy room.
Finally, if Foster really did shoot himself, who cares what gun it was
with? Guns don't kill, people do. The "embarrassment" is Foster's.
Had Foster really killed himsellf with any gun, that gun's ownership
would have not been an issue because the forensice would have tied
the gun to Foster. His fingerprints would be on it. So would his
blood. There would be powder and bullet fragments from that gun
in his wounds. There would have been no public awareness of a problem,
and the same forces that kept the existance of the neckk wound out of the
media could easily keep the ownership of the gun concealed, in the absence
of any inquiry.
There are far too many problems with the theory of Foster killing himself
and then being moved.
This is a homocide.
Michael Rivero
In article <19980305100...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
With regard to number 3, the Blind Trust (given that it's already
proven that drug money flowed into the Clinton campaign) and Foster
both track back to everyone's favorite four letter word, Mena.
Starr flat out stated that he would never investigate anything that touched
on Mena, in a speech to the Century City Bar Association in Los
Angeles Wednesday November 29, 1995.
Starr isn't afraid of Bill Clinton, but he is terrified of that airport
(as are a lot of others). This explains the dichotomy between his efforts
against Bill Clinton versus the obvious cover up of the Foster murder
in Starr's report (not to mention the online spooks floating as many
fallbacks as they can think of to "muddy the waters").
Ray Heizer
In article <6do1tl$omh$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
(Michael Rivero) wrote:
< In article <rayheizer-040...@j84.value.net>,
< Ray Heizer <rayh...@value.net> wrote:
< >In article <6dlj6e$js9$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
< >(Michael Rivero) wrote:
< >
< ><big snip>
< >
< >-- Maybe an inconvenient, traceable gun caused the wound.
< >
< >-- It's a hypothetical Mike. Relax, go outside and smell the flowers. We
< >all agree it is not as Starr and Fiske wrote it and therefore we have a
< >coverup that needs to be uncovered and done right, be it suicide elsewhere
< >or murder.
<
<
< Ray, you're grasping at straws here.
<long snip>
< This is a homocide. <--------- !!!!
-- My point was, and remains, that all other things being equal, small
bullets bleed less, particularly puncture wounds where the bullet does not
exit. Simple hydraulics.
-- You really need to relax, Mike. I've said all along said it was just a
hypothetical. I have no great interest or need to defend it. You seem to
have taken my simpl,e hypothetical as some huge edifice that needs to be
attacked as if your reputation depended on it. Face it, Mike, neither you
nor I have a clue as to where, how, why and when Foster died for sure. All
we know is he did not die in FMP and that's enough for me to know enough
to call for the case to be reopened and done right, letting the chips fall
where they may. Nothing wrong with that is there?
-- Foster's death may have been a homicide, or it may have been a suicide,
but I am pretty sure you are the first to assert that it was a _homocide_!
ROTFLOL
-- I'm done with this nonsense. Carry on if you wish.
Ray Heizer
In article <wolfy-06039...@ppp-66-145.dialup.winternet.com>,
wo...@winternet.com (Mike;,Schneider) wrote:
< In article <rayheizer-040...@j84.value.net>, rayh...@value.net
< (Ray Heizer) wrote:
<
< > Inconvenient snip restored:
< >
< > < *>o An untracable drop gun is fired into his mouth and hastily planted in
< > < *>his hand about 6:00 after the body is inconveniently discovered by CW
< > < *>before a substitute gun from the Foster residence can be spirited out
< > < *>since Lisa was at home until about 5-6.
< > <
< > <
< > < Ray, you're not paying attention.
< > <
< > < The blood forensics prove two things.
< > <
< > < The hadshot was administered post mortem, and while Foster's
< > < body was already at Fort Marcy Park. <----- see above restoration
< > <
< > < Foster did NOT die of the gunshot into his head. He was not transported
< > < anywhere with a hole in him, and when he was moved from Fort Marcy
< > < Park to the morgue, he DID bleed which rules out his bleeding someplace
< > < else and being cleaned up.
< > <
< > < So, how DID he die, and just why was it necessary to mask how he
< > < died behind a manufactured gunshot to the head?
< > <
< > < Because the real cause of death cannot be construed as suicide, that's
< > < why.
< >
< > -- My hypothetical was, and remains, purely that: a hypothetical. But it
< > did clearly set forth a SMALL wound that did not bleed much, followed
< > later by a, more damaging wound which bleeds extensively (see above
< > restored inconvenient text you so conveniently snipped).
< >
< > -- An initial small 9 mm puncture-type wound in the jaw might well account
< > for the blood deposited on the shirt in the ribcage area, the blood on the
< > shoulder and the blood on the eyeglasses (all before or during transport
< > to the FMP site). The later, more massive .38 wound would account for the
< > more copious bleeding during body movement after discovery and to the
< > morgue.
< >
< > -- But again, let me state my hypthetical is just that ... a hypothetical.
< > No one knows how, where, when or why Foster died. We just all agree he did
< > not die at FMP.
<
<
<
< Be that as it may, is there *any* recorded occurance of a gunshot
< suicide killing himself with a shot to the neck (or upward under the jaw
< back towards the ear)?
<
< In all cases I've ever heard of, the victim sticks the gun (1) in his
< mouth, (2) points it up under his chin, or (3) places it against his
< temple.
- - -
-- Sheesh! It sseems the only way both you and Rivero found to critique my
simple hypothetical was to first snip a key element and then ask questions
that the snipped element had already answered:
Restored:
o Foster leaves the Oval Office in deep humiliation and despair, grabs a
legally registered 9 mm [added: or even smaller] pistol from the USSS
agent outside the door, and,
during a struggle, shoots himself in the neck (a smallish wound that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bill Kasper
On a bronze plaque in Wash. D.C are the immortal words of riv...@accessone.com
(Michael Rivero) :
=
= That's why after Heizer threw me off CAS, I never tried to
=go back.
=
= CAs and CS are "corrals", tying up people in endless debates in a private
=list where they cannot "contaminate" the public at large with their
=ideas.
=
<snip>
Oh please.
CAS is simply a way of minimizing traffic here, and condensing the good
stuff into more manageble chunks. Anyone is free to post anything they consider
valuable from CAS here, or to any other NG.
Don't be so paranoid. There are enough real conspiracies out there.
Bill Kasper
On a bronze plaque in Wash. D.C are the immortal words of rayh...@value.net
(Ray Heizer) :
<snip>
=
=-- Regards to your buddy, Sharp.
Who?
Mike;,Schneider
---------------------------------------------------------------
D#lete whatever appears before the @ and replace with "mike1"
in order to reply to me via email.
Law is an internally flawed, hopelessly corrupted, artificially
contrived, and in many cases immoral repository of conflicting and
philosophically retarded bullshit meant for those poor weak individuals
who do not have the personal fortitude to forge a set of morals and live
by them. It is pale, and to many of us, ludicrous in its shallowness.
-- Bill Kasper.
Mike;,Schneider
In article <PEZkknopp-ya024080...@news.netaxs.com>,
PEZk...@citynet.net (Knopp) wrote:
> In article <6dkem3$ugu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, n_me...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Put two and two together. It's the oldest intellegence trick in the world.
> > If you want people to stop looking at a crime, get some real idiots to
> > investigate. If any of them get too close, kill them (Sandy Hume) or pay
> > them off.
>
> How does Sandy Hume play into this conspiracy? I've heard rumors that
> people have suspected that he was killed...but what are the particulars?
Beyer did the autopsy.
That is enough to set off any sane man's bullshit detector.
Mike;,Schneider
> Shooting oneself up under the jaw is a common form of suicide, so
Under the *chin*, yes.
But the wound observed by Haut and the EMS technician was substantially
farther back. Where, in fact, was it precisely located?
Mike;,Schneider
In article <19980305100...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
hrtsh...@aol.com (HrtShpdBox) wrote:
> Please help a complete novice jumping right into the middle of your
discussion
> - help me because I'm missing the groundwork here.
> 1. Is it absolutely, irrefutably true that VF was found with no gun in either
> hand, and that a gun later "appears"?
> 2. The note from VFs wallet, referred to here some posts back, with dates and
> cryptic dollar amounts and locations, does it irrefutably exist (or did it) ?
> 3. Is it true that the 6 month late blind trust was really filed three days
> after VFs death? Is it certain that this (along with pertinent notes
about it)
> would have been among the papers filched from his WH office by Hillary's
> lackeys?
> 4. Would not the items above, if true, all be particularly germane to an
> investigation of VFs death by the OIC? If so, whose side is the OIC on,
> anyway? Just how poor was the investigation he conducted of this?
> I appreciate any feedback.
Visit Rivero's web site. That's the fastest ticket aboard.
Mike;,Schneider
In article <34FEE2...@erinet.com>, dingicat wrote:
> Michael Rivero wrote:
> >
> > That's why after Heizer threw me off CAS, I never tried to
> > go back.
> >
> > CAs and CS are "corrals", tying up people in endless debates in a private
> > list where they cannot "contaminate" the public at large with their
> > ideas.
>
> You mean like "censorship"? Or was it more like clogging
> the list with topics that other list members had little or
> no interest in? Sorta like Huggie tried to do--tho' I have to
> say you would be a gentleman about it, and not throw a tantrum
> like Huggie.
Kasper, if I ever join a list, come and hit me with something really hard.
Gad....
Mike;,Schneider
In article <34ff2540...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
bill.kasper@usa.-remove-this-.net wrote:
> On a bronze plaque in Wash. D.C are the immortal words of riv...@accessone.com
> (Michael Rivero) :
> =
> = That's why after Heizer threw me off CAS, I never tried to
> =go back.
> =
> = CAs and CS are "corrals", tying up people in endless debates in a private
> =list where they cannot "contaminate" the public at large with their
> =ideas.
> =
> <snip>
>
> Oh please.
>
> CAS is simply a way of minimizing traffic here,
At worst it *duplicates* it, in a forum which is not indexable by
search engine or organized by any system as minimally rudimentary and
necessary as usenet subject threading, let alone archived in such
format .
> and condensing the good stuff into more manageble chunks.
The best way to do that is with a website and a fab keyword list.
> Anyone is free to post anything they
> consider valuable from CAS here, or to any other NG.
>
> Don't be so paranoid. There are enough real conspiracies out there.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Kasper, Militia of One,
> SIGINT, Mechanized Information Cavalry, VR-WC->
> "Get Mean-spirited"
Michael Rivero
In article <wolfy-06039...@ppp-66-145.dialup.winternet.com>,
Mike;,Schneider <wo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>In article <6dlj6e$js9$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
>(Michael Rivero) wrote:
>
>
>
>
> But the wound observed by Haut and the EMS technician was substantially
>farther back. Where, in fact, was it precisely located?
>
>
Closer to the ear, and again, had it been an entrance wound, it would
have been easier to make it look like a suicide. But, as the manufacture
of the wound out the back of the head and Dr. Haut's report both indicate,
the neck wound was unusable for a suicide cover up, as the neck wound
was an exit, and in any event, the gunshot wound mouth to neck would
not have been instantly fatal.
Billy Beck
wo...@winternet.com (Mike;,Schneider) wrote:
>In article <34ff2540...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
>bill.kasper@usa.-remove-this-.net wrote:
>
>> On a bronze plaque in Wash. D.C are the immortal words of riv...@accessone.com
>> (Michael Rivero) :
>> =
>> = That's why after Heizer threw me off CAS, I never tried to
>> =go back.
>> =
>> = CAs and CS are "corrals", tying up people in endless debates in a private
>> =list where they cannot "contaminate" the public at large with their
>> =ideas.
Stop behaving like a dope, Rivero.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Oh please.
>>
>> CAS is simply a way of minimizing traffic here,
> At worst it *duplicates* it, in a forum which is not indexable by
>search engine or organized by any system as minimally rudimentary and
>necessary as usenet subject threading, let alone archived in such
>format .
At its *best*, it distills serious discussion of things like
evidence and the most informed conjecture into crystalline essentials.
For single instance: when I first joined the list, the evidentiary
analyses being conducted between Zehr and Snook had to be seen to be
believed. In the words of a noted observer around here, "Incredibly
close work."
Believe me: what's going on in *this* group could not be
"duplicated" anywhere on Earth...and anyone who would be interested to
do that would also be a major fan of hitting himself in the nose with
a framing hammer. Anyone who thinks that the list is "duplicating"
this crap is also simply not paying attention.
There are people working in the list who have earned serious
respect for their efforts. Everybody who counts around here also
knows that I wasn't a big fan of the withdrawal of that sort of thing
into the cloister of a private list, for obvious reasons. The *fact*,
however, is that those people don't care to deal with this group, and
there is nothing that any of us can do about that.
I see obvious comparisons between the list and the June 1996
withdrawal of Objectivist discussion from APO to HPO. I also see one
important difference: HPO isn't worth it. The CAS list *is*. It's
been a pain in the ass for me to pay attention to it, but it won't do
to ignore it.
Billy
VRWC fronteer - sigdiv
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
tcro...@hotmail.com
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 14:48:43 -0600, n_me...@hotmail.com wrote:
>In article <34fb13d0...@news.mindspring.com>,
> wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) wrote:
>>
>> >-- Bottom line: Since the body was clearly moved, and hence Fiske/Starr
>> >are clearly wrong, the investigation needs to be re-opened and done right
>> >top get the true facts.
>> >
>> >-- Meanwhile: Suicide? Maybe. Fort Marcy Park? No way.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> (Recall: I, myself, have repeated stated that I would immediately
>> endorse a ruling of suicide if the evidence clearly and unequivocally
>> mandated that conclusion. All anyone ever has to do is explain it to
>> me so that it makes sense.)
>>
>
>Of course it wasn't a suicide. But you and Ray wouldn't know a conspiracy
if
>it hit you square in the ass.
>
>Fact: Foster found some interesting trip records when investigating the
>travel office. He and Hubbel spoke of the Promis software that Webb was
>investigating at justice. Nate Landow, who's been playing both ends against
>the middle finds out how much they know. A week later Foster ends up dead.
>
>Fact: Scaife offers some major hush money to Starr, and Starr comes up with
>this suicide nonsense.
>
>Fact: Scaife also pays Ruddy, Davidson, and Irvine to run around looking
>like some fucking nutcases.
>
>Put two and two together. It's the oldest intellegence trick in the world.
>If you want people to stop looking at a crime, get some real idiots to
>investigate. If any of them get too close, kill them (Sandy Hume) or pay
>them off.
>
Second oldest is to put some stooges in the front row, and have them repeat
over and over again:
I don't get it,
It doesn't make sense,
Prove it to me,
Say it again,
If there were only some proof,
I haven't seen anything conclusive yet,
You are jumping to conclusions,
I'm not convinced, . . .
Maybe
It's very complicated
Are you talking about Cornflakes?
How do you know it's a conspiracy?
If this were true, more people would be talking about it
Mr. ___ doesn't think so
This is old news.
This has already been looked into be people who know more than you
do
You would be more convincing if you didn't sound so certain
You talk as though water flows down hill
Can't you talk about anything else?
The people who say this have an ax to grind
There are too many details here
Why would they do that?
Who would do that?
This is not important compared to . . .
This happens all the time. How is this one different?
Why does this interest you?
Why are you so hung up on this?
There is room for a difference of opinions here, and most people do
not agree with you.
TCross
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Billy Beck
riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) wrote:
> In article <rayheizer-040...@j84.value.net>,
> Ray Heizer <rayh...@value.net> wrote:
> >No one knows how, where, when or why Foster died.
>
> Please do not speak for me. I know for a fact that Foster did not commit
>suicide.
*Bullshit*. You don't "know" anything of the sort, and the
evidence is right here...
> I know for a fact he died of some means that cannot be construed as suicide.
...in this sentence. For all *you* (and the rest of us) "know",
the guy could have dropped dead of sheer mortification at having ever
been attracted to Hillary.
All you *really* know is that the official story doesn't work.
That's all you know, and when you wander off into *arbitrary
assertions* of "fact", you're really earning that "kook" tag.
Billy Beck
wo...@winternet.com (Mike;,Schneider) wrote:
> Be that as it may, is there *any* recorded occurance of a gunshot
>suicide killing himself with a shot to the neck (or upward under the jaw
>back towards the ear)?
*Yes*. I've seen videotape of a police officer in Louisiana
doing just exactly that with his service auto. The guy sat down on a
planter outside the police headquarters on a bright sunshiney day,
jammed the muzzle up under the right side of his jaw, just under its
curve, and pulled the trigger.
Billy Beck
hrtsh...@aol.com (HrtShpdBox) wrote:
>Please help a complete novice jumping right into the middle of your discussion
>- help me because I'm missing the groundwork here.
>1. Is it absolutely, irrefutably true that VF was found with no gun in either
>hand, and that a gun later "appears"?
No. There is lots of conflicting testimony on this point.
>2. The note from VFs wallet, referred to here some posts back, with dates and
>cryptic dollar amounts and locations, does it irrefutably exist (or did it) ?
There are serious philosophical attachments to your question.
(They go to the matter of "exist[ence]".)
What we *do* know is that USPP Investigator Rolla testified to
its existence, and it is referenced several times in the official
record of the case.
>3. Is it true that the 6 month late blind trust was really filed three days
>after VFs death?
Yes.
>Is it certain that this (along with pertinent notes about it)
>would have been among the papers filched from his WH office by Hillary's
>lackeys?
The material was in his safe.
You can take it from there.
>4. Would not the items above, if true, all be particularly germane to an
>investigation of VFs death by the OIC? If so, whose side is the OIC on,
>anyway? Just how poor was the investigation he conducted of this?
I'll put it this way: on the basis of what I've seen in this
case, *I* would not engage these people to "investigate" a dispute
between two five year-old kids.
tcro...@hotmail.com
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 12:37:21 -0500, ding...@erinet.com wrote:
>Michael Rivero wrote:
>>
>> That's why after Heizer threw me off CAS, I never tried to
>> go back.
>>
>> CAs and CS are "corrals", tying up people in endless debates in a
private
>> list where they cannot "contaminate" the public at large with their
>> ideas.
>>
>
>You mean like "censorship"? Or was it more like clogging
>the list with topics that other list members had little or
>no interest in? Sorta like Huggie tried to do--tho' I have to
>say you would be a gentleman about it, and not throw a tantrum
>like Huggie.
Just for the hell of it, can you point to something you have posted with even
a pinch of substance in it?
I have been lurking here for quite a while, but I must have missed it.
Mike,;Schneider
In article <rayheizer-050...@j76.value.net>, rayh...@value.net
(Ray Heizer) wrote:
> -- Sheesh! It sseems the only way both you and Rivero found to critique my
> simple hypothetical was to first snip a key element and then ask questions
> that the snipped element had already answered:
I didn't "snip" anything; I merely requoted Rivero's post.
> Restored:
>
> o Foster leaves the Oval Office in deep humiliation and despair, grabs a
> legally registered 9 mm [added: or even smaller] pistol from the USSS
> agent outside the door, and,
> during a struggle, shoots himself in the neck (a smallish wound that
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> doesn't bleed a lot, but kills him).
This presumes he's carrying the gun in his *hand* down a White House
corridor (otherwise why would the SS stop him?), a real stretch, IMO, even
if the man is suicidal.
Also, you'd think the shot would be *heard* by visiters on the various
tours that go through the place in the middle of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Heizer
In article <35009812...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net (Martin
McPhillips) wrote:
< On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 21:39:02 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
<
< >>> On a bronze plaque in Wash. D.C are the immortal words of
riv...@accessone.com
< >>> (Michael Rivero) :
< >>> =
< >>> = That's why after Heizer threw me off CAS, I never tried to
< >>> =go back.
< >>> =
< >>> = CAs and CS are "corrals", tying up people in endless debates in a
private
< >>> =list where they cannot "contaminate" the public at large with their
< >>> =ideas.
< >
< > Stop behaving like a dope, Rivero.
<
< Three things. I don't quite understand why Rivero was "thrown off"
< the CAS list.
-- Rivero was thrown off CAS for violating the Discussion Guidelines and
then apparently lying about it to the listowner.
< And, Hughie Turley said the same thing when he was "thrown
< off" the CAS list.
-- Turley was initially "thrown off" CS, CAS's predecessor, along with DC
Dave, by that listowner (actually they were only put on restricted posting
status, but Hughie and DC Dave prefer to claim greater injury .. i.e. that
they were "thrown off").
-- Later, Hughie was booted from CAS, CS's successor, by this listowner,
with the concurrence of the CAS Advisory Panel, for violating our
Discussion Guidelines and attacking another member. (Hughie's sidekick, DC
Dave, never joined CAS, despite numerous invitations early on, including a
personal appeal by an emissary I sent to him and Hughie.)
<
< And I don't get what the problem is. If one were to feel
< corralled by the CAS list, then one has an obligation to
< oneself to step out of the corral.
-- Dead on! No one is corralled at CAS. A large number of folks who post
here are also members of CAS, and vice versa. The most prolific of the
dual membership set is Bill Nalty, who provides herculean and invaluable
services to both ACECWW and CAS.
-- Given the nature of CAS membership, coralling at CAS would be less
successful than trying to herd cats. Our diversity is our biggest value
(even though we do not suffer fools and Clinton apologists).
snip
< The stuff that I see that comes out of the list, and my brief
< subscription (I wanted out after two days) of the list itself,
< convinces me that there is every bit as much, if
< not more, crap on the list as there is in this newsgroup.
-- I'll be happy to be corrected if I am mistaken (and I have no doubt
that I will in such case), but I do not recall McP ever being a member of
CAS. He may have been a member of CAS's predecessor, CS, which was under
different management. Either way, a two day sample of CS or CAS is
meaningless since the flow is driven to a large degree by external events,
and as we have grown (see below) we have had to change a bit to keep
traffic down to a readable level.
-- We also got rid of some of the chatting as we came to realize that a
growing number of our members (active and lurking) were serious members of
the media interested in keeping up to date on Clinton scandals. We now
have about 20 members of the media at CAS, and CAS researchers regularly
are called on to provide reaearch material to them.
< The fact that it's a controlled environment doesn't seem to me
< to have helped it any. Many posters there seem to indulge themselves
< at length and ad nauseum, or just chat away, with the usual
< burp and fart analysis.
-- I suspect you have been at CS; not CAS, and certainly not lately. We
have very little time for, or patience with, chatting and farting. We
leave that to folks who frequent this forum. There are a number of booted
ex-CAS and CS members who hang out here and chat and fart ... as well as
some who just prefer the ACECWW environment who I would not consider
chatters or farters at all.
< I think that the claustraphobia and all that cigar smoke
< *might* be a little much.
-- CAS is certainly not for everyone, and not everyone is allowed to join
or stay, but once Rivero, Hughie and DCDave were booted during the CS/CAS
transition period 12/96-2/97, and Lar/Jen and some others a bit later,
membership took off.
-- Membership has increased by 110% since CAS formally took over from CS
13 months ago (CS was already two years old at that time).
-- But, really, I think the CAS experience should be allowed to speak for
itself and members of ACECWW should be allowed to judge for themselves ...
-- If you have never been a member of CAS, you can easily decide if it is
for you:
=========================================================================
CAS is a private forum for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals.
If you wish to subscribe to this mailing list, send electronic mail to
majo...@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: subscribe cas
Ray Heizer
In article <Hot-060398...@ppp-67-185.dialup.winternet.com>,
H...@diggitydog.com (Mike,;Schneider) wrote:
< In article <rayheizer-050...@j76.value.net>, rayh...@value.net
< (Ray Heizer) wrote:
<
< > -- Sheesh! It sseems the only way both you and Rivero found to critique my
< > simple hypothetical was to first snip a key element and then ask questions
< > that the snipped element had already answered:
<
<
< I didn't "snip" anything; I merely requoted Rivero's post.
<
<
< > Restored:
< >
< > o Foster leaves the Oval Office in deep humiliation and despair, grabs a
< > legally registered 9 mm [added: or even smaller] pistol from the USSS
< > agent outside the door, and,
< > during a struggle, shoots himself in the neck (a smallish wound that
< > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
< > doesn't bleed a lot, but kills him).
<
<
< This presumes he's carrying the gun in his *hand* down a White House
< corridor (otherwise why would the SS stop him?), a real stretch, IMO, even
< if the man is suicidal.
< Also, you'd think the shot would be *heard* by visiters on the various
< tours that go through the place in the middle of the day.
-- Sheesh! It presumes no such thing. I am beginning to think you cannot
read. It clearly says, "... grabs a legally registered ... pistol from the
USSS agent outside the door."
Ray Heizer
In article <3500c977...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net (Martin
McPhillips) wrote:
< On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 19:19:34 -0800, rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) wrote:
<
< ><
< >< This presumes he's carrying the gun in his *hand* down a White House
< >< corridor (otherwise why would the SS stop him?), a real stretch, IMO, even
< >< if the man is suicidal.
< >< Also, you'd think the shot would be *heard* by visiters on the various
< >< tours that go through the place in the middle of the day.
< >
< >-- Sheesh! It presumes no such thing. I am beginning to think you cannot
< >read. It clearly says, "... grabs a legally registered ... pistol from the
< >USSS agent outside the door."
<
< Why bother to pose such an outlandish hypothetical and then
< act like a schoolgirl when someone generates the hypothetical
< implications that go with it?
-- Fair enough, but he didn't read it.
< How would you like your hypotheticals to be considered in
< the future, as if in a bell jar?
-- The complete hypothetical sequence in question was succinct and clear
enough, and did not involve Foster carrying his own or anyone else's gun
down the hall:
Restored hypothetical snippet:
o Foster leaves the Oval Office in deep humiliation and despair, grabs a
[small caliber] pistol from the USSS agent outside the door, and, during a
struggle, shoots himself in the neck (a smallish wound that doesn't bleed
a lot, but kills him).
-- BTW, if you happen to know the what, where, when and how of what
happened before Foster's body arrived at the park, kindly post it so we
can get this thread off of hypotheticals and onto more productive matters.
bob...@erols.com
On 5 Mar 1998 21:34:45 -0800, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) wrote:
> In article <rayheizer-040...@j84.value.net>,
> Ray Heizer <rayh...@value.net> wrote:
> >In article <6dlj6e$js9$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com
> >(Michael Rivero) wrote:
> >
> >< In article <rayheizer-040...@j84.value.net>,
> >< Ray Heizer <rayh...@value.net> wrote:
> >< >In article <34fdf662...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> >< >bill.kasper@usa.-remove-this-.net wrote:
> >< >
> >< >< rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) felt the wrath of my nitpicking:
> >< >< <snip>
> >< >< =-- An initial small 9 mm puncture-type wound in the jaw might well
> >account
> >< >< =for the blood deposited on the shirt in the ribcage area, the blood
> >on the
> >< >< =shoulder and the blood on the eyeglasses (all before or during transport
> >< >< =to the FMP site). The later, more massive .38 wound would account for the
I believe it was murder; but why fake a suicide with two bullets from two
guns??? Bizarre. Somebody please explain. I known it was not a suicide
with two different guns. But two post mortem shots do not compute either.
bob hunt
Martin McPhillips
On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 21:39:02 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>> On a bronze plaque in Wash. D.C are the immortal words of riv...@accessone.com
>>> (Michael Rivero) :
>>> =
>>> = That's why after Heizer threw me off CAS, I never tried to
>>> =go back.
>>> =
>>> = CAs and CS are "corrals", tying up people in endless debates in a private
>>> =list where they cannot "contaminate" the public at large with their
>>> =ideas.
>
> Stop behaving like a dope, Rivero.
Three things. I don't quite understand why Rivero was "thrown off"
the CAS list.
And, Hughie Turley said the same thing when he was "thrown
off" the CAS list.
And I don't get what the problem is. If one were to feel
corralled by the CAS list, then one has an obligation to
oneself to step out of the corral.
> At its *best*, it distills serious discussion of things like
>evidence and the most informed conjecture into crystalline essentials.
>For single instance: when I first joined the list, the evidentiary
>analyses being conducted between Zehr and Snook had to be seen to be
>believed. In the words of a noted observer around here, "Incredibly
>close work."
While I greatly admire Zehr and I think that Rita has a great grasp
of the facts, I'm just as happy to see the final "distilled" product.
But this I don't get at all....
> Believe me: what's going on in *this* group could not be
>"duplicated" anywhere on Earth...and anyone who would be interested to
>do that would also be a major fan of hitting himself in the nose with
>a framing hammer. Anyone who thinks that the list is "duplicating"
>this crap is also simply not paying attention.
The stuff that I see that comes out of the list, and my brief
subscription (I wanted out after two days) of the list itself,
convinces me that there is every bit as much, if
not more, crap on the list as there is in this newsgroup.
The fact that it's a controlled environment doesn't seem to me
to have helped it any. Many posters there seem to indulge themselves
at length and ad nauseum, or just chat away, with the usual
burp and fart analysis.
God save me from the "real researchers." (You know what
Hayek says about the experts running things.)
> There are people working in the list who have earned serious
>respect for their efforts.
There's no doubt about that.
>Everybody who counts around here also
>knows that I wasn't a big fan of the withdrawal of that sort of thing
>into the cloister of a private list, for obvious reasons. The *fact*,
>however, is that those people don't care to deal with this group, and
>there is nothing that any of us can do about that.
You can smack them around when they drop by here with
things like their anti-Ruddy smear campaigns.
Billy Beck
(bite to the bone)
bob...@erols.com wrote:
>On 5 Mar 1998 21:34:45 -0800, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) wrote:
>> Both the wound through the back of the head and the .22 wound to the neck
>>both appear to have been inflicted post mortem, and at least the .22
>>was inflicted at the park, the supposed .38 doesn't appear until the
>>body is at Dr. Beyer's autopsy room.
>I believe it was murder; but why fake a suicide with two bullets from two
>guns??? Bizarre. Somebody please explain. I known it was not a suicide
>with two different guns. But two post mortem shots do not compute either.
Correct. This is a quandry to which I, for one, have seen
precious little attention devoted.
To *begin* with, I've long wondered how long we're going to have
to wait to see this alleged photograph of the neck wound. 'Nuff said.
In any case, anyone who asserts the "fact" of murder with resort
to logic along the lines of "Well, it doesn't make any sense to fake a
gunshot suicide, so it *has* to be a murder", *also* has to deal with
the implications of a second post-mortem shot and its purpose.
Let's suppose - just as a matter of winding Rivero up and getting
Shep to bang his head into his monitor - that Vince shot himself with
the .38. If that happened, then what could *possibly* be the
rationale for inflicting the neck would? Did somebody come along and
murder a guy who was already dead?
If there *is* a reason for the neck wound which is internally
consistent with the motive for the *cover-up*, then the *same* reason
could equally apply in the case of *any other* cause of death
covered-up with the .38 shot. That phrase, "any other cause" means
exactly what it says.
Billy Beck
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 21:39:02 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
>>>> On a bronze plaque in Wash. D.C are the immortal words of riv...@accessone.com
>>>> (Michael Rivero) :
>>>> =
>>>> = That's why after Heizer threw me off CAS, I never tried to
>>>> =go back.
>>>> =
>>>> = CAs and CS are "corrals", tying up people in endless debates in a private
>>>> =list where they cannot "contaminate" the public at large with their
>>>> =ideas.
>>
>> Stop behaving like a dope, Rivero.
>
>Three things. I don't quite understand why Rivero was "thrown off"
>the CAS list.
Neither do I, but it also doesn't really matter to me.
>And, Hughie Turley said the same thing when he was "thrown
>off" the CAS list.
>
>And I don't get what the problem is. If one were to feel
>corralled by the CAS list, then one has an obligation to
>oneself to step out of the corral.
Agreed.
>> At its *best*, it distills serious discussion of things like
>>evidence and the most informed conjecture into crystalline essentials.
>>For single instance: when I first joined the list, the evidentiary
>>analyses being conducted between Zehr and Snook had to be seen to be
>>believed. In the words of a noted observer around here, "Incredibly
>>close work."
>
>While I greatly admire Zehr and I think that Rita has a great grasp
>of the facts, I'm just as happy to see the final "distilled" product.
A lot of it doesn't make its way out to here. Another instance I
would point out, which kinda makes the point, is the TWA 800 stuff
that Zehr has done. I've posted tiny bits of it here, but there has
been a lot more, and it's on an order that really relegates the morons
that Rivero is fighting with to their natural level.
>But this I don't get at all....
>
>> Believe me: what's going on in *this* group could not be
>>"duplicated" anywhere on Earth...and anyone who would be interested to
>>do that would also be a major fan of hitting himself in the nose with
>>a framing hammer. Anyone who thinks that the list is "duplicating"
>>this crap is also simply not paying attention.
>
>The stuff that I see that comes out of the list, and my brief
>subscription (I wanted out after two days) of the list itself,
>convinces me that there is every bit as much, if
>not more, crap on the list as there is in this newsgroup.
I disagree. For one obvious thing, the list doesn't see the rank
Clintooniacs that we put with here. That, in itself, makes the focus
a hell of a lot more clear. For another thing, it its own context,
the list runs hot & cold, just like anyplace else. Since this
Lewinsky shit-bomb exploded, the list has had its share of impertinent
rubbish in proportion to this group. (That's how I view the matter.
With the exception of the single aspect of flagrant disregard for
security issues and the implicit irresponsibility of this
administration, the entire Lewinsky thing could disappear *tonight*,
and it wouldn't mean shit to me. Compared to the scale of the rest of
The Lying Bastard's criminal regime, *this* thing is an appalling
impertinence.) My point is that I would not regard two days as a
representative sample.
>The fact that it's a controlled environment doesn't seem to me
>to have helped it any. Many posters there seem to indulge themselves
>at length and ad nauseum, or just chat away, with the usual
>burp and fart analysis.
True enough, and I have my words with 'em now & then. On the
whole, however, I'd rather put up with *them* than the likes of the
apologistae that we see here.
>God save me from the "real researchers." (You know what
>Hayek says about the experts running things.)
Yeah, I know, but I also understand what they're doing and trying
to do there.
>> There are people working in the list who have earned serious
>>respect for their efforts.
>
>There's no doubt about that.
>
>>Everybody who counts around here also
>>knows that I wasn't a big fan of the withdrawal of that sort of thing
>>into the cloister of a private list, for obvious reasons. The *fact*,
>>however, is that those people don't care to deal with this group, and
>>there is nothing that any of us can do about that.
>
>You can smack them around when they drop by here with
>things like their anti-Ruddy smear campaigns.
But I don't see it that way, Martin, and you and I have taken at
least one lap around this mulberry bush. I've said that I regard
Ruddy's effort as passingly good for initiates. The fact, however, is
that there is a lot more to the whole story than he relates. Turley
is without question running a *bullshit* smear campaign. However, I
don't recall seeing anyone in the list cranking out the same sorts of
"inside operator and protector" games on Ruddy. At worst, I see a
dispute between and among experts and, on the published record, I
would have to think long & hard before I counted Ruddy in the same
class with Zehr or Rita. The way I actually see it, Ruddy holds out a
mass-consumers' presentation, while the list experts deal at real
sub-atomic levels.
And, bear in mind that we're only talking about the Foster matter
here. There's a lot more going on.
I wish Julie McClain, for instance, was *half* as active as *I*
am, in her own areas of interest. That woman is *serious*, and you
know how I scale things like that. She hasn't been very busy lately,
but when she appears for even one post, she's worth the whole
download, by herself.
>I think that the claustraphobia and all that cigar smoke
>*might* be a little much.
I can see your point. I know how that goes. (Believe me: my
comparisons to HPO are dead on-point.)
<shrug> It's like I said: there's nothing that e can do about
that.
Max Kennedy
On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:44:09 GMT, cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>The stuff that I see that comes out of the list, and my brief
>subscription (I wanted out after two days)
I lasted about that long.
>of the list itself, convinces me that there is every bit as much, if
>not more, crap on the list as there is in this newsgroup.
>
>The fact that it's a controlled environment doesn't seem to me
>to have helped it any. Many posters there seem to indulge themselves
>at length and ad nauseum, or just chat away, with the usual
>burp and fart analysis.
>
>God save me from the "real researchers." (You know what
>Hayek says about the experts running things.)
[...]
>You can smack them around when they drop by here with
>things like their anti-Ruddy smear campaigns.
>
>I think that the claustraphobia and all that cigar smoke
>*might* be a little much.
All the research in the world doesn't help one person if you don't get it out.
That is why Matt Drudge receives credit, not for being the first to know about
Lewinsky, but the first to tell the world.
Max Kennedy
/---------
People shouldn't expect the mass media to do investigative stories.
That job belongs to the 'fringe' media. -- Ted Koppel
http://www.iglou.com/homepages/mkennedy/press.html
/----------
Ron's dead. They can't indict him.
Nola Hill on Ron Brown
/----------
http://www.iglou.com/homepages/mkennedy/twa2.html
Martin McPhillips
On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 19:19:34 -0800, rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) wrote:
><
>< This presumes he's carrying the gun in his *hand* down a White House
>< corridor (otherwise why would the SS stop him?), a real stretch, IMO, even
>< if the man is suicidal.
>< Also, you'd think the shot would be *heard* by visiters on the various
>< tours that go through the place in the middle of the day.
>
>-- Sheesh! It presumes no such thing. I am beginning to think you cannot
>read. It clearly says, "... grabs a legally registered ... pistol from the
>USSS agent outside the door."
Why bother to pose such an outlandish hypothetical and then
act like a schoolgirl when someone generates the hypothetical
implications that go with it?
How would you like your hypotheticals to be considered in
Martin McPhillips
On Sat, 07 Mar 1998 02:27:49 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>>
>>While I greatly admire Zehr and I think that Rita has a great grasp
>>of the facts, I'm just as happy to see the final "distilled" product.
>
> A lot of it doesn't make its way out to here. Another instance I
>would point out, which kinda makes the point, is the TWA 800 stuff
>that Zehr has done.
Well, you have a point there, I'm certain. But I have only
the most marginal interest in the TWA 800 stuff. So that
wouldn't be a happy download for me. In fact, I don't want
to discuss it now---TWA 800. Perhaps privately.
>>The stuff that I see that comes out of the list, and my brief
>>subscription (I wanted out after two days) of the list itself,
>>convinces me that there is every bit as much, if
>>not more, crap on the list as there is in this newsgroup.
>
> I disagree. For one obvious thing, the list doesn't see the rank
>Clintooniacs that we put with here.
Clintooniacs are our batting practice pitchers. For the past
year, at least, the worst noise here has come from supposed
"Foster researchers" and their very unstraightforward allies
and enablers. And they come here from that list.
>That, in itself, makes the focus
>a hell of a lot more clear. For another thing, it its own context,
>the list runs hot & cold, just like anyplace else. Since this
>Lewinsky shit-bomb exploded, the list has had its share of impertinent
>rubbish in proportion to this group. (That's how I view the matter.
>With the exception of the single aspect of flagrant disregard for
>security issues and the implicit irresponsibility of this
>administration, the entire Lewinsky thing could disappear *tonight*,
>and it wouldn't mean shit to me. Compared to the scale of the rest of
>The Lying Bastard's criminal regime, *this* thing is an appalling
>impertinence.) My point is that I would not regard two days as a
>representative sample.
I get regular samples. And I see the results.
Sure there is. It's just one book. He's just one reporter. But
it's a better book than something passingly good for initiates.
And Evans-Pritchard's work dovetails with it nicely.
> Turley
>is without question running a *bullshit* smear campaign. However, I
>don't recall seeing anyone in the list cranking out the same sorts of
>"inside operator and protector" games on Ruddy. At worst, I see a
>dispute between and among experts and, on the published record, I
>would have to think long & hard before I counted Ruddy in the same
>class with Zehr or Rita. The way I actually see it, Ruddy holds out a
>mass-consumers' presentation, while the list experts deal at real
>sub-atomic levels.
I can't agree with that. Rita makes good observations, but I
don't see here putting an entire scenario together.
But for both her and Zehr, to be regarded on the same plane
with Ruddy----who I have roundly critiqued for years (before
the book) as not that great a journalist----they actually have
to *do* it. Ruddy went out and reported the story.
This is a point that I cannot make strongly enough. This is
what the *press* is supposed to do, and Ruddy cannot
be faulted because he is the only American who actually
did it. I think Ed Zehr is an incredibly bright guy, with a lot
of experience to back him up. But the fact is he did not
report this story. Ruddy did. As such, they cannot really
be compared.
Do I think that Zehr could have done a better job than
Ruddy? Yes, *maybe.* Because where the rubber meets
the road on this particular story is a place called weird
town, and not everyone has the constitution to handle that.
> And, bear in mind that we're only talking about the Foster matter
>here. There's a lot more going on.
>
> I wish Julie McClain, for instance, was *half* as active as *I*
>am, in her own areas of interest. That woman is *serious*, and you
>know how I scale things like that. She hasn't been very busy lately,
>but when she appears for even one post, she's worth the whole
>download, by herself.
Sounds like you admire her. Have you two met?
Martin McPhillips
On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 18:37:21 -0800, rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) wrote:
>In article <35009812...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net (Martin
>McPhillips) wrote:
>
>< The stuff that I see that comes out of the list, and my brief
>< subscription (I wanted out after two days) of the list itself,
>< convinces me that there is every bit as much, if
>< not more, crap on the list as there is in this newsgroup.
>
>-- I'll be happy to be corrected if I am mistaken (and I have no doubt
>that I will in such case), but I do not recall McP ever being a member of
>CAS. He may have been a member of CAS's predecessor, CS, which was under
>different management. Either way, a two day sample of CS or CAS is
>meaningless since the flow is driven to a large degree by external events,
>and as we have grown (see below) we have had to change a bit to keep
>traffic down to a readable level.
I receive plenty of samples from the list. And my two-day membership
wasn't "meaningless" for me. And my impression was confirmed
by others, and by the *current* samples that I get.
If someone wants to download all those messages to get the
"nuggets of pure gold," then I wish them the best. It's not
for me.
>-- We also got rid of some of the chatting as we came to realize that a
>growing number of our members (active and lurking) were serious members of
>the media interested in keeping up to date on Clinton scandals. We now
>have about 20 members of the media at CAS, and CAS researchers regularly
>are called on to provide reaearch material to them.
Then why are you so busy in this newsgroup engaging in flame
wars if you have such important matters and members to attend
to on the list?
I've been meaning to ask that question. Why the hell are you engaging
in endless disputes in this newsgroup-----jamming it all to hell----that
began over issues you've had with people on the list?
Is this your toilet? I say, if you have an argument with someone
about the list and how they were treated there, then have that
argument on the list. This is a newsgroup that has enough
jamming without the list's pissing contests being carried out
here.
>< The fact that it's a controlled environment doesn't seem to me
>< to have helped it any. Many posters there seem to indulge themselves
>< at length and ad nauseum, or just chat away, with the usual
>< burp and fart analysis.
>
>-- I suspect you have been at CS; not CAS, and certainly not lately. We
>have very little time for, or patience with, chatting and farting. We
>leave that to folks who frequent this forum.
You mean like yourself? Have you been saving your *real* insights
for the list?
Hey, if the list is so streamlined, and such a marvel of modern list
management, what the fuck are you doing wasting so much time
chatting, burping and frting with the "folks who frequent this forum?"
And why not have all your CAS arguments on CAS instead of
having them here, since no one *gives* a fuck about them?
> There are a number of booted
>ex-CAS and CS members who hang out here and chat and fart ...
And a number of current CAS list members, like yourself, who
do the same. Again, do you think this is *your* toilet?
>< I think that the claustraphobia and all that cigar smoke
>< *might* be a little much.
>
>-- CAS is certainly not for everyone, and not everyone is allowed to join
>or stay, but once Rivero, Hughie and DCDave were booted during the CS/CAS
>transition period 12/96-2/97, and Lar/Jen and some others a bit later,
>membership took off.
>
>-- Membership has increased by 110% since CAS formally took over from CS
>13 months ago (CS was already two years old at that time).
>
>-- But, really, I think the CAS experience should be allowed to speak for
>itself and members of ACECWW should be allowed to judge for themselves ...
Well that's a very nice advertisement/testimonial.
I think you ought to be devoting much more attention to such
a valuable forum.
Max Kennedy
On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 04:46:45 GMT, cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>But for both her and Zehr, to be regarded on the same plane
>with Ruddy----who I have roundly critiqued for years (before
>the book) as not that great a journalist----they actually have
>to *do* it. Ruddy went out and reported the story.
>
>This is a point that I cannot make strongly enough. This is
>what the *press* is supposed to do, and Ruddy cannot
>be faulted because he is the only American who actually
>did it. I think Ed Zehr is an incredibly bright guy, with a lot
>of experience to back him up. But the fact is he did not
>report this story. Ruddy did. As such, they cannot really
>be compared.
i.e. There is a large difference between speculating who could do a better job,
and who did do the job.
Billy Beck
mken...@iglou.com (Max Kennedy) wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 04:46:45 GMT, cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>
>>But for both her and Zehr, to be regarded on the same plane
>>with Ruddy----who I have roundly critiqued for years (before
>>the book) as not that great a journalist----they actually have
>>to *do* it. Ruddy went out and reported the story.
>>
>>This is a point that I cannot make strongly enough. This is
>>what the *press* is supposed to do, and Ruddy cannot
>>be faulted because he is the only American who actually
>>did it. I think Ed Zehr is an incredibly bright guy, with a lot
>>of experience to back him up. But the fact is he did not
>>report this story. Ruddy did. As such, they cannot really
>>be compared.
>
>i.e. There is a large difference between speculating who could do a better job,
>and who did do the job.
There is also a considerable difference between the two
*markets*.
"i.e." - I don't see *Ruddy* working it all day-to-day online.
...which is *fine*, but you guys should think about it.
It's two different approaches, and I seem to be one of the few
around here who values them fairly equally, in their unique
*contexts*.
Mike,;Schneider
> wo...@winternet.com (Mike;,Schneider) wrote:
>
> > Be that as it may, is there *any* recorded occurance of a gunshot
> >suicide killing himself with a shot to the neck (or upward under the jaw
> >back towards the ear)?
>
> *Yes*. I've seen videotape of a police officer in Louisiana
> doing just exactly that with his service auto. The guy sat down on a
> planter outside the police headquarters on a bright sunshiney day,
> jammed the muzzle up under the right side of his jaw, just under its
> curve, and pulled the trigger.
Out of morbid curiosity, what caliber was his weapon, and how big of a
mess did he leave?
---------------------------------------------------------------
D#lete whatever appears before the @ and
replace it with "mike1" to reply email.
Mike,;Schneider
In article <rayheizer-060...@j82.value.net>, rayh...@value.net
(Ray Heizer) wrote:
> < > o Foster leaves the Oval Office in deep humiliation and despair, grabs a
> < > legally registered 9 mm [added: or even smaller] pistol from the USSS
> < > agent outside the door, and,
> < > during a struggle, shoots himself in the neck (a smallish wound that
> < > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> < > doesn't bleed a lot, but kills him).
> <
> <
> < This presumes he's carrying the gun in his *hand* down a White House
> < corridor (otherwise why would the SS stop him?), a real stretch, IMO, even
> < if the man is suicidal.
> < Also, you'd think the shot would be *heard* by visiters on the various
> < tours that go through the place in the middle of the day.
>
> -- Sheesh! It presumes no such thing. I am beginning to think you cannot
> read. It clearly says, "... grabs a legally registered ... pistol from the
> USSS agent outside the door."
(Shaking head)
Yeah; yeah you did say that.... I gotta admit, Ray, that it sounds so
farfetched that that is quite probably the reason I didn't read it "right"
the first time....
(Trying to picture Dilbert-physique Foster attempting to wrestle a
presumably holstered 9mm pistol away from a burly White House security
officer.)
Billy Beck
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Mar 1998 02:27:49 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>> I disagree. For one obvious thing, the list doesn't see the rank
>>Clintooniacs that we put with here.
>
>Clintooniacs are our batting practice pitchers.
(Ain't no way around *that*. Point McP.)
>For the past year, at least, the worst noise here has come from
>supposed "Foster researchers" and their very unstraightforward
>allies and enablers. And they come here from that list.
*That* lost me, tho'.
I'm thinkin' we have two different evaluations of "noise".
>> But I don't see it that way, Martin, and you and I have taken at
>>least one lap around this mulberry bush. I've said that I regard
>>Ruddy's effort as passingly good for initiates. The fact, however, is
>>that there is a lot more to the whole story than he relates.
>
>Sure there is. It's just one book. He's just one reporter. But
>it's a better book than something passingly good for initiates.
Oh, okay.
>And Evans-Pritchard's work dovetails with it nicely.
Look: don't get me wrong. I'm not really down on Ruddy. There
is no question about it: nobody did what *he* did until *he* did it.
That's a straight-up irrefutable matter of history, and I don't buy
any of the nonsense kookery that he's working the game from the
inside.
But your reference to E-P - with which I agree - kinda points up
what I'm getting at. Think about it this way: on my shelves, I have
excellent histories which run to 500-1000+ pages. Bullock on Hitler,
Emery on Watergate, Morris on Nixon, et al. Ruddy and E-P average 388
pages between the two of them, and I'm not exactly crazy about the
organization of either of them. They really are not up to the
scholastic standards of the aforementioned efforts, and this is an
historic episode which *demands* that sort of diligence. There are
already some fairly compelling questions about E-P's Mena treatment
(hey: the C-123 doesn't *fit* the hangar), and one doesn't need to be
in Rita's class to understand that Ruddy hasn't exactly hit every nail
squarely.
Now, compare some of that to an *ongoing* discussion of the sort
which; A) transcends the medium of a one-shot publish (not counting
the news articles of these two writers because that's not what we're
talking about), and B) *because* of that, is able to strain things a
lot more finely.
It's just different. Anyone who hasn't seen any of this stuff if
going to get a damned good leg-up on it through those two books.
Anyone who knows the territory *has* to applaud the effort. However,
anyone who *can* and *does* pay attention to the continuous online
effort also knows that there's no way to fit all that critical value
into a book, or even two by two different writers.
>> Turley
>>is without question running a *bullshit* smear campaign. However, I
>>don't recall seeing anyone in the list cranking out the same sorts of
>>"inside operator and protector" games on Ruddy. At worst, I see a
>>dispute between and among experts and, on the published record, I
>>would have to think long & hard before I counted Ruddy in the same
>>class with Zehr or Rita. The way I actually see it, Ruddy holds out a
>>mass-consumers' presentation, while the list experts deal at real
>>sub-atomic levels.
>
>I can't agree with that. Rita makes good observations, but I
>don't see here putting an entire scenario together.
That's not really what she does. She's a data technician.
>But for both her and Zehr, to be regarded on the same plane
>with Ruddy----who I have roundly critiqued for years (before
>the book) as not that great a journalist----they actually have
>to *do* it. Ruddy went out and reported the story.
>This is a point that I cannot make strongly enough. This is
>what the *press* is supposed to do, and Ruddy cannot
>be faulted because he is the only American who actually
>did it. I think Ed Zehr is an incredibly bright guy, with a lot
>of experience to back him up. But the fact is he did not
>report this story. Ruddy did. As such, they cannot really
>be compared.
>
>Do I think that Zehr could have done a better job than
>Ruddy? Yes, *maybe.* Because where the rubber meets
>the road on this particular story is a place called weird
>town, and not everyone has the constitution to handle that.
I know.
Note my remark to Kennedy on this matter.
>> And, bear in mind that we're only talking about the Foster matter
>>here. There's a lot more going on.
>>
>> I wish Julie McClain, for instance, was *half* as active as *I*
>>am, in her own areas of interest. That woman is *serious*, and you
>>know how I scale things like that. She hasn't been very busy lately,
>>but when she appears for even one post, she's worth the whole
>>download, by herself.
>
>Sounds like you admire her.
You bet. She's not only a superb data technician, but she also
synthesizes quickly and really well. You know how I get, around
big-picture abstractions? She's at *least* that good in the
specialized arena of Clinton crime-family analysis. "Connections &
angles." She sees 'em a mile away.
>Have you two met?
Yup.
Max Kennedy
On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 18:37:21 -0800, rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) wrote:
>-- Rivero was thrown off CAS for violating the Discussion Guidelines and
>then apparently lying about it to the listowner.
Speaking of great websites (i.e. Rivero's) and alternatives to usenet,
www.freerepublic.com offers great discussion and also has a number of posters
that do a lot research.
>I suspect you have been at CS; not CAS, and certainly not lately. We
>have very little time for, or patience with, chatting and farting. We
>leave that to folks who frequent this forum.
We fart in your general direction!
Pardon me, Python made me say it.
Max Kennedy
web sites:
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero
http://www.freerepublic.com
http://www.ruddynews.com
DSharp673
[Michael Rivero wrote:]
> That's why after Heizer threw me off CAS, I never tried to
> CAs and CS are "corrals", tying up people in endless debates
> large with their ideas.
>
><snip>
[Bill Kasper wrote:]
> Oh please.
>
> CAS is simply a way of minimizing traffic here, and condensing
> the good stuff into more manageble chunks. Anyone is free to
> post anything they consider valuable from CAS here, or to any
> other NG.
>
> Don't be so paranoid. There are enough real conspiracies
> out there.
I love that line, "Don't be so paranoid. There are enough real conspiracies
out there."
(Evidently I'm having an impact.)
Rivero's assertion is not unreasonable. The person who heads the CS & CAS
lists has publicly admitted he does not support a murder scenario. He believes
that someone manufactured a suicide story to cover a genuine suicide.
Anyone wanting to engage in a serious debate about Foster's death should look
elsewhere than the CS & CAS lists or this newsgroup for that matter.
Dave Sharp
DSharp673
<snipped other comments>
Like Beck says, the CAS list likely has some good people on it; however, the
name of the CAS list is misleading.
It should be called the CIA list.
Dave Sharp
[Billy Beck wrote:]
> At its *best*, it distills serious discussion of things like
> evidence and the most informed conjecture into crystalline
> essentials. For single instance: when I first joined the list, the
> evidentiary analyses being conducted between Zehr and Snook
> had to be seen to be believed. In the words of a noted observer
> around here, "Incredibly close work."
>
> Believe me: what's going on in *this* group could not
> be "duplicated" anywhere on Earth...and anyone who would be
> interested to do that would also be a major fan of hitting himself in
> the nose with a framing hammer. Anyone who thinks that the list
> is "duplicating" this crap is also simply not paying attention.
>
> There are people working in the list who have earned
> serious respect for their efforts. Everybody who counts around
> here also knows that I wasn't a big fan of the withdrawal of that
> sort of thing into the cloister of a private list, for obvious reasons.
> The *fact*, however, is that those people don't care to deal with
> this group, and there is nothing that any of us can do about that.
>
DSharp673
[Ray Heizer wrote:]
>-- Rivero was thrown off CAS for violating the Discussion
> Guidelines and then apparently lying about it to the listowner.
The guideline that Rivero violated was his belief that Vince Foster was
murdered. That is also the reason the "listowner" disapproves of Hughie2 and
DCDave. In other words, the only true critics of the government's suicide
position were banned for life from CAS. That's the bottom line.
Dave Sharp
Ray Heizer
In article <19980307182...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
dsha...@aol.com (DSharp673) wrote:
- - -
-- False.
-- Anyone who believes Foster was murdered to the exclusion of all other
possibilities is more than welcome to present and discuss their views at
CAS. Happens all the time, though Sharp wouldn't know that, never having
been a member.
-- The fact that I personally do not yet completely rule out the
possibility of suicide (outside FMP) is not really very important to any
of this.
-- If anyone has information about what really happened to Foster between
1:05 pm and 5:45 pm, particularly the where, when, how and why of his
death, please speak up.
-- Since no one does speak up, I assume no one really knows. Therefore I
say the investigation needs to be reopened and done right. That's why I am
supporting the Knowlton and Favish initiatives.
- Ray
PS: If anyone really wants to know about my (alleged) CIA involvement,
they can either call me at 510-283-5031, or email a fax number and I will
fax them some documents.
j...@inxpress.net
DSharp673 wrote:
>
>
> Anyone wanting to engage in a serious debate about Foster's death should look
> elsewhere than the CS & CAS lists or this newsgroup for that matter.
>
Like, in your closet?
j...@inxpress.net
DSharp673 wrote:
>
> The guideline that Rivero violated was his belief that Vince Foster was
> murdered.
Dave --
Lay off the blotter acid.
j...@inxpress.net
DSharp673 wrote:
>
>
> It should be called the CIA list.
>
No; only the secret subgroup should be called the CIA list.
The rest are FBI agents dedicated to thwarting the impact
of your posts to usenet.
Freedom
<19980307182...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, dsha...@aol.com 's
computer exploded - leaving a pile of letters in the following pattern
> [Ray Heizer wrote:]
> >-- Rivero was thrown off CAS for violating the Discussion
> > Guidelines and then apparently lying about it to the listowner.
>
> DCDave. In other words, the only true critics of the government's suicide
> position were banned for life from CAS. That's the bottom line.
>
Shut up Dave.
Nobody cares what you think about the CAS list.
MW