Vince Foster's death: An FBI cover-up?
Independent researcher discusses investigations, current legal action
By Zoh Hieronimus
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
The death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent
Foster, although over seven years past, continues to
generate heated controversy. The sheer number of
websites and published articles on the subject testify
to the belief of many that foul play may have been
involved. Researcher Hugh Turley recently
co-authored a book with crime-scene witness Patrick
Knowlton and his attorney, John Clarke, entitled
"Failure of the Public Trust." The book presents
documented evidence supporting the trio's belief in
an FBI cover-up surrounding Foster's death.
Zoh Hieronimus interviewed Turley on her syndicated
radio show. The Zoh Show can be heard weekdays
from 12 to 3 p.m. Eastern time.
Question: Why have you, Patrick Knowlton and John
Clarke all stayed the course when so many think that the
truth about Vincent Foster's death will never be told?
Answer: It is being told and it's important because what
we are really fighting for is pretty simple -- honest
government. I think that is something we all deserve and
we can all seek and share -- whether we are Republicans
or Democrats. That's what the battle is all about.
It centers around Patrick Knowlton because he is the key
witness in the case. He was at Fort Marcy Park the day
that Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster's body
was found and he witnessed the fact that Mr. Foster's car
was not at the park. Officially, we have been told that he
drove there and committed suicide. But the facts don't
support that when you look at the evidence and we've
compiled a lot of it at our website,
www.FBIcoverup.com. There are a lot of documents
there that we filed in court.
Q: Do you have any new information?
A: Recently, we've gotten a lot of new documents from
the government through a Freedom Of Information Act
suit by Accuracy In The Media. John Clarke was
representing them in this suit. We've attained about 1,400
more pages of documents from the government. Many of
them are redacted but a lot of them aren't. Information
continues to trickle out. We're just going to keep putting
it up at our website and publishing it and sharing it with
the American people.
Q: Could you give us a quick summary of the highlights
of what your team found versus what the Fiske and the
Starr reports contain?
A: We've been told incorrectly by the American press
and our officials that there have been numerous
investigations of Foster's death when, in reality, every
investigation that has been done was conducted by the
FBI. The initial Park Police investigation was a joint
investigation with the FBI; the FBI reinvestigated with
Mr. Fiske and again with Mr. Starr. The Senate did hold
some hearings but they limited their inquiry into the Park
Police investigation and not the death investigation itself.
Also, there were a lot of problems with forensic evidence
of the case. Witnesses at the scene saw a wound in Mr.
Foster's neck. Starr, in his report, said that the crime
scene photographs don't support this. Unfortunately,
there's evidence that the crime-scene photographs
disappeared, especially the important initial ones that
were taken by the first police officer at the scene. Mr.
Foster could not have fired the gun. The evidence shows
that the gunpowder in his hands doesn't support the fact
that he could have held the gun and pulled the trigger at
the same time. None of the 26 witnesses who were at the
scene saw the official entrance or exit wounds in Mr.
Foster's body that we've been told are there. There was
tampering with the body at the crime scene. People
moved the body to conceal the neck wound -- and they
also replaced an automatic pistol in Mr. Foster's hand
with a black revolver which, by the way, has never been
identified by any member of the family as being Mr.
Foster's. Some of them have changed their stories over
the years; by and large, it's been an unidentifiable gun.
And there's been obstruction of justice in the case,
primarily around witness Patrick Knowlton.
Q: Would you explain what happened to Patrick?
A: Patrick Knowlton is a key witness in the case. He
came forward to tell what he saw. The FBI interviewed
him. They falsified their reports of what he saw and,
when he complained, he was subpoenaed by
[Independent Counsel] Kenneth Starr to testify before
the White Water grand jury. At that point, Mr. Knowlton
suffered witness intimidation on the streets of
Washington, D.C., and the FBI participated in that
witness intimidation. We have proof of that. That's what
our case is about. I am disappointed that in this election
season, none of our government officials seem to be
concerned with grand jury witness intimidation. There are
a lot of popular issues that are proven to be good for
popular debate but this one seems to be off-limits.
Q: Share with us the recent court actions you, Patrick
Knowlton and John Clarke are a part of and why they
are so important.
A: It's really important because it's going to determine
whether or not our government functions as it was
intended to by the Founding Fathers. We've had a failure
at the executive branch level with Mr. Starr, who used
the FBI to reinvestigate the FBI several times. The
legislative branch has failed the American people because
the congressional oversight of the crime failed to look into
Very significant is the failure of our press. Our press has
failed to tell the public the facts of the case and that's a
serious breakdown. Although they are not elected, they
certainly play an important role in keeping the public
informed on this issue.
Q: How many legal procedures has Patrick been
through? This is his last appeal, isn't it, before he would
petition the Supreme Court?
A: Yes, it is. It started with a case filed in 1996 due to
the violation of Patrick's civil rights. When he was
subpoenaed, he was intimidated, and that's against the
law. It's part of a larger conspiracy that we've alleged to
conceal the truth about Mr. Foster's death. The civil case
has been thrown out time and again. On July 27, we filed
what's called En Banc, that is, we have taken it to the
United States Court of Appeals and given all of the
documents and all of the evidence -- there's well over a
1,000 pages -- to all 15 judges on the Court of Appeals
here in Washington, D.C.
Q: What is their task?
A: We've asked all of them to review this evidence and
to give us a hearing. You see, Patrick hasn't had a
hearing yet. Every time they've been before a court, it's
been thrown out for failure to prove a meeting of the
mind, that is, that these conspirators got together and
plotted this event. It's possible to do when we have a
hearing. There's been no discovery; there's been no
public hearing in court allowed. I'm not a lawyer; I'm just
a layman. I've been following the case. All we need is
one judge, just one of the 15 to tell Patrick and John that
they can have a hearing. And, if that fails, then we'll go on
to the Supreme Court.
Q: You're saying that the reason the courts have denied
Patrick the right to have a hearing is that Patrick, even
without a hearing, is supposed to be able to prove that
there was a conspiracy, a meeting of the minds. How can
you prove that if you don't have a hearing and the power
to do depositions?
A: That's the point. That's what we are fighting for, to
have a chance to get the facts out. We haven't had that
opportunity yet. It doesn't stop us from trying and I am
not discouraged. I remember the case of Alfred Dreyfus
in France went on for 13 years before an innocent man
was set free. When I jumped into this, the evidence was
so clear, so obvious that Mr. Foster didn't kill himself, I
thought it would come out immediately. Three or four
years into it, I realized it could be longer. The process
has dragged on. But we are very confident that we have
the truth on our side and, when you know the facts and
you can back up every bit of evidence, there is no reason
for us to stop. If these judges don't want to go with it,
we'll go to the Supreme Court. And we'll go beyond that.
We are not going to stop because we have the truth.
Q: You told me that you have found more confirmation
that what really took place at the crime scene is not at all
what is reported in the federal government's reports.
A: There are thousands of facts in the case. One of them
is that Mr. Foster's car was not there that night his body
was found. We found lots of evidence of that, which is on
our website. But some of the things are not on the
website. For example, Park Police Officer E.J. Smith,
who was responsible for processing the car and the gun
found at the scene that evening, we just recently learned
was not even interviewed until 1995. That's remarkable
in light of all the evidence that the car was not there. This
person has been sort of out of the loop all these years
and they never interviewed him.
Also, a key fact in the case is that Mr. Foster had a bullet
wound to his neck (versus the claims that he only had a
mouth and exit wound behind the head). Now, officially,
Mr. Starr and others have said that this [neck] wound
does not exist, that the crime scene photographs prove it.
Well, eyewitnesses saw it. A medical doctor at the scene
documented it in his report, but Starr maintains that the
photographs prove it wasn't there.
Q: Tell us what you know about the photographs.
A: The photographs disappeared. Starr argued that the
photographs didn't disappear. He said, for example, that
a certain Sgt. Edwards did not take photographs. We
have a document from the FBI; it's called a victimology
report. It states, and I'll quote, "Edwards took
photographs." There's more evidence that Edwards took
photographs in our book and on our website. The people
saw him taking photographs; it's in their reports that they
saw him taking photographs. But this recent document is
just another example. There's literally thousands and
thousands of official documents that prove the case. We
haven't interviewed one witness or done any investigation
on our own; we look at the official record. The official
record itself proves that the FBI and the Office of the
Independent Counsel under Kenneth Starr covered up
the apparent murder of the Deputy White House
I want to share one other thing that I learned about an
hour ago. I stopped at the University of Maryland, went
to the bookstore and I picked up a history book. They
are now teaching history wrong at the University of
Q: Give us the example of what you found.
A: A book that's called "American Passages," which is
used in a U.S. History course, states that Vincent Foster
committed suicide. That is absolutely false. The book
reads like propaganda. It says that anyone who disagrees
is a Clinton-hater. I'm neither a Clinton-hater nor a
supporter. I don't support Republican candidates too
much either. I'm just looking for justice, an honest
government. And, when our history books are wrong --
and the book, by the way, costs $60 -- students are
paying for propaganda and they borrow money to pay
tuition. I don't recommend you study history at the
University of Maryland.
Q: What do you think are the five biggest discrepancies
between the official report and what you all know to be
true, based on the evidence that's been attached to the
Office of Independent Counsel report, as required by the
A: Some of the biggest discrepancies are attached to the
Independent Counsel's report. People should order and
read Mr. Starr's report because our 20 pages are tacked
on. Some of the biggest issues are: Mr. Foster's car was
not at the park; he had a bullet wound in his neck; the
gun didn't belong to him. The FBI has been part of every
investigation -- and that's pretty suspicious right there.
They've only had one investigative agency involved over
the seven years that it has been investigated. Technically,
it's still under investigation because Robert Ray, the
current Independent Counsel, is still in operation. This
case is technically still open and going and that's one of
the reasons that some of the comments have not been
released to us, because they claim that it's still under
Q: Is there an effort to close this as soon as the current
administration comes to a close?
A: I'm sure Ray's going to have to close shop at some
point. He's been talking about trying to close up this fall,
but that won't stop this case, because there is no statute
of limitation on murder. And Mr. Knowlton was harassed
and intimidated by the FBI. They did alter his testimony.
They did try to get him to alter his. And we can prove it
and continue to prove it.
We encourage people to get out and check out some
history themselves. We have plenty of documents at our
website and everyone is invited to come and take a look.
I'll answer any and all questions. I do public speaking.
Any time anyone wants to discuss the facts, we'll defend
what we've written.
'independent' probe of Foster death
FBI investigated itself
or Fiske, Starr, says witness
Altered evidence in Foster death?
Medical report given to independent
counsel may have been changed
The Foster File
Judge Orders Search for Vince Foster's Computer
The "Clinton Body Count"
Vince Foster Questions Continue
The Strange Death of Vince Foster Allegations Regarding Vince Foster, the NSA, and Banking
Don't Shoot the Bastards (Yet):
101 More Ways to Salvage Freedom
DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: REMEMBERING THE DEAD
WHEN IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH? WHEN JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED!
American Patriot Friends Network
"...a network of net
APFN MESSAGE BOARD
Please freely distribute
contents of this site!
APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS
APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
If you would like to pledge a contribution to APFN:
APFN Home Page