(Spotlight, Jan. 15, 1996)
The latest developments in independent investigations of the 
Oklahoma City bombing were discussed on the December 13 [1995] 
broadcast of The Spotlight's nightly call-in talk forum, Radio 
Free America [RFA, 5.065 MHz shortwave, mon-fri, 9 pm cst], with 
host Tom Valentine.
The guest was Jon Rappoport, author of The Oklahoma City Bombing: 
The Suppressed Truth, which is available at $12 per copy by 
writing: Jon Rappoport, 2633 Lincoln Boulevard, Suite No. 256, 
Santa Monica, CA 90405. [CN -- An excellent book but, as always, 
*caveat emptor*]
An edited transcript of the interview with Rappoport follows...
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
Could you give us an update on your latest findings?
The unassailable fact is that the truck bomb Tim McVeigh and 
Terry Nichols are alleged to have used could not have caused the 
major damage to the building. You have to be dealing with 
professionals who put charges inside the building on the columns 
to get the pattern of damage that was found there.
Assume that a group of professionals linked up with McVeigh and 
got some professionals to go inside the building and set the real 
charges, allowing McVeigh to think that he's doing the job alone.
Now if this were the case, the FBI would then come in and figure 
out in about five minutes that McVeigh was just the dupe and the 
real damage was done by the professionals inside the building. 
It's absurd to think that the professionals involved then figured 
that they could "pay off" the FBI to cover up for them.
The bottom line is that, if the FBI is covering up for the damage 
done by other charges set off inside the building, which indeed 
the FBI is doing, then you have got to be talking about an 
operation that has its roots inside the government somewhere. You 
aren't talking about some small group of wackos who were involved 
That's right. Somebody had to be able to convince the FBI's field 
workers, who are legitimate, hard-working, honest agents, that 
they were only wasting their time by following anything beyond 
the truck bomb.
So few people understand them. They pointed people in a certain 
direction and said, "Go look there" and the lower-level 
investigators say, "Yes, sir" and that's what happened here. 
Somebody above the level of the FBI, inside the government, is 
managing this investigation. They may ultimately have links 
outside the government, but it goes high up.
As more and more information comes in, it's more and more 
confirmation of this thesis. At the "middle level" (the level of 
the execution of the bombing), more and more people begin to show 
up. There's more cover-up and more agencies in the federal 
government denying that they had prior knowledge. There are more 
and more witnesses who are being excluded by the FBI (especially 
in reference to the existence of John Doe No. 2).
We've seen the defecting grand juror in Oklahoma City, Hoppy 
Heidelberg, who didn't like the way the grand jury was being 
conducted in reference to the existence of John Doe No. 2.
The reason Heidelberg went public with his complaints (and 
possibly breaking the law in so doing) is that he felt that the 
existence of John Doe No. 2 was completely excluded from 
Heidelberg suspected (as do many) that John Doe No. 2 would prove 
to be a government informant or government agent -- a "handler" 
for McVeigh. That's why, ultimately, the grand jury never took up 
the question of John Doe No. 2.
This is a man they had a sketch of. They had witnesses (who were 
never called to testify) who saw John Doe No. 2. There was one 
man, Mike Morose, who gave an interview to Channel 4 in Oklahoma 
City in which he said that he saw John Doe No. 2 standing there 
at around 8:40 am on the morning of the bombing right there in 
front of the federal building with McVeigh. This witness was 
never called before the grand jury. There was no significant 
testimony given about John Doe No. 2. This goes beyond being 
McVeigh had been arrested (on traffic violations charges) within 
about 90 minutes of the bombing and the sketch that they had of 
John Doe No. 1 (later identified as McVeigh) was enough to get 
the federal authorities over to Perry, Oklahoma where McVeigh was 
being held in jail. It was there that they arrested him as a 
suspect in the bombing about a day and a half later.
The sketch of John Doe No. 2, on the other hand, didn't result in 
anything even close to a subsequent arrest. In fact, the FBI 
began to pick up people who didn't even look like the person in 
the sketch of John Doe No. 2. Heidelberg became convinced, as a 
result, that the federal authorities were not doing their job and 
were not interested in pursuing John Doe No. 2 and he wanted to 
know why.
In my view, it doesn't seem likely that the guilty parties 
(whether within the government or otherwise) could convince the 
FBI to help cover up their complicity. It seems more likely, for 
example, that perhaps federal agents (maybe BATF) were attempting 
to ensnare McVeigh in a "sting" operation that went haywire and 
that, as a consequence, they would be more able to convince 
others to help cover that up instead. [CN -- See also the thesis 
put forward by Debra von Trapp, still *not* *refuted* and yet 
strangely ignored by some people. As von Trapp told me, no one 
"fed" her any disinformation for the simple reason that she was 
already *inside* the alleged operation she described.]
It's pretty easy, unfortunately, to say to these agents: "There's 
a bunch of nuts running around out there who say that there were 
bombs inside the building. That's ridiculous, of course. We're 
looking for evidence of the truck bomb and that's all we want you 
to focus on." The lower-level federal officials would buy that.
David Hall, another Oklahoma City bombing researcher, has done 
some excellent research. He believes that some sort of sting 
operation went awry. The point where Hall and I part company is 
that I believe that in order to create the damage that was done 
in this bombing that you had to have very carefully placed 
charges inside on the columns of the structure and therefore the 
idea of a "sting" seems to fail.
I could buy that argument if it was just McVeigh and they were 
leading him on and they intended to bust him and become famous 
and beloved all over America for foiling McVeigh's intended 
terrorist act. However, when you have the involvement of 
professionals (as it really went down), that seems to exceed the 
boundaries of a simple "sting" operation.
I have to agree with you there. That's a tough one to get around 
and it's a hard one for a lot of people to have to face.
Look at what happened to Hoppy Heidelberg. Here's a guy who went 
into the grand jury with a juror's handbook that spelled out 
juror's rights and when he got frustrated and tried to exercise 
those rights, by asking to question witnesses and call other 
witnesses (and do what a grand jury is empowered to do), he 
discovered that the prosecutors weren't going to let him do that. 
The prosecutors had decided who was going to be indicted and who 
wasn't and the grand jurors were expected to be a rubber stamp. 
And now Heidelberg still risks the possibility of going to jail 
for doing what he did.
There's more evidence that has come out?
That's right. Ray Brown, the university seismologist who 
determined initially that there were two blasts at the time of 
the bombing, has now concluded that there were actually three 
blasts. He says that the FBI has confiscated seismic evidence and 
that if you had the missing portions of the evidence that you 
would be able to nail it down conclusively. So that's the latest 
We now have an expanded list of witnesses who have told either 
the FBI or Channel 4 that, in fact, they did see John Doe No. 2 
and other suspects at the bombing scene. We have Gary Lewis, a 
press supervisor in the Journal-Record building across the street 
from the federal building. We have a banker whose name is Kyle 
All of these people were on the scene before the bombing and saw 
a Mercury Marquis and a brown Chevy pickup. They saw McVeigh and 
somebody who looked like the sketch of John Doe No. 2. But none 
of these people were called before the grand jury because they 
were not only talking about McVeigh, but they were also talking 
about John Doe No. 2.
What's the story about the judge in the case being thrown out?
The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times claimed that the 
reason why Judge Wayne Alley was dismissed from the case was 
because his office was across the street from the federal 
building and was damaged during the bombing and that this might 
cause him to be prejudiced against the defendants.
The real reason, however, appeared in the Portland Oregonian on 
April 20, one day after the bombing. In an interview with the 
Oregonian, Alley admitted that he received warning on April 3, by 
some government people whom he didn't name, that there was a 
suspicion that something was up; that something like a bombing 
was going to be happening in that neighborhood. So the judge took 
a vacation and that's why he wasn't in his office the day of the 
bombing. That's why he was taken off the case. That little tidbit 
would be far too much to deal with, suddenly popping up in the 
middle of the trial. One of his clerks was actually injured by 
some glass.
Judge Alley is from Portland, Oregon originally and that's how he 
happened to inadvertantly give this story to a Portland Oregonian 
reporter. The ramifications of the bombing and its aftermath are 
intense, particularly in light of the push for the anti-terrorist 
Gunowners of America and the American Civil Liberties Union 
recently jointly sponsored a briefing on the dangers of the so- 
called anti-terrorist legislation that's before Congress.
People were amazed that the "right" and the "left" could stop 
trying to strangle each other long enough to agree with anything, 
yet here they were agreeing very much that this legislation is 
repressive. I think that's very encouraging.
That's right. The left and the right have much more in common in 
many regards than the Rush Limbaughs of the world would admit.
There's another interesting detail about the case that's worth 
noting. There's a fellow in custody in Phoenix named Steve 
Colburn who was arrested on May 13 because of some gun charges 
pending against him and he hadn't reported in. Apparently his 
brown pickup truck had pulled over on the side of the road when 
Oklahoma trooper Charles Hanger arrested McVeigh. Hanger's 
videocamera apparently caught the license plate of Colburn's 
Yet, Colburn has been on ice since then and has said nothing. He 
did know McVeigh. We know that. Yet Colburn hasn't been 
officially charged in the bombing. So who knows what they are 
trying to do? Are they trying to get Colburn to do what McVeigh's 
friend, Michael Fortier, did: Turn around completely from saying 
that McVeigh couldn't have had anything to do with the bombing to 
saying that he actually helped McVeigh case the building?
One of the most staggering things in the Oklahoma bombing is that 
the media has hardly interviewed any of the hundreds of people 
who escaped the bombing, despite the fact that there are hundreds 
of reporters covering the story.
The reason for this, I think, is that of the stories of survivors 
that I have heard, are extremely damaging to the official 
One story reveals that there were at least two explosions and 
that the interior explosion came just slightly before the truck 
bomb, if we are to believe at least two witnesses who were in the 
building who have told this story.
We've heard that the people of Oklahoma City are scared to death 
of their own public servants, especially the FBI.
This might have something to do with the fact that some 45 
percent of the people of Oklahoma work for some facet of the 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
You may be unable to find The Spotlight at your local library or 
news dealer. To subscribe, phone 1-800-522-6292 (Maryland 1-301- 
951-6292). Note that I have no personal connection to The 
Spotlight nor am I compensated by them. I also neither 
necessarily agree nor disagree with either all or parts of the 
views expressed in The Spotlight.