[coloradan]

Dale Earnhart was a celebrity, but a private citizen. Vince Foster was a government agent - a public servant - and as such should have a "diminished expectation of privacy" compared to private citizens.

Privacy aspects aside, the way Dale died is not disputed and there will likely be no forthcoming criminal charges brought upon release of his photos. But if the photos of Vince Foster differ in any material way from the way his death was represented, then criminal charges ranging from "lying on an official document" through murder can be contemplated.

Hence, the Dale's and Vince's cases are quite different.

[Mr. Bird]

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.

[expatpat]

And hence the photos will NOT be released.