my interview on RFK case status

[Ron Ecker]

Ron:

You don't realize what a loser Ken Starr is for you.

Starr spent 4.2 million bringing in literally dozens of independent contractors to do investigations for him. And in his final budget, he failed to break down exactly what firms did what work for him.

So, unlike the WC, you cannot say he mostly relied on the FBI.

And BTW, one of the contractors he brought in is the guy who Gus Russo used on his phony PBS special on Oswald.

In other words, on that particular score, Starr equates to the "Oswald did it" forces.

Thanks. To conclude on Vince Foster, here's a link that seems to be an excellent overview of the case, in terms of all its pecularities and unanswered questions.

http://prorev.com/foster.htm

With respect to the FBI, I would think that it would prefer to serve the interests of the president (and his attorney general) as opposed to a Scaife crusading special prosecutor. (Also, there's an item in the link I wasn't previously aware of. It's the lady who told Starr that Foster was murdered by the FBI. If that's true - it appears that the lead wasn't followed - no wonder the FBI wanted to make no finding of murder. Anyway, that's an intersting item.)

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

33. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a respected British reporter, claims he has seen a photo of this wound. He says the wound was on "the right-hand side, about halfway along the jaw and about an inch below the jaw." He describes it as "a clearly visible wound about the size of a dime... It has the appearance of a small-calibre gunshot wound." He later said in a radio interview that the "wound on the neck is the origin and source of the blood that comes down the neck and trickles down the collar."

Ambrose Evans Pritchard, a respected British reporter?

Please.

[Ron Ecker]

Ron:

33. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a respected British reporter, claims he has seen a photo of this wound. He says the wound was on "the right-hand side, about halfway along the jaw and about an inch below the jaw." He describes it as "a clearly visible wound about the size of a dime... It has the appearance of a small-calibre gunshot wound." He later said in a radio interview that the "wound on the neck is the origin and source of the blood that comes down the neck and trickles down the collar."[/size]

Ambrose Evans Pritchard, a respected British reporter?

Please.

That's one down and, what is it, 100 to go. Edited March 24, 2016 by Ron Ecker

[James DiEugenio]

Nope:

Because of this

Also, shattering the famous "neck wound" scenario, promoted by the Foster conspiracy theorists, I wrote on page 401, endnote 47:

All four of the USPP officers present at the autopsy--Sergeant Robert Rule, Investigator Jim Morrissette, identication technician Shelly Hill, and then-ID trainee Wayne Johnson--told me during my separate interviews with them that there were

no

other wounds or trauma to Foster's body.

Specifically, there was no wound of any kind on Foster's neck, as others would later claim.

​When a writer quotes a shill like Pritchard and says he is respectable, its like doing the same for say Hugh Aynseworth or Gus Russo in the JFK case.

​And when he then quotes something that is manufactured by that writer and he has not cross checked himself? Why should I grant someone like that any credibility?

​The better question is: Why would you?

The Clintons vs Bushes equation simply does not balance out.

And neither does the JFK vs Foster equation.

Edited March 24, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, how did this go from RFK and McBride to this?

[Ron Ecker]

Nope:

Because of this

Also, shattering the famous "neck wound" scenario, promoted by the Foster conspiracy theorists, I wrote on page 401, endnote 47:[/size]

All four of the USPP officers present at the autopsy--Sergeant Robert Rule, Investigator Jim Morrissette, identication technician Shelly Hill, and then-ID trainee Wayne Johnson--told me during my separate interviews with them that there were no other wounds or trauma to Foster's body.

Specifically, there was no wound of any kind on Foster's neck, as others would later claim.

​When a writer quotes a shill like Pritchard and says he is respectable, its like doing the same for say Hugh Aynseworth or Gus Russo in the JFK case.

​And when he then quotes something that is manufactured by that writer and he has not cross checked himself? Why should I grant someone like that any credibility?

​The better question is: Why would you?

The Clinton vs Bush equation simply does not balance out.

And neither does the JFK vs Foster equation.

You are more informed on the case than I am. But I agree with the author of the link that if only 90 percent of what he has listed is true, something is rotten in Denmark. So far you have sought to discredit two items. But I don't think that's enough to kill the messenger, whoever he is. Let the items speak for themselves, and find them true or false.

[Tom Neal]

three Republican prosecutors could not make the case for homicide.

Which proves what? Two official investigations could not make the case for conspiracy in the murder of JFK.

Government "investigations" prove nothing.

Two government investigations BOTH *SUCCEEDED* in convicting LHO. But ALL three Republican Prosecutors who did ABSOLUTELY *EVERYTHING* POSSIBLE including spending millions to convict a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT *FAILED* to convict Clinton.

Although both investigations desperately wanted convictions, LHO'S prosecutors SUCCEEDED, but Clinton's prosecutors FAILED.

Despite the fact that LHO was INNOCENT, the gov't convicted him as a SOLE ASSASSIN when in your own words there actually was a conspiracy.

However, in your mind, the fact that the gov't could convict an innocent Oswald is proof positive that they could NOT convict a guilty Clinton, because "government investigations prove nothing..." And of course in your mind this is proof that Dreyfus, I mean Clinton is guilty.

The logic of the above is ACTUALLY that since they CAN convict an innocent LHO, they SHOULD have been able to convict even an innocent Clinton -- but they couldn't!

What your standard "False Equivalence" statement has ACTUALLY proven is that Clinton was not just innocent, he was VERY innocent.

I'm sure that Bill, Hillary, Chelsea and Socks aka "The Clinton Crime Family" appreciate your support.

[Tom Neal]

BTW, how did this go from RFK and McBride to this?

Jim,

It went OT due to a self-serving "False Equivalence" statement in post #4:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22740&page=1#entry327444

Tom

Edited March 24, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Ron Ecker]

BTW, how did this go from RFK and McBride to this?

Jim,

It went OT due to a self-serving "False Equivalence" statement in post #4:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22740&page=1#entry327444

Tom

IOW the thread was hijacked when Tom Neal pounced on a comment I made. I'm sure that this sort of thing will continue, at least until this Godawful election is over.

[Tom Neal]

BTW, how did this go from RFK and McBride to this?

Jim,

It went OT due to a self-serving "False Equivalence" statement in post #4:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22740&page=1#entry327444

Tom

IOW the thread was hijacked when Tom Neal pounced on a comment I made. I'm sure that this sort of thing will continue, at least until this Godawful election is over.

The first sentence in this reply is correct. I DID pounce on Mr. Eckers "False Equivalent" and self-serving comment that had nothing to do with the thread.

The second sentence that refers to the election as causing the OT, is (SURPRISE!) one more "False Equivalence." for me to "pounce" on...

[Ron Ecker]

I might add that since Mr. McBride seems to have started a hit-and-run thread (posting and then not answering questions), there isn't much harm done in the thread being hijacked.

[Tom Neal]

I might add that since Mr. McBride seems to have started a hit-and-run thread (posting and then not answering questions), there isn't much harm done in the thread being hijacked.

On that we agree.

[Paul Brancato]

And I started a new thread rather than complain about the direction this one took.

[Ron Ecker]

Paul, you're a thread killer. (Unless Jim has more items to refute on Vince Foster.)

[Michael Walton]

For what it's worth Mr. McBride did reply to the other thread recently. I guess what we have to remember here is even passionate people posting here get busy with other things (like life).

To get this back on track, I'm posting my question to McBride that I posted earlier in hopes he answers it:

-------------------

Joseph,

Thank you for posting [your interview]. I agree with everything you said in your interview, especially the "Cesar as shooter" evidence. And I'm glad that Noguchi did a thorough job on the autopsy, revealing the burn rings on RFK's head. It's too bad Noguchi wasn't there that night in Bethesda five years before.

One thing I've always wondered about - when did Cesar approach RFK to guide him by the arm into the kitchen? Here's a photo of RFK minutes before the shooting and no Cesar:

https://drive.google...RnlibklBcFRXdHc

Here's RFK on the podium and no Cesar:

https://drive.google...NllKcmxXWEw4U1U

I think it would be fascinating to know just when Cesar approached RFK and how long he was with him before the shooting started.

Thanks, too, for posting your story into the body of this forum. This will definitely prevent losing it if the story on the website is ever lost or broken.

Thanks,

Michael Walton