Who Murdered James Forrestal?

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.

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

> 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.

I'm agreeing with you robin.
I think allof the facts including the ones turley has shown here himself prove that it wasn't murder.

Plus I have other facts here too.

My friends uncle works for the department of defence and he says that most of the claims like this are made by dissidents and most of the facts and evidence that they put forward are either contrived or faked by them. Thats why the government never takes the claims seriously with investigations.

The guy is really nice and sound though, so I doubt he'd like.

I think that proves he definitely wasn't murdered.

Turley

syke wrote:

Plus I have other facts here too.

My friends uncle works for the department of defence and he says that most of the claims like this are made by dissidents and most of the facts and evidence that they put forward are either contrived or faked by them. Thats why the government never takes the claims seriously with investigations.

The guy is really nice and sound though, so I doubt he'd like.

I think that proves he definitely wasn't murdered.

This is an example of the logic, fact and reason staple of the Irish Skeptics forum?

In other words,
"Someone's friends uncle says that the handwritten poem distributed by the U.S. Department of Navy and available at the Princeton University Library was either contrived or faked by the dissident Turley, member of the Irish Skeptis forum, AND the U.S. government never takes claims of serious corruption seriously...so this proves Forrestal killed himself."

(warning sarcasm ahead) This changes everything! If your friends uncle said so that should be good enough for the Irisk SKeptics! Who could argue with such reasoning? There is no need to examine any more "contrived" or "faked" evidence.

Shall we close the thread now? And this forum too?
My friends uncle thinks we should.

GuanYin

But surely my friend's uncles word is as strong a tetsimony and as empirical as any evidence you have supplied.

In fact, the reason I say its stronger is because I know my friend's uncle and I don't know the guys who made those websites, its obvious whos word I'd trust.

If you can site some handwritten poetry as conclusive proof to something and not back it up with any facts, I think my friends uncle is just as sound an argument.

Turley

davros wrote:

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.

I think you are right.

I must admit I am surprised that people who claim to be skeptics would argue the "suicide note" was Forrestal's when it very clearly is not written in the hand of the victim. People have judged me to be a nut and thus if I argued that snow was white, they would probably disagree. Any evidence I present is disregarded.

As I said earlier, if people wanted more evidence it is publicly available, but the view now is everything that points to government and press corruption is contrived or faked. (A friend's uncle that works for the government said this is so.) If there was agreement that the note was not written by Mr. Forrestal we could move forward to the implications of such a discovery.

I understand Americans not wanting to consider the implications but I did not think the Irish birthplace of Forrestal's father would be so reticent to voice the truth. I wonder what Mr. Forrestal would think of the arguments that the "suicide note" was written by him.

As I said before, 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."

Close the thread. I am done here.
-Turley

robindch

> Any evidence I present is disregarded.

Nope -- you've only presented one bit of evidence, and ignored everybody's questions about it. Can't see what's wrong with concluding that the evidence might be doubtful!

> I am more like the Shepherd than the sheep.

Comparing yourself to Jesus Christ for the second time in a week (first time at 2005-01-28 18:25)? Good heavens, what astonishing self-confidence!

"And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost" (Acts 5:5)

Have a good weekend, folks.

- robin.

davros

OK, I don't think we can tease the handwriting issue out any more and we don't seem to be getting any closer to finding out the answer to the question originally posed.

So we'll close here.

Incidentally, I looked at the various handwriting samples and I could not even honestly swear that all the samples known to be by JF were by the one man, if I didn't already know that. The transcribed poem is not much different from the rest, apart from the slope. Just my opinion.