Weinberg was not an ordinary witness who happened to observe a crime. He helped create the setting in which it could happen: a plausible business front, a network of introductions and persuasive explanations for access to supposed foreign wealth. John Good’s later account describes an informant he knew to be unreliable in important respects but useful at opening doors. That is a participant’s judgment, not a neutral character reference. [1]
The Senate found that agents selected and used Weinberg without reviewing his informant file or adequately planning special controls. His prior commission of crimes while an informant made that omission especially consequential. It also described the difficulty of supervising him across locations and overlapping investigations. These were specific institutional criticisms, not just defense lawyers calling a witness dishonest. [2]
The case for using such a person was that genuine corrupt dealings are often inaccessible to an investigator arriving openly with a badge. The risk was that he could exaggerate access, manipulate targets, hide his own conduct or give different accounts to different people. Compensation added an incentive that needed supervision and disclosure. [2]
The sensible test is corroboration: recordings, contemporaneous notes, independently confirmed contacts and transparent handling of conflicting evidence. “He was a criminal” does not prove every statement false. “He helped win convictions” does not make the control failures disappear.