Skip to comments.Constructing Truth: the FBI's (non)recording policy
Posted on 08/11/2018 6:11:58 PM PDT by marktwain
Instead of electronically recording its interviews and interrogations, the FBIs policy is to rely on agents typewritten section 302 reports, crafted to reflect the supposed substance of the exchange. At such sessions, one agent takes notes by hand while the second agentin the traditional two-agent FBI interviewing teamconducts the interview/interrogation. Tape recordings are almost never done because such recordation is believe it or not against formal written FBI policy. Therefore, the 302 report becomes the sole arbiter of what was, and was not, said; moreover, as we will see below, any interviewee who contests its accuracy risks prosecution. Hence, a potential witness script is written and not necessarily by the witness himself the moment he opens his mouth in the presence of an agent.
On its face, and in an era where digital recording has become ubiquitous, there seems to be little justification for a policy of not recording interviews. Paul K. Charlton, a now-former US Attorney in Arizona, certainly thought so when he broke ranks and ordered the mandatory recording of any statements from an investigative target in cases undertaken by his office. Charltons policy was resisted, and he was fired soon after instituting it. The FBIs general counsels office produced an internal memorandum (PDF), later made public by the New York Times, listing four separate justifications for the non-recording policy. Two of these arguments, it turns out, are weak, a third is laughably weak, and a fourth is terrifying in its practical implications for the fair, and truthful, functioning of the federal system of criminal justice.
Consider, to begin, the two merely weak arguments (all quotations regarding the policy below taken from the FBIs internal memorandum (PDF)):
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The FBI is totally corrupted.
The fish has rotted from the head down since Mueller was Director.
Disband it and start over.
Yes, there are numerous times they record interviews.
The general reasons given amount to:
Record when it is to our advantage. Otherwise, don’t.
The most cynical answer is the correct one. They just come out and say it: "We routinely lie to defendants about what 'evidence' we have. If we record an interview, people will hear all the lies and the threats based on those lies."
- "we know what happened. we're just trying to fill in a few details."
- "look at this big folder with your name on it! all this is evidence against you! no, you can't see a single page of it."
- "and we've got your fingerprints, and all kinds of forensic evidence, and there's video of you, and your buddy already rolled on you..."
- "and we'll charge you with this, and this, and this, and this, and this..."
This policy is only in place to give the FBI maximum latitude to frame anyone for anything they feel is appropriate.
Odd that B L M has not latched on to this topic?
35,000+ employees, a budget of almost 9 billion they deign to tell us about. Supposedly 97% of campaign contributions from DoJ employees went to Clinton in 2016. Nothing is going to happen now, it was probably too late 50+ years ago to change the culture of the FBI.
I had FBI question me about potential illegal acts. There were two. I brought second person into meeting as witness that my only comment was I needed to talk to attorney before answering. I didn’t trust them to accurately record my non cooperation.
Looks like you have read about interview techniques.
Those are ones I have read about.
Yep, that’s what usually happens. They don’t want anything that can effectively counter their “official” transcript.
Or that they were testilying
There are many police interrogations that are video taped.
That the feds dont is all about corruption
You cannot be forced to talk to any agent
So you have direct knowledge of every FBI interview that has ever been conducted? Incredible!
Because, in general, they are?
Could HAVE, lease Dean.
lease - please
Noob is full of it as he is wont to be.
And the sage of Waco opines. Worthless as always.
I can see where they’re coming from. A 302 is easier to revise as needed, compared to the technical difficulty of revising an audio/video recording.
They also don’t want to reveal their interrogation techniques, because us non-cops just wouldn’t appreciate the professional sheen on the threats and lies.
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.