Who Murdered James Forrestal?

Turley

James Forrestal was nine years old when left County Cork for America. He made the dangerous journey alone. The ship sank on the return voyage across the ocean. His son James V. Forrestal would graduate from Princeton University and become America’s first Secretary of Defense, the position now held by Donald Rumsfeld.

Officially and according to historians, James V. Forrestal leapt to his death from a 16th floor window of the Bethesda Naval Hospital near Washington, D.C. after copying “Chorus from Ajax” by Sophocles. Officially the transcribed poem was his “suicide” note.

I am skeptical. Compare the handwritten copy of “Chorus from Ajax” released by the United States Navy last year to samples of James Forrestal’s handwriting obtained from the Truman Library. http://www.dcdave.com/article4/041103.html

The transcribed poem had remained a secret document, unavailable to the public for 55 years. Now that this document is available to the world, people can judge for themselves if it is written in Forrestal’s hand. What do the Irish Skeptics say?

robindch

> Officially and according to historians, James V. Forrestal leapt
> to his death [...] What do the Irish Skeptics say?

Sounds to me like the pseudonymous return of the unfortunate Vincent W. Foster, he of the moon-hoax thread + death by suicide (dull)/death by conspiracy (hey, cool!) fame. Are VWF and JVF related? Their initials share two out of three letters -- conclusive evidence, I think yiz'll all agree!

Come, Watson, the conspiracy's afoot!

- robin.

ps: FYI, Turley - the photogenic David Brock, one of the Republican party cheerleaders who propagated the notion of the death of Clinton's mate Vincent Foster as mysterious, subsequently recanted -- see the BBC's interview with him in the recent series 'The Power of Nightmares', at 49 minutes into the second of the three episodes, or indeed, either of Brock's books "Blinded by the Right" and "The Republican Noise Machine".

davros

Turley wrote:

What do the Irish Skeptics say?

Others may differ but I'd say that these characters from US domestic politics are not all that well known over here. We have plenty of intriguing shenanigans among our own politicians to capture our interest.

More than that, I don't really feel it's my business to tell Americans what to believe about their own government. Especially when Irish political figures are so flawed.

Turley

davros wrote:

Others may differ but I'd say that these characters from US domestic politics are not all that well known over here.

That has little to do with being skeptical of the handwritten poem.

America's first Secretary of Defense and his violent end are not known in the U.S. either. Forrestal warned that U.S. ties to the newly created state of Israel in 1948 was not in the interest of the Americans and could lead to war in the Middle East. Today Shannon airport is a refueling stop for American military forces fighting a Mid-East war.

I did not ask who ever heard of James V. Forrestal. I only asked if anyone here is as skeptical as I am that he did not write that "Chorus from Ajax" suicide note. Knowledge of U.S. politics & James Forrestal is not necessary to have an opinion of the note and his handwriting samples.

It is only natural that the entire world as well as the Americans would be ignorant of serious crimes like the murder of a high American official.

Either Forrestal wrote the poem or he did not. http://www.dcdave.com/article4/041103.html

bus77

After reading the mans history I cant help thinking about comparisons with Cathal Brugha link.

bus77

Turley wrote:

America's first Secretary of Defense and his violent end are not known in the U.S. either. Forrestal warned that U.S. ties to the newly created state of Israel in 1948 was not in the interest of the Americans and could lead to war in the Middle East.

That's probably what it was over so. Or some other treaty they signed.

davros

Turley wrote:

I did not ask who ever heard of James V. Forrestal. I only asked if anyone here is as skeptical as I am that he did not write that "Chorus from Ajax" suicide note. Knowledge of U.S. politics & James Forrestal is not necessary to have an opinion of the note and his handwriting samples.

But if I've never heard of James Forrestal, why would I care about his handwriting? I'm just saying it's odd to ask the opinions of Irish skeptics on this matter because it's really of no consequence to us one way or the other.

If anyone wants to weigh in on the evidence issue, go ahead, but let's keep this from becoming a discussion on Middle East politics.

Turley

davros wrote:

But if I've never heard of James Forrestal, why would I care about his handwriting? I'm just saying it's odd to ask the opinions of Irish skeptics on this matter because it's really of no consequence to us one way or the other.

Davros-
You may be right that it is "really of no consequence." But there is such a thing as consequent ignorance. We can be ignorant of things we should know.

If anyone wants to weigh in on the evidence issue, go ahead, but let's keep this from becoming a discussion on Middle East politics.

I agree. BTW, are you skeptical that the handwriting is his?

robindch

it's odd to ask the opinions of Irish skeptics on this matter because it's really of no consequence to us one way or the other.

It might be of some consequence to a wider skeptic audience -- a brief google upon the topic of the long-deceased ex-US Secretary of Defence Forrestal indicates that he's something of a cottage industry with our paranoid-conspiracy-theorist friends at the other end of the classroom. According to the particular PCT to which you subscribe, Forrestal was murdered by Israeli agents (worried about some Arab sentiment or other that F had expressed), or Soviet ones (worried about American defence people in general), or American ones (insert standard CIA/FBI PCT), or -- best of all -- my own personal favourite, as well as the most popular theory, that he was done in, either by, or at the behest of, the occupants, of some of the UFO's which were just comping onstream back in the early 50's (reasons for alien life forms wanting him dead unclear). I'm sure there are plenty more PCT's about the place which folks are welcome to list here; I just picked a bunch of them off the first few pages of google results.

Rather unsportingly, the official US government report into the incident completely failed to run with the spirit of things and concluded that he'd developed paranoid schizophrenia and committed suicide rather dramatically (hardly an unknown occurrence, but certainly dull compared to the wonderfully flamboyant notions floated elsewhere).

As hero, Forrestal still has a small, but vocal, following in various places, and has had named after him, various buildings, schools, libraries and one of the larger post-WWII aircraft carriers (the USS Forrestal), decomissioned coincidentally, or not, according to taste, on September 11, 1993.

Makes you wonder if the US Dept of Defence is going to be launching a USS Rumsfeld anytime soon, and when either it or its namesake might be decomissioned.

- robin.

davros

Turley wrote:

Davros-
You may be right that it is "really of no consequence." But there is such a thing as consequent ignorance. We can be ignorant of things we should know.

I only meant of no consequence to Irish people in Ireland. If I was an American or living in America it might be very important indeed.

What are your views on the Tuskar Rock incident of 1968? (It's OK, don't answer that... I'm just illustrating that there are Irish conspiracy theories that don't exercise people outside of these islands.)

Turley

davros wrote:

I only meant of no consequence to Irish people in Ireland. If I was an American or living in America it might be very important indeed.

What are your views on the Tuskar Rock incident of 1968? (It's OK, don't answer that... I'm just illustrating that there are Irish conspiracy theories that don't exercise people outside of these islands.)

I am skeptical that the public has not been told the whole truth about the incident at Tuskar Rock. I think it is prudent to be skeptical of events that are out of the ordinary and planes do not normally fall from the sky, though they can.

I asked if anyone was skeptical of the handwritten "suicide" note of a historic person of Irish descent. No one has an opinion. The debate has become whether or not we should even have an opinion.

Robin changed the topic to UFOs.

I remember when I recently went to the theater to puchase tickets for a ballet. The box office opened at ten and I arrived at two minutes past ten. Six people were already waiting at the door. I stood with them for another minute waiting for someone to unlock the door. Than I decided to try the door. It was open. I walked inside and purchased my tickets.

If I had not come along, those people might still be standing outside the theater. People do not think for themselves and here I find "the Irish skeptics" are uncertain if they should even have an opinion. If an event is not in the press and we have not been told anything, we don't even want to know. Most people prefer not knowing. The Good Shepherd had a good analogy when he used sheep.

The dictionary definition of skeptic is a person who suspends judgement upon matters generally accepted. Members of this discussion board are more sheepish that skeptical.

I joined this group because the l liked the stated guidlines:
"The Irish Skeptics Society has the following aims:

* To promote a scientific and rational point of view.
* To promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills.
* To promote the active questioning of claims in a variety of areas, which is noticeably absent at present.
* To provide a forum for debate, discussion and rational argument on a range of relevant topics.
* To provide an access point for media for skeptical responses to questionable claims.
* To encourage the active involvement of people from a wide range of backgrounds."

It would have been nice to include "truth" as an aim of this group.

I have invited rational views and critical thinking on the topic of a handwritten "suicide" note of a famous person. I have brought variety to this board. I am questioning the integrity of possibly the most influential government in the world and their press. Instead of discussion of the handwriting I accused of believing in UFOs and I am called a "paranoid-conspiracy-theorist." That is not a rational argument. It is off topic.

Is this how the Irish Skeptics "encourage the active involvement of people from a wide range of backgrounds."

The late Paul Goodman wrote, "you can say anything in America as long as it has no effect." And the same is true here. Being skeptical of psychics, mediums, and alternative medicine is tolerated. The Irish skeptics are comfortably skeptical of whatever is popular and acceptable for people to question. But they dare not venture an opinion of James V Forrestal's handwritten "suicide note." That would not be acceptable or popular.

I don't think I fit in here. I am more like the Shepherd than the sheep. He said, "Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces."
-Turley

davros

Just to be clear, you shouldn't regard anything I say as representing the official position of the ISS. Indeed, on this thread, I'm not even speaking as moderator.

For me to have an opinion on Mr. Forrester, someone I know nothing about, would require a significant investment of my time. At that point, perhaps I would be able to hazard a guess as to whether he had died by his own hand or not. But I wouldn't have gained any useful knowledge. I can't, for example, vote the US government out of office if I think they are up to no good.

That's why I suspect the question will not get too many direct responses. It's an event distant in geography and time that has no impact on the choices that an Irish person needs to make. If scarce time is to be allocated to parsing political shenanigans, it's more likely to go on deciding whether Sinn Fein was involved in the recent bank heist, say.

I'm sure it's a very reasonable question to ask. I don't want to seem critical of that. I just want to explain why I can't offer an opinion myself. I'm sure some people follow the US scene more closely than I do. Perhaps they will jump in at some point.

Turley

davros wrote:

For me to have an opinion on Mr. Forrester, someone I know nothing about, would require a significant investment of my time.

It is not necessary to have an opinion on Mr Forrestal or know anything about the man to have an opinion on whether the official "suicide note" is his handwriting. I supplied a link to the note and samples of his handwriting and nothing more.

I am skeptical of the popular claim by historians that Forrestal copied the poem by Sophocles. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jvforres.htm

It is not surprising most people do not have an opinion of the document since it has been kept secret since 1949. Americans are kept ignorant of the existence of the document, James V. Forrestal and their history. The historic document was obtained by a citizen last year and placed in the University of Princeton Library. A murder unreported is still a murder and a truth not yet known is still the truth.

Although Forrestal had resigned as Secretary of Defense and was a civilian, he was confined in a military hospital, under guard, where even his priest confessor Monsignor Maurice Sheehy was not allowed to visit him before his violent death.

bus77

Turley wrote:

I am skeptical of the popular claim by historians that Forrestal copied the poem by Sophocles. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jvforres.htm

It might have been written by someone close to him. A familly member, or someone from his college days. A keepsake, that when found on his desk was assumed was written by him as a form of suicide note.

I'm just running through possibilities. However, I'm nearly sure if you can compare that handwriting to his ex wifes you will find a match.

robindch

Hi Turley -

No one has an opinion. The debate has become whether or not we should even have an opinion.

This should hardly be surprising, given that Forestall died over 55 years ago a long way from here and the simple fact of his unfortunate death really does lack any obvious present applicability to Ireland. If there is any, I'm sure we'd be interested to hear it.

Robin changed the topic to UFOs.

No, I did not. I did, however, attempt to move the discussion in the direction of something more interesting to skeptics, and relevant to this skeptical board, by giving a flavour of the enjoyably lavish PCT's which surround Forrestal's demise (amongst which, in the small selection I sampled, UFO's were far and away the most popular).

The Good Shepherd had a good analogy when he used sheep.

IMHO, he certainly did when he referred to those adhering to christian dogma (John 10:14, et al).

It would have been nice to include "truth" as an aim of this group.

I suggest that you spend some time studying the meaning of the word 'truth' at both philosophical and semantic levels and see what you come up with. You may then (or indeed, you may not) come to understand why the word is omitted hereabouts.

I [am] accused of believing in UFOs and I am called a "paranoid-conspiracy-theorist." That is not a rational argument. It is off topic.

First off, I never accused you of anything, specifically of believing in UFO's or of being a PCT specialist.

Secondly, the PCT's which I listed which surround Forrestal's death are on-topic as they're of interest to skeptics, since much the same style + delivery of 'arguments' surround many other unfortunate events -- the PCT's concerning the WTC attacks springing to mind.

Being skeptical of psychics, mediums, and alternative medicine is tolerated. The Irish skeptics are comfortably skeptical of whatever is popular and acceptable for people to question.

<ROTFL> I don't even know where to start trying to correct this wildly inaccurate view of yours concerning people's general toleration (or lack of it) for a viewpoint skeptical of the groups you've listed!

But they dare not venture an opinion of James V Forrestal's handwritten "suicide note." That would not be acceptable or popular.

I think you're significantly overstating your case here. WRT to my own feelings -- and I suspect Davros' too (Davros?) -- concerning the fact of JVF's death, I would certainly agree with you if, in the above, you would replace "dare not" with "couldn't be bothered to", and "acceptable or popular" with "interesting or relevant".

And, just to address the original point concerning the hand-written note, people do in fact vary their style of writing according to the writing tool they're using, the paper, the angle of the surface, the ambient light, the speed of writing, their mood, straightness of back, etc, etc (leaving aside bus77's suggestion that the note might have been somebody else's entirely). The fact that the note uses a different writing style is not an indication that it's a forgery, or indeed that it's in the slightest bit relevant to anything at all.

I am more like the Shepherd than the sheep.

Moo!

- robin.

bus77

robindch wrote:

The Good Shepherd had a good analogy when he used sheep.

IMHO, he certainly did when he referred to those adhering to christian dogma (John 10:14, et al).

The Good Shepherd might have been refering to those religiously following a differnt type of dogma.

robindch wrote:

I [am] accused of believing in UFOs and I am called a "paranoid-conspiracy-theorist." That is not a rational argument. It is off topic.

First off, I never accused you of anything, specifically of believing in UFO's or of being a PCT specialist.

Your first reply was pure insinuation and condescension.
Your second reply was just ignoring behavior, but also not..because in said post was this....

According to the particular PCT to which you subscribe,

You may have been talking to Davros

robindch wrote:

WRT to my own feelings -- and I suspect Davros' too (Davros?) -- concerning the fact of JVF's death, I would certainly agree with you if, in the above, you would replace "dare not" with "couldn't be bothered to", and "acceptable or popular" with "interesting or relevant".

Finally, a bit of honest speaking.

robindch wrote:

And, just to address the original point concerning the hand-written note, people do in fact vary their style of writing according to the writing tool they're using, the paper, the angle of the surface, the ambient light, the speed of writing, their mood, straightness of back, etc, etc

Ahh honesty is gone again. Easy come, easy go You cant say that rings true in your mind from looking at those papers.

Turley

robindch wrote:

The fact that the note uses a different writing style is not an indication that it's a forgery, or indeed that it's in the slightest bit relevant to anything at all.

Hi Robin-
I agree with you that the copy of the poem by Sophocles "uses a different writing style." It does not look at all like the writing samples of Mr. Forrestal. The writng samples of Forrestal from the Truman Library all look similar and appear to be written by the same hand matching Forrestal's signature.

I also agree with you that handwritten poem is not a forgery. A forgery by definition is an imitation and an attempt to deceive. The poem does not in any way resemble the writing of Forrestal so it is not a forgery.

The American press, government, and academics would disagree with your view that the handwrtten poem is not "in the slightest bit relevant to anything at all." They all claim that Forrestal copied the poem just before jumping out the window on th 16th floor of the hospital where he was confined. U.S. authorities claim it is relevant because the copied poem is Forrestal's "suicide note" and proof that he killed himself. You may not think it is relevant but they do. The U.S. press, government, and historians all agree Forrestal wrote the poem. I am skeptical.
-Turley

Turley

bus77 wrote:

It might have been written by someone close to him. A familly member, or someone from his college days. A keepsake, that when found on his desk was assumed was written by him as a form of suicide note.

Actually the poem was found, according to the U.S. press, in Forrestal's hospital room with a book of poetry. I think you are correct that it was written by someone but it was probably not anyone close to him because people that were close to him were not allowed to visit him while he was confined and kept under guard. Who wrote the poem is a good question? American's aren't asking "who" because they believe Forrestal wrote the poem. I am skeptical because it does not resemble his handwriting.

bus77

Turley wrote:

Actually the poem was found, according to the U.S. press, in Forrestal's hospital room with a book of poetry. I think you are correct that it was written by someone but it was probably not anyone close to him because people that were close to him were not allowed to visit him while he was confined and kept under guard.

hmm they usually let an individual take in a few personal items/or visitors hand in things to them though.
The reason why I think it was ex-wife that wrote it, is because from what I can see of her history she was a bit of a loose cannon herself. "Unhinged"(for lack of a better word) women, somtimes have a tendency to copy out pieces of text from books or other media sources. If the book was from his house...

Damn you Thurley, I've got Robert Stack in my head now saying "Maybe you can help....solve a mystery"
From what I can see (http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/joforres.htm) she came to Ireland a few times after his death. She must have stayed in one of the main hotels. Would some of them still have their "signing in" books from the 50's/60's?
There must be a bit of her handwriting somewhere...

Turley

bus77 wrote:

The reason why I think it was ex-wife that wrote it,

You are right that a family member may be a suspect when a person is murdered but before blame is assigned the death must first be a murder. Officially according to the press and authorities the death was a "suicide."

I am skeptical of this conclusion of the media, historians, and the authorities because that poem is not in James V. Forrestal's handwriting. The press and authorities that used the handwritten poem as "evidence he killed himself" and then concealed the poem for 55 years should also be suspect.

As long as the death is officially a "suicide" James V. Forrestal will be "guilty" of murdering himself. Suicide is a unique crime where there is no trial by jury or any defense presented in court for the "murderer" who is also the victim.

bus77

Turley wrote:

You are right that a family member may be a suspect when a person is murdered but before blame is assigned the death must first be a murder.

I am sorry I should have made myself more clear. I dont suspect murder yet.(Although, the wife doing it could be another conceivable senario).

The little "weights and measures" system in my head, leans more in the direction of suicide at the moment. I am working from that angle, with the only piece of clear information I can work with.

Following on from that, It falls down to two senarios..

A) They went looking around his room and found exactly what people naturaly suspect would be there in such a case. A suicide note. The poem was in fact written for/to him, or simply written by someone else.

It was felt a good "statement/speech" was needed to dispel natural suspicion and increase patriotism.

In either senario, It had the bonus of being a "footnote" to the situation.(at the time )

Now it leads on to a crossroads question. Was it his book of poetry/from his home, or a book handed in to him from a relative or friend?

Turley wrote:

I am skeptical of this conclusion of the media, historians, and the authorities because that poem is not in James V. Forrestal's handwriting.

Ofcourse, It is clearly in a differnt hand.

Turley wrote:

The press and authorities that used the handwritten poem as "evidence he killed himself" then concealed the poem for 55 years should also be suspect.

The leadership from 1948 were the ones that locked up the poem. The press had no access to it. And today everyone has the note. But all the possible witnesses and suspects are dead.

No one will change a history book to at least include the fact that the note was written in a different hand, unless a rock solid case is presented. That's the way it works. Journalists want a complete story, Scientists want a complete theory. A good history book does not have unanswered questions in it.

Turley wrote:

As long as the death is officially a "suicide" James V. Forrestal will be "guilty" of murdering himself.
Suicide is a unique crime where there is no trial by jury or any defense presented in court for the "murderer" who is also the victim.

Yes. A propper, public investigation should have been held at the time.

On the other hand, IMO. It does'nt be that black and white to those who find themselves in positions of public responsibility(press/government, ect) Especially not in huge countrys like America. And especially not in the 1940's.

Turley

bus77 wrote:

The leadership from 1948 were the ones that locked up the poem. The press had no access to it. And today everyone has the note. But all the possible witnesses and suspects are dead.

The event was actually in 1949. You are technically correct that it was the not the press that concealed the handwritten poem for 55 years. The handwritten poem was kept secret by the U.S. government. The press acquiesced.

The press would have us believe they had access to the poem because at the time all of the press accounts made a big noise about Forrestal copying the poem. And not all the suspects are dead, at least not those concealing the truth. Alexander Wooley for example, in a lengthly article in the Washington Post in 1999, the 50th anniversary of Forrestal's death, continued to perpetuate the obvious lie that the poem was written in Forrestal's hand.

His May 23, 1999, article begins:

His hand moved across the paper, copying Greek poetry from a thick anthology. Then, abruptly, mid-sentence, it stopped. He slipped the paper inside the book and set it aside. His room was on the 16th floor of the towering Bethesda Naval Hospital. It was 2 a.m. Sunday, 50 years ago. Exactly 50 years ago yesterday. His name was James Vincent Forrestal….

For one who had lived in great wealth, his hospital room was simply furnished—a narrow bed, a straight-back chair, an Oriental carpet on the floor, a rotating fan on the wall by a closed window. Closed and locked. Three windows in the room, all securely locked.

He went across the corridor to a small lab-like kitchen, with locked filing drawers, white tile walls, stainless steel and glass cabinets. There, above a radiator, an open window. He pulled out a screen, stepped onto the sill, leaped into the void.

Later, after they found him broken, 13 floors below on a low roof, they searched his room for clues to his last moments. There was the book, “An Anthology of World Poetry,” still open to an excerpt from Sophocles’ “Ajax,” (sic) still containing the paper on which he’d copied the poet’s words:

“’Woe, woe!’ will be the cry—no quiet murmur like the tremulous wail Of the lone bird, the querulous nightingale,” he’d begun, stopping short, in mid-word, “Night—“he wrote. Then jumped out a window.

Some 70 paragraphs later, Wooley's article ends:

The date was now May 22, Sunday, the day of [Drew] Pearson’s weekly broadcast, which had become so agitating to Forrestal.

Forrestal was reading the poetry anthology, and began to copy from “Chorus From Ajax” on Pages 277 and 278. He stopped after the first syllable of the word “nightingale” and—apparently during the guard’s five-minute break—walked out of his room, across a hall, into the adjoining kitchen. He took off the sash from his robe and tied one end to the radiator under the window, the other end around his neck, undid a screen and climbed out the window.

According to the coroner’s report, Forrestal likely then jumped out the window and hung for some seconds suspended. The report also notes scuff marks on the cement work underneath the window, indicating reflexive kicking, or possibly terrified second thoughts. To no avail: The sash gave way and Forrestal fell 13 floors, landing on an asphalt-and-crushed stone surface of a third-floor passageway roof. Death was instant.

The coroner noted that the sash was still wound tightly around his neck. The front of his skull was crushed, his abdomen slit, and his lower left leg severed. The report notes that his watch was still running.

bus77 wrote:

No one will change a history book to at least include the fact that the note was written in a different hand, unless a rock solid case is presented. That's the way it works. Journalists want a complete story, Scientists want a complete theory. A good history book does not have unanswered questions in it.

What could be more rock solid evidence that he did not copy the poem than the handwritten poem and samples of the handwriting of the deceased? We have the best evidence. Anyone with eyes and a brain can see the poem is not Forrestal's handwriting.

Perhaps we should be skeptical of present day publishers of newspapers and textbooks that continue the myth that the poem was written by James V. Forrestal. As long as the myth continues no one is asking, "Who murdered James V. Forrestal?"

We may not know who committed the murder but it is obvious who is concealing the fact that he was murdered.
-Turley

robindch

Anyone with eyes and a brain can see the poem is not Forrestal's handwriting

As I mentioned before, people can change their handwriting depending upon ambient conditions -- I write in about four discinct styles, depending largely upon the instrument I'm writing with, though the other environmental conditions I mentioned affect it too. Also, I think it's reasonable to assume that a man about to commit suicide is likely to be highly stressed and is therefore likely to write in a different style to his usual one; that's, of course, assuming that the note found wasn't somebody else's transcription but, as you claim, instead a suicide note and the evidence for that is, to say the very least, far from incontrovertible.

Based upon what you've so far produced (that a handwritten piece of paper 'found' in his rooms did not match his handwriting), your disjoint conclusion that the dead man was murdered, instead of having committed suicide, is unwarranted. If somebody is going to murder somebody else and go to the trouble of faking a suicide note, particularly if they've the skills and resources of a large government behind them, I think it likely that the note will be well-faked, rather than badly, especially since the agency concerned will have access to samples of the dead man's handwriting.

In short, your source data is questionable, your reasoning is suspect, and your conclusions are consequently unjustified.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

In short, your source data is questionable, your reasoning is suspect, and your conclusions are consequently unjustified.

Robin-
You are saying the Mudd Library at Princeton Univesity is a questionable source. The Admiral M.D. Willcutts Report on the Death of James V. Forrestal comes from their website at: http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/forrestal/willcutts/index.html
And the handwritten note of the poem is from the Willcutt's Report.
http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/forrestal/willcutts/report2.pdf
If they do not have the official copy of the handwritten poem, where would you suggest one would obtain an unquestionable copy?

robindch wrote:

If somebody is going to murder somebody else and go to the trouble of faking a suicide note, particularly if they've the skills and resources of a large government behind them, I think it likely that the note will be well-faked, rather than badly, especially since the agency concerned will have access to samples of the dead man's handwriting.

I think you may be incorrect to conclude a government with vast resources would bother to craft a well-faked a suicide note to conceal a murder. This would not be the case for several reasons: First, it is not necessary. A poor quality "suicide note" is adequate if it will be unavailable to the public. Second, the success of a corrupt government depends on a cooperative, compliant press, and in this case the press publicized the note to be in Forrestal's handwriting and continues to make this claim even today. And thirdly, deception is best accomplished with the simplest method. I am sure Ian Rowland, the magician scheduled to speak to the Irish Skeptics in April, will confirm that magicians always use the simplest method. Magicians methods are well-known to the U.S. government.

In short, a clever, well-crafted forgery was not necessary. The proof I am correct is demonstrated by the fact that the poem, not Forrestal's handwriting, has remained a secret for 55 years and for 55 years the death has always been unquestionably a "suicide."

Now that the note is available for all to see, I am skeptical that Forrestal wrote the note and also skeptical of his "suicide."

A skeptic, according to the dictionary, is a person who questions "matters generally accepted." In this case, I am questioning the view made popular by the U.S. government and American media. I am questioning what is generally accepted. You OTOH are questioning me, and my views are not generally accepted. You seem less a skeptic, and more like a gullible trusting soul who believes what is generally accepted.
-Turley

Turley

robindch wrote:

As I mentioned before, people can change their handwriting depending upon ambient conditions -- I write in about four discinct styles, depending largely upon the instrument I'm writing with, though the other environmental conditions I mentioned affect it too. Also, I think it's reasonable to assume that a man about to commit suicide is likely to be highly stressed and is therefore likely to write in a different style to his usual one;

Robin-
The forgery that convicted Alfred Dreyfus did not even resemble his handwriting yet "experts" offered elaborate explanations not unlike your own above to "prove" the guilt of Dreyfus. The Dreyfus Affair demonstrated that the innocent can be called guilty. Had you lived in France at the time you might have sided with the government and popular view that Dreyfus had written the bordereau, the list containing artillery information bound for the Germans.

Would you convict James V. Forrestal of murdering himself based on your argument above that the poem was written by him?
-Turley

SkepticOne

I think the handwriting might well have changed considering he was in hospital for psychiatric treatment, but the note itself doesn't establish much by itself either way.

Was there any signs of struggle on his body? This might indicate that foul play was involved. Any other evidence? The handwriting thing is pretty poor tbh.

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

I think the handwriting might well have changed considering he was in hospital for psychiatric treatment, but the note itself doesn't establish much by itself either way.

You are assuming he needed psychiatric care to explain the different handwriting style. It is a circular argument to state the writing did not look like his because he was "suicidal" because the note itself was used as proof he was "suicidal".

SkepticOne wrote:

Was there any signs of struggle on his body? This might indicate that foul play was involved. Any other evidence? The handwriting thing is pretty poor tbh.

You are correct that other evidence should also be considered. To conclude murder we should look at everything. I did not intend to burden readers here with other facts. My sketicism here is centered on the note. The handwritten poem is obviously not in his hand and a cause for skepticism.

The recently released Willcutt's Review Board report at the Princeton Library reveals broken glass was found on Forrestal's bed and on the floor of his room. A cord was found tightly knotted around his neck, indicating he may have been strangled before he was thrown out of the window. The press from the beginning has called it "suicide" but the official summary of the investigation released at the time did not. Officially it was not called a "suicide." Officially he simply died from a fall.

His brother was coming to attempt take him out of the hospital the following day. His brother has always maintained that James V. Forrestal was murdered. If you have interest in the other issues it would be best to research the official report found at the Princeton Library and not take my word for the facts.

As long as the press does not report the existence of the note it remains harmlessly at the Princeton Library. Even Irish Skeptics will argue the note could have been written by the "suicidal" Forrestal. People prefer the authorities and the popular official conclusion to the obvious truth. The public worldwide accepts the voice of authority, as if it were the voice of God. When men are such gullible lemmings I am surprised they bothered to write a note and conceal it for 55 years.

I wonder how many innocent men are locked away, as Alfred Dreyfus once was, because even those claiming to be skeptics are not skeptical of official "truths."

No one sees what is at the Princeton Library. All eyes are on the trial of pop star Michael Jackson! Just like a magic show, the big motion covers the little motion.

bus77

Turley wrote:

You are assuming he needed psychiatric care to explain the different handwriting style.

Personally I'm a little more prone to believe the man needed psychiatric care because my own father had a nervous breakdown at around the same age. He even looks like he was due a breakdown to me just by looking at his face in photos and from reading his work/life history.
About going out a window, I also actually heard a similar story from a relative of mine. About a local man who (story has it) died from a fall while climbing out a window of a mental hospital. I am not making that up.

So you see why I find the suicide senario(or at least the mental illness aspect) concievable to a certain extent.

Turley wrote:

The recently released Willcutt's Review Board report at the Princeton Library reveals broken glass was found on Forrestal's bed and on the floor of his room. A cord was found tightly knotted around his neck, indicating he may have been strangled before he was thrown out of the window. The press from the beginning has called it "suicide" but the official summary of the investigation released at the time did not. Officially it was not called a "suicide." Officially he simply died from a fall.

However, It's aspects like these that make it a very suspicious state of affairs.

In any case, I find it completely fascinating.

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

You are assuming he needed psychiatric care to explain the different handwriting style. It is a circular argument to state the writing did not look like his because he was "suicidal" because the note itself was used as proof he was "suicidal".

No, I was merely suggesting another alternative.

You are correct that other evidence should also be considered. To conclude murder we should look at everything. I did not intend to burden readers here with other facts.

But if you are making a claim the burden is on you to prove your case with facts. The more the better, surely.

A cord was found tightly knotted around his neck, indicating he may have been strangled before he was thrown out of the window.

That's more like it. With enough information about the situation people can weigh up the possible causes of his death. Any more information of this sort?

I would still be somewhat skeptical as it stands.

Turley

bus77 wrote:

In any case, I find it completely fascinating.

Others are inclined to agree. The Forrestal "suicide note" is number four on a list of famous suicide notes at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_note

bus77

Ahh sorry:( I had a feeling that would get your back arched.

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

But if you are making a claim the burden is on you to prove your case with facts.

Actually the burden is on the American press and authorities. Every homocide textbook maintains that an unattended death should be treated as a homocide until homocide can be ruled out. When Forrestal's broken body was found shortly before 2:00 AM with a cord knotted around his neck and broken glass (indicating a struggle) was found in his room, the death should have been investigated as a homocide. However the early edition of the New York Times on the same morning promptly announced the death was a "suicide." The press had solved the crime before any investigation was completed.

And that newspaper was published before crime scene photographs of the room (available at http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/forrestal/willcutts/pictures/exhibit2J.jpg ) were even taken or an autopsy conducted. Forrestal could have been drugged silly before he was thrown out the window but without an autopsy investigators did not know. In fact, the autopsy report has never been released.

The whole point of an investigation is to gather the facts so the public can know what happened. One can only imagine why the Report of the investigation was kept secret for 55 years if they had nothing to hide. Now we know they did have something to hide. When the report was released last year photos of the body were withheld by the government by reason that they would violate family privacy. When the U.S. government was informed that there were no surviving family, with the exception of a single grand-daughter born long after Forrestal's death, the government responded that they had "lost the photographs of the body." How convenient.

The burden of proof that Forrestal was not murdered rests with the U.S. government and American press, especially since the "suicide note" they claimed he wrote is not in Forrestal's handwriting.

It is also interesting that the note was among the official records released but there is nothing in the official report about the book. The press continues to report the poem was copied from a book. There is nothing in the official report about who officially found the book or the note. It seems the press discovered them both, like magic.

SkepticOne wrote:

I would still be somewhat skeptical as it stands.

Me too.

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

Actually the burden is on the American press and authorities.

But you are the one saying it was murder and not suicide, and not them. If they are denying it was murder then the burden, unfortunately, fall to you, the person making the claims.

I would suggest therefore that the more facts you present the more your theory will be believed.

Personally I think the electrical cord is far more telling than the note, but that's just me. Best to get all the facts that you believe make the case for murder out into the open where they can be debated.

robindch

You are saying the Mudd Library at Princeton Univesity is a questionable source.

No, I said no such thing. I am simply questioning your flat assertion that the suicide not was not written by VWF, not querying the fact of something which turned up in Princeton.

BTW, recalling what you said in the moon-hoax thread concerning the reliability of evidence sourced from institutions which received US federal funds, I would have expected you to reject, out-of-hand, any evidence provided by any such institution. Why do you accept such evidence now, when it suits you, and reject it, as you did before, when it doesn't?

...especially since the "suicide note" they claimed he wrote is not in Forrestal's handwriting.

There's hardly much point in repeating what I've already said twice about changes to handwriting, as I can't imagine that a further repetition is going to achieve what the previous two didn't. Nonetheless, it would be nice if you could address the points that I made and state why it is that you are able to assert that the note is a fake, with an argument more substantial than Anyone with eyes and a brain can see the poem is not Forrestal's handwriting (by which I assume that you mean that it wasn't written by VWF).

[...]I am questioning what is generally accepted. You OTOH are questioning me, and my views are not generally accepted. You seem less a skeptic, and more like a gullible[...]

As a knowledgeable skeptic, Turley, I'm sure that you're as familiar as anybody else around here with the laws and fallacies of logic, 'specially the solecism known as the denial of the antecedent. In case anybody's forgotten it, a brief definition is available here -- do check it out and feel free to apply it to the above chain of reasoning

- robin.

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

But you are the one saying it was murder and not suicide, and not them. If they are denying it was murder then the burden, unfortunately, fall to you, the person making the claims.

The source of truth is not the U.S. authorites or popular opinion formed by the press, which many think is the voice of God.

SkepticOne wrote:

I would suggest therefore that the more facts you present the more your theory will be believed.

I am not the source of truth, so people need not believe me! People can see the facts and seek the truth themselves. The truth had been in darkness for 55 years but now it is in the light.

SkepticOne wrote:

Personally I think the electrical cord is far more telling...

Electrical cord? What electrical cord?

If you are interested in more evidence you can do the research. My only intent is to state that I am skeptical of the claim by the U.S. authorities, historians, and press that James V. Forrestal wrote the poem they all claim is evidence he committed "suicide."
They press did not provide the necessary evidence to support their claim of "suicide." The handwriting is different from Forrestal's. I remain very skeptical that Forrestal copied the poem by Sophocles.

bus77

SkepticOne wrote:

Personally I think the electrical cord is far more telling than the note,

LMAO I'm sorry, we must regretfully inform you that your application to the Special Branch has been rejected. (It was the waist-tie from his robe)

robindch wrote:

There's hardly much point

Shut up.

Turley

robindch wrote:

I am simply questioning your flat assertion that the suicide not was not written by VWF,

I think you are confused. James V. Forrestal's initials are JVF. I never made a flat assertion that the poem by Sophocles was not written by "VWF." It is self-evident that James V. Forrestal did not write the poem.

robindch wrote:

BTW, recalling what you said in the moon-hoax thread concerning the reliability of evidence sourced from institutions which received US federal funds, I would have expected you to reject, out-of-hand, any evidence provided by any such institution.

This demonstrates that you can be wrong in your thinking. All of us are subject to error. Recognizing that we can be wrong in our thinking is the first step towards the truth. Congratulations!

robindch wrote:

Why do you accept such evidence now, when it suits you, and reject it, as you did before, when it doesn't?

It is not because the facts suit me. The situation is very different. The librarian at the Mudd Library at Princeton University apparently recognized the historic significance of the release of the Willcutt's Report which had been unavailable for 55 years and chose to make it available to the public via the library. It was presented to him by a private citizen who had requested it under the Freedom of Information Act and by luck the Department of the Navy released the entire report without redactions. I am unaware of anyone paying the Princeton library to make the Willcutt's report available. The librarian enthusiastically issued a press release and FWIW this historic document has been ignored by the press. OTOH the study of "moon rocks" at the U of New Mexico was funded by millions of dollars from the U.S. government and thus the university had a vested interest in concluding that the moon rocks supplied by NASA (a government funded agency) were out of this world. The difference being, "Whoever pays the piper calls the tune."

robindch wrote:

There's hardly much point in repeating what I've already said twice about changes to handwriting,

We agreed that the handwiting in the poem is different from all of the exemplars of Forrestal's handwriting.

robindch wrote:

Nonetheless, it would be nice if you could address the points that I made and state why it is that you are able to assert that the note is a fake, with an argument more substantial than Anyone with eyes and a brain can see the poem is not Forrestal's handwriting (by which I assume that you mean that it wasn't written by VWF).

Again, I think you are confused because Forrestal's initials are not "VWF." It is self-evident that the poem officially written by JVF is not Forrestal's handwriting. You have admitted the handwriting is different. Do you seriously want to argue that the handwritten poem is Forrestal's handwriting when it looks completely different from all of the exemplars of Forrestal's handwriting? Do you agree with the U.S. authorities and American press that the poem is Forrestal's handwriting and the evidence that he murdered himself? Is that your position?

robindch wrote:

As a knowledgeable skeptic, Turley, I'm sure that you're as familiar as anybody else around here with the laws and fallacies of logic, 'specially the solecism known as the denial of the antecedent.

The fallacy at issue here is the argument from authority. The authorities and the press said Forrestal copied the poem then jumped out the window.
I'm very skeptical because the handwriting is not Forrestal's. And it is very suspicious that it was concealed for 55 years so no one could see that the handwriting is not Forrestal's.

SkepticOne

bus77 wrote:

LMAO I'm sorry, we must regretfully inform you that your application to the Special Branch has been rejected. (It was the waist-tie from his robe)

Dosen't make much difference to me what sort of cord was around his neck. I am not trying to make any case one way or the other. The fact that there was some sort of cord around his neck, in my opinion, is more telling than the note if I was trying to convince people that it was murder. It would have been better to see at the start of the thread all the facts that you believe point to murder rather than suicide.

davros

bus77 wrote:

Shut up.

I shouldn't even need to say that such language is unacceptable on this forum. Tread carefully...

robindch

Again, I think you are confused because Forrestal's initials are not "VWF."

Yes, of course you're right -- I was writing this well after midnight; please forgive my erroneous conflation of Foster and Forrestal + change all occurrences of 'VWF' to 'JVF' in the above (which I won't do by editing the message, as the error's referred to subsequently).

- robin.

robindch

Hi Turley -

Ok, so let me get things straight, quoting what you've previously written in italic:

A The US Navy (a US government institution) released a document, produced by a previous US government, to Princeton Library (a US government-funded institution) which employed a person (paid by the US government) who subsequently issued a press-release about the document which directly (according to you) implicates the previous government in a conspiracy which proposes the murder, rather than suicide as claimed, of James Forrestal, a member of said previous government, by person or persons unknown.

B Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. (by which I assume you mean that whoever pays for an event, gets to dictate the event and its outcome)

C he was murdered

D I am correct

E I am not the source of truth

I must be honest here and say that I believe that this logic lacks the vital element of consistency

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

I must be honest here and say that I believe that this logic lacks the vital element of consistency

Robin-
you can take comments out of context and rearrange them in any order you like, or rewrite what I write to "prove" you are "right". So what? Who cares?

I am skeptical of the official claim that James V. Forrestal wrote the poem by Sophocles and known as his famous "suicide note." I do not think Forrestal wrote the poem. The poem handwriting is different than the handwriting in the exemplars of Forrestal's handwriting.

I am not the topic of this thread. The subject is the handwritten poem used to "prove" Forrestal murdered himself. Do you agree with the U.S. authorities and American press that the poem is Forrestal's handwriting. Is it your position that the handwritten poem is Forrestal's suicide note?

This is not an issue of you are right and I am wrong. My skepticism of the authorities does not change anything. This is just my opinon. Your lack of skepticism of the authorites does not mean you are right or wrong. You can have any opinon you wish. No one wins or loses. Lighten up.
-Turley

davros

OK, this discussion is stuck in a groove. Is there other evidence besides the handwriting? Is there any reason a murderer would copy a poem by Sophocles? If it's murder, who are the suspects and what are their motives?

Turley

davros wrote:

OK, this discussion is stuck in a groove. Is there other evidence besides the handwriting? Is there any reason a murderer would copy a poem by Sophocles? If it's murder, who are the suspects and what are their motives?

I do not think our discussion necessarily is stuck in a groove. We could examine if there is a difference between "officially true" and "true."

There is considerable evidence James V. Forrestal was murdered in addition to the handwritten poem. But to have an informed discussion requires people to read the documents of the official investigation available at the Princeton Library and perhaps press accounts and other literature. Few people want to be burdened with facts and evidence.

Aristotle said a fundamental principle of rational thinking is that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. The handwritten poem is a clear example of something that is not James V. Forrestal's handwriting. It is straightforward and available for all to see with the click of a mouse. Either the poem is Forrestal's handwriting or it is not.

It is interesting that some will argue that something that does not look at all like the writing of James V. Forrestal "is" the writing of James V. Forrestal.

Regarding suspects, the U.S. government would have to be a suspect in the murder of James V. Forrestal because he was imprisoned at a government run facility when he was killed. The government had control of who was able to see Forrestal and a guard watched him at all times. The government conducted the investigation and provided the handwritten poem as evidence. Reading the transcript of the inquiry it is clear from the questions NOT asked that the true facts about the death were avoided. The government concealed the investigative report for 55 years. A cooperative, compliant press publicized the poem and made sure the murder cover-up succeeded. I'd say the press and the authorities are suspect.

Assigning blame and motive is getting ahead of where we are. Officially historians, authorities, and the press are firm that there was no murder. This is the crux of the matter because so many people rely on historians, the authorities, and the press as the source of "truth." The failure of the authorities, historians, and journalists to provide the truth is larger than who is the murderer.

The poem is listed among famous suicide notes, but the fact that the poem is not in Forrestal's handwriting is known to a only handful of people worldwide. The Irish Skeptics are among the lucky few.

robindch

> you can take comments out of context and rearrange them in
> any order you like, or rewrite what I write to "prove" you are
> "right". So what? Who cares?

While I have extracted text from various of your postings, I have gone to some care to ensure that each of the statements quoted above was used in way a consistent with its original context.

Also, I am not writing to 'prove' that I am 'right' (whatever either of those terms mean in the logical space of this argument). Instead, I am showing that the statements that you have made -- far from being either consistent or skeptical (as other skeptics understand the terms) -- are potentially baseless, and certainly contradictory. There is much more to skepticism than simply disagreeing with majority viewpoints; sometimes the majority view might well be something close to the truth (eg, ask people if gravity exists, or the sun shines). And as to who cares? Well, I do.

Anyhow, given that (a) your opinions are contradictory and (b) you have refused, seriously, to answer any of the questions I've put to you, I can only conclude that your own position regarding the note must be viewed with considerable scepticism.

- robin.

GuanYin

Ahh logic, fact and reason, the staple of the Irish Skeptics forum.

I think there are huge holes and numerous flaws in your argument.

Therefore he couldn't have been murdered.

Turley

robindch wrote:

There is much more to skepticism than simply disagreeing with majority viewpoints;

I agree, such as looking at the evidence that the handwritten poem, popularly accepted as written by Forrestal, does not look like Forrestal's handwriting.

robindch wrote:

sometimes the majority view might well be something close to the truth (eg, ask people if gravity exists, or the sun shines). And as to who cares? Well, I do.

And sometimes the majority view might well be nothing close to the truth (eg, the earth does not rotate, the sun orbits the earth, heavier than air machines cannot fly, dead people are elected to the U.S. Congress)

robindch wrote:

Anyhow, given that (a) your opinions are contradictory

when taken out of context

robindch wrote:

and (b) you have refused, seriously, to answer any of the questions I've put to you, I can only conclude that your own position regarding the note must be viewed with considerable scepticism.

You are entitled to hold the popular opinion that Forrestal copied the poem, "Chorus from Ajax," and then jumped out the window, most people do.

I do not. I can see the poem is not in Forrestal's handwriting.

Turley

robindch wrote:

D I am correct

E I am not the source of truth

I must be honest here and say that I believe that this logic lacks the vital element of consistency

- robin.

Robin-
Side by side and out of context the two statements may appear inconsistent. Please consider that a person can be correct to state that "gravity exists." The truth of gravity existing is independent of a person stating the fact. Therefore a person's statement is not the source of the truth that gravity exists. The existence of gravity is not true only because a person says it is so.

Being correct and being the source of truth can be different things.

I can be correct that James V. Forrestal did not write the poem. My opinion is not the source of truth as to whether Forrestal wrote the poem. The source of the truth can be found in examining the handwritten poem and the exemplars of Forrestal's handwriting. http://www.dcdave.com/article4/041103.html

You seem determined to find something wrong with the messenger. Your disagreements here seem to seek some error in something I say, no matter how small. The famous "suicide note" of James Forrestal has more significance than I will ever have. In the big picture I am insignificant.
-Turley

davros

And we are still going round in circles. Points have been well-made and nobody is going to shift their position. If nothing new is said, I'll have to close this thread.

davros

syke wrote:

Ahh logic, fact and reason, the staple of the Irish Skeptics forum.

Thanks, very helpful.

robindch

> I think there are huge holes and numerous flaws in your argument.

Do please list them -- this is a skeptical forum!

> Therefore he couldn't have been murdered.

I presume you're being sarcastic at my expense here, but I've never claimed that he was murdered, or that he wasn't. Instead I've simply pointed out that the evidence produced within this forum for the claim of murder is weak; that the questions I've asked which query this evidence are being ignored; and (much earlier) that the death of the unfortunate Forrestal is the topic of a large number of conspiracy theories ranging from the straightforward to the completely nutty.

Forum readers are free to draw their own conclusions from the above, but I have to agree with Davros that the unless there's some development, rather than continual restatements, of the arguments presented to date, then there's hardly much point in continuing the discussion!

- robin.