The FBI

[Robert Harris]

The NY times published a section of the book:

TAINTING EVIDENCE - Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab

It includes the prologue, introduction and chapter one from
the book. You can read it here:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/FBI-Agent-Charged-With-Falsifying-Records-Selling-Stolen-Drugs-297022681.html

David Von Pein and "Bud" seem to be shocked at the suggestion
that the FBI could ever falsify evidence. But the truth is,
that they did exactly that, even without the rationalization
that they were saving the planet from nuclear war.

And this is from a Washington Post article, at:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

"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.

Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair
comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that
favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials
reviewed so far, according to the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project,
which are assisting the government with the country’s largest
post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death.
Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups
said under an agreement with the government to release
results after the review of the first 200 convictions."

It doesn't take a crazed conspiracy buff to recognize that
the FBI has a long record of dishonesty in the processing of
evidence. And there is little doubt that the cases in which
they were never caught, far outnumbers the ones in which they
were.




Robert Harris

[claviger]

So what is your solution to this problem? It sounds like we should do
away with the FBI. Recent events indicate they're more political than
professional anyway. Marsh and other CTs have been saying this for years.
So let's pull the plug on the FBI and while we're at it local city,
county, and state police too.

There you go, problem solved! Cities can contract with the Mafia to take
their place. Actually they would do that anyway. They've been selling
protection for years.

As for neighborhoods just turn that function over to local street gangs
standing on the corner. Pay them for protection too. Maybe you should
consider moving to Baltimore where police presence is minimal since they
were neutralized by City Hall. The BPD only patrol in two man teams and
evaluate whether its safe to even get out of the police car. Sounds like
a situation more to your liking.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:30:59 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> The NY times published a section of the book:
>
> TAINTING EVIDENCE - Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab
>
> It includes the prologue, introduction and chapter one from
> the book. You can read it here:
>
> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/FBI-Agent-Charged-With-Falsifying-Records-Selling-Stolen-Drugs-297022681.html
>
> David Von Pein and "Bud" seem to be shocked at the suggestion
> that the FBI could ever falsify evidence. But the truth is,
> that they did exactly that, even without the rationalization
> that they were saving the planet from nuclear war.
>
> And this is from a Washington Post article, at:
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
>
> "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.
>
> Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair
> comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that
> favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials
> reviewed so far,

Which is not to say they were wrong.

> according to the National Association of
> Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project,
> which are assisting the government with the country’s largest
> post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.
>
> The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death.
> Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups
> said under an agreement with the government to release
> results after the review of the first 200 convictions."
>
> It doesn't take a crazed conspiracy buff to recognize that
> the FBI has a long record of dishonesty in the processing of
> evidence. And there is little doubt that the cases in which
> they were never caught, far outnumbers the ones in which they
> were.

Did the FBI agents processing the evidence feel the science they were
applying was valid?

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:30:59 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

The two decades prior to 2000? That would take us back to 1980. What year
was JFK assassinated?

The motivation for overstating forensic matches was to aide prosecutors.
Most of the forensic work done in the JFK case came after Oswald was dead,
so that wouldn't be a motivating factor in this case.

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:30:59 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

And as we know from the evidence, the FBI was diddling cases and
evidence as early as 1963 in the JFK case. There have been shown proof
that they took down statements from witnesses and then wrote them up
incorrectly to support the 'lone nut' theory. They also changed the
statement of Carolyn Arnold who had placed Lee Oswald in the lunchroom as
about 12:15pm, and not at the front door. They entered entirely false
info for her statement.

There were complaints of harassment and intimidation such as the
statement of Aquilla Clemmons, who was threatened to shut up or she would
be hurt.

As well, in the TWA800 case, the FBI was also upbraided for trying to
make witnesses change their statements and for interfering in an NTSB
investigation, and removing evidence.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, OK. But you can't over generalize and claim that ALL evidence is
fake. You need to PROVE exactly which pieces of evidence are fake and
why. Otherwise all you have it KOOKSPEAK.

[Robert Harris]

Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:30:59 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> The NY times published a section of the book:
>>
>> TAINTING EVIDENCE - Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab
>>
>> It includes the prologue, introduction and chapter one from
>> the book. You can read it here:
>>
>> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/FBI-Agent-Charged-With-Falsifying-Records-Selling-Stolen-Drugs-297022681.html
>>
>> David Von Pein and "Bud" seem to be shocked at the suggestion
>> that the FBI could ever falsify evidence. But the truth is,
>> that they did exactly that, even without the rationalization
>> that they were saving the planet from nuclear war.
>>
>> And this is from a Washington Post article, at:
>>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
>>
>> "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.
>>

>> Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory???s microscopic hair

>> comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that
>> favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials
>> reviewed so far,
>
> Which is not to say they were wrong.

Dictionaries are cheap Bud.

Why don't you get one and look up the word, "overstated"?





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:30:59 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> The NY times published a section of the book:
>>
>> TAINTING EVIDENCE - Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab
>>
>> It includes the prologue, introduction and chapter one from
>> the book. You can read it here:
>>
>> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/FBI-Agent-Charged-With-Falsifying-Records-Selling-Stolen-Drugs-297022681.html
>>
>> David Von Pein and "Bud" seem to be shocked at the suggestion
>> that the FBI could ever falsify evidence. But the truth is,
>> that they did exactly that, even without the rationalization
>> that they were saving the planet from nuclear war.
>>
>> And this is from a Washington Post article, at:
>>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
>>
>> "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.
>>

>> Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory???s microscopic hair

>> comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that
>> favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials
>> reviewed so far, according to the National Association of
>> Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project,

>> which are assisting the government with the country???s largest

>> post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.
>>
>> The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death.
>> Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups
>> said under an agreement with the government to release
>> results after the review of the first 200 convictions."
>>
>> It doesn't take a crazed conspiracy buff to recognize that
>> the FBI has a long record of dishonesty in the processing of
>> evidence. And there is little doubt that the cases in which
>> they were never caught, far outnumbers the ones in which they
>> were.
>>
>
> The two decades prior to 2000? That would take us back to 1980. What year
> was JFK assassinated?

Well of course, they were far more moral and honest, working for the
biggest racist and blackmailer who was ever in charge of a federal law
enforcement agency :-)

>
> The motivation for overstating forensic matches was to aide prosecutors.

Yeah, but that was not their job. Their job was to collect
and research evidence honestly and objectively.

I think we or at least those of us who have a shred of
integrity, would rather see a DA lose a case, than for an
honest man to be killed.



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Unfortunately, I am not empowered to do much, other than
complain. But if I was, I would begin by filing charges
against anyone who deliberately misrepresented the results of
their evidence evaluation, in sworn testimony. At the very
least, they should have been charged with perjury.

And I would make it official policy that there would be
extreme penalties for anyone, who falsified evidence or
misrepresented it at trial. Anything like that should be
considered a serious felony.

Thank you for that excellent question. It's almost good
enough to compensate for the silliness of the rest of your
post:-)




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Jesus Christ! You're just not trying hard enough. You can go back
further than 1963. We had a case up here where the police tampered with
evidence:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/s&vevidence.html

I knew a Boston cop who told me confidentially that the original police
had switched the guns because the fatal shot was fired by the police not
the criminals.

> that they took down statements from witnesses and then wrote them up
> incorrectly to support the 'lone nut' theory. They also changed the

Point of order:
WHEN? The original police and FBI conclusion was conspiracy and the WC
assumed it was a conspiracy up until April 28, 1964.

> statement of Carolyn Arnold who had placed Lee Oswald in the lunchroom as
> about 12:15pm, and not at the front door. They entered entirely false
> info for her statement.
>
> There were complaints of harassment and intimidation such as the
> statement of Aquilla Clemmons, who was threatened to shut up or she would
> be hurt.
>

Exactly. But can you point out the complaints of the dead people? Do you
have the written complaints of Roselli and Giancana? Bowers?

> As well, in the TWA800 case, the FBI was also upbraided for trying to
> make witnesses change their statements and for interfering in an NTSB
> investigation, and removing evidence.
>

Nothing new.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

1. Protect the real killers
OR
2. Prevent WWIII.

[David Von Pein]

FRAME/CHRIS SAID:

They [FBI] also changed the statement of Carolyn Arnold who had placed Lee

Oswald in the lunchroom as about 12:15pm, and not at the front door.
They entered entirely false info for her statement.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And just exactly how would placing Oswald "at the front door" support the
notion that Oswald was the assassin up on the sixth floor?

Whether he was in the lunchroom or "at the front door", if Oswald had been
in either one of those locations at exactly 12:30, he would still be
innocent of shooting the President.

So what would have been the purpose of entering that type of "entirely
false info" into Carolyn Arnold's statement if the FBI's mission was "to
support the 'lone nut' theory"?

It makes no sense.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/7/2016 12:06 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:30:59 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> The NY times published a section of the book:
>>
>> TAINTING EVIDENCE - Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab
>>
>> It includes the prologue, introduction and chapter one from
>> the book. You can read it here:
>>
>> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/FBI-Agent-Charged-With-Falsifying-Records-Selling-Stolen-Drugs-297022681.html
>>
>> David Von Pein and "Bud" seem to be shocked at the suggestion
>> that the FBI could ever falsify evidence. But the truth is,
>> that they did exactly that, even without the rationalization
>> that they were saving the planet from nuclear war.
>>
>> And this is from a Washington Post article, at:
>>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
>>
>> "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.
>>

>> Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory???s microscopic hair

>> comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that
>> favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials
>> reviewed so far,
>
> Which is not to say they were wrong.
>
>> according to the National Association of
>> Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project,

>> which are assisting the government with the country???s largest

>> post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.
>>
>> The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death.
>> Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups
>> said under an agreement with the government to release
>> results after the review of the first 200 convictions."
>>
>> It doesn't take a crazed conspiracy buff to recognize that
>> the FBI has a long record of dishonesty in the processing of
>> evidence. And there is little doubt that the cases in which
>> they were never caught, far outnumbers the ones in which they
>> were.
>
> Did the FBI agents processing the evidence feel the science they were
> applying was valid?
>

I can't prove it, but I feel that almost every scientist believes the
method he or she is using is valid. Guinn really believed the NAA was
valid. There are only a couple of scientists who use a method which they
know is not valid just to get the fraudulent results they want.

Maybe the MIT scientist who used black shoe polish to prove that he could
transfer a black hair color gene into a white rat. Almost every scientists
really believes in the science he uses. Except for outright frauds like
remote viewing.

[TOMNLN]

THE FBI HAS BEEN "ALTERRING EVIDENCE FOR "DECADES" ! ! !
SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/frederic_whitehurst.htm
-==========================================================================================

[Bud]

I know it doesn`t mean "wrong".

>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

Who are you kidding? The FBI intentionally misled the authorities many
times during their involvement in Dallas. They changed witness
statements, they intimidated witnesses and they discarded evidence. It
was a pattern from long before the JFK murder, and it obviously continued
through the years. The JFK case wasn't the only one where witnesses
complained of those crimes.

Chris

[bigdog]

I was commenting on what you presented. If you have further evidence that
the falsifying of analysis of forensic evidence went back far earlier than
1980, by all means present that too.

>
> >
> > The motivation for overstating forensic matches was to aide prosecutors.
>
> Yeah, but that was not their job. Their job was to collect
> and research evidence honestly and objectively.
>

Again, I was speaking to the narrative which you provided which is that
agents fudged their analysis to aide prosecutors. I also pointed out why
their motivation for doing so would not apply in the investigation of JFK.

> I think we or at least those of us who have a shred of
> integrity, would rather see a DA lose a case, than for an
> honest man to be killed.
>

Since the only suspect was dead, neither of those was going to happen.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/8/2016 12:41 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> FRAME/CHRIS SAID:
>
> They [FBI] also changed the statement of Carolyn Arnold who had placed Lee
> Oswald in the lunchroom as about 12:15pm, and not at the front door.
> They entered entirely false info for her statement.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> And just exactly how would placing Oswald "at the front door" support the
> notion that Oswald was the assassin up on the sixth floor?
>

You need someone to translate kookspeak for you.
Their idea is that Oswald was in the doorway at the front of the TSBD so
he could not also be shooting from the sixth floor.
Do you have any theories that Oswald shot from the doorway?

> Whether he was in the lunchroom or "at the front door", if Oswald had been
> in either one of those locations at exactly 12:30, he would still be
> innocent of shooting the President.
>

No. You don't know what "exactly" means. You can't prove that the shots
happened at "exactly" 12:30.
If I wanted to tease Ralph I could make up a meme that Oswald shot JFK
from the doorway and then ran back into the lunchroom.
His theories are extremely stupid and all you are doing is feeding him.

https://catholicdialogue.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/dftt.jpg

> So what would have been the purpose of entering that type of "entirely
> false info" into Carolyn Arnold's statement if the FBI's mission was "to
> support the 'lone nut' theory"?
>

Boredom.

> It makes no sense.
>


YOU make no sense.

[Jason Burke]

On 7/8/2016 9:25 PM, TOMNLN wrote:
> THE FBI HAS BEEN "ALTERRING EVIDENCE FOR "DECADES" ! ! !
> SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/frederic_whitehurst.htm
> -================================================================
>

Let's see. Go to Rossley's website. No third party problem here!

So, uh, Tom. Other than your wishful thinking, hopes, dreams, and
fantasies... What evidence do you have that the FBI lied in the JFK case?

Thought so.

Only two more months 'til I drive *right by* Kelly road for the opener!

P.S. The "updates" to your web site look like cr*p. Better try again.

>
>
>
> On Thu Jul 7 11:32:14 2016 bigdog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:30:59 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> The NY times published a section of the book:
>>>
>>> TAINTING EVIDENCE - Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab
>>>
>>> It includes the prologue, introduction and chapter one from
>>> the book. You can read it here:
>>>
>>> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/FBI-Agent-Charged-With-Falsifying-Records-Selling-Stolen-Drugs-297022681.html
>>>
>>> David Von Pein and "Bud" seem to be shocked at the suggestion
>>> that the FBI could ever falsify evidence. But the truth is,
>>> that they did exactly that, even without the rationalization
>>> that they were saving the planet from nuclear war.
>>>
>>> And this is from a Washington Post article, at:
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
>>>
>>> "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.
>>>

>>> Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratorycomparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that

>>> favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials
>>> reviewed so far, according to the National Association of
>>> Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project,

>>> which are assisting the government with the countrypost-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

[bigdog]

I guess that's your excuse for why all the forensic evidence points to
Oswald. Funny how when the NYPD fingerprint bureau and the Illinois crime
lab were asked to give second opinions regarding the evidence, they
concurred with the findings of the FBI crime labs. The Illinois crime lab
went a step further regarding the bullets recovered from Tippit's body.
They believed they had sufficient markings on one bullet to positively
match it to Oswald's revolver. The FBI had stricter standards for
ballistic matching and ruled it was inconclusive. Same with the partial
prints on the trigger housing. Even though they matched Oswald's prints,
they had less than the FBI's minimum matching points for stating a
positive match so they also ruled those were inconclusive. If the FBI was
out to frame Oswald, it would have been quite easy to fudge their
standards a little and declare both of these pieces of evidence as
positive matches. They didn't do that.

[Anthony Marsh]

Got a hint for ya. It was Oswald's damn rifle, so naturally his prints
would be on it.

[BOZ]

Why weren't there any conspirator's prints on Oswald's damn rifle? Your
Tito Santana theory is rubbish.