Stephen J. Romano, Third-Party Intermediaries and Crisis Negotiations, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, October 1998, printed p24. Text excerpt only; original PDF linked in sources.

successful resolution of the Free­
men siege does not mean that this 
crisis management strategy should 
serve as a template for negotiating 
with similar group in the future. 
All hostage or barricade sit­
uations prove unique, and few 
absolute strategies exist in the ne­
gotiation profession. Random, un­
controlled use of TPIs in any inci­
dent remains unwise and probably 
counterproductive. The simplistic 
and potentially dangerous view of 
sending in a vast quantity of indi­
viduals in the hope that someone 
will eventually succeed remains a 
mistaken belief. Twenty years of 
anecdotal and impressionist evi­
dence suggests that the uncon­
trolled use of TPIs often has led to 
tragic consequences for all in­
volved. Instead, negotiators must 
understand that the judicious and 
controlled use of carefully selected 
TPIs stands as a potent negotiation 
weapon in some hostage or barri­
cade situations. 
The 81-day Freeman siege in 
Montana provided a unique oppor­
tunity to examine the effectiveness 
of using TPIs. While this tech­
nique, combined with restraint, 
patience, and flexibility, contrib­
uted greatly to the peaceful resolu­
tion of a potentially dangerous inci­
dent, not all hostage or barricade 
situations warrant such interven­
tion. Law enforcement authorities 
must ensure that caution and con­
trol remain uppermost in the minds 
of negotiators when TPls become 
part of their crisis management 
strategy. In this way, negotiators 
can use third-party intermediaries 
as another tool in their attempts to 
resolve tense and potentially tragic 
hostage or barricade situations. "