|
Mr. President, this is the fifth time I have taken the floor to make observations about the FBI's upside-down management of its crime lab. In my view, the FBI's Director, Louis Freeh, continues to mislead the public about the lab. He would have us think that the FBI lab has met the highest standards. He has maintained that the allegations of the lab's whistleblower, Dr. Frederic Whiteliurst, are all wrong. He has said that no other scientist in the lab has come forward with similar accusations. His testimony before Congress recently was totally consistent with that image. But documents belie the Director's rosy portrayal of the lab. And of his dark portrayal of Dr. Whitehurst. Thus far, I have released documents showing there is credibility to some of Dr. Whitehurst's allegations. I have pointed to press accounts in which the public has learned the IG's still-secret report uncovers problems in three specific cases, thus backing up Dr. whitehurst with specifics. I released documents showing that Director Freeh was aware of the exact same allegations, investigated them, yet covered them up. I revealed that there was a second scientist who came forward with serious allegations that paralleled those of Dr. Whitehurst. I don't know what it'll take for Mr. Freeh to admit these things, Mr. President. Perhaps the public needs to see more of the FBI's documents that underscore my points. That's fine by Me, because documents don't mislead. They don't have a motive to. But, people do. And when leaders of the people mislead, there's a breakdown in confidence and trust. And so, I'm here today, Mr. President, to test the boundaries of Mr. Freeh's denials. Today, I am releasing yet more FBI documents, obtained through the Freedom of Intormation Act. These documents contradict Mr. Freeh's own assertions. The American people have a right to know this. Today, I will reveal a third scientist in the FBI lab, who substantiated some of Dr. Whitehurst's more serious allegations. He substantiated them just months after the FBI Director and his team of lawyers whitewashed them. This third scientist, in fact, was Whitehurst's unit chief in the lab. Here are the facts. In December 1992, Dr. Whitehurst made the serious allegations that his lab reports were being altered by other agents who lacked authority to do so. Altered reports could constitute tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice, and could therefore be criminal. The universe of cases being looked at was 48 cases. Not all of them were altered. But all had to be checked. Some appeared to contain substantial changes. The whitehurst memo of allegations went to the Assistant Director of the FBI for the laboratory Division. In May of 1994, a review or the Whitehurst allegations -- much more extensive than just the altered reports issue, but including them -- was done by Mr. Freeh's lawyers, rather than by an independent body with some scientific background. Ironically, it was the IG's investigation that supplied the needed independence and a scientific approach, and only then did these problems get aired. But, the FBI's review was headed by Mr. Freah's general counsel, Howard Shapiro. He's the Director's top lawyer, himself a controversial figure with Congress. Mr. Shapiro felt there was no need to have an independent review because, as he said, the FBI has a long, proud history of doing its own reviews. Upon completion, the review was eventually read and signed off on by Director Fresh. So, here's what the FBI's own review found. First, there were no major problems in the lab. Everything was hunky dory. On the specific issue of altered lab reports, here's what Mr. Shapiro found: "[Laboratory Division) management made it clear that this will not be tolerated and has instructed the Unit Chief's (sic) to reiterate this policy." How about that for a finding for this crack review team, Mr. President. They're investigating serious, possibly criminal activities. Instead of finding out whether it happened, Mr. Shapiro merely said it's not supposed to happen. His recommendation? It there were alterations, just correct the written reports! You see, Mr. President, under the long-standing Brady decision, the government is required to provide the accused with any information that might point to their innocence. Material alterations of lab analysis might fit into that category. If changes had been discovered in some reports, the proper thing to do was to judge the impact of any alterations on each court case. Instead, Mr. Shapiro thought justice would be served by simply correcting the paperwork. Cases closed. By October of 1994 -- about five months after Mr. Shapiro's review was issued -- the IG got hold of the same allegations. The IG began its own review of the 48 cases. Meanwhile, in September of '94, the FBI lab managers discovered another agent making the same allegations of altered reports as Dr. Whitehurst was making. The allegations by then were being investigated thoroughly by lab personnel. By January 1995, the lab's investigation was completed. An FBI unit chief, whose name I will not divulge, wrote a memo of investigation to his section chief. In it, he stated that 13 of Whitehurst's 48 cases had significant alterations. He recomended the following: "That (Supervisory Special Agent) (blank) be held accountable for the unauthorized changes he made in the (Auxilliary examiner) dictation of SSA Whitehurst by administrative action to include both oral reprimand and a letter of censure." The unit chief concluded his memo this way: "(Blank) committed errors which were clearly intentional. He acted irresponsibly; he should be held accountable; he should be disciplined accordingly." The scientist-unit chief writing the memo, and who backed up Dr. whitehurst's allegations, identified the cuprit. I won't reveal who either one is. But the Memo Is significant. it reveals yet another scientist -- a unit chief, no less -- who substantiated whitehurst,s allegations. It's another apparent example of an FBI lab agent shaving the evidence to get a conviction. What was covered over by Mr. Shapirols team of crack lawyers less than one year before, was now popping up. The lab's management was finding the opposite of what Shapiro and his lawyers found. That meant there were conflicting findings. And thdt's Serious. The lab unit chiof's report was at odds with Director Freeh's. What was senior management -- those above the lab managers -- to do? The answer wasn't long in coming. During this time frame, FBI management indeed found a suitable discipline for this rogue agent. Mr. President, they promoted him. They made him a unit chief. The agent found to have intentionally altered evidence was promoted. That tells us how senior management resolved the dilemma. They Promoted the rogue, and shot the messenger. That set the stage for the cover-up. Becuse just ten months later, when the Whitehurst allegations became public, Mr. Freeh issued the following statement in response. This was on November 8, 1995, he said: "The FBI has vigorously Investigated his (Whitehurst's) concerns and is continuing to do so. The FBI alone has reviewed more than 250 cases involving work previously done by the laboratory. To date, the FBI has found no evidence tampering, evidence fabrication ur failure to report exculpatory evidence. Any finding of such misconduct will result in tough and swift action by the FBI." Is that what happened to the rogue agent, Mr. President? Yes. The FBI took swift action to get him promoted. The fact is, the statement by Mr. Freeh on November 8, 1995 was utterly false. Lab reports are evidence. If altered substantially -- and 13 reports were -- that's evidence of possible evidence-tampering, and more. Ultimately, the IG caught up with the rogue agent. The FBI didn't. But the IG did. When the IG report finally reached the Bureau, this rogue agent became one of the three who were transferred from the lab. Yet no other action has been taken against him by the FBI. I aim to find out why not. Mr. President, what's clear about all this is, the FBI is buried under a mountain of evidence showing it cannot police itself, It took the inspector generals investigation to finally root out what the FBI had covered up. Some good people in the FBI tried to do the right thing. But senior management got in the way. Senior management apparently places a higher value on maintaining image, rather than rooting out wrong. Therefore, the time may have come for independent review of the FBI, Someone needs to police the police. They can't police themselves. That's for sure. Perhaps the way to go is to beef up the independent IG, instead of the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, as the Director has proposed. Growing up on the family farm in Iowa, my father taught us to revere and respect the FBI. They were the champions of right vs. wrong In our society. we looxod up to them, whether justified or not. I Still have that same respect for the FBI. There are literally thousands of good, decent men and women serving their country as FBI employees. But those honest, hardworking agents need and deserve leadership that has integrity and credibility. They need leaders who will go after bad guys, and protect good guys. Not the other way around. They need leaders who reward honesty and punish wrongdoing -- not the other way around, as we see in this case. The issue of bad management in the crime lab is serious. Had scientific analysis used in court means good guys can go to prison, and bad guys can walk. That's not what we want. That's un-American. That's what they have in dictatorships. There's no room for that in a democracy. Mr. President, I have talked to my colleagues about the culture at the FBI under the present management. it seems to reward those who rush to a conviction. It seems to punish those who, in the PBT's eyes, "commit truth." There's no better image to show this than how they treated the rogue agent -- they promoted him -- and how they treated Dr, Whitehurst -- they went after him. Mr. President, I don't have to say anything else. That says it all. (I ask unanimous consent to insert for the record the relevant documents to which I referred, plus others that will help provide additiontal context. Thank you, Mr. President) =================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM
THE DESK OF:
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends ================================================================= |
