1994 Internal FBI Probe Revealed Only Minor Flaws with Crime Lab

The FBI, which is being sharply criticized for allegedly serious problems at its renowned crime laboratory, conducted its own internal investigation into many of the same allegations three years ago and found only minor reasons for concern.

According to copies of a 1994 internal FBI report and other correspondence, the FBI general counsel’s office concluded that allegations of problems at the lab were exaggerated and stemmed from the complaints of a lab chemist, Supervisory Agent Frederic Whitehurst, whom it characterized as a troublemaker.

Now, however, the Justice Department’s inspector general is winding up a massive investigation of those allegations--and their preliminary findings already have led to a series of improvements at the lab. In addition, a number of high-profile cases, including the April 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City that killed 168, could be adversely affected by the investigation’s findings.

Government officials who have been briefed on the inspector general’s investigation said Thursday that release of the final report likely will be delayed until mid-April. A panel of outside scientists, including a forensics expert who has worked on bombing cases in Northern Ireland, will review the findings before they are made public, the officials said.

The internal FBI review was begun after Whitehurst and his private attorney wrote FBI General Counsel Howard Shapiro asking for an independent, outside review of his charges of widespread problems at the lab.

“It appears as if there may be over 1,000 cases in which the constitutional rights of various criminal defendants may have been violated,” Whitehurst and his lawyer, Stephen M. Kohn, told Shapiro in a February 1994 letter.

But Shapiro responded a week later, assuring Whitehurst and Kohn that their “allegations will be promptly reviewed and fully investigated” by the bureau. “The FBI has a long and proud history of performing diligent and thorough internal investigations,” he wrote.

Ironically, it was the 1994 internal review that upset Whitehurst and prompted him to go public with his allegations. After that, the inspector general’s office was called in by the Department of Justice to investigate his allegations.

Critics of FBI management charge that the earlier, internal report was a cover-up in which top FBI officials attempted to gloss over Whitehurst’s allegations.

Shapiro could not be reached for comment. But Stephen Robinson, who as principal deputy general counsel for the FBI in 1994 wrote the internal report, denied Thursday that it was a cover-up.

“It was my charge and my intention to do a quick but full review of the allegations that Frederic Whitehurst made,” said Robinson, who has since left the FBI.

“We interviewed dozens of people. We went to outside scientists to solicit their input and help.”

But, he said, “Fred was unspecific in his allegations. He talked about things that were rumors. He talked about things he had no direct knowledge of. He thinks no one is smarter than him. He thinks no one has more credibility than himself.”

Robinson’s investigation, which was completed in three months, characterized Whitehurst as a malcontent. “Although his allegations generally have some basis in fact,” his report said, “they exaggerate the extent of any potential problem he has identified.

“Whitehurst is an idealist and perfectionist who sees everything as black or white and refuses to compromise or be realistic.”

Whitehurst charged, for instance, that there was a lack of quality control at the lab. But in the 1994 internal review the bureau found that “quality control and quality assurance has steadily improved” at the lab over the last few years.

Whitehurst alleged that there were unqualified lab examiners and poor training for lab personnel. But, according to the internal review, “the FBI’s examiner qualification standards and training program are solid and have withstood judicial scrutiny for years.”

Whitehurst also complained that the wording of some lab reports carried a “prosecution slant” that was unfair to some criminal defendants.

In lab work on the 1993 New York World Trade Center bombing, for instance, Whitehurst maintained that qualifying statements should have been included in his report about the potential sources of uric acid found on some of the evidence. They were finally included, but only after “heated debate” by Whitehurst with his superiors.

But the 1994 FBI report said that Whitehurst “misunderstood” how much information should be included in lab reports.

“Whitehurst erroneously believes that laboratory reports and conclusions should contain every conceivable explanation or possibility,” the FBI report said, “whether based on fact or speculation, no matter how remote or inconceivable.”

In another development Thursday, FBI Director Louis J. Freeh announced that he would not be the person to decide on any disciplinary action against Whitehurst. Whitehurst and three other lab officials have already been removed from the lab because of recommendations by the inspector general’s office.

But Freeh said he was not involved in that decision against Whitehurst because one of the cases where Whitehurst alleged there were problems was a mail bombing case that Freeh had worked on years earlier as a federal prosecutor.