Replies

Thanks for posting this. However, this comment says it all about the pink panty PC/Diversity clowns left over from the Clintoonian years and Jake Reno:

Mueller's in-house memo to employees came two weeks after FBI Deputy Director Bruce Gebhardt sent an internal memo to employees saying he was "amazed and astounded" by the institution's failure to commit its energies and resources to the fight against terrorism.

These pink panty wearing diversity clowns were too busy having Diversity Quilting Parties in the offices to worrry about rounding up terrorists!

Mr Gebhardt will be lucky to salvage 5% of the Clintoonian hires and promoted FBIers. The other 95% would be more effective as agents for the Islamofascists/Kazis!

One FBI Agent Conducting Interviews With A Recorder Is Quicker, More Efficient & Less Expensive Than TWo FBI Agents With a Notepad 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 a matter being investigated 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 most effective 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 recording 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 - 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.</font size>

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]

__________________________________________________________________
Why FBI Agents Don't Record Interviews [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

FBI Crime Lab Misconduct

The bureaucratic imperative that no agency, however functionless or incapable, can ever be allowed to go out of existence, overrides national survival and common sense.

The FBI is a living lie. This is an agency that counts abandoned stolen cars as felony arrests and chases petty bank robbers. Within the agency there is no management, technical, counter-intelligence, or Arab language expertise, no doctrine, no sources, no morale, and no desire to get any.

This is an agency that has let America down repeatedly: at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, the FBI lab, Hanssen. As a society, we'd lose nothing if we turned responsibility for counter-intelligence over Worldcom or K-Mart, compared to the FBI. Turning any responsibility over the FBI is flushing it down the toilet. Mueller has nothing to offer. Another lawyer looking to get out of practicing the law.

Until America has a counter-intelligence capability, potentially every city in the U.S. is Hiroshima's and Nagasaki's sister city. Duck and cover. Thanks, Bob Mueller.

Want to piss a fed off? Start recording him. Like vampires and garlic.

bump to read later....

FBI director demands change in agency

I demand a change in the FBI, too, starting with getting a new director.

FBI Deputy Director Bruce Gebhardt sent an internal memo to employees saying he was "amazed and astounded" by the institution's failure to commit its energies and resources to the fight against terrorism.

Well Bruce, You see they're busy destroying what's left of America by engaging in politically correct "diversity forums" for the poor oppressed muslims who can't quite come to denounce 9/11, and attending local mosques (along with federal prosecutors) threatening potential "hate crime" perpetrators with harsh penalties.

So you see, they're too busy to deal with terrorists and terrorism (unless its a heterosexual white Christian male with the wrong accessory grouping on his AR).

If clown Mueller is sincere, he might start off by telling his people the difference between a redneck American and a Muslim. Clinton had the dogs on the scent of the rednecks and they cannot quite break the habit, i;e Hatfill.

Damn right there should be change in the corrupted FBI. And the change should begin at the top! Fire the Director and work down from there. C'mon Bush you got a good start by dumping O'neil. Let's roll.