Replies

I was thinking the same thing. Public officials/government employees relinquish many of the privacy rights afforded private citizens. It's a price you pay. Consider the converse situation: What if I (a regular, obscure citizen) died and the press (or some interested individual) wanted pictures of my autopsy? They're public documents, why wouldn't they be subject to FOIA? Not only do public officials give up privacy, they have no claim to privelige.

One curious item in the article: Foster's wife claims he was depressed but afraid that taking medication (hardly taboo in the 1990s) would jeopardize his career. So his best alternative was eating a bullet? That certainly wouldn't help the old career, would it?

I have no idea whether Foster was murdered, but I know there are way too many mysteries surrounding his death. No one is suggesting plastering autopsy photos on billboards.

One curious item in the article: Foster's wife claims he was depressed but afraid that taking medication (hardly taboo in the 1990s) would jeopardize his career. So his best alternative was eating a bullet? That certainly wouldn't help the old career, would it?

Excellent point. Even more curious is that everyone denied that he was depressed for the first week or so after his death. Then, all of a sudden, everyone got on the bandwagon with the depression story. Foster had been prescribed Trazodone, primarily to aid in sleeping. It's an extremely mild antidepressant at normal dosages. If he had truly complained about depression the doctor should have given him a stronger antidepressant.