Crackpot Justice: the FBI Lies

Just what kind of crackpot justice system is this?

It is now reported in the Washington Post that the celebrated FBI laboratory has acknowledged– not “discovered”– acknowledged– that the evidence it has given in respect of matching hairs– usually those found on the victim to those of the suspect– was not based on real science.

Not only will many court cases (at least 268) have to be reviewed carefully, but a lot of Hollywood movies and TV Dramas might want to revisit their plot points.

What is striking is that the faulty evidence given by the FBI almost always favored the prosecution– up to 95%, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project.

Thirty-two of the defendants had been sentenced to death.

Can’t wait to see that dramatized in the TV series.

Fatal Revision: Jeffrey MacDonald

The problem with Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald is that it really looks like he dun it. The bigger problem is that few people seem to care about the idea that constitutional protections against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment matter. Even fewer people are willing to pay the price to ensure that those constitutional protections are actually respected by the government. I’m serious: very few Americans, who sing hymns to freedom and democracy at the tops of their longs, actually care about freedom.

They are far more excited by punishment.

And let me walk back a bit from my opening statement: the evidence by which many people, like myself, have concluded that Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald probably murdered his wife and his two children is not reliable. As everyone knows by now– even the prosecution– the emergency crews and investigators from the army mucked around MacDonald’s apartment at will, moving evidence, touching items, removing items (including, apparently, MacDonald’s wallet), and generally destroying the credibility of any conclusions drawn by subsequent forensic examinations. You just can’t trust any of the forensic data because no serious effort was made to ensure that evidence had not been tampered with. The chutzpah of the FBI (check) team that allegedly “reconstructed” events in the apartment the night of the murders is beyond belief.

Dr. James Brussel, appointed by the Judge to “examine” Dr. MacDonald, came to the conclusion that MacDonald was a homicidal psychopath. He didn’t actually meet with MacDonald. He just read the case files.

Dr. Brussel was famous for having diagnosed the Boston Strangler, Albert DeSalvo.

Who turned out, of course, to not be the Boston Strangler.

And that’s that.

A Conspiracy of One

There is a practical advantage to bringing the case in New York State court: state prosecutors said they were allowed to charge Mr. Pimentel with a conspiracy, even if he were acting with just the informant; federal law does not permit charging such a conspiracy. NyTimes, November 21, 2011

!!!

So federal law takes the view that if a police informant makes a plot with an individual– and no one else– the individual should not be charged with conspiracy.

That makes sense to me. I had always thought a basic principle of common law was that a person could not be charged with a crime if he would not have committed it but for the help of a police informant.  Do you see the problem?  If police informants are going to choose a “suspect” and then assist and encourage them to take part in a criminal conspiracy, then the police are choosing individuals to make them criminals.  Then you would have to apply this approach to everyone equally.   It’s entrapment.

If that isn’t a real principle of common law, it should be. It absolutely should be. Would a crime have been committed if not for the actions of the police informant?

The FBI declined to participate in the laying of “conspiracy” charges against Jose Pimentel, for various interesting reasons. One reason was the conspiracy bit. Another reason was the fact that the police informant and Mr. Pimentel liked to smoke a little weed together while they bounced around suggestions for terrorist conspiracies.

I haven’t heard this but I’ll bet another reason is that Mr. Pimentel, like many of the other so-called terrorists arrested, charged, and convicted, couldn’t conspire his way out of a paper bag without the help of his trusty police informant.

That’s was passes for heroic law enforcement these days.

It should tell you a lot that Mr. Pimentel has become representative of the war on terror, in my view: we can’t catch the real terrorists in spite of the billions and billions and billions of dollars we are spending, so we damn well better catch somebody, and damn well better make it look good.

Try to tell your friends that a man was charged with conspiracy even though his only co-conspirator was a police informant. They’ll think you’re exaggerating.

Brandon Darby

The narrative: 8 dangerous anarchists from Austin, Texas travel to Minneapolis in August 2008 intending to sew chaos, destruction, and mayhem during the Republican National Convention. Thank God a trusted, patriotic FBI informant was among the radicals to help the police and FBI intervene in the nick of time, saving property and lives, and preserving the safety and security of Sarah Palin.

It’s a simple, comprehensible narrative. And American justice is about narratives, not facts, not truth. The narrative is compelling to frightened American juries and judges. You can’t be too careful. The two boys, who did not commit a crime– at least nothing that was defined as a crime before 9/11– were convicted, locked up for two and four years.

The truth is more complex. Yes, the boys assembled some Molotov cocktails at the house they stayed in in Minneapolis during the Republic National Convention in 2008. But they never used them. It’s not clear that they ever had any serious intent of using them. In a rational world, they never broke the law. They no more broke the law with their assembled bombs than any member of the NRA broke the law by carrying a concealed handgun. Is a concealed handgun alarming? Only to a rational person.

But what role did FBI informant Brandon Darby play in all this? Would they have ever even build the Molotov Cocktails if he hadn’t organized the trip to Minneapolis in the first place. Did he hector them, tirelessly trying to persuade them that the depths of depravity they saw in Minneapolis– and it was depraved (police phalanx, tear gas, batons)– called for something stronger than a protest sign.

PBS– the only U.S. network that does any serious journalism anymore– aired a documentary recently– “Better This World”– that offered a compelling glimpse of the dynamics of homeland insecurity, paranoia, manipulation, and the use of informants by the FBI. Brad Crowder and David McKay come off as youthful, passionate, and naïve.

Brandon Darby, the informant, is cynical, manipulative, and dishonest. The results are appalling.

 

Theory of Conspiracy Theories

There are about 20 or so good reasons to believe that John F. Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, and about a thousand reasons to believe that the conspirators should be comforted by the plethora of crack pot conspiracy theories out there dedicated to discrediting the whole idea of a conspiracy. These are straw men just waiting for reasonable, logical men like Dale Myers to come along and demolish them. Here he demolishes a theory he attributes to conspiracy buffs, but which, in fact, was actually the result of the government’s own errors in it’s initial investigation. (The government initially said that the first shot hit Kennedy in the neck, the second Connelly, the third Kennedy in the head. Then it tried to explain the entrance wound in the neck by a claim that Kennedy had turned around to see where the shots were coming from…. )

 

Why or why oh why are people like Dale Myers not content to do their good work and then leave it alone. Oh no– Myers tackles one particular detail of the conspiracy theory, solves it to his own personal satisfaction, and then concludes that there must not have been a conspiracy. He attacks one small aspect of the many conspiracy theories and then concludes that all aspects of all theories are, therefore, false. He doesn’t even address the issue of the “pristine” (stretcher) bullet that allegedly did all the damage he describes. In fact, that bullet had to have done all that damage or his theory collapses.

What he has demonstrated with some weight is that Kennedy and Connelly were probably hit about the same time by a bullet or bullets fired by somebody. Well, no, he actually can’t really demonstrate that either because Kennedy is already reacting to a shot by the time he emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. We don’t know when he began to react, so we don’t know when exactly he was shot. It’s quite possible, given the evidence Myers shows us, that Kennedy and Connelly were hit by two different shots fired at about the same time by two different gunman. He succeeds in making the theory of multiple gunmen less plausible, but it doesn’t rule it out.

Myers doesn’t explain here the Teague fragment– the shot that missed the car and hit the over-pass, sending a fragment of concrete into the face of Mr. James Teague– a shot ridiculously wide of the car. A shot ridiculously inaccurate for a shooter who was able to hit Kennedy in the head on his third try.

Myers doesn’t prove that Oswald fired any shots at all. Only that a shot came from behind and above. Myers claims that his reconstruction shows that the shots had to come from the sixth floor window– that’s an amazing conclusion given the variables involved. It is impossible to believe that Myers arrived at that conclusion from the objective evidence he puts before you. It is impossible to believe that he is justified in asserting anything more than that the shots came from that approximate location. It is impossible to believe that he has not already assumed the shots came from exactly that windows because he already knows that that is where Oswald was supposed to be. Then he acts as if he has uncovered an amazing fact in support of the lone gunman theory.

A little less smugness is called for. He has helped disprove the theory that there had to be two gunman. But he hasn’t solved the murder. He hasn’t proven that the shots came from Oswald. He hasn’t even proven that Oswald at the window at the moment the motorcade drove by.

What Myers does not prove:

  • that the bullets came from Oswald’s rifle: the ridiculous pristine bullet found on the stretcher is a very weak connection, especially (but not only) because of the controversy of which stretcher the bullet actually came from. Furthermore, the FBI now admits that it’s “scientific” analysis of bullets has always been flawed and unreliable, and will no longer provide that service to law enforcement.
  • that Oswald fired the shots: the FBI found no usable finger prints on the rifle at all. The Dallas Police later claimed to find a fragment of a palm print on the disassembled rifle. That’s a little weird and dubious at best.
    that there was actually an entry wound on the back of the head– the autopsy was botched so badly that there will never be a satisfactory answer to this question, especially given that none of the Parkland doctors saw this entry wound.
  • that the wound in the throat came from a bullet exiting Kennedy’s body. Most of the Parkland doctors initially identified this wound as an entry wound. Myers explains how it might have been a bullet exiting, but, again, the autopsy was botched and that remains questionable.
  • And a whole lot of other things, including the strange stories about Oswald’s relationships in New Orleans (including his contacts with David Ferrie), his adventures in Russia, the speed with which he was identified as the prime suspect, and so on and so on.

The state of conspiracy theory about Kennedy’s assassination is in a hopeless mess. That doesn’t mean all the conspiracy theories are wrong, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the Warren Commission was right, or even that the Warren Commission was not ridiculous. (Just look at who was on the Warren Commission: a bunch of fat old white politicians and judges who represented, exquisitely, the class of politician the Kennedys had just elbowed aside in John’s drive to the presidency.)


It has recently been shown that a great deal of FBI testimony in murder cases concerning the similarities and differences between bullets coming from different batches from a manufacturer…. was utterly unfounded. One of the reasons Oswald was held to be guilty was that the bullets found in the limousine and in Connelly were allegedly from the same batch as bullets found in Oswald’s possession, at his house.

The FBI now admits that this “proof” was based on junk science, with no grounding in fact whatsoever.

We also know that most people will continue to believe that the FBI “proved” that the bullets were from the same batch. It takes a long time for the truth to upend an embedded lie.

I do call it a lie because this untrue belief was not a disinterested belief– it was used over and over again in many U.S. courts to prove guilt. It was virtually never used to prove innocence.

Defenders of the Warren Commission have long argued that there was no evidence that Oswald knew David Ferrie, the pilot for the anti-Castro Cubans operating in Florida with links to the CIA. Eureka: a photograph surfaced just a few years ago showing Oswald and Ferrie at the same gathering of Cadets in Florida, I believe.

 

It is one thing for defenders of the Warren Commission to assert that the evidence of a connection was thin and unreliable– it was quite another for them to insist that there was no relationship, and then be proven wrong.


Dale Myers does not understand that you cannot prove a negative.  He can prove that a certain conspiracy theory has not been proven– but he can’t prove, therefore, that all other conspiracy theories are false.

more debunking of the the single bullet theory

More on Assassination Theories

Youtube Video debunking Myers

Bullet Proof

A few years ago, I wrote about a forensic pathologist (and more) who was caught fabricating evidence for capital cases in the U.S. In several cases, her testimony resulted in suspects being convicted and sentenced to death.  (And on fingerprint evidence)

Recently, in Ontario, a forensic pathologist, Dr. Smith, was found to have contributed to at least 12 convictions through his incompetent or erroneous autopsies of children who died under suspicious circumstances.

The latest? Remember all those court cases dating back to the JFK assassination in which the prosecution “proved” that the fatal bullet could only have come from the same batch as the one found in possession of the suspect? 60 Minutes and The Washington Post have discovered that there is no scientific basis for such comparisons. Bullets within a single batch often vary wildly, and “identical” bullets (with lead with similar chemical compositions) can be discovered in random batches.

The FBI, bless their little hearts, recently discovered this fact. Well, no they didn’t. Is it in their interest to check to see that evidence it had presented at earlier trials was accurate? That no one was convicted as a result of their mistakes? I guess not. A curious retired metallurgist named William Tobin, who had worked in the FBI’s crime lab, decided one day to check to see if there was any real scientific basis for the evidence his department was routinely supplying to juries all over the U.S.

Surprise. He found that there was no scientific basis for this evidence– that the chemical composition of a particular bullet could prove that it came from one particular batch of bullets.

He notified his superiors who immediately called every District Attorney in the U.S. and advised them that any cases in which such testimony may have proved decisive should be reviewed.

Ha ha! Had you there, didn’t I? No, no– the FBI merely informed police forces around the country that they would no longer supply that kind of testimony because it was “problematical”.

I suppose an alert police officer might have wondered about previous cases…. but that’s not really his job, is it? I suppose it occurred to the FBI that many District Attorneys and police detectives would be less than thrilled to find out that some of their past triumphs should be called into question.

And I wonder how much of our criminal justice system relies on hunches and feelings and appearances and innuendo and suspicion and the desire to gratify the public urge to punish someone, anyone– and how much is really concerned with truth and justice?

The Ingenue: Jean Seberg

When I was quite young, I saw an entertaining little satire called “The Mouse That Roared” which starred Peter Sellers as Tully Bascombe, a bumbling but good-hearted soldier who was placed in charge of the army of the ridiculously tiny Grand Duchy of Fenwick when the conniving prime-minister realized that every country ever defeated by the United States became the recipient of scads of foreign aid.

The Grand Duchy of Fenwick thereby declared war on the United States– hoping and expecting to lose.

Tully led his troupes over to America– by commercial ocean liner– dressed in chain mail and armed with long bows, where they inadvertently captured the eccentric scientist in charge of developing a new type of atomic bomb, and his lovely daughter, and a working prototype of the bomb. (The scientist figured he was safer working inconspicuously in an apartment in an obscure area of New York than in a secure compound guarded by conspicuous soldiers.)

There was a funny scene when he returned to Fenwick to announce that he had won, arousing the fury of the Prime Minister.

There was also a scene with the daughter, Helen. For the sake of the safety of the world, her father urged her to try to seduce Tully. Tully was unmoved, mainly because he was quite seasick at the moment. In the end, though, Tully got the girl, and the new bomb went into a dungeon on a bed of straw, for safe-keeping.

The girl was Jean Seberg.

Jean Seberg was seventeen and wholly unprepared for Hollywood when she was chosen from among 3,000 girls to play Joan of Arc for Otto Preminger. The movie was a failure and Seberg’s performance was panned, but she went on to star in “Breathless”, one of the most influential films (among presumptive auteurs)  of the 1960’s. She became a kind of icon of the 1960’s, as unlike Elizabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe, and Doris Day as Bob Dylan was unlike Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, and Sammy Davis Jr.. She was the real thing, one of the first post-modern celebrities. She was her own girl.

She held strong political views which led her to support the Black Panthers.

The FBI took note and spied on her and decided to plant a story about her in the press. They persuaded the L.A. Times and Newsweek to publish the rumour that she was pregnant with the child of an un-named member of the Black Panther party. Seberg, devastated, took an overdose of sleeping pills and lost the baby. She showed the stillborn body to the press, to prove that it was not mixed race.

She married and divorced, married and divorced. One of her husbands sold her Paris apartment out from under her and took the money to Spain to open a restaurant. Romain Gary insulted her and told the press he was going to teach this ignorant American girl all about real culture. Almost made me want to shred my “Brothers Karamazov”. You look at this guy’s washed out, oily face and you look at Seberg’s mesmerizing eyes and you think of Bob Dylan’s cryptic “The Man in the Long Black Coat”:

Gary abandoned her, after finding out she had cheated on him with Clint Eastwood.

Every year on the anniversary of her baby’s stillbirth, she tried to commit suicide, and finally succeeded in September, 1979, with barbiturates and alcohol.

There are no mistakes in life some people say
It is true sometimes you can see it that way
But people don’t live or die people just float
She went with the man in the long black coat.

or “What’s a Sweetheart Like You Doing in a Dump Like This”.

In order to deal in this game,
got to make the queen disappear,
It’s done with a flick of the wrist.
What’s a sweetheart like you
doin’ in a dump like this?

Her body was found in the back seat of her car where it had rested for 11 days.

Apparently, nobody had missed her. That seems inconceivable, but I read it somewhere: her absence had not been noted.

Her husband, Romain Gary, whom she was divorcing at the time of the rumour of her inter-racial baby, committed suicide himself a year later.

Was he haunted?


The FBI admitted their role in Jean Seberg’s disintegration, and said they were very, very sorry, and it won’t happen again.

I read somewhere that J. Edgar Hoover discouraged the attack on Seberg. Then why didn’t he order it stopped?

I don’t know if it’s true or not that Hoover didn’t approve. It seems out of character for the voyeur-in-chief of the nation. He didn’t discourage spying on her or prying into the lives of people who held unpopular views– just this particular attack.

The entrancing mystery girl herself.

Everybody wants them but they don’t want themselves. They frequently suffer abuse and manipulation and frustration with men, and end up living alone. When they die, through suicide or neglect, the first thing you think is, if I had only been there, maybe I could have saved her.

In later interviews (see link in left column), Seberg looked as though she had had her fill of cheaters and liars and the disappointment of life. And that is saddest of all because the young Seberg was so full of cheerful embrace, ambition, and innocence.

More on the “ingenue” or “naif”.

The Other Jean Sebergs:
Edie Sedgewick
Marilyn Monroe
Chan Marshall (Cat Power)
Frances Farmer
Marianne Faithful
Louise Brooks

Looks like One but Isn’t
Audrey Hepburn

The Not Jean Sebergs:
Princess Diana
Paris Hilton
Ally McBeal
Katie Perry
Beyonce
Justin Bieber


Why am I writing about this? I have no idea.

Saint Jean Clippings

Jean Seberg blew me away in “Breathless” by Jean-Luc Godard, made in 1960. If you had watched nothing but American films until you saw “Breathless”, you would feel as though you had been eating meatballs all your life and someone has just brought you a thick, juicy, t-bone steak.

Just one example: Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo) casually says to Patricia (Seberg), in inelegant translation, “I have slept with two girls since you. They weren’t very much.” This is the hero of the story.

Jean Seberg is incandescent, short-hair, bright, naive. She says she’ll see him tonight anyway. She isn’t sure why. She can’t figure out if she loves him or not. He says things about American girls. She says things about the French. She sits on the bed in her striped shirt and makes faces and he keeps asking her to let him sleep with her that night.

No American film of this era could stand this kind of adult interaction, or this kind of amorphous waltz of feeling and not feeling and sex and no sex and certainty or doubt. We are spoon-fed our Hollywood romances and we believe in singing nuns and virtuous prostitutes and that Meg Ryan could be a surgeon or not be a surgeon but she will never not be in love with the big lug, even if he is Nicholas Cage.

Have you seen “Breathless”? It’s a bizarre film. Very clumsy at times, but ridiculously unconventional, by Hollywood standards. Street scenes are filmed on the streets. There are long, rambling, disconnected conversations in hotel rooms. Dialogue is cut into a million pieces and then stitched together.

Mostly, there is Jean Seberg’s entrancing face. The film ends with her gazing into the camera, after committing an inexplicable betrayal, a beautiful, absorbing mystery.

[Incidentally, that technique, the actor staring directly into the camera, appears to have originated in the Bergman film, “Summer With Monika” (1953). It will not ever be as startling again.]


Video for “Africa”  Unrelated gratuitous link to one of my songs

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali

And again, a conviction for terrorist activities, without any terror or activities.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was arrested for thought crimes in Saudi Arabia. We know what he was thinking– they tortured him to find out. Then they sent him to the U.S. where a federal court jury failed to stand up and shout, “screw you, George Bush, we still have some respect for freedom and the constitution here!”.

[added May 2008]

Nah, they didn’t. They said, by golly, only a guilty man would confess to terrorist activities while being tortured by the Saudis! Lock him up!

The FBI participated in the inquisition in Saudi Arabia– which is strange, because the FBI is responsible for domestic law enforcement. But what the hell– nowadays any government official seems entitled to go around the world and torture people, with the help of the Loyal Bush Clan, the Saudis.

Who you gonna call?  The FBI?


The Wiki Entry

 

Another Deadly Fearsome Mighty Horrifying Scary Frightening Enemy of America

Meet Mr. Purna Raj Bajracharya from Nepal.

Mr. Purna Raj Bajracharya is a Buddhist. We know that Buddhists are normally harmless, but not Mr. Bajracharya. Mr. Bajracharya was spotted in New York video-taping offices in which some FBI agents, under the every-watchful scrutiny of the relentless John Ashcroft, were determinedly rooting out every last vestige of terror activity in the U.S. Mr. Bajracharya claimed he was a tourist.

The other images on his video included a pizzeria.

The FBI immediately snatched up Mr. Bajracharya and locked him in a 9 foot by 6 foot cell for three months. The lights were kept on 24 hours a day. Why? Because we are sonsofbitches is the only possible explanation. Some prisoners in this detention centre in Brooklyn were stripped and beaten. Why? Because we are sonsofbitches.

And then. And then they realized that perhaps Mr. Bajracharya was a Buddhist from Nepal taking video of New York to show to his esteemed family back home.

So they put him into an orange jumpsuit, shackled his arms and legs, and hauled him off to the airport. Mr. Bajracharya begged to be allowed the dignity of wearing his own clothes. The FBI said no. Why? Because we are sonsofbitches– that’s why.

This is how we treat the innocent. Even the FBI admits that Mr. Bajracharya is innocent. It doesn’t matter. Under George Bush, the unthinkable is now not only acceptable, but required: the innocent can be locked up, abused, assaulted, and humiliated with complete impunity.

You don’t care, do you. Because you are white and middle class and you don’t have an accent. You are safe in America in 2004. Because you are not Mr. Bajracharya. Because you can sing your anthems, wave your flags, and march in your parades, with no shame for your government’s rank hypocrisy.

I am enraged at this treatment of an innocent man.  The FBI agents responsible should be fired and charged with abusing their authority and jailed  for at least 90 days in a 6 by 9 foot cell.

The FBI’s behavior is not merely outrageous.  It deserves the term “fucking outrageous” because it is.  It is emblematic of the monstrous failure of the current government to uphold the basic principles of decency and justice that make the world livable for most of us.


It’s hard to bring myself to even address the issue because it is so overwhelmingly obvious to me that you would think that any sane person would agree: if the FBI really insists on arresting people without the slightest grounds for suspicion, could they not at least treat them well until they have completed their investigations?

This treatment of Mr. Bajracharya is police brutality. It is abuse. It is oppression. It is the act of a police state. It is the ultimate expression of George W. Bush’s vision of Amerika. And I have yet to hear or read of a single Christian Bush supporter who feels that it is wrong or immoral to do it.

Added June 2006: where is the outcry from those who claim that the “Christian” Mr. Bush has “restored” ethics and integrity to government? How dare you claim you vote for Bush because he stands for Christian values, and then turn your back on Mr. Bajracharya?


More Details

More Yet

Nixon and the FBI

One of the great mysteries of recent political history– by “recent”, I mean the last 30 years– is the relationship between Richard Nixon and the intelligence community and the FBI. Bob Haldeman, Nixon’s right-hand man, is quoted on a Watergate tape as saying something like “we don’t control” the FBI, in response a question Nixon had asked about the investigation of the Watergate break in. Nixon famously suggested Haldeman get the CIA to tell the FBI to back off– because they would compromise a secret intelligence operation. Neither one mentioned that the CIA, at the time, was expressly prohibited from any intelligence activities within the borders of the U.S.A.

This was a serious compliment to the FBI… in a back-handed way. That is, if you could imagine that because the FBI was not controlled by Nixon, it was therefore accountable and lawful and diligent. In fact, the FBI had long been corrupted by J. Edgar Hoover’s weird personal control, and was famous for claiming that there was no organized crime in America, before Bobby Kennedy went after the mob.

[2008-11-01]

The FBI also later helped discredit the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria– they assigned an agent to look into allegations that thousands of children were being abducted and ritually sacrificed by Satan’s pawns. The FBI agent concluded that the claims were nonsense. [Added November 2008]