Fourteen Years Ago: A Look Back

April 19, 1995. It was the largest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the country. Until September 11, it was the largest act of mass murder in the United States. It left 168 people dead and more than 500 people injured.

It was a massive case (pdf) to defend. There were:

  • 30,000 interviews of witnesses taken by the FBI and other government agencies.
  • More than 200,000 photographs
  • Records of 156 million telephone calls and over one million hotel and motel registrations
  • Over 500 hours of audio tape and over 400 hours of video tape.
  • 25,000 pages of lab reports and worksheets
  • 23,000 pieces of evidence

It cost the Government $82 million to investigate and prosecute and $10 to $15 million to defend.[More...]

Defense experts included those in the fields of: explosives, bomb trace analysis, terrorism, medical disciplines (internal medicine, psychiatry and psychology) eyewitness identification, handwriting and forensic document analysis, firearms, toolmarks, tire imprints, fingerprints, voice identification, hair and fiber, chemistry, anthropology, computer programming, audio and video analysis, victim impact evidence, death penalty mitigation, jury selection and demographics -- there were even experts on Waco, Iraq and gun control.

It was a case that consumed 1 1/2 years of my life. When it was all said and done, our client was executed. His co-defendant is serving life without parole at Supermax in Florence, Colorado.

It was the Oklahoma City Bombing....14 years ago today.

< Saturday Open Thread | Will Your DNA Soon Be in a Government Database? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Tough row to hoe (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by nellre on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 12:39:57 AM EST
    You were on Timothy McVeigh's defense team?
    I can't imagine the internal struggles your team had to deal with to do your level best. If not for courageous professional like you our system of justice would collapse.

    A time when the principled (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 06:32:36 AM EST
    held us in the palm of their hands.  Thank the heavens for the principled when our hearts are laid bare and our minds grind to a halt.  Through their council and acts, the fabric of our lives has a chance........and after the pain and suffering lessens there can hopefully still be a life of decency to be had for those of us who remained.  Thank you for your service to us all Jeralyn.

    Yes indeed (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:45:24 AM EST
    Well said. If only we had carried out a pricipled response to 9-11...

    I happened to be in OKC that week (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:59:57 AM EST
    working on a simulator at the FAA building near the airport. I was giving a training class at the time, and we got a phone call for one of the guys in the class. His wife worked in the social security office. We heard about the bombing through that call, and stopped class and turned on the TV in horror. We didn't know what became of her most of that day, but it turned out that she was one of the women found and brought to safety by a manager in that office. Two slabs of concrete had fallen in a tent shape around her and protected her from debris, but she had serious head injuries. I believe they left OK soon after, and I lost track of them. I always send out a prayer for her on the 19th.

    I also think of the rescue worker I saw sitting dangling his feet in the pool at my hotel the next day, just exhausted. And of course the tears for the children and the normal people like us just trying to work for a living will never stop.

    I had been down there a lot that spring, and the transformation from sleepy, friendly, kind of boring town to international media center was something to behold. All of a sudden all the flights were full of media people, mostly producers and technical folks. Some of my coworkers and I went and saw the site a couple of weeks later. I don't think TV captured the damage in the whole neighborhood, all the broken windows, etc.

    Honestly, my predominant thought after learning who did it was that it is a miracle things like that do not happen  more often. It is truly a testament that the things that unite us as a nation are overwhelmingly  stronger than those which divide us.

    I will never believe in the death penalty, even for monsters like McVeigh. I just don't think we have anymore of a right to kill him than he did to kill those people.  So I salute Jeralyn, because I don't think I ever hated anyone more than I did him. I'm sure she got plenty of repercussions for defending him.

    Where did Scribe say ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 12:01:47 PM EST
    ... that someone is courageous for defending (for money) "someone you know is guilty"?  Our system of justice depends on a passionate advocate for those accused of crimes, as well as a requirement that they be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Otherwise, why bother giving a criminal defendant legal counsel?  Heck, .... why bother with a trial?

    BTW - If you think the amount of money a Public Defender earns in a case like the McVeigh case is even close to the amount of work required, let alone the public ridicule and scorn the PDs are put through, your priorities are screwed up.

    Brandeis (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Rojas on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent, teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself;"

    He had an (none / 0) (#32)
    by JamesTX on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    IQ of 126. Clearly, he had a rationale and a reasoned defense for his actions. He was a product of many things that led young people to extremism in those days, as well as just general neglect and misfortune. I guess it will always be that way.

    Whether you want to call it courage, (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 12:43:01 PM EST
    or devotion to principles that are larger than any one person, we should all be grateful that there are still members of the bar who are not just willing to defend those who appear to be  indefensible, but are also willing to stand tall in the face of ignorance from people who seem to have forgotten the very principles that underpin the democracy.

    Would that all those who stand accused be afforded the level of representation that was afforded to McVeigh; I venture to guess there are a lot of people in jail because they could not afford adequate representation, or were represented by a public defender so overworked and underfunded that the outcome was all but certain.

    Sadly, money - whether you have it or you don't - appears to be a much heavier factor in what kind of justice you have access to, despite the best efforts of the most dedicated and principled public and private attorneys.

    You, sir or madam, could not be more wrong (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by scribe on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 03:10:56 PM EST
    when you say "It is not courageous to defend someone in court."

    Or perhaps you are worse than that.

    In the first instance,  the client a lawyer undertakes to defend is accused of going beyond the bounds of society, of having done something which at a minimum is disapproved.  Or perhaps it's something that will sell tabloids and made-for-TV movies for years to come.  He (or she) is already held up as a piece of sh*t, not worthy of even being deemed human.  Nancy Grace is in full-on harpy mode, shrieking out her pathology for all to see and join.  According to you, it takes no courage at all to step into that maelstrom and say - "Wait a minute.  Let's see what you've got.  Prove that you've got the right defendant - and not just some schlub you decided to lay all this on so as to give the public who pay your salaries, benefits and pensions some entertainment and a satisfying feeling of "case closed" in time for the next commercial break.

    If you'd have spent any time around the criminal side of the courthouse, you would know this as its first principle:  "the system does not require the right defendant be convicted.  It only requires a defendant be convicted.  Because the system abhors few things more than an unsolved open case."

    Either you haven't spent time there, never learned that when you did, or just don't care.

    According to you, it takes no courage to stand up in a courtroom against an array of immaculately uniformed police, smooth-talking experts spouting the jargon du jour (helpfully sounding just like the experts on TV), lawyers trained on the government dime, and judges who got to be judges on the strength of having been those prosecuting lawyers and then promising to be tough on crime, all of whom suckle at the teat of political patronage (to one degree or another) in order to get, keep and advance in their respective professions.  And, in so suckling, respond first and foremost to the whimsy of politicians who demand that they get a conviction, no matter what, so the pol can intone sagely about "justice being done" and then win re-election.  

    And, according to you, it takes no courage to then go against the word and story of these cops, experts, the arguments of these lawyers and prejudices of these judges to point out that their story has holes - big gaping holes that cut the guts out or little tiny ones all in a row that pull the whole structure down as they unzip.  All while doing so gets you turned away from service in a coffee shop, your car vandalized, and yor kids made fun of at school.

    According you it takes no courage to go into a courtroom and face and explain to a jury that just because the police and prosecutor say it, doesn't make it so.  And that just because they brought a charge, doesn't make anyone guilty.  This, when anyone with eyes knows that the jury is prejudiced along the lines of "they wouldn't have brought a charge if the defendant wasn't guilty of something", even though innocent people get charged every day.

    According to you, it takes no courage to do all this while knowing that not only are the police, prosecutors and judges trying to convict your client, but that they'd like few things better than to give you, personally, or your family (because they are related to you) a good taste of the medicine they deal out to your clients.  That's right - defense lawyers walk around with a big target on their backs because if there is one thing a cop can't abide, it's someone who questions the authority he exercises.  Even when the cop is a drunken pig beating the sh*t out of some schlub because the schlub is there.

    But living under that is something which takes no courage, you say.

    I've heard it from defense lawyers more than a few times: "I've got to live in this town".  This was always in response to "why didn't you cross the cop harder and why did you pass on slamming him with this or that credibility-buster?"  Selling out the client seems, after a while and a good bit of that abuse, the reasonable thing to do.  That, you tell us, is the way defense law should be practiced.

    And, of course, it takes no courage at all to get up, stand in the well of a courtroom and speak to the assembled, hostile audience of judge, jury, prosecution team, families of the victims wearing pictures (not working the jury, nooo), all glaring you down, and saying "I represent the defendant."  This, in the face of the fact that the number one fear, survey after survey, is not dying, being maimed in a horrific accident, or even going broke and winding up living in a washer box under a freeway bridge.  Nope.  Fear Number One: "Speaking in public."

    I hope one day to be there when you need a lawyer to defend you (or perhaps just to make sure the government really proves its case) and the Bar remembers your insult to the courage they exercise every day in defending the poor, oppressed, reviled, abused and maligned, and they stand back saying "Me?  Oh, no.  I don't have the courage for that." and then watch the police take you out back and do their worst to you.

    Because it's wrongheadedness like that you put forth which leads to such results.

    How is it courageous (2.00 / 1) (#5)
    by maddog on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 07:28:43 AM EST
    We throw that word around a lot these days.  It is not courageous to defend someone in court.  It is courageous to run into a burning building to save a life.  Civil Rights workers in the south were courageous.  Attorney's are courageous in limited instances.  This isn't one of them.

    Why isn't this one of those (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 07:35:50 AM EST
    courageous instances?

    It seems to me (none / 0) (#12)
    by bocajeff on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 09:37:24 AM EST
    That courage has something to do with high risk to one's own safety or circumstances. Thus running into a burning building to save someone, or risking your own life in a cause you believe in.

    Defending an unpopular person may be courageous if it might cost someone their professional standing or even, you know, their life. I don't know if this was Jeralyn's case, and I hope it wasn't.

    Also, does anyone remember what happened to the supposed Iraq connections? I sure hope the Clinton's weren't trying to pin this on
    Saddam as a pretext to war or anything...


    Are you suggesting ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    ... there is some evidence the "Clintons" (curious use of the plural) were trying to "pin this on Saddam as a pretext to war"?

    What in the heck are you talking about? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    I believe that the "Iraq Connection" you are referring to was the need for expert testimony about Iraq.  That was due to McVeigh serving in the military and Desert Storm.  

    Maybe it was ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 07:29:44 PM EST
    ... a reference to reports of a stolen brown pickup truck driven by a couple of "Arab-looking" men a few hours after the bombing?  I believe the involvement of Arabic terrorists and/or OBL was an alternate theory advanced by the defense, although how this has anything to do with the Clintons is beyond me.

    Silly blathering (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 07:43:49 AM EST
    Of course its courageous to defend anyone that is incredibly unpopular at the moment.

    Was there ever a more despised (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 07:49:14 AM EST
    fellow American in my lifetime?  I don't think so.  Not even Nixon. I had a hard time with the daycare center being involved.  I just couldn't watch the news coverage anymore, my noodle would shut down....my perspective became lost, I felt utter despair.

    Definitely courageous (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by sneezy on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 08:56:49 AM EST
    I'm a criminal defense attorney, and I know how hard it can be to represent someone unpopular and deemed by all around to be despicable.  And, despite having some pretty unpopular clients, I've NEVER been asked to defend anyone so roundly despised as Tim McVeigh.  So to stand tall and defend your client, and, through your client, defend the Constitution that's meant to protect us all, is patriotism and courage of the highest order.

    I doubt that (none / 0) (#13)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 09:47:18 AM EST
    the mothers and fathers of those innocent children, and the husbands and wives, the brothers and sisters, of those killed say that monster McVeigh was just unpopular.

    I doubt that any attorney on that case could have, would have, defended him had it been their loved one needlessly slaughtered.


    Ya think? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 11:55:05 AM EST
    Maybe that's one reason the relative of a victim would never be asked to defend the accused.  That, and the fact that the administration of justice should be objective, based on reason rather than passion, however justified that passion may (or may not)be.

    BTW - Characterizing McVeigh as a "monster" rather than merely "unpopular" does not lend credence to your argument.  Defending a "monster," in the face of incredible public criticisms and attacks, is even more courageous than defending someone who is merely "unpopular".


    Boy is that (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    first paragraph of yours funny. I would hope that you were sharp enough to know that my point was not even close to what you are trying to say. Spinning another persons words does not lend credence to your argument.

    I see no courage in defending McVeigh or any other murderer. It's a job. Period.

    McVeigh deserved no more that a public defender or two. IMO it is unconscionable that so many private lawyers lined up to be part of his defense. There was little question that he was guilty. He never showed remorse from the beginning and his non-guilty plea was clearly a spit in the eye and he didn't hide that fact. They guy was clearly a monster and I see no badge of courage in defending a monster. Like I said if those lawyers would have lost their child they would not have defended him. So what does it say that they did? That they cared more about McVeigh than the innocent children slaughtered? That they cared more about McVeigh than the parents of the children?


    I'm Neutral On The Badge of Courage Thing (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by daring grace on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 01:39:01 PM EST
    But back when I was growing up in the idealistic 1960s--when there were more tv shows about heroic defending attorneys than prosecuting attorneys, BTW--I always heard that it was precisely the most hated accused people who deserve an impeccable and vigorous defense.

    Not to say everyone accused of a crime isn't entitled to that, but to recognize that when someone is universally hated and 'known' to be guilty it's even more important that (s)he gets a rigorous defense, and the CJ system is fully pressed to prove its case.

    It's as much for the country's benefit as the defendant's.


    As we witness all too often (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Rojas on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 01:43:16 PM EST
    When we have such little regard for justice, there will be no innocent children.

    What little regard for justice? (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 02:48:37 PM EST
    McVeigh was going to get his day in court. That was never in question. And he should have received for representation the same as any other person who didn't have the financial means to pay for a private attorney - a public defender of two.

    McVeigh did get exactly the same (none / 0) (#50)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 04:13:56 PM EST
    He received the services of two court-appointed attorneys, the same as has been required in every federal death penalty case since 1789. And under that venerable law, at least one of those appointed lawyers is specifically required to be "learned" (that is, especially trained, experienced, and otherwise qualified) for capital defense.  Just as his co-defendant did.  The effort those lawyers put in was commensurate (within the limits of their human abilities) with the complexity and difficulty of the case, as TL suggested in her initial post.  (And even so, they were outspent 8:1 by the prosecutors; if the case was so simple and obvious, why did the government have to put so much into it?)  

    If I am not mistaken, though, ChiTownMike is implying that TMcV would have (and should have) received a less vigorous defense had he been presented by the Public Defender.  (Not sure if the comparison Mike is trying to make is between privately retained counsel and public defenders, or between public defenders and private but court-appointed counsel, such as Jeralyn was in this case.)  In any event, Mike's assumption is actually (and happily) incorrect in federal court (although regrettably it is true in most counties around the U.S. in local cases).  The Federal Public Defender offices have some of the most expert, most talented, and best trained criminal defense attorneys working in the US today.  They outshine most private counsel every day.


    I don't think that is close (none / 0) (#56)
    by Bemused on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:25:18 AM EST
     to accurate.

      The linked article states that 17 different lawyers were involved with the defense.

      That's not really the issue though. The 6th Amendment establishes a right to EFFECTIVE representation by counsel. That must be judged on a case-by-case basis not by reference to arbitrary limits. A case of extraordinarily large scope can require far more resources than a simpler --even if capital-- case. It's not the CJA nor comparison to other defendants that should be used to determine what level of staffing and other costs should be paid by the government, but a determination as towat is reasonable and necessary to provide adequate representation in the instant case.

      Without expressing an opinion as to whether all of the requested and approved defense expenditures were reasonable and necessary in this particular case, I think everyone should base their opinion on that issue in terms of the unique circumstances of this case.



    Funny? Try it again .. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    There was no "spin."  My first paragraph addressed your premise that no attorney "could have, would have, defended him had it been their loved one needlessly slaughtered."  To further suggest that an attorney, merely because they represented McVeigh, cares more about McVeigh than the victims of the crime is beyond ridiculous.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  An attorney can care greatly about the victims of a crime, yet also care enough about our system of justice to ensure that McVeigh received a thorough defense.

    "Little doubt" that he was guilty?  Personally, I agree, but the government must nonetheless be required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Don't like the number of attorneys assigned to McVeigh's defense?  Take it up with Congress.

    IMO, McVeigh was a monster, but it takes a great deal of courage to defend a monster.  Take the proverbial case of one of history's greatest monsters, Adolf Hitler.  Imagine for a moment, that he had been captured at the end of WWII.  Could you imagine the strength and courage it would take to stand up and defend him at the Nuremberg trials, for any amount of money?  "Just a job"?  Can you imagine standing up against the constant attacks .....being shunned and ostracized .... being threatened ....all for doing your job and abiding by your profession's code of ethics?

    I guess not ...


    ChiTownMike, your view (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    has been expressed. This is a criminal defense site. See the comment rules on chattering, no more comments of this nature. They will be deleted.

    Everyone has a RIGHT to a defense. (none / 0) (#53)
    by AX10 on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 08:09:32 PM EST
    Including the unpopular and those accused of the most heinous crimes.  If not, the government would be free to set up people.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#28)
    by JamesTX on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    that defending McVeigh was not courageous. The American public has forgotten the principles of the constitution and they actually do hold prejudice toward attorneys who defend those guilty of horrible acts. In fact, the biggest "lay" question for attorneys over the years of the conservative movement was "How can you defend someone who has broken the law?". What a stupid question? Of course, anyone trained in the law, who actually learned its principles, knows the answer to that question reflexively. The frightening part is that the public doesn't, though, and they act accordingly. Being identified as a defender of a terrorist could be a dangerous career move indeed.

    On the other hand, I do agree with you that terms like "courageous" have been thrown about during the last thirty years to the point that they have no meaning. It is not "courageous" just to be a police officer or join the military. Those are reasoned decisions with payoffs that are most often lucrative for the person. Sure, there are isolated instances of danger, but usually those are statistically sound decisions which lead to profit and only occasionally involve danger or "courage".

    The ancients actually had an understanding of this. Plato's contrast of timocracy with aristocracy points to this phenomenon. Timocracy was one of the "bad" forms of government which grew out of the decay or degradation of aristocracy. Timocracy is the society in which the highest value is honor, as opposed to aristocracy where the highest value is virtue. That is, people seek honor as the final goal rather than the actual behavior that leads naturally to honor. It is best summed up by Reale:

    "Timocracy" (which Plato identified usually with the governance of Sparta) destroys this necessary balance of the perfect City-State, because it substitutes virtue to honor, so to speak, by wanting the effect without the cause.

    Did he maintain his innocence to the end? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 12:48:13 AM EST
    or did he ever confess?  I can't quite recall.

    He never showed remorse (none / 0) (#17)
    by ChiTownMike on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    AUSTIN, Texas -- Timothy McVeigh sometimes laughed, joked around and appeared to show little remorse as he described for his attorneys his 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, recently discovered defense documents show.

    Asked in one defense interview whether he was single, he said: "Yes. Any bachelorettes out there?"

    Another time, he "roared with laughter," according to the documents.
    Oklahoma City Bombing Remembrance Video.

    He also said he hoped he would be acquitted and that his trial would embarrass the federal government.

    The defense documents were donated to the University of Texas by his lead trial attorney, Stephen Jones of Enid. They include a 246-page transcript of McVeigh's confidential statement made to Jones in September 1995.

    The existence of the documents came to light recently.

    Worrying over magazine

    He once griped that prison guards withheld his Playboy magazine "for two days straight," the documents show.

    "Tim was especially anxious to see it because it contains a story about him," an attorney wrote. "Tim said that the ... story in Playboy `made me look manly.'"
    His attorneys noted in one document he expressed no remorse.

    never showed remorse? (none / 0) (#48)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    must have been a Republican...

    I think your experiences would make a (none / 0) (#8)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 07:45:28 AM EST
    fascinating book!

    Alas, a book that wiill never be written... (none / 0) (#10)
    by pcpablo on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 08:17:58 AM EST
    it seems that the pesky attorney client privilege continues after death.

    The media made me hate McVeigh (none / 0) (#16)
    by joze46 on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 09:56:29 AM EST
    Some of my back ground needs airing. The media made me hate McVeigh but I began to change my mind.

    As a Vietnam veteran it took me about three weeks in country to observe an extraordinary different obvious ancient sovereign attachment that are truly conservatoire to the Vietnamese that honor their past Dynasties.

    This remains in my mind to draw conclusions that determine the pitiful political corruption and stubborn red neck philosophy that had taken place for change in the war in Vietnam. Even after decades, other counties to intervene, Vietnam is today a Socialist Republic, one rule party. Essentially a dictatorship accepted by the International community. This maybe evidence to what will happen in Iraq.

    Upon my return bitterness for our Government, its representatives and the general population, with America's stubborn out reach for military intervention catalyzed my anger to a level that went either way, to endorse the war as necessary, or look upon it as a huge tragedy. For me and obviously was a huge tragedy where in a military way Americans attempted to colonize Vietnam. My argument is this same pattern is expressed in the Middle East. My anger is still there; worse, but my personal actions will not go the level of Timothy McVeigh's.

    Starting to read about the past with the Internet as a huge resource and selected books from watching C-span book week and authors talking about their books has guided me to new understandings that the Mainstream Media has not reported government actions or military interventions honestly for decades likely complicit with government political greed, secrecy, and corporate entities have brought America to the point were we are at now. Likely the reason we the electorate are begging for transparency no matter what.  

    As Eisenhower had said the Military Industrial complex will break us.

    It has, with its open actions embedded media commercial patriotism complicit with wide spread corruption, terror, torture; simple Juris Prudence in America's ability of leadership is not in jeopardy it is failed, for me a fundemental win for the Wahabbi.

    To try to shorten my story, Timothy McVeigh was executed to bury secrets. Timothy McVeigh should have been kept alive. For me a flag stands out in the PDF file labeled the massive case. For what I know now those secret agents in your notes, killed, are a problem for me. I would be on a Sherlock Holms relentless for inspection to make sure that absolutely no foreign influence is present. Just as Valerie Plame outing by Cheney is a monumental cover up by our justice department and Patrick Fitzgerald. For Fitzgerald is not a hero he is a partisan agent to a massive cover up. Holding back insider knowledge of leaks.

    One of my questions is; why were these secret people quartered in the Social Security office? Is there a connection. Bush and company have revealed to America a host of immoral deeds, political crimes kept secret, torture, military, and economic connections with the Media's help support many Americans physic  that will forever be in denial. Though the whole situation seems to be reversing now the media is questioned more and so are those in our secret agencies. Bush and Company and perhaps the Clinton administration should be investigated. For me Attorney General Janet Reno was very shallow, not tough at all.  

    mass murder (none / 0) (#18)
    by leap on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    April 19, 1995. It was the largest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the country. Until September 11, it was the largest act of mass murder in the United States. It left 168 people dead and more than 500 people injured.

    Hmmmm. I bet there were many acts of mass murder  in this country that killed more than 168 Native Americans per episode, before April 19, 1995.....

    The Tenth Circuit stated (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    in upholding his conviction:

    The bombing of the Murrah Building was the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the United States.

    The other link I provided, to Stephen Jones' law review article, states:

    The bombing of the Murrah Building was the largest act of domestic terrorism and revolutionary terror in the United States. It was, not to put too fine a point on it, the largest mass murder in American history.

    Perhaps it is too fine a point with respect to Native Americans. But let's not change the subject.


    Mikeb302000 (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    wrote in a comment I had to delete because of the "f" and "c" words:

    ...the father, my dad now 78 yrs old, is an arch conservative and the son, myself now 56 yrs old, is a liberal.  We've argued about everything political since Nixon and Viet Nam, up until the time about 20 years ago when I stopped engaging, plus I moved to Italy at that time.

    The day McVeigh received a 30-day stay of execution I was visiting my father in Las Vegas. The family was gathered around the TV, my pop was drunk and yelling and pointing at the television in a threatening manner, "Burn the c*ck-s*cker, burn the c*ck-s*cker."

    At a certain point in this classic family scene, my father turned to me and said in the most hostile tone, "You don't agree with a f**king thing I say, do you?"  

    I didn't have to answer.  

    some people believe that because (none / 0) (#47)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 03:53:45 PM EST
    we were all created from the same existence (or being, or God, whatever you believe) that whatever lies in one of us resides in all of us...

    McVeigh may have been a monster, but he was a human, and if he, as a human, was able to become a monster then any one of us has that same in us...

    then again, that's an aging idea...modern christianity has kinda went away from the 'we are all brothers created in the image of Him'...

    Today's Denver Post (none / 0) (#54)
    by GrandmaJoan on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 08:41:04 PM EST
    I can find nothing about the Oklahoma City Bombing in today's Denver Post.  Is it possible that they have completely ignored it?

    yes, the Denver papers are all (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 10:52:54 PM EST
    about Columbine, which doesn't hold much interest for me, other than my pal Dave Cullen's new book on it which is getting rave reviews.

    I have been (none / 0) (#57)
    by Pieter B on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 11:07:07 PM EST
     . . . a lifelong opponent of the death penalty, but it's hard to remain an absolutist when confronted with the likes of Timothy McVeigh. Nonetheless, I sincerely thank you for your service to the Constitution, Jeralyn.