
              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 1  Num. 99
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------

IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON VINCE FOSTER SUICIDE

Congressional Record (Vol. 140, No. 104)

House of Representatives, Tuesday, August 2, 1994

<Transcribed from the RECORD by Christopher Dunn, cxdunn@delphi.com>

Part 1 of 2

The SPEAKER pro tempore:
        Under the Speaker's announced policy of February 11, 1994, 
and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the minority leader's designee.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
        Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks there has been a lot 
of questions about the death of Vince Foster and the connection of his 
death to the Whitewater investigation, and I have had nine people on 
my staff at the Republican Study Committee and my personal staff and 
some outside sources investigating this, because the Committee on 
Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs here in the House that is doing 
the Whitewater investigation on a party line vote has limited the 
scope of the investigation to such a degree that one Member said that 
if the same principles had been applied to the O.J. Simpson case, the 
one thing you could ask O.J. Simpson is "How was your trip to Chicago?"  
You couldn't ask any other questions.  That is how limited the 
investigation is.  There is a deliberate attempt to minimize the 
investigation and, I think, to cover up a lot of the facts.
        On the Senate side we have a similar problem.  It is not 
quite as bad over there, but nevertheless a lot of the information 
that must come out regarding Vince Foster's death and his connection 
to the Whitewater matter needs to be explored.
                <19:20> (The Record indicates time of day.)
        So tonight, even though I have been castigated by a lot of 
the people in the media, even though some Members of the Senate 
committee and the House Banking Committee have indicated that we 
have made some comments that are not very understanding as far as 
Mr. Foster's family is concerned, I feel compelled to go through 
this tonight one more with one addition.  Because we have been taken 
to task because of things I have said on the floor, I went out and 
found the confidential witness, the man that found Vince Foster's 
body, and I got a sworn statement.  He swore before God that the 
things that I am going to read to you tonight are factual.  
        So I am going to go into the entire litany, the entire 
chronology of Vince Foster's death and the connection to Whitewater.  
Then I will read to you excerpts -- very important excerpts.  I would 
read the whole thing to you, but we would be here all night because 
it is a 50-page sworn statement.  But I will read to you excerpts 
that verify everything I have been saying before this body.
        On July 20, 1993, Vince Foster left his White House office 
at 1 p.m.  He was later found dead by a confidential witness at Fort 
Marcy Park.  The confidential witness is the person that gave this 
sworn testimony to me.  Nobody knows who he is except two FBI agents, 
G. Gordon Liddy, and myself.
        Emergency medical service personnel discovered the body 
shortly after they arrived at the park at 6:09 p.m.  The confidential 
witness was interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy on March 27.  He was 
interviewed by me on July 21, and in between he was interviewed by 
the FBI agents who Mr. Liddy urged him to talk to.
        The confidential witness told Mr. Liddy and me that he 
approached to within two and one-half to three feet of Vince Foster's 
head and he leaned over and looked directly down into Mr. Foster's  
eyes.  He stated very specifically that the head was looking straight 
up and that the hands were at his side, palms up with no gun in either 
hand.
        The Fiske report quotes the confidential witness as saying that 
he may have been mistaken and that there may have been a gun in Foster's 
hands, that he did not see because of the dense foliage and the position 
of the hand.  
        The confidential witness told me that the FBI agents pressed him 
on the issue of the gun, asking him as many as 20 to 25 times if he was 
sure there was no gun.  And according to the confidential witness, the 
FBI said, "what if the trigger guard was around the thumb and the thumb 
was obscured by foliage and the rest of the gun was obscured by the 
foliage and the hand?"  In other words, the trigger guard would be 
around the thumb, the gun would be underneath the thumb, and a leaf 
would be over that and you would not see it.  
        The confidential witness, after being asked about 20 to 25 
times, said, "If what you describe were the case, then I suppose it 
could be possible because I did not count his fingers, but I am sure 
that the palms were definitely opened and facing up."
        At this point the confidential witness still had not seen a 
copy of the photograph of Foster's hand that was shown on ABC news.  
The photo showed the right hand palm down with the thumb trapped in 
the trigger guard.  He had not seen that.  When I went to see this 
gentleman, I showed him the photo.  He was sitting at his kitchen 
table, and he stood up and walked around the table twice, saying, 
"This is not the way it was; that is not the way it was!  Those hands, 
that hand was moved!"
        Why did he get so angry when he saw the photo?  He told me not 
only that the hand had been moved, but that some of the things 
he told the FBI were not mentioned in the report.  For 
instance, the vegetation at the bottom of the body had been 
trampled like somebody had been walking around there.  Why was 
no mention of the trampled vegetation in the Fiske report?
        The confidential witness also reported that he saw a wine 
cooler bottle near Mr. Foster's body.  Such a bottle was not noted in 
the Fiske report.  We are going to talk about these wine cooler bottles 
a little later.  There was, in the Fiske report, a blood stain on 
the right side of Mr. Foster's face.  Mr. Fiske's report noted that 
the blood stain on Foster's right cheek and his right shoulder were 
inconsistent with the head being upright.  In other words, if the 
head was sitting up, how  did the blood get on the cheek and the 
right shoulder?  So somebody had to move the head.
        But the problem is, before the police or anybody got there, 
the head was already straight up.  So who moved the head?  The report 
describes the stain on his cheek as a contact stain, typical of having 
been caused by a blotting action such as would happen with a blood-
soaked object brought in contact with the side of the face and taken 
away.
        So at sometime his face had to be in contact with his shoulder, 
according to the report.  Mr. Fiske's report assumes that one of the 
early emergency personnel that came to the park move the head.  But 
the confidential witness said the head was already moved.  And he was 
the first person to see the body before anybody got there.
        In addition, Mr. Fiske, after interviewing all the people at 
the scene, fails to identify anybody that admits to touching the body 
and moving the head.  So he assumes it was moved by somebody after the 
body was found, but he does not know who it was.  Yet the confidential 
witness that found the body said it was already straight up.  Why did 
Mr. Fiske assume that one of the persons who arrived after the 
confidential witness moved his head, when the confidential witness was 
the first person to find Foster's body?  He said the head was facing 
straight up at the time.
        Now, the FBI did not find the bullet or skull fragments at 
the park.  On July 20, 1993, the park police conducted a search for 
the bullet that killed Foster using only one metal detector.  And they 
found nothing at all after a lengthy search.  Why did they only use one 
metal detector?  This is one of the highest-ranking people in the 
Clinton White House.  They had one metal detector running around 
through the woods there, and this did not find anything.  Then, nine 
months later, on April 4, 1994, sixteen FBI agents and experts searched 
Fort Marcy for the bullet and they found twelve -- not one, not two, 
but twelve -- modern-day bullets.  But they did not find the one that 
killed Vince Foster.
        The FBI searched immediately beneath where Foster's body was 
found by digging and hand-sifting the soil and other debris.  They 
excavated down a foot and a half.  They found no bullet and no bone 
fragments.  In the search for the bullet, the FBI personnel marked out 
a grid of the most likely area for the bullet to be found after passing 
through Foster's skull.  The area was searched using a metal detector.  
Once again, twelve modern-day bullets were found, but the FBI lab 
determined that none were the one that shot Vince Foster or came out 
of his gun.
        Now, I contacted a ballistics expert in California who stated 
that after passing through a man's skull, a .38 caliber bullet should 
travel no more than 1,200 to 1,600 feet -- or about 300 to 500 yards.  
The FBI should have been able to find that bullet with all the people 
that were out there and all the expertise they had, if the bullet was 
in the park.  So why was it not found?
        Get this.  Once again, this is very important.  There were no 
fingerprints on the gun, and there were no fingerprints on 27 separate 
pieces of the suicide note.  Can you imagine a suicide note torn into 
27 pieces without a fingerprint on it?  You would have to wear surgical 
gloves.  Here is how he explained that.  The FBI found no fingerprints 
on the .38 caliber Colt revolver.  The Fiske report states, "the 
latent fingerprints can be destroyed due to exposure to heat."
        So if it was a real hot day, they are saying, the fingerprints 
could have melted off the gun.  Yet they do not explain why, 
when they took the trigger guard off the gun, there was a 
fingerprint on it that had been on there probably for years.  But the 
fingerprints that Vince Foster allegedly put on the gun were melted 
off.  I went out to the site and walked all over that area.  There is 
no sun that hits the place where they found his body.  The sun could 
not have done that.  Even on a hot day, it is very doubtful, according 
to forensic experts I talked to, that there would be no sign of any 
fingerprints on the gun, but it was completely smooth, no 
fingerprints on the gun, except a little bit on the trigger guard 
where they found his thumb.  I do not know how you could hold a gun 
with on or both hands and not leave one fingerprint.
        In addition, the note that was found in Foster's briefcase 
was torn, as I said, in 27 pieces and had no prints.  It was not 
exposed to the heat.  So why were no fingerprints found on either 
the gun or the note?  Makes no sense.  
        There was no dirt on his shoes.  There was a little bit of 
mica, but there was no dirt on his shoes.  When Mr. Foster's clothing 
was examined by the FBI lab, "it did not contain any coherent soil."
                <19:30>
        They did find small parcels of mica, which is off of leaves, 
on much of Foster's clothing, including his shoes, which is consistent 
with the soil in Fort Marcy Park.
        The Fiske report states that it was dry on the day Foster died 
and that foliage leading up to and around Foster's body was dense.  
It concludes that "it was unlikely that there was a great deal of 
exposed moist soil in the park that would have soiled Foster's shoes."
        Foster would have had to walk a long way from his car to the 
second cannon.  I walked all the way from the parking lot up to that 
second cannon, and it was a dry day and I had dust all over my shoes.  
It is about 300 yards.  
        For them to say there was no dirt on his shoes does not make 
any sense, unless possibly he had been moved to that position.  Even 
on a dry day his shoes would have been stained by either grass or dirt 
or at least dust.  Why was no dirt or dust or grass found on his shoes?  
        Now, there was blond to light brown hair that did not match Mr. 
Foster's hair found on his tee shirt, pants, belt, socks, and shoes.  
In response to a question from Robert Novak, Mr. Fiske said, "While we 
have not concluded where the blond hair came from, there is not evidence 
to suggest that it provides any evidence of circumstances connected to 
his death."  How does he come to that kind of a conclusion?  
        Carpet fibers of various colors were found on his jacket, tie, 
shirt, shorts, pants, belt, socks, and shoes.  Did they check his 
office to see if the carpet fibers were off of his office carpet?  
Did they check his home to see if the carpet fibers were out of his 
home, and if they were not from either one of those places, where did 
those carpet fibers come from?
        It is not mentioned in the report.  You just forget about that.  
Yet everybody, the media and everybody, is accepting this report at face 
value, even though the confidential witness that found the body said the 
hands were moved and so was the head.
        Why didn't Mr. Fiske attempt to find out who the blond hair 
belonged to?  Why didn't Mr. Fiske attempt to determine where the carpet 
fibers and wool fibers found on Foster's body came from?  Why would Mr. 
Fiske assume that this evidence was not relevant without investigating 
it first?
        Then 70 pages of the report are devoted to the credentials of 
the four forensic experts that wrote the report on Mr. Foster's  death.  
They had four experts that wrote a report saying it was a suicide at 
Fort Marcy Park, but they based their conclusions, probably 90 percent 
of them, on the coroner's report.
        Now if the coroner made a mistake and he screwed up the report, 
then their report has to be questioned as well.  Let us check on the 
coroner.  He testified two days ago before the Senate.
        Fiske goes to great length to highlight the credentials of thee 
four pathologists, as I just mentioned.  Their resumes take up 70 pages 
of the report.  Yet none of these people ever saw Foster's body, because 
he had been dead and buried for 9 months before they wrote the report.  
Their findings were wholly reliant on Dr. James Beyer, northern 
Virginia's deputy medical examiner.
        He said that Vince Foster's death was consistent with a self-
inflicted would, but according to the Washington Times, Dr. Beyer, to 
coroner, overlooked critical evidence in the 1989 Timothy Easley 
stabbing and supported a police finding that the death was a suicide.  
The death was later changed to murder -- homicide -- after an outside 
expert, Dr. Harry Bonnell, noted that Dr. Beyer's original report 
contained glaring errors, including a missing stab wound in the 
victim's hand where he was defending himself and getting the color 
of his hair wrong.
        The coroner did not even get the color of his hair right.  
This is the guy on which they are basing the entire forensic report 
of Vince Foster.  The autopsy report said Tim Easley's hair was gray 
when his hair was dark brown.
        Regarding the stab wound in his hand, Dr. Bonnell said, "I 
cannot understand how any competent forensic pathologist would miss a 
stab wound in the hand."  Dr. Beyer later said, "The cut on Easley's 
right hand was consistent with a needle mark," though he noted no such 
mark on his report.  Forensic pathologists are supposed to make note of 
everything in their reports.
        Dr. Bonnell also said that it was doubtful that the Easley 
stab wound to the chest could have been self-inflicted.  He said it 
could not have been self-inflicted, and yet the coroner said it was.
        Eventually, it was found out that Easley's girlfriend, Candy 
Wharton, was the killer, and she admitted stabbing Easley to death.  
So he missed it.
        He made a terrible mistake, and he  missed very important 
things that any forensic expert would have found, according to Dr. 
Bonnell -- any competent expert.
        Then in December 1991, in another autopsy, Dr. Beyer ruled 
the death of Thomas Burkett, Jr., as "consistent with a self-inflicted 
wound," and this was a gunshot to the mouth, much like Vince Foster's.  
According to the New York Post, a second autopsy conducted by a Dr. 
Erik Mitchell detailed serious omissions in the Beyer autopsy.
        This second autopsy came after the family had the body exhumed.  
They dug him up.  It noted trauma and discoloration to this gentleman's 
right ear, which could indicate he was beaten to death before the shot 
was fired into his mouth.  His ear had been all smashed up, and at the 
funeral they noticed it and they thought he had been shot in the ear.  
But he had not been.  He had been shot in the mouth.
        Burkett's family noted that the ear was so disfigured and 
bloody, they thought he had been shot there.  Dr. Beyer never even 
mentioned the trauma to the man's ear in the report.
        Dr. Beyer also failed to identify a fractured lower jaw.  His 
jaw was broken.  He did not mention that in the report, which could 
also indicate a beating.
        The second autopsy also noted that Burkett's lungs had not been 
dissected, although the report said they had been.  He said he did a 
complete autopsy, cut open the man's chest, checked his lungs.  When 
they exhumed the body and did the second autopsy, they found he lied.  
He did not even do that.  This is the man on whom they based their 
findings in the Vince Foster case.
        The second autopsy in this case also found no trace of gunpowder 
in the mouth, and Dr. Beyer said he inadvertently left the section 
for powder burns off the gunshot wound chart.
        So why did Mr. Fiske's pathologists base so much, if not all, 
of their report on the conclusions of a medical examiner who has been 
challenged in this past for flawed and erroneous autopsies?  Why did Mr. 
Fiske's pathologists base so much of their report on the autopsy of a 
medical examiner who has a history of omitting important evidence from 
his autopsy reports?
        The Fiske report states that Dr. Beyer was unable to take x-
rays of Mr. Foster's head because his x-ray machine was broken.  
However, the Park Police report, which was submitted last summer, 
quotes Dr. Beyer as stating that the x-rays of Mr. Foster's head 
indicated that there was no evidence of bullet fragments in his skull.
        Determining if there are bullet fragments in the skull is very 
important to determining how far the bullet would have traveled.  Did 
Dr. Beyer take x-rays of Vince Foster's head or didn't he?  At the 
Senate the other day, he said he did not, so why did he tell the Park 
Police he did?  I don't know.
        Mr. Speaker, the security guards, directly, about 100 yards 
away from the place they found Vince Foster's body, across Chain Bridge 
Road -- there is the Saudi Arabian Ambassador's residence.  There are 
five trained security guards there all the time.  There are three that 
roam around, one in a van and one in a little security guardhouse there.
        Their people were there all the time.  They even checked that 
park across the street occasionally, because they were concerned about 
somebody trying to get to the Saudi Arabian Ambassador, and they said 
that day they heard no gunshot.  The Fiske report says that as a result 
of traffic out there and construction traffic, and because with a gun 
in the mouth in that position there would not have been a lot of noise.
        We, at my house, with a homicide detective, tried to re-create 
a head and fired a .38 cal  barrel into that, to see if the sound could 
be heard from 100 yards away.  Even though there was an earth mover 
moving around in the background, making all kinds of racket, you could 
hear the bullet clearly.
        Now, this is the information that I have used in the past.  I 
went out to see the confidential witness, and when I showed him the 
picture, he was upset.  He told me that rather than me writing down a 
statement for him to sign, he wanted to give me a statement in his own 
words.  I let him dictate a statement to me in his own words and he 
signed it.
        I came back to this body and I gave my colleagues that signed 
statement.  I did not give his name, because I promised I would keep 
his confidence.  However, I read into the record what he said, and I 
sent it out to many people in the media.
        Mr. Speaker, some people said, "We don't know if Burton is 
credible or not, we do not know if he is making this up," so 
they started questioning whether or not I was just once again beating 
a dead horse.
        What did I do?  I called the confidential witness there to get 
his sworn statement.
        So last Thursday night on July 28, I took two other Congressmen, 
Congressman DANA ROHRABACHER of California and Congressman JOHN MICA 
of Florida, with me, and we took a court reporter from the Block Court 
Reporting Services and we recorded 49 pages of statements from the 
confidential witness.
        So tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the RECORD 
excerpts from that which will verify everything that I have said.  
This man was sworn and he took an oath before God that what he is 
saying is absolutely correct.
        So we started off.  I said, "Why don't we start off by reading 
into the record what you said?"  Here is the confidential witness 
reading into the record:
        "Involving the statement about the gun in Vince Foster's hand, 
I made it very clear that the palms of his hands were facing up and at 
his sides.  The agents investigating stated that the gun was  hooked 
on his thumb and partially obscured by the back of his hand.  Based on 
their explanation of how the gun was being held, I conceded that all 
that was visible -- that if all that was visible was the trigger guard 
on his thumb, and the dense foliage, that I could have missed seeing it.  
I again stated that I saw both of the man's palms, but did not count 
his fingers.
        "After having seen the photo of the hand and the gun, I am 
sure the hand had been moved, because the palms were both face up 
when I saw Mr. Foster's body."
                <19:40>
        Then I started questioning him as well as did Congressman 
ROHRABACHER and Congressman MICA.
        "Would you tell us how close you were to the body and how 
close you got to his face, his hand and everything else?"
        The confidential witness said, "I stood directly over the top 
of his head at the head of the berm.  My right foot, I'm sure that it 
was my right foot, was somewhere between 24 and 30 inches from the top 
of his head.  No closer.  At that point, leaning over with my left foot 
extended behind me, I looked directly down into his eyes from about 3 
feet to 4 feet maximum above his face, my face from his."
        I said, "You were directly above him?"
        He said, "Directly above him, looking straight down the 
body.  The man's head was facing straight up.  If it was tilted, it 
was tilted very slightly because I looked into both eyes.  I was 
questioned numerous times by the agents about are you sure the head 
wasn't tilted, and I kept telling, no, I looked straight down into 
both eyes.  Do you want me to go on and explain what I saw?"
        I said, "Yeah.  Go ahead and explain what you saw."
        He said, "I saw blood traces on his nose and around his lips.  
        There was not streams of blood on the side of his face.  There 
was not trickles of blood as indicated in the Foster report.  I was 
looking straight down into the man's face and saw the blood."  On his 
mouth and nose.
        Congressman Mica said, "Was there a gun in the hands?"
        The confidential witness says, "There was no gun in his hand.  
His -- both palms were face up, thumbs out to the side."
        Congressman MICA: "You did not see a gun?"
        He said, "I did not see a gun next to the body."
        Congressman MICA, "Did you touch the body or did you shake him?"
        The confidential witness said, "Oh, God, no.  I wouldn't touch 
him for no amount.  I mean, no way would I disturb evidence, period."
        Then I said, "I want you to look at this picture because you say 
you saw no gun in the hands."
        And I showed him once again the hand that was on ABC News, the 
picture.
        He said, "I also, when I saw nothing in his hands, I leaned to 
both sides of his head and to the back of his head to see if he had been 
hit in the head and saw nothing visible."
        Congressman MICA said, "Did you look at his hands again?"
        He says, "I did  not look at his hands again because I clearly 
saw his hands were empty and he had no signs that he had, was defending 
himself or something."
        Then I said, "Now, you said -- what did you see beside the body?"
        He said, "There was a wine cooler bottle laying I would say 24 
to 30 inches to the right, between his shoulder and his elbow, laying 
on the berm but on the down side of the hill being held up by some twigs 
because it's a very steep grade."
        Then I said, "Was it sitting straight up or just laying on its 
side?"
        He says, "Laying sideways still probably one quarter of its 
contents in the bottle."
        Then Congressman MICA said, "Did you see -- you said the palms 
were out?"
        And the confidential witness said once again, "The palms were 
face up."
        I said, "Both?  Both palms?"
        He said, "Right beside him neatly.  Just like that."
        And he showed us, just like that.
        He said, "So that they were not in this position?"  Congress 
MICA rolled his hands over.
        He said, "It was not in that position as all."
        Then I said, "Tell me about the picture.  You -- the FBI -- 
you asked the FBI what, about the picture, and the head?"
        The confidential witness said, "Numerous times."
        I said, "What did you ask them about the head and --"
        He said, "If you will show me the picture."
        This is what he said to the FBI agents.
        He said, "If you will show me the picture of the head and the 
picture of his hands that you said there was no gun in -- that I said 
there was no gun in and you said there was, then I could tell you point 
blank if somebody tampered with it, with Mr. Foster's body."
        Then I said, "What did they say when you asked them to see the 
pictures?"
        And this is what he said the FBI people said.  "Well, it will 
jeopardize our investigation.  I cannot show it to you at this time.  
We will be more than glad to show it to you when all this investigation 
is over and that was the common answer I got from the FBI every time."
        Then I said, "Over how long a period of time -- how many times 
did they say that to you?"
        He said, "4, 5 times I directly inquired, let me see the 
picture."
        They never let him see the picture of the hands.
        Congressman MICA said, "You have never seen this picture 
before?"
        The confidential witness said, "I had never seen that picture 
until the Congressman" -- that is me -- "handed it to me.  Mr. Liddy 
had told me that that picture had been published somewhere but I had 
never seen it or I would have probably been -- I know I would have been 
screaming."
        Then I said, "So you were no more than 2 feet, 3 feet above his 
head?"
        He said, "I would say 2 to 3 feet.  I had said 24 to 30 inches, 
my face was from his face."
        The he went on to say that he thought he had been there for a 
while because his clothes were very tight.  There was a stain, just 
about like that, he showed me, on his shoulder.
        Congressman ROHRABACHER said, "What color?"
        He said, "On his right shoulder.  It was a -- the stain on his 
shoulder was --"
        "Was it red?  Or was it blood?" said Congressman ROHRABACHER.
        The confidential witness said, "No, it was very light purple, 
almost identical color of the wine cooler."
        I said, "So you don't think it was blood?"
        He said, "I do not think it was blood.  In the very center of -- 
it looked like he had thrown up on his right shoulder.  In the very 
center there was one small speck area, probably no larger than a silver 
dollar that was black, that could have been blood in the very center of 
it."
        The reason I'm skipping through is there is a lot of repetition 
here because we kept asking the questions over to make sure that we had 
it correct.
        Congressman ROHRABACHER said, "Hold on.  Let's make this point 
very clear.  The FBI, when they were talking to you and when they kept 
going on, this question referred to the palm being up and the gun being 
underneath the palm?"
        The confidential witness says, "He, the FBI agent, demonstrated 
with his hand like this with his palm up."
        And he showed the palm to us like this and said that the 
trigger guard was on the thumb and the gun could have been obscured 
underneath the hand and that leaves might have been covering the thumb 
so he would not have seen the trigger guard.
        Congressman ROHRABACHER said, "So the question -- when they 
claim that you had in some way conceded that, well, maybe perhaps you 
didn't see it, if indeed it was below the palm, that was based on a 
description by the FBI that the palm was up and that the gun was 
underneath the back of the hand?"
        Then I said, "But it's not possible.  Look at this."
        Because I had a gun and I put it on my thumb to show.
        Congressman ROHRABACHER said, "No.  But that's not what this 
picture shows."
        The confidential witness said, "Exactly."
        Then I said, "But if the thumb is in there, look at this, you 
can't --"
        The Mr. ROHRABACHER said, "The more important part is that the 
FBI was describing something to him that was not --"
        The confidential witness said, "Exactly right."
        Then I asked him, "But in the report they say you believed that 
the palms were up, but you say there was no doubt?"
        He said, "I never said I believe it.  I know it."  That the 
palms were up.
        Congressman ROHRABACHER said, "Okay."
        Then the confidential witness says, "And he said the 
confidential witness believes it, and that's as straight as they 
can be."
        Mr. MICA. "But you never indicated --"
        He said, "Otherwise, those palms were up always."
        Congressman MICA. "And both palms?"
        Confidential witness. "Both palms, neatly at his side and 
they were just like that."
        Congressman MICA. "With nothing in them?"
        He said, "Nothing in the hands."
        Congressman ROHRABACHER. "And when you made the concession to 
the FBI after repeating that you didn't believe there was a gun in the 
hand, over and over again, when you finally made the concession it was 
based on a description by the FBI that the gun was found with -- the man 
was found with has palms up  and that gun was underneath the palm?"
        He said, "That was all that would have been visible, was the 
trigger guard, would I have missed seeing a gun, with the dense 
foliage?  If that being the case, it's possible I could have missed it."
        In other words, if it was only the trigger guard and if the 
gun was obscured under the hand.  But when we put the gun in the hand 
in the position it was in in the picture and we rolled the hand over, 
the butt of the gun was up or the gun was lying across the palm of the 
hand.  You could not have missed it.  It would have been impossible.  
And I do not know why Fiske did not check that out.  A blind man could 
see it.  Yet everybody is accepting this report at face value, saying 
it is a great report, and forensic experts are perfect, everything else 
is perfect and it is so full of holes you could not put water in it.  It 
is terrible.  It makes me sick.

[End part 1 of 2]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
     I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail 
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" 
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the 
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et 
  pauperem.                    -- Liber Proverbiorum  XXXI: 8-9 

