No need to humor me. You can either LIE by suggesting that Klayman (or anyone else, for that matter) thinks it was a "suicide" or not. I don't care ... I'll just keep an archive of such statements to use against you the next time we actually debate about something you care about. For now it is enough to see yet another Klayman detractor sans facts.
Now then, before you just "move on" again, what is Judicial Watch's latest version of the truth regarding Ron Brown's "demise"?
Why don't you tell us since you seem to think you know so much about Judicial Watch and the Brown case. That is why you are here, right? ... to enlighten us about where Klayman has gone wrong in that matter? Or are you here just to make a fool of yourself?
If you or Judicial Watch are still pretending to believe his "demise" was a murder, exactly who committed it and why?
Geeee ... do most murder investigations start by asking who committed it? No ... I think they start by asking whether there was in fact a murder.
So why don't you tell us why you disbelieve ALL of the pathologists that have been directly or indirectly involved in the Brown case when they say the wound looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied? Actually ... it isn't quite 'all' since I believe Colonel Dickerson, head of AFIP, still claims it was blunt force trauma and that ALL his staff agreed with him. But of course we already know he's lying since ALL his staff do not agree including, in fact, the pathologist, Colonel Gormley, who actually performed the examination of Brown's body. Gormley now says he was just "mistaken" when he concluded that it was blunt force trauma. Actually, he was caught lying on national TV about the reasons he concluded that (nothing in the x-rays to suggest a bullet and no brain matter visible in the wound ... both lies) and had to change his story.
Maybe you can explain why another top manager at AFIP lied when he told the public they'd found the cause of the wound at the crash site. The Colonel who conducted that search at the crash site says "not true" ... nothing that would have caused the wound was found and they measured lots and lots of things.
And perhaps you can explain the sworn testimony of another military officer (in fact, the photographer who took the picture of the x-ray that seems to show a lead snowstorm ... evidence of gunshot) that she was told by another named officer that Gormley made a second set of x-rays after tampering with the machine to make sure it wouldn't show the lead snowstorm.
Or perhaps you can explain why Gormley at first denied there were two sets of x-rays? He only admitted it after he was shown photos of the first set.
Gee, things look mighty suspicious. Maybe they should have performed an autopsy as one of the pathologists at the examination requested. But no, they didn't and you know why? Because, according to Gormley, they received orders not to do an autopsy from ... guess who? ... the Whitehouse, the JCS and the Commerce Department. Do you know that, by law, once that pathologist voiced the opinion that it might be a bullet wound they were required to call in the FBI and, if deemed appropriate, do an autopsy? But they didn't, did they?
So it would appear that there were some "irregularities" at the examination of Brown's body. But that is not all. When the story finally broke years later, instead of just sitting down with the military pathologists and photographer who broke the story to show them why they were mistaken, the Clinton administration decided to DESTROY their careers instead. And wouldn't you know it, all the photos and x-rays of Brown's head have mysteriously disappeared from a lock safe at AFIP that only AFIP management has access to. Mighty suspicious, wouldn't you say?
And perhaps you can explain some of the "irregularities" in the Air Force investigation process and the final report. Why was this the first crash in Air Force history (other than one obvious friendly fire incident) where the first phase of the normal crash investigation process, the Safety Board (which is specifically tasked with "finding the cause") was skipped? And the Accident Board is supposed to produce a report that families and their lawyers can use in any legal proceedings that follow the crash. You would think that those lawyers would like to know about the voiced opinion of pathologists at the examination that the wound looked like a bullet wound. You would think that those lawyers would be interested in the x-rays which seemed to support that possibility. But for some reason, the "official" report given to the families and their lawyers doesn't mention these facts. It also doesn't explain why they lost both transponder and radio contact at the same moment when the plane was still 8 miles from the crash. It doesn't explore the question of the missing beacon either ... or the "suicide" of the maintenance officer that was in charge of the beacon right after the crash (before he could be interviewed). How curious. You do know, don't you, that such a beacon could have been used to spoof the plane into flying into a mountain just like it did?
See, you have the cart before the horse. There are plenty of reasons (more than I've mentioned here, by the way) for suspecting foul play. But before we go to all the trouble of looking for the culprit, don't you think we should just do a simple exhumation and autopsy just to see if there are traces of a bullet?
Who is being protected?
A better question is who are YOU protecting?
Glad you could make it back. I thought that you had just moved on forever.
What part of the evidence that you listed was inconsistent with the theory of suicide?
And why don't you explain why it was that no live witnesses were called to testify regarding Ron Brown's "demise" before the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings?
And which of Judicial Watch's donors have any information regarding Ron Brown's "demise"?
Why shouldn't the American people learn the truth about this entire affair? Why the cover-up?