Dissenting Memo Surfaces
from Starr Team
Chief investigator of Vince Foster death smells a rat
To comment on this article
go to BÕManÕs Revolt
ItÕs an important historical document. The team assembled by Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr to investigate the July 20, 1993, death of Deputy White
House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., had been on the job for almost three
months by November of 1994. They
had looked at the evidence gathered by the FBI, the U.S. Park Police, and special
prosecutor Robert Fiske. And the
leader of the investigative team, Miguel Rodriguez, an assistant U.S. attorney
from Sacramento, California, had discovered quite a large number of loose ends.
Before we continue further, an observation on
the likely reaction to the revelations in this document is in order. They will be ignored. They thoroughly undermine the official
lie that Foster committed suicide out of depression, and such notions are not to be entertained. Anyone laboring under the misconception
that our nationÕs writers of books on history and public policy are interested
primarily in the truth needs to readjust his thinking. We have the evidence to the
contrary. We are confident in our
prediction because that has been the reaction to previous such
disclosures. In January of 1995, at
the end of his rope, Rodriguez would tender his resignation. We posted his resignation letter here in 2009, and it has been ignored. It has been like a tree falling in the
woods with no one to hear it. The Wikipedia page on Foster repeats all the official lies
and freezes out such things as this resignation letter using the excuse that by
its rules only what has been published by acceptable media, that is, mainstream
newspapers, magazines, books, or web sites can be used as a source.
A dozen years before, in September of 1997, over
the strenuous objections of Starr himself, the three-judge panel that appointed
him ordered that he include in his official report on FosterÕs death, issued a
month later, the letter of the dissident
witness,
Patrick Knowlton, whose testimony had been falsified by the FBI. That letter also completely contradicts
and undermines the suicide conclusion.
As Hugh Turley revealed in the small local monthly, the Hyattsville
Life and Times, the judges were
motivated by the fear that if the letter were not appended, they ran the risk
of "be[ing]
charged as conspirators in the cover-up."
The judges might have gotten themselves off the
hook with their actions, but Starr and the remainder of his team, that is, less
Rodriguez, remained on it along with the entire American opinion molding
establishment. They completely blacked
out the news of the Knowlton letter, attached as an appendix. The
Washington Post, which was a very active party to the cover-up from the
very first day, went so far as to post on its web site StarrÕs Report, but it carefully left
off the appendix.
In denial of the Orwellian notion that underlies
the efforts of the press, that is, that Òignorance is strength,Ó and with the
confidence expressed by Emile Zola in the Dreyfus Affair that truth will
ultimately prevail, we feel obligated to make public Miguel RodriguezÕs 30-page memorandum memorializing his
extremely frustrating November meeting with
key members of the Starr team. He
begins:
Present for this meeting were Mark Tuohey, Brett Kavanaugh, Jeff
Greene, and me.
The meeting was convened to discuss my review of the Foster death materials.
I began by citing my earlier memorandum
indicating independent review observations, in summary. I explained that (1) the Fiske counsel
report conclusions are not fully supported by the existing record and that the
report contains misstatements and supposed facts that are inconsistent with the
record; (2) there is not ÒoverwhelmingÓ evidence in the existing record to
support voluntary discharge of the weapon in suicide or to support that VF was
alone the afternoon of his death; and (3) there is not ÒoverwhelmingÓ evidence
to support the reportÕs conclusions regarding motivation for suicide. Before
any discussion, Tuohey disagreed.
We have added the emphasis.
Tuohey is the politically
well-connected Washington lawyer who was between Starr and Rodriguez on the staff
of the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC). Starr has been painted as a partisan
Republican out to get the Clintons, but the man he chose as his right-hand man
could hardly have been a more loyal Democratic Party operative. Most recently Tuohey
is said to be the front-runner as President ObamaÕs nominee for Ambassador to Ireland. He is also married into the powerful
Daley family of Chicago, partisan Democrats all.
Immediately below Rodriguez in the initial OIC
pecking order was the ambitious 29-year-old Yalie, Kavanaugh. When Rodriguez resigned, it was Kavanuagh who replaced him as lead investigator and who got
to question the dissenting witness Knowlton when he was called before a grand
jury. One can be certain that
Rodriguez would have performed somewhat differently from Kavanaugh
in that role. Here is how Richard
Poe describes it in HillaryÕs Secret War:
Perhaps the
most telling indication of Starr's attitude toward Knowlton is the humiliating
cross-examination to which this brave man was subjected before the grand
jury. Knowlton says that he was "treated like a suspect."
Prosecutor Brett Kavanaugh appeared to be trying to
imply that Knowlton was a homosexual who was cruising Fort Marcy Park for
sex. Regarding the suspicious Hispanic-looking man he had seen guarding
the park entrance, Kavanaugh asked, Did he "pass you a note?" Did he "touch
your genitals?"
Knowlton flew into a rage at Kavanaugh's
insinuations. [Ambrose] Evans-Pritchard writes that several
African American jurors burst into laughter at the spectacle, rocking
"back and forth as if they were at a Baptist revival meeting. Kavanaugh was unable to reassert his authority. The
grand jury was laughing at him. The proceedings were out of
control."
When told of
what transpired, Rodriguez responded, ÒWho asked him if he touched his genitals? (Kavanaugh) How could Brett stoop that low? I
can't believe Brett did that.Ó
Though decent people might be offended by the performance of the
less-principled young understudy, the powers that be obviously were not. When he took office in 2001 George W.
Bush gave him a job in the same Office of the White House Counsel where Foster
had worked, and then successfully nominated him to be a federal judge. Rodriguez, in his later telephone conversation with Reed Irvine of
Accuracy in Media* had been prescient:
The games are being played with people, you know, like, like Tuohey and, and – the young aspiring people, you
know, who I used to work with back in that office – who will, will say
and do what they have to, to move up the ladder.
He wasnÕt so young, but another member of the Starr team, John Bates, also moved up the ladder.
President Bush also made him a federal judge.
The fourth man at the meeting, Jeff Greene, is probably the least
known. He was a longtime homicide
detective for the Washington, DC police.
He has since died. FosterÕs
body had been found outside his jurisdiction, across the Potomac River in
Virginia and in a federal park. If
he was chosen for his sharp investigative skills, they were nowhere in evidence
in the product that the OIC turned out.
It is altogether possible that all along Greene, while officially
working for DC homicide, was an agent of one of our clandestine organizations
like the CIA or the FBI, and was the real heavyweight at the meeting, put in
place to make sure that no one got too far out of line. An observation later made by Rodriguez about the various people at Fort Marcy Park might
apply to Greene, as well:
God! I'm just brimming over, I'm bubbling over.
And I'm angry that I cannot respond. I am angry myself. Because there is much to be said. Let me suggest to
you, investigate, be investigative reporters. Investigate these people
too. What background did they have? Wouldn't it be surprising
if, these people were special liaisons in a prior life to, in some capacity. And were there any other supervisor people
out there? And, and what were the backgrounds of some of those
police that were out there? There's a whole host of fertile ground out
there. And have you really identified all the main players out there at
the park police?
It is very clear what motivated Rodriguez to write this 30-page
memorandum to ÒFile.Ó It is the
same as what motivated Judge John Butzner when he
argued with his two colleagues for inclusion of KnowltonÕs letter with the
Starr report. He could see already
that a cover-up was taking place.
He probably had already figured out that he was powerless to stop it,
but he wanted the official record to show that he had tried. (Partially covering her behind at the
same time was RodriguezÕs assistant, paralegal Lucia Rambusch. Her initials can be seen at the bottom
of every page along with those of Rodriguez.)
To summarize all the anomalies in the investigations of the Park Police
and the Fiske team that Rodriguez had discovered would require almost as many
words as the memorandum itself. His
core suspicion is probably best captured in footnote 17 at the bottom of page
22 as he wrestles with the problem of disappearing or spoiled early photographs
of the body, surviving photographs that contradict other surviving photographs,
and witness testimony from county emergency workers that contradicts the
testimony of the police and also contradicts what the later photographs
show. All the names are those of
U.S. Park Police officers who were on the scene at Fort Marcy Park where
FosterÕs body was discovered:
[Robert] Edwards apparently showed these photos to [Christine] Hodakievic, plus EdwardsÕ own photos. Later, I suggested, after the corpse was
staged with the revolver brought by [Cheryl] Braun, [Pete] Simonello
and [John] Rolla. [sic, incomplete sentence] New
photos were taken and thus [Franz] FerstlÕs were
never produced to the OIC. This
explained the different arm/body distance, gun/hand postions,
HodakievicÕs problems with the photos, FerstlÕs
missing photos and EMT problems with the photos (and their observations
of a different gun).
In short, Rodriguez was well on his way to discovering what later research has established almost conclusively, that the famous photo we have seen of FosterÕs dead hand clutching a
black revolver with his thumb on the trigger was staged with a gun that was
brought to the scene after the body was discovered. Furthermore, he was pretty sure that
Foster had been shot in the neck, just below the jaw line, and with a different
weapon. Any honest reader of the
full memorandum can see that if any evidence is Òoverwhelming,Ó it points to
FosterÕs murder.
What Rodriguez DidnÕt Know
At the time of his meeting, Rodriguez actually had much stronger
evidence available than he realized that Foster did not kill himself. On page 14 he writes, ÒW2 (witness 2,
Patrick Knowlton) saw VFÕs car parked where it was later found—at a front
(approximately 4th) parking space as one enters the lotÉ.W2
clearly identified VFÕs car.Ó
Then on page 16 we have, ÒUpon returning to the parking area, W5
(Òconfidential witness,Ó later identified as Dale Kyle) looked into VFÕs
vehicle, the brown Honda, and observed VFÕs coat, briefcase, and tie.Ó
The problem here is that FosterÕs Honda (actually his daughterÕs car),
was not brown, it was gray.
Apparently, Rodriguez had not seen the actual car but had relied upon
the poor quality photographs taken by the Park Police and what would seem to
have been the authoritative interview of Knowlton by the FBI. Evans-Pritchard had not yet ferreted out
Knowlton and shown him the FBI 302 (transcription of the interview). Knowlton had, in fact, been adamant that
the car he saw was an older model reddish-brown Honda Accord with Arkansas license
plates than the later model Accord with Arkansas plates whose photograph was
shown to him. Agents Larry Monroe
and William Columbell had resolved the problem by
falsifying his testimony, a fact that Rodriguez did not yet know.
It is well established that Foster was lying dead in the back of the
park at the time that Knowlton stopped by.
If that was not FosterÕs car that he saw then someone else had driven
Foster to the park.
The other inadvertent error occurs on page 5. In a schematic accounting for FosterÕs
actions the last days of his life Rodriguez states for July 20, FosterÕs last
day, Ò No one admits to know what work related tasks VF did in morning or what
he was to do in afternoon.Ó
That might well have been true when Rodriguez wrote his memo in December
of 1994. However, we have
discovered in the National Archives an OIC interview of White House intern Kyle Chadwick conducted by FBI agent Russell Bransford on June 29, 1995 that updates that
statement. From the interview we
learn that Chadwick and Foster had missed calls to one another concerning a
Florida statute relating to tort reform.
They connected shortly after Chadwick discovered that Foster had
returned his call at 12:40 pm.
Foster then told Chadwick by phone that he was pleased with the
requested excerpt that Chadwick had copied, but would now like to see a copy of
the entire statute.
Had Rodriguez known of this exchange his argument that Foster was hardly
in a suicidal frame of mind a short time before his death would have been
strengthened. He was going about
his work as usual and assigning tasks that he would soon need to follow up on.
Miguel Rodriguez as Hamlet?
It didnÕt take Rodriguez very long to discover that something was,
indeed, very rotten in the state of the Office of the Independent Counsel. One might argue that his reaction to the
discovery was well nigh heroic, going well beyond that of the Prince of Denmark
in ShakespeareÕs play. The
memorandum we see here on display is some evidence of it, but his telephone
conversations with Reed Irvine is much greater evidence. He really did try to blow the whistle on
the cover-up. What he had found,
though, is that the rottenness extended well beyond the OIC, the Clinton
administration, or even the federal government. The would-be whistle-blower had
discovered that there was no one to blow the whistle to. As he told Irvine:
I have talked to a number of people that – you know, from Time
Magazine, Newsweek, Nightline, the New York Times, Boston Globe,
the Atlanta whatever, um, you know there have been well over a hundred, and
this – this matter is so sealed tight um, and, the reporters are all
genuinely interested but the ah, the ah, um, – reporters are genuinely
interested but the ah – when they start to get excited and they've got a
story and they're ready to go, the editors – and they – I've gotten
calls back, I've gotten calls back from all kinds of magazines worldwide, what
the hell's wrong, why can't, you know, you were telling me that you, you didn't
think this would go anywhere and sure enough I wrote the stories.
They went to all the trouble of writing, and then it got killed. Again,
I, I, you know, I spent almost eleven hours with, with [Stephen] Labaton, or six hours with Labaton,
and ah, you know, I know the guy knows, um, that there's a lot more, um, ah
– I know, I know the New York
Times has it – knows, and just won't ah, ah, I know that they
won't do anything about it and I do know that, that many people have called me
back. Reporters that I've spent a lot of time with called me back and said the
editors won't allow it to go to press. The accepted media here has always had,
ah, a certain take on all of this. And there's been
story lines from the get-go.
Balked at every turn, he submitted his resignation, went back to his
U.S. attorneyÕs job in Sacramento, and dummied up from then on. He apparently did what he could to see
justice done when he was on the OIC staff, but when it comes to paying any
major price for his efforts, he was certainly no Bradley Manning.
But the comparison with Manning does not end there. Listen carefully to RodriguezÕs voice as he talked to Irvine on the phone. It is a clue to a strange future twist
in his personal life that would suggest that the famous line, ÒTo be or not to
be,Ó is even more appropriate for Rodriguez than for Hamlet. Sometime before April of 2006, as
reported by Greg Szymanski in the Arctic Beacon, Miguel Rodriguez had become Michelle Rodriguez.
*IrvineÕs voice is edited out of the exchange. Irvine recorded all his telephone
conversations at his office. After
his death, we revealed that Irvine had been the source of the Rodriguez
tapes.
David Martin
September 25, 2013
Home Page Column Column 5 Archive Contact