Who paid Judicial Watch to drop the case?
Fine Bayourod. Since you want to involve yourself in this thread, let's have at it. Let's start with a little history. You and I have exchanged posts about the Brown case on several occasions. I first listed upwards of 50 incriminating items (facts) that strongly suggest Brown was murdered to keep him from testifying about Chinagate and challenged others to debate them. You like almost everyone would NOT.
The fact is that you simply would not discuss specifics. Instead, you employed democRAT debating techniques: adhominim attacks, demeaning the intelligence of the messenger, implying the sources (like Ruddy) are unreliable without specifically saying why and trying to link interest in Brown to other, less credible, conspiracy theories. The closest you came to actually discussing specific evidence was when I challenged you to answer a small number of questions having to do with the Brown case. One of those question was the following:
"1) Name one pathologist ... just ONE ... (other than the head of the AFIP, Colonel Dickerson, because he is directly implicated in the coverup) who has publically stated that the wound in the top of Brown's head is not suspicious. What's the problem? Can't come up with even one name? Well, I can name half a dozen of the top pathologists in the nation who publically state that the x-ray and photographic evidence suggests a bullet wound. That list now includes ALL of the pathologists who actually viewed the body at Dover (Colonel Hause and Colonel Gormley) as well as some of the most experienced pathologists (when it comes to bullet wounds) in the Air Force (Colonel Cogswell, Major Parsons). Dr. Martin Fackler (former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory) and Dr. Cyril Wecht (one of the top civilian forensic pathologists) are also adament that what they see in the x-rays and photos looks like a bullet wound."
Now your response to this question (and everyone note that you only responded to this question although the others were just as significant) was to say
"you could go a long way in convincing me if instead of listing six pathologists you would simply post or link to just one actual copy of a report by one of these pathologist saying that he has examined the body and in his best medical opinion Ron Brown died from a gunshot wound to the head."
I responded as follows:
**********
I have posted my sources for the summary I made of the Brown case several times. Most of the material, especially that having to do with the events at AFIP, came from a number of articles by Christopher Ruddy. As far as I know, the official report by the AFIP is not available. Everything having to do with the Brown case is under lock and key at AFIP. According to Klayman, who is representing at least one of the pathologists, the AFIP went so far as to search the residences of several pathologists and seize anything having to do with the Brown case. Fortunately, it was already too late to keep the first set of photos and x-rays from the public. Fortunately, the government has not been able to silence the pathologists either.
The "official" report must state that death was due to blunt force injuries since that is what Colonel Gormley, the examining officer, apparently said was the cause of death during an interview on Black Entertainment Television and what Dickerson, the head of AFIP, told a very liberal newspaper in an article. Does the fact that Gormley was the "official" examining officer make him more believable than the others? Remember, Gormley was caught on BET during that same interview lying about the evidence and (per Klayman) now says that a bullet could have caused the wound and an autopsy should have been performed. The head of AFIP lied when he claimed ALL the pathologists at AFIP agree with the "official" conclusion. Quotes from three who do not agree are contained in the Ruddy articles.
So what is the real problem? Do you question the quotes that Ruddy says those individuals made? For example, Hause, who went over to look at the wound, is quoted as remembering that he said "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." Do you not believe this? If so, then do you have evidence that Ruddy has made up quotes in other articles? What is the basis on which you discount Ruddy's articles? One detractor on this forum attacked Ruddy by suggesting that some of the people named by him and Klayman might not exist. Are you that desperate or will you agree that the people exist ... and that Ruddy probably has quoted them accurately? I suppose perhaps Klayman's depositions of the parties contain statements by the pathologists. Do you know a way to get a hold of those? Klayman said during a radio interview that I actually heard that he's talked to the individuals and that they say what Ruddy said they said.
What I do know is that if you question the veracity of Ruddy's quotes, then you must explain why Ruddy's facts are totally cooberated by what Janoski has said during several radio interviews which had nothing to do with Ruddy or Klayman? Or are you suggesting it is a far larger "conspiracy"? To get who? The bottom line is that you are being unreasonable in what you demand before taking this case seriously. The sources for the material in my summary have been posted numerous times: articles by Ruddy and few others that you can go read at Newsmax or WorldNetDaily. They seem quite legitimate. If you have a problem with those sources ... then have at it. Show where they are in error. NOONE so far has done so ... or even attempted to do so. The facts as related by Ruddy are ALL in agreement with what Janoski has said during interviews with others and, more recently, what Klayman says he's been told by the people involved. I've heard Klayman on talk shows talking about the case and coorberating the facts as Ruddy laid them out. Are you going to suggest that Klayman is lying in this case? If not, then unless you want to suggest that the various military personnel are lying, you MUST take the report at face value and NOT dismiss the allegation out of hand.
********
Note that at this point in the above discussion you just disappeared ... like a democRAT does when faced with facts.
Somewhat more recently (in a thread also discussing Klayman), you did the same thing. You chimed in "And when I ask to see a copy of a report by any pathologist who examined the body saying that in their opinion the cause of death was a bullet wound to the head you do a song and dance.
Now my response to you WAS as follows and IS just as appropriate NOW.
*************
I did no such thing. I told you that EVERYTHING OFFICIAL having to do with the Brown case is under lock and key at the AFIP. They won't even comment on the case other than to say that it is the UNAMINOUS conclusion of the AFIP pathologists that Brown died by blunt force injury. THAT is a clear lie since we have statements in several newspaper interviews with the pathologists at AFIP (in fact, all the ones who saw Brown's body or had expertise in gunshot) that the wound looked like a bullet wound and that there SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN AUTOPSY. I provided you URLS to all of those newspaper articles as well as an interview with Kathleen Janoski, the photographer at AFIP who took pictures of Brown and the x-rays that the government destroyed). She cooberated that those statements were made by the pathologists. Klayman has testimony from the pathologists. People need to realize that what you are suggesting is that ALL of those MILITARY OFFICERS have lied UNDER OATH. What people need to realize is that you provided NO basis to challenge the facts in the interviews with those people. Distorting the facts is what we've come to expect from democRATS trying to hide their crimes. Are you a democRAT?
You also fail to mention I've provided dozens of other facts about the case that you refuse to even discuss. For example, Klayman (who you are trying to discredit) discovered an official timeline provided to Warren Christopher that states there were TWO survivors to the crash when the government has NEVER mentioned more than one. Or how about this fact ... this was the ONLY crash in US Air Force history not to have a post crash safety investigation to determine the cause of the crash (other than the friendly fire shoot down of the helicopters in IRAQ). It was RULED pilot error without one. Or how about this ... Klayman has testimony from Gormley (who initially lied about the nature of the wound but now admits it looked like a bullet wound and there should have been an autopsy) that he was ORDERED by the Whitehouse and JCS not to autopsy Brown, even though the law requires it when pathologists are suspicious of a gunshot (and that suspicion WAS voiced during the examination according to sworn testimony). Why are you running from the facts ... if you are not a democRAT?
*************
And guess what? You AGAIN didn't respond. You simply ran as democRATS usually do when faced with undeniable facts.
So now tell us ... did you check out Janoski's interview or not? If so, are you suggesting she is lying? If so, what is her motive? If so, why have none of the officers that she quotes disputed her? What is it about this body of evidence that you don't understand? Why are you afraid of even seeking the truth? If nothing happened, then there will be no harm done. In fact, get Ashcroft to provide a reasonable explanation to the questions I posed ... an explanation that shows no crime occurred ... and I'll be glad to drop this matter. But until then ... NO EXCUSES.
By the way, you posted to me previously the following:
Your only objective is to derail every Judicial Watch thread. If you were really interested in discussing Ron Brown's death you would start a thread on it and present you evidence in an orderly manner.
Isn't is interesting to find you here on a thread SPECIFICALLY about Brown, posting about Judicial Watch. Why don't you debate the pathologist statements and the photographs that seem to cooberate the view that Brown should of been autopsied. Trying to DERAIL this thread?