The Clintons' War on Women (29 page)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Upon learning that Mr. Foster’s body was found in Fort Marcy Park, Patrick Knowlton reported to authorities what he had seen in the park approximately 70 minutes before the discovery of Mr. Foster’s body.

FBI Agent Lawrence Monroe interviewed Patrick Knowlton in April and May of 1994. Agent Monroe falsified Mr. Knowlton’s account of the events he reported he had witnessed in Fort Marcy Park. At the time of these interviews, Agent Monroe was detailed to the office of regulatory Independent Counsel Robert W. Fiske, Jr.

Mr. Knowlton’s information refutes the official conclusions that Mr. Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park, primarily because Mr. Knowlton is certain (despite official conclusions to the contrary) that no car fitting the description of Mr. Foster’s car was in the Fort Marcy lot approximately 70 minutes before Mr. Foster’s body was officially discovered, even though Mr. Foster was dead at the time. Agent Monroe covered up this and other facts Mr. Knowlton provided to Agent Monroe. Prior to 1996, Mr. Knowlton was unaware of this state of affairs and had assumed his information was irrelevant.

When he was provided copies of his interview reports by a reporter, Mr. Knowlton discovered that Agent Monroe had falsified his account, and his account of what he had witnessed at Fort Marcy and contradictory information from his FBI interview reports were published in a London newspaper.

On the same day that this newspaper reached American newsstands, October 24, 1995, the Office of Independent Counsel under Kenneth W. Starr prepared a subpoena for Mr. Knowlton to testify before the Whitewater grand jury in this Courthouse.

That
subpoena was held for service for two days, apparently to allow time for the assembly of the men who subsequently harassed Mr. Knowlton, then served by FBI Agent Russell T. Bransford. At the time of the service of that subpoena, Agent Bransford was detailed to Mr. Starr’s Washington, DC, office. Agent Bransford had formerly been detailed to regulatory Independent Counsel Robert Fiske’s investigation, where Agent Bransford worked with Agent Monroe.

Beginning the same day Agent Bransford served Mr. Knowlton the secret grand jury subpoena, he was harassed by at least 25 men and Agent Bransford prior to testifying before the grand jury, and one man after testifying:

(a) Eleven or more men on October 26, 1995;

(b) Twelve or more men on October 27, 1995;

(c) Two or more men on October 28, 1995;

(d) FBI Agent Bransford on October 30, 1995; and

(e) One man on November 2, 1995.

The objects of the harassment were twofold, to:

(a) Intimidate and warn Mr. Knowlton in connection with his grand jury testimony; and failing that,

(b) Destabilize Mr. Knowlton and discredit his testimony before the grand jury.

This technique of subjecting a witness to an overwhelming campaign of harassment to (i) intimidate and warn, and alternatively to
(ii) destabilize and discredit the witness, is known to federal intelligence and investigative agencies.

On Wednesday, November 1, 1995, Mr. Knowlton testified before the Washington, DC, Whitewater grand jury. Prosecutors questioning Mr. Knowlton during his grand jury appearance had been apprised prior to that appearance of his reports of being harassed by in excess of 25 men. The wrongdoers accomplished their object of discrediting him. Prosecutors did not believe Mr. Knowlton’s bizarre account of having been harassed, at one point asking him to “tell us a little bit about the alleged harassment.” Nor did prosecutors believe much of anything else Mr. Knowlton had to say.

On October 25, 1996, Mr. Knowlton filed a lawsuit in this District Court against FBI Agents Russel T. Bransford and Lawrence Monroe (and others), alleging that these FBI agents are vicariously liable to Plaintiff for his damages under the law of civil conspiracy for inter alia, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, “Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights,” part (2), “Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror.” The Plaintiff alleges he was intimidated in an attempt to obstruct justice in connection with Mr. Starr’s investigation into Mr. Foster’s death.

As of the date of this filing, Monroe’s and Bransford’s motion to dismiss and alternative motion for summary judgment is pending. See Patrick James Knowlton v. FBI Agent Russel T. Bransford, et al., Civil Action No. 96-2467.

Investigative history of the Foster death

The 1994 Senate Banking committee was precluded by the limited jurisdiction of Resolution 229 from any independent exploration of the issue of how or where Mr. Foster died, and Senator D’Amato’s committee chose not to visit the issue of how or where Mr. Foster died.
Therefore, save the sixteen-day US Park Police investigation, the only investigations into where or how Mr. Foster died were conducted by the FBI:

(1) First, a “preliminary investigation” in July of 1993;

(2) Second, under the auspices of regulatory;

Independent Counsel Robert Fiske; and

(3) Most recently, under the auspices of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Because of the initial FBI conclusion of “no criminal activity” in July of 1993, FBI agents who worked for Mr. Fiske the first half of 1994 would necessarily have embarrassed the Bureau had they concluded otherwise. And once the agents reported to Mr. Fiske that there was no criminal activity, there could be no abandonment of the FBI’s repeated conclusion of suicide in Fort Marcy Park without a horrendous embarrassment to the FBI and possible criminal exposure to the FBI agents detailed to Mr. Fiske’s investigation, some of whom subsequently were also detailed to Mr. Starr’s investigation.

Given the role and the conclusion of the FBI in its first two investigations into the Foster death, it is manifest that various FBI agents and the FBI operated under a conflict of interest in the role the FBI played in Mr. Starr’s investigation of the Foster death. Mr. Knowlton does not in any way seek to disparage Mr. Starr’s integrity. However, the propriety of Mr. Starr’s use of the FBI in his investigation of the death undermines a fundamental purpose of the Ethics in Government Act, to foster public confidence by maintaining the appearance that justice has been done. That FBI agents again investigating the death would not report to Mr. Starr
their prior participation in obstructing justice was likely not lost on those who have relevant information contradicting the official conclusion, particularly in light of a steady stream of press leaks that the OIC was soon to issue a report validating earlier official conclusions.

ARGUMENT

Authority for relief requested. 28 U.S.C. § 594(h)(2) states in part:

The division of the court may make any portion of the final report filed under paragraph (1)(B) available to any individual named in such report for the purposes of receiving within a time limit set by the division of the court any comments or factual information that such individual may submit. Such comments and factual information, in whole or in part, may, in the discretion of the division of the court, be included as an appendix to such final report.

In re North, 10 F. 3rd 831, 835 (D.C. Cir. 1993), noted that one of the purposes of this section was to afford a measure of fairness to persons mentioned in the report:

To assure that the report is full and complete and to afford a measure of fairness to persons mentioned in the report, Congress authorized the court to furnish relevant portions of the report to such persons. Within a time limit set by the court, these persons may submit “comments and factual information” that the court may include as an appendix to the report. 28 U.S.C. § 594(h)(2).

Mr. Knowlton is mentioned in the Report. Mr. Knowlton must be mentioned in the subject Report in light of:

(1) Mr. Knowlton is suing an FBI agent detailed to Mr. Starr’s office for conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with the topic of the subject Report;

(2) The suit alleges an ongoing conspiracy to obstruct justice by FBI agents detailed to the Independent Counsels’ investigations, and that the FBI played an integral role in those investigations; and

(3) Mr. Knowlton’s information refutes the official conclusion of suicide in the park.

The As Insight on the News noted in its November 22, 1995, article “The Vince Foster Mystery”: “Starr will also have to explain—or be ready to dismiss—the strange intimidation that Knowlton claims to have suffered …”

Mr. Knowlton’s reputation is at stake and he continues to fight to clear his name. Patrick Knowlton did the right thing by calling the US Park Police in July of 1993. He was later harassed and intimidated in an effort to set him up to look like some kind of nut. Because he did not heed this warning regarding his grand jury testimony and continued to tell the truth, including the truth of the bizarre harassment he suffered, his testimony was discredited. He has been fighting for his credibility for the past 21 months. These efforts he has undertaken to establish his credibility include, inter alia:

(1) Undergoing a polygraph examination;

(2) Undergoing an extensive psychiatric examination including psychological testing;

(3) Giving a sworn interview;

(4) Obtaining sworn Affidavits of other witnesses;

(5) Assembling
and publishing these documents (and photographs of two of the men who harassed him) along with a detailed description of the harassment he suffered in a 147-page Report;

(6) Avoiding affiliation with organizations known to be opposed to the Clinton administration;

(7) Avoiding obtaining funding from conservative organizations in order to avoid any appearance of political motivation or influence; and

(8) Filing his Complaint under seal of Court on October 24, 1996, because press reports of his claims on the eve of the presidential election would further undermine his credibility by the appearance of political motivation or influence.

In his opposition to defendants’ pending summary judgment motion, Mr. Knowlton proffers 118 exhibits in support of his claim of an overall conspiracy, 100 of which are part of the publicly available record in the Foster case. These exhibits appear under headings in that filing which, when viewed cumulatively, fairly raise a strong inference that FBI agents obstructed justice prior to and during the time that the FBI investigated under regulatory Independent Counsel Robert Fiske.

As more of the records of the Foster death investigations are declassified and analyzed by concerned citizens, Mr. Knowlton’s position that the intimidation he suffered were overt acts in furtherance of an overall FBI conspiracy to obstruct justice will slowly gain more acceptance. For example, just this week, counsel was provided with a copy of the Report of Investigation by Medical Examiner, signed on July 20, 1993, by Dr. Donald Haut, the only MD to view Mr. Foster’s body in situ at Fort Marcy Park. This report (a copy of which attached hereto), found at the National Archives on July 17, 1997, was not part of the Senate Hearings Volumes made public in
January of 1995 although it was found in a box indicating that it had been so released. The following is an excerpt of the entry appearing on that Medical Examiner’s Report under the heading NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING DEATH: “… gunshot wound mouth to neck …”

This reported “mouth to neck” circumstance surrounding Mr. Foster’s death explains:

(1) Paramedic Richard Arthur’s sworn testimony: “What I saw is what I saw…. and I saw a small—what appeared to be a small gunshot wound here near the jawline. Fine, whether the coroner’s report says that or not, fine. I know what I saw.”

(2) [Redacted]

(3) Why many of the crime scene Polaroid photographs mysteriously vanished;

(4) Why the FBI falsely reported all 35 millimeter photographs were “underexposed” and that despite attempts by the FBI laboratory these photographs “were of limited value;”

(5) Press reports that Miguel Rodriquez resigned from his position with the OIC after he “insisted on conducting a painstaking review of the case [but was] met with stiff opposition from FBI agents assigned to Starr’s probe”—after he had the original Polaroid photographs “enhanced by a specialized lab outside the FBI”;

(6) A press report that a “photograph … reveals that Foster suffered trauma to the right side of his neck, just below the jawline … it has the appearance of a small caliber gunshot wound … a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr … has shown it to individuals ‘off the record’… this
photo was never presented to the panel of four pathologists brought in by the Fiske investigation …”

(7) A press report that “Joe Purvis … said last March that he was told by a staff member of Ruebel’s Funeral Home in Little Rock that Foster had … an exit wound ‘the size of a dime’ close to the neck at the hairline”; and

(8) Why investigators stated that no autopsy X-rays were taken while inexplicably failing to investigate significant evidence the X-rays were in fact taken but mysteriously vanished.

The Medical Examiner’s report that there was a gunshot exit wound in Mr. Foster’s neck is inconsistent with the official conclusion that this neck wound “did not exist,” and is but one of numerous records in this matter which refute the official conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Patrick Knowlton reported to authorities what he had seen at Fort Marcy Park shortly before the official discovery of Mr. Foster’s body. Mr. Knowlton complied with FBI agent Larry Monroe’s request that he not report his observations to the press.

After Mr. Knowlton learned from a reporter, some 27 months after Mr. Foster’s death, that agent Monroe had falsified his account, his account along with contradictory information from his FBI interview reports were reported in a London newspaper. That newspaper account was the catalyst for Mr. Knowlton’s being:

(1) Targeted by an orchestrated campaign of harassment and intimidation;

(2) Treated with utmost disrespect during his grand jury appearance;

(3)
Attacked as a delusional conspiracy theorist;

(4) Wrongfully attacked as being a homosexual; and

(5) Attacked as an outright liar.

Mr. Knowlton did nothing to deserve this outrageous treatment at the hands of the FBI and the OIC. He did nothing to deserve being yanked into this FBI debacle, having his life turned upside down, and having to endure this fight for his reputation. Patrick Knowlton’s only “crime” was reporting to the authorities what he had seen at Fort Marcy Park—consistent with his understanding of his duties as a good citizen.