linked - Investigating the Terror

Lasswell introduced a urea nitrate sample in the IMS and produced a
particular peak. He then programmed the memory of the instrument to
indicate the presence of urea nitrate whenever that peak reappeared.
When specimen Q65 was submitted to the IMS, a graph was produced,
and the machine automatically identified one of the peaks as urea nitrate.
When Whitehurst reviewed Lasswell's instrumental results to prepare the
dictation that went into the July 1, 1993, official report, he examined the
IMS graph for Q65. Whitehurst took the position that the peak was not for
urea nitrate specifically, but was just a nitrate peak that would be
produced by certain nitrates, including but not limited to urea nitrate.
Based on this, Whitehurst took issue with Lasswell's decision to program
the memory of the IMS to identify the particular peak as urea nitrate. He
wrote the OIG (in one of his first submissions to us) as follows:
We [Whitehurst and Burmeister] pointed out that Mr. Lasswell
had altered the output of one instrument to reflect information
that would have, if presented in its altered manner, been
scientific fraud, unethical, wrong and very damning to the
defense position in this matter.
Whitehurst stated in a letter to the OIG that the analytical output was
purposely altered to read