Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Loss in Salman terror trial latest in a string of embarassments for the FBI
Author Message
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #1
Loss in Salman terror trial latest in a string of embarassments for the FBI
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/06/fbi...ureau.html

Quote:The FBI, already under fire for its handling of tips involving the Parkland school shooter and rocked by the firings and demotions of several high-ranking officials, suffered another significant blow with the acquittal of the Orlando nightclub terrorist’s widow.

And it happened in large part -- according to the jury’s foreman -- due to the bureau's failure to record Noor Salman's interview statements.

“Any time you lose you need to take a hard look at ‘why did we lose’?” former FBI Assistant Director Ron Hosko told Fox News, noting the rare terror trial loss should be a wake-up call for the bureau and federal prosecutors to “re-evaluate their investigative efforts and their decision making."

“I do think it is time because of this, certainly because of some national conversations about trust in the FBI, that the FBI should look hard as to ‘are we in the right place’?” he said.

The Salman verdict reportedly is only the third time since 9/11 someone has been acquitted in a terrorism-related trial and the first time in more than a decade. And now – once again – the embattled bureau’s tactics and actions are being put under the public microscope.

Quote:But even before Salman was found not guilty last Friday of the charges facing her -- obstruction and aiding and abetting by attempting to provide material support to a terrorist organization -- the trial almost never even made it to a jury because of a bombshell admission from government prosecutors.

In its closing stages, Salman’s lawyers tried to get the case thrown out after Assistant United States Attorney Sara Sweeney revealed in a letter to them that Seddique Mateen, the father of Omar Mateen, who gunned down 49 people in the gay nightclub in June 2016, had been a secret FBI informant for years.

When Fox News e-mailed Sweeney and asked why prosecutors decided to release that information – which ended up giving Salman’s lawyers a chance to absolve their client before the jury eventually did – the message was forwarded to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, which said it wasn’t commenting on moves made during the trial.

Quote:But what ultimately appeared to have sunk the FBI in this case was its decision not to record an alleged confession from Salman. One of the statements she allegedly made after the shooting that was written down by an FBI interviewer – whose notes ended up being the backbone for the government’s arguments -- started to fall apart during questioning.

Prosecutors, citing the interview statements, had argued that Salman and Mateen scouted out the Pulse nightclub together as a shooting target in the lead-up to the massacre. However, FBI Special Agent Richard Fennern testified that “within days” of Salman signing the statements, the bureau found out – using cell phone geolocation data and other information – that Salman was nowhere near the facility when she claimed she was, according to The Intercept.

FBI Special Agent Ricardo Enriquez, who wrote down the alleged statements, testified that he did so because Salman was “too nervous to write.” But the defense – which won over the jury -- portrayed Salman as someone who was pressured into making a false confession and had a low IQ, making it easy to manipulate her.

“I wish that the FBI had recorded their interviews with Ms. Salman as there were several significant inconsistencies with the written summaries of her statements,” the jury’s foreman revealed in a statement last week to the Orlando Sentinel.

“A verdict of not guilty did NOT mean that we thought Noor Salman was unaware of what Omar Mateen was planning to do,” the foreman added. “On the contrary we were convinced she did know. She may not have known what day, or what location, but she knew. However, we were not tasked with deciding if she was aware of a potential attack…the bottom line is that, based on the letter of the law, and the detailed instructions provided by the court, we were presented with no option but to return a verdict of not guilty.”

So why didn’t the FBI record their interviews with Salman?

“I honestly never thought about it,” FBI Special Agent Christopher Mayo testified during the trial, noting that he was focused on getting info from Salman in the hours after the attack and sending it to local law enforcement, according to the Orlando Sentinel. “It wasn’t a conscious decision.”

Quote:In 2014, then-Attorney General Eric Holder announced a policythat “establishes a presumption that the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the United States Marshals Service will electronically record interviews occurring in a place of detention with suitable recording equipment.”

He added: "It allows for certain exceptions—such as when the interviewee requests that the recording not occur or when recording is not practicable."

Holder’s policy was a departure from a 2006 memo in which the FBI advised its field offices, in most cases, to not record interviews, fearing that it would discourage suspects from opening up and cast agents in a negative light, the New York Times reported.

Hosko also told Fox News the bureau historically has leaned on its reputation under the premise it would give their side a boost in courtrooms.

“There was always this strong belief that the sworn statement of an FBI agent raising his right hand tended to be good in the court of law,” he said. “However, that was becoming a losing argument over time.:

He added: “You see cases like this and others, it certainly isn’t alone, where you are going to have experienced defense attorneys making the argument that the subjects’ will was overcome by aggressive FBI tactics, that the statement really didn’t reflect their version of the truth, their statement was written by the agent."
04-06-2018 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


TechRocks Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,469
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 815
I Root For: Tech
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Loss in Salman terror trial latest in a string of embarassments for the FBI
Read a Huffco piece yesterday about an interesting exchange between an FBI agent and the judge in this case. What transpired was the sort of thing one expects to see happen with some case involving a sheriff's deputy out to get the guy who screwed his wife, not with the elite investigative organization in the land.

I'll go back and find it.
04-06-2018 10:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TechRocks Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,469
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 815
I Root For: Tech
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Loss in Salman terror trial latest in a string of embarassments for the FBI
Quote:There was an undeniable sadism in how the government went about its case. Salman had originally been granted bail by a magistrate judge in California, but prosecutors appealed, asking a federal judge to keep her behind bars. They pointed to her confession that she had scouted Pulse with her husband ― even though by this point they had strong evidence to the contrary ― as a sign she was a danger to society. At the time, Judge Paul Byron sided with the government and kept Salman imprisoned before her trial.

During the trial, when an FBI agent testified that he had determined “within days” of the massacre that Salman had never been in the vicinity of Pulse, based on her cell phone data, Byron stopped him.

You knew within days? he asked.

Yes, the agent responded.

Did you tell anyone?

Yes, the agent said.

Whom did you tell?

My superiors, the agent replied. Byron asked for their first and last names. Later, after excusing the jury, he asked prosecutors to explain themselves. Why had they misled him when they asked him to deny Salman bail?

“I’m very concerned by that,” Byron said. It seemed he had taken it personally. His decision on Salman’s bail, based in part on faulty information, was responsible for her long separation from her child. By the time of the verdict, Salman had spent 14 months in jail.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/noor...46b6454dc2

And there it is. Yet another example of a judge, logically of course, believing that the FBI would shoot straight with him......when in fact they weren't.

Wonder if there are any other cases where a judge was misled (or lied to) by the FBI?
04-06-2018 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


UCGrad1992 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,770
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 2265
I Root For: Bearcats U
Location: North Carolina
Post: #4
RE: Loss in Salman terror trial latest in a string of embarassments for the FBI
If there weren't red flags waving previously about the competency and integrity of the FBI there should now be air raid sirens going off. Clean this organization's mess up please to bring back respectability and the public's trust. They need a good rectal cleansing...someone at the top free of entitlement and personal and political agendas that will kick butts and take names.
04-06-2018 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #5
RE: Loss in Salman terror trial latest in a string of embarassments for the FBI
(04-06-2018 11:47 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  If there weren't red flags waving previously about the competency and integrity of the FBI there should now be air raid sirens going off. Clean this organization's mess up please to bring back respectability and the public's trust. They need a good rectal cleansing...someone at the top free of entitlement and personal and political agendas that will kick butts and take names.

There needs to be a thorough evaluation of mission, policy, and procedure of not just the FBI but the entire Justice Department.

Back after the Charleston shooting when there was a supposed "rash" of church fires we had two here in SC. I know people who were involved with both investigations and they were dumbfounded when the FBI and ATF arrived and just assumed that both were hate crime arson without looking at a single piece of evidence. One turned out to be from a lightning strike and in the other no obvious cause could ever be determined due to damage. I've been involved in church fire investigations prior to this and the feds involved in those cases would always approach an investigation with an open mind. With arson you have to because while it's usually not very hard to prove a fire was arson it's a difficult crime to get a conviction on without a witness and/or a confession.

Somewhere along the line something internally has changed. When it happened doesn't matter so much as identifying what caused it and correcting the problem. The DOJ and FBI are supposed to be the big league yet they are now routinely making mistakes you expect to see at podunk town police departments.
04-06-2018 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.