THE TRIAL OF VINCENT FOSTER AIM REPORT APRIL-A 1995 THE TRIAL OF VINCENT FOSTER The attention of much of the nation has been riveted on the trial of O.J. Simpson as his "dream team" of high- priced lawyers fight tooth and nail to convince a jury that O.J. did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Simpson's lawyers are making heroic efforts to overcome an avalanche of evidence pointing to their client's guilt. They have left no stone unturned in their effort to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors and the public. They have challenged the competence and integrity of the detectives and charged that their investigation was flawed. They have combed California for witnesses who might help them undermine the prosecution's case. They found a Nobel laureate chemist to help them attack the validity of the damning DNA findings. No matter how outlandish their arguments, they have captured the media's attention. By contrast, another prominent individual has been judged by the authorities and the media to be guilty of a killing without the benefit of any defense that has been reported by any of the TV networks or national newspapers or news magazines. Not a single lawyer was engaged to expose the serious flaws in the investigation of his case or the hasty rush to judgment based on incomplete, flimsy evidence. Even the family and close friends of the accused failed to rise to his defense. They all meekly accepted the findings of the police without closely examining the evidence, much of which was not made known to them and to the public until nearly a year after the killing. The accused himself was silent. He was unable to speak out in his own defense because he was dead. The failure of others to speak out on his behalf is hard to explain. He was not the kind of person who would be immediately suspect of committing such a crime. He was an upstanding citizen with an excellent reputation. He was not a nobody. He was a high White House official and a close personal friend of the President and the First Lady. His name was Vincent W. Foster, Jr. He was accused of killing himself. Suicide is different from murder, to be sure. It is a crime that by definition is always punished by death. It is also punished by the indelible stain it leaves on the reputation of the killer-victim. That punishment is particularly severe for a man of high character and reputation. He would not want to be remembered as a coward who would inflict grievous hurt and hardship on his loved and loving wife and children, to escape some petty embarrassment. Nor would he want it said that he was so cruel that he would desert them without a parting word, sentencing them to live tortured by the thought that perhaps they were somehow to blame for his death. The Rush To Judgment That punishment was inflicted on Vincent Foster by police investigators who jumped to the conclusion that he had killed himself because they found a gun in his hand and no sign of any struggle. They made and acted on that determination before they knew the answers to many vital questions, including these: 1. Did Foster own the gun found in his hand? 2. Did that gun fire the bullet that killed him? 3. Were his fingerprints on the gun? 4. Was there any blood on the gun? 5. Was the fatal shot fired where the body was found? 6. Was the spent bullet found there? 7. Were bone fragments from his skull found there? 8. Was any blood splattered on the vegetation? 9. Did gunshot residue show that he had fired the gun? 10. Was the attitude of the body consistent with suicide? 11. Were the spilled blood and blood stains consistent with suicide on the spot where the body was found? 12. Had anyone heard the shot? 13. By whom and where was he last seen alive? 14. Was he familiar with this little-known park? 15. Was there any evidence such as dirt or traces of vegetation on his shoes, socks and trousers that showed he had walked from where his car was parked to where his body was found? 16. Did he have a motive for killing himself? 17. Through actions or words had he given anyone the impression that he might commit suicide? 18. Did he leave a suicide note? 19. Did he put his affairs in order as if preparing for death? 20. What was he doing in the hours before his death? 21. Was there any reason to suspect foul play? 22. Would anyone have had reason to kill him? 23. Was there any reason to think he might have been killed? 24. Could he have died elsewhere and been moved to the park? The Park Police investigators reached and acted on the conclusion that Vincent Foster had killed himself while they were still at the crime scene on the night of July 20, 1993, but they did not officially make this charge until August 11. They carried out their investigation based on the assumption that it was a suicide. Explaining to Senate Banking Committee investigators why his investigation of the crime scene had not been more careful and thorough, Sgt. John C. Rolla of the U. S. Park Police said: "If there's some suspicion, which there wasn't then, is not now and never has been, then, yes, it would be more of a crime scene." (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 436) Even though he saw none of the usual splatter of blood and tissue on the vegetation surrounding Foster's body, Rolla had no doubt that Foster had inflicted the wound found in his head with the .38 caliber Colt revolver found in his hand. No doubts were aroused by the failure to find the bullet or the fragments of skull that it blew out of Foster's head. Rolla said he "probed" for the bullet and the Park Police claimed they searched for it with a metal detector the next day, but without success. A thorough FBI search eight months later failed to find either the bullet or the skull fragments. With that as a beginning, let us imagine what a lawyer like Robert Shapiro or Johnny Cochran or F. Lee Bailey, the Simpson "dream team," would do if hired to defend Vincent Foster against the charge that he had killed himself. Let's call this figment of our imagination Johnny Bob Lee, a famous Arkansas defense attorney, and pretend that he has argued his case in a court hearing. We will assume that the media were as eager to report his words as they are those of the Simpson lawyers and will summarize what they might have said. HEADLINE: LEE CLAIMS FOSTER SUICIDE FAKED, POLICE FOOLED BY GUN Johnny Bob Lee charged today that the police had no evidence to prove that the gunshot that killed Vincent W. Foster, Jr. was fired at the spot where his body was found. They found no bullet, no skull fragments and no splatter of blood and tissue on vegetation surrounding Foster's body. (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 2123) The hard evidence that Foster shot himself was all missing, Johnny Bob declared. The veteran defense lawyer charged that Park Police had not even tested Foster's hands for powder burns to prove that he had fired the gun that was found in his hand. He said the dark mark on Foster's right index finger that they assumed to be a powder burn could have been eye shadow for all they knew. He pointed out that the autopsy report showed a similar mark on Foster's left index finger, and this presented a problem for the police which they had simply ignored. Rather than being proof that Foster had fired the gun, Lee argued that these marks were actually evidence that Foster's death was a homicide disguised to look like a suicide. Lee said gun experts all agreed that if the marks were powder burns, they had to come from the gap between the cylinder and the barrel of the .38 Colt revolver. For both right and left index fingers to have been exposed to the gases from that gap, Foster would have had to fire the gun while gripping the cylinder with both hands. He said that is not only an awkward, unnatural way to fire a revolver, it is impossible. Lee pointed out that even Park Police technician Peter Simonello had testified that Foster could not have fired the gun while gripping the cylinder with both hands. (Banking Committee Hearings, pp. 662-663). The police and the FBI had nevertheless cited the powder burns as proof that Foster had fired the gun. "Isn't it interesting," Lee told the court, "that we have what are said to be black powder burns on both index fingers, where they shouldn't have been, but none on Foster's face, where they should have been. And these Keystone cops and our vigilant news media, didn't even find that suspicious! They were blinded by the gun in Foster's hand!" Gun Should Have Aroused Suspicion Lee said the gun that convinced the police they were dealing with a suicide is actually additional evidence of a disguised homicide. He said the police found no evidence to prove that gun killed Foster. He promised to call experts who would testify that the damage done to Foster's mouth and skull by the shot fired inside his mouth would be more consistent with a smaller caliber weapon. They would say that the blast from a weapon that powerful would have scorched the inside of his mouth and the recoil would have knocked out or chipped some of his front teeth. No such damage was found. Experts would also testify that in the absence of cadaveric spasm (instant rigor mortis) the gun should have fallen from Foster's hand or been dislodged when it struck the ground, Lee said. He argued that the gun in Foster's hand should have been cause for suspicion that the suicide was faked. That suspicion should have been heightened, Lee said, when no fingerprints were found on the exposed surfaces of the gun. Lee said Foster would have sweated profusely if he made the long walk from the parking lot, and his prints should have been on the gun if he had handled it. But if the gun were planted, Lee said, those doing the planting would wipe it clean and try to put Foster's prints on it. With a cold corpse, he said that isn't easy. The absence of blood on the gun was additional evidence that it was not the gun that killed Foster, Lee said. The gun was supposedly fired with the muzzle pressed against the soft palate in Foster's mouth, creating a bloody mess. How come, Lee asked, the gun came out clean? The FBI lab tests found not a trace of blood or tissue on the gun. Lee said it was unfortunate that the Park Police processed the gun for fingerprints before it was tested for blood, because this provided an excuse for the tests turning out negative for blood. He said that if there was any blood, it should have been easily visible, but no one saw any. Lee was sure none would have been found if the testing had been done in the proper order. He said the FBI found a trace of DNA on the gun, but it did not tie the gun to Foster. Its origin was unknown, and it was common to 6 percent of whites and 8 percent of Hispanics and blacks. (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 1919). Another flaw in the theory that Foster used that gun to kill himself is that it was not his gun, Lee said. He charged that the Park Police and Fiske created the impression that Foster owned that .38 Colt even though they had evidence that this was not true. Lee pointed out that Foster's widow and his grown children could not recall ever seeing that gun. The police had sent a photo of the gun to Sharon Bowman, Foster's sister, and had gotten back a message via a White House aide that it resembled one her father had owned that may have been given to her brother Vince. (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 2169) Johnny Bob said Sharon Bowman's son, Lee, who had hunted with his grandfather and had used his guns, told the FBI that his grandfather owned a revolver that may have been .38 caliber, but "he didn't remember the black handle and the dark color of the metal." (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 1807). Foster's widow said the gun was "not the gun she thought it must be a silver six-gun, large barrel." (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 2227) Lee said that Peter Markland, the Park Police officer who interviewed Mrs. Foster, included the "silver six-gun, large barrel" remark in his notes but omitted it from his report. Lee said this was because the authorities did not want it known that the revolver Foster owned was silver, not black. A gun was found in Foster's home, he said, but it was never described in any reports. Lee said it had to be the silver gun mentioned by Mrs. Foster. Describing it would have ruined the effort to tie the black .38 Colt to Foster. He described the Colt as a typical "drop gun," an untraceable weapon used to stymie a criminal investigation. He said there was no evidence that Foster ever owned or even touched that gun while alive. He pointed out that the man who found the body was certain there was no gun in either hand. The only EMS worker to describe the gun said it was a big brown and black automatic, not a black revolver. He even drew a picture of it. (Banking Committee Hearings, pp. 883, 1564) Lee said that if the police didn't tamper with the evidence, they certainly let their conclusions shape the way they viewed it HEADLINE: LEE CLAIMS BODY WAS MOVED Johnny Bob Lee, continuing his indictment of the Park Police and Fiske/FBI investigations of Vincent Foster's death today, asserted that evidence presented in official reports proved that Foster's body had been moved to Fort Marcy Park. Lee said the absence of blood and tissue splatter on the vegetation near Foster's body was a good indication that he was not shot on the spot where the body was found. That, he said, was confirmed by the paucity of blood at the crime scene. He pointed out that Corey Ashford, who handled the bagging of the body, couldn't remember getting blood on his uniform or his disposable gloves. (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 1347) Others had said there was a pool of blood under Foster's head, but it was only visible when the head was moved. There was some blood on the right shoulder of Foster's white shirt, some on his right cheek and jaw, and two dried tracks of blood that had flowed from his right nostril and the right corner of his mouth over and under his right ear to the back of his neck. There was also a spot of blood on his shirt in the area of his right rib cage. The FBI lab found traces of blood on one of his shoes and his belt. (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 243) Lee said the paucity of blood and the absence of splatter indicated that the shooting and most of the bleeding occurred elsewhere. That was where the missing bullet, bone fragments and splatter might have been found had the case been investigated as a homicide promptly and vigorously. Lee said evidence that the body was moved was found in an FBI lab report dated May 9, 1994, which said that the blood on Foster's right shoulder and on his right cheek and jaw showed that at some point, his face had rested on his shoulder. Blood from his mouth and nose soaked the shoulder of his shirt, and this left what is called a transfer stain on his cheek and jaw. Lee quoted the report as saying: "The available photographs depict the victim's head not in contact with the shirt and therefore indicate that the head moved or was moved after being in contact with the shoulder. The specific manner of this movement is not known." (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 242) Lee rejected the explanation for the movement of the head given in the Fiske Report that one of the early observers on the scene moved it. He said there was no evidence to support this. Everyone who saw the body at the crime scene said the head was face-up and denied that they moved the head or saw anyone move it. Lee also dismissed the contention by Fiske and his team that if the small amount of blood found on Foster's clothing and skin was proof that the body had not been moved. They claimed that moving the body would have caused more spillage of blood. (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 226) But Lee said that experts agreed that such spillage could be minimized by using bandages. Lee said that the altered position of the head, combined with the evidence that the shot had not been fired in Fort Marcy Park, proved that the body was moved. He pointed out that that could explain the blood found on the lower part of Foster's shirt, his belt and one shoe, stains that did not fit the suicide-in-the-park scenario. Lee said the movement of the body also explained why it was laid out as if in a coffin, as one of the EMS personnel described it, head up, arms at his sides, and legs extended. " Laid out' is the right word," he said. "Foster did not fall in that position. He didn't sit on that steep, dirt slope in his shiny dress shoes and his neat pin-striped pants, blow out his brains and then extend his legs and drop his arms to his sides. He was carried to that spot and gently laid out with a gun in his hand. That is why his shoes and pants were not in the least bit soiled by the long walk up the dusty path from the parking lot. Fiske's pathologists said this laid out' position was just what was to be expected if Foster sat down on the hill and shot himself. (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 54) They and those who planted the gun forgot one thing. If Foster's right thumb was inextricably trapped in the trigger guard, gravity alone would not have determined where the right arm fell. The gun's powerful recoil would have forced his lifeless hand away from his body, and his right arm would have been found at least partially extended to the side." HEADLINE: NO FOSTER SUICIDE MOTIVE, LEE SAYS "Nothing about this case is more absurd, "Johnny Bob Lee declared, "than the sudden discovery a week after Vince Foster's death that he was suicidally depressed." He pointed out that none of Foster's family, close friends or co-workers, including the President, could think of any reason why he would have committed suicide when they were first questioned. All said that he was behaving normally. Lee noted that when White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers first said at a press briefing a week after Foster's death that he had been "having a rough time," reporters protested that this contradicted all that they had been told previously. Lee recalled that Myers backed down saying, "There was absolutely no reason to think that Vince was despondent. Nobody believed that." She then agreed with a reporter who said that Foster certainly wouldn't kill himself over the White House travel office scandal and over the Wall Street Journal's complaining that it couldn't get a picture of him. Myers said, "I would certainly never intimate that he would. There's no way we'll ever know why. But, Lee pointed out, in the absence of any better explanation, the Wall Street Journal/travel office induced depression soon became accepted as the reason for Foster's alleged suicide. It was incorporated in the Fiske Report in June 1994, and has gone unchallenged by the news media. (Banking Committee Hearings, pp. 186- 192) Lee said it was sad that so many people accepted this, most of all his friends and family. "Vince Foster was a man of strong character and a tough minded lawyer," Lee declared. "It is ludicrous to think that such trifles would cause him to take his life and abandon his loved ones. I propose to take the testimony of all the co- workers and friends who said they had seen no evidence of any altered behavior or depression, ranging from his secretary to the President and First Lady. But let me cite one who is already on the record, Linda Tripp, the executive assistant he asked to bring him a hamburger for lunch from the White House cafeteria. Tripp said she was surprised to find that he had sent an intern to see what was taking her so long. She said she hadn't been gone very long and that he must have been in a rush. He left the office right after finishing the hamburger. In a rush to commit suicide? The man eats his hamburger while reading a newspaper and leaves, saying, I'll be back.' Was he rushing off to kill himself? Incredible! (Banking Committee Hearings, p. 1534) "Experts will tell you that the activities and behavior of Vince Foster prior to his death are definitely not those of a despondent and suicidal man. He had just returned from a pleasant weekend with his wife and friends on the Maryland eastern shore. His sister Sharon was arriving from Arkansas for a visit that night, and he planned to take her to lunch at the White House. A lawyer friend was flying in from Denver to see him the next day, and he had an appointment with the President the day after. Nothing devastating had happened and no impending catastrophe loomed before him. He was not mentally imbalanced and there is no way that he would forsake those he loved most without even saying good-bye or leaving a note of explanation simply because he was having a little trouble sleeping. Vince Foster did not rush from his office with the intention of killing himself. He had neither a motive nor the means to do so." HEADLINE: WHO KILLED VINCE FOSTER, LEE ASKS Johnny Bob Lee, the Arkansas attorney who took on the unusual task of defending Vincent W. Foster, Jr. against the government's charge that he killed himself, wound up his defense today, claiming that he had proved that Foster did not commit suicide in Fort Marcy Park by shooting himself in the mouth with a .38 Colt revolver that was found in his hand. Stressing that there was nothing to connect that gun to Foster, Lee said that the former White House Deputy Counselor had neither the means nor the motive to kill himself that afternoon. Lee said that in showing that Foster did not commit suicide and that his body was moved to the spot where it was found, he had accomplished all that he set out to do. It was the duty of the government, not him, to find out how, why and at whose hand Vince Foster died. That, he said, was a duty that the Park Police, the FBI, and Robert Fiske, the former independent counsel, had all ducked, choosing to ignore all the evidence that pointed to Foster's innocence in order to avoid the difficult task of finding the truth. He charged that they were abetted in this by virtually all the news media. They had eagerly accepted a motive for Foster's suicide that they had once agreed was absurd. They had ridiculed as wild conspiracy theorists the few journalists who had the integrity and courage to dig up the evidence and expose it to public view. The great New York Times had refused to report even the unanswered questions about Foster's death, saying it feared it would only discover more unanswered questions. Lee said he hoped that independent counsel Kenneth Starr would focus on trying to answer the question, "Who killed Vincent Foster?" He said he himself had no idea who it was or why they did it, but he hoped that Foster's real friends would now come forward and give Kenneth Starr their full cooperation in his efforts to find the answer to that question. He asked the news media "to take off their blinders" and join in the search for those responsible for Foster's death EDITOR'S NOTES THIS AIM REPORT WAS INSPIRED BY THE DOGGED EFFORTS BEING MADE BY O.J. Simpson's lawyers to win the acquittal of their client. It occurred to me that it would be interesting to see a clever lawyer mount a similar defense of Vincent W. Foster, Jr. Not knowing any lawyers willing to do that, I created one and named him Johnny Bob Lee, using the first names of Simpson's attorneys, and put myself in his shoes. I made extensive use of the two-volume collection of documents relating to the investigation of Foster's death published by the Senate Banking Committee under the title "Hearings Relating to Madison Guaranty S&L and the Whitewater Development Corporation Washington, D.C. Phase." In performing this exercise, I was driven to a conclusion that I had previously refused to draw that Vincent Foster did not take his own life. That is what the evidence tells me. I think you will agree. WHEN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL KENNETH STARR REOPENED THE FOSTER investigation last January using a grand jury, it appeared that he, unlike his predecessor, Robert Fiske, was determined to learn the truth. But on Feb. 22, The Wall Street Journal ran a page-one story by Ellen Pollock and Viveca Novak saying that little was likely to come of Starr's Whitewater investigation. It said that anyone counting on Starr's finding "a solution to the mystery of a top White House official's death was it really suicide or was it murder? is destined to be disappointed." On March 23, the Journal ran another front-page story by Ellen Pollock trashing the handful of people who have been pointing out the serious flaws in the Foster investigations. She named Chris Ruddy, whose stories for the New York Post beginning in January 1994 reopened the Foster case; Joe Farah, whose Western Journalism Center has been buying space in national newspapers to reprint Ruddy's stories from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review; James Davidson, publisher of Strategic Investment newsletter; and Pat Matriciana of Jeremiah Films. Davidson and Matriciana have each produced excellent videos on the Foster case. Pollock sought to leave the impression that these are all "conspiracy buffs" who are spreading wild rumors about the Foster case to sell videos and rake in contributions. My letter responding to Pollock appeared in the Journal on April 11, together with letters from Davidson, Farah and Gary D. Martin. I FOUND ON TALKING TO ELLEN POLLOCK THAT SHE DOESN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT the serious flaws in the Foster investigations. She accepts the Fiske report as gospel. Her answer to all my efforts to get her answers to the big unanswered questions was, "I don't want to argue any point with you. I'm not going to." I saw that she was being used by someone who hoped to discredit any investigation, much as she had been used a year earlier to discredit Chris Ruddy's stories. She had a story in The Wall Street Journal on April 4, 1994 saying that Robert Fiske would issue his report before the end of April and would confirm that Foster committed suicide. That was one of the leaks that prompted the New York Post to halt Ruddy's aggressive reporting on the Foster case. Ruddy recently showed that when that story ran, Fiske's investigation was still in its preliminary stage. He had not yet interviewed the most important witnesses in the case and the FBI lab had not reported on its findings. THE MOST DISTRESSING NEWS COMES NOT FROM POLLOCK BUT FROM RUDDY, who reported on April 6 that Miguel Rodriguez, the prosecutor in charge of the grand jury investigation of the Foster case had resigned in March. Ruddy's sources said Rodriguez left "because he believed the grand jury process was being thwarted by his superior." That would be Mark H. Tuohey, III, a Democratic activist said to be close to Associate Attorney General Jaimie Gorelick. Rodriguez was said to be upset by interference in the choice of witnesses and delays in quizzing them. In three months, only a dozen witnesses have been questioned, and some key people have yet to be summoned. Ruddy quoted Thomas Scorza, a former federal prosecutor and a professor of legal ethics, as saying that he would have resigned under the circumstances described, but he would have made a public stink about it. Rodriguez has not made a stink. A former colleague of Starr's commented that Starr is a fine man but he suffers from a desire to please everyone. It appears in this case that he decided to please Mark Tuohey and sacrifice Miguel Rodriguez, whose determined efforts to learn the truth were making some people in Washington very nervous. WHAT'S MAKING SOME PEOPLE NERVOUS IS THE NEW EVIDENCE RODRIGUEZ found. Ruddy's story on Rodriguez's resignation cites three important advances: 1. Photographic evidence not previously available to the investigators; 2. Strong evidence that the gun in Foster's hand had been moved or switched; 3. Development of a clear theory that the body was moved No. 1 suggests good prints have been obtained from the underexposed Park Police negatives. No. 2 suggests the prosecutors have reason to believe that the police may have substituted the .38 Colt revolver for the large caliber automatic that paramedic Richard Arthur said he saw under Foster's hand. This helps explain why Rodriguez subjected the police to such rough grilling. Ruddy and The Sunday Telegraph have reported other Park Police cases that raised doubts about their honesty and their competence. WHAT YOU CAN DO: Miguel Rodriguez's resignation is disturbing. It suggests that Starr has decided not to play hardball. He will get no heat from the media for that. I fear the worst unless more is done to bring the facts in this AIM Report to the attention of the public. I suggest that we buy space in key papers to print this report or portions of it. If you agree, please fill out and return the coupon below. Also send the enclosed card or a letter to Kenneth Starr
AIM Column -- October 11, 1995
MIKE WALLACE'S FAKE FOSTER PROBE
By Reed Irvine and Joe Goulden
On October 8, as the FBI was heading into its fifth week of an
exhaustive search for the bullet that killed former White House Deputy
Counsel Vince Foster, "60 Minutes" aired a vicious attack on
Christopher Ruddy, the reporter who forced the reopening of the Foster
investigation in January 1994, six months after the White House
thought it had buried the case for good.
Ignoring the fact that FBI agents were literally making a shambles of
Fort Marcy Park in their inch-by-inch search for the missing bullet,
Mike Wallace claimed his own investigation found that there are no
valid grounds for questioning the theory that Foster committed suicide
in the park.
Wallace acknowledged that some sloppy police work had enabled Ruddy
"to raise all sorts of questions about Foster's death." He said,
"We've dealt with the most important ones. We've examined the others."
His program ended with a declaration that the evidence supported only
one conclusion: Foster committed suicide in the park.
Wallace's claim that he had dealt with the most important questions
raised about Foster's death was false. There are a number of questions
for which there are no answers that are consistent with the
suicide-in-the-park theory. Wallace ignored all of them. He discussed
only three questions that he thought could be answered easily or
dismissed, claiming he had examined all the others.
One was why the gun was found in Foster's right hand even though The
Boston Globe reported that he was lefthanded. That was never an
important issue because, as the police suggested, he could have
gripped the gun with his left hand and pulled the trigger with his
right thumb, which was found caught in the trigger guard. Since a
family member finally disclosed last spring that Foster was actually
righthanded, Wallace knew that this long-dead question could be
attacked without fear of contradiction.
Wallace ridiculed a suggestion that carpet fibers found on most of
Foster's clothes may have come from his body having been rolled up in
a carpet and moved. Many people have criticized the investigators for
not trying to find out where the carpet fibers came from, but few, if
any, have seriously suggested that the body was rolled up in a carpet.
"60 Minutes" suggested the carpet fibers were from Foster's home and
that they got on every piece of his clothing because they were all put
in the same bag. That may or may not be true, but the carpet fibers
are important only because they might have revealed where Foster spent
his last hours if their origin had been discovered.
The only question Wallace addressed that is relevant to the ongoing
debate over Foster's death is the claim that the small amount of blood
observed at the scene is one of several indicators that he did not die
in the park. The fact that there was little blood was noted by the
medical technicians who found the body. One of them, Sgt. George
Gonzalez, told the FBI that "there was not much blood at the scene for
the manner in which the victim died." Corey Ashford, who lifted the
body by the shoulders, cradling the head, said he "did not recall
seeing any blood and did not recall getting any on his uniform or his
disposable gloves."
"60 Minutes" ignored them, focusing on Dr. Donald Haut, the part-time
county medical examiner who approved the removal of the body. Chris
Ruddy has Haut on tape saying, "There was not a hell of a lot of blood
on the ground." Wallace asked Haut if he told Ruddy "there was an
unusual lack of blood at the scene." He said, "No," saying that there
was "plenty of blood" for Foster to have died there, creating the
illusion that Ruddy had misquoted him.
But Dr. Haut told the FBI that the amount of blood was small and that
he didn't recall seeing blood on Foster's shirt or face or any blood
on the vegetation around the body. Dr. Haut concluded from this that a
low velocity bullet had been used, but the spent cartridge case in the
gun in Foster's hand was stamped "HV," meaning high velocity.
Mike Wallace didn't mention all this because the small amount of
blood, together with the absence of skull fragments, brain tissue and
blood spatter and the fatal bullet, means there is no forensic
evidence to prove that Foster shot himself in the park. That is why
the FBI has spent a month looking for the missing bullet.
We asked Wallace in a phone conversation to cite one piece of forensic
evidence that supported the suicide-in-the-park theory. He ducked and
dodged. After we asked the question literally ten times, he said,
"I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll put it on paper." When we reminded
him of that promise the next day, he asked, "What do you mean by
forensic evidence?"
This is one of the country's best investigative reporters? As Mike
himself might say, "Give us a break!"
