Reed Irvine - Editor
  March B, 1996  
 

FINAL WORD ON HISS AND I.F. STONE

 THIS ISSUE:
  • A Stone Unturned
  • Hiss as "ALES"
  • Frumpy "Spy Queen"
  • FDR to KGB
  • Anticommunism Vindicated
  •  What You Can Do
  • Notes
  • Let us now be finished forever with the question of the allegiances of Alger Hiss, the former diplomat who went to jail for lying about his spying for the Russians, and I.F. Stone, the clever radical journalist who deceived several generations of his peers about his service to the Soviet Union. Only diehard Hiss and Stone zealots could ignore the latest evidence, contained in hundreds of messages from Soviet spy masters in Washington and New York to Moscow which were intercepted during World War II and subsequently decoded. The National Security Agency, our codebreakers, in early March released more than 500 of the so-called Venona papers. The new material is damning--no other word is appropriate--to both Hiss and Stone.

    To read the thousand-plus pages of Venona material is akin to revisiting the late 1940s, when revelations by persons such as Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley captured the passionate attention of the entire nation. Liberals and much of the media demonized Chambers and Bentley as demented liars who spun their tales of whole cloth.

    Thanks to the Venona findings, we now know that these persons were square on target, as were such Communist pursuers as Representative Richard M. Nixon and the House Committee on Un-American Activities, The United States government, beginning with the New Deal, was heavily infiltrated by Soviet agents, from the working levels of the bureaucracy up to the White House itself, in the persons of Harry Hopkins and Lauchlin Curtie, key advisers to President Roosevelt.

    But our media have given the public only a bare smattering of the new information, and we found no press mention whatsoever of the startling disclosures about journalist I.F. Stone. The New York Times, meanwhile, disgraced itself yet again by pooh-poohing new evidence against Alger Hiss.

    On the positive side, laurels go to David Martin, national security correspondent for CBS News, who did a complete and straight- forward piece for the "CBS Evening News." ABC and NBC ignored Venona. James Barnford, intelligence correspondent for ABC News, told us that he "had trouble interesting the network in that kind of historical stuff." The Washington Times, rather than having its own intelligence man, Bill Gertz, do a story, ran a so-so piece from the Scripps-Howard News Service which was short on details.

    The old Army Security Agency began intercepting the Soviet messages in 1943 but decoders couldn't make any sense of them until early in 1946. Then a quarter century of tedious work, led by Meredith Gardner of the National Security Agency, provided a gold mine of material about Soviet espionage. In themselves, the Venona messages give only fragments of the story. NSA estimates, for instance, that "only 1.5 percent of the Washington-Moscow KGB messages sent in 1945 were able to be broken and read." Fortunately, the 1944 rate was nearly 50 percent. But Venona's availability to the FBI added confirmation to what agents were learning through more conventional investigative techniques, The information contained in Venona also enabled the FBI to know that such witnesses as Chambers and Bentley were telling the truth.

    We received the hefty stack of Venona papers just as the previous edition of the AIM Report [March-A-96] was being prepared for the printer, so we had time to give only a brief sketch of their contents. The Notes section discussed how most of the media brushed off the new Hiss revelations. We have now had the time for an exhaustive study of Venona, and we realize all the more how the media skipped over some important American history.

    The most inexcusable glitch was the failure to report embarrassing stuff about I.F. Stone, who continues to be a sainted figure for big-name journalists who should know better. For decades "Izzy" Stone, as he was affectionately called by other writers, postured as an independent thinker whose mission was to expose the evils of America's institutions, especially during the Vietnam era. [For a good account of Stone's career, use the enclosed card to order Moscow's Words, Western Voices by Dr. Kenneth Campbell.] Like many other persons, we were suspicious that Stone seemed to parrot whatever propaganda line the North Vietnamese preached.

    A Stone Unturned

    Our doubts were confirmed in 1992 when former KGB general Oleg Kalugin told us that the Soviets considered Stone their man for years, although he refused to take any money after the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Kalugin made the same statement to espionage expert Herbert Romerstein, former staff member of the House Intelligence Committee and the U.S. Information Agency. These revelations caused consternation in the editorial rooms of The Washington Post and The New York Times. A lead editorial in the Post accused us of "redbaiting." A Times editorial said our revelations recalled "the fearful 1950s when the mere allegation of Communist sympathies could destroy careers and reputations." There were also assaults on AIM and Romerstein in the New York Review of Books and The Nation.

    Peculiarly, neither the Times nor the Post ran any news stories about the evidence on which our statements about Stone were based. So readers had no information against which to judge who was accurate--AIM or the editorial writers.

    In 1993 the FBI, responding to our Freedom of Information Act request, gave us documents stating that an informant within the Communist Party USA had identified Stone as a member in the 1930s. From other sources, we learned that the informant was John Gates, long an editor of The Daily Worker, the party newspaper. We wrote about these documents, and offered them to the media. Again, no stories.

    Here's the new evidence against Stone. The NKVD, predecessor to the KGB, first made overtures to Stone in September 1944, through Vladimir Sergei, a spy who worked in the U.S. as a correspondent for the Soviet news agency Tass. Stone was then the Washington correspondent for The Nation and wrote regularly for other leftist publications. According to Sergei's report, he was initially unresponsive, so the Soviets had a Communist Party member named Bernard Schuster check to "determine precisely his [Stone's] relations to us." Perhaps Schuster provided information about Stone's being a Communist Party member less than a decade earlier, as revealed in the FBI files we read.

    The next contact worked. Stone complained to Sergei that the attempts to recruit him had been amateurish, and that he "reacted negatively, fearing the consequences" of being identified with the Soviets. According to Sergei's report to Moscow, Stone "was not refusing his aid" but that the Russians should "consider that he had three small children and did not want to attract the attention" of the FBI. Stone also said that he preferred that meetings with his Soviet handlers be in Washington because he seldom visited New York.

    Then Stone named his price. He spoke of his "unwillingness to spoil his career." Stone claimed he earned as much as $1,500 a month but "he would not be averse to having a supplementary income." The rest of the message was mostly garbled but it dealt with such spy tradecraft matters as how the Soviets and Stone would stay in contact, and the details of what the report called the "establishment of business contact." This seems to be a crude euphemism for. "How shall we pay our new man?" The Soviet spymasters gave Stone the cryptonynm "BLIN," or "Pancake."

    According to Oleg Kalugin, Stone broke away from the Soviets to protest the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. Kalugin came to Washington in the 1960s under cover of being a press officer at the Soviet Embassy and said he succeeded in re-recruiting Stone. But when the Red Army went into Czechoslovakia in the summer of 1968, Stone again declared his independence, saying he would no longer take money from the Soviets.

    By this time, the U.S. intelligence community had firm proof of Stone's work for the Soviets, for the Venona intercept made in October 1944 had finally been deciphered in January 1968, some seven months before the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

    Here we come to one of the anomalies of the intelligence trade. Stone at the time was arguably the most prominent journalist in the anti-war movement, one whose every word was worshipped by students and older leftists. The Johnson Administration (and its successors, for that matter) could have cut off Stone's credibility at the knees, for Venona proved that he walked around for years with Kremlin gold sagging in his pockets. But for whatever reason, NSA chose not to reveal what remained top secret--that the United States had in effect been reading the Soviets' spy mail during the 1940s.

    We'll happily make copies of the Venona pages available to any journalist who wants to write a belated story about Izzy Stone. The Nation still gives an annual award in his name for "outstanding journalism."

    Hiss as "ALES"

    Let us amplify the Hiss material which we summarized in the last report. His Venona reference is in a cable from Moscow Center dated March 30, 1945, which is obviously a reply to a query from KGB agents as to his identity. Hiss is referred to as "ALES."

    Moscow states, "Ales has been working with the NEIGHBORS [KGB slange for the GRU] continuously since 1935. For some years he has been the leader of a small group of the NEIGHBORS, for the most part consisting of his relatives." This jibes with testimony from Whittaker Chambers that Hiss became a GRU and Comintern agent in 1935, assisted by his wife Priscilla and brother Donald.

    The cable continues that after Yaita, Hiss went to Moscow where he met with Soviet foreign minister Andrei Vishinsky and received a decoration for his work. The FBI found that Hiss was among only four members of the U.S. delegation that went to Moscow. Hiss's son Tony, a New York writer, confirmed in a statement that Alger Hiss indeed went to Moscow but that the highlight of his overnight visit was a visit to the Metro. We find it hard to comprehend that a high-level diplomat would travel more than a thousand miles across wartime Russia to visit the subway.

    Frumpy "Spy Queen"

    The unchallenged star of the Venona papers is a woman who was made one of the more reviled figures of the spy hearings. She was Elizabeth Bentley (first GOOD GIRL, then MIRNA, to the Soviets), a Radcliffe graduate who joined the Communist Party in New York City in the 1930s and eventually was ordered to go underground. Bentley's boss, a man named Jakob Golos, was also her lover, and he put her to work scurrying to Washington to harvest secrets being gathered by separate spy rings within the Roosevelt Administration. After Golos died in 1944, her enthusiasm for Communism withered, and she finally sought out the FBI and confessed what she had been doing. After interviewing Bentley for months, the Bureau agreed to let her testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

    Unfortunately for Miss Bentley's short-term credibility, a New York tabloid newspaper got wind of her account before she appeared and ran a lurid story describing her as a "beautiful blonde spy queen"--which she was not, unfortunately. In the flesh, she turned out to be rather frumpy, with brown hair. She was a courier between Soviet agents in New York and Washington. "That she did not live up to her advance publicity somehow discredited her testimony," the magazine New Leader would comment. The fact is she had detailed information about the spy rings and the material she gathered from them.

    So the American leftists set out to destroy Bentley. Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, who ran one of the two spy rings which Miss Bentley serviced, set the tone for what many prominent non-believing liberals would say of her. He told HUAC that she was a "neurotic liar" whose stories were "false and fantastic." Representative Richard Nixon asked Silvermaster just where was she wrong. Whereupon Silvermaster took refuge behind the Fifth Amendment, refusing to affirm or deny whether he ever met Bentley.

    Now Venona tells us what Silvermaster was doing for the Soviets. Typical is a dispatch of October 26, 1944, in which Lt. Gen. Pavel Fitin (VIKTOR) told Moscow that Silvermaster (ROBERT) "has passed on a 50-page top secret [War Production Board] report... about arms production" in the United States. Venona contains many other papers on the fruits of Silvermaster's spying.

    The interlocking nature of the conspiracy, the aid that Communist agents gave to one another, is illustrated in an incident involving Silvermaster. While still on the payroll of the Farm Security Administration, he sought employment at the Board of Economic Warfare. The Office of Naval Intelligence objected on grounds he was a Communist who had no business working in a sensitive wartime agency. Whereupon Silvermaster went to Lauchlin Curfie, FDR's White House aide and also a Communist agent, and asked for help. Curtie pressured Secretary of War Robert Patterson into overriding ONI and Silvermaster got the job.

    Independent scholars who have critiqued Bentley's state- ments, in both her book and the hearings, give her high marks for credibility. Amherst College professor Earl Latham, in his 1966 book The Communist Controversy in Washington From the New Deal to McCarthy, noted that "her main disclosures...are believable, are not to be brusquely dismissed as malicious mania, and are still largely unrefuted."

    No espionage prosecutions stemmed directly from Bentley's testimony, but as an NSA historical study released along with the papers states, "Venona confirms much of the information about Soviet espionage that Ms. Bentley provided the FBI."

    FDR to KGB

    Another person Bentley named as a Soviet agent was Harry Dexter White, who has been called "one of the most influential men in foreign affairs in the 1940s" for the entire U.S. government. A Treasury Department employee from 1933, he was at assistant secretary level by 1941 when Secretary Henry Morgenthau gave him "full responsibility for all matters of foreign relations in which the Treasury was concerned." Two major episodes in which he was a key player were of direct benefit to the Soviets, although no hard evidence exists that he did Moscow's bidding:

    In late November 1941, at the climax of tense negotiations with the Japanese, White was the principal author of a cable which Secretary of State Cordell Hull sent to Tokyo. The message contained terms so tough that Washington could expect them to be rejected; Japan immediately began preparations for the Pearl Harbor attack. Japan's decision to declare war on the U.S. meant that the USSR no longer faced the threat of an invasion from the East.

    Late in the war, White was the guiding spirit behind the somewhat misattributed "Morgenthau Plan," which would have transformed Germany into a pastoral nation by dismantling its heavy industry. Germany certainly deserved harsh treatment; nonetheless, this scheme would have exposed all of Europe to Soviet domination. [President Truman killed the plan, and a reformed West Germany became a bulwark against Communism.]

    According to Chambers, White began working for the Soviets in the 1930s, first as an active collector of documents, then as a member of a "sleeper apparatus" that would forego active espionage but be ready to do the USSR's bidding in the future. But for a short time, he (along with Alger Hiss and Julian Wadleigh) gave George Silverman a steady flow of secret government papers to be photographed and passed along to Soviet couriers.

    At the same time that he was meeting with such personages as President Roosevelt and Secretary Morgenthau, White was also having tete-a-tetes with Major Pavel Ivanovich Fedosimov (MAJ) of the NKVD. White knew he was walking dangerous ground. In August 1944 Fedosimov told Moscow of visiting White's apartment. The Venona papers revealed that the Soviets knew White as JURIST. Although White professed no concern for his "personal safety," he did fear that his "compromise would lead to a political scandal" and a discrediting of the New Deal should his work for the Soviets be revealed. For security reasons, White suggested that meetings be rotated among houses of his friends, or in his car.

    White apparently did his work well. One of the famed "pumpkin papers" which Chambers produced in the Hiss case was an eight- page memorandum in White's handwriting summarizing documents he had seen and events which he had noted. Chambers said White prepared such memoranda about every two weeks.

    In testimony before HUAC, White acknowledged knowing Bentley, Silvermaster, Perlo and other persons claimed to be Soviet agents, but in an innocent context. And yes, he intervened with naval intelligence on Silvermaster's behalf, saying, "I believe he was innocent." A supportive audience applauded at this statement, as it did many other times during White's appearance. When White testified, the FBI was investigating whether he was a Soviet agent; nonetheless, President Truman nominated him to head the World Monetary Fund. (Years later, Truman claimed he nominated White so White would not know he was under suspicion--reasoning that sounds hollow in view of the public inquiries already being made.) White died of a heart attack several weeks after going before HUAC, so he never faced his accusers in court.

    In addition to conventional espionage, Soviet agents made the U.S. an extension of the battlefield in their war against critics of Stalin who had fled the USSR, especially supporters of the slain Leon Trotsky, killed by an axe blow to the head in his Mexican villa in 1940. (Trotskyites were POLECATS in the cables.)

    A special target was Victor Kravchenko, who in 1944 defected in Washington from the Soviet Government Purchasing Commission (and who later wrote the best-selling book I Chose Freedom). The KGB set out to find Kravchenko (called both GNAT and KOMAR) and an agent named Mark Zbrowski (codenamed TULIP) finally succeeded. Kravchenko knew what was happening, for TULIP reported that he was "in a great panic" over his safety and realized that he was being tailed constantly by agents who were "preparing to do away with him." He also expressed fears that "CARTHAGE"--i.e., Washington--was about to force his return to Soviet hands, which would have meant sure death.

    A veiled reference suggested that the KGB was terrified that Kravchenko was about to give the FBI information on a major unresolved mystery: the gunshot death, in a locked Washington hotel room in 1941, of General Walter Krivitsky, defected GRU chief for Western Europe. The cable said that "KOMAR is well informed about the Krivitsky case." Although Washington police ruled Krivitsky's death a suicide, suspicions lingered in the FBI that he was murdered.

    Anticommunism Vindicated

    The Venona papers affirm a truth that remains anathema to the American left: anticommunists were correct when they asserted that domestic Communists worked with Moscow in the cause of Soviet world domination. Even liberal academics now recognize what conservatives long understood. Richard Gid Powers of the College of Staten Island writes in his new book Not Without Honor: The History of American Anti- communism, "Anticommunism was made up of men and women who had come to know a great deal about Communism, and who believed that what they were doing was urgent and important. For many of them, trying to tell what they saw as the appalling truth about Communism consumed their lives. Some anticommunists built careers around fighting Communism; others sacrificed careers."

    But we anticommunists will not be content until the media lay the full story of American involvement in Soviet espionage before the public. Venona gives the media a chance to catch up on the story.

    The March releases are the third in the Venona series to be made public. Earlier papers fingered FDR aide Harry Hopkins as being Moscow's man. According to NSA, another thousand or so Venona messages will be released later in 1996, including traffic to Moscow from the KGB rezidentura in San Francisco, a center for atomic spying; and the GRU, or Red Army intelligence, post in Mexico City.

    NSA was hyper-cautious in "naming names" in the material. Many are redacted, or blacked out. An historical summary cited "consideration of the privacy interests of individuals mentioned, referenced, or identified in the translations. Some names have not been released when to do so would constitute an invasion of privacy."

    Thus the release of the material on I.F. Stone's recruitment cannot be dismissed as 'red baiting." We understand that many other persons will be "outed" when the next Venona documents are made public. We'll watch to see if our media continue to be squeamish about naming those who worked for the Soviet Union during the 1940s.

    What You Can Do

    Send the enclosed postcards, or your own letters, to Mr, Sulz- berger at The New York Times regarding I.F. Stone and Vincent Foster and to Senator D'Amato about Foster. Use the other card to place your order for books or columns.

    AIM REPORT is published twice monthly by Accuracy In Media, Inc., 4455 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20008, and is free to AIM members. Membership dues are $25 a year. Dues and contributions to AIM are tax deductible. Corporate membership is $50.

    AIM Report NOTES FROM THE EDITOR'S CUFF

    ON MARCH 18, AIM BEGAN RUNNING A SERIES OF FIVE COLUMNS TITLED "WHY?" ON the op-ed page of The New York Times, paying handsomely for the space. The columns asked why The New York Times refused to inform its readers about the many serious unanswered questions about the death of Vincent Foster. Each column laid out facts that the Times and other big media have refused to report. We felt that this would be the most effective way of getting this information to many influential people. The columns covered ground familiar to AIM Report readers--the suspicious behavior of three men seen in and near Foster's car shortly before his body was found and the absence of any forensic evidence--a bullet, bone fragments, brain tissue, and blood spatter--that would prove that Foster died where his body was found. We showed that the old .38 black revolver found under Foster's hand was not his gun. We showed that the so-called "suicide" note that was used to bolster the belated claim that he was depressed was forged and that the White House has lied about the way it was found. We showed that important evidence, including most of the crime scene photos and all of the autopsy x-rays have vanished, along with a briefcase that three witnesses saw in Foster's car. We pointed out that a neck wound seen by a medic and shown by one of the 13 photos that have not disappeared has been ignored by the official investigators.

    WE EXPECTED THE LAST TWO COLUMNS IN THIS SERIES TO APPEAR IN A FULL-PAGE ad on the back page of the Week in Review section of the Sunday Times on March 31. We requested this space on a stand-by basis to lower the cost, having been assured by a Times advertising representative that the chances were 9 out of 10 that it would run on that date. We were so confident that we asked readers of our ad on the op-ed page on March 29 to look for the last two columns in the series in the Sunday Times. We didn't say which Sunday, but we thought it would be March 31 and so did the readers. We were inundated with calls from them when the ad failed to appear. I thought we had been sabotaged when the Times advertising representative with whom we had dealt gave me an explanation that made no sense. Even Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the Chairman of the Times, agreed that the explanation was weak. I finally got a call from the fellow who makes up the ad pages in the Week in Review. He explained that our discounted stand-by ad was squeezed out by an increase in the number of the small education/medical services ads that always take up several pages in that section of the paper. There had been only one other case this year in which the number of pages of those ads exactly equaled the eight pages reserved for news and editorial material. To have run our ad, the section would have had to be increased to 18 pages, and they won't do that for an ad paying the stand-by rate. I point this out to scotch suspicions that we were sabotaged. I hope the ad will run on April 7, but that can't be guaranteed either.

    THE AD, HEADLINED "THE NEWS STORY THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES WON'T PRINT," asks the Times readers to join us in protesting the cover-up of the most explosive news story in America. We urge them to send a message to Chairman Sulzberger, promising to hand-deliver messages sent to him via AIM. We also urge that they ann themselves with the facts by buying Chris Ruddy's book, Vincent Foster, The Ruddy Investigation ($19.95 to AIM members) and ordering a free set of our Times columns. I urge you to do the same. Enclosed are cards to Sulzberger and Sen. D'Amato and a card to place your order. A copy of the suppressed ad (reduced 75%) is on the overleaf. I realize you will have to use a magnifying glass to read it. If your eyesight is impaired, we will send a larger copy if you so request when you order the full set of the ads.

    The News Story That The New York Times Won't Print!
    These Are The Last of 5 Ads We Had To Buy to Bring Times Readers The Facts on The Death of Vincent Foster

    WHY? by Reed Irvine
    Fourth of a series of five

    Why hasn't The New York Times told you that there is no evidence that Vincent foster owned or ever had access to the gun that was found in his hand? This is important because it was that gun that led the police to the hasty conclusion that they were dealing with a suicide despite the fact that they could find not a single piece of evidence that it was a shot from that gun that killed Foster at the spot where his body lay.

    They could find no bone fragments from the exit wound in Foster's head. They observed no brain tissue or blood spattered on the surrounding vegetation. There were no blood or identifiable fingerprints on the gun. And there was remarkably little blood on the ground.

    The gun was a 1913 .38 Colt army special with cannibalized parts. Foster's two grown boys said it was not a gun that they had ever seen in their home. Mrs. Foster, who didn't want any handguns in her house, knew of only two in their Washington home.

    One of them was a revolver that she herself had packed and had shipped to Washington when she moved She could not locate it on the night of Foster's death, and she assumed it was the gun had used. But she was wrong.

    She said the revolver she had brought to Washington was silver-colored. The revolver found in Foster's hand was black. The other gun was located in a closet.

    Foster was no gun collector. The guns were left by his late father. His nephew, Lee Foster Bowman, who was familiar with his grandfather's guns, told the FBI his grandfather's revolver was silver, not the black gun they showed him. He said his mother, Sharon Bowman, told them the same thing. The Fiske report says that the mother had been shown the gun and had "identified it as appearing very similar to the one their father had kept in his bedside table."

    This report also says that Lisa Foster said the gun looked similar to one that she had brought to Washington, not mentioning that the gun she brought was silver, not black.

    NO FBI report of an inter- view with Sharon Bow- man has been released, perhaps because it confirms what her son, Lisa Foster and apparently the Foster boys have said about the color.

    Lee Foster Bowman says his grandfather's silver revolver was a nice "store-bought" gun, meaning a more recent and expensive model than the junk gun found in Foster's hand.

    The testimony of those most familiar with the Foster guns indicates that the gun found in his hand was not his. Fiske and the FBI agents who worked for him have covered this up, and Kenneth Starr has done nothing to expose the deception.

    Neither has the New York Times or Senator Al D'Amato. We have to ask again, WHY? Please add your voice to ours in posing that question.

    To Readers of The New York Times:

    Our big media--the national newspapers, news magazines, wire services and TV networks--have all refused to report that the official investigators have ignored, concealed and misrepresented evidence discussed in this series of columns that runs counter to their theory that Vincent Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park. They have now been joined by James B. Stewart, author of Blood Sport, who abets the cover-up and ignores all the evidence that exposes it, including the failure to find a bullet, bone fragments, brain tissue and blood spatter in the park.

    The column at the left shows how independent counsel Robert Fiske dissembled when he reported that Foster's widow said the gun found in Foster's hand "looked similar" to the one she had brought to Washington. The revolver she brought to Washington was silver; the one in Foster's hand was black. But James Stewart claims that all the evidence points to the silver gun's being the one found in Foster's hand.

    Why? Because there is no evidence Foster owned a black .38 revolver, and if the gun in his hand was not his, the case for suicide collapses!

    Stewart says Foster killed himself because he was seriously depressed. He claims everything in Foster's life was falling apart, including his marriage. He got that from Hillary Clinton's good friend, Susan Thomases. He put it in his book, not knowing that an FBI inter- view report dated 6/14/94, records that Thomases saw no change in Foster's appearance or demeanor and was completely shocked by his death. She "could offer no reason or speculation as to why he may have taken his life."

    Stewart has repeated these serious errors even after they were called to his attention. He apparently feels safe in doing so. The New York Times and other big media won't expose such flaws even when it is clear that they are based on lies and deceit.

    Why? Because the Times and other big media, like James Stewart, are so committed to the suicide theory that they refuse to acknowlege its weaknesses.

    Why? We think it's because they don't want to admit that they have been scooped by Christopher Ruddy, whose investigative reporting for the New York Post forced the reopening of the Foster investigation. Ruddy has continued to expose new information about the cover-up for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. James Stewart attacks Ruddy in his book. He succeeds only in showing his ignorance of the big holes in the Foster case that Chris Ruddy has exposed.

    I hope this makes you angry enough to help us expose the cover-up of the most explosive news story in America. Please read WHAT YOU CAN DO below.

    Reed Irvine, Chairman, Accuracy in Media

    What You Can Do

    1. Join us in protesting the blackout of this important story by sending us a short letter, card or fax. We will hand-deliver the responses protesting the blackout by the Times to Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the Chairman of the Board. Your voice will be herd, and the louder the roar the better.

    2. Help us spread this message. You can be more effective in doing this by reading Vincent Foster, The Ruddy Investigation. This is Ruddy's own compilation of his investigative reports for the New York Post and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, together with reproductions of many of the important documents and reports by independent experts on the forensic evidence in the Foster case. You will be amazed and angered by the revelations in this 218-page book. Use the coupon to order this important book.

    3. Order copies of this series of 5 columns, plus a 6th column that examines the evidence that Clinton has not told the truth about when he learned of Foster's death and tells how Sen. D'Amato can easily find the truth.

    4. Join Accuracy in Media and get the AIM Report to keep informed on this and other important stories the big media cover up or misreport. Contributions to AIM, tax-deductible, will help us run ads like these in other papers and magazines.

    WHY? by Reed Irvine

    Fifth of a series of five

    Why hasn't The New York Times exposed the many serious flaws in the investigations of the death of Vincent Foster that reflect both incompetence and corruption on the part of the investigators? Here's a partial list. 1. Detectives say you can't have too many crime scene photos, but in the Foster case, all the 35mm photos turned out to be badly under- exposed. As many as 30 Polaroids were taken as backups. Why have all but 13 disappeared? 2. Foster was shot in the head, and the first thing the medical examiner should have done was take x-rays of the head. In the Foster case, the doctor checked the box for x-rays and told an attending police officer that the x-rays showed no bullet fragments in the skull. When the FBI asked for the x-rays, they were told none had been taken because the machine was broken. The records show no service calls until October. Why did the x-rays vanish? 3. The Foster investigation was entrusted to the U.S. Park Police. They have little experience with homicides and suicides and only a small crime lab. They concluded it was suicide because a gun was found in Foster's hand. They were not deterred by these facts: (1) No bullet, skull fragments, brain tissue or blood spatter were found to support that conclusion; (2) Neither Foster's blood nor fingerprints were found on the gun; (3) It could it be identified as belonging to him; (4) Only two bullets were found in the cylinder and none in his home; (5) Blood stains on Foster's face indicated his body had been moved; (6) No witnesses were found who had heard a gun shot; (7) His behavior gave no hint of suicidal tendencies; (8) The so-called "suicide" note, first authenticated by a Capitol Police sergeant, was found to be a forgery by three experts when it finally became available for independent verification; (9) Information provided by witnesses concerning men seen in and near Foster's parked car was misreported by a medic and appearing on an enhanced photo was not noted in the autopsy report. Indications of the corruption or incompetence of the investigations include: (1) no effort made to find origins of fibers and hair found on Foster's underclothing; (2) No effort to evaluate significance of semen in his shorts; (3) No effort made to find out nature of the "bind" Foster's sister told a psychiatrist he was in five days before his death; (4) The briefcase that Foster was seen carrying when he left his office and that was seen in his car by three witnesses was not included in the evidence reported recovered by the police; and (5) Investigators were severely restricted in searching for evidence and interviewing witnesses.

    Unattended violent deaths should be investigated as homicides until the evidence rules out that possibility. That was obviously not done in the Foster case. So why have The New York Times and Senator D'Amato accepted a conclusion based on seriously flawed investigations? Ask them.


    Like What You Read?

    Back To AIM Report Section

    AIM Main Page