4

In the six years since the body of Vincent Foster was discovered at Ft. Marcy Park, Virginia, the mainstream media has savaged anyone who challenged the official findings of the Fiske and Starr investigations into the death of a ranking White House official with long ties to the Clintons.

Critics were universally characterized as "crazies" right wing nuts" and the ever popular "conspiracy theorists" label. Yet anyone who has paid the least attention to the matter can reach no other conclusion than that both investigations were deeply flawed - so flawed that to accept their conclusions at face value borders on the worst kind of fatuous gullibility.

From the very beginnning, egregious lapses in investigative procedure have been obvious. And as time went by, these lapses become more evident. Excuses for these failures were ludicrous ("The X-ray machine at the autopsy was broken" crime scene photos were "lost", time after time eyewitness testimony was recanted 16 or more months after originally offered, etc) yet accepted with open-mouthed gullibility by network media superstars and their print media colleagues.

This tendency to buy such damaged goods as the real truth suffered what should have been a fatal blow with the emergence of Patrick Knowlton - an eye witness to the skullduggery that took place that afternoon in Ft. Marcy Park. Knowlton was there and Knowlton saw events take place that cast the suicide-on-site conclusion into the trashbin.

But when Knowlton stepped forward to testify as to what he had observed his testimony was falsified by an FBI agent, he was harassed by a phalanx of thugs, and he was subjected to a smear campaign designed to destroy his credibility.

They picked on the wrong man, as you will see when you read his story as told in the official court documents that make up this week's cover story. It consists of relevant parts of court documents - parts that in the main give a clear picture of a shocking and monumental cover-up by the government and its media allies.

It is excerpted from a 511-page court document which you can and by all means should read for yourself. It is available online. You can order a printed copy of the report from the website. We urge you to do so, and share the information with your friends. Knowlton and his attorney, John H. Clarke, are courageous Americans who have set out to prove that the entire affair exposes the rampant corruption of the Clinton Administration, the Starr and Fiske investigations, and the media coverup that has managed to prevent Americans from knowing the truth about one of the worst scandals ever to emerge from the nation's capital.

Together with Hugh Turley, an associate who sought to help dig out the truth, Knowlton and Clarke subjected all the available investigative records to an exhaustive examination and turned up scores of irregularities which, added together, cried out Cover-Up loud and clear. What follows is a very small part of the results of their work - meant only to whet your appetite and make you want to read the whole shocking story.

If the Court grants Patrick Knowlton's motion, this document will forever be available from any government printing office. This filing is for the public. It presents most of the available evidence of cover-up. We believe that it proves, beyond doubt, the existence of a conspiracy, a cover-up.

If a cover-up exists, Mr. Starr's Office of Independent Counsel is infected with the very corruption it is designed to fight. That is important. But more importantly, in light of the scrutiny we are told our government has given the matter, if a cover-up has survived now for almost six years, then the matter of the existence of the conspiracy raises larger issues. Two of the three branches of our government, the executive and the legislature, as well as the press, did not function as intended. In the pages that follow, we are examining whether our Constitutional system protects us from government corruption, as the experiment of our founding fathers envisioned. These questions about our democracy are not merely academic.

The records filed in two District of Columbia federal courts tell how Patrick Knowlton became embroiled in this case. One is his 20-page submission to the United States Court of Appeals, Special Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels, filed on his behalf in accordance with the Independent Counsel Statute. The Court ordered Mr. Starr's OIC, over its objection, to include those 20 pages in its Appendix to Report on the Death of Vincent Foster, Jr., a nine-page letter and eleven pages of exhibits. On October 10, 1997, the OIC's Report on Mr. Foster's death, inclusive of its Appendix, was released to the public. Another Court in which Patrick Knowlton is proceeding is the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where his civil rights lawsuit is filed.

Appendix to the OIC's Report on the Death of Vincent Foster, Jr., September 23, 1997:

Facts. While heading home in heavy traffic on the George Washington Memorial Parkway, and facing over a two-hour commute, Patrick Knowlton pulled into Fort Marcy Park at 4:30 p.m. on July 20th, 1993, to relieve himself. Patrick parked close to the main footpath entrance into the park, between the only two cars in the small parking lot, which were parked just four spaces apart. To Patrick's left was parked an unoccupied mid-1980s rust-brown four-door Honda sedan with Arkansas tags (closest to the footpath entrance), and on his right was a late model metallic blue-gray sedan, backed into its parking space. A man was seated in the driver's seat of the blue-gray sedan. Immediately after Patrick parked, the man lowered the passenger side electric window and stared at him, menacingly.

This unnerved Patrick as he exited his car. As he started from his car toward the footpath, Patrick heard the blue-gray sedan's door open. Apprehensive, Patrick walked to the sign bordering the footpath entrance to the park and feigned to read its historical information while nonchalantly glancing to his right to see if the man was approaching.

He saw the man leaning on the roof of the driver's side of his blue-gray sedan, watching him intently. Patrick then cautiously proceeded 75 feet down the footpath's left fork to the first large tree, in the opposite direction from which Mr. Foster's body was later recovered. As he relieved himself, Patrick heard the man close his car door. Because the foliage was dense, he couldn't see the parking lot and hoped the man wasn't approaching.

As Patrick walked back to the parking lot with a heightened sense of awareness, he scanned the lot but did not see the man. Patrick surmised that the man had either gotten back in his car or perhaps could even be crouching between the brown Honda and Patrick's car preparing to attack him. In order to maintain his distance from the space between the two cars until he learned the man's whereabouts, Patrick walked directly toward the driver's side door of the brown Honda, and then around the back of it. As Patrick reached the driver's side door of the brown Honda, he looked through the window. He also looked into the back seat as he walked the length of the car. He saw a dark colored suit jacket draped over the driver's seat, a briefcase on the front passenger's seat, and two bottles of wine cooler on the back seat.

As he reached the back of the Honda, Patrick was relieved to see that the man had returned to his own vehicle. The man was still staring fixedly at him. Of the five things Patrick witnessed at the park ((1) the man and his car, (2) the suit jacket, (3) the briefcase, (4) the wine cooler, and (5) the mid-1980s Arkansas brown Honda), the Honda itself is the most relevant. It was not Mr. Foster's car.

When Mr. Foster's body was discovered approximately 70 minutes after Patrick had left the park, Mr. Foster had been dead for well over 70 minutes. Mr. Foster therefore could not have driven to the park in his Honda, as claimed in the government Reports on the death. The following evening, Patrick saw on the news for the first time that Vincent Foster had been found dead at Fort Marcy Park, so he telephoned the U.S. Park Police and reported what he had seen. Nine months later, FBI Special Agent Larry Monroe... wrote in his reports of those interviews that Patrick "identified this particular vehicle [Honda] as a 1988-1990...," and that Patrick "reiterated his description of this Honda as a 1988-1990."

This information was false and known to be false. Eighteen months later, in October of 1995, Patrick was provided a copy of his then publicly-available FBI interview reports by a reporter for a London newspaper. He realized for the first time that Monroe had falsified his account of the car and other facts he had recounted during his FBI interviews. His true account, along with the contradictory information from his FBI interview reports, was reported in the London newspaper on Sunday, October 22, 1995. Two days later, on Tuesday, October 24, the paper reached American newsstands. That day, Mr. Starr's office prepared a subpoena summoning Patrick to testify before the Whitewater grand jury in this courthouse on November 1, 1995.

Two days after that, Thursday, October 26, FBI agent Russell Bransford served the secret grand jury subpoena. Beginning that same day he was subpoenaed, and continuing into the following day, Patrick was harassed... Experts tell us that the technique is known to federal intelligence and investigative agencies, and that its objects were twofold: (i) to intimidate and warn Patrick in connection with his grand jury testimony; and failing that, (ii) to destabilize him and discredit his testimony before the grand jury. It worked. Monroe tried for hours to get Patrick to admit that the Foster's 1989 silver-gray Honda "could have been" the car Patrick saw. Patrick steadfastly responded, "No," repeating the description he had provided to the Park Police by telephone. Monroe falsified his interview report, writing that Patrick had "identified" the Honda as a "1988-1990," despite the fact that during his second FBI interview, Patrick had picked out the same color he had seen on the mid-1980s Honda from the "browns" section of the car color panels in the FBI laboratory, and that color corresponded to one available only on 1983 and 1984 Hondas.

Agent Bransford had been detailed to regulatory Independent Counsel Fiske's investigation, where he worked with Agent Monroe. Bransford told Patrick he had been "kept on under Starr." [P]rior to Mr. Starr's appointment to head the statutory OIC in August of 1994, the only substantive investigations into the case, with the sole exception of the U.S. Park Police investigation (conducted with FBI participation), were conducted by the FBI.

The publicly-available federal government record upon which the Fiske Report is based is replete with evidence that the FBI concealed the true facts surrounding Mr. Foster's death. The fundamental purposes of our Ethics in Government Act are (1) to ensure that justice has been done and (2) to preserve and promote public confidence in the integrity of the federal government by maintaining the appearance that justice has been done.

In light of (1) the FBI's statutory mandate to exercise primary jurisdiction in July of 1993 in the event of foul play, (2) two prior FBI findings of no criminal activity, and (3) evidence of a cover-up by the FBI already in the public domain, the OIC's use of the FBI in this matter undermines both purposes of the Act. No OIC can fulfill its mandate to preserve and protect the appearance of justice having been done when its investigation [is suspect].

There have been no other official investigations. The 1994 Senate Banking Committee was precluded by the limited scope of Resolution 229 from independently exploring of the issue of how or where Mr. Foster died ("whether improper conduct occurred regarding... the Park Service Police investigation into the death..."). [Ranking Republican, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives,William F.] Clinger did not investigate and Senator D'Amato's Committee did not explore these issues.

Much evidence of obstruction of justice by the FBI is documented in Patrick's lawsuit in this District Court (No. 96-2467) for inter alia, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), "...Obstructing justice; intimidating... witness.... employs the very agency it is designed to be independent from, the Justice Department.

Upon review of those excerpts of the Report provided by the OIC, it is manifest that the Report omits the information Patrick provided which refutes the FBI's repeated official conclusion of suicide in the park... Moreover, the Report's purported reliance on grand jury testimony is an attempt to give the Report more credibility. Indeed, the catalyst for Patrick's grand jury testimony was the appearance in U.S. newsstands of the October 22nd [1995] issue of the London Sunday Telegraph, in which Ambrose Evans-Pritchard described Patrick's reaction when he was shown the FBI report of his interview with two FBI agents detailed to Mr. Fiske's probe.

It was the first time Patrick had seen the report of the interview, which had been conducted eighteen months earlier. Evans-Pritchard wrote that Patrick "was stunned." Referring to the FBI's assertion that Patrick stated he "would be unable to recognize the man" he had seen at the park, Patrick is quoted as saying "That's an outright lie." Under the Act, the OIC's use of the FBI is free, tempting the OIC to create a microcosm of the DOJ. (See Act of Dec. 15th 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-191, 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. (101 Stat. 1293) p. 2172: "Congress intended the Justice Department to provide independent counsels with the same assistance it provides to its other high-priority, federal criminal cases... federal agencies are instructed to discontinue... requiring reimbursement agreements..." A USPP report notes that the autopsy doctor estimated that Mr. Foster died "2-3 hours" after having eaten a "large meal" "which might have been meat and potatoes." Several people reported that Mr. Foster had finished his lunch of a cheeseburger and French fries by 1:00 p.m., therefore putting the time of death between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. Also, the paramedic in his Incident Report estimates that based upon the "pooling of blood in the extremities," Mr. Foster had been dead "2-4 hrs" at 6:10 p.m....

Evans-Pritchard's article also states: "They showed him a photograph of [Foster's] Honda... 'They went over it about 20 times, telling me that this was Foster's car,' said Knowlton. 'But I was quite adamant about it. I saw what I saw, and I wasn't going to change my story'... Starr's investigators have never talked to Knowlton. The federal grand jury has never summoned him to give sworn testimony." * * *

On October 24, the same day that this newspaper reached U.S. newsstands, the OIC prepared a subpoena summoning Patrick to testify before the Whitewater grand jury. The secret grand jury subpoena was served two days later by an FBI agent who was formerly detailed to Mr. Fiske's probe, whereupon Patrick was harassed and intimidated... The Report omits all of this, even though Patrick submitted a report detailing the harassment to the OIC in March of 1996, which included reports of a polygraph examination, a psychiatric examination, witnesses' affidavits, photographs of two members of the harassment team and the names and addresses of two others.

Conclusion. Because Patrick did not heed the warning regarding his grand jury testimony and continued to tell the truth, including his account of the bizarre harassment he suffered, his testimony was discredited. Patrick was harassed in an effort to make him lookunbalanced or dishonest. Since that time, he has been defamed by numerous individuals, most of whom are journalists. He has been attacked as a delusional conspiracy theorist, a homosexual, and as an outright liar.

Patrick has been fighting to reestablish his credibility for the past two years. Patrick did nothing to deserve the outrageous treatment he received at the hands of the OIC and its FBI agents. He did nothing to deserve being yanked into this FBI debacle, having his life turned upside down, and having to endure this fight for his reputation. Patrick's only "crime" was reporting to the authorities what he had seen at Fort Marcy Park, consistent with his understanding of his duties as a good citizen.

Patrick respectfully asks that the Division of the Court append this letter to the Independent Counsel's Report on the Death of Vincent Foster, Jr. to afford him a measure of fairness. A denial of this relief would augment the appearance of justice having not been done and would further frustrate legislative intent. Patrick should not have to go through the rest of his life labeled as a liar or some kind of nut. He has no remedy at law for injury to his reputation causally related to the subject investigations. Patrick Knowlton merely seeks to establish that he is telling the truth and that he is mentally stable..

12 Exhibit 1 of Appendix to the OIC's Report on the Death of Vincent Foster, Jr., submitted September 23, 1997, released to the public on October 10, 1997.13 Exhibit 4 of Appendix to the OIC's Report on the Death of Vincent Foster, Jr., submitted September 23, 1997, released to the public on October 10, 1997.14 Exhibit 4 of Appendix to the OIC's Report on the Death of Vincent Foster, Jr., submitted September 23, 1997, released to the public on October 10, 1997.15

On October 25, 1996, a year before the Court ordered that the OIC's Report on Mr. Foster's death be released to the public, Patrick Knowlton's civil rights lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 96-2467. In it, he alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), Obstructing justice; intimidating... witness. On October 21, 1998, he filed a motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. Excerpts of that amended lawsuit follow. Patrick Knowlton v. Robert Edwards et al., US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 96-2467: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (10/98) (Conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), Obstructing justice; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Assault; Battery; Civil Conspiracy) * * * Summary of case 2.

This case arises from an overall conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with federal investigations into the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster. Upon learning that Mr. Foster's body was found in Fort Marcy Park, Virginia, Plaintiff reported to authorities what he had seen in the park approximately 70 minutes before the discovery of Mr. Foster's body. In April and May, 1994, Defendant Monroe, then an FBI agent detailed to the Office of regulatory Independent Counsel Robert Fiske, interviewed Plaintiff... Monroe falsified Plaintiff's account and misreported that Plaintiff identified the car he saw as a "1988 to 1990" year-model, which coincided with Mr. Foster's 1989 car. Because Mr. Foster was dead by the time Plaintiff visited Fort Marcy Park, Plaintiff's information refutes the official conclusion that Mr. Foster drove his car there.

Shortly after Plaintiff learned from a reporter that Defendant Monroe had falsified his account, Plaintiff's account of what he had witnessed at Fort Marcy and contradictory information from his FBI interview reports was published in the in October.16 Preface 22, 1995 edition of the London Sunday Telegraph newspaper. On the same day that the Telegraph reached American newsstands, October 24, the Office of Independent Counsel, In re: Madison Guarantee Savings & Loan, prepared a subpoena for Plaintiff to testify before the Whitewater grand jury in this Court. Two days after that subpoena was prepared, Defendant FBI Agent Russell Bransford served it. At the time of the service of that subpoena, Bransford was detailed to Mr. Starr's Washington, DC, Office. Bransford had been detailed to the Fiske probe. Beginning the same day that Bransford served Plaintiff the secret grand jury subpoena... Defendants... harassed and intimidated Plaintiff before he appeared to testify before the grand jury...

Wrongful acts alleged herein were violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), which prohibits, inter alia, attempts to deter witnesses by intimidation or threat from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully to matters pending before federal courts... Overt acts directed at Plaintiff were part of a subsidiary conspiracy. Because that subsidiaryconspiracy was the reasonably foreseeable, necessary or natural consequence of the overall conspiracy to hide the facts of Mr. Foster's death, each member of that overall conspiracy is liable for Plaintiff's damages simply by virtue of his being a conspirator. * * *

Plaintiff Patrick James Knowlton is an individual presently residing at 2424 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. At the time of Mr. Foster's death in July of 1993, and when Plaintiff was contacted and interviewed by Defendant Monroe in April and May of 1994, Plaintiff resided in Etlan, Virginia. Defendant Robert Edwards (hereinafter "EDWARDS") was at all times material hereto an individual employed by the United States Park Police, holding the position of Sergeant, assigned to the Second District station, 7300 MacArthur Boulevard, Glen Echo, Maryland. EDWARDS has since retired..... Defendant James C. Beyer (hereinafter "BEYER") is and was at all times material hereto an individual employed as Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, Northern Virginia District, 9787 Braddock Road, Suite 100, Fairfax, Virginia, and in that capacity performed the July 21st, 1993 autopsy on Mr. Foster. Defendant John Doe Pathologist (hereinafter"PATHOLOGIST") assisted Defendant BEYER in the performance of the autopsy on Mr. Foster. BEYER refused to identify PATHOLOGIST to the Park Police at the autopsy and there is no public record of the PATHOLOGIST's identity. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend his Complaint by inserting his true name in place of the fictitious name PATHOLOGIST when the same has been ascertained. Defendant Robert A. Bryant (hereinafter "BRYANT") is and was at all times material hereto an individual employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). During the times alleged hereinafter thatBRYANT committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, BRYANT served as the Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI's Washington, DC, Metropolitan Field Office. BRYANT currently holds the position of Deputy Director of the FBI, and his business address is the J. Edgar Hoover Building, 10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. 18. Defendant Scott Jeffrey Bickett (hereinafter "BICKETT") is an individual whose residence address is presently unknown to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that BICKETT is and was at all times material hereto an individual employed by the Department of Defense, holding an "Active SCI" security clearance, which stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information, a top U.S. Government security clearance. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff also avers that BICKETT has been briefed at FBI headquarters, has served at the direction of FBI personnel, and was so serving when BICKETT committed the acts hereinafter complained of. Defendant Lawrence Monroe (hereinafter "MONROE") is an individual who resides at 8128 Blandsford Drive, Manassas, Virginia. When MONROE committed the overt acts recited below, he was employed by the FBI as a special agent, and was detailed to the office of regulatory Independent Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr..

The captioned Defendant referred to as John Doe FBI Laboratory Technician is one or more laboratory technicians employed by the FBI's forensic laboratories, located in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, 10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Because Plaintiff does not yet know whether all the FBI laboratory reports quoted below were authored by the same individual, nor his or their identities, the author or authors of these laboratory reports are hereinafter referred to in thesingular as "FBI LAB." Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend his Complaint by substituting his or their true names instead of the fictitious name FBI LAB when the same has been ascertained. 21. Defendant FBI Agent Russell T. Bransford (hereinafter "BRANSFORD") is an individual who is currently and was at all times material hereto employed by the FBI as a special agent. BRANSFORD's business address is the FBI's Washington, DC Metropolitan field office, 1900 Half Street, SW, Washington, DC. BRANSFORD had been detailed to Mr. Fiske's office of regulatory Independent Counsel and, upon Mr. Starr's appointment in August of 1994 to serve as statutory Independent Counsel and the simultaneous dissolution of the office of the regulatory Independent Counsel's office, Mr. Starr's office retained BRANSFORD.

Defendant Ayman Alouri (hereinafter "AYMAN ALOURI") is an individual whose residence address is 2300 Pimmit Drive, Apartment 704 West, Falls Church, Virginia. AYMAN ALOURI was born in the country of Jordan and is a naturalized citizen of the United States. Defendant Abdel Salem Alouri (hereinafter "ABDEL ALOURI") is an individual whose last known residence address is 5800 Quantrell Avenue, Apartment 1511, Alexandria, Virginia. ABDEL ALOURI was born in the country of Jordan. His citizenship is unknown to Plaintiff.

Some of the conspirators joined the conspiracy at different times by pursuit of the common goal or overall conspiratorial objective, the particulars of which are not presently known to Plaintiff. As all conspirators are not presently known, Plaintiff will, should it become appropriate, seek leave to amend this Complaint to name other Defendants and to plead the particulars of their functions in pursuing the overall or subsidiary conspiracy. On July 20th, 1993, between the time of 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., Vincent Foster died of a small-caliber gunshot wound to his head, at the hand of another. The bullet entered his head from the upper portion of the right side of his neck, under the jaw line, passed upward through the body of the tongue, pierced his brain and struck the skull approximately three inches below the top of the head, fracturing it. The bullet remained in his head. Blood drained from the entrance wound in the neck onto his right collar and shoulder and was absorbed down onto his right shirtsleeve. Blood also accumulated in his mouth.

Also on July 20th, 1993, Plaintiff was driving on the George Washington Memorial Parkway... above alleges that the harassment that Patrick suffered was part of an overall conspiracy to hide the facts of Mr. Foster's death. Under the law of civil conspiracy, each member of that overall conspiracy is legally responsible for the civil rights violation that Patrick suffered. That means that the issue of cover-up, as well as its participants, is relevant to the prosecution of Patrick Knowlton's civil rights lawsuit.

The first goal of this filing is to prove the existence of a conspiracy, as alleged in the lawsuit, as well as the named defendants' participation in it. We will see the participation in the conspiracy of Park Police Sergeant Robert Edwards while at Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. We will see the role, just 15 hours later, of Deputy Chief Medical Examiner James C. Beyer, Jr., as well as the unknown "John Doe Pathologist" who assisted him. We will review the evidence of the knowledge of the cover-up during the first 17-day FBI/Park Police investigation by the Agent-in-Charge of the FBI's Washington Metropolitan Field Office, Robert M. Bryant, who now serves as the FBI's Deputy Director. We will review the evidence against FBI Agent Lawrence Monroe, the unknown "John Doe FBI Laboratory Technician," and Scott Jeffrey Bickett, all of whom participated in the cover-up in the Spring of 1994, when the FBI conducted its second.20 Preface investigation, under the auspices of the 5-month Fiske probe. And we will see that FBI agent Russell T. Bransford participated in the conspiracy in October of 1995, during Mr. Starr's probe.

Finally, we will see how Ayman & Abdel Alouri and others harassed Patrick Knowlton on the eve of his Whitewater grand jury appearance, also in October of 1995, two-and-a-half years after the death. Anyone who has ever served on a jury knows that a fundamental tenet of our justice system is to keep an open mind and not to make up your mind until you have heard all the evidence. Most of the available evidence is presented in this filing. Like a trial, reviewing the evidence can be work, tedious at times. But most of the chapters have factual summaries at the beginning, so you have the ability to read only the summary should you not care to read the body of the chapter.

Because the same evidence is sometimes presented on more than one issue, you may occasionally see testimony or excerpts of FBI interview reports that you have already seen in another part of the paper. Chapter I of this filing, Background, repeats what many of us have heard about the case, sets forth much of the record of the events preceding the death, relates the official version of the discovery of the body, and points out some anomalies in the official story of the body's discovery.

Chapter II, Authorities Arrive at the Scene, sets forth the movements of the Park Police and Fire & Rescue workers ("Firefighters") at the park, and provides a synopsis of much of the evidence that we will review later. In Chapters III through X, we compare the publicly available evidence in the case with the OIC's Report on the death. After Chapter III, Overview of the Comparison of the Publicly Available Evidence to the OIC's Report, we begin our review in earnest, a 250-page comparison of every substantive point in the OIC's Report to the available evidence in the case. The discovery process in Patrick's lawsuit has not yet begun, so we do not yet have subpoena power. We obtained all but a tiny fraction of the evidence we will review from the public record. It was generated by the federal government.

Beginning in chronological order, Chapter IV, Evidence of Knowledge of the death before the Official Time of Notification, looks at the OIC's claim that no authorities other than the Park Police knew of the death before 8:30 p.m. Next, to underscore the importance of the testimonial evidence of park witnesses recounted in subsequent chapters, Chapter V, Evidence that the OIC concealed that Photographs Vanished, reviews the OIC's claim that no Polaroid photographs of the body vanished, and that all of the 35-millimeter shots were "underexposed."

The next Chapter, VI, Evidence that the OIC Covered up the Absence of the Official mouth Entrance Wound & head Exit Wound, and the Existence of a Neck Wound, is the longest chapter, almost 100 pages. It compares all the records of all the witnesses who saw the body at the park and morgue to the OIC's claims and conclusions regarding the issues of the wounds and the blood. This chapter also reviews the record of the autopsy. In the next three Chapters, we review the evidence regarding all the remaining issues in the case save one -- the claim of depression.

These three Chapters are: VII, Evidence that the OIC covered up that Mr. Foster did not own or fire the gun found at the park; VIII, Evidence contradicting the official claim that Mr. Foster drove to the park; and IX, Other Anomalies. The next Chapter, X, Inferences to be drawn from the Facts, takes the step of discussing the evidence in the case, as well as its interrelations -- how one anomaly in the case is related to others. We suggest that you ponder in Chapter X the question posed, whether there is in fact a cover-up of the facts of the death. The three chapters which comprisethe balance of this Court filing are XI, State of Mind; XII, Investigative History; and lastly, Conclusion.

In the State of Mind Chapter, we do not attempt to prove that Mr. Foster was not depressed because we conclude that it is too problematic and, in any event, irrelevant. We do offer some compelling evidence that the OIC's expert psychologist's conclusion is unreliable. The Investigative History chapter explains that the FBI is almost the only entity that has investigated the case, three times in all.

The Court released the OIC's Report on the Death of Vincent Foster, Jr. 20 months ago, having been submitted at the conclusion of its three-year investigation. This filing took three people 17 months to research and write Patrick Knowlton, Hugh Turley, and the undersigned, all of whom are self-employed. Patrick is 44 years old. He has lived in Washington, DC, since he moved here in 1990 from his native Syracuse, New York. Having worked in the construction industry for seventeen years, he was a master carpenter and builder. Today, he is a part-time licensed tour director in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, and New York, and is a private investigator.

Patrick is heterosexual, has never been charged with a crime, is a registered Democrat, and has no political agenda. Hugh Turley is a Washington area businessman who lives in suburban Maryland. Hugh took an interest in the case soon after the death. Those witnesses who are discussed below, who are not named defendants in Patrick Knowlton's lawsuit, deserve the benefit of the doubt, and so we caution you not to hastily conclude that any one of them participated in the cover-up merely because their actions appear suspicious. The Ethics in Government Act is designed to accomplish parallel goals of ensuring that justice is done and maintaining the appearance of justice having been done Congress seeks to accomplish the special prosecutor's independence from the Department of Justice by, among other things, having the judiciary select and appoint Counsel upon request by the Attorney General, limiting the Counsel's investigative jurisdiction, and having the Counsel removable only by the Attorney General for good cause or by the Court upon the completion of the investigation. Counsel is required to file reports with Congress and the Court. The 1978 Act was passed five years, to the month, since Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox had was fired by President Nixon in what is referred to as the "Saturday night massacre."

Use of special prosecutors predates the 1978 Act. Independent state investigations include Thomas Dewey's early twentieth-century fight against New York City corruption, Governor Nelson Rockefeller's 1972 investigation into New York's criminal justice system, and Maryland's creation of a special prosecutor after Spiro Agnew's misconduct was exposed. Independent federal investigations predating the 1978 Act include President Coolidge's 1924 appointment of special "The purpose of the system is to ensure fair and impartial criminal proceedings when an administration attempts the delicate task of investigating its own top officials." In 1993, on the eve of the expiration of the last five-year term of the Act, then Senator William Cohen stressed the importance under the Act of investigations being independent from the Justice Department in ensuring that justice appears to have been done. The appearance of justice having been done is equally important as justice having been done. We can see this over a period of years where an investigation has been conducted by the Justice Department... questions have remained. They say, "Well, was it really an independent investigation or was it a coverup, a whitewash?" When those questions tend to linger... the cloud of doubt remains, and the cynicism remains...

The law, however, serves two ends, both equally important in our democratic society. One is that justice be done, and the other is that it appear to be done. The appearance of justice is just as important as justice itself, in terms of maintaining public confidence...5 prosecutors in the Teapot Dome scandal (corruption by Interior and Justice Department officials in leasing of oil reserves), the Truman administration's investigation of the tax scandals in 1951 (tax fixing by the IRS and Justice Department), and in 1973, Watergate.

The three judges of the Special Division of the U.S. Court of Appeals, which appoints Independent Counsels, are appointed for two-year terms by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. There have been at least 20 independent counsels appointed under the Act, seven of whom were appointed during the Clinton administration. 4 S. Rpt. No. 100-123. Act of Dec. 15th 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-191, 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. (101 Stat. 1293) p. 2151. 5 See 139 CONG. REC. S15846-01 & S15847-01 (daily ed, Nov. 17, 1993) (statement of Sen. Cohen). See also 139 CONG. REC. S15850- 01 (daily ed, Nov. 17, 1993) (statement of Sen. Levin):

"Here is what the American Bar Association said in its letter of November 17. As noted above, the principle underlying statute is that an independent counsel may be needed when there may be a conflict of interest in having the Department of Justice carry out a particular investigation and possible prosecution." The Act was renewed for another five-year term. It will expire on June 30, 1999, unless reenacted. The question of whether there is a cover-up in this case is an important one. Our Constitution separates the governmental powers into separate branches, limiting the ways each can act, and provides that the branches shall exercise oversight over one another. The system supposes that this division of power would create an adversarial system, with each entity serving different interests.

11. Determination of suicide made before police investigators viewed the body

Investigator Braun testified that the "determination[of suicide was made] prior to going up and looking at the body."

We told you 250 pages ago that we would review most of the available evidence, and compare it to the OIC's representations and omissions of the evidence as well as the OIC's conclusions.The evidence of obstruction of justice or cover-up is more telling than evidence that Mr. Foster did not die at his own hand at the park. What we have seen in our review is an effort to cover up almost all the facts of the case.

It is simply not possible for all the anomalies and inadequate explanations to be present without the existenceof a conspiracy, a cover-up.

Exhibit 101, Senate testimony of Park Police Investigator Cheryl Braun, July 29, 1994: Q. Did he [Edwards] say he thought that the death was by suicide? A. I don't recallexactly how he did it, and he did show the pictures to itthat he had snapped. Q. Was it your understanding that a determination had been made as to the cause of death?

A.I think we more made that determination. You know, like I said, when we first got the call. It was for a dead body Then I asked if it was natural or of suspicious nature.And I was told suspicious, so I had them close the gate.

Then once we got there, maybe actually I do remember speaking to Lieutenant Gavin. So maybe it was Lieutenant Gavin who might have -- it might have been Lieutenant Gavin then who actually initially explained what the scene was,because I had some knowledge of it when I went to speakwith the couple and ask them if they had heard anything orseen anything and ask them about other vehicles that were in the area. Yeah, I would say it was Lieutenant Gavin actually. Q. Did Lieutenant Gavin mention anything about suicide? A. I can't recall. I don't -- I don't recall if he or if that was what we -- it seems to me that we hadmade that determination prior to going up and looking a the body..374

The existence of the neck wound and the absence of the official wounds. One would expect the Report of Investigation by Medical Examiner to be among the thousandsof pages of documents released by the Senate in 1995. Dr.Donald Haut, the only medical doctor to see the body in the park, wrote it. Above "July 20" and his signature appears:

I hereby declare that after receiving notice of the death described herein I took charge of the body and made inquiries regarding the cause and manner of death in accordance with the Code of Virginia as amended; and that the information contained herein regardingsuch death is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

July 20, 1993 After anonymous call was received at 18:04 hours US Park Police officers found 48 yrsCaucasian male with self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck on a foot path in Marcey [sic] Park..

This report was found on July 19, 1997, four days after the OIC filed with the Court its Report on Mr. Foster's death, so the OIC's Report had no reason to and did not offer an excuse for its contents.

Assume that any case generating so many thousands of pages of records would produce unexplained anomalies. But we look at all the evidence together, not separately. The Report of Investigation by Medical Examiner is not some stray piece of evidence, contradicted by every other piece of evidence in the case. In fact, virtually every other piece of evidence in the case points to the existence of a neck wound and efforts to cover it up. In light of this other evidence, the Report of Investigation by Medical Examiner was a lucky find indeed.

On July 14, 1994, Paramedic Richard Arthur, a nine-year veteran paramedic of the Fairfax County Fire & RescueDepartment, testified:

Q. Let me ask you this: If I told you that there was no gunshot wound in the neck, would that change your view as to whether it was a suicide or not?

A. No... What I saw is what I saw. I saw blood all over the right side of the neck, from here down, all over the shoulder, and I saw a small what appeared to be a small gunshot wound here near the jawline. Fine, whether the coroner's report says that or not, fine. I know what I saw.

What could possibly explain this testimony? What is the explanation for the OIC's claim that Arthur "said he may have been mistaken about such a wound?" Ours is this:

Knowing that they could not just fail to mention Arthur's sworn account, the FBI went back and interviewed him again.

They asked him the question, "Isn't it possible that you could have been mistaken?" He said, "No." They asked him again, and again, and again, until they got the response they wanted. He finally said something like, "Yes, anything is possible." The FBI agents left and the OIC had what it needed -- Arthur "said he may have been mistaken about such a wound."

The FBI's use of words in its reports of witness interviews such as "may have," "believed," "recalled," "in his opinion," "noted," and "what appeared," is a red flag.

It usually means that the agents could not get the witness to agree with them, necessitating the insertion of one of these qualifying-type words. If the issue of the accuracy of the report ever comes up, like if the report becomes publicly available and the witness reads it, the claim that the agent falsified the witness's account will be more difficult to make. The agent would say something like, "I said you believed you recalled that you thought it was a brown car."

Redactions are also red flags. In the FBI's handwritten notes of its interview with Park Police Investigator John Rolla, appearing immediately below the words "back of head," four lines are redacted. Rolla's testimony is the only record of a description of the exit wound before Dr. Beyer was with the body. Rolla gloved up and probed the head.

He did say "hole." He said, "small hole." He defined his terms. A "large hole" would be one he could have put his finger through. He could not put his finger through what he found. His conclusions were that the "mushy spot" he felt was caused by the skull being fractured from the inside, and that the bullet was still in the head. By all indications, he was right on both counts.

A. They searched the area... I still can't believe that the hole -- it's a small hole. They may put their finger through it, that's a big hole. His head was not blown out... I probed his head and there was no big hole there. There was no big blowout. There weren't brains running all over the place. There was blood in there. There was a mushy spot. I initially thought the bullet might still be in his head. Could have been the brain pushed up against that hole. There's no big hole or big blowout in his head. [B]ecause as we rolled him, he was starting to slide down the hill on us, and it was very steep.

At that point, you know, he looked at the back of his head. I looked at the back of his head, and I was wearing gloves, I probed his head and I could feel -- what I felt in his head was mushy here...It just appeared it was mushy there.

What do you think the chances are of there being a half-dollar sized exit wound although Rolla testified that there was only a mushy spot he couldn't get his finger through? There is no record of the existence of the official exit wound before the autopsy. What do you think the chances are of the existence of a half-dollar-sized exit wound and there being no record of the 26 witnesses who saw the body before the autopsy (two medical doctors, two paramedics, six Fire & Rescue workers, ten Park Police, a Fairfax County Police officer, a citizen, an unnamed Park Police intern, an unnamed morgue guard, and two White House officials) having seen it?

We do have Arthur's and Haut's record of having reporting a neck wound. On what does the OIC rely in relating the existence of the official wounds that nobody could see or feel, and of the absence of the neck wound that people did see? Dr. Beyer's word.

If the official exit wound had, in fact, existed, what are the chances that the Teletype from the FBI's WashingtonMetropolitan Field Office to the "Director, FBI" having included confirmation of the fact that there was "no exit wound"?

See Patrick Knowlton v. Robert Edwards et al., US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 96-2467: 56. On August 10th, 1993, eighteen days after having sent the Teletype, BRYANT, then special agent-in-charge ofthe FBI's Washington, DC metropolitan field office appeared with U.S. Park Police Chief Robert Langston and Justice Department spokesman Carl Stern to announce, inter alia, the outcome of the FBI's investigation into Mr. Foster's death. During that press conference, BRYANT stated:

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Bob Bryant, and I'm the special agent in charge of the Washington metropolitan field office field office of the FBI... [I]nitially, when there is a death of a high government official that's covered by the assault or assassination statutes, the FBI as a matter of course establishes liaison with the police agency that has the primary lead, in this case the United States Park Police. We followed this case from the time we were notified until we were basically of the opinion... that this was a suicide...

Well, I think while we were with the United States Park Police, it became reasonably apparent that this was a suicide. I think what we were trying to do here first was trying to find out if there was a violation, if he'd been harmed, you know, assaulted or assassinated or whatever. We concluded no...I suggest to you that it's a very thorough investigation.

I'd be delighted to answer that question. Any time there is an assault or death under suspicious circumstances of an official covered by the assassination or assault of a federal officer statute, we immediately put with the primary or lead agency, in this case the United States Park Police, to determine the circumstances. As we became convinced that it was, in fact, a suicide, we subsequently started to withdraw...

57. These remarks made by BRYANT were untrue and BRYANT knew them to be untrue. They were overt acts made.

The Autopsy. Dr. Beyer claimed responsibility for rescheduling the autopsy, and claimed that he did it on his own with no prior discussion with anyone. There is also testimony that Captain Hume did it at Chief Langston's request, which came from the White House. The third version is that Major Hines did on his own. The OIC's discussion of the matter is that "[t]he autopsy occurred on July 21, 1993...," and that "Dr. Beyer had no conversations with members of the White House, the Foster family, or Foster family attorneys in connection with the autopsy."

The autopsy is an important matter. It, along with the state of the body and surrounding area, supplies most of the information on which conclusions of investigations of equivocal deaths are based. In such cases, the autopsy procedure includes the exchange of information between the pathologist and scene investigators. But for this autopsy, the only information from the police to the pathologist was that a nondescript "weapon" was found "in close proximity to the body" -- that is the sum total of the information that Beyer claims to have known. Dr. Beyer left the box in his Autopsy Report requesting the caliber of the weapon blank.

Dr. Beyer checked "Yes" in his Autopsy Report next to the question, "x-rays taken?" and said that the x-rays showed there was not a trace of the bullet's lead left in the head. Later, according to Fiske, there were no x-rays taken. According to the OIC, x-rays were taken, but were unreadable. The mysterious autopsy assistant took the x-rays,according to the FBI, and didn't look at them until towards the end of the autopsy. The new x-ray machine had "numerous problems" making the pictures too dark, but service was not requested for three months, because the pictures were too light.

At 11:00 a.m., an hour after the police arrived to witness it, the autopsy was over. But it had begun well before 10:00 a.m., during which time, according to Morrissette's Report, "the victim's tongue had been removed to further the cover-up. BRYANT's public pronouncement that the FBI "became convinced that it [Mr. Foster's death] was, in fact, a suicide," made eighteen days after the Teletype confirmed BRYANT's knowledge that there was, in fact, "no exit wound," constitutes active participation by BRYANT in the cover-up..379

as well as parts of the soft tissue from the pallet." In one of the many examples of its Report's blatant deceptions by omission, the OIC hides that the evidence of the entrance wound was removed before the police arrived, and tells us only that "Officer Morrissette's report on the autopsy states: 'After briefing him with the available information surrounding the crime scene and the victim he started the autopsy on the victim.'" We have only Dr.Beyer's word on what evidence he saw and removed.

Dr. Beyer sent "5 slides... [containing] 13 sections of [the] soft palate..." to his own Lab. Why? It is reasonable to assume he did so to have his Lab test for the "large quantity of gunpowder residue" that he saw "on microscopic sections of the soft palate." But his Lab could find not a trace of it. That report from the Northern Virginia Medical Examiner's Lab is still withheld, but an excuse for its finding is offered in a subsequent FBI Lab report. The official finding of the "large quantity" of GSR is the long-standing cornerstone of the official conclusion, having been relied on by expert after expert after expert. The OIC killed this scientific anomaly with silence.

At his July 13, 1994, deposition, Dr. Beyer testified why he was unconcerned with the time of death at the autopsy.

Q. Is it your practice never to provide a time of death analysis in your autopsy reports?

A. We may assist them if it appears to be of a critical nature. Other than that, we don't put anything in the autopsy report.

A. If one had a case where a body -- there was no definite information concerning when the individual had last been seen, who had contact with him, who had a phone call with him. Any indication about the last time they had intake of food and they were found under suspicious circumstances. Then there might be someindication for attempting to make an estimate of time of death.

A. Not that I was aware Q. Did you subsequently become aware of whether any of those factors were present in this case?

But "there was no definite information concerning when" Mr. Foster "had last been seen," or "who had contact with him." There was an "indication about the last time they had intake of food," and he was "found under suspicious circumstances." Dr. Beyer did not testify that he thought that none "of those factors were present in this case," only that he "made no determinations." This is the state of the evidence, upon which the OIC wants you to rely in taking Dr. Beyer's word on the existence of the official wounds and the absence of the neck wound.

The car. An estimate of time of death was unimportant to Dr. Beyer, but is an important aspect of the case. The reason Patrick Knowlton was yanked into this FBI debacle was Mr. Foster's car, or, more precisely, the absence of it in the Fort Marcy lot late Tuesday afternoon, when Mr. Foster was already dead. As it happened, had the man in the park not been acting in a strange, almost threatening way, we would not be where we are today. Patrick's senses were heightened because of the man's actions, and, having a good memory, Patrick happened to remember the color, shape and contents of the car he used as a buffer to keep his distance from the man. Twenty-seven months later, Patrick was illegally targeted to neutralize his account, and testimony, regarding the car. Only the federal government uses the modus operandi, or mode of operation, employed to harass Patrick. It began when he was secretly subpoenaed by the federal government.

It was obstruction of justice, or, specifically, the crime of Witness Tampering. When you finish this Chapter, we would like to decide whether you agree with us that thiscrime of Witness Tampering has been solved.

We observed that there has never been any record produced or referred to corroborating the long-standing official claim that Mr. Foster left the White House compound in his own car. Senator D'Amato asked the question when FBI Agents Bill Columbell and Larry Monroe appeared before the Senate Banking Committee during its one day hearing. Typically, there was no follow-up question.

SENATOR D'AMATO: ...Did the FBI ever attempt to determine what time Mr. Foster departed the White House and do we know if the Secret Service keeps a vehicle exit log?

MR. MONROE: Sir, all of our information right now suggested that Mr. Foster departed the White House on July 20th at approximately 1:00 p.m. Whether or not that departure time was based on interviews or a log by the Secret Service, I am not aware of that, sir, but we know that he left about that time.

SENATOR D'AMATO: Would you be able -- I mean, this investigation, as it relates to the circumstancessurrounding Mr. Foster's death, wouldn't you look at the vehicle departure log to determine what time he may have left? Is that a routine thing?

MR. COLOMBELL: Senator, I don't believe the vehicle was logged out of the White House. I don't believe it was parked in an area where it would have been logged out of the White House. We confirmed that he left around 1:00 to 1:15p.m...

The White House security system is among the world's most sophisticated. If a record existed of Mr. Foster's having driven, not walked, out of the White House compound, in his own car, alone, around 1:00 p.m., we almost certainly would have heard and read much about it for the last six years. If Mr. Foster did leave the compound, there surely was, and still may be, a record of it.

If we deduce that the reason the record of his departure from the campus has remained withheld is because it is part of the cover-up, the possible reasons for that secrecy are that (1) he walked out, (2) he drove out in his own car accompanied by someone, (3) he occupied another's car, or (4) he was carried and smuggled.

There also had to have been a record generated of his car's departure. Whoever drove the car out of the compound knows the truth of Mr. Foster's demise and participated in keeping it secret. Even if the records of his car's exit no longer exist, one or more Secret Service agents likely knows both how Mr. Foster left the compound and who drove his car out and when. After all, Secret Service Officer John Skyles, the last known person to have seen Mr. Foster alive, said he "specifically remembers" Mr. Foster's having walked out of the West Wing.

Mr. Foster asked Betsy Pond to see what was taking Linda Tripp so long in getting his cheeseburger, so he may have had an appointment after lunch. Had Mr. Foster been headed to his car, Skyles would have seen him, as claimed.

But he could also have been headed toward the Old Executive Office Building, or OEOB, where William Kennedy and Craig Livingstone worked in separate office suites. FBI agent Salter testified that he could not remember whether his death investigation included interviewing anyone in the OEOB when he went there the day after the death.

The FBI's report of its interview with William Kennedy reflects that between "8:15 and 8:30 p.m.," Kennedy learned that the body was on its way to the morgue, whereupon Kennedy said that he "had to go to the hospital." He did.

So did Livingstone, after which the car keys appeared in Mr. Foster's pocket. The keys not found at the park consisted of two separate key rings, one with four keys and a tab inscribed, "Cook's Jeep Sales," and another with a tab inscribed, "Vince's Keys." These two sets of key rings would be virtually impossible to miss given that Park Police Investigator Rolla testified that he searched the pants pocket searching for, among other things, a suicide note.

To discount the possibility that Kennedy and Livingstone had planted the keys at the morgue, the OIC relies on a secret interview report of an unnamed "officer," a secret hospital log, and its reinterview of Investigator Rolla, relating that the police visited the morgue first. In so doing, the OIC ignored the ambulance logs, the White House Sherburne chronology memo, Lieutenant Gavin's notes, and the testimonies of Secret Service Agent Dennis Martin, Park Police Investigator Rolla, and White House personnel Watkins, Hubbell, Stephanopolis, McLarty, Burton, Livingstone and Kennedy.

The OIC's extraordinary effort to conceal the true circumstances surrounding the discovery of Mr. Foster's keys is related to the fact that the keys were not found at Fort Marcy Park. The absence of the car keys is to be expected -- his car wasn't there either.

Conspiracy evidence is interrelated. The court in Williams v. United States, 218 F.2d 276 (1955), likened evidence of a conspiracy to a spider's web. This evidence, which was quite voluminous and given by many witnesses, may be likened to the web of the spider. No single strand, or even several strands, would be sufficient. Yet when all these strands are considered together, and their interrelations and connections are considered, they form, we think, a complete web, which was more than sufficient to take to the jury the question of a general conspiracy among the appellants.

We have just looked at several interrelated strands of our spider web. Patrick Knowlton and the absence of Mr. Foster's Honda in the Fort Marcy lot are related to the time of death. That is related to the absence of a record of Mr. Foster's car having left the compound. He was last seen headed toward the OEOB, where William Kennedy and Craig Livingstone had offices, Kennedy and Livingstone went straight to the morgue, and the car keys appeared.

Blood evidence. Not one observer saw a quantity of blood consistent with the official .38 caliber gunshot wound to the mouth, leaving a half-dollar-sized exit wound.

The configuration of the blood was consistent with the neck wound, but not the official wound, so the OIC's experts concluded that an early observer moved the head, as the FBI and Fiske's experts had concluded. But, as we saw, no one moved the head until Sergeant Edwards was alone at the body site. In spilling the blood toward the small caliber bullet wound in Mr. Foster's neck, and down onto his right collar and shoulder, Edwards obscured and camouflaged the visible evidence of the bullet wound in Mr. Foster's neck. By causing the contact stain on the chin, evidencing the head having been moved to the right, Edwards sought to make it appear that the blood on Mr. Foster's right side collar and right shoulder, which had in fact drained from the neck wound, had emanated from his mouth when the head was turned. Edwards' actions may have also camouflaged the existence of the neck wound by spilling blood over that wound..384

As we have seen, among the evidence of Edwards' wrongdoing is that before he was alone at the body site, the blood was dry. After Edwards' actions, the blood appeared wet and there was blood on the face that those who saw the body before Edwards' arrival did not see. Edwards' actions while alone with the body are also proven by the accounts of Firefighters Hall and Pisani and Investigator Hodakievic, three early witnesses who, upon viewing photographs taken after Edwards had been alone with the body, related that the photographs depicted more blood than they saw.

To obscure Edwards' actions, the OIC followed the FBI's lead and blamed the blood on the right side and the contact stain on movement of the head by an unnamed early witness, who is said to have been checking Mr. Foster's pulse. This explanation, such as it is, leaves unanswered how all of the early observers could have seen the blood on the right side as upon their inspection of the body, and ignores that Mr. Foster had obviously been dead for some time and that there were therefore no efforts to resuscitate or clear an airway. Considering the importance to the OIC of this excuse for the blood on the right side of the body, it would have announced who moved the head if it could have. But it could not name any witness to the head movement, so it buried that fact in a half-page footnote. The OIC recounts what the post-Edwards witnesses had seen, but fails to recount what those who were at the body site before Edwards had seen.

Edwards' actions were necessary because at 6:00 p.m., when the call went to Fairfax County, the body had not yet been readied for its official discovery.

Photographs. Because Ferstl's Polaroids were the first photographs taken at the body site, they reveal the state of the body before Edwards tampered with it. Park Police Officers Ferstl, Fornshill, Hodakievic and the firefighters, the first officials to see the body, observed only dried blood around the mouth. Later witnesses saw wet blood coming from the mouth and nose and the contact bloodstain on the chin. The crime scene had been tampered with and the Polaroids that vanished can prove it. Because the body had not yet been prepped for its discovery, the photographs showing the state of the body when authorities arrived had to vanish..385

The Guns. The gun presents three issues. One, was the official wound, and gunshot residue on the hands, consistent with what one would expect from the official death weapon? Second, was the official death weapon the only weapon in Mr. Foster's hand at the park? And third, did Mr. Foster own the official death weapon? The answer to each question is, No.

Bullet trajectories in the human body can be unusual. But usually the bullet spins and the lead breaks up, leaving large exit wounds. The alleged half-dollar-sized exit wound may have been possible from an intra-oral gunshot with the stock .38 caliber high-velocity ammunition, but not very likely. In any event, the Fairfax County personnel with the most medical training, Paramedics Gonzalez and Arthur, as well as Dr. Haut, all the medical experts at the scene, all expressed surprise at the comparatively small size of the wound and paltry amount of blood at the scene. Additionally, because the manufacturer of the .38 caliber high-velocity ammunition never used the type of gunpowder found, if the official weapon had been fired, its ammunition had been reloaded. Mr. Foster did not reload ammunition. And the deposits of gunshot residue on Mr. Foster's hands all but prove that he could not have fired it.

Second, was the official death weapon the only weapon in Mr. Foster's hand at the park? No. Like the wounds to the body, there is a telling gap in the evidence. Of all the witnesses who saw the body before Edwards was alone with it, only two saw a weapon and distinguished the type.

Two Police Officers, Fornshill at the body site for ten minutes, and Hodakievic at the site for about 30 minutes, never saw any weapon. Other pre-Edwards witnesses, including firefighter Todd Hall and Officer Ferstl, saw some kind of weapon but we don't know whether it was a revolver, like the official weapon, or a semi-automatic,like the ones the Park Police carry.

The two who testified what type of weapon they saw are Paramedics Gonzalez and Arthur. Gonzalez did testify that it was a revolver, but he also testified that he looked at a glance and didn't know the type of weapon it was.

Arthur, on the other hand, told the FBI he was "100% sure" it was a semi-automatic, and drew a picture of the difference while under oath. Edwards' actions were necessary because at 6:00 p.m., when the call went to Fairfax County, the gun, like the body, had not yet been readied for its official discovery.

The only family member who ever reportedly identified it, Mrs. Foster, was tricked into doing so by being shown a silver revolver, the same color as the gun that Mr. Foster did, by all accounts, own. According to the family member who was most familiar with the subject gun collection, Mr. Foster's nephew Lee Bowman, Mr. Foster did not own a black revolver. And there was no matching ammunition recovered from his Little Rock or Washington homes. The official death weapon, being a 1913 year-model, was untraceable.

First, the FBI reported that Mr. Foster's gun (singular) was in its usual location the night of the death. Years later, there were two guns, one of which was missing, and according to Web Hubbell and the OIC, "the missing gun was the one found at the scene." Where is the silver gun now?

The OIC is grasping when it offers Dr. Lee's findings of the trace evidence in the oven mitt (neither inventoried nor photographed) in the car at the park. The ownership of the weapon, as the OIC points out, is a fact of some consequence.

Discovery of the body. The official version of the discovery of the body is worth scrutinizing because of some unusual aspects of the official version and because of the state of the body when authorities arrived. As we have seen, all indications are that the wrongdoers had not yet prepared the body for authorities to inspect it when the call was placed to Fairfax County 9-1-1. So, whoever was in the park when the body was first discovered may have seen the body, or other people, or cars in the park.

Officially, Dale discovered the body, drove to the park maintenance facility, told Swann and Stough about it, and drove off without leaving his name. If Swann and Stough had, in fact, been drinking beer in their uniforms, as the New York Daily News reported, they more likely wouldhave chosen to do so in the relative seclusion of Fort Marcy Park over the Park Headquarters at Turkey Run, which would have provided no seclusion from co-workers or supervisors. If Swann had been drinking beer at Fort Marcy Park in his Park Service uniform, that would explain why he refused to provide his name to authorities. Swann's failure to tell the Park Rangers at the Turkey Run Headquarters about the dead body would also be consistent with his not wanting it known that he had been drinking.

If Swann and Stough had seen Mr. Foster's body, they may have noticed that he had been shot. That would explain why Stough knew that the body had a bullet wound in it, while Dale, who was officially Stough's only source of information regarding the state of the body, said he thought that Mr. Foster had died of a blow to the head.

And, had Swann and Stough driven from Fort Marcy Park to Turkey Run, they would have seen the car accident, which Swann reported when he called the Park Police.

The Fiske Report claimed that after its "detailed analysis" of the information provided by Dale, including the "short conversation held with" the Park Service employees, Dale passed the "test" of "veracity." But virtually all the details of Dale's version of his conversation with the Park Service employees disagree with theirs.

If Dale had reported the body to Swann and Stough while they were all at Fort Marcy, that would explain why the FBI's reports of these interviews were redacted. So, perhaps the Mike McAlary's March, 1994, New York Daily News story, Aide's Suicide is Confirmed by Heads-up Cops, was accurate when it reported:

The body was discovered by a park maintenance worker who had slipped into the area for a quiet midday drink. He reported finding the body, but then made up a story about having seen a white van. He has since recanted the white van story, admitting it was created to cover up his own behavior.

Given the state of the body site when officials began arriving, and the anomalies in the official version ofevents of the body's discovery, we believe that the OIC's portrayal of the discovery of the body is not completely true.

Notification. Following Senator D'Amato's lead, the OIC declined to reveal when the Park Police, Fire & Rescue workers, the FBI, or White House personnel other than Helen Dickey learned of the death. Some assume that the official version, that "the Secret Service was notified of Mr. Foster's death at about 8:30 p.m...", was concocted to give the White House deniability of having sanitized Mr. Foster's White House office in those first few hours of his death. Perhaps, but another motive would be to provide an excuse for the FBI's failure to respond to Fort Marcy Park.

Review. We have proved the existence of the neck wound and the absence of the official wounds. Had the official exit wound been there, someone would have seen it and Rolla could have put his finger through it. The pathologist refused to tell the police the name of the man who had helped remove the only evidence of the official entrance wound before the police arrived -- to see the beginning and end of the autopsy. It probably wasn't Mr. Foster who drove his car out of the White House compound, and Mr. Foster certainly didn't drive his own car to the park. (It was a year after the harassment that we figured out the import of Patrick's account.) When authorities arrived at the body (if the police were not already there -the FBI was conspicuously absent), the head was facing straight up and blood was on the right side. Had Mr. Foster's head rested on his right, blood would be on his right side. But his head would not have gone back to the straight up position as it was found. Edwards provided the excuse. We proved it and so can the missing photographs.

The gun, by all accounts, did not belong to Mr. Foster, it changed from a semi-automatic model to a revolver before it was retrieved from his hand, the wounds are inconsistent with his having fired it, the ammunition would have to have been reloaded, and the gunshot residue patterns found on the hands would not have been left by Mr. Foster's having fired it. Hall seems to have heard something in the woods, seen someone running away from the body site, and the official version of the discovery of the body does not appear to be entirely true.

Other anomalies include that the official fatal bullet was never found, the conclusion of suicide was made before investigators looked at the body, the position of body was unusually straight, and there were no fingerprints found on the gun, ammunition, car, or "suicide note." There was no analysis of the two blond hairs found on Mr. Foster. First there was no blood on the eyeglasses and gun and no dirt on the shoes, then there was. The excuses for the absence of x-rays, photographs, and car keys change with time.

The OIC had its pick of pricey experts, to whom it gave the evidence supporting the official version, and selectively quoted from their reports. Dr. Lee's report may explain what "gunpowder-like particles" are. It may show us the photographs of the "blood-like" stains and the "not coherent" dirt on the shoes. But Lee's report is secret. A Library of Congress clerk told us that Dr. Lee's report would probably be available for inspection and photocopying there in 50 years. The OJ Simpson defense team hired Dr. Lee to report that the crime scene appeared to have been tampered with, and the OIC hired him to report that the Fort Marcy crime scene appeared not to have been tampered with.

Evidence of cover-up. The evidence of the wounds, autopsy, car, blood, gun, photographs, notification, and discovery of the body do not, in and of themselves, prove the culpability of Mr. Starr's office. For that, we look to see whether the OIC covered up this evidence. Clearly it did.

Much of the record in the case remains hidden. Seventy-five percent of the OIC's footnotes refer the reader to documents that are secret. Many of the records generated under the first two investigations, first the FBI/Park Police and later the FBI under Fiske, are entirely withheld or heavily redacted. Follow-up questions in depositions and Senate testimony are almost nonexistent.

The Report's efforts to hide the truth are easily detected. All sections of the Report contain numerous examples of blatant dishonesty by omission and rely on the secret reports generated by the OIC or its experts. It then ignores what it cannot explain. Relevant evidence was obviously withheld from its experts, whose authoritative-sounding secret reports are quoted throughout the Report.

Evidence is largely scattered throughout the Report, making analysis more difficult.

A significant amount of the OIC's Report is devoted to irrelevant or misleading issues, such as whether there was a briefcase in the Arkansas Honda without disclosing that the car was not Mr. Foster's. Similarly, the OIC debates whether the quantity of blood at the scene supports the conclusion that the body was moved, without disclosing the one thing needed to analyze that issue, a true description of the wounds. Other examples include discussions ofwhether Helen Dickey learned of the death too early, andthe depression issue, which we look at briefly in the next Chapter.

The OIC used the autopsy as the cornerstone of its conclusion, had its experts validate its findings, and summarily dismissed evidence of there being a bullet wound in Mr. Foster's neck.

Look at examples of how new factual accounts differ from those previously memorialized, so that, according to the OIC, the facts now fit the conclusion of suicide in the park.

Park Police Investigator John Rolla, p. 26, fn. 50 February 9, 1995 -- 19 months after death Statement changed to "noted a wound out the back of the head" that he did not report in his deposition

Park Police Investigator Christine Hodakievic, p. 26, fn. 50 February 2, 1995 -- 19 months after death statement changed to "noted a wound out the back of thehead" that she did not report before Paramedic George Gonzalez, p.33, fn. 77 May 15, 1996 -- 34 months after death Deposition testimony changed, the wound he testified was on the right side of Mr. Foster's head was "not what he intended to report"

Paramedic Richard Arthur, p. 34, fn. 77 April 24, 1996 -- 33 months after death Changed his deposition to say he "may have been mistaken" about the neck wound he testified he was sure he had seen

Park Police Investigator John Rolla, p. 52, Fn. 148 April 17, 1996 -- 33 months after death Changed his account of what he found in Mr. Foster's car to "recalled the oven mitt in the glove compartment" that he had not reported before.391

Witness reference in the OIC's Report Date new statement memorialized New account According to the OIC Park Police Investigator Cheryl Braun, p. 52, Fn. 148 February 9, 1995 -- 19 months after death Changed her account of what she found in Mr. Foster's car and "recalled the oven mitt in the glove compartment" that she had not reported before

Paramedic George Gonzalez, p. 66, Fn. 191 January 10, 1995 -- 18 months after death Changed his statement to say that firefighter Todd Hall may have checked Mr. Foster's pulse, he had testified that Mr. Foster appeared to have been "obviously dead" for 2 to 4 hours

Firefighter James Iacone, p. 66, Fn. 191 January 10, 1995 -- 18 months after death for the first time stated that he "checked the pulse" after paramedics Arthur and Gonzalez concluded Mr. Foster was obviously dead for several hours

Investigator Renee Abt, p. 67, Fn. 192 February 9, 1995 -- 19 months after death Changed her statement to say she remembered more blood under Mr. Foster's head

Park Police Technician Peter Simonello, p. 67, Fn. 192 February 7, 1995 -- 19 months after death Changed his statement to say he saw more blood under Mr. Foster's head

Dr. Donald Haut, p. 67, fn. 192 February 6, 1995 -- 19 months after death Changed his statement to say he saw a pool of blood under Mr. Foster's head

Park Police Investigator Christine Hodakievic, p.67, Fn. 192 February 7, 1995 -- 19 months after death Changed her statement and recalled more blood.392

New account According to the OIC Park Police Investigator John Rolla, p. 67, Fn. 192 April 17, 1996 -- 33 months after death Changed his statement and recalled more blood

Unnamed Reporter April 4, 1996 -- 33 months after death New witness who recalled a blood spot on the ground

Park Police Officer Kevin Fornshill, p. 69, Fn. 200 January 11,1995 -- 18 months after death Changed his deposition testimony from reporting volunteers at Fort Marcy Park to saying there were "no volunteers"

Firefighter Todd Hall, p. 70, Fn. 200 January 5, 1995 & May 13, 1996 -- 18 & 34 months after death Changed his statement from hearing and seeing someone in the woods to saying it "must have been traffic" on Chain Bridge Road

Park Police Investigator John Rolla, p. 73, Fn. 214 January 11, 1995 -- 18 months after death Changed his deposition statement from saying he took photos of the back of Foster's head to say he "did not" take those photographs but only intended to take them

Park Police Sergeant Robert Edwards, p. 74, fn. 215 January 12, 1995 -- 18 months after death First and only record of being interviewed reported he said he did not take any photographs that other police officers at the scene reported seeing him shoot.

Park Police Investigator John Rolla, p. 74, Fn. 216 April 17, 1996 -- 33months after death Changed his account from his testimony that he had "emptied the pockets" to he "did not reach into the bottom of the pants pocket".393

Date new statement memorialized New account According to the OIC Fairfax County Officer David Tipton, p. 74-75 Fn. 220 February 10, 1995 -- 19 months after death Contradicted the previous testimony by Investigator Rolla who said Kennedy and Livingstone were in the room with Mr. Foster's body by saying they only viewed the body through a glass window

Dr. James Beyer p. 76, fn. 222, fn. 223 September 11, 1995 -- 26 months after death Contradicted his own autopsy report that reflected x-rays were taken and the Park Police report of his comments on the x-ray results by saying the machine was "not working"

Paramedic Richard Arthur, p. 79, Fn. 228 April 24, 1996 -- 33 months after death Changed his previous account that he was "100% sure" he saw a semi-automatic pistol in Mr. Foster's hand to say he "must have been mistaken"

Firefighter Jennifer Wacha, p. 79, Fn. 229 January 10, 1995 -- 18 months after death Changed her account from offering no observations of a gun to saying it was consistent with the gun retrieved at the scene

The authors of the Report are unidentified because the OIC's Report is nothing more than another layer of the same, six-year old, ongoing Justice Department cover-up.

As you will see below, the OIC conceals the FBI's participation in the initial 17-day investigation, the Fiske probe, in its own probe, and deceptively implies that Congress investigated the death.

Pundits have correctly pointed out that one or two inexplicable points of evidence do not prove a cover-up.

The only way to look at the evidence is to look at the big picture. In this case, the OIC's 114-page Report has evidence of cover-up on almost every page. A look at the big picture, all of the Report's claims together, cumulatively, is a look into the anatomy of the cover-up.

The foregoing review of the public record of the case, made. State of mind without experts or interviews of witnesses, demonstrates that not one substantive point in the OIC's Report stands up to scrutiny. If one or two inexplicable points can be dismissed, what possible conclusion can you draw from every point in the OIC's Report being contradicted without plausible explanation?

Even though the discovery process in Patrick Knowlton's civil rights lawsuit has not yet begun, and so we have not yet exercised subpoena power, we have exposed the OIC's Report for what it is -- clear and convincing evidence of cover-up. The government's finding of the absence of a cover-up is just not in accordance with the truth.

The OIC devotes fourteen pages to addressing Mr. Foster's state of mind, more pages than to any other single issue. The issue of whether Mr. Foster was suffering from depression is irrelevant in light of the physical evidence in the case. Although the OIC failed to prove that Mr. Foster was depressed, we will not review the record of his mental state nor compare it to the OIC's claims on the issue. Most of the state of mind evidence is in the footnotes above under Chapter I, Background, should you care to review it.

First, we make some observations about the OIC's psychologist's opinion. Then, we see that the oft-repeated verdict of depression and suicide originated in the press, and that early press accounts found their way into the final official expert opinion.

Summary: The OIC conceals that the FBI's Violent Crime Squad claimed it did not learn of the death until press accounts appeared the next day, that Fire & Rescue workers learned from Park Police by 6:37 that Mr. Foster was employed at the White House, and that William Kennedy learned of the death by 8:00. The OIC addresses only the time when Helen Dickey learned of the death. In doing so, it purportedly relies on telephone records to dismiss Arkansas Troopers' accounts that Dickey notified them of the death before 8:30, while claiming that the telephone record of the call to the Trooper is "not available."

Summary: Edwards took charge of the scene and took possession of Ferstl's approximately seven photographs taken of the body site. He absconded with them. The OIC conceals that Ferstl's Polaroids vanished by falsely claiming that (1) Ferstl's Polaroids are inventoried as being Edwards', and (2) Edwards took no photographs. The OIC conceals that Edwards did, in fact, take photographs by claiming that he did "not recall" whether he photographed Mr. Foster's body. Abt recalled that Edwards had taken photographs, as did Rolla and Braun.

The OIC conceals that the Polaroids that Rolla had taken had vanished by falsely reporting that Rolla was mistaken when he testified that he took at least two Polaroids of the back of Mr. Foster's head. Rolla testified that he was certain that he shot "backside" photographs, he inspected his Polaroids as they came out, he remembered what pictures he had taken, and that the "backside" photographs were in his office the night of the death, but he never saw them again. The OIC falsely reports that Rolla did not have a camera when the body was rolled.

The OIC concealed that the roll of 35-mm film produced usable photographs. It claims that the 35-mm film was "underexposed," but offers no explanation. The FBI Lab falsely claimed that the "underexposed" negatives produced "limited detail." Three witnesses said that these photographs were clear, including the photographer who had shot the roll of film.

VI. EVIDENCE THAT THE OIC COVERED UP THE ABSENCE OF THE OFFICIAL MOUTH ENTRANCE WOUND & HEAD EXIT WOUND, AND THE EXISTENCE OF A NECK WOUND

Summary: Officially, there was an entrance wound in the soft palate and an exit wound about the size of a half-dollar about three inches below the top of the back of the head.

Witness accounts of a bullet wound in Mr. Foster's neck and the absence of the official mouth entrance wound and skull exit wounds: The Medical Examiner reported a gunshot wound to the neck, Paramedic Arthur was certain he saw a small caliber entrance wound on the neck, and there is no record of any of 26 persons who viewed Mr. Foster's body before the autopsy having seen either official entrance or exit wounds.

The autopsy: Three officials claimed that, on their own initiative and without prior discussion, each was responsible for rescheduling the autopsy from Thursday to Wednesday, July 21. Because the autopsy was moved up to 15 hours after the body's discovery, the two investigating Police Officers did not attend, in violation of SOP (standard operating procedure), having worked all night. Dr. Beyer began the autopsy before the Police arrived (in violation of SOP), during which time he removed the soft palate and tongue, the only evidence of both the actual and official entrance wounds. Dr. Beyer refused to tell the attending Police the identity of the man who assisted him in the autopsy. He did not know the caliber of weapon, so he left that portion blank on his Report of Autopsy. He and he alone reported that gunpowder was on the soft palate. But Dr. Beyer's own laboratory could find no traces of gunpowder on the tissue from the soft palate. The day of the autopsy, the FBI was apprised that its "preliminary results" showed "no exit wound." The attending Police reported that Dr. Beyer told them results of the x-rays. Dr. Beyer later claimed there were no x-rays. There was no official estimate of time of death. The evidence of the bullet trajectory is conflicting.

Bloodstains consistent with the neck wound: The OIC conceals that the bloodstains are consistent with the neck wound, but not with the official mouth wound. Blood present on Mr. Foster's neck, in his mouth, collar, right-side and back-side of his shirt is consistent with its having drained from the neck wound.[1]

Official excuse for blood on Mr. Foster's right side is that it drained from his mouth when an "early observer" moved the head to check for a pulse, then repositioned it -- but Edwards did it to obscure or camouflage the existence of the neck wound: The OIC posits that (because no neck wound existed) the blood on Mr. Foster's right side had drained from his mouth when an "early observer" moved the head to check for a pulse, then repositioned it. The OIC conceals that no one admitted to having moved the head or seeing it being moved, and that no one tried resuscitation because Mr. Foster clearly appeared to have been dead for some time.[2]

The OIC conceals that the blood on the right shoulder and shirt could not have been caused by an "early observer" because all early observers saw these stains as they arrived.[3] The OIC conceals that the blood was dry until after Edwards had been alone at the site.[4] Edwards moved the head to cause blood to drain from the mouth to the neck to obscure and camouflage the existence of the neck wound. The OIC conceals that the only witnesses who saw the blood transfer contact stain arrived at the site after Sergeant Edwards had been alone with the body.[5]

Blood quantity insufficient: The OIC conceals that the blood quantity observed was consistent with death caused by a small-caliber low-velocity bullet, and inconsistent with a point-blank shot to the mouth with .38 caliber high-velocity ammunition.[6]

The OIC's claim of "blood-like stains" on the vegetation is contradicted by the accounts witnesses at the body site.[7]

[1] Officer Fornshill claimed he could not recall the appearance of the blood at the scene. Paramedic Gonzalez saw blood on the right side. Firefighter Hall saw blood on right collar. Paramedic Arthur saw the neck wound and blood coming from it. Pisani saw blood on the right shoulder. Wacha saw it in mouth and on the shirt. Ferstl saw blood around the mouth. Edwards' observations are unknown. Hodakievic saw blood under the head on the ground. Gavin saw blood out the mouth. Officers Rolla and Braun saw blood on right shoulder. Simonello saw blood close to the jawline and right shoulder. Abt saw it on shirt and right collar. There is no record of what Watson and the "intern" may have seen. Dr. Haut reported that blood on the back of the head was "matted," trauma to the neck, and that wound looked like it was caused by a "low velocity weapon." Ashford coded the death homicide and he did "not recall getting blood on his uniform."

[2] Dale testified that there was "no doubt he was dead." Fornshill denied having moved the head and related that neither Gonzalez nor Hall had moved the head. Gonzalez said that no one checked for a pulse because Mr. Foster was clearly deceased and had been for "2-4 hours." Hall saw no one touch the body and he "backed off" because he was not a "medic." Arthur "did not check for a pulse" because Mr. Foster "was obviously dead." Iacone said that "medics confirmed there would be no efforts to resuscitate."

[3] Dale saw a "stain on his right shoulder." Gonzalez testified that he saw the bloodstain "on the right shoulder... [in the] clavicle area." Hall said it was soaked into the collar. Arthur saw it on the right shoulder of the shirt. Pisani saw blood on Mr. Foster's right shoulder. Wacha saw blood on the shirt. Pisani saw "blood on Mr. Foster's right shoulder."

[4] Fornshill testified that the blood was "dried... dark in color... [and] flaking." Gonzalez testified that the blood he saw was "dry." Hall saw blood on the collar but not on face or shirt, and said that the photos showed blood that he did not see. Arthur testified the blood was not running. Pisani saw no blood on the face and said that the photographs showed more blood than he saw. Ferstl saw a small amount of blood around the mouth, which was "not fresh." Edwards, interviewed only in 1995, ordered Fornshill to leave the park, took Ferstl's photos and ordered him back to the parking lot, leaving Edwards alone at the site -- after which time the blood was wet. Hodakievic (perhaps at the site before and after Edwards) did "not recall" seeing any blood. Gavin saw blood "trickling out of the mouth and running down the right side of the face." Rolla saw wet blood coming out of the nostril and mouth and down the face and also wet on the shirt and shoulder and ground. Abt saw both "dried and liquid" blood on the face. Simonello saw "blood running from the nose" and on the cheek near the jawline. Braun saw it in the nose and mouth area of the chin near the right shoulder and running down the right side of the face.

[5] Rolla saw a transfer stain on the face. Abt saw a blood transfer stain on lower right cheek. Evidence Technician Simonello testified that he saw the transfer bloodstain "around the shirt collar, shoulder area."

[6] Dale said there was no blood around the head. Fornshill saw a "slight trail of blood" from the mouth and could not "recall any other blood." Gonzalez testified that the scene did not fit the usual .38 caliber gunshot head wound. Hall saw blood on the shirt and noticed no other blood. Arthur saw some around the mouth and nose but mostly on the right shoulder of the shirt. Pisani did not recall seeing any blood around the body. Wacha saw blood only on the mouth and shirt. Iacone did not recall seeing any blood. Ferstl saw a "small amount" of blood around the mouth and did not recall any from the nose or on the shirt. Hodakievic, who apparently viewed the body both before and after Edwards had been alone with it, said "she did not notice any blood on the decedent's face or on his shirt." Lieutenant Gavin saw a "trickle... out of the mouth" and did not recall blood from nose nor on the shirt. Rolla said blood "was not all over the place, it was directly under his head." Abt said that aside from the blood on the shirt, there was no evidence in "immediate vicinity of [the] death scene." Simonello said there "wasn't a great deal" of blood. There is no record of Braun's having commented on the quantity of blood. Dr. Haut did "not see blood on Foster's face..., [the] volume of blood [on the back of the head was] small and he did not recall seeing blood on... [the] shirt." Harrison did "not recall observing any blood" and filed no hazardous material (blood) report.

[7] Fornshill did not relate having seen any blood on thevegetation. Gonzalez testified that the scene was unusual in appearance for a gunshot wound to head. Pisani did not notice any blood around the body. Rolla reported "no blood on the plants or trees surrounding... [the] head." Abt observed no evidence in the "immediate vicinity of death scene." Dr. Haut remembered "no blood... on vegetation around the body." Ashford saw no blood on the ground.

VII. EVIDENCE THAT THE OIC COVERED UP THAT MR. FOSTER DID NOT FIRE OR OWN THE GUN FOUND AT THE PARK

Summary: Th OIC hides that the gunshot residue patterns on Mr. Foster's hands prove that he did not fire the weapon.The OIC conceals that Remington, the manufacturer of the ammunition found in the gun, has never used "ball smokeless powder," the type of ammunition found on the body and clothing. Gunpowder and blood on the eyeglasses proves he was wearing them when the shot was fired, but they could not have landed where they were found. The OIC claims that Dr. Lee found "gunpowder like" particles in the soil at the park over a year after the death.The OIC mentions that the FBI lab found two types of powder on Mr. Foster's clothing, but offers no explanation.

The OIC conceals that a semi-automatic handgun was in Mr. Foster's and before the official revolver was placed in his hand. The OIC misrepresents that Mr. Foster owned the gun found in his hand.

We hope you have kept an open mind as you reviewed the evidence. The acceptance of the existence of a conspiracy in this case challenges the views that many of us have about our government, the news media, and Mr. Starr. Some of us may not want to learn the truth, and we have the right to ignore it. But we also have the right to learn the truth, should we choose to, and to decide whether knowing it is important.

The object of the Constitution's separation of the governmental power into three branches is to keep government honest. Each branch pursues different interests. Each oversees the others. And each is adversarial when necessary.James Madison described this constitutional technique of protecting against government corruption as an "auxiliary precaution."

We have all been told that the Congress, the media, and independent counsels have repeatedly scrutinized Mr. Foster's death, and that there was no criminal wrongdoing.

Yet, this filing proves the existence of an obvious, six-year old cover-up. Something is wrong.

The Independent Counsel statute, or Ethics in Government Act (or "Act") expires June 30, 1999, one week from the date of this filing. Opponents of the Act argue that, because our Constitution already provides its citizens with a system of oversight, we do not need another precaution against government corruption. In theory, they are right. But this argument assumes that the separate components of the system effectively exercise oversight over one another, and that the press acts somewhat like a watchdog.

For the six months after the first brief probe, August through January 1994, the case was closed. At the end of January, Attorney General Reno appointed Robert Fiske to serve as regulatory Independent Counsel, and the FBI under the auspices of the Fiske probe generated most of the proof of cover-up that we reviewed above.

Six months into Mr. Fiske's tenure, in August of 1994, Mr. Starr took over, and three years later, in July, 1997 he announced the conclusion of his Foster death probe.

"The Justice Department has been near the center of almost every major political scandal of the twentieth century."

The term, "Independent Counsel," is short for "Counsel who is Independent from the Justice Department."

In 1993, on the eve of the expiration of the last five-year term of the Independent Counsel statute, then Senator William Cohen stressed the importanceunder the Act of investigations being independent from the Justice Department in ensuring that justice appears to have been done.

The appearance of justice having been done is equally important as justice having been done. We can see this over a period of years where an investigation has been conducted by the Justice Department...questions have remained. They say, "Well, was it really an independent investigation or was it a cover-up, a whitewash?" When those questions tend to linger the cloud of doubt remains, and the cynicism remains... The law, however, serves two ends, both equally important in our democratic society. One is that justice be done, and the other is that it appear to be done. The appearance of justice is just as important as justice itself, in terms of maintaining public confidence.

The point of the law is to have an entity other than the Justice Department investigate allegations of, among other things, Justice Department wrongdoing. Mr. Starr seems to have missed the point.

Travelgate involves the administration's illegal use of FBI files. The OIC is also charged with determining whether Bernard Nussbaum, White House Counsel at the time of Mr.Foster's death, violated the law when he testified before Congress on June 26, 1996.

Of all of Mr. Starr's various investigations, the one in which the necessity of maintaining independence from the Justice Department is the most obvious is his probe of Mr. Foster's death. Before Mr. Starr's appointment to head the statutory OIC in August of 1994, the only substantive investigations into Mr. Foster's death, including the first probe, were conducted by the FBI. Yet, Mr. Starr chose to use FBI agents and the FBI Lab to investigate Mr. Foster's death.702 The use of a federal investigative agency to investigate a case that it had twice closed as a simple suicide presents an obvious conflict of interest and defeats the purpose of the Ethics in Government Act.

Because independent counsels are appointed to handle politically sensitive investigations for the primary purpose of avoiding any appearance of partiality or bias, it is particularly important that they and their to the President for Management and Administration, in connection with his December 1993 interview with the General Accounting Office concerning the firing of the White House Travel Office employees and to determine whether prosecution is warranted..."

Independent Counsel Leon Silverman, who investigated allegations that President Reagan's Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan had ties to organized crime, noted that he "hired private investigators so that the investigation would not appear to be federally controlled." K. Harringer, Independent Justice, 1992..439

Because the cover-up is obvious, the OIC's attempt at maintaining the appearance of justice having been done will eventually fail. Mr. Starr's OIC will go down in history as having perpetuated a fraud on the American people, and as having joined the very corruption it was supposed to have exposed and prosecuted.

There is absolutely no credible evidence to contradict the Fiske Report's conclusion that Vincent Foster took his own life and it happened at Fort Marcy Park. There is no evidence to the contrary. I suspect conspiracy theorists will always differ with this conclusion...

Senator D'Amato's 1995 Committee had the requisite jurisdiction, but declined to probe the death. Our efforts to apprise the Congress of the facts have been steadfastly ignored.

On October 24, 1996, just under a year after the harassment (before the one-yearstatute of limitations for the assault count expired), Patrick filed his civil rights lawsuit. Because the timing was on the eve of the Presidential election, the suit was filed under seal in anticipation of attacks that the suit was politically motivated. On November 12, 1996, one week after the election, it was unsealed and distributed at a press conference held on the steps of the federal courthouse in Washington. Many representatives of the press attended.

A year later, October 10, 1997, Patrick's 20-page submission was attached as an Appendix to Mr. Starr's Report on Mr. Foster's death, by order of the Special Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels of the United States Court of Appeals. The media received the Report and its Appendix, much of which is reprinted above. Despite theobvious historical significance of evidence of the FBI cover-up in the case being ordered attached to the Independent Counsel's Report, the mediasuppressed its existence. Some of the articles even mentioned Patrick's name, but not his Court-ordered Appendix. On the evening of October 10, 1997, Peter Jennings announced that Starr's report should "satisfy even the most ardent conspiracy theorists." (Only three out of ten Americans believed him.

According to a Zogby International Poll conducted in January 1998, three months after the release of Mr. Starr's report on Mr. Foster's death, 21.9 percent of those polled believe that Mr. Foster was murdered, while only 31.9 percent accept the official suicide story. By nearly two to one, 44.4 percent to 23.2 percent, respondents agree.

In October of 1998, Patrick's Amended Complaint was filed (before the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations period for the civil rights violation). It names as defendants United States Park Police Sergeant Robert Edwards, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner James Beyer and hisunknown assistant, Deputy Director of the FBI RobertBryant,FBI agents Lawrence Monroe and Russell Bransford, unknown FBI Lab technicians, Scott Bickett, and the group of men who harassed Patrick: Ayman Alouri, Abdel Alouri, and 24 John Does. The press ignored it.

Those are the developments in the case, each of which occurred in October of the lastfour years. They were the harassment in October of 1995, the filing of the suit in October of 1996, the Court-ordered Appendix to the OIC's Report in October of 1997, and the filing of the Amended Complaint in October of 1998. The media still fails to apprise the public of these facts.

We cannot explain it, but, despite the fact that evidence of the cover-up is obvious, no major news organization has ever assigned a single reporter to the case. Our efforts to apprise members of the press have been steadfastly rebuffed.

The press has acted mostly a a conduit for the official announcementsand conclusions ofthe executive branch, like a public relations department, or the press in countries that do not enjoy the same guarantees of free speech as we do. By its attacks on doubters as conspiracy theorists, the media has a record of turning questions of fact in the case into questions of the motives of those who question the official conclusion, and even into questions of mental stability.

Besides repeating the official conclusions, the media's reporting of the facts ofthe case is generally limited to the verdict of depression. In light of the physical evidence in the case,the facts of which the press has yet to report, the print on the depression verdict could be the basis of a study on the role of thepress during the progress of the cover-up.

Here we simply point out what is now manifest. After six years of an obvious cover-upunder the nose of the Washington press corps, the media has a powerful interest in keeping the facts of the case from public view. Mike Wallace remarked on 60 Minutes that somepeople even accused him of being "a part of the conspiracy." He is not. But his most valuable professional asset, his credibility, as well as the credibility of his industry, will be diminished when the existence of the conspiracy is no longer a secret. Today, suppressing the truth of Mr. Foster's death is a matter of professional self-preservation for numerous members of the news media.

Immediately after this filing is unsealed, it will have been delivered to every major news organization in America. Every day that goes by without its being reported makes the point that much stronger. The media just will not inform the public what it knows of the truth in the case.

Conclusion. The obvious Justice Department cover-up of the facts of Mr. Foster's death is approaching its sixth anniversary. Its secrecy has spanned two special counsels, two sets of Congressional hearings, and the appearance of hundreds of newspaper articles reporting that there was no foul play. What Associated Press reporter Robert Parry had to say six years ago applies today.

What you'll hear if you listen to the McLaughlin Group or these other shows is a general consensus way -there may be disagreement on some points - but there is a general consensus of the world that is brought to bear, and often it is in absolute contradiction to the real world. It is a false reality - it's a Washington reality... How do the American people really get back control of this - not just their government,but of their history - because it's really their history that has been taken away from them. And it's really what the Washington press corps and the Democrats in Congress as well as the Republicans are capable of, was this failure to tell the American people theirhistory. And the reason they didn't was because they knew, or feared, that if the American people knew their real history... they wouldn't have gone along with that. *** [W]e sort of got in there - and I guess it was real nice, we felt like we were insiders.

An insider mentality pervades Washington's institutions -- the press, the Congress and the administration and its Justice Department. Many of its members have an "inside-the-beltway" mentality. The reasoning is "no more Watergates," and "the economy is good." Those of this ilk generally go farther in Washington. There is an aspect of elitism to this mentality; gentlemen do not wash their colleague's dirty linen in public -- and there is a great deal of dirty linen in the Foster case. The mentality is that publicizing very serious wrongdoing would simply not be worth the anguish that it would cause the country, much less the woe to the press and government that would ensue from public knowledge of the scarcity of oversight.

The record of Mr. Starr's OIC is one of inactivity in matters implicating the Justice Department, and of efforts to prosecute the President regarding an aspect of his personal life. In following this course of action, Mr. Starr's OIC has turned the public against the Independent Counsel statute, so that now the public's opinion of the law is the same as that of the Justice Department's and Mr. Starr's -- one of opposition to its reenactment. The more Mr. Starr's OIC is seen as partisan, expensive and unnecessary, the less likely the law is to be reenacted.

Today, inside the beltway, the separate branches of government and the press are largely pursuing the same goal -- credibility -- and are not always adversarial when necessary. The more serious the wrongdoing, the more painful it would be for Washington to exercise oversight, and the less likely the truth is to surface. But this state of affairs is hidden. It would seem that the federal government effectively oversaw itself. The impeachment proceedings are over. The charges were not serious enough to warrant the President's removal. There was not another Watergate. The Independent Counsel statute may never be renewed. Calls for more civility in government have been made. In short, corruption in the Justice Department and its FBI is becoming more and more impenetrable.

Under the Act, a majority of members of either party of the Judiciary Committees of either House of Congress could ask Janet Reno to apply to the Court for appointment of an Independent Counsel to investigate Mr. Foster's death.

But, as long as the existence of the cover-up remains a secret, Congress will continue to ignore the issue.

Washington's response to an onslaught of corruption, triggering seven Independent Counsel investigations, is to abolish the Independent Counsel law. One of the excuses is that the law is institutionalized distrust of the Justice Department. It is; just as our Constitution is institutionalized distrust of the separate branches of government. Moreover, Washington's institutions, having failed to expose the obvious corruption in the Foster case, are not in a position to advise the public that is does not need the "auxiliary precaution" of the Independent Counsel statute to protect the public from corruption.

The OIC's failure to expose the cover-up is a shame. It is a missed opportunity for America to learn a few things about its democratic institutions. Its Justice Department and FBI have become dangerously corrupt and politicized. We cannot trust our press to expose Justice Department cover-ups, even when their existence is obvious.

Congress ignored all but the appearance of its having accepted its oversight responsibility. In short, had the OIC prosecuted the Justice Department personnel responsible for covering up the facts of its investigations into Mr. Foster's death, we would all know of the lack of effective government oversight and the lack of integrity in the news media.

Justice appears not to have been done in a number of allegations of serious FBI wrongdoing in recent years. The Alfred P. Murrah Building was blown up on the anniversary of one of the first, Waco, for which no one lost even a day's pay. Truth and accountability appear scarce. What do we gain by going further down this road of distrust of our democratic institutions, as opposed to fostering public confidence in their integrity by ensuring that justice is done? This is not the time to abolish our Ethics in Government Act.

The truth in this case is a Washington secret. Some day, it will be widely known. In the interim, those who have a personal stake in the conspiracy remaining secret will be winning their fight to keep the truthsuppressed, and with it, the truth of the loss of integrity of our democracy. But there is another secret in Washington. It is that the public can learn what is wrong with our democracy -- the first step in fixing it. We do not have to go along with the cover-up because we have the power to get the facts out.

The case of cover-up in the federal investigations into Mr. Foster's death is not a partisan issue. It is not about money. And it is about more thangovernment corruption. Exposing the truth in the Foster case will shake America's confidence in the integrity of its government and press, but the disease is worse than the cure. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the three branches "shall be kept forever separate." The Constitution was designed to work today. Americans have a right to know the facts and to judge for themselves whether its separate democratic institutions have in fact accepted the responsibilities that come with the public trust -- and whether our history has been taken from us.

What you can do. The public has been told that the Park Police, the press, the Congress and independent counsels have repeatedly scrutinized Mr. Foster's death, and that there was no criminal wrongdoing. If you agree that this filing proves the existence of a cover-up, then you have concluded that two of the three branches of our government, the executive and the legislature, as well as the press, failed the public trust.

If the facts of the case do become widely known, the public will be forced to examine how far our democratic institutions have strayed from what our founding fathers envisioned. Whether the facts of this case act as a wake-up call to the public is up to you. Only you can tell your family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, co-workers, school, church, or synagogue about the facts of this case. You can print this filing from the Internet, link your own Website to it, order copies from any bookstore, ask your library to order it, or, if the Court grants the motion, order it from any government printing office. You can decide what you can best do to get the facts into your community. Please act now and start getting the facts out.

We can improve the quality of our press and government by holding them accountable, but only if the public knows of their failure to confront the truth. We have the right to learn the facts and judge for ourselves whether America's democratic institutions have in fact accepted the responsibilities that come with the public trust -- and whether our true history is being taken from us.