Tags
CIA, crime, don't talk, FBI, government, lies, police, terrorism
Usually nothing good comes out of talking to the police. I’ve said this again and again and again. In the ordinary encounter they attempt to have a suspect (we’re all suspects) say something they can use against him. Remember, you have the right to remain silent. Use it because anything you say can and will be used against you.
It gets worse. If you talk and you don’t say something they can use against you, they will just fabricate some false story out of your words or simply make up a complete lie to suit their needs. If you give a 30-minute interview the odds are there will be some random sentences that can be edited together into a sinister statement which, though untrue, will be used before a jury (grand and/or trial). I’ve seen it in person. In the absence of any incriminating statements, clever investigators can say you said something (off record and not recorded, of course). This makes it harder for you to deny the lies – you did give a statement after all. You admit that. It becomes your word against the cop’s as to what you said. Courts are programmed to automatically give credence to the police version.
Outside of personal criminal cases it is still unwise to talk to agents of the state. Even if they’re not trying to railroad you with a false confession or something similar they can still use “your” statements to fabricate an official lie or cover-up.
On July 17, 1996 TWA flight 800 exploded off the coast of Long Island and fell into the Atlantic Ocean. The official story is that an oxygen generation system in the fuel tanks malfunctioned and caused the crash. This is certainly possible. It is also a possibility the plane was shot down by a SAM. Several witnesses have said they say something (like a missile) streaking toward the aircraft just before the explosion occurred. One of those witnesses was Mike Wire.
Wire was one of hundreds of witnesses interviewed by the FBI following the tragedy. He spoke with Special Agent Andrew Lash for over an hour and a half. Lash took copious notes which he allowed Wire to double-check. All seemed well. Then several years later Wire learned his interview served as the basis of the government’s official story – a story which did not match Wire’s account.
Irvine had something he wanted me to see. It was a certified word-for-word transcript of a 1999 meeting between the NTSB’s witness group and the CIA analysts who created the animation the FBI used to close the case. I was amazed that I was referenced so much; it seemed that a third of this 81-page document mentioned me (the man on the bridge) in some way.
As it turns out, the CIA based its animation around what I saw. However, there was a big problem. The CIA claimed that the nose of the plane blew off and when it did, the plane soared up for more than 3,000 feet. This, according to the CIA, confused me and other witnesses into thinking we saw a missile. I saw nothing of the kind. I saw an object zigzag up off the horizon at about a 40-degree angle, arch over and culminate in an explosion. After the explosion, the plane fell straight out of the sky.
As the transcript showed, at least two of the NTSB people gave the CIA resistance. They had seen the FBI “302” that Lash prepared, and it honestly reported what I had seen. When cornered, the CIA analyst responded, “He [I] was an important eyewitness to us. And we asked the FBI to talk to him again, and they did.”
This was nonsense. The FBI never spoke to me after the initial Lash interview. The CIA analyst continued, “In his original description, he [I] thought he had seen a firework and that perhaps that firework had originated on the beach behind the house.” This was true.
According to the analyst, though, I was “reinterviewed,” and I changed my statement. According to this fictional second interview, I did not see the light ascend from the beach. I first saw the light appear “as if — if you imagine a flagpole on top of the house it would be as if it were on the top or the tip of the flag pole.” As a millwright, we do not use flagpoles as an increment of measurement. I would use degrees of angle in this kind of instance as in the original statement.
“Now, when the FBI told us that,” said the analyst, “we got even more comfortable with our theory.”
I do not know who generated this false interview to fit their scenario, but I stand by my original approved statement made to agent Lash. No other statement exists as there were none. The CIA built its case-closing animation around an interview that never took place. I would learn later that the CIA manufactured interviews with several other key witnesses.
This whole experience has left me disillusioned with the FBI, disillusioned with the CIA, and totally disillusioned with the news media that bought this whole story without ever questioning it — even after the truth about the fake interviews had become impossible to deny.
In sensitive cases like this the FBI and other domestic law enforcement sources serve as information generators for the CIA, which ultimately controls the official stories. Regardless of what really happened and what is said the CIA will only publish the version it wants the public to see. Fake interviews can only be effectively denied if they never happened. Rather than making statement X to the FBI only to have the CIA convert it into statement Y for disinformation purposes it is far better to have no part in the process period.
heavy.com
If approached by any state officers under such circumstances one should not only refuse to make statements and answer questions but record the refusal and following silence. This will not stop them from fabricating lies but will give you plausible deniability. Let them make up their own stories.
PERRIN LOVETT 
You must be logged in to post a comment.