04-01-2016, 09:27 PM
The situation is pretty bad when even the U.S. mainstream press reports on endless shams at the FBI, as recently as last spring:
"Pseudoscience in the Witness Box: The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science," is the headline from the April 22, 2015 online edition of Slate Magazine.
The sameSlate article quoted a Washington Post story of a few days earlier, which stated: "The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000."
Things look pretty bad for the FBI recently, but how about in earlier days? Surely they were better then, right?
Of course not.... Remember the Frederick Whitehurst scandal from the 1990s? Whitehurst was one of the Bureau's top scientists, and he complained for more than a decade toward the end of the last century about the FBI's vaunted crime lab faking evidence and slanting it toward the prosecution. According to the Feb. 27, 1998 edition of CNN:
--------------------------------------
For 10 years Whitehurst complained mostly in vain about lab practices. But his efforts finally led last April to a scathing 500-page study of the lab by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.
Bromwich blasted the famed lab for flawed scientific work and inaccurate, pro-prosecution testimony in major cases, including the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings.
Bromwich recommended major reforms, discipline for five agents that is still under consideration and transfer of Whitehurst to other duties.
------------------------------------
Whitehurst, of course, was pilloried endlessly by defenders of the FBI, eventually resulting in the award of more than a million dollars to Whitehurst as compensation, and a new federal law protecting whistleblowers!
So... for a quarter century and probably more, the FBI has clearly been cooking the evidence to favor the prosecution. But that didn't happen back in the good ole' days, right? Not when J. Edgar was in charge.
William Sullivan (a top-ranking FBI official) said, "Hoover did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence. He showed a marked interest in limiting the scope of it and taking any action which might result in neutralizing it."* He added, "If there were documents that possibly he (Hoover) didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those docu*ments no longer exist, and the truth will never be known."**
NOTES:
* Interview of William Sullivan by Robert Fink, November, 1975; Memo from James P. Kelly to G. Robert Blakey, 11/18/77; HSCA 108-10112-10133, Numbered Files 003406
** Ibid.
"Pseudoscience in the Witness Box: The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science," is the headline from the April 22, 2015 online edition of Slate Magazine.
The sameSlate article quoted a Washington Post story of a few days earlier, which stated: "The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000."
Things look pretty bad for the FBI recently, but how about in earlier days? Surely they were better then, right?
Of course not.... Remember the Frederick Whitehurst scandal from the 1990s? Whitehurst was one of the Bureau's top scientists, and he complained for more than a decade toward the end of the last century about the FBI's vaunted crime lab faking evidence and slanting it toward the prosecution. According to the Feb. 27, 1998 edition of CNN:
--------------------------------------
For 10 years Whitehurst complained mostly in vain about lab practices. But his efforts finally led last April to a scathing 500-page study of the lab by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.
Bromwich blasted the famed lab for flawed scientific work and inaccurate, pro-prosecution testimony in major cases, including the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings.
Bromwich recommended major reforms, discipline for five agents that is still under consideration and transfer of Whitehurst to other duties.
------------------------------------
Whitehurst, of course, was pilloried endlessly by defenders of the FBI, eventually resulting in the award of more than a million dollars to Whitehurst as compensation, and a new federal law protecting whistleblowers!
So... for a quarter century and probably more, the FBI has clearly been cooking the evidence to favor the prosecution. But that didn't happen back in the good ole' days, right? Not when J. Edgar was in charge.
William Sullivan (a top-ranking FBI official) said, "Hoover did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence. He showed a marked interest in limiting the scope of it and taking any action which might result in neutralizing it."* He added, "If there were documents that possibly he (Hoover) didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those docu*ments no longer exist, and the truth will never be known."**
NOTES:
* Interview of William Sullivan by Robert Fink, November, 1975; Memo from James P. Kelly to G. Robert Blakey, 11/18/77; HSCA 108-10112-10133, Numbered Files 003406
** Ibid.
HarveyandLee.net
Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security." – 1964
CIA accountant James B. Wilcott: Oswald received "a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work." – 1978
HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum: “Lee Harvey Oswald was a contract employee of the CIA and the FBI.†– 1996
Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security." – 1964
CIA accountant James B. Wilcott: Oswald received "a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work." – 1978
HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum: “Lee Harvey Oswald was a contract employee of the CIA and the FBI.†– 1996