Former FBI supervisory special agent and forensic chemist Fred Whitehurst reveals the shocking truth behind his decision to become one of the most consequential whistleblowers in American law enforcement history.
With a PhD in chemistry and Vietnam War experience, Whitehurst joined the FBI in 1982 expecting to serve justice through science. Instead, he discovered a crime lab plagued by contamination, missing protocols, and a culture where agents were told to "commit perjury" rather than embarrass the Bureau in court.
Whitehurst shares the personal cost of his integrity - from death threats and career destruction to the impact on his family - while detailing how his 237 letters to the Inspector General ultimately led to major reforms in forensic science nationwide.
His story exposes how altered reports and biased testimony may have sent countless innocent people to prison, and offers sobering insights into why crime labs remain vulnerable to pressure and misconduct. This conversation is essential listening for anyone interested in criminal justice, scientific integrity, or the courage required to stand against institutional corruption.
Clips
Chapters
00:00 Introduction and Guest Welcome
00:43 Fred Whitehurst's Background and Career Path
02:25 First Impressions and Early Concerns at the FBI Lab
05:09 The Decision to Speak Out
09:02 Becoming a Whistleblower
11:43 Challenges and Repercussions
20:58 Impact and Reforms in Forensic Science
31:19 Advice for Future Whistleblowers
35:47 Final Thoughts and Conclusion
Related podcasts
Vermont Toxicologist Darcy Richardson Blows Whistle on Breath Alcohol Lab
Shattering Accreditation Illusions: ISO 17025 Myths and Realities
The Michigan Breath Alcohol Testing Scandal: What Really Happened?
Automated Transcript (not checked for errors)
Introduction
Aaron Olson: Welcome everyone, to today's special interview. We have a remarkable guest with us today. We have Fred Whitehurst. Fred is a name that resonates with integrity and courage. He's a former FBI supervisory special agent and forensic chemist who became a pivotal whistleblower. His actions brought to light significant issues within the FBI laboratory.
Ultimately, this will lead to reforms and, hopefully, a deeper commitment to scientific accuracy and forensic investigations. Today, we're gonna delve into his experiences, the challenges that he faced, and the impacts of the decision to speak out. Thank you so much for being here today, Fred.
Fred Whitehurst: Well, good afternoon, sir.
Glad to be here.
Fred Whitehurst's Background and Career Path
Aaron Olson: So, tell me a little bit about your background. How did you get started on a career path at the FBI and sort of what drew you to forensic chemistry?
Fred Whitehurst: Well, I have a doctorate in chemistry. Um, I was in Vietnam for three years and I considered coming home after that to be, I have a career in academics and, um, uh, it just, it just wasn't me.
And so I looked at going back to war, going back into a, um, uh, environment where we could see immediate impact. We could make differences immediately. Um, I, I did not want to go into, um, say research and academics because, you know, it's a long term. There are very good things that come out of that, but it didn't suit me.
Um, I was at Texas a and m working on a postdoctoral fellowship and applied to get in the FBI and, um. It took me a year and a half for my class. I went in, in, in 1982 in class number three, and, um, spent four years in the field doing criminal investigations. I, Aaron was no good at that. I just couldn't figure that out.
Okay. I could collect all the information, but finally somebody has to put hands on and I didn't get it. And, um. Uh, they sent me back to the laboratory and, um, when I got there, I, I worked in the materials analysis unit. I was in training for about 13 months, and then I worked on analyzing materials from bombing crime scenes and various sund unknowns that would come into the lab.
We try to characterize.
First Impressions and Early Concerns at the FBI Lab
Aaron Olson: Okay, so at what point did you start to notice some irregularities and some concerns that you had?
Fred Whitehurst: Well, the very first day in the lab, I walked into a filthy. Um, when I say filthy, you might have been willing to eat, um, eggs off the table in that lab, but there were, there were areas of contamination.
There were instruments that were old, that were rusty. Uh, there were no protocols at all. No one had written out what you're supposed to do so someone else could follow that. Um, there was no validation. Validation. If you ask me a question, I give you an answer. You wanna know whether it's the correct answer.
So my way of telling you what the answer is, has to be tested before I give you an answer. And uh, the first day I walked in, um, there was carpet on the floor. For instance, it seems like a minor thing, but carpet on the floor in a laboratory that's looking for picogram quantities, that's a millionth of a millionth of a gram.
Um, quantities of material, that's a contamination factor. There was a very strong um.
A refusal to, to share the science we were trying to do to accept outside, uh, criticism. Uh, so the very first day I walked in and I saw, my gosh, there's, there's actually dust. There's, um, there's, you know, it's a dirty laboratory.
Aaron Olson: Yeah, so I mean, you see this as a, as a someone who's new in the lab, you know, you have two options.
You can k kind of just hunker down and, and try to go with the flow, or you can speak up and, and say something. And a lot of times, uh, advice or criticism from new employees isn't very well taken. Uh,
Fred Whitehurst: you know, when you first go to work someplace, you don't know what's going on. You don't know what's going on.
You look and you've got an opinion, but your opinion's not necessarily correct. Not necessarily correct at all. If you think you've got the only opinion, you're part of the problem. And so what you do is you go through your training and, um, I disagreed with some of the things that were happening during my training, but, um, I also hadn't been on the frontline in a frontline forensic laboratory.
And it was a matter of hunkering down. It was okay sometime what I know and what these folks know, uh, will mesh and, um, we'll move forward and. I was in a learning mode.
Aaron Olson: Yeah. So
Fred Whitehurst: what year was this? Huh?
Aaron Olson: What year?
Fred Whitehurst: 1986. The 6th of June, 1986.
Aaron Olson: Okay. So you hung you, you kind of went with the flow and did your training.
What happened after that?
The Decision to Speak Out
Fred Whitehurst: Uh, during my training, my training agent had advised me at one point he had a very, very. Undisciplined approach to the analyses. Um, he had no respect for the evidence and he, when I brought the issues up with him, he told me, um, you know, I said, if this gets out, it's gonna embarrass the FBI in a court of law.
And he said, ah don't worry about it. Before you embarrass the FBI in a court of law, you'll commit perjury. We all do it. It's really struck me wrong. This was a man with a PhD in chemistry. He knew better. Um, but um, he was part of the problem. His technician was part of the problem. And, um, so I came out of training.
I started talking to management about it immediately. Um, evidence being contaminated, you know, you can't throw evidence in a trash can and then pick it up out of the trash, can analyze and expect it has any value whatsoever other than to put potentially innocent people behind bars. And I talk to management and management.
Responded to me, come online as fast as you can. We know this guy's a problem. Um, well, but we need to send him down to Quantico to teach. Okay. And so I came online as fast as I could. I took 13 months and, and went through the, the training. That what it is, I mean, you know, it's, uh, it, it wasn't really strenuous training at all.
It wasn't, uh, an environment like I'd ever been in before. And, um. Came online and then, uh, started conducting analysis. But during that time though, I set about trying to clean the lab. It, it was filthy. Uh, you know, the material that comes from one case should not come in contact with a material that comes from another case because you can accuse somebody of what the predecessor case showed you.
Um, but. The fume hubs were dirty. The, the, the tables where the instruments were were dirty. Um, instruments were old. A lot of them were rusty. I mean, it was an abomination is what I amounted to, but okay, maybe this is what happens. Um, um, coming out of the training, my response was, okay, well, let me see if I can't do this as hard as I can.
However, um. What about the people that got hurt? You know, I couldn't just drop that. And I saw some from a, a couple of individuals in the lab, some pretty outspoken racism, and it was just vulgar and it was daily. And I, I came to believe that it, this will sound kind of crazy, but the, the essence of it was there's a, a black man in prison because he is black.
Now, you know, that's an accepted concept in today's society, but. Um, that outspoken racism. You know, when I talked to management about it, I said, oh, well that's just so and so. It is just the way he is. The one, one colleague described eventually there was an Inspector General's investigation and the colleague said to the Inspector General, oh, that guy's not really a, a real racist, he just hates everyone.
Uh, you know, if your science doesn't stand up, then you have to base your opinion on something. If you hate somebody because of their religion, their background, um, the color of their skin, whatever that might be, why you come to the, the opinions that you do. And nobody cares. The FBI doesn't care about those things despite their con Office of Congressional Public Affairs.
Um, it is just an old plantation. It was then and it is now.
Aaron Olson: Hmm.
Becoming a Whistleblower
Aaron Olson: So, you know, a few minutes ago you had mentioned something about when you first got in the lab, there was a comment by your supervisor about how something about related to perjury. What did he mean by that?
Fred Whitehurst: Well, I saw we were looking for very tiny amounts of material.
The lab was filthy. Um, there was obviously gonna be contamination in that lab. From the, from the, the analysis, um, benches to the instruments, to the floor, to the tables, whatever. And when I discussed that with him, and that's what he said, you know, I said finally, um, the FBI's got this problem that the biggest thing they worry about is embarrassment.
His image. They're not worried about. It's that way today. I mean, the nation recognizes that now they go with wind blows. There's, there's not a solid, uh, set of, of, of shoes on that, uh, on that continent, if you will. But, um, uh, when I expressed this and I try to discuss it with him, that's when he said, don't worry about it.
And if you, if you reach out to somebody and the most important thing in him in his life is embarrassment. The B and you say, well, we're gonna be embarrassed in in the court of law. Don't worry about it. Before you embarrass the FBI in a court of law, you'll commit perjury. We all do it. Hmm. Why really rubbed me wrong.
I spent three years in the Vietnam War. As bad as that war was, and as stupid as it was, I was fighting for something that I believed for the goals of our nation and casually throwing people into prison. It's not one of the, the goals of our nation. And so I talked to management about it and um, they all knew.
They knew there was a problem, but, um, they weren't gonna touch it by then, as one of my colleagues said, the veil of culpability is spread too far. Well, okay, then we all need to have that veil shown publicly in courts of law and. Nobody else gonna do it. Well, I'll do it. Let me adjust this camera a little bit.
Trying to cut my head off. There we go. Hey, how do you like that? Okay.
Aaron Olson: So as, as both a, I'm sure as you're working there, you're, you're trying to figure out what to do. You're, you, you're talking with other supervisors and, and management. At what point did you decide to sort of become a whistleblower and, and go a different route?
What, and what was that process like? How and how, how long were you there before you decided to go this route?
Challenges and Repercussions
Fred Whitehurst: It was a very clear point, very clear. I was in a trial. Um, the guy who was my training agent had messed up the evidence. So I got at the last minute, put into analyzing it, realized there wasn't any value to it because it had been, um, uh, mistreated if you will.
It had been poorly handled, um, and flew out to, um, San Francisco, and I'm supposed to testify and what I know. Uh, if I say that's gonna be the end of me. Okay. And so, you know, what do I do? I'm listening to my training agent and he's, he's, he's just prevaricating on the stand and, um, what do I do? And if it's very clear, I went walking around down to, I think they call it reside.
There's this place down there that's got, um, um. At that time, there was an old Liberty ship park there and there was a plaque describe, you know what a liberty ship is? They, they put, um, soldiers in and, and they were barely floatable and sent 'em off the South Pacific that died during World War ii and for the principles that I believe in, or I believe that's why they had done that.
Uh, and I read this black and I said, you know what? These people died, but what that jackass is throwing away. Disrespecting and I know what this is gonna do. So I went back to the, uh, federal building and went upstairs and there were two expert witnesses there for the defense. And, uh, you know, I'm this big guy with a, with a suit on and a obvious 3 57 Magnum revolve on my hip.
And, uh, I backed him into a corner gently. But, you know, hands on the hips, you need to know something. The guy on the stand is lying and this is what he is lying about. And that was when my. Trajectory, career trajectory, um, went, uh, in a different direction. Um, I got back home. I self reported, uh, the bureau investigated it and they found me at fault for obstructing justice.
Sent me home for a week without pay and they took that guy down to the, uh, down to the front office and they gave him an attaboy award, a monetary award, and told him. You should be careful how you testify. Well, that shook me up. This man is hurting people. He's hurting people. And wait a minute. Either I took an oath at Quantico or I didn't.
I held up my, my hand and I swore to uphold and all that. Whatever. I wasn't. I was taking an oath. I wasn't swatting. It flies. That was my oath of office and I took it very seriously. And, um, so, uh, I went back, I went up to the front office, I explained to the fellow in charge there, this is what's going on.
And oh, by the way, one of my colleagues has just told me that another agent had lied in the hearing of a federal judge. A federal judge, um, AIE Hastings. Considering whether that guy would be, um, uh, impeached or not, or found guilty of bribery and he lied 27 times under oath. Oh, I just went on up. I told the laboratory director, I'm so nervous, terrified.
I can't even form, spit my mouth, but I've got to say what I gotta say. Well, you know, it was.
My, my career move got locked into another TRA trajectory, but I decided the men who had told me to commit perjury, every case he looked at had to be reviewed. So in order to please me, they had a review and it was a whitewash. I wouldn't accept it. Then they had another review and it was a whitewash. The first time they sent a guy who had no idea about what this perjure was.
The, the, the expertise that guy whitewashed, oh, a few administrator errors. The next time they brought in a couple of attorneys who had no scientific training at all, whitewash. The third time they brought in my unit chief, who believed in me and believed in what I was saying, and came in and for months, went through all of that man's files and, um.
I found there was horrible, horrible work product at today. If you were to go through those files, that's 30 years ago, 34 or five years ago. But if you were to go through those files, there's paper, piece of paper in it. It says before you, uh, use this in a court of law, in any case, uh, call the FBI headquarters.
We gotta talk to you about this. Um, but it was during that time that I just wanna go to accept it. I'm not gonna accept it. Um, I was still getting exceptional performance appraisals because my boss believed in me and whatever till about 1995. Um, I got my last performance appraisal, but during that period of time, I sent a report over to, uh, to another examiner who was gonna include it in his reports, and he told the technician who took it, I don't care what he writes, I'll fix it.
I'll fix your report.
A degree in political science and I'm a PhD analytical chemist. He has no clue what he is talking about, but he is gonna fix it so that guilt is found. Okay, well, um, that bothered me right now, Aaron, if you want to find out something in FBI files, it might take you 20 years to get to them. Under FYA, they've bastardized the FYA process, so it's opaque again.
Okay. At that time, I could ask for the files, somebody go up and get them, and I found I was able to get a 52 files. I was quickly able to get 16 and found out this guy had altered all 16 reports, changing them to where when I give you an answer, I'm gonna tell you. However, there may be another answer here.
And this is what we know and we can't tell whether it's this or this. Taking out the howevers, what's called the exculpatory information. And um. Just, you know, I took it to my boss and he realized this is a disaster now, like I said, what am I get into court? And they asked me, is this a report? I, no, no, that's not my report.
I didn't write it. In fact, it's wrong. I mean, it's, it's you, you know, I'm a criminal defense attorney. But one of the problems with criminal defense, um, attorneys just, they don't have access to all that stuff and they don't have the scientific background. They don't have the assets they need. We do not have an adversarial system.
We have a system where there's this big, huge machine that beats up individual citizens at a time and they can't defend themselves and nobody wants to change that. So, okay. Um, that caused a, uh, oh, here it goes. Um. There is a problem here. We've got people rewriting other people's reports without their authorization or knowledge.
Making those reports appear as if, um, they support guilt. You don't, that's wrong. You know, it sounds naive of me, but that is just wrong. Uh, I don't need to take an ethics course to realize that's wrong and okay. So. I started writing letters to the US Department of Justice Inspector General. I would write, uh, 237 letters over a period of about five years.
My longest letter was over 600 pages long. I used to say to the IG guy who would get it? You do not wanna be my pen pal. You know? Um, and I was told by FBI, general counsel, if you just understood the law, Fred, you'd see these are, this is really not. Excuse me. Not a big deal. So I applied, got accepted to George Georgetown Law School and went to Georgetown Law School at night while I was, um, engaged in that investigation while I was also working as a, um, as a chemist.
So in terrorism cases, things like that. Uh, it was a hefty load to carry. I was sleeping for about three to four hours every night for four years. Um, but I got through the end of it. I don't know that I could survive that today. I am an old man, but, um, um, at the end of law school, the, uh, I had another conversation with the same attorney and she said, you gotta practice law.
What you learn in, in law school's, just, you know, they're looking for any excuse whatsoever. So I practice law.
Impact and Reforms in Forensic Science
Fred Whitehurst: Today, 35 years later, Aaron, I believe that we should tell the truth in a court of law. I believe that. I know that that's a naive thing to believe. I know that the registry exoneration's up to 3,600.
There are a lot of people in jail based upon false and misleading information that's come out of forensics. That's a well established part of our culture. Now we know that forensic crime labs still brace against outside oversight. They will tell you we're being audited by being audited by their own people.
They auditing capabilities or or processes are not independent of the of the forensic crime labs Now. You know, the FBI decided, okay, they would agree. There was a US Department of Justice Inspector General Report came out in 1997. Um, they said bad things about me, but so what? You know, if you slap the tiger, he's gonna knock you down.
Okay. So I got knocked down. I got a few scars, but, um, in the end. The FBI agreed to 40. Well we are That's right, 40 different sins. I agreed to leave the FBI. Uh, they retired me early with my paycheck for another seven years, and my retirement in place till I dropped dead, uh, which I almost did last week.
By the way. That's the reason for the pacemaker. Um, and, um, that it got by cheap then, uh, and. One of the things they agreed to was, we're only gonna bring scientists in, you know, oh, four or five years ago. I'm reviewing work product. I'm also a forensic consultant out of the lab, and I got, I got these guys, one of 'em with a degree in social science and another one degree in, in, um, kinesthesiology.
Neither one of 'em have ever taken a chemistry class testifying about the, about chemical. Concepts, a chemistry concept, the FBI was doing what it was doing for a reason. And I think we can look at the science, the manifestation of that reason, or we can look at what is it about our society that supports that taxpayers dollars go into supporting a fraud and why?
And you know, we, we, various and s political groups. Make statements about, oh, the FBI being pushed by that group, or pushed by that, or whatever. Okay. They go with the flow, right? And the laboratory goes with the flow when the man in the White House says, um, this is what the answer should be. And he does that by getting on news and say, we're pulling all stops when we catch that guy, you know, all hell to pay.
Keep your mouth shut. You're just the president. You know, just keep your mouth shut. We need to investigate without that pressure. But what? It's a, it's a, it's a constant pressure, and I don't blame the people in the lab. They're human beings. Here's the problem you got. I work in a lab. I got a mortgage, I got kids to put through college.
I got dental bills, I got a car payment. All of that stuff. If I tell the truth in a court of law, I don't have that. So I either uphold my oath of office and destroy my family, or I support my family and discard, disregard my oath of office. That's real. That's real. Crime Laboratories should be like the crime lab in Houston, Texas, Peter Stout.
They should be completely unassociated with those pressures. I don't know how you do that. 'cause the people with the guns, the bullies won't let that happen. But if you, if you're ever on a jury and something comes out of the crime lab, be very, very critical of it. They do not operate in a vacuum.
Aaron Olson: Anyhow, since the time that you, you've spoken out about this, has there been change?
Fred Whitehurst: I see that you have, there you go. You're back in every once in a while where our connection breaks and you take a pause and I'm thinking, are you thinking or are you being destroyed by the internet? Okay.
Aaron Olson: I, I, uh, yeah, I think we, we paused for a second, but my question was, since you've spoken out about this and, and went through all that you went through, ha, has there been change in crime labs that you've seen or changes at the FBI?
Fred Whitehurst: There are tremendous changes in crime laboratories. Tremendous protocols are being published, they're being given to defense attorneys. Um, error rates are being sought after the criminal defense bar knows. We had a, a, uh, pandemic, if you will, of crime labs being exposed as frauds for 20, 25 years there. I mean, it's one every week we were here, somebody else had committed fraud in a crime lab.
Um, so if, if the criminal defense bar and the courts, the judges were, were able to be educated by other than just the prosecution, and I'm not saying. I'm saying law enforcement, whatever, um, but had the assets needed to address these issues, um, the tools are there. What happened as a result of not my exposure only, but exposures all over the United States is awareness of a national awareness that laboratories can be human.
That gas chromatograph, mass spectrometers can give you the wrong answer. Um, that instruments with big names don't necessarily spell guilt. So we have grown to that point and there is an effort to go further. Um, uh, I am frankly, you know, I've been at this now almost 40 years. I'm, uh, I'm very pleased with how far that it has gone.
I don't look at any of these actors as bad actors. I, I just don't. Um, you know, I do say the safest place for a psychopathic killer in the United States is in a crime lab because they can use the forensic science and lie and put somebody in a death chamber. They can do that, and they're not thinking about, you know, that's not true.
Why, wait a minute. This guy's waiting to die. He's gonna be convicted based on your material in part, you know, it's the safest place in the country for a psychopathic killer. It, um, it, it can be seen by the Hollywood, uh, thing, Dexter, you know the show Dexter?
Aaron Olson: Yeah.
Fred Whitehurst: Um, I know Dexter, I know Dexter. Uh, not the Dexter I knew at the FBI lab.
Um, I've collected 1,850 of his cases and I've exposed him now for the last, since 19, oh my goodness, about 1998. No, 1989, and we'll continue to expose him. Help people that come forward asking, do you know anything about this guy? Yeah, I've got 10 gigabytes of information on this, all this stuff, and you can have it for nothing.
I'll send you a thumb drive. You don't need to pay for it. Um, but have labs. Yes, they have. Uh, you know, as a criminal defense attorney, when a lab gives me a result, I want to know, um, everything that supports that result. I have the software on my computers. I don't have the instruments. I'm not gonna reanalyze this stuff.
I have you give me the foundation for what you're doing, all the scientific, every bit of it. And I will go through that. Uh, and by the way, when you're representing people, I do a lot of drug cases, but you're representing a person on drug case. Um, a lab has to tell you it's one of the elements of the crime.
Controlled substance has to tell you what it is, but if they haven't validated their protocols, it can't get in. And that's the state of the law right now. The problem with the state of the law is that judges don't understand it. Prosecutors don't understand it. Defense attorneys don't understand it, and there is no way that we, in this society should hold them responsible for getting a PhD in chemistry and a jd.
Foolishness I did, but it's because I'm foolish. Okay. Um, what we need badly, Aaron, we need badly is a National Criminal Defense Forensic Institute. And it doesn't have to exist in a building and it doesn't have to have equipment. It has to have, uh. Professional scientists just as are hired in an academic environment, pay just like academics who look at work product, do not need a building, just exist in cyberspace.
Nobody, nobody picks up on that because, and it is admission that we know that the government is not doing its job correctly, and the government is the folks that are supposed to give us those assets. So, Hmm. Anyhow.
Aaron Olson: Yeah.
Advice for Future Whistleblowers
Aaron Olson: What advice do you have for others who might be in a similar situation and they're contemplating whether or not to expose some wrongdoing or some problem with a laboratory or their organization?
Fred Whitehurst: I'm on the board of, uh, board of directors for the National Whistleblower Center. A lot of people come to me, I mean, just a whole bunch. And I pick up the phone and I talk to 'em and I talk 'em through. Um. Folks were upset folks. Some folks were suicidal. Their schema has been broken. Their idea of of the world is shattered.
Um, their, their marriages have been destroyed or whatever. My wife and I made the decision that at any cost we would tell the truth in a court of law. Now, that's a crazy thing to have to say in the United States. If it means that you're gonna take my life, I'm still gonna tell the truth. This nation of truths is anything but I say to folks, um, this is not gonna be fun.
Those that haven't started it. And wait a minute, let me stop this. There is a phone going off on my ear and I will cut that off. Hang tight. Okay. Um, it's gonna be difficult. You're liable to lose everything. You're more likely than you lose your family, uh, you will be impoverished. It's just gonna happen.
You're gonna end up climbing underneath the table like I did and, and curling up in a fetal position and crying like a baby time. And again, because the world is not this world. It's not what you thought it was. Do you want it to be what you thought it was and you want to be bad? Want it bad enough? Then despite what happens to you, do, do not step aside.
Do not step aside. You very well could end up losing your life seriously. If you have a spouse and children, they're gonna be hurt. They're going to be hurt. It's a family decision. It's an extended family decision with my wife and I, we had a, A daughter, the FBI destroyed that child. Okay? You know, that was selfish of us.
But you get caught in this some ethical dilemma. Either I will uphold my oath of office, or I will protect my family. I cannot do both. So somebody that's gonna blow the whistle, that's a personal choice. I made the choice, it cost us dearly, and life went on. I'm, uh, you know, I don't get a, a cushy retirements, you know, I didn't retire as an upper echelon.
FBI manager. I couldn't get a job from anybody right now if I, I work for myself. I'm a solo practitioner. Um, we made a choice. I have simple needs. So as long as you gimme a green tractor, Aaron, uh, to ride out on the acres, I'm happy. Okay. And a few cases, not too many to, to practice, um, that that decision is being made by literally.
Thousands of people every day in this country. They're one of us. They're making the decision to blow the whistle, the um, referral system that the National Whistleblower Center has. Um, the person accepting those, those referrals, those uh, whistle blowing is dealing with thousands of people who have decided, no, I'm not going along with it.
For any number of a thousand reasons. So you're not alone. You're one of us, but if you choose not to be, I understand that.
Aaron Olson: Hmm.
Powerful words.
Final Thoughts and Conclusion
Aaron Olson: Fred, I I sure appreciate you being here with me today to talk about these issues. Is there anything else that I haven't asked you that you'd like to share with our audience today?
Fred Whitehurst: You know, I have this saying, I am an American and I will not give up my country to a bunch of thugs. That's just the way it is. I am an American. We get to do this here most often without being killed. Some we, we hear of, uh, high profile situations where people die in the process. But, um, I'd hope that people look at how many people are gonna be hurt.
How many people, if you don't raise this issue, you will surely be hurt if you do raise the issue. But how many lives will you affect for the good? And Aaron, there are literally thousands of Americans blowing the whistle. Right now, right now, blowing the whistle, seeking legal counsel. Um, the referral service that I know of is, is busy.
It could, it could work with five or six employees 24 7. It's a, it's a way that we're going to, to make sure that we are what we are. Good people. Other than that, you and I could talk all day long.
Aaron Olson: Yeah. Well, Fred, I sure appreciate you taking time outta your day to come and talk with me and share your story with the audience.
Um, maybe we'll have to do it again sometime if other issues come up. But thanks so much for coming on the show.
Fred Whitehurst: Okay. Thank you for having me.
Share this post