Replies

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]

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.