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
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
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
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
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
So they didn't prove it. That's just one example. In
fact, they got caught in a couple of lies about the chain
-+- 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.