Hello internet, and welcome to The Science They Don't Want You to Know. As I have mentioned in the first post of this series, I am doing research regarding the statistical viability of currently unconfirmed conspiracies (no leaked documents) by way of currently known conspiracies (documents have been leaked). The primary purpose of this initial research is to gather particular information, specifically how many people were involved in the actual conspiracies and the length of time which these conspiracies took place. If you have not read the first post, you should read it here





There are instances where people in charge of accumulating information and data fudge the numbers or outright lie. This is one snippet of information where the conspiracy theorists are correct. There are people in the position of collecting information feel that the possible rewards for lying about said information outweighs the cost of getting caught. As a chemist, I do not understand this mentality, but I do accept the empirical fact that it does happen. It happens in science more often than I would like, and with government officials of all political persuasions.









But these charges were dropped after Whitehurst was demoted and eventually was let go from the Bureau. While Dr. Whitehurst did bring this concept to public light, no real investigation was done on the matter and no real evidence was brought forth. The matter was merely dropped with no explanation. In the FBI, this concept has been amplified in the past. Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, who was a special agent of the FBI for 12 years, became a whistle-blower in 1998 for the concept that the FBI Crime Labs have a culture of intentionally biasing evidence for the prosecution. This comes on the tail end of the O.J. Simpson Murder Trial, where Simpsons lawyer Johnnie Cochran told the court three years earlier that the FBI is fudging the science and they have a person in the FBI who could prove it.But these charges were dropped after Whitehurst was demoted and eventually was let go from the Bureau. While Dr. Whitehurst did bring this concept to public light, no real investigation was done on the matter and no real evidence was brought forth. The matter was merely dropped with no explanation.









So why did the FBI fabricate data? Why did they want to increase guilty verdicts so badly? No one knows for certain.





Which goes to show how important forensic science is in the court of law, and how easily it can go awry. So what is the solution to this problem? The best bet is to have multiple organizations do forensic analysis on any given case. Yes, have the FBI continue doing forensic analysis, but also have city, county, and state forensic labs work on the case. If money allows for it, also bring in private forensic labs into the mix, not as a replacement, but rather as an additional assessment. The more, the merrier.



