Bloodstain Discovery Raises Question of Evidence Tampering In Foster Death


About This Snippet

During the course of Kenneth Starr's  investigation into the Foster death, his chief forensic scientist, Dr. Henry Lee, claimed that he had discovered new evidence: bloodstains visible to the naked eye on both sides of the lenses of Foster's eyeglasses. 

However,  more than three years before Starr issued his report announcing this new evidence, the FBI Lab examined Mr. Foster's eyeglasses and reported that there were no bloodstains on them. Starr did not explain this discrepancy between Dr. Lee's findings and that of the FBI lab.

Starr's failure to explain this discrepancy between Dr. Lee's findings and that of the FBI lab raises the specter of evidence tampering.  Specifically, there are three possible explanations:
 

  1. The FBI examined the glasses closely enough to find a single granule of unburned gunpowder on them, but missed bloodstains large enough to be seen by the naked eye. 
Or
  1. Dr. Lee was mistaken about the bloodstains -- i.e. the FBI is correct and there are no bloodstains on the on the lenses of Foster's glasses, but Dr. Lee incorrectly thought there was. 
                Or
  1. There were no bloodstains on the eyeglasses when the FBI lab examined them, but there were bloodstains on the eyeglasses when Dr. Lee examined them .. in other words, the bloodstain evidence on the lenses of the eyeglasses was fabricated. 
By failing to explain the discrepancy between Dr. Lee's finding and the finding of the FBI lab, Starr has raised the specter of evidence tampering in the violent and supposedly unattended death of Vincent Foster. 

The FBI Lab finds one granule of gunpowder and no bloodstains ...
 

 

FBI Lab report 5/9/94

FBI Lab report 5/9/94
In May of 1994, the FBI Lab examined Foster's glasses closely enough to find a single granule of unburned powder on them, yet could find no blood on them, reporting [1897] (emphasis added, remarks in brackets):

SEROLOGICAL ANALYSES: 

Grouping tests conducted on the K3 blood sample and the human blood identified on the below-listed specimens disclosed the following 

K3 "PGM 2-2+, Hp 2, Gc1F1S" 
Q8 "PGM 2-2+" 
Q9 "PGM 2-2+, Hp 2, Gc lFlS" 
Attempts to further characterize Q8 were inconclusive. Human blood, too limited in amount for conclusive grouping purposes, was identified on Q11A [the FBI Lab designation for Foster's belt]. Blood, too limited in amount for conclusive origin determination, was identified on Q15 [the FBI Lab designation for one of Foster's shoes]. A preliminary chemical test for the presence of blood was positive on a stain of human origin on, Q10 [the FBI Lab designation for Foster's shorts]. however, the presence of blood could not be confirmed. A preliminary chemical test for the presence of blood was positive on stains on Q4A [the FBI Lab designation for Foster's handkerchief] and Q11 [the FBI Lab designation for Foster's pants]; however, the presence of blood could not be confirmed due to a limited amount of stain. No blood was identified on Q3 [the FBI Lab designation for Foster's eyeglasses], Q4 [ the FBI designation for Foster's jacket], Q5 [the FBI Lab designation for Foster's tie], Q12 through Q14 [the FBI designation for Foster's socks and one shoe], Q30 [the FBI Lab designation for the paper used to wrap the gun to protect evidence] or Kl [the FBI Lab designation for the gun].

Dr. Lee finds bloodstains ...

Several years after this FBI report was issued, Starr's chief forensic scientist, Dr. Henry Lee, reported that he found blood on the glasses; the Starr report quotes Dr. Lee (Starr Report at 57, emphasis added): 
Dr. Lee stated that "[b]loodstains were found on both sides of the lenses" of Mr. Foster's eyeglasses.[162] These bloodstains "were less than or equal to 1 mm in size. In addition, blood-like and tissue-like materials were identified on the [fingerprint] lifts of the eyeglasses."[163] 

 Bloodstains large enough to be seen by  the naked eye

One millimeter is about 0.04 inches -- approximately the size of the gap in a spark plug. A single bloodstain 1 millimeter in size is quite visible to the naked eye; several bloodstatains 1 millimeter in size would be very apparent:


A Single Bloodstain 1 mm in size

The Specter of Evidence Tampering

In May of 1994, the FBI Lab examined the eyeglasses for blood and found none.  The FBI lab examined the eyeglasses closely enough to find a single granule of gunpowder yet found no blood. 

Years later, Dr. Lee claims to have found more than one bloodstain on both sides of the lenses of Foster's glasses, some up to 1 mm -- bloodstains large enough to be seen by the naked eye.

There are three possibilities: 

  1. The FBI examined the glasses closely enough to find a single granule of unburned gunpowder on them, but missed bloodstains large enough to be seen by the naked eye.
    2. OR 


  2. Dr. Lee was mistaken about the bloodstains -- i.e. the FBI is correct and there are no bloodstains on the on the lenses of Foster's glasses, but Dr. Lee incorrectly thought there was. 
    3. OR 


  3. There were no bloodstains on the eyeglasses when the FBI lab examined them, but there were bloodstains on the eyeglasses when Dr. Lee examined them .. in other words, the bloodstain evidence on the lenses of the eyeglasses was fabricated. 

By failing to explain the discrepancy between Dr. Lee's finding and the finding of the FBI lab Kenneth Starr raised the specter of evidence tampering in the violent and supposedly unattended death of Vincent Foster.

Citations in brackets are to page numbers of the two 1994 Senate Whitewater Hearings Volumes [S. Hrg. 103-889, Volumes I & II] and of the 1994 Report Volume [Rept. 103-433, Volume I].
jc huntington
 10/98
Home