The File Next Time

Friday, August 08, 2008

Transcript

Dr. Bruce Ivins wasn't the first 'person of interest' revealed to the media by the FBI and the Justice Department. Former suspects Richard Jewell, Wen Ho Lee and Steven Hatfill have all undergone the trial by media only to be found innocent after the damage is done. Former ABC reporter and current FBI spokesperson John Miller explains the deliberation behind naming names.

Comments [5]

Chris Gray from New Haven, CT

In an odd coincidence, CBS aired a repeat episode of Criminal Minds which characteristically begins with a quote from a famous author and the quote the week of Ivins' suicide began, "Suicide is confession....” However, is it or is it a case of law enforcement harassing a suspect to death?

Miller paints a convincing picture but he is a PR specialist, a really authoritative voice of reason. Still, he is also the voice of damage control because, obviously, something has gone woefully wrong with this investigation at every turn and no one will ever be satisfied that it has been successfully completed.

Aug. 12 2008 11:56 PM
Jessica Severson

I'm a new listener to the show and have so far been very impressed with your coverage. So I was surprised when during the coverage of the FBI's case against Ivins, it was described multiple times as "strong."

If anything, the case is far from strong. It is entirely circumstantial and there has been increasing criticism since their revelation regarding their information, especially the scientific methodology used to trace the anthrax back to the lab in the first place. To me, the circumstantial evidence would not be enough to get a conviction by a longshot. By revealing only limited information, it only makes me question the FBI's motives more. It also seems to me like this is the bigger story in the media's coverage, as it's gradually started to chip holes in the FBI's theory.

In most other respects, the interview was good. However, I expect this kind of additional analysis from OTM and I was disappointed to see what felt like an endorsement of the FBI's case.

Aug. 12 2008 12:48 AM
David Rowe from Lawrenceville, NJ

I thought this was OTM at it's best: Good, tough questions from Bob, and good, tough answers from John Miller, and we (like K.M. Davies) get to decide.

It was refreshing to not have OTM simply call on, say, a reporter from The Nation to say, "Oh, of course you're right, Bob."

Nice job.

Aug. 11 2008 04:47 PM
K. M. Davies from Omaha NE

I was steaming as I listened to Bob's interview with John Miller. Miller says it wasn't a selling job, that DOJ/FBI "had" to present what they had. Was a shred of exculpating material given in that presentation. It looks like indictment, trial, and conviction without judge, defense counsel, and cross-examination. Therefore it was a sales job.
Ever since Nixon brought in PR types as principal staffers, we have seen politics and law devolve into sales.

Aug. 10 2008 12:51 PM
K. M. Davies from Omaha NE

I was steaming listing to Bob's interview with John Miller. "This was not a sales job. We had to show what we had." Oh, really. If this was a complete report, was there a shred of exculpating material in the DOJ presentation? It looked to me like indictment, trial, and conviction without benefit of judge, defense counsel, and cross-examination. Therefore, it was a sales job.
The trouble is we don't have law and politics anymore, we just have sales jobs. Look at the intimates of Nixon, Bush, and Bush and you a pack of PR types.

Aug. 10 2008 12:46 PM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.