Cold Case: The Unsolved Murder of the Clintons’ “Deputy White House Counsel” Foster


*  *  *  *  *

Table of Contents:


Cold Case: The Unsolved Murder of the Clintons’ “Deputy White House Counsel” Foster 1

The Presidential Changing of the Guard. 2

Who was Vincent Foster?. 5

See, Hear, Speak and Know no Evil, or “Murder? What Murder?” 7

“Foster’s” Strange and Unknown “Suicide” .38 Handgun and Its Purely Imaginary Wound. 27

The “Independent” Starr Hires the “Wrong” Guy, and “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words” 35

Other Things the Clintons don’t Want us to Know about the Murder of their “Friend” 40

Anatomy of a Murder: What Really Happened on the Day and Night of Foster’s Murder?. 44

In which Particular Parking Lot Did Mr. Foster Allegedly Shoot Himself?. 48

Who in Hell or “Washington” is “Special [FBI] Agent” Larry Monroe?. 58

The Magic Keys. 67

Who are Livingstone and Kennedy anyway?. 76

The Widow’s Deadly/Suicidal Delusion, and the Bogus or non-“Suicide Note” 83

When Exactly did Mr. Foster Leave the Clinton White House, and when Exactly did He Die?. 99

My Investigative Conclusion or “Findings” 109

The Zogby Poll 121

Epilog: There’s no Good Future under such Murderous Govt’s and Secret Police as These. 122


*  *  *  *  *



The Presidential Changing of the Guard

(“Counsel” is a fancy word for “lawyer.”)

*  *  *  *  *

U.S president Clinton (1993-2001) changed the head F.B.I. guy just in time to officially get away with …?—“Uncle” Satan and the Clintons knows what—but something to do with the murder and disposal of his childhood friend and his “Deputy White House Counsel,” Vincent Foster II Vincent Walker Foster, Jr. (Jan. 15, 1945—July 20, 1993).

This was on July 20, 1993, and hence over four months after the (Clinton/Reno) Waco massacre of February 28 of that same year.


On July 15, 1997, [U.S. “Independent Counsel”–Ed.] Kenneth Starr issued a terse statement. “Based on investigation, analysis and review of the evidence by experts and experienced investigators and prosecutors, this Office [of the “Independent Counsel” of the United States–Ed.] concluded that Mr. Foster committed suicide by gunshot in Fort Marcy Park, VA, on July 20, 1993.” [Evans-Pritchard, p. 111]


We shall see about that.

Once again I turn to the most excellent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Not only is he very good at finding and reporting the Truth, but he’s also not an American liar-for-hire, as he explained above. And just note in the footnotes how much foot-work he did in personally talking to the players and personally digging up all this information for us—much of which is unavailable from anyone and anywhere else. And so all Truth- and Freedom-loving Americans owe this Englishman or Kelt a great debt of gratitude.

And I hope he doesn’t mind me once again quoting him at length. I don’t see why he should: As I’m working without payment, and charge nothing for my work, I’m not taking any money away from him, but rather perhaps sending book buyers his way. And besides, no writer wants his work to be ignored, not ever this one. And Evans-Pritchard’s Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories (1997) certainly has been ignored by the “jewish”-Amerikan mass-media monopoly, and for obvious political reasons—he’s their agent, servant, lackey. And yet it is most important for every American to read E-P’s book. (In fact, I’m thinking of “assigning” it from coast to coast, along with a typed, 10 page minimum, single-spaced “book report” on it.)

Here’s from a chapter entitled “The Peripatetic [or walking–Ed.] Gun,” from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard most excellent and above-quoted book, The Secret Life of Bill Clinton:


[FBI–Ed.] Director William Sessions had been defenestrated [literally, “thrown out the window”; i.e. fired, deposed, and replaced by president Clinton–Ed.] the day before Foster’s death [i.e. July 19, 1993–Ed.] in a well-executed Washington putsch. This event passed with remarkably little protest from the U.S. watchdog press, considering the precedent at stake. The Director of the F.B.I. is [or rather used to be–Ed.] appointed for a ten-year term, somewhat like a judge, because it has always been understood that a politicized F.B.I. would upset the equilibrium of American government. [And yet J. Edgar Hoover was FBI boss or “director” for nearly 50 years, from 1924 to 1972. So go figure.–Ed.] The most important quality that an FBI Director must have is prickly independence. All else is secondary. Sessions had his faults, but at least he was a man who resisted meddling by the White House in the internal affairs of the Bureau. That, of course, was why he had to go.

[And aside from the FBI, “jewish”-Amerika’s imperial/global “Central Intelligence Agency” was obviously presidentially subordinated or “politicized” (if it wasn’t already) by George Tenet’s “slam dunk” approval of the Bush II’s lies and slanders pseudo-justifying their second imperial (post 9/11) war against Iraq in 2003—as presented to the world and the Jew N. by anti-Christ Amerika’s black “secretary of state” Powell—with his C.I.A. head and fact-checker, George Tenet (“jew”), sitting right behind him, thus literally backing Powell up and metaphorically nodding in complete agreement.

(Can I get a witness? I believe Powell’s false “weapons of mass-destruction” and “yellow-cake uranium” testimony was video-taped.)–Ed.]

Sessions had made himself unpopular with the old-boy network at the F.B.I. because of his aggressive policy of affirmative action for blacks, Hispanics, and women. So to some degree he was the victim of a reactionary backlash within the Bureau. [15. Author interview with Alice Sessions, February 1995.] But it was President Clinton who fired him. The pretext was an “ethics cloud,” the most memorable cloud being that Alice Sessions, the Director’s wife, had transported a bundle of personal firewood on an F.B.I. aircraft.[?]

[In November of 1992, William Jefferson Clinton had solemnly promised the American people that his presidency would prove to be “the most ethical administration in the history of the republic.” (So that’s one explanation. But the truth is quite another: tyrannical presidential power.)–Ed.]

On Saturday, July 17 [1993–Ed.], Sessions was told by Attorney General Janet Reno that he would be fired by Monday unless he resigned. [Foster was to die on the following Tuesday, July 20.–Ed.] The meeting took place at the Justice Department, yet White House Counsel Bernie Nussbaum [“jew,” the Clintons’ personal lawyer, and Mrs. Clinton’s law-business partner (along with Vincent Foster)–Ed.] was present in the room.

Sessions refused as a “matter of principle.”

[The “principle” being that America’s secret police “directors” cannot and should not be presidential agents, appointees, appendages, lackeys, servants and lap-dogs.

But don’t feel too bad for Sessions. For he and Bush I had apparently conspired to blow up the New York City World Trade Center. For they (the FBI, and therefore Sessions and Bush I) not only supplied the secret agent provocateur, but even the explosives. (I kid you not.)

And their secret domestic terror plot was perpetrated in February of 2003, just one month after Clinton took office. But I doubt if that’s why Clinton fired him.

“Former FBI Director William Sessions—fired the day before Foster’s death—said the investigation was ‘compromised from the beginning’”—from C. Ruddy’s “Foster Fact Sheet” below.

All the more reason to presidentially fire just such an uncompromising character and secret police official—uncompromising on this most particularly barbed point of the murder and official cover-up of president Clinton’s “Deputy White House Counsel.”–Ed.]

On Monday afternoon the President called to tell Sessions he had been dismissed. Clearly in a great hurry, Clinton called a second time minutes later. Sessions was to leave the Hoover Building “effective immediately.” [16. Author interview with Alice Sessions.]

[The FBI HQ in “Washington,” named after J. Edgar Hoover, who again was the FBI “director” for nearly five decades.)–Ed.]

The President appointed Deputy Director Floyd Clarke to take over the Bureau until a successor could be found. It would later emerge that the White House had already been working quietly with Clarke for some time.[?]

The next day, Foster was found dead. Clarke  failed to assert F.B.I. jurisdiction [as pre-planned, and as Clinton had commanded him?–Ed.], leaving the Park Police in charge. The Foster investigation slipped through the cracks.

[As presidentially planned? Is that not why Sessions had to be replaced with a Clinton lap-dog?—because the U.S. president had secret plans for his childhood friend and life-long associate?–Ed.]

The Park Police ruling of suicide had the effect of crimping further inquiry. It was cited by the Justice Department as grounds for backing off its original pledge to conduct a vigorous investigation. [But the U.S. “Justice” dept. head (“attorney general”) was likewise a Clinton appointee, and Clinton’s co-hero at Waco.–Ed.] It also kept the FBI at bay. [The FBI are in fact the U.S. “Justice” dept’s police.–Ed.] Under the Assassinations Statute, the F.B.I. would have been compelled by law to take over the case if there was any question that it might have been homicide.

If there was no need for a homicide probe on the night of July 20, 1993, there was no need for one later. One after another, the investigators skimmed over the surface of the case. Independent Counsel Robert Fiske [an appointee of U.S. “attorney general” Janet Reno, who was herself an appointee of U.S. president W.J. Clinton. And therefore Fiske was anything but “independent.”–Ed.], the Senate Banking Committee (twice), Congressman William Clinger (twice), and finally Kenneth Starr—all reploughed the same old ground. They dwelt on evidence that would validate the original finding of suicide, accepting the original premises of the Park Police. The gun [in Foster’s dead hand–Ed.] sealed it. [Evans-Pritchard, p. 128-29]


*  *  *  *  *

But there was no gun! And there’s the (official) crime! (See below.)

*  *  *  *  *

From wikipedia’s “J. Edgar Hoover”:


John Edgar Hoover (January 1, 1895—May 2, 1972), generally known as J. Edgar Hoover, was the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States. Appointed director of the Bureau of Investigation—predecessor to the FBI—in 1924, he was instrumental in founding the FBI in 1935, where he remained director until his death in 1972. Hoover is credited with building the FBI into a large and efficient crime-fighting agency, and with instituting a number of modern innovations to police technology, such as a centralized fingerprint file and forensic laboratories.

Hoover was highly regarded by much of the U.S. public, but throughout his career and after his death he became an increasingly controversial figure. His many critics assert that he abused his power and exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI. He is known to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to have amassed secret files on political leaders [such as John and Robert Kennedy–Ed.] and to have used illegal methods to collect evidence. It is because of Hoover’s long and controversial reign that FBI directors are now limited to 10-year terms. [4. U.S. Code Title 28, part 2, chapter 33. sec. 533, Confirmation and Compensation of Director; Term of Service (b)]


And yet it’s not, as presidents Clinton and Bush II have amply proven. Only enforced laws are laws. And all others are therefore merely suggestions or “blue laws.”

Amerika’s imperial secret police chiefs (or “directors”) are presidential appointees, agents, servants. And apparently W. Sessions wasn’t willing to countenance what President Clinton had in mind. And so he was presidentially fired in favor of his “jewish” FBI successor Freeh.

*  *  *  *  *

Who was Vincent Foster?

From “Life after Vince” by Peter J. Boyer, New Yorker Magazine, Sept 11, 1995:


…. He [her ex-husband, Vincent–Ed.] had been Bill Clinton’s boyhood chum and Hillary Clinton’s confidant and law partner, in the White House, he was one of their most trusted aides. The revelation, five months later [after Foster’s death–Ed.], that Whitewater files had been removed from Foster’s office after his death suggested that he knew some damaging secret, and that it might even have pushed him to suicide.

[Or someone else to something else. (“‘Murder,’ he wrote.”)–Ed.]

…. At the height of the American buildup in Vietnam, Vince joined the Arkansas National Guard; that required his regular presence in Hope, so he transferred to the University of Arkansas, in Fayetteville. Lisa got a job as a librarian, and Vince spent every day at the law-school library, developing a work ethic that inspired awe. “He’d work all day while the other law-school husbands were home watching the soaps,” Lisa says. He overprepared himself to such an extent that at exam time studying became superfluous. He graduated first in his class, and earned the top score on the state bar exam. Eager to start his career, he skipped commencement and went to work at the small but growing Rose Law Firm, in Little Rock.

…. It was Vince, not Lisa, who made the friendship between the Fosters and the Clintons. Bill had lived next door to him as a boy, and Vince met Hillary when they both did work for the Legal Aid Society, in the late seventies. After Hillary joined the Rose Law Firm, she and Vince and Webster Hubbell, another senior partner, became best friends, a troika. Vince valued his workplace relationship with Hillary, and when office politics reared he became her protector. Lisa and Hillary didn’t lunch and shop together, but the Fosters were frequent guests at the Governor’s Mansion. The Clintons went to the Fosters’ pool parties and had more than one Christmas dinner with them.

…. As Vince prospered at the Rose firm, he and Lisa bought a house in the Heights, an area near the club which proved to be the neighborhood of choice for future Clinton insiders. The Fosters’ house, a big white colonial, was redecorated by their next-door neighbor, Kaki Hockersmith, who would one day design the living quarters of Hillary Clinton’s White House. People considered the presidency of the state bar to be Vince’s for the asking, and, beyond that, he seemed a natural choice for the federal bench.

…. On Election Night in 1992, Vince and Lisa were part of the inner circle of Arkansans celebrating Clinton’s victory at the Governor’s Mansion. It was a joyous night for the Fosters, uncomplicated by any suspicion that their lives would be changed by Clinton’s success. The thought of going to Washington, Lisa says, “never entered my mind.”

…. Yet during the weeks of transition, as Clinton assembled his government in Little Rock, the prospect of Vince’s joining the team inevitably arose. He would come home from a lunch with Hillary and raise with Lisa the issue of going to Washington. Other Arkansans were leaping aboard, and Lisa old her husband, “I’m afraid if you don’t do it you’ll always be sorry.” Then came word that Clinton had chosen Mack McLarty to be the White House chief of staff. Mack and Vince were old, close friends from Hope, and Lisa and Mack’s wife, Donna McLarty, served on volunteer boards together. That decided it. On Christmas Eve, Clinton made Foster a formal offer, and when Foster accepted it the President-elect asked, “Are you sure you want to do this?” The job, deputy White House counsel, seemed perfect for Foster. He hated the spotlight, but as deputy to the chief counsel, Bernard Nussbaum, he would hold an insider’s position of influence and trust. Besides, he was taken by the notion of a higher calling; it was a moment, soon to evaporate, when Clinton’s promise of change carried the force of real possibility. Yes, Foster was sure he wanted to do it. He and most of the other Arkansans who followed the new, activist President and his wife to Washington genuinely believed that they were on a mission to do good.

…. his [Foster’s–Ed.] sister, Sheila…was also going to work for the Clinton Administration.

…. At first, it seemed to Lisa that Vince was happy in Washington, maybe even a little too happy. “He was calling me, saying things like ‘Last night we had cocktails on the Truman balcony and Judy Collins was there, and we all went out to dinner,’” Lisa recalls. She was not there, because Vince had insisted that she stay behind in Little Rock. Two of their children, Vincent and Laura, were away at college, but the youngest, Brugh, was in the middle of his junior year in high school, and Vince feared that an interruption might hinder his chances or getting into a good college. The family would join Vince at the end of the school year, and in the meantime he would live with his sister, Sheila, who was also going to work for the Clinton Administration.

…. School ended, and…Lisa prepared to leave Little Rock [to join her man in WashingtonD.C.–Ed.]…

…. Almost from the beginning, Vince realized he should have stayed in Little Rock.… At the Rose Law Firm, Vince had worked behind the burnished wood door of a spacious corner office; in the White House, his office had one window and was so small that the copying machine had to be installed in the hallway.

But the physical discomfort was secondary to the psychic discomfort, especially when things went wrong, and everything, it seemed, was going wrong.

…. Things got worse, with the publication in June [1993–Ed.] of the first of three now famous Wall Street Journal editorials that were harshly critical of Foster and the Arkansas “mores” that he and other Rose alumni supposedly represented. The Journal struck at Foster on a number of fronts, ranging from his disinclination to provide the paper with a photograph of himself (in violation of the Freedom of Information Act, the Journal asserted) to his [“legal”–Ed.] brief aimed at keeping Hillary’s health-care-commission meetings closed to the press and the public. In what soon proved a cruel irony, the Journal exploded Foster’s anonymity by printing the outline of a man filled with a question mark, under the headline “ Who is Vincent Foster?”

…. Two weeks after Lisa and the kids arrived in Washington, just as Travelgate  was unfolding [See below.–Ed.], Vince told her that he had made a mistake and had decided that he should resign. Something was discernibly amiss, but Lisa didn’t see it. “You can’t quit,” she told him. “I just got here.” She wanted a taste of the glamour she thought Vince had been enjoying, but it was not forthcoming.… He never came home until nine or ten o’clock at night then went straight to bed, and he got up and left at a quarter to eight in the morning. By the time we got there, it was basically awful. It was like: Well, I just moved out of my house [in Arkansas–Ed.], and I moved up here [in “Washington”–Ed.] and he is unhappy. I have to make him happy. This is going to have to get better.”


*  *  *  *  *

See, Hear, Speak and Know no Evil, or “Murder? What Murder?”

And meanwhile, back at the White House on the evening of July 20, 1994, the day the corpse of his childhood friend, Vincent Foster, had been discovered and identified hours before in a “Washington” D.C. city park, and precisely where it had been lain by persons unknown, president Clinton, for unknown reasons, publicly pretended to know nothing about it. (See below.)

Why? And what else was Clinton concealing? (Keep reading.)

*  *  *  *  *

From Evans-Pritchard, p. 191-93:


President Clinton was on Larry King Live [cable TV talk-show–Ed.] from 9:00 to 10:00 PM [on July 20, 1994–Ed.], giving a cheerful account of himself. It had been a good day for the White House. The nomination of Louis Freeh [“jew”–Ed.] as the new Director of the FBI had been met with approval all round.

If the truth be known, Freeh was not the first choice. Clinton had wanted to appoint his old friend Rick Steams, by now a judge on the Massachusetts Superior Court, to control the investigative machinery of the Justice Department.

Like the President, Stearns was a Rhodes Scholar from the rambunctious Class of ‘68, and Clinton’s confidant during his maneuvers to evade the Vietnam draft. The two had traveled to Spain together in 1969 on a pilgrimage to the shrines of the Spanish Civil War. [And I’ll wager not to the nationalist or Spanish, but rather to the super-nationalist, “communist” or “jewish”-Marxist shrines of that bloody horror.–Ed.]

But Clinton’s staff had talked him out of appointing Stearns. There were already too many accusations of cronyism flying in Washington. It might have raised suspicions about the way Director Sessions had been disposed of the day before. Louis Freeh was a good compromise. Friend of Bernie Nussbaum [“jew,” “White House Counsel” i.e. lawyer to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton—(who are themselves lawyers)—and law partner with Mrs. Clinton and Vincent Foster’s in their law business called “Rose,” Inc.–Ed.] Friend of Bob Fiske. Good recommendations. His Opus Dei background helped, too. [as a “Roman Catholic” mask or camouflage for a “jew”?–Ed.] It was another power network that Clinton could put to good use.

The president was in such high spirits that he agreed to stay on for another half-hour segment with Larry King. The show was being filmed in the ground-floor library of the White House. [White House chief of staff–Ed.] Mack McLarty appeared at the door. He waited until the advertisements, then broke in.

“Mr. President, let’s quit while we’re ahead,” he said. “We’ve done the hour interview. It’s been a fine interview.” “Mack, what’s wrong? What’s up?” [replied the president–Ed.]

“It’s not a national emergency, or a crisis, but it’s a very serious matter. Let’s go upstairs.”

That is when Bill Clinton first learned about the death of his childhood friend Vincent Foster. Or so we are told [via McLarty’s deposition to the SWSC (“Senate Whitewater Special Committee”)–Ed.].

[So I guess Clinton didn’t do that extra half-hour, from 10 to 10:30 PM.–Ed.]

But did Bill Clinton already know something before he appeared on the show? It is hard to imagine that he is such a masterful actor, and such a cynic, that he could have staged this exuberant performance knowing that Foster was already dead. But [if not–Ed.] how are we to account for the events witnessed by the CNN makeup artist sent to prepare the President for his appearance on Larry King Live that night? As she was putting the final touches to the President’s blotchy yellow skin in the White House Map Room, a man walked in and announced that a note had been found in Vince Foster’s office.

[What kind of note? A “suicide” note? And note the automatic security system in Foster’s office below.–Ed.]

She was not able to identify the aide, but remembered that Mack McLarty was in the room. It must have been about 8:50 PM [i.e. 10 minutes before the live cable TV broadcast began–Ed.]. She came forward to the FBI with some trepidation, for it was obvious that this had dreadful implications. Robert Fiske could not ignore her. [Fiske, was officially appointed by Clinton’s “attorney general” Reno to officially investigate his “Deputy White House Counsel” Vincent Foster’s death. And Fiske “found” (and publicly declared) Foster’s death not to be a murder of a high gov’t official—(not a murder officially covered-up by other high officials, such as Fiske himself)—but merely a “suicide” of a “depressed” man.–Ed.] She moved in well-connected circles of television. So his [i.e. Clinton’s–Ed.] FBI agents went through the motions of investigating. They showed her photos of the White House staff to see if she could recognize the mysterious envoy from Foster’s office. She could not.

*  *  *  *  *

[I’ll bet they didn’t show her a picture of Tom Castleton, an intern in the White House Counsel’s Office.


Bernie Nussbaum [White House Counsel, and therefore the boss of “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster–Ed.] and Betsy Pond [“a Clinton loyalist who had worked as a secretary with Hillary Rodham on the Watergate impeachment inquiry”–Ed.] left the White House Counsel’s suite, room 208, at about 7:00 PM that night. Before leaving, Pond switched on the alarm system—which happened to be located in a box inside Foster’s office—and then called the Secret Service Control Center to notify them that the Counsel’s suite was being vacated. [53. SWSC deposition of Betsy Pond, p. 51.]

If anybody entered that set of rooms later that evening their movements would be picked up by a sensor in the ceiling. They would have two minutes to get out again before the alarm went off in the Control Center—unless, of course, they knew how to neutralize the alarm system. [How? By simply switching or toggling it off?–Ed.] The logs show that at 8:04 PM Tom Castleton, the [Clinton White House Counsel’s–Ed.] office intern, accessed the alarm system [i.e. shut it off?–Ed.]. It would indicate that he entered the Counsel’s suite [which he would need to go to Foster’s alarm box inside his office to shut his (alarm) system off–Ed.], but he cannot remember anything about it.[?] [54. SWSC deposition of Tom Castleton, June 27, 1995.] [Evans-Pritchard, p. 195]


And it’s too bad the FBI didn’t think to ask president Clinton or his White House chief of staff McLarty about that mysterious man who had told them about the Foster note. You know?

And now back to where we were:–Ed.]

*  *  *  *  *

Since then she [the CNN makeup artist–Ed.] has eschewed publicity. In a brief comment to Christopher Ruddy, who broke the story in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, she said: “I usually don’t discuss my clients and what goes on. It’s not good practice.”

The Map [or “make-up”–Ed.] Room incident was a closely guarded secret. The Fiske [i.e. the Clinton–Ed.] investigation did not provide the makeup artist’s FBI 302 statement to the Senate Banking Committee. [What in Hell has “banking” got to do with the murder of Vincent Foster, the Clintons’ “Deputy White House Counsel”?–Ed.]  Like a number of the most incriminating witness reports, it is missing from the archive of documents in the Foster case.

[45. Fiske also “disappeared” the FBI 302 of Tom Castleton, an intern in the White House Counsel’s Office who saw Foster leaving with his briefcase.]

[And what time was that?—exactly and precisely?–Ed.]

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 191-93]

*  *  *  *  *

(Note: an F.B.I. 302 statement is an F.B.I. agent’s written report (to his FBI superiors) of his interview with (or interrogation of) someone.)

The Fiske and Starr and U.S. Congress “investigations” were all “political investigations” with foregone and fore decided (and false) conclusions.

And what else can we citizens realistically expect from government employees or gov’t “commissioners” but that they will dutifully do the will of the government that hired or appointed them? For that is their job. That is their function. That’s why they were hired—to lie, to thus destroy or suppress evidence, and to always carefully and skillfully steer away from the truth—to keep us all in eternal Darkness.

And the more evil the gov’t, the more this is so. For extreme ugliness cannot afford to show its real face to the world. The therefore more evil a gov’t is, and therefore has done, the less they can (truly) reveal themselves and their deeds—or suffer anyone else to.

And so of course the United Snakes are never going to hire honest and truthful investigators to find and tell the world the Truth about the United Snakes. Hell no! Snakes will only hire fellow snakes to hiss their poisonous lies in unison and unity with their venomous masters and noxious appointers.

Compare e.g. all the U.S. Congressional “investigations” or “hearings” into 9/11/2001 with the terrible Truth of the matter—as expressed e.g. in 9-11 Truths & Realities Verses 9-11 Lies, Slanders & Appearances. It’s Night and Day, Darkness and Light, Satanism and Truth.

*  *  *  *  *

And meanwhile, back at the park and that alleged “suicide” gun that wasn’t there before:

From Evans-Pritchard, p. 119-26:


The “Confidential [secret, unnamed, unidentified–Ed.] Witness” had been to Fort Marcy Park at least fifty times over the years, meandering through its secluded groves on the Virginia heights above the Potomac.

[Author’s footnote: Many people are already aware of the witness’s identity. His name has been disclosed in a number of news articles. However, my interviews with him were conducted on the basis of strict confidentiality over the last two years, so I will abide by that agreement to protect his privacy from a wider public.]

It is known to the initiated as a place for surreptitious liaisons [secret (and anonymous?) sex–Ed.]. Gays go there to score, and to celebrate unusual summer rites on the ramparts. In the mornings, trainee intelligence agents use the old Civil War artillery fort to practice their drop-off drills [of secret messages or packages–Ed.]. The headquarters of the CIA is just up the road.

But for the Confidential Witness it was just a good park. He liked to stop by on Sunday afternoons on his way back from visits to the Smithsonian Institution. “It’s a great place to sit down for a picnic with a bottle of wine and a nice young lady,” he said, although he hardly has the look of a swordsman [or “ladies’ man”–Ed.]. A short feisty man in his late forties, with a bloodshot face and black spectacles, he earns his living as a construction foreman. His passion is traveling in Africa, Latin America, and Europe, when he can afford it, and viewing exhibits of exotic foreign art when he can’t.

This time it was a call of nature. Caught in heavy traffic on the George Washington Parkway with a pint of coffee inside him, he pulled into Fort Marcy Park at about 5:45 PM. It was still suffocatingly hot. That day, July 20, 1993, the temperature had reached 96 degrees. He took off his sweat-soaked shirt and left it to dry in the van, then walked up into the further reaches of the park. About 700 feet into the wooded groves, at the top of an overgrown berm [or slope–Ed.], he caught sight of some trash. It annoyed him, people leaving rubbish on the ground. But as he moved closer, he spotted a body. It was lying in the dense foliage, concealed from view [from the other side–Ed.] by a berm [ledge or slope–Ed.], more or less in the line of fire of an antique howitzer [or cannon–Ed.].

*  *  *  *  *


Fort Marcy” itself (as distinct from Fort Marcy park) is really no more than a V shaped artillery or cannon emplacement upon a old, earthen, man-made embankment—facing south towards and against the “rebels” of a lost cause.

(See map a few pages below. It reads “raised earthen perimeter.”)

*  *  *  *  *



Fort Marcy was almost completely empty. it sounds more interesting than it is. It’s part of the system of forts built to defend DC during the Civil War. It’s basically a huge fortification made up of earthworks. the mounds that made up the ‘walls’ and batteries are still visible. Not much is there and not much information is available for the site. I don’t believe the fort ever saw any combat action. It is now set up as a park, with picnic tables and benches, and is set along the Potomac Heritage Trail.

*  *  *  *  *




Fort Marcy was one bastion in the network of surrounding forts defending Washington D.C. during the Civil War. The Virginia approaches to Chain Bridge were guarded by Fort Marcy on the old Leesburg Turnpike and Fort Ethan Allen on the Military Road. The sites were operated by Union troops on September 24, 1861 and the earthworks completed in short order. Fort Marcy was named after Brig. General Randolph B. Marcy; Chief of Staff for Major General George B McClellan. The armament consisted of 17 guns [i.e. cannons–Ed.] with one platform vacant and three mortars.

There’s not much that remains of the fort except a footprint of the earthworks and a couple of canon placed there by the Park Service. The site unfortunately is located in a dark and dank wooded area which contributes to it’s deterioration, but it does make a great place for fall foliage photos.

*  *  *  *  *

And now back to Evans-Pritchard, the “Confidential Witness,” and the well-dressed corpse on the other side of the long-silent cannon:

*  *  *  *  *


Not a man of squeamish sensibilities, the Confidential Witness went over and peered into the half-closed eyes of the corpse. “He looked as if he’d been dead for a long time, I mean hours,” he said. There was no blood on the pristine white shirt; nothing to explain why this elegant figure should be lying dead in the shrub wearing a “$400 or $500 suit” and sparkling “dress shoes,” with a bottle of wine cooler at his elbow.[?] The bed of dried leaves below the body had been “very heavily trampled,” so something was obviously wrong.

[2. He was not the only witness who noticed this. Detective John Rolla said he  saw “brush that had been trampled out. No other indications of struggle.” That was the version in his handwritten notes of the FBI interview (notes 192). This was left out of the FBI 302, which instead stated that “there were no signs of struggle.”]

His [the victim’s–Ed.] hands were stretched out, with the palms up. No weapon was visible anywhere. No gun.

“I noticed that there was a tiny bit of dried blood around the mouth and nose, so I thought maybe he’d been hit on the back of the head.”

It was eerily silent, so silent that he could hear people talking at the Saudi Ambassador’s residence across Chain Bridge Road. The Confidential Witness returned to his white van and drove up the parkway to the Turkey Run outpost of the U.S. Park Service in search of a telephone. Instead he ran into two [U.S.–Ed.] Park Service employees [but not policemen–Ed.] and decided to let them deal with it. He told them about the body [and hence presumably where it was to be found, and–Ed.], then drove off without leaving his name. He became the mysterious man in the white van. “Hey, I did my duty. I didn’t need the headaches of going to court and all that crap.”

The next day his brother told him that the dead man was Vincent W. Foster, the Deputy White House Counsel [under the aforementioned “White House Counsel” or personal lawyer of the Clintons, Bernie Nussbaum–Ed.]. The newspapers reported that Foster was a kindergarten playmate of the President, and the former law partner, mentor, and intimate friend of the First Lady. The papers also reported that Foster had committed suicide with a gun. They quoted the Park Police announcing that he had shot himself in the mouth. The weapon had been found in his hand. “That’s when I thought, ‘Sweet Jesus, this thing’s big,’ and my brother told me: ‘You’d better keep your mouth shut, boy, or you’re in trouble.’”

He did exactly that for seven months. Then he heard about an astonishing article in The New York Daily News. The [Mort Zuckerman (“jewish”)–Ed.] newspaper, which has close ties to the Clinton White House, alleged that the man in the white van had never really existed. He was a fiction created by two Park Service workers trying to cover up a bout of truant drinking at Fort Marcy Park.

*  *  *  *  *

The New York Daily News…embarked on a debunking campaign. Their Washington Bureau Chief, Karen Ball, [was/is] a personal friend of President Clinton….

The Daily News then sent its star columnist Mike McAlary down to Washington to talk to the Park Police. He was shown the closely held Park Police report and some crime scene photos. It was a considerable journalistic coup, but at the same time there is something wrong when the police show their reports to one or two chosen allies in the press, while unjustifiably withholding it from anybody who actually knows the details of the case—in fact, it is a form of police corruption. It nevertheless formed the basis for McAlary’s [or rather Zuckerman’s–Ed.] frontpage blockbuster “Case Closed.”

McAlary was tricked into writing that the Confidential Witness was a fiction created by a truant Park Service worker who had been drinking in Fort Marcy Park. Somebody had overplayed their hand.

It was this article that caused the Confidential Witness to come forward with his allegation that there was no gun in the hand. [Evans-Pritchard, p. 208-9]

*  *  *  *  *

[Continuing from above–Ed.]

The Confidential Witness did not relish the implications of this. “I went, ‘Wait a minute. Who in the world can put that kind of pressure on two career [U.S. Park Service–Ed.] employees to make them tell that kind of garbage?’ That’s when I became really concerned about my safety.”

The more he thought about it, the more sinister it appeared, so he decided to protect himself by telling his story to the G. Gordon Liddy radio talk show. He was not a Liddy fan, but his brother was, and he knew that the Watergate legend [and most loyal covert agent of former U.S. president, “tricky” Richard Nixon, who was caught, like some college frat-boy, sneaking into the Wash. headquarters of the “democratic” party, intent upon discovering their forthcoming presidential campaign plans and strategies, and who chose to go to jail rather to reveal or betray his “republican” client–Ed.] would never betray his identity [just as he never betrayed Nixon’s–Ed.]. Liddy in turn persuaded him to talk to two old veterans in the FBI, believing they would give him a good shake.

The FBI did not take well to the Confidential Witness. By then, April 1994, the Bureau had already decided where it was heading with the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Fiske. [I.E. the Clinton “investigation.”–Ed.] It had also decided that a .38 caliber Colt revolver was going to play the star role in wrapping up the case. One can imagine their annoyance at the sudden appearance of a witness bent on taking the [“suicide”–Ed.] gun away from them.

[Don’t you just hate when that happens, dear reader? So does the FBI. And so they changed this poor guy’s mind. In a courtroom this is called “leading the witness.” But the FBI call it a “302” interview/interrogation report.–Ed.]

….“It was these two [F.B.I.–Ed.] agents, a big guy and a little guy, real smooth they were, and they kept trying to get me to say that the gun could have been hidden, and I kept saying: how many times do I have to keep telling you that there was no gun? It must have happened two dozen times at least.... The next three times they came I made sure there was a witness around, a lady-friend of mine, because I didn’t like the way things were going.”

But in the end they wore him down. They explained that the weapon had flipped over and was hidden from view beneath the palm of the hand, with nothing visible except the trigger guard. If that was so, the witness allowed, then it was perhaps conceivable that he had failed to see the gun.

But the F.B.I. had tricked him. A few weeks later he was shown [by Evans-Pritchard?–Ed.] a crime scene photo that had been leaked to ABC News. It showed the gun in clear view in Foster’s right hand.

*  *  *  *  *

[In plain sight: “The Peripatetic Gun” of “Vincent Foster.”–Ed.]

*  *  *  *  *

“The lying sons of bitches, that was not the picture of what I saw at that scene, point blank,” he told me. “Somebody had come after I left and put a gun in the hand.”

Two months later, on June 30, 1994, the [“Special Prosecutor/Independent Counsel”–Ed.] Fiske Report came out concluding that Foster “committed suicide by firing a bullet from a .38 caliber revolver into his mouth.... The evidence overwhelmingly supports this conclusion, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

[(?) In fact, and as we shall see, nearly all evidence is “to the contrary,” and all that is not is false “evidence.”–Ed.]

The [Confidential–Ed.] witness obtained a copy of the report and tried to avoid an apoplectic attack [of rage–Ed.] as he perused the section entitled “Observations by the Confidential Witness.” It stated that “he did not see a gun in the man’s hands but said it was difficult to see his hands because of the dense foliage in the area where the body was lying.”

[No, it’s the U.S. gov’t and the “jewish”-Amerikan imperial secret police (FBI) who are lying…again.–Ed.]

“When I saw the Fiske Report, I knew I’d been had,” he said. “All you can do with that piece of garbage is flush it down the toilet.”

A year later he learned that the F.B.I. had [also–Ed.] distorted his witness statements. One of his “302” write-ups said that “traces of dry black blood were running from the side of the mouth and nose down the right side of the face.”

[Apparently there’s the FBI’s “302” handwritten notes written at the time of the FBI interview. And then there’s the subsequent typed FBI “302” report or formal “write-up” of that interview. (See e.g. EP’s appendix B, pgs 413, 414 & 419)–Ed.]

“Where the hell did they get that from?” he snapped. “There was no blood running down the face...none...absolutely not true. What’s more I told them that when they gave me my statement to sign. I underlined it and said take it out.... Goddamn sons of bitches!”

[I.E. They type up your statement for you to sign as your exact words. What’s wrong with this picture? (And isn’t that what the Amerikan, “jewish” and “Israeli” torturers do to their allegedly “terrorist” Gentile victims?)

He should have crossed it out, and not merely underlined it. Better yet, he should never have signed it.

The FBI lie was that Foster had shot himself in the mouth. And so that’s the false and crooked reason for their fabricated blood trails down the victim’s face.–Ed]

By then he was in touch with Representative Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who was so suspicious about the case that he later carried out a crime scene simulation, firing a .38 caliber revolver into a watermelon to see how far the noise would carry in the suburbs. (A long way.) Burton asked the Confidential Witness to give a sworn deposition. He agreed. When asked under oath if he was sure about the gun, he replied: “As sure as I am standing here. I am absolutely and totally, unequivocally [sure] the palms were up. I looked at both palms. There was nothing in his hands.”

[Again, he went right up and looked into the victim’s half-closed eyes.–Ed.]

Nothing came of it. The Confidential Witness retreated back into the shadows. Reflecting on the event three years later, he suspected that he had disturbed the crime scene before it was “ready” and thought that he was very lucky to be alive.

“The whole thing stinks, he clearly didn’t shoot himself there. You can’t shoot yourself without a gun. The man had no gun. End of story.”

[Where then, if anywhere, did Foster shoot himself? Or was he even shot at all? And if so, by whom? And where—where on the body, and where in the world? (Keep reading.)

But one thing’s for sure, he was dead. And “Washington” was lying about it.

And as for the man’s suspicion that he had “disturbed” (or rather stumbled upon) the crime scene before it was “ready”: Evans-Pritchard continues.–Ed.]

It is not every day that the U.S. Park Police have a dead body on their hands. Perhaps that is why Park Police Officer Kevin Fornshill was so eager to respond when a “DB” [“Dead Body”–Ed.] alert came over the radio at 6:05 PM and 30 seconds. [3. Green Books: deposition of Kevin Fornshill, July 12, 1994.]

[And perhaps not, as we shall see, or rather read below.

Did this “DB” alert say where in the park the body was lying?–Ed.]

[And the “Green Books” are a “Report from the 1994 Senate Hearings Related to Madison Guaranty S&L and the [Clintons’–Ed.] Whitewater Development CorporationWashington, DC Phase”–Ed.]

He was responsible for guarding the parkway entrance to the CIA [HQ–Ed.], where he had been posted on special assignment. [?] It was not really his job to rush over to the crime scene, or death scene, or whatever it was.

[Unless Fornshill really was working on “special assignment” for the imperial Amerikan secret police (CIA)—and hence was not really guarding their entrance. (As if the CIA needed such guarding, and have no spy cameras and guards of their own.) Perhaps this CIA “guard duty” is merely a lie or “cover-story” for what Fornshill was really doing for the CIA that day, and which was exactly what he did. And here’s a good question: How often are U.S. Park Police given such “special assignments” for the CIA? And if never, then that would be glaring clue, wouldn’t it?–Ed.]

That was the task of the beat [or patrol–Ed.] officer in Car 211, Franz Ferstl, who was patrolling the parkway. But Fornshill took it upon himself to find the body before anyone else.

The [two–Ed.] paramedics from the Fairfax County Emergency Medical Services were arriving when Officer Fornshill reached the park. [“The headquarters of the CIA is just up the road.”–Ed.] Fornshill and the rescue workers fanned out in different directions to search for the body. [Whose idea was that?–Ed.] Fornshill took the upper path into a small clearing. He was joined by rescue workers Todd Hall and George Gonzalez from the McLean Fire Service, Company One. He instructed the two paramedics to go one way while he went off alone, “running at a pretty good clip,” to a hidden grove in the top corner of the park.

[So Fornshill thus sent all the other searchers off in different directions from the one he chose for himself. Why?–Ed.]

His instinct [?] was uncanny, for there was the corpse: white male, hazel eyes, grey-black hair, 6′ 4′′ [6 feet and 4 inches–Ed.], 197 pounds, lying in the shrubs by the second cannon [or “howitzer”–Ed.]. The time was 6:14 PM and 32 seconds. It was almost half an hour after the body had been discovered by the Confidential Witness.

[…who had told the “two Park Service employees” about the corpse, and also presumably where it was to be found. And if so, why wouldn’t this location information have been broadcast in the “DB” [“Dead Body”–Ed.] alert which Fornshill had heard over his radio while on “special assignment” down the road for the CIA?

But if so, why wouldn’t the other searches have heard it also? Or was it merely that they were not nearly as familiar with the park as Fornshill? Or was it that Fornshill wanted to be the first of the group on the scene? And if so, why?–Ed.]

When [McLean Fire Service–Ed.] rescue worker Todd Hall reached the grove a few seconds later, he saw men running away from the scene into the woods. He pointed this out to Park Police Officer Fornshill, but Officer Fornshill did not respond.

[(?) That’s weird! What’s the (true) explanation for that? Were those men also on “special assignment” for the CIA/imperial secret police?–Ed.]

The FBI was clearly bothered by this incident. [i.e. enough to make it officially go away–Ed.] They interviewed Hall twice, first on March 18 and then on April 27, 1994. The first FBI 302 report gave his observations no more than a mild massage. “Hall thought he heard someone else in the woods. He subsequently saw something red moving in the woods. He was unable to determine if it was a person. [5. FBI 302 report, statement of Todd Hall, March 18, 1994.]

[(?) Note well how what was plural had thus (via the FBI) become singular, and how what was human (“men”) had thus become merely “something.”–Ed.]

But then he was given the treatment. [The full or complete FBI “massage.”–Ed.] The FBI suggested to him that he might have mistaken men for cars moving along Chain Bridge Road. The FBI even took him to Fort Marcy Park and showed him the road. Being a go-along-get-along kind of man, Hall took the hint. His [?] second statement reads: “Upon discovering that there was a road in the area, Hall believes that it is possible that he saw vehicular traffic on route 123.” [6. FBI 302 report, statement of Todd Hall, April 27, 1994.]

[Why would anyone ever voluntarily talk to these imperial secret police (FBI)? They’re clearly not at all interested in the Truth, but rather thus intent upon twisting or perverting It into their false, pre-determined and often slanderous version of events.–Ed.]

Well, what was it, he was asked under cross-examination at the Whitewater grand jury in early 1995 [into the Clintons and their dark or shady dealings–Ed.], was it people running away or was it the flash of cars? It was people, he answered. It could have been cars, he said, but what he saw was people. [7. Author interview with a confidential grand jury source, January 1996.]

By this time [i.e. the half hour between the “confidential witness” and officer Fornshill’s “finding”–Ed.] a gun had appeared.

[Miraculously? Or could those ghost-men seen running away have placed it there as “evidence”? And if so, where did they get it? And why didn’t they plant it upon the body when they had planted the body in the first place?—assuming it was they? Why risk coming back again, and risk being seen again? Did they need to go get the gun? And if so, from where? Would any old gun do? Or must it be a gun with some connection to the “suicide” victim? And yet the one they evidently settled on—(an old, 1913, black, unregistered and untraceable .38 caliber, Colt “army special” revolver/handgun)—had no connection whatsoever to the “suicide” victim lying dead in the park. Long story short: It was merely officially alleged to have been Mr. Foster’s gun.

But in truth, and as we shall see, it was neither his nor his family’s. They (i.e. the U.S. gov’t) lied here also, as well as there. And by the way, the victim’s fingerprints were not to be found anywhere upon “his” gun. (Was that not a true clue too? And should we be surprised?)–Ed.]

[McLean Fire Service rescue worker –Ed.] Todd Hall was about to check the carotid pulse when he noticed the weapon in Foster’s right hand, with parts of it tucked under his right leg. [See picture above.–Ed.] He called out to Fornshill, who was already leaving. [Why was Fornshill so quickly leaving a place and person he had so quickly run to “find?”–Ed.] The Park Police officer [i.e. Fornshill–Ed.] came back for a brief look but was unable to see the gun, or so he says: “I sort of strained a little bit, and because of the bushes and the growth on the ground, I couldn’t see what he was talking about.” [8. Fornshill deposition.]

[And yet it was still bright as day outside—6:30 p.m. on a July night. Was this the park policeman’s incredible way of distancing himself from his “discovery”? And if so, why? Again, why run away from what he had just run to “find”?—and apparently knew just where to find it? Who is this officer Fornshill? And who was (is) he really working for? Fornshill’s actions and words don’t seem to have advanced the plot in any way—unless it was he who had placed the gun in Foster’s dead hand in those “few seconds” before Hall’s arrival on the scene, and his pointing out to Fornshill of “men running away from the scene into the woods.” But otherwise Fornshill’s actions make no sense, and are quite puzzling. Why did he need to get to the body first? How did only he (among the five searchers) know it was there? And why did he deny what he saw or must have seen (and heard)?—and what another (who was not on “special assignment” for the imperial secret police/CIA) clearly pointed out to him?–Ed.]

However, the Polaroid leaked to ABC News showed that the gun was clearly visible. [Unless that picture was taken much later and illumined by a “flash” of artificial light. (See above.)–Ed.]

Even though Fornshill had lost all curiosity in the crime scene, he still felt confident enough to infer the cause of death.[?] After two minutes, he contacted Park Police communications and announced that it “appeared to be a suicide.” Based on what? he was asked later. [9. Ibid.] “Based on the determination the person was dead.” Realizing that this was a little thin [for not all dead people kill themselves–Ed.], he added: “Again, my assumption from the paramedic and that the gun was found in his hand.”

[And so in only two minutes officer Fornshill goes from not being able to see the gun in the hand and the unidentified men running away, to officially announcing a death by suicide. (Was that announcement his “special [CIA task] assignment”?)–Ed.]

The revolver, however, had still not found its final resting place. The crime scene photos show it hopping about in a most animated way in Foster’s hand.

[Don’t you just hate when that happens? When dead people move this way and that?—and it’s not even Halloween?–Ed.]

“When I went before the grand jury they [the prosecutors–Ed.] showed me two Polaroids,” I was told by a member of the Fairfax County rescue squad [presumably one of the two “paramedics from the Fairfax County Emergency Medical Services” mentioned above–Ed.], as we traipsed through the shrub in Fort Marcy Park. “And you know what? You could see blades of grass coming through the forefinger and the second finger in one, and another had grass between the second and third fingers. [Meaning that the gun hand had been moved between the first and second photograph?–Ed.] The prosecutor was real interested in that, real interested.” [10. Author interview with a member of the Fairfax County rescue squad, March 1995.] [The same “confidential informant” who pointed out the neck wound in pgs. 135-36?–Ed.]

The grand jury learned a good deal about the revolver in the early months of 1995, during the probe of Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez. But the jury was disbanded before it could do any damage. It learned, for instance, that Franz Ferstl, the second Park Police officer to reach Fort Marcy [after “special [CIA] assignment” officer Fornshill (who usurped Ferstl)–Ed.], had questioned the probity [honesty, reliability, truthfulness, trustworthiness–Ed.] of the crime scene photos taken later that evening after he had left. He stated under oath that the gun was in a different position when he saw it. Somehow the right [or gun–Ed.] hand had been edging out away from the body [when he saw it–Ed.].

[Again it “was the task of the beat officer in Car 211, Franz Ferstl, who was patrolling the parkway.…to find the body before anyone else.” But Ferstl was usurped by “special [CIA] assignment” officer Fornshill.–Ed.]

The set of Polaroids that Officer Ferstl took very early that night, recording the scene when the police first arrived, has disappeared.[?] But that is getting ahead.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 119-26]

*  *  *  *  *

All of the seven Polaroids taken by Officer Franz Ferstl disappeared. He was the first Park Police officer to photograph the crime scene, and his pictures were a unique record of Foster’s body as it was during the first ten to fifteen minutes after the police arrived. Ferstl believes that he gave them to Sgt. Bob Edwards. That was the last anybody saw of them. [11. FBI 302 report, statement of Officer Franz Ferstl, May 2, 1994.]

[So was Edwards ever asked what he did with Ferstl’s pictures? And if so, how did he respond?–Ed.]

It has never been explained what Sgt. Edwards was doing at Fort Marcy Park in the first place. (The record shows that the Fiske investigation never talked to him.) He was not the shift commander. He was not one of the detectives assigned to the case. Yet there he was, in the shadows, unaccountable, playing a critical role in the events of July 20. “Usually, there’s only one investigator [or detective–Ed.] to a [death–Ed.] scene. This was a little bit unusual as far as I was concerned, four investigators at one spot,” said Park Police technician Pete Simonello. [12. Green Books, p. 652: Senate deposition of Peter Simonello, July 14, 1994.]

Remember, this was supposed to be a “routine suicide.” At that stage nobody was supposed to know that Foster was a top White House official.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 141]

*  *  *  *  *

But the U.S. Park Police evidently did, because they reportedly discovered Foster’s body IN HIS CAR, and they so informed the U.S. Secret Service, or so they say. (See the SS report or “memorandum” below.)

And Ferstl’s photos evidently didn’t fit, further or support the official F.B.I. story and/or (presidential?) scenario. And so they couldn’t possibly be “admitted as evidence.”

(And by the way, does anyone remember “Blow Up,” that sixties movie set in swinging London, starring hip-cat fashion photographer David Hemmings and the photogenic Venessa Redgrave, and I do mean “grave,” as the natural model, femme fatal and co-murderess involved in that mysteriously appearing (and “disappearing”) corpse of her “old man” in the park? Spooky developments, baby!)

*  *  *  *  *

And by the way, to distinguish police “officers” from “detectives”: A police “officer” is a uniformed policeman. His job, duty or function is to “look for trouble.” Also called a “patrolman,” whether a foot-patrolman or else driving around in a clearly marked police-car or “cruiser”—or even on a bicycle—the clearly marked, uniformed police “officer” thus establishes a visible “police presence” on the street and among the public.

A police “detective” or “investigator” (a.k.a “inspector” in Europe), on the other hand, is an unmarked “plain-clothes man,” who comes or is “called in” in only after the trouble or crime has been found, but the criminal(s) or “perpetrator(s)” is/are as yet unknown—as in this Foster case. The police detective is thus called in to “solve the case.” His job, duty or function is to “detect” or discover exactly what happened at the crime scene, to identify the criminal(s) or “perpetrator(s),” and to write up a full report for his superiors, who will perhaps pass it on to the public (town, city, county) “prosecutor” or (state or “federal”) “attorney general.” The detective may even personally make the arrest(s) of the “perpetrator(s)” he detects. Again, the detective is a plain-clothes man, and his police car is “unmarked.” He is therefore undetectable by the general public.

And I should mention a rather dangerous hybrid—a detective who “looks for trouble.” Instead of being assigned to “solve” a particular crime or “case,” such a cop might be assigned to a particular class or category of crimes—such as e.g. the “vice-squad,” illegal drug-sales, “mafia,” “gang-land” or “street-gang-related” crimes. This involves “undercover” work whereby the (“plain-clothes”) detective secretly “looks for trouble,” and secretly gathers evidence on his investigative “targets.” This often involve buying (or negotiating to buy) illegal merchandise, services, etc.

Such a detective might therefore be called a “secret policeman.” And such “secret policeman” are everywhere in a “police state.” And because such a detective has so much more freedom to do what he wants and to roam where he wants, this type of policeman, if he so chooses, can easily become a rogue- or punk-cop. For he in is a much better position to be offered, to solicit and to take bribes (not to arrest), to secretly confiscate and sell illegal merchandise, drugs, and so on.

(And I’ve applied several times but I’m told I’m too old. Curses!)

*  *  *  *  *

(The red line points to the parking lot, and the red x marks the bloodless spot. You can safely ignore the red circle and the blue and red paragraphs.)

*  *  *  *  *



Fort Marcy is an earthwork fortification built during the Civil War to protect Washington D.C. from the Confederate Army.

Fort Marcy Park now encloses the old fort and is situated in McLean Virginia  approximately 6½ miles by car from downtown Washington. The George Washington Memorial Parkway is to the south of the park, and Chainbridge road is to the north of the park.

The annotated map below [above–Ed.] shows most of the park. The outline of the earthen ramparts of Fort Marcy can be seen in this map, as well as Chainbridge road and the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Some of the homes of Dogwood subdivision, to the west of Fort Marcy Park are also shown on the map as are the tennis courts for the subdivision and an old cabin.

The circled X marks the approximate location where Foster's body was officially discovered on the evening of July 20, 1993.

*  *  *  *  *

Again, “Fort Marcy” itself is really no more than a V shaped artillery or cannon emplacement upon a old, earthen, man-made embankment—facing south towards and against the “rebels” of a lost cause. (But hold on, ’cause History ain’t dead yet.)

(See map above. It reads “raised earthen perimeter.”)


(And here’s a google earth image, taken in the leafless fall or winter. That’s the Patomic river to the right (east), and the George Washinton parkway across the bottom (south). Can you make out the road to the parking lot, and the V shaped “fort” itself?

*  *  *  *  *





And now back to the crime scene:

(Detective badges are optional, but thinking caps are mandatory (for truth discovery).


So, what did the paramedics see when they arrived from the McLean Station of the Fairfax County Rescue Department?

“I saw blood all over the right side of the neck, from here down, all over the shoulder, and I saw a small—what appeared to be a small gunshot wound here near the jawline. Fine, whether the coroner’s report says that or not, fine. I know what I saw,” said Richard Arthur in a sworn deposition to the Senate Banking Committee. [18. Green Books, p. 892, deposition of Richard Arthur, July 14, 1994.]

“Lt. Bianchi told me from orders higher up that I’m not allowed to talk to anybody about this if I value my job,” he continued.

“I said, well, what about the CIA, the FBI, and all that stuff?

[Meaning, are they also not allowed to speak publicly without being fired by their superiors?–Ed.]

“He said, ‘You’re not allowed to talk to anybody if you value your job.’”

Four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury in the spring of 1995 that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. [19. Author interview with a confidential source at OIC. [i.e. “Office of the Independent Counsel,” K. Starr–Ed.] Two of them, including Arthur, described it as a gunshot wound. What they revealed under intensive cross-examination was a far cry from the innocuous observations attributed to most of them in their FBI statements. [Because the FBI deliberately falsified them?–Ed.] This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from [Starr’s “Associate Independent Counsel,” hired by Starr “with the explicit task of reviewing the Foster death” (p. 111)–Ed.] Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury in Washington.

I look forward to reading the [“Independent”–Ed.] Starr Report, which, as I write, has not been released. His predecessor [another professional liar named Fiske–Ed.] dismissed eyewitness accounts of trauma to the neck with the following words: “The photographs taken at the crime scene conclusively show there were no such wounds.”

A little more ingenuity [in official U.S. mendacity–Ed.] will be necessary this time.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 143-44]


*  *  *  *  *

“Richard Arthur… had attended to 25 or 30 gunshot deaths in his nine years as a rescue worker, believed it was a homicide.” (E-P, p. 127)

And here’s from the FBI’s “FD-302” statement of their interview of Richard Arthur, “emergency medical service technician, referring to Foster’s neck wound from a small caliber bullet.”


In Arthur’s judgment, FOSTER was obviously dead and so he did not check for a pulse. He noted that the body was lying perfectly straight—like it was “ready for a coffin.” A gun was lying on the ground under his right hand, with the barrel partially under FOSTER’S thigh. He remembers the gun as being an automatic weapon of approximately .45 caliber. [“The most powerful handgun in the world, which will blow your head clean off”—SFPD gunslinger Dirty Harry (exaggerating). But it was actually a .38 revolver. The second most powerful handgun in the world?—leaving a very large exit wound. (“A .38 Special will take the back of your head off. Blood everywhere, brain matter.”—Evans-Pritchard, p. 144 below)–Ed.] He noted what appeared to be a small caliber bullet hole in FOSTER’s neck on the right side just under the jaw line about half way between the ear and the tip of the chin. He did not note anything else he thought might be a bullet hole.

[Evans-Pritchard, Appendix B, p. 414]


*  *  *  *  *

Evans-Pritchard, p. 126-28:


At Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993, the Foster case was closing down minute by minute. Once Officer Kevin Fornshill had telegraphed news of the gun-in-the-hand-that-he-never-saw [until McLean Fire Service rescue worker Todd Hall pointed it out to him–Ed.], the U.S. Park Police felt that their work was over. The chief detective at the crime scene, Cheryl Braun, was disarmingly frank about the methodology of concluding suicide.

“It seems to me that we made that [suicide–Ed.] determination prior to going up and looking at the body,” she said. “The gun was in his hand, it was trapped on his thumb. That to me would indicate that he fired the weapon himself.” [11. Green Books, p. 491: Senate deposition of Detective Cheryl Braun, July 23, 1994.]

[Or else that a man’s murderers wanted the world to think so.

Question: Was a gunshot wound found on the “suicide’s” body?

And if not, or if not from the “suicide” gun in his hand, is that not a clue?—that this was absolutely no suicide?—and therefore a murder?–Ed.]

Having contributed her shafts of insight, Detective Braun then delegated the case to Officer John Rolla. It was his first death investigation, and it showed.

The beauty of using the Park Police to handle the violent death of Hillary Clinton’s closest friend is that no other agency could hope to get away with such elliptical logic. Everything they did could be absolved under the capacious rubric of inexperience. But the Park Police have mandatory guidelines, drafted for their Criminal Investigations Branch, which stipulate that “all deaths shall be considered homicides until the facts prove otherwise.”

The facts did not prove anything at all at this point. The gun can stay in the hand, due to spasmodic reflex [?], but typically it does not. The recoil from a .38 caliber revolver usually throws the weapon some distance from the body. Far from establishing suicide, the presence of a gun in the hand is something of a red flag for homicide detectives.

It was not obvious to the paramedics [presumably one of the two unnamed “paramedics from the Fairfax County Emergency Medical Services” mentioned above–Ed.] that this DB was a suicide, and the paramedics had far more experience with violent deaths than the Park Police.

Richard Arthur, who had attended to 25 or 30 gunshot deaths in his nine years as a rescue worker, believed it was a homicide. “I’ve just never seen a body lying so perfectly straight after a bullet in his head,” he said. [12. Green Books, p. 781: Senate deposition of Richard Arthur, July 14, 1994.]

[As if Foster’s corpse was placed or posed there, and perhaps by those men who were seen running away from the scene, and who perhaps also planted the “suicide” gun in the victim’s hand. (See above.)–Ed.]

Back at the McLean Fire Station he pulled up the incident report of his colleague, Corey Ashford, and found that Ashford had coded the death a homicide. [Ibid.]

[“The first team of paramedics in Company One [of the McLean Fire Service: i.e. Todd Hall and George Gonzalez–Ed.] had been and gone long ago. His [i.e. Corey Ashford’s (with Roger Harrison)–Ed.] was the cleanup crew.” (E-P, p.144) Meaning the next shift?–Ed.]

But the Park Police had made up its mind. There was no further need to investigate; no need to canvass the houses around the park to see if anybody had heard a shot; no need to check whether the gun actually worked (the ATF was not asked to do a ballistics check on the gun until August 12, 1993, seven days after the Park Police had already issued its final report); no need to do anything other than dot a few “i”s and cross a few “t”s.

The Park Police ruling of suicide had the effect of crimping further inquiry. [And again who started that ball rolling? Who was the very first U.S. Park officer to make that very (snap) judgment, which no other officer ever later denied or refuted? It was the very one on “special assignment” with or from the CIA, Kevin Fornshill.–Ed.] It was cited by the Justice Department as grounds for backing off its original pledge to conduct a vigorous investigation. It also kept the FBI at bay. Under the Assassinations Statute, the FBI would have been compelled by law to take over the case if there was any question that it might have been homicide. [14. Robert Bryant, FBI special agent in charge, Washington Metropolitan Office, August 10, 1993.]

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 126-28]

*  *  *  *  *

The death of Vincent Foster is another matter. He was the highest ranking official of the executive branch to die in suspicious circumstances since President John F. Kennedy; he was handling the private business affairs of the First Family at the White House; and he was Hillary Clinton’s closest friend, the one person in the world that she would entrust with the most sensitive problems. His death occurred in July 1993, under this [Clinton–Ed.] administration [and co-presidency–Ed.]. The subsequent conduct of the U.S. Park Police, the U.S. Secret Service, the FBI, the U.S. Justice Department, the Virginia medical authorities, as well as Independent Counsel Robert Fiske and all those who participated in his report indicated that the police and judicial apparatus of this country had been dangerously politicized. Every backstop mechanism had failed. If ever there was a need for a crusading prosecutor to cleanse the institutions of the republic, it was in the case of Vincent Foster.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 113]

*  *  *  *  *

(And just look who we got instead: “Independent Counsel” Kenneth Starr.

Their very titles are lies and mislabels.)

And here’s Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, has to say about this “Robert B. Fiske”:

Robert Bishop Fiske, Jr. (born December 28, 1930 in New York City) is a prominent trial attorney and a partner with the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell in New York City. He was the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1976 to 1980 after earlier having served as an assistant in the office from 1957 to 1961.

Special Prosecutor

Attorney General Janet Reno [pres. Clinton’s appointee–Ed.] appointed Fiske as the “special prosecutor” to investigate the Whitewater controversy and the death of White House Counsel Vincent Foster in January 1994. Fiske conducted investigations, and released an interim report on June 30 [1994–Ed.] that in summary concluded that President Bill Clinton and White House officials had not interfered with the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was investigating the failed Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, a partner of the Whitewater Development Corporation. Fiske’s report also concluded that Vince Foster committed suicide. On the same day that Fiske released this report, President Clinton signed the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, effectively abolishing the position of Special Prosecutor and replacing it with the position of Independent Counsel.[?] Under the new law, the Special Division [instead of the U.S. president/“attorney general”–Ed.] had sole authority to select Independent Counsels. [And yet, “the statute gave the Attorney General…the authority to remove an independent counsel,” (Can you believe that? See below.)–Ed.] Janet Reno formally requested that Robert Fiske be chosen, and allowed to continue his investigation.[?] On August 5 [1994–Ed.], the Special Division, headed by Judge David Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, decided to replace Fiske with former D.C. Circuit judge Kenneth Starr.


*  *  *  *  *

And of Fiske’s successor, K. Star, Wikipedia ( says the following:


Kenneth Winston Starr (born July 21, 1946) is an American lawyer and former judge who was appointed [by “the Special Division”–Ed.] to the Office of the Independent Counsel to investigate the suicide death [?] of the deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater land transactions by President Bill Clinton. He later submitted to Congress the Starr Report, which led to Clinton's impeachment on charges arising from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. [Actually for lying under oath, and not for having “sex with that woman.”–Ed.] He currently serves as dean of Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California.

[But would anyone who instead looked (or “investigated”) found and told or wrote the truth about the Foster case (9/11/2001 or World War II) be allowed and welcomed to teach there, or anywhere else in America?–Ed.]

…. In August 1994 Starr was appointed by a three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation, replacing Robert B. Fiske, who had been appointed by the [Clinton–Ed.] Attorney General prior to the reenactment of the Independent Counsel law. The law conferred broad investigative powers on Starr and the other independent counsels named to investigate the administration [the imperial “executive,” the U.S president–Ed.], including the right to subpoena nearly anyone who might have relevant information.

…. On August 5, Starr was named independent counsel. The Special Division’s written statement emphasized that the judges found no fault with the investigation up to that point by Robert Fiske, a moderate Republican appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno, but the newly reenacted law, signed by President Clinton, said that Independent Counsels must be chosen by the three-judge panel and not by the administration under investigation. [And whose idea was that law? The Clintons? Hell no!–Ed.] Although Starr and other independent counsels were later criticized as unaccountable and unstoppable, the statute [i.e. “the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994”–Ed.] gave the Attorney General and the Special Division the authority to remove an independent counsel, and the Special Division used it in at least one instance.

…. Starr’s investigation eventually led to the impeachment of President Clinton, with whom Starr shared Time’s Man of the Year designation for 1998.[?] Despite his impeachment, the President was acquitted in the subsequent trial before the United States Senate and was not removed from office.


Vince Foster

On October 10, 1997, Starr’s Report on the death of deputy White House counsel, Vince Foster , drafted largely by Starr's deputy Brett Kavanaugh was released to the public by the Special Division. The [Starr–Ed.] report agrees with the findings of previous independent counsel Robert Fiske that Foster indeed committed suicide at Fort Marcy Park, and that his suicide was caused primarily by undiagnosed and untreated depression. As CNN explained on February 28, 1997, “The [Starr] report refutes claims by conservative political organizations that Foster was the victim of a murder plot and coverup,” but “despite those findings, right-wing political groups have continued to allege that there was more to the death and that the president and first lady tried to cover it up.” [Why, aren’t “left-wing political groups” capable of telling the truth?–Ed.] [13. “Report: Starr Rules Out Foul Play In Foster Death,” CNN, Feb. 23, 1997.] CNN also noted that organizations pushing the murder theory included the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, and Accuracy in Media, supported in part by Scaife’s foundation.[14. “Who Is Richard Mellon Scaife?”; CNN, April 27, 1998.] Scaife’s reporter on the Whitewater matter, Christopher Ruddy, was a frequent critic of Starr’s handling of the case. [15]

[Ok, but what writer, other than me, is truly going to write for free?–Ed.]


*  *  *  *  *

And from (faqs):


If there is a cover-up, why wouldn’t Mr. Starr's office have exposed it?


Mr. Starr used the FBI to investigate this case. It was the third FBI probe into the death. [And the FBI is the investigative arm of the U.S. “Justice” dept. And the FBI’s “director,” like his boss, the U.S. “attorney” general,” is a presidential appointee.–Ed.] By turning his office into a “microcosm of the justice department” (Mr. Starr's description), he has undermined the independent counsel law. The term “independent counsel” is short for “independent from the Justice Department counsel.” Mr. Starr testified before Congress that he “loves” the Justice Department. Apparently, he is not the type of person to “pull the rug out” from under the DOJ.


*  *  *

And yet, if what Wikipedia tell us is true, that the “the statute [i.e. ‘the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994’–Ed.] gave the Attorney General…the authority to remove an independent counsel,” then “The term ‘independent counsel’ is [not quite so–Ed.] short for ‘independent from the Justice Department counsel’” after all, is it?


*  *  *  *  *

“Foster’s” Strange and Unknown “Suicide” .38 Handgun and Its Purely Imaginary Wound

According to an FBI memo attached to lab report dated May 9th 1994, no fingerprints belonging to Vincent Foster were found on the gun found in Foster’s hand—the one which the FBI, the U.S. “Justice” dept., the Clintons and rest of the U.S. gov’t all claim Foster had killed himself with. (So go figure.)

*  *  *  *  *

And here are pictures of the “suicide” gun found in Foster’s dead hand (in the park), and seen above:


*  *  *

*  *  *

[Pictures of the “suicide” gun found in Foster’s dead hand]

*  *  *  *  *

Lisa Foster, the victim’s widow, did not recognize the photograph(s) of the gun found in her dead husband’s hand, shown to her by Park Police captain, Charles Hume, in the presence of “her” (or rather president Clinton’s) “surrogate” lawyer, James Hamilton.

Captain Hume’s handwritten notes read: “not the gun she thought it must be. [I.E. if it truly belonged to Vince or his father, which was a–Ed.]. Silver six-gun, large barrel.”


Nine days later [after her husband’s death–Ed.] Lisa Foster was interviewed at the K Street law offices of Swidler & Berlin, under the auspices of lawyer James Hamilton, the White House [i.e. Clinton–Ed.] “surrogate” who had been assigned to her. [To thus subtly control and monitor the case?–Ed.] “She was presented with a photograph of the weapon found with Mr. Foster’s body but was unable to identify it,” states the Park Police interview with Lisa Foster. [20. Green Books, p. 2153: interview with Lisa Foster, July 29, 993, Supplemental Criminal Incident Record.]

The handwritten notes of Park Police Captain Charles Hume were more explicit: “not the gun she thought it must be. Silver six-gun, large barrel.” [21. Green Books, p. 2227: notes of Captain Hume, July 29, 1993. 22. Fiske Report, p. 38.] Apparently, she was referring to an old silver gun owned by Vince’s late father, which she had seen in a trunk in Little Rock.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 130]


The truth is, no member of the family was ever able to identify the gun found in Foster’s hand. Not one. Ever.

The Fiske investigation managed to transcend this.

[Remember Fiske? The “Special Prosecutor/Independent Counsel” whom Clinton’s “attorney general” Reno had appointed to (allegedly) find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the death of his life-long friend, Vincent Foster, who had also been Clinton’s boyhood friend, his “Deputy While House Counsel” (under Nassbaum) and his wife’s business partner (along with Nassbaum), her confidant and her former lover. [p. 333)–Ed.]

His [i.e. Fiske’s–Ed.] FBI agents cut the Gordian Knot with a single stroke of Alexandrian audacity by showing Lisa Foster the wrong gun. [And presumably a silver gun.–Ed.] Back at Swidler & Berlin [i.e. the law office of James Hamilton, lawyer for the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign and “surrogate” lawyer for the White House, who was hired (to “represent” the widow) by Asst. Atty. General Webster Hubbel (p. 144-15)–Ed.] on May 9, 1994, nearly a year after Foster’s death, she gave a long interview to the FBI.

“Lisa Foster believes that the gun found at Fort Marcy Park may be the silver gun which she brought with her other belongings when she permanently moved [with her husband from Little Rock AK–Ed.] to Washington,” reads the FD-3O2 [FBI–Ed.] write-up of the interview. The black gun was now silver. The widow, who was taking Prozac for depression, finally recognized the gun that she had not been able to identify a year before [according to the FBI–Ed.]. [12. Green Books, p. 1633. FBI 302 report, interview with Lisa Foster, May 9, 1994.]

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 131]


*  *  *  *  *

Isn’t that amazing: How the F.B.I. can seemingly make revolvers change colors! What was black was now silver.

I suppose the earlier FBI question to Lisa Foster was: Did she or her husband own a gun? And that that “silver gun” was her answer. (See below for more.) And so the FBI then pretended that that must have been the one very her husband “suicided” himself with, and thus later presented her with a picture of a silver gun matching her description.

And if “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster’s widow had had an actual lawyer, instead of Clinton White House snake in the grass, he would have doubtlessly pointed out to her and to the FBI that the silver gun that they were showing her was not the black gun they had showed her the year before. You know?

The point is: It was necessary for the killers of “Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster (and/or their “after-the-fact accomplices”) to somehow connect his “suicide” with “his” gun. For otherwise they must explain how he acquired it.

And so not only is the “suicide” gun’s identification patently false, there is of course no forensic or ballistics evidence to support the FBI’s claim that Mr. Foster shot himself with this black or silver handgun. And as we shall further see, there’s not ever a wound to go with it!—unless this silver gun is a little .22.

And was Mrs. (or rather Mr.) Foster’s “silver gun” ever found?—“with her other belongings” in her and her husband’s Washington home?—after her husband had allegedly committed suicide with it? If so, that would make the FBI look even sillier, more crooked and more fraudulent.

So what in Hell happened to that silver handgun? Did the family subsequently find it and yet keep their mouths shut about it? And if so, why? For fear? Fear of the U.S. gov’t…and the Clintons?

And so we see the official manure coming out of WashingtonD.C. just never stops flying this way and that. And that precisely why even Hercules couldn’t clean out them stables. So won’t someone please flush that stinking imperial city?—presently constructed almost entirely of such vile and violent, officious and murderous dung.

And so you don’t want to be found dead in “Washington,” folks—not if you know what’s good for you.

*  *  *  *  *

Again, there’s no proof whatsoever that Foster died by that old black gun found (or rather planted) in Forster’s hand (picture above)—which did indeed have a bullet in the chamber—but which “no member of the [Foster–Ed.] family was ever able to identify.”

The U.S. gov’t and their Clintons claim their “Deputy While House Counsel” shot himself in the mouth with it at the very spot in the park where his body was found.


On July 15, 1997, [U.S. “Independent Counsel”–Ed.] Kenneth Starr issued a terse statement. “Based on investigation, analysis and review of the evidence by experts and experienced investigators and prosecutors, this Office [of the “Independent Counsel” of the United States–Ed.] concluded that Mr. Foster committed suicide by gunshot in Fort Marcy Park, VA, on July 20, 1993.” [Evans-Pritchard, p. 111]


But a 38 caliber bullet make’s a bloody mess. It “will take the back of your head off. Blood every where. Brain matter.” (E-P, p. 144)

And yet there was no blood, no gunpowder upon the victim’s face, and no visible powder burns within his mouth, and no visible exit wound. (E-P, p. 145)

And yet the “federal” gov’t of WashingtonD.C. claims there was a 1¼ inch exit wound at the back of Foster’s head.) But no one ever saw it, or at least no one credible. And there were no skull fragments found at the scene behind the head either.

The F.B.I. report says the doctor on duty at the Fairfax County morgue “locate[d] and observe[d] the exit wound on the decedent’s head.” But you know what? He didn’t. A year later Evans-Pritchard talked to him, a Dr. Orenstein. “‘What did this exit wound look like,’ I asked him. ‘I never saw one directly,’ he said, clearly taken aback. ‘The hair was matted with dried blood, but I didn’t get a clear look. I really didn’t spend too much time looking back there; my suspicions weren’t aroused.’” (E-P, p. 145)

And although Tom Wittenberg, the director of Rubel’s Funeral Home in Hope, Arkansas, Foster’s home town, told Evans-Pritchard that he too didn’t look closely at Foster’s body, he being a friend of the family and all, he is caught on tape telling a private investigator, “What if there was no exit wound at all,” he said. “I’m telling you it’s possible there wasn’t.”

(And I don’t doubt it. How about you, dear reader?)

According to the U.S. Park Police’s “Supplemental Criminal Incident Record” (Green Books, p. 2128) “Dr. Beyer stated that X-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head.” And yet this same man denied he even took an X-ray before the Senate banking Committee’s inquiry into the affair. (See E-P, p. 146-48)

And no exit bullet from the gun was to be found in the ground whereupon the body was found. And no blood underneath. And no one ever heard a shot. (And 38’s are loud!) In fact, none of the neighbors within the five houses 600 feet or closer to the corpse—the length of two football fields—were never even asked by the F.B.I. if they had heard a shot!) (E-P, p. 133-34)

And (as we’ve read) the corpse was initially found without any gun whatsoever, neither black nor silver!)

(There was, however, a neck wound, as noted above. And since there was no exit wound, and if the bullet was not secretly extracted, this slug would have remained inside the victim’s neck, and therefore would have been visible in a neck X-ray.)

But let’s get back to the crime scene.

*  *  *  *  *

So, what did the paramedics see when they arrived from the McLean Station of the Fairfax County Rescue Department?

“I saw blood all over the right side of the neck, from here down, all over the shoulder, and I saw a small—what appeared to be a small gunshot wound here near the jawline. Fine, whether the coroner’s [i.e. Dr. Beyer’s; (see below)–Ed.] report says that or not, fine. I know what I saw,” said Richard Arthur in a sworn deposition to the Senate Banking Committee. [18. Green Books, p. 892, deposition of Richard Arthur, July 14, 1994.]

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 143]

*  *  *  *  *

(But two hours later there was no neck blood to see. So go figure.)

From Evans-Pritchard, pgs. 144-48:


Corey Ashford had the unpleasant task of moving Foster’s corpse from Fort Marcy Park to the morgue at Fairfax Hospital. It was about 8:10 PM by then, still light. The first team of paramedics in Company One [“rescue workers Todd Hall and George Gonzalez from the McLean Fire Service, Company One”–Ed.] had been and gone long ago. His was the cleanup crew.

It can be a horrible business dealing with a gunshot death. A .38 Special will take the back of your head off. Blood everywhere, brain matter. It was not what he was trained for. An Emergency Medical Services technician, aged 24, his metier was saving people’s lives. But somebody had to do it [move and transport Foster’s corpse to the Fairfax County Hospital Morgue–Ed.].

Funny thing, though. He didn’t notice any blood. [20. FBI 302 report, statement of Corey Ashford, February 26, 1994.] Ashford picked up the corpse from the shoulders, cradling the head against his stomach as he lifted it into the body bag. Still no blood. He didn’t get a drop of blood on his white uniform, or on the disposable gloves he was wearing for the job. There was no blood on the ground underneath the body, either, that he could see. [21. FBI 302 report, second statement of Corey Ashford, April 27, 1994.] He coded Foster’s body a homicide on his incident report.

Roger Harrison didn’t see any blood either, as he as helped Corey slide Foster’s shoulders into the body bag. No blood on the ground. No blood on the corpse. No blood on anybody who had touched it. [22. FBI 302 report, statement of Roger Harrison, March 11, 1994.] The grizzled 19-year veteran of the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department did not file a hazardous materials report which is mandatory if there is blood around. [HIV fears?–Ed.]

Nobody filed a hazardous materials report. It was almost as if the blood had vanished from the neck between the time that first team of rescue workers left Fort Marcy Park at 6:37 PM, and the second team arrived at 8:02 PM; almost as if somebody had been cleaning up—which, of course, was impossible. [23. EMS Incident Reports list exact times of each crew.]

[Again, there is evidence that Foster was shot in the neck with a small caliber/size bullet. (p. 135-6)

And E-P is wryly joking here. Clearly there are 85 minutes between 6:37 and 8:02 PM—lots of time to wipe off the blood from Foster’s neck and shoulder, and perhaps otherwise disguise his neck wound.–Ed.]

But one thing they could all agree on when they were recounting war stories back at Fire Station One was that nobody saw an exit wound. Corey Ashford didn’t see it. [24. Green Books, p. 891 Arthur deposition, July 14, 1994.]

Richard Arthur didn’t see it. [25. Ibid, p. 885.]

Sgt. George Gonzalez didn’t see it. [26. Green books, p. 996, deposition of Sgt. George Gonzalez, July 20, 1994.]

The head was intact.

None of the paramedics saw the “official” 1 by 1¼ inch hole in the back of Foster’s skull. They have forensic evidence on their side, too. No bone fragments were ever found behind the head. [I.E. on the ground behind Foster’s head.–Ed.]

Over at the Fairfax County Morgue that night the duty doctor was Julian Orenstein, a charming man who now works as a pediatrician. His job was to verify Vince Foster’s death, nothing else. In his FBI statement taken on May 17, 1994, it says that Dr. Orenstein lifted the body by the shoulders in order to “locate and observe the exit wound on the decedent’s head.” [27. FBI 302 report, statement of Dr. Julian Orenstein, April 14, 1994.]

It is a clever construction. Any normal person reading this document would assume that Dr. Orenstein did indeed see the exit wound. [As doubtlessly intended. But he didn’t! (The FBI strikes again!)–Ed.] But by this stage I was so suspicious of every FD-302 statement taken by the FBI that I decided to call him up at his home in Falls Church, just to be sure.

What did this exit wound look like, I asked him.

“I never saw one directly,” he said, clearly taken aback. “The hair was matted with dried blood[?], but I didn’t get a clear look. I really didn’t spend too much time looking back there; my suspicions weren’t aroused.” [28. Author interview with Orenstein, May 1995.]


A few months later I obtained a copy of the handwritten notes of the FBI interviews [of Dr. Orienstein–Ed.], which [Pittsburg Tribune-Review writer–Ed.] Christopher Ruddy had shaken loose after fighting and winning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Office of the Independent Counsel. There was no mention of Orenstein trying to locate an exit wound. [29. FBI Notes, p. 287, notes on interview with Orenstein.] The passage [about Orienstein “locate[ing] and observe[ing] the exit wound on the decedent’s head”–Ed.] had been inserted [presumably by other FBI/“Justice” dept. officials–Ed.] into his FD-302 statement. It was another of the clues left by the FBI in the Foster case. Link the little fibs together, and you start to see the anatomy of a cover-up.

There is another clue in the FBI interview of Park Police Detective John Rolla. In the FD-302 write-up provided to the Senate it says “he observed an extensive amount of blood...on the back side of his head.” [30. FBI 302 report, statement of Detective Rolla, April 27, 1994.] But in the original handwritten notes the description of the back of Foster’s head is redacted [i.e. officially censored, obscured, blocked-out–Ed.]. [31. FBI notes, p. 196.] Why on earth would the FBI redact that passage? National Security? [Or because Park Police Detective John Rolla said no such thing, and the FBI interviewer and “302” reporter reported no such thing, but his FBI superiors later changed what this FBI interviewer had reported, and hence what Rolla had allegedly told him? So what do Rolla and his FBI interviewer’s have to say about all this? Did detective Rolla ever say he “observed an extensive amount of blood...on the back side of his head”?–Ed.] It is a clear-cut violation of the FBI’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

After embalming at the Murphy Funeral Home in Arlington, a Defense Department subcontractor, the body went to the Reubel Funeral Home in Little Rock. There it was prepared for final viewing before burial in Foster’s hometown of Hope, Arkansas. The funeral director, Tom Wittenberg, told me that he never looked closely at the body because he was a close friend of Vince Foster’s and the whole ordeal was too distressing. “I checked his hair, face, suit, and hands. That’s all I saw.”

But that is not what he told a private investigator in Arkansas in a taped conversation. “What if there was no exit wound at all,” he said. “I’m telling you it’s possible there wasn’t.”

[32. The investigator, an Arkansas native, was carrying out an investigation for [London’s and Evans-Prichard’s paper–Ed.] The Sunday Telegraph. Wittenberg clearly did not realize that he was being taped.]

So, what do the X-rays reveal?

Like the crime scene photos, the X-rays have disappeared. [Evidently they too didn’t support the false and slanderous Clinton/“Justice” dept./FBI story. And so they too had to go away.–Ed.] It appears that Dr. James C. Beyer, the Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner [the deputy Medical Examiner of Fairfax County, Virginia–Ed.], did in fact take X-rays. “Dr. Beyer stated that X-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head,” states a Supplemental Criminal Incident Record of the U.S. Park Police. [33. Green Books, p. 2128.]

[How about any entry or exit wounds?—and especially in the mouth, where the U.S. gov’t says Foster shot himself?

So if there’s no exit wound, then the bullet must remain in the body—in this case, the head (allegedly). And so the significance of finding no X-ray “evidence of bullet fragments in the head,” means there was no bullet nor bullet fragments in Foster’s head, which means he was not shot in the head.

And these “missing” X-rays would of course have also shown the presence or absence of any exit wound, because a .38 caliber bullet entering the head (or mouth) at “point blank” range would certainly leave one, and a very large one.

And what about Foster’s neck?

Again, it is most likely that Foster was shot in the neck with a small caliber gun/bullet. And since there was no exit wound, and if the bullet was not secretly extracted, this slug would have remained inside the victim’s neck, and therefore would have been visible in a neck X-ray.–Ed.]

The X-ray box on the [Beyer–Ed.] autopsy report had been ticked “yes.” [34. Green Books, p. 370: Autopsy report, gunshot wound chart.] In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Dr. Beyer said that he had been planning to take X-rays but never did. “I made out that report prior to actually performing the autopsy. We’d been having difficulty with our equipment, and we were not getting readable X-rays. We had a new machine; we had new grids; we had a new processor.” [35. Senate testimony of Dr. James C. Beyer, July 29, 1994.]

He went on to say that no X-rays were taken in his coroner’s office between July 6 and July 26,1993. In other words, the machine had already been out of action for two weeks. He knew it was not working, but he ticked the box anyway.[?]

“Why didn’t you call Fairfax Hospital and arrange for a portable X-ray machine to be brought in for your use in such an important occasion?” asked Senator Lauch Faircloth.

“Because this was a ‘perforating’ gunshot wound. If it had been a ‘penetrating’ one, I would have gotten an X-ray of the head.”

 “Do what, now?”

Beyer went on to bury the Senator in an avalanche of technical jargon. But Faircloth, a North Carolina hog farmer, would not give up. “How did you tell the Park Police the results of an X-ray that you didn’t take?”

“I don’t recall telling them that statement.”

“Well, they do.”

“I have no explanation.”

“Has Robert Fiske ever talked with you?”

“No, sir.”

“How did [Clinton’s appointee–Ed.] Robert Fiske decide to believe you instead of the [U.S. Park–Ed.] police report? Did he send investigators to the hospital, or to the company that services the X-ray machine?”

“Not that I am aware of.”

But by then Senator Faircloth was running out of his allotted five minutes. He was the only Republican on the Banking Committee who asked the relevant questions during the comical one-day show hearings held by the Democrats on July 29, 1994. In a sense Faircloth was “out of order” because the death of Vincent Foster was strictly off limits. Senate Resolution 229 restricted the investigation to questions involving the conduct of the Park Police and “the way in which White House officials handled documents” in Foster’s office. [36. Green Books, p. 138: Senate Resolution 229, June 19, 1994.] [Evans-Pritchard, p. 144-48]

*  *  *  *  *

(So whose senatorial idea was that? Apparently those who didn’t want the truth of Foster’s murder to become public knowledge.)

*  *  *  *  *

The “Independent” Starr Hires the “Wrong” Guy, and “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words”

From (faqs):


If there is a cover-up, why wouldn’t Mr. Starr's office have exposed it?


Mr. Starr used the FBI to investigate this case. It was the third FBI probe into the death. [And the FBI is the investigative arm of the U.S. “Justice” dept. And the FBI’s “director,” like his boss, the U.S. “attorney” general,” is a presidential appointee.–Ed.] By turning his office into a “microcosm of the justice department” (Mr. Starr's description), he has undermined the independent counsel law. The term “independent counsel” is short for “independent from the Justice Department counsel.” Mr. Starr testified before Congress that he “loves” the Justice Department. Apparently, he is not the type of person to “pull the rug out” from under the DOJ.


*  *  *  *  *

And again from Evans-Pritchard’s Secret Life…, p. 138-41:


Miquel Rodriguez, however, was not a fully signed-up member of the Washington power elite.… [Rodriguez had worked as an Assistant United States Attorney in Sacramento Cal. before being hired by Starr–Ed.] Clearly, Kenneth Starr did not know quite what he was getting when this young Hispanic—a child of migrant farm workers and a graduate of Harvard Law School—arrived in Washington in the fall of 1994 to take up his new post of Associate Independent Counsel [or OIC–Ed.].

…. The job of [“Associate Independent Counsel”–Ed.] Rodriguez was to reopen the investigation into the death of Vincent Foster. It was generally agreed that the Fiske investigation was so amateurish that the work would have to be done all over again. But this meant very different things to different people. For Rodriguez it meant starting from scratch with an open mind. For Mark H. Tuohey III, the head of the Office of the Independent Counsel in Washington, it meant accommodating the agenda of the U.S. Justice Department. Rodriguez was astounded when Tuohey, his boss, took him aside and told him that it would be ill-advised to challenge the essential findings of the Fiske Report. [8. Author interview with a confidential source at OIC.]

This was to be a “friendly takeover.” [of Fiske’s bogus investigation; i.e. a second pseudo-investigation to confirm the first–Ed.] It would be wrong to understand this as an effort to protect the Clintons. Like most Washington lawyers Tuohey happens to be a Democrat, but that is neither here nor there.[?] In my experience, people of his ilk are first and foremost loyal to the group, and the group is an idiosyncratic subculture of like-minded lawyers. They move in and out of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. They clerk for the same Supreme Court Justices. They are members of the Metropolitan Club. They are Episcopalians and high Catholics. [Are there no “jews,” and especially in the lawyers’ officer-corps or hierarchy?–Ed.] They are alumni of Georgetown Prep. They do not expose each other’s dirty linen in public. [And they are almost all either “democrats” or “republicans.” So what’s the difference?–Ed.] And there was a great deal of dirty linen in the Fiske Report. It had to be finessed as gracefully as possible.

The mission for [“Associate Independent Counsel”–Ed.] Miquel Rodriguez, then, was to produce a better suicide report, one that was not so self-evidently mendacious [false, untrue, misleading, deceptive–Ed.]. Whether or not Tuohey already knew the secrets of the Foster case is something that he will have to answer to his conscience, and to history. [But certainly not to the American citizenry, nor to American Justice. For there is none.–Ed.] But it did not look good when he [“Mark H. Tuohey III, the head of the Office of the Independent Counsel in Washington”–Ed.] left the Starr investigation in September 1995 to work for the Houston law firm of Vinson & Elkins. As reported by Christopher Ruddy in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, this was the same firm that was representing the Rose Law Firm—where Hillary Clinton, Vincent Foster, and Webster Hubbell had been partners—in its dealings with the Office of the Independent Counsel. [How than can the author say that “It would be wrong to understand this [‘Independent’ Starr and Touhey investigation of Foster’s death, etc.–Ed.] as an effort to protect the Clintons.”–Ed.] Vinson & Elkins issued assurances that Tuohey would recuse himself from matters relating to the Rose Law Firm. Very wise. Nobody is accusing Mr. Tuohey of switching sides in the thick of battle, but it goes to show how incestuous this circle of lawyers can be.

At first Rodriguez pretended to be following orders. He went about his business quietly, confiding only in his closest aides at the Washington office of the Independent Counsel. Unlike some of the other prosecutors—aristocratic in their work habits, caught up in the whirl of Georgetown social life—he was spending his evenings combing through the archive of documents in the Foster case, and he did not like what he saw.

It became obvious that the FBI agents who did the nuts and bolts work for the Fiske Report were engaged in a systematic cover-up. Now, a year and a half later, the same FBI agents were still there in the Office of the Independent Counsel, the gatekeepers who controlled access to the witnesses, the documents, the evidence. Yet Kenneth Starr had kept them on, allowing them to be the judge of their own past work.

*  *  *  *  *

[“Associate Independent Counsel”–Ed.] Miquel Rodriguez kept holding the photograph up in the light, wondering. He knew there was something wrong with it. The resolution was too blurred, even for a blowup of a Polaroid.

[2. Author interview with a confidential source inside the Starr investigation (Office of the Independent Counsel, hereinafter referred to as “OIC”).]

All you could see was a smear of blood on the right side of Foster’s neck. It was the mysterious “contact stain” that nobody was able to explain. How had the blood found its way there [without a blood trail from the mouth, wherein the alleged “suicide” victim had allegedly shot himself–Ed.], against the laws of forensic science, against gravity? It was nagging at him day and night.

The Fiske Report said this blood smear had been “caused by a blotting action.” [3. Fiske Report, p. 44.] The head must have fallen on the shoulder, and then bounced upright again. But that did not make any sense. There was not enough blood on the upper side of Foster’s right shoulder, and the alignment was all wrong for a mirror transfer effect.

Clutching at straws, the forensic pathology panel brought in by the Fiske investigation had concluded that somebody at the crime scene must have moved the head, and was refusing to admit it. [4. Fiske Report, p. 45.] But what did the panel know, or care to know?

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 136-37]

*  *  *  *  *

[And now continuing from above–Ed.]

Rodriguez kept muttering about the photograph. “Is this all there is?” he asked.

Yes, that’s all there is; that’s the original, replied his FBI staff. And so it might have rested if it had not been for the courage of one person in the Office of the Independent Counsel who managed to gain access to the locked files. Hidden inside was a folder of crime scene photographs that had been deliberately withheld from the prosecutor.

Among them was the original Polaroid of Foster’s neck. What it showed was something very different from the “contact stain” in the fraudulent picture that had been circulating. Evidently, somebody had taken a photo of the original and then touched it up to disguise the incriminating evidence. This second-generation copy had then been used to create an enhanced “blow up.”

It was blatant obstruction of justice. Indeed it was worse. Whoever had done this was now an accessory after the fact in the death of the Deputy White House Counsel, and they had made the mistake of failing to destroy the original.

Wary of entrusting anything to the FBI crime labs, Rodriguez turned to the Smithsonian Institution for enhancement of the original. The work was done by the Smithsonian’s subcontractor, Asman Custom Photo Service on Pennsylvania Avenue. A set of five “blowups” of the original were made. They revealed a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck (his left side) about half way between the chin and the ear. It was marked by a black “stippled” ring—a sort of dotted effect, like an engraving—that was suggestive of a .22 caliber gunshot fired at point blank range into the flesh.

(Israeli intelligence once had a case like this when they were interrogating a Palestinian, gun pressed in the neck, and accidentally shot the man.

[9. Author interview with Victor Ostrovsky, former Mossad agent.]

[And author of By Way of deception: The making of a Mossad Officer (1990) and The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda (1994)–Ed.]

One medical examiner who looked at the photo thought that the wound might be the result of a 40,000 volt stun-gun, designed to cause temporary paralysis for about fifteen minutes. Fired at short range it can leave burn marks. But it was more likely to be a low caliber gunshot wound. Something had perforated the skin, causing blood to ooze down the side of the neck and into the collar.

The photograph, which I have examined carefully, is one of the few surviving Polaroids taken at Fort Marcy that night. The rest disappeared. This includes most of the Polaroids taken by detective John Rolla.

“I mean, I had them in the office that night, I did reports, and I don’t know what happened.... I put them in a jacket, I don’t know.” [10. Green Books, p. 425: Senate deposition of Detective John Rolla, July 21, 1994.]

All of the seven Polaroids taken by Officer Franz Ferstl disappeared. He was the first Park Police officer to photograph the crime scene, and his pictures were a unique record of Foster’s body as it was during the first ten to fifteen minutes after the police arrived. Ferstl believes that he gave them to Sgt. Bob Edwards. That was the last anybody saw of them. [11. FBI 302 report, statement of Officer Franz Ferstl, May 2, 1994.]

 [Evans-Pritchard, p. 138-41]

*  *  *  *  *

Clearly, Starr had been assured a long time ago that there was nothing to Foster’s death.[(?) No doubt that’s why he was chosen, hired and called the “Independent” Counsel”—precisely because he’s the kind or species of “investigator” who can be told by his employers ahead of time what he will officially “conclude” and “find”—and hence not “find.”–Ed.] He was none too pleased when Miquel Rodriguez started sending memos warning that there was something deeply wrong.[(?) Why would or should Starr (and Tuohey) be thus displeased but that they were both official liars-for-hire, and Rodriguez wasn’t?–Ed.] Starr was charming, of course. The son of a Texas, small-town, Church of Christ minister, he is a delightful man, and a devout Christian.[?] But he had no idea what to do when Rodriguez told him that an original Polaroid showed a wound in the neck, and that renegade elements of the FBI were covering up the case.[?]

Rodriguez resigned on March 20 [1995–Ed.]. His closest aide resigned in sympathy. He returned to his old job in Sacramento, refusing to give interviews to the press. By all accounts he was philosophical in defeat. There is only so much a single human being can do. Life moves on.

The grand jury was disbanded and sent home. It was replaced by a new jury with no knowledge of the peripatetic gun, or the missing photos, or the wound in the neck. [Evans-Pritchard, p. 151]

*  *  *

(And that’s “jewish”-Amerikan “Justice,” folks.)

*  *  *  *  *

And from Evans-Pritchard’s chapter 8, “The Taboo Investigation”:


ON JULY 15, 1997, [U.S. “Independent Counsel”–Ed.] Kenneth Starr issued a terse statement. “Based on investigation, analysis and review of the evidence by experts and experienced investigators and prosecutors, this Office [of the “Independent Counsel” of the United States–Ed.] concluded that Mr. Foster committed suicide by gunshot in Fort Marcy Park, VA, on July 20, 1993.”

…. Most people are prepared to accept Starr’s conclusion, but before making their judgment they should know that the lead prosecutor appointed to investigate the death [of “Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster–Ed.] came to a very different conclusion. When Starr was presented with the evidence by his own staff, he looked the other way.

Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez was summoned to the Washington Office of the Independent Counsel in the fall of 1994 by Kenneth Starr, with the explicit task of reviewing the Foster death. He was not a conservative. He had no ideological investment in the matter. Indeed, when he arrived from California with his ponytail, his earring, and his leather jackets, there were comments among the hard-liners that Kenneth Starr had gone too far in his efforts to recruit Democrats, liberals, and ethnic minorities to his team.

For four months Rodriguez probed the case. He called witnesses before a grand jury to answer questions for the first time under penalty of perjury, and soon discovered serious indications of a cover-up by the FBI. By the early spring of 1995 he was starting to probe a hypothesis that the crime scene at Fort Marcy Park had been staged, that the gun had most likely been planted in Foster’s hand, and that a crucial photograph of Foster’s neck and head had been falsified.

But Rodriguez believed that the investigation was being sabotaged by prosecutors and FBI agents in his own office. He turned to Starr for support. Nothing was done to resolve the matter. In March 1995 Rodriguez resigned. The only serious investigation ever conducted into the death of Vincent Foster came to an abrupt end.

I do not wish speculate at length about the motives of Kenneth Starr. But one has to wonder about the seriousness of a man willing to abandon a half-completed investigation of the President and seek comfortable refuge as a dean at Pepperdine University in Malibu. The fact that he later reversed himself in panic, after a barrage of press criticism, illustrates the point with brutal clarity. But there is a more important point to understand about Kenneth Starr. He is by character a servant of power, not a prosecutor. One thing can be predicted with absolute certainty: He will never confront the U.S. Justice Department, the FBI, and the institutions of the permanent government in Washington. His whole career has been built on networking, by ingratiating himself. His natural loyalties lie with the politico-legal fraternity that covered up the Foster case in the first place.

[So who chose him? And why? Apparently “the politico-legal fraternity that covered up the Foster case in the first place.” And that’ why.–Ed.]

While it appears that Kenneth Starr has given more emphasis to investigating Whitewater than to investigating the death of Vince Foster, in my opinion, Whitewater is not a matter of epochal importance. [Indeed, was it not a big “red herring” or distraction?–Ed.] It is a fit subject for news reporting. It is something that the American people should be told about. It reflects badly on the President and the First Lady. But is it a grievous offense? Should it be allowed to paralyze the executive branch of the world’s paramount power? If I were a member of the grand jury in Little Rock, I would be reluctant to indict Bill or Hillary Clinton on anything related to Whitewater, and I believe that a great number of people feel the same way.

The death of Vincent Foster is another matter. He was the highest ranking official of the executive branch to die in suspicious circumstances since President John F. Kennedy; he was handling the private business affairs of the First Family at the White House; and he was Hillary Clinton’s closest friend, the one person in the world that she would entrust with the most sensitive problems. His death occurred in July 1993, under this [Clinton–Ed.] administration [and co-presidency–Ed.]. The subsequent conduct of the U.S. Park Police, the U.S. Secret Service, the FBI, the U.S. Justice Department, the Virginia medical authorities, as well as Independent Counsel Robert Fiske and all those who participated in his report indicated that the police and judicial apparatus of this country had been dangerously politicized. Every backstop mechanism had failed. If ever there was a need for a crusading prosecutor to cleanse the institutions of the republic, it was in the case of Vincent Foster.

“Pontius Pilate of the Potomac”—is how Starr was described in a blistering denunciation by James Davidson, the editor of the newsletter Strategic Investment. “Starr will fade, but he will not be forgotten. Historians will certainly have something to say about him. When ‘The Decline and Fall of the United States’ is written, Starr will merit a chapter. He will be seen as a weak, temporizing man who lacked the force of character to confront a corrupt system.

[Yeah, but “jewish”- or anti-Christ-Amerika is hardly Jesus the Christ.–Ed.]

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 111-13]


*  *  *  *  *

In September 1997 I [Evans-Pritchard] offered Kenneth Starr the opportunity to respond to the issues which I raise in this book. I submitted a written list of questions to Mr. Starr. In response, Jackie M. Bennett, Jr., Deputy Independent Counsel, wrote a brief letter stating that “we will be unable to accommodate you with answers.” [p. 372]

*  *  *  *  *

Other Things the Clintons don’t Want us to Know about the Murder of their “Friend”


[“Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster, one more victim of the U.S. gov’t]

*  *  *  *  *

Yet again from Evans-Pritchard’s The Secret Life of Bill Clinton:


A Samizdat [or citizens’–Ed.] media had emerged that resembled the underground network of faxes and newsletters in the Soviet Union in the 1980s when nobody believed Pravda or Izvestia any longer. It was comprised of talk radio, the Internet, alternative newsletters, and C-Span, all working in chaotic synergy. The effect was highly subversive, and the White House was having great trouble jamming the broadcast mechanism.

….If you know where to look, there are real documents to be found on the Internet. When Americans can review the primary material for themselves, they can see with piercing clarity what they long suspected: the American media is incurious, slothful, consensual, pedestrian, biased without acknowledgment, fearful of challenging power, and not particularly honest. In other words, it behaves as the media does in most countries, most of the time, as an adjunct of the governing elite. The [“writers’”–Ed.] guild has done a good job of disguising this with its Pulitzer Prizes and ombudsmen and code of ethics. But that era is coming to an end, I suspect. The reservoir of trust is close to exhaustion, and the market monopoly is breaking.

What was bothering the White House most about the Internet was the enormous amplification it gives to newsletters like Strategic Investment, or regional papers like The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review [of C. Ruddy–Ed.], or even foreign publications like The Sunday Telegraph [of Evans-Pritchard–Ed.].

…. Within a week a good [“alternative,” Samizdat or internet–Ed.] news story might have come to the attention of 20 or 30 million people. This would pass unnoticed inside the [“Washington”–Ed.] Beltway, but not inside the White House. Clinton’s staff sensed what was happening, even if they did not understand how it was happening. The polls were picking up dangerous undertows. Only a third of Americans accepted the official story that Vincent Foster committed suicide, despite the fact that no major newspaper, magazine, or TV station in the United States was questioning the death. Indeed, most of the [established, monopolistic, censorious and slanderous “jewish”-Amerikan mass–Ed.] media were pouring scorn on the Foster “conspiracists.” [exactly as they have been doing ever since 9/11/2001–Ed.] But word was leaking out.

By the summer of 1995 it was becoming clear that the Samizdat [or unofficial media–Ed.] media could no longer be ignored as a fringe irritant.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 201-03]

*  *  *  *  *

From Evans-Pritchard’s chapter entitled “The Taboo Investigation”:

Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories, p. 113-16:


The Foster case is taboo for American journalists. In private, many concede that the official story is unbelievable, but they will not broach it in print. I have been involved in some contentious matters during my career as a journalist, but I have never seen anything like the irrational fright when the subject of Vincent Foster is raised. It has nothing to do with party affiliation. If anything, Republican journalists are even more susceptible to the spell. Try uttering the words Fort Marcy Park at a gathering of Capitol Hill neoconservatives and watch the reaction.

I do not entirely understand why this [Foster case–Ed.] should be so [taboo, scary untouchable for the “Washington” gang–Ed.]. Unexplained deaths have been a source of fascination for thousands of years, across the globe. [president Kennedy’s e.g.–Ed.] What is clear, however, is that the [Clinton–Ed.] White House has been successful in casting the “Foster crazies” [i.e. all those who doubt the official (Clinton/“Justice” dept./FBI) story–Ed.] as villains interested in dredging up dirt for partisan advantage without any regard for the feelings of the Foster family. As with all good propaganda, there is an element of truth in this.

Foster left a widow and three children, now grown up. They have been through Purgatory and they linger there still, denied the closure that any normal family would expect. One inquiry after another has kept the controversy alive. It must be exceedingly painful for them.

That said, it is the White House itself that has been exploiting the Foster family, using them as a shield to deflect all legitimate questions about the death. Perhaps they are willing to be exploited in this way for reasons of parallel interest. If so, that is their privilege. But the larger issue needs to be confronted head on. The death of a top official has been covered up by the FBI and the judicial institutions of the U.S. government. It is facile [and false–Ed.] gallantry to silence debate ever after by invoking the name of Lisa Foster.

Americans need to know that within hours of Vincent Foster’s death, the White House had stepped in to orchestrate the response of the family. Vulnerable and confused, Lisa Foster surrendered herself totally to the political agenda of James Hamilton, the attorney for the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign. Let there be no confusion about the allegiances of this man. He is typically described as the Foster “family lawyer” but an internal White House memo describes him more accurately as a lawyer performing a “surrogate role” for the White House.

[And that means for the Clintons. And their argument was that no one should dare doubt or question their bogus story of Foster’s death because it would upset his wife and family.–Ed.]

[1. Task list compiled by Associate White House Counsel Jane Sherburne, December 13, 1994. Provided to House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. First reported by Philip Weiss in The New York Observer, May 26, 1997.

He [Hamilton–Ed.] was in fact hired by Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell to handle the fallout from the death. “I knew Jim and asked him to act as counsel,” explained Hubbell. [2. Senate Whitewater Special Committee (henceforth “SWSC”) Deposition of Webster Hubbell, July 13, 1995.]

[Again, this Webster Hubbell was a Rose Law Firm partner, along with Hillary Clinton, and Vincent Foster.

So can we truly (and euphemistically) say, White House “conflict of interest.”–Ed.]

Hamilton was a member of the elite, very expensive K Street firm of Swidler & Berlin. He had never served as Foster’s personal lawyer. As the House Travelgate Report makes clear, he was consulted by Vincent Foster shortly before his death as an outside attorney to represent the collective interests of the White House Counsel’s Office in the Travelgate affair. He scarcely knew the family.

For the White House, however, he was an ideal “surrogate.” He had befriended Hillary Clinton and Bernie Nussbaum, the pugnacious White House Counsel, while serving as Assistant Chief Counsel on the Senate Watergate committee from 1973 to 1974. He had worked on the Clinton transition team, talent scouting for top posts in the new administration, and had continued playing a highly irregular role afterward as leader of a group of private lawyers vetting nominees for the Supreme Court.

[And so, in Clinton’s view, he was “politically [or ideologically] correct.”–Ed.]

There is no question that he did an outstanding job as damage-control handler [or truth-suppressor–Ed.] in the Foster case. For one thing, he did not let the Park Police get anywhere near the grieving family. “We did not interview any of the Foster children. Mr. Hamilton would not make them accessible to us,” said Park Police Captain Charles Hume.

[3. Report from the 1994 Senate Hearings Related to Madison Guaranty S&L and the Whitewater Development Corporation-Washington, DC Phase (henceforth “Green Books”), p. 741. Deposition of Captain Charles Hume, July 22, 1994.]

This is an astounding comment. Foster’s children were grown adults, perfectly able to answer questions by the Park Police. Two of them, Laura and Vincent III, accompanied their father to work on the morning of his death. Their insights were critical to the investigation.

[“So was your dad at all depressed or suicidal—and especially on that particular morning”? Was Foster all depressed or suicidal?

What time was Foster’s “date” with his wife Lisa on that night of his murder? She called at 5 PM to remind him (or whatever), and was told he was “unavailable.” And when she called later she was told that nobody knew where her husband had gone.

Compare those White House answers with what Helen Dickey, the Clintons’ personal aide, told the Arkansas governor’s mansion below.

And what time did Foster usually get home from work? Did he keep regular business hours, 9 AM to 5 PM?

No. As his widow Lisa says below: “He never came home [from his White House job–Ed.] until nine or ten o’clock at night then went straight to bed, and he got up and left at a quarter to eight in the morning.”

But on the day he died Mr. Foster left the White House around 1 PM. (So go figure.)–Ed.]

By what authority can a private lawyer prevent the police from talking to relevant witnesses in the probe of a violent death?

[He can’t prevent them, but neither can police compel witnesses or citizens to talk to them or answer their questions. The Foster family evidently took Hamilton’s advice and refused to speak to the police, or rather to have Hamilton not speak for them.

And so unless they will willing to thus work together in the father’s murder and/or cover-up—(and I’m sure they weren’t)—they were simply duped.–Ed.]

Captain Hume then goes on to say that Lisa Foster had obviously been coached. “She had gone over [the story] with her [Clinton White House–Ed.] lawyer [Hamilton–Ed.] [so] that she had it down pat.... I can remember Pete [Markland] [U.S. Park Police sergeant (E-P, p. 214)–Ed.] having his notebook out and I think he started to question her, you know. We had a hard time to get started because Hamilton wanted to lay out the ground rules.”

Lay out the ground rules? It is clear that the U.S. Park Police were deferring to James Hamilton as if he were, indeed, a “surrogate” of the White House.

But there is another reason why Lisa Foster cannot be [by the Clintons–Ed.] accorded the last say on all matters concerning her former husband. She must have known, at least intuitively, that Vince was engaged in [Clinton White House–Ed.] activities that belied his image of gentlemanly rectitude.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 114-16]

*  *  *  *  *

So what exactly is it that the Clintons don’t want us all to know about the life and death of their “friend” Vincent Foster, who knew Mr. Clinton since their childhoods, and who was a law-partner (and lover) of Mrs. Clinton, and who ended up as their “Deputy While House Counsel.”

From “Life after Vince” by Peter J. Boyer, New Yorker Magazine, Sept 11, 1995:


In December of 1993, her first Christmas without Vince, she was home alone and received a call from her Washington attorney. He told her that “A Current Affair,” a tabloid TV show, was about to broadcast a rumor that he knew could upset her—allegations by Arkansas state troopers [who had guarded the Clintons in the Arkansas governor’s mansion–Ed.] that Vince and Hillary Clinton had had an affair.


(But methinks it was no longer “A Current Affair”?)

Of Foster’s death, much is revealed above, in spite of the Clintons. But what of Foster’s life, and of his long dealings with the Clintons? Did Foster know where all their metaphorical bodies are buried? And why was the White House rummaging through Foster’s locked and secret papers in the hours after his murder? (See below.) What didn’t the Clintons want to world to see and to know about what their “Deputy While House Counsel” knew, and did for them?

And wouldn’t real and true friends want to discover, to reveal and to publicize (if not to violently avenge) the murder of a friend?—and hence not thus stifle his bereaved family and the world with such lies and truthlessness?

*  *  *  *  *

Anatomy of a Murder: What Really Happened on the Day and Night of Foster’s Murder?

From Christopher Ruddy and

*  *  *

[Note: There was no mouth wound, and especially not from a .38 caliber revolver, and hence no open skull at the back of Foster’s head, nor skull fragments behind it. (See above.)–

And note the “profiled” incline of Foster’s body upon a slope, which E-P calls a “berm.” Why was Foster’s corpse thus placed in this inclined or sloped position?

Because otherwise it would have bled much more out of the neck wound, thus making Foster’s murder all that more obvious, and hence his “suicide” (via a .38 bullet in the mouth) all that more dubious.–Ed.]

*  *  *

And Mr. Ruddy is the author of “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster.” (1997)

*  *  *  *  *

In which Particular Parking Lot Did Mr. Foster Allegedly Shoot Himself?

So what really happened?

From Evans-Pritchard’s Secret Life of Bill Clinton, 1997, p. 185-87:


[Arkansas state policeman or–Ed.] Trooper Roger Perry was on duty at the guard shack of the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion when the call came through from the White House. It was Helen Dickey. She was babbling incoherently, quite upset. [28. Author interview with Roger Perry, January 1995.]

Perry tried to calm her down. He knew her well from the days when she was Chelsea Clinton’s babysitter. All the troopers on the security detail [protecting the Arkansas governor and his family–Ed.] had grown fond of her. [W. Clinton was the former Arkansas governor.–Ed.] She practically lived with the Clintons. She ate with them, went everywhere with them. She was family, but they had her listed as a security employee on the [Arkansas governor’s–Ed.] Mansion payroll. [29. Ibid.] It was a way for the Clintons to get free nanny care. No social security taxes either. Anyway, she was much grander now: she was Assistant to the White House Social Secretary.

“Vince shot himself,” she sputtered. “He walked out to his car and shot himself in the head.”

Perry tried to comfort her. He knew that Helen had been a neighbor of the Fosters and looked up to Vince as one of the great gentlemen of life. As she calmed down, Perry went over the details carefully. She repeated that Vince Foster had got off work and shot himself in the [White House?–Ed.] parking lot.

[He didn’t of course. But that’s evidently what Dickey was told, and believed. So who told her that? And why? (See below.)–Ed.]

Perry relayed the message to Governor Jim Guy Tucker, then telephoned his friend Trooper Larry Patterson. “You ain’t going believe what’s happened now,” he began.

It was early evening. Patterson had not been home all that long. His shift ended at 4:30 PM. He had not even changed out of his uniform. At the very latest it was 6:00 PM central time (7:00 PM eastern time). [30. Author interview with Larry Patterson, April 1995.]

Perry also called Lynn Davis, the former commander of the Arkansas State Police.

“It was during the rush-hour, before 6:00 PM our time,” said Davis. “He told me they’d found Vince Foster’s body in his car, he’d shot himself in the parking lot.” [31. Author interview with Lynn Davis, April 1995.]

So, three men [and two women, including governor Tucker’s wife–Ed.] in Little Rock knew about the death of Vincent Foster before 6:00 PM local time—before 7:00 PM in Washington, D.C.—an hour and a half before the White House was officially notified. Without realizing it, Perry had repeated the version of events that later came to light in the declassified Secret Service memo [below–Ed.]. He had been told the “body-in-the-car” version that was mistakenly circulating inside the White House during the early part of the evening, which lends a degree of authenticity to his story.

[But one true thing that Dickey had told him was that Foster was dead.–Ed.]

It is possible that they are all confused about the time, but each of them signed a sworn affidavit. Helen Dickey, in turn, issued her own affidavit stating that she did not learn about Foster’s death until 10:00 PM—after watching the President on Larry King Live in the Solarium [(?) “a room for the treatment of patients by exposure to the sun”–Ed.] at the White House Residence. However, she acknowledges that she made the call to Perry. [32. Affidavit of Helen Dickey.]

[And so either this Dickey is lying, or else Perry was lying about what Dickey told him, and also those four other people from Arkansas, including the governor, were all lying about what Perry had told them—that Vincent Foster was dead before 6:00 PM local time (and hence before 7:00 PM Washington time) on July 20, 1993—which of course turned out to be true.

So whom are you going to believe?–Ed.]

The war of the affidavits was under way. [An “affidavit” is a sworn written statement. And a “deposition” is a transcript of sworn testimony or answers to questions.–Ed.] Senator Al D’Amato, Chairman of the Senate Whitewater Special Committee, took a brief interest in the matter in September 1995. His office issued a statement announcing that the committee “will try to resolve this discrepancy by calling in Ms. Dickey and Trooper Perry for depositions. We have an obligation to determine the truth.”

[But he never did, of course.–Ed.]

…. So the testimony of a 25-year-old erstwhile Clinton nanny was accepted as the final word on the matter, while three law enforcement officers [Perry, Paterson and Davis–Ed.] with combined service of more than 70 years were not allowed to speak.

[And that’s “jewish”-Amerikan “law” and politics, folks.–Ed.]

Senator D’Amato’s acquiescence in this maneuver by the Senate Democrats is all the more remarkable when you learn who Helen Dickey actually is. To call her Chelsea’s nanny does not do justice to her wide range of skills. In the first place she is a graduate of the University of Arkansas, and is the daughter of campaign treasurer Robyn Dickey, who signed the checks at the Clinton-Gore headquarters in 1992.

At the White House she worked for Marsha Scott on the illicit “Big Brother” database that has been the subject of an investigation on Capitol Hill. [35. SWSC Helen Dickey deposition.] She helped Hillary Clinton write It Takes a Village, typing up the pages every day in July and August of 1995. For two years she lived in a suite on the third floor of the Living Quarters of the White House, directly above the Clintons, and went in and out of their kitchen as if it were her own.

This was not some lowly aide to the President and the First Lady. This was their second daughter. Dickey had an obvious motive to dissemble [or lie–Ed.] about the events of July 20, 1993, and that is exactly what she did in her closed-door deposition to the Senate. [36. Ibid.]

What time did she get off work? She couldn’t remember.

What did she do after work? She couldn’t remember.

What did she do for dinner? She couldn’t remember.

Did she talk to the First Lady that night? She couldn’t remember.


Neither Trooper Perry, nor Trooper Patterson, nor Commander Lynn Davis—a former FBI agent, and a former U.S. Marshal—[nor the governor of Arkansas–Ed.] were ever called to give their side of the story.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 185-87]

*  *  *  *  *

And that’s clearly because the U.S. Congress didn’t want to know—or rather they didn’t want the American public and the world to know what they clearly knew and were thus officially concealing—the awful truth about the murder (and official cover-up) of “Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster.

*  *  *  *  *

From “Troopers Won’t Budge on Foster Death,” by Christopher Ruddy, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, November 07, 1997; available at


WASHINGTON, D.C.—Two Arkansas state troopers have harshly criticized the recently released report of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr on Vincent W. Foster’s death, stating the report misrepresents and omits key information pointing to a cover-up of Foster’s death.

State troopers Roger Perry and Larry Patterson, both of whom were interviewed by FBI agents working for Starr, have publicly alleged they knew about Foster’s death hours before the White House claims they were officially notified. Patterson, a 31-year veteran of the force, says he was informed of Foster’s death [by fellow officer Perry–Ed.] 15 minutes before park police had discovered Foster’s body in a suburban Washington, D.C., park.

Perry, a 22-year veteran of the state police, said he was on guard duty at the governor’s mansion the evening of Foster’s death, July 20, 1993, when he received a call from Helen Dickey informing him, “Vince Foster got off from work and went out to the parking lot and shot himself in the head.”

[But as his widow reports below, 1.) Mr. Foster didn’t come home from work at the White House until 9 or 10 PM. (And he wasn’t drinking in some bar in the meantime.) And 2.) On the day he died, he had left the White House at 1 PM.

So how was it that, on the day he died, Foster “got off from work” at 1 PM?

Did he quit? (See below.)–Ed.]

Dickey, a 22-year-old nanny to Chelsea Clinton, lived with the Clintons in the White House residence. She was known to the troopers who had guarded Clinton when he served as Arkansas governor because her mother had served as mansion administrator. “The Dickey call” controversy, as it has been referred to, has raised serious questions as to when and where Foster died.

Perry said he believed Dickey was implying that Foster had shot himself in a White House parking lot. Perry has steadfastly maintained that the call from Dickey came no later than 8:30 p.m. Washington time [?], and probably came much earlier than that.

According to the Starr report, Dickey has stated she made the call to Trooper Perry at 10:30 p.m.[,] a time that is consistent with White House officials’ claims that they were officially notified of Foster’s death at 8:30 p.m. and the president was notified at 10 p.m. after an appearance on CNN’s Larry King Live show. Starr dismissed the trooper’s allegations.

Starr noted that Dickey’s story is corroborated by the fact she made an entry into her personal diary days after the event indicating she made the call to Perry around 10:30 p.m.[?] Starr also cited the statement of an employee of the White House usher’s office who said he informed Dickey of the death after 10 p.m. as she sat in a third-floor office. The employee said “she became very upset.”

Starr also said Dickey made two other calls to her father and mother after learning of the death, and phone records for those calls back up that part of her story. Strangely missing is the phone record of the call Dickey admits she made to Perry that night. Starr stated on page 93 of his report that the call to Perry was made from a different phone and that “complete records for such calls are not available.”[(?) How convenient! Can you believe these people?–Ed.]

Starr concluded the section of his report dealing with this controversy by stating that “the totality of the evidence...does not support the conclusion that Ms. Dickey knew about Mr. Foster’s death at some earlier time.” But the troopers believe that Starr’s report doesn’t tell the full story.

Both troopers suggest Starr’s investigators had little desire to get to the truth of the matter. As previously reported in the Tribune-Review, both troopers say that when Starr’s FBI agents first questioned them in November 1995, the agents tried to pressure the troopers into admitting they were wrong or could be mistaken.

[It fits an FBI (“Justice” dept./U.S. gov’t) pattern, doesn’t it?–Ed.]

Perry said he told the agents, “Guys, nothing is impossible, but produce the phone records and show me I’m wrong. Until then I am going to stand by my story that I knew by 7:30” Arkansas time [which is 6:30 PMWashington” time–Ed.]. Perry also advised them to examine Gov. Jim Guy Tucker’s phone records. The trooper said that as soon as he hung up with Dickey, he called into the residence of the mansion and spoke with Tucker’s wife, Betty.

Perry said that he could overhear the governor being informed by his wife, and that after they hung up Tucker was on the phone to Washington for more than 30 minutes. Perry said as soon as he hung up with Tucker’s wife he called Patterson and then Lynn Davis, former head of the state police.

Patterson maintains he had just walked into his apartment after work—no later than 6 p.m. Washington time, when the phone rang. Perry told him the news. The Starr report referred to Patterson’s account in a footnote that “another Arkansas trooper” received a call from Perry and that this second trooper claimed the call came at approximately 6 p.m. Arkansas time [which is 7:00 PM “Washington” time–Ed.]. Patterson contends Starr’s account is “a lie” and that he has consistently stated the call came at 6 p.m. Washington time, 5 p.m. Arkansas time.

[An honest mistake? Or yet more official guilt and complicity in the cover-up of the murder of “Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster?–Ed.]

Davis has stated in a sworn affidavit that Perry called him during rush hour traffic in Little Rock, between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Washington time. Perry also said he received a call from his fiancé (now his wife), who had just arrived home from work and checked in with him. [At which time officer Perry apparently told her what he had heard from Dickey in “Washington.”–Ed.] She said she made the call to Perry shortly after 6:30 p.m. Washington time—still some two hours before White House officials claim they were first notified of the death.

Perry’s wife and Lynn Davis, now an attorney in Little Rock, told the Tribune-Review they have never been interviewed by Starr’s investigators. Those investigators were apparently concerned most about Patterson’s testimony that he knew about the death 15 minutes before the body was found at 6:15 p.m. in Fort Marcy Park. Patterson said he was interviewed four times by FBI agents working for Starr, and each time they tried to pressure him to change his story or to admit the possibility he might be wrong. He didn’t budge. “I have been a police officer for 31 years. I know what they were trying to do. [I.E. discredit or destroy him and his testimony.–Ed.] The last time they called I said. ‘I have never changed my story and I’m not changing it now.’”

Though Starr claimed to have conducted his investigation through use of a grand jury, Perry and Patterson said they were never called before a grand jury or put under oath and questioned about this glaring discrepancy. Neither Perry nor Patterson was offered an opportunity to review his account in Starr’s report for accuracy because they were not identified by name. Dickey was identified by name and was allowed to review the report before it was released.

Debbie Gershman, spokeswoman for Kenneth Starr, said Dickey was named in the report because her name had already been publicized, but the troopers were not for “privacy reasons.”[?] She said the office had “no comment” as to the report’s account of when Patterson learned of the death and the reason why neither trooper was called before a grand jury. Perry contends that Starr omitted key evidence and that Dickey’s account is false. If Dickey’s account were true, her call to him would have come at the very end of his shift that night. That’s not possible, he said, because there was a lengthy lapse of time from when he called Betty Tucker to inform her and when she later came out [of the governor’s living quarters within the mansion–Ed.] to discuss the matter, asking him, “Why would Vince Foster do something like that?”

Perry said there was another lapse of time, perhaps as much as 45 minutes [after Betty Tucker talked with him face to face–Ed.], when Gov. Tucker himself called Perry and said, as Perry recalled, “There must be a misunderstanding. Vince Foster did not kill himself in the White House parking lot. He killed himself at Fort Marcy Park in Washington.”

*  *  *  *  *

And hence not even in the parking lot, but in the park itself—or so say the governors of Arkansas and “Washington.”

But this clearly shows or demonstrates once again that officer Perry understood (and hence communicated to others) that Dickey meant that Foster had shot himself in the White House parking lot—which the White House (or rather the FBI) inexplicably claims Foster never even used that fatal day. (See below.)

And as for the independence, trustworthiness and credibility of this Jim Guy Tucker, W. J. Clinton’s successor in the Arkansas’ governor’s mansion:

From Wikipedia’s “Whitewater Controversy,” (


By April 1998, diverted to some degree by the burgeoning Lewinsky [I-solemnly-swear-I-did-not-have-sex-upon-that-big-mouthed-woman’s-dress–Ed.] scandal, Starr’s investigations in Arkansas were winding down, with his Little Rock grand jury about to expire in the following month. Webster Hubbell [partner with Mrs. Hilary Clinton and Vincent Foster in their common “Rose Law Firm”–Ed.], Jim Guy Tucker, and Susan McDougal had all refused to cooperate with Starr, and each was later pardoned by President Clinton. When the Arkansas grand jury did conclude its work in May 1998, after 30 months in panel, it came up with only a contempt indictment against Susan McDougal.


A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation did result in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the Whitewater project, but the Clintons themselves were never charged. Bill Clinton’s successor as Arkansas Governor, Jim Guy Tucker, was also convicted and served time in prison for his role in the fraud. Susan McDougal later served time in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer any [U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission–Ed.] questions relating to Whitewater. Three separate inquiries found that insufficient evidence remained to charge the Clintons with criminal conduct in the land deal.

The term Whitewater is also sometimes used to include other controversies from the Bill Clinton administration, especially those such as Travelgate, Filegate, and the circumstances surrounding Vince Foster’s death, that were investigated by the Whitewater Independent Counsel.

*  *  *  *  *

And once again from, “Foster Was Murdered, Trooper Says,” September 23, 1999, no author given:


Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster was murdered, an Arkansas State Trooper alleges in a two hour audio set published by

Retired trooper Larry Patterson said he has both factual and personal reasons to dispute official claims that Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster died by a self-inflicted gunshot wound on July 20, 1993.

Park police found Foster’s body in suburban Fort Marcy Park, and quickly ruled suicide. Investigations by Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr have concluded that Foster, deeply depressed, took his own life.

Patterson believes Foster was not the type who would take his own life.

During the six years he guarded the Clintons, Patterson said he encountered Foster numerous times and was struck by how different he was from the rest of the Clinton crowd.

[“Odd man out. You know that’s a rule. You can scream and you can shout, but they’ll only call you a crazy fool.” [and/or a “suicide”–Ed.]—(the Band)

He seemed to be a very caring man. He would always ask about your children, he would ask how things were going for you. He would always say, ‘Larry, if you ever need me, call me.’

Foster was at the “pinnacle of his career,” with a job “that probably every attorney in the world would love to have.” [He’s dead wrong on that point. Foster desperately wanted out of the Clinton White House. And he had apparently already given the Clintons his “notice” of departure. (See his widow’s interview statements below.)–Ed.] Why would he kill himself? Patterson also cited the fact Foster, a devoted family man with a wife and three kids, was not the kind of man to up and kill himself.

“It just did not fit for this man to commit suicide,” Patterson said.

Patterson’s suspicions about the murder of Vincent Foster are further buttressed by his knowledge of a cover-up relating to the circumstances of the death.

On the day of Foster’s death, Patterson said he received a phone call from fellow Arkansas state trooper Roger Perry who was working at the governor’s mansion.

Perry told Patterson "he had received a call from Helen Dickey, who had been working at the White House…”

According to Perry, Dickey, a social aide, had called to notify Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker that “Vince Foster had been found in the parking lot of the White House and had shot himself.”

While Dickey’s account to Perry, which Perry has corroborated in a sworn affidavit, contradicts official claims Foster killed himself at Fort Marcy Park, Dickey’s call raised a more significant discrepancy.

Patterson said he is certain he had just arrived home from work, no later than 5:30 PM Central time, but most likely at about 5:00 PM, when he received Perry’s call about the death.

Dickey’s call would have been placed to Perry between 6 to 6:30 PM Eastern Time. [which again was before Foster was officially found in Ft. Marcy park at 6:14 PM. (See above.)–Ed.] Based on the Trooper’s account, Dickey would have known about Foster’s death a full two-and-half hours before Park Police claim they identified the body in Fort Marcy Park as Foster’s, and a full three hours before the White House claimed they were notified of Foster’s death—about 9PM that night.

[And yet, as Evans-Prichard writes below: U.S. park police detective Rolla’s “notebook indicates that [he] called the Secret Service [station in the basement of the White House–Ed.] at about 6:40 PM, within minutes of arriving at Fort Marcy Park.”–Ed.]

The fact that people knew of Foster’s death, earlier, perhaps even before Foster’s body was found in Fort Marcy, again raises a suspicion of murder, Patterson suggests.

Patterson has been questioned about this by investigators for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Patterson was shocked that Starr’s agents, rather than seek the truth of the matter, attempted to get him to change or alter his account to fit with official claims.

[I am shocked, shocked to find that “Washington” is comprised of a wolf-pack of professional liars (and killers)!–Ed.]

Patterson said the FBI agents “tried for an hour and 15 minutes to get me to change my story.”

Patterson didn’t budge. And phone records that would support his claims, investigators told him, have disappeared or don’t exist.

Patterson and Perry’s claims about the Dickey call did raise questions of Senate investigators. In 1995 the Senate Whitewater committee called Helen Dickey to testify. Dickey denied she called Perry early that evening or said that Foster died in the parking lot.

[And yet she swore she did call Perry, as Evans-Pritchard informed us above: “Helen Dickey, in turn, issued her own affidavit stating that she did not learn about Foster’s death until 10:00 PM…. However, she acknowledges that she made the call to Perry. [32. Affidavit of Helen Dickey.”

(And so the key word in the above statement is “early.”)–Ed.]

During the Senate Hearing, the Democratic counsel claimed both Patterson and Perry were “former troopers” who had refused to testify.

[Is there anyone in the upper hierarchy of “Washington’s” U.S. gov’t who’s not a sociopathic liar, or a truthless sociopath?–Ed.]

Patterson calls this a lie and said he was never told about the hearing, asked to testify, or subpoenaed to testify.

Patterson said Vince Foster’s death frightens him. “I’m very, very concerned,” he said.

“What concerns me even more is that no one’s had to answer for this.”

[Right, if they get away with this, what will they do next?–Ed.]

Patterson says the failure to properly investigate Foster’s death explains why during so many other Clinton scandals witnesses have either refused to cooperate with investigators, or, in some cases, have fled the country.

Foster’s death, Patterson thinks “is not an incentive to talk, is it?”

*  *  *  *  *

Why? Is what happened to Foster what happens to people who dare talk truly about the Clintons?

*  *  *  *  *

On the morning of the he day he was murdered (July 20, 1994), “Deputy White House Counsel” Vincent Foster drove his daughter and son to work, before he went to work himself—at the Clinton White House. And he had made plans to spend time with his wife Lisa that same night. The two of them had made a special appointment or “date” together (to go out to dinner or a movie or whatever). Was there any special occasion for this? After all, it was a Tuesday night, a work-day night, unless Foster wasn’t planning on going into work the next day.

But the White House claims Foster never even parked in their parking lot on that deadly day.


On July 20, Vince and two children bustled down the steps of their house in Cambridge Place [in the Georgetown section of WashingtonD.C. (See map below.)–Ed.] at about 8:30 AM and piled into the [1989 gray four-door–Ed.] Honda. [18. Green Books, p. 2153: Park Police interview with Lisa Foster.] Vince the father dropped Vince the son at the Metro [subway–Ed.]—the son was a staff aide to Arkansas Senator Dale Bumpers—and dropped [his daughter–Ed.] Laura at work. [19. Fiske Report, p. 25.]

Or at least that is what we are told by the Fiske Report. There is no official record of this, so we have to take it on trust. None of Foster’s children was interviewed by Fiske’s FBI agents—much to their surprise—and the relevant paragraph is redacted in the handwritten notes of Lisa Foster’s FBI interview. Why is it redacted? Why, once again, is a passage dealing with Foster’s car such an acutely sensitive issue?

Snag. Vincent Foster did not bring his car to work that day. Or if he did, he did not park it in his reserved slot inside the White House grounds, number 16 on Executive Boulevard West.

[20. FBI 302 report, statement of Lisa Foster, May 9, 1994.]

[But how and why would the widow know where her husband parked his car on the day he was murdered?—unless that’s merely what she was told?–Ed.]

It was never logged in and never logged out.

[21. Green Books, p. 50: Senate testimony of [Special FBI Agent–Ed.] Larry Monroe, July 29, 1994.]

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 165]

*  *  *  *  *

But can’t those White House records or logs be falsified?

And surely all vehicles are checked (or logged) in and out at the White House checkpoint(s), and hence not in their “reserved slot[s] inside the White House grounds.” You don’t just drive into the White House grounds and park, and then someone comes to your parking place or “reserved slot” and “logs” you in (and out after you leave). Surely you are checked or “logged” in and out at a roadblock checkpoint when you enter and leave the grounds—which I assume for Foster would have been at 17th Street and State Place. (See map below.) And if you don’t have a “reserved slot” or some special U.S. gov’t identification pass, then you surely aren’t going to be allowed to drive onto the White House grounds. Right?

And so is this log book an actual book? Has anyone, truly independent of the Clinton White House and the U.S. gov’t, ever looked at it? And have any (July 20, 1993) entries been “redacted”—i.e. erased, censored, blotted-out or whited-out?

And as far as I know, the U.S. “Secret Service” are the only acting police force inside the White House grounds. All the White House guards are Secret Servicemen. All the records of who came and went are Secret Service records. All the “logs” are secret Service logs. All the surveillance or spy cameras and recordings are Secret Service cameras and recordings, etc.

*  *  *  *  *

*  *  *  *  *

As reported above, Foster’s parking space in the “White House parking lot” was “slot 16” of the “West Executive Boulevard.” I assume that’s the “West Executive Ave.” in the above map.

And so Foster would drive and arrive in his parking place either via Penn. Ave. or via 17th St. and State Place. And if from the former, there’d be one SS checkpoint to pass, and if from the latter, two: the first at the entrance to State Place and the second (called the “Southwest Appointment Gate”) at the south entrance to West Executive Ave./Blvd.

So where are these SS records for 7/20/1993—the day of “Deputy White House Counsel” Foster’s murder? And where are all the SS spy or “surveillance” camera recordings?

*  *  *  *  *

And as we have seen above, the original White House story, circulating before 7 p.m. on the day Foster was murdered, was that he “walked out to his car [presumably in the White House parking lot–Ed.] and shot himself in the head.”

For if it wasn’t in the White House parking lot, then how would the White House have known about it?—unless they were informed by police officials outside of the White House?—as the Park Police (Detective Rolla) apparently notified the White House “Secret Service” at or about 6:40 PM. (See below.)

And yet here is the White House claiming (via the FBI) that their “Deputy White House Counsel” never ever parked in their parking lot that day. And yet they don’t deny that he went to work on this very last day of his life.

So why on earth would Foster have parked elsewhere?

And where exactly would that be?

And how often had Foster allegedly parked elsewhere?


I don’t doubt it.

*  *  *  *  *

As we have clearly seen above, Mr. Foster was certainly not shot in the head by a .38 caliber revolver, because there was neither an exit wound nor a bullet (nor bullet fragments) in his head.

And so this White House/FBI suicide story is a lie. And therefore Foster was murdered.

And therefore, if this were truly a case of suicide, it would be quite secondary where the victim shot himself—whether in his car—(which clearly would have left real forensic evidence inside his car)—and exactly where this car allegedly was at the time.

But as this is a murder case, it is quite primary where the murder took place.

As we shall see below, Foster was last seen alive on the White House grounds. And the White House are claiming he never ever parked on their grounds on the day that he died. Why? Why are they saying this? Because it’s true? Or because it’s not, and for some reason they desperately need to place, misplace or displace Foster car outside of their grounds?

And so if Foster truly walked out of the White House grounds and out of the White House gate to get to his car parked somewhere outside, then who saw him leaving, and which guards saw him walking out of their particular gate, and hence made mental note or an actual written log of it?

And if Foster walked out on his last day, then Foster walked in. And so which White House guards at which White House gate witnessed this entry, and made note of this (in their log book)? For surely everyone who either walks or drives into the White House grounds are carefully checked out and logged in. Are they not? So where’s the record of this alleged walk-in (and walk-out)?

*  *  *  *  *

Who in Hell or “Washington” is “Special [FBI] Agent” Larry Monroe?

And this Special FBI Agent Larry Monroe, who claims Foster didn’t park in the White House parking lot on the day of his death (i.e. murder), has his fingerprints all over this Foster case. Just note the following whopper that he tells.

*  *  *  *  *

So, two men had been observed monkeying with Vincent Foster’s car [actually with an old brown Honda (in the Marcy park parking lot)—which had been present when a pair of amorous (but adulterous) witnesses had arrived in their car between 5:00 and 5:15 PM–Ed.] shortly before the body was discovered [by the “Confidential Informant” around 5:45 PM–Ed.]. One of them [“mid to late forties”–Ed.] had long blond hair [and a blond beard–Ed.]. Noteworthy, one would have thought. Blond hairs were found on Foster’s undershirt, his trousers, belt, socks, and shoes. [5. Fiske Report, p. 11: Exhibit 1, FBI documents.]

[Were they long? Were they human? Can gender be determined from hair samples?

So did this long-blond-haired man move Foster’s body—from wherever he was murdered into Fort Marcy park?

And as we shall see, multicolored rug or carpet fibers were also found on Foster’s body. What do you make of that?–Ed.]

The FBI never tried to identify these hairs.[?] “The source of this hair could have been boundless,” said Special Agent Larry Monroe in surreal testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. “It could have been from his residence. It could have been from his automobile, which was used quite often by his children.” [6. Green Books, p. 67: Senate testimony of Special [FBI] Agent Larry Monroe, July 29, 1994.]

[And it could have come from the very man who moved his murdered corpse into the park.–Ed.]

The FBI did not deem it necessary to check the hair against samples from the Foster family, or from the staff at the Counsel’s Office—surely the obvious way to put the matter to rest. It was a conscious decision by the FBI not to do so. Why not? Were they afraid that the hair samples would not match anybody in Foster’s extended circle?

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 157]

*  *  *  *  *

Precisely. And then the question becomes, “How on earth did they get there?—and on that day of all days? Who was Foster (or Foster’s corpse) in close intimate contact with on the day that he died?

And to return to where we were above: These two men were apparently pretending to be fixing their car in the Fort Marcy parking lot. (It’s the kind of lot with only one line of parking spaces, and where the cars are parked (not parallel but) angular or perpendicular to the curb. See map above.) Their engine cover or “hood” was up. And then another car drove in and mysteriously drove out again. Was there something that they wanted to do together that they didn’t want to do in front of the two amorous witnesses?


A shirtless, dark-haired man was sitting in the driver’s seat. The hood of the vehicle was up and there was a grubby-looking fellow examining the engine. He was in his mid to late forties, about 6 feet tall, medium build, dirty, with long blond hair and a beard.

There was a lack of obvious purpose in their actions. Were they trying to fix the car? Or were they waiting on a drug deal, or what? [It seems more like “what.”–Ed.] Josie and Duncan [not their real names–Ed.] found it vaguely disconcerting, but then the bearded blond guy wandered off into the woods.

[For how long? Long enough to find a “good” place to plant Foster’s body?–Ed.]

At one point a dirty, beaten-up sedan came into the parking lot. Josie remembered four doors, lightish color. The driver was a big bruiser in his thirties with long shaggy hair. Not a savory type.

He drove past, looked at Josie and Duncan, then did a U-turn, and went straight back out again onto the George Washington Parkway. Obviously, he didn’t want to conduct his business, whatever it was, as long as some yuppie couple was there necking in the car park.

[Was this Foster’s “hearse” and driver? Or was he merely the third pallbearer?–Ed.]

Around 5:45 PM Josie and Duncan went off [on foot into the park–Ed.] to have their affaire du picnic. They were [on foot–Ed.] at the south end when the fire brigade came screeching into Fort Marcy Park, 25 minutes later, followed quickly by the U.S. Park Police.

A man had been found dead, explained Officer Julie Spetz. Had they seen anything? Had they heard a shot? All the usual things. They answered as best they could. The next day they discovered that the victim was Vincent Foster, boyhood friend of President Clinton.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 155-56]

*  *  *  *  *

And that’s not all. This Special FBI Agent Larry Monroe was one of four men (including another FBI agent named Russell T. Bransford) who were charged by yet another Fort Marcy park parking park witness, a Patrick Knowlton, with trying to terrify him out of testifying before the grand jury about who and what he saw in the Fort Marcy parking lot between 4:15 and 4:30 PM on the day Foster was murdered, transported, and planted in the park. (E-P, p. 177) (And see the eye-opening chapter, “Street Fascism.” Several other U.S. gov’t secret agents or “stringers” were part of this brazen, open and public U.S. gov’t “operation witness intimidation.”)

Knowlton saw the same old brown car as the amorous witnesses above, but without any passengers, and with a “soft leather case” on the passenger seat and a “jacked draped over the back of the driver’s seat.” (E-P, p. 160) But there was also a menacing man in the parking lot sitting in a blue car, who got out and stood by his car when Knowlton got out to go take a leak in the park. He was so menacing that Knowlton hid his wallet under his seat just before he exited his car.

Apparently that silently threatening man didn’t want Knowlton (or any other civilians) around. Why not? (Was he yet another pallbearer? I don’t necessarily mean that literally. Two or three big strong men would be able to carry Foster’s 200 pound corpse to their pre-chosen resting place inside the park. But wouldn’t they need a “look-out” or two, so as not to be see doing so?)

So why didn’t the U.S. gov’t/FBI want Knowlton to tell his simple story? What possible harm could it do?—to their false and bogus version of events?

And another most interesting thing: None of these three citizen-witnesses saw Foster’s car, a gray 1989 Honda sedan, with Arkansas license plate #RCN-504. (See its picture below.)

And so Foster’s Honda must have arrived after Knowlton’s time, and after the two lovers had walked into the park, around 5:45 PM, and before 6:10 PM, when the McLean Fire Service “brigade” and U.S. Park Police “came screeching into Fort Marcy Park, 25 minutes later.”


*  *  *  *  *

Vince Foster had promised to take [his wife–Ed.] Lisa out for a “date” on the evening of Tuesday, July 20. At about 5:00 PM she called his office at the White House to find out what his plans were [?], but was told that he was “unavailable.”

[That was an macabre understatement.–Ed.]

She tried again later. This time she was told that the President was appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live at 9:00 PM, but nobody knew where Vince had gone. [But they were lying, because they knew he was dead. (See Dickey’s call above.)–Ed.] She waited at their quaint Georgetown home at 3027 Cambridge Place [for her man to come home, as he promised. But he never did come home, and through no fault of his own. (“Why didn’t he call?” the widow laments below, in condemning herself (and her husband) via her personal acceptance of the Clintons’/U.S. gov’t’s suicide story.)–Ed.], where the family was crowded together in circumstances that were very different from the spacious elegance of [their other home in–Ed.] Hillcrest Heights in Little Rock.

At about 10:00 PM there was a commotion outside.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 129]

*  *  *  *  *

It was U.S. Park Police detective John Rolla (with his apparent minder and superior, detective Cheryl Braun) bearing the baddest and saddest and falsest of news.

But I doubt if Rolla knew that. And that’s precisely what makes the messenger all that more convincing.

*  *  *  *  *

Here’s what I think happened: “Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster was murdered by persons unknown, but with the absolute complicity of the U.S. gov’t—at least after the fact. (And why would they do that unless Foster was murdered by (very high officials of) the U.S. gov’t? For lest we forget, Foster himself was “Deputy While House Counsel” to the president of the United States. (What was his name again?)

And so surely only “public officials” higher than Mr. Foster could possibly get away with this! And that leaves only the Clintons, and perhaps also (“White House Counsel”) Nussbaum, who was (“Deputy While House Counsel”) Foster’s boss. (More on this below.)

And the murdered man’s corpse was secretly brought to Fort Marcy Park, along with his car. And his corpse was then secretly carried into the park, where it was seen sans gun by the above “confidential witness.” And afterwards, while lying dead in the park, a strange .38 revolver was placed into the dead man’s hand—to make it look like a suicide, and hence to obviate, prevent or preclude any need for a murder investigation.

For is Mr. Foster were murdered, who would have the Motive, Opportunity and Means to do so?

And afterwards, as we shall see below, while the murder victim was lying dead in a body bag in the county morgue, his missing car keys and his secret White House cabinet keys were secretly placed (back) into the pocket of his pants by two other “friends” of the Clintons. (But Mr. Foster’s missing wallet was never returned.)

Why? What were they doing with these keys? And how did they get them?

(Obviously they, or whoever they got them from, took them off the murder victim.)

But when? And where?

(At the time and place of the murder, I would assume.)

And at whose direction were they doing this?

(Once again, keep reading.)

And with “friends” like these Clintons, who needs enemies?

*  *  *  *  *

Yes indeed, as mentioned above, the “Secret Service,” the personal protectors of the U.S. president, hereby reported that Foster was in fact found dead in his car in the Fort Marcy parking lot, along that strange, black, old and untraceable .38 caliber revolver.

*  *  *  *  *


*  *  *  *  *

From Evans-Pritchard’s Ch. 13, entitled “The Tip-Off,” and concerning the notebook of U.S. Park police detective John Rolla, the ostensible lead or chief detective in this Foster case, which was Rolla’s very first death case, and which fellow (or rather superior) detective Cheryl Braun had given him:


TELEPHONE NUMBER 395-4366. It tracks to the U.S. Secret Service. There it is, in the handwritten notes of Park Police Detective John Rolla on the evening of July 20, 1993. [1. Green Books, p. 2527: Detective John Rolla’s notebook.]

If it is not proof, it is at least compelling evidence that the White House was tipped off about Foster’s death two hours before the official notification [at 8:30 PM or “AT 2030 HRS,” as typed above–Ed.].

The sequence is crystal clear. Detective Rolla is contacted at 6:15 PM. In his notebook he writes:


“Dead Body

Ft Marcy

Warm Sunny Day”


He reaches the crime scene at about 6:35 PM. He is directed [by whom?–Ed.] to the Honda with Arkansas plates RCN 504 in the parking lot, evidently the vehicle of the victim [who, as Rolla reports below, had no wallet, no car keys, and no identification on his person. So why “evidently” the vehicle of the victim? Because Foster’s “White House ID [presumably a picture ID (but not his wallet)–Ed.] was sitting on the front passenger seat of the unlocked Honda.” So who left that clue, and why? And were there any other cars in the parking lot besides that of the two lovers in the park?–Ed.]. Within two minutes a trace reveals that it belongs to Vincent Foster, Jr., 5414 Stonewall Rd, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72202.

[OK, so it would then fall to detective Rolla to notify the White House.

So the question becomes: What is the protocol? Would this not be done by notifying the White House Secret Service, who have a station in the White House basement, wherein the following person and telephone line is located?–Ed.]

Then comes the entry “Lt. Walter 395-4366.” This is Lieutenant Danny Walter, U.S. Secret Service.

[I wonder where, when and from whom Rolla got the above information? From the three other Park detectives/investigators at the scene? From dialing 411 information? From the SS HQ? Or from the White House telephone switchboard operator? Is there any evidence or record of any such calls?

And so notifying the White House via its Secret Service office or station in the basement is apparently the correct protocol.–Ed.]

Detective Rolla was asked about this telephone number in a Senate deposition in June 1994 under penalty of perjury. At first he answered that Danny Walter was “a lieutenant on the Park Police.[?] [2. Senate deposition of Detective Rolla, July 21, 1994.]

When pressed by Counsel Roman E. Darmer III, the detective began a tap dance. “I don’t know, maybe this is a Secret Service guy. Maybe I called him. I don’t remember.... I say, let’s call the number and find out now, then we will know.”

Reed Irvine from Accuracy in Media in Washington did exactly that. He called the number. The phone was answered by the Presidential Protection Division of the U.S. Secret Service at room 058 in the basement of the White House. [3. Author interview with Reed Irvine, June 1995.]

[And so this was a land-line #, not a cell phone #. And the land-line lead straight into the basement of the Clinton White House.

The “Secret Service” also work for the U.S. Treasury dept. in detecting and arresting counterfeiters (of U.S. Treasury paper products—e.g. U.S. Treasury “bonds” and paper-money—a.k.a. “Federal Reserve [Corp.] Notes” or “jewish”-Amerikan “dollars”). You can see the Treasury bldg. to the right of the White House in the map above. I assume it—(along with the “Eisenhower Executive Office Building” to the left)—is fenced off and carefully separated from the White House grounds.–Ed.]

The notebook indicates that Detective Rolla called the Secret Service at about 6:40 PM, within minutes of arriving at Fort Marcy Park. [which is 110 minutes before the official SS memo (above) claiming an 8:30 PM notification by the U.S. Park police. (And therefore the “Secret Service” is lying and producing false or misleading documents. But why? Why would they do that? Who would ask them to do that? Who else but their imperial/presidential “commander-in-chief”—or another one of his agents? And so the “Secret Service” is therefore lying for president Clinton.–Ed.] It would have been surprising if he had done otherwise [because all the all-too-displayed evidence in the car (but not on the corpse: no wallet and no car-keys, but a “WHCA” labeled pager on his belt) lead directly to the White House.–Ed.]:


Foster had a Motorola pager on his belt with the letters WHCA (White House Communications Agency). [4. Green Books, p. 2517: Park Police evidence receipt.]

[which pager would have beeped or buzzed around 6:20 PM via the call from Maggie Williams, Mrs. Clinton’s chief-of-staff, and while Foster lying dead in the park and being officially discovered by the park police. (See below.)–Ed.]

His White House ID was sitting on the front passenger seat of the unlocked Honda. [5. Senate deposition of Rolla.]

[How convenient! And yet Foster’s wallet and car keys were missing. (See below.) So how in “Washington” did Foster’s Honda get there from the White House?–Ed.]

• And presumably—since this was supposed to be the car he parked in [the White House parking lot–Ed.] slot 16, West Executive Boulevard, each day [6. FBI 302 report, statement of Lisa Foster.]—his White House sticker was clearly visible on the windscreen of the car.

The White House, however, has always claimed that it did not learn about the death until closer to 9:00 PM. The official memorandum [of the “Secret Service” (above)–Ed.] states that the Secret Service was first notified [by the U.S. Park Police–Ed.] at 8:30 PM. [7. Green Books, p. 2551: US Secret Service.]




The body in the car? Gun in the car?

This was just a mistake, apparently.[?] The Park Police accused the Secret Service of not listening properly. “I think he filled in the blanks. I said that his car was found. I didn’t mention where the gun was found,” said Park Police Lt. Pat Gavin. [8. Author interview with Pat Gavin, April 1995.]

[Did Lt. Gavin mention where Foster’s body was found? Or that there was a gun found?

And how was it that the US PARK POLICE didn’t know what time they “DISCOVERED THE BODY OF VINCENT FOSTER IN HIS CAR”? (“UNKNOWN TIME”)

But if what (US park police) Lt. Gavin is saying is true, that the SS put words in his mouth or “filled in [his] blanks,” then why did Dickey have the very same story (Foster suicide in his car in a/the parking lot) before 7:00 PM when she called Arkansas?

Or maybe Dickey understood, believed and had been told that Foster had been found dead in his car (of apparent suicide) in the White House parking lot. For Dickey is not quoted as saying “a” parking lot, but “the” parking lot. Why was that story circulating? Did someone see men moving a limp Mr. Foster from his car (in the White House parking lot) into another nearby vehicle? (See below for more.)–Ed.]

The memo then listed the White House officials who were notified by the Secret Service. First in line was David Watkins, identified as “Dir. of Personnel.” (In fact, he was Director of Administration.)

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 179-81]

*  *  *  *  *

It may very well be the U.S. “Secret Service” talked with park Lt. Gavin at 8:30 PM.

But why don’t they mention that park detective Rolla had informed them of Foster’s death (via “SS WHB Lt. Walter”) “at about 6:40 PM”?

Why are the SS thus intentionally misleading us?

And who is intentionally misleading them to do so?

Again, who else but the U.S. president?

And so the question becomes, Why?

Obviously because Clinton doesn’t want us to know when he was notified. He wants to put it off for a couple of hours.

Why? What was Clinton (via his White House agents) doing during those hours that he doesn’t want us to know about?

Would you believe secretly rifling through his dead “Deputy White House Counsel’s” locked and secret White House files, within his west-wing White House office?

And wait till you find how and from whom they secretly got the keys to do so. (Keep reading.)

*  *  *  *  *

Methinks something smells very fishy here. And the U.S. police can’t seem to get their stories straight or consistent—not that I’m complaining, mind you.

And therefore all the more reason for all these secret U.S. police forces to “get their stories straight” before “going public.” I mean to make their lies consistent, and hence to not publicly contradict one another so.

If only all the American police and all the imperial “jewish”-Amerikan secret police could be brought under one roof with one police chief.

O wait! That’s been done, by Bush II, via his brand-new post-9/11 “U.S. Department of Homeland Security.”

And that of course was the major part of the secret meaning, purpose and impetus of the FBI’s “Project Megiddo” (above.)

So hopefully from now on, or until this imperial, tyrannical, police-state Hell freezes over, they’ll all get their lies and stories “straight,” and henceforth never again confuse us American citizens with the Truth.

*  *  *  *  *

And so if Foster was first found by the U.S. park police dead in his car, and then afterwards lying on the ground inside the park, and hence outside of his car, then the park police (or their accomplices) must have secretly moved him.

(See e.g. the very strange behavior of U.S. Park Police Officer Kevin Fornshill above.)

For Fornshill was the U.S. Park policeman who “first” discovered Foster’s corpse lying on the ground inside the park—as distinct from inside his car in the parking lot. Officer Fornshill was working on “special assignment” for the CIA, and he apparently knew exactly where to run to find Foster’s body, and he inexplicably appeared not to notice the unidentified men seen running away from Foster’s body, as well as Foster’s “suicide” gun. Why? Why this strange behavior? There’s a reason for everything, and therefore an explanation. So someone please explain officer Fornshill’s behavior to me.

*  *  *  *  *

But even if the U.S./presidential “Secret Service” are mistaken or worse (see below) about where the U.S. Park Police first found Foster’s corpse, it’s clear that he didn’t walk from his car to his “resting place” in the park.

(Hell, it’s clear Foster didn’t even drive his car to the park. For there were no car keys found on his person nor in his car!! (So go figure; and see below.)

And so it’s no wonder nor mystery that no particles of dirt or soil were found under Foster’s shoes. For as murdered men can’t talk, dead men can’t walk.

*  *  *  *  *

From Evans-Pritchard, pgs. 210-11:


One of his [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review writer Christopher Ruddy–Ed.] coups was to persuade Joseph Farah, the Executive Director of the Western Journalism Center, to commission a team of forensic experts to do a two-month review of the Foster case. Farah, the former editor of The Sacramento Union, started the Center in 1991 to restore the forgotten mission of American journalism: rooting out government corruption and exposing abuse of power.

[And here is a foreign journalist, an Englishman, doing just that—doing what almost all American “journalists” refuse and fail to do—simply because it’s not their job, it’s not what they’re paid to do—which is to tell lies, or certainly not to tell the truth.–Ed.]

The forensic team was led by Vincent J. Scalice, a former homicide detective for the New York City Police Department. Scalice had worked with the FBI on the assassinations of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He had been a Consultant Member for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

The so-called Scalice Report, released in April 1995, concluded that “a high probability exists that Foster’s body was transported to Fort Marcy Park.” It honed in on the fact that no traces of soil could be found on Foster’s shoes, under a microscope, even though he had supposedly walked 700 feet through the overgrown park. The investigation did two simulation walks to see what residue was left after walking to the crime scene. Both models had visible soil all over their shoes.

While Scalice did not conclude outright that the death was a homicide, he certainly suggested it: “[T]he lack of extraviated [or pumped-out–Ed.] blood on the front of the body is inconsistent with death by intra-oral gunshot, which raises the likelihood that Foster’s heart had already cessated [stopped–Ed.] and that death would have been caused by other means.”

It was picked up by Reuters, Cox News Service, and The Washington Times, among others, and created a huge stir in the Samizdat [or people’s’ press–Ed.]. At the Office of the Independent Counsel copies were put in the pigeonholes of the prosecutors and FBI agents associated with the Foster case. It had been a triumph. So Ruddy prepared a second strike.

“I wanted to pull away the pillars of the cover-up one by one, so they couldn’t use them again,” he said. [Evans-Pritchard, p. 210-11]


*  *  *  *  *

And therefore Foster was dead in his car in the Fort Marcy parking lot (or in one of his transporters’ cars) before he was secretly moved by them into the park and planted.

And therefore president Clinton’s “Deputy White House Counsel” Foster was murdered. For he did not commit suicide, as president Clinton and the U.S. gov’t insist.

And so the question becomes: Where was Vincent Foster murdered? How? By whom? And why?

And why would president Clinton (and his wife and co-president) lie about it?

If the Clintons truly were (or are) the friends of Vincent Foster and his family, then why wouldn’t they want them (and all the world besides) to know that their friend never really committed suicide?

*  *  *  *  *

The Magic Keys

And then while Vincent Foster was lying dead in the morgue, two other friends of the Clintons slipped the murdered man’s keys into the right front pocket of his pants.

So where and from whom did they get them?

(Obviously from the murdered man, or from his murderers.)

And what had these two, and their White House accomplices, been secretly doing with these keys?

What “doors” or drawers did these keys open that that the Clinton White House thus obviously and secretly very much wanted to get into?

And what did these two friends of the Clintons have to do with Foster murder?—besides thus helping to conceal or cover it up?

*  *  *  *  *

From Evans-Pritchard, pgs. p. 167-69:


Another mystery.

The keys to Vincent Foster’s [gray 1989–Ed.] Honda had vanished.

“I searched his pants pockets. I couldn’t find a wallet or nothing in his pants pockets,” said Detective John Rolla of the U.S. Park Police. [I take that to mean no I.D. on Foster’s body.–Ed.] “We searched the car, and we were puzzled why we found no keys.” [27. Green Books, p. 393: Senate deposition of Detective John Rolla, July 21, 1994.]

[So how did Foster drive from the Clinton White House to the park without his keys? (He didn’t.)

One might wonder if or argue that Mr. Foster might have been robbed by a dishonest civilian(s) who had discovered his corpse before any police or emergency officials had been notified and arrived on the scene. And that indeed happens, but I don’t think that’s the case here. For one thing, Foster’s ring had not been removed or stolen. (For it is clearly visible in the “ABC News exclusive” picture of the “gun-hand” above.) And did Mr. Foster wear a watch? And was it still on his left hand when they found him dead in the park? And if so, these things would indicate that Mr. Foster’s corpse had not been robbed by civilian thieves.

And for another thing, and as we shall soon see, Foster’s keys were secretly placed back into his pants’ pocket after his corpse had been moved from the park, and while he/it was lying dead in the morgue! So why wouldn’t the people who had stolen Foster’s keys not have stolen his wallet also?—except that his wallet was never returned. And so Foster’s corpse was indeed stripped or robbed, but not by thieving civilians, but by thieving U.S. gov’t officials. (Keep reading.)–Ed.]

It would be hard to miss them [i.e. Foster’s keys–Ed.]. Foster had a collection of at least six keys on two separate rings. One ring was for the Honda with a tag marked “Vince’s Keys.” [28. Green Books, p. 2189: Park Police evidence control receipt.] The other had a tag from Cook Jeep Sales, Little Rock, with four cabinet and door keys, including a Medeco-cut high security key with the inscription “U.S. Property Do Not Duplicate.” [29. Fiske Report, p. 13: Exhibit 1, FBI documents.]

The likelihood that Detective Rolla could search the trouser pockets of Foster’s suit without finding this clump of metal is close to zero.

But two hours later, the keys mysteriously appeared. When [U.S. Park Police–Ed.] detectives John Rolla and Cheryl Braun reached the morgue at the Fairfax County Hospital, the keys were sitting in the front right pocket of Foster’s trousers. [30. Green Books, p. 153: Park Police supplemental criminal incident report.]

By the time they arrived, two men from the White House [W. Kennedy and C. Livingston–Ed.] had already paid a visit to “identify” the body.

*  *  *

[31. The hospital staff are adamant that Kennedy arrived before the Park Police. The Park Police themselves cannot get their story straight. In his FBI statement Detective Rolla said he went to the hospital “after we made a death notification [at the Foster household–Ed.], to recheck him.” But his colleague Cheryl Braun [hopefully no relation to Eva or Eve–Ed.] contradicts this in her Senate deposition, saying they went to the morgue first, then to the Foster house in Georgetown.

Kennedy says that he was notified about the death at 8 PM (SWSC deposition July 11, 1995). He was negotiating with Livingstone and the Park Police on mobile telephones while the body was en route to the morgue. It appears that Kennedy set out for the hospital while the body was still en route. It arrived at 8:31, according to hospital logs.

Kennedy says that he was there for almost two hours before sorting things out. This does not square with the recollections of the hospital staff. The chronology is highly confused. The conclusion of this author is that Kennedy reached the morgue early that evening, before the Park Police.]

*  *  *

The White House aides  [W. Kennedy and C. Livingston–Ed.] had made themselves unpopular at the Fairfax County Hospital, flashing credentials and acting as if they owned the world. Nurse Christina Tea was not impressed. She refused to let them into the morgue at first, demanding proper authorization from the Park Police. [32. Author interview with a confidential source, June 1997.] But they got in soon enough. [How? Which particular U.S. park policeman (or gov’t official) authorized it?–Ed.] Not only that, they managed to get inside the [corpse–Ed.] room itself.

“Many times when you view a body, you are in a separate room and view it through the glass,” explained Detective Rolla. “This time, I don’t think that happened. They were let in, the room attendant unzipped the body bag, they looked at it, he zipped it back up.” [33. Green Books, p. 443: deposition of Detective John Rolla.]

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 167-68]

*  *  *  *  *

And so I wonder how they (Livingstone and Kennedy) got the “room attendant” to walk or to look away.

You might recall from above that Cheryl Braun was the U.S. Park Police detective who “made that [Foster suicide–Ed.] determination prior to going up and looking at the body,” and who “then delegated the case to Officer John Rolla. It was his first death investigation.” (E-P, p. 126-27)

And also that:


“Usually, there’s only one investigator [or detective–Ed.] to a [death–Ed.] scene. This was a little bit unusual as far as I was concerned, four investigators at one spot,” said Park Police technician Pete Simonello. [12. Green Books, p. 652: Senate deposition of Peter Simonello, July 14, 1994.]

Remember, this was supposed to be a “routine suicide.” At that stage nobody was supposed to know that Foster was a top White House official. (E-P, p. 141)


Four U.S. Park Police detectives are at the scene. And yet the lead detective (Braun) delegates this case to a subordinate who had never investigated a death before, and only after “determining” or deciding the case for him…and wrongly or falsely.

Does that make sense?

In a corrupt way, yes.

And so this Foster case reeked with police corruption from the very beginning or “get-go.”

And let’s not forget the specifics of park officer Fornshill’s initial “discovery” of the body, nor his “secret [CIA] assignment.”

There are no car keys found on the “suicide’s” body nor in his car. (So how did he and his car get there?) Not even Braun disputes these missing car keys. And yet there they are in Foster’s pants at the morgue—after having been “identified” by two Clinton White House agents, according to detective Rolla and the Fairfax County Hospital staff. (No, before, says Braun.)

So which park detective should we believe?

Obviously Rolla.

And exactly who were these two Clinton White House agents or employees?

Continuing with E-P from above:

*  *  *  *  *


One of the White House aides was Craig Livingstone, the former bar bouncer from Pittsburgh who had risen to White House chief of personnel security under the patronage of Hillary Clinton. [She denies this. (See below.)–Ed.] It was the same Craig Livingstone who would later emerge as the protagonist of “Filegate,” the man who came upon the FBI files of 900 political opponents at the White House as a result of an “innocent snafu.”

[Everything the Clintons do is “innocent”—or so they and their “aides” always say.–Ed.]

The other was Associate White House Counsel William H. Kennedy III, friend and protégé of the deceased. [Some friend!–Ed.] Kennedy would have his moment of subpoena glory when he was summoned before the Senate Banking Committee to explain why he had written “Vacuum Rose law files.... Documents never know [?], go out quietly,” in his notes at a White House meeting on November 5, 1993. But this does not do him justice. He is an under-appreciated figure in the Byzantine nexus of the Clintons.

Lugubrious, brooding, abrasive, he was the man who made the trains run on time at the Counsel’s office. Where others waffled, he executed. It was his task to comb through the FBI background files and IRS tax-check forms of presidential appointees, and others, too, no doubt. These were not FBI summaries. He was reading the original SF86 raw data files from the “full-field” investigations. Names, places, dates-all the dirt. [34. House hearings on Travelgate, p. 198.]

[So both these Clinton men, Livingstone and Kennedy, clearly had very cozy relations with the imperial secret police (FBI)—in thus looking through their secret files and all.

And here again we see the blatant politicization of the imperial secret police (FBI) by the Clinton co-presidency. For the Clintons the secret police exist to dig up “dirt” on their political opponents, or to thus review the dirt already dug.–Ed.]

When he [Kennedy–Ed.] uncovered something “problematical” he would go to Vincent Foster to talk it through. These two knew all the secrets. Too many, perhaps, for their own good. [Did Foster know where all the metaphorical bodies were buried long before Kennedy knew where Foster’s was?–Ed.] The two Arkansans went back a long way. Kennedy had first started at the Rose Law Firm in 1976 as an intern for Foster, and for the better part of two decades they had served the same master in Little Rock. [I.E. Mrs. Clinton–Ed.] Both were bailiffs of Stephens Incorporated, the financial overlord of Arkansas. It was only natural that Foster would tap Kennedy to serve under him at the White House Counsel’s office. [36. SWSC deposition of William Kennedy, July 11, 1995. Technically the invitation came from Hillary Clinton.]

[And so both men worked for or belonged to Mrs. Clinton more than to her husband and co-president.–Ed.]

The activities of Livingstone and Kennedy on the night of July 20, 1990, do not make sense. They arrived at the morgue separately. But they left together, driving the twenty miles back to Kennedy’s home in Alexandria in the same car.

[Maybe they both wanted or needed to get their stories “straight” or consistent.

But they evidently didn’t agree on who drove who home, and hence who left his car behind. For each said the other had left his car behind. How could anyone make and honest mistake about something like that?–Ed.]

“I drove Mr. Kennedy in my car to his home,” said Livingstone in a deposition under oath. [37. SWSC deposition of Craig Livingstone, July 10, 1995.]

“So you left Mr. Kennedy’s car at the hospital?”

“Correct. He was pretty upset.”

It strikes me as bizarre for a busy man like Kennedy to leave a car 20 miles away in Fairfax. But Kennedy denied this anyway in his deposition, saying that it was Livingstone who left his car behind. [38. SWSC deposition of William Kennedy, July 11, 1995.]

The handwritten notes of Kennedy’s FBI interview read “CL lvs his car at Hospital.” The next line is redacted. [39. FBI Notes, p. 238, statement of William Kennedy.] So are the next four pages. It is clear that the FBI was asking Kennedy questions about his movements that are still so sensitive, years later, that the American people cannot be told.

I do not offer an explanation as to why Livingstone and Kennedy cannot get their story straight on this elementary point. It is part of the inexhaustible mystery of the Foster case. What we do know with near certainty is that somebody slipped those keys into Foster’s pocket at the Fairfax County morgue.

It compels a rather sinister question. Whoever had the keys, what were they doing with them in the first place?

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 168-69]

*  *  *  *  *

So you don’t want to be found dead in “Washington,” folks—not if you know what’s good for you.

And remember these were not merely Foster’s car keys, but also the keys to his secret White House cabinets and papers. So who else but the White House would be interested in these locked and secret papers?—and especially at this particular time? And why else but because they very much wanted to review them and remove (or “vacuum”) some of them before anyone else saw them?—i.e. those inevitable investigators or lookers-into their “Deputy White House Counsel’s” “apparent suicide”? So what Dark things within its “Deputy White House Counsel’s” locked files was the Clinton White House intent upon keeping from the Light of day?

And where do you think Clinton’s men, Livingston and Kennedy, got these keys which they thus secretly placed back into the dead man’s pocket?

I would guess that they—(or whoever it was gave these keys to these two)—had secretly taken them from the dead man’s pocket, wouldn’t you?

I mean they wouldn’t have taken Foster’s keys from him while he was alive, would they?—but only after he was dead, and therefore—(because he did not die by natural causes nor by his own hand)—after he had been murdered. (“‘Murder,” he wrote.”) And who else would have murdered Foster but the very gang who thus secretly took and secretly returned his keys? And that means the Clinton White House.

But why? And is the reason connected or related to this White House theft (and covert return) of Foster’s keys?

So what was done with these keys? Did the murderers go for a joy-ride in Foster’s Honda? Or did they instead secretly open Foster’s secret White House cabinets to remove secret papers or documents that they didn’t want anyone else to know about?

And if so, are these secret Foster documents related to Foster’s murder? Was he murdered because of them? Because of evil or criminal things revealed in them? Some deep and dark secrets related to the Clintons which perhaps even Foster himself couldn’t abide or live with anymore?—not that he committed suicide, mind you. For, as we shall read below, “Deputy White House Counsel” Foster definitely wanted out of the White House, once and for all. In fact, I assume he had already “given his notice” or “tendered his resignation.”

*  *  *  *  *

It is said that, by taking their car keys, “friends don’t let friends drive drunk.”

But these White House officials or employees were not Foster’s friends. For he was not drunk.

And neither do friends let friends drive without their car keys.

And neither do friends let friends drive dead.

Nor do friends secretly transport their friend’s murdered corpse (from his actual murder scene) elsewhere—(such as the Fort Marcy park parking lot and/or inside the park itself).

Nor do friends make it appear that their friend murdered himself by placing a strange gun in his hand—although it is completely obvious via an examination of his murdered corpse, his mouth, his head, his skull and the ground under his head and corpse—that Foster did not shoot himself in the mouth with a .38 caliber revolver, as his false “Washington” friends (both in and out of the Clinton White House) have always claimed.

*  *  *  *  *

Meanwhile…back at the White House, or rather before this secret return of Foster’s keys, we see what the deceitful (if not also murderous) Clinton White House were secretly doing with them:


Foster’s death itself was taboo, so [U.S. Senate pseudo-investigator–Ed.] D’Amato confined himself to investigating the seizure of documents from Foster’s office that night. But even in this the Senator managed to miss the point. His lawyers honed in on allegations that a raiding party had entered Foster’s office at around 10:50 PM to spirit away incriminating documents.


The 10:50 PM excursion into Foster’s office [by Mrs. Clinton’s Maggie Williams, Patsy Thomasson, etc. (see below)–Ed.] was not the one that mattered. There was a reason why the White House has always insisted that it did not learn of Foster’s death until 8:30 PM [as “confirmed” and “documented” above by president Clinton’s “Secret Servicemen”–Ed.], when it quite obviously learned much earlier. [See above.–Ed.] The real mischief in Foster’s office occurred between 6:45 and 8:30 PM—that is to say before Foster’s set of keys, including that Medeco-cut high security key, made their way back into his pocket at the morgue.

If subpoena power had been used to pull at this string [attached to Kennedy and Livingstone, etc.–Ed.], the cover-up of Foster’s death would have unraveled very quickly. [because who in their right mind would be willing to go to jail for the Clintons?–Ed.]

President Clinton was on Larry King Live [cable TV talk-show–Ed.] from 9:00 to 10:00 PM [on July 20, 1994–Ed.], giving a cheerful account of himself. It had been a good day for the White House. [Evans-Pritchard, p. 190-91]


*  *  *  *  *

So what happened at the White House between 6:30 and 8:30 PM on July 20, 1993?

Maggie Williams, the First Lady’s chief-of-staff, telephoned Foster at the White House Counsel’s office at about 6:15 PM. [48. SWSC [Senate Whitewater Special Committee–Ed.] deposition of Linda Tripp.] There was nothing unusual about this. Williams and Foster worked “very closely” together. [49. SWSC deposition of Betsy Pond.] They had adjacent office suites on the second floor of the White House, and she was always bustling in and out with an armful of folders.

A gregarious, affectionate, voluble African American from Kansas, she even professed to have a crush on her beloved Vince. Couldn’t an extra one be cloned, just for her, she used to joke.


[Secret Service officer Henry O’Neill testified that he saw Maggie Williams, the First Lady’s chief-of-staff, coming out of Foster’s office [around 10:50 PM on the night of his murder–Ed.] with a 3- to 5-inch pile of folders in both hands, then disappearing into her office next door, and then coming back out empty handed. [39. SWSC deposition of Henry O’Neill, June 23, 1995.]

Ms. Williams denied it under oath, and passed two polygraph tests.[?] She explained that she had wandered into Foster’s office out of a Pavlovian reflex. The light was on and she just sort of hoped to feel the presence of Vince one last time. [40.  SWSC deposition of Maggie Williams, July 7, 1995.] All she did was sit on the sofa and think of Vince and weep her heart out. [Or so she testified.–Ed.]

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 190-1)


The telephone [in Foster’s office–Ed.] was answered by Betsy Pond, a Clinton loyalist who had worked as a secretary with Hillary Rodham on the Watergate impeachment inquiry. She suggested trying to page Foster. Maggie Williams said: yes, go ahead, have him paged. The call [to Foster’s “pager” on his belt; (see above)–Ed.] went out through the White House operator at 6:20 PM. [50. SWSC deposition of Betsy Pond.]

[Needless to say Foster never responded, because he was lying dead in the park—and had officially been “found” about 10 minutes before, at 6:10 PM, but had actually first been found (without “his” “suicide” gun) 25 minutes before that (about 5:45 PM) by the “Confidential Informant” who had alerted the two Park employees. (See above.)–Ed.]

At that time Hillary Clinton was on her way from Los Angeles to Little Rock on a U.S. Air Force flight, accompanied by her mother and her daughter Chelsea. [51. SWSC deposition of Lisa Caputo, July 10, 1995.] The stop in Arkansas was a chance for the First Lady to drop the elderly Mrs. Rodham off at home and pay a visit to her doctors.

In mid-air, at 7:37 PM eastern time, Hillary Clinton called the White House signals office and was patched through to the apartment of her chief-of-staff [Williams–Ed.] at 1730 New Hampshire Avenue. “Maggie, are you at home?” she asked. “I’ll call you when I land.” The First Lady did not want to discuss details until they had a secure landline. [52. SWSC deposition of Maggie Williams, July 7, 1995.]

The aircraft touched down in Little Rock at 8:26 PM eastern time.

Bernie Nussbaum [White House Counsel, i.e. the Clintons’ lawyer, and therefore the boss of “Deputy White House Counsel” Foster–Ed.] and Betsy Pond left the White House Counsel’s suite, room 208, at about 7:00 PM that night. Before leaving, Bond switched on the alarm system—which happened to be located in a box inside Foster’s office—and then called the Secret Service Control Center to notify them that the Counsel’s suite was being vacated. [53. SWSC deposition of Betsy Pond, p. 51.]

[“Bond, Betsy Bond.”–Ed.]

If anybody entered that set of rooms later that evening their movements would be picked up by a sensor in the ceiling. They would have two minutes to get out again before the alarm went off in the [SS–Ed.] Control Center [in the White House basement–Ed.]—unless, of course, they knew how to neutralize the alarm system. [How? By simply switching or toggling it off?–Ed.] The logs show that at 8:04 PM Tom Castleton, the office intern, accessed the alarm system [i.e. shut it off?–Ed.]. It would indicate that he entered the Counsel’s suite [which he would need to do to get to Foster’s alarm box, inside his office, to shut his (alarm) system off–Ed.], but he cannot remember anything about it.[?] [54. SWSC deposition of Tom Castleton, June 27, 1995.]

[So who put “intern” Castleton up to this? Whose idea was it that he do this? I.E. who was he lying for? And what, if anything, did Castleton get out of it? I.E. what, if anything, was he promised or paid?

According to C. Ruddy, “Castleton, since promoted to the Department of Justice’s Office of Legislative Affairs, declined to comment on the matter [of seeing Foster leave the White House for the very last time with his briefcase in hand, on the day that he died–Ed.] for the Tribune-Review.” (“Aide Says Foster Left with Briefcase, Contradicts Claims,” by Christopher Ruddy, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, February 04, 1996—available at

And was this Castleton the very one who, around 8:50 PM, according to the CNN makeup artist, had told Mr. Clinton while in his make-up chair in the White House “map room,” that a “note” had been found in Vince Foster’s office? (See above.)–Ed.]

Foster had a locked file cabinet in his office, room 220. Nobody was allowed to touch this cabinet. His executive assistant [or secretary–Ed.] Deborah Gorham remembers that he kept a file on the Branch Davidian siege at Waco in there, but she did not have a key and never got to look inside. [55. SWSC deposition of Deborah Gorham.]

[Did anyone besides Foster possess a key to his cabinet? (Apparently not, if “nobody was allowed to touch this cabinet.”) And if the lock couldn’t be “picked,” it would need to broken, and that would obviously leave evidence of a (White House) break-in. And so if only Foster had the key(s) to his cabinet, the White House would therefore have needed this key to get into Foster’s secret cabinet—the very key(s) which were part of the collection or “key-chain” (including “four cabinet and door keys, including a Medeco-cut high security key with the inscription ‘U.S. Property Do Not Duplicate’”) that Livingstone and Kennedy had secretly slipped into the murdered man’s pants’ pocket while he was lying dead in the morgue. (See above.)–Ed.]

The most sensitive material was kept in a safe in Bernie Nussbaum’s office.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 194-95]

*  *  *  *  *

Yes, but apparently there was “material” in Foster’s office thought (by the White House) to be “sensitive” enough for the White House to thus secretly sneak in and remove (or “vacuum”), and to secretly place Foster’s office-cabinet keys back into the murdered man’s pocket.

And is this Waco file a subtle clue dropped by secretary/executive assistant loyal to Mr. Foster? Was she trying to tell us something? Was it the most “sensitive” file in Foster’s possession? Was it too dark for the Light of day? After all, it was a presidential mass-murder, genocide and literal holocaust of “Christian”-American men, women and children.

Did Clinton consult his “Deputy White House Counsel” Foster, i.e. his personal lawyer, before or after Waco, about any possible legal ramifications or consequences to him (either while in his presidential office or afterwards) for what he had either contemplated or perpetrated at Waco, or anywhere else to anyone else? Did Clinton consult Vincent Foster about any possible vulnerability to future prosecution for his (and his “attorney general” Reno’s) Waco massacre?

Did Mr. Foster have a hard time accepting, “swallowing,” living with or “coming to grips” with his presidential master’s mass-murder at Waco?—or anything else the Clintons had done—with or without his lawyerly advice, consent or acquiescence?

*  *  *  *  *

For consider this, from an in-depth interview with Foster widow, called “Life after Vince,” by Peter J. Boyer, New Yorker Magazine, Sept 11, 1995:


He [Foster–Ed.] even assumed blame for Waco, somehow believing that the disastrous F.B.I. raid on the Branch Davidians’ compound was his fault. [Again, was it because of some legal advice Foster gave his childhood friend…and U.S. president?–Ed.] Vince and the rest of the Clinton team, Lisa [Foster, his widow–Ed.] notes, “weren’t up there to do bad things, and everything—just like Waco—just blew up in their faces, and it absolutely destroyed him.

[Actually Waco literally “blew up in the faces” of president Clinton’s eighty-six dead victims.–Ed.]

…. He had been Bill Clinton’s boyhood chum and Hillary Clinton’s confidant and law partner, in the White House, he was one of their most trusted aides. The revelation, five months later [after Foster’s death–Ed.], that Whitewater files had been removed from Foster’s office after his death suggested that he knew some damaging secret, and that it might even have pushed him to suicide.

[Or someone else to something else. (“‘Murder,’ he wrote.”)–Ed.]

…. Almost from the beginning, Vince realized he should have stayed in Little Rock.…

[And only five days before “Deputy White House Counsel” Foster’s murder, during a weekend trip with his wife to the nearby Chesapeake Bay…–Ed.]

…. Again, he seemed single-mindedly focused on getting out of the White House. At dinner that night, Lisa recalls, “I asked him if he felt trapped, and tears came to his eyes, and he cried.”

The next morning, she remembers Vince sprawled on a park lawn overlooking Chesapeake Bay, negotiating their departure date [from “Washington” and the Clintons–Ed.]. They now agreed that they would not stay for the full Clinton term [ending Jan. 1997–Ed.], but she hoped to remain in Washington at least until Brugh [their youngest son–Ed.] graduated from Sidwell [high school (where the Clintons’ daughter, “Chelsea Morning,” went)–Ed.], the following year [1994–Ed.]. Vince wanted to leave [“Washington” and the Clintons–Ed.] immediately. Finally, they decided that Vince would stay in his job until Christmas, then find other work in Washington until Brugh graduated [the following spring, 1994–Ed.].

Vince’s spirits seemed to lift after that, and they even talked about living on a houseboat until they returned to Little Rock.

…. That evening, at home [Monday, July 19, the night before his murder–Ed.], Vince received a call from the President inviting him to watch a movie at the White House. He declined.

*  *  *  *  *

Had “Deputy White House Counsel” Foster told his presidential master that he wanted out by Christmas? And was Clinton hereby trying to talk his old “friend” out of leaving him? And is that why Foster declined the presidential invitation to “watch a movie” together?

Had “Deputy White House Counsel” Foster become not quite as willing to “go along to get along” with the Clintons as he formerly had been? Had an essentially good and moral man finally come “to the end of his rope” with an essentially immoral couple? Had relations between them become strained? Had their old friend from Arkansas come to be seen by the Clintons as “unreliable,” or even potentially disloyal? Did Foster know where the metaphorical bodies or victims of the Clintons’ were buried? And did the Clintons come to fear that Foster might someday publicly point them out?

And would an Amerikan president who would thus mass-murder American citizens at Waco Texas stop at murdering a dear old friend who could not longer stomach being his friend?—Or who could no longer be as loyal as he had been, or as loyal as the Clintons demanded?—Or who wanted to quit that criminal gang, and/or felt guilty for his former complicity?

Was Foster a member of a criminal gang who wanted out, and who therefore felt that Foster had become “unreliable,” and hence needed to be “taken care of,” and whose murder was thus disguised as a suicide?—with the demonic help of the entire “Washington” establishment: the imperial secret police (FBI, SS (“Secret Service,” U.S. Park police); the U.S. “Justice’ dept. and the U.S. Parliament/Congress?

Because that’s exactly what it looks like.

*  *  *  *  *

Who are Livingstone and Kennedy anyway?

And here’s a little more about one of those two Clinton White House agents who had secretly returned Foster’s keys—while he was lying dead in the morgue:

From “Life after Vince” by Peter J. Boyer, New Yorker Magazine, Sept 11, 1995:


And then there was Travelgate. Soon he after the Clinton team took over the White House, they found that the [White House–Ed.] Travel Office—which handled, among other things, transportation for the press corps—was in disarray; [incumbent “republican” (Reagan, Bush I) White House–Ed.] staff members were even suspected [by Clinton White House members–Ed.] of embezzlement and kickbacks. [I guess that means stealing White House (i.e. taxpayer) money and taking bribes from writers to buy a place on the president’s plane in his traveling to and fro. These prized seats are of course reserved only for “friendly” or non-critical interviewers, writers or “journalists.”–Ed.] Under Foster’s direction [Yeah, but who “directed” Foster?–Ed.], the counsel’s office ordered an independent audit, and it resulted in the firing of seven staff members (ultimately, only one was indicted, and will go on trial next month); in a rather stupid move, the White House named a Clinton relative to temporarily manage some Travel Office business. Bill Kennedy, another Rose lawyer on the counsel staff, had talked to the FBI about [starting (see above)–Ed.] a possible criminal investigation of the [“republican” White House–Ed.] travel staff, and the [Clinton–Ed.] White House was accused of abusing the Justice Department to cover up its clumsy cronyism. An internal inquiry was ordered, and Kennedy was reprimanded.

*  *  *  *  *

From Wikipedia’s article on “Travelgate” (or “The White House Travel Office Controversy”):


The White House travel office controversy, often referred to as Travelgate, was the first major scandal of the Clinton administration. It began in May 1993, when seven longtime employees of the White House Travel Office were fired, after a brief investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The White House said the action was due to financial improprieties in the office operation. Critics said the actions were done to allow friends of the Clintons to take over the travel business and that the involvement of the FBI was unwarranted. Heavy media attention forced the White House to reinstate most of the employees in other jobs and remove the Clinton associates from the travel role.

[In other words, the Clintons falsely accused White House employees of stealing in order to unjustly fire them, and to give their jobs to their friends instead?–Ed.]

Investigations by the FBI and the Justice Department, the White House itself, the General Accounting Office, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and the Whitewater Independent Counsel all took place over the subsequent years. [The former or pre-Clinton White House–Ed.] Travel Office Director Billy Dale was charged with embezzlement [or theft–Ed.] but found not guilty at trial in 1995. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton gradually came under scrutiny for allegedly having played a central role in the firings and making false statements about her role in it.

[And so it was her who set or “directed” Vince Foster against these innocents?–Ed.]

In 1998 Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exonerated President Bill Clinton of any involvement in the matter. In 2000 Independent Counsel Robert Ray [Ken Starr’s successor–Ed.] issued his final report on Travelgate, stating that Hillary Clinton had made factually false statements but saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute her.

…. Attention initially focused on the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), since on May 12, 1993, a week before the firings, associate White House counsel William Kennedy had requested that the FBI look into possible improprieties in the Travel Office operation. FBI agents went there and, although initially reluctant, authorized a preliminary investigation.

[Here again we see the Clintons’ politicization of the imperial secret police, whose “director” (Freeh) was a Clinton appointee.–Ed.]

…. In July 1993, Congress had requested the non-partisan General Accounting Office investigate the firings; on May 2, 1994 the GAO concluded that the White House did have legal authority to terminate the Travel Office employees without cause, because they served at the pleasure of the president.… Moreover, the GAO report indicated that First Lady Hillary Clinton played a larger role than previously thought before the firings, with [White House director of administration, David–Ed.] Watkins saying she had urged “that action be taken to get ‘our people’ into the travel office.” [15. Stephen Labaton, “First Lady Urged Dismissals At Travel Office, Study Says”, The New York Times, May 3, 1994.] The First Lady, who had given a written statement to the inquiry, said she did “not recall this conversation with the same level of detail as Mr. Watkins.”


[Like her husband’s little splatter, these White House firings are a small matter. But they reveal the utter Truthlessness, mendacity and perfidy of these two co-presidents.–Ed.]


New charges regarding Hillary Clinton

On January 5, 1996, a new development thrust the Travel Office matter again to the forefront. A two year-old memo from White House director of administration David Watkins surfaced that identified First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as the motivating force behind the firings, with the additional involvement of Vince Foster and [Hollywood producer and the Clintons’ Inauguration chairman–Ed.] Harry Thomason. “Foster regularly informed me that the First Lady was concerned and desired action. The action desired was the firing of the Travel Office staff.” Written in fall 1993, apparently intended for [the Clintons’ White House chief of staff–Ed.] McLarty, the Watkins memo also said “we both know that there would be hell to pay” if “we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady’s wishes.” [31. David Johnston, “Memo Places Hillary Clinton At Core of Travel Office Case”, The New York Times, January 5, 1996.] This memo contradicted the First Lady’s previous statements in the GAO investigation, that she had played no role in the firings and had not consulted with Thomason beforehand; the White House also found it difficult to explain why the memo was so late in surfacing when all the previous investigations had requested all relevant materials. House committee chair Clinger charged a cover-up was taking place and vowed to pursue new material.

New York Times columnist William Safire had endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, but by 1996 was Hillary Clinton’s most infamous critic and a possible punching bag for Bill.

These developments, following Hillary Clinton’s prior disputed statements about her cattle futures dealings and Whitewater, led to a famous exchange in which high-profile New York Times columnist William Safire, who had endorsed Bill Clinton in the previous election, wrote that many Americans were coming to the “sad realization that our First Lady—a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation—is a congenital liar,” [33. William Safire, “Blizzard of Lies”, The New York Times, January 8, 1996.]

[Not to mention her husband.–Ed.]

…. The Congressional investigation continued; on March 21, 1996, Hillary Clinton submitted a deposition under oath to the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, again acknowledging concern about irregularities in the travel office but denying a direct role in the firings and expressing a lack of recollection to a number of questions. A battle of wills took place between the legislative and executive branches. On May 9, 1996, President Clinton refused to turn over additional documents related to the matter, claiming executive privilege. House committee chair Clinger threatened a contempt of Congress resolution against the president, and the White House partially backed down on May 30, surrendering 1,000 of the 3,000 documents the committee asked for.

Meanwhile, the seven dismissed employees were back in the picture. In March 1996 the House voted 350–43 to reimburse them for all of their legal expenses;…. [(?) that’s all?–Ed.]

On June 5, 1996, Clinger [Bill, chairman Government Reform and Oversight Committee of the U.S. House of “Representatives”–Ed.] announced that the committee’s investigations had discovered that the White House had requested access to [White House Travel Office director–Ed.] Billy Dale’s FBI background check report seven months after the terminations, in what Clinger said was an improper effort to justify the firings.[42. Susan Schmidt, Ann Devroy, “White House Obtained FBI Data on Fired Travel Chief”, The Washington Post, June 6, 1996.] It was rapidly discovered that the White House had additionally gotten improper access to hundreds of other FBI background reports, many on former White House employees in Republican administrations; thus was born the Filegate controversy.

*  *  *  *  *

Again, that’s what the secret police are for. They’re a political tool, for people like the Clintons to use against their political targets, obstacles, or opponents—in this “Travelgate” case against incumbent White House staffers/employees.

And you know all these “gates” stem from president Nixon’s break-in of the “Watergate” hotel, right?

And on the Clintons’ “Filegate,” Wikipedia says the following (on the “White House FBI Files Controversy”):


The White House FBI files controversy of the Clinton Administration, often referred to in the press as Filegate, arose in June 1996 around improper access in 1993 and 1994 to Federal Bureau of Investigation security-clearance documents. [1. “‘Filegate’ Depositions Sought From White House Aides”,, April 1, 1998.] Craig Livingstone, director of the White House’s Office of Personnel Security, [3. Eric Pooley, “Man Behind the Mess”, Time, June 24, 1996.] improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background reports without asking permission of the subject individuals. Estimates range from 400 to 700 to 900 unauthorized file disclosures. [5. “FBI Files Fiasco”,, 1997.] The incident caused a firestorm of criticism because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations…. Under criticism, Livingstone resigned from his position. Allegations were made that senior White House figures, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, may have requested and read the files for political purposes, and that the First Lady had authorized the hiring of the underqualified Livingstone. [6. “Documents Suggest Hillary Knew Craig Livingstone”,, July 25, 1997. Accessed June 5, 2007.] The matter was investigated by the Whitewater Independent Counsel [Robert Ray, Ken Starr’s successor–Ed.], who found in 2000 that there was no criminal activity by anyone in the matter, and that there was no credible evidence that senior White House figures or the First Lady had requested the files or had acted improperly or testified improperly regarding Livingstone’s hiring. [7. “Independent counsel: No evidence to warrant prosecution against first lady in ‘filegate’”,, June 3, 2000.]

Filegate” began on June 5, 1996, when Republican Pennsylvania Congressman William Clinger, chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, announced that the committee had found during their ongoing “Travelgate” investigations, that FBI background reports on Travelgate figure Billy Dale had been delivered to the White House. The following day, the White House delivered to the committee hundreds of other such files related to White House employees of the Reagan Administration and George H. W. Bush Administration. Initial White House explanations for what had happened varied, and Republicans made various charges, including that the file transfer was motivated by a desire to slander Dale and other White House Travel Office officials and thereby justify their dismissal [in order to then give their jobs to friends of the Clintons–Ed.]. At first Attorney General Janet Reno asked the FBI to look into it; FBI Director [and Clinton appointee–Ed.] Louis Freeh acknowledged that both the FBI and especially the White House had committed “egregious violations of privacy” (in some cases the background reports contained information about extramarital affairs, trangressions with the law, and medical issues).[11. David Stout, “Starr Questions Hillary Clinton on F.B.I. Files”, The New York Times, January 15, 1998.] On June 21 Reno decided it was a conflict of interest for the U.S. Department of Justice [whose investigative arm is the FBI–Ed.] to further investigate the matter, and thus recommended that it be folded into the overall umbrella of the Whitewater investigations, under charge of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

On June 26, 1996, Clinger’s Government Reform and Oversight Committee held hearings on the matter. Livingstone, who announced his resignation at the start of his testimony, and his assistant, Anthony Marceca, insisted during the committee’s hearings that the mishandled files were a result of a bureaucratic mixup and that no improper motivations were behind it. [12. George Lardner Jr., Susan Schmidt, “Livingstone Resigns, Denying Ill Intent”, The Washington Post, June 27, 1996.]

…. Also called to testify were former White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum and former associate counsel William Kennedy III.[12] Livingstone, Nussbaum, and Kennedy all offered apologies to those whose files had been obtained.[?]


Who hired Livingstone issue

A secondary question of the Filegate controversy revolved around what the Office of Personnel Security was, who had authorized the hiring of Livingstone, and whether he was qualified for the job. The Office was not responsible for actual White House security, as that was the charge of the United States Secret Service, nor did it perform background checks on potential White House employees, a task done by the FBI, nor did it keep the regular personnel files of employees, which were held in a different office within the White House. Rather, its role was to keep track of who was employed by the White House, make sure their security clearances were up to date, and give security briefings to new hires. [I would say that the purpose of the Clinton “White House “Office of Personnel Security” was to make damn sure that any and all White House staffers and employees were Clinton loyalists.–Ed.] Nevertheless, Livingstone seemed to lack qualifications for even this position; he had worked on a number of Democratic Party campaigns and transitions, including being an advance man for the Clinton-Gore 1992 campaign, and his only prior job in the “security” field was that of a local bar bouncer at a Washington, D.C., night club. [4. Christopher Lee, “Flops Are No Fluke in the Annals of Political Payback”, The Washington Post, September 19, 2005.] (At the congressional hearings, Livingstone objected to “false and unfair caricatures of who I am. [...] I have worked hard for little or no pay in political campaigns for candidates who I felt would make this country a better place to live.”) Clinton opponents stated that Livingstone had the highest level of security clearances in the U.S. government. [19. Jon E. Dougherty, “New photos show Livingstone as insider”, WorldNetDaily, March 27, 2000.] White House officials could not explain why Livingstone was hired, nor who had hired him.

[Surely Livingstone was hired to do the illegal or criminal will of the Clintons. And his “qualifications” were that he was more than willing to do so.–Ed.]

An FBI document suggested that Livingstone had been given his position because First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was a friend of Livingstone’s mother and recommended him. Hillary Clinton stated [in her 2003 book, Living History, p. 372.–Ed.] that while she was once photographed with the mother in a large group, she did not know her, was questioned by the Independent Counsel in January 1998, and in 1999 gave a sworn statement that she had nothing to do with Livingstone’s hiring. Livingstone also stated under oath there was no truth to the supposed hiring relationship. Hillary Clinton would later refer to the whole affair as a “pseudoscandal”. [ibid., p. 371.–Ed.]

[Mrs’ Clinton claims (and hence wants us all to believe that) she did not know Livingstone before his hiring, and had absolutely no hand in the matter.–Ed.]


Official findings

On November 19, 1998, Independent Counsel Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee in connection with the Impeachment of Bill Clinton over charges related to the Lewinsky scandal. Here, for the first time, Starr exonerated both President Clinton and the First Lady of complicity in the FBI files matter, saying “while there are outstanding issues that we are attempting to resolve with respect to one individual[?] [we] found no evidence that anyone higher [than Livingstone or Marceca] was in any way involved in ordering the files from the FBI. [So Livingstone did it all on his own, and is therefore not a scapegoat for the Clintons?–Ed.] Second, we have found no evidence that information contained in the files of former officials was used for an improper purpose.”[22. Ruth Marcus, Peter Baker, “Clinton ‘Thwarted’ Probe, Starr to Say”, The Washington Post, November 19, 1998.] (Starr also chose this occasion to clear President Clinton in the Travelgate matter, and to say that he had not committed impeachable wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter; Democrats on the committee immediately criticized Starr for withholding all these findings until after the 1998 Congressional elections.)

In March 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Starr’s successor, issued the office’s final report on the matter. Ray determined that there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity by any individual in the matter. [24. Neil A. Lewis, “Report Clears White House In Inquiry Over F.B.I. Files”, March 17, 2000.]

…. Based on an investigation that included the prior fingerprint analysis, Ray’s report further stated “there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background reports of former White House staff from prior administrations of President Bush and President Reagan.” [7. “Independent counsel: No evidence to warrant prosecution against first lady in ‘filegate’”,, June 3, 2000.]

[Again, Livingstone supposedly did it all on his own. I wonder what he was secretly promised or paid.

And as with Travelgate, these were former or incumbent White house staffers or employees whom the Clintons apparently wanted to find or discover reasons to fire, in order to then hire their friends and supporters in their places. And so once again their political tool was the their imperial secret police (FBI).–Ed.]

Ray’s report also concluded that there was no credible evidence that Bernard Nussbaum testified falsely about not having discussed Livingstone’s hiring with the First Lady, and found as well that there was no personal relationship between the First Lady and Livingstone that had formed the basis for his hiring. [7. ibid.–Ed.]


Judicial Watch lawsuit

Separately from the Independent Counsel investigation, Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, engaged in long-running litigation over the White House personnel file controversy. Judicial Watch’s Cara Leslie Alexander et al. vs. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al. class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of several members of the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations, alleged that Livingstone, along with Anthony Marceca and William Kennedy, obtained the files and then rifled through them. As late as January 2000 they were filing affidavits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Royce C. Lamberth related to the case. In their $90 million lawsuit, they claimed that the First Lady did, despite her denials, know Livingstone—indeed, that Livingstone had bragged to associates he was very close to both the president and his wife, and that Clinton had personally hired him for the security job. [28. “Livingstone, Hillary Photos Released”,, March 26, 2000.] (White House defenders pointed out that Livingstone had a long history of exaggerating his importance and connections. [3. Eric Pooley, “Man Behind the Mess”, Time, June 24, 1996.]) Judicial Watch also said they had five sources who claimed Livingstone had been hired by and worked under the First Lady, and also discovered some photographs of Livingstone in the vicinity of the First Lady (but not talking with him).[19. Jon E. Dougherty, “New photos show Livingstone as insider”, WorldNetDaily, March 27, 2000.] In December 2002 Judicial Watch obtained a ruling from Judge Lamberth that recently uncovered White House e-mails be searched for possible evidence in the lawsuit, and Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman [and Clintons’ antagonist supreme] said that, “Hillary Clinton was the mastermind of Filegate. She will not escape justice.” [29. “Clinton-Gore White House E-mail Ordered Searched by Federal Judge”, Judicial Watch, December 16, 2002.] Klayman and Judicial Watch had a severe falling out in 2003, however; as of June 2007, nothing further appears to have happened in the lawsuit other than a court document filed in April 2004. [26. “Alexander et al. v. FBI, et. al.”, Judicial Watch.]

*  *  *  *  *

And again from “Life after Vince” by Peter J. Boyer, New Yorker Magazine, Sept 11, 1995:


…. Just a few weeks after Vince died, she [Lisa Foster, the murdered man’s widow–Ed.] was notified that his account at the White House credit union was overdrawn. She had emptied the account, and deposited the money in her account in Arkansas, but Bill Kennedy called her and said that Vince’s account hadn’t had as much money in it as Lisa thought. He had been told, he said, that Vince had made several large cash withdrawals, of several thousand dollars each, from the account. “I went berserk,” Lisa says. “I said, ‘I don’t know anything about that.’ And I thought, God, what if he was being blackmailed, or maybe he had a girlfriend in some apartment somewhere, and I didn’t know about it. [Or maybe the Clinton White House was once again picking the pockets of the dead man…and former colleague. (You will recall that both Foster’s wallet and keys were taken from his murdered corpse, and that only his keys were returned…by the White House. So go figure.)–Ed.] My mind was just racing.” Lisa says that she searched her records from the credit union and found the receipts from Vince’s automatic withdrawals, and discovered a mistake—thirty-five dollar withdrawals had been misread as thirty-five-hundred dollar withdrawals. “But it upset me so much I virtually could not see,” she says. “I thought I was going to faint.”


*  *  *  *  *

So was this an honest Clinton White House mistake? Or yet more alleged Travelgate-like theft or embezzlement?

And if so, and if Lisa Foster hadn’t kept her husband’s withdrawal receipts, and hence had absolute proof of their “error,” would they not have gotten away with this too? And how many “mistakes” are we talking about? How many times did the White House “misread” and mistake Foster’s thirty-five dollars for thirty-five-hundred dollars?

For with each and every White House “mistake,” it honestly becomes more and more impossible and incredible, doesn’t it?

And not how the Clinton White House thus accused others of their very own apparent sins, offenses and crimes. Others were stealing, and hence needed to be replaced with these “honest” friends of the Clintons.

Quite aside from the question of his very life, not content with stealing the dead man’s keys—(and apparently his wallet as well, and replacing only the former as he lay dead in the morgue)—here is the White House apparently picking their “Deputy While House Counsel’s” pockets even after he had been buried, even while he was lying in his grave.

Some friends, huh?

And exactly how did Foster arrive in that morgue and in that grave? That is the greater question.

*  *  *  *  *

The Widow’s Deadly/Suicidal Delusion, and the Bogus or non-“Suicide Note”

Again from “Life after Vince” by Peter J. Boyer, New Yorker Magazine, Sept 11, 1995:


For the first time, Lisa Foster discusses her ordeal in the two years since the death of her husband, Vincent Foster, and how she made her own investigation into why he died.

[And yet Foster’s widow is still living under a most terrible delusion, born of the blackest of clouds, the Clintons and the U.S. gov’t. (Remember this is two years afterwards.)–Ed.]

…. Lisa Foster has remained publicly silent about her husband’s death for two years. She is now convinced that it was a suicide, yet there were moments when she couldn’t be certain about why he had been driven so far. When the rumors about Vince came rushing out, she sometimes thought, What if it’s true? “That’s one reason I never wanted to talk,” she says. “I thought, As soon as I talk, they’ll come up with something else they’ve found, and something I swore would never be true they’ll tell me is true, and I won’t be able to defeat it.” [I.E. to prove it untrue? Or to merely beleve it untrue?–Ed.] At one point, even Vince’s mother asked her, “Lisa, do you think he could have done anything?” [What? Deserving of murder or self-murder?–Ed.]

Lisa hates that doubt and has overcome it, having undertaken her own investigation of her husband’s death.[?] But her certainty about Vince is a hard comfort, dearly purchased. To believe completely in him, she says, she had to learn to believe in the despair that killed him.

[(?) Isn’t that completely, entirely, 100% backwards?–Ed.]

…. Once the news [of her husband’s “suicide” the park from officers Braun and Rolla at the front door–Ed.] registered, Lisa says, she didn’t question it. “I never thought he’d been murdered. The worst possible thing had happened, but it was like everything came together.” Lisa was told that Vince had shot himself with a 38 special, which she realized was one of the guns she had packed up and taken to Washington.[?] She wanted to know whether her husband had shot himself in the mouth or at the temple. “I didn’t know that he knew how to kill himself,” she says. “But the children reminded me that he had just watched ‘A Few Good Men,’ and that is how the guy in the movie did it—he shot himself in the mouth.”

[But, as we’ve seen above, Foster simply wasn’t shot in the mouth—and therefore neither by himself nor by anyone else, and therefore not by a .38 nor any other caliber gun and bullet, and therefore not by any .38 belonging to the Fosters nor anyone else.–Ed.]

…. as Lisa prepared to leave Little Rock [Arkansas, for “Washington”–Ed.] one more packing chore presented itself. Vince’s father, a hunter, had died two years earlier, and Vince had taken his collection of guns. Lisa looked at the shotguns—“I’ll bet you there were ten of them in the house,” she says—and deemed them too troublesome to pack up (Vince wasn’t much of a hunter anyway), but she didn’t know what to do with them. She worried that if she left the shotguns in the attic the heat might cause the shells to explode. Finally, she bought a lock, put the shotguns in Vince’s wine closet, and locked it. There were several handguns, too, including a .38 special, with an etched handle, which Vince’s father had kept by his bed. [What color? Was it silver? (See above.)–Ed.] But they were small and easy to move, so Lisa packed them and took them along to Washington.

[So the question remains: What happened to that particular .38 revolver? Has it mysteriously disappeared to serve and further this suicide lie, myth and delusion? And if so, by whom? Who would have had access? And if not, then why keep it’s subsequent discovery a secret? Or is that how the Foster family “believes completely” in their man?–Ed.]

…. Her friends wondered how she would manage, with two children in college and a third on his way [to college–Ed.], but financial survival was not what worried her. “Everybody thought, Poor Lisa and the [three–Ed.] kids won’t have any insurance money,” she recalls, because Vince’s death was a suicide.[?] But his policy had a suicide clause, allowing death-benefit payment to survivors if the insured party had held the policy for a prescribed period, and Vince had. [How long?–Ed.] And over the years he had built a trust fund for each of the children. “Unfortunately—or fortunately, I don’t know which—Vince was the type of person who probably knew exactly what he was doing in that respect,” Lisa says. “He probably thought we’d be well taken care of and maybe we’d be better off, financially, if he were dead, because if he went to a psychiatrist he’d never have another job.”

[So he planned this “suicide” years ahead of time? (Oh my God!)–Ed.]

…. Lisa felt angry, too, at everyone—the Clintons, Vince [for supposedly or allegedly abandoning her and their three children; (But he didn’t.)–Ed.], politicians, those Arkansans who stayed in Washington. She would see a picture of the White House on the news, and get livid. “I hated everything. I was mad as hell.” She was angriest, perhaps, at God. She had always been a devout Catholic, never questioning, for example, that her own children would be raised in her faith, even though Vince was a Presbyterian. But when he died she suffered a crisis of faith, and has not yet emerged from it. At first, she questioned God. “Why didn’t Vince run out of gas? [What? On his way to Ft. Marcy park without his car keys?–Ed.] Why didn’t he have a car wreck? Why didn’t he call? Why did you [God–Ed.] have to let him get so bad off when all he wanted to do was go up there [to ‘Washington’–Ed.] and help his country and do some good things for people?” And then she stopped praying. She thought of Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner, who surveyed his dead shipmates and was stricken by the fact of his own survival: “I looked to heaven and tried to pray;/But or ever a prayer had gusht,/A wicked whisper came, and made/My heart as dry as dust.”

“Well, that’s exactly the way I felt,” she says. “You can’t pray, because you don’t know what you’re praying for [not to mention to–Ed.]. You’re mad as hell at God, and so you don’t know what to say. You don’t want to say, ‘Help me,’ because you think He’s screwed you. What are you going to say—‘I praise you because you’re great, even though you’ve done this to me’?”

She kept going to church, because she didn’t know how to stop going. But she [disrespectfully?–Ed.] wore jeans and a sweatshirt [with an uncovered head?–Ed.], and sat in silence through the service. People sent her cards urging her to turn to Jesus: “If I got one card about Jesus, I must have gotten a thousand. And I thought, Well, where was Jesus when I needed him? I don’t know why God did this to me. I wouldn’t do this to somebody I loved. You know, we’re supposed to be children of God—I wouldn’t do something like this to one of my children. It wasn’t like we did something bad and we deserved it. I just didn’t understand it.”

*  *  *  *  *

Because bad things happen to good people, that doesn’t make it God’s Will or God’s fault. Give Satan (and its demons) some credit, why don’t you? (John 8:44)

And even natural disasters or “acts of God” are not necessarily acts of God.

(See e.g. “global warming.” And if the sun did it, then pray blame Apollo, and not Zeus.)

Why do people have to make God responsible for everything that happens on earth, and hence personally guilty for all the evils and sins of the world? That’s the kind or species of stinking thinking that can get a fellow crucified—if he accepts it, or agrees to pay the bill for everyone else, or to fulfill some bloody prophecy—as He once did. (But live and learn.)

(This is the evil of “jewish” scapegoatism or Satanism, which their Roman co-crucifiers and fellow God-killers carried on in their Satanic and imperial “Catholicism.”)

*  *  *

Is it because people believe that God is omnipotent, and can therefore stop bad or evil things from happening?

Can God time-travel e.g.? Or can God go back into the past and make certain things—(or even one single solitary thing)—never have happened?

No! And therefore God is decidedly not omnipotent.

Have you not read that, “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away”? (Apo./Rev. 21:4 & 7:17; And John 17:20-22 expresses much the same thought.)

And therefore God cannot make the former evil, painful, nasty things to never have happened.

And therefore God is not omnipotent.

So what else can’t the old Boy do?

Just because something is imaginable, does not mean that it is so. The Roman Catholics and their “holy father” pope” once made a “saint” of someone who said that God is the greatest imaginable thing, that thing of which nothing greater can possibly be imagined—as if imagination and reality coincided, and as if to imagine something is to create it.

Yes, it is obviously imaginable that there is a being who hears your every word and sees your every deed. But so what? That doesn’t make it so. That doesn’t create this alleged being—this invisible, ever-silent, omnipresent and omniscient voyeur.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying there is no God. I’m merely saying that it may well be that your god is not God, and that you don’t know who or what you’re talking about.

*  *  *  *  *

Only God is God. Everyone else is therefore not. And everyone has their own will, and does their own deeds. And God has and does His. (You go, God!)

So how can God be justly blamed for what other people do? Is He (or His imaginary and invisible angels) supposed to stop people from doing what He wouldn’t do? Or to stop events from happening which He doesn’t want to happen?

Just look e.g. at 9/11/2001.

God’s Will or Satan’s?—and Its “chosen people”? (And if you’re not sure, see John 8:44 and 9-11 Truths & Realities Verses 9-11 Lies, Slanders & Appearances.)

And besides, how can there be free-will in the world is everyone must do someone else’s will—such as God’s or some global tyrant?

Hell no! All are free to reject God and His wishes and to do as they please.

And God is likewise free to reject all…or merely some. It’s up to Him.

*  *  *  *   *

Or look at all the extreme genetic deformities and/or mongoloid retards in the world? Do you imagine this is God’s will, and that these are God’s children?

“…we’re supposed to be children of God—I wouldn’t do something like this to one of my children.”

Hell no! These bad seeds are the children of their parents, and therefore not God’s.

(It’s not for nothing that the very best humans (Hercules, Dionysus, Helen of Troy) were called the sons and daughters of Zeus. And that Alexander the great, Julius Caesar and Jesus the Christ were called the sons of God.)

Only God’s children are God’s children. And therefore the most any others can ever hope for is divine adoption.

Should God have somehow stopped retard A retard from mating with retard B, thereby producing retard C? Or literal degenerate 1 from copulating with fellow genetic degenerate 2 and hence producing monstrosity 3? Is it God’s fault that such creatures exist? And shouldn’t such bad seeds be told—(no, forced by others)—to cease, desist, and “make room for the Holy Ghost”?

Earthly creatures possess the awesome power of procreation. But all but one are not God, and therefore their offspring are not His.

So God should therefore adopt all these monstrosities simply because they exist? Is the Minotaur therefore God’s “son”?

And are the sons of Satan to become the sons of God because they exist?—because they were Satanically spawned, begotten, and perpetrated upon God and His world? (John 8:41-44 & Matt. 21:33-46) Hell no!

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans, 8:14) And as many as are not, are not.

What am I saying? Godliness is as Godliness does. And Satanlikeness is as Satanlikeness does. Children are known by their deeds. The Godly do not do the deeds of Satan, nor the Satanic the deeds of God. This is the meaning of John 8:32-59. Satan’s demons are known by their Satanic deeds. It is the Satanic seed, spirit, nature, character and practice of the Devil’s spawn to sanctimoniously and blasphemously pretend to be the sons of God, and to place themselves at the very top of “God’s” hierarchy, and at the very head of “God’s” table. (Luke 14:8-11) It this not the very spirit, heart and soul of “jewism” and “papism”?

By their words and actions you shall know and distinguish them. The Christian saying is “You shall know them by their fruits.” (Matt 7:16-23) For all fruit is and must naturally be of its tree.

Why sow and foster bad seeds? Why cultivate weeds? Why not instead take a divine lesson from Socrates and Lord Adolf Hitler? To avoid the psychological guilt of outright murder, the ancient Greeks used to abandon their genetic rejects and deformed monstrosities upon hillsides, and thus leave them to the “will of Zeus”—i.e. to die of exposure, thirst, starvation or wolves. It would probably have been kinder to their victims to kill or murder them quickly, immediately and directly. But all actions and actors are self-centered or selfish. And therefore they do what pleases them most, or what causes them the least pain—and hence not their victims. And so they disposed of their refuse in their way.

And so do the moderns. They dispose of their genetic refuse on the doorstep of “society” or their all-powerful “communistic” governments. And they thus cherish, save, promote and foster their own degradation and destruction. But it was not always so.

From Max Stirner’s The Only One and His Property, p. 1844, p. 200:


How rightly speaks the burgomaster [in Bettina’s This Book Belongs to the King, Berlin, 1843], on the other hand: “What? The State has no other duty than to be merely the attendant of incurable invalids?” That isn’t to the point. From of old the healthy State has relieved itself of the diseased matter, and not mixed itself with it. It does not need to be so economical [or generous–Ed.] with its juices. Cut off the robber-branches without hesitation, that the others may bloom. Do not shiver at the State’s harshness; its morality, its policy and religion, point it to that. Accuse it of no want of feeling [heartlessness, coldness or meanness–Ed.]; its sympathy revolts against this, but its experience finds safety only in this severity! There are diseases in which only drastic remedies will help. The physician who recognizes the disease as such, but timidly turns to palliatives [cloaks, disguises, excuses–Ed.], will never remove the disease, but may well cause the patient to succumb after a shorter or longer sickness.” [And the “patient” is the society, the tribe, the race, the nation.–Ed.] Frau Rat’s question, “If you apply death as a drastic remedy, how is the cure to be wrought then?” isn’t to the point. Why, the State does not apply death against itself, but against an offensive member; it tears out an eye that offends it, etc.


(Mark 9:47) It cuts off its poisonous leaves or branches—or rather it used to, when it was healthy.

Max thus placed “the State” in the place of God.

The Americans e.g. mass-murder or “holocaust” a million or so perfectly healthy pre-born children every year. (And this has been going on since the 1960s, so you do the mass-murderous math.) And yet once they are born, the decadent Americans cherish, exalt and actually celebrate their living and breathing abortions and genetic monstrosities. (See e.g. their “special Olympics.”) Could any society therefore possibly be more backward, more wrong, more degenerate and self-destructive?

Listen now to a truly divine prayer—not to but from God: “I want roses in my garden bower. [You] dig? Royal babies, rubies, must now replace aborted strangers in the mud. These mutants [are] blood meal for the [“rose”–Ed.] plant that’s plowed [seeded, cultivated, desired–Ed.].They are waiting to take us into the severed [weeded–Ed.] garden.”—from Jim Morrison’s “American Prayer”

(Can you dig it? And also see Matt. 13:24-30)

God is indeed the Tree of Life, upon which all good, evil and mediocre leaves and branches (i.e. beings and clans, tribes or races) exist. God in indeed the Host of all (other) life, which therefore all “eat His flesh and drink His blood.” (John 6:47-61)

But our divine Host would not have it so. For not all that lives is of God and therefore Godlike. (John 15:1-11 & Matt. 13:37-43) And all those whom God Will not reject with thus become His adopted children.

As bad germs or harmful little beings exist inside your body and make you sick, and perhaps will eventually kill you, so evil beings exist inside God and make Him sick. (For they cannot exist elsewhere.) But God cannot really die. Therefore he can only get really, really, really, really, really, really sick…until He finally spits out “His” poisons. (Apo./Rev. 3:15-16) And very good riddance! For it is precisely by the rejection and ejection of its poisons that the body becomes healthy.

But will all those divinely rejected really and truly be thrown into an eternal agony of Hellish torment?—and perhaps be endlessly pierced in the bums by the pitchforks of Satan’s demons? (Which therefore means Satan and Its demons would live or last forever, and hence would exist inside God forever—as there is no other way nor place to exist. God forbid!)

Or will God’s rejects simply be forever cut off His Tree of Life, or be spit out of His mouth—(pick your metaphor)—and hence be eternally dead?

(I’m hoping for the latter, aren’t you?)

*  *  *  *  *

God didn’t murder Lisa Foster’s husband Vincent by allowing him to commit suicide, because he didn’t. He was murdered. And God didn’t murder Mr. Foster by allowing his White House/U.S. gov’t murderers to murder him. For God is not omnipotent. He couldn’t even come down from His Roman/“jewish” cross—as the deicidal “jews” hatefully jeered and demonically taunted Him to do. So go figure.

And God doesn’t murder suicides by allowing them to commit suicide. Should God send angels to stop their hands, as in the dubious cases of Abraham and that Bailey fellow from Bedford Falls?

It is often said that “God only gives us burdens we can bear.” But if that were true, then there would be no (hopeless or discouraged) suicides, would there?

*  *  *  *   *

And even if God had somehow or at sometime—say e.g. at the beginning of creation—foreseen all that would happen from that time until this, and even beyond, that is not the same as His making or wishing it all so. To know an evil event will happen before it does is not necessarily the same as to wish it so. And this I suggest is the case with God—irrespective of the “evil” Mosaic god of Job (and Satan) in covert league with Satan against Job.

People imagine that God is everywhere all the time—omnipresent as well as omnipotent—and hence is every moment in a position to stop every evil thing from ever happening if He so desired.

But merely because we can imagine such a God does not create or conjure up one. What you think of at the mention of “God” is your God, and me mine. But how far is that one from the real one? That is the question.

And although we have all heard bereaved survivors say that they can feel their dearly departed one’s presence, most of us probably do not believe that the dead are present, and hence can hear us talking to them, perhaps at their gravesites.

And as with dead spirits, so perhaps also with God. Perhaps He cannot truly see our every deed, hear our every word, and know our every thought. Is talking to an unseen God like talking to the dead?—I.E. talking to ourselves?

But in these mysterious matters people often believe what they want to believe, what pleases or comforts them to believe, and hence not the Truth. And hence their “religious” beliefs are not based on any real and true evidence, nor even on reason, but merely upon their emotions. And that’s not much of a “religious” foundation, is it?

It is perhaps comforting to think that an omnipresent God hears your every prayer. But it is not so comforting to recognize that He never answers you in kind. For He does not talk to you as you talk to him, right? You never hear His voice responding to you, right? So how do you know He’s even there listening to you? Faith? The same kind or species of faith whereby you believe your statues (gods or “saints”) hear you?—and perhaps also your dearly departed relatives and friends?

So why is that? Why does God not respond or talk back to you? Has God no mouth? Has God no ears? Or is He simply being mean, coy or “testing your faith”?

I know for a fact that all three statues of “the Holy Family” school, church and parish never once condescended to respond to me and my Roman Catholic vanities—and after all my prayerfulness or “much speaking”! Perhaps I should have read a good book instead. (Apo./Rev. 9:20 & Matt. 6:7)

Can you or I truly “petition the Lord with prayer”?

But if God is indeed omnipresent and omnipotent—if He is indeed watching and hearing everything and everyone at all times, and has power to intervene or interfere in all things at all times, but fails to do so in all those cases where and when we think He should—(as in stopping the murderous hand of Abraham risen to kill and sacrifice his son, or in consistently failing to grant us our most fervent and prayerful wishes)—is God therefore a dirty bastard, a betrayer and an abandoner of His believers?

The conclusion follows somewhat logically from the premise, does it not? And to believe the former is to believe the latter.

But is the former premise true? That is the question.

Is God every moment watching everything, but simply declines or (if petitioned with prayer; Matt. 6:7) simply refuses to intervene to stop evil—as the angelic James Mason in “Heaven can Wait” indifferently points out a drugged and unconscious man drowning in a bathtub (to a horrified Warren Beatty) with the words, “This is a murder.” But Mason’s cinematic excuse is that only embodied spirits (like you and I) can possibly move other earthly bodies, influence events, etc., and that therefore all pure or disembodied spirits (like “God the Father” and His non-existent or imaginary “angels”) cannot.

That’s a divinely good excuse; is it not? But is it true?

*  *  *

Being the Creator, the natural laws or the laws of nature are therefore God’s laws. (John 1:1-3) And there’s His Will and His Power on earth, etc.

Take gravity or death, e.g. It is indeed God’s “fault” that the apple falls from the tree, or that all men must inevitably die. But no one can’t justly blame God for exactly when the apple falls or exactly when and how the man dies—unless God personally shakes the tree, plucks the apple or kills the man—whether accidentally or deliberately.

And doubtless God’s divine Spirit likewise influences an earthy thing or two. (Some Music and poetry e.g.)

But besides God’s “natural law,” His divine inspiration, Godly people and the deeds of “the Son,” there’s not a Hell of a lot happening down here on earth—(and especially “religiously,” politically, or “democratically”/socialistically/communistically)—that is God’s Will.

And this is nothing new. And all people who think otherwise should read Matthew 3:8-10 to see for themselves that the Enemy (and Its own) usurped God’s globe a long, long time ago. (See also 32:33-46) And this “global war on terror” of theirs is merely the latest manifestation of this endless Satanism.

Is it therefore God’s Will or God’s fault that the globe He once created is thus endlessly possessed by His enemies? No! But it evidently is God’s limitation, isn’t it? And so once again we see that God is not omnipotent.

And so God is not Satan. Nor is God Satan’s “chosen people,” the Satanic “jews”—nor vice-versa. The evil deeds of Satan and Its “jews” and Its “sinagog” and Its “pope” and its “Roman Catholic Church” and Its United Snakes are decidedly not the deeds of God. (John 8:44 & Apo./Rev. 2:9 & 3:9) SO PRAY DON’T BLAME HIM FOR THE COUNTLESS AND ENDLESS EVILS THAT THEY DO!

And again it is not for others to “choose” God. It is for God to choose or reject others.

And all those whom God has called or chosen are forever free to reject Him and His Salvation. I think they’d be crazy and self-damning to do so, but God does not force Himself (i.e. Salvation) upon anyone.

On the contrary, it is the Devil and Its own who, like robbers or rapists, force themselves and their Damnation upon others. (But that’s not what they call it, of course.) See e.g. their demonically promised Heaven on earth, their “dictatorship of the proletariat,” their “Soviet” and “jewish”-Amerikan “Unions,” and their evil, “beastly,” imperialistic debt-money. (Apo./Rev. 13:11 & :16-18) That’s precisely why they force or violently impose themselves upon others, their victims, because nobody wants them, and no one would suffer them voluntarily, nor should they. Should sheep desire to be attacked, torn to pieces and devoured by wolves, or sheeple by demonic wolf-men and –women? Hell no! And so “freedom of association” is the only way to go.

*  *  *

And if the widow Foster, or anyone else, imagines there’s some difference between Jesus and God, or “the Son” and “the Father,” then they should read Why the “Father” and the “Son” are Really, Truly One. It’s extremely biblical.

And now we return to where we left off above:

*  *  *  *  *

The morning after Vince killed himself; she telephoned Bernard Nussbaum [her dead husband’s immediate boss, and the Clintons’ “White House Counsel”–Ed.], searching for an explanation, and asked, “Bernie, did you fire Vince yesterday?” Nussbaum said of course he hadn’t, but later told Robert Fiske’s office that he had noticed that Vince had become less productive, and that he had urged him to take a vacation.

Lisa says, “I was trying to figure out what could possibly have happened that put him over the edge. I kept thinking, Now, what could have made him eat lunch and go out three or fours hours later and shoot himself?” After Vince’s funeral, she returned to Washington to talk to the Park Police, and Nussbaum gave her a partial answer, showing her Vince’s torn-up note.

…. One evening in early July [1993–Ed.], Vince again told Lisa that he meant to resign. He was still unable to sleep. Worried, perhaps even a bit exasperated, she told him she was tired of hearing about how miserably he was failing in his job, and she urged him to take the offensive; she suggested that he write down some of the reasons that his difficulties were not his fault. He went upstairs, sat on the bed, and, on a sheet of yellow legal paper [i.e. 8½ by 14 inches, and lined–Ed.], wrote the list of complaints that would soon be found, torn into twenty-seven pieces, at the bottom of his briefcase, by an associate White House counsel, Steve Neuwirth.

[See the suicidal Clinton White House “offering” below.

And note that 1.) its ratio is not the “legal” 8½ by 14 inches, but rather 8½ by 11 inches; 2.) it is not lined but unlined paper, like for a typewriter or a computer printer; and 3.) it is not yellow paper but white. If it were yellow there would be much less contrast between the dark writing and the light background.–Ed.]

It was not a suicide note, Lisa says, but a kind of defense brief. [Did he show it to her? Did she read it? Where did he keep it? And if so, how did it end up in the hands of his bosses: Nussbaum and Mrs. Clinton? (See below.)–Ed.] “After that, he said one night, ‘I haven’t resigned yet. I’ve just written my opening argument,”’ she recalls. “And I think that when he wrote those things down it was as if he were defending himself in what he thought was going to be some kind of congressional investigation.…”

*  *  *  *  *

[Here I must interrupt Mrs. Foster with the following on this matter from Evans-Pritchard, p. 214-16:


The note was [allegedly–Ed.] found in Foster’s leather briefcase by Associate White House Counsel Stephen Neuwirth six days after Foster’s death. It was torn into 27 pieces-the 28th piece was missing. The FBI’s Louis Hupp used state of the art equipment to check for fingerprints—an argon ion laser florescence test, and a diazofluorine chemical test—but all he could find of any use was a single palm print. It did not belong to Foster. When asked in closed-door testimony if it was Bernie Nussbaum’s print, he was instructed not to answer by a lawyer for the Starr investigation. [11. SWSC deposition of Louis Hupp, July 14, 1995. Brett Cavanaugh from the OIC was present. He left the room to consult with Mark Touhey and was told that the witness was not to answer.]

[Isn’t that interesting? Why wouldn’t the “Independent” Starr want to know this?—or rather not want us all to know this? (For I assume he certainly did.)–Ed.]

The briefcase had been searched four days earlier [Thursday, July 24–Ed.] by Bernie Nussbaum in the presence of a team from the Justice Department. He had removed some files, peered into the briefcase from about two feet, and declared it empty. Twice.

[Note: Foster was seen taking his briefcase with him when he left the White House around 1 PM on the day of his murder. And yet on the night of his murder it was back in his (White House) office. (See below.)–Ed.]

“It would have been impossible for him to miss that many torn scraps of yellow paper,” said Sgt. Pete Markland, who was there representing the Park Police [presumably during Nussbaum’s initial search, but not during Neuwirth’s later “discovery” of this apparently lost and hiding but miraculously found “suicide note” (below)–Ed.]. By this stage Markland was convinced that Nussbaum was engaged in some sort of mischief. “It was absurd. I sat there shaking my head the whole time. I was disgusted.” [12. SWSC deposition of Pete Markland, June 28, 1995.]

When Neuwirth picked up the briefcase the next week on Monday, July 26, the pieces of yellow legal paper that had been invisible before suddenly materialized. Neuwirth’s behavior that afternoon was very odd. At one point he asked to have Vince Foster’s typewriter uprooted and taken into Nussbaum’s office. [13. SWSC deposition of Linda Tripp.] One of the secretaries told him there were plenty of other typewriters. But no, Neuwirth wanted Foster’s typewriter. Then he changed his mind.

[Why? Did Neuwirth, Nussbaum and the Clintons intend to type up an even “better” suicide note?—on similar white, unlined, 8½ inch typing or printer paper?—which could thus be directly traced back to the murdered man’s typewriter? And this was apparently before Neuwirth’s later “discovery” of the murdered man’s hand-written note. (Nussbaum is a “jew.” Is this Neuwirth too?)–Ed.]

When he [Neuwirth –Ed.] found the note he came charging out of Foster’s office, satchel [or briefcase–Ed.] in hand. He went into Bernie’s [Nussbaum’s–Ed.] office, banged the door, came charging back out again saying, “Where’s Bernie? Get Bernie!” Then he charged back in again and slammed the door. [14. SWSC deposition of [Foster’s secretary–Ed.] Deborah Gorham, July 31, 1995.] A “slapstick comedy” wrote the secretaries to one another in surreptitious e-mail exchanges. [15. SWSC archive of support documents.] [In other words, they knew this was all untrue.–Ed.] Then the First Lady [Hilary Clinton–Ed.] came over from her office next door to look at the note. “I can’t deal with this thing, Bernie,” she said. “You deal with it.”

[I think “Bernie” had been “dealing” with it all along, don’t you?–Ed.]

But did Neuwirth really find the note? Documents now lodged with the National Archives refer to a handwritten note by White House aide Bill Burton dated July 26, 1993 [i.e. the very day of its “discovery”–Ed.]. “Far happier if discovered [by] someone other than Bernie,” it says. Burton was describing a meeting shortly after [?] the discovery of the note that was attended by Neuwirth, Nussbaum, Burton himself, and Hillary Clinton. [So they all sat around afterwards and debated among themselves if they should all lie about who found it? Why? Does that make sense to you? Or was this not rather Mrs. Clinton and Nussbaum trying to get either Neuwirth or Burton to “find” their “suicide note” for them? (And by the way, who wrote it?)–Ed.] It is natural to infer that the Neuwirth story was concocted. If so, Neuwirth perjured himself in congressional testimony, and Hillary Clinton was party to the deception.

The Clinton circle was determined that no outsiders should get to see a copy of the original note. [Why? Because it’s obviously not a suicide note?—as Mrs. Foster explained above? And/or because it’s obviously a forgery?–Ed.] Webb Hubbell lobbied Phillip Heyman, the Deputy Attorney General, requesting that no photocopies of the note should be allowed to get out. Lisa Foster was “adamant” about this, he explained. [Is this true? Does she agree?–Ed.] [16. SWSC deposition of Webb Hubbell, July 13, 1995.] Since Hubbell was chief of the civil side of the Justice Department at the time—and widely viewed as the “real” Attorney General [instead of Janet Reno–Ed.]—Heyman was unlikely to rebuff him. [And again, Webster Hubbell was a Rose Law Firm partner, along with Hillary Clinton, and the late Vincent Foster.–Ed.] The request was formalized by Lisa Foster’s handler, White House “surrogate” James Hamilton [whom this Hubbell had hired for this very job! (See above.)–Ed.], who asked “that a photo of the note not be released under FOIA.” [17. FBI Notes, p. 281: FBI interview of Lisa Foster.]

In a hand-delivered letter to the Attorney General [Janet Reno–Ed.] dated August 25, 1993, Hamilton asked that the “original torn pieces of Vince’s note be returned” and added in a faintly menacing tone: “Please do not underestimate the depth of Mrs. Foster’s feelings about this matter.” [18. Green Books, p. 2665: Letter on Swidler & Berlin letterhead. 19. Author interview with Joe Farah, May 1997.]

[This Clinton agent (Hamilton) is clearly suggesting that the Mrs. Foster very much didn’t want the world to see this note, and hence to be able to judge its authenticity.–Ed.]

But is this true? What does she say to all this?

…. Lisa Foster, of course, had authenticated the note. But that is meaningless. Family members do not have the training to spot forgeries.

[I’m confused. Did the widow see her husband’s note or didn’t she? And if she did, is that what her husband wrote, or isn’t it? And if she didn’t, then in “authenticating the note,” was she merely judging whether or not it looked like her husband’s handwriting, as E-P seems to be suggesting?–Ed.]

…. The text of the note was made available in printed form, of course. No problem with that. But a photo of the original? Absolutely not.

[That’s puzzling. Why not? Surely not for the reason they said?

Was it because it’s a forgery, as some handwriting experts say? (See E-P, p. 215-17–Ed.]

The Wall Street Journal fought a FOIA lawsuit to shake it loose. Still no luck. The note could be reviewed with an appointment at the offices of Carl Stern, the Justice Department spokesman, but no photographs could be taken.

Finally, in July 1995, a copy of the note was leaked to The Wall Street Journal.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 214-16]

*  *  *  *  *

Why all this White House pretension and fuss to produce a “suicide” note which isn’t even a suicide note?—and for two reasons: 1.) Foster was murdered; and 2.) it’s simply not a suicide note. Just read it below.

Because it seems to support the Clinton White House suicide story—which they very much wanted everyone to believe?

But why? Why should it matter so much to the White House exactly how their “Deputy While House Counsel” died?—and what we all believe about it?

(Isn’t it obvious?)

Is it not because they knew his “suicide” wasn’t true—but didn’t want us to?

And here it is. Here’s the “note.”

*  *  *  *  *

*  *  *  *  *

So did Mrs. Foster see her husband’s note, which she described above?

And is this it?

And if she didn’t see it, is this her ex-husband’s hand-writing, or merely similar to her husband’s hand-writing? Could this be a White house forgery?

And if so, where’s the original note the widow mentions above? In the same place as the silver-colored “suicide” hand-gun she brought up from Little Rock to “Washington”?

And here is the text. Note how it exonerates the Clintons and all their White House agents, servants, operatives:


I made mistakes from ignorance, inexperience and overwork

I did not knowingly violate any law or standard of conduct

No one in The White House, to my knowledge, violated any law or standard of conduct, including any action in the travel office.

There was no intent to benefit any individual or specific group

The FBI lied in their report to the AG [U.S. Attorney General–Ed.]

The press is covering up the illegal benefits they [the press–Ed.] received from the travel staff

The GOP [“Grand Old Party” a.k.a. “republicans”–Ed.] has lied and misrepresented its knowledge and role and covered up a prior investigation

The Ushers Office plotted to have excessive costs incurred, taking advantage of Kaki and HRC

The public will never believe the innocence of the Clintons and their loyal staff [Is there any reason they should?–Ed.]

The WSJ [Wall Street Journal–Ed.] editors lie without consequence

I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport


*  *  *  *  *

From Evans-Pritchard:


It presses all the right buttons—Travelgate, hostile editorials in The Wall Street Journal—the things that we [dupes of the Clintons?–Ed.] can safely dwell on without causing a moment’s lost sleep in the White House.

[But the Waco button is not pressed. Why not? Because the massacre wasn’t at all bothersome to the conscientious Vincent Foster?–Ed.]

…. Properly speaking, it was not a suicide note at all. Lisa Foster told the FBI that it was written in his bedroom on or about July 11, nine days before his death, as the opening argument of his defense should he be called to testify before Congress about Travelgate.

…. Lisa Foster, of course, had authenticated the note. But that is meaningless. Family members do not have the training to spot forgeries.

[Again, what does that mean? Does that mean this was the very same note her husband had written on July 11, and had shown her? Or that this note “found” by the White House merely looks like her husband’s handwriting?–Ed.]

As for the official efforts [to verify the note–Ed.], they were a humiliating glimpse at the practices of American law enforcement.

The Park Police had asked Sgt. Larry Lockhart of the Capitol Police to look at the note. He had no certification in handwriting analysis. Using a single sample of Foster’s handwriting he authenticated the note in less than an hour. He later repudiated his own findings.[?] [8. Affidavit of Reed Irvine: When shown blown-up samples of the exemplar [presumably this aforesaid genuine but single sample, example or specimen of Foster’s handwriting–Ed.] and the suicide note Lockhart concluded that the two were incompatible.]

A year later, Agent Henry Mathis of the FBI crime labs had a look. This time the FBI added 18 samples of Foster’s check signatures. The result was inconclusive. “A qualified opinion is rendered in this case as the known writings of Foster are limited in quantity.... It is suggested additional... writings by Foster be obtained for comparison.” [9. Green Books, p. 2047: FBI lab report, June 13, 1994.]

[How could the “known writings of Foster…[have been] limited in quantity”?–Ed.]

Good suggestion. But it was never done. The FBI never obtained further samples of Foster’s handwriting. In the end Agent Mathis authenticated the note using the same single [aforesaid–Ed.] sample used by the Park Police. In Canada, Germany, or Britain, it is usual to use ten to fifteen samples. To rely on one sample alone is considered malpractice. I would be surprised if the FBI habitually adheres to inferior standards.

[I wouldn’t? Their “standard” is to produce “evidence” to obtain “convictions.” Ask FBI lab technician Dr. Frederick Whitehurst. (E-P, p. 7; And see the OKC travesty above.)–Ed.]

…. Chris Ruddy [of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review–Ed.]…contacted the most distinguished handwriting experts in the world. One of them was Dr. Reginald Alton, emeritus fellow of St. Edmund Hall at Oxford University and former Chair of the English faculty, who had authenticated the C.S. Lewis diaries.

….The note, he said, was a fake. It was the work of a “moderate forger, not necessarily a professional, somebody who could forge a cheque or a pass in a prison camp.”

At a press conference in Washington he was self-effacing and begged Americans not to “mistake me for another interfering Brit.” He went through the letters one by one on a screen, showing how Foster would write the letter “b,” for instance, in a single “fluid, cursive motion” while the forger would need three or four strokes to replicate the general shape.

It was a big story in the British press, and it electrified the Samizdat [i.e. the citizen’s’ or people’s press, the “alternate media,” the internet, etc.–Ed.] in the United States. Otherwise, it was ignored. Even the Senate Whitewater Committee chose to overlook Dr. Alton and the congruent [matching, similar, harmonious–Ed.] findings of his two American colleagues.

[Most anything leading towards the Truth is anathema to the U.S. Congress.–Ed.]

“I thought it would be explosive,” said Joe Farah from the Western Journalism Center. “Here were people with technical expertise, looking at this coldly and coming to stunning conclusions. I thought it was just the thing to elevate it to the front pages, but it didn’t get on the radar screen.... I have to wonder now: What will it take to make the press look at this thing? If somebody confessed to the crime, would that do it?”

“Probably not,” I replied.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 213-16]


*  *  *  *  *

Outcomes are pre-decided in “jewish”-Amerika. And all roads therefore lead to these pre-decided outcomes. And the Truth is therefore a hated enemy and a reviled obstacle to be overcome, suppressed and drowned out via a monopolistic cacophony of “jewish” falsehoods, lies and slanders. (See e.g. their “holocaust” and 9/11/2001.)

The American mass-media and the Amerikan gov’t are very, very similar. And they’re both “jewish.” The latter serves the former. And the former created the latter—by granting them a racial monopoly over the American (or rather God’s) airwaves near the very beginning of broadcasting. And the American people have been demonically possessed ever since.

*  *  *  *  *

And about that briefcase in which Mr. Foster’s “suicide note” was magically found:

It too is apparently magical.

Concerning the aforementioned “10:50 PM [White House staff–Ed.] excursion into Foster’s office”:


Patsy Thomasson was there—the Director of the Office of Administration—sitting at Foster’s desk. So Thomasson, too, was grilled by the committee. [I.E. N.Y. Senator Al D’Amato’s Chairman of the Senate Whitewater Special Committee–Ed.] Senator Faircloth accused her of “rifling through” sensitive documents. She denied it.

“I opened each drawer in his desk, to look if there was something laying in the top. My thought process was if someone [like whom?–Ed.] left a suicide note, they would leave it where it could be easily found.” [41. Senate testimony of Patsy Thomasson.]

Why did she search his briefcase?

[42. As with the peripatetic gun, so too is there a peripatetic briefcase. Several witnesses saw the briefcase in the [brown–Ed.] Honda at Fort Marcy Park, but the U.S. government denies it was there.]

“Because it was sitting at the base of his desk, and it just looked like a likely place.” [Evans-Pritchard, p. 191]


[45. Fiske also “disappeared” the FBI 302 of Tom Castleton, an intern in the White House Counsel’s Office who saw Foster leaving with his briefcase.]

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 379]


And what time was that?—exactly?

Again, the Fiske report, C. Ruddy, Mrs. Foster and her interviewer, Peter J. Boyer, all say around 1 PM. (See below.)

So how did Foster’s briefcase get from Foster’s hand, as he left his White House office for the very last time at 1PM, and also “in the [brown–Ed.] Honda at Fort Marcy Park,” to “the base of his [White House–Ed.] desk” at or before 10:50 PM?

And you will recall from above that just before 9:00 PM and Clinton’s live TV interview, “a man walked in and announced that a note had been found in Vince Foster’s office.” [E-P, p. 193]

What kind of note? A “suicide” note?

And is this the very same young man, and White House Counsel’s Office intern, Tom Castleton, “since promoted to the Department of Justice’s Office of Legislative Affairs,” who saw Foster leaving with his briefcase a few hours before, and who secretly shut off Mr. Foster’s office alarm that same night so that the White House burglars could sneak in and secretly open Foster’s locked cabinets (via the keys stolen from (and secretly retuned to) the murdered man’s corpse), and thereby secretly search and “vacuum” his files and papers?

*  *  *  *  *

And now back to Mrs. Foster and her New Yorker interview:

*  *  *  *  *

…. He [her ex-husband, Vincent–Ed.] had been Bill Clinton’s boyhood chum and Hillary Clinton’s confidant and law partner, in the White House, he was one of their most trusted aides. The revelation, five months later [after his death–Ed.], that Whitewater files had been removed from Foster’s office after his death suggested that he knew some damaging secret, and that it might even have pushed him to suicide.

[Or someone else to something else. (“‘Murder,’ he wrote.”)–Ed.]

…. Even as various law-enforcement agencies and congressional hearings were investigating Vince’s death, Lisa undertook an inquiry of her own. She went through every box of personal files from Vince’s office which had been returned to her.

[Minus of course all the files and papers secretly searched and snatched or “vacuumed” (along with Foster’s wallet, car-keys and office-cabinet keys) by the Clinton White House on the very night of his murder. (See above.)–Ed.]

“If you saw them, you’d believe even more what I’m telling you,” she says. “There was a file for his father, a file for his mother, a file for the children’s medical records. He was a perfect husband, keeping perfect records.” She examined his American Express bills for the previous six years; she studied their telephone bill, and when she saw a number she didn’t recognize (such as that of the psychiatrist) she dialed it. “I did all of it, every last piece of scrap paper, name, number—oh, I investigated everything. As a matter of fact, when the F.B.I. wanted my phone bill I’d already figured it all out for them. I had the name of everybody he called.

…. Lisa says that her search helped her cope with the wilder speculative scenarios about Vince…. “There is no secret. Anything that I know about his death I have told the Park Police, Robert Fiske, and Ken Starr [who all said “suicide”–Ed.], and there is no secret. There is no conspiracy. There’s nothing to tell.”

[Then what in Hell or “Washington” am I talking about?–Ed.]

…. One of her sisters came over, and she called another sister. Together, the next day, they took Lisa to a psychiatrist. She has been seeing him ever since. In therapy, she began working out answers to some of the remaining questions about Vince’s death, such as why he hadn’t left a suicide note. “Do you know that about ninety per cent of suicides do not leave notes?” she says. “People who commit suicide don’t want anybody to know they’re going to do it. I mean, why do you think he went to Fort Marcy Park? [I don’t think he did. I think he was taken there, dead, murdered, and planted in the park with a .38 handgun in his hand but with no .38 wound on or in his body. (So go figure.)–Ed.] If he’d wanted to hurt me or the President, he’d have done it right in front of our noses. But we’d have tried to stop him.”

[Yeah, yeah I’m sure his good old childhood friend Bill Clinton would have tried his best to stop him, aren’t you?

And if Clinton or his co-president had wanted to hurt their “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster, do you think they’d have done it right in front of our noses?–Ed.]

…. After the “Current Affair” broadcast [of “allegations by Arkansas state troopers [who had guarded the Clintons in the Arkansas governor’s mansion–Ed.] that Vince and Hillary Clinton had had an affair”–Ed.], Lisa told her psychiatrist that she was still shaken by it. “I said, ‘This is just outrageous. I can’t believe that on top of losing Vince I have to deal with this.” The doctor suggested that she try Prozac.[?] The antidepressant gave her an understanding, for the first time, of Vince and his illness. [?] “That’s when I realized that it was a disease,” she says. “Vince was just down, worn out, depressed. Lack of serotonin. He was just totally depleted. Prozac would have helped him sleep, cope, get up in the morning—deal with things without feeling such despair.”

The course of Vince’s depression, obscure to her even in the face of stark warnings, suddenly became clear [via Prozak?–Ed.]: “Having been so low myself and come out of it, I realized how low he must have been, and how he didn’t have help. I had a lot of help to get me out of it—psychiatrists and doctors and lawyers and priests and nuns and friends, everybody at every turn helping me.”

[Psychiatrists are modern priests. Only the god has changed—from “God” to “Man.” Priests pretend to be Godlike, or even to be in communication with God. And priests presume to teach us all how to be Godlike like them. But psychiatrists and psychologists presume to teach us all how to be ideally “human” like them.–Ed.]

Lisa believes that she has arrived at an answer to the most baffling question about Vince’s last day. After he had a cheeseburger, French fries, and a Coke in his office, he walked out carrying his suit jacket [and his briefcase, according to his office intern Castleton–Ed.], and said to one of the secretaries [Which one?–Ed.], “I’ll be back.” That was at 1 P.M. His body was found in Fort Marcy Park, in suburban Virginia, at 5:45 P.M. Where had he been during those unaccounted-for hours?

Lisa thinks that when Vince went to the White House parking lot, climbed into their car, and drove off, he may have had the gun with him but was not certain that he would kill himself. “I think he probably spent those three or four hours driving around trying to decide.” She believes that Vince suddenly “flooded”—that his problems came rushing upon him, magnifying his despair. “I imagine that Vince was driving around and the thought of going back to the White House—it just made him claustrophobic. [Not “suicidal”? Imagine preferring death to going back to work for Bill and Hillary Clinton.–Ed.] I think he was on his way to a nervous breakdown. I think he was just holding himself together.”

Her [three–Ed.] children, she says, will have to reach their own understanding of their father’s death. Vincent [III, the eldest son–Ed.], who is selling securities in Atlanta, and Brugh, who is entering his sophomore year in college, have occasionally suspected that there is something they still don’t know about their father’s suicide. But [daughter–Ed.] Laura, like Lisa, has found some solace in the diagnosis of depression. “I think it made it easier,” Laura says. “It’s a whole lot easier seeing him as sick and having a chemical imbalance than to feel ‘Oh, my God, he did this and he knew what he was doing.’ It’s easier to say it wasn’t his fault.”

[Any yet the awful truth is “easiest” of all—in regards to Mr. Foster’s suicidal guilt. For he has none. And so he needn’t be buried separate from the “saved.”–Ed.]

…. One day last month [Aug., 1995–Ed.], Lisa says, she quietly returned to Washington…. The next week saw the birth of a new speculation about Vince Foster—the assertion, in a New York Post column, that he killed himself in the White House parking lot, not in Fort Marcy Park.

[Really? Do tell? For they were certainly getting “warmer” or closer, weren’t they?–Ed.]

…. Lisa had the final word. “I have this feeling about some things, and that is, I can’t do anything about the fact that Vince is gone,” she said. [Yes, but you can do something about your delusions about how he went, and about who took him away from you, and how they did so.–Ed.] “The only thing I can do is try to make the best of what we have.…”

*  *  *  *  *

When Exactly did Mr. Foster Leave the Clinton White House, and when Exactly did He Die?

Again, around 1 PM, and very soon afterwards, I believe.

Mrs. Foster: “I kept thinking, Now, what could have made him eat lunch and go out three or fours hours later and shoot himself?”

And her interviewer, Peter J. Boyer, wrote (above):


…about Vince’s last day. After he had a cheeseburger, French fries, and a Coke in his office, he walked out carrying his suit jacket [and his briefcase, according to his office intern Castleton–Ed.], and said to one of the secretaries, “I’ll be back.” [Which one? Linda Tripp, “executive assistant” or secretary to White House counsel, Bernard Nussbaum. (See below.) (Both are “jews.”)–Ed.] That was at 1 P.M. His body was found in Fort Marcy Park, in suburban Virginia, at 5:45 P.M. Where had he been during those unaccounted-for hours?


Would you believe being dead?

Again, “Richard Arthur… had attended to 25 or 30 gunshot deaths in his nine years as a rescue worker, believed it was a homicide.” (E-P, p. 127)

And here’s from the FBI’s “FD-302” statement of their interview of Richard Arthur, “emergency medical service technician, referring to Foster’s neck wound from a small caliber bullet.”


In Arthur’s judgment, FOSTER was obviously dead and so he did not check for a pulse. He noted that the body was lying perfectly straight—like it was “ready for a coffin.”

[Evans-Pritchard, Appendix B, p. 414]


And this was as soon as Foster’s corpse had been officially found, around 6:30 PM.

So how long does it take for a pro to know that a body is “obviously dead”? How many hours? Again, see the gradual process of “rigor mortis.”

And even before that, you will recall that the “Confidential Informant” above, who discovered Foster’s corpse in the park around 5:45 PM that afternoon, had this to say (to E-P): “‘He looked as if he’d been dead for a long time, I mean hours,’ he said.”

And so the widow is wrong in thinking that her (ex)-husband “probably spent those three or four hours [between 1PM and his death–Ed.] driving around trying to decide” whether or not to commit suicide.

And when does the U.S. gov’t say Foster died? What is their “estimated time of death”? Or are they silent on this most vital point?

And if so, why? And isn’t it standard police and prosecutorial procedure to (employ coroners or medical experts to) estimate time of death?

I can’t find it in the “Final Ken Starr Report.”

But the Fairfax County, Virginia medical examiner’s office investigator at the scene, a Dr. Haut, ridiculously claims that Foster died (via a .38 handgun) at 6:15 PM, an hour before he examined his corpse in the park (at 7:15 PM). And here’s his (and Foster’s autopsist, a Dr. Beyer’s) report:

*  *  *  *  *


*  *  *  *  *

(The Fairfax County, Virginia Medical Examiner’s “Report of Investigation”)


So the Clintons’ “Deputy While House Counsel” was last seen alive (by his non-murderers) leaving the White House at 1PM. His corpse is next seen in the Virginia park by the “Confidential Informant” at 5:45 PM, reporting Foster “looked as if he’d been dead for a long time, I mean hours.” And here are two “medical examiners” claiming Foster died at 6:15 PM, and via a “perforating gunshot wound mouth-head”, for which there was absolutely no medical evidence. So go figure what’s going on here. Clearly the imperious and murderous corruption is not at all confined to “Washington.”

*  *  *  *  *

And note well that, as far as I know, neither the Clinton White House, nor the FBI, nor the U.S. gov’t was voluntarily forthcoming with the answer to the most important question of when Mr. Foster had left their White House. And the same goes for the glaringly suppressed fact that “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster desperately wanted out of the Clinton White House…and out the Clinton employ entirely. We find that big truth only from his widow.

And they also apparently wanted us all to think that Mr. Foster had left their White House at the end of his work day, at 5 PM, instead of in the middle, at 1 PM.

Why? Why did they apparently want us to believe this?

Because it would cause us all to wonder what he was doing (or rather what happened to him) between 1 PM (when he left the White House with his briefcase) and 5:45 PM, when he was first seen dead in the Virginia park by the “confidential witness”? And because it would cause us all to wonder why no one saw Mr. Foster alive between those hours—nor even (alive) outside of the Clinton White House grounds?

*  *  *  *  *

And yet, as Foster’s widow told us above, Foster’s work day extended from 8 or 9 AM to 9 or 10 PM.

So why, on his very last day on earth, did Mr. Foster leave work at 1 PM?—as Mrs. Foster says above, and also the Fiske report says below? Did he even plan to come back that day? And why did he take his briefcase with him? And what important papers were inside? Was he safeguarding it? And if so, from whom? And how often did Foster leave the White House grounds in the middle of the day, only to return afterwards?

If we can believe him, “White House associate counsel William Kennedy’s FBI statement mentions that Foster would, on rare occasions, eat lunch outside the White House at a nearby restaurant. But the interviewing agents didn’t ask Kennedy to identify a specific restaurant.”—(From C. Ruddy below.)

Had Mr. Foster finally quit his job as the Clintons’ “Deputy While House Counsel”?

And assuming he truly said so, by allegedly telling Nussbaum’s secretary, Linda Tripp, that “I’ll be back,” did Foster mean that same day? Or some other day? And if so, for what? To clean out his office?

And if Foster truly intended to come back that day, then why didn’t he say that to his own secretary, Deborah Gorham?

For, as we read above, “Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster very much wanted out of the Clinton White House, and had presumably already given his “notice,” and was invited or summoned by the president to the White House on the very last night of his life—ostensibly to watch a movie, but I think to try to talk his “Deputy While House Counsel” out of leaving his employ, finally and permanently. And as we read above, Mr. Foster inexplicably refused this presidential invitation.

So did these two ever have that final conversation?

I’ll betcha they did, and that very morning. And I’ll bet that’s why Foster left at 1 PM, with his briefcase. And I’ll bet that’s why “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster never got out of the White House grounds alive.

Do you see how vitally important establishing the time of Foster’s death was? For one thing, the time could give us the place of his murder? And is that not why the U.S. gov’t completely and deliberately “failed” in this most vital matter?

*  *  *  *  *

Here’s what the aforementioned C. Ruddy has to say on the subject:

From “Fiske Probe into Death Questioned,” by Christopher Ruddy, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, March 29, 1995:



One of the most perplexing questions about Foster’s death, apparently an issue of concern for Starr’s staff, is Foster’s whereabouts after he left the West Wing of the White House on July 20, 1993, at approximately 1 p.m.

The Fiske report read: “At about 1 p.m. (Foster) came out of his office holding his suit jacket, without a briefcase.[No, with his briefcase, according to his office intern Castleton–Ed.] He told (Linda) Tripp (an executive assistant to White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum) that there were still some M&M’s on the tray if she wanted them. He said, ‘I’ll be back,’ and then left.” Foster’s body was found by officials after 6 p.m. His car was first sighted in Fort Marcy Park about 4:30 p.m.

The coroner who conducted the original autopsy [Dr. James C. Beyer–Ed.] specified no time of death. [And yet Dr. Beyer co-signed Dr. Haut’s “report of investigation” (above) listing 6:15 PM as the time of Foster’s death.–Ed.] Fiske’s pathology team said Foster could have died “within the broad range of when the deceased was last seen alive to the time the body was discovered.” [Were they joking? Were they being sarcastic? Anyone and everyone could figure that out? Yes of course a person can conceivably die from the last time he is seen alive to the first time he is seen or found dead. But medical exerts are supposed to be able to whittle than time down to an “estimated time of death.” So why didn’t the U.S. gov’t do this? Because Foster’s murder was a U.S. gov’t-alleged “suicide”?–Ed.] But in standard homicide cases, approximate times of death are usually much more specific.

One way to determine time of death is by examining stomach contents and digestion.

[Another is “rigor mortis,” the rigor or stiffness of death, and why corpses in morgues or funeral parlors are often called “stiffs.” At first a corpse is supple, like a living body. But in a few hours it gradually gets stiff or rigid. And so fresh and not-so-fresh corpses can be thus distinguished. So how “fresh,” supple or stiff was Mr. Foster’s corpse? We just read (above) what an emergency medical service technician and a witness had to say on this most important matter: that “FOSTER was obviously dead” and “looked as if he’d been dead for a long time, I mean hours.”–Ed.]

The park police report quotes Dr. James Beyer, the Virginia medical examiner during the autopsy as stating that Foster “had eaten a large meal” that Beyer believed Foster had eaten “2-3 hours prior to death.” Beyer indicated the food “might have been meat and potatoes.” The official White House story is that Foster ate a cheeseburger, French fries and Coke in his office shortly before 1 p.m.

[Well, that is meat and potatoes, plus bread.–Ed.]

[But this Dr. Beyer cannot be trusted. And so we cannot call or accept what he says as “facts.” As Evans-Pritchard explained above, Beyer evidently took X rays of Foster’s corpse, but later denied it. For the U.S. Park police also wrote (in their “Supplemental Criminal Incident Record”; Green Books, p. 2128) that “Dr. Beyer stated that X-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head.” And yet this same Beyer denied he even took an X-ray during the Senate Banking Committee’s inquiry into the affair. (See E-P, p. 146-48) And if so, then this Beyer either suppressed, destroyed or surrendered these “politically [or presidentially] incorrect” X rays to (another branch of) the U.S. gov’t (beside the U.S. Park police).

And even I (or anyone else) can tell (without X rays) whether or not the back of someone’s skull is missing—in this case due to a .38 caliber gunshot wound in the mouth. And Dr. Beyer did not report that—one way or the other. And so this Beyer cannot be trusted. And so we cannot take Beyer’s word that Mr. Foster died 2 to 3 hours after eating a large meal.

I mean if Beyer would lie about the X rays, and about the intact skull, and about the lack of bullet fragments therein, then why not also (and consistently) lie about when the victim last ate? Surely what this crooked Dr. Beyer did was support the U.S. gov’t’s obviously false and crooked story of how (and when) Mr. Foster died.

Again, Beyer and Haut’s “report of investigation” (above) claims 6:15 PM as the time of Foster’s death. And that’s hours too late.–Ed.]

…. It has been confirmed that Foster left his office about 1 p.m.

But the long lapse in time from 1 p.m. until the discovery of his body [at 5:15 PM–Ed.] remains a nagging inconsistency.

[Why an “inconsistency”? Because Foster wasn’t seen (by anyone other than his assassins) in the time between?

“No one saw his alive after he left his White House office.”—from C. Ruddy’s “Vincent Foster Fact Sheet” (above)–Ed.]

A review of documents chronicling Fiske’s investigation show that investigators barely scratched the surface in their mission to retrace Foster’s steps.

[But a proper and accurate “estimated time of death” might very well have made that an exercise in futility. For dead men can’t walk.–Ed.]

The only evidence of efforts in this area is revealed in a document stating that Fiske’s investigators canvassed Foster’s Georgetown neighborhood on May 10-11 [1994—almost a year later–Ed.] to determine if anyone saw him on the afternoon of his death. The interviews turned up nothing.

But the documents don’t show painstaking police work, such as interviewing personnel at restaurants he patronized, gas stations along various routes to the park, and finally, regular park visitors to Fort Marcy.

…. Questions about hangouts or other areas outside the White House where Foster may have been on the day of his death are conspicuously absent from FBI statements of Mack McLarty, Webster Hubbell, Bruce Lindsey, and David Watkins [and William Kennedy III–Ed.]—all part of the Arkansas circle that knew Foster well.

A brief mention in White House associate counsel William Kennedy’s FBI statement mentions that Foster would, on rare occasions, eat lunch outside the White House at a nearby restaurant. But the interviewing agents didn’t ask Kennedy to identify a specific restaurant.

[Did they think of asking Kennedy (or any other White House employees or members “of the Arkansas circle that knew Foster well”) if Foster ever parked his car outside the White House grounds?—as the White house and the FBI/U.S. “Justice” dept. ridiculously claim he did. And if so, where, when (or on what occasions), and why?

I’m betting the White House/U.S. gov’t told this parking lot whopper to stop all inquiry right then and there, to prevent the advance toward Truth (and hence Justice), and to falsely place Foster’s death (i.e. murder) outside their White House grounds. For if inside, then it becomes obvious that Foster was murdered by the White House/U.S. gov’t—as no one else could get in (and out) to secretly kill him (and remove his body).

Does that make sense? Can you see that?–Ed.]

The documents show that the last person to see Foster alive on the White House grounds [and no one reportedly saw Foster alive off or outside those White House grounds–Ed.] was a uniformed member of the Secret Service, posted at station “E-4,” at the first-floor front entrance to the West Wing—which houses the Oval Office and various presidential aides’ offices. [See map below.–Ed.]

The officer at E-4 told the FBI that he remembered Foster leaving “about lunchtime,” but couldn’t remember the precise time.

[Does that mean that “E-4” saw Foster leaving out the front (north) West Wing door? Or is that merely what the U.S. gov’t/“Justice” dept./FBI wants us to believe?—in order to support the idea that Foster walked out of the White House grounds (via the “north-west appointment gate”?), and hence did not take the side (west) exit/entrance and walk to the parking lot, because his car was not there?

OK, so that places Foster at the White House door at lunchtime and presumably headed for his car.

Did the unnamed “E-4” officer recall if Foster was carrying his briefcase? Was he even asked? And why doesn’t he have a name? Why all the secrecy?

For one thing, because Foster did not truly leave via the front (north) door?

And where are all the SS logs, records and spy tapes of precisely when Foster entered and exited the west wing? For they would tell us what door he used? And hence where the doomed “Deputy While House Counsel” was headed—whether north toward the Penn. Ave. walk-in/out gate, or west towards the WH parking lot?–Ed.]

*  *  *  *  *

Front West Wing Entrance

(Front (north) West Wing Entrance)

*  *  *

Entrance into the West Wing from the side

(Side (west) West Wing Entrance)

*  *  *  *  *

But a White House law enforcement source who has reviewed the [U.S. Senate–Ed.] banking committee documents said that had Foster proceeded to exit the White House campus by going to his car, he would also have had to pass another uniformed officer at guard post “C-6” along the route to West Executive Avenue. [“Along the route” but not at the entrance to the West Executive Avenue, and hence its parking lot?—or at the division between this Ave. and the White House “campus”?–Ed.] The documents [of the Senate Banking committee–Ed.] do not include such a statement.

[And so the United States’ Senate wants us all to believe exactly what the SS (“Secret Service”) and the FBI/U.S. “Justice” dept want us to believe—that “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster walked off the White House grounds on the day of his murder—to get to his car inexplicably parked somewhere outside.

So should we believe that? Is tat true?–Ed.]

Also, no documents indicate that [the SS–Ed.] officers posted at the Pennsylvania Avenue gate were interviewed.

[Why not? Because—(if that was Foster’s entrance and exit gate)—that “documentation,” inquiry or questioning would have lead to the awful truth that Foster had indeed driven his car into the White House grounds that day, but never drove it out, but someone else did? And that Foster never truly walked in nor out?—as they want us all to believe?–Ed.]

Contrary to popular belief, Foster’s movements on the White House grounds would not have been captured by video camera. [(?) What’s Ruddy’s reason, source or evidence for claiming or saying so?–Ed.] Foster’s car also would not have been logged out. [(?) But it would have been logged or checked in?–Ed.]

An FBI agent assigned to Fiske’s staff was questioned by D’Amato during [U.S. Senate–Ed.] hearings about Foster exiting the White House by car. He responded: “Senator, I don’t believe the vehicle was logged out of the White House. I don’t believe it was parked in an area where it would have been logged out of the White House.” Foster typically parked his car on the White House grounds in parking spots reserved for high officials. The parking area is located on West Executive Avenue, a street that runs between the White House and the Old Executive Office Building.

[“Typically” you say? Then was there any other spot(s) where Foster ever parked inside the White House grounds besides his personal and designated “slot 16, West Executive Boulevard”?—(as E-P reported above). I mean the whole point and purpose of having a personal parking spot is that you always park there, and hence not in anybody else’s spot—and vice-versa.–Ed.]

Foster noted his parking habits in a speech on May 8 [1993?–Ed.] at the University of Arkansas Law School.

“When we leave work at night [via State Place?–Ed.], we pull up to a large, heavy gate that surrounds the White House complex. While the Secret Service guards slowly open that gate, I always look to my right....” [down Penn. Ave. and towards Lafayette park?–Ed.] Leaving by that exit [And exactly what exit is that? The West Executive/Penn. Ave. exit, or the State Place/17th St. exit? (Again, see map below.)–Ed.], Foster could not have been logged out, but he would have been noticed, officials have said.

[And so that’s why Ruddy said (above) that “Foster’s car also would not have been logged out.”

But can those “officials” be trusted?

For they’re lying to us tooth and nail every step along the way, are they not?

But even if it’s true that White House vehicles are not “logged out,” at least at Foster’s gate, why were no guards ever even asked by the U.S. gov’t if they either saw Foster or his car (driven by someone else) leaving the White House grounds on the day he died? And if so, at what time?

But to head the Foster investigation off at the pass, if the “Deputy While House Counsel” did not even park his car inside the White House grounds on the day he was murdered—(as the White House/U.S. gov’t/FBI ridiculously and inexplicably claim)—then there would be no logical reason to ask any of the White House gate or parking lot guards that most important question, would there?—unless the investigator be someone who “doesn’t believe a [known–Ed.] liar, even when he [or they] tells the truth.”–Ed.]



Documents show Foster left the White House at 1 p.m., but the trail ends there... until his body was discovered at Fort Marcy Park. An FBI analysis of Foster’s clothes shows carpet fibers of various colors all over his suit jacket, tie, shirt, shorts [(?) i.e. underpants–Ed.], pants, belt, socks, and shoes. The fibers were colored white, tan, gray, blue, red, and green.

[And don’t forget the blond hairs which Evans-Pritchard mentioned above.–Ed.]

This trace evidence indicates “Foster’s body was in contract with one or more carpets on the day of his death,” said Vincent Scalise, a former crime scene expert for the New York City Police Department.

[So the assassins wrapped up the body of their victim inside a multicolored rug for transport to the Virginia park, so as not to leave any blood or any other scientific or forensic evidence in their transport vehicle. And they afterwards burned or otherwise destroyed this rug, this evidence—other than those rug or carpet fibers found upon their victim, of course.–Ed.]

Fiske’s staff acknowledged that they didn’t attempt to match the fibers with Foster’s office or home, something that several FBI sources have told the Tribune-Review was a major lapse in the investigation.

[So why didn’t the FBI do so?–Ed.]

Scalise, who has 35 years of experience in major homicide cases, says that “the first place you would check is where Foster was last seen alive, the White House.” [Did anyone see (or did any SS spy cameras record) Foster leaving the White House grounds? And did anyone see Foster alive outside the White House grounds? If not, that doesn’t prove he never left. But it doesn’t prove he did, either. And so there’s no proof that “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster ever left the White House grounds alive on the day of his death/murder. For the last known place and time Foster was seen alive was at the door to the White House’s west wing, and at 1 PM.–Ed.] Scalise said the carpets have to be tested, not just in the West Wing, but in the residence and living quarters itself, and any buildings on the campus that Foster might have entered after exiting the West Wing.

[What? Did Foster roll around a rug or two with Hillary? And did Bill unexpectedly walk in and surprise them? And/or is (or was) there a tell-tale rug missing somewhere in the White House?–Ed.]

Checking White House carpets may prove difficult since Foster died almost 20 months ago and several carpets have been changed.


*  *  *  *  *

I would assume that these are professional assassins with a premeditated plan, and hence that they therefore brought their own rug from outside the White House.

But they obviously would have needed a White House pass to get their vehicle (a van perhaps?) inside the grounds, if that’s where they murdered “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster. And so this entry would have been logged in.

But whenever and wherever they murdered him, these assassins are obviously being protected by the U.S. gov’t—except for “Associate Independent Counsel” Rodriguez and the odd U.S. park policeman.

*  *  *  *  *

But that’s not what “jewish”-Amerika’s “Central Broadcasting Corporation” had to say to try to explain these mysterious fibers away:

They did a…


…“60 Minutes” special on Chris Ruddy, which historians may regard one day as a prime exhibit of state-sponsored propaganda. There is a world of difference between inaccurate reporting and the dissemination of deliberate lies. This particular effort, broadcast on October 8, 1995, included a generous mix of both.

Playing down the presence of unexplained white, tan, grey, blue, red, and green carpet fibers found all over Foster’s clothes, correspondent Mike Wallace [“jew”–Ed.] stated: “The FBI and the Park Police say the fibers are not significant.[?] Anyone who walks on a carpet picks up fibers. And since all of Foster’s clothes were put into one bag, all of his clothes would probably have fibers on them.”[?]

In fact, the case documents show that the Park Police did not put the clothes in one bag. Foster’s suit jacket and his blue silk tie with swans were recovered from his Honda on the night of his death. [20. Green Books, p. 2187: Park Police Evidence/Property Control Receipt, July 20, 1993.] His shirt, shorts, trousers, belt, socks, and shoes were removed from the body the next day at the morgue and bagged separately.[21. Green Books, p. 2191: Park Police Evidence Receipt, July 21, 199322.] Both sets were covered with the same multicolored fibers. [Evans-Pritchard, p. 217]

*  *  *  *  *

And you will recall (from above) that Mr. Foster shoes were tested for dirt or soil to see if he had walked to his “resting place” inside Ft. Marcy park. But there wasn’t any, so he didn’t. And therefore Foster was carried in there…dead.

Again, “no traces of soil could be found on Foster’s shoes, under a microscope, even though he had supposedly walked 700 feet through the overgrown park.” (E-P, p. 210-11)

And there was absolutely no mention of any carpet fibers. (So go figure. They simply weren’t there.…to spread themselves around the rest of the victim’s clothes. And yet multicolored rug or carpet fibers were indeed found upon the rest of the victim’s clothes. So go figure.)

*  *  *  *  *

[Ruddy’s drawing of the Clintons walking their pet (mass-media) “jew,” Wallace.]

*  *  *  *  *

But the “jews” support the Clintons only because they are essentially “jews,” Gentile “jews”: anti-Gentiles, anti-Christs, anti-Christians and anti-Americans. The Clintons are fanatical Marxist-communists as well as zionists or “‘Israel’-firsters.”

(America and Gentile Americans are therefore second, and expendable—being merely a Gentile means to this evil “jewish” end.)

And that’s precisely why the Clintons became co-presidents. And the same goes for the Bushes, etc., etc., all the way back to president Wilson, and his “jewish” “central bank,” and his World War I against the Gentiles.

And so no real Gentile nor loyal American need ever again apply for the White House or the U.S. Congress, because the “jews” simply won’t allow them into “their” White House or into “their” Congress.

America and the Gentiles are merely food for the “jews,” and a “jewish” means to a “jewish” end—which is of course the “jews” themselves and their foreign power and terror-state of “Israel.”

*  *  *  *  *

My Investigative Conclusion or “Findings”

The honest investigators in this case include detective John Rolla and officer Franz Ferstl of the U.S. Park police. The former was given his first death case by his superior, detective Cheryl Braun—after her having declared the case a suicide before even having looked at the corpse. And Rolla was honest enough to report that Foster’s keys and wallet were missing, and that Foster’s keys later mysteriously turned up in his pants’ pocket while he was lying dead in the morgue.

And officer Ferstl took the seven missing Polaroid pictures, and gave them (he thinks) to a U.S. Park police Sgt. Bob Edwards, who had no official business even being there, and after which the Polaroids were never seen again. (See above.)

And as for the rest of the U.S. gov’t—(their “Justice” dept. and their FBI; their “special prosecutor,” Robert Bishop Fiske, Jr.; their “Independent Counsel,” Kenneth Winston Starr; and all their Congressional “hearings”)—the only other honest investigator I’m aware of was “Associate Independent Counsel” Miquel Rodriguez. And he, being the earnest and honest odd man out, had to quit. (See above.)

The U.S. gov’t is an unbelievably corrupt, false, deceitful, murderous and globally mass-murderous organization. And hence they slanderously give old General (and President) “Washington” the very worst of names.

And so I must say, like an old town decrier, “Come out, come out of the evil empire.”

*  *  *  *  *

And so because “Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster did not commit suicide, he was therefore murdered, and not by his friends. For friends don’t murder friends.

And methinks Foster’s corpse and his car were then driven (probably separately) over the river to the Virginia park from wherever he was murdered, and—(if we can believe and trust the U.S. “Secret Service” over the U.S Park Police)—where both they were found together (along with the “suicide” gun) before Foster’s body could be secretly moved into the park, and “Foster’s” “suicide” gun placed into his dead hand.

Again, the reported actions and non-actions of U.S. Park officer Fornshill on “secret [CIA] assignment” are extremely suspicious. After sending all the emergency workers elsewhere, and upon knowing just where to find the corpse, Fornshill pretends not to notice the mysterious men running away from the body, even after they are pointed out to him by McLean Fire Service rescue worker Todd Hall. And officer Fornshill also doesn’t notice the “suicide” gun, even after it is pointed out to him by Hall. So what else could explain all this puzzling behavior besides concealed foreknowledge?

But where was Foster murdered, by whom, how and why?

Certainly not where he was found inside the Virginia park. For he did not walk to where he was found inside the park. He was therefore carried. (See above.) And by whom else but by his murderers, or their accomplices?

I myself “like” Foster’s designated spot in the White House parking lot, and at the very time he was leaving (to go home to Georgetown?) at 1 PM.

So Foster’s body was secretly moved into the park first, and the strange gun was planted afterwards. For the “confidential witness” saw the corpse without the gun at 5:45 PM.

Why the murderers didn’t move and place morbid objects at the same time is beyond me—unless the old, black, unregistered and untraceable handgun hadn’t yet been delivered to the scene from “Uncle” Satan-knows-where. For the U.S. “Secret Service” memo (above) places both Foster’s corpse and the bogus black .38 handgun inside his car.

And how was Foster murdered?

Certainly not with the black :38 handgun found in his hand. For there was no entry and no exit wound, and no .38 bullet nor bullet fragments in his head. And that’s what shoots the U.S. gov’t’s “suicide finding” all to Hell wherein it (and they) belong. (See above.)

Again, it is most likely that Foster was shot in the neck with a small caliber gun/bullet. And since there was no exit wound, and if the bullet was not secretly extracted, this slug would have remained inside the victim’s neck, and would therefore have been visible in a neck X-ray, and is therefore still lying with the victim’s skeleton in his grave.

Can you dig it? I knew that you could.

For obvious reasons, it would be best that the exhumation be done in the full glare of the sun and the camera’s eye, with many “experts” and witnesses attending, and—(so none may say that trickery or “sleight of hand” was employed)—I recommend that a long magnetic rod be used (by someone trusted by all) to thus publicly attract and remove the metal bullet slug—if present in the neck area of Foster’s skeleton. Or so says Jack. And the magnetic rod should be white, for maximum contrast with the dark (and all-too-long-buried) bullet.

*  *  *  *  *


So, what did the paramedics see when they arrived from the McLean Station of the Fairfax County Rescue Department?

“I saw blood all over the right side of the neck, from here down, all over the shoulder, and I saw a small—what appeared to be a small gunshot wound here near the jawline. Fine, whether the coroner’s [i.e. Dr. Beyer’s–Ed.] report says that or not, fine. I know what I saw,” said Richard Arthur in a sworn deposition to the Senate Banking Committee. [18. Green Books, p. 892, deposition of Richard Arthur, July 14, 1994.][Evans-Pritchard, p. 143]

*  *  *  *  *

Wary of entrusting anything to the FBI crime labs, [“Associate Independent Counsel” Miquel–Ed.] Rodriguez turned to the Smithsonian Institution for enhancement of the original [Polaroid picture–Ed.]. The work was done by the Smithsonian’s subcontractor, Asman Custom Photo Service on Pennsylvania Avenue. A set of five “blowups” of the original were made. They revealed a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck (his left side) about half way between the chin and the ear. It was marked by a black “stippled” ring—a sort of dotted effect, like an engraving—that was suggestive of a .22 caliber gunshot fired at point blank range into the flesh.

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 140]

*  *  *  *  *

And if so, was this small bullet ever secretly removed?—either in the park when the blood from Foster’s neck-wound had been secretly wiped off “between the time that first team of rescue workers left Fort Marcy Park at 6:37 PM, and the second team arrived at 8:02 PM” (E-P, p. 145); or in the Fairfax County Hospital morgue, where Foster’s body was taken, and his missing keys were secretly replaced; or during Foster’s “embalming at the Murphy Funeral Home in Arlington, a Defense Department subcontractor”? (E-P, p. 146) For I guess we can eliminate (director Tom Wittenberg of) the Reubel Funeral Home in Little Rock. (ibid.)

And could the small bullet had been secretly removed without leaving tell-tale signs, cuts or incisions? I’m no doctor nor cosmetic surgeon, but I don’t see how.

And so if this small theorized bullet was never removed, then it’s still there. And if Hamlet’s (or Shakespeare’s) “knavish” grave-digger can be believed, and it takes some eight or nine years for nature to completely reduce a man’s body in his grave to his bony skeleton, then it might well be worth taking a morbid look. Know what I mean?

And if Foster was truly shot in the neck and killed/murdered with one small bullet, it most likely must have been the work of a professional killer or assassin who knew exactly what he was doing, and exactly how to kill a man in this fashion.

*  *  *  *  *

And if Foster was truly shot in the neck, where in the world was he shot in the neck? Was it in a parking lot? And if so, which one? The one where he parked his car every work-day?—i.e. the White House parking lot? Or in the Fort Marcy parking lot? Surely the former makes much more sense, doesn’t it? And it agrees or dovetails with Dickey’s story. She didn’t specify the parking lot she was speaking of because there was only one parking lot to speak of—the one on the White house grounds where Foster parked his car every day—except that day, according to the FBI. But does the White House concur, agree or second that very doubtful FBI assertion? Where else would the FBI have gotten this dubious “information”? The White House “Secret Service”?

And note that no White House “Secret Service” guards are mentioned as the source of this “information”—not even with code names like “E-4” above. Why not? And note there’s no documentation of any FBI questioning or any SS answering. Again, why not?

There’s merely a sweeping statement by the highly dubious and suspicious Special FBI Agent Larry Monroe that Foster’s car was never logged in and never logged out of the White House grounds on the day he died. (E-P, p, 165; and see above)

And if what the FBI is saying is not true, they why won’t all those who know better come forward and say so? Why won’t even one “Secret Servicemen” or White House employee or staffer tell the truth?

Is it “National Security”? Is the simple Truth a terrible danger, threat and menace to anti-Christ or “jewish”-Amerika’s “National Security”?

And if so, then you-know-what.

*  *  *  *  *

And besides, how could Foster have possibly driven over the river to the Fort Marcy parking lot without his bloody car keys?

And besides, why would Foster even go to Fort Marcy park? Had he any history of going there? Is the park on the way to Foster’s home in Georgetown, where he knew his wife was waiting for him to go out on a “date” together? No, again it’s on the other side of the Potomac river which separates “Washington” from the state of Virginia.

(See map of “Washington.”)

*  *  *  *  *

Note the locations of the White House and the Fosters’ home in Georgetown. Fort Marcy Park is on the other side of the Potomac river in Virginia, and is therefore not on Foster’s way home from the White House.

And so what was Foster doing there, and without his keys, but being planted by his murderers?

*  *  *

(Note how Pennsylvania Ave. is the route from the White House (middle) to Georgetown (upper left).

*  *  *  *  *

(Foster worked in the west or executive wing of the White House.)

*  *  *

*  *  *  *  *

As reported above, Foster’s parking space in the “White House parking lot” was “slot 16” of the “West Executive Boulevard.” I assume that’s the “West Executive Ave.” in the above map.

Again, Foster would drive and arrive in his parking place either via Penn. Ave. or via 17th St. and State Place. And if from the former, there’d be one SS checkpoint to pass, and if from the latter, two: the first at the entrance to State Place and the second (called the “Southwest Appointment Gate”) at the south entrance to West Executive Ave./Blvd.

And yet the White House and the “Secret Service” (via the FBI) inexplicably claim to have no “log” record nor video or spy camera evidence of this.

*  *  *  *  *



Of course, it would be a simple matter for any of the official investigators to have shown that it was highly probable that the man in Fort Marcy Park [who suspiciously hid his face from a local 17 year old woman on the day before Foster’s body was found in that same park–Ed.] was very likely Vince Foster. All that would be required would be a log showing that Vince Foster left the office at a time that would have allowed Foster to drive to Fort Marcy and be seen with Ms. Rutherford at 3 p.m.

Alternately (or in addition), a security video showing Foster’s car leaving the White House parking lot on July 19, 1993 at a time that would have allowed Foster to drive to Fort Marcy and be seen with Ms. Rutherford at 3 p.m. would suffice.

However, according to the official investigation, there is no log showing the time that Foster entered or exited the White House on July 19, 1993; nor is there a log showing when Foster exited the White House on July 20. 1993, the day of his death.

[And so there are guards who log or record when (and which) vehicles leave and exit the White House grounds, as well as guards who log or record when (and which) people enter and leave the White House itself?

And yet they say they have no information on Vincent Foster. And yet other White House employees say they saw him that day.

And surely there must be White House spy cameras too. And yet the White House (via the FBI) claim they have no information or evidence about Mr. Foster or his car entering or leaving the White House or its grounds. (So go figure…what they don’t want us to know…and why they don’t want us to know it!)–Ed.]

Officially, there are no security videos showing the time that Foster’s car exited the White House on July 19, 1993; nor is there a video showing when Foster’s car exited the White House parking lot then next day—the day of Foster’s death.

The fact that there is no record of the comings and goings of people to one of the most secure buildings in America seems rather curious.

But apparently that is the official story—officially Foster is supposed to have been able to wander in and out of one of the most secure buildings in America without any record of when he came or went.


*  *  *  *  *

And as with the White House records of the Dickey call to Arkansas, so with the White House records of Foster’s coming and going on the day of his murder. They’re officially missing, vanished or simply suppressed. Although it’s been established that Mr. Foster left the White House itself at 1 PM, they apparently don’t even want us to know when Foster left the White House grounds—if he left the White House grounds. So why is that?

And since they insist he didn’t drive in, therefore Foster walked in and out of the White House grounds on the day he was murdered. So where’s the evidence of that?—the “logs,” the spy tapes, and the SS eyewitnesses statements?

Nowhere. And is that not a tell-tale clue?

*  *  *

And so, as Foster “looked as if he’d been dead for a long time, I mean hours,” when he was first seen in the Virginia park at 5:45 PM, was Vincent Foster not shot dead by a professional killer(s) while he was sitting in his car in his designated parking space in the White House parking lot, and preparing to leave the White House grounds?—and presumably to go home to his family in Georgetown, and for a “date” with his wife that evening?

And though no one in the White House denies Foster went to work that day, the White House (along with the “Secret Service,” and the FBI/U.S. “Justice” dept.) all claim Foster didn’t park in their parking lot that day.

So why do they say this?

Because it’s true? Or because it’s false?—and there’s something about their White House parking lot that they very much don’t want us to know about?

Again, how common or uncommon was this? I would assume most uncommon—indeed, nonexistent. For where or why would Foster ever park his car outside the White House grounds while he was working within? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Indeed, it’s ridiculous. Surely they’re lying and suppressing evidence. And you can do (and get away with) that when you’re the prosecutor, the Law, the judge and the jury. (And that’s called “tyranny.”)

Did anyone think to ask the widow if she ever heard of such a thing, either from her husband or anyone else, prior to the day he died?

And yet on that day of all days Mr. Foster inexplicably and nonsensically decides (for the very first time?) not to park his car inside the White House grounds?—but rather to park outside and walk in instead? And yet there is absolutely no SS record of this necessary walk-in and walk-out? How retarded do these people think we are? (Apparently very.)

If there was truly no SS record of a Foster walk-in (and walk-out), then Foster drove-in. And why wouldn’t he?

And if Foster drove in, then there’s an SS record of it, and they’re lying to us—just as they’re lying to us about the fact that park detective Rolla duly notified them of “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster death around 6:40 PM, and therefore not around 8:30 PM, when they falsely pretended they were first notified (by the U.S. park police). For they deceitfully say: “ON THE EVENING OF 7/20/93. UNKNOWN TIME. US PARK POLICE DISCOVERED THE BODY OF VINCENT FOSTER IN HIS CAR.” (See above.)

*  *  *  *  *

And so who among the White House “executives” had parking spaces around Vincent Foster on “West Executive Ave.”?

And I assume these parking spaces (at one or both sides of the avenue) were (and are) not parallel but angular or perpendicular to the curb, like the Fort Marcy parking lot. (See maps). For how else can there be a “parking lot” on an active street? But I could be wrong about that, and it is not essential.

And so what do they say?—those fellow “executives” (or whatever) with parking spaces next or near to our hapless victim? Do they agree with the White House and the “Secret Service” and with Special FBI Agent Larry Monroe, that Foster didn’t even park in the White House parking lot on his very last day on earth? Do they all agree with that most “Special” FBI agent Monroe who, along with his agency, was strangely and completely disinterested in all the “blond hairs…found on Foster’s undershirt…trousers, belt, socks, and shoes.” (E-P, p. 157; and see above) Apparently so, for none of them publicly contradicted him.

So the question is: Did any of the White House employees or staff see “Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster and/or his car in the White House parking lot on the day he was murdered?

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some did. Would you? For how could they not have?

Did anyone ever ask? And did anyone from the White House ever answer (or volunteer) in the affirmative?

*  *  *  *  *

And again, what about all those White House/SS guards? I mean all those “Secret Service” guards at the vehicle check-points—specifically leading to Foster’s parking space in the “West Executive” Ave. or Blvd.; and all those SS guards on the grounds outside the buildings; and all those SS guards at the entrances to the White House itself?—specifically the west or executive wing entrance?

Again, none mention an entry anywhere, and only SS officer “E-4” “remembered Foster leaving [the west or executive White House wing–Ed.] ‘about lunchtime.’” But no other SS officers noticed Foster all day. And no one wrote or “logged” anything down. And all their spy cameras have noting to say either. (Believe those SS lies, and they’ll tell you more.)

For make no mistake: This Foster case is all about the White House. Note well how they pretend they don’t know what they know, and when they knew or found out about it. Note well how they stole (or at least secretly returned) Foster’s keys, secretly shut off his White House office alarm, and secretly rummaged through his White House files and papers looking for and taking…Uncle Satan and Its White House knows what!

And note Dickey’s quoted statement above that “Vince shot himself.” “He walked out to his car and shot himself in the head.”

So where else would Foster’s car be but in his very spot in the White House parking lot?

And if Foster had shot himself in some parking space outside the White House grounds, then how would the White House know about it but not the “Washington” city police?

Why would Foster drive to the Fort Marcy park parking lot to shoot himself? How would he get there without his car keys? And how could Foster have shot himself in the mouth with a .38 revolver without any evidence whatsoever of a .38 revolver wound?

No way! It’s all a unbelievable pack of lies!—White House, FBI, SS and U.S. gov’t lies!

But there was evidence of a small caliber gunshot wound on Vincent Foster’s neck. So what should we think or do about that?

*  *  *  *  *


[Foster’s Gray 1989 Honda sedan/4 door]

*  *  *  *  *

So here’s what I think most likely happened. This is my scenario which best explains, encompasses and “fits the facts of the case,” and also “fills in the blanks”:

This was a premeditated murder by the U.S. gov’t of a U.S. gov’t (presidential White House) official. For if Foster did not murder himself—(and he certainly didn’t in the way the U.S. gov’t claims he did, via a .38 slug in the mouth)—then he was obviously murdered, and obviously by the U.S. gov’t.

For why would they thus cover-up someone else’s murder?—and not of some lowly American citizen or foreigner, but of a high White House official with only two (or rather three) superiors: Nussbaum and the Clinton co-presidents?

And so they of course did not murder “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster inside the White House, and hence carry his corpse in broad daylight (and in the sight of his co-workers, or perhaps in a multicolored White House rug) out to his car parked in the White House parking lot—wherein the White House inexplicably and ridiculously claim Foster didn’t even park that day.

Again why? Why do thus they want to keep us all out of their parking lot?

Because that’s precisely where the murder happened?—as Dickey got half-right?

And so the prime assassin, a professional murderer, someone who knew just where to shoot his unsuspecting victim—(with one quiet little bullet in the neck); and certainly someone with White House or secret police credentials; or certainly someone in a car or van with White House or secret police credentials—as no one else would get inside the White House grounds or into such a “restricted” area)—shot “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster in the left side of his neck (the driver’s window side) with a small caliber pistol, as he was sitting in his car at 1 PM on the day he finally quit the Clintons for good, and as he was preparing to drive home to his wife.

For once the target’s car starts moving, such covert assassinations (disguised to look like something else—in this case a suicide) get several times more complicated and uncertain. It’s easy enough (using two or more vehicles) to somehow block a targeted vehicle in traffic, and to shoot the victim dead or fill him full of lead. But such a professional murder or assassination obviously cannot be presented (or represented and reported) as anything else but. But that wouldn’t do in this Vincent Foster case. His murderers insisted that it be made to look like a suicide, so that no one would even think of looking for his murderers—and even more importantly, for those greater murderers who sent these professional killers to kill him.

And so Mr. Foster was shot in his spot in the White House parking lot.

The U.S. gov’t murderer or assassin—probably a complete stranger—walked up to his targeted victim, possibly flashing him a secret police badge, thus causing, cuing or prompting Mr. Foster to roll down his (driver’s side) window—if it wasn’t already, in the July heat—thus allowing the assassin to get quite close to his sitting target. And then the shooter quickly pressed a small and hitherto concealed small caliber pistol against (the left/driver’s side of) Foster’s neck, and pulled the trigger.

And though the sound of the shot was soft, and maybe even muffled by a “silencer,” maybe someone saw something, and quietly or not-so-quietly spread it around.

And a windowless van can not only block the view—from all sides but directly in front and directly behind. And two vans on either side of Foster’s parking space (if perpendicular) would be even more ideal. But a van can also open up on the side, with a waiting rug to place the bleeding victim upon and to cover him up for secret transport across the Potomac river to that old Virginia park.

But I assume other White House “executives,” staffers or employees had assigned parking spaces one either side of Vincent Foster. And hence this presumed van must have driven up behind Foster’s car if perpendicularly parked, or alongside it if parked angular or parallel to the curb. And the White House victim’s limp body was quickly carried from the latter to the former, from his car to the open van. (For if he were to be placed inside a car trunk or a back-seat, it would obviously look exactly like a murder.)

And maybe some innocent or uninvolved eyewitness(es) within the White House grounds saw a lifeless Foster being taken out of his car and placed inside this van (or whatever). And so maybe that’s the origin of the Vince-shot-himself-in-the-parking-lot story. It was perhaps concocted by Foster’s murderers to explain why men were seen carrying Foster’s limp body out of his car—and again presumably into a nearby van.

And maybe that’s why the SS wrote that report above—claiming that Foster was found dead in his car with a gun—aside from giving president Clinton extra hours to pretend not to know of Foster’s death, while his staff were secretly searching and “vacuuming” Foster’s White House office files with keys secretly stolen from (and secretly returned to) his “Deputy While House Counsel’s” dead and murdered body.

For this SS report agrees with the White House rumor—which must have been based on something—(which I just surmised or theorized). And so this SS report was perhaps fabricated for the “benefit” of all the White House employees who heard the rumor or actually saw this theorized morbid transfer happen in the White House parking lot. For the only difference between the White House rumor (revealed by Dickey before 6:00 PM; see above) and the SS report above was the place of Foster’s alleged suicide—his “apparently…self-inflicted gun-shot wound to the head.” And so these White House innocents must have wondered about that inexplicably change of scenery. And how much more must they have wondered about the U.S. gov’t’s official story of Foster’s “suicide” inside the Virginia park!—and hence no longer inside his car.

But why? Because there would have been no actual (forensic, scientific, biological) evidence of Foster’s “suicide” inside his car—and especially via a .38 caliber bullet in the mouth and hence out the back of his (blown out) skull. Do you see?

(And all of those who have read the above know of course that this never really happened.)

And so the official (White House, “Justice” dept./FBI) story “had to” place Foster “suicidal” body outside of his car, and his car outside of their White House parking lot.

The former lie because they couldn’t possibly prove an in-car “suicide,” and the latter lie because they wanted to get their White House victim as far away from his White House murderers as deceitfully possible.

Does that make murderous sense to you?

*  *  *

And then methinks Foster’s corpse and his car were driven—(again, probably separately, with Foster’s corpse wrapped up in a rug in the back of a van)—from the White House parking lot to the Fort Marcy parking lot.

And Foster’s body was secretly moved into the park first, and the strange gun planted afterwards. For the “confidential witness” saw the corpse without the gun at 5:45 PM. (See above.) And again, I have no logical explanation why the murderers didn’t move and plant both at the same time—unless the old, black, unregistered and untraceable handgun hadn’t yet been delivered to the scene from “Uncle” Satan-knows-where.

And there may well have been some forensic evidence of the shooting—at least some blood, if not also gun powder—on or inside the driver’s side of Foster’s car (a 1989 Honda, seen above), which was therefore most likely “cleaned” elsewhere by his U.S. gov’t assassins, before secretly driving Vince Foster’s car out of his personal White House parking spot, and off the White House grounds, past any and all White House checkpoints and SS officers, also across the Potomac river, to be found by innocent (or not-so-innocent) others in the Ft. Marcy parking lot. For it seems that “first death case” detective Rolla was clearly being led around by his U.S. park police superiors. (See above.)

*  *  *  *  *

This was obviously a murder (and a cover-up) committed by the U.S. gov’t.

And so who sat at the top or apex of the U.S. gov’t?

Was it not the Clinton co-presidents?

And again, “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster had only two (or rather three) bosses or superiors: the Clintons and their “While House Counsel” Nussbaum.

I mean who else could have successfully accomplished this murder but the Clintons?

Who else had motive? And I think the motive for the murder of “Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster was to prevent him from leaving the Clintons for good, and quitting their employ for all time to come. And the Clintons simply wouldn’t allow or permit that. And so they make sure Mr. Foster had no time to come.

And who else had power to control the U.S. “Justice” dept./FBI’s pseudo-investigation?—being the appointers of both leaders?

Let’s look at MOM: the murderous Motive, Opportunity and Means?

Who else (besides the Clintons) had the Motive to murder “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster?

As we saw above, Mr. Foster very much wanted out. He wanted nothing more to do with the Clintons.

Why? What did Foster know about the Clintons that he could no longer suffer, tolerate, abide or live with?

Did the Clintons fear Foster was becoming “unreliable”? Did they fear he might someday “sing” (tell or report) about what he knew?

And why, after he was dead, did the Clintons (via their underlings, and especially Nussbaum) secretly search and “cleanse” or “vacuum” Foster’s secret files in his White House office?—even going to the extremity of secretly stealing and secretly returning Foster’s keys—and doing both after he had been murdered!

If that’s not (White House) access or “opportunity,” then I don’t know what is.

Again, who else had the Opportunity to murder Mr. Foster?

Was he not murdered on the White House grounds?—wherein he was last seen alive?

Was Mr. Foster not murdered in his car in his White House parking space as he was preparing to drive off the WH grounds around 1 PM?

And who else had the Means to murder Mr. Foster, and to afterwards cover this murder up?

For it is absolutely certain that Foster was murdered, and that the U.S. gov’t afterwards covered this murder up, by making it appear that Foster murdered himself.

But for whom? For whom else but their imperial/presidential “commander-in-chief”?

The imperial Amerikan “commander-in-chief” has all his official underlings under his command—although Evil (as always) works on a “need-to-know basis.”

(For the more people who know about Evil, the more people who can therefore talk or “sing” about It.)

Hence the U.S. president’s underlings need only know whatever they need to know to unquestioningly execute or thoughtlessly obey their imperial master’s commands, and hence not why these commands are or were issued. For this is the heart, soul and essence of hierarchy, of the military, of bureaucracy, and hence of the bureaucratic or military hierarchy—and hence of the imperial Amerikan bureaucracy and the imperial secret police.

And the more evil the emperor or president is, the more evil are his imperial commands, and the more everything and everyone is on a “need-to-know basis.”

Evil or Darkness hides, lurks and strikes in the Dark. And Light and Truth (and hence Justice) is therefore Evil’s undoing—which It therefore hates and avoids as vampires avoid sun-light.

Again, who else but the Clintons had the motive to murder Vincent Foster the power to dictate and control the pseudo-investigation of the U.S. “Justice” dept./FBI?—being the appointers of both leaders?

And so I think the Clintons should therefore be renamed the Macbeths—except that they have no consciences, because they are psychopaths—and not merely for their Waco, their OK city and their FBI “Project Megiddo,” and also their genocide, mass-murder or “holocaust” of up to one million Iraqis, mostly children and women, via their imperious anti-Christ or “jewish”-Amerikan trade boycott, blockade, mass starvation and withdrawal of medical supplies from that Gentile nation.

*  *  *  *  *


[Together again in celluloid: Mrs. Hillary Clinton and Vincent Foster.

Run Vincent, run!]

*  *  *  *  *

And to think that heartless and soulless witch of a woman almost became our president, and hence her psychopathic, murderous and mass-murderous husband our second co-president! And to think that the latest “democratic” Amerikan president (Obama) wants to make this Clinton his imperial “secretary of state.”

May God and the Truth (and therefore Justice) save us all from such monsters as these.

*  *  *  *  *

The Zogby Poll

From “Zogby Poll: Nearly 70% of Americans Don’t Accept Foster ‘Suicide,’ by Christopher Ruddy,, February 23, 1998:

[Can you blame them?–Ed.]


In 1995 60 Minutes [a long-running “jewish”-American TV news-feature show–Ed.] cited a TIME/CNN poll which showed that 65% of Americans had not accepted the suicide ruling in Foster’s Death. 60 Minutes credited reporter Ruddy for having changed American public opinion on the subject.

[And three years later, in 1998, the following poll indicated that this dubious number had risen to 68%, with only 32% believing the U.S. gov’t and 46% “not sure.” But this 68% may be somewhat inflated and hence a bit misleading, as many (if not most) of this “unsure” 46% probably have little to no knowledge of the Foster case at all, or even know who he was.–Ed.]



Zogby Survey

948 Americans surveyed between February 15 through February 17, 1998.


Question #1

White House lawyer Vincent Foster was found dead in July 1993. Do you believe that Foster ...?

Was Murdered—22% Committed suicide—32% Not sure—46%


Question #2

Generally Speaking, do you agree or disagree a government cover-up took place involving the facts and circumstances of Vincent Foster’s death?

Agree—45% Disagree—23% Not sure—32%


Question #3

Do you trust or not trust Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation, which found that Foster committed suicide?

Trust—31% No Trust—34% Not sure—35%


…. the Zogby national survey of 948 adults across the US shows that the repeated suicide rulings have not swayed public opinion. The poll indicates that 22% of the public—more than one in five Americans—believes Foster was murdered. Only 32% hold the opinion of suicide, and 46% of the public still aren’t sure as to whether Foster killed himself or was murdered.

…. The Zogby poll found that by a margin of two-to-one Americans [45% to 23%–Ed.] believe a cover-up took place of Foster’s death.


*  *  *  *  *

Epilog: There’s no Good Future under such Murderous Govt’s and Secret Police as These

The entire “Washington” establishment collaborated in this cover-up of the U.S. gov’t’s murder of the Clintons’ “Deputy While House Counsel” Foster.

So what else does anyone need to know about “Washington” to reject and avoid it forever?

9/11/2001 perhaps? OK, then see  9-11 Truths & Realities Verses 9-11 Lies, Slanders & Appearances.

*  *  *  *  *

From Evans-Pritchard, p. 211-12:


Best known as President of the National Taxpayer’s Union he [James Dale Davidson–Ed.] is also an accomplished author. He co-edits the Strategic Investment Newsletter with William Rees-Mogg—or the Baron of Hintonblewitt to use his correct title—a member of the House of Lords and a former editor of The Times of London. Strategic Investment is tailored to those who want hard intelligence for investment purposes, long before it appears in the general press.

Davidson had the same tutor as Bill Clinton at Oxford, enjoyed Clinton’s “charm and geniality,” and contributed to his 1992 presidential campaign. “I knew he was a bounder [‘an obtrusively ill-bred man: one whose moral conduct is objectionable’–Ed.], of course, but my hope was that he’d turn out to be the Carlos Menem of North America and slash entitlement spending,” said Davidson. [6. Author interview with Jim Davidson, May 1997.]

But questions of economic management were soon overtaken by the much greater issue of the rule of law. For Davidson the Foster cover-up is a marker of the declining integrity of the American democratic system. [Quite aside from the very old and perpetual failure of Amerika’s parliamentary, congressional, “representative” or “legislative” system–Ed.] If the U.S. judicial system cannot summon the courage to deal with this case, if it behaves like the Mexican or the Indonesian or the Nigerian judiciaries, then there is no reason to pay a “rule of law” premium on U.S. stocks, bonds, and real assets.

[That’s very prescient, in light of these most recent “Wall Street” “crises,” frauds and scams (of 2008).–Ed.]

He recommends investing in countries at a positive stage of the moral and cultural cycle, like Chile, where judges, prosecutors, and police cannot be bought so easily. A Chilean policeman in the 1990s [when Evans-Pritchard’s book was written–Ed.], he asserts with contrarian mischief, is much more honest than a U.S. cabinet officer.

But at a deeper level Davidson is afraid that Foster’s death, which he calls an “extra-judicial execution,” is a sign of incipient fascism. He notes that the Clintons have mastered the art—described by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism“of turning all questions of fact into questions of motive.” [I.E. those who don’t believe the Clintons and want to find and know the Truth instead, are slandered by them and their “aides” as evil, malevolent, hateful, conspiratorial, “right-wing,” anti-Clinton, etc. (It is logically true that those who are pro-Truth are therefore anti-falsehood, anti-lies and anti-liars, and therefore anti-Clinton.)–Ed.] The Clintons do not try to rebut allegations. They use surrogates to muddy the waters and smear opponents, just as the National Socialists used to do. [(?) Apparently the writer has never heard of The Satanic Jewish Holocaust. For he is thus confusing the greatest all-time victims of slanders or “smears” with their perpetrators or victimizers. (“Jews” control the English mass-media too.)–Ed.] That they should be able to employ this practice to obscure the violent death of a top White House aide throws into doubt the durability of the republic.

“A government that winks at murder will wink at anything,” he says…. “What’s left after that? Cannibalism?”

[Evans-Pritchard, p. 211-12]


*  *  *  *  *

(“9-11”? This subsequent, ongoing and eternal “jewish”-Amerikan “global war on terror”?)

*  *  *  *  *


According to their FBI statements, several people observed a car that was consistent with Foster’s 1989 grey Honda. The trouble is, some of the official statements are at odds with the [FBI–Ed.] agents’ original handwritten notes.… The cumulative effect of such distortions is to alter the complexion of the case.

I do not wish to accuse every FBI agent involved in the Foster investigation of distorting evidence. Some of the witness statements are accurate. [But–Ed.] It appears at least one agent was systematically altering statements, sometimes with little tweaks here and there, sometimes with outright falsehoods, as in the cases of Patrick Knowlton and the Confidential Witness.

The result in this instance was to create enough confusion about Foster’s Honda to obscure the facts. But once you are alert to this legerdemain by the FBI, everything comes into focus. [Evans-Pritchard, p. 166-7]


*  *  *  *  *

OK, so most of the lying and falsifying is done not by the foot-soldiers of “jewish”-Amerika’s imperial secret police/FBI, but by their superiors, their “higher-ups,” their corrupt or rotten hierarchy or officer core.

But here’s the thing: When the foot-soldiers become aware of this, and yet do nothing except keep obeying their orders and collecting their pay, then they’re corrupt too.

I don’t know, but it is said that “the fish rots from the head.” But when the tail doesn’t do anything about or against it, then it becomes rotten too. Can you not see (and smell) that?

And this hierarchal truth becomes especially poignant and pungent in the Ruby Ridge murders.

When Evil is enthroned at the top of the hierarchy, all who remain, serve and obey are evil too. For they are enforcing Evil’s Will. So how good can that (and they) be?

*  *  *  *  *

Who then are these imperial secret police chiefs, who thus sit at the very summit of “jewish”-Amerikan corruption? Who are these people? Are they not “jews”? And who is this Louis Freeh?—Clinton’s hand-picked (and Congress confirmed) FBI “director”? And Bush II’s FBI “director” is yet another “jew” named Mueller.

*  *  *  *  *

But have things changed since president Clinton? Have things changed under Bush II? Are the secret police no longer politicized, corrupt, evil? Or has the evil Clintonian precedent been forever set: that the imperial Amerikan secret police do the secret (and evil?) bidding of their imperial Amerikan president, at whose imperious “pleasure” they serve?

(And if you’re not sure, see 9-11 Truths & Realities Verses 9-11 Lies, Slanders & Appearances.)

*  *  *  *  *

And by (police, gov’t and “public servant” or “representative”) “corruption,” I mean two things: 1.) Taking money or other rewards from civilians not to do one’s official duty, and 2.) taking orders from one’s “superiors” not to do one’s official duty.

1.) Taking secret payment from one’s fellow-citizens for not doing one’s sworn or official duty. This is sometimes a one-time bribe or payment—as e.g. bribing a “patrolman” not to give you a fine or “ticket.” And sometimes this bribe is permanent, and hence the payments are many and periodical—as when a corrupt or crooked cop is on a gangster’s secret payroll.

And how about when e.g. “public officials” are secretly promised high-paying corporate jobs after leaving their public offices in exchange for using their public offices to advance or profit that very corporation, business, industry or racket: e.g. Wall Street? Is that a one-time or a permanent bribe?

And 2.) not doing one’s sworn or official duty as a condition for getting or keeping one’s office or position in a corrupt gov’t, bureaucracy or hierarchy. I mean obeying one’s evil (illegal, unconstitutional, tyrannical, murderous, torturous) “superiors” and their (evil) commands as a condition of one’s employment, promotion or advancement (up the bureaucratic hierarchy). And so it is never the cream but always and only the dross who thus rise to the top of such evil groups and organizations—where goodness is not recognized, rewarded nor advanced, but only an unquestioning obedience and loyalty to Evil.

And that, I submit to you, is the black heart, soul and essence of “Washington” and the United States’ gov’t. And this has been so for several generations.

And here in the Foster assassination, we’re clearly seeing, experiencing and talking about this second variety of corruption—as in the OKC bombing, the FBI’s “Project Megiddo,” and those two U.S. gov’t World Trade Center bombings and domestic terrors (1993 & 2001).

As with all of the former, no one in the American hierarchy, at the time or since, ever once stood up and publicly stated the truth of this case of “Washington’s” assassination and cover-up of the murder of the Clintons’ “Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster.

And that silently speaks many volumes to me—as it should to anyone with ears to hear and a mind to think.

I speak of gov’t corruption, official corruption, bureaucratic corruption, hierarchical corruption—the corruption of “public officials” and/or “public servants” by their official, hierarchical or governmental “superiors.”

And with conscienceless or psychopathic mercenary soldiers like these, all Evil need do is appoint their bosses, commanders, “commander-in-chief” or “director”—FBI or otherwise—and Evil’s Will is thereby done on earth. Can you see that?

(And see the object lesson of Ruby Ridge.)

And therefore if Amerika and the world were God’s instead of “Uncle” Satan’s “jewish” kingdom (Matt. 21:33-46 & John 8:44), the Fred Whitehursts of the world would rise to the top, and the corrupt “jews” (Freeh, Mueller) and all their dutiful and obedient followers would fall to the very bottom. (Matt. 19:30 & :16: “But many (that are [now] first) shall be last, and the last shall be first.… So the last shall be first and the first last.”)

*  *  *  *  *

And so what happens when the police and the gov’t get so corrupt, so false, so treacherous, so terrible, so torturous and so murderous?

One of two things: Either you and yours similarly become their “secret” victims—as in the “Soviet Union,” and in this completely false, deceitful and murderous case of the Clintons’ “Deputy While House Counsel” Vincent Foster.

Or else you and yours rise to the challenge, arm, organize, prepare and drill yourselves—if you’re not already; fire these imperial “secret” police, and police yourselves instead.

It’s no accident that the “Super-Nazi, communist, “B’nai B’rith” “jews” (like the eternal and tyrannical NYC mayor Bloomberg) plot and crave to disarm the Gentile citizenry, to disband and outlaw their militias, and to thus render them all entirely defenseless before their most terrible and mass-murderous “jewish” racial tyranny—as in their “Soviet Union.”

The choice is yours, dear fellow Gentiles. So seriously consider using your local county’s sheriff’s office for that very purpose—i.e. to resist and survive such secret police tyranny—such federal,” imperial, superstate or Super-Nazi “jewish” tyranny over you and yours.

(And see my Political Problem and Solution for detailed instructions and suggestions.)

Freedom isn’t free. You must take it from your tyrannical enemies. And you give it to yourselves and to your children. And then they must give t to theirs.

And there is a race of Satanic demons whose racial power is your racial, national and Gentile enslavement, your unfreedom, your end and your lack of liberty. (John 8:44)

Again, the U.S. gov’t is an unbelievably corrupt, false, deceitful, murderous and globally mass-murderous organization. And hence they slanderously give old General (and President) “Washington” the very worst of names.

And so I must say, like an old town decrier, “Come out, come out of the evil empire.”

*  *  *  *  *