Source – citizenwells.net
– Hillary Clinton/Vince Foster murder/suicide coverup: I have been digging into the details of the Vincent Foster death in 1993 and subsequent coverups and botched investigations.
The amount of information on the internet is amazing and once again I am encountering important, damning articles that are no longer found at their origin.
I have resurrected 2 and they are presented below.
Also, in the true spirit of citizen journalism, one of the dedicated commenters here, oldsoldier79 recently presented a Cspan II video of a presentation of jounalist and author Christopher Ruddy who investigated the death of Vince Foster and subsequent inquiries. Ruddy then wrote “The Strange death of Vincent Foster.”
Christopher Ruddy founded NewsMax Media in 1998.
From NewsMax April 4, 2001.
“‘Vince Foster’s Gun’ Serial Number Searched Before Death
When Vince Foster was found dead from an apparent gunshot wound to the head in 1993, the government was quick to write off the death as a suicide.
That sat well with Bill Clinton and Vince’s closest confidante, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
For years, detail after detail emerged questioning the official ruling.
Significant questions were raised about the unusual gun – a .38 Colt revolver made from the parts of three guns with two serial numbers – found conveniently in Vince’s hand.
The Park Police said one of the serial numbers indicated the gun was vintage 1913 – and had no pedigree.
Foster family members insisted neither Foster nor his father ever owned the old revolver.
Recently, a NewsMax.com reader named Craig Brinkley contacted us.
Curious about the gun, Brinkley had filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI, asking details of requests on the gun’s serial numbers with the NCIC – the National Crime Information Center.
The NCIC keeps records of all law enforcment inquiries of serial numbers.
On March 23, 2001, the FBI responded to Brinkley’s request.
Serial number 356555, one of the numbers on the gun, was never searched, not by the FBI, the Park Police or by that “investigation” by Ken Starr.
Serial number 355055 was found on the frame of the gun. Brinkley believes that was the gun’s real nnumber.
That number was indeed searched by the Park Police, on the evening of Foster’s death, more exactly at 22:45 EDT on July 20, 1993.
Interestingly, searches were conducted on the same serial number no fewer than three times earlier that year, before Foster’s death, on March 3, March 7 and April 29.
Was someone checking to see that this gun had a “clean” predigree and was untraceable?
We called Marilyn Walton at the FBI’s Access Integrity Unit. She told us that the government does not disclose which law enforcement agencies requested a trace on the serial number. She said it could have been made by local or federal agencies who have access to the NCIC computer.
She noted that serial numbers are often duplicated, and usually when a request is made, it includes additional information, such as the gun’s make and model.
In all four cases no such information was entered, just the number. Walton added that many guns share similar serial numbers.
Is it a coincidence that in the year of Foster’s death, four searches were conducted on the serial number found on the old gun – none ever before or after?”
From NewsMax December 4, 2003 via Free Republic.
“Vince Foster: What the Media Won’t Tell You”
“Major media outlets reported Wednesday on the Supreme Court hearing of California lawyer Allan Favish’s case that government photographs of Vincent Foster’s death scene be released for public viewing. The media report that no fewer than five investigations have found that Foster committed suicide because he was depressed. But despite 10 years of denial by the major media, the Foster case has not “closed” – as the Supreme Court hearing Wednesday demonstrated.
The case won’t close because of the failure of authorities to make full disclosure – and to conduct a full investigation into the case, including a complete autopsy.
Vince Foster was not only deputy White House counsel but also the personal attorney to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
On the night of Foster’s death, top Clinton aides made a frantic effort to enter and remove documents from his West Wing office. In the days that followed, federal investigators were stymied in their investigation of Foster’s office and strange death.
Since Foster’s July 1993 death, the facts of his death have been obfuscated by friends of Bill and Hillary in the major media, but here’s the undeniable truth:
There weren’t “five” investigations into Foster’s death, as the media report. The Park Police, best known for their meter and horse patrols around Washington, were put in charge of the initial death inquiry of the most important federal official to die suspiciously since President Kennedy. The Park Police, contradicting standard procedure, declared the death a suicide before launching their inquiry.
The FBI never officially investigated the case but simply signed off on the Park Police “probe.” The bureau had little choice. The day before Foster’s death, Bill Clinton hurriedly fired the director of the FBI, William Sessions. Sessions later charged that Clinton had “politicized” the bureau.
Later, Robert Fiske, selected by Clinton’s counsel Bernie Nussbaum and Janet Reno, quickly confirmed the Park Police probe as a suicide.
But when Ken Starr entered the investigation, he reopened the case. His chief prosecutor in the case, Miquel Rodriguez, later quit the Starr investigation, claiming that Starr’s staff was engaging in a cover-up of Foster’s death.
Rodriguez, a Harvard-educated federal prosecutor, argued that one of the Polaroid photos taken of Foster at the crime scene indicated an additional wound on Foster’s neck – never noted on the autopsy report. Favish’s suit before the Supreme Court is seeking to release this photo, among others.
No fewer than three of the paramedics on the scene indicated in reports or testimony that the crime scene was consistent with a murder scene, not a suicide.
A careful FBI microscopic investigation of Foster’s shoes found not a trace of soil or grass stains on them, though he supposedly walked several hundred yards through wooded Fort Marcy Park to where his body was found. [Years later, Starr’s investigation found plenty of soil and grass stains. Rodriguez charged that the shoes were tampered with to produce such “evidence.”]
Foster was found with little blood around his body – and despite claims that he fired the gun into his mouth, practically no blood was found on the front of his shirt.
Foster was found with a 1913 revolver no one in his family could claim, with two serial numbers, made from the parts of three or more guns. None of Foster’s fingerprints were found on the gun.
The bullet that supposedly killed Foster was never found, despite intensive searches.
Despite claims to the contrary, no one who knew Foster, including Hillary, Web Hubbell and his own wife, saw signs of depression.
A so-called suicide note was found in an office briefcase that had been searched and found to be empty after Foster’s death. The note was torn into 27 pieces. Yet an FBI examination found no trace of Foster’s fingerprints on the note and a top Oxford handwriting expert found the note to be an “obvious” forgery.
Despite the enormity of the case, Foster’s autopsy lasted an astounding 45 minutes. The coroner in the case had previously been overruled in other cases he declared “suicides” that were later found to be murders.
All of the X-rays taken during the autopsy are missing.
Complete crime scene photos don’t exist. The Park Police said all the photos were “accidentally” overexposed. A series of close-up Polaroids, which Favish is suing for, remain. This is just a brief summary of the dozens of inconsistencies in the case. Two New York homicide investigators who looked into the case concluded that Foster’s body had been moved to the crime scene and that murder could not be ruled out.
Despite overwhelming evidence of a cover-up, the media won’t question the official ruling.
Ken Starr, who could find no criminal wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons during his “intensive” probe, confirmed a ruling of suicide. Starr even hired O.J. Simpson’s defense expert to prove his case.
If ever there were a case for public disclosure of government records and photos, it’s the Vince Foster case. The high court should decide in Allan Favish’s favor.”
It appears that NewsMax’ archives only go back to 2007.
Is that the reason that these 2 articles can’t be found there?
Who made the decision for a news site to only keep articles from 2007 on?
Is there another reason?
More to come
November 20, 2015
I wrote the following review in the wake of the late 1997 publication of The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, An Investigation by journalist Christopher Ruddy. I have since learned that the title was drawn from a much earlier book of dubious credibility entitled The Strange Death of President Harding. I initially posted the review on Amazon.com and gave the book three stars, the only person out of 45, as of this date, who has done so. The review has been well received. All of the 18 people who have weighed in mark the box denoting that the review was helpful, and on November 15 of this year I received the following laudatory comment:
Some time ago I wrote a book review on Amazon of Peter Janney’s book Mary’s Mosaic. There are similarities between that case and this case that Mr. DC Dave has opened up for us in his in-depth and mesmerizing analyzes, “Looking at Washington corruption through a keyhole.” When I read the review, I had a strong sense of not looking through a keyhole, but rather being introduced to a criminal investigation “with the double doors shot wide open on either side.” There are no beating around the bushes here! On the contrary, in every line Mr. DC Dave cuts straight through to the core, lightens up as he goes and ads information which, in his opinion, should already have been in the book from the beginning. Why not write his own book about this subject? I welcome it, and so would many others. – Harald Jan
The review has held up better through time than has author Ruddy’s reputation as any sort of brave truth-teller. After having revealed so much about this truly shocking criminal episode in the Bill Clinton’s administration, Ruddy seems now to have gone back on it all and joined the Bill and Hillary Clinton political camp. It is the sort of shocking move that might have embarrassed even Benedict Arnold. I write about it in “Double Agent Ruddy Reaching for Media Pinnacle.” For the very latest on the subject go to the updated fbicover-up.com web site, particularly the page entitled “Who Is Christopher Ruddy?”
November 20, 2015
On July 20, 1993, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, Virginia. On January 27, 1994, Christopher Ruddy became the first American journalist to write anything about the death that was both based upon actual interviews of witnesses at the park and called into question the official suicide ruling. Now he has reached another milestone. More than four years after the death he has become the first person to have a serious, critical book on the Foster death published by a “mainstream” publisher, in this case The Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster.
The book, like his reporting on the case, first for the New York Post and later for the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, is thick with facts that contradict the official version, a version which we have, up to now, only been given by the initial Special Prosecutor, Robert Fiske, in a sparse, double-spaced, 58-page report (We are not counting the numerous journalists, most notably James Stewart in the Simon and Schuster book, Blood Sport, who have also peddled the official suicide-from-depression story.).
Here’s an outline of some of the most important evidence that Ruddy reveals to us:
Foster was laid out as though ready for a coffin with his legs straight and his arms down by his side. He was neat and tidy. None of the gore that one would expect when a person has blown his brains out with a .38 caliber revolver was present. Only a trickle of blood was seen oozing from the nose and the corner of the mouth. No samples of skull, brain tissue, or hair were collected, or even reported seen, on the ground or vegetation. There was no large pool of blood. There was no blow-back on the barrel of the gun, his hand, or the sleeve of his shirt. His teeth were not chipped nor his mouth damaged from, as we were told, having held the pistol’s barrel deep in his mouth when he fired it.
None of the witnesses in the park reported seeing the large exit wound at the crown of the head that is in the autopsy report of Dr. James Beyer, a man with a record of serious mistakes on autopsies resulting in suicide rulings when murder was more likely. On his report, Dr. Beyer checked that he took X-rays and an attending policeman wrote on his report that Dr. Beyer had told him that the X-rays showed no bullet fragments in the head, yet Dr. Beyer later said, and Fiske reported, that no X-rays were taken because the machine was not working. Service records on the X-ray machine, however, belie the claim that it was not working.
An emergency worker at the park has testified to having seen a small wound on the right side of the neck . Ruddy claims to have seen a photograph leaked to him from Kenneth Starr’s office that shows a similar neck wound. Recently, a document was uncovered in the National Archives that indicates that medical examiner Dr. James Haut also reported seeing a neck wound. A good part of the Polaroid photographs taken of the scene have disappeared, and it has been claimed that the 35-mm photos taken by the principal police photographer were spoiled by under-exposure.
Neither police nor FBI apparently ever showed the gun found in Foster’s hand to immediate family members for identification. The gun was an old 1913-vintage Colt made up from parts of two or more guns. The preponderance of evidence suggests that it was not Foster’s gun.
The earliest witness said there was no gun in the hand when he saw the body. The next witness, a Park Policeman, also saw no gun, though he claims not to have looked very closely. One of the earliest emergency workers to arrive has given sworn expert testimony that the gun he saw was an automatic, not a revolver.
No fingerprints from Foster were on the gun or the bullet shell casings.
Powder markings on the webbing between thumb and forefinger of both hands indicate either that Foster held the gun in an impossibly awkward position, someone caused the markings to be there after the death, or Foster was trying to ward off a shot by grabbing the gun by the front cylinder gap.
No matching bullets to the two shells (one spent) in the gun were found anywhere.
The supposed fatal bullet was never found.
The police ruled suicide before ever testing the gun to see if it was functional and had been fired. Originally, the Park Police gave erroneous information about the testing of the gun.
The note that has been liberally interpreted as a suicide note was reportedly found in a briefcase that had been emptied, searched, and inventoried in front of several investigating officials.
Though torn into 28 pieces, none of Foster’s fingerprints were on it.
The Capitol Hill policeman to whom it was unaccountably sent for authentication is not a certified handwriting examiner, and he used only one document putatively written by Foster for comparison.
A serious effort was made to keep a photocopy of the note out of the hands of the public.
A trio of respected handwriting examiners, including the world’s leading authenticator of literary manuscripts from Oxford University in England, has declared that the note is a forgery.
Senator D’Amato’s Whitewater Committee, seemingly forgetting about their subpoena power, refused to look into the authenticity question because “the family would not turn over the note.”
One could continue in this vein with equally strong sketches under “The Spurious ‘Depression’,” “The Car and the Keys,” “Doctored Statements and Intimidated Witnesses,” “The Time of White House Notification,” and several other categories, but space is limited and we would not want the reader to think that he now has no need to read the book. The book is well worth its price if only for the truly splendidly rendered morality play described in Chapter 9 (The chapters, unfortunately, are not named; they are only numbered.). Ruddy seems to be the proverbial fly on the wall as “the hero of the story,” federal attorney Miguel Rodriguez makes what looks like a serious attempt to get at the truth, grilling witnesses before the grand jury, only to be undercut at every turn by his superiors, Mark Tuohey and Kenneth Starr. Rodriguez eventually gives up and unceremoniously resigns. Properly executed, this chapter by itself would make a very powerful movie.
The first thing that has to come to anyone’s mind as he reads these shocking revelations is “Why haven’t I heard any of this before? There is information here that would have sold newspapers by the ton and kept people glued to the TV screens. Whatever happened to the aggressive free press motivated, if not by a love of truth, at least by profit, and where are the sleuths of Watergate?” Ruddy has no answer. He doesn’t even bother to ask the question. What terrible secret, incriminating to so many, must lie behind the Foster death? He also has no explanation as to why the supposed “opposition” Republicans have rolled over like trained seals. Again, he fails even to ask the question.
Instead, with as powerful a case as he has, Ruddy gives up the moral high ground by choosing to have his book touted on the dust cover by William Sessions, the man who directed the FBI at the time of the Ruby Ridge and Waco outrages. The tone of the endorsement, the first thing that most readers will see, is so timid and defensive that it almost amounts to damning with faint praise: “Mr. Ruddy has carefully avoided drawing undue inferences about the death. It is legitimate to question the process employed by authorities to make their conclusions.”
Ruddy, seeming not to recognize the strength of his hand, echoes Sessions’ tone near the book’s end with a long, inadequate response to the patently spurious and insincere arguments that he has heard against his pursuing the case “not only from media colleagues, but from leading political and law enforcement figures as well.” Does he not realize that it is they, not he, who have the answering to do?
Finally, I am troubled by Ruddy’s omission of a number of crucial facts about the case. To cite the worst example, he does not tell us that the witness, Patrick Knowlton, has filed suit for witness intimidation against a number of individuals working for the FBI. Rather, there is only mention in a chronology in an appendix that Knowlton “file(d) suit in federal court alleging the government violated his civil rights.” From what we are told it sounds like no more than a trivial nuisance suit, but it is far more than that. Now that Starr has closed the case the Knowlton suit is the public’s best chance of learning the truth, but Ruddy would seem to prefer that we know virtually nothing about it.
The other major pressure point is with the Congress, and the Republicans there, particularly Chairman Dan Burton of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee, once a lonesome Congressional champion of truth in the Foster case, completely escape censure by Ruddy. These omissions and others, sad to say, are more than enough to make one question Ruddy’s motives. Does he, the outsider who started out at the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York tabloid and then fell to the tiny suburban Pittsburgh newspaper owned by that notable funder of conservative causes, Richard Mellon Scaife, want too badly to be accepted by the cozy, thoroughly discredited club of “media colleagues” and “leading political and law-enforcement figures?” Some things, he should recognize, are more important than that.
March 1, 1998 (with links added Nov. 20, 2015)