Talk:Suicide of Vince Foster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



This article, and this talk page, is about the death of Vince Foster.

General biographical material on Foster's life go into Vince Foster, and discussion of their editing into Talk:Vince Foster.

An archive of material about the death of Foster, before this split was done, may be found in Talk:Vince Foster/Archive.

   Editing is all about decision-making, e.g. "Gee, shall i go go back & proofread for subject/verb agreement, or just fail to sign, so that only fanatical colleagues will notice whose literacy is challenged by writing, uh, important notes?"
--Jerzyt 08:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Fort Marcy Park[edit]

I thought Vince Foster's body was found at Turkey Run Park in Virginia on the George Washington Parkway. It appears to have been developed judging by its current website, but at the time had no facilities. It was an old colonial farm as I recall. I used to pull in there to take a leak when I was stuck in traffic. Never anyone around. Pick a tree, any tree, sort of thing. Perfect place to dump a body. D.L. Exelby 9/12/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkey Run Park is not really a park at all but a buffer around the CIA HQ posing as a park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What makes for a conspiracy theory[edit]

What makes for a 'Conspiracy Theory' is the feasibility that any one of a number of assumptions may be true given too few known facts. (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternatively, any number of the "assumptions" (i.e., the "theory" dismissed as a "conspiracy") may be true because a cover-up is in progress -- as has been asserted by Starr's resigned lead investigator on the case, Miguel Rogriguez (see below on the talk page).-- (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's the case here also. (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bollocks. It is the government's "finding", which you are expected to reflexively parrot like a non-sentient animal.-- (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if Vince Foster committed suicide or not because the facts, such as they are, are not sufficiently conclusive either way. (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you read "Failure of the Public Trust"? Watched the Hugh Sprunt series? These are exhaustive examinations of the government's own evidence, original and fabricated, and represent professional forensic analysis of the case.-- (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most notably, I have never heard the possibility conjectured that he may have committed suicide elsewhere and been moved to the park, perhaps because the earlier location was embarrassing or indiscreet in some way. Appearances are important in Washington, and often more important than facts. (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These "side-theories" are, in my opinion, "fall-back propaganda" AKA "training bullshit". I.e., in order to acclimate the average prole's reptile brain into reflexively regurgitating the "suicide" mantra, a variety of variations for suicide are formulated, so that one may be pick and choose (i.e., "Did he commit suicide here or there???"), with an aura of confusion settling over the entire mess. Frequently they will be attributed to "right-wing" pundits or similar such incendiary sources, in order to prompt reflexive dismissal of any conclusion beyond rote government assertion. The main thrust of the fall-back propaganda is the shunt the idea of HOMICIDE into a hazy background while "alternative suicide possibilities" are alleged to constitute the bulk of conspiracy theories.
-- There is no hard evidence whatsoever that Foster committed suicide, or was even suicidal in the first place (e.g., the note's missing 28th piece would have contained a signature, the note did not contain Foster's fingerprints yet had Bernard Nussbaum's palmprint, and was purportedly found in a briefcase which had already been searched twice). It's impossible to shake the impression that attempts to forge a suicide note in a hurry were failing due to inability of anyone at hand (Nussbaum at least) to readily duplicate Foster's signature, and so the note was carefully torn up, with the offending piece (containing the signature) removed, with the mess then dumped into a twice-searched container which would then be searched again -- oh, and hey, lookee what we found!-- (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The two things that make me wonder about other possibilities are that the gun was found in his hand, which would be unlikely due to recoil, and that the bullet was never found even though a massive search was conducted by dozens of officers with metal detectors. I remember watching the news accounts of the search on TV, as I lived in DC at the time. They found some old Civil War bullets, but not the one from the gun in question. (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well of course they're not going to find low-velocity assassin rounds -- because it (or they) never exited his skull (which is why there's no "gore-fountain" on the scene -- contrast to the Buddy Dwyer on-camera .38 mouth-shot (Youtube away, hey, hey!). The gun in Vince's hand was a black revolver "drop gun" composed of parts from two different weapons. The gun was free of gore, while Foster's gore-splattered glasses were found nineteen feet from the corpse. The first paramedics on the scene report no gun; they also report a second bullet wound under the ear. Yet later Lisa Foster is pressured into confirming that the gun is indeed Foster's (i.e., it's his silver automatic -- which it is obviously not). It is not unreasonable to me that a bullet wouldn't be found in the middle of the woods -- but notice how this supposed "discrepancy" is there to entice you, while the more flagrant violations of reason -- such as Vince last being seen alive inside the White House, the most heavily surveilled building in the world, yet there is no evidence of him leaving under his own power?'re not supposed to dwell upon that.-- (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-- There's no way in hell that obvious BS like this could fly in the day of Youtube and cellcam (can you imagine if Patrick Knowlton had posted video of what he saw?); the Vince whack-job came at about the very tail end of a technological era in which it was even obliquely possible for such an outright fraud of an investigation to actually be attempted, let alone succeed. But, since the case is no longer "front-burner", the lie will continue to be promoted (always within the context of poo-pooing "conspiracy theories"); i.e., the new stratagem is to "coast" on the conclusion, and to ignore and laugh off anything else as "conspiracy", comfortably secure in the knowledge that the little guy can't fight city hall. I.e., the same kind of outrageous power-posturing you'd find in an obvious banana dictatorship in which the very act of being able to promulgate an obvious lie in itself is an advertisement of untouchable power.-- (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The series of articles regarding Vince Foster are, in my opinion, some of the most embarrassing things on Wikipedia, fully calling into question its veracity on any and all issues in which government conclusions are used as a Litmus test for notability. For this article to have been renamed from "Death of..." to "Suicide of..." is an outrageous insult to the intelligence of every reader capable of anything beyond blind obeisance to government authority.-- (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Will you join me, years later, as I attempt to slowly, carefully, step-by-step correct the record? I have barely stuck my toe in the water, and a couple of high-and-mighty Wikipedia administrators have already tried to silence me as I removed unquestionable falsehooods ("six investigations" "lifelong conservative") - see the edit record. There is no question that the appropriate title of this article should be "Death of...", not "Suicide of...", and the rest of the work is a journalistic atrocity as well. I do believe, though, that our opposition is wholly ignorant of the facts here, and not intentionally suborning falsehoods. Let's attempt to educate them. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Break In[edit]

Wasn't his house broken into and/or his office? No mention in the article here. Ikilled007 11:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The FBI stood outside the door while Hillary and/or her staff committed felony evidence tampering during a homicide investigation (there is no such thing as a "suicide investigation").-- (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go enter that information, please! Vcuttolo (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Papers taken[edit]

I believe you can find, on youtube and elsewhere, video of Hillary stating that some of her staff people went into his office and took papers. I also think it should be mentioned if this article is to include all that is know about his death. ( (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The FBI stood outside the door while Hillary and/or her staff committed felony evidence tampering during a homicide investigation (there is no such thing as a "suicide investigation").-- (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can This Be Cited?[edit]

This is a very sensitive subject, and I think its impossible not to have some degree of political bias, but in the spirit of representing both sides of this death, can claims like:

Apart from the Travelgate allegations, no credible evidence or charges were ever brought forward in connection with any of these allegations.

Be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some yo-yo put in the bogus "Apart from the Travelgate allegations" qualifier, which in this context meant "Some propose that Foster was murdered to prevent his revealing information derogatory [...] about [...] Travelgate". I've yanked it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two exhaustive examinations of government evidence in the Foster case are the Hugh Sprunt lecture series (Googlevideo), and Failure of the Public Trust (mentioned above, with link, else find yourself); the Failure site also hosts extensive audio commentary from Miguel Rodriguez, the resigned Starr lead investigator in the homicide investigation who has always maintained a cover-up.-- (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One connection that is unexplored is Foster's connection to Leo Wanta. Just search for "Vince Foster+Leo Wanta". I am unsure what to make of that, but it does not look insignificant. (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article identifies Rex Armistead as a reporter. But when I look at the following news article, he is identified as "a private investigator and former Mississippi state law enforcement officer". Can anyone find clarification on this? Also, the Rex Armistead article is still as yet unwritten. CosineKitty (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The truth about Foster's suicide[edit]

I will now reveal the absolute truth, as revealed to me by God Almighty: Every official investigation has forthrightly proclaimed it was suicide. They are often vague about the locale. I conclude therefore that Vince Foster committed suicide in his office in the White House basement. (You can make it sound more sinister by saying "beneath the White House".) His body was moved in an attempt to avoid embarrassment. It seams Hillary and Co didn't realize that covering up a suicide looks like you're covering up a murder, or they just would have taken their lumps with the truth.

I conclude he did it in the White House, because there was mysterious hubbub at the White House that night, before his body was found in the park, including calls to a (supposedly) non-existent phone number. I conclude it was in his office, because people tend to commit suicide (and murder) in places where they feel they have some control. He might have committed suicide in his apartment, but I don't know what would need to be covered up, though Foster's blood on Whitewater or Travelgate papers might provide a motive.

The one thing that is sure is that Foster didn't die where his body was found, because he bled out and there was little blood on the ground.

I'm not editing the article, because I don't want to get in an edit war. Others may wish to flesh out this "comspiracy theory" in the article.  Randall Bart   Talk  01:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry that's WP:OR Nil Einne (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, how did Vince Foster get a gun into the White House? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Credence given to official/conspiracy explanations[edit]

I've never read anything about Vince Foster before today, but from a brief review of the two articles, it seems like this article gives too much weight to the conspiracy theories concerning his death. The three official reports are given no more weight than the findings of a 'private citizen', and as much as the private citizen's theory is much more interesting and exciting than the findings of the official report. Quoting from Wikipedia's explanation of the NPOV concept, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." This seems to apply here. E. Sterling 5/19/08—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I've tagged it as NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do government agents qualify as "reliable sources" or as "official sources"? The distinction is critical in my opinion. Anyone who trusts what government agents say is a fool. They claim inflation is currently 2.6%! Ikilled007 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should think that the most important criterion for inclusion in the article should be whether the information is germane and is true. Take, for instance, this statement that lasted on the site for a little more than a day before it was erased without explanation:
"Three federal judges attached evidence of the murder to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's Report on Foster's death. Starr's lead investigator, Assistant U.S. Attorney Miquel Rodriguez, admits in taped telephone conversations that Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr's office covered-up the murder. (The audio is available at this web address media was informed and remains silent."
That statement is extraordinarily germane to the Foster death case. The only thing that is not precisely true about it is that the judges themselves did not attach the murder evidence to Starr's report. They ordered Starr to do so over his strong objections. I could make the small correction and try to put it up, but it wouldn't last, because it is clear that truth is taking a back seat on this particular Wikipedia site. DowFinsterfaulkner (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't find the Miquel Rodriguez tapes at the site you give. There's a transcript at, though. WayneGoalie (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Miquel Rodriguez interview tapes can be downloaded here (links at bottom of the page):
They are ".rm" (RealMedia) files.-- (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The criteria is not that the information is "germane and true". The only criteria that matters on Wikipaida is what the reliable secondary sources terll us. The primary evidence of government agents, judges are not reliable secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad to find I'm not the only one who finds this Wikipedia article to be a journalistic atrocity. Anyone who bothers to look past the headlines will see that Vince Foster did NOT commit suicide in Fort Marcy Park. Please join me in my effort to slowly turn this thing around in favor of the truth. Let us educate the masses. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People should look up Patrick Knowlton, the first "crime scene" witness to Foster's body and how the FBI attempted to get him to change his story, then when he wouldn't, falsified the text of his statement to them. Foster had a gunshot wound to the side of his neck, not his mouth.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suicide: Let's hope that our own deaths warrant more scrutiny and respect[edit]

With any suicide it is customary to get the opinion of the state of mind of the victim from those closest to him. In this case, that would have been Foster's wife, Lisa. But there isn't a single quote in the Wiki article attributed to Lisa Foster. How can that be? The FBI interviewed Lisa. I interviewed Lisa. And yet, not a single clue here as to what would drive such a highly successful young man, on the rise politically and monetarily to suicide. Travelgate? That's a joke. When will the truth of all this come out? Another nine years from now when the Waco files are unsealed?

Here: The actual suicide (if indeed that was the case) was over the 24 children killed at Waco. And his wife said that was the number one issue on his mind. Travelgate? Use logic here. That was a very minor scandal much like that which is faced by almost any administration. I doubt anyone even remembers Travelgate and or if anyone was ever charged or convicted. On the other hand, the deaths of those children were sealed up for 25 years for National Security reasons. Foster was publicly and privately opposed to sealing such a tragedy which occured on US soil.

This is excerpted from a contemporaneous article which cited the statements given to the FBI by Foster's widow:

Foster's widow blames his depression on the massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas, according to the FBI. "Lisa Foster believes that Foster was horrified when the Branch Davidian complex burned. Foster believed that everything was his fault," the FBI wrote of their interview with Lisa Foster.

A strange form of support for that theory comes in the form of a car burglary. The July 14, 1995 News and Observer reported that White House lawyer Cheryl Mills had her car broken into after preparing for a Senate hearing on Whitewater. In addition to her wallet, the burglar stole a gym bag containing Mills' notes on the Foster affair and on Waco.

During the 1995 U.S. House hearings on Waco, Texas Rangers disclosed that when they were in dispute with the FBI about the destruction of evidence, someone in the Texas Governor's office gave them Vince Foster's phone number to contact. The hearings revealed that the only document found in Foster's Waco file was a memorandum that Foster was forwarding "Waco, the Big Lie" (a videotape charging government conspiracy) to to the Treasury Department.

Source: (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I too noticed no mention in the entry of Vince Foster's wife's statements that the number one issue on his mind before the time of his suicide was his guilt over Waco. Then I came here to Talk and found mention of Waco. Janet Reno is usually quoted as saying the buck stopped with her on Waco, she took responsibility. But Janet Reno was not USAG when the Waco Raid was carried out 28 Feb 93, nor was she USAG in the early days of the FBI siege. There was no US Attorney General in charge at the Dept of Justice when Waco started: the functions of USAG were being carried out at that time by Rose Law Firm alumni Vince Foster, Webster Hubbell and Hillary Clinton. Some of the decisions at that time (for instance, to go ahead with the raid after knowing the element of surprise had been lost) might very well have been on Vince Foster's mind at the time of his suicide. If the fact that Foster agonized over Waco is not acknowledged, how can the questions about his death be answered, one way or the other? Naaman Brown (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lisa foster claimed that the black revolver in Foster's hand was her husband's gun (which was actually a silver automatic); therefore Lisa cannot be considered a reliable source regarding anything. It is reasonable to assume that she was coerced into saying so, and hence has been coerced into additionally speculating other facets of propaganda regarding her husband's mysterious death.-- (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't blame Lisa Foster for the gun misidentification. The FBI showed her a picture of the wrong gun. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where's the information?[edit]

The circumstances of the incident, including controversial evidence, should be described. As it stands, there's little there to help the reader understand why some believe it wasn't suicide. (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's because this entire "re-named article" is pure, concentrated propaganda puked straight out of hired whitewash boy Kenneth Starr, whose lead investigator quit (and says Foster was murdered). First-on-scene paramedics report no gun and no car keys. Foster's glasses were nineteen feet from the body, yet spattered with blood (while the gun later photographed in his hand, and allegedly inside his mouth when fired, was not covered in blood). Dr. Haut's initial autopsy found two different-caliber bullet wounds. The black revolver was obviously not Foster's silver automatic, yet Lisa was pressured into saying it was. FBI agents stood outside Foster's White House office while Hillary committed felony evidence-tampering by ransacking his office; the FBI harassed Fort Marcy Park witness Patrick Knowlton. Foster's fingerprints were not found on the claimed "suicide note" (torn into pieces, missing the one which would have contained a signature, and "found" in a briefcase already searched previously), yet Bernie Nussbaum's palmprint was. The first words, after he heard about Foster, out of Clinton's Arkansas campaign manager Jerry Parks were, "I'm next" (he was later murdered in broad daylight in Little Rock).
"Don't believe a word you hear. It was not suicide." - -Assistant Attorney General Webster Hubbell, 7/20/93, cited in Esquire, 11/93. (Hubbell was then repeatedly reamed and spent much of the next several years in prison with, guess who -- Kenneth Starr -- leading various prosecutions (and being overruled 8-1 by the Supreme Court on one of them). I surmise Hubbell was one of the few Clinton associates who was too important or "big-name" at the time for the Arkansas Mafia to snuff like Jerry.)---- (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is a journalistic atrocity, propagated by ignoramuses. I seek to supply the truth. Join me please. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Censorship via spurious assertion of WP:RS and intimidation of editors[edit]

In answer to the user above ("Where's the information", my answer being: "It's been flushed down the toilet"), I relay the following from my talk page:

This is your last warning; the next time you add non-reliably-sourced material, as you did at Ken Starr, Vince Foster, and Suicide of Vince Foster, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. "Failure of the Public Trust" is self-published, and neither World Net Daily nor AIM are reliable sources. Please, read WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:NEWSORG, and WP:SOURCES. (I note from your previous blocks that you're already aware of WP:3RR.) AV3000 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Av3000, would it be possible for you and I to have an intelligent conversation -- or must it proceed straightaway to histrionic spasms of dire, impending doom delivered at the edict of Big Cheeses wielding Olympian power? Several points:
1) The matter of WND is not as cut-and-dried as I imagine you would like the casual browser of this user-talk page to instantly surmise. For example, the summation of your link to the WND noticeboard is, quoting, with weasel words bold-faced by me: "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material....
-- The weasel words indicate a LACK of clear consensus, while the following: "...individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided.}" explicitly CONFIRMS a lack of consensus.
2) You have not provided any backing to maintain that AIM is NRS either -- for the sake of argument, I shall assume that a page exists within the Byzantine depths of the Noticeboard, but will also assume that it is just as ambiguous and shot full of self-contradictions, weasel words, and completely unveiled bad motives as the WND one.
3) Miquel Rodriguez is more than a reliable source -- he is, in fact, a primary source; it is not possible for you to logically maintain that the direct audio commentary of Kenneth Starr's former lead investigator in the Foster death is not pertinent because it is hosted by AIM -- unless you're maintaining that it's faked or distorted in some way. -- Are you?
4) Similarly, the FOIA lawsuit (which went all the way to the Supreme Court) by attorney Allen Favish is, by definition, noteworthy. With the lawsuit's author rendered noteworthy on the subject material, then any media organ directly quoting him must also be regarded as reliable (if only situationally) -- unless, once again, you're maintaining that they're lying -- and I do not believe you are prepared to insist upon such.
5) Regarding Failure of the Public Trust -- Patrick J. Knowlton, a primary witness in Fort Marcy Park, is by definition noteworthy and a reputable source of his own disagreement with factual statements asserted in the Starr Report, as is, by subsequent logical extension, his other written commentary on the subject (he shares author credit of Failure of the Public Trust with his attorney John Clarke and researcher Hugh Turley), in re: WP:SPS "....Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." -- The FBI, which interviewed him, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which heard Knowlton's case for submission of an "Addendum" to the Starr Report, qualify in conferring notability.
6) The proper place for this discussion is the talk pages of the articles themselves.--Mike18xx (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mike, I'm late to the party, but God bless you! Keep fighting the good fight. I'm working on it, too. Please join me in trying to turn this article, a journalistic atrocity in its current form, into something resembling the truth. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intense fear by Foster reported by his wife[edit]

I cannot cite a source of a report by Foster's wife that she knew something was wrong because he was so afraid that she had to get into bed with him and hold him so he could sleep.

Intense unattributed fear is one outcome of a Subliminal Distraction exposure mental break. The same level of fear appears in the suicide note of Mark Barton, Atlanta day trader killer. Evidence is available that Barton had Subliminal Distraction exposure but no such information exists for Foster. I would appreciate a head's up if you have the source for her statement. Visit VisionAndPsychosis.Net and use the Contact Researcher link.

This problem requires a location or locations for exposure so it can be investigated and confirmed or eliminated. It is possible to interview others who worked with him or interview his wife for the information to confirm this.

I am the Copyright holder for information from my site.

L K Tucker (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QUESTION OF RELIABILITY I agree whole heartedly with E. Sterling. I go a step further and call the articles reliability and objectivity into question. Not only is the breakin of Foster's office, which has been well documented, not mentioned, but many paragraphs are devoted to conspiracy theory books written by authors of very dubious credentials. I'm not usually this critical, but I haven't seen anything this biased since I saw the Oliver Stone movie JFK. I suggest that the sections under "unofficial findings" be removed. AlRonnfeldt (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlRonnfeldt (talkcontribs) 15:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<sarcasm> I gather this "intense fear" had the same origin as that which prompted her to lie about the color of her husband's silver gun so it would match that of the black "drop" piece photographed next to his corpse. <bronx cheer> ...The day upon which future generations deem Wikepedia as finally "arriving" as a credible factual venue outside of purely scientific disciplines will be arrived at when the most odious of blatant contemporary political cover-ups is finally expunged from its pages -- of which Foster's "suicide" is one of the most prominant, and Litmus, examples.--Mike18xx (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Al Ronnfeldt: Thank you. You expressed my feelings better than I could have. This article in its current form is a journalistic atrocity. Please help me as I try to educate the well-meaning, ignorant masses. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, I may have gotten confused in my prior comment. Rereading this all a day later, I'm not quite sure what good ol' Al is saying. But Mike, you sure have it right.

Vcuttolo (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


[1] Three handwriting experts said the note was a forgery. Why no mention of this? Thismightbezach (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hell of a question. Please insert it! Let's get the truth out. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conspiracies in proportion[edit]

With no political axe to grind, I added this para to the lede, purely because I felt it needed lengthening:

Some have claimed that his body was dumped in the park, following either an assassination or suicide in a location that President Clinton did not want revealed. Much of the evidence for these theories was supplied by right-wing groups, and was discredited by whistleblower David Brock, who had been connected with the anti-Clinton propaganda mission, known as the Arkansas Project.

It was promptly deleted by Froglich, who declared it to be a ‘political diatribe’, when it was simply a summary of the material in the main article. At that rate, Froglich must have classified most of this article as a ‘political diatribe’ (or POV, as we normally put it), and he should start by deleting those parts. He would then be justified in reverting the lede to reflect the new, shortened article. Valetude (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You claim not to have an axe to grind, yet are attempting to smuggle the loaded POV term "right-wing" into the article. Aside from that, your assertions were erroneous anyway, as the main bodies of "conspiracy theory" research into the Foster case stem from the work of Hugh Sprunt, Hugh Turley, and Miguel Rodgriguez (see the rest of the Talk page above). None of these people are "right wing" politically. (Neither, for that matter, is Michael Rivero, the internet blogger who first noticed the discrepancy between the black revolver in an ABC News photo and the silver automatic the man owned.) *Actual* "right-wing" luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh shilled the Starr Report, as did the rank-and-file Republican political establishment (which basically coughed nervously and then leapt at the salacious Lewinsky thing instead). By the way, Brock went on to play an integral part in the socialist front-group Media Matters, so he was hardly "right-wing" either.--Froglich (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Froglich. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section blanking[edit]

Sourced section restored to stauts quo per WP:BRD - Now, let's discuss the issues with the section. ScrpIronIV 19:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1, that's not the status quo. That was a paragraph added relatively recently (at least for a sparsely edited article) by an IP address a few months ago. See
2, this content is misplaced. The structure of the article is "suicide note, official explanation, tin-foil hat conspiracy theories." This IP addy has added material that contradicts the mainstream explanation before it's even been made. It should, if included in the article at all, go in the unofficial explanations / fringe theories section, per WP:FRINGE. (I hope that even fans of the unofficial explanation can agree the unofficial explanation is unofficial for a reason - all the "responsible" agencies agree it was a suicide! They'd say it was a cover-up of course, but it's not controversial that's what they *said*.)
3, this content is sheer WP:OR. They're citing an article attacking *one specific person* on a totally different issue (Bush & the National Guard), and assuming the criticism is relevant there. It's not even a very good criticism! It's misleading from no less than 2 perspectives: "Doesn't have credential X" is an extremely bad & gamable attack (no expert has every single credential you might demand, and there are people with credentials who are total idiots and wrong; see credentialism), and even IF it was correct, the fact that one particular expert is unreliable says literally nothing about what the consensus is. If out of 1000 scientists, 998 believe in global warming, is it relevant if 1 of those 998 is a total fraud? Fine, he believes in global warming for the wrong reasons and doesn't have a Ph.D, but what about the 997 other scientists saying the same thing?
4, WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Are you seriously going to say we should stick "citizen" in front of the FBI & DOJ as pride of place? I can get you some citizen news that describes secret death rays the US is testing in Iraq if you want. If we're going to cast doubt on the suicide note, let's have it from some ironclad sources. It is on the editor inserting the content to provide such sources.
ScrapIron, please tell me you actually read the sources. If you didn't, go read them right now. This content is a perfect example of nuke-on-sight-from-orbit for multiple reasons. I'm shocked we even have to have this conversation. SnowFire (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have read the sources. There are two statements being made, both appropriately sourced. The first states that there were three refutations of the validity of the handwriting on the note. The second states that the individual hired by the Clintons to examine the note is not credentialled. Neither of these statements exists in a vacuum, there is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH in the content of the statements. Neutral statements, left up to the reader to interpret. I have no issues with the content being moved, but we don't ignore sourced statements entirely. Certainly, you know that the status quo means the state of the article prior to Bold revision. It is controversial material, but it has been reported. It does not deserve prominence, but it does deserve existence. Please restore the content, and insert in in the location of your choosing, so it does not enjoy "pride of place" as you put it. ScrpIronIV 20:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. While the article would be slightly better if the content was moved to the "unofficial" section rather than mentioned directly under the suicide note, it'd be better still with it removed altogether. is a self-published blog of citizen news; it is not an appropriate source, especially for accusations of this magnitude. See WP:RS. It's especially bad since the phrasing implies that these 3 experts are "right." Let's assume for a moment that our source is correct (not in any way guaranteed). Well... what about the experts the FBI employed? The Department of Justice? Why exactly are we putting the focus on these 3 experts and not the other experts involved? Well, because a random blog says so. The second statement is WP:OR, I'm sorry. It says *nothing* about his work on Vince Foster, and it's a passing mention, hardly in-depth reporting. The most useful sources are the ones which are discussing these issues in the context of Vince Foster. Using a passing reference on someone of unclear notability (again, the fact we discuss this at all implies that one random handwriting expert is somehow "key" to the investigation) is trouble. Heck, do we even have a reference that this fellow was hired by the Clintons?
This section doesn't deserve existence. If you really would like to fight for it, get some better sources. Alternatively if you think I'm just crazy, I'm happy if you want to ask for a 3rd opinion at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or the like. SnowFire (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y'know, you could have re-opened the discussion if you were just going to revert me quietly but without the automated notice. I guess I'll be the one to go to a noticeboard, then. I've pinged WP:FTN. SnowFire (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I restored it to the status quo, and I waited a long while to do so. Intervening edits prevented an actual "pinged" undo. You would not be accusing me of a conspiracy, would you? :-D ScrpIronIV 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm saying that it'd have been nice if you'd responded here on the talk page first, even if just to say "You're just all wrong and this discussion isn't fruitful." Editors who want text to be in the article has the onus on them to defend it, or else it's removed.
As for your comment on the Noticeboard - yes, more sources would help! Although ideally we'd need better sources. And... the claims therein would need to be given the proper context, since there's some plain disagreements on natures of fact where both sides can't be right at once. For example, the relevance of Marcel Matley is just not clear at the moment. There are 0 sources actually tying him to the official investigation, and if he was part of the official investigation, whether he was a particularly important or crucial part. So even if we found a source that attacked Matley's work on Vince Foster from a pro-conspiracy source, we'd still need some reason to think this is a relevant criticism, if that makes any sense. If somebody said that the space program was a hoax because Ottawa is the capital of Canada, well, even if the 2nd fact is true, it doesn't particularly matter. SnowFire (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I said it above, but just to repeat since you brought up "Restoring the status quo" again: this section isn't particularly status-quoy and was added comparatively recently by an anonymous IP address. SnowFire (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although, looking more closely - you edited the article again very shortly after the IP addy, within hours. Did you add it while accidentally logged out? You should have said so, I'd have taken a different tack if so. Anyway there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BRD here. The "D" is discuss. You can't keep material without being willing to defend it & discuss it - and, when discussion fails, to escalate to other forms of dispute resolution. SnowFire (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not edited logged out (to my knowledge) since I registered a year ago. I do know that the IP was not me. ScrpIronIV 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of this I do understand, and I flit among so many articles; mostly anti-vandalism work. Removing sourced content is tricky, particularly if it benefits people in power. At the time, I found more than a few sources - The Independent, NewsMax, the book "Dead Wrong" by Richard Belzer, even a transcript of Unsolved Mysteries that interviewed those four specific individuals. Not trying to be contentious here. Not all sources are equal, and I certainly don't want to bring politics into it. But enough people have made those statements, they have been reported widely enough, and even the individuals in question have appeared on television to make their statements. At some point, enough reporting on a topic is enough to be reported. I am not a conspiracy theorist; heck I just found myself reverted on Nordic Aliens for removal of an unsourced drawing of an alien... So, when I forgot about this article, I just forgot about it for a while. It does not need to be prominent, but it should be there somewhere. ScrpIronIV 20:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have any objections to including material about conspiracy allegations that are reported on in reliable secondary sources. I do think we need to be careful that we don't piece together material to prop up or knock down any particular person who is making or refuting allegations. - Location (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(de-indent) Sure, if referenced to *notable* pro-conspiracy sources (e.g. "Dead Wrong" perhaps), it's fine to include... in the conspiracy theories section, solely as a notable attack. To be included anywhere else will require more "neutral" sources backing it up.

As for the 3 handwriting experts, the problem is that this should not be portrayed as an argument-winning gotcha for the "neutral" account: it is a bit of circumstantial weirdness. As one editor put it, first off, the "experts" might just be plain wrong. Handwriting analysis isn't the most accurate of sciences. But let's say they're right, and the note doesn't match Foster's usual handwriting. Well... so what. Handwriting analysis can only give a guess at the *average* case, not any one specific case. Maybe the suicidal Foster was very nervous and in a deranged state of mind. Maybe Foster intentionally wrote in a different style. Maybe - and there is absolutely no evidence of this - he asked a friend to write the note for him. Unlikely? Sure, but so is the note being a plant by some kind of Clinton assassin, of which there is also absolutely no evidence. SnowFire (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three top-notch handwriting experts concluded the note was a forgery. Those three had approx 100 years experience between them. I suspect "nervous handwriting" is a topic they may have encountered before. In fact, that was likely covered in their basic, undergraduate studies....who's the conspiracy theorist now? Vcuttolo (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

I am responding via a request for third opinion placed on WP:FTN. I believe this edit (originally added July 28, 2015 with this edit) should be reverted. The material reinserted is cited to which is not a reliable source and which violates WP:SYNTH in that it does not discuss Vince Foster. Claims that the note is not authentic and refutations of those claims need to be documented in reliable secondary sources. - Location (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who TF is Patrick Knowlton[edit]

I just rewrote the 2nd paragraph of the "conspiracy theory" section after reading it and comparing it to the document it's referenced by, so that it now is more clear and congruous. However after finishing just now, I realized the subject, Patrick Knowlton, is never before or after mentioned anywhere in the article. And in that paragraph, he is brought up with zero introduction as to who he is or why he's being talked about. Who the hell wrote this section originally?? -Laced (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You raise a good question. Patrick Knowlton was a Whitewater grand jury witness that had stopped at Fort Marcy Park where Vince Foster's body was found, at the time that Foster was already officially dead. Knowlton came forward as soon as the news reported Foster died there to report what he had seen. Knowlton did not got up into the park and see Foster's body. He did see an old, early 80's brown Honda in the parking lot with Arkansas license plates. This was important because it was not the newer 1989 gray Honda owned by the Foster family. Other witnesses also saw this brown Honda. FBI agents falsified Knowlton's FBI interview report make it appear he saw Foster"s Honda. He was later the victim of witness intimidation and sued for violation of his civil rights. Knowlton was successful in adding 20 pages of evidence of a cover-up as part of the Independent Counsel's Report over the objection of Ken Starr. A sentence has been added to the article to introduce Knowlton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olga1518 (talkcontribs) 15:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And unfortunately removed since then. Join me please in fixing the journalistic atrocity this article represents in its current state. All help appreciated. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article appears to violate Neutral Point of View policy[edit]

1. Relies heavily on documents supporting author's point of view; while dismissing opposing points of view 2. Ignores questions regarding authenticity of resignation/suicide note 3. General tone of article is dismissive of the possibility of alternate points of view

Rfax99 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely true, every word you wrote. Please help fix what is currently a journalistic atrocity. Let us educate the ignorant and clean up this mess. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subject Title[edit]

This article, and this talk page, is about the Death of Vince Foster, not specifically 'suicide'. Therefore its title is most peculiar and should be altered to the Death of Vince Foster — Preceding unsigned comment added by James spencer moulson (talkcontribs) 16:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that it should be titled "The Murder of Vince Foster". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OF COURSE it should be titled "Death of..", not "Suicide of...". I'm new here, and dreadfully in over my head on the ways of Wikipedia. But I want to fight the good fight and clean up this article from the journalistic atrocity it currently is. Please help! Vcuttolo (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That requires evidence, not rampant and absurd speculation, which is all I've seen so far (along with several claims which are simply false if you take a minute to research them). (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stupid Article[edit]

When did he die. Where did he die. How did he die. Why did he die. This retarded article doesn't even attempt to answer any of these simple, common sense and basic questions. (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is a journalistic atrocity. Please help - I'm new here, not overly familiar with the ways of Wikipedia, but I want to fix this dreadful mess of an article. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lock this thing[edit]

This article is being edited to hell. It now makes zero sense to a casual reader with nothing but loads of conflicting material. Info needs to be appropriately cited and clarified, as in its current state, it's just a pile of hot garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been a pile of hot garbage for over eight years. Locking it would just seal in the flavor.--Froglich (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. This is why the first step should be to remove all the garbage. Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to this article so everything needs really good sources. Primary sources (like Starr's report) are not enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLP does not apply to people who've been dead over twenty years.Froglich (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may not apply to the general topic but it certainly does apply to the conspiracy theories section. Which by the way I have changed back to say "Conspiracy theories." Per WP:FRINGE we do not give extra weight to nonsense like that and calling the section "Unanswered questions" is completely and totally undue weight. But back to the original topic of BLP. BLP certainly applies to this article as it discusses still living people. It doesn't matter if the main topic is dead, it matters what else is in the article. --Majora (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be that as it may (I don't particularly care what the section is named), it should be noted that WP:Fringe is mainly concerned with scientific analysis subject to proofs, not political mechanizations, and with both the out-of-seclusion ex-lead investigator in the homicide investigation (Rodriguez, who assertively calls the death a murder in audio interviews) and the person currently most likely to become the next US President (who'll be one of the most notable human being on the planet if he wins) both casting aspersions of a cover-up, this genie isn't going to stay in an uncorked bottle.--Froglich (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And one thing that should absolutely NOT be done is for the article to spend so much space on various fringe conspiracy theories so that they overshadow the rest of the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am inclined to listen to Attn. Miguel Rodriguez, who was the lead investigator on the case.Froglich (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Froglich. Volunteer Marek is a cancer on Wikipedia. I am unfamiliar with all but the most basic ways of Wikipedia, but I want to try to slowly turn this journalistic atrocity of an article around toward the truth. Vcuttolo (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"A book by Christopher Andersen entitled Bill and Hillary: The Marriage claims that Foster and Hillary Clinton were involved in an affair that led to Foster's death.[1]"

In Salon, Jake Tapper writes: "Andersen dishes like a catty high school girl holding forth in the lunchroom, with little corroborating evidence for his claims, implied or otherwise."[2] Entertainment weekly describes the book as "disenguous" and "[w]ritten to make big headlines and fast money, Bill and Hillary is a prime example of a kind of opportunistic celebrity muckraking – sometimes known as selling people out – that has become junky big business ....", noting Andersen "does that insidious, breezy thing of reconstructing extemporaneous conversations he couldn’t possibly have heard."[3] According to People, "Andersen, clearly no fan of the First Couple, seizes on sleaze too much and with too little attribution. Titillating, perhaps, but in the end the book is merely banal,..."[4] -And this from a publication for which he used to write. Andersen's books sell well, but so do supermarket tabloids; his just have better binding. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Some of the sources on this article certainly do not meet our WP:RS standards: A hand-written letter from a judge, a self-published web-site about FBI cover ups. Even when we cover conspiracy theories we need to use reliable secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is WP:CHERRYPICKING of primary sources at its finest. The issue with sources was also the subject of a recent inquiry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 229#Suicide of Vincent Foster. -Location (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many official investigations?[edit]

This article says there were 6 official investigations, but the "Vince Foster" page says 5. Anyone know which it is? (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

5. Really 1, but the highest conceivable number is 5. The Park Police, Robert Fiske, and Ken Starr investigations were performed by the same FBI -approved folks. The two congressional investigations were of the behavior of the Park Police, not of the overall case. Vcuttolo (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page move[edit]

I have moved the article back to its title since 2008, since there appears to have been no attempt at consensus for this move on the article talkpage, and the move was based on disputed material since removed by other editors. Please discuss. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. The title "Suicide of Vince Foster" reflects the official and mainstream views. "Death of Vince Foster" gives undue weight to fringe conspiracy sources. -Location (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was amazing that anyone would done such a contentious move(from "Suicide" to "Death") without a discussion This clearly was disruptive editing and might deserve blocking if repeated. Edison (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Mainstream"? Well, it's what the government said, even if virtually everyone under the sun knows it's complete *bullshit*. Webster Hubbell said "Don't believe it!" before he was bundled off to prison (by Ken Starr) as his reward for saying so. Jerry Parks (Bill Clinton's AK campaign manager) said, "Oh God, I'm next!", and he was, mowed down in broad daylight by automatic weapon-fire in the streets of Little Rock. And last, but not least, there's Miguel Rodriquez, Starr's own lead investigator (i.e., the guy who did actual work, as opposed to the whitewash face-man appointed to bury it all), who resigned and went into hiding for fifteen years. Every surveillance tape of the White House on the night Vince was last seen alive inside it...fell into a black hole, and to even think about asking where they are is to get your ass canned if you're employed in the establishment press. Nobody, anywhere, honestly, truly believes that Vince killed himself, not now or even then, as absurdity after absurdity piles up: spotlessly clean gun (which first-on-scene paramedics swore was not there) in his hand despite allegedly being *inside* his mouth when fired, yet gore-covered glasses are nineteen feet from the corpse in the park. "Suicide" note (that isn't) missing the signature piece is "found" inside a briefcase already searched twice; Fosters fingerprints are not on it, but Bernie Nussbaum's palmprint are. And then there's Dr. Haut scribbling out the entry in his own autopsy report detailing the second bullet-wound under the ear. And Hillary, tossing the office while the FBI stood outside not arresting her.
-- It truly is "America's Dreyfus Affair", and, among all other deplorable whoring Wikipedia does in service to brazen propaganda under the name of "official" (in contrast to "fringe") findings, this particular swept-under-the-rug murder is by far the most egregious case. Every day this article remains under the name it is amounts to continuous, never-ending public urination over that man's grave.
It's "The Reign of the Lie".--Froglich (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've heard the same squawking in the JFK conspiracy articles for years. The crux of your argument pertains to what sources are considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Try your case at WP:RSN. -Location (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That'll be a complete waste of time because they're not interested in veracity.--Froglich (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone remotely familiar with the facts of this case understands this article should be entitled "Death of....", not "Suicide of...". This article, as it currently exists, is a total embarassment, easily the worst thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Vcuttolo (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we put the suicide note nearer to the top?[edit]

Most of this article could be retitled "Vince Foster Conspiracy Theories" - the only section (other than the lead) which speaks directly to the subject is the content of the suicide note. Could we restructure the article such that the mainstream views Vince Foster's suicide are represented at the top, and the alternative views are given second billing? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved the "note" to the top. That section should probably include what the source has to say about it (i.e. wife told him to write down what was bothering him one night when he was having trouble sleeping).
I would not object to moving the material regarding the note and official findings back to Vince Foster and calling this one Vince Foster conspiracy theories, but that would require more feedback. -Location (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I was being a bit sarcastic. I don't think we should POV-Fork this article. It should represent the mainstream views of the death of Vince Foster (that it was a suicide) and give 2nd billing to the conspiracy theories since they are widely reported but indisputably bogus. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since there's precious little evidence that it's actually a suicide-note, I see no reason why it should be given higher prominence. (In other words, I !vote no.)--Froglich (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chronologically, it makes sense given that evidence is collected before findings are determined and discussed. I have fixed the opening sentence of that section to indicate that it was likely the draft of a possible resignation letter rather than a suicide note. -Location (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've moved the note back, and put it into a new section entitled "Evidence". (I see no reason why the note should receive top billing under the lede, and especially not when considering that the article doesn't presently cover any of the other evidence, i.e., the gun, the wounds, the glasses, the Supreme Court-enforced Knowlton Addendum, etc.)--Froglich (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't object to calling the section "Evidence", but current consensus (2 to 1) is that this section should go above the conspiracy theories. I can open up an RfC if you think we should get additional feedback. -Location (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Among incurious and uninterested (not to be confused with disinterested) parties, suicide is the default assumption. However, anong those who have followed the case, the idea that Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park is risible. Among the "name" journalists who agree (or agreed - some are no longer alive) that the official version of suicide is obviously problematic - Robert Novak, Philip Weiss, William Safire, Richard Brookhiser, Christopher Hitchens, John O'Sullivan, Roger Morris, Sam Smith, and Thomas Sowell. Non-journalists who doubt the official story include William Sessions, who led the FBI under three presidents, Vincent J. Scalice, homicide detective for the NYPD who worked with the FBI on both the JFK and MLK assassinations, worked with the US House of Representatives on the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and whose report on Foster explains why the body was undoubtedly moved, and why he was likely murdered, Hugh Sprunt, who has two degrees from MIT and another two from Stanford, who wrote a report that concluded that Foster committing suicide in Fort Marcy Park was a near-impossible scenario, and numerous other luminaries. Additionally, according to the Philip Weiss piece in the NYT Magazine, only 35% of 1000 people polled back when this was in the news believed that Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park....The construction of this article as it currently stands is as far from the truth as can be imagined. It is certainly the worst thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Vcuttolo (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edits are adding conspiratorial insinuations[edit]

I'm somewhat concerned about this edit, which purports (through insinuation) to suggest that at least one government lawywer interfered with evidence or obstructed justice in one way.

As currently written this is ambiguous. It could be read to imply that a government lawyer fabricated the evidence or partially destroyed the evidence in order to obstruct an investigation. My reading of what the NY times actually reported was that the lawyer didn't give the police a detailed description of Foster's files (this omitting the potentially embarrasing information

And even if my own interpretation of the story is way off base - can we correct this to not include these sorts of details as vague insinuations. This has become WP:SYNTH and gives undue weight to conspiratorial POV which is not actually what the article states. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it is currently written, I share your concern that the lack of context may give that impression; however, I think the best thing to do is add material from reliable sources that frame it in context (e.g. body found, authorities get involved, authorities prevented from searching Foster's office, etc). Clearly Nussbaum's actions contributed to people believing the conspiracy angle, but there are much better sources than Progressive Review, so I am going to remove that one. This, or more specifically this, confirm that Nussbaum's palm print was found on the note even though early reports call the palm print smudged or unidentifiable. (Nussbaum's handling of the note is discussed on page. 97 here, but the print - only on one piece - is referred to as "unidentified".) -Location (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...Well, were you going to include those better sources in the article? (I do not see them in an edit yet.) They look quite nice to me.
~ ~ ~
The essential problem here is that the current title of the article suggests that a certain narrative (suicide, the conclusion in the case of the death of a man last seen alive inside the White House, for whom there is no video evidence of him leaving that edifice despite it being the most heavily-surveilled building in the world) must be adhered to by editors ostensibly required to defend it, even a quarter-century down the road. It is a grotesque mockery that encyclopedia policy (either actually existent or merely asserted) mandates slavish adherence to the most odious propaganda under the imprimatur of "official", and that really has been the largest flaw with this place for the last decade running.
Nussbaum's palmprint on the note (realize that the print had to be there before it was torn into pieces -- let that sink in) is the very least of the damning evidence littered all about the government's own archives. E.g., the color/type of gun, first-responder EMTs not seeing a gun (despite it being hooked around a thumb in the ABC photo), it being free of gore despite allegedly inside the mouth when fired, no Park dirt on Foster's shoes, magically-appearing keys, magically-appearing note, Dr. Haut redacting his own autopsy, all White House surveillance tapes vanishing, etc, etc, ad nauseam.--Froglich (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand corrected. The mention of Nussbaum's palm print on the note is buried in a footnote of the "Final Report of the Independent Counsel in Re Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association". If reliable secondary sources (i.e. neutral, non-conspiratorial sources like The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.) didn't find it important enough to discuss, then perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't be discussing it either.
As for the rest of it, take it up with WP:RSN or open an RfC. -Location (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miguel Rodriguez[edit]

I am removing the following section (again):

Kenneth Starr's at-the-time lead investigator, US attorney Miguel Rodriguez,[1] emphatically disagreed with Starr's conclusion that Foster committed suicide, referring to photographs and medical testimony suggesting a second gunshot wound on Foster's neck, evidence he asserts Starr suppressed.[2] Concerning the cover-up, he wrote in his resignation letter, “As an ethical person, I don’t believe I could be involved in what they were doing.”[3]

Per the recent discussion at WP:RSN, and are not reliable sources. The NYT only gives a cursory mention to Rodriguez in the context of Ruddy's book: "The only skeptical insider Ruddy discusses at length is Miguel Rodriguez, an assistant United States attorney hired by the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, after he took over from Fiske in the fall of 1994. Ruddy calls Rodriguez a hero who wanted to get to the bottom of things, but says that a stream of leaks from within the investigation, and the refusal to appoint a blue-ribbon panel of outside experts, caused Rodriguez to quit." If this is the only reliable secondary source discussing Rodriguez's views, then we shouldn't be building a separate section for those views per WP:UNDUE. Italicizing a quote from a primary source published in an unreliable source is another example of WP:CHERRYPICKING and also fails per WP:UNDUE. -Location (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Brookhiser, Richard (September 28, 1997). "Body Politics". The New York Times. Retrieved June 12, 2016.
  2. ^ Hohmann, Leo (February 28, 2016). [ "Vince Foster 'suicide' shocker: 2nd wound documented"]. WND. Retrieved June 12, 2016. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  3. ^ "Miguel Rodriguez US attorney Vincent Foster death investigator resignation letter". Citizen News. April 24, 2015. Retrieved June 12, 2016.
<sarcasm mode engaged> Well isn't that just lovely? -- We have a hurriedly-rushed-for-partisan-finger-counting (number counted: *3*) "recent discussion" (July 27) at WP:RSN, which I'm sure was an entirely random coincidence and which was not brought to the attention of anyone here until the thing was archived and uneditable. (Because, naturally, it would be unseemly, and polite company would gasp and clutch their pearls tightly, if certain gauche editors such as moi & sundry were alerted and showed up to !vote at the show-trials.) Fanfreakintabulous. I'm calling bullshit on it. The opinions of three people do not a valid "discussion" make.
Straight-up question for one and all: Do you (1) believe that Miguel Rodriguez is a person who actually existed, and that (2) he was employed in the capacity listed, and (3) resigned for the reasons he did? ...I shall assume that User:Location does, since he cites Ruddy.
...If, answering in the affirmative to all three, you have concluded that Rodriguez is a notable personage holding a relevant and notable (if dissenting) view, and should contribute honestly to the article with that in mind.--Froglich (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relevant and notable views tend to be discussed in reliable secondary sources, not just sources that push conspiracy theories. There have already been two discussions on and; however, I have relisted for your convenience. -Location (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You haven't answered my (three-part) question. Will you? -- I want to hear you, or anyone else here, say, with a straight face, that Miguel Rodriguez either (a) doesn't exist, or (b) wasn't Starr's lead prosecutor, or (c) didn't say what he said and/or do what he did. If you're unwilling to do that (such would be a symptom of honesty), then come around.--Froglich (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry. You were guilty of a deductive fallacy, so I simply bypassed the erroneous conclusion. Let me spell out my "straight-up" reasoning for you. I don't doubt that "Miguel Rodriguez [was] an assistant United States attorney hired by the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, after he took over from Robert Fiske in the fall of 1994" and I don't doubt that he resigned his position as "Associate Independent Counsel". Rodriguez may have even been hired to take the lead on the investigation and I don't have any reason to doubt that he believed what he wrote in his resignation letter. The trouble is that we see only Rodriguez claims's that he made certain recommendations and that those recommendations were not met with the follow-up he desired by Kenneth Starr, Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Tuohey, Samuel Dash, etc. These men were all attorneys, too. Rather than burying a conspiracy, perhaps they thought he was a piss-poor investigator and that his recommendations were bunk so they just ignored him/them. Perhaps Rodriguez sensed that because of that he was going to get fired, so he resigned. Perhaps we only have Rodriguez's side of the story because neither Starr or his team or reporters placed any weight on his work. I don't know, but it sounds as plausible to me as a conspiracy involving the United State Park Police, the Department of Justice, the FBI, Robert Fiske and his team, Kenneth Starr (who would have crucified the Clintons if he had reason to) and his team, The New York Times, The Washington Post, all of the other "mainstream media" outlets, Bill and Hillary Clinton, the staff of Bill and Hillary Clinton, etc., etc., etc. Only Chelsea Clinton and Socks have been left unnamed as conspirators, but maybe I just haven't researched this enough. People "honestly" believe this shit? Sheesh. -Location (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"...Rodriguez may have even been hired to take the lead on the investigation and I don't have any reason to doubt that...." --Then you stipulate that he's notable. *Thank you*. <flush surrounding dissembling> --Froglich (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, let's see who does "believe this shit". Here is a partial list of journalists who, unlike you apparently, actually spent time researching the case, and came to the realization that Vince Foster certainly did NOT commit suicide in Fort Marcy Park, and likely did not commit suicide at all: Richard Brookhiser, Christopher Hitchens, William Safire, Philip Weiss, Roger Morris, John O'Sullivan, Thomas Sowell, Sam Smith, and Robert Novak. That's just the journalistic side of things. There is also William Sessions, who headed the FBI under three presidents. Vincent Scalice, a former NYPD homicide detective who worked with the FBI on the MLK assassination, and with both the FBI and the US House of Representatives on the JFK assassination. Scalice did his own report on Foster, and reached conclusions opposite to Starr's. Newt Gingrich, who while Speaker of the House said one would have to be "brain dead" to believe that Foster killed himself in Fort Marcy Park. I will ask you to find any such group supporting the Sandy Hook conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy, hell, ANY conspiracy. See, the term "conspiracy" is entirely inappropriate when you have the facts on your side. Despite the heavyhandedness the Clintons used to threaten the reputations of anyone who questioned the official Foster story (are you familiar with their 331 page "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce"? They wrote it, I didn't) a handful of courageous folks, some of whom are mentioned above, risked ridicule from the likes of yourself and expressed their opinions publicly. On top of all that we have Miquel (or Miguel; spellings differ) Rodriguez, who was drummed out of the investigation for not toeing to the preordained conclusion. We also have the three judge panel who mandated the attachment of the 20 page Knowles/Clarke appendix to Starr's report, an appendix which renders everything written in the main report into a joke. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard filed story after story about this in the Sunday London Telegraph, for whom he was Washington BUREAU CHIEF. Evans-Pritchard had an ongoing 35+ year career writing first for the Economist and currently for the Telegraph, two of the most respected publications in the Western world. Those who try to dismiss the evidence as a "conspiracy theory" have no idea what to do with Evans-Pritchard, who wrote a book about three scandals that happened under Bill Clinton's watch, one of which was the Foster case. As to Starr, the left has never comprehended why his approval rating was lower than was Saddam Hussein's (really, no joke) in the late 1990s. Liberals despised him for going after Bill Clinton on the sex-related stuff, conservatives knew that his Washington-based team utterly ignored everything else. Those folks were part of the permanent bureaucracy of Washington, the one that barely changes when administrations do. If Starr was as implacable a Clinton foe as Bill Clinton and his supporters portrayed, why did his people fight tooth-and-nail to bury Patrick Knowlton? Hugh Sprunt has two degrees from MIT, and another two from Stanford. (Pity his poor wife, who only has one puny MIT degree.) Sprunt, when not making gobs of money as a successful tax attorney or whatever, realized that the official Foster story was obvious nonsense, and wrote a 200 page report responding to the official version. Try reading it. Or Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Or DCDave, who has covered this extensively and rather brilliantly online (although I am not on board with everything he espouses on non-Foster related items). It is easy to listen to the mainstream media, who ran away from this under threat of Clinton defamation, long before they had a chance to ascertain the truth for themselves. But the two sides are there for you to see for yourself. I can assure you that Sandy Hook was real, the US government (Israel, too) had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, and the moon landing did not happen on a sound stage. I even believe that only one person went to Dealy Plaza on November 22, 1963, with the intent on shooting JFK, and that person's name was Lee Harvey Oswald. I also believe that the official Foster story is untrue, because all the evidence shows it to be untrue. Please find out for yourself. Vcuttolo (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead Link Note #14[edit]

Perhaps someone with more expertise than I will know what to do with the fact that the Link to Note #14 (Lori Leibovich, "Why Vincent Foster can't rest in peace",, May 28, 1998.) is no longer maintained on the web site. Thanks! Jgmccue (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volunteer Marek[edit]

I am opening this page because the person named in the subject line asked me to, although I do not understand why this is necessary. The entire "Suicide of Vince Foster" article is nothing short of a journalistic atrocity. I made the slightest inprovement at the edges, removing obviously unreliable or outright false information, yet my edit was immediately undone, for reasons that escape me. I explained my justifications for my rather solid edits exactly where I am supposed to, in the box provided for explaining the justification for edits. I did run out of space to provide more sources, but I think 5 should be plenty. In that the information I removed had supplied NO sources, are we not getting this backwards? Vcuttolo (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vcuttolo: Edit-warring doesn't help your cause. If someone reverts your edits, the correct response is to discuss them on the talk page, not to repeatedly try to reinsert them. You've been undone by four editors already. "My edits are right" is not a justification. (WP:EDITWAR) TeraTIX 12:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The current lede reads

Deputy White House counsel Vince Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park off the George Washington Parkway in Virginia, outside Washington, D.C., on July 20, 1993. His death was ruled a suicide by five official investigations, but remains a subject of conspiracy theories.

Is there any doubt it was suicide? As far as I know, that's completely unambiguous, but this phrasing heavily implies that there's some uncertainty.

I propose eliminating the weasel-wording in favor of a straightforward statement, as well as perhaps adding some context as to why there's a Wikipedia article about it in the first place. --Calton | Talk 05:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]