Time: Fri Dec 12 17:22:43 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Brown And Coverups ... (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > > 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 >investigation. > >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? > > >ITS LOOKS LIKE A BULLET HOLE > >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 >object." > >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 >trust. > > >BROWN HAD BECOME A LIABILITY TO CLINTON > >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 >secret. > >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 >operation." > > >THE RON BROWN EXPRESS > >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 >reported." > >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 >contributors. > >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 >cover. > >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 >professionals? > >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 >schnook? > > > 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 > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail