Latest Foster Cover-Up Book Not Completely Worthless

Latest Foster Cover-Up Book Not Completely Worthless

by DC Dave

Purported journalist Marinka Peschmann is not exactly an experienced researcher on the 51dOgw0PmzLsubject and it shows in her thin little 2012 volume, Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer. One would think that this 5×8 inch paperback with only 132 pages of actual text would at least be spare with any unnecessary verbiage, but in fact the opposite is the case. It’s full of passages in which she and former Clinton White House legal office aide Linda Tripp just chew the fat, speculating about one thing or another. Not until her 12th and last chapter does she come through with her really batty theory of what actually happened the day Foster died.

“His job is clearly to play right-wing shepherd and to herd his assigned flock away from the corruption that envelops both the Democrats and the Republicans as well as our ruling media elite,” I wrote in my review of Richard Poe’s Hillary’s Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists. It’s the same with Peschmann, except that she seems both to be on, and to aim for, an IQ level a few notches lower than Poe’s. Poe was able to get a big blurb by Ann Coulter right on his dust jacket. The best Peschmann can get is a plug from Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft, a favorite whipping boy of the Fake Left web site, Media Matters, where Ben Dimiero suggests that Hoft might be “the dumbest man on the Internet.”

The following passage, which, short as it is, takes up half of the book’s penultimate page, tells you who the Peschmann audience is supposed to be, and it is surely not those she pretends to address:

A note to my secular, atheist, agnostic, and humanist friends and readers


Marinka Peschmann

We are all free to believe or to not believe in God. With or without the Bible verses, Following Orders is the same story. If you have a problem with references to God and to Christianity skip over the scriptures that open each chapter. When reporting on politicians who adhere to an ideology dedicated to Lucifer, I believe it is prudent to counter Lucifer with God. That said, I think it is fair to say we are all flawed. I also believe that a liar and a hypocrite, be it a person “of faith” or a “non-believer,” is still a liar and a hypocrite just like corruption, whether it appears on the right or the left of the political spectrum, is still corruption. (emphasis Peschmann’s)

Peschmann never explains how she developed such a cozy relationship with Tripp, the woman who brought Foster his last lunch, a cheeseburger, but one gets some idea of the degree of the coziness, as well as a feel for the reading experience that one is in for, with this early passage in the first chapter:

Linda Tripp

Linda Tripp

With Cleo, Linda’s golden retriever dog, gently asleep at her usual spot, in front of the living room couch, I faced the computer and clicked print. Page after page rolled out documenting the events of July 20, 1993—that was the day White House deputy counsel to the president of the United States, Vincent Walker Foster Jr., was found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head in Fort Marcy Park in McLean, Virginia. It was the highest-ranking suicide in government since 1949, when President Truman’s secretary of defense, James Forrestal, committed suicide by throwing himself from a sixteenth floor window to his death from the Bethesda Naval Hospital.


Vince Foster & Hillary Clinton

She’s still toeing the prevailing propaganda line on Forrestal (who was no longer defense secretary at the time of his death) some eight years after this writer had blown it out of the water, and it really should not surprise one to find that she really does pretty much the same with Foster. In the Foster case it is the propaganda line of the Fake Right.

We heard it early on, coming from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell. Yes, it might have been a suicide, they agreed, but it didn’t happen like we have been told. There had to have been something about it that was terribly embarrassing to the Clintons. Hillary and Vince had a love nest, they suggested, somewhere in Northern Virginia. Perhaps Foster killed himself there, and the body was transported to the park rolled up in a carpet and dumped. It is consistent with the thrust of reporter Christopher Ruddy’s work before he defected to the Clinton camp, and that is the theory that she is marshaling support for with the following passage:

According to an independent Foster investigation conducted by Vincent Scalice, a veteran New York City Police homicide investigator, and an expert in crime scene reconstruction, identification, and forensic analysis, and Fred D. Santucci, a Forensic Photographer and Crime Scene Expert: “Carpet-type fibers of various colors which were found on almost all of Foster’s clothing was clearly indicative of the fact that his body probably was in contact with one or more carpets. This evidence raises the possibility that his body may have been in a prone position, and/or his body may have been transported while in contact with some type of carpeting.”

She leaves out one name here. Richard Saferstein, author of the popular textbook, Criminalisitics: An Introduction to Forensic Science, was also a member of the “independent investigation” team.

Actually, there was nothing really independent about it. It was all set up by Christopher Ruddy. He roped me into the “reconstruction of the crime scene” to play the role of the Vince Foster corpse because, he said, I was the right height. I protested that I was some 30 pounds heavier than Foster and therefore unsuited for the role, but Ruddy insisted. I think his purpose was simply to get me emotionally invested in the snake oil that he was selling, which I never found all that persuasive, no matter how “expert” the people might have been, because the reconstruction took place earlier in the year than when Foster died, and conditions would have been completely different. Furthermore, all that evidence of carpet fibers on Foster’s clothing came from the FBI crime lab when, contrary to what one might learn from Ruddy or Peschmann, the FBI was, itself, deeply implicated in the Foster cover-up.

Peschmann has this lone endnote (#250) at the end of her paragraph: “Vincent J. Scalice, ‘What really happened,’ access online at:”

Whoa! Wait a minute! How in the world did that get there? There’s nothing about Scalice et al. in the referenced article. What’s there is the very illuminating work of Foster researcher Hugh Turley, which appears on this writer’s web site. Here we reprint it in its entirety:


Documents Reveal Judges’ Deliberations on a Death

By Hugh Turley

Vincent Foster, former president Bill Clinton’s deputy White House counsel, died nearly 18 years ago, and his death was ruled a suicide. But recent research has revealed that the judges who had appointed the independent counsel investigating his death were worried about “be[ing] charged as conspirators in the cover-up,” in the words of Judge John Butzner.

Butzner was part of a three-judge panel on the Special Division of the District of Columbia Circuit that had appointed Kenneth Starr to investigate several matters relating to the Clinton’s Whitewater land deal, an inquiry that grew to include Foster’s 1993 death.

Notes between the now-deceased Butzner and his colleagues Peter Fay and David Sentelle are part of the collection of Butzner’s papers at the University of Virginia’s law library. They show discussion about whether to include the testimony of Whitewater grand jury witness Patrick Knowlton, who had been at Fort Marcy Park the day Foster’s body was found.  As a passerby, he testified that Foster’s Honda was not at the park at the time of death.  Foster therefore could not have driven to the park in his car as claimed by Starr.

Knowlton asked the judges to include additional evidence based on official records contradicting Starr’s report: Other witnesses did not see Foster’s car, the gun found was not Foster’s, there was a bullet hole in Foster’s neck, crime scene photographs and X-rays had disappeared.   Knowlton provided evidence he was the victim of witness intimidation by Starr’s staff.

On Sept. 24, 1997, Judge Sentelle sent his colleagues Knowlton’s motion to include comments and factual information as an appendix to the report on Foster’s death. Sentelle told them: “The question of what to do with his comments is not an easy one. … If I were forced to decide the question alone, it would be my inclination to deny the motion.”

Starr Knowlton

Starr & Knowlton Click to see how this meeting came about.

Judge Fay disagreed with Sentelle. “[Knowlton] does comment on specific findings and conclusions in the report,” he argued.  “He contradicts specific factual matters and takes issue with the very basics of the report filed by the [Independent Counsel].”

The following day Butzner concurred. “I suspect if we deny the motion we will be charged as conspirators in the cover-up,” he wrote. “I suggest we let the motion and the attachments speak for themselves.”

That afternoon, Sentelle faxed his colleagues a message that, after reviewing their memos, he had changed his mind and agreed to draft an order granting the motion. So on Sept. 26, the court ordered that Knowlton’s comments and evidence be included in Starr’s report.  On Sept. 29, Starr filed a motion appealing the order. It was denied the next day, marking the first time in history that an Independent Counsel was ordered to include in his report evidence of a cover-up by his own investigators.

After Starr’s motion was denied and before the report was made public, Knowlton and his attorney visited the Associated Press office to show the reporter on the case the evidence contradicting Starr that had been ordered part of the final report.

They were not prepared for his response. “[The reporter] told us the story was already written and [the cause of death] was suicide,” Knowlton told the Hyattsville Life & Times. “We did not believe the press could ignore the court-ordered attachment.”

Now, for 13 years, the American press has not reported on the Knowlton appendix, and the attachments did not “speak for themselves” as Butzner envisioned.  But the press has reported the latest news about Kenneth Starr — he will become the president of Baylor University this June.

This article appeared originally in the April 2010 Hyattsville (MD) Life and Times.  All the documents described in the article, including the Knowlton appendix ordered included with Kenneth Starr’s report over his strenuous objection—and the objection, itself—can be found here.  The complete Starr report on Foster’s death, including the vital Knowlton appendix, is hereThe Washington Post, however, protecting Starr’s reputation in a manner that the three judges, to their credit, refused to do, have what it claims to be the full Starr report here.  In an act worthy of Pravda in the old Soviet Union, The Post has censored out the Knowlton appendix.

David Martin

April 14, 2010

Peschmann’s Scalice passage appears on page 106 of her book. At this point the reader might as well just continue with his Internet reading and ditch the book. The Knowlton appendix referred to—by dint of the judges’ decision as much a part of the official report as the work of Starr’s team—thoroughly destroys Peschmann’s thesis. She guesses that Foster, after going out and eating some more somewhere, came back to the White House shortly after 5 o’clock and shot himself in his office with his own gun and was then transported to Fort Marcy Park and dumped there by panicked fellow White House lawyers working late.

VINCE_FOSTER_HANDGUNWe learn from Knowlton’s document, though, that the widow, Lisa, was shown a silver gun and told that it was the one found at the park, when the gun found at the park was black and therefore not the one that the family brought up from Arkansas. The gun, then, appears to have been planted. We also learn that the one wound seen at the park by witnesses was to Foster’s neck—an apparent bullet entrance wound—and no one there saw any exit wound in the back of the head, much less the half-dollar-sized one that was shown in the autopsy sketch. The missing fatal bullet that Peschmann makes a big fuss about was likely not missing at all but still in Foster’s head. The “malfunctioning” X-ray machine that failed to detect the bullet was not malfunctioning at all; the corrupt autopsy doctor, James Beyer, simply falsified the autopsy report.

The best evidence strongly indicates that Foster was driven to Fort Marcy Park—which happens, by coincidence or not, to FT MARCY PARKbe quite near CIA headquarters—where he was surprised by someone who pressed a small caliber pistol to his neck and fired it upward into his brain. That is the scenario strongly suggested by Starr’s lead investigator, Miguel Rodriguez, in his resignation letter and his memorandum for the record.

Peschmann makes no mention of Rodriguez. Her one reference to Knowlton comes in the second sentence of her climactic Chapter 12, “At 4:30 p.m., on July 20, 1993, according to an eyewitness, Foster’s car was not at the parking lot at Fort Marcy Park.”

The accompanying endnote, no. 294, has this reference, “Kenneth W. Starr, Independent Counsel, Report of the Death of Vincent W. Foster, October 10, 1997, Appendix to Report; September 23, 1997 letter from Patrick Knowlton’s attorney, John H. Clarke.”

So there it is again, but the reader, unless he ferrets it out for himself, would never guess how significant that appendix, and its inclusion in the report over Starr’s objection, really is. Thanks to that earlier endnote, though, not a great deal of ferreting is required. It’s right there in the links, and the accompanying article explains its significance.

Having revealed what newspaper, magazine, and book writers across the political spectrum have worked hard to conceal, Marinka Peschmann, then, has managed to write a book that is not altogether worthless. One can only wonder if she knows it.

David Martin

January 2, 2015


The author has expressed her considerable displeasure with my review of her book, and as I read it over, I must admit that it does have one big shortcoming. I talk about the author’s lengthy conversations with Linda Tripp and the author’s speculation that Vince Foster actually blew his brains out with that .38 caliber revolver in his own office in the White House, but I don’t say what one thing has to do with the other. The fact is that it was not all that clear to me upon first reading, so I had to go back and read it over more carefully. Apparently, it all has to do with Foster’s briefcase and Tripp’s eventual hedging on the story that she told the police investigators about it. She had said that she was certain that Foster carried nothing with him when Foster left his office after lunch at his desk, in contradiction to the recollection of aide Tom Castleton, who recalled that Foster had his briefcase with him when he left the office. Kenneth Starr had gone with Tripp’s memory, which worked well for him because it explained why the briefcase was found in his office.

Here, on pp. 98-99 is Marinka’s epiphany in her own fevered prose:

In an interview with the Park Police, two days after Foster’s death, the investigators wrote: “Ms. Tripp makes it a habit to notice what the staff members are taking with them when they leave the office in order to determine…how long she may expect them to be away from the office. Ms. Tripp was absolutely certain that Mr. Foster did not carry anything in the way of a briefcase, bag, umbrella, etc. out of the office.”

Three years later, Linda confirmed to OIC investigators that her detailed statement “accurately reflected her recollection.” The investigators are trying to take down the president…Don’t speculate…Don’t offer information… (Peschman’s italics)

“But then…” I squeaked.

“I told you, we were told what to say—“ Linda fired back, cutting me off, catching herself, followed by a non-apologetic backtrack. “Look, Tom thought Vince had his briefcase with him, so I, I must be mistaken.” Mistaken?! (her italics again)

In an instant, the heavy burden of towing [sic] the Clinton White House line appeared to have soared off of her, when a blink later, it spiked back down to earth, attached with her cover story.

And then, according to Peschmann, Tripp proceeds to half take back what she has said, but Peschmann is off and running: Foster did for certain have his briefcase with him when he left the office and the only way it could have gotten back in the office is that Foster came back to the White House later, undetected by anyone after having gorged himself with some more food (presumably in bleak solitude somewhere) and proceeded to end it all violently right there in his office. The powerful blast of a .38 revolver would have been heard all over the White House (and likely beyond), of course, producing an instant sensation, but as Peschmann tells it, only a couple of Clinton loyalist lawyers react to it, while being remotely controlled by telephone by one “X,” who, by the description can only be Hillary Rodham Clinton. Panic mode sets in over the potential embarrassment, so they trundle the body off to an unlikely far corner of a Civil War relic of a park across the Potomac to be discovered by an even more unlikely passer-by (but that’s another story).

Yes, I know, it does sound pretty preposterous, but to the legions of people who hate Hillary and don’t think all that critically, it has some ring of truth, especially as Peschmann tells it. I can’t help thinking that the theory would have sounded particularly preposterous to Tripp, herself, who worked at the White House and knows full well that nothing so outlandish as Peschmann describes actually happened. You can hardly imagine what a sensation the loud report of a powerful weapon like a .38 revolver going off in the White House would have created. That’s why, insofar as I can tell, Peschmann never runs her theory by Tripp to see what she thinks of it. As much as she invokes her name, one could get the impression that this Foster-suicide-in-the-White House story is Linda Tripp’s. It is most definitely not.


David Martin

May 22, 2016

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post.

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

48 thoughts on “Latest Foster Cover-Up Book Not Completely Worthless

  1. Hey Bman, Chris from now cartoons here. Got any buddies in the marines. I have a journalist friend,retired marine in deep shit on Indonesia, getting fucked with by muzzies. Its pretty severe. He needs some help. Chris


    • Not really. I was a squid. Squids and Jarheads don’t get along very well unless they need our help actually going somewhere.


      But what do you have in mind?


  2. Hi David,

    This is Marinka. I am glad you have decided that my Foster book, Following Orders, is not “completely worthless.” Thanks for taking the time to write your review. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out a few things and correct you.

    First, Following Orders is the sequel (as it says on the cover) to The Whistleblower. All the background as to how I met Linda Tripp is there. If you want to know about our “cozy relationship,” as you described it to be, you might want to read The Whistleblower. I didn’t think it was necessary to repeat it all since Following Orders is clearly the sequel.

    That said, I must ask you if you actually read the entire book. You have made statements that are wrong. For instance, what you wrote about the carpet fiber forensics.

    Did you miss this part on p. 111?

    “According to the FBI report, “the FBI Laboratory found 35 definitive carpet-type fibers” from Foster’s clothing. Of those fibers, 23 were white fibers … 12 were various colors, which suggests ‘those fibers did not originate from a single carpet.’ The white fibers … were consistent with carpet samples taken from Foster’s home. The others, including blue-gray, blue, goldbrown, light-brown, gray, pink, and orange in color, were consistent with samples from the White House or his car.

    It was in March 1994, approximately eight months after Foster’s death, when Fiske’s investigators obtained “all available physical evidence collected in connection with the investigation of Foster’s death, and provided it to the FBI Lab.” The evidence included “the gun and the ammunition, Foster’s clothing and eyeglasses, items found in Foster’s car, photographs taken” at Fort Marcy Park and during “the autopsy, Foster’s hair and blood samples, the autopsy report,” and “portions of the Park Police Report.””

    Also earlier on p. 110 I clearly address the evidence contamination. It’s addressed elsewhere too. That’s a really big deal.

    What exactly are you accusing me of not doing? If you read my book, you know there is much more there about the carpets and the problems with the evidence.

    Also regarding Patrick Knowlton–in part. I was hoping to speak with him to get some clarification. You are aware of the problems with the 302s, right? Unfortunately I never heard back from him. Don’t know why.

    In addition, I did not “guess” anything. The book is based on the evidence. I was surprised that you dismissed so much of it. Most people found the parts about being inside the White House the day of, and days after of great interest. It is always different when you are there, right? But you are entitled to your opinion.

    Moreover, what are you accusing me of covering up? Based on the evidence in my book (and other journalist’s books), criminal indictments should have come down and people should be in jail. Do you think that no one should go to jail over this?

    Just so you know, I don’t seek endorsements because those are for publicity. Some might call them publicity stunts. I know a lot of people don’t know how that works. But that’s what they are. Publicity. How many books have you read that had great endorsements but you were disappointed with the book? People typically ask their friends for endorsements. It is what it is.

    There are more issues to correct but to keep this as short as possible, why don’t you contact me at my website. It would be quicker to talk. Thanks.

    Looking forward to hearing from you. I’m in ET. All best, Marinka Peschmann


    • Yes, Marinka, I did take the two full hours required to read your book with considerable care. But if you have read my review, you must have missed this passage: “Furthermore, all that evidence of carpet fibers on Foster’s clothing came from the FBI crime lab when, contrary to what one might learn from Ruddy or Peschmann, the FBI was, itself, deeply implicated in the Foster cover-up.”

      Now you might be suggesting that the FBI crime lab got that evidence from Fiske’s investigators. I don’t know if you know it, but Fiske’s investigators were, for the most part, the same FBI guys that Starr used. The FBI orchestrated the cover-up from beginning to end, which is why the definintive Knowlton-Clarke-Turley web site has the address

      Again, I must say that you have performed the very useful service of calling attention to that work, albeit with a mis-aimed endnote, and that’s why I concede that your book actually does have some value.


  3. No, David. You are missing my point. In short (forgive me but I am buried in other reporting right now), the problems with the evidence started before the FBI entered the scene. To ignore that is a mistake. Also, as my book documents the events did not happen the way it was presented in the official reports either. This is also what the website link you included in your response claims. Your point and problem with me is what exactly?

    You are aware of the difference between actionable and theories, right? Anyone can make up a theory, proving it is entirely another.

    This statement is false.

    “It’s full of passages in which she and former Clinton White House legal office aide Linda Tripp just chew the fat, speculating about one thing or another. Not until her 12th and last chapter does she come through with her really batty theory of what actually happened the day Foster died.”

    There are over 300 endnotes in my book. Did I jam them in the last chapter? Apparently I did if you are to be believed.

    Thanks for pointing out the problem with the link. That has been happening a lot with the Internet. I don’t know what the remedy is. It is frustrating when that happens. Articles change/ amended etc., some become bad links or 404 errors. Have you not had that happen? It’s been a few years since I wrote the book. Thanks again for pointing that out but you realize you are condemning me for something that happens to scores of people everyday, right?

    And the 302s?

    Furthermore, where is your proof that I am a fake Right person (or right-wing shepherd) as opposed to a real one, I suppose? I’m neither, but if it makes you feel good to lob concocted personal attacks at people–it is what it is. No doubt there is corruption in both parties. In my opinion your sweeping broad strokes are breathtaking and arrogant.

    I looked at your Buelahuh? page to better understand your background and to see how many books and investigations you have worked on or written. I don’t see any. Is that a mistake? Maybe that is why you did not appreciate or see the evidence throughout the book. Following Orders is not a political book but more of a mystery, true crime book. As I learned the truth, so did the reader. I took them on the journey. Perhaps you do not like that style but unfortunately I can’t please everybody. To be snide, flippant and make baseless statements on people who have that experience speaks to your character not mine.

    I was glad to see that you were honest about not being a writer, and acknowledging “This is a learning process and I obviously don’t always get it right.”

    You clearly did not get it right with my book. Again, I ask you what am I guilty of covering up? If you can’t answer that question then the entire premise of your review is false beginning with the title:”Latest Foster Cover-up book is not completely worthless.”

    To be honest, I don’t have the time to go round and round with you. I could write another chapter pulling apart your “review” but I am a firm believer of correcting errors. So I am hitting on some of the big ones. People can read my book and decide for themselves if I am guilty of protecting the Clintons or the Republicans–which is what I guess you mean. If so, that is laughable.

    Thanks again for pointing out the problem with that source link, but your false, baseless attacks and erroneous statements have spoken volumes. I am so glad that you have decided in your infinite wisdom that my book is not entirely “worthless.” I hope you correct the litany of fallacious statements you have made–it’s your credibility at issue here, not mine. That said, you are entitled to your opinion but the facts are the facts. Good luck to you.

    All best, Marinka


    • Ms Peschmann,

      You are incorrect in your mis-identification of DC Dave Martin. He and I are not the same individual.

      I am not a writer, but he obviously is. I cannot make the assessment of your work that he has for I have not read your work. But I have read enough of Mr Martin’s to know he certainly can write and his analysis of most authors is generally spot on. This has caused you heartburn, but remember my stance:

      “This is a learning process and I (you) obviously don’t always get it right.”


  4. Ms. Peschmann:
    You wrote, “Also regarding Patrick Knowlton–in part. I was hoping to speak with him to get some clarification. You are aware of the problems with the 302s, right? Unfortunately I never heard back from him. Don’t know why.”

    When Patrick read your statement above he sent the following to me,
    “She never contacted me about anything, ever! I called her initially and made contact after her book came out. Gave her my private phone number and email address. I never heard back from her. I suggested we meet and talk sometime. I did my part by reaching out and she obviously wasn’t interested in me from the beginning. I would think if she were interested in the truth she would have spoken with honest and truthful people. Sorry, but that is how I feel.
    Patrick Knowlton”

    Patrick called you and he gave you his phone number and his email address after your book was published. You are in error to suggest you contacted him and “never heard back from him.” The truth is he never heard from you.

    Hugh Turley

    Liked by 1 person

    • I am looking at our email exchanges right now. The last one was from me to Patrick. I removed the end of his email address for privacy reasons. Below is what I wrote him. I also called and left him a message but did not hear back. Yes, he contacted me after the book came out. I did not say otherwise. I’m guessing you are aware of the change of tune with Ruddy, who had very close dealings with Patrick. Ruddy is now actively promoting the Clintons–despite writing his Foster book. That is not my story. I am also not responsible for what other people do or don’t do. As your review noted, I did include a source reference about Patrick. I’m not sure what else you are expecting of me. What I do know is to accuse me of writing a cover-up book is not only fallacious but inaccurate. Since you are obviously unhappy with my book, you are free to write your own. But making false statements about my work is wrong. -Marinka

      Hi Patrick,

      I might be in DC sometime in January. Do you have time for a quick chat?


      In a message dated 12/22/2012 4:11:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, knowltonpatrick@writes:


  5. Ms. Peschmann:
    You wrote, “the problems with the evidence started before the FBI entered the scene.” When exactly do you think the FBI entered the scene?

    Since your book uses the official final Report on the death of Vincent W. Foster as source document good scholarship would require that your actually read the report. Volume Two of the final report made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals states, “official federal government records demonstrate that throughout the 16 day U.S. Park Police investigation into the case, FBI participation was significant.” This is supported by a long footnote (#7) documenting FBI participation from the very beginning.

    Your book follows the same pattern of Christopher Ruddy in trying to conceal the role of the FBI in the cover-up and draw attention away from the park where Foster was murdered and to the White House. The role of Ruddy, who is now of friend of Bill Clinton, is obvious at this late date.

    I’ve always found a discussion of the evidence in a pubic forum useful to advance the truth. I hope you will remain here and defend what you have written. I asked, when do you think the FBI entered the scene and what evidence do you have to support your view?


    • When the FBI entered the scene is in my book. You may read all about it there. It is less time consuming for me if you would refer to my book then for me to keep cutting and pasting here considering I have already reported and documented this story. I do not have the time to go back and forth when you can find the answers you seek there. I am working other investigations.

      Why don’t you check this article out I wrote to give you an idea of how full my plate is right now. Do you want me to drop everything else I am doing because you want me to answer questions that are already answered in my book?

      Moreover there were resignations over the Foster investigations, so what exactly am I supposedly defending and what am I covering up? I agree there were serious problems which should have resulted in indictments. Had those indictments occurred I think more evidence would have come out. Don’t you? Therein lies the biggest problem of all.

      I would suggest looking at the forensics (what is available) before you draw your conclusions. In particular the position of Foster’s body, the blood splatter at the Park and his shoes. We also learn a lot from CW–who found the body. But you are free to believe or dismiss what you wish. I must say this would have been the worst planned murder in history, don’t you think? There are easier/cleaner ways to murder somebody without having to deal with tainting evidence, thwarting investigators etc. afterwards. Look at Jerry Parks who worked with Foster. He was shot at close range at an intersection while driving home from a restaurant as an example.

      I also had unique access with a person who was in the White House during all of this which was highly informative. If you want to dismiss what she witnessed that’s your business too. I wish you all (whoever you all are) the best.



      • Ms. Peschmann,
        Are you saying you are too busy to defend your statement, “the problems with evidence started before the FBI entered the scene.” I asked when do you think the FBI entered the scene? And what evidence do you have to support your view? Is this straightforward question too difficult?

        I told you the official Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster that you use as a source states, “official federal government records demonstrate that throughout the 16 day U.S. Park Police investigation into the case, FBI participation was significant.” This is supported by a long footnote (#7) to official records documenting FBI participation from the very beginning.

        You are trying to change the subject to CW, blood spatter, shoes, Jerry Parks, body position, your book, forensics. and your access to someone was at the White House. If you have time to bring up all these other issues, why not just answer the original easy question?

        The question I asked concerns your statement in this forum.

        Saying you are too busy to answer is very weak.
        The fact is you have not defended what you wrote here.
        Is that the best you have? Are you leaving?


        • I answered the original question. The answer is in my book. Correct me if I am wrong Turley. You did state in an earlier email that you had not read my book, right? Perhaps you should read it before you expect me to drop everything to answer your questions that are already answered in my book. You bet I am too busy to spoon feed people who do not have the decency to read my book but feel entitled to attack it as well as me personally and also feel entitled to zap up my time. That is not weak. That is common sense. I also think it was very unhanded to have DCDave or (who ever he is) write a review falsely accusing me of writing a cover-up book and then you pop out. Who are you? And again, what are you all accusing me of covering up?

          Perhaps you will learn some new things if you had bothered to read my book.

          Also, no, I was not trying to change the subject re: “CW, blood spatter, shoes, Jerry Parks, body position, your book, forensics. and your access to someone was at the White House” as you have now erroneously accused me of here as well. I was addressing in part what you wrote: “Your book follows the same pattern of Christopher Ruddy in trying to conceal the role of the FBI in the cover-up and draw attention away from the park where Foster was murdered and to the White House.”

          Good grief, I dare not imagine what you are all going to falsely accuse me of next.



          • Ms Peschmann,

            I find it quite telling that you are spending such time coming here and writing all those words, yet will not answer a direct question by a commenter who has formed the same opinion about your misdirections that I have formed. It would seem that if you were concerned about false accusations and a respectable journalist such as Mr Turley were asking you direct questions, you could minimize your time here by a direct answer.

            I don’t think you have an inkling of who you are speaking with and the knowledge these two men have on this particular subject. You are failing in your learning experience which might help you later on when you understand your error in your book… unless, of course, the mistake was not done in error, but on purpose.

            BTW: it was I that said I had not read your book (unless Mr Turley is sending you emails beyond this discussion).

            I would suggest you study their vast writings on this subject if truth is your goal. But thus far, the goal appears to be something else.


            • Your innuendos are outrageous. If a serious journalist wants to contact me directly he should. You are right. I do not know who the players are here. What names are real or false . What I do know is it started by an inaccurate review of my book and false assertions and assumptions regarding me personally that I attempted to correct.

              As you can see. I type fast. I have tried to be respectful. I see I am dealing with people who prefer not to read my book and make false assumptions about it. Again, a serious journalist should reach out to me directly. Time will tell.


              • As Mr Turley said, you have a link to his work in your book. You obviously are lying about writing that book or you have a mental deficiency.

                I wonder if you contacted him (as a respectable journalist, yourself) to ask about what he wrote.


                • BMan commented on Latest Foster Cover-Up Book Not Completely Worthless.

                  in response to Marinka Peschmann:

                  “Your innuendos are outrageous. If a serious journalist wants to contact me directly he should. You are right. I do not know who the players are here. What names are real or false . What I do know is it started by an inaccurate review of my book and false assertions and assumptions regarding me […]

                  As Mr Turley said, you have a link to his work in your book. You obviously are lying about writing that book or you have a mental deficiency.”

                  Wow BMan or whatever your name is. You will have an impossible time backing up your latest statement. These are your friends Mr. Turley? Yes? Looking forward to hearing from you. Marinka


                • Ms Peschmann,

                  I suppose Mr Turley will have to write you to get your answer to his direct question, then come back here to share with us your response.

                  However, the easiest thing (and the least waste of you supposedly limited time) would have been to not misdirect and just answer his question for everyone to see. It is because you continue this misdirection that I think you are lying or mentally deficient.

                  Now I wonder how much time you will waste with more misdirection when a direct answer would have sufficed.


            • Yes, I wrote my book. Nice. If you are the same Turley please contact me directly via my website. I do not know who these other people are who are making wild assumptions and false assertions. Thanks. We should talk. I am in ET. Regards, Marinka


              • Ms. Peschmann-
                Why are you asking me to contact you by private email and leave the openess of a public discussion? Sunlight is a natural disinfectant.

                You like to quote scripture so you should know,
                “Everyone who practices evil hates the light; he does not come near it for fear his deeds will be exposed.” John 3:20

                I prefer to expose you here in a public forum. Will you answer my questions about what evidence you have to support your view of when the FBI entered the scene?

                “But he who acts in truth comes into the light.”
                Are you still here Ms. Peschmann?

                Liked by 1 person

  6. Why don’t you just answer Ms. Peschmans direct questions? What exactly are you accusing her of covering up? I am sincerely confused as she seems to be trying to work with you. Have your gone back and reread her book? Please be specific.


  7. I think that it is a good question, indeed, to ask if Ms. Peschmann actually wrote the book that went out over her name, if the way in which she explains her erroneous endnote is any indication, and I quote:

    “Thanks for pointing out the problem with the link. That has been happening a lot with the Internet. I don’t know what the remedy is. It is frustrating when that happens. Articles change/ amended etc., some become bad links or 404 errors. Have you not had that happen? It’s been a few years since I wrote the book. Thanks again for pointing that out but you realize you are condemning me for something that happens to scores of people everyday, right?”

    No. Wrong. Here is the entire endnote, which I quoted verbatim in my article: “Vincent J. Scalice, ‘What really happened,’ access online at:” From the web address it could hardly be clearer that that is going to take you to Hugh Turley’s April 2010 article, “Documents Reveal Judges’ Deliberations on a Death.” It will not and never would take you to anything about the late Mr. Scalice. The first part of the web address shows that you are not going to my web site directly, where Turley’s article appears, but to Mike Rivero’s What Really Happened web site. Rivero, Turley, and I go back together as early members of an email group called the CS (for Clinton Scandals) list. See and

    Now if one scrolls down a bit from the article link, he will find this passage: “More about the murder of Vince Foster, the story that launched this website all those years ago, is HERE.”

    If Ms. Peschmann had clicked on the “HERE” it would have taken her to a long and valuable essay by Rivero entitled “The Death of Vincent Foster, Evidence of a Cover-up.” It is much better on the Foster case than anything one will find in the Peschmann book. It DOES have this passage: “Outside experts not connected the official investigation also had their doubts. Vincent J. Scalise [sic], a former NYC detective, Fred Santucci, a former forensic photographer for NYC, and Richard Saferstein, former head of the New Jersey State Crime Lab formed a team and did an investigation of the VWF case for the Western Journalism Center of Fair Oaks, Calif. They arrived at several conclusions:” And then it proceeds to list them.

    If Ms. Peschmann were really familiar with her own endnotes I think she would have offered this as the excuse for how the error was made. You actually CAN obtain information about the Scalice investigation at the Rivero web site, but not directly at the web address she gave. But, if she were familiar enough with that Rivero essay to offer that excuse, she would have also known that the following passage can also be found there: “Yet another outstanding series of articles was written by Dave Martin called, ‘America’s Dreyfus Affair’. And then it gives hyperlinks to the full series: America’s Dreyfus Affair Part 1,
    America’s Dreyfus Affair Part 2, America’s Dreyfus Affair Part 3, America’s Dreyfus Affair Part 4,
    America’s Dreyfus Affair Part 5, America’s Dreyfus Affair Part 6.

    Now we learn from her exchanges on this site that she knows nothing of what I have written on the case. I was very curious as to how the inappropriate but inadvertently very illuminating reference turned up in her book and was going to ask her directly, but now she has volunteered a thoroughly disingenuous explanation that only deepens the mystery.

    Oh, by the way, those six long essays of mine hardly exhaust my output on the Foster case. One can go to this site, and find 48 articles that I have written on the subject.

    Now let’s say a thing or two about that “confidential witness” who, she and the authorities like Kenneth Starr agree, “found Foster’s body” and whom she and Starr both label only with the initials “CW.” As a somewhat aging country boy and veteran of hundreds of alfresco urinations of the type that KK (initials of his real first and last names) says nature forced upon him, I can say with solemn assurance that there is not one chance in ten million that he would have stumbled upon Foster’s body where it was had he just been looking for a secluded place to pee. The whole damn park, for goodness sakes, is a secluded place. The body was way up on the other side of the park behind a berm, and you first have to walk through a large space cleared of trees to get there. It’s a long ways, it’s mainly uphill, and it was a hot day. The parking lot itself is completely ringed with trees. The notion that KDK went where he says he did in search of a place to relieve himself, to anyone with the slightest familiarity with Fort Marcy Park, might be the most outrageous lie in the whole Vince Foster death case. No serious person could possibly believe it. And Ms.Peschmann is apparently not even serious enough to know how she came to give her inappropriate, but illuminating, reference.

    Oh, nothing much else about KDK’s story, shall we say, holds water, either, but I think I’ve written enough for now.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I doubt Ms. Peschmann wrote “her book” about Vincent Foster. She has been unable to answer a fundamental question, cannot explain her endnote to my article, and is too uninformed to participate in a discussion. It is surprising she visited a public discussion.


  9. Here is what she says about the early lack of involvement with the investigation on page 33 of her book: “Because Foster apparently died in a National Park, the case belonged to the Park Police, part of the Department of the Interior. The FBI–which normally would have and could have investigated such a death–was sidelined. As [White House spokesperson Dee Dee] Myers affirmed, “There’s no other federal agencies that are investigating.”

    The endnote reference for that–no. 59–says “White House Press Briefing, July 22, 1993.”

    So the answer to Turley’s question about the source of her information that the FBI was kept out of the investigation in the early stages is the White House., that is to say, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s White House. But otherwise she would have us believe that they are liars who should not be believed.

    Similarly, she and everyone in the press swallow whole the notion that the White House took several days to tell the public about it when they had “discovered” the forlorn “suicide note” in Foster’s briefcase. But we would never have even known about the supposed delay if the White House had not told us. More likely they were using the time to craft a passable forgery, at least to the untrained eye. See “The Plotters” at

    Turley could not cite the book passage because he gave his copy of the book to me so I could write my review. Yes, Marinka, he read it. He told me that, after doing so, he was more than eager to get it out of his house.


  10. I believe Patrick Knowlton when he wrote about Ms. Peschmann.
    “She never contacted me about anything, ever!”

    If Ms. Peschmann contacted him, Patrick would remember.


    • It’s long overdue that you issue corrections and retractions on your false so-called “book review” of Following Orders which is really a sale pitch to sell your friend’s book, and your appalling ad hominem false attacks on me personally. In addition the fact that none of you would speak to me tells the sorry tale of who you are and what you are about.

      I don’t care if people read your book. It poses no threat to me. It speaks volumes that you do not want anyone to read mine—the findings of which have been independently confirmed. For too long people have turned unsubstantiated conspiracy theories into cottage industries. It’s wrong. There are plenty of legitimate and substantiated reasons to criticize the Clintons over, but the Clintons do not go out and kill people. Where’s your so-called “proof?” No one should be accused of murder without proof. Not even Hillary Clinton.

      Please provide proof of all your false statements which will be impossible, issue retractions and/or remove your book plug masquerading as a “book review.” Here’s a radical thought. You can also act like grown-ups and contact me at my website and we can schedule a time to speak. I’m in ET.

      The choice is yours. It appears the wild, wild west of the Internet may be coming to an end. I certainly hope so. It’s long overdue.

      Sincerely, Marinka Peschmann


      • It appears the wild, wild west of the Internet may be coming to an end. I certainly hope so. It’s long overdue.

        I am not surprised that you would endorse censorship or even downright obliteration of anything online you deem unacceptable.

        Did anyone call for your book to be banned?

        Frankly (and I am not Turley), I don’t give a rat’s ass about your book or you.

        Liked by 1 person

        • How you twist words is sickening and very disturbing. You made false allegations about me and my book. False allegations and censorship are two different things. 1+1=2. It’s long overdue that you correct yourself and act like an adult.


          • For someone who does not “give a rat’s ass,” as you say, about me or my book, you have spent a lot of time making false statements about it here and else where. Your words and actions do not match. 1+1=2


          • I quoted your words, Ma’am. You want the web shut down for some reason. Not sure why you feel it, but I have suspicions.

            I did not read your book or write a book review of that shitty work, fraught with lies and misdirection (according to those who did read the swill).

            You need to realize that I am not Turley. But I do see a person who used deceit and misdirection within these comments. Pointing out your lies is no offense.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Glad that you admitted that you did not read the book. So why then did you publish falsehoods about it here and elsewhere? You are DCDave, yes?

              Good grief. Correcting false statements does not equal shutting down the Internet. What a preposterous statement to make.

              Whoever wrote the false statements regarding me and my book needs to correct them. It’s long overdue. Dealing with you all and your various “names” is like dealing with a three-ringed circus.


                • You are tedious and hide behind bizarre forums and fake names. Whoever made the false statements in this so-called “book review” within this three-ring circus needs to correct their false statements. 1+1=2 What part of this is not clear?


                • You are tedious and hide behind bizarre forums and fake names.

                  Something tells me that “bizarre forums” and “fake names” would be the first on your ban list. Heck, just make a list of all the things that you dislike and maybe we can help you get them all banned. Wouldn’t that be convenient?

                  As far as any book reviews, maybe you should deal directly with DC Dave. There is a link to his site at the bottom of the article (where the original was posted). That is his hangout, not here. If he wants this modified in any way, he can contact me.


                • “BMAN,”

                  Since you have admitted that you are the publisher of DDave’s “book review” you are therefore also liable for his knowingly false, malicious content.

                  Please learn the differences between fact and opinion, protected speech versus unprotected speech, and unprotected speech versus censorship. Your latest statements are ill informed.

                  Considering that I have already notified you concerning the false statements in this so-called “book review” that you published, and you and DCDave have had more than enough time to attempt to prove his impossible to prove false statements you have four options; (1) issue retractions and corrections; (2) remove the malicious and false content from your website(s); (3) remove the entire fallacious so-called “book review” from your website(s); (4) and/or provide me with your proper address to receive certified correspondence with your real name. The choice is yours.

                  You and DCDave are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own false “facts.” See how it works now? I will contact DDave as well. There is no reason to drag this out any more with either of you.

                  Sincerely, Marinka Peschmann


                • I explained to you over and over who penned the “review”. It really is too bad that you don’t like the “review”. But I don’t give a damn what you like or dislike. I instructed you where to take up your silly gripe (for it is obvious from the “review” that the book isn’t “completely worthless”). That’s something isn’t it, for a book that regurgitates a great deal of the official narrative (aka “lies”)?

                  If you care to continue issuing threats, please do so to the author. His name is DC Dave. I am not.


                • “BMAN,” I have contacted DCDave aka David Martin (evidentially),

                  I am not issuing threats. Please grow up. Just because you hide behind a fake name does not mean you can publish categorically false, malicious statements, and wild misrepresentations about me or anyone else by publishing a “book review” that is really an advertisement for one of your friend’s books. The motive behind the false statements in this so-called “book review” is abundantly clear and easily provable here.

                  This is very simple and not threatening at all. What’s your real name and address? It is ridiculous having to deal with an individual as “BMAN,” who evidentially needs permission from someone called “DCDave” regarding the contents on their own website.

                  I contacted you nicely; you’ve been put on notice and therefore are responsible for what YOU publish on your website. You can thank your “friend” for that. There is a very easy remedy here. Issue retractions for the false statements made with actual malice etc.

                  BMAN please stop lying. It’s tedious and time consuming. You’ve already admitted that you did not read my book, so for you to now say it “regurgitates a great deal of the official narrative” is based on what exactly? It is chilling and disturbing how quickly and easily you flat out lie in an attempt to sell your friend’s book.

                  I’m sure if someone did to you what you all have been trying to do with me and my book, you would be doing exactly what I’m doing. Please remedy this matter and/or provide me with your real name and address to receive certified correspondence.

                  Sincerely, Marinka Peschmann


  11. Still waiting for your contact information “BMAN” and for you and your associates to conduct yourselves lawfully. You can peddle your discredited conspiracies all you want, but you cannot fraudulently misrepresent me or my book to do so. And you real name is…? Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Marinka


    • Still waiting. It’s not right to use your pals discredited murder conspiracy to fraudulently misrepresent my book and defame people. Email and real name please. Thanks. Marinka


      • You have a very ignorant understanding of what’s “right”.

        Marinka, I am sorry you don’t like Dave’s review (even though you thanked him for it in your first comment). It really is too bad. But you had your chance to counter the arguments put forward. You wrote tons of stuff but you misled, obfuscated and failed. Showing that you are not a very good writer is not defamation and you know it.

        Of course, all press is good press…


        • I was being polite. Something that is foreign to you. I want to send you my retraction notice that shows all the false statements, ommissions and others “DCDave” defamed. What’s your email address and real name? You as publisher are liable. You also admitted that you did not read the book when you attacked it, me and others. Email and real name please. It’s long overdue. Thanks. Marinka


          • This will be the last comment allowed. Repetition is spam.

            I was very polite UNTIL you began lying, misleading and obfuscating in the comments section (as was pointed out above). Once you broke that protocol, you lost any due respect and congealed within my mind that the book review was probably spot on. It certainly agreed with many of the other negative reviews seen at Amazon.

            You are dismissed.

            Liked by 1 person

  12. Pingback: Another Foster Death Controversy |
  13. Pingback: “Latest Foster Cover-Up Book Not Completely Worthless” Article draws retraction demand from “author.” | B'Man's Revolt

You Got Something To Say? Please keep your maw respectful and gab on topic.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s