Polygraphs For Fort Detrick Workers

In the absence of a prime suspect, the FBI has to build its case through subtraction, taking away the elements that don't fit, trying to make their theory work,"

Does anyone else find this statement bizarre? It would seem to me that “applying” your theory to a case; in an attempt to make it work would find you ignoring evidence…

How the hell is this good police work if you are going to make a theory work? Shouldn’t the evidence lead you to conclusion without the need to theorize or speculate randomly then force the evidence to fit your theory?

WTF…

This is a complete waste of time and money. I would refuse to take the test.

Every time this place is mentioned, I remember the 11th of September and Brit Hume on FNC saying they thought the 4th possible target was Ft Detrick or Camp David. I never heard it again. Gives me the creeps, still.

Mrs K

The Unprofessional and Unreliable FBI "302" Interview The purpose of interviews during criminal or civil investigations is to objectively determine everything the person interviewed knows - and doesn't know - about the matter and properly document it in the best possible way to avoid any later dispute about exactly what was said by the person interviewed and the person(s) conducting the interview. The best way to do that is to conduct the inteview at the earliest possible time and record the interview in its entirety. The fairest way to do it is to use 2 or more recorders, keeping in mind that opposing counsel has the right to listen to the tape, have it examined for possible tape tampering and to a transcript in the event a duplicate original isn't made for that purpose during the interview. An added benefit to duplicate recordings arises when one of the tapes becomes damaged, as sometimes happens. Keep in mind that the investigator's job is to expertly gather evidence - and preserve it.

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 potentially horrendous peril for all Americans.

The bottom line is that even the interviewing agents' Supervisors have no way of knowing what was actually said and not said, 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 that interview procedure has been previously repeatedly publicly criticized for that reason.

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 for 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 not ignorant of it either, as the following reflects.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/1998/jan1598.htm
[quote]
QUESTION: Ms. Reno, an off-the-wall question here.

(Laughter.)

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]

Frustrated for months and with no clear suspect, the mass lie detector tests, which are expected to start in June, constitute the latest government attempt to generate new leads.

Relying on polygraph "tests" to identify (or clear) potential suspects is simply stupid. Polygraph tests don't work: any liar can beat a polygraph test, and any truth-teller can fail one.

It stands to reason that anyone diabolically clever enough to have sent the anthrax letters will be able to learn how to pass a polygraph "test." You don't have to be a sociopathic liar or somehow believe your own lies. You just have to understand the fraudulent nature of the procedure, make no damaging admissions, and covertly augment your reactions to the so-called "control" questions.

For a detailed explanation of how polygraph testing works (and doesn't), as well as how to pass or beat a polygraph "test," see AntiPolygraph.org's free book:

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector

It would seem to me that “applying” your theory to a case; in an attempt to make it work would find you ignoring evidence…

There was only one bomber, there was only one bomber, there was only one bomber......(OK City)

We have, quite possibly, been ignoring the effects of foreign terror on our soil for some time.

It is to the advantage of the power hungry to aim the blame at Americans, as this justifies even more draconian surveillance, more destruction of the Constitution in the name of 'security'. IMHO, Clinton's people had done this in Oklahoma when numerous sightings of 'Middle Eastern looking' men, some in the company of McVeigh, were patently ignored. This shifted public anger away from the government (still fuming over Waco), toward anyone who called themselves a patriot. It stemmed the groundswell toward repealing the "assault weapons ban", and gave the anti-gun bunch another shot.

And don't forget flight 800,the center fuel tank blew up, even there should have been no air to permit an explosion....But whats-his-nuts' shoes could have blown that tank wide open if they had gone off...Never mind the 100 or so people who said they saw a missile or something like it...

Finally, 9/11. Undeniably a terrorist attack. End of Denial.

Maybe someone at Detrick sold a sample, maybe not. Maybe they are too dead to polygraph. Current employees make less likely suspects than those who have quit or been terminated. But polygraph tests are a just a fishing expedition.

Thanks for reposting this !!!!!!

I had saved this article that you had posted sometime ago.

Yesterday I included this article in a letter to two U.S. Congressmen and the top FBI agent for South Florida concerning five (5) of his FBI agents in West Palm Beach FL. and Ft. Pierce, FL. that are the subject of an FBI Office Office of Professional Responsibility investigation for allegedly lying during an FBI interview of me and a followup telephone conversation.

There were, apparently, a group of Arab-hating scientists at Fort Detrick who called themselves the "camel club" and had access to anthrax. See Detrick's security lapses date to 1980s; Anthrax not first biological agent to disappear from base. A relevant extract from the article:

Now Levitt, who worked at Detrick for 17 years before he resigned, said he is not surprised by reports of missing anthrax of the same strain as that involved in last fall's mail attacks that killed five people and injured 13.

Another former Fort Detrick scientist and Frederick resident, Ayaad Assaad, filed a lawsuit in 1998 along with two other former scientists alleging their 1997 termination from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) was a result of age discrimination.

Assaad claims in the suit that scientists and high-ranking Army officers formed a "camel club," a derogatory reference to his Egyptian background.

While Assaad's lawyer, Rosemary McDermott, recently studied a 500-page document the Army compiled about the harassment, she discovered that soldiers testified at the time to missing anthrax.

A warning bell went off in McDermott's mind.

"When we got this information, we felt it was important to get it out into the public for their safety," Assaad said, referring to reports that the strain of anthrax used in the attacks has been traced back to the same strain used at Fort Detrick.

Army officials said the strain is also used in other facilities throughout the country.

Assaad's story, and that of the two other scientists -- Richard Crosland and Kay Mereish -- has hit national news this week over concern about the anthrax mailer's identity.

Assaad became convinced that the terrorist is either a current or former Detrick scientist after the FBI received an anonymous letter identifying Assaad as a potential bioterrorist just days before the first anthrax letter was mailed.

But the FBI has not interviewed Assaad about his theory, he said.

"Everyone else is interested in my story except for law enforcement," Assaad said

Curiouser and curiouser.

What a total waste of time and money! That stuff came out of Ossama's stash!

What a total waste of time and money! That stuff came out of Ossama's stash!

Looks like the FEDS are trying to 'pin it on someone'!!!

What slips through the 302's, the FBI Lab more than makes up by COOKING THE EVIDENCE!!

Ask Dr Whitehurst!!

This thread is not about Flight 800. For the latest thread on that subject click here.

THIS IS JUST SMOKE AND MIRRORS! THE FEDS ALREADY KNOW WHO SENT THE ANTHRAX AND ARE PROTECTING HIM.

I have a bridge to sell to anyone who thinks the FBI doesn't already know who sent the anthrax.

You missed the point. I was not attempting to divert the discussion, but to illustrate simply that we have been 'under attack' for some time, and that either official denial to prevent panic, or patent inability to recognize the fact has prevented the American public from being aware of the situation.

Polygraph tests are fishing expeditions, plain and simple. I have been subjected to one (with all of my co-workers) when law enforcement came up with no suspects they wished to pursue.

Who knows? Maybe they'll catch someone.