How the Myth of the FBI Collapsed

The FBI’s inaccurate work could have caused the incarceration and, in some cases, the death of innocent people. According to an inquiry by the Washington Post, the criminal lab of the American 007 has provided unreliable evidence for many trials, some of which were famous. A government inquiry, prepared by the Department of Justice, warned prosecutors of the inadequacy of the FBI’s forensic evidence, but without informing the defense attorneys of the accused.

Why did the Department of Justice sift through the FBI’s evidence? Following the first terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in 1993 (6 dead and 1,042 injured), U.S. intelligence was busy with the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, known as “the Blind Sheikh,” who was suspected of being the mastermind behind the attack. Two years later, Frederic Whitehurst, a chemist and lawyer who worked in a FBI laboratory, confessed to the U.S. District Court in New York of being pushed by his superiors to ignore evidence that would have dismantled the prosecutors’ theories. What then happened was that the chemist, who over the years had warned of his laboratory’s neglect of scientific evidence, was never listened to.

The FBI was under pressure by the government and public opinion for the explosion of the Twin Towers, the O.J. Simpson case and the attempt on the government building in Oklahoma City, which caused the death of 168 people. The higher-ups wanted the guilty right away and, it seems, without worrying too much about the evidence. This is Whitehurst’s version.

This is why the government chose to learn more, coming close to studying more than 6,000 cases from the 70s to 1995. It discovered that not only in the three famous trials, the Twin Towers, O.J. Simpson and Oklahoma, but also in at least another 250, the conduct of thirteen FBI agents was improper. Their evidence was so unconvincing that sometimes the same prosecutors refused or set up independent inquiries to verify 007’s work. In other cases, the files containing evidence mysteriously vanished from the FBI archives immediately after the verdicts.

But one of the most puzzling elements of the Washington Post’s investigation is that the Department of Justice never notified the defendants’ lawyers of the results of its inquiry, leaving the choice to prosecutors. The prosecution was, of course, silent. By law, the prosecutors and the government have done nothing illegal by not informing the defense. The Department, however, is diminished ethically and morally, according to the defense.

This means that today, in American prisons, there are hundreds of people judged on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate and imprecise analyses. Up until the mid-90s, in fact, the FBI did not have specific protocols to follow for its own forensic analysis; because of 007’s admission of the same, even DNA tests were unreliable in at least 11 percent of cases.

In Texas, Benjamin Herbert Boyle was executed in 1997, more than a year after the Department of Justice analyzed his case. He would not have been condemned to death were it not for the faulty evidence provided by the FBI, says one prosecutor in his memorandum. In Maryland, John Norman Huffington was sentenced to life in prison in 1981. His lawyers were never warned of possible inaccuracies in the forensic analysis. Now, having read it in the newspaper, they’re looking to reopen the trial. Unfortunately, though it is impossible to estimate the exact number, there are many similar cases.

The FBI, together with the government, even investigated its own crime lab. This delicate job was entrusted to an independent Inspector General Michael Bromwich. His report, even though it does not charge 007 of distorting or fabricating evidence, accuses senior FBI officials of having ignored for years the doubts over the reliability of the scientific results and the competence of the agents involved. For example, in the case of the attacks in Oklahoma City, the head of the explosives lab had “repeatedly reached conclusions that incriminated the defendants without a scientific basis.” Again, the survey results were hidden from the defense lawyers. According to members of the task force, former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno gave her consent to the decision. Today, Reno refuses to comment.

“The government has hidden behind the veil of secrecy to shield these abuses despite official assurances that justice would be done,” says David Colapinto, general counsel of the National Whistleblowers Center. The FBI defends itself, saying that, given the technology of the time, the best possible job was done. The objective of the board of defense attorneys is now to reopen all of the suspicious cases, for defendants who are still alive at least.