While Dr. Haut's report of his investigation into the death was quoted in official reports (e.g. Starr cites both pages in his report), Dr. Haut's report was never made available to the public. 

Four years after the death, the report of Dr. Haut was found in the National Archives by Hugh Sprunt and Patrick Knowlton.

There are several very interesting items in Dr. Haut's report. 

One very interesting item is the fact that the description of the wound path found on page 1 of the report has been altered to read: "Perforating gunshot wound mouth-head".

Another very interesting item is that the report gives two descriptions of the wound path.  On page 2 we find an unaltered description of the wound path which reads: "gunshot wound mouth to neck" which contradicts the altered description of the wound path on page one ("Perforating gunshot wound mouth-head"):

Since there is officially only one wound path, at least one of these descriptions has to be false. 

One question is: 

Which description is false -- the altered description found on page 1 or the unaltered description found on page 2?

According to Dr. Haut, the altered description on page 1 is true, while the unaltered description is false. 

Moreover, while Dr. Haut says that the altered description of the wound path is the  true description of the wound path, Dr. Haut also says that he has no knowledge how this true description came to read correctly.  Dr. Haut says that he has no knowledge of the alteration.

When a government official suffers a violent and supposedly unattended death by gunshot to the head and the report of the medical examiner at the scene contains two contradictory descriptions of the wound path, one of which has been altered, and the medical examiner tells us that the altered description is the true description while the unaltered description is the false description, our scrutiny is warrented. 

Let's now ask another question: 

How did false information wind up in the report of the medical examiner that investigated the death while at the death scene?

We know this because Dr. Haut has admitted that he filed a falsified death report.

Filing a death report with a false description of a wound path is against the law, yet Dr. Haut willfully filed a false death report containing a signed a declaration saying that it was a true report.  The declaration reads:

I hereby declare that after receiving notice of the death described herein I took charge of the body and made inquiries regarding the  cause and manner of death in accordance with the Code of Virginia  as amended; an that the information contained herein regarding such death is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

1. Take charge of the body
2. Make inquiries regarding the cause and manner of death
3. File a true report on what he discovered.

1. Entered hearsay information regarding the wound path into his report before he took charge of the body,
2. Then took charge of the body & made inquiries regarding the cause and manner of death,
3. Discovered that the hearsay information regarding the wound path that he had previously typed on his partially completed report was false,
4. Completed his report without correcting the false hearsay information in his report,
5. Signed a declaration saying that the false hearsay information in his report was true, when he knew it was false.

When Dr. Haut was asked why his description of the wound path on page 1 ("Perforating gunshot wound mouth-head") was different than his description of the same wound path on page 2 ("gunshot wound mouth to neck"), Dr. Haut replied that the altered description found on page 1 of his report was true  while the unaltered description of the wound path found on page 2 was false (emphasis added):

   . . . 

QUESTION: Why does your report say on the second page, "gunshot wound  mouth to neck"? 

HAUT: I think the discrepancy lies in the fact that, what that is was actually the first report we got from the observers that called that had been alerted that there was a body there, somebody from the Park Police. And we put it down as it came over the phone. OK? But actually the wound of exit wasn't in the neck; it was in the occipital area, a little bit above the base of the skull.
. . . 

(To read the interview. click here: http://www.federal.com/nov02-98/Haut.html)

In other words, Dr. Haut is saying that the altered description of the wound path ("Perforating gunshot wound mouth-head") is the actual wound path, which means that the unaltered description of the wound path found on page 2 is false.

Yet when asked why the  true description of the actual wound path was altered in his report, Dr. Haut says he doesn't know what the interviewer is talking about:

QUESTION: It looks like under the place where it says 'wound mouth-' that something has  been whited out and off to the side the word 'head' is typed in. 'Head' looks like it has been substituted for the word that was originally there. 

HAUT: That I don't know. I'd have to see what you're talking about. 

It is a very strange response because Dr. Haut wrote the report which says that the altered description of the wound path is the true description of the actual wound path, but he doesn't know how the correct description came to read correctly.

After saying that he knows nothing about the alteration that resulted in a correct description of the wound path, Dr. Haut goes on to admit that the false description of the wound path that he typed on page 2 was intentional.

Dr. Haut admits that he entered the false description of the wound path ("gunshot wound mouth to neck") in his report before he had taken charge of the body. 

Dr. Haut then tells the interviewer that after taking charge of the body and making inquiries (as prescribed by law), he knew that the actual exit wound was in the occipital portion of the skull and not in the neck as he had falsely reported on page 2 of his report.  Dr. Haut then admits that he willfully left the false description of the wound path on page 2 of his report:
 

QUESTION: Are you saying the report you filed after examining the body was based on something you heard before you examined the body? 

HAUT: Part of it was, yes. Part of it was and part of it wasn't. The part on the second page, there, was what we got from the police officers. 

QUESTION: Why does the report on the first page say something different from what it says on the second page? 

HAUT: Yes, that's what my observations were when I got there.

1. He entered hearsay information regarding the wound path into his report before he took charge of the body,
2. He then went to the scene and took charge of the body,
3. He made inquiries regarding the cause and manner of death,
4. He discovered that the hearsay information regarding the wound path that he had previously typed on his partially completed report was false,
5. He completed his report without correcting the false hearsay information in his report ,
6. He illegally signed a declaration saying that the false hearsay information in his report was true, when he knew it was false.

How did Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr respond to the fact that Dr. Haut filed a falsified report on his on-scene investigation of the Foster death?

Robert Fiske's Response To Dr. Haut's Falsified Death Report

Robert Fiske simply failed to notice that Dr. Haut had filed a falsified death investigation report.

Robert Fiske didn't want you to notice that he had overlooked Dr. Haut's falsified death investigation report, so he didn't publish it.

Kenneth Starr's Response To Dr. Haut's Falsified Death Report

Kenneth Starr simply failed to notice that Dr. Haut had filed a falsified death investigation report.

Kenneth Starr didn't want you to notice that he had overlooked Dr. Haut's falsified death investigation report, so he didn't publish it.

The news media was entrusted with the responsibility of informing you of misdeeds in government. 

How did the media respond to the fact that the government investigators Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr failed in their duty to investigate the Foster death?

The news media either failed to notice that Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr failed to notice that Dr. Haut filed a falsified death investigation report or they did notice and simply didn't publish it.