Most Americans like to think that our
system of justice is the best and fairest in the world. If you are in that
group, prepare yourself for a rude awakening.
In 1995, Frederic Whitehurst (chemistry
PhD from Duke University and attorney), a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI
crime lab from 1986-1998, testified in the Department of Justice’s high-profile
terrorism trial in New York City against Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheik” accused
of plotting the first attack on the World Trade Center. Whitehurst at that time
was officially rated by the FBI as the leading national and international
expert in the science of explosives and explosives residue. The problem was
that Whitehurst testified in court that he had been told by his FBI superiors
to ignore scientific findings that did not support the prosecution’s theory of
the bombing.
In his own words on the witness
stand, Whitehurst told the presiding U.S. District Court judge: “There was a
great deal of pressure put upon me to bias my interpretation.” That means the
FBI wanted him to lie on the stand by misrepresenting forensic evidence to
ensure that Omar Abdel Rahman would be convicted. Period.
It was soon revealed that over the
years Whitehurst had written or passed to his supervisors scores of memos warning
of a lack of impartiality and scientific standards at the FBI lab that did the
forensic work after the World
Trade Center
Shocking, but since those incidents happened
more than 17 years ago, why should we care? Because they tie directly into a
second disturbing and directly related issue.
In the last few days, an
investigative team at the Washington Post reported in several articles (April
16 and 18) that after Whitehurst’s ever so public and embarrassing whistleblowing
Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis J. Freeh launched a DoJ task
force to review thousands of cases involving discredited FBI forensic reports
to ensure that “no defendant’s right to a fair trial was jeopardized.” The
problem is that the task force never publicly released its findings and did purposely
not contact defendants or their attorneys to inform them that their convictions
had been gained, at least in part, through reliance on faulty or flat out
incompetent and incorrect lab work. Many of those convicted based on that
improper forensic evidence continued serving long sentences after the DoJ discovered significant
errors had been made at the FBI crime lab in their cases.
Recently, DoJ officials stated that
they had met their legal and constitutional obligations when they learned of
specific scientific errors by alerting prosecutors and were not required to share
that information with defendants or their attorneys. No follow-up whatsoever was
performed by the DoJ to determine whether prosecutors had notified defendants
or their attorneys of the faulty or incorrect evidence and testimony and the
strong possibility that those defendants may have been wrongly convicted.
I’m not sure what specific
expectations people have in terms of this country’s leading Justice Department
officials. But intentionally doing nothing after learning that the faulty and
incorrect analysis of evidence by scientists at the FBI’s national crime lab
may have led to false convictions of innocent defendants is in my eyes morally repulsive
and an abomination and stands as a condemnation of a twisted and incredibly flawed
justice system. That such a damning dereliction of duty can today be defended by
the DoJ as meeting its legal and constitutional obligations is absolutely disgusting.
I highly recommend that everyone who
was associated with this cover-up should be investigated by a special federal prosecutor
to determine if federal laws were violated, starting with Janet Reno, Louis
Freeh, and their directly involved associates. If you feel strongly about this
miscarriage of justice, I hope you write your congressional representatives and
demand an investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment