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

[Coyote]

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".

How do you know those "serious inconsistencies" are even true?

For example - two were false: the first that there was "no exit wound" and the second "very little blood" which both seem to have achieved the status of urban legend.

 

[Coyote]

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".

The report stated:

The gun was recovered at the scene by Park Police Technician Simonello and subsequently packaged in brown paper for storage in an evidence locker.[95] While the Park Police's subsequent examinations for fingerprints and other evidence could have removed some trace evidence that might have existed on the gun, Dr. Lee examined the gun and reported that "mall specks of brownish-colored deposits were noted."[96] Dr. Lee found that "ome of these deposits gave positive results with a chemical test for blood" although the "quantity of sample present was insufficient for further analysis."[97]

Dr. Lee also reported that "[m]acroscopic and microscopic examination of [the] piece of paper" originally wrapped around the barrel of the revolver for evidence storage "revealed the presence of reddish-colored particles. These stains also gave positive results with a chemical test for blood."[98] Dr. Lee stated that "[t]his fact suggests that the barrel of the weapon was in contact or at close range to a source of liquid blood."[99]

Dr. Lee further stated that "lood spatters and tissue-like materials were noted on the fingerprint lift tape from the weapon."[100] He reported that "[c]hemical tests for blood were positive with some of these materials."[101] Dr. Lee concluded that "[t]he presence of blood and tissue-like materials on the lifts is another strong indication that this weapon was fired while in contact or close to a blood source."[102] ​

they also noted the following in terms of residue:

The photographs of Mr. Foster's right hand taken at Fort Marcy Park and during the autopsy depict black gunshot residue-like material on the right forefinger and the area between the thumb and forefinger. The autopsy report also noted material on the forefinger area of the left hand.


During the Park Police investigation, the ATF Laboratory found that gunshot residue patterns reproduced in the laboratory were consistent with those seen in the photographs taken by the Park Police at the scene.[109] The FBI Laboratory similarly stated that gunshot residue on the right forefinger area of the right hand is "consistent with the disposition of smoke from muzzle blast or cylinder blast when the...revolver is fired using ammunition like that represented by" the cartridge casing recovered from the gun "when this area of the right hand is positioned near the front of the cylinder or to the side of and near the muzzle."[110]​

Dr. Lee conducted firings using a laboratory standard weapon and the same kind of ammunition that was found in the revolver recovered from Mr. Foster's hand. With the standard weapon, little or no observable gunpowder particles were released from the cylinder area or onto the shooter's hand.[111] However, Dr. Lee reported that each test-fired shot of the revolver found in Mr. Foster's hand at Fort Marcy Park produced a significant amount of unburned and partially burned gunpowder.[112] Relatedly, Dr. Lee reported that the gun had an "extraordinary front cylinder gap"[113] (the space between the cylinder and the barrel) of .01 inch through which gunpowder residue is expelled when the gun is fired. Dr. Lee stated that the gap was one "possible cause [] of the deposit of a large amount of gunshot residue on Mr. Foster's body and clothing."[114]​

and this about the blood:

Photographs of the victim at the incident scene depict apparent blood stains on his face and the right shoulder of his dress shirt. The staining on the shirt covers the top of the shoulder from the neck to the top of the arm and consists of saturating stains typical of having been caused by a flow of blood onto or soaking into the fabric. The stains on his face take the form of two drain tracks and one larger contact stain...

The contact stain on the right cheek and jaw of the victim is typical of having been caused by a blotting action, such as would
happen if a blood soaked object was brought in contact with the side of his face and taken away, leaving the observed pattern behind. The closest blood-bearing object which could have caused this staining is the right shoulder of the victim's shirt. The quantity, configuration and distribution of the blood on the shirt and the right cheek and jaw of the victim are consistent with the jaw being in contact with the shoulder of the shirt at some time.[127]

Dr. Lee also examined the photographs taken at Fort Marcy Park. He noted that the photographs of the shirt show several areas of bloodstains, including "saturated-type bloodstains" on the "shoulder and collar region."[128]


On a separate bloodstain issue, Dr. Lee examined the photographs and reported that "[h]igh velocity impact type blood spatters were observed on Mr. Foster's face, hands, and shirt."[129] Dr. Lee stated that "[t]his type of blood spatter typically is produced when a weapon is discharged and the spatters result from the backspatter of the gunshot wound."[130] Dr. Lee reported that "[t]hese blood spatters are intact and no signs of alteration or smudging were observed.[131] This finding is in conflict with any theory that the fatal shot was fired elsewhere and the head wrapped during movement or cleaned upon arrival -- because those actions likely would have altered, smudged, or eliminated the blood spatters, contrary to what Dr. Lee found.[132]

Dr. Lee noted that Dr. Beyer had "observed a large amount of liquid blood in the body bag and in Mr. Foster's body," which "further indicates that the location where the body was found is consistent with the primary scene [and that it] is, therefore, unlikely that Mr. Foster's body was moved to the Fort Marcy Park scene from another location."[133]

The shirt itself, which was removed at the autopsy after movement of the body to the morgue, contains bloodstains on areas where blood does not appear in the photographs of the body at the scene.[134] Dr. Lee state that these stains on the shirt "most likely occurred when the body was placed in the body bag and moved from the scene and/or when in the body bag, prior to the collection of the decedent's clothing.[135] As noted below, the experts concluded that the shirt likely would have been more extensively stained when the body was found at the second cannon area at Fort Marcy Park had the body been moved from another location.
​

 

[top gun]

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.

Oookay... guess you don't want to... let it snow... let it go ...let it go...

In this corner "Truth-Bringer what if conspiracy theories"!

Here in the realm of reason corner we have a Police/FBI/Secret Service investigation and I'm asked to assume that all these independent law enforcement agencies are lying and withholding the truth about a MURDER to protect, or I guess because they're what... afraid of, the Clintons. And on top of that even after years and years of total domination by the Republican Party Johnny Law STILL didn't come forward with the truth?

If the Clintons are that powerful they ought to just appoint Hillary to President!

 

[Truth-Bringer]

It's not much of a trap.

First: what difference does it make whether or not they brought in another expert before or after?

ROTFL. What difference does it make? Do you even have a brain? The ONLY REASON he was brought in was because the credibility of the FBI analysis and the Park Police analysis had been TOTALLY DESTROYED. Otherwise, there's simply no reason to bring him in. It was pure damage control.

No, again

Again, you bring nothing but fallacies.

- 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

You have no capability to use logic or reason, pup. WHAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON DOUBT WAS RAISED? It was from the 3 expert opinions CONTRADICTING THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCLUSION.

SO WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT'S REPORT ON THEIR ANALYSIS????? IT DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CANNOT REFUTE IT. SO THEY IGNORE IT.

Why does there have to be any specific analysis of the three experts who are outside the investigation?

BECAUSE NO ONE HAS SHOWN THEIR CREDIBILITY OR THEIR CREDENDTIALS TO BE AT FAULT - THEREFORE, THEIR CONCLUSIONS ARE MEANINGFUL AND DESERVE TO BE EXAMINED BY ANY SERIOUS INVESTIGATION.

That's just common sense, unless you're a freaking Clinton apologist who runs around with a black wig and blue dress on.

The handwriting and any associated anomalies were specifically addressed in the report by an (gasp!) handwriting expert!

A former government employee brought in after the fact - and reaching a conclusion the government wanted. Again - CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

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.

At best matches. Their combined experience far exceeds his.

Look at his credentials.

I am. They are not superior to the other 3 experts. The fact that he agrees with the conclusions of a Park Police officer who had no qualifications as a handwriting expert and an FBI agent who violated his own procedures in arriving at his conclusions, actually detracts from 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.

No, that is certainly not proveable. I don't think any of them wanted him to be guilty because they realized the ramifications on the government. It would (deservedly) have pretty much destroyed the credibility of our government and our electoral process.

Maybe Sessions would have liked to have nailed Clinton - BUT HE WAS FIRED BY CLINTON THE DAY BEFORE FOSTER WAS KILLLED. But I'm sure that's just another coincidence in the whole matter... Yeah, right....

 

[Truth-Bringer]

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

I think you need to go back and read the original exchange before you make yourself look like even more of a total fool.

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.

Right...one man...who was one of very few witnesses in the park that night. There was no "large number of" civilians in the park last night.

No, you wouldn't.

Yes, you would.

Since you have no idea of my intelligence level,

Wrong again, your low level of intelligence is consistently demonstrated on this forum and others.

You might want to remember: just because you say it's true, that does not mean it is true.

Actually, that's something you might want to remember.

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.

Again, just pure idiocy and apologism. Some men obviously favor some women over others. Clinton has his "one night stands" and then he had his "steady flings" - and then of course he had his "rapes" too - LOL. Gennifer Flowers was a steady fling. Clinton didn't want to end the relationship. The audio tapes prove it.

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

Are you looking in a mirror and talking to yourself when you type?

 

[Popeye]

Lets see, according to you Bill Clinton is guilty of both rape and murder. Your rape, I suppose is based on money grubbing Kathleen Willie's accusations? Your murder is based on no real evidence, just supposed inconsistencies in the investigations of Foster's death. In other words, you have absolutely nothing. Like many Clinton haters, your hatred is getting in the way of logic and common sense.

 

[Coyote]

dupe post

 

[Coyote]

ROTFL. What difference does it make? Do you even have a brain? The ONLY REASON he was brought in was because the credibility of the FBI analysis and the Park Police analysis had been TOTALLY DESTROYED. Otherwise, there's simply no reason to bring him in. It was pure damage control.

That entire paragraph is filled with opinion, not fact.

It is your opinion that "The ONLY REASON he was brought in was because the credibility of the FBI analysis and the Park Police analysis had been TOTALLY DESTROYED....I mean, it couldn't possibly be that they raised some reasonable doubt and another expert was brought in to confirm or deny it? Nooooooo....that would make too much sense not to mention mess up your conspiracy theory. Not mention the fact that in the political context of the time, there was no compelling reason in these investigations to find Clinton innocent if there was any way to find him guilty (and yes - this is opinion too).

You have no capability to use logic or reason, pup. WHAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON DOUBT WAS RAISED? It was from the 3 expert opinions CONTRADICTING THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCLUSION.

And of course - none of the experts in the FBI, the Park Police, or the outside expert they brought in could POSSIBLY be correct....nooooooo....that would wreck the theory so it must be dismissed out of hand.

SO WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT'S REPORT ON THEIR ANALYSIS????? IT DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CANNOT REFUTE IT. SO THEY IGNORE IT.

No, they brought in another expert to look at the note, compare it a variety (not just a few) other writing samples known to be Vince's and come up with the conclusion. If you read the report you will see it specifically addresses some anomolies (which I presume were anomolies brought up by your 3 expert s) and concludes that they are normal variations. Of course - you can't accept that because it would wreck your theory and you hate Clinton.

BECAUSE NO ONE HAS SHOWN THEIR CREDIBILITY OR THEIR CREDENDTIALS TO BE AT FAULT - THEREFORE, THEIR CONCLUSIONS ARE MEANINGFUL AND DESERVE TO BE EXAMINED BY ANY SERIOUS INVESTIGATION.

Well, there is no issue with the credentials or credibility of the other experts either. So what? You don't think that going to the trouble of bringing in another outside expert is not addressing their conclusions?

That's just common sense, unless you're a freaking Clinton apologist who runs around with a black wig and blue dress on.

You're exposing your Clinton-hater credentials here. Maybe if you were a little less blatant about it people would believe your lie.

A former government employee brought in after the fact - and reaching a conclusion the government wanted. Again - CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

So, what you are saying is:

- if doubt is raised concerning an investigation and another expert is brought in to confirm or deny it - it's CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

- if that expert reaches a conclusion that is the same as the investigation's (not the government - the investigation - the "government" driving this investigation was the Republican dominated Congress that was hostile to Clinton and looking for impeachment or crimes - you keep forgetting that little fact) - then it's CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

- and, if he is a former government employee - despite having been a credible expert witness in many different cases, despite impeccable credentials which you can't refute - CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

At best matches. Their combined experience far exceeds his.

You forget the experience of the FBI experts and the Park Police. If you are going to go on about "combined experience" you need to include everyone.

I am. They are not superior to the other 3 experts. The fact that he agrees with the conclusions of a Park Police officer who had no qualifications as a handwriting expert and an FBI agent who violated his own procedures in arriving at his conclusions, actually detracts from his credentials.

Not if the Park Police officer and one FBI agent were correct. Which they could have been. You are poisoning the well here again.

What proof - independent of a conspiracy website do you have that the FBI agent and the Park Police Officer were not fully qualified or for that matter, that only one FBI agent even examined the handwriting?

No, that is certainly not provable. I don't think any of them wanted him to be guilty because they realized the ramifications on the government. It would (deservedly) have pretty much destroyed the credibility of our government and our electoral process.

That is pure baloney - finding him guilty would have led to an impeachment and that is what they wanted. It would certainly not have destroyed the credibility of our government or electoral process any more then any of the other crimes and supposed crimes they were trying to pin on him. This is where you're entire conspiracy theory falls apart - there is no realistic motive for the Starr investigation to find him innocent if they could have found him guilty. None.

Maybe Sessions would have liked to have nailed Clinton - BUT HE WAS FIRED BY CLINTON THE DAY BEFORE FOSTER WAS KILLLED. But I'm sure that's just another coincidence in the whole matter... Yeah, right....

If you are truly wedded to logic and reason (which I seriously doubt now) then you would realize that simply because two events occur does not mean they are related or that there is a cause and effect relationship.

 

[Coyote]

I think you need to go back and read the original exchange before you make yourself look like even more of a total fool.

Oh, I have....

Right...one man...who was one of very few witnesses in the park that night. There was no "large number of" civilians in the park last night.

He witnessed very little that was objective - he put subjective interpretations on what he saw - this is clear in his own words. What he "remembers" conflicts with actual physical evidence.

Yes, you would.

Wrong again, your low level of intelligence is consistently demonstrated on this forum and others.

Actually, that's something you might want to remember.

These three statements aren't even worth responding to - they are so childish. It reminds me of:

Yes it is
no it isn't
yes it is
no it isn't
you're stupid
no you're stupid
Your father was a hamster and your mother smelled like elderberries
nuh uh
uh huh
...

Again, just pure idiocy and apologism. Some men obviously favor some women over others. Clinton has his "one night stands" and then he had his "steady flings" - and then of course he had his "rapes" too - LOL. Gennifer Flowers was a steady fling. Clinton didn't want to end the relationship. The audio tapes prove it.

You're Clinton-hater credentials are showing through again. And there were all those other people he could have/should have killed too.....

Are you looking in a mirror and talking to yourself when you type?

If you are truly interested in "truth" you would put aside your intense dislike for Clinton and seperate objective from subjective.

Despite what you think of me - I'm ambivelent about Clinton I think he was a pretty decent president - not in the top ten but not in the bottom ten. I also think it is way too early to make an accurate historical assessment of his presidency. Few President can be judged without also considering the Congress they had to work with. I think Clinton had some definate personal failings of character but much of that - his affairs for example - seems to me to be something more between his family and himself, not the public. The allegations of rape seem to be primarily just that - allegations driven and paid for by a GoP agenda. Was he corrupt or dishonest? Probably - most politicians are to greater and lesser degrees. I am not so naive as to think otherwise. What's important is their ability to govern and that will become increasingly apparent (for better or worse) in the coming decades. If that makes me a "Clinton apologist", then golly gee I guess I am. But you need to quit pretending you are not a "Clinton hater" and be honest for change.

 

[Coyote]

Lets see, according to you Bill Clinton is guilty of both rape and murder. Your rape, I suppose is based on money grubbing Kathleen Willie's accusations? Your murder is based on no real evidence, just supposed inconsistencies in the investigations of Foster's death. In other words, you have absolutely nothing. Like many Clinton haters, your hatred is getting in the way of logic and common sense.

What's interesting is these "Clinton haters" like to say - follow the money. But they avoid doing that when it comes to the GoP witchhunt.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Your father was a hamster and your mother smelled like elderberries.

Coyote, something I learned back when I used to try to debate 9/11 conspiracy theorists -- they are impossible to debate because any evidence you put forth they always have the capacity to pull out their trump card of "it's part of the conspiracy".

For instance, if I showed a video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, without hesitation the 9/11 "truthers" would claim it was a fake.

Debating conspiracy theorists most of the time is just an exercise in futility.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, something I learned back when I used to try to debate 9/11 conspiracy theorists -- they are impossible to debate because any evidence you put forth they always have the capacity to pull out their trump card of "it's part of the conspiracy".

For instance, if I showed a video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, without hesitation the 9/11 "truthers" would claim it was a fake.

Debating conspiracy theorists most of the time is just an exercise in futility.

I think you are right...it is an amusing debate but ultimately futile. Perhaps I should confine my answers to:

"and I fart in your general direction"....

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Lets see, according to you Bill Clinton is guilty of both rape and murder. Your rape, I suppose is based on money grubbing Kathleen Willie's accusations?

No, my rape accusation is based on Juanita's Broaddrick's charges - which are backed up by a witness.

You think Bill Clinton would submit to a lie detector test on the matter? Cause putting him under oath does no good at all since we know he's a convicted liar and likes to obstruct justice.

Your murder is based on no real evidence, just supposed inconsistencies in the investigations of Foster's death. In other words, you have absolutely nothing.

My intent is not to convict Bill Clinton in this thread. My intent is only to raise questions and show the proof that the previous investigations failed to acknowledge or address certain facts which demonstrate this was no suicide.

Do you think Clinton would submit to a lie detector test on the matter? Was he ever asked directly by ANYONE if he had anything to do with the deaths of Vince Foster or Jerry Parks?

Like many Clinton haters, your hatred is getting in the way of logic and common sense.

Like many Clinton lovers, defenders and apologists, you refuse to view things in the context of "the Clintons are lying scum." And that is the truth. Bill Clinton is a convicted liar, and has been proven to be a liar numerous times. Anything he says should be questioned - and he was NEVER questioned about Vince Foster or Jerry Parks under oath.

 

[Coyote]

"the Clintons are lying scum."

I don't hate Clinton.

LMAO....

 

[Truth-Bringer]

LMAO....

Shouldn't you be watching cartoons on Saturday morning, little boy?

The Clinton's are proven, convicted liars. Bill Clinton is an adulterer, and in my book that makes him a scum. The facts about them should be stated. Their misdeeds should be exposed. That does not mean I hate them - I just hate their actions when they are not honest or ethical.

Now get up off your knees and take Clinton's dogma out of your mouth.