Disbarment Proceedings Show How A Maryland Prosecutor Covered Up An FBI Agent's Lies For More Than Twenty Years

from the or-how-to-keep-the-deck-properly-stacked dept

A recent sanctions case against a Maryland prosecutor -- one involving a murder case and the use of crime scene forensic "science" -- highlights the real world effects of the FBI's tendency to overstate the certainty of forensic findings in court. It also highlights another long-running problem in the justice system: the withholding of exculpatory evidence by prosecutors who seem willing to take any "win," whether it's earned or not. (h/t Steve Klepper)

The sanctions order [PDF] recounts the case, which dates back to 1981. Joseph Cassilly was the prosecutor that handled the case of Diane Becker, who was found murdered in her trailer. Her boyfriend, Joseph Hudson, was found dead on a nearby road. He had been shot several times.

There were two suspects: Deno Kanaras and John Huffington. Both were indicted for the murder. Kanaras admitted to being present when the murder occurred, but claimed Huffington killed the two people. Kanaras testified against Huffington and Huffington was convicted on two counts of felony murder in 1982. He appealed and his conviction was reversed.

Huffington was tried again in 1983. Kanaras was, again, the only eyewitness and testified against Huffington. By the time this trial occurred, Kanaras had already been convicted of Becker's murder. This time around, the prosecution brought in an FBI agent to testify, Michael Malone. Attempting to prove Huffington was at the scene of Becker's murder, Agent Malone offered this testimony:

Agent Malone testified that hair samples recovered from Becker’s trailer “microscopically matched the head hairs of Mr. Huffington – that is, they were indistinguishable from Mr. Huffington’s head hairs; you could not tell them apart.” (Brackets omitted). When asked on cross-examination, Agent Malone acknowledged, though, that microscopic hair comparison cannot be utilized as a means of positive personal identification.

Huffington was convicted again on the counts of felony murder. This conviction was affirmed in 1985.

An unrelated investigation into a judge suspected of participating in a bribery scheme brought Agent Malone back into focus. During this trial, the agent lied to the court about the testing of evidence.

In 1985, as part of its investigation, the committee submitted to the FBI Laboratory a broken purse strap that Hastings had offered as evidence during his criminal trial. The FBI assigned Agent Malone to conduct an analysis of the purse strap. Agent Malone believed that the purse strap had been intentionally cut. Agent Malone took the purse strap to William Tobin, a metallurgist working in the FBI Laboratory. While Agent Malone observed, Tobin performed tests on the purse strap using a tensile tester, a device that measures the force necessary to break an object. On October 2, 1985, Agent Malone falsely testified before the committee that he had conducted the tensile test.

The person who actually performed the test was asked to testify before Congress. In preparation for this, he reviewed Agent Malone's statements in court. Tobin's memorandum noted this was not the only time the agent had lied about forensic testing.

In the memorandum, Tobin stated that Agent Malone falsely testified that he (Agent Malone) had performed the tensile test on the purse strap. In addition, Tobin identified other false statements in Agent Malone’s testimony that contradicted laboratory findings and instances in which Agent Malone “presented apparently and potentially exculpatory information as incriminating.”

That memorandum was issued in 1989. In 1997, the DOJ Inspector General issued a report on FBI crime lab procedures. It found plenty of problems.

The 1997 Report criticized thirteen FBI Laboratory examiners for a number of issues, including the quality of their work, inaccurate testimony, testimony given beyond their level of expertise, and scientifically flawed and improperly prepared reports.

The IG report also highlighted William Tobin's allegations about Agent Malone:

Based on our investigation, we conclude that Malone, in his 1985 testimony before the Investigating Committee, falsely testified that he had himself performed the tensile test and that he testified outside his expertise and inaccurately concerning the test results. The OIG questioned Malone about Tobin’s allegations and, to his credit, Malone agreed with many points that Tobin had raised. Malone maintained, however, that he was justified in giving certain testimony because he was offering his own personal opinions rather than expert opinions. This is not a persuasive rationale for the presentation of inaccurate testimony by a Laboratory examiner.

This report was sent to Huffington's lawyers shortly after it was published. The Maryland prosecutor (Cassilly) also received a copy of this report, along with other information about Agent Malone and his false claims in court. He never made any attempt to see whether the agent's testimony in this prosecution may have resulted in injustice. Here's what he told the DOJ after being notified of Agent Malone's false statements in other cases:

Joseph Cassilly, the State’s Attorney who prosecuted the Huffington case has decided to wait a while to see if the defense files any post-conviction motions in this case. He had originally requested that an FBI laboratory examiner retest the evidence, but reconsidered and decided to wait to see what the defense will do since it has received a copy of the [1997 R]eport. I informed him that he can still request the scientific review and asked that he write a memo to Sue Hayn if he decides to do so. Cassilly will request copies of the trial transcripts from the [Attorney General]’s office.

Another FBI hair and fiber analyst was asked to review the Huffington evidence. Here's what the second-pass examiner wrote:

The notes are not dated, are in pencil and have some erasures. Some hair were [sic] deemed unsuitable with no documented reason or explanation. The examiner uses abbreviations that are difficult to interpret. Some questioned hair were [sic] matched or eliminated as coming from the known samples without characterization of the microscopic characteristics observed in these questioned or known hair. The technicians do not document the recovery of any hair from the questioned items.

And it looked like Agent Malone may have lied to this court as well:

In addition, Robertson stated that, based on the 1982 transcript of Kanaras’s trial, Agent Malone testified that he personally performed certain tests that he (Robertson) had determined were most likely performed by laboratory technicians.

This report was never turned over to Huffington's lawyers, who, by this point, had exhausted their post-conviction options. Not only that, the prosecutor decided the two reports weren't worth holding onto.

According to the hearing judge, at the disciplinary hearing, Cassilly testified that he “kept the 1997 Report and the Robertson Report for five years and then discarded them and forgot about them.” The hearing judge found that Cassilly did not maintain a copy of either the 1997 Report or the Robertson Report in the State’s file.

Here's what the court had to say about Cassilly's actions in 1999.

[Cassilly] maintains that the disclosure of the Robertson Report was unnecessary because the report was not exculpatory. This Court disagrees. This Court finds that the Robertson Report tended to negate [] Huffington’s guilt and was exculpatory. This Court further finds that [Cassilly] had a duty to disclose the Robertson Report to defense counsel and failed to do so.

In 2003, Huffington's lawyer submitted a motion asking to retest the hair samples Agent Malone misled the court about. Here's how the prosecutor responded:

Cassilly filed an opposition to the petition and requested permission from the circuit court to destroy the forensic evidence in Huffington’s case.

This effort was shut down by the court, which found Cassilly's testimony that he did not "remember" any report about Agent Malone's testimony highly suspect. It granted the petition for reexamination of the evidence. Without the benefit of the confirmation bias Agent Malone displayed during the original testing, the results were, at best, impossible to affirmatively link to Huffington.

Cassilly sent the hair samples to Huffington’s expert, but the expert was not able to identify which hairs Agent Malone had matched to Huffington.

Huffington filed a petition for a "writ of actual innocence," relying on the Inspector General report he had received as well as new reports about the junk science the FBI relied on to generate evidence.

Huffington specifically asserted that Agent Malone’s hair and fiber analysis and the comparative bullet lead analysis were unreliable. Huffington relied on reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences between 2006 and 2010, which concluded that there is no scientific support for the use of hair comparison for individual identifications in the absence of DNA testing. In addition, Huffington maintained that new evidence had been discovered discrediting Agent Malone as a witness based on the conclusion in the 1997 Report that Agent Malone gave false and misleading testimony in the Hastings case.

The hearing judge said Cassilly had a "heightened duty" to turn over the Robertson report to Huffington. Cassilly, however, claimed none of this changed anything.

Instead, on January 14, 2011, Cassilly had filed a response to the petition, stating: “No evidence has been presented that the conclusion that examiner Malone rendered in court is not correct. References that Malone was found deficient in another case may be impeaching but it does not prove that his observations in this case are incorrect.”

That didn't change the fact that Cassilly had an obligation to turn over the report and let a judge decide whether the information made Agent Malone's testimony impeachable. Cassilly dug a deeper hole during his disciplinary hearing by basically admitting he did everything possible to ensure the report was never reviewed by the defense or the court handling the petitions.

At the disciplinary hearing, Cassilly testified that at the time the petition for a writ of actual innocence was filed, he no longer had a copy of the Robertson Report, did not recall the details of the report, did not remember that the FBI performed an independent analysis of Agent Malone’s work in Huffington’s case, and that there was nothing in the report that challenged Agent Malone’s findings.

This was the court's response to Cassilly's assertions:

The hearing judge found that Cassilly’s statements to the circuit court at the hearing “were knowingly and intentionally false” as [t]he Robertson Report concluded that:

(1) [] Robertson was unable to determine whether Agent Malone performed the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner; (2) the results of Agent Malone’s examination were not supported by or adequately documented in his bench notes; (3) Agent Malone’s testimony was consistent with his report but inconsistent with his bench notes; (4) Agent Malone matched or eliminated some hair without describing the microscopic characteristics observed in the evidence samples and control samples; and (5) Agent Malone deemed some samples unsuitable for comparison without providing a reason.

Cassilly continued to reject requests from the defense for information regarding Agent Malone's testimony in this case or any others where his testimony had been deemed false or misleading. But Huffington managed to obtain these documents Cassillly claimed he didn't have or couldn't find from another source: a Washington Post journalist who had obtained them through a public records request. A new motion was filed, noting that Cassilly had withheld some of this information for over a decade.

The murders occurred in 1981. More than thirty years later, an answer about the validity of the hair sample testing was finally provided.

In response to the circuit court’s May 2, 2011 directive, Cassilly advised that the FBI could perform DNA testing on the hair samples. On March 27, 2013, the FBI issued a DNA report concluding that Huffington was excluded as the source of the hair at issue.

Another report about Agent Malone and the hair tests followed in 2014, issued by Norman Wong of the DOJ.

We have determined that microscopic hair comparison analysis testimony or laboratory report presented in this case included statements that exceeded the limits of science and were, therefore, invalid: (1) the examiner stated or implied that the evidentiary hair could be associated with a specific individual to the exclusion of all others - this type of testimony exceeds the limits of the science; (2) the examiner assigned to the positive association a statistical weight or probability or provided a likelihood or rareness of the positive association that could lead the jury to believe that valid statistical weight can be assigned to a microscopic hair association - this type of testimony exceeded the limits of the science; or (3) the examiner cites the number of cases or hair analyses worked in the laboratory and the number of samples from different individuals that could not be distinguished from one another as a predictive value to bolster the conclusion that a hair belongs to a specific individual - this type of testimony exceeded the limits of the science.

This report was forwarded to Cassilly… who again decided it had nothing to do with him and his now-crumbling conviction of John Huffington more than thirty years ago.

The hearing judge found that Cassilly maintained the letters in the State’s file but that he had testified at the disciplinary hearing that he did not read them. Cassilly did not provide a copy of the 2014 DOJ letters to Huffington or his counsel.

Cassilly also refused to turn it over during discovery for Huffington's third trial, which began preparation in 2016. In doing so, he once again blew off his Brady obligations to proactively turn over possibly exculpatory information.

In 2018, Huffington's lawyers filed a bar complaint against Cassilly. Huffington -- no thanks to the prosecutor -- had already spent 11,752 days behind bars. He pled to a suspended sentence that released him with time served: a little more than 32 years at that point. That 32 years is directly related to lies told by an FBI agent and lies told by the prosecutor.

For a very long list of violations (the order runs 102 pages), Cassilly will be sanctioned. It won't be a deterrent to Cassilly specifically. He's currently retired. But, as the court points out, sanctions are mainly there to assure the public the courts won't let lawyers who breach the trust of the court system walk away from collateral damage they've caused to the public's trust in the system. The sanctions will still go into effect and it's a rather severe punishment, even if it's muted a bit by Cassilly's inactive status.

In this case, disbarment recognizes the seriousness of Cassilly’s misconduct and serves the goal of protecting the public and ensuring the public’s confidence in the legal profession by deterring other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. Moreover, in imposing the sanction of disbarment, we protect the public by curtailing Cassilly’s ability to resume active attorney status (which would not require the permission of this Court) or to practice law in accord with Maryland Rule 19-605(b)(2) while in inactive/retired status.

This debacle highlights two ugly, but undeniable, realities about the justice system. Witnesses for the prosecution will fudge facts to secure convictions. And public servants, who are supposed to protect the public (even the accused) from injustice, will ignore and bury evidence that threatens to undo their prosecutions. Neither of these efforts serve the public in any way.

Thank god Cassilly won't be "serving the public" either. He's beyond hope. Here's his unrepentant statement to the Associated Press, in which he presents himself as the real victim:

Cassilly maintains that he did nothing wrong, but rather “fell into the whole anti-criminal justice movement, where the cops are the bad guys and the prosecutors are the bad guys.”

“I’m disappointed, but the real answer is: Do I care? I don’t give a damn,” he said. “I wouldn’t do anything to engage in the practice of law right now because it’s such a screwed-up obscenity.”

I guess we can all be grateful he chose to exit the public sector.

Filed Under: coverups, fbi, joseph cassilly, maryland, michael malone, prosecutors

Senate Committee Memo Details US Marshals Service's Long History Of Misconduct

from the outed-on-the-way-out dept

Senator Chuck Grassley is leaving his post as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, firing some parting shots at the US Marshals Service on his way out the door. His 20-page memo [PDF] detailing years of USMS misconduct comes with over 400 pages of exhibits -- source documents, email chains, and other evidence backing up the disturbing narrative.

The USMS wasted taxpayer dollars, misused asset forfeiture funds, engaged in routine retaliation against whistleblowers, and -- for an entire decade -- forged a judge's signature on more than 800 subpoenas.

A 2007 OIG investigation prompted by reports from a whistleblower uncovered evidence that a USMS task force there had been routinely customizing an electronic subpoena template and pasting in a digital image of a local judge’s signature obtained from legitimate court documents in order to give the appearance of official judicial approval. The OIG found that between the years 1995 and 2005, approximately 800 fraudulent subpoenas had been served by the task force.

A decade of fraudulent behavior was followed by a single written reprimand of a deputy marshal who was later promoted to Supervisory Criminal Investigator. Given this culture of unaccountability, it's little surprise two high-profile incidents involving US Marshals and solicitation of prostitutes was greeted with minimal punishments for everyone involved.

There has been no improvement over the last decade.

Just last year, in what the DOJ OIG called an instance of “gross mismanagement,” a Chief Deputy United States Marshal who engaged in sexual harassment, misused his government phone and vehicle, obstructed an OIG investigation by threatening and retaliating against subordinates, and lied to the DOJ OIG, was allowed to retire with full benefits and without receiving any punishment whatsoever.

And, while the USMS was willing to blow funds on expensive, rarely-used 'training centers' featuring "high-end granite countertops" and "custom artwork," it wasn't so willing to spend money to keep its employees safe. After USMA testing determined body armor needed to be replaced every five years, Service management chose to address the impending purchase of 4,000 body armor panels by doing nothing. It finally secured a replacement contract in 2016, but the contract only provided for phased replacement, which would mean some vests would have been nearly a decade past their "expiration date" before being replaced.

When employees complained about using expired body armor, USMS was telling Congress (and USMS staff) that the 5-year lifetime estimate wasn't accurate and that the vests were still safe to use. It made these statements while simultaneously asking Congress for additional funding in 2017, citing specifically the 13% failure rate in testing of older equipment.

In short, the USMS was representing to Congress that this study showed that expired body armor was dangerous and needed to be replaced while telling its own employees that the old armor was safe to use.

Acting Director Harlow’s email also raises serious concerns about the operational awareness of senior officials. Acting Director Harlow wrote, “if armor is in good condition and has been properly cared for…it retains its full ballistic capabilities.” This statement neglects to take into account that Deputy Marshals across the country perform their duties in the heat, cold, rain, and snow. Exposure to sunlight, humidity, or even excessive flexing or bending of armor can lead to degradation over time. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which a Deputy Marshal would not expose their body armor to any of those factors on a daily basis.

Multiple whistleblower complaints -- followed by multiple acts of reprisal by the USMS -- paint a picture of an agency that is accountable to no one, not even the Judiciary Committee that is supposed to be overseeing it.

Throughout this investigation, the Committee has uncovered countless instances of mismanagement, favoritism, and a lack of accountability. The OIG has confirmed many of the allegations the Committee has received, and identified multiple additional instances of misconduct and mismanagement—including by the most senior leaders in the agency. Those leaders set the tone for the entire organization, and their actions affect employees throughout their many districts and divisions.

Grassley's memo is an extremely disturbing read. Given its contents, it's hard to believe Grassley actually thinks installing a new director will root out the deep-seated problems detailed in his report. But I guess those are the things you say to the New Guy, especially when you're no longer directly involved in keeping an eye on him.

Filed Under: abuse, chuck grassley, coverups, misconduct, us marshals

Report Says Former FBI Official Andrew McCabe Lied About Self-Serving Leaks To Journalists

from the unfortunately-for-Trump,-both-Comey-and-McCabe-can't-both-be-lying dept

The Inspector General of the FBI has released a report detailing the incidents leading up to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's firing. Whether or not these were the reasons the White House chose to can him isn't confirmed, but the report [PDF] does show there was plenty of justification for his termination.

According to the report, McCabe violated FBI policy multiple times during the investigation process with dishonest or misleading answers while under oath. On top of that, his unauthorized disclosure of the status of a Clinton Foundation investigation to a Wall Street Journal reporter violated department policy on media relations.

The leaks appear to have been McCabe's damage control efforts. The Wall Street Journal had already published an article detailing McCabe's involvement in his wife's unsuccessful 2015 state senate campaign. During this run, McCabe's wife received $675,000 from a political action committee run by the state's governor (Terry McAuliffe) who had "long-standing ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton."

Given Clinton was one of the candidates in the 2016 presidential race, suggestions were made that McCabe should recuse himself from the investigation. The FBI's official statement said McCabe's supervision of the investigation did not begin until after his wife's senate campaign was over. But the WSJ article painted a different picture: McCabe's office provided personnel and resources to the Clinton Foundation investigation while his wife was still campaigning (and receiving money from a PAC tied to a Clinton buddy).

With another article two days away, the WSJ reached the FBI for comment on McCabe's involvement. At that point, McCabe apparently took a hands-on approach. The info the WSJ had contradicted McCabe's own narrative about recusing himself from the investigation. Instead, the journalist had sources stating McCabe had tried to kill the Clinton Foundation investigation.

According to Special Counsel’s contemporaneous notes of the call and testimony to the OIG, she and AD/OPA learned during the first call that Barrett had sources who were adamant that McCabe gave a purported order to “stand down” on the CF Investigation before the 2016 presidential election, implying that McCabe wanted to shut down the investigation for improper reasons.

McCabe -- engaging in several texts and phone calls with FBI media intermediaries -- provided the WSJ with a different narrative. The OIG report quotes the WSJ article:

According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season. Mr. McCabe said agents still had the authority to pursue the issue as long as they didn’t use overt methods requiring Justice Department approvals.

The Justice Department official was “very pissed off,” according to one person close to McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the department considered dormant. . . .

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied “Of course not,” these people said.

Following this spin attempt, McCabe then began ringing up field offices and "admonishing them for leaks." These would be the same leaks McCabe provided to the WSJ. While officials in New York and DC remember these calls from McCabe, McCabe apparently does not.

From that point on, the report details several divergences between McCabe's sworn statements and those of others, like then-FBI director James Comey. McCabe, however, could not present a clear timeline of this authorization when questioned by FBI investigators. And so it goes for several pages, with McCabe's testimony being disputed by everyone else involved. Not only does Comey not recall there being any leak authorization, but that McCabe himself presented the leak to Comey as unauthorized.

I have a strong impression he conveyed to me “it wasn’t me boss.” And I don’t think that was by saying those words, I think it was most likely by saying “I don’t know how this shit gets in the media or why would people talk about this kind of thing,” words that I would fairly take as “I, Andy, didn’t do it.” And I actually didn’t suspect Andy, after conversations with [my chief of staff], my worry was, was his aide [Special Counsel] doing it.

McCabe's Chief of Staff also had no idea McCabe was behind the leak. In fact, the COS felt the leak did more harm than good, benefitting McCabe at the expense of the FBI and DOJ.

I just can't imagine that the Deputy would have authorized the leak. It just doesn't seem to serve, I mean, I guess it serves, it serves the purpose of the Deputy by saying, hey look, do you want us to shut this thing down? I guess it serves Andy in that way, but it really, it really highlights a dysfunction between the FBI and the, and DOJ. And to that end, it doesn't really serve the greater good.

The denials of wrongdoing by McCabe are rebutted thoroughly by the OIG report. Some are as simple as noting clear discrepancies between McCabe's testimony and that of others involved. Some are even worse, showing someone running a fine-tuned surveillance apparatus somehow thought his own communications would escape the attention of investigators.

[W]with regard to McCabe’s claim that he did not know where Special Counsel was or what she was doing during the relevant time period, FBI records show that McCabe was in frequent telephone and text communication with Special Counsel during that time period and had several communications with her regarding her calls with [WSJ journalist Devlin] Barrett, including a 51 minute call after her first call with Barrett and a 23 minute call after her final call with Barrett. McCabe’s own text messages reflect that McCabe was keenly interested to learn about the results of Special Counsel’s calls with Barrett. We therefore found that McCabe’s claimed ignorance regarding Special Counsel’s activities on those days was demonstrably false.

Unfortunately, there's a portion of the populace that feels anyone the Trump Administration fires is a martyr to the Resistance cause. And they're putting their money where their bias is. McCabe's legal defense crowdfunding effort raised more than $500,000, showing there are plenty of Americans willing to hand additional money to a well-paid public servant who committed career suicide by apparently covering up his involvement in a self-serving leak.

McCabe's legal team has issued a response [PDF] to the OIG report which takes issue with a few of its conclusions. About the only rebuttal with merit is related to the leak. As his legal team points out, McCabe was authorized to selectively leak information to journalists, much like many high-ranking government officials. The rest of it is little more than semi-plausible explanations as to why there might be an incredible amount of inconsistencies in McCabe's sworn testimony.

There are reasons to be concerned about how the firing was handled. McCabe was basically 24 hours away from qualifying for a pension, so the decision to fire him rather than let him resign looks more vindictive than judicious. And while McCabe's leak may have given some people the impression FBI investigations weren't subject to personal political leanings, it appears to have been pushed out to clear McCabe of any Clinton-related suspicions, rather than serve the greater purpose of protecting the reputation of the FBI or DOJ.

Filed Under: andrew mccabe, coverups, doj, fbi, hillary clinton, leaks, lies

Mythbusters Crew Accidentally Fire Cannonball Through Suburban Neighborhood... Quickly Start Deleting Tweets Of The Evidence

from the careful-what-you-tweet dept

Well, well. Slashdot points us to this bizarre and slightly scary story about how everyone's favorite TV show, MythBusters, had an experiment that went really, really wrong yesterday. Apparently, it fired a home-made cannon at the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb disposal range. The idea was to shoot the cannonball into huge water containers.

But they missed.

Instead, the cannonball went hurtling through the suburban northern California town of Dublin, at 4:15, just as kids were getting home from school. According to the SF Chronicle report on this:

The cantaloupe-sized cannonball missed the water, tore through a cinder-block wall, skipped off a hillside and flew some 700 yards east, right into the Tassajara Creek neighborhood, where children were returning home from school at 4:15 p.m., authorities said.

There, the 6-inch projectile bounced in front of a home on quiet Cassata Place, ripped through the front door, raced up the stairs and blasted through a bedroom, where a man, woman and child slept through it all - only awakening because of plaster dust.

The ball wasn't done bouncing.

It exited the house, leaving a perfectly round hole in the stucco, crossed six-lane Tassajara Road, took out several tiles from the roof of a home on Bellevue Circle and finally slammed into the Gill family's beige Toyota Sienna minivan in a driveway on Springvale Drive.

Wow. Amazingly (and thankfully) no one got hurt in all of this. CBS has some astounding video of the carnage, including showing how the cannoball bounced around that house on Cassata Place putting holes in a bunch of places: But, perhaps equally interesting is that the Mythbusters themselves, appear to have done a little post accident tidying up. After hearing about the whole mess, Jon Laslow went and checked out the various Mythbusters' Twitter feeds and noticed that a bunch of photos of Kari, Grant and Tory posing next to cannons had been deleted. Oops. But, of course, you can't delete anything online... So, the photos & tweets have been preserved:
"Heavy Artillery"


"Canon Envy"


Tory and his Canon Like many folks around here, I'm a big fan of the show, but this seems like quite a mishap.

Filed Under: accidents, cannonballs, cannons, coverups, mythbusters