Much of the frustration is that the jury does not get to hear what the court
refuses to admit into evidence, or what is discussed at the bench between
attorneys, or per the example below, after they are dismissed for the day.
The government attorneys went ballistic every time an attempt was made to
introduce into evidence "302" documents, reports that are an official part
of any cases compiled by investigating officers.  The "302" s consistently
revealed major inconsistencies with testimony..often enough for this to have
been deliberate in the opinion of those more learned than I in reading court
cases. The following is one such example and begins with SA Gerald P. Waring
who began a temporary assignment to Rapid City (along with five others) two
weeks prior to the episode on the Jumping Bull Compound.  The first portion
of this exchange was in the jury presence.

GOV ATTORNEY: MR. HULTMAN
LEONARD'S ATTORNEY: MR. TAIKEFF
"COURT" THE JUDGE
WITNESS: SA GERALD P. WARING


Q  Did you consult with anyone else before you wrote your {1904}
reports?
A  No, sir.
{1905}
Q  Did you dictate the reports to a stenographer?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  To a person directly or to a machine, such as a dictating
machine?
A  Well, in the case of the first 302 that you showed me, sir, that
was dictated to two different individuals. And then the others were dictated
to just one individual.
Q  Do you recall that you dictated to two different individuals?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Is that the commonplace thing?
A  It has happened in the past, sir.
Q  But it is rather unusual, isn't it?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  So when I asked you before whether there was anything unusual
about the preparation of these reports why did you say, "no, there was
nothing"?
A  Because I didn't think that that was unusual, sir.
Q  But you just told us that it wasn't commonplace.
A  But it has happened in the past, sir.
Q  What brought about the fact that you dictated to two different
  individuals?
A  Well, basically we, due to the fact that we had very few
  stenographers in Pine Ridge and the fact that it was a rather lengthy
  report. So,therefore, we dictated to two different {1906} people.
Q  Who's "we"?
A  I dictated to two different people.
Q  Did you make a mistake when you said "we"?
A  I wasn't aware I said we.
MR. TAIKEFF:  May the record be read back, Your Honor?
THE COURT:  The record may be read back.
(Whereupon question and answer read back:  Question:  What brought
  about the fact that you dictated your report to two different individuals?
Answer:  Well, basically we, due to the fact that we had very few
  stenographers in Pine Ridge and the fact that it was a rather lengthy
  report. So therefore we dictated to two different people.)
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Now, sir, are you satisfied that you said "we"?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What did you mean when you said "we"?
A  Well, I was referring to the other FBI agents.
Q  They helped you dictate your report?
A  No, sir, but I was aware that other FBI agents in the same time
  had used two stenographers.
Q  Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You were then
  aware that others besides yourself were dictating to two stenographers in
  order to get a single report done; is that correct?
{1907}
A  No, sir.
Q  Well, what is it that you're aware of concerning the use of two
  stenographers?
A  Well, sir, the only thing I'm aware of is that I personally
  dictated my report to two    different stenographers, and I'm aware of the 
  fact there were other FBI agents that were also dictating their reports to 
  two stenographers, and it was to get the work completed.
Q  Tell us the name of the agent or agents who dictated to two
  stenographers?
A  At this time I don't recall which agents.
Q  Not at all?
A  No, sir.
Q  Can you give us their physical description as to height and
  weight, color of hair and eyes?
MR. HULTMAN:  Well, I object to this as being totally irrelevant,
  Your Honor.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I think it's quite significant, and I will assure
  Your Honor that I will tie it together before this cross-examination is
  over.
THE COURT:  He may answer.
A  Sir, the only -- there were a number of FBI agents in our office
  space at Pine Ridge on June the 30th when I dictated that. And I
  couldn't begin to describe or tell any names because I don't recall.
{1908}
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Now, during what period of time did this
  special condition exist that necessitated dictating to two stenographers at
  the same time?
A  Well, normally we like to get the reports dictated and completed
  as soon after the events occur so that they are accurate.
Q  And your memory is fresh, right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And so that you can record in your 302s as much detail as you
  can recall which you considered to be significant or important; isn't that
  right?
A  Well, I record, when I write my 302s I record the information
  that I consider significant at that time, yes, sir.
Q  And in as much detail as you think is important to get down on
  paper; isn't that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And as a rule 302s are rather detailed, are they not?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, please tell us over how long a period of time, beginning
  June 26, 1975, you were aware of whatever condition it was that 
  necessitated using two stenographers one day, two days, five days, how 
  long?
A  Well, the only time I'm aware of, sir, is on June the 30th when
  I dictated that particular report. Due to the volume of work it 
  necessitated me using two different stenographers.
{1909}
Q  Well, others, one or more others were doing the same thing;
  isn't that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Well, let me ask you this question:  If there was at least one
  other agent who needed the help of two stenographers why didn't you dictate
  all of your report to one stenographer and the other agent dictate all of
  his report to the other stenographer instead of using two stenographers?
A  The reason being that the stenographer that was in charge at
  Pine Ridge just designates which girl will take the report.
  It so happened she designated one girl and she took some of my
  report which was rather lengthy, and then another girl, then she began to
  type and then another girl came and finished the report.
Q  Didn't you tell us there was a shortage of stenographers when
  you began your explanation on this subject?
A  A shortage of stenographers compared to the number of agents
  that were in there dictating work that day, sir.
Q  So you used two stenographers when there was a shortage of
  stenographers instead of one, is that what you are saying?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Is that what you are telling us?
A  Yes, sir.
MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, again, again I now renew it that this is
  irrelevant to any issue. It's repetitive and it's {1910} argumentative.
THE COURT:  What is the relevancy?
MR. TAIKEFF:  The next question will reveal that fact, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  Did the witness answer the question?
MR. TAIKEFF:  The question has been answered. He said yes, that's
  what he's telling us.
THE COURT:  All right.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Isn't it a fact that in discussing the case
  with your fellow agents on or about June 30, 1975 it was agreed amongst you
  all that what happened during the forty minutes between 11:50 A.M. and 
  12:30 P.M. were the most critical minutes during that day as far as this 
  case is concerned? Correct or incorrect?
A  That's incorrect, sir.
Q  Isn't it a fact, sir, that you rewrote the first portion of your
  report so as to conform your earlier report to meet the agreed upon 
  scenario that you and your fellow agents had discussed?
A  No, sir, that's not so.
MR. HULTMAN:  And now, Your Honor, I'm going to indicate that I
  object to any other questions of the kind because the record here will
  clearly show that that is not the case, and there's no basis or foundation
  upon counsel to make such a --
MR. TAIKEFF:  The jury will decide that fact I trust, {1911} Your
  Honor.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) I place before you Defendant's Exhibit 83 for
  identification.
MR. HULTMAN:  May we approach the bench, Your Honor?
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, I would like to continue my
  cross-examination uninterrupted. I have not asked a question, I do not
  know --
MR. HULTMAN:  Because the reason we're right back again, Your
  Honor, with a 302, and it's the same issue all over again, and that's why
  I'd like to approach the bench.
THE COURT:  Members of the jury you are going to be excused two
  minutes early. I will hear legal arguments of counsel after the jury has
  left the courtroom and the jury is now excused until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow
  morning.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had in the courtroom
  without the presence of the jury:
MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, the basis for my objection is this, and I
  want to make it clear now because we constantly get into this. This in my
  judgment, and I think I have a proper objection for it, that until such 
  time as there is an in faith good showing that a condition of the kind in 
  which there's not a scintilla of evidence in this record to show this point 
  is indicated by counsel, that this is an attempt, and it's a blatant 
  attempt to prejudice the jury to try and put information before this jury 
  that such a condition did {1912} exist.
  The record clearly shows that now he's done it, and the witness has
  said that it didn't exist. He's going to continue to persist even in that
  very allegation when there is nothing in this record of any kind to support
  that kind of questioning.
  And that's the basis for my objection and I would like it to be an
  objection not only now but likewise that it hold for any future proceedings
  of this kind until there is a showing of some kind in good faith at the
  bench that there is going to be such a showing because all the damage is 
  now done.
  The jury know in their minds by counsel's remarks at least it's
  been projected to this jury that there has been improper conduct to-wit:  a 
  group of people sitting down and working out a plan of some kind as far as 
  some 302s are concerned. And it's to that issue that I'm addressing now, 
  and at any time in the future until some type of showing of some kind has 
  been made.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, Mr. Hultman is wrong. The damage has not
  been done. We are beginning to do the damage that is going to be done, and
  we will ask appropriate questions and we will prove to this jury the
  corruption of the FBI in connection with this case.
MR. HULTMAN:  And that refers to my motion in limine, {1913} Your
  Honor, that we go back to the very beginning.
MR. TAIKEFF:  No, Your Honor, there is not one word in the motion
  of limine concerning what we will reveal through the testimony of this
  witness on cross-examination.
MR. HULTMAN:  I'm referring to the corruption, to-wit the last
  remarks of the FBI.
MR. TAIKEFF:  We will show in the first fifteen minutes of the
  remainder of this witness's cross-examination exactly what we're referring
  to, and the jury can decide for itself what the proper explanation is.
THE COURT:  You may proceed with your cross-examination.
MR. TAIKEFF:  There's no jury here, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  That's right. It will be on an offer of proof.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I would like to know, Your Honor, why I must make an
  offer of proof in order to cross-examine the witness. Am I required to tell
  the Government what my intentions are with respect to every question I'm
  going to ask on cross-examination?
THE COURT:  Because there is no basis, all right. You don't have to
  proceed, but unless you want to make -- my ruling of the Court is 
  sustaining the objection. At this point I see no relevancy.
MR. TAIKEFF:  All right, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  The witness has been asked the question. {1914} He has
  denied. Now --
MR. TAIKEFF:  I'm not bound by his denial.
THE COURT:  Why not?
MR. TAIKEFF:  Because I don't believe a word he says, that's why
  not.
THE COURT:  You are getting into a collateral issue then. You are
  attempting to litigate the collateral issue.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, the reason there is nothing in the record
  so far is because the Government keeps objecting when we offer their own
  reports, and Your Honor keeps sustaining the objections. That's the only
  reason there's nothing in evidence.
  I will demonstrate to Your Honor, I will satisfy Your Honor right
  now. And I hope that Your Honor will realize in the future that it is not
  appropriate to require the defense to play its cards out in the absence of
  the jury so that Government counsel can think overnight what they're going
  to do about it.
THE COURT:  You do not have to play your cards out. I'm simply
  giving you an opportunity to make an offer of proof. I have sustained the
  objection.
MR. TAIKEFF:  All right. I'm now proceeding with Your Honor's
  permission.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) 83 for identification is in front of you. That
  report covers events in a chronological sequence. Yes {1915} or no?
MR. HULTMAN:  Could I look and see that also?
MR. TAIKEFF:  Doesn't the Government have a copy?
MR. HULTMAN:  I'd like to know what 83 is, Counsel, just one time.
  You put about four exhibits up there and don't show one of them to me. I've
  got a right to take a look at the exhibit to know --
MR. TAIKEFF:  Would Your Honor tell Mr. Hultman that I'm not deaf.
THE COURT:  Counsel --
MR. LOWE:  I suggest that he read the rules of evidence.
A  That question again, sir?
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Yes. I ask you whether that report develops the
  facts of the day as you recall them in chronological sequence from the
  beginning of your activities until the end of your activities?
A  It is the report using what I considered to be at that time the
  important facts as related in this 302 that I wrote on the 30th of June,
  1975.
Q  Do you know what the word chronological means?
A  Means in sequence or in order, sir.
Q  In time sequence, right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, my question to you is:  Is that report written in {1916}
  time sequence from the beginning to the end of your activities that day?
A  It's not an exact time sequence, but it's approximately times as
  they happened, yes, sir.
Q  Is it typed on two different typewriters?
A  I wouldn't know that, sir.
Q  Well, take a look and see whether your eye reveals to you
  whether or not it's typed on two different typewriters.
A  I wouldn't -- I can't tell that.
Q  You can't tell that?
MR. TAIKEFF:  All right. Your Honor, on a hearing I trust that Your
  Honor is a finder of fact. I ask Your Honor to compare pages 1, 2, 3 and 4
  treating them as a single unit and page 5 to the end in terms of judging 
  the credibility of this witness who says he cannot discern whether this 
  report was typed on two different typewriters. That's the first step in my 
  proof to Your Honor.
MR. HULTMAN:  Well, I object, Your Honor, again. The witness has
  indicated to the very best of his ability and he has so stated in response
  to questions. That again is a conclusion for any one who is looking to 
  draw. He didn't say it was or it wasn't. He asked him if he knew.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I asked him to look at it and tell me whether by
  looking at it he perceived whether or not it was typed on two different
  typewriters.
{1917}
THE COURT:  I would have to have evidence by someone qualified to
  testify on that point. I would not make a determination.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Then I would ask Your Honor to look at the digit 7 as
  it appears in many places in virtually every page and indicate whether or
  not it is clear cut from the digit 7 that it was done on two different
  typewriters.
MR. HULTMAN:  Well, again if they want to call an expert and to
  establish, that's within the capability. The question has been asked and
  answered and fairly answered.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I'm asking Your Honor to make a finding of fact in
  connection with this voir dire hearing. I ask Your Honor to look at the
  digit 5 and the digit 7 and state on the record whether or not it is as
  obvious as the fact that I'm standing before Your Honor that they are
  different machines.
MR. LOWE:  Your Honor, the first paragraph on page 1 and the last
  paragraph on page 6 have those digits on them.
MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, I want to come back. The record clearly
  shows by cross-examination that the dictation was given to two different
  people. Now, if counsel will go on and ask the question whether or not the
  typing was done by two different people, and this defendant -- this witness
  knows that it was, then I would have no objection. But I think the question
  has been asked and this fellow, does he {1918} know looking at it point
  blank whether it is or it isn't. And he's responded, and I would submit my
  response would be exactly the same upon looking at it. {1919}
MR. TAIKEFF:  I trust that Mr. Hultman would wait to send his
  signals to the witness until Your Honor finishes looking at the document.
  Does Your Honor wish to state anything concerning the digit "7" and "5"?
THE COURT:  I am unable to determine from looking at the exhibit as
  to whether or not --
MR. TAIKEFF:  May I proceed with my inquiry as to whether or not
  this has been typed with two different typewriters?
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) I show you, sir, again 83 for identification
  ln the first four pages do you see the digits "7," "5," written numerous
  times, particularly with reference to the date, 1975?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Do you find the digit "7" and "5" in the last four pages of the
  report?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Based on your own personal observations just made, are you able
  to tell us whether or not in your opinion the first four pages, at least to
  the extent where the "7s" and the "5s" appear were typed on the same
  typewriter as the last four pages, at least where the "7s" and the "5s"
  appear, can you express an opinion?
A  Well, I'll just stay with the answer I had before, sir. I cannot
  make a determination.
{1920}
Q  I appreciate the fact that you did that.
  Now, sir, do you know at what point your dictation began with the
  second stenographer, at what point during the day's events?
A  Not without looking at the 302 again, sir.
Q  How could you tell from looking at the 302?
A  Well, I recall that when I initialed the 302 after reading it
  that there was a break, there is about a half a page or so and I believe,
  recalling right now I think it's on page four. That should be where the one
  stenographer stopped.
Q  I show you page five of 83 for identification. That paragraph
  begins with a description of events which occurred at what time?
A  It says at approximately 12:30 to 1:00 P.M., sir.
Q  Now isn't it a fact, sir, that you rewrote the first half of
  that report in order to make it confirm to the plan which had been worked
  out between yourself and the other agents?
A  No, sir.
Q  Isn't it a fact that initially you wrote your report concerning
  June 26th on June 26th and that the rewrite was done on June 30?
A  No, sir.
Q  You identified a document marked Defendant's Exhibit 84 for
  identification before, did you not?
A  I'd have to see it again, sir. If that's an FD302, sir. {1921}
Q  The record will reflect whether or not you did.
MR. HULTMAN:  Could I see this one now, Counsel?
MR. TAIKEFF:  No. We're not offering it in evidence yet.
MR. HULTMAN:  Well, I'd like to be able to in the posture, I think
  it is just common courtesy, let alone procedure.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I will in a moment.
MR. HULTMAN:  For Counsel to be able to interpose an objection to
  know what the great secrecy is with reference to what document it is, at
  least that Counsel is querying about at this point. I'll forget it. I don't
  even want to see what it is. I could care less.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Did you write a report concerning an
  examination of the crime scene?
A  I did not write that 302, sir.
Q  You did not?
A  No, sir.
Q  You initialed it, didn't you?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  When was that done?
A  I initialed it after the other agent had dictated that
  report. I read it for accuracy and then I initialed it, sir.
Q  On what date did you do that?
{1922}
A  I'd have to see it, sir.
Q  Can you tell us whether you did that before or after Exhibit 83
  was written?
A  At this time, sir, I'd have no way of knowing because when they
  returned it to us, they're given to me to read. Like I said, I read it for
  accuracy and then if it's accurate, the best of my recollection, I initial
  it as such and when they come to me after they're typed I couldn't at this
  time recall the date numbers.
Q  The crime scene activities were at the end of the afternoon,
  isn't that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And the other activities which are in Defendant's Exhibit 83 for
  identification are from the beginning of the day up to the point where the
  crime search began, isn't that true?
A  That's correct, sir.
Q  Which did you write the report on first?
A  I wrote the report that has my name on it by itself. I wrote
  that report, sir.
Q  Before or after you initialed the crime scene examination
  report?
A  At this time I can't recall whether I received that second 302
  for purposes of initialing prior to or after I dictated the one that's
  indicated on 6/30/75.
Q  You have no independent recollection, is that correct?
{1923}
A  No, sir.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Now, Your Honor, I will show Defendant's Exhibit 84
  to Mr. Hultman and then I will show it to the witness and I will ask him if
  he can tell us when that report was seen by him for the first time in
  typewritten form.
A  Again, sir, the dates 6/28 but whether I saw it then or sometime
  after, within a few days, I have no way of knowing. My initials appear that
  I have read this and checked it for accuracy.
Q  When you say "6/28," where were you looking for that date?
A  It shows a date of transcript, date of dictation, "6/28."
Q  Yes.
A  Date of transcription, "6/28."
Q  Are you relying upon that? Do you consider that a reliable piece
  of information?
A  Well, it doesn't appear to be a mistake. It shows it was
  dictated two days after the crime scene and typed the same date.
Q  You mean the events occurred on 6/26, it was dictated on 6/28
  and it was typed on 6/28, is that what you're saying?
A  That's the way this reads, yes, sir.
Q  As a general rule are you prepared to rely upon those entries as
  being accurate?
A  Well, the sequence of dates here would appear to be {1924}
  accurate.
Q  So you're prepared to rely on the accuracy on the competence of
  the stenographers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, aren't you?
A  Yes, sir. But I'm mainly concerned with the accuracy of the
  report itself.
Q  I understand that.
A  This particular date has very little meaning.
Q  But you testified here on this voir dire that 6/28 was the date
  of typing. You relied upon the fact that that was on the report in saying
  that, didn't you, rather than your own independent recollection?
A  I'd say that's -- excuse me. I said that's the date I would have
  to say at this time.
Q  Well, is it because you give some credence to what you see on
302s like that?
A  I anticipate that those dates would be accurate but they can be
  wrong.
Q  They can be wrong?
A  The interview date is the important date, sir.
Q  Do you now know something that made you say they may be wrong?
  There is something on your mind that prompts you to use that phrase "they
  may be wrong"?
A  Well, I know that the date on the other 302 that you're
  referring to, when the stenographer transposed the date from {1925} the
  dictation dates of the transcription date, they inadvertently put the date
  of the entry, I believe, or the date of the events of the shooting on the
  one that I wrote.
Q  How often does that happen?
A  I have no way of knowing how often. It's happened.
Q  But it's unusual, isn't it?
A  Well, normally.
Q  Isn't it unusual?
A  Yes.
Q  Why didn't you tell us before when the jury was here and I asked
  you that anything unusual happened in connection with any of your reports,
  why didn't you say that the typist made a mistake in the date? Just explain
  that to the judge.
A  I believe you asked me the question, you asked me if there was
  anything important in the sequence of events leading up to the dictating of
  the report.
Q  Is that what you think I said?
A  As I recall it. Unless I had the question read back.
Q  Isn't it a fact that what really happened here was that on June
  30 you rewrote the first four pages of your report and the typist didn't
  make a mistake but you made a mistake in failing to recognize that the
  typist recorded the correct date of dictation; namely, June 30, but copied
  off the other front page the date of typing of June 26th, isn't that what
  really happened? {1926}
A  No, sir. It couldn't have happened that way.
Q  Well, we all know that June 30 didn't come before June 26th.
  What do you mean it couldn't have happened that way? Is it physically
  impossible for somebody to rewrite a report on June 30 that was originally
  done on the 26th and have the typist put June 26th on the top of it when
  she's copying off the old heading, is that physically impossible?
A  I would have to have the question again.
Q  I want to know whether it is physically impossible for a typist
  to copy from an old report on to a new report and type in the old typing
  date, is that impossible?
A  I said it was impossible for me to dictate on the 26th of June.
Q  I'm not asking you that question.
A  Well, it wouldn't be impossible to --
Q  It's within the realm of possibility, is it not?
A  To transcribe something on the 26th; yes.
Q  It's within the realm of possibility?
A  Yes, sir.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, on that basis I trust your Honor
  recognizes it's a fact question for the jury to determine what really
  happened on that day.
THE COURT:  Is that all?
MR. TAIKEFF:  That's all on that point, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  The court has ruled and there has been {1927} nothing
  presented on the voir dire that changes that ruling.
MR. TAIKEFF:  What is Your Honor's ruling?
THE COURT:  I sustain the objection of Counsel to the questions
  that were asked.
MR. TAIKEFF:  For me to go into the question that report was
  dictated on June 30, even though it was typed on June 26th. Is Your Honor's
  ruling that I cannot ask this witness why that existed in the presence of
  the jury?
THE COURT:  You may ask that. You may ask that question, certainly.
MR. TAIKEFF:  That's what I was going to get to.
MR. HULTMAN:  That's a far cry from what he did ask and that was
  that four people got together, or whatever it was, and put together a
  conspiracy.
THE COURT:  That was the basis for the Court's ruling. You were
  suggesting something there I can see no basis in.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, cannot even see when something is typed
  on two different typewriters, that is so obvious that it is impossible to
  believe that Your Honor doesn't see the difference between the 7 and the 5
  on those separate pages, I can't expect Your Honor to appreciate some of 
  the things we're trying to prove in this case.
THE COURT:  You've made your record.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Yes, Your Honor.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]