A bare-bones version of the story can be read here. Basically, a writer/lawyer wants to see, and have the right to use, crime scene photos of Vince Foster that he believes will prove Foster was murdered, under the Freedom of Information Act.
The government, Foster’s family, and Dale Erndhart’s family oppose his petition, stating that this would be an unreasonable breach of privacy against the grieving family for no demonstrable gain. In fact, Justice Scalia and some of the lawyers mocked the conspiracy theories of the petitioner, Allan Favish (which apparently took up a good portion of his brief), in a somewhat deadpan way, pointing out the five investigations, one of which run by Ken Starr himself, that led to no other road but suicide.
Favish, however, claims that the photos aren’t that gruesome, and that the FOIA should triumph over the familial concerns. In fact, media groups support him for fear that the government could use a victory here in the future as an excuse to “reclassify” information that would otherwise be accessible under the FOIA.
I have to agree with rjung. If there’s no pressing public interest in those photos, why would you want to release them and put Foster’s family and friends through that?
It was a suicide, not a “crime scene.” It’s been fully investigated multiple times (including by Kenneth Starr) and every conclusion has been the same. There is no compelling reason to release these photos to the public. The family’s privacy should be respected here.
IANAL, and I don’t understand the nuances in the FoIA, but wouldn’t it be possible to allow these “investigators” to view the photos w/o releasing them into the public domain? If so, that would seem to be a reasonable solution. It would be nice of one of our resident legal scholars checked in with an opinion.