Attached to the Starr Report by the three panel judges:
[05]
The Honorable David B. Sentelle
The Honorable John C. Butzner
The Honorable Peter T. Fay
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Division 94-1 for the Purpose of
Appointing Independent Counsels
Re: In re: Madison Guaranty
Savings & Loan Association
Patrick James Knowlton
Request to include comments and factual
information, pursuant to the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978, As Amended, to
the
Report on the Death of Vincent Foster, Jr.
____
Dear Sirs:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A7 594 (h) (2), Patrick Knowlton respectfully
requests that this letter be appended to Mr. Starr's Report on the Death
of Vincent Foster, Jr., "[t]o assure that the report is full and complete and
to
afford [him] a measure of fairness."[1]
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
[1] In re North, 10 F. 3rd 831, 835 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
____________________________________
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 directi
on 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.
2
____________________________________
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 interviewed him. Monroe subsequently 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.[2]
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.[3]
Beginning that same day he was subpoenaed, and continuing into the following
day, Patrick was harassed by at least 25 men. The intimidation began at
around 7:20 p.m., when Patrick and his girlfriend, Kathy, walked from his
home in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood to the Dupont Circle neighborhood, and
back. During that time, eleven or more men walked towards him, or came at
him from behind. Each man directed a constant threatening glare into
Patrick's eyes.
[2] 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 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.
[3] 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."
3
____________________________________
Most of these incidents happened in a rapid and coordinated fashion, so that
before one man departed, another was approaching. It is difficult to convey
the cumulative effect on the target of this technique of intimidation.
Kathy, a Ph.D. consultant and educator, stated in her affidavit that at one
point she had to "struggle to keep from crying"[4] and that she "had never
witnessed anything like this before or since. It was intentional,
coordinated, intimidating, and extremely unnerving.."
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.[5]
Investigations by U.S. Park Police & regulatory Office of
Independent Counsel ("OIC") Robert Fiske. The investigation under the
auspices of regulatory OIC under Mr. Fiske was little more than an FBI
investigation.[6] Publicly-
[4] Kathy struggled to maintain her composure when she and Patrick began to
cross Connecticut Avenue to escape from the sixth, seventh, and eighth men,
whereupon they noticed the ninth man standing on the corner of R Street and
Connecticut Avenue, awaiting their approach while staring directly at
Patrick.
[5] Prior to Patrick's appearance, OIC prosecutors had been fully apprised by
counsel of Patrick's reports of being harassed by 25 or more men. They
clearly appeared not to believe Patrick's bizarre account of having been
harassed, at one point asking him to "tell us about the alleged harassment,
"
nor did Starr's deputies appear to believe much of anything Patrick had to
say.
[6] That the Fiske Report is for the most part little more than a summary of
an FBI investigation is clear from the following excerpt appearing on page
two of the Fiske Report:
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation ('FBI') provided substantial and
invaluable support in this investigation. The FBI assigned seven experienced
agents to the Independent Counsel's Washington office, all of whom have
worked exclusively with this office for approximately the last four months.
"
When the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs conducted
its day and a half hearing in 1994, it was not Mr. Fiske who appeared to
defend the Fiske Report, but rather FBI agents Larry Monroe and William
Colombell, both of whom conducted Patrick's FBI interviews.
4
____________________________________
Available official federal government records demonstrate that throughout
the 16 day U.S. Park Police investigation into the case, FBI participation
was significant.[7]
[7] At his June 30, 1995 deposition, FBI Agent Scott Salter testified that on
July 21 he and FBI Agent Dennis Condon were summoned to the White House by
FBI Agent John Daca: "called us in my car and told us to go to the southwest
gate of the White House and meet him there and we were to, that we were going
to be working on a death investigation involving Mr. Foster's death." On
July 21, FBI Agents met with Messrs.
Nussbaum, Neuwirth and Sloan to discuss the search of Mr. Foster's office and
FBI agents were present the next day during the office search. At a press
conference given on August 10, 1993, Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann
said, "The FBI joined the Park Police in the initial stages of the inquiry
into Vince Foster's death... (and) the FBI has been assisting in that
investigation..." Robert Bryant, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's
Washington Metropolitan Field Office said at the press conference, "We (FBI)
followed this case from the time we were notified until we were basically of
the suicide opinion, along with Chief Langston's staff, that this was a
suicide." At his 6/30/95 deposition, Agent Salter was handed a memorandum
and asked to identify it. He responded, "its basically a summary of events
from the 21st through the conclusion of, through August 4th or 6th or
whatever is was, through the conclusion of the investigation that we did."
Department of Interior Chief of Staff Thomas Collier testified on deposition
(6/23/95) that "the FBI and the Park Police ended up working on this kind of
hand in glove."
Agent Salter in his 6/3095 deposition explained the FBI's function was to
interview witnesses along with the USPP (from 7/20 thru 8/5), "We were there
to assist them in conducting the investigation which meant interviewing
co-workers [and]... then proceed as the investigation, you know, called
for." USSS Agent Paul Imbordino, in response to the question at his 6/22/9
5
deposition "Who conducted the interviews?," answered "Park Police and FBI."
During the (7/20 thru 8/5) USPP investigation, FBI agents interviewed over a
dozen persons regarding events immediately following Mr. Foster's death.
A U.S. Secret Service memorandum indicates that FBI's active participation
included removal of evidence from Mr. Foster's desk. A USSS officer relates
in a memorandum to his boss that he was told on July 31 of 1993: (1) by an
FBI agent that "(the agent)... and some other agents (five) were working on
the Foster suicide... working... leads on some info they had received...")
and (2) by another USSS officer "that the FBI had removed evidence from Mr.
Foster's desk..." The FBI's participation apparently did not end on August
5. At the August 10, 1993 press conference, Mr. Heymann said he had
"received an FBI report this morning...", four days after the case was
officially closed.
5
____________________________________
Therefore, prior to Mr. Starr's appointment to head the statutory OIC in
August of 1994, the only substantive investigations in the case, with the
sole exception of the U.S. Park Police investigation (conducted with FBI
participation), were conducted by the FBI.[8] 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.[9]
[8] There have been no other official investigations. The 1994 Senate Banking
committee was precluded by the limited scope of Resolution 229 from
independently exploring the issue of how or where Mr. Foster died ("whether
improper conduct occurred regarding... the Park Service Police investigation
into the death..."). Mr. Clinger did not investigate and Senator D'Amato's
Committee did not explore these issues.
[9] 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. A7 1985 (2),"...Obstructing justice; intimidating..
2E
witness..."; "...(3) The FBI concealed... irregularities... during the U.S.
Park Police investigation; (4) ...more that two cars in the parking lot; (5)
2E..deceptively omitted the fact that Foster's car keys were not found at Fort
Marcy Park...; (9) ...concealed that an automatic pistol was found in Mr.
Foster's hand before the revolver...; (9)... The FBI ignored that the
absence of soil on Mr. Foster's shoes is inconsistent with... to where he
was... found; (13)... inconceivable for the glasses to have been thrown or
bounced...; (15)...taking medication for depression but was not;
(16)...concealed...doctor opined... Foster was not depressed; (17) The FBI
falsely reported that those close... said he was deeply depressed; (20) The
FBI reported... 'suicide note' [authentic]..., but it was forged." See also
attached Exhibit 1: (i) Map of the cars in the Fort Marcy lot and Patrick's
route to and from his car; & (ii) Timeline. Exhibit 2: Map depicting the
harassment Patrick suffered. Exhibit 3: The FBI knew that Mrs. Foster could
identify only a silver gun, so FBI agents showed her a silver gun, told her
it was found in Mr. Foster's hand, and falsely reported that she identified
the (black) gun found in Mr. Foster's hand as belonging to Mr. Foster.
Exhibit 4: The FBI concealed that Mr.
Foster's car was not in the Fort Marcy lot by the time he was dead. Exhibit
5: The FBI concealed the gunshot wound in Mr. Foster's neck by: (i)
concealing the contents of the Medical Examiner's Report which states that
there was a gunshot wound in Mr. Foster's neck; (ii) falsely reporting that
the 35 mm photographs were unclear;
(iii)concealing the fact Polaroid photographs vanished; and (iv) concealing
the fact that autopsy x-rays vanished.
6
____________________________________
The Fiske Report correctly states at page 39 that upon Mr. Foster's death,
"the FBI would have had primary investigative jurisdiction if the
circumstances fell within... the United States Code Section... [which] makes
it a federal crime to... kill... a specified number of persons... appointed
by the President... [and that the statute mandates that] violations shall be
investigated by the FBI." If Mr. Foster's death is ever ruled a homicide,
the FBI will necessarily have violated the law simply by virtue of its having
failed to exercise primary jurisdiction. The Fiske Report excuses the FBI's
failure to take the case (relegating the investigation ostensibly only to the
U.S. Park Police) "based on a preliminary inquiry by the FBI which failed to
indicate criminal activity."
The OIC's investigation. 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.[10]
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 employs
the very agency it is designed to be independent from, the Justice
Department.[11]
[10] See 239 Cong. Rec. S15845-01, S15847-01 & S15850-01(daily ed. Nov. 17,
1993), statement of Sen. Cohen: "[W]here 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?"...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." See also (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 interest in having the Department
of Justice carry out a particular investigation.."
[11] Under the Act, the OIC's use of the FBI is free, tempting the OIC
tocreate a microcosm of the DOJ. (See Act of Dec. 15th 1987, Pub. L. No.
100-191, 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. |101Stat. 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..."
7
____________________________________
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. Even though
our review is limited by the fact that we were provided only the passages
reprinted below and so the context is unclear, it is apparent that the Report
also omits evidence Patrick provided which indicates that the FBI obstructed
justice in this matter.
For example, the Report's first reference notes that at 4:30 p.m.,
Patrick saw in the Fort Marcy lot a rust-brown Honda with Arkansas license
plates. Although this information is correct, it deceptively omits that
Patrick is certain that this older car was not Mr. Foster's 1989 silver-gray colo
red car. Forensic evidence strongly suggests that Mr. Foster was dead by the
time that Patrick was in the park. Therefore, Mr. Foster could not have
driven to the park in his Honda.[12]
Page 21 of the OIC's Report:
Another citizen (C2) drove his rental car into the Fort Marcy parking
lot at approximately 4:30 p.m. While there, C2 saw one unoccupied car,
which he described as a "rust brown colored car with Arkansas license
plates."[35]
C2 also saw another nearby car; that car was occupied by a man who
exited his car as C2 exited his own car.[36] C2 described this man as having
"a look like he had an agenda." although "everything I based my
observation of this guy, was from my gut, more than anything else."[37] C2 and
the man did speak to one another.
[38] C2
[35] OIC, 11/1/95, at 22, 28.
[36] Id. at 25.
[37] Id. at 27, 62.
[38] Id. at 61-62.
[12] See Exhibit 4: A USPP report notes that the autopsy doctor estimated
that Mr. Foster died "2-3 hours" after having eaten "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" hours at 6:10 p.m., putting the time of death
between approximately 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. Because Patrick saw an Arkansas car
at 4:30 p.m. which was not Mr. Foster's, parked in the same space where Mr.
Foster's car was later found, Mr. Foster could not have driven to the park.
Also the descriptions of this older car (the only other car in the lot at
about 5:15 p.m.) provided by two other civilians who arrived at the park
40-55 minutes after Patrick left generally fits the description of the car
Patrick saw, not Mr. Foster's car.
8
____________________________________
This first passage also notes that the other car in the lot was occupied by a
man who exited his car after Patrick exited his own car (the man exited his
car after Patrick walked toward the park). The excerpt omits any other
details of the man's behavior. Mr. Foster's body was located about 700 feet
away from the area where: (1) the man's car was backed in to its parking
spot giving him full view of the driveway leading into the lot; (2) the man gave
Patrick a menacing stare; and (3) the man returned to his own car only when
Patrick chose to walk in the opposite direction from where Mr. Foster's body
was found about 70 minutes later.
The Report goes on at page 22 to tell us that the "man had reentered his car
by the time" Patrick had "returned to the parking lot," and at 69 to tell he
saw "a man in a car next to him." we do not know the context in which these
passages appear.
Page 22 of the OIC's Report:
went into the park to urinate, and the other man had reentered his car by
the time C2 returned to the parking lot.[39] C2 then left the park in
his car.[40]
[39] Id. at 38.
[40] Id. at 61-62.
Page 69 of the OIC's Report:
During the afternoon, before Park Police and FCFRD personnel were called
to the scene at Fort Marcy Park, C2 saw a man in a car next to him;
Twenty pages later, the Report notes that Patrick "saw a briefcase" in the
Arkansas car along with a "jacket... [and two] wine coolers." This statement
again deceptively implies that the car Mr. Foster's even though Mr. Foster's
car reportedly did not contain wine coolers or a briefcase.
Page 89 of the OIC's Report:
C2 testified that he saw a briefcase "as well as wine coolers" in a car
with Arkansas plates that was parked in the parking lot. He stated: "I
looked and I saw the briefcase and saw the jacket, saw the wine
coolers, it was two of them. I remember exactly how they were laying in the
back seat of the car."[274]
[274] C2 OIC, 11/1/95, at 34.
This final passage omits that Patrick testified (and repeatedly told the FBI)
exactly where these items were in the rust-brown Honda. the suit jacket
Patrick saw in that car was draped over the back of the driver's seat.
The suit jacket later found in Mr. Foster's car was folded and lying on the
front passenger's seat.
9
____________________________________
Moreover, the Report's purported reliance on grand jury testimony[13] is an
attempt to give the Report more credibility. Indeed, the catalyst for
Patrick's grand jury testimony was the appearance of the October 22nd 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. 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
2E"
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."
[13] Patrick was not interviewed by Mr. Starr's FBI agents about events at
Fort Marcy Park until December 1, a month after he testified. When Patrick
testified on November 1, 1995, one OIC prosecutor failed to introduce
himself, sat behind Patrick and passed notes to the other prosecutor who
questioned him while resting his head on his hand, as if Patrick's testimony
was little more than an annoyance. During the two and a half hours of
testimony, Patrick was asked about what occurred at Fort Marcy Park and his
prior statements to the FBI for about an hour. During the balance of the
time, the prosecutor insinuated that Patrick was a liar, a homosexual, and a
publicity hound. He was repeatedly asked: (1) to explain his relationship
with the two men who lived in his Etlan, Virginia residence (a joint real
estate venture); and (2) about his involvement with the press or anyone on
Capitol Hill. He was also asked: (1) about the "alleged misquotes" in the
FBI reports of his statements; (2) to describe the "alleged harassment;" (3)
whether the man in the park passed him a note, pointed a gun at him, or
touched him; (4) how many times he had been to Fort Marcy Park alone (the
park is a reputed homosexual pick-up spot - unbeknownst to Patrick at the
time); (5) why he called the police and didn't wait for the police to call
him; and (6) sarcastically if he came forward because he is a "good citizen"
and a "good Samaritan." When Patrick asked who had sent Agent Bransford to
his home on October 30, 1995 (Bransford further intimidated him), the
prosecutor seated behind him spoke for the first time, "We sent Bransford."
10
____________________________________
On October 24, the same day that this newspaper reached U.S. newsstands, the
OIC prepared a 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 by 25 or more men97during which time the FBI ignored all his
repeated pleas for help. The Report omits all of this, even though Patrick
submitted a report detailing the harassment to the OIC in March of 1996,
which included the reports of a polygraph examination, a psychiatric
examination, witnesses' affidavits, photographs of two members of the
harassment team and the names and addresses to two others.
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 look unbalanced 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.
Back To The Top.
