ePluribus Media Community || citizen journalism, for the people, by the people

Shooting Holes Part IV: Dick Speaks

by BarbinMD

Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:38:18 PM EST

[editor's note, by Cho] promoted BarbinMD's great work.

Obviously too shaken up from shooting his friend in the face, it was four full days before Dick Cheney decided it was time to tell his story to the American people. By this point there were many people who felt nothing but sympathy for Cheney. After all, hadn't he promptly put out a press release saying that:

...the Vice President has sent a 7 dollar check to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, which is the cost of an upland game bird stamp.

We had our pound of flesh...what more did we need? Well, the truth would be nice. Which brings us to Cheney's exclusive interview with Brit Hume of FOX News, on the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Harry Whittington...

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

So what did happen on one of the worst days in Cheney's life?

I was on the far right -- -- but bird flushed and went to my right, off to the west. I turned and shot at the bird, and at that second, saw Harry standing there. Didn't know he was there --

But what did his companion, Mrs. Willeford say?

He was back behind us, and we turned off to the left to shoot another covey. ... The bird came up and was going back down, and you know how you swing on it, with your gun, following a bird.

Cheney says he turned to the right and took the shot, Mrs. Willeford says they turned to the left, then up and then down. But what did Cheney tell the Deputy Sheriff when the police finally interviewed him?

There was a single bird that flew behind him and he followed the bird by line of sight in a counter clockwise direction...

It seems that Mrs. Willeford was correct when she said he turned to the left...which means that either, a.) Cheney swung the aimed and ready to fire gun right past Ms. Willeford, or b.) Whittington was not to the west of Cheney, standing with the sun behind him. Perhaps the discrepancy can be put down to confusion or perhaps the sun needed to be a factor. It's rather strange that they all made a point of mentioning it:

And the sun was directly behind him -- that affected the vision, too, I'm sure. - Dick Cheney
Willeford added that the sun was behind Whittington, possibly making him difficult to see.
She added that the sun was in his eyes. - Katharine Armstrong

Which brings us to the time of the shooting...was it at 5:30 or 5:50? Besides the accident report, the Kenedy County Sheriff and several other reports, Whittington was shot at 5:30. Then three days later, without any explanation:

...a Secret Service spokesman, said the shooting occurred at 5:50 p.m. Central time, slightly later than the White House had said at first.

But what time did it actually happen? According to the just released supplemental Sheriff's report, Sheriff Salinas said that he received a call at "approximately 5:30, from one of his deputies who was on his way to the Armstrong Ranch in response to a shooting. He said that ten minutes later (approximately 5:40), he received a call from the Secret Service, "officially" notifying him of a hunting accident. I think it's safe to say that the accident happened at or before 5:30. But I'd imagine that at 5:30, the sun wouldn't have been "directly behind" Whittington.

One hopes that some intrepid journalist asks Scott McClellan what prompted the Secret Service announcement of the time change.

Soon after, his deputy called back and said he was turned away. Salinas then called Ramiro Mendellin, a worker on the ranch who assured Salinas that, "This was in fact an accident." Salinas claims he talked to other witnesses on the phone who told him the same thing and that that was when he decided to wait until the next morning.

But is that what happened? Here's what Salinas had said earlier:

Salinas said he called a worker he knew lived on the ranch and asked him for information. The ranch hand, a former county sheriff, called back and described the incident as a hunting accident. Salinas said he decided to send an investigator in the morning because he knew the victim was being hospitalized and he felt assured that it was an accident.

Which is it, Sheriff? Did you talk to one old friend or a number of witnesses? And the question I would really like to ask the Sheriff; How many times have you had a report about a shooting, accident or otherwise, where you waited more than 14 hours to question the shooter? And I'd like that documented, Sheriff.

There is so much more to go into...the timelines that make no sense, when the exent of Whittington's injuries were known, the reason for Mary Matalin's input that weekend, who called the White House situation room that night and who did they talk to? So many questions...but let me finish with the big one. Were they drinking?

During the interview, Cheney said:

No. You don't hunt with people who drink. That's not a good idea. We had --
We'd taken a break at lunch -- go down under an old -- ancient oak tree there on the place, and have a barbecue. I had a beer at lunch. After lunch we take a break, go back to ranch headquarters. Then we took about an hour-long tour of ranch, with a ranch hand driving the vehicle, looking at game. We didn't go back into the field to hunt quail until about, oh, sometime after 3:00 p.m.
The five of us who were in that party were together all afternoon. Nobody was drinking, nobody was under the influence.

Well there you go. He had one beer, hours before, took a tour of the ranch he had visited for 30 years...that beer was completely out of his system before he picked his gun back up. There's one problem

The party of 11 hunters set out in two trucks Saturday morning, driving around the mesquite-dotted property and shooting quail until about 12:30 p.m., said Anne Armstrong, co-owner of the ranch. Then they broke for a lunch of antelope, jicama salad and camp bread, washed down with Dr. Pepper.
After lunch, the group split up. Cheney, Whittington and Pamela Pitzer Willeford, U.S. ambassador to Switzerland, went with two of Armstrong's daughters and pursued quail for several more hours. It was at dusk that Whittington shot a bird and went to retrieve it, taking him behind the vice president.

There was no long break, no visit to the ranch house, no tour...immediately after lunch, he "pursued quail for several more hours." We know his gun was loaded...the question is, was he?

Shooting Holes Part IV: Dick Speaks | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden)

I still want to know (5.00 / 1) (#1)

Is Cheney covering up for Willeford? Why hasn't she spoken? When will someone interview her?

Did she pull the trigger?

Whittington was shot with a 28 gauge "Ladies Gun." Was Cheney, the avid huntsman and man's man, really using a "Ladies Gun?"

Oh, yeah... why on earth was Willeford with them? Why was this seemingly very strange group of people together? Where was Mrs. Cheney, and why didn't she accompany her husband on this little holiday?

This whole story stinks.

by Timroff on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:56:24 PM EST

Ladies gun??? (none / 0) (#3)

Back up TimRoff - i must have missed something. Where is the mention of a Ladies Gun.

I don't buy the VP taking the responsibility instead of the Ambassador - not for one nanosecond. That is a gentlemanly, courtly thing to do - not a politically savvy move.

Point taken as to where the heck the Ambassador plays into this. At the least a witness statement should come from her and everyone else. AND then filed with the police statement.

by kfred on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 01:01:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Words like pig... (5.00 / 1) (#4)

...and flying come to mind for me. ;-)

And btw, apparently that gun runs for around $11,000...the Bushites are such men of the people. ;-)

by BarbinMD on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 02:11:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

all over the place (4.00 / 1) (#7)

there are many references about the 28 gauge shotgun being a "ladies gun" because of low recoil, light weight, etc. and it's a meme I've seen numerous places:

The Big Orange
Dion Surber's Blog
Talking Points Memo Cafe

by Timroff on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 02:51:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not wrong, Timroff (5.00 / 1) (#10)

about the multiple references, but they really are inaccurate.

The .28 is the gun of choice for small game birds like the quail.

The disparaging "ladies gun" comment is most likely just a dig at Cheney. The Perazzi he was carrying is like a finely crafted timepiece, a true work of art. In the case of the Perazzi, the stocks are hand chiseled, it is engineered with a minimum of moving parts and the plates are highly ornate works of hand engraving.

As, Barb mentioned upthread, a single Perazzi runs about $11K new and with no frills...a matched engraved set of 4 (.12, .20, .28 and .410) in the gold edition is over $400K.

I inherited a .410 Perazzi from my dad, and it too, might be considered a "ladies gun", but is perfectly suited for quail and slightly larger game birds. My dad acquired it as barter in relief of a debt and the guy said that he'd rather give my dad his right arm. So, I guess it depends on who is doing the talking...

Besides, it might very well be that he was carrying this model...

A gun any man would be proud to carry, except for maybe good ol' Ashcroft, eh?

And, here is to the continued outstanding work that Barb has done with this series. Cheers!

by polydactyl on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 03:31:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Spray Patterns? (5.00 / 1) (#16)

I've been out of the loop for the last 8 hours or so, and I haven't seen much of the commentary this afternoon, so someone somewhere may have already addressed the issue of spray patterns, and whether or not the visual pattern on Whittington's face is consistent with the gauge/caliber and pellet size at the claimed 30 yard distance.

I found this link which gives a pretty good overview, but it says this about the .410:

The .410 calibre (10 mm) is measured in inches instead of gauge for historical reasons. The .410 calibre (10 mm), approximately 67 gauge, was created to impose maximum handicap upon skilled shooters in the game of skeet, by throwing a relatively small charge of shot. The .410 calibre (10 mm) was not created for hunting, but some people do use it for that. It is a very common first hunting shotgun among 13 and 14 year old hunters in Kentucky, where it is used mostly for hunting squirrels. Most of these young hunters move up to 20 gauge shotguns within a few years, before moving on up to 12 gauge shotguns by their late teenage years.

Has this been addressed already? And if not, can you provide any comment on the spray pattern on Whittington's face in relation to the 30-yard distance and shotgun involved?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 10:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: Link to Video of Ballistics Tests (5.00 / 1) (#22)

Alex Jones at infowars.com has conducted a series of tests with a 28 gauge shotgun (only one done with what he calls a "modified barrel" though, no mention of use of a choke) that do a good job of demonstrating that the 30-yard range stated by Cheney is a pile of horseshit.
Definitely worth watching, and very important to the developing story.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 01:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0) (#11)

You pretty much laid it out the way I saw it also.

by kfred on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 03:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We should hear from Willeford (none / 0) (#21)

After all, she is the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland -- a prominent government official, whose salary we all pay -- and she was standing next to the Vice President of the United States when he shot a man. Why hasn't she given a public statement, or sat down for a full interview? As far as I've seen, her only published remarks have been one line quoted in a Dallas Morning News story last Monday. She shouldn't be permitted to just hide out and not give any comment at all on the second Vice-Presidential shooting in our nation's history.

by twcollier on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 11:42:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Frickin' frustrated (5.00 / 3) (#2)

Unless someone gets a deposed statement from the Ambassor and all the rest of the hunting buddies, we will never know.

I am so frustrated by what is the lack of proper police investigation, documentation.

Where are the witness statements for Pete's sake.

You know - it's bad enough he almost offed the poor guy, but anyone else would have to run the gauntlet of investigation and they should.

This is the one where I'd send my kid to the store to 'fess up that he had stolen something upon discovery myself.

I would send Cheney to get the consequences he deserves. I would also consider it a failure to have to exert "Momism" on him. Damn him

by kfred on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:58:04 PM EST

I think it was the booze... (none / 0) (#12)

...but it's infuriating that this good old boys club is closing ranks (well, mostly boys), and the facts of this case should be well documented and available. Of course I doubt that Secret Service and the Situation Room are things you can use the FOIA on.

And something else I'd like to know...Kirk, the first deputy to tell Salinas about the shooting...Salinas said something like, Kirk reported a shooting at 5:30 and had been summoned to the ranch to escort the ambulance and that he was enroute. Who summoned him and when? He was the deputy turned away at the gate, and the one saying the ambulance was gone when he got there. Cheney said the ambulance left 1/2 hour after the shooting which would mean 6:00'ish...Kirk was already on his way (I believe it was about 20 miles) so how did he miss it...and remember, the ambulance idled in the road "for several minutes" while waiting for Whittington's wife.

by BarbinMD on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 04:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: Barb - someone is lying. (none / 0) (#14)

We just don't know who and we don't know why.

by kfred on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 05:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

btw (5.00 / 1) (#5)

I did an edit...brain frazzled, and I noticed I had a sentence completely in the wrong place...and forgot to write two that were needed. d'oh

by BarbinMD on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 02:12:30 PM EST

Here's a pic of poor Harry per: (5.00 / 1) (#6)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3666111

by avahome on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 02:50:21 PM EST

Okay... (5.00 / 2) (#8)

I counted about 10 pellets in a brief glance...add the one on the heart, the one in the liver, the one on (?) the larynx...what was this crap about "between 6 and 200?" And I didn't even mention the big black splotch on his neck.

by BarbinMD on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 03:02:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: Not being medically trained............ (5.00 / 1) (#9)

I wonder when the birdshot went thru the clothing..does the pellet not carry/force bits of fiber with it into the flesh?
Oh, BTW...I can only imagine what Harry looks like without all the clothing on! Definitely not a pretty face.

by avahome on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 03:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#13)

if it is just me, but when you go to the Chron link, it has a generic picture of Whittington with the story now.

I poked around a bit and could not find the shot that you thankfully hotlinked.

by polydactyl on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 05:00:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To make things totally bizarre (5.00 / 1) (#15)

Whittington is claiming that the shooting happened on Friday. I've checked the transcript against the video, and it is accurate.

by silence on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 06:16:59 PM EST

Two points (5.00 / 1) (#17)

First, reading both the Cheney and Willeford comments together with the other published remarks, it sounds to me as if Cheney and Willeford were facing south with the sun to their right and the guide between them. When the quail flushed at least one bird flew behind them, first rising up and then dipping down. (I'm not a hunter but I understand that this is pretty typical of quail, which are a ground bird and fly only until they feel safe enough to land again.) Cheney apparently spun entirely around, 180 degrees as you mention, tracked the bird and then fired behind the way that the three of them had facing. Again, as I understand it, that is a major breach of bird-hunting safety protocol. The idea is to hunt in a line and only fire to the front. Which is presumably why Whittington didn't feel a particular need to "announce" himself -- he was well behind the shooting party, just where he was supposed to be.
I think that Armstrong and Cheney have intentionally been vague on this point, because they realize that it was a breach of basic hunting safety protocol. Willeford and the deputy's report seem a bit clearer on this. Which probablly explains why neither of them is making any further comment now.

by twcollier on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 10:57:49 AM EST

I just drew it out as you described it (none / 0) (#18)

And that makes perfect sense to me.

I don't know too much about hunting protocol either, except that in our state supposedly one can shoot deer on one's own property from out one's own window (but that's another story).

by Cho on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 11:13:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

: Also, he fired down (5.00 / 1) (#20)

In addition to wheeling and shooting behind the firing line (violating a safety rule), Cheney also aparently shot down on the bird as it was settling. That is why Whittington took the load of shot in his face, neck and chest, because he was partway down a small gully and Cheney was shooting down from higher ground. As I understand it from comments that quail-hunters have made, that is not really the idea of bird-hunting. The idea is to shoot them when they are on the wing, silhouetted against the sky, both for sporting purposes (shooting birds on the ground is not really the idea of bird-hunting) and for safety purposes, most especially if you're hunting with dogs so that no dog gets hit. Here, they weren't hunting with dogs -- they apparently had ranch employees on horseback to locate and flush their game for them, a very blue-blood way to do it -- but it's still bending the tradition to shoot down on a bird. Not a violation of a basic safety protocol such as turning and shooting behind the firing line, but still not the sort of thing that accomplished quail hunters would do. I suspect that there are a number of experienced hunters out there who would raise an eyebrow if they were to hear a clear account of just how this shooting went down.

by twcollier on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 11:37:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Second point (5.00 / 1) (#19)

That discrepancy in the stories about whether there was an extended lunch break is very interesting. Somebody should try to nail that down. Also notice the time that is mentioned by Anne Armstrong, co-owner of the ranch: she says that they shot quail in the morning "until about 12:30 p.m." before breaking for lunch. Which would put Dick's "one beer" a lot closer to the 5:30 shooting than his account suggests.

by twcollier on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 11:25:46 AM EST

Shooting Holes Part IV: Dick Speaks | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden)

Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism!