From rhill@millkern.com Wed Aug 10 04:15:49 1994
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 09:56:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Hill 
To: James Daugherty 
Subject: Re: IS FISKE SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH?

                                AIM REPORT

Published by ACCURACY IN MEDIA, INC.
             4455 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 330
             Washington, DC 20008

Reed Irvine, Editor
Joseph C. Goulden, Associate Editor

-------------------------------


                           FISKE SHOWS HIS HAND

Robert B. Fiske, Jr., the New York lawyer recommended by White
House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum and named by Janet Reno as
Independent Counsel to investigate Whitewaterrelated allegations,
has now demonstrated what many have suspected.  He cannot be
trusted to carry out an honest, exhaustive probe of the
Whitewaterrelated allegations swirling around Bill Clinton.

Attorney General Reno long resisted using her authority to
appoint an Independent Counsel, saying that anyone she appointed
would be suspected of a pro-administration bias. Fiske, a liberal
New York Republican, was chosen ostensibly to deflect that
criticism. In the media he was described as a man of
unimpeachable integrity who could be counted on to do a thorough
job. However, not everyone accepted that.  Fiske was a friend of
then-White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, one of the Clinton
aides he was going to have to investigate. He had been counsel
for International Paper Corporation, a company that had big
interests in Arkansas and which had sold land to Clinton's
Whitewater Development Corporation. He came from the same law
firm as Lawrence Walsh, the Independent Counsel who pursued
Reagan officials involved in Iran-Contra as Captain Ahab pursued
Moby Dick.

New York Times columnist William Safire was one who expressed his
doubts about Fiske's integrity in blunt terms in his March 14
column.  He wrote: "Non-independent counsel Robert Fiske, the
Democrats  favorite Republican lawyer, is doing the job the
Clinton Administration hired him to do: keep the Congress from
holding public hearings into the 80 s wrongdoing in Arkansas and
90 s coverup in Washington....Fiske was chosen by the people he
is investigating for good reason: he would actively help prevent
dreaded hearings."

Fiske has done that and more. He has not only blocked hearings,
but he has also sealed off access to documents that would have
been useful, if not indispensable, to any investigation
undertaken by the media. Just after Fiske was appointed by
Attorney General Reno, a man who knows Fiske well was asked how
Fiske would handle the assignment. He replied, "Fiske will do
whatever he thinks is in the best interests of  Robert Fiske. If
he decides it is in his best interest to bury Whitewater, he will
bury it.  If he decides it is in his best interest to nail
Clinton to the wall, that s what he will do."

Fiske's "Report of the Independent Counsel In Re Vincent W.
Foster, Jr." makes it clear that Fiske has decided that it is in
his best interests to bury Whitewater. On July 1, The New York
Times  said the report "essentially embraced what has been the
White House version of the circumstances surrounding the death
last July of Vincent W. Foster Jr., the deputy White House
counsel." Fiske said there was no evidence that Foster's death
was anything other than a suicide or that his body had been
moved. It denied that his suicide had anything to do with
Whitewater, attributing it to depression exacerbated by three
Wall Street Journal editorials not related to Whitewater.

Hewing  To The White House Line

Fiske's report slavishly hews to the White House line on why,
where and how Foster died. It even accepts without question a
White House tale that the compliant Park Police rejected and that
many of Clinton s friends in the media questioned.

He says on page 13 of his report: "The extent to which Foster was
disturbed by Travel Office issues is reflected in a  torn note
found in his briefcase by Stephen Neuwirth on July 26, 1993, six
days after Foster s death."  The Park Police did not buy this
explanation of the belated discovery of these jottings on a
yellow legal pad that were put forth as evidence that Foster
committed suicide. The Park Police spokesman declared
emphatically that if this note, which was torn into 28 pieces,
had been in Foster s brief-case, they would have seen it. Where
did Mr. Neuwirth really find the note?  How could it have been
torn into 28 pieces and then reassembled without leaving any
fingerprints? Is it true, as we have been informed by a Park
Police source, that there was one good fingerprint but that the
Park Police didn't try to find out whose it was?  If so, did
Fiske identify it?  Why have  the authorities refused to release
a photocopy of the piecedtogether note,  claiming the family
objects, even though the text has been made public?  This has
fueled suspicions that it may have been forged, suspicions not
satisfied as long as only one FBI handwriting expert is cited as
having certified that it was written by Foster.  Handwriting
experts don't always agree, and the refusal to let others examine
the note remains inexplicable.

Fiske's  Deliberate Deception

We cite Fiske s handling of the note because it is such an
obvious indicator of his approach to this investigation that it
should have been spotted even by reporters rushing to meet a
deadline.  It doesn't cast doubt on his principal conclusions.
But we found in the Fiske report an attempt at deliberate
deception which was made to support one of Fiske's three main
conclusions: that Foster's body was not moved.

To reach this conclusion, Fiske had to overcome a problem that
had baffled the Park Police--the pattern of bloodstains on
Foster's face and shirt that was in conflict with the position of
his head when his body was found and photographed by the Park
Police. A bloodstain on Foster's face had apparently been made
when his right cheek and jaw came into contact with his right
shoulder. That part of his shirt had apparently been soaked by
blood draining from  his mouth and nose. The face coming into
contact with the shirt created what is called a contact or
transfer stain on the cheek and jaw.  In addition to this large
contact stain, there were two lines of dried blood called
drainage tracks.  One of these ran from Foster's right nostril
above his right ear to his temple area. The other ran from the
right corner of his mouth to the area below and behind the right
ear. All these stains were observed in the photographs taken by
the police.

What was baffling about these stains was that the contact stain
on the cheek and jaw was inconsistent with the position of
Foster s head when his body was found and when the photographs
were taken. Everyone who saw the body in the park said Foster was
lying on his back, legs outstretched, arms at his sides and head
face up. A paramedic said he was laid out as if in a coffin.
That position was consistent with the two blood drainage tracks,
because contrary to some statements in the Fiske report and
elsewhere, Foster was not lying head up on a 45-degree slope. He
was lying on a  gentle downward slope, and in the absence of
anything to pillow his head, it would have tilted back far enough
to allow  blood  from his nose to drain downward toward his right
temple. What this position cannot explain is how blood from his
nose and mouth soaked his right shoulder and how his bloodied
shirt came into contact with his jaw and cheek.

Fiske and his panel of pathologists knew that the blood  on the
shirt and the contact stain on the cheek and jaw had to be
reconciled with the face-up position of the head if their
conclusion that Foster shot himself at the spot where he was
found was to be accepted. To concede that the body may have been
moved would not only require an investigation to determine who
moved it and why, but it would even cast doubt on the verdict
that Foster killed himself.

Fiske resorted to deliberate deception to solve this dilemma.
There was an important difference between the way the FBI
Laboratory and Fiske s panel of four pathologists dealt with this
problem. The FBI described in some detail how the contact stain
on the cheek and jaw must have been made by the face coming into
contact with the blood-soaked shoulder of Foster s shirt at some
time. It then said, "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." It went on to say, "The specific manner of
this movement is not known."  Here the FBI was admitting that it
had no solution to the dilemma.  It advanced no scenarios that
might explain how the shoulder had been bloodied, how the head
had pressed against it, and how it had ended up in a face-up
position.

Fiske's pathologists agreed with the FBI lab memo that the
contact stain  (which they described as being on the right side
of the chin and neck, rather than the cheek and jaw) was made by
the head coming in contact with the bloodied shoulder. But unlike
the FBI they adopted a theory to explain what had happened.
Their report said, "For obvious reasons, the head must have been
facing to the right when the body was found or have been turned
to the right when the body was being examined at the scene. In
either circumstance, blood accumulated in the nose and
mouth...would have spilled over the face and soiled the right
shoulder and collar of the shirt. The finding of the head facing
forward and the right-sided blood stains are mutually exclusive."
At this point the pathologists introduced their theory to solve
the dilemma. They said, "We conclude that a rightward tilt of his
face was changed to a forward orientation by one of the early
observers before the scene photographs were taken."

It is important to note that this conclusion, which is a serious
reflection on the police and emergency personnel at the scene, is
not based on one scintilla of evidence.  There is no one who saw
the body in Fort Marcy Park who said they ever saw the right side
of the face resting against the shoulder.  The pathologists
adopted this theory only because they could not accept the
alternative--the theory that the death occurred elsewhere and the
body was moved to Fort Marcy.  They explained, "The relatively
pristine nature of the exposed skin surfaces of the deceased and
of his clothing precludes any other scenario. Substantially
greater contamination of skin surfaces and clothing by spilled
and/or smeared blood would have been unavoidable had the body
been transported postmortem to the place where it was found."

If Fiske were an objective, disinterested investigator he would
have reported that the FBI and his pathologists agreed that the
blood stains proved that Foster s face had at some time been in
contact with his bloody shoulder, but that they did not agree on
the explanation of how it came to be in the upright position in
which all witnesses agreed it was found.  He would have said that
the FBI Laboratory had specifically said it was not known how
this came about, but his panel of  pathologists believed that one
of the early observers moved the head from its position resting
against the right shoulder to the upright position in which it
was photographed by the police. In fairness to all who were made
suspect by the pathologists  statement, he should have noted that
not one of the early observers said they ever saw the head in
anything but the position in which it was photographed.

That is not what Fiske did.  He dealt with his difficult dilemma
in his report with a statement that is carefully contrived to
leave the impression that the FBI and the Pathologists Panel are
in complete agreement on this issue and that it is a fact, not
theory, that one of the early observers moved the head into its
upright position. Here is his statement: "The FBI Lab concluded
that the pattern of the blood on Foster's face and on Foster s
shoulder is consistent with Foster's face having come into
contact with the shoulder of his shirt at some point. Because
Foster s head is not in contact with his shoulder in the
photographs, the FBI Lab report concludes that Foster's head
`moved or was moved after being in contact with the shoulder.
Lab Report, at 9. The Pathologist Panel endorsed this conclusion,
stating that `a rightward tilt of his face was changed to a
forward orientation by one of the early observers before the
scene photographs were taken.  Pathologist Report, para. 7."

You will note that in quoting what the FBI said, he omitted this
sentence that would have destroyed the illusion that the Bureau
agreed with his pathologists about how the head was moved: "The
specific manner of this movement is not known." He then tried to
create the impression that they were in agreement both about the
head being moved and who moved it by saying, "The Pathologists
Panel endorsed this conclusion, stating that  a rightward tilt of
his face was changed to a forward orientation by one of the early
observers.... " Note how the word endorsement is linked in this
sentence to a statement diametrically opposed to what the FBI had
said.  By dropping the words "We conclude that" Fiske
accomplished two things:  (1) He preserved the illusion that  the
panel was endorsing an FBI statement about how the head was
moved.  (2) He left the impression that it was an established
fact, not just a theory, that an observer had moved the head.

Here is how this statement might have been written by an honest
investigator intent upon writing an accurate report. We pick up
after the quote from the FBI report about the head having moved
or been moved. "The FBI Lab stated, `The specific manner of this
movement is not known.   The Pathologists Panel endorsed the FBI
statement that the head moved or was moved, stating, `The finding
of the head facing forward and the right sided blood stains are
mutually exclusive.  Rejecting the possibility that Foster s body
was moved to the spot where it was found because that would have
resulted in greater contamination of his skin and clothing by
spilled or smeared blood, the pathologists said, `We conclude
that a  rightward tilt of his face was changed to a forward
orientation by one of the early observers before the scene
photographs were taken.   However, no one who saw the body in the
park said they ever saw the head touching the shoulder, nor was
anyone seen moving it."

We submit that this proves that Robert Fiske is not the honest,
accurate, disinterested investigator he pretends to be. He has
evidently decided that his best interests lie in producing
reports that will satisfy the White House.  The fact that he did
not hold a news conference and expose himself to possibly
embarrassing questions when he issued this report lends support
to this conclusion.  This is further strengthened by his
rejection of requests by the House Banking Committee that he
testify in the hearings the Committee is planning to hold.  It is
also significant that Fiske has failed to back up his report with
any reports from the FBI except five FBI Laboratory memos,
including one dated May 9, 1994, which is the source of the
quotes above.  This memo, attached to his report as exhibit #1,
provides some very valuable information which Fiske has largely
ignored. This demonstrates why it is important that Congress
require Fiske to produce all  the other FBI investigative reports
that were part of his investigation.  These may well cast
additional light on the question of whether Foster's body was
moved as well as whether or not he was suicidal.

Fiske's Pathologists Challenged

There are three serious problems with the conclusion of Fiske's
pathologists claim that Foster's head must have been moved by
one of the early observers on the scene. One is that everyone who
saw the body, beginning with CW (confidential witness), the man
in the white van who came across it by chance when he went into
the park to relieve himself, said that the head was face-up. That
was confirmed by the first police officer to find the body. That
means that if anyone moved the head, it had to be CW, whose
identity is still secret.  The FBI found him to be credible.   It
is hard to imagine any reason why this uninvolved citizen, who
was terrified because thought he had stumbled onto a murder,
would do anything as dangerous as altering the position of the
head, leaving fingerprints that might result in his being accused
of a capital crime.

But there is also physical evidence that could prove that the
body was face up when CW spotted it. The position of the head
when the blood was draining from the nose and mouth can be
determined from the only two blood drainage tracks on Foster s
face described by the FBI memo. One extended from the right
corner of  the mouth back toward and below the right ear. The
other ran from his right nostril, over the right cheek toward the
temple area and above the right ear. This means that the draining
of the blood from the nose and mouth occurred while Foster s head
was face up and tilted back.  CW said he saw what appeared to be
dried blood on Foster's lips and nostrils, which suggests that
the tracks were made before he appeared on the scene.

The pathologists must have recognized that the drainage tracks
were not consistent with their theory, because they chose to
ignore them. All they said about them was, "There were linear
blood stains coursing across the right side of the face,
emanating from the nose and mouth."

We were told last March that the FBI had concluded that Foster s
body was moved. We thought then that it was probably because of
the lack of dirt on his shoes.  That lack of "coherent soil" on
the shoes has now been confirmed by the FBI lab memo, but the
blood stains are obviously better evidence.  The pathologists
claim that it would be impossible to transport the body without
spilling blood all over has been disputed by a medical examiner
and emergency room surgeon we consulted. Both agreed that it
would be possible to confine the blood if someone wanted to do
it.

Where Was Foster?

Fiske's report gives no indication that any effort was made to
find out where Foster spent his last hours alive. The May 9 FBI
Laboratory memo suggests that he probably wasn't walking in the
woods reciting Hamlet s soliloquy. It reports that semen was
found in his shorts, that blond/light brown human hairs, not his
own, were found on his T-shirt, pants, belt, socks and shoes,
that six different colors of carpet fibers were found on his
jacket, tie, shirt, shorts, pants, belt, socks and shoes and that
a number of red/ dark pink wool fibers were found on his T-shirt,
socks and shoes.

Fiske's report mentions the hairs and carpet fibers, saying only,
"The FBI Lab determined that Foster s clothing contained head
hairs dissimilar from his own, and carpet type fibers of various
colors." It made no mention of the items of clothing on which the
hairs and fibers were found, including his underwear, nor did it
mention the semen on his shorts. The semen does not prove sexual
activity,  since it is not uncommon for persons who die a violent
death to excrete seminal fluid. But other investigative experts
have told us this is highly important evidence and that it should
be checked out.

There is nothing in the report that  indicates that this was
done. It had been rumored that Foster and other high Clinton
administration officials from Arkansas had rented an apartment
where they could go to play cards and relax. Mike McAlary of the
New York Daily News, in a story on March 14 based on leaks that
accurately predicted what Fiske's report would conclude two and a
half months later, reported that Foster's clothes had been bagged
by the Park Police and preserved.  He said, "If for some reason
they need to be looked at, say to find imagined carpet fibers
from an equally imagined safehouse, they can be vacuumed and
searched." The "imagined" carpet fibers have now been found.  Did
Fiske look for the safe house?  His report does not say.

Missing Reports,  Missing Motive

In the March-B AIM Report we asked our members to tell Fiske they
wanted him to  release the complete report of the FBI
investigators who worked for him as well as other relevant
material. We feared he would report that everything was fine but
provide a minimum of supporting evidence to back it up, which is
what he has now done. His report refers to a number of the
interviews that were conducted, but only to those that support
his conclusions. No summaries, much less transcripts, of the
important interviews are provided. Fiske himself interviewed
President Clinton for 90 minutes and Hillary Rodham Clinton for
an hour. Not one word is reported about what, if any, light they
were able to cast on Foster's death and its possible relation to
Whitewater or other Clinton scandals. Both were close to Vincent
Foster. Upon hearing of Foster s suicide the President indicated
that he had no idea why his dear friend would have taken his own
life, saying, "We ll never know why this happened." Mrs. Clinton
is reported by The New Yorker to have said, "Of a thousand people
I know, he's the last I would expect to commit suicide."

On July 23, 1993, Foster's brother-in-law, former Congressman
Beryl Anthony, was asked by The Washington Times about a report
from an unidentified source close to the family that Foster had
been despondent for two weeks and that he had discussed this with
him. Anthony s response was, "That's a bunch of crap. There's not
a damn thing to it." The same day, Dee Dee Myers, White House
spokesman, told reporters, "There was no reason to believe he was
despondent." Communications Director Mark Gearan said he had seen
no changes in Foster's demeanor and that he had never indicated
that "anything was out of the ordinary." Betsy Pond, the White
House Counsel's personal secretary, said "she had noticed nothing
strange about Foster and would be surprised to learn he had
contacted a doctor about being depressed, even though he had done
exactly that."

To make the case that Foster was severely depressed and that this
was what drove him to suicide, Fiske relies on statements by
three people: Foster s wife, his sister Sheila Anthony (who is
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs in the Justice
Department and wife of former Congressman Beryl Anthony) and
Larry Watkins, the physician in Arkansas who prescribed an anti-
depressant drug, trazadone, for him on July 19. This is a very
mild anti-depressant. They said he complained of being depressed
and under some stress, but his activities and the observations of
his friends and numerous co-workers make it clear that he was not
suffering from clinical depression, which is defined as
depression that prevents one from engaging in normal activities
for at least six months. By not including even a representative
sample of statements by those who said Foster was performing
normally, Fiske has succeeded in persuading journalists, who are
all too willing to suspend their critical judgment, that
depression is a good explanation for Foster's death.

In the absence of the backup reports of all the interviews which
would permit experts in suicidal depression to offer informed
judgments, this conclusion is as unsatisfactory as Fiske s ready
acceptance of the "suicide" note, the supposition that someone
mischieviously moved Foster's head, and the turning of a blind
eye to the blond hairs, carpet fibers and semen on Foster's
underwear.  Fiske's report has answered two big questions: (1)
Where does Fiske think his best interests lie?  (2) Should Fiske
be removed from the Whitewater investigation?

What You Can Do

It appears that AIM will have to place an ad on the op-ed page of
The New York Times to get out the truth about Fiske's report as
we did about Paula Jones.  If you agree and wish to contribute to
help us pay the $16,800 this will cost, please return the
enclosed card with your contribution.



                   EDITOR'S NOTES

By Reed Irvine


THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AIM REPORT I HAVE EVER WRITTEN.  AIM
HAS TAKEN the lead over the years in exposing important stories
that the media have suppressed, overlooked or simply gotten
wrong. The suppression of the Paula Jones and Charlette Perry
stories, the hyping of the phony "October Surprise" allegations
and the media's censorship of the videotape of the Rodney King
beating are  recent examples that come to mind.  Our expose in
this issue of the dishonesty of  the Clinton administration's
chosen "independent" counsel, Robert B. Fiske, Jr., is more
important than any of these.  It shows that the investigation of
the Whitewater scandals has been entrusted to a man who has
revealed in his very first report that he cannot be trusted to
carry out this assignment with integrity.  What is most
frightening is that the media, virtually without exception, have
failed to expose this.  Not only have they failed to undertake
any careful analysis of Fiske's report on the death of Vincent
Foster, but they have created the impression that anyone who does
that analysis and exposes its flaws should be dismissed as
demented.  As we found in other cases in which we have made a
frontal attack on the arrayed artillery of the mainstream media,
even conservative columnists and talk show hosts have been
reluctant to stick their necks out and join in exposing the fraud
being perpetrated by the media.


FISKE'S REPORT VALIDATING THE WHITE HOUSE LINE ON VINCENT
FOSTER'S DEATH was, as we expected, accepted without question as
gospel by all the media.  The New York Post, which had done so
much to expose the flaws in the investigation by the Park Police,
found no fault with Fiske s blessing of the Park Police findings.
When Fiske leaked word to ABC News and the New York Daily News
last March that his report would do just that, the Post took
flight.  The editors pulled investigative reporter Christopher
Ruddy off the story.  When the report was finally issued, two
months later than the leaks predicted, the Post reported it
without any critical analysis.  The Wall Street Journal, which
had helped publicize the suspicions and had demanded the
appointment of a special counsel to investigate them,  declared
itself satisfied with Fiske's findings.  In a lead editorial on
July 5, it said, "The bulk of the report is devoted to forensic
evidence on the events surrounding Vincent Foster's death.  Here
the report is extensive and persuasive.  Barring some
unimaginable new disclosure, we find no reason to doubt that the
former deputy White House counsel committed suicide in Fort Marcy
Park, as first reported.  This should end much mystery and
speculation, and here Mr. Fiske has performed a public service."

AL HUNT, FORMER WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF AND NOW COLUMNIST FOR THE
WALL Street Journal, said on "Capital Gang" on CNN:  "On the
Vince Foster thing, yes.  It s only the kind of Captain Queeg
conspiratorialists who will stay in there.  It's over.  It's
exactly what Mr. Fiske said it was." Syndicated columnists Jack
Germond and Jules Witcover sounded a similar note, writing that
Fiske's report would settle the matter for all but the crazy
conspiracy theorists who say the Holocaust never happened.
Time's Margaret Carlson said, "You must believe now that
everything to the contrary was ginned up by the right wing, that
he was murdered and his body moved.  And that the legitimate
press picked up on that at all shows that we have no standards
any more."  Michael Isikoff, the former Washington Post reporter
who moved to Newsweek after fighting with his editors over their
suppression of the Paula Jones story, co-authored a Newsweek
story which said: "Fiske s report knocks out the most sensational
piece of the Whitewater puzzle, but it is only a start in what
will be a long and complex investigation."

THIS AIM REPORT SHOWS THAT A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF FISKE'S REPORT
ON FOSTER'S death reveals that Fiske cannot be relied upon to
carry out a relentless search for the truth in the assignment he
has been given. We present compelling evidence that he arrayed
the evidence to support his predetermined conclusions, altering
it when it didn't fit.  Fiske has provided answers to ten
questions that have given rise to suspicions about how Foster
died.  These include: the relative paucity of blood, the gun
still in his hand, the failure to find the bullet, the way the
body was laid out, as if in a coffin, and the lack of powder
burns inside Foster's mouth.  Independent experts we have
consulted agree that it is not impossible that each of these
things happened even though some of them were of low probability.
The combination of several possible but improbable situations
tends to put a strain on one's credulity.

LET'S GRANT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE GUN DIDN'T FLY OUT OF HIS
HAND AFTER he fired it because his thumb was caught in the
trigger guard.  It's possible that this gun had been part of his
father's collection, even though it is a typical "drop" gun,
favored by those who want a gun that can't be traced.  It is
possible that his sister could have identified this gun from a
photo as one that belonged to their father, even though Foster's
teen-age children could not recall ever having seen it.  It is
possible that Foster kept the gun around the house as a second
handgun, even though he had no ammunition for it except for the
two rounds on the cylinder when he shot himself.  It is possible
that he loved this 1913 gun made up of parts from two different
weapons so much that he insisted on keeping it around the house,
along with another weapon, violating the laws of the District of
Columbia, even though his wife says it made her uncomfortable to
have a gun in the house. It is possible that he took this gun
from his home and that it wasn't detected by the guards in their
routine search of his car when he entered the White House
grounds. It is possible that he handled and fired the gun without
leaving any fingerprints on it.  It is possible that not a trace
of blood adhered to the gun when he pressed it against his soft
palate and fired it.  It is possible that firing the .38 caliber
gun in his mouth left no visible powder burns inside the mouth
and no detectable powder on his face.  Fiske and his renowned
experts have said all of this was possible.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE PERSONNEL WHO
SAW THE body were struck by the fact that there was relatively
little blood because Foster's heart had stopped pumping as soon
as the bullet penetrated his brain, even though the heart is not
controlled by the brain, and because the blood quickly settled
down to his extremities even though he was lying on a gentle
slope, not on a 45-degree slope as Fiske's pathologists stated in
their report.  Perhaps it is possible that he could have written
a note by hand and then torn it into 28 pieces and deposited them
in his briefcase without leaving a fingerprint on any of the 27
pieces that were found six days after his death.  It is possible
that the Park Police could have examined the briefcase carefully
and not seen those 27 pieces of yellow paper.  The Park Police
deny that possibility, and many have trouble believing it, but it
doesn't give Fiske the least pause.  It might be  possible, as
originally claimed, that after shooting himself, Foster fell on
his back with his legs extended, arms at his side and head
straight up, but now we know that the blood stains indicate that
his head, at least, was in a different position.

IT MAY EVEN HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE, I SUPPOSE, THAT FOSTER WAS ABLE
TO HIDE HIS suicidal depression from all his co-workers,
including the President.  It is perhaps possible that he decided
to commit suicide despite the fact that his sister was flying in
that night for a family reunion, that he had an appointment to
see the President the next day, and that James Lyons, a friend of
the President's, was flying from Denver to see him.

BUT HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT THESE AND OTHER ODDITIES WOULD ALL
OCCUR TOGETHER in a single case which is also beset by some
things that are clearly impossible and others that are highly
suspicious?  It is impossible for Foster's head to have fallen on
his shoulder, picked up a contact blood stain on his cheek and
then righted itself into the face-up position in which it was
found.  It is impossible to believe that the first man who found
the body turned the head upright.  It is impossible to believe
that a deeply depressed, suicidal Foster, picked up blond hair
and multicolored carpet fibers on his underwear and other
clothing by driving to the White House, spending the morning
there and then driving around Washington, not seeing anyone he
knew, and ending up in Fort Marcy Park.  It is difficult, if not
impossible, to believe that President and Mrs. Clinton were
genuinely eager to find out why and how Foster died in view of
the fact that they did not insist that the investigation be
carried out by the FBI, not the Park Police, and then conspired
in or tolerated the removal of evidence from Foster's office, the
obstruction of the investigation, and the suppression for over
ten months of the police report and the autopsy report.

ADD TO ALL THIS THE SELECTION AS SPECIAL COUNSEL TO CARRY OUT THE
INDEPENDENT investigation a man who (a) assigns top priority to
delaying investigations by Congressional committees, (b) after
five months of work issues a superficial 58-page report padded
with 100 pages of filler to make it look more weighty, and (c)
refuses to subject himself to any questioning, even by Congress.
Now is the time to turn the Whitewater investigation over to a
genuinely independent counsel.  That can be done if the three
judge panel empowered to name an independent counsel under the
recently re-enacted statute decide to reject Attorney General
Reno's recommendation that they appoint Fiske.  The public and
the judges must be made aware of the information in this report.
Thats why we must run an ad on the op-ed page of The New York
Times like the one we ran on Paula Jones.  Please return the
enclosed card if you agree.

-----------------------------------------

For More Information on ACCURACY IN MEDIA and how you can become
a member or get involved, write:

AIM
4455 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 330
Washington, DC.   20008

Telephone: 202-364-4401
Fax:       202-364-4098

email: rhill@millkern.com

The AIM REPORT is published twice monthly by Accuracy in Media,
Inc., and is free to AIM members.  Dues and contributions to AIM
are tax deductible.  The AIM REPORT is mailed 3rd class to those
whose contribution is at least $27.95 a year and 1st class to
those contributing $36.95 a year or more.  Non-member
subscriptions are $40 (1st class mail.)