("Quid coniuratio est?")
UNVARNISHED UPDATE ON OKC BOMBING(S) TRIAL
==========================================
John DeCamp, Pat Briley, and Tom Valentine Give a Non-Corporate Analysis -- Surprise, Surprise: Corporate
"News" Media Has Manipulated Its Coverage of Trial
--------------------------------------------------
PART 2 OF 2
Guests on Tom Valentine's Radio Free America (shortwave 5.745 MHz, Sundays, approx. 9-12 pm EST) program on June 1, 1997 were attorney John DeCamp and Pat Briley, specialist on what really happened in Oklahoma City on 4/19/95 and its aftermath. Here are further excerpts; see CN 10.62 for part 1 of this report (archive info below.)
Note on format: indented portions are direct quotes from the speakers, all else is my own summary of their remarks.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
PAT BRILEY: Let me discuss a little bit about what did come up in the trial: what the government did not prove, and what they did prove, in my opinion.
In my opinion, the government did not prove that the [alleged] truck bomb was even made with ammonium nitrate fuel, or even nitro-methane. There was no [residue] found at the scene of fuel oil or nitro-methane, and only one, possible, instance of ammonium nitrate.
TOM VALENTINE: I have a commercial for that videotape that you know all about: there's no crater! The very first day, all the television cameras were flying around in helicopters, looking down: there's no crater.
Valentine mentioned throughout the broadcast a videotape, "The Cover Up Of Oklahoma City." Reportedly the video is founded on mainstream media TV footage taken the day of the blast(s), in which it is plainly seen that no crater is present in front of the demolished Murrah Building. The video is said to contrast what was said by mainstream "news" reports that day with "all the Orwellian gobbledy-gook we're hearing now." Says Valentine, "Watch that video, then tell me: where's the crater? The big crater that should have been there there." [Call 1-800-522-6292 to order. Cost is reportedly $15, including shipping and handling. Note that I pass this item on for informational purposes only, and receive no compensation for doing so. Caveat emptor.]
PAT BRILEY: I'm gonna tease you, Tom. There is a crater, but it appears later. And it's one that the back-hoe dug to get to the water main.
TOM VALENTINE: [Laughs] Okay. The back-hoe...
PAT BRILEY: There is a hole there later; I know your point.
The government said that it was going to prove that the bomb was made of ammonium nitrate, nitro-methane, and that McVeigh had purchased these materials, etc. They did not prove that whatsoever.
The defense did a pretty good job, in its closing arguments, of discrediting the Fortiers, in my opinion.
No eyewitnesses of McVeigh being seen in Oklahoma City were presented by the government. And yet, we're aware of about 10 eyewitnesses that have been interviewed by the FBI, that we have interviewed, that saw McVeigh the day of the bombing with another "John Doe."
TOM VALENTINE: Which is very, very suspicious.
PAT BRILEY: Yes. That seems to be the problem with the government's case. We can trace back through how they'll talk about how they saw McVeigh before the bombing. But when they present those witnesses, they leave out the fact that these same witnesses also had McVeigh with a "John Doe." And the thing that upsets me about this is, justice is not served.
TOM VALENTINE: Stephen Jones called that one witness (who didn't turn out to be too good)...
PAT BRILEY: I think it turned out to be pretty good for him, actually.
A number of the FBI went above and beyond the call of duty to browbeat, coerce [witnesses]. Number one was to force witnesses to change their story. And when they wouldn't, they falsified their reports!
And so now you have the FBI behaving like this, and then the prosecution leaves it all out. Was the FBI misleading the prosecution and they're just lying about it? Or what? I don't know. But the bottom line: people here in Oklahoma City believe there's other "John Does." And it is relevant to this case to have it introduced into evidence. And the judge blocked any evidence relative to "John Doe," or any Middle Eastern connection.
So you've got a cover-up by the prosecution, a cover-up by the judge, and of course the defense doesn't want to bring this up for fear of implicating their client. So the jury doesn't hear the truth.
TOM VALENTINE: This thing stinks to high heaven.
PAT BRILEY: It's bad to hurt a guilty man on extremely poor evidence (because it sets a bad precedent.) And it's also bad to let a guilty man go free because the evidence was so incomplete or corrupt. I don't know how this jury is going to deliberate.
The evidence that the government did put on is extraordinarily faulty, and the press did a very poor job in reporting this. They did not, in fact, prove that McVeigh purchased nitro-methane. They tried, they failed, and the witnesses contradicted themselves badly. That fell apart, and the government did not even bring it up in their closing arguments because it just didn't work.
Let me go on to another one. You would think that, if you use ammonium nitrate, there should be some left over. The government admits that they didn't find any [residue.] It rained later, and that could have washed it away. But inside the building it would have been protected. No ammonium nitrate frill(?) whatsoever. And yet the government contends, "Well, they must have used ammonium nitrate because Terry Nichols purchased a lot of ammonium nitrate."
We have, of all the truck parts that were analyzed (and there were scores of truck parts brought before the court; they made a big show of this), they found only one, very small truck part, with ammonium nitrate crystals. But no one will tell you the history of this, and it makes the government look very bad. This truck part, so-called "Q-507": the FBI crime lab found a very small, re-crystallized portion of ammonium nitrate on this truck part. They claim that it survived the rain, survived the wet, and that it was embedded there by the blast. They claimed that they had found it, and yet under cross-examination were forced to [retract.] They stated that a citizen brought it to them and they had no idea where it came from. Then, when their own prosecution expert, Linda Jones, the bomb expert from England, wanted to look at Q-507, it wasn't available because it had "disappeared." And when the defense asked for Q-507, it wasn't available because it had "disappeared" too.
When they finally tested Q-507, there was no magnesium anywhere.
So they didn't prove it. That's just one example. In fact, they got caught in a couple of lies about the chain of custody.
-+- The Shirt -+-
The shirt (Tim McVeigh's supposedly contaminated T-shirt): Only trace amounts of explosives powders. They claim they found PETN and nitro-glycerine. The problem is, they acknowledged that McVeigh was wearing a holster that was in contact with his shirt.
FBI crime lab witness forced by defense into admitting that he himself had tested his shirt when he had been at a firing range with a shoulder holster, and he had found nitro-glycerine and PETN on his clothes as well -- because it comes from primer used in bullets. You get it on your hands. You get it on your earplugs. You get it on your clothes.
Also, PETN is mimicked perfectly by the plastic that earplugs are made from.
No ammonium nitrate was found on the carpet of McVeigh's car. No ammonium nitrate was found on his fingernails. No ammonium nitrate was found anywhere.
TOM VALENTINE: This trial was about bombing, and nobody in the entire trial discussed the bomb! Obviously, McVeigh was given a job to drive a truck up there, to be a cover. [CN: "Lee Harvey" McVeigh; like Lee Harvey Oswald was pre-positioned in the Dallas Book Depository building.]
-+- The Key -+-
The key: The press didn't report the truth about what happened on that. Under cross-examination, the gentleman who builds the locks and the keys for that particular truck re-constructed the lock-set for that particular key and they both fit. And the press reported, "Ah-hah. That proves it." Well, no it didn't. Because when they put the key in the lock, it didn't turn the tumblers. Not only that, but it fit 3 or 4 other makes of cars.
JOHN DeCAMP: For almost an hour, the discussion has centered on the one issue: What was the nature of the bomb? If you will go back and read the Writ of Mandamus, you'll find the one issue that Mr. McVeigh's attorney avoided dealing with was the nature of the bomb. What was the one thing that the government never had to prove at that trial that they would have been hard-pressed to prove? What kind of a bomb it was. What was the one thing that Mr. McVeigh's attorney never dealt with or brought any witnesses, whether it was a General Ben Partin or others? The nature of the bomb.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those
of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net
See also: http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html
See also: http://feustel.mixi.net
See also: ftp ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred