Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 19:55:07 -0700 From: frdmftr@MINDSPRING.COM (Don Cline) Subject: Re: FBI's credibility (or lack of) To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
----- Original Message ----- From: Bernie Oliver <twep@FLASH.NET> To: <AZRKBA@asu.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 7:27 PM Subject: FBI's credibility (or lack of)
> We now have one more in a long list of FBI antics.
>
> Please don't construe this as a defense of Timothy McVeigh,
> assuming he's guilty. What it is is a condemnation of the FBI for its
> ongoing regime of fabricating and/or withholding evidence to achieve a
> desired outcome.
>
> I won't beleaguer the long list of examples that we are all aware
> of. On a personal level I can speak volumes of how law enforcement
> intentionally omits and/or fabricates so-called evidence. You get as
> much justice as you can afford and courts are NOT bastions of justice.
> They are, in fact institutions that will break every law on the books to
> insure that the desired outome is achieved. I'm living proof of that.
>
> The question is, at what point are we going to hold these agencies
> accountable? The question, of course is rhetorical. It will never
> happen. That's my two cents worth on the subject.
In a similar vein, I wanted to make a comment on the new book authors Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck have put out titled "Into the Mind of Terror" supposedly based upon interviews with Timothy McVeigh and upon other evidence. There was considerable discussion when the book first came out a few weeks ago on the subject of whether it was a government whitewash or not. Reader's Digest published a condensation of it in the current issue, June 2001.
I was not impressed. For a book that is supposed to be documentary in nature, the authors spend a lot of words creating mood scenes as though it were a fiction piece: Things like describing the look on McVeigh's face as he drove the Ryder truck down the street, speculating on what this person or that person might have thought as though he or she actually thought it, etc. Also, the authors describe the pistol McVeigh carried as a "Glock .45" that could shoot "16 rounds without reloading". The only Glock .45 I know about is the Glock 21, and it carried 13 rounds. They describe McVeigh lighting the fuse -- two fuses, in fact -- on the "7000 pound" bomb before parking the truck in front of the Murrah Building. Yet recent newspaper reports describe the bomb as 4,800-lb., and the highest estimate made by the FBI and other authorities at the time was 2500-lbs. because the Ryder truck could not have transported a cargo much heavier than that. Lastly, there appears to be not one word -- in the Reader's Digest condensation, at least -- about Gen. Donald K. Partin's analysis proving McVeigh's bomb couldn't possibly have done that kind of structural damage to the Murrah Building, or about witnesses observing men in the basement the night before with blueprints, fuse cord, and material that looked like clay wrapped in cellophane (presumably C-4).
I am convinced of two things: Regardless of the truth or lack thereof contained in the book, I have the distinct impression it was designed to sway the ignorant sheeple, not contribute to the public understanding of the truth. Truth or not, it was written as a propaganda piece. And while McVeigh may have transmogrified himself into the cold-hearted assassin the book portrays him to be, the fact remains that whether he thinks so or not, his truck bomb did not destroy the Murrah Building. At the very most it might have blown out all the windows, but that's about it.
In short, the people of America have been had. Again.
> Bernie
> --
> This is the first day of the last of your Rights.