Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VINCE FOSTER PHOTOS BATTLE LANDS ON TED OLSEN'S DESK
Allan J. Favish Homepage ^ | 8/21/02 | Samizdat

Posted on 08/21/2002 9:54:52 AM PDT by Samizdat

This week, attorney Allan Favish, who has waged a long battle to find the truth about the circumstances surrounding the suspicious death of former Clinton White House Counsel, Vincent W. Foster, was notified that the Office of Independent Counsel, formerly headed by Ken Starr, would ask United States Solicitor General, Ted Olson, to decide whether to ask the Supreme Court to stop release of Foster death scene photos that have been ordered released by a lower court. Ted Olson is husband our own Barbara Olson (freeper BKO) who died on 9/11.

Oddly, Foster's sister and remarried widow have joined the OIC in attempting to block Favish's attempt to learn the truth about the death. They have notified Favish that they will seek a 90 day stay of the case being returned to the trial court so that the Solicitor General can decide on a Supreme Court appeal.

This last ditch effort by the OIC, et al, is as a result of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals having denied them a rehearing of the case.

At issue is the question of whether Foster had neck wound instead of the official version that it was a mouth to back of head wound. It is reported that a photo exists that depicts the neck wound. The OIC has feverishly tried to keep that photo under wraps.

In Barbara's last book, she seemed to back off using the word suicide when referring to Vince Foster's death. Perhaps Ted will look into the matter to find the truth.

For more information, go to Allan Favish's web site at www.allanfavish.com.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: vincefostermurder
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 last
To: WhiteGuy
One of the conditions of getting the job.

When Olson got the job, wife BKO was not yet dead. Seems to me circumstances have changed.

And I kind of doubt whether Olson's superiors would enforce any such bargain, in view of the changed circumstances.

81 posted on 08/21/2002 6:48:15 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: esopman
Amen!
82 posted on 08/21/2002 6:56:35 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Yes, there is a rumor, whether there still is a picture, I doubt it.
83 posted on 08/21/2002 6:58:46 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Am I missing something?
I did not think they were autopsy photos.
They are photos at the site?
There certainly is a great deal of question about the movement of the body from another location.
84 posted on 08/21/2002 7:12:41 PM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Thanks Howlin, as I scrolled down I was hoping someone would agree that these pictures do not belong in the public domain.
85 posted on 08/21/2002 7:14:09 PM PDT by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Samizdat
Gee, you had me goin so much that I completely overlooked that you had changed the subject to autopsy photos. Who said anything about autopsy photos?

Howlin's got his murder's mixed up - he's thinking of JFK!

Like JFK's murder, the "authorities" are part of the cover-up conspiracies, for what ever reason. We the people will be denied the truth, and treated to theatrical investigations and fictional official reports for any troublesome event. If only one plane had been involved in 9/11, taking out one of the WTC towers - it would have been a tragic accident caused by some microburst or malfunctioning instrument or flight controls on the A/C, I betcha!

86 posted on 08/21/2002 7:25:51 PM PDT by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY
I misspoke.
87 posted on 08/21/2002 7:28:31 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Samizdat
DOJ's side

"The Ninth Circuit in Favish, in attempting to balance the interests involved in nine photographs of the scene of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster's suicide, remanded the case to the district court for it to view the photographs in camera (34) -- doing so even though those very photographs had been held to be protected by Exemption 7(C) in a previous case. (35) The district court on remand, following the Ninth Circuit's instructions, evaluated the family's privacy interests by employing an incorrect tort law standard -- i.e., whether the photographs were "'graphic, explicit, or extremely upsetting.'" (36)
Further, in analyzing the public interest in disclosure in Favish, the Ninth Circuit purported to follow Reporters Committee, yet based its finding of public interest in disclosure of the photographs merely upon plaintiff's "doubts" regarding the adequacy of the government's investigation into the suicide. (37) This departs radically from the narrow definition of public interest set forth in Reporters Committee. (38) This departure was compounded further when, on remand, the district court failed to employ the proper public interest standard -- i.e., whether disclosure of the photographs would shed light on the operations of the government -- and instead employed a more general, and unorthodox, public interest standard: Are the photographs "probative of the public's right to know?" "

88 posted on 08/21/2002 8:04:53 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Samizdat
The truth, as it relates to the federal government, will never see the light of day.
89 posted on 08/21/2002 8:52:46 PM PDT by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
"Actually, there is no need to keep them secret."

Bingo.

When you consider the implications if he did not commit suicide, and the mass of evidence that mitigates against suicide -- and then scratch your head in amazement at how anyone could conclude that it was suicide (let alone that it become the official conclusion), there is a compelling reason for not keeping these photographs secret.

I do worry, however, that either some would be quietly withheld, or, released after being touched up. The stakes are suffiently high to make these possibilities valid concerns.

90 posted on 08/21/2002 9:08:37 PM PDT by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
A parallel from history is the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey in 1678. The truth about his murder could not be revealed, probably because the people involved in it were too powerful.
91 posted on 08/22/2002 4:47:37 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
wrong on all counts.
92 posted on 08/22/2002 6:27:32 AM PDT by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Samizdat
bump
93 posted on 08/25/2002 11:00:18 AM PDT by Samizdat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson