Second Amended Complaint
Patrick Knowlton vs. Robert Edwards
October 1998
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PATRICK JAMES KNOWLTON, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT EDWARDS, Sergeant, retired, United States Park Police, Park Police, Second District, and JAMES C. BEYER, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, and, JOHN DOE PATHOLOGIST, Assistant to Deputy Chief Medical Examiner , and ROBERT F. BRYANT, Deputy Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and LAWRENCE MONROE, Special Agent, retired, and, SCOTT JEFFREY BICKETT, and JOHN DOE FBI LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, and RUSSEL T. BRANSFORD, Special Agent, and, AYMAN ALOURI, and ABDEL SALEM ALOURI, and JOHN DOE No. 1, through JOHN DOE No. 24, inclusive, Defendants.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (10/98)
(Conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), Obstructing justice; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Assault; Battery; Civil Conspiracy)
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Patrick James Knowlton, by and through counsel, and respectfully states:
Jurisdiction
1. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986, as claims arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(1) and (a)(2). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff's other claims for relief as state law claims so related to Plaintiff's claim in the action within the original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.
Summary of case
2. This case arises from an overall conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with federal investigations into the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster.
3. Upon learning that Mr. Foster's body was found in Fort Marcy Park, Virginia, Plaintiff reported to authorities what he had seen in the park approximately 70 minutes before the discovery of Mr. Foster's body.
4. In April and May, 1994, Defendant Monroe, then an FBI agent detailed to the Office of regulatory Independent Counsel Robert Fiske, interviewed Plaintiff. Plaintiff repeatedly told Monroe that the Arkansas Honda he saw in the Fort Marcy lot, found parked in the same space as Mr. Foster's was later found, was older than Mr. Foster's 1989 Honda. And the two car color panels that Plaintiff identified to Monroe as being the same color as the car he had seen at the park correspond only to Hondas and only for the year models 1983 and 1984. Notwithstanding these facts, Monroe falsified Plaintiff's account and misreported that Plaintiff identified the car he saw as a "1988 to 1990" year-model, which coincided with Mr. Foster's 1989 car. Because Mr. Foster was dead by the time Plaintiff visited Fort Marcy Park, Plaintiff's information refutes the official conclusion that Mr. Foster drove his car there.
5. Shortly after Plaintiff learned from a reporter that Defendant Monroe had falsified his account, Plaintiff's account of what he had witnessed at Fort Marcy and contradictory information from his FBI interview reports was published in the October 22, 1995 edition of the London Sunday Telegraph newspaper.
6. On the same day that the Telegraph reached American newsstands, October 24, the Office of Independent Counsel, In re: Madison Guarantee Savings & Loan, prepared a subpoena for Plaintiff to testify before the Whitewater grand jury in this Court.
7. Two days after that subpoena was prepared, Defendant FBI Agent Russell Bransford served it. At the time of the service of that subpoena, Bransford was detailed to Mr. Starr's Washington, DC, Office. Bransford had been detailed to the Fiske probe.
8. Beginning the same day that Bransford served Plaintiff the secret grand jury subpoena, at least 24 Defendants and Bransford harassed and intimidated Plaintiff before he appeared to testify before the grand jury, and one Defendant harassed Plaintiff after he testified:
(1) Eleven or more Defendants on October 26, 1995;
(2) Twelve or more Defendants on October 27, 1995;
(3) Two or more Defendants on October 28, 1995;
(4) Defendant FBI Agent Bransford on October 30, 1995; and
(5) One Defendant on November 2, 1995.
9. Most of these incidents happened in a rapid and coordinated fashion, so that before one man departed, another was approaching. The objects of the harassment were twofold. First, to intimidate and warn Plaintiff in connection with his grand jury testimony and second, to destabilize Plaintiff and discredit his testimony before the grand jury. This technique of subjecting a witness to an overwhelming campaign of non-verbal harassment to intimidate and warn, or alternatively to destabilize and discredit the witness, is known to federal intelligence and investigative agencies.
10. Wrongful acts alleged herein were violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), which prohibits, inter alia, attempts to deter witnesses by intimidation or threat from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully to matters pending before federal courts. Plaintiff's cause also alleges assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.
11. Overt acts directed at Plaintiff were part of a subsidiary conspiracy. Because that subsidiary conspiracy was the reasonably foreseeable, necessary or natural consequence of the overall conspiracy to hide the facts of Mr. Foster's death, each member of that overall conspiracy is liable for Plaintiff's damages simply by virtue of his being a conspirator.
12. The initial 16-day death investigation was a joint FBI/Park Police investigation. The investigation under the auspices of regulatory Independent Counsel Robert Fiske was an FBI investigation. No Congressional Committee has ever investigated Mr. Foster's death. Therefore, before Mr. Starr was appointed to head the statutory Office of Independent Counsel in August of 1994, the FBI conducted all official investigations into the case, with the sole exception of the initial investigation, which was conducted with significant FBI participation. Mr. Starr's office also used FBI agents and the FBI laboratory in conducting its investigation.
Parties
13. Plaintiff Patrick James Knowlton is an individual presently residing at 2424 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. At the time of Mr. Foster's death in July of 1993, and when Plaintiff was contacted and interviewed by Defendant Monroe in April and May of 1994, Plaintiff resided in Etlan, Virginia.
14. Defendant Robert Edwards (hereinafter "EDWARDS") was at all times material hereto an individual employed by the United States Park Police, holding the position of Sergeant, assigned to the Second District station, 7300 MacArthur Boulevard, Glen Echo, Maryland. EDWARDS has since retired. EDWARDS' residence address is presently unknown to Plaintiff, but it is believed to be in the state of Georgia.
15. Defendant James C. Beyer (hereinafter "BEYER") is and was at all times material hereto an individual employed as Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, Northern Virginia District, 9787 Braddock Road, Suite 100, Fairfax, Virginia, and in that capacity performed the July 21st, 1993 autopsy on Mr. Foster.
16. Defendant John Doe Pathologist (hereinafter "PATHOLOGIST") assisted Defendant BEYER in the performance of the autopsy on Mr. Foster. BEYER refused to identify PATHOLOGIST to the Park Police at the autopsy and there is no public record of the PATHOLOGIST's identity. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend his Complaint by inserting his true name in place of the fictitious name PATHOLOGIST when the same has been ascertained.
17. Defendant Robert F. Bryant (hereinafter "BRYANT") is and was at all times material hereto an individual employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). During the times alleged hereinafter that BRYANT committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, BRYANT served as the Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI's Washington, DC, Metropolitan Field Office. BRYANT currently holds the position of Deputy Director of the FBI, and his business address is the J. Edgar Hoover Building, 10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
18. Defendant Scott Jeffrey Bickett (hereinafter "BICKETT") is an individual whose residence address is presently unknown to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that BICKETT is and was at all times material hereto an individual employed by the Department of Defense, holding an "Active SCI" security clearance, which stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information, a top U.S. Government security clearance. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff also avers that BICKETT has been briefed at FBI headquarters, has served at the direction of FBI personnel, and was so serving when BICKETT committed the acts hereinafter complained of.
19. Defendant Lawrence Monroe (hereinafter "MONROE") is an individual who resides at 8128 Blandsford Drive, Manassas, Virginia. When MONROE committed the overt acts recited below, he was employed by the FBI as a special agent, and was detailed to the office of regulatory Independent Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.
20. The captioned Defendant referred to as John Doe FBI Laboratory Technician is one or more laboratory technicians employed by the FBI's forensic laboratories, located in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, 10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Because Plaintiff does not yet know whether all the FBI laboratory reports quoted below were authored by the same individual, nor his or their identities, the author or authors of these laboratory reports are hereinafter referred to in the singular as "FBI LAB." Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend his Complaint by substituting his or their true names instead of the fictitious name FBI LAB when the same has been ascertained.
21. Defendant FBI Agent Russell T. Bransford (hereinafter "BRANSFORD") is an individual who is currently and was at all times material hereto employed by the FBI as a special agent. BRANSFORD's business address is the FBI's Washington, DC Metropolitan field office, 1900 Half Street, SW, Washington, DC. BRANSFORD had been detailed to Mr. Fiske's office of regulatory Independent Counsel and, upon Mr. Starr's appointment in August of 1994 to serve as statutory Independent Counsel and the simultaneous dissolution of the office of the regulatory Independent Counsel's office, Mr. Starr's office retained BRANSFORD.
22. Defendant Ayman Alouri (hereinafter "AYMAN ALOURI") is an individual whose residence address is 2300 Pimmit Drive, Apartment 704 West, Falls Church, Virginia. AYMAN ALOURI was born in the country of Jordan and is a naturalized citizen of the United States.
23. Defendant Abdel Salem Alouri (hereinafter "ABDEL ALOURI") is an individual whose last known residence address is 5800 Quantrell Avenue, Apartment 1511, Alexandria, Virginia. ABDEL ALOURI was born in the country of Jordan. His citizenship is unknown to Plaintiff.
24. Defendant John Doe No. 1 (hereinafter "ONE"), through Defendant John Doe No. 24 (hereinafter "TWENTY-FOUR"), inclusive, are all male individuals, sued herein under fictitious names, their names and capacities being unknown to Plaintiff who may seek leave of this Court to amend his Complaint by inserting their true names and capacities in the place and stead of the fictitious names.
25. Some of the conspirators joined the conspiracy at different times by pursuit of the common goal or overall conspiratorial objective, the particulars of which are not presently known to Plaintiff. As all conspirators are not presently known, Plaintiff will, should it become appropriate, seek leave to amend this Complaint to name other Defendants and to plead the particulars of their functions in pursuing the overall or subsidiary conspiracy.
Facts
26. On July 20th, 1993, between the time of 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., Vincent Foster died of a small-caliber gunshot wound to his head, at the hand of another. The bullet entered his head from the upper portion of the right side of his neck, under the jaw line, passed upward through the body of the tongue, pierced his brain and struck the skull approximately three inches below the top of the head, fracturing it. The bullet remained in his head. Blood drained from the entrance wound in the neck onto his right collar and shoulder and was absorbed down onto his right shirtsleeve. Blood also accumulated in his mouth.
27. Also on July 20th, 1993, Plaintiff was driving on the George Washington Memorial Parkway. In heavy traffic and facing over a two-hour commute, Plaintiff pulled into Fort Marcy Park at 4:30 p.m. to relieve himself. Plaintiff parked close to the main footpath entrance into the park, between the only two cars in the small parking lot, which were parked just four spaces apart.
28. To Plaintiff's left was parked an unoccupied mid-1980s rust-brown four-door Honda sedan with Arkansas tags (closest to the footpath entrance), and on his right was a late model metallic blue-gray sedan, backed into its parking space. A man was seated in the driver's seat of the blue-gray sedan. Immediately after Plaintiff parked, the man lowered the passenger side electric window and stared at him, menacingly, which unnerved Plaintiff as he exited his car.
29. As he started from his car toward the footpath, Plaintiff heard the blue-gray sedan's door open. Apprehensive, Plaintiff walked to the sign bordering the footpath entrance to the park and feigned to read its historical information while nonchalantly glancing to his right to see if the man was approaching. He saw the man leaning on the roof of the driver's side of his blue-gray sedan, watching him intently. Plaintiff then cautiously proceeded 75 feet down the footpath's left fork to the first large tree, in the opposite direction from which Mr. Foster's body was later recovered.
30. As he relieved himself, Plaintiff heard the man close his car door. Because the foliage was dense, he could not see whether the man was approaching. As Plaintiff walked back to the parking lot with a heightened sense of awareness, he scanned the lot but did not see the man. Plaintiff surmised that the man had either gotten back in his car or perhaps could even be crouching between the brown Honda and Plaintiff's car.
31. In order to maintain his distance from the space between the Honda and his own car until he learned the man's whereabouts, Plaintiff walked directly toward the driver's side door of the Honda, and then around the back of it. As Plaintiff reached the driver's side door of the brown Honda, he looked through the window. He also looked into the back seat as he walked the length of that car. He saw a dark-colored suit jacket draped over the driver's seat, a briefcase on the front passenger's seat, and two bottles of wine cooler on the back seat. As he reached the back of the Honda, Plaintiff was relieved to see that the man had returned to his own vehicle. The man was still staring fixedly at him.
Defendant Edwards
32. After the discovery of Vincent Foster's body, Defendant U.S. Park Police Sergeant Robert EDWARDS, who was the supervisor for the area that included Fort Marcy Park, responded to the park. EDWARDS was the third U.S. Park Police personnel to arrive at the body site, which was in a secluded area of the park and not observable from the direction of the park's parking lot. By the time EDWARDS had arrived at the body site at approximately 6:28 p.m., the six Fairfax County Fire & Rescue personnel had left the body site.
33. EDWARDS did not compose any report. Neither the FBI nor Park Police investigators interviewed him during the course of the first 16-day investigation, nor did the FBI interview him during the course of the five-month Fiske probe.
34. As EDWARDS walked from the parking lot towards the body, he walked past U.S. Park Police Officer Kevin Fornshill as Fornshill was walking back to the parking lot, whereupon EDWARDS instructed Fornshill to leave the park.
35. When EDWARDS arrived at the body site, only U.S. Park Police Officer Franz Ferstl was present.
36. Upon EDWARDS' arrival at the body site, EDWARDS took possession of the approximately seven Polaroid photographs that U.S. Park Police Officer Franz Ferstl had taken.
37. EDWARDS then ordered Ferstl to return to the parking lot.
38. Alone at the body site, and in possession of the only photographic evidence that would have exposed his tampering with the crime scene, EDWARDS:
(1) Turned Mr. Foster's head to the right, whereupon blood drained laterally from his mouth, toward the small caliber bullet wound in Mr. Foster's neck, and down onto his right shoulder; and
(2) Repositioned the head in the "straight up" position, leaving a contact stain caused by the face having touched the bloody right shoulder of the shirt.
39. EDWARDS' purpose in causing blood to spill toward the small caliber bullet wound in Mr. Foster's neck and down onto his right shoulder and collar was twofold:
(1) To obscure and camouflage the existence of the bullet wound in Mr. Foster's neck; and
(2) To make it appear that the blood on Mr. Foster's right side collar and right shoulder, which had in fact drained from the neck wound, had emanated from his mouth.
40. EDWARDS absconded with the Polaroid photographs that U.S. Park Police Evidence Technician Franz Ferstl had taken.
41. The forgoing actions of EDWARDS were made with specific intent to obstruct justice.
Defendants Beyer & Pathologist
42. Defendant Deputy Chief Medical Examiner BEYER rescheduled the autopsy from its initial scheduled time of 7:00 a.m., Thursday, July 22nd, to Wednesday, July 21, at 10:00 a.m. Because the timetable for the performance of the autopsy was moved up to occur just 16 hours after the body's discovery, Park Police Investigators assigned to the case, Cheryl Braun and John Rolla, who had inspected the body at Fort Marcy Park, did not attend because they had worked all night.
43. This failure of police Investigators assigned to the case to attend the autopsy prevented the exchange of information between BEYER and the Investigators during the performance of the autopsy, and was in violation of the standard operating procedures of both the U.S. Park Police and the Office of the Medical Examiner.
44. On July 21st, 1993, Defendant BEYER and Defendant PATHOLOGIST performed the autopsy on Mr. Foster. These Defendants began performing the autopsy well before its rescheduled time of 10:00 a.m., which was when Park Police personnel arrived to witness the autopsy. These Defendants' performance of a significant portion of the autopsy, without the presence of police witnesses, was in violation of the requirements of the Medical Examiner's Office and of the U.S. Park Police.
45. Before the rescheduled time of the arrival of Park Police personnel to witness the autopsy, Defendants BEYER and PATHOLOGIST removed Mr. Foster's clothing, scrubbed the body and x-rayed the head. And, before Sergeant Robert Rule, Detective James Morrissette and Identification Technicians Wayne Johnson and S.E. Hill arrived to witness the autopsy, BEYER and PATHOLOGIST removed Mr. Foster's tongue and portions of his soft palate.
46. The reason that BEYER and PATHOLOGIST removed portions of Mr. Foster's soft palate and tongue before the police autopsy witnesses arrived was to further the conspiracy by concealing:
(1) The fact that there was no entrance wound in the soft palate;
(2) To conceal the absence of gunshot residue on the soft palate; and
(3) To conceal the defect in the tongue which was caused when the bullet entered under the jaw line.
47. BEYER conducted still photography of Mr. Foster's body during the course of the autopsy, using both 35-mm and Polaroid cameras, but avoided any photography of the soft palate. BEYER's purpose in failing to photograph the soft palate was to obscure the absence of a bullet wound in, and gunshot residue on, the soft palate.
48. Upon the arrival of U.S. Park Police to witness that portion of the autopsy which was still left to do, Park Police Sergeant Robert Rule asked BEYER the PATHOLOGIST's name. BEYER failed and refused to identify PATHOLOGIST, and PATHOLOGIST failed to identify himself.
49. Overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy committed by BEYER in the preparation of his July 28, 1993 Report of Autopsy include fabricating the existence of:
(1) A perforating gunshot wound;
(2) An entrance wound in posterior oropharnyx;
(3) Powder debris on the soft palate; and
(4) An exit wound in the back of the head.
50. On March 31, 1994, BEYER was interviewed in connection with the Fiske probe's investigation into Mr. Foster's death by a Dr. Norman, Charles J. Stahl, M.D. and James L. Luke, M.D. During the course of that interview, BEYER committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy by falsely reporting to these men:
(1) That the autopsy commenced at approximately 10:00 a.m.;
(2) The existence of an entrance wound at the central midline soft palate, 7 1/2 inches below the top of the head;
(3) The existence of "abundant gunpowder residue" on the soft palate;
(4) The existence of an inch by inch-and-a-quarter exit wound three inches below the top of the head;
(5) The absence of identifiable food material in the stomach; and
(6) The absence of x-rays.
51. On July 13, 1994, BEYER testified on deposition, as follows:
Q. Was anyone present with you when you did the autopsy?
A. Park Police were present.
* * *
Q. What was your conclusion about the cause of death in this case?
A. Perforating gunshot to the head with entrance in the mouth, exiting the head.
Q. What was the path of the bullet?
A. Entered through the mouth, through the posterior pharnyx, went backward -- backward and upward with exit from the back of the head.
* * *
Q. Other than these two wounds, did you see any other wounds to the body?
A. None.
Q. Did you see any gunpowder burns on the body?
A. Tissue taken from the posterior oral pharynx or the back of the mouth contained powdered debris.
* * *
Q. Were any X-rays taken?
A. I had anticipated taking it, but our machine was not operating properly... I did the autopsy without an x-ray.
* * *
Q. Did you make any findings about position of the weapon?
A. No, except that the weapon undoubtedly had the muzzle in the mouth at the time of discharge.
* * *
A. That's [presence of police] a requirement of my office. Any time you have a gunshot wound and particularly one that might be of a suspicious character, the police have to be present during the autopsy.
* * *
Q. Doctor, you mentioned that the X-ray machine wasn't working during this particular autopsy. Is there an x-ray machine in the room where autopsies are performed?
A. There's one available in the autopsy suite. We had a new machine. It had not been operating properly...
* * *
A. I looked at it [clothing], then gave it over to the police for their examination.
* * *
A. They [pathology panel] were provided with a copy of the autopsy, a copy of the microscopic slides and a copy of the photographs.
52. Overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy committed by BEYER during the course of the July 13, 1994 deposition include falsely testifying that:
(1) The police witnessed the autopsy and withholding that PATHOLOGIST was present during the autopsy;
(2) There was a perforating gunshot to the head with an entrance wound through the posterior pharnyx and an exit wound in the back of the head;
(3) There were no other wounds to the body;
(4) Tissue taken from the posterior pharnyx contained powder debris;
(5) The x-ray machine was not functioning properly and therefore no x-rays were taken;
(6) The muzzle of the weapon had been in the mouth at the time of discharge; and
(7) The clothing was given to the police upon its removal from the body.
53. On July 29, 1994, Defendant BEYER testified before the United States Senate Banking Committee:
THE CHAIRMAN. Now, can you indicate how it was you were able to rule out any other cause of death and why you reached that conclusion, in terms of a short summary.
Dr. BEYER. Mr. Foster had a perforating gunshot wound to the head with entrance in the mouth, exit in the back of the head. There was abundant powder debris in the mouth at the entrance site. Therefore, I concluded that this was essentially a contact perforating gunshot wound consistent with being self-inflicted.
* * *
The CHAIRMAN. You have given us the central reason I take it that you ascribe to why you concluded, or one of the main reasons you concluded this was a suicide. How were you able to rule out any possibility of an alternative cause of death?
Dr. BEYER. There was no other evidence or trauma to the body, and with the entrance wound located in the mouth the way it was, with abundant power debris, no trauma to the jaws, no trauma to the teeth, it would be my conclusion that this was self-inflicted.
* * *
Senator KERRY. Officer Rolla, you were asked earlier about this question of moving up the autopsy. It is agreed that the autopsy was moved up by a day. Is that correct, doctor?
Dr. BEYER. Well, as soon as I heard about the case, I had the body transported over, and we make every effort to do an autopsy within less than 24 hours if possible. Therefore, once I could get the body over, we proceeded with the autopsy.
Senator KERRY. But did you receive a message, doctor, asking you to try to proceed faster than normal?
Dr. BEYER. No, sir.
* * *
Senator KERRY. So irrespective of the timing, you are saying to us that the findings with respect to this autopsy are true and accurate and as you found them to be at the time. Is that correct?
Dr. BEYER. That is correct.
* * *
Senator FAIRCLOTH. All right, I will skip over to Dr. Beyer. Dr. Beyer, did you actually perform the autopsy on Mr. Foster?
Dr. BEYER. Yes, sir.
* * *
Senator FAIRCLOTH. You did it yourself?.
Dr. BEYER. [Nods in the affirmative.]
* * *
Senator FAIRCLOTH. Dr. Beyer, your autopsy report indicates that you took x-rays of Mr. Foster.
Dr. BEYER. I had anticipated taking them, and I had so stated on one of my reports.
Senator FAIRCLOTH. Your autopsy report says you took x-rays of Mr. Foster. Did you?
Dr. BEYER. No, sir.
Senator FAIRCLOTH. Why did you say you did if you didn't?
Dr. BEYER. As I indicated, I made out that report prior to actually performing the autopsy. We'd been having difficulty with our equipment, and we were not getting readable x-rays. Therefore, one was not taken.
Senator FAIRCLOTH. What was wrong with the x-ray machine?
Dr. BEYER. We had a new machine; we had new grids; and we had a new processor. We were having a number of problems.
Senator FAIRCLOTH. Why didn't you call Fairfax Hospital and arrange for a portable x-ray machine to be brought in for your use in such an important occasion?
Dr. BEYER. Because this was a perforating gunshot wound. If it had been a penetrating one, I would have gotten an x-ray of the head.
* * *
Senator FAIRCLOTH. Did you or the Medical Examiner's office have your servicing company come in and fix the x-ray machine?
Dr. BEYER. We were trying to remedy our problems. At that particular time we were not getting readable x-rays.
Senator FAIRCLOTH. When was it repaired?
Dr. BEYER. I have no x-rays in my files between July 6 to the 26. After July 26, 1993, we were getting x-rays.
Senator FAIRCLOTH. You mean for 20 days you ran a coroner's office and did autopsies without an x-ray machine?
Dr. BEYER. We don't take x-rays on very many cases. Primarily only gunshot cases.
Senator FAIRCLOTH. The Park Police officers who were present at the autopsy said you told them not only was an x-ray taken, you also told them the results of the x-ray. How do you account for the contradiction?
Dr. BEYER. I have no explanation because I did not take an x-ray.
Senator FAIRCLOTH. How did you tell the Park Police the results of an x-ray that you didn't take?
Dr. BEYER. I don't recall telling --
Senator FAIRCLOTH. Well, they do.
Dr. BEYER. I have no explanation.
* * *
Dr. BEYER. The equipment was not working, and I saw no need to take an x-ray.
Senator FAIRCLOTH. You saw no need to take an x-ray?
Dr. BEYER. No, sir.
54. Overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy committed by BEYER in his July 29th, 1994 testimony before the United States Senate includes falsely testifying that:
(1) Mr. Foster had a perforating gunshot wound to the head with entrance wound in the mouth and an exit wound in the back of the head;
(2) There was "abundant powder debris in the mouth at the entrance site;"
(3) There was no other evidence of trauma to the body;
(4) He himself performed the autopsy on Mr. Foster; and
(5) No x-rays were taken because the Office of the Medical Examiner's new machine had "a number of problems" and "difficulty with the equipment" resulting in "not getting readable x-rays," and that there was "no need to take an x-ray."