The BBC Wanted Me

In the late summer of last year I received an email from David Thompson of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) requesting an interview with me concerning my views on the death of Bill Clinton’s deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. He was working on a documentary for their program The Conspiracy Files, he said, that would address itself to various allegations that Donald Trump had made during the campaign, one of which, as we all know, was that there was “something fishy” about Foster’s death.

I must say that any sense of flattery I might have felt from being approached by such a renowned news organization as the BBC was greatly overwhelmed by my trepidation over their intentions. Only recently have I discovered the Wikipedia page about the regular BBC series that Thompson was working for, but I already knew that the BBC was little different from our own leading networks when it comes to virtually any major outrage you can name, and that there was absolutely zero chance that I would be treated fairly. To put it bluntly, this is not an organization that is interested in the truth. Here’s how Wikipedia sums up their work on The Conspiracy Files:

The Conspiracy Files is a British documentary television series broadcast on BBC Two, investigating various modern-day conspiracy theories. So far in two series and 13 programmes, the show has investigated the theories surrounding the September 11 attacks (twice), the Pan Am Flight 103 bomb, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 7 July 2005 London bombings, the deaths of David Kelly and Diana, Princess of Wales, the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, and those perpetrated by Donald Trump.

I will admit that the only one I have now watched all the way through is the last one, referenced below in the first sentence of my email to its producer, Ceri Isfryn, who contacted me after Thompson. Otherwise, I have watched the first part of their Oklahoma City bombing piece and one can see right off the bat how lightly they regard the truth when you hear the narrator say flatly, “A truck bomb blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City.”

Anyone with half a brain can readily see that the truck bomb out in the street near the right end of the Murrah Building was not primarily responsible for the damage to the building. See my 2005 article, “Lying about Bombing,” if you need persuasion. From that article and from my “Upton Sinclair and Timothy McVeigh,” the BBC might have considered me qualified for an interview for that program, as well, but I’m sure it would have been cut down to the few seconds you see them giving a couple of the doubters of the official story on YouTube.

At any rate, I brushed them off with a link to my 2002 article, “ABC Wants Me,” telling them that that was just the sort of experience that I expected from the BBC and that they were wasting their time talking to me.

Now I have seen their final product, which they titled “The Trump Dossier,” and I can say with some confidence that a person would be wasting his time watching it. If Snopes.com produced its own videos, this is the sort of thing that one might expect. So that I would not count my time as completely wasted for having watched it, I dashed off the following list of questions for the producer, Isfryn, and sent them to her this past weekend. I don’t really expect an answer, but so that I will not have further wasted my time in composing the questions, I am sharing the email here (The subject of the first three questions is discussed at length in “Antonin Scalia and the Cover-Up of Vincent Foster’s Murder”):

Hi Ceri,

I have now seen the documentary, The Trump Dossier, that you wanted me to participate in, and I must say that I am glad that I declined.  Since I would not answer your questions—albeit in a context in which you could edit the tape any way you pleased and rebut me in any specious manner you pleased—I suppose it would be too much to expect that you would answer mine, but it’s worth a try.  These are questions that deal almost completely with the portion of the program that addressed the question of the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster:

When Dr. Donald Haut told you he wrote down on his report what he was told rather than what he saw, why did you not ask him why he did that?  Is that normal procedure?  If so, why did he bother to go to the park?  If not, why did he do it in this instance?

Did you ask Dr. Haut who told him that there was a neck wound?  Was it more than one person?  If you did not ask him, why not?  If you did, did he recall who it was?  Did you attempt to interview that person?

When Dr. Haut declared that the scene told him that, without a doubt, Vince Foster had committed suicide, why did you not ask him to be more specific?  How so?  Was the body consistent with the drawing in Dr. James Beyer’s autopsy?  Was there a gaping exit wound in the back of the head?  If not, isn’t Dr. Beyer’s drawing fraudulent?  If so, why was there no bloody mess below the head, a fact that was noted by everyone else at the park?

Why did you make no mention of Kenneth Starr’s chief investigator, Miguel Rodriguez, the one who resigned in disgust because he felt that a cover-up was taking place?

Are you aware that Rodriguez also said that there was a neck wound and that there were photographs of it?  Do you know that paramedic Richard Arthur also testified that there was a neck wound?

Why did you choose to continue the news blackout about the letter from witness Patrick Knowlton’s attorney, John Clarke, that Kenneth Starr was ordered to include in his report by the judges who appointed him?  Are you aware that that letter thoroughly contradicts Starr’s conclusion that Foster committed suicide?  Is that why you made no mention of it?

Why did you repeatedly refer to the torn-up note alleged to have been found in Foster’s previously searched and emptied-out briefcase as a “suicide note” when there is nothing in it that suggests that Foster had any plans to kill himself, and its contents mention nothing that any reasonable person would consider serious enough to cause a person to take his own life?

From what you heard Park Police Sergeant Peter Markland testify, do you believe the note was actually discovered in that briefcase?  Could you explain why or why not?

Why did you make no mention of the conclusion of your late illustrious countryman, Professor Reginald Alton of Oxford University, that the note was a forgery?

Why did you solicit the opinion of Susan Glasser of Politico about the Foster case, when Politico didn’t even exist at the time of the Foster death and Glasser revealed no more knowledge of the case than the average man or woman in the street might have?

Did you make any effort to interview your countryman Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who was on the scene and deeply involved in investigating the death almost from the first day, or reporter Christopher Ruddy?  Did you make any effort to interview reporters at The Washington Post like Michael Isikoff and Ann Devroy who covered the case and wrote falsely on July 30, 1993, that police were turned away from Foster’s house on the night Foster’s body was discovered?

Why did you solicit the views of Bill Clinton’s assistant national security adviser Nancy Soderberg on the Foster case and other matters?  What expertise did she bring to the matter?  What entitled her to more or less get the last word?

I believe that if you would address these questions, initiating an honest exchange, you might be able to produce a follow-up program that actually might be worth a viewer’s time.  I think you would have to agree with me, though, that there is practically no chance that the British Broadcasting Corporation would air such a program.

Dave

They Also Wanted Turley and Knowlton

Thompson and Isfryn also approached Hugh Turley and the witness Patrick Knowlton, who gave somewhat more consideration to the idea of being interviewed by the BBC than I did. Knowlton’s attorney, John Clarke, I believe, was even initially in favor of it. He changed his mind, though, after the email feeling-out process engaged in by Turley and Knowlton. Turley has memorialized those exchanges with his own open letter to Isfryn, with a copy to Thompson, sent a day after I sent my email:

Ceri Isfryn

BBC TV Current Affairs

Ceri.Isfryn@bbc.co.uk

Open Letter to the BBC

Dear Ceri,

I was surprised to be contacted by the BBC last summer concerning the death of Vince Foster. The BBC is highly regarded and trusted. Interest in our work by the world’s oldest national broadcasting corporation was encouraging.

On July 20, 2016, your reporter David Thompson wrote to us by email,

I work for the BBC's TV current affairs department in the UK. I am currently looking at the issues surrounding the investigation into the death of Vince Foster and I'm really keen to speak to Hugh Turley and Patrick Knowlton.

I responded to Mr. Thompson,

David,

I think it would be best to answer questions you have by email.   You have been to the website FBIcover-up.com and everything significant is available.

The Appendix to Starr’s Report on the Death of Vince Foster was ordered included as part of the Report by the US Court of Appeals and it includes copies of twenty-five federal investigative records, proving six areas of cover-up.  This historic document has been ignored by journalists.

Starr’s 9-page motion to reconsider, that the Court of Appeals denied, is also at the website.

I would be impressed if BBC Current Affairs would properly report the Appendix to Starr’s Report on the Death of Vince Foster.  

Yours for the truth,

Hugh Turley

Thompson ignored the evidence Foster was murdered and suggested a program about us. On July 29, Thompson wrote,

I think it would be great for the programme, [to] get Patrick, yourself and John Clarke together in an office somewhere. We can have you guys going through the documents and discussing the evidence. Is that something that you might be interested in taking part in? I think it would really show the scale of the documentation and the effort that you have all put into working on this story.

Later that day, I replied to Thompson’s suggestion with the following message including a press release.

Mr. Thompson,

Thank you for your interest.  For years we have been disappointed by the failure of journalists to report the news of the appendix in Starr’s report on the death of Vincent Foster.

You can demonstrate that you are genuine by publicizing the press release below.  I would be impressed if you and the BBC would report this news before we proceed.   The news is not about me examining documents or the scale of the documents.

Sincerely,

Hugh Turley

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 28, 2016

Contact: Hugh Turley

American Journalists Concealing Evidence of Vince Foster Cover-up 

The American press is suppressing news of the appendix to Ken Starr’s report on the death of Vincent Foster.  The appendix provides evidence of a cover-up by the Independent Counsel’s own investigators.  Since October 10, 1997, the American news media have failed to report that the US Court of Appeals included 20 pages, submitted by grand jury witness Patrick Knowlton, in Starr’s report, over Starr’s objection.  The historic appendix includes copies of twenty-five federal investigative records, proving six areas of cover-up.

The American news media falsely reported that Starr’s report was 114-pages long, concealing the existence of the appendix, which made it 137 pages long.  The additional pages include evidence of a bullet hole in Foster’s neck, photos of the neck wound vanished, x-rays of the neck wound vanished, the gun found did not belong to Foster, Foster’s car was not at the park, and Knowlton suffered grand jury witness intimidation.   The complete report with the appendix is available online at American universities.

END

Patrick Knowlton, John H. Clarke and Hugh Turley co-authored the final 20 pages of Starr’s Report on the death of Vincent Foster. Their website is FBIcover-up.com.

On August 17, you took over the discussion for the BBC from Mr. Thompson and contacted Patrick Knowlton about interviewing him. Knowlton copied to you the messages he had sent to David Thompson in July:

Hi David,

My curiosity has risen since Hugh shared your latest correspondence with him. I don't want to waste your time or mine, especially. I have been involved with this case for many years and we are beyond any doubt the leading experts in the official record and documents of the Vince Foster murder. In my opinion there are only a few pieces of evidence that need to be highlighted to prove cover up and murder.

I am not personally interested in sitting around a table being filmed rummaging through papers, unless of course the fee for our time is paid out. I also have no interest in being on a show that lumps me in with Clinton haters, screwballs and master misdirectors and the fringe nut cases that hang on to our coattails.

Before I agree to do anything, I would like to see the script, who else do you plan on interviewing and how do you plan on being any different then your colleagues in the UK, who have and continue to call it a "suicide." I know in any profession it is not popular to oppose what your colleagues have been touting out as fact.

I have been on and continue to be on talk radio and have been on many TV shows in the past. I have been screwed over by countless people. I am wiser and more grounded about what I want and how I want my story and our work portrayed.

Patrick Knowlton

Dear David,

Thank you for your recent message.

I don’t think there is any confusion.  We are only interested in one story, the truth.  You are doing “two very distinct stories” and one of them is “the conspiracy theorists who manipulate the information, and use that for a political agenda.”  We had requested the names of others you would be interviewing and you failed to list them in your reply.

You have been a news reporter.  Can you name any news reporter that has accurately reported the truth about the death of Vincent Foster during the past 15 years? Just one?  The failure of your profession to report the truth is the story. Don’t you agree?

We don’t care about your editorial guidelines.  You mentioned “editorial integrity.”  Can you give an example of anything the BBC has reported about the death of Vince Foster that reflects any journalistic integrity, editorial or otherwise?

Patrick Knowlton

The following week you again contacted us for an interview where you wrote:

We're in DC at the moment - is there a good time to call you? Like I said - we are looking at this, and it would be good to have you on board if possible.

We are going to be covering this story, including interviews with people who share your doubts about the official account of events, and would like to include you in that. This includes an exploration of some of the key arguments that I know you share about the case.

Patrick replied to you:

This is what needs to be reported. I have been all over the BBC looking for an article or story that refutes suicide. Not one exists. You and your colleagues can't produce stories like this and never have. You can't be trusted.

I sent the following message to you,

The BBC can accurately and impartially report the Appendix to Starr’s report on Foster that is being suppressed by the press.  

The bottom line for us is honesty. 

The BBC can do a proper news broadcast, with a print article at the BBC website, informing the public about the Appendix to the Independent Counsel’s report on Foster and Starr’s 9-page motion opposing those pages, included in his report by the US Court of Appeals.  This is not something you need to do for us, but for your viewers and to demonstrate that the BBC is honest.   The BBC could report this news this afternoon without difficulty.  This news is straightforward and not complicated.

The BBC has no impartiality and no integrity while continuing to suppress the truth about the Appendix to the report by the Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.  

If you can demonstrate that the BBC is honest, you can count on us to assist you. 

Please let me know if this is something the BBC will do.

Sincerely,

Hugh Turley

The BBC program you produced “The Conspiracy Files: The Trump Dossier” confirmed our suspicions about your integrity, unfortunately. You and your reporter David Thompson concealed from your audience the proof we sent you that the press is covering up the appendix to the report of the Independent Counsel and its evidence that Foster was murdered.

While suppressing the clear evidence that Foster was murdered you instead paraded a collection of people of greatly varying qualifications offering their opinions pro and con. Your program concluded with this popular lie, “At least five official investigations have found that Foster’s death was suicide.”

That the BBC should be incompetent in exposing high level wrongdoing in the United States should hardly be surprising, I suppose, when it embraced within its own organization one of the most notorious child sex abusers in history in the person of the late Jimmy Saville. Furthermore, this is the news organization whose script reader Jane Standley reported that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC Building 7) collapsed on September 11, 2001, a full 26 minutes BEFORE the building collapsed.

I hate to say it, but you have shown yourself to be not much better than Standley and Saville. You may actually be worse for participating in an obvious murder cover-up. Dishonesty and even criminal behavior appear to be standard for the BBC.

Sincerely,

Hugh Turley

I have heard that the British people generally are more cynical about their news media than Americans are about theirs. It’s not hard to see why people in the UK should not believe a press that would turn out such a series as The Conspiracy Files, although after having just witnessed over the past year the desperate attempt of our news media to return the thoroughly corrupt Clintons to the White House, the American people’s cynicism about the press should be catching up to theirs.

David Martin

January 10, 2017

Home Page    Columns Column 5 Archive  Contact