I posted this to Freerepublic. Gavin. About a month ago I received an e-mail from Carol Valentine, "Free Republic Bans Top Foster Researcher." The e-mail stated that Hugh Turley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had been banned from Freerepublic for posting his opinion about Chris Ruddy, Joe Farah and Drudge. I e-mailed Jim Robinson asking him why he had banned Turley. He replied giving me this link. I had never heard of Hugh Turley. I found out that he has painstakingly researched the Vince Foster death. He has made several criticisms about Chris Ruddy's investigation into the Vince Foster death. Some of these errors are listed below by Hugh Turley, quote; "Other errors that Ruddy has continued to promote despite all the evidence he is wrong: -the FBI was kept out of the investigation(WRONG) -EMS Gonzalez found Foster's body first(WRONG) -Knowlton saw Foster's car at Fort Marcy Park(WRONG) -the second cannon faced north(WRONG) Ruddy whispered to me and others that Patrick Knowlton's attorney John Clarke was secretly working for Ken Starr. This Ruddy rumor proved to be 100% false." End quote. In my opinion, the most serious allegation Hugh Turley makes are the false rumors Chris Ruddy spread about Patrick Knowlton's lawyer, John Clarke. To some people, the other discrepancies may sound like nit-picking, but looked at as a whole, if correct, a pattern of deliberate deception emerges. I contacted Dave Martin, author of America's Dreyfus Affair, and he verified that Ruddy had spread lies about Clarke and has distorted other facts about the Foster investigation. Edited from "Dreyfus 2 "...But in 1997 serious questioning of Christopher Ruddy's motives was what was heard from within the heart of the American "Dreyfusard" camp. The questioning, ironically, was set in motion by Ruddy's own questioning of the motives of John Clarke, the lawyer for the witness, Patrick Knowlton. Ruddy did not challenge the fact that Knowlton had been followed and harassed by a number of spooky and intimidating men on the streets of Washington, DC. He, in fact, was among those who had witnessed the intimidation and had reported on it (The remarkable and thoroughly depressing thing here for anyone who cares about freedom in America is that no one else reported on it. It was, however, well-reported in London.). But as the lawyer Clarke prepared a suit against the FBI (or, more precisely, individuals working for the FBI), whom he and Knowlton blamed primarily for the harassment (or were at least guilty as precipitators of a conspiracy to obstruct justice), Ruddy spread the word that Clarke was not to be trusted, making it very difficult for Knowlton to raise the funds necessary to push ahead with his suit. One of the people with whom Ruddy planted the seed of suspicion, in addition to this author, was the previously-mentioned document hound identified only by his E-mail address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (now "outed" in an electronic fit of pique by Ruddy as Hugh Turley). Turley, though made wary by Ruddy's warning, was not deterred from lending assistance to Clarke and found to his satisfaction that Clarke's motives were pure, astonishingly so it would seem for a modern American lawyer. Turley found in Clarke a bright and promising young attorney with the rare courage to do the unthinkable, to risk his career and stand up and "fight City Hall." Having satisfied himself as to Clarke's motives, Turley then, quite naturally, turned a gimlet eye upon the one who had mounted a whispering campaign against him, and decided that he did not like what he saw. What were Ruddy's motives, he wondered, in his trying to undercut Clarke, and what did that say about Ruddy's motives overall in being the only American journalist to pursue the Foster case on a regular basis? Turley's first concern was that Ruddy, working first for the New York Post, owned by Australian media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, and then for the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, owned by Mellon heir Richard Mellon Scaife, had intentionally played into the hands of those who would paint the government critics in the case as mere political partisans. Scaife was a noted financier of "conservative" causes and organizations, perhaps the most notable of which is Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media (AIM). Irvine and AIM have taken the lead along with Ruddy in questioning the government's conclusions. Irvine is an unabashed partisan who had fiercely defended the Reagan and Bush administrations against almost all allegations of scandal, particularly those related to the Iran-Contra affair, and his organization continued to debunk any hint of government involvement in drug smuggling into Mena Airport in Arkansas. Ruddy did not help by implying that very nearly the worst thing about Kenneth Starr was that he had placed the Democrat, Mark Tuohey, in charge of the Washington Office of the Independent Counsel, as though a Democrat were inherently incapable of finding another Democrat guilty of a crime. More serious was Turley's criticism of Ruddy in the area of the case that involved the witness Patrick Knowlton and his lawsuit against the FBI. Ruddy, in a number of public appearances, mentioned that Knowlton had been the first to see Foster's car in the parking lot of Fort Marcy Park (He continues to do it in his book, but we'll have more about the book later.). The fact that the car was an older model Honda than Foster's and brown instead of silver-gray by Knowlton's very definite recollection meant that the car was not, in fact, Foster's. It was Knowlton's insistence on his recollection that, he is certain, got him harassed by people he feels he can prove were working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. To downplay that fact is to cover for the FBI in Turley's view. Ruddy also continues to insist that the FBI as an organization was essentially kept out of the Foster death investigation, but it is a major contention of Knowlton's suit, which he supports with numerous documents from the record, that the FBI was, indeed, deeply involved in the investigation, which means it was involved in and very likely orchestrated the cover-up every step of the way." End quote. Also see "Dreyfus 5. An edited e-mail of Dave Martins to me is below. I also e-mailed Hugh Sprunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Patrick Knowlton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) asking for their opinion. Hugh Sprunt said that he did not have any problems with Ruddy but said that Martin and Turley had expressed these issues to him. Knowlton wanted to know more about me and my motives. He did say that Hugh Turley is 100% honest in his opinion. I e-mailed Knowlton again but he is out of town frequently and I am not going to wait another week or ten days to obtain more information. That will do for the time being. My motives are to ascertain the truth about Chris Ruddy and Joe Farah. I know little about the Vince Foster investigation. What I do know has come from Ruddy. However, one diabolical government cover-up I am very familiar with is the Oklahoma City Bombing. I have noticed before that Newsmax and Worldnetdaily have virtually nothing on their websites about this incident. I always thought that they would get around to it eventually. They have not. To Jim Robinson I say this. I hope that you allow free and open discussion to flow on these topics. You have a great forum which allows people to voice their opinions on any subject as long as they abide by your very fair handed rules. Allow the salt water of honest opinion to scrutinize and debate these issues. Nobody should be put on a pedestal. Nobody is above criticism. I went on the Internet about four years ago. After a few months I found some of Ian Goddard's posts providing information contrary to the conventional wisdom about TWA 800 and the OKC bombing. He then renounced his position when pressured by the mainstream media. Immediately afterwards he resumed his position. Now he's telling us that the Waco FLIR isn't showing FBI gunfire. As far as I'm concerned he has zero credibility. Joe Farah and Chris Ruddy have staked a position for themselves on the Internet as gritty and tenacious exposers of government corruption. But Hugh Turley and Dave Martin are saying that Chris Ruddy has been, at the least, disingenuous in the investigation he is most famous for, the death of Vince Foster. What I do know for a fact is that Ruddy and Farah have ignored one of the top three most egregious government cover-ups in at least the last ten years. The overriding question of course is, why? I do not know, they don't answer my questions. As Mike Rosen says, "Criticism-even intense criticism-is not synonymous with hate. Criticism is the lifeblood of a free society. It is why we have a First Amendment." In my experience, the only thing censorship achieves is ignorance and dogma. Thanks Jim. In truth. Gavin Phillips. Dave Martin and Hugh Turley gave me permission to post these edited e-mails. [Turley] Gavin- You have asked a lot of questions. I will answer as many questions as I can below. I have attached a word file that you requested with my exchange with Chris Ruddy from August 1997. Mr. Ruddy never replied to my response to his message. I invite you to ask him again if he would like to reply. Hugh Turley Co-author of Failure of the Public Trust FBIcover-up.com Subject: Ruddy, Farah, OKC Bombing etc. Dear Hugh, Thank you for your reply. I read the sections on your website that you indicated. Do you have a copy of your Internet debate with Ruddy mentioned in David Martin's, "America's Dreyfus Affair": Is John Clarke or Patrick Knowlton able to verify the lies that Chris Ruddy spread about John Clarke? I assume they must know about this either from you or somebody else. What is their opinion about Chris Ruddy? What is David Martin's opinion about Ruddy? He did document dozens of inconsistencies in the Vince Foster case, did he not? [Turley] You should ask John Clarke, Patrick Knowlton and David Martin for their opinions of Mr. Ruddy and if they speak with Mr. Ruddy. I know how they feel but I prefer not to speak for them. Dave Martin and I can both verify that Chris Ruddy told us both "not to trust John Clarke". Gavin; I do not understand his [Jim Robinson]reasoning as to why he banned you. Why not allow you to say whatever you want about Farah and Ruddy and see what they have to say in their defence? Let people make up their own minds, censoring people because you don't agree with them is a not free speech. [Turley] I agree. I always prefer an open discussion as a path to the truth. If I am wrong or others have erred we can advance the truth by sharing information. The more information the better. Back in 1994 and 1995 Farah's organization ran full page ads in newspapers around the country promoting Ruddy's Report on Foster and his articles. These articles proved to have false information and the weakest evidence, much of which was eventually dismissed by Starr's Report. Ruddy had unusual access to anonymous FBI, OIC and Park Police sources for his bad information. The best evidence of the Foster murder cover-up has been ignored or misstated by Ruddy and Farah. Gavin; I don't know how to categorise Joe Farah. Maybe the bombing is just too controversial a subject for even him to report on, I do not know. Have you found Farah to be dishonest, distort facts or ignore other important stories? Do you think Ruddy and Farah are Trojan horses? Thanks in advance. Gavin Phillips. [Turley] I have met Joe Farah and I find him to be a pleasant person. I liked Chris Ruddy too, at first. America needs courageous reporters that will expose the corruption so we desperately want to believe these me are honest reporters. Unfortunately Ruddy has demonstrated by his own actions that he cannot be trusted. Mr. Farah, like Mr. Ruddy has appeared to be somewhat helpful in the past. But one has to wonder why did Farah run so many full page ads in newspapers to promote Ruddy's false information and weak evidence and NOW with all of the strongest evidence available at FBIcover-up.com Farah does not even have a link from to this information from his web site. [Turley] If Ruddy and Farah were false and actually working to cover-up the truth, but wanted to appear to be honest, how would they behave any differently? [Turley] I do not know Matt Drudge as well as Farah and Ruddy but he obviously has no interest in FBIcover-up.com and the Foster case so how can anyone take him seriously as an alternative to the popular press. All three, and throw in Rush Limbaugh too, are false critics in my opinion. [Turley] The Foster case is the one issue I know inside out and I can prove that the leading reporter Christopher Ruddy and his supporter Joe Farah have acted in a manner that conceals the truth while pretending to expose it. This revelation is a taboo topic guaranteed to get one booted out of the guppy tank discussion groups like Free Republic that function to maintain the illusion that Farah, Ruddy, & Drudge are an alternative media. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gavin Phillips > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 6:11 PM > Subject: Hugh Turley, Ruddy, Farah, OKC Bombing etc. > > > > Hello Dave, > > > > > > > I have already e-mailed Hugh and he says Chris Ruddy spread lies about John Clarke and is not to be trusted. You also have doubts about Ruddy's trustworthiness. As you say in "America's Dreyfus Affair." > > > > "...But in 1997 serious questioning of Christopher Ruddy's motives was what was heard from within the heart of the American "Dreyfusard" camp..." > > > Do you agree with Hugh's contention that Ruddy tried to sabotage Knowlton's lawsuit and that he downplayed the FBI's role in the Foster investigation? > Dave; > First, I will confirm that Ruddy did his best to undercut any trust I might have had in John Clarke by telling me that Clarke was actually a friend of the Kennedys and was secretly working for the government. The most substantive act of his as far as I am concerned, though, was his reporting to me that his "White House contact" told him that Clinton had had all the surveillance cameras removed from the White House becauss they inhibited his dissolute life style. That was after I had passed onto him the word of an acquaintance who told me that he had worked for the company that installed the super high-tech equipment that would have certainly captured Vince Foster's every movement after he left his office on July 20, 1993. Ruddy has consistently squelched that line of inquiry. I heard him do it again when speaking to a Republican group in Maryland. That, to me, is active, conscious participation in the cover-up. > > Also, you might go back and read Dreyfus 2 carefully. His consistent failure to use the best arguments for cover-up and murder in his book are unforgivable. The absolute worst is his failure to quote Beryl Anthony's response to Frank Murray of The Washington Times from July 24, 93, in which the first Vince-was-depressed trial balloon was floated. Ruddy leaves the reader with the impression that the Anthony's are solid witnesses for the prosecution of Vince as the murderer of Vince. > > > >Gavin; > > Ruddy does list dozens of major flaws in the government's suicide theory vis a vis Foster's death. > Dave; > And that's how he initially bought a lot of credibility with me, ... > Gavin; > > What exactly, in your opinion, is Ruddy's agenda? What do Patrick Knowlton and John Clarke think about Ruddy? > Dave; > In their new worshipful book about Kenneth Starr and his independent counsel work, Washington Post propagandists Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf tell > us that his Foster report virtually silenced the "conspiracy theorists." > Ruddy has played the part well. With better than ever evidence out there of a cover-up, Ruddy has pretty much folded his tent. Check out the bookstore on Newsmax and look at the books he lists under "Clinton Scandals." Oh, he makes me sick, and I get the impression that he has the same effect on Knowlton and Clarke, but you'll have to ask them. > > > >Gavin; > > As I said previously, Newsmax and Worldnetdaily do a good job reporting on some issues. But I have noticed that they have a total news blackout reporting anything of substance about one of the most nefarious government cover-ups in several decades, the Oklahoma City bombing. I have just ignored this situation, saying, well, they do a > good job exposing other government lies. > > > > Dave; > Of course, the fact that Ruddy, Farah, and Drudge ignore OKC tells you all you need to know about them. By the way, do you know the Terry Yeakey story? What a telling tragedy! You certainly won't read about it on WorldNetDaily or Newsmax. > > Gavin; > > I don't know how to categorise Joe Farah. Maybe the bombing is just too controversial a subject for even him to report on, I do not know. Have you > > found Farah to be dishonest, distort facts or ignore other important stories? Dave; > Farah and Ruddy have been joined at the hip from day one. Oh, and by the way, I believe that Richard Mellon Scaife makes rather than loses money "supporting" various "conservative" organizations and publications. I strongly suspect that he is nothing more than what they called in the BCCI affair a "nominee," that is, a plausible rich person lending his name as a front like the rich Arabs who allowed BCCI to use their names as "owners" of First American Bank. I think that RMS, the son of a > spook, is paid by the spook community to provide a plausible explanation for where all that money is coming from. Ditto Sun Myung Moon, the "owner" of The Washington Times and now the proud "owner" of UPI. Thanks in advance Dave. > Gavin Phillips. > My pleasure. > > --------- DC Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Author of "America's Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster" & "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" http://thebird.org/host/dcdave news:alt.thebird Have you seen http://www.fbicover-up.com? <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
