The Oslo Accords, Possible Motive for Zionists to murder Vince Foster

Salvador Astucia challenges Foster researcher Hugh Turley to a debate.

To participate in the discussion, send comments to:

salvador_astucia@yahoo.com

[Original posting was August 15, 2002, but the discussion is ongoing.]

Introduction by Salvador Astucia

Hugh Turley has researched the death of Vince Foster since it occurred on July 20, 1993.

Here is his website:

http://www.fbicover-up.com

Although I disagree with some of the information presented on Mr. Turley's website, I agree with his conclusion that Vince Foster was murdered (as opposed to taking his own life) and there was a massive cover-up perpetrated by nearly all facets of the United States government and the American news media.

Recently Mr. Turley challenged my assertion (via private email) that the motive for Foster's murder was the Oslo Accords which was in the works when he was killed.

(Reference Opium Lords, pp 311-316)

Rather than debate Mr. Turley privately, I have decided to go public.

I challenge Mr. Turley to debate the topic of Vince Foster and the Oslo Accords in a civilized manner.

Here is my response to Mr. Turley's most recent email, dated April 15, 2002:

[NOTE: On August 16, 2002, Hugh Turley contacted me and requested that I omit his speculative comments about motive from this discussion thread. He explained that he makes of a point of never discussing motive when he gives lectures about the Foster case. Consequently, he regards emailed statements on that topic as his "private thoughts" and requested that they remain private. I complied with his request. Omissions are noted.]

--- Turley <Turley@acninc.net> wrote:

> Salvador-

> My only point was that my research did not support a

> link between Foster's death and Israel via a

> Foster/Hillary romance or any trips to Norway.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you never did any research regarding motive. So what research are you discussing?

You do not need to convince me that Foster was murdered. You and DC Dave convinced me of that long ago.

Since I do not believe in re-inventing the wheel, I used your respective conclusions that Foster was murdered as the framework for my research about motive.

Therefore, it is illogical for you to cite your research in a discussion about motive when you have done no research in that regard. Again, correct me if I am wrong--and I apologize if I am--but I do not believe you have spent even one hour researching the motive for Foster's murder.

Having stated that, here are the FACTS upon which I base my conclusion that Foster was killed because of the Oslo Accords:

Fact No. 1: Israel took an enormous amount of Arab land in the Six Day War in June 1967. On November 22, 1967, the UN issued Resolution 242 which stated more or less that the land Israel took was taken illegally and must be returned. Israel has ignored Resolution 242 for 35 years, with the exception of some land returned to Egypt in the early 70s.

In 1973, the UN issued Resolution 338 which was essentially a restatement of 242. Both have been ignored by Israel and the United states for years.

Fact No. 2: In June of 1992, Yitzhak Rabin was elected Prime Minister of Israel. This was a major shift in the political climate of Israel. Likud (a radical right-wing political party) had ruled or shared power for 15 years prior. Suddenly Rabin--a moderate force--was in power.

Seeing an opportunity for peace in the Middle East, Norway intervened and brokered secret peace talks between Rabin's new government and the PLO.

There were eleven secret meetings between the PLO and Israel from April 1993 through August 1993.

These meetings set the stage for the Oslo Accords which were announced in September 1993.

The Oslo Accords stipulated the implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338. Again, these resolutions stated that Israel must return the land it took in the Six Day War in 1967.

Fact No. 3: The meetings were spearheaded by a Norwegian Statesman named Johan Holst (Minister of Foreign Affairs). In fact the first several meetings were held at his home. It was very informal.

Fact No. 4: Foster's death (July 20, 1993) occurred while the pre-Oslo meetings were in progress (April-August 1993).

Fact No. 5: Holst died suddenly of a heart attack on January 13, 1994 at the age of 56. (six months after Foster’s death)

Fact No. 6: Yitzhak Rabin was shot and killed in an apparent Israeli/Likud coup on November 4, 1995.

(Read this rare article by the assassin’s mother, published in George Magazine, March 1997:)

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/jfk_jr_&_rabin.htm

Fact No. 7: Bill and Hillary were "partners in power." It was essentially a co-presidency.

Fact No. 8: During the Clinton presidency, Hillary made several public statements in support of a Palestinian state.

Fact No. 9: Vince and Hillary had a "special" relationship that was both professional and quasi-romantic, although there is no evidence of a physical affair. Vince was known to do favors for Hillary because he respected her as a colleague and because he was in love with her as a woman. Bill knew of their relationship and apparently accepted it as part of the partnership with his wife. In fact, he gave Foster highly classified top-secret assignments.

Those are the facts. Now here are some logical points we can make using deductive reasoning:

Logical Point No. 1: Given America's long-standing support of Israel, it is reasonable to conclude that America participated in the pre-Oslo meetings (April-August 1993).

Logical Point No. 2: Hillary was probably the moving force behind the Oslo accords within the Clinton Administration. Bill was not opposed to the concept per se, but based on Hillary's public comments about a Palestinian state, it is reasonable to conclude that this was more her issue than Bill's.

Logical Point No. 3: Given the informal nature of the pre-Oslo meetings, it is quite possible that the Clintons sent a personal emissary to attend, probably someone who was part of their inner circle. That person could very well have been Vince Foster.

Logical Point No. 4: Given that Vince and Hillary had a "special" relationship which was both professional and romantic, it is quite possible that Vince was a mover and shaker behind the scenes at the pre-Oslo meetings. Additionally, if he attended, then he may have been extra-aggressive because of his love and admiration for Hillary.

CONCLUSION: Foster's murder was a signal to Hillary from Likud fanatics: NO RESOLUTION 242 & 338 AND NO PALESTINIAN STATE !

> I know there have been rumors and speculation from

> journalists of a Vince/Hillary romance and rumors

> from journalists of trips to Switzerland.

I never mentioned Switzerland, not via email or in Opium Lords. You brought it up, then rejected it as a rumor. Let the record state that Mr. Turley first mentioned Switzerland, not Mr. Astucia.

The eleven secret meetings that led to the Oslo Accords occurred in Norway, not Switzerland. So I do not understand why you mentioned Switzerland. You have brought it up in several emails, but I fail to understand the relevance.

I therefore respectfully request that you cease from mentioning Switzerland again because it will only confuse readers.

Regarding the "romance," there are credible sources who witnessed Hillary and Vince together for years and have stated that they had an unfulfilled romantic relationship.

Rumors of a sexual affair abound, but not by the more credible sources.

We can debate this point if you want, but I do not see the need. The evidence is overwhelming that Hillary and Vince cared for each other a great deal and that Vince went out of his way to please her. And she enjoyed the attention. It was fairly innocent really, rather sweet.

[Omitted Mr. Turley's speculation about motive per his request. 8/16/02]

[I responded to Turley's speculation as follows:]

Respectfully, this is not a guessing game. [...Omitted specific response to Turley's  speculation. 8/16/02] We must follow the trail of evidence and go wherever it leads.

It was purely by accident that I stumbled onto facts implicating Israel in Foster's murder. As part of my research for Opium Lords, I analyzed the Middle Eastern policies of every presidential administration since Kennedy. It was then that I discovered the timeline of the pre-Oslo meetings and Foster's death.

I was astonished to learn that Johan Holst died of a heart attack six months after Foster. A year and a half later, Yitzhak Rabin was murdered in what appears to have been an Israeli coup sponsored by the Likud party.

[Omitted further speculation by Turley about motive per his request. 8/16/02]

Yes, this all ties in well with my assertion that Israel (Likud) sponsored Foster's murder because he was deeply involved in the preliminary negotiations for implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338 via the Oslo Accords.

[...Omitted my specific response to Turley's speculation. 8/16/02]

At this point, I request that you explain what part of my thesis with which you disagree, and why.

Regards,

Salvador Astucia

by Salvador Astucia, August 16, 2002

It appears that Mr. Turley is evading my challenge to a public debate. Today he contacted me and expressed disappointment that I had made one of his emails public. To calm him down, I agreed to remove all statements in which he speculated about the motive of Vince Foster’s murder; however, Turley evidently does not want to participate in a public debate, only a private one.

Consequently, I feel compelled to publicly ask him a few questions about a central figure in his research, a man named Patrick Knowlton.

For readers unfamiliar with Knowlton, here is Hugh Turley’s description from an interview in August 2000:

(Hugh Turley, interviewed by Zoh Hieronimus with World Net Daily, August 19, 2000)

Patrick Knowlton filed a law suit against the government for harassment, but there are several aspects to Knowlton himself that are quite disturbing.

Here are some questions for Mr. Turley about Knowlton:

[1] A reliable source advised me that you (Turley) first met Patrick Knowlton when he was Chief of Security at the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, DC.

Is that correct?

[2] What year did you first meet Mr. Knowlton?

[3] Did Mr. Knowlton have a registered firearm when he worked at the Saudi Arabian embassy?

(As Chief of Security at the Saudi Arabian embassy, it seems reasonable that Knowlton would carry a firearm.)

[4] Was Mr. Knowlton carrying a registered or unregistered firearm with him when he was at Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993, the day Vince Foster was killed?

[5] To your knowledge, has Mr. Knowlton ever been considered a suspect in the murder of Vince Foster?

Have any independent researchers or crime investigators ever considered the former Chief of Security at the Saudi Arabian embassy a murder suspect?

[6] On your website, you indicate that Mr. Knowlton has a girlfriend named Kathryn who witnessed governmental harassment against Mr. Knowlton while they walked the streets of Washington, DC.

In a previous conversation, you advised me that Kathryn is Jewish. Do you acknowledge this fact? (That she is Jewish.)

[7] If my assertion that Jewish fanatics sponsored Foster’s murder to thwart the Oslo Accords, wouldn’t this undercut the reliability of Mr. Knowlton’s testimony, given that his girlfriend is Jewish? After all, the motive—as I described—involves the Jewish State.

[8] Your website indicates that the lawyer who handled Mr. Knowlton’s case was John Clarke.

A reliable source advised me that Mr. Clarke’s services were paid by Accuracy in the Media. Is this correct?

[9] Are you aware that many people believe Accuracy in the Media is a front for the Mossad?

Have you ever heard that?

What are your feelings about Israel's Mossad (a spy agency) possibly sponsoring Knowlton's law suit against the US government?

That is all for now. ª

Summarized Discussions About Oslo & Foster

The following is a summary of email and newsgroup exchanges from interested parties.

[1] August 15, 2002 (see Communiqué A, email)

Salvador challenges Turley to a public debate. Salvador further advises Turley that the URL for this webpage has already been posted on about 50 newsgroups under the following name: "The Oslo Accords, motive for Vince Foster's murder (?) (debate)"

[2] August 16, 2002 (emails omitted per H. Turley's request)

Turley responds and is quite upset about several things, but his main complaint is that Salvador publicly disclosed a private email containing Turley's "private thoughts" about the motive behind Foster's murder. Salvador agrees to omit all portions of email containing such private thoughts.

[3] August 16, 2002 (see Communiqué # 1, email)

A reader (who requests anonymity) provides background information for the discussion. He sends Salvador an email containing an interesting article about Zionism - written by Edwin M. Wright.

[4] August 16, 2002 (see Communiqué # 2, email)

Salvador advises Turley that he has prepared a list of questions about Patrick Knowlton et al. Salvador requests that Turley email answers to be added to web page.

[5] August 16, 2002 (see Communiqué # 3, newsgroup)

Salvador posts message to about 50 newsgroups. The article is entitled "The Oslo-Foster Debate - questions about Patrick Knowlton et al." It advises Usenet readers that questions have been raised about Knowlton's involvement in Foster's murder and points readers to this webpage.

[6] August 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 4, newsgroup)

"BernardZ" from soc.culture.jewish responds to Salvador's article. He calls the debate "rubbish" because Israel supported the Oslo Accords. Bernard further cites a Palestinian leader who was critical of the Oslo Accords.

[7] August 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 5, email)

Salvador invites Jim Robinson (founder of Free Republic <  http://www.freerepublic.com > ) to participate in the discussion. Salvador advises Robinson that all written communiqués will be made public and that everything is on the record. (NOTE: Patrick Knowlton is reportedly closely affiliated with Free Republic.)

[8] August 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 6, newsgroup)

Salvador replies to Bernard (from Communiqué # 4). He agrees that under Yitzhak Rabin's government, Israel did in fact want the Oslo Accords to work; however, Salvador reminds Bernard that Rabin was killed by right-wing Israeli fanatics who did not. Salvador directs Bernard to an article, written by the mother of Rabin's assassin at the following URL:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/jfk_jr_&_rabin.htm
 

[9] August 18, 2002 (see Communiqué # 7, email)

Carol Valentine asks who were the signatories of the Oslo Accords. She also points out that Turley is willing to throw cold water on Salvador's hypothesis privately, but not publicly. She wonders if he wants to avoid protecting Israel publicly, but will do so privately.

[10] August 18, 2002 (see Communiqué # 8, email)

Salvador informs Valentine that the principal signatories were Yitzhak Rabin (Israel) and Yasser Arafat (PLO), under the guidance of third-party negotiator, Johan Jorgen Holst (Foreign Minister of Norway). The following letters indicate this as fact:

http://almashriq.hiof.no/israel/300/320/327/israel-plo_recognition.html

Salvador advises Valentine and other interested readers to do a google search on "oslo accords" to read the full text of the agreements. Salvador further points out the heart of the Oslo Accords is that it stipulated enforcement of UN Resolutions 242 and 338 which direct Israel to return the occupied territories it took during Six Day War in June 1967. He provides the full text of those resolutions. Salvador also notes that Holst died a few months after the Oslo Accords were signed and Rabin was killed when they were about to be implemented two years later. When Arafat visited the White House in early 1998 as a continuation of the Oslo Accords, the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal suddenly dominated the media. When President George H.W. Bush (the elder) tried to implement Resolutions 242 and 338 during the Madrid Conference in October 1991, the Gulf War president--whose approval ratings were above 90 percent--was immediately besieged with negative press coverage and subsequently lost the 1992 presidential election, defeated by Bill Clinton.

[11] August 18, 2002 (see Communiqué # 9, email)

HUGH TURLEY REPLIES! He says Patrick Knowlton wants to talk to Salvador (obviously regarding Communiqué # 2). Turley gives Knowlton's phone number and address to Salvador and asks Salvador to call Knowlton.

[12] August 18, 2002 (see Communiqué # 10, email)

Salvador advises Turley that he will communicate with Patrick Knowlton's attorney, John Clarke, but not with Knowlton directly (for obvious reasons). Salvador further advises Turley that the simplest way to handle the Knowlton issue is for the two of them (Turley and Knowlton) to answer the questions about Knowlton's background and submit them for public disclosure on Salvador's webpage. Salvador also mentions that he has met John Clarke and wants to know if he is Jewish because he seems like he might be.

[13] August 19, 2002

Patrick Knowlton makes harassing phone calls to Salvador at work and home. Knowlton manages to get Salvador's direct line at work. (NOTE: Salvador is a pseudonym. Knowlton found out his real name and the number where he works, plus his home number.) Knowlton calls Salvador on his work number and leaves a voicemail stating that he is upset about the questions on the webpage. He also states that he left a message at Salvador's home phone number. The following is transcript of that message verbatim:

Patrick Knowlton’s voice message at Salvador's home phone, August 19, 2002

* It is unclear why Knowlton said he was going to call Salvador at his "home phone" because the above message was left at Salvador's home phone number.

[14] August 19, 2002

Salvador issued the following statement in response to Mr. Knowlton's actions:

Salvador Astucia, August 19, 2002

[15] August 20, 2002 (see Communiqué # 11, email)

Patrick Knowlton's lawyer, John Clarke, responds. Clarke does not answer any of the nine questions about Knowlton's background, or about himself. He gives Salvador permission to communicate directly with Knowlton. This advice makes little sense because Salvador specifically requested that Knowlton be kept as far away from him as possible. (see Communiqué # 10)  Clarke further states that Salvador's theories about Knowlton, Turley, AIM, and himself (Clarke) are ludicrous. He advises Salvador not to accuse him of surreptitiously working for anyone; however, he does not confirm or deny whether Accuracy in Media paid for his services in Knowlton's law suit against the US Government. (see Knowlton Question # 8) Clarke states that he does not plan to communicate further with Salvador because it is a waste of time.

[16] August 21, 2002 (see Communiqué # 12, email)

Salvador responds to Clarke by repeating most of the questions. Salvador also reveals that David Martin (aka, DC Dave) was the source for much of the information about Patrick Knowlton's background.

[17] August 21, 2002 (see Communiqué # 13 for entire email)

Questions for DC Dave from Carol Valentine. She asks the following questions about Patrick Knowlton's background:

(Excerpt from Valentine's email)

Carol Valentine calls DC Dave's response to her Knowlton questions a dodge, and says that DC Dave's credibility is at stake now.

[21] August 24, 2002 (see Communiqué # 17)

Carol Valentine discovers Hugh Turley derives income from Reed Irvine's AIM, and that Irvine recently lauded the media's coverage of 9-11. She says: what better evidence that Irvine is a seamless liar and a front man for the Zionists? She reminds Dave that AIM sponsors Knowlton, Clark, and Turely, and that when Salvador tries to throw the light on matters, DC Dave attacks Salvador. "Sounds to me like you have picked sides. I confess I'm disappointed with your choice."
 

[22] August 24, 2002 (see Communiqué # 18)

Carol Valentine tells DC Dave that the Foster death is his baby, not hers.  She says that through the years Dave has not  investigated Knowlton himself, and still shows no interest in doing so.  Valentine discusses recording phone conversations, and laments not have a recording of a certain telephone conversation.

[23] August 24, 2002 (see Communiqué # 19)

DC Dave defends Patrick Knowlton, claiming that he has never done anything suspicious. He states that Knowlton has done everything to keep the Foster case alive and his testimony checks out. DC Dave accuses Salvador of "imprudent" use of public forum and generally complains that Salvador has been unfair to Knowlton and Turley. He infers that Salvador's facts are incorrect, but he does not point out any specific inaccuracies. He states that Salvador should have called Knowlton before making public charges.

[24] August 26, 2002 (see Communiqué # 20)

DC Dave addresses Hugh Turley's income from Accuracy in Media. He trivializes the fact that Turley is a paid speaker for AIM. He states that Turley's income from AIM was very low. He also says that AIM had no input in his presentations.

[25] August 26, 2002 (see Communiqué # 21)

[26] August 26, 2002

Moderator’s Comments:

It appears that Hugh Turley, Patrick Knowlton, and his lawyer John Clarke, are all closely associated with the shadowy organization known as Accuracy in Media, headed by Reed Irvine.

[Exhibit F]

Michael Collins Piper wrote the following about Accuracy in Media and Reed Irvine's position on JFK's assassination:

(Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment, 5^th edition, pp 277-278)

In Chapter 4 of Opium Lords, I assert that Louis Bloomfield was the primary "assassination engineer" who coordinated the details of JFK’s murder.

It seems quite odd that Reed Irvine et al. would fund a group of people (Turley, Knowlton, and Clarke) to push a conspiracy associated with the death of Vince Foster, but they (AIM) denounce any notion conspiracy associated with JFK’s murder.

Even more interesting, I first met David Martin in November of 1993, about two months after the Oslo Accords were announced. He contacted me after an article about me appeared in a major newspaper. The article dealt specifically with my interest in the Kennedy assassination and my belief that there was a conspiracy. At the time, Martin was a rabid Clinton hater and convinced me that Vince Foster was murdered, although he had no apparent interest in motive. It is beginning to look like Mr. Martin may have been keeping tabs on me for Reed Irvine ever since (nearly nine years). This would surely explain why his close friend and AIM lackey Hugh Turley wanted me to change my assertion that the Oslo Accords was the motive behind Foster's murder. It would also explain why Turley tried to get Carol Valentine to change one of her articles about 9-11. (Valentine’s 9-11 articles point to Israel as the true sponsor.)

Ask yourselves, if Israel did in fact sponsor the murder of Vince Foster in order to thwart the Oslo Accords (which stipulated that Israel must return all Arab/Palestian land taken in the Six Day War), doesn't it seem logical that pro-Israeli organizations like AIM would hire professional Clinton haters like Martin and Turley to use Foster's murder to embarrass and weaken the Clinton Administration because they supported the Oslo Accords? Doesn't it make sense that pro-Israel organizations like AIM would finance a bogus law suit against the US Government possibly to provide cover for Foster's killer?

The complete lack of candor exhibited by Turley, Knowlton, Clarke, and Martin speaks volumes. No wonder Mr. Martin is such an expert on "truth suppression."

Salvador

[28] August 28, 2002 (see Communiqué # 23)

[29] August 28, 2002 (see Communiqué # 24)

[32] August 29, 2002 (see Communiqué # 27)

Slade Farney makes the following points to Reed Irvine:

• Asks Irvine who pays his salary.

• Suggests that Irvine point out Salvador's mistakes rather than engage in psycho-babble and name calling.

• Mocks Irvine for giving the US media the "AIM blue ribbon in journalism" for its "blame-Islam-first" rhetoric.

• Subtly advises the conservative Irvine to endorse leftist Alan Dershowitz because their convoluted anti-Muslim thinking is identical.

[33] August 29, 2002 (see Communiqué # 28)

Salvador repeats his original question to Reed Irvine about David Martin: What is the nature of their relationship? Salvador asks why the question was ignored. To jog Irvine's memory, Salvador discloses Martin's Social Security Number. He advises Irvine to enter the SSN in AIM's host computer and see what turns up. Salvador reminds Irvine that "Dr. Martin" also uses a pseudonym. In fact he uses two: DC Dave and David Martin.

[34] August 30, 2002 (see Communiqué # 29)

Reed Irvine breaks off communication with Salvador.

[35] August 31, 2002 (see Communiqué # 30)

Carol Valentine replies to DC Dave's email (see Communiqué # 25). She demonstrates how DC Dave says one thing in private conversations, but says another publicly. She discloses that DC Dave passed unpublished drafts of two of her 9-11 articles—without her knowledge or permission—to AIM's Hugh Turley.

[36] August 31, 2002 (see Communiqué # 31)

DC Dave responds to Carol Valentine's previous message (see Communiqué # 30) by defending Hugh Turley. He claims the reason he agreed privately with Valentine's reservations about Patrick Knowlton was because she is difficult to disagree with. DC Dave says that, in a conversation with him, Carol defended Linda Thompson's call for an Armed March on Washington. He says Carol disagreed with his opinion on the matter.
 

I wish to remind DC Dave that if he were testifying in a court of law, he would be cited for contempt of court. When an attorney/prosecutor asks a question, witnesses must respond directly without being evasive or changing the subject. He should consider himself lucky, for now.

[38] August 31, 2002 (see Communiqué # 32)

Carol Valentine accuses DC Dave of being non-responsive to her questions (see Communiqué # 30) by redirecting attention to Hugh Turley. She reminds him that her questions were for him (DC Dave), not Turley. Regarding DC Dave's charge that she is difficult to disagree with, Valentine reminds him that the basis of their relationship is discussing the state of the world and talking about politics. She wonders why he called so often to talk, under these circumstances.
 

[39] August 31, 2002 (see Communiqué # 33)

Slade Farney comments on Patrick Knowlton's story regarding witnessing the area where Vince Foster's body was found in Fort Marcy Park. Farney raises the following questions:

• Why did Patrick Knowlton decide to urinate at Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993, the day Vince Foster's body was found there?

• How come the authorities/police never charged Knowlton with urinating in a public place, a misdemeanor in most states? This would make sense if the Government was truly trying to silence his testimony.

• Does Knowlton have bladder problems? (Fort Marcy Park is just outside Washington, DC. Public restrooms are minutes away in any direction.)

[40] August 31, 2002 (see Communiqué # 34)

Hugh Turley threatens to get Salvador fired from his job by informing Salvador's boss and colleagues of his activities on the Internet. Turley stated, "I want to invite people from your office to answer questions about you and your income just like you asked Irvine." This is factually incorrect because Salvador never asked Reed Irvine about Hugh Turley's income. Salvador asked Irvine to explain his association association with DC Dave. (see Communiqués 24 & 28) Irvine responded by disclosing that he had paid about $1,600 to Turley (see Communiqué 26), then broke off communication with Salvador shortly thereafter (see Communiqué 29).

(NOTE: It was DC Dave who gave Salvador's work number to Turley. DC Dave has publicly acknowledged this and has no ethical problem with it. See Communiqué # 25. It was also DC Dave, not Salvador or Valentine, who publicly introduced Turley's income into this discussion thread. See Communiqué 14)

[41] September 1, 2002

It occurs to me that Hugh Turley appears to be genuinely upset. The question is Why? So what if Salvador et al. has shown that Patrick Knowlton's harassment case is full of holes? (see 9 questions about Knowlton and Communiqués 13 & 33)  Can't Mr. Turley just admit he was wrong? Why does he want to get Salvador fired? I would like to remind readers that neither Turley or DC Dave has fully explained Turley's source of income in response to Carol Valentine's questions (see Communiqué 17) after DC Dave introduced the topic of Turley's income to this forum (see Communiqué 14). It is quite possible, given Turley's highly emotional state, that Reed Irvine fired him from whatever duties Turley might have performed for AIM (paid lectures notwithstanding).

"I want to invite people from your office," Turley wrote to Salvador, "to answer questions about you and your income just like you asked Irvine."

Interesting, Turley compared Salvador's fulltime employment to his (Turley's) association with Reed Irvine. This is almost an admission by Turley that he is/was a fulltime employee at AIM.

If Turley did in fact work for AIM as a salaried fulltime employee, I can understand why Mr. Irvine fired him. After all Turley disclosed to Carol Valentine, DC Dave, and ultimately to Salvador that AIM was funding Patrick Knowlton's lawsuit. That was highly sensitive information.

Of course I do not present this scenario as fact because Turley has never fully explained his association with Reed Irvine and AIM. All we know is Reed Irvine publicly disclosed embarrassing financial information about Turley (see Communiqué 26), broke off communications with Salvador (see Communiqué 29), then Turley sent a threatening email to Salvador (see Communiqué # 34).

[42] September 1, 2002 (see Communiqué # 35)

Slade Farney comments on Patrick Knowlton's harassment story. He calls it nonsense because the forces who killed Foster would have done the same to Knowlton rather than harass him on the streets. Slade gives a hypothetical conversation between FBI conspirators planning the job: "This Knowlton was a top security agent for the Saudi embassy. So just walk by and give him a dirty look -- that'll throw the fear into him. Security guards go nuts when you give them a dirty look." Regarding public urination by Knowlton and another witness at Fort Marcy Park (the day Foster's body was found), Slade says, "I guess when you are God's chosen eyewitness, the world is your urinal."

[43] September 2, 2002 (see Communiqué # 36)

Chet Lyle expresses great disappointment in DC Dave and the company he keeps (Hugh Turley and Patrick Knowlton). Although Lyle finds it difficult to accept that DC Dave has betrayed Salvador and Carol Valentine, he acknowledges this thread reveals complete treachery and betrayal by DC Dave et al. Lyle observes that DC Dave's friend, Hugh Turley, is a "treacherous player with a direct link to the cacophonous Zionist orchestra which is AIM, and to its Konzertmeister Reed Irvine." Lyle refers to Patrick Knowlton as "a thug, playing flat-footed tunes from the Zionist hymnal."  Lyle agrees with Slade Farney's observation that Patrick Knowlton's entire story is not believable. Lyle wrote, "In a real-life setting that little story, and a free Bud, might win the raconteur maybe a disbelieving chortle."

Postscript

[44] Moderator’s Comment

For all intents and purposes, this discussion thread ended about a week ago when Slade Farney and Chet Lyle added their criticisms of Patrick Knowlton’s version of events at Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993 (when Vince Foster's body was found there) and Knowlton's subsequent harassment story. (See Communiqués # 33, 35, & 36)

[45] September 9, 2002 (see Communiqué # 37)

[48] September 11, 2002 (see Communiqué # 40)

Slade reminds DC Dave of his (Slade's) earlier criticisms of Knowlton's harassment story combined with the public urination offense. (See Communiqués # 35 & 33) Slade reiterates that urinating in public is a misdemeanor, and possibly a federal misdemeanor when it occurs on public land. Slade observes that the National Park Police were in an excellent position to prosecute, negotiate a plea bargain, and exercise some of the "other fine features of the US Justice system." But no prosecution, no real threats, no plea bargains, just icy stares that were witnessed only by "[one fake*] and a Jew -- and Knowlton, of course."

Slade presents the following verse to DC Dave:

Moderator/Salvador stops discussion forum for five days, then re-opens.

[49] September 16, 2002

Moderator's Comment:

On September 12, 2002, I ended this discussion forum because I felt that (a) no new information was being presented by the participants, and (b), many of the comments were getting too personal.

Subsequent to my decision, I received several requests that I continue the discussion thread.

In the interest of fairness, I have reconsidered my previous decision and hereby decree that the discussion forum shall be re-opened and continue for a few more days.

I wish to point out that the original set of questions about Patrick Knowlton's background have not been answered fully by David Martin (aka, DC Dave) Hugh Turley, John Clarke, or Patrick Knowlton. I request that the stated individuals make answering the following questions a priority:

Belated Postings

The following messages were sent after the thread ended, on September 12th, but before it re-opened on September 16th, 2002:

[50] September 12, 2002 (see Communiqué # 41)

DC Dave debates with Slade Farney. DC Dave defends Knowlton mainly because his testimony described a car parked at the Fort Marcy Park that was not owned by Vince Foster or the Foster family. (NOTE: DC Dave and other researchers believe the license plate of Foster's grey 1989 Honda Accord was put on a much older Brown colored Honda Accord which Knowlton and other witnesses described at the crime scene.) DC Dave asserts that Knowlton's testimony destroyed the Government's case of suicide. DC Dave adds that the Park Police would have looked silly had they prosecuted Knowlton for public urination.

[51] September 12, 2002 (see Communiqué # 42)

Slade Farney responds to DC Dave. Slade advises DC Dave that Knowlton's testimony has not destroyed anything because it hasn't been reported. He reminds DC Dave that the media still reports that Foster committed suicide. Slade reiterates that the FBI would not intimidate a witness by merely starring at him in the streets.

[52] September 12, 2002 (see Communiqué # 43)

DC Dave repeats to Slade his earlier assertion that Knowlton is a great witness because he proved Foster did not drive himself to Fort Marcy Park, that a car was put there--with Foster's license plates--to give the impression that Foster drove himself there and took his life. DC Dave insults Slade by asking him to reveal his true identity (a bit hypocritical given that "DC Dave" and "David Martin" are both pseudonyms).

[53] September 12, 2002 (see Communiqué # 44)

Slade acknowledges that Knowlton's testimony is probably true. Slade suggests that DC Dave is overreacting to their differences and is somewhat rude to ask that he (Slade) reveal his true identity.

New Postings

(From this point onward, communiqué summaries are not necessarily listed in the order they were sent. For a chronological listing, see Detailed Discussions.)

[54] September 16, 2002 (see Communiqué # 45)

Salvador announces the discussion forum is re-opened.

[55] September 16, 2002 (see Communiqué # 46)

Salvador asks Carol Valentine to publicly state her recollection of conversations that transpired over the past eight years between herself, Hugh Turley, and David Martin (aka, DC Dave) regarding Patrick Knowlton’s employment at the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, DC.

[56] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 47)

DC Dave is upset because Salvador called him a liar on a different forum. (alt.thebird) The incident dealt with DC Dave's relationship with Reed Irvine.

[57] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 48)

Salvador apologizes to DC Dave about an incident in which Salvador misinterpreted something Reed Irvine stated about his relationship with DC Dave.

[58] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 49)

DC Dave accepts Salvador's apology but insists on further statements of contrition.

[59] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 51)

Salvador politely declines to issue additional apologies to DC Dave. Salvador reminds DC Dave that Reed Irvine did not explain his relationship with DC Dave. He only stated that AIM never paid DC Dave. Salvador adds that there are several ways of doing favors without actually exchanging money.

[60] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 50)

Slade observes DC Dave's friendship with CIA chap, the late Bernie Yoh. He thinks this looks suspicious.

[61] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 52)

Salvador remarks that it was DC Dave who suggested the pseudonym AstuCIA. (Note the last three letters.) He wonders if there is a cryptic meaning.

[62] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 53)

DC Dave explains his relationship with AIM, Reed Irvine, Bernie Yoh, Joseph Goulden, Chris Ruddy, and others. He then insults Slade Farney by demanding he reveal his true identity.

[63] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 54)

Salvador admonishes DC Dave for bullying Slade Farney about his name. He explains why people use pseudonyms. Salvador warns DC Dave that he will be banned from the forum if he continues to exhibit rude behavior.

[64] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 55)

Slade Farney compares DC Dave to Mr. McGoo, the near-blind cartoon character. Slade lists several suspicious things about AIM and Knowlton that DC Dave simply cannot see. He wonders why anyone would be interested in the murder/suicide of a nobody lawyer from the Clinton administration when there are bigger issues in our midst.

[65] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 56)

Salvador comments on Slade's musing over the significance of the Foster case. Salvador wonders why Turley and DC Dave were ever interested in the first place. He says their reasons (which were expressed in previous conversations) do not make sense. Salvador acknowledges that he once disliked the Clintons, but now praises them for their attempt to build a just and lasting, genuine peace in the Middle East via the Oslo Accords. He says Foster may have been a martyr in the ongoing quest for world peace.

[66] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 58)

DC Dave complains that Salvador is attempting to depreciate the work that he (DC), Hugh Turley, John Clarke, and Patrick Knowlton have done.

Carol Valentine provides devastating testimony about Knowlton's Saudi connection.

[67] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 57)

Carol Valentine recalls several conversations with DC Dave and Hugh Turley about Patrick Knowlton's previous employment as chief of security at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, DC.

[68] September 17, 2002 (see Communiqué # 59)

Salvador sends Carol Valentine's testimony about Knowlton/Saudi connection (Exhibit A) to Forum participants. Salvador instructs participants to focus on that topic. He states that he will only post messages about the Knowlton/Saudi connection on September 18, 2002. (next day)

[69] September 18, 2002 (see Communiqué # 59A)
DC Dave publicly reveals his real name, Gary David Martin. In response to Salvador's warning to keep a civil tone (see Communiqué # 54), DC Dave challenges Salvador to kick him off the forum and boasts of being banned from several discussion groups in the past. He also complains about Salvador's summaries of email messages.

[70] September 18, 2002 (see Communiqué # 60)

DC Dave backpedals about Valentine's testimony regarding the Knowlton/Saudi connection (Exhibit A) in a manner that is difficult to summarize. He is apparently nervous about her description of how he told her on several occasions that Patrick Knowlton was chief of security at the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, DC.

[71] September 18, 2002 (see Communiqué # 61)

Hugh Turley withdraws from the Discussion Forum. He requests that his name be removed from the email list.

[72] September 18, 2002 (see Communiqué # 62)

DC Dave follows Hugh Turley's lead and withdraws from the Discussion Forum. He requests that his name be removed from the email list as well.

[73] September 18, 2002 (see Communiqué # 63)

Salvador rips into DC Dave, accusing him of harboring suspicions about Knowlton's odd background for years without raising questions. Salvador states in no uncertain terms that Knowlton's background seems more like that of a professional HIT MAN than a witness who "took a leak in a park at the wrong time."

[74] September 18, 2002 (see Communiqué # 64)

Patrick Knowlton's attorney, John Clarke, withdraws from the Discussion Forum. Yahoo sends Salvador a MAILER-DAEMON indicating that Clarke's email account is either canceled or blocking Salvador's messages. (NOTE: Clarke had been ccd on the Forum emails for several days.)

[75] September 18, 2002 (see Communiqué # 65)

Salvador sends a test email to John Clarke to confirm that messages are in fact being blocked from Clarke's email account. The results are positive: Clarke has definitely dropped out as well.

Salvador introduces highly damaging evidence about the Knowlton/Saudi Connection.

[76] September 19, 2002 (see Communiqué # 66)

Salvador discloses that the Saudi Ambassador's residence was within 570 feet of the spot where Foster's body was found. Salvador's cites passages from a 1997 book written by British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard to support his assertion. Salvador remarks that as former chief of security at the Saudi Embassy, Knowlton must have been quite familiar with the ambassador’s residence. Therefore, there was no need to urinate in the park. He could have knocked on the ambassador's door. Salvador labels this evidence (Communiqué # 66) Exhibit B.

[77] September 19, 2002 (see Communiqué # 67)

John Clarke formally drops out of the discussion group. He requests that his name be removed from the discussion list.

[78] September 19, 2002 (see Communiqué # 68)

Slade Farney serenades DC Dave with lyrics sung to the country tune of "Release Me."

"Please release me, le' me go
'Cause I don' love you anymo'
Mah words are only lahs* for you
And what you're saying cain't be true"  :-)

[* I believe he means, "MY words are only LIES for you..."  :-) ]

[Moderator's Note: Slade, you are hilarious!]

[79] September 16, 2002, belated UseNet posting (see Communiqué # 69)

Andrew X98 weighs in on alt.thebird (DC Dave's stomping ground) and observes that DC looks "pretty damn SPOOKY." Andrew remarked, "To characterize Carol's words as 'warped and distorted' is shocking enough, but to have passed her work on to ANYBODY without her permission is not innocent--- it is criminal." Andrew laments about DC Dave's hidden agenda stating that he hates it "when light turns to darkness."

Next Phase: Salvador presses ahead by presenting a Statement of Facts.

[80] September 20, 2002 (see Communiqué # 70)

Salvador presents Exhibit C, Statement of Facts (Communiqué # 70). He instructs Forum participants to comment only on the accuracy of the facts presented therein, not to criticize or defend Patrick Knowlton’s veracity as an eye-witness. He states that the overall objective is to reach consensus among all participants about the basic facts of the Foster case so that informed debate can continue.

[81] September 22, 2002 (see Communiqué # 71)

Salvador notifies Forum participants that he has added new information to Exhibit C, Statement of Facts, regarding Patrick Knowlton's travel itinerary on Tuesday, July 20, 1993.

Salvador destroys Knowlton's version of events.

[82] September 22, 2002 (see Communiqué # 72)

Salvador criticizes Patrick Knowlton's version of events on Tuesday, July 20, 1993 (the day Foster's body was found). Salvador instructs participants to comment only on the criticisms he has presented, or raise additional criticisms based on the facts presented in Exhibit C. Comments unrelated to these areas will not be posted.

[83] September 23, 2002 (see Communiqué # 73)

Jerry Russell asks for clarification about the remodeling work Patrick Knowlton did at a Chevy Chase home at the time of Foster's death (July 20, 1993). Russell asks, "If Knowlton was a handyman and was working to remodel someone else's home, doesn't that lend support to the idea that he was a contractor and not a full-time security chief at that time?"

[84] September 23, 2002 (see Communiqué # 74)

Slade Farney mocks Jerry Russell for asking such a rudimentary question. He advises Russell that Knowlton's career as chief of security at the Saudi embassy was prior to his career in construction. (See Exhibit A)

[85] September 23, 2002 (see Communiqué # 75)

Salvador refers Jerry Russell to Exhibit A where Carol Valentine specifically states that, according to DC Dave, Patrick Knowlton worked as chief of security at the Saudi embassy before switching careers to a lesser paying job in construction.

Moderator/Salvador shifts discussion to Israel's involvement in Foster's murder.

[86] September 23, 2002 (see Communiqué # 76)

[87] September 23, 2002 (see Communiqué # 77)

Salvador shares a personal experience (labeled Exhibit D) where Hugh Turley advised him not to speak of Jews around Patrick Knowlton because Knowlton's girlfriend is Jewish, and consequently, that is a sensitive area. Salvador argues that the incident is highly relevant not merely because Knowlton’s girlfriend is Jewish, but because it establishes Patrick Knowlton as someone who aggressively obstructs conversation about Jews, the Jewish culture, Jewish political interests, and ultimately, the Jewish State.

[88] September 24, 2002 (see Communiqué # 78)

Slade Farney wonders if Patrick Knowlton is Jewish based on his reaction to DC Dave's remarks about Jews (see Exhibit D). Slade also states that, based on the timing, the death of Foster "may have been a message for the Oslo committee as much as for the Clintons."

[89] September 24, 2002 (see Communiqué # 79)

Salvador asks Jerry Russell (the de facto emissary for DC Dave, Hugh Turley, and John Clarke) if Patrick Knowlton is Jewish. Salvador tells Slade that if Israel's Likud fanatics were trying to send a message to the Oslo committee, apparently no one received it. He lists other people who died that might be associated with the Oslo Accords. Besides Foster, the names include Johan Holst, Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs (Holst was the driving force behind the Accords); Jerry Parks, security executive for the Clintons who handled sensitive assignments (and was given instructions by Foster); and Yitzhak Rabin.

[90] September 24, 2002 (see Communiqué # 80)

Carol Valentine states that Knowlton's defensive behavior toward Jews and Israel is a red flag. (see Exhibit D) She says Knowlton does not sound like an American who loves America, he sounds like a Zionist who loves Israel first, last, and always. She cites another Jew, the late Benjamin Freedman, as a courageous American patriot because he broke ranks with organized Jewry after World War II. Carol says Knowlton sounds like a Zionist fanatic, like a person who might knock off Vince Foster had Foster been trying to effect the Oslo Accords.

[92] September 24, 2002 (see Communiqué # 81)

Salvador shifts the topic to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and his possible participation in a cover-up via his Jewish boss, Conrad Black who owns the Jerusalem Post and the London Sunday/Daily Telegraph. (Evans-Pritchard works for the latter.)

[93] September 24, 2002 (see Communiqué # 82)

Salvador sends email to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the London Sunday/Daily Telegraph. Salvador asks Evans-Pritchard if he still believes Patrick Knowlton's story. Salvador also asks Evans-Prichard to comment on the conflict of interest created by Conrad Black's ownership of the Sunday/Daily Telegraph plus the Jerusalem Post.

[94] September 25, 2002 (see Communiqué # 85)

Carol Valentine says Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is a fake. She directs readers to an article she wrote about him in 1997 which reveals how he was less than truthful about Waco exposés that he wrote for the London Telegraph.

[95] September 25, 2002 (see Communiqué # 83)