Posted on 08/30/2002 11:10:50 AM PDT by Asmodeus
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:08:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PHOTOGRAPHS produced Sunday by former government scientist Steven J. Hatfill, purporting to show his "girlfriend's" apartment trashed by FBI agents, evoked an uneasy sense of recognition among law enforcement experts. Applying pressure on loved ones of an investigative target is a favorite method by the Bureau, and rough treatment in the execution of a search warrant is a familiar application of that pressure. The problem with the FBI, however, goes beyond strong-arm tactics. Since the FBI has affirmed that Dr. Hatfill is not a suspect in last year's anthrax murders, why is he subjected to such treatment? Why have the news media been tipped in advance of repeated searches of his home? These unanswered questions spawn unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that testify to the FBI's deteriorating prestige.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The FBI 302 Form Interview Procedure
Routinely, two agents conduct the interview, usually one asking the questions while the other takes notes on a pocket pad and sometime later dictates a summary of the interview which dictation is sometime later transcribed on a 302 form which is eventually returned to the agent for review and signature (or any corrections, additions or deletions he might consider appropriate). It's not evidence of what the agents or the person interviewed actually said. At best, it's the agent's recollection of what was said. At worst, it's an invitation to skullduggery and - keeping in mind the information is Intelligence - potentially horrendous peril for all Americans as the obvious Intelligence breakdown prior to the events of 11 September 2001 dramatized.
The 302 procedure guarantees that even the interviewing agents' Supervisors have no way of knowing what was actually said - and not said - by any of those present, much less whether the interview was thorough and complete.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/Transcript_8_23_3.htm
[excerpt][quote] " . . . . . the FBI did not make any transcripts or recordings of these interviews. Documents are written in the words of the FBI agents who prepared them. Some of the documents contain incomplete information or are vaguely worded. In other words, the documents may not always say what the witness said." [end quote]
http://www.law.emory.edu/4circuit/june96/945902.p.html
[excerpt][quote] "Thus, when a government agent interviews a witness and takes contemporaneous notes of the witness' responses, the notes do not become the witness' statement- - despite the agent's best efforts to be accurate- - if the agent "does not read back, or the witness does not read, what the [agent] has written." Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94, 110- 11 n.19 (1976). And a government agent's interview notes that "merely select portions, albeit accurately, from a lengthy oral recital" do not satisfy the Jencks Act's requirement of a "substantially verbatim recital." Palermo, 360 U.S. at 352. [end quote]
In short, the FBI 302 form interview summaries are not "witness reports" or "witness statements" or "witness declarations" and don't document anything said during the interviews.
Why does the FBI cling to the 302 interview procedure?
To tilt the playing field in the prosecutions' favor in the event of an arrest by avoiding the documentation of any suggestive "leading" questions by the agents and any exculpatory statements that might be made by those being interviewed or even the agents themselves.
Trial lawyers dealing with cases involving FBI 302 form interview summaries instead of recorded interviews and the transcripts of those recorded interviews routinely raise hell about it not just those reasons but also for the the obvious reason that they can neither hear for themselves everything both the witness and the interviewer actually said nor read everything both the witness and the interviewer actually said.
The press is well aware of the problem, as the following documents, but have done a poor job of bringing it to the attention of the public.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/1998/jan1598.htm
[quote]
QUESTION: After the Nichols trial, there was some concern on the part of some of the jurors there about the fact -- and this comes up from time to time -- that the FBI does not transcribe interviews, it does this form 302. And every once in a while somebody says, you know, that it is not the best evidence, 302's are summaries of what something thinks somebody said. And people, every once in a while, look at whether the FBI should change that.
Is that anything that is being looked at? During the time you have been Attorney General, has anyone ever suggested that the FBI ought to change that practice?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I have heard it on occasions and have discussed it with Director Freeh. I cannot discuss it in the context of this particular case.
QUESTION: But as a general matter, is that something that is pretty much a dead letter now?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: As always, we continue to review each issues, the circumstances of the issue in the context it arises, to see what is appropriate. But, again, with respect to this matter, in this case, I cannot discuss it.
QUESTION: Yes, but as a general matter, does it strike you as a good idea, the way the FBI does the 302's? Do you see any need to change that?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I think, each case, you have got to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and I think that is what the Bureau does.
QUESTION: Are you saying that they sometimes use a tape recorder?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, I think you have to look at the specific examples of each case and make the best judgment of what is right in that case.
QUESTION: (Off microphone) -- some have suggested the FBI should no longer use this form 302, and should go to a transcription of interviews. Would that be a good idea, in your view?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, you are going to have to look at the whole matter: each case, when you interview, who you interview, what the circumstances are.
QUESTION: But the FBI has a policy that applies to all cases all the time, that they do not tape record their interviews.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I will be happy to check with Director Freeh and clarify anything that I have said. But, again, I cannot comment on this particular case. And I think you have got to look at the larger picture. [end quote]
Janet Reno obviously chose to engage in wiggleworming when publicly confronted with the indefensible FBI 302 form interview procedure.
Los Angeles Times 7-31-2001 Hearings Open on Mueller
Senate: Bush's pick to head the FBI tells panel his "highest priority" is to restore public's trust in the battle-weary bureau. [excerpt] " . . . . . he said he would consider expanded tape-recording of FBI interviews to give its investigations greater credibility--another idea the bureau has resisted through the years." [end excerpt]
[quote]When asked about the backwardness of the FBI in not having its agents tape record their interviews, Dr. Whitehurst said this is because they don't want to be tied down to what the person being interviewed actually says. They want to be able to embroider the interview or trim it. He said he had recommended equipping all the agents with eyeglasses that have a built-in video camera that will record both what is said and what the agent can see. He said that was rejected. It would deprive the agents of their freedom to misreport what the witnesses had said. [end quote] Source - Accuracy In Media
I'm saying that when you pass a test administered by a law enforcement agency, you have a pretty good presumption of innocence. If I were on a jury I would need a lot of hard evidence to convict.
The press reports what it wants to report; in Hatfill's case, the impetus for the reporting comes not so much from the FBI as it came from Rosenberg and the New York Times reporter, and a few others who have bought into Rosenberg's theories for political purposes. Journalists these days spend more time reading the work of fellow journalists and recompiling it that the press generates its own news or even copies ideas from internet forums whose accuracy may be unproven. There are just not that many serious investigative journalists out there, so the press can be 'fed' information with ease.
They report his purported background as if it is 'fact,' when I have yet to see verifiable information on the guy. He worked with missionaries helping poor people while in Africa. Others say racist mercenaries. Others say anticommunist mercenaries. Others say he furthered his biology degree there, and his specialty is ebola research. Who to believe? Or did he work with missionaries and mercenaries, was he a racist mercenary, or was he just an anticommunist one? They're not the same- one fights for racial reasons, the other fights against another form of hate called communism. There were communist black thugs there who were every bit as racist as any whites. There were anticommunists of different races. BUt the truth is so muddled now that even supposedly legitimate sources are repeating conflicting information as truth. Information advertised as fact has turned out to be fiction.
No, it's not the FBI so much as it is Rosenberg's accusations, as filtered through the press. Her agenda is to can the US weapons program and subject US laboratories to inspection by say, Cuban or Chinese inspectors. But because of her accusations, attention was drawn to certain people, and lately it has been Hatfill, though he was by no means the first person she fingered. So the press looked up everything they could on Hatfill and then started watching his house, following him around, and finding out the names of people who had lived nearby, knew him professionally, were related, or so forth. When so many of the media's resources are focused on one guy 24-7, there aren't too many ways to be discrete in investigating him and eliminating him as a suspect. Everything you do looks like 'he's the man' to a rabid press.
And, when the press was focused 24-7 on him because of his getting fingered by a purported 'microbiologist' who turns out to be a political activist instead, they were missing searches of other scientist's homes and property, and missing investigations going on in the case both here and abroad. Their lack of comprehensive coverage made the media focus on one guy all the more glaring, and people have wallpapered over the FBI's oft-repeated statement that "they are not ruling out anything, foreign or domestic."
This is as I predicted. I have already pointed out that the only way Hatfill could deal with the daily presstitute watch on his house, with overly zealous FBI agents harassing his family, and get his side reported on at least a little, was to make a statement critical of Ashcroft and the FBI. There are just enough problems with the FBI to keep the press occupied, and the comment on Ashcroft lessened the press' hostility towards him because they hate Ashcroft more than anything. While they still repeat hearsay about the guy as if it is 'fact,' they have gone on to focus more on bungling at the FBI and that has apparently ended the 24-7 watch. What is more, the public announcements and naming of two particular agents has brought those agents and their bosses into the eye of their Top Boss, Ashcroft, in a way that cannot be ignored or thrown away. A simple letter of complaint to the AG's office could be tossed by an employee before the AG sees it. That likely resulted in the AG taking a closer look at what was going on, and who among the agents may be talking too much to the press.
Please forgive me, but I would suggest to amend your remarks ... that actually Ms. Rosenberg gets too much credit.
She should not be singled out from the operations intelligence work performed by the Federation of American Scientists ("FAS") for the purpose of keeping the "liberal media" up on the features of the U.S.A.'s defense and industrial complex.
So that the Democrat- leftist, socialist, "internationalist," echo-system of "intelligencia" ... are equipped to define all that we do to sustain freedom, as being bad.
The FAS has one purpose, to support "Hate America First," by eroding confidence in common sense about what is right and what is worth fighting for: liberty.
Mr. Hatfill is not the target of Ms. Rosenberg's ambitions; rather, the entire U.S. war department is the target of the FAS.
Hatfill just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time --- making himself an easy target.
Yet Mr. Hatfill does have a serious problem with the U.S. Dept. of Justice, because there are many coincidences un-reported to the public, between his past and the events of September 11, 2001.
There is more about him, which the FAS has on file, and there is more about him that the F.B.I. has on file.
Another one of the coincidences in all this, is the connection between the "White House F.B.I. Files" maintained by Hillary Clinton during Clinton Administration, and the organizations, FAS and PFAW (People for the American Way), the "beneficiaries," you might say, of that information.
Part of the "sustainable development" thing.
The befuddlement for the Justice Dept., is how to prosecute the bad guys, when there are so many roads which lead back to both of the major political parties' fiefdoms.
The FAS and PFAW are major intel ops for the political left. Mr. Hatfill is not a big player, but he has been a popular associate of certain "informed sources" for the political right.
You might say that this is one of those "interesting times" in which Chinese warlords must settle something that is not going to "just go away," and is upsetting the status quo.
Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Hatfill are the gladiators for their respective camps.
Question: What liberals have stepped forward to defend Hatfill?
Question: What conservatives have stepped forward to defend Ms. Rosenberg?
Actually, her evolved "Profiling" was structured to pick out Hatfill specifically - she apparently took facts she learned about Hatfill, or suspected about him, and added it to her "Profile". I suspect that after meeting with Congressional dems they put pressure on the FBI for "progress", for which they would take credit. Her pseudo-scientific analysis had the imprimatur of "science" which the Senate panel/FBI may have fallen for.
When Hatfill repeatedly states "I did not have a anthrax shot" he's specifically responding to one of the allegations in her profile that could easily be disproved. Others he can't. FOr example, Babs says in her profile "Probably knows Dr. "X"" - she knew full well that Hatfill had done a paper with that scientist. This is not profiling, but framing, giving the title "profile" after the fact.
She may have had a general agenda, but she got caught up with Hatfill - perhaps for credit grabbing, perhaps out of obsession, perhaps misled in part. She herself admits that she joked, before 9/11, about how America needed a wake-up call bio-attack. Probably all those people in that "industry" have thought similar at times.
Neither the notes nor the completed 302 summaries are ever seen by those interviewed, much less verified as accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.