The purpose of interviews during criminal or civil investigations is to objectively determine everything the person interviewed knows - and doesn't know - about the matter and properly document it in the best possible way to avoid any later dispute about exactly what was said by the person interviewed and the person(s) conducting the interview.
The best way to do that is to conduct the inteview at the earliest possible time and record the interview in its entirety. The fairest way to do it is to use 2 or more recorders, keeping in mind that opposing counsel has the right to listen to the tape, have it examined for possible tape tampering and to a transcript in the event a duplicate original isn't made for that purpose during the interview. An added benefit to duplicate recordings arises when one of the tapes becomes damaged, as sometimes happens. Keep in mind that the investigator's job is to expertly gather evidence - and preserve it.
The FBI 302 Form Interview Procedure
Routinely, two agents conduct the interview, usually one asking the questions while the other takes notes on a pocket pad and sometime later dictates a summary of the interview which dictation is sometime later transcribed on a 302 form which is eventually returned to the agent for review and signature (or any corrections, additions or deletions he might consider appropriate).
Few if any of the FBI agents who interviewed the Flight 800 witnesses were qualified by experience or training for that role. The NTSB Witness Groups were created to expertly, properly and thoroughly conduct that kind of interview. The adverse consequences of the FBI elbowing the NTSB Witness Groups aside at the outset and unqualified FBI agents conducting those interviews with the 302 form procedure was inevitable.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/Transcript_8_23_3.htm
[excerpt][quote]
" . . . . . the FBI did not make any transcripts or recordings of these
interviews. Documents are written in the words of the FBI agents who
prepared them. Some of the documents contain incomplete information
or are vaguely worded. In other words, the documents may not always
say what the witness said."
[end quote]
http://www.law.emory.edu/4circuit/june96/945902.p.html
[excerpt][quote]
"Thus, when a government agent interviews a witness and takes contemporaneous notes of the witness' responses, the notes do not become the witness' statement- - despite the agent's best efforts to be accurate- - if the agent "does not read back, or the witness does not read, what the [agent] has written." Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94, 110- 11 n.19 (1976). And a government agent's interview notes that "merely select[ ] portions, albeit accurately, from a lengthy oral recital" do not satisfy the Jencks Act's requirement of a "substantially verbatim recital." Palermo, 360 U.S. at 352.
[end quote]
In short, the FBI 302 form interview summaries are not "witness reports" or "witness statements" or "witness declarations" or "witness testimony" and
that interview procedure has been previously repeatedly publicly
criticized for that reason. At best, the FBI interview summaries are
the agents' understanding of what the witness said. But that
procedure is routinely destined to result in uncertainty about what the person interviewed actually said - aside from being an invitation to skullduggery - and should have been
abolished decades ago.
Trial lawyers dealing with cases
involving FBI 302 form interview summaries instead of recorded interviews and the transcripts of those recorded interviews routinely raise hell about it for the obvious reason that they can neither hear for themselves everything both the witness and the interviewer actually said nor read everything both the witness and the interviewer actually said.
The press is
not ignorant of it either, as the following reflects.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/1998/jan1598.htm
[quote]
QUESTION: Ms. Reno, an off-the-wall question here.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: After the Nichols trial, there was some concern on the part
of some of the jurors there about the fact -- and this comes up from
time to time -- that the FBI does not transcribe interviews, it does
this form 302. And every once in a while somebody says, you know,
that it is not the best evidence, 302's are summaries of what
something thinks somebody said. And people, every once in a while,
look at whether the FBI should change that.
Is that anything that is being looked at? During the time you have
been Attorney General, has anyone ever suggested that the FBI ought
to change that practice?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I have heard it on occasions and have
discussed it with Director Freeh. I cannot discuss it in the context
of this particular case.
QUESTION: But as a general matter, is that something that is pretty
much a dead letter now?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: As always, we continue to review each issues,
the circumstances of the issue in the context it arises, to see what
is appropriate. But, again, with respect to this matter, in this
case, I cannot discuss it.
QUESTION: Yes, but as a general matter, does it strike you as a good
idea, the way the FBI does the 302's? Do you see any need to change
that?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I think, each case, you have got to look at it
on a case-by-case basis, and I think that is what the Bureau does.
QUESTION: Are you saying that they sometimes use a tape recorder?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, I think you have to look at the
specific examples of each case and make the best judgment of what is
right in that case.
QUESTION: (Off microphone) -- some have suggested the FBI should no
longer use this form 302, and should go to a transcription of
interviews. Would that be a good idea, in your view?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, you are going to have to look at the
whole matter: each case, when you interview, who you interview, what
the circumstances are.
QUESTION: But the FBI has a policy that applies to all cases all the
time, that they do not tape record their interviews.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I will be happy to check with Director Freeh
and clarify anything that I have said. But, again, I cannot comment
on this particular case. And I think you have got to look at the
larger picture.
[end quote]
--------------------
Jnet Reno obviously chose to engage in wiggleworming when publicly confronted with the indefensible FBI 302 form interview procedure.
--------------------
UPDATE:
Los Angeles Times 7-31-2001
Hearings Open on Mueller
Senate: Bush's pick to head the FBI tells panel his "highest priority" is to restore public's trust in the battle-weary bureau.
[excerpt]
" . . . . . he said he would consider expanded tape-recording of FBI interviews to give its investigations greater credibility--another idea the bureau has resisted through the years."
Witness Fallibility
TWA 800 - The "Missile Witnesses" Myth