Time: Fri Dec 12 17:45:07 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA04368
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:37:33 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA20768;
	Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:36:00 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd020644; Fri Dec 12 17:35:27 1997
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:22:45 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Brown And Coverups ... (fwd)

>                         RON BROWN REDUX
>              Was A Bullet Hole Found In His Head?
>By Edward Zehr
>Here we go again folks. After spending virtually the entire  year
>muckraking,  I  was  about  to  do a piece on global warming when
>Chris Ruddy weighed in with an  expose  of  yet  another  bungled
>Ruddy's story is about the April 3, 1996, crash of an  Air  Force
>jet   carrying  Commerce  Secretary  Ron  Brown  and  34  others,
>including 14 business executives on a trade mission  to  Croatia,
>as  it  approached  Dubrovnik  airport. Brown and the others were
>killed in the crash. The Air Force  issued  a  massive  22-volume
>report  in  June  of the same year that "confirmed" their initial
>surmise that the crash  resulted  from  pilot  error  and  faulty
>navigation  equipment. Ruddy has never been one to bury his lead,
>so I will just quote the opening sentence  in  his  article  that
>appeared last Wednesday in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
>  "A circular hole in the skull of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown
>  could  have  been  a  gunshot wound and certainly should have
>  prompted an autopsy, according to  an  Air  Force  lieutenant
>  colonel  and  forensic  pathologist  who investigated the jet
>  crash in which Brown died."
>That,  as  Bill  Buckley  would  say,  is  the  gravamen  of  the
>complaint.  Because  the  responsible authorities failed in their
>duty to conduct a thorough investigation and resolve the issue at
>the  proper time, questions of a highly scandalous nature are now
>being raised, and it is altogether proper that they should be.
>Needless to say, the bloviated gasbags who  represent  themselves
>as  a  "free  press"  in  this  country  will  attempt  to  blame
>everything on the messenger who brings the bad  news.  In  truth,
>the blame rests heavily on their own shoulders.  For decades they
>have been able to suppress such information and get away with it,
>but  now  their  power  to  manipulate the minds of the public is
>slipping away from them, due to recent  advances  in  information
>technology,  and  they  don't like it one little bit. On Thursday
>evening ABC "News" carried a TV special on the  scandals  of  the
>Kennedy  administration.  Most  of  the  scandals had been common
>knowledge for oh, the past twenty years or so, to anyone who  had
>the  initiative  to  question  the conventional wisdom. This at a
>time when ABC was still feeding the public the obligatory  pablum
>about  Camelot  and  suppressing the scandalous truth about those
>Kennedy boys and Marilyn Monroe. The pony express was  lightning-
>fast compared to our dauntless newshawks. Instead of dealing with
>the problem, they krex and whine like a bunch of  "two-year-olds"
>(to  use  Peter  Jennings'  simile),  spewing  venom at those who
>undertake to do the  job  they  refuse  to  do,  whether  out  of
>arrogance, treachery, cowardice or plain stupidity.
>No doubt those who turn to the Internet to get the news that  the
>newsies refuse to report will now be subjected to a fresh barrage
>of personal insults and puerile namecalling. To cut a long  story
>short,  why  don't  I just take a quick run through the litany of
>feeble  vituperation  that  comprises  the  repertoire   of   the
>mainstream  press?  We  are  a  bunch  of "conspiracy theorists,"
>right? We are animated by the "paranoid  tradition"  of  American
>politics  as  we  work  our way up the "right wing food-chain" of
>"conspiracy consciousness," is that correct? We are, in short,  a
>bunch  of  "right  wing-nuts,"  "crazies," "loonies," "nutballs,"
>"weirdos," "whackos," and "wigouts,"  n'est  pas?  Now  that  the
>infantilism of the mainstream media has been indulged, can we get
>on with the part of the program of interest to grown-ups?
>Cybersnitch Matt Drudge heralded the article late  Tuesday  night
>with  an  announcement  on  his  Web site that Ruddy was about to
>break a story that would "hit the internet harder than just about
>anything in its history."
>Well, that remains to be seen. Drudge  is  heir  to  a  tradition
>(Walter Winchell, Jimmy Fiddler) that uses hyperbole as freely as
>most of us use salt and pepper. Nevertheless, the  story  clearly
>has caused quite a stir. By Thursday morning it was reverberating
>in the European press -- the London  Telegraph  carried  a  story
>that quoted an Air Force deputy medical examiner as saying, "Even
>if you safely assumed accidental plane crash, when you  have  got
>something  that  appears  to  be  a  homicide,  that should bring
>everything to a screeching halt."
>It goes without saying that the American  mainstream  press  have
>primly  averted  their  gaze  and pretended not to notice Ruddy's
>story. What else is new? The mere fact that the story has  gained
>currency on the Net is enough to relegate it to the category of a
>non-event in their jaundiced eyes. How did the Boston  Globe  put
>it?    "...the  Internet  realizes  the  anarchist's  dream of an
>unmediated conversation between each and all."
>So don't be too hard on them -- they are only trying to  save  us
>from  "anarchy."  Of  course, they were quick to add, "Government
>must not censor that conversation..." if only to demonstrate that
>they  are  truly  on the side of the angels. But then there is no
>need for the  government  to  censor  anything.  In  the  supreme
>hypocrisy of their guilty silence, the mainstream press take care
>of the censorship themselves.
>Drudge announced that Ruddy's piece would deal with a participant
>in  the  investigation  of  the  late  Secretary of Commerce, Ron
>Brown's plane crash in Croatia. The participant, Lt.  Col.  Steve
>Cogswell,  is  a doctor and  deputy Armed Forces medical examiner
>with the Armed Forces  Institute  of  Pathology,  His  discovery,
>according to Drudge was that "essentially... Brown had a .45 inch
>inwardly  beveling circular hole in the top of head, which  is...
>the description of a .45-caliber gunshot wound."
>That, at least, is Drudge's interpretation. Others have expressed
>doubt that a gunshot wound caused by a large caliber weapon would
>fit the description given by  Cogswell,  or  by  Air  Force  Col.
>William Gormley, described by Ruddy as "an assistant armed forces
>medical examiner with approximately 25  years'  experience,"  who
>said  that  Brown's  death  "was  caused  by multiple blunt force
>injuries as a result of an aircraft mishap. The manner  of  death
>is accidental." It should be noted that Cogswell did not actually
>examine Brown's body, as did Gormley, but based his  opinions  on
>discussions he had with colleagues who had examined the body "and
>on reports, records, photographs and X-rays," according to Ruddy.
>Gormley admitted that the wound  did  seem  disturbing  at  first
>glance,  "A  perfectly round, nearly round .5-inch hole makes one
>think, 'Tell me more about this gunshot wound,' right?"
>But he nevertheless  maintained  that  Brown  had  probably  been
>struck  on  the  head by "a metal fastener or rivet," although he
>acknowledged that nothing had been found in the wreckage  of  the
>aircraft that would explain the wound.
>A half-inch rivet in the sheet-stringer structure of a  passenger
>aircraft?  A fastener that size might be found in a bridge girder
>or an oil rig, but not in the structure  of  an  aircraft  cabin,
>which is made of thin sheet metal.
>Still, the notion that the wound on the top of Brown's  head  was
>caused by a large caliber bullet presents certain problems. Ruddy
>wrote that Gormley did not believe that the wound could have been
>caused by a bullet because it had failed to penetrate the skull.
>Cogswell disagrees, however. After examining photographs  of  the
>wound,  he maintained that brain matter could be seen, suggesting
>that the hole did penetrate the skull, and  not  just  the  upper
>layer,  as suggested by Gormley. He also said that examination of
>into  the  head  when  the skull was penetrated by a "cylindrical
>This is not characteristic of a gunshot wound caused by  a  large
>caliber  weapon,  which  would more likely scatter bone fragments
>inside the head.  Also, Gormley observed a wide area  of  denuded
>scalp  at  the  top of the skull where the wound was located, but
>made no mention of flash burns or powder residue which  might  be
>expected  if a gun had been fired in close proximity to the head.
>Of course, the weapon might have been fired from a distance,  but
>why  then would there be "a wide area of denuded scalp at the top
>of the skull"?
>Perhaps the most puzzling detail is Cogswell's  observation  that
>the  frontal  head  X-ray that shows the defect at the top of the
>head, also reveals "something perhaps more sinister." Within  the
>left  side  of  Brown's  head, in the area behind his eye socket,
>"there are multiple small fragments of white  flecks,  which  are
>metallic  density  on  X-ray.  That's what we might describe as a
>'lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound."
>The  Pittsburgh  Tribune-Review  claims   to   have   copies   of
>photographs  and  X-  rays  that  show the wound on Brown's head.
>Cogswell has said that at least one of the  original  X-rays  has
>"disappeared,"   but  Ruddy  says  that  the  Tribune-Review  has
>obtained a photograph of it.  About all one  can  really  say  of
>these  descriptions  of  Brown's  head  wound  is  that  they are
>inconsistent.  Unfortunately, the responsible authorities did not
>see  fit  to  conduct  a post-mortem examination on Brown's body,
>although, as Cogswell observed, the presence of a  circular  hole
>in Brown's skull, that could have been a bullet hole, should have
>triggered an autopsy.  Cogswell  was  not  alone  in  noting  the
>resemblance  of  the hole to a gunshot wound. Kathleen Janoski, a
>photographer with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP),
>was  said by a source of Ruddy's to have taken a look at the head
>wound and exclaimed, "Wow! Look at the hole in Brown's  head.  It
>looks like a bullet hole."
>The possibility exists that Brown, and other potential survivors,
>were killed by being struck with blunt objects while lying on the
>ground after the crash.  The London Telegraph article noted  that
>Croatian  soldiers were already at the scene when the US military
>arrived, "and there is evidence that the site had been looted."
>Ruddy noted that Cogswell and others at AFIP describe the  mishap
>as  a  "relatively  low-impact crash." Hugh Sprunt, a graduate of
>MIT and Stanford who  is  also  a  qualified  pilot  (though  not
>current)  wrote last year in an article for Media Bypass that the
>crash was survivable, contrary to the opinion of  the  Air  Force
>Accident Investigation Board.
>Cogswell also mentioned that this was the first aircraft accident
>investigation  in  his  experience in which the Air Force did not
>follow its usual two-step investigative process. The first  step,
>known  as  a  "safety  board," which treats all crashes as though
>they were suspicious, was skipped. The possibility of  foul  play
>is considered in this first phase of the investigation.
>There is no way to resolve the differences  without  an  autopsy.
>The authorities will not reopen the matter unless somebody lights
>a fire under them -- and who  would  do  that?  The  press?  They
>evidently  do  not  perceive  covering  events  that  might prove
>embarrassing to the Clinton regime to be part of their agenda  --
>at least, not if they can avoid it. The fact that nine out of ten
>Washington reporters are liberals who supported Clinton  in  1992
>has  nothing  to  do  with  it,  of  course.  They  are  far  too
>professional to allow their  judgement  to  be  colored  by  such
>paltry considerations as passionate ideological commitments.
>I don't doubt their professionalism. The only question in my mind
>is  what  the  specialty  of  most mainstream editors truly is. I
>would guess that most of them practice a profession that is  said
>to  be  far  older  than  journalism. The thing that they need to
>understand is that they do not own the news. It belongs to all of
>us.  The  withholding  of  information  from  the  public  out of
>consideration for  the  cosmetic  appearance  of  public  figures
>favored  by  the  press represents an arrogant betrayal of public
>What gives this story impact is the fact that Clinton's  Commerce
>Secretary   Ron   Brown   had  become  an  embarrassment  to  the
>administration,  and  was  said  to  be  facing  indictment   for
>financial  crimes.  The indictment of such a high-ranking cabinet
>officer could have proven disastrous in  an  election  year,  and
>many   believe  that  Brown's  death  is  all  that  averted  his
>indictment. Of course, this may represent nothing more than pure,
>blind luck on Clinton's part, but there have been other deaths of
>people closely connected to the  Clinton  administration,   under
>circumstances that leave much to the imagination.
>For example, Barbara  Wise,  a  48-year-old  Commerce  Department
>employee  whose  bruised,  nude  body was found inside her locked
>office on November 30, (the Friday after  Thanksgiving)  of  last
>year. It was explained that Wise had a drinking problem and often
>spent the night in her office. The bruises were explained as  the
>result  of  recent cancer surgery. Maybe so, but some find it odd
>that anyone would be sleeping over at the office  on  the  Friday
>after  Thanksgiving.  Larry  Klayman  of  Judicial Watch recently
>pointed out that John Huang and Barbara Wise occupied   the  same
>suite of offices at the Commerce Department and that Ms. Wise may
>have had access to some of the documents that are known  to  have
>been  shredded  immediately following Ron Brown's death. Judicial
>Watch is conducting its own investigation into Wise's death.
>And then there was Admiral Boorda, who is said to have  committed
>suicide   out   of   chagrin   after  being  accused  of  wearing
>unauthorized combat decorations. One  of  his  accusers,  retired
>Col.  David  Hackworth,  who  was a columnist for Newsweek at the
>time, was himself later accused of  wearing  unauthorized  combat
>decorations.  If so, it hardly seems likely that Hackworth did so
>deliberately, since he is said to be the most decorated  American
>veteran  still  living.  The  problem  would  seem to be that the
>regulations governing the wearing of certain decorations  are  so
>ambiguous  that  it  is  easy  to misinterpret them. All of which
>gives one pause to wonder if this is really a credible reason for
>an officer of such senior rank as Boorda to kill himself.
>Not long before Boorda's death former Navy secretary  James  Webb
>delivered  a  scathing  address  at the Naval Academy in which he
>faulted the Navy brass, and by implication Boorda, for failing to
>stand up for career officers who had been caught in the crossfire
>of sexual politics and political correctness.  In  particular  he
>mentioned Stan Arthur, who had been ordered into early retirement
>because, as vice chief of naval operations,  he  had  approved  a
>report  upholding  a  decision  to wash out a female officer from
>flight school.
>There is evidence that Boorda had  come  to  regret  the  mocking
>sobriquet,  "little  Mikey," that his acquiescence had earned him
>from contemptuous naval officers. Washington Times columnist John
>McCaslin  told  of a conversation that he says took place between
>Adm. Boorda and retired Adm. Bobby Ray  Inman,  a  former  Deputy
>Director  of  Central  Intelligence,  in which Boorda told of his
>differences with the White House and complained  that  they  were
>not  interested  in  the  military. At that point, according to a
>witness, "Adm.  Inman pointed  his  finger  at  Adm.  Boorda  and
>admonished him against resigning."
>Is it possible that resigning from the Clinton administration  is
>not  as straightforward a procedure as it may seem to be at first
>glance? Is that perhaps what Vince Foster had in mind when he  is
>said  to  have become so "depressed" that he just cried and cried
>at dinner, although he seemed quite capable  of  planning  family
>outings with his children at the same time?  Wouldn't resignation
>have made just a bit more sense than committing  suicide  on  the
>very day his sister, whom he had invited to visit himself and his
>family in Washington, was flying up from Little Rock?
>Ask yourself what each of these people had in common. Is  it  not
>just  possible  that, in every case, their deaths averted extreme
>embarrassment, or worse, to the Clinton  administration  and  its
>leader,  a sociopath who is said to have lain on the floor of his
>car, mortified and ashamed to show his face, after losing his bid
>for a second term as Governor of Arkansas?
>Then again, perhaps these deaths (with the exception of Foster's,
>the official version of which is just too phony to be believed by
>anyone  but  a  congenital  idiot  or  a  mainstream  journalist)
>occurred  much  as  has been reported. How are we to know, if the
>official investigation is conducted in a superficial  manner  and
>the  result is treated as a foregone conclusion in order to avoid
>embarrassment to the president? Who is going  to  tell  us  these
>things  --  our craven, cowardly castrato press whose taste these
>days runs to licking the boots of the power elite? (Not that this
>is  really  such  a  recent  trend,  as  witness their nauseating
>sycophancy toward the Kennedy family).
>Make no mistake about it, Ron  Brown  was  in  a  whole  heap  of
>trouble,  and  not just nickel-and-dime stuff either. (What is it
>about Clinton that attracts him to such freebooters as Brown  and
>James McDougal?) According to Brown's "business" partner, Nolanda
>Hill, Brown had made a deal with the government of Vietnam to use
>his   influence to facilitate the normalization of relations with
>that country in return for $700,000 up  front.  Hill  told  ABC's
>Brian  Ross,  "He was considering it. He saw it as an opportunity
>to afford to be Commerce Secretary."
>When the story surfaced  in  the  press,  Brown  denied  it,  but
>according  to  Hill, he lied. He was tipped off that the FBI were
>aware of what he was doing and quickly withdrew from negotiations
>with  the  Vietnamese government. FBI agents who had been working
>on the case told ABC  News  that  they  had  suspected  as  much.
>Congressman  Dan  Burton  (R-Ind) says that the FBI abandoned its
>investigation of Brown, citing "budget cuts" as the reason.
>But Nolanda Hill's most serious allegation against Brown  is  her
>charge   "that  two  big  Democratic  contributors, Nora and Gene
>Lum... actually did pass money to Ron Brown when he was Secretary
>of   Commerce,"  according to Brian Ross. They did this by hiring
>Brown's 28-year-old son Michael into a well paid job  with  their
>Oklahoma  gas  company,  Dynamic  Energy Resources.  According to
>Hill, Michael then transferred much of the money to  his  father.
>Brown  later  maintained  that his son was merely paying him back
>for his college tuition.  When  Hill  suggested  that  Brown  use
>another  explanation since the story was not true, Brown replied,
>"Well, nobody can prove that."
>And then there was the strange business deal  whereby  a  company
>owned  by  Nolanda Hill continued to pay a company owned by Brown
>$12,000 a month interest on a loan of $875,000,  even  as  Hill's
>company was going bankrupt.  Rep. Burton is about the only person
>who has been so awkward as to ask where Brown got  the  $875,000.
>According  to  Burton,  the  FBI  confirmed  that  "there  was an
>electronic transfer from the Government of Vietnam to  this  bank
>in  Singapore,  and  here  all  of  a sudden we have a mysterious
>$875,000 turning up that was invested into this corporation."
>All of this and more were  explained  in  greater  detail  in  my
>previous  column,  "Ron  Brown's  Booty." None of it has elicited
>much comment from the mainstream press -- and then they  ask  why
>nobody   seems   to   care   about  the  sleaze  in  the  Clinton
>administration, as though the reason were some kind of deep, dark
>As Nolanda Hill, who was left holding the bag when Brown died put
>it, "The press jump-started his sainthood when he died. And quite
>frankly, I resent the hell out of being  left  with  the  cleanup
>Last summer The American Spectator charged  that  ninety  minutes
>before  the  White  House  announced  that  Ron Brown's plane had
>disappeared, just after the Commerce  Department  had  heard  the
>news, two secretaries entered Brown's office, opened his safe and
>shredded some documents that he kept there. Two  large  cardboard
>file  boxes,  filled  with  documents, were also removed from his
>office. Sound familiar? The only difference is that Vince  Foster
>was not under criminal investigation as was Ron Brown.
>When the New York Post reported that Newt Gingrich had  mentioned
>the  Spectator article at a closed meeting of Republican bigwigs,
>White House flack Michael McCurry immediately accused Gingrich of
>making  "an  outrageous  suggestion."  White House chief of staff
>Leon Panetta said it was "racist" as well. Interestingly,  nobody
>from  the administration actually went so far as to deny that the
>documents were removed or destroyed. The  name  of  the  game  is
>Spinball.  The  White  House  press corps know the rules and play
>right along. When it comes to Clinton's White  House  spin  their
>complacency (or is it complicity?) knows no bounds. These are the
>guys who staked out Reagan aide Richard  Allen's  house  after  a
>cheap gift watch was found in his office safe, remember?
>John Corry, writing in the August  American  Spectator  mentioned
>the  "Ron  Brown  defense,"  citing  the response of the New York
>Times Washington bureau chief R.W.  Apple,  a  panting,  wheezing
>lump  of  profane corpulence who could pass for the reincarnation
>of Sidney Greenstreet, to a query from the London Spectator as to
>why  the  Times  now  seemed  "reluctant to follow up leads which
>discredit the President."
>Apple replied, 'Who do you think broke the [bleepbleep] story  in
>the  first  place?'  adding,  'Do  you want us to go round giving
>credibility to every piece of dirt thrown at the  president  like
>those [bleepbleeps] at the American Spectator?'
>Comparing Apple's comment to the  defense  Panetta  used  against
>Gingrich,   Corry  commented:  "Apple  could  not  deny  anything
>reported in the  Spectator;  he  just  did  not  want  it  to  be
>But what was in those documents that provided  the  raw  material
>for  this  particular batch of Clinton confetti? In mid-September
>U.S. District  Judge  Royce  Lamberth  ruled  that  the  Commerce
>Department   employees   suspected  of  shredding  the  documents
>following Brown's death can be  deposed  by  the  public-interest
>group Judicial Watch.
>The group's chairman, Larry Klayman, has alleged that Brown  sold
>seats  on  his  various  trade  trips to executives who kicked in
>contributions of  $100,000  or  more  to  the  Democratic  Party.
>Judicial  Watch  was  also  given  the authority to question Jude
>Kearney, the presidential confidant who is said to have  overseen
>the  task  of  awarding  seats  on the trade trips to well-heeled
>Kearney, who had been a Clinton aide in Arkansas, and  is  now  a
>deputy assistant secretary of commerce, was quoted as saying in a
>Commerce  Department  memo,  "As  a  political  appointee,   [Mr.
>Kearney]  would  push  those that were politically connected" for
>places on what came to be known as the "Ron Brown Express"
>Although Kearney has since denied  making  the  statement,  other
>Commerce   Department  memos  make  abundantly  clear  the  close
>correlation between political  contributions  made  by  corporate
>executives and flying express via Ron-air.
>Judge Lamberth also directed the Commerce Department  to  produce
>"any communications with the Democratic National Committee and/or
>White House which refer or relate to plaintiff's FOIA  requests."
>Andy  Thibault  of  the  Washington  Times wrote that Klayman has
>accused the Commerce  Department  of  holding  out  on  his  FOIA
>request,  citing  reports  that  Brown's secretaries had shredded
>documents on the day of his death.
>Judge Lamberth brushed aside the efforts of  Commerce  Department
>lawyers  to  explain  the  department's  failure  to  produce the
>records, saying, "The search was either inadequate  or  documents
>were destroyed.  That's the only conclusion."
>It would seem that a score and more of those corporate execs  who
>booked a flight on the Ron Brown Express got a bit more than they
>had bargained for -- a once-in-a-lifetime  chance  to  ride  that
>plane  to  glory.  However,  it  appears  that  not  all of their
>survivors are entirely satisfied with  the  service  provided  by
>Ron-air.  Attorneys for more than half of the 35 people killed in
>the crash have filed suit against  the  Air  Force  for  wrongful
>death.  An  Air Force spokesman told UPI last August that it will
>probably settle with many of the  plaintiffs  if  they  determine
>that it was a "valid claim."
>The Air Force's position would  seem  to  be  a  shaky  one.  The
>accident investigation found that:
>  "...command failures, pilot error and poorly designed airport
>  approach procedures were responsible for the deadly accident.
>  Investigators  determined  that  the  CT-43,  the  Air  Force
>  version  of  a  Boeing 737, was almost 2 miles off course and
>  that pilots trying to  land  during  a  violent  thunderstorm
>  brought the plane in too low and too fast."
>The  UPI  got  it  wrong,  of  course.  There  was  no   "violent
>thunderstorm."  That  bit of misinformation (disinformation?) has
>been repeatedly corrected on Internet, yet the  mainstream  media
>continue  to  repeat  the  error.  The  pilots had been making an
>instrument approach and the hilly terrain was obscured  by  cloud
>What the Air Force actually did wrong was to have  only  one  ADF
>(Automatic  Direction Finder) receiver on board when the approach
>procedure called for two in order  to  conform  to  the  relevant
>regulations.  The rather antiquated navigational aids used at the
>Dubrovnik airport comprised  two  non  directional  beacons,  one
>designated  "CV",  located 1.9 nautical  miles from the Runway 12
>threshold, and the other, designated "KLP", located 11.8 nautical
>miles from the Runway 12 threshold.
>The Air Force Accident Investigation Board (AIB) report indicates
>that  Brown's Air Force T-43 was using the KLP beacon at the time
>of the accident, which perhaps explains why the aircraft  was  so
>far  off  course. In order to conform to Air Force regulations it
>would have been necessary that two receivers be used,  one  tuned
>to  the  KLP  beacon  and  the  other tuned to the CV beacon. The
>latter beacon would have alerted the flight crew  that  they  had
>missed  the  approach, allowing them to turn to the right, toward
>the Adriatic, in time to avoid the high terrain.
>Ruddy wrote that, "Questions about the ground beacons were  never
>fully  resolved."  It  seems that a few days after the crash, the
>person responsible for maintenance at Dubrovnik airport was found
>shot to death -- "an apparent suicide."
>The latest word, even as I write this, is that a  gag  order  has
>been placed on Cogswell, and his home has been searched. The name
>of the game is Whack the Whistleblower. You can always tell  when
>the  bureaucracy is becoming rattled -- the benign "liberal" mask
>slips, ever so slightly, and the ugly, fascist countenance shows,
>just  a  bit.  But don't worry -- they are only trying to save us
>from our own flawed nature. If we knew  the  terrible  truth,  we
>wouldn't  be  able  to  handle it, you see. Why, we might man the
>barricades, stop listening to Larry King, cancel our subscription
>to  The  Washington  Post.  (Of  course, the wife would sure miss
>those supermarket coupons). Anything could happen -- free  speech
>might  even  break  out. (That would spell anarchy and the end of
>civilization as we know it).
>So, that's all there is to that -- or is it? Will ABC run another
>special  30  years from now, telling us what really happened? You
>know, just fill in a few of the missing details as they did  last
>week  with  JFK  --  such  as  the  fact  that  he stole the 1960
>presidential election with a little help from the Mafia? Or  that
>he  shared  a mistress with Chicago Mafia boss Sam Giancana, whom
>they also used as a courier to send messages back and  forth?  Or
>that  JFK  was a speed freak who took Dr. Feelgood along with him
>to Vienna to provide his daily  fix  while  he  met  with  Soviet
>leader  Nikita  Khrushchev?  (That  was just before he and Mr. K.
>nearly  incinerated us all in a nuclear war).  You  know,  a  few
>little arcane tidbits of possible interest to buffs.
>So  why didn't they tell us this already? Well, gosh --  I  guess
>they didn't know about it until just the other day when they read
>Seymour Hersh's book. That's odd,  I  knew  about  all  of  those
>things  20  years  ago,  at least. Aren't they supposed to be the
>The bottom line would seem to be that  if  you  know  about  such
>things  too  soon, that makes you a "conspiracy theorist." And if
>you find out what is going on 30 years or more after it ceases to
>matter,  what  does  that  make  you?  An  historian -- or just a
>  Published in the Dec.  8, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly
>  Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
>          Reposting permitted with this message intact

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail