("Quid coniuratio est?")
DEATH OF VINCE FOSTER -- UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
[From The 700 Club, April 18, 1995]
Joining us now, from Washington, is James Davidson, who is the editor of the Strategic Investment Newsletter, which is one of the more vocal critics of the Foster investigation.
And thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Davidson.
And I'll give you just an example, which I think is incredibly important: On April the 4th of last year , the Wall Street Journal ran an article by a woman named Ellen Pollock(sp?), which claimed that the Fiske investigation of Foster's death would determine that he was a suicide. And they quoted, by name, a Mr. Langler(?), who was the deputy to Fiske.
Now what makes this very, very incriminating is that the Senate Banking Committee, many months later, detailed a chronology of when the Fiske investigation interviewed the witnesses, obtained the FBI lab reports, and got the independent pathology reports. Basically, the evidence was only gathered after they had already told the Wall Street Journal that they were going to declare he was a suicide.
It's just as if [Judge] Lance Ito and the jurors in the Simpson trial had granted an interview to the Wall Street Journal a month before the trial began, and told everybody what the verdict would be! That is indicative of a very substantial perversion of the process of investigation.
Mr. Davidson, if Foster's death was not a simple suicide, what other potential scenario may have occurred, in your opinion?
I think we're in the process of having yet another cover-up of this man's murder.
And the evidence that he was murdered is really overwhelming -- the forensic evidence. This is another thing: when we talked about the press, and why they haven't reported this -- seven or eight of the top forensic experts in this country have testified that the pattern of powderburns on Foster's fingers is not consistent with suicide. Nysad Hyub(?) of the Lethal Force Institute said, "Inconsistent with what both experience and logic show us to be true of a suicidal person."
Dr. Richard Mason, who is a pathologist for Santa Cruz, California, says, "It doesn't make any sense."
Martin Thatchler(sp?), head of the U.S. Army's Wounds Ballistic Laboratory for many years, said, "If you have to ask, 'Is this an indication of foul play?'" He says, "Yeah. Maybe it is."
Robert Tawber(sp?), who was the firearms expert for the FBI SWAT team for many years, said, "I never heard of anyone gripping a gun like this."
You go down the line: very, very powerful forensic evidence shows that he [Foster] could not have fired the gun.
There are other, very strong bits of evidence that have been testified to, under affidavit. An Arkansas State Trooper named Roger Perry has testified in an affidavit and told the English press that he received a phone call from the White House at 5:30 [p.m.] Arkansas time [6:30 p.m. Washington, DC], on the day Foster died, from a woman who is Chelsea Clinton's nanny, who was hysterical because, she said that Vincent Foster was dead in the parking lot of the White House!
Now these are very important clues that need to be investigated.
There was a photograph that was released, on ABC News, that showed Foster's hand, in a gun, with the trigger guard caught around his thumb. And it shows, clearly, a lot of thick vegetation around Foster's body. Yet the positioning of his body in the police reports and in the Fiske report put his body in a place where there was no vegetation. Experts have gone to that, to the park, and examined the vegetation photographed in that photograph. And they testified that no vegetation like that grows anywhere near where the police said his body was found!
You go down this list of anomalies: Why is his body covered, head to toe, with carpet fibers? There were no carpets on that park!
I think that the evidence is very clear that he was murdered, and his murder is being covered up for reasons of political convenience. And this makes the O.J. Simpson trial pale down to the size of a pimple, as compared to a cancer. This is a very, very important issue, and every American listening to this broadcast should write to your congressman and insist that the truth be told, regardless of what the consequences are in terms of political fallout.
Would you please respond to that, in about a minute?
The reason that I'm upset about this is because I believe we're seeing happening to the United States what has happened to Mexico and other countries: where prominent people, even top government officials, can be murdered if they know something that compromises somebody in power. And that's it! They just cover it up and they go on about their business as if it never happened!
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"