Although I wasn't here back then, I can vouch that a lot of new iformation about the Foster homicide has been developed since 1997 - when Sprunt gave that talk.
I've already reviewed the Sprunt tapes. Sprunt seems honest in his approach, although some on our side of the fence have had doubts about his integrity. He is thinking correctly on most of the issues he presents (of course he had time limitations which prevented him from discussing some others).
However, Sprunt seems to have one big blind spot when he trusts the truth of what Lisa Foster told the federal investigators. In fact, the "grieving widow" was in all probability part of the plot itself, and she had every motivation in the aftermath to cover up some very inconvenient facts which can be deduced from the evidence. Recall that she made out very well financially from her deceased husband's life insurancy policy payoff (which was in force even in the event of "suicide") and from the very timely transfer of oil leases from Vince's mother to Vince himself.
Careful critical analysis of Lisa's statements - i. e., exposing them as lies - go a long way to cracking the case.
You think Foster’s wife had him killed? And stole the parking lot surveillance tapes? And carried him to FMP? And had his office prematurely cleaned out? And planted the fake suicide note?
It was certainly one of the sloppiest investigations ever - but I haven’t ruled out the theory that Foster committed suicide.
Careful critical analysis of Lisa's statements - i. e., exposing them as lies - go a long way to cracking the case.
Your point may be true, but unprovable based on publicly available information. Hugh was simply showing that the government's own reports are not supported by the government's own documents. At times, the government's own documents make outright deceptive statements in light of the government's own documents.