Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons - the evidence you never saw

[Truth-Bringer]

Anyone can say anything - especially if they are paid enough money.

Any independent collaboration of this - police reports fiiled at the time, something that shows a cause and effect relationship?

Independent collaboration? And you're saying the cops are independent??? Give me a break. Let's take the witness at Fort Marcy park, Patrick Knowlton. The court made Starr keep this in his report, although he fought it vigorously. This man has a very different story about what happened that night. Now, did anyone prove the man was crazy? No. Is there any history of this man making wild claims before? No. Is there any history of insanity in his family? No. This is apparently the only time this man has presented such a story - a story which contradicts the investigations.

They tried to destroy this guy's credibility, but they couldn't do it. Now what this means is someone is lying. Either Knowlton is seriously mentally ill, again, which is backed by no evidence at all, or there were several menacing figures in the park that night, and Foster's body was not originally where they found it. After all, there was a Secret Service report done that claims Foster's body was found in his car!!!!!!

That's total b.s. - he would have had years to kill them off if he was killing people off.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! I love it when we get to see your true colors - to see that stupidity shine forth.

Why the hell would Clinton want to kill Gennifer Flowers' off??????? She was steady sex outside of his marriage - something the evidence proves he LOVES.

He had no reason to kill her years ago. He had no reason to kill her UNTIL SHE WENT PUBLIC. And, hence, by going public she became protected against Arkancide.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

How do you know none of the investigations addressed it or even that it was credible?

BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN ANY OF THE INVESTIGATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was credible because the men involved had over 70 years combined experience in handwriting analysis - AND NO ONE HAS QUESTIONED THEIR METHODS OR THEIR CREDIBILITY. While the Park Police officer had NO EXPERIENCE and the FBI agent violated the FBI's own procedures and only checked on other document as a comparison!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I should also add you are committing the same sort of fallacy that the creationists commit when arguing evolution.

There are inconsistencies and errors in the theory - therefor, those inconsistencies and errors prove (insert theory of choice).

No, that's not my argument. My evidence doesn't prove the Clintons killed Vince Foster. But my evidence does prove that it wasn't suicide and that the Clintons did have motive - which none of the investigations took into consideration.

 

[Coyote]

BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN ANY OF THE INVESTIGATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was credible because the men involved had over 70 years combined experience in handwriting analysis - AND NO ONE HAS QUESTIONED THEIR METHODS OR THEIR CREDIBILITY. While the Park Police officer had NO EXPERIENCE and the FBI agent violated the FBI's own procedures and only checked on other document as a comparison!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's what the Starr report says about the handwriting:

At the request of the OIC, the FBI Laboratory compared the original note to four original pages of known writing of Mr. Foster that the OIC had obtained from the documents that were in Mr. Foster's office at the time of his death. The Laboratory determined that the note and these four sheets were written by the same person (Vincent Foster). FBI Lab Report, 11/9/95, at 1.


The OIC also retained an independent handwriting expert, Gus R. Lesnevich. Mr. Lesnevich served in the Questioned Document Section of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory in Vietnam. In 1974, he joined the United States Secret Service and in 1976 became Senior Document Examiner at the Secret Service Identification Branch. In 1981, he entered private practice and has worked as an expert for federal and state law enforcement agencies, Legal Aid, and public defenders. He has qualified and testified as an expert witness in numerous state and federal courts throughout the United States. He was retained as a government expert in six cases in the Iran-Contra matter, and he has been retained in numerous other high-profile federal criminal cases.


In this matter, Mr. Lesnevich compared the original note to four original pages of known writing of Mr. Foster that were in his office at the time of his death; to one other original page of paper that was known to have been written by Mr. Foster; and to 18 original checks bearing the known writing of Mr. Foster. Mr. Lesnevich concluded that the written text on the note "contained normal, natural and spontaneous writing variations. These normal, natural and spontaneous writing variations could be found in the letter formations, beginning strokes, ending strokes, connecting strokes, etc." Lesnevich Report at 2. He further concluded that "examination and comparison of the questioned written text appearing on the note with the known writing on the [known] documents has revealed that the author of the known documents wrote the note." Id. (reference numbers omitted). Mr. Lesnevich prepared a thorough 51-page comparison chart "that points out and illustrates a number of the normal, natural and spontaneous writing habits that were found common between the written text appearing on the questioned note and the known handwriting of Vincent Foster found on the [submitted known] documents. Id. at 3.


Previous investigations also commissioned handwriting analyses of the note. At the request of Mr. Fiske's Office, the FBI Laboratory performed a handwriting analysis of the original note, comparing it to a "[h]andwriting sample bearing the purported known writing of Vincent Foster" and determined that the note was written by the same person who wrote the known sample. FBI Lab Report, 5/17/94, at 1-2. At the request of the Park Police, the United States Capitol Police performed a handwriting analysis of the note comparing it to a copy of a handwritten letter of Mr. Foster that had been provided by Mrs. Foster. The U.S. Capitol Police concluded that "oth the Known and Questioned Documents were completed by the same write/author and that writer/author is known as Vincent W. Foster." Report of United States Capitol Police, Identification Section, 7/29/93, at 2. ​

 

[Coyote]

No, that's not my argument. My evidence doesn't prove the Clintons killed Vince Foster. But my evidence does prove that it wasn't suicide and that the Clintons did have motive - which none of the investigations took into consideration.

Your "evidence" doesn't "prove" anything at this point.

 

[Coyote]

Independent collaboration? And you're saying the cops are independent??? Give me a break.

Poisoning the well....

Let's take the witness at Fort Marcy park, Patrick Knowlton. The court made Starr keep this in his report, although he fought it vigorously. This man has a very different story about what happened that night. Now, did anyone prove the man was crazy? No. Is there any history of this man making wild claims before? No. Is there any history of insanity in his family? No. This is apparently the only time this man has presented such a story - a story which contradicts the investigations.

One man has a different story. You do realize that people witnessing the same event often come away with very different accounts?

They tried to destroy this guy's credibility, but they couldn't do it. Now what this means is someone is lying. Either Knowlton is seriously mentally ill, again, which is backed by no evidence at all, or there were several menacing figures in the park that night, and Foster's body was not originally where they found it. After all, there was a Secret Service report done that claims Foster's body was found in his car!!!!!!

You don't have to be mentally ill to be wrong. Most of what you mention is subjective - not objective.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! I love it when we get to see your true colors - to see that stupidity shine forth.

And so you resort to ad hominum. So predictable it's getting boring.

Why the hell would Clinton want to kill Gennifer Flowers' off??????? She was steady sex outside of his marriage - something the evidence proves he LOVES.

Subjective and irrelevent.

He had no reason to kill her years ago. He had no reason to kill her UNTIL SHE WENT PUBLIC. And, hence, by going public she became protected against Arkancide.

Why wait until she went public? She's a potential threat in the wings. Better to have killed her and those others off. That is, if he was into killing people. And since you are referring to it as Arkancide that pretty much puts lie to your assertion that you don't believe in the Clinton "Body Count".

If he killed Foster and Parks he could have certainly killed her and those others.

I think your name should be Truth-Deluded.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Poisoning the well....

ROTFL. I'm trying to figure out where you're going with these ridiculous assertions. That's not "poisoning the well." You really need to get back to your Playstation, child.

One man has a different story. You do realize that people witnessing the same event often come away with very different accounts?

No, one man has a VERY different story.

You don't have to be mentally ill to be wrong.

You would in his case, with such a radically different interpretation of the events.

And so you resort to ad hominum.

It's not an ad hominum if it's true, pup. And it's also not an ad hominum if it's not part of my argument. My argument is in no way part of that statement.

Subjective and irrelevent.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! You can't address it. It's fully supported by the facts and evidence about Clinton. We know the man has had multiple affairs and that his affair with Gennifer Flowers lasted for YEARS.

Why wait until she went public?

This is hilarious... Now this is subjective and irrelevant... Why wait? PRECISELY FOR THE REASONS PREVIOUSLY STATED. He has been enjoying her company for a very long time - and would probably like to keep seeing her - as her audio recordings of their conversations clearly indicate. And he has no way of knowing who will or who won't go public. As Flowers stated in her interview, Clinton had such a tight control of things in Arkansas in regards to the media, he wasn't prepared for what happened in the national media.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

The OIC also retained an independent handwriting expert, Gus R. Lesnevich. Mr. Lesnevich served in the Questioned Document Section of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory in Vietnam. In 1974, he joined the United States Secret Service and in 1976 became Senior Document Examiner at the Secret Service Identification Branch. In 1981, he entered private practice and has worked as an expert for federal and state law enforcement agencies, Legal Aid, and public defenders. He has qualified and testified as an expert witness in numerous state and federal courts throughout the United States. He was retained as a government expert in six cases in the Iran-Contra matter, and he has been retained in numerous other high-profile federal criminal cases.

ROTFL. I love setting traps for you and watching you walk right into them. Yes, they did hire another independent handwriting expert. Do you know when they hired him, pup? AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE OTHER THREE HANDWRITING EXPERTS WENT PUBLIC.

First of all - this clearly shows the government knew it could not rely on the results of the FBI and the Park Police. They knew that even though they had previously stated they were rock solid evidence, that credibility had now been destroyed so they had to try and save face.

NOTE - AS I STATED EARLIER - THERE IS NO ANALYSIS OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE THREE HANDWRITING EXPERTS IN ANY OF THE 3 INVESTIGATION REPORTS. They don't dare touch that with a ten foot pole. Why? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T DISPROVE THEIR FINDINGS AND CAN'T ATTACK THEIR QUALIFICATIONS. So what do they do? THEY IGNORE IT COMPLETELY AND LEAVE IT OUT OF ALL THREE INVESTIGATION REPORTS.

Now, let's look at their boy's, Gus R. Lesnevich's, qualifications more closely. And what do we find? Going back to page one, his qualifications are INFERIOR, or no better, than the previous three handwriting experts:

"With us today are our expert panel whose reports you have copies of, as well as the torn note, and a set of known documents written by Vincent Foster.

Mr. Reginald E. Alton, from Oxford Univeristy, has flown in for this conference. He is a world-recognized expert on handwriting and manuscript authentication. For 30 years he has lectured at Oxford on handwriting, and has engaged in forensic document examination.

Recently he ruled on the authenticity of C.S. Lewis's Diaries. He has been consulted by British police authorities and has testified in British courts on both criminal and civil matters involving questioned documents.

He has determined the note to be a forgery.

Mr. Vincent Scalice, is formerly a homicide expert with the New York City Police Department. He is a certified Questioned Document Examiner with the American Board of Forensic Examiners. He has 22 years experience as a document examiner, and has worked for some of the country¹s largest institutions in this capacity, for example Citicorp and Chemical Bank.

He has determined the note to be a forgery.

Mr. Ronald Rice has 18 years experience performing civil, criminal and forensic handwriting examination. He is a consultant to the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. He has examined documents on a number of celebrated cases, and recently was asked by CNN to examine notes written by O.J. Simpson.

He too has determined the note to be a forgery.

Three experts--70 years of combined forensic examination experience--conclude forgery."


All three of them reached the same conclusion. Now a former government employee comes in and reaches a conclusion that the government wants. Slight conflict of interest, if nothing else. And it's irrelevant without them disproving the findings of the other three experts.

I think my name should be Coyote-Pwner. Cause you just got pwned.

 

[invest07]

coyote
"The problem is you don't have a lot of "facts"...you have a lot of opinions and some inconsistencies, but that in itself is not enough to indicate murder. I truely think it's reaching a bit too far."

But you have no problem whatsoever buying all that Macroevolutionary crap, which is based on few facts, many opinions and some inconsistencies.

I truly think Macroevolution is reaching a bit too far.

 

[top gun]

I don't hate Clinton. The evidence indicates murder. I'd like to see justice for the victim, regardless of who the murderer is.

First there has to be a proven "victim" and not just a suicide.... and all legal avenues have run that course a loooooong time ago.

Then if that threshold had ever been reached... which it hadn't... you'd "might" have something other than suicide, maybe even murder, but still nothing to do with the Clintons.

Maybe Foster had a mad girlfriend... or girlfriends jealous boyfriend or husband.

Maybe he was being blackmailed or thought to have something of value and it was a misinformed botched robbery gone bad.

Or maybe he was conflicted like Larry Craig and when he realized he was a closet Republican and gay he just couldn't take it anymore.

Come on people... the police, FBI, Secret Service all did their full investigation and the right wing fear mongering section of the media had all their chances to muck rake another stupid attack on a great political family... The Clintons.

NOTHING THERE MY FRIENDS... might as well accept it... not ever gonna to change.

It's almost Christmas... Let it snow.. let it go... let it go...

 

[Truth-Bringer]

First there has to be a proven "victim" and not just a suicide.... and all legal avenues have run that course a loooooong time ago.
[/B]

Nice worthless Straw Man you've presented here. That addresses nothing I've just posted.

You're the one you needs to let it go.

 

[palerider]

Come on people... the police, FBI, Secret Service all did their full investigation

And not one investigation addressed the serious inconsistencies between itself and the other investigations.

Personally, I am still waiting for an explanation of how poor vince managed to shoot himself in the mouth without causing any blowback to either the weapon or his hand and how he managed to keep the inevetable gouts of blood that pour forth from such wounds to a "trickle".

 

[Coyote]

coyote
"The problem is you don't have a lot of "facts"...you have a lot of opinions and some inconsistencies, but that in itself is not enough to indicate murder. I truely think it's reaching a bit too far."

But you have no problem whatsoever buying all that Macroevolutionary crap, which is based on few facts, many opinions and some inconsistencies.

I truly think Macroevolution is reaching a bit too far.

Two totally different topics with very different bodies of research supporting them. Apples and Oranges.

 

[Coyote]

ROTFL. I'm trying to figure out where you're going with these ridiculous assertions. That's not "poisoning the well." You really need to get back to your Playstation, child.

Please try to to at least pretend to know what you are talking about before slinging insults.

From Wikipedia:

In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her friend, "I think I might buy this beautiful dress", then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.

Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:

The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
We now examine the theory of relativity...

which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.​

No, one man has a VERY different story.

Look at that for a moment.

One man.

With a very different story.

...versus considerable evidence to the contrary from a large number of people with considerable experience and expertise behind them who have nothing to gain from lying.

You would in his case, with such a radically different interpretation of the events.

No, you wouldn't. In the end, it's really not that radically different because it rests heavily on subjective interpretation of an event. For example - his description of sinister looking men is totally subjective. In addition, equally subjective is that he concludes that there is any kind of cause and effect type of relationship between their presence and Foster that day.

It's not an ad hominum if it's true, pup. And it's also not an ad hominum if it's not part of my argument. My argument is in no way part of that statement.

Since you have no idea of my intelligence level, educational level or even my age or gender in real life then yes, it is ad hominum. You might want to remember: just because you say it's true, that does not mean it is true.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! You can't address it. It's fully supported by the facts and evidence about Clinton. We know the man has had multiple affairs and that his affair with Gennifer Flowers lasted for YEARS.

That pretty much proves my point on the one hand, and fails to address the other names I listed on the other. If he was into killing people who were political dangers, he would have killed her affair or no affair (and he apparently had no shortage of willing women). You still fail to explain why he hasn't/hadn't killed all those other people.

This is hilarious... Now this is subjective and irrelevant... Why wait? PRECISELY FOR THE REASONS PREVIOUSLY STATED. He has been enjoying her company for a very long time - and would probably like to keep seeing her - as her audio recordings of their conversations clearly indicate. And he has no way of knowing who will or who won't go public. As Flowers stated in her interview, Clinton had such a tight control of things in Arkansas in regards to the media, he wasn't prepared for what happened in the national media.

Yes, it is hilarious because you totally manage to avoid addressing the points.

 

[Coyote]

ROTFL. I love setting traps for you and watching you walk right into them. Yes, they did hire another independent handwriting expert. Do you know when they hired him, pup? AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE OTHER THREE HANDWRITING EXPERTS WENT PUBLIC.

It's not much of a trap.

First: what difference does it make whether or not they brought in another expert before or after? You're reasoning falls apart here. Perhaps because it isn't summed up in some nice neat conspiracy talking points.

If there was doubt raised by another handwriting expert then the responsible thing to do would be to get another outside expert opinion - particularly if the investigation was already hostile to Clinton and hoping to find something on him.

First of all - this clearly shows the government knew it could not rely on the results of the FBI and the Park Police. They knew that even though they had previously stated they were rock solid evidence, that credibility had now been destroyed so they had to try and save face.

No, again - your logic and reasoning are weak here and you are running on subjective. It shows nothing clearly. It only shows one thing:

Someone raised enough doubt for the investigation to get another independent expert with no foot in either camp, to look at the evidence. That expert agreed with the FBI and the Park Police. In an investigation at that high a level - that is the responsible thing to do. To refuse to do it would be more indicative of a conspiracy. No credibility has been destroyed. Except your own.

NOTE - AS I STATED EARLIER - THERE IS NO ANALYSIS OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE THREE HANDWRITING EXPERTS IN ANY OF THE 3 INVESTIGATION REPORTS. They don't dare touch that with a ten foot pole. Why? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T DISPROVE THEIR FINDINGS AND CAN'T ATTACK THEIR QUALIFICATIONS. So what do they do? THEY IGNORE IT COMPLETELY AND LEAVE IT OUT OF ALL THREE INVESTIGATION REPORTS.

Why does there have to be any specific analysis of the three experts who are outside the investigation? The handwriting and any associated anomalies were specifically addressed in the report by an (gasp!) handwriting expert!

Now, let's look at their boy's, Gus R. Lesnevich's, qualifications more closely. And what do we find? Going back to page one, his qualifications are INFERIOR, or no better, than the previous three handwriting experts:

"With us today are our expert panel whose reports you have copies of, as well as the torn note, and a set of known documents written by Vincent Foster.

.....

Three experts--70 years of combined forensic examination experience--conclude forgery."

70 combined years means nothing - the only meaningful math is that which pertains to each individual.

Lesnevich's qualifications matches and possibly even exceeds theirs.

Mr. Lesnevich served in the Questioned Document Section of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory in Vietnam. In 1974, he joined the United States Secret Service and in 1976 became Senior Document Examiner at the Secret Service Identification Branch. In 1981, he entered private practice and has worked as an expert for federal and state law enforcement agencies, Legal Aid, and public defenders. He has qualified and testified as an expert witness in numerous state and federal courts throughout the United States. He was retained as a government expert in six cases in the Iran-Contra matter, and he has been retained in numerous other high-profile federal criminal cases. In addition you have the experts in FBI and you have whomever the Park Police has.

All three of them reached the same conclusion. Now a former government employee comes in and reaches a conclusion that the government wants. Slight conflict of interest, if nothing else. And it's irrelevant without them disproving the findings of the other three experts.

Look at his credentials. In addition, you had the experts within the FBI looking at it. And keep in mind - these people wanted to find Clinton guilty...yet couldn't.

I think my name should be Coyote-Pwner. Cause you just got pwned.

Hardly, but then anyone with a name like "Truth Bringer" is likely to have a very inflated opinion of their own importance.