how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN | reply to SRFireside
Re: I didn't know Possessing automatic weapons is not illegal. If the weapons were purchased before a ban went into affect, they are legal.
There is no such thing as a grandfather law (crime) in this country. Now debunk more of his argument | | |
|
| said by BVT:Possessing automatic weapons is not illegal. If the weapons were purchased before a ban went into affect, they are legal. Now show proof the guns were purchased before the automatic weapons ban. I don't know about you, but when a group stockpiles a huge cache of military weapons I would want the authorities to get involved. | |
emptywigHuh? What?Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX | reply to BVT
They shot cops. That's what got all those people killed. THEY shot cops. End of story.
They fact the guns were legal is a moot point. Even if EVERY gun was legal, its not legal to shoot cops, even if they're coming in on bogus charges.
wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox | |
 sweintzPremium
join:2002-03-01
Chester, CT | said by emptywig:They shot cops. That's what got all those people killed. THEY shot cops. End of story. They fact the guns were legal is a moot point. Even if EVERY gun was legal, its not legal to shoot cops, even if they're coming in on bogus charges. wig THEY only shot cops after cops opened fire on THEM first with automatic weapons. From a helicopter no less. | |
| I remember the footage. ATF was closing in on the compound and about to get in, but the first shots came from the compound. NOT the police. | |
| you are an idiot.
have you ever bothered watching some of the recent shows about this subject on the history or learning channel?
the government did totally mess up and they were climbing ONTO the property when they got shot.
too bad for them, i say. dont put the police and swat teams on a pedestal. they're just like you and i, doing our jobs. lets not get all emotional just because they "protect" us. they're not all heros. in fact most cops have serious inferiority complexes they inflict on the public on a daily basis.
what about that one cop that was supposedly babysitting but actually molesting the child? this guy was in the forces for at least a decade or two.
so yeah, they were "about to get in" but I would consider climing onto the roof and breaking a window open "getting in". | |
| That doesn't stop the fact that they shot at police officers. The warrants were issued. They knew the police were coming. They knew why the police were coming. Do you say it's okay for a drug dealer to shoot at DEA agents because they are coming into his property? Law abiding citizens don't shoot at law enforcement officers when they KNOW it's law enforcement officers.
Regardless of whether or not they felt they did nothing wrong, they did the wrong thing. I don't care who you are. Once you start shooting all bets are off.
And you call me the idiot? | |
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·ProLog
4 edits | reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside:Now show proof the guns were purchased before the automatic weapons ban. I don't know about you, but when a group stockpiles a huge cache of military weapons I would want the authorities to get involved. I have a large cache of these weapons..all legally owned by me...And no, I don't need the military here to make sure I'm being good with them....thats what the background check was for...now Its MY business....
said by SRFireside:That doesn't stop the fact that they shot at police officers. The warrants were issued. They knew the police were coming. They knew why the police were coming. Do you say it's okay for a drug dealer to shoot at DEA agents because they are coming into his property? Law abiding citizens don't shoot at law enforcement officers when they KNOW it's law enforcement officers. Regardless of whether or not they felt they did nothing wrong, they did the wrong thing. I don't care who you are. Once you start shooting all bets are off. This part I agree with whole heartedly | |
| reply to SRFireside
"Now show proof the guns were purchased before the automatic weapons ban. I don't know about you, but when a group stockpiles a huge cache of military weapons I would want the authorities to get involved."
And, just WHAT was he going to do with a "stockpile" of weapons? Do what he did and try to defend himself? This business about weapons was only the governments excuse to raid the place, which they did without announcing their presence or presenting a warrant. Instead a ATF kill team went in and tried to sneak in and take control. They were discovers as prowlers and shot at which was, of course, the excuse for the seige.
Kill one of ours and we WILL get you, no matter what it takes, REGARDLESS of if we were wrong in the first place.
the other bottom line fact is that Koresh was in town every day, or running outside the compound and the sheriff could have scooped him up any time.
But they didn't want to do that. They wanted to do their usual gestapo crap and raid the place in full kill kit. Just scooping Koresh off the street would very likely have served to defuse the situation and lead to a peacefull surrender. | |
| reply to emptywig
"Even if EVERY gun was legal, its not legal to shoot cops, even if they're coming in on bogus charges."
Excuse me? It's not legal to prowl around peoples property in the middle of the night, out in rural Texas and climb up on the roof of the house then try to break in with a assault team without announcing yourself and the fact you have a warrant. They were arrogant and stupid and some of them paid for it with their lives.
I hate to tell you this, but cops are not the lilly white warriors you would like to believe they are. ESPECIALLY the federal ones who think they can do any damn thing they want to just because they are federal LEO's.
| |
| reply to SRFireside
"I remember the footage. ATF was closing in on the compound and about to get in, but the first shots came from the compound. NOT the police."
The assault team was discovered on the roof of the building and was fired upon. 3 agents were killed. They had not announced themselves, or, that they had a warrant. The people inside were within their rights to open fire as far as I am concerned. The police are supposed to announce they are police and have a warrant before attempting to break in. | |
| said by Fatal Vector:They had not announced themselves, or, that they had a warrant. The people inside were within their rights to open fire as far as I am concerned. The police are supposed to announce they are police and have a warrant before attempting to break in. They were shot at before making their entry. The way a SWAT entry is done is that you get all your men prepared before making your entry. They were shot at before this was done, which means they didn't get a chance to make the announcement. Either way they were ready for a fight and drew first blood. You can easily turn this around and say the Davidian camp didn't announce their intent either.
This impending assault was in the news for Pete's sake. How can they NOT know they were coming. Do you have anything to back up the claim that the Davidians didn't have any prior warning that the law was coming? | |
| Nope, still wrong, Koresh , actually opened the door to meet the agents, who opened fire on him, wounding him, before ducking back inside closing the door. There actually were helicopters firing down upon the Davidians.
Here is link to testimony given in the hearings looking at this massacre.
»www.firearmsandliberty.com/waco.···cre.html
it is a long read, covering every thing.Naming names of agents and Treasury officials and agents involved.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
| I cannot accept an essay from a biased website. I need an official link to that incident. There was plenty of news coverage that day so if it really happened as you said it wouldn't be hard to find. | |
| said by SRFireside:I cannot accept an essay from a biased website. I need an official link to that incident. There was plenty of news coverage that day so if it really happened as you said it wouldn't be hard to find. A biased website? did you read anything?
The only bias that is showing is yours.
If you expect the government to provide an official website or link detailing the biggest f&ck up in law enforcement history by a Democratic president, providing classified documents and sealed testimony. Then you Sir would have a better odds of hell freezing over first.
I find it amusing you can dismiss the testimony and lawsuits filed by the survivors--out of hand, including lawsuits filed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, now in private practice.
Perhaps, you would care to provide an official link, which doesn't exist that fully documents the actions of federal law enforcement officials, which offers credible evidence debunking this so called "biased essay". Otherwise I stand on the allegations posted as fact, from my above 2nd post.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
| I dismiss the source. Show a news site that has this testimony. Cite some of these court cases, which should have docket numbers or something that can be tracked. Because I don't remember hearing ANYTHING about the AFT shooting at Koresh. I'm not going to hunt for any evidence to prove this because I'm not the one making a case about it.
The Justice Department screwed up. That much is obvious, but that was no church as much as it was a survivalist cult. Something isn't right with that picture. No matter how you slice it the blame goes to both sides on this one. | |
 ROCINANTEOriginal Member 007Premium
join:1999-06-29
Hartsdale, NY
1 edit | reply to guitarzan
Why can't you provide links from impartial news organizations? Anyone who claims to know the "facts" can throwup a website and post their biased opinions. How does placing "FACT:" in front of your paragraphs make them so?
--
CRUNCH THIS!
| |
1 edit | said by ROCINANTE: How does placing "FACT:" in front of your paragraphs make them so? What makes them facts? The standoff lasted 51 days. Like it or not that makes it a FACT. As for official court records on Waco or docket numbers pertaining to the governments case against the Davidians..nothing exists to be found so far. Perhaps I need to contact my Senator and requet that information through the Freedom of Information Act, as i do not believe the government will release information that casts a bad light on itself.
The Texas Rangers, investigative report and findings. PDF format
»www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_s···irst.htm
»www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_s···ndex.htm
Other links
»www.hardylaw.net/ATF.html
»www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/3/21/192210
»www.waco93.com/texaslawyer.htm
»www.cesnur.org/2001/waco_feb01.htm
»www.cesnur.org/2002/waco_001.htm
»www.waco93.com/nytimes11_26_99.htm
»docket.medill.northwestern.edu/a···0444.php
»www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1999/0r···esp.html
»www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagenc···-26.html
»www.elfie.org/~croaker/batfabus.html
»www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline···ine.html
News links, yes here they are from major news outlets covering the Waco raid.From this link
»www.getwaco.com/news-events.html the following.
A special commission led by former Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., ruled that the FBI and other agencies involved were not responsible for the fire.
The only government official to face criminal charges in the episode, ironically, was former Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston, one of the prosecutors in the 1994 trial of 11 of Koresh's followers. He pleaded guilty to misprison of a felony, after he allegedly "misled" a federal grand jury about the FBI's use of tear gas canisters in the siege.
The following news articles produce dead links, Ye these are the headlines.
Killing the Messenger
John C. Danforth's Indictment of Whistleblower Bill Johnston May Lead to a Nasty Courtroom Showdown
If John C. Danforth was trying to bury his final report on Waco, he could scarcely have picked a better time. His report, which absolves the government of any wrongdoing during the standoff, was quietly posted on the Web at 11am on Nov. 8. Less than 10 hours earlier, CNN had named George W. Bush our 43rd president. Minutes later, the network took it all back and the recount frenzy began. (BY ROBERT BRYCE Austin Chronicle Novemb er 17, 2000)
* Former Waco federal prosecutor Bill Johnston indicted on charges of obstructing investigation
Former Waco federal prosecutor Bill Johnston, who helped expose a six-year cover-up of government actions in the Branch Davidian siege, was indicted Wednesday on federal charges of obstructing the special counsel's investigation that he helped set in motion
* "Filmmakers' tenacity brought the "dark questions" of Waco tragedy into the mainstream".
Researcher found spent pyrotechnic tear gas canisters in Texas Ranger evidence locker. When John C. Danforth began the special investigation into what happened at Waco, one of the first sources his office contacted was a documentary filmmaker
THE WACO INVESTIGATOR
Attorney General Janet Reno has appointed John Danforth to investigate the role of the FBI during the Branch Davidian standoff.
Margaret Warner discusses the appointment with the former senator.
Killing the Messenger
John C. Danforth's Indictment of Whistleblower Bill Johnston May Lead to a Nasty Courtroom Showdown
If John C. Danforth was trying to bury his final report on Waco, he could scarcely have picked a better time. His report, which absolves the government of any wrongdoing during the standoff, was quietly posted on the Web at 11am on Nov. 8. Less than 10 hours earlier, CNN had named George W. Bush our 43rd president. Minutes later, the network took it all back and the recount frenzy began.
By releasing his report on the heaviest news day since Mount Carmel burned to the ground in 1993, Danforth was able to avoid scrutiny of his conclusions. He told The New York Times that his report was largely completed a month ago, but he decided to wait until after the election to release it. Why wait? Because, the former U.S. senator said, it had "zero political content."
Danforth may believe his report (available at www.osc-wago.org) is apolitical. And given the ongoing furor over the Florida recount, the report, which took 14 months and $17 million to produce, is unlikely to get much scrutiny. But Danforth's decision to prosecute Bill Johnston, the former federal prosecutor from Waco who was indicted by a federal grand jury shortly before the report was released, could be as contentious as a Palm Beach precinct meeting.
Johnston was the first one to tip Attorney General Janet Reno to the fact that government forces had used pyrotechnic devices at the Davidian compound. Now he faces felony prosecution for not divulging that information sooner.
The grand jury, in its five-count indictment against Johnston, alleged that he hid evidence about the FBI's use of pyrotechnic tear gas during the 51-day standoff between federal agents and Branch Davidians, and lied to federal investigators and grand jurors during the investigation of the standoff, which ended with a fatal fire on April 19, 1993, killing some 80 Davidians.
By indicting Johnston, Danforth appears to be heading for a nasty showdown in court with the former prosecutor and his allies. Sources close to the matter believe that Johnston's lawyers will subpoena Danforth and make him take the witness stand, where they will ask him about the truthfulness of statements he made to both Johnston and the media. It also appears likely that Danforth's investigators could be forced to take the stand to discuss threats they reportedly made to Johnston and his lawyers.
One source close to the matter said that when the two men met earlier this year, Danforth told Johnston that he was not planning to bring charges against him. Danforth reportedly told Johnston that he could have brought charges against FBI attorney Jacqueline Brown, who, Danforth's preliminary report says, "lied to the Office of Special Counsel during the course of this investigation." Instead, he targeted Johnston. Why? The source said that Danforth's investigators repeatedly told Johnston that they were going after him because "he's the one who blew the whistle." The investigators have "admitted that they are going after him out of vindictiveness," said the source.
The threats by Danforth's people against Johnston were confirmed earlier this year by Austin lawyer Roy Minton. He said the investigators were insisting that Johnston be charged with felony perjury. "That was the reason they wanted to charge him with a felony, because they wanted him to lose his law license," said Minton.
Danforth refused to comment on the indictment of Johnston, who pleaded innocent during his arraignment in St. Louis on Monday.
Johnston's lawyer, Michael J. Kennedy of New York, said in a prepared statement that by indicting his client, Danforth "seeks to destroy the messenger and whitewash the government excesses in Waco."
Danforth's 17-page indictment of Johnston, which includes two counts of obstruction of justice and three counts of lying to investigators and a federal grand jury, focuses on what Johnston knew about the FBI's use of pyrotechnic tear gas during its final assault on the Davidians' home. In 1993, during preparation for the criminal trial of several Davidians, Johnston made some handwritten notes that included the word "incind" -- an apparent abbreviation of "incendiary." The indictment alleges that when he made that notation, Johnston knew that the FBI had used pyrotechnic tear gas rounds against the Davidians, but had then hidden that knowledge from investigators. The indictment also charges that he knowingly hid information from Danforth's grand jury and made false statements to the Office of the Special Counsel.
Rumors about a possible indictment of Johnston have been swirling since July, when a $675 million civil lawsuit brought by the Branch Davidians against the federal government ended with a five-member jury acquitting the government of any wrongdoing. On Sept. 20, U.S. District Judge Walter Smith Jr. issued a final order dismissing the case. The Davidians are planning an appeal of the decision.
James Brannon, one of the lawyers for the Davidians, said that the indictment of Johnston "certainly smacks of retaliation." He added that he hasn't been impressed with any of Danforth's inquiry into the Waco matter. "I have nothing good to say about the Danforth bunch," he said.
Johnston helped re-ignite controversy over the Waco standoff in August of 1999, when he wrote to Janet Reno: "I have formed the belief that facts may have been kept from you and quite possibly are being kept from you even now, by components of the department." Although Johnston's letter helped convince Reno to appoint Danforth to investigate the matter, it effectively ended Johnston's career with the federal government.
In addition to his indictment of Johnston, Danforth has asked the Department of Justice to terminate two assistant U.S. attorneys, Ray and LeRoy Jahn of San Antonio. Like Johnston, the husband-and-wife team of prosecutors helped send several Davidians to jail after the standoff ended. Danforth said the Jahns should be fired because they went to "great lengths" to conceal their knowledge of the FBI's use of pyrotechnic tear gas rounds.
While there are mixed feelings among Waco experts about the Jahns, many observers believe the indictment of Johnston is wrongheaded. "I think they are making Johnston the scapegoat," said Stuart A. Wright, a sociology professor at Lamar University in Beaumont who has written extensively about the Waco controversy.
"The public has a general perception that the government did something wrong" at Waco, he said. By ignoring apparent wrongdoing by FBI commanders Dick Rogers and Jeff Jamar, as well as Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms commanders Phillip Chojnacki and Chuck Sarabyn, Danforth missed an opportunity to deal with the Waco tragedy, Wright said. Prosecuting Johnston, Wright said, is not "going to alleviate the grief a lot of us feel about Waco." (BY ROBERT BRYCE Austin Chronicle November 17, 2000)
Former Waco federal prosecutor Bill Johnston indicted on charges of obstructing investigation
Former Waco federal prosecutor Bill Johnston, who helped expose a six-year cover-up of government actions in the Branch Davidian siege, was indicted Wednesday on federal charges of obstructing the special counsel's investigation that he helped set in motion.
The indictment - including two counts of obstruction of justice and three counts of lying to investigators and a federal grand jury - was returned Wednesday in St. Louis just before Waco special counsel John C. Danforth released his final report absolving the government of wrongdoing in the 1993 siege.
Although it omitted any mention of Mr. Johnston because of the pending prosecution, Mr. Danforth's 197-page report includes harsh criticism of the husband-wife federal prosecution team that directed the criminal case against surviving Branch Davidians. It concludes that they and two FBI agents each concealed key information about the government's use of pyrotechnic tear gas at the end of the Waco standoff.
The report stated that Mr. Danforth will ask the Justice Department to fire the two assistant U.S. attorneys, Ray and LeRoy Jahn of San Antonio, because they went to such "great lengths" to conceal their knowledge of that information.
Mr. Johnston's lawyer, Michael Kennedy of New York, said the indictment is baseless and unfair. He said Mr. Johnston has freely acknowledged that he made mistakes in his dealings with the special counsel's office, adding that the decision to target only his client after a 14-month, $17 million investigation amounts to "discrimination and selective prosecution."
"Danforth seeks to destroy the messenger and whitewash the governmental excesses of Waco," he said. "While Bill's mistakes were harmless, the same cannot be said for so many other government employees, who today are merely chastised or ignored completely by Mr. Danforth."
(The Dallas Morning News, November 9,2000)
"Filmmakers' tenacity brought the "dark questions" of Waco tragedy into the mainstream".
Researcher found spent pyrotechnic tear gas canisters in Texas Ranger evidence locker. When John C. Danforth began the special investigation into what happened at Waco, one of the first sources his office contacted was a documentary filmmaker. On Sept. 20, Danforth wrote to Dan Gifford, the producer of the documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," to request a meeting. Danforth wanted information about the use of the U.S. armed forces, the names of witnesses and experts, and the location of documents and other evidence that bears on the case.
That Danforth made a moviemaker one of his first stops is a tribute to the impact that Gifford and his chief researcher, Mike McNulty, have had in raising the "dark questions" that Danforth is trying to answer. Their film premiered at the 1997 Sundance Film Festival in Utah. It later won an Emmy Award and was nominated for an Oscar for best documentary. It took the suspicion of the government's version of the event from the realm of the ultra-right into the consciousness of the middle class. And it was McNulty's work on a sequel, "Waco: A New Revelation," that prompted Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint a special Waco investigator. While doing research for the new movie, McNulty found spent pyrotechnic tear gas canisters in a Texas Ranger evidence locker. The discovery prompted the FBI and the Justice Department to reverse years of denials and finally admit that the canisters, which can cause fire, were used on the last day of the siege.
Danforth is trying to determine whether federal agents or the military killed people on April 19, 1993. That's when about 80 people died as fire consumedthe Branch Davidians' Mount Carmel complex as the FBI attempted to force the Davidians out with tear gas. From his home in California, McNulty watched the live CNN television coverage as the Davidians' complex went up in flames. Ever since he has been trying to figure out what happened. " He's pounded on the door," Gifford said. "It shows what six years of work can do. "
A Missouri massacre
McNulty, a Mormon, said he had a "very bad feeling" about the tragic end of the Branch Davidians. He said it reminded him of an episode in his church's history: the Haun's Mill massacre, in northwestern Missouri. In October 1837, 17 Mormon men and boys were killed by members of the Missouri militia. The militia was reacting to an order issued by Gov. Lilburn Boggs, who said all Mormons should either be driven out of Missouri or exterminated.
Although 156 years separated Waco from the Haun's Mill incident, McNulty saw a parallel between the government's tactics in both cases. He began investigating Waco on his own and got a copy of the FBI's infrared videotape of the Branch Davidian complex, shot from an airplane overhead. Some experts have concluded that the tape shows government agents firing into the complex buildings.
FBI agents have denied firing any shots, and a new computer program used to detect gunfire on infrared images upholds that contention.
McNulty approached Gifford, a former CNN reporter and now president of SomFord Entertainment, with the idea of making a movie about Waco. Gifford thought it was a news story and advised McNulty to take it to television news departments.
" He was gone five months and came back and said no one was interested," Gifford said. Gifford said that although he was skeptical, he agreed to take on the project. Gifford said as he got deeper into the research he found that the official story of what happened at Waco "came apart like wet paper bag at the seams."
Their movie says government agents fired into the compound and may have started the fire. Last month, the film was shown to members of the Zenith Boosters Club, an organization of conservatives and libertarians in Kansas City. Gifford also spoke to the group." The movie makes people wonder about what's going on and who is giving us the full story," said Arlene Krings, spokeswoman for the organization.
A new film
In March 1998, McNulty joined forces with MGA Studios Film Divsiont to develop a new movie about Waco. MGA, based in Fort Collins, Colo., was established in 1996 to make family and children's films for television. " We decided to make this documentary because there were too many unanswered questions," said Rick Van Vleet, MGA president. His son, Jason, is director of the film. Van Vleet said the new movie, "Waco: The New Revelation," will be advertised for sale on television, in newspapers and magazines and on the Internet. He said it will be shown in theaters early next year. A private showing is planned for Washington sometime next month, and Danforth will be among those invited.
McNulty said the new movie would contain more information about the gunfight he says took place between the Davidians and the authorities on the last day of the siege. He said it would show the participants and explain why it happened. He also said the movie would show how the raid by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms on Feb. 28, 1993 -- in which four agents were killed -- turned into a gunfight. " The first shots were fired by the BATF," McNulty said. "The evidence shows that while the BATF fired first, it wasn't at people." During the 1994 criminal trial of Branch Davidian survivors, ATF agents testified that the Branch Davidians shot at them first. But there was other testimony that federal agents first shot and killed the Branch Davidians' dogs as the agents approached the front of the complex. Seven of 11 Branch Davidians on trial for murder were convicted on lesser charges ranging from voluntary manslaughter to weapons violations. Four were acquitted on all charges.
Jason Van Vleet said his office was cooperating with Danforth's investigators. He is critical of the news media's coverage of Waco.
" We have seen a one-sided story that focused on whatever the ATF or the FBI wanted us to know and the news reported it," Van Vleet said.
" One-sided" is a criticism that some have leveled at "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." There is little of the government's explanation for what happened in the film, which is heavy with the Branch Davidians' interpretation of events. And after McNulty spoke recently to college students in Colorado about the new film, some of them said he sounded more like an infomercial trying to make money by promoting the movie rather than a fact-finder trying to get at the truth. " It's going to have to go a ways before it ever sees a profit," McNulty said. Rick Van Vleet has said the film will cost about $1 million to produce.
McNulty, 53, is the father of five children and has three grandchildren. A former commercial insurance broker, he has also worked in public relations. He has no journalistic background but worked in the campaigns of Democratic candidates in California, including one of Jerry Brown's campaigns for governor. He now lives in Colorado and leads an organization called Citizens Organization for Public Safety. He describes it as a loose-knit group of people concerned about public safety issues. He served in the Navy during the Vietnam War and later came to oppose it. McNulty said he had been a Democrat "many years ago when I was young and passionate. I'm a Republican now. Waco has been spun and played by both the Democrats and Republicans as being right or left," McNulty said. "It's not about right or left. It's about right and wrong." by Terry Ganey ("St. Louis Post-Dispatch ", October 17, 1999)
Federal Court refused to quash sobpoenas
A federal court in St. Louis on Wednesday refused to quash subpoenas forcing five supporters of former Waco prosecutor Bill Johnston to testify before a federal grand jury investigating government actions in the 1993 Branch Davidian siege.
Houston attorney Dick DeGuerin, who filed a motion on behalf of the five Waco men, said U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh ruled after an hourlong closed-door hearing that he lacked legal grounds to throw out the subpoenas. They were issued late last week at the request of the Waco special counsel's office.
Judge Limbaugh agreed to grant each of the five men immunity before they are called on Thursday before the grand jury, Mr. DeGuerin said.
"He made it clear that he saw what was going on, but at this point, there was not much he could do," Mr. DeGuerin said. "This is retaliation and punishment of these guys for supporting Bill Johnston, as well as an effort to chill any other potential support."
His motion on behalf of two deputy U.S. Marshals, a former Waco city manager a Waco lawyer and a wealthy Waco businessman had alleged that the subpoenas were part of an ongoing effort to intimidate them and Mr. Johnston.
A spokesperson for the special counsel's office declined to comment.
Two months ago, Mr. Johnston was told that he was being targeted for prosecution by the office of Waco special counsel John C. Danforth. Mr. Johnston was among five federal prosecutors who helped try surviving Davidians in a criminal trial arising from the siege. (The Dallas Morning News, October 26, 2000)
Plan to appeal ruling that sect members responsible for 1993 tragedy
Two attorneys for the survivors of the Branch Davidian siege and their relatives say they plan to appeal a federal judge's ruling that the sect members and not the government were responsible for the 1993 tragedy.
Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who represented most of the surviving Davidians, said Thursday that he was saddened but unsurprised by the ruling. He said he will appeal the decision, which he said was most notable for the judge's undisguised disgust and anger toward members of the sect.
"It's not what you'd expect in a judicial opinion," he said. "The thing that we should all comprehend is that a tragedy like this should never happen again at the hands of our own government and its agents. You can almost feel like a sense of celebration in the way the judge addressed the case.
"But there's nothing decent about celebrating this. It never should have happened," he said. "What has happened with this case has also been an enormous injustice from start to finish, and hopefully, for the good of the country, will be firmly corrected."
In a 22-page judgment finalizing an advisory jury's recommendation, U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. ruled that surviving sect members and their families who had sought $675 million in damages would "take nothing" from the federal agencies involved in the deadly standoff. Judge Smith's ruling also included a lengthy rebuke of lead plaintiffs' lawyer Michael Caddell of Houston, saying he abused the judicial process.
The judge wrote that Mr. Caddell had attempted "for the past year ... to try their case in the media through the use of innuendo, distortions and outright falsehoods, rather than honestly presenting the true facts of the case."
Mr. Caddell issued a brief statement Thursday saying he also will appeal. He renewed his criticism of Judge Smith, saying "it was clear that soon after the trial commenced that Judge Smith had made up his mind and he could have written his opinion then.
"The appearance of bias and prejudice on the part of Judge Smith is profound. It is unfortunate that this case was not tried before an impartial fact-finder. The American people deserved a process and tribunal that were above reproach. Unfortunately, that did not occur," he said. (The Dallas Morning News, September 21, 2000)
Branch Davidians wrongful death suit ended
The Branch Davidians' long-running wrongful-death lawsuit ended Wednesday with a federal judge's ruling that they and not the government were responsible for the 1993 tragedy.
In a 22-page judgment finalizing an advisory jury's recommendation, U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. ruled that surviving sect members and their families who had sought $675 million in damages would "take nothing" from the federal agencies involved in the deadly standoff near Waco.
Judge Smith's ruling also included a lengthy rebuke of lead plaintiffs' lawyer Michael Caddell of Houston, saying he abused the judicial process.
The judge wrote that Mr. Caddell had attempted "for the past year ... to try their case in the media through the use of innuendo, distortions and outright falsehoods, rather than honestly presenting the true facts of the case."
Mr. Caddell and other lawyers for the plaintiffs could not be reached Wednesday evening.
The decision drew praise from Justice Department officials and FBI director Louis Freeh, who termed it a "most gratifying" vindication of federal law enforcement.
"No one in the FBI wanted anyone harmed. Everyone did their best under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. In the end, no one fired a shot, the government did not start the fires and the Davidians were found by the court to be solely responsible for the unnecessary deaths that occurred," Mr. Freeh said.
The judge's decision came two months after an advisory jury concluded that Branch Davidians alone instigated a Feb. 28, 1993, shootout with federal agents and then ended a 51-day standoff by immolating themselves inside their besieged building. (The Dallas Morning News, September 21, 2000)
Former Prosecuter being targeted by Waco special counsel
The former prosecutor who warned last year of a possible cover-up of federal actions in the Branch Davidian siege has been told he is being targeted for prosecution by Waco special counsel John C. Danforth. Friends and associates of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston say he has been told that the charges stem from his withholding of several pages of pretrial notes from the 1994 federal prosecution of surviving Branch Davidians. They say that Mr. Johnston's action was a mistake driven by his concern that his notes would be misused by others in the U.S. attorney's office who were angry about his public criticism of the Justice Department's handling of the Waco tragedy.
Michael Caddell, a Houston lawyer who led a recent wrongful-death lawsuit against the government filed by surviving Davidians and their families, said the threatened prosecution of Mr. Johnston raises serious questions about the integrity of Mr. Danforth's Waco inquiry.
"Why single out Bill Johnston? He's not even in the government anymore. He basically got recused from the case, got forced out of the Justice Department, became a pariah," he said. "There are going to be a lot of people shaking their heads.
"It says a lot about the misdirection of the Danforth investigation. It ignores wrongdoing by government officials and whitewashes what even Danforth admits was less than a truthful presentation of what happened at Mount Carmel, and he seeks to go after the one person who tried to get the truth out." (The Dallas Morning News, September 1, 2000)
Special counsel reinvestigating 1993 siege near Waco, TX
The special counsel reinvestigating aspects of the 1993 siege near Waco interviewed President Clinton by telephone Wednesday, the White House said. In a three-sentence statement, the White House press office said the president and special counsel John Danforth had a brief conversation that morning. "The president voluntarily agreed to be interviewed and spoke with Senator Danforth for about 15 minutes," the statement said.
The president, in a transcript released last week by the White House, said he made a "terrible mistake" in following the Justice Department's recommendation to permit the FBI to go ahead with a final assault designed to end the 51-day standoff with the Branch Davidians. "I gave in to the people in the Justice Department who were pleading to go in early, and I felt personally responsible for what had happened, and I still do," Mr. Clinton said in comments made in April. "I made a terrible mistake."
Asked her reaction to his comments, Ms. Reno said last week: "I think everybody who has been touched by Waco would like to be able to undo it." (The Dallas Morning News, August 4, 2000)
More senate investigation of the 1993 Branch Davidian seige
The appetite for more Senate investigation of the government's conduct surrounding the 1993 Branch Davidian siege may be waning, lawmakers acknowledged, now that the special counsel has exonerated federal agents of "bad acts."
John Danforth, the former Republican senator from Missouri, appeared Wednesday before his one-time Senate colleagues to discuss an interim report he issued last week concluding that federal agents neither fired on the barricaded sect members nor contributed to the fire that ended the 51-day standoff and killed about 80 Branch Davidians near Waco.
"The evidence is absolutely overwhelming," said Mr. Danforth, appointed last year by Attorney General Janet Reno to examine lingering Waco questions. "The government did not start a fire. The government did not direct gunfire at the Branch Davidians. The government did not improperly use the military. And there wasn't any broad cover-up."
Emerging from the hearing, several senators said the special counsel's comprehensive findings and the respect he commands on Capitol Hill may effectively mean the end of the Senate's inquiry. The House Government Reform Committee has been conducting an investigation but has yet to decide whether to hold hearings. (The Dallas Morning News, July 27, 2000
President Clinton said he "made a terrible mistake" to authorize the FBI assult in 1993
In language far stronger than he has publicly used before, President Clinton said he "made a terrible mistake" when he "gave in" to the Justice Department and authorized the FBI assault on the Branch Davidian compound in 1993 that resulted in the loss of more than 80 lives.
"I gave in to the people in the Justice Department who were pleading to go in early, and I felt personally responsible for what had happened, and I still do," the president told investigators earlier this year. "I made a terrible mistake." The statement, seemingly indicating disagreement with a recommendation by Attorney General Janet Reno to proceed with the FBI operation, differs from Mr. Clinton's earlier comments.
In the past, the president said he signed off on the tear-gas plan only after questioning Ms. Reno about why the operation should proceed."I was informed of the plan to end the siege," Mr. Clinton told reporters at a Rose Garden news conference the day after the 51-day standoff's tragic end. "I discussed it with Attorney General Reno. I asked the questions I thought it was appropriate for me to ask. I then told her to do what she thought was right, and I take full responsibility for the implementation of the decision." He reiterated that view in subsequent statements in 1993 and 1995. His latest statements, suggesting that he was prodded into approving the operation, were made during an interview last April with Justice Department investigators probing campaign fund-raising controversies.
The transcript of the interview, released Monday by the White House, comes as Waco special counsel John Danforth heads to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to discuss his findings overwhelmingly exonerating the government of misdeeds during the 1993 siege. (The Dallas Morning News, July 26, 2000)
Waco special counsel's report clears Attorney General Reno
The Waco special counsel's report emphatically clears Attorney General Janet Reno of wrongdoing in the Branch Davidian siege and its aftermath, but it doesn't extend that finding to her Department of Justice. The preliminary report released Friday by special counsel John Danforth reserved some of its strongest criticism for the Justice Department's actions in seven years of inquiries that have followed the 1993 Waco tragedy. The report details repeated instances of nondisclosure and resistance to thorough examination of government actions in Waco - a pattern that began with the agency's own 1993 post-siege review and continued in Mr. Danforth's ongoing investigation.
"The only antidote to … public distrust is government openness and candor," the former Missouri senator wrote in the preface to his interim report. "Instead, and tragically, just the opposite occurred after Waco. Even in their dealings with this investigation, some government officials have struggled to keep a close hold on information." (The Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2000)
Special counsel John D Danforth asked to appear before Senate Judiciary subcommittee
Congress wants to hear from the Waco special counsel who has emphatically cleared the government of wrongdoing during the 1993 Branch Davidian siege. Hours after he issued a report exonerating federal law enforcement, special counsel John Danforth was asked Friday to appear next week before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee reinvestigating the government's conduct at Waco. "We need to know obviously more than his conclusions, but the details of the evidence and what he has done," Mr. Specter said. "... There is a responsibility on congressional oversight to make an independent determination. The starting point is to get the details as to what Danforth has done."
But in some circles, the report did little to quell the tenaciously held belief that thegovernment committed wrongful acts and then covered them up.
"We had received indications from Danforths' office that they intended to tow the government line on every issue," said Michael Caddell, the lead plaintiff's attorney in the civil suit. He said he was troubled by the fact that the inquiry accepted the explanations of FBI commanders and other agents with little criticism, even though "they've admitted that they lied for seven years," about the pyrotechnic tear-gas grenades issues. He said the report also failed to address criticisms that were raised in depositions of infrared experts hired by Mr. Danforth and the federal court that is hearing the civil case.
"There are a number of us, us being Waco critics, who are dumfounded by his results," said Colorado filmmaker Michael McNulty, whose two Waco documentaries popularized the theory that agents fired on the Davidians, trapping them inside their burning retreat. "I'm afraid Danforth has not answered all of the dark questions."
Branch Davidian Clive Doyle said the findings in Mr. Danforth's report came as no surprise, especially after the jury's verdict last week. "It takes somebody with a lot more courage, than probably most politicians have got, to stick their neck out and buck the system," said Mr. Doyle, who survived the fire that consumed the compound at the end of the siege and who is a plaintiff in the suit. "His job is make Janet Reno look good, make the government look good, because ... he is trying to get people to trust the government again, so he's got to exonerate them. Otherwise, you still got the problem." (The Dallas Morning News, July 22, 2000)..
Exonerating the government of "bad acts" in the Branch Davidian siege
Exonerating the government of "bad acts" in the Branch Davidian siege, Waco special counsel John Danforth said Friday that his 10-month inquiry had found that David Koresh and his followers were solely responsible for the 1993 tragedy. Releasing a lengthy preliminary report of his 10-month investigation, the former Missouri senator said he found with "100 percent certainty" that the government did not fire guns at the end of the 1993 siege or cause the fire that gutted the Branch Davidian compound with about 80 sect members inside. Although he said his inquiry focused only on "bad acts and not bad judgments," the report released Friday made a point of trying to discount criticisms of the government's conduct during the incident. The report concluded that any government wrongdoing in the incident or its aftermath was limited to the failure of a few individuals to disclose what they knew about the FBI's use of pyrotechnic tear gas on the day the compound burned. (The Dallas Morning News, July 22, 2000)
Jurors hearing the wrongful-death lawsuit over
Jurors hearing the wrongful-death lawsuit over the government's handling of the Branch Davidian siege found in favor of the government Friday on all issues. The findings in the $675 million case are advisory to U.S. District Judge Walter Smith Jr. He is free to accept or reject the jury's decision. Judge Smith said he tentatively planned to issue his ruling on Aug. 2. The jurors reached their decision after 2 & 1/2 hours of deliberations on the same day they heard final arguments from both sides about the botched raid and the standoff's fiery conclusion. Government attorney Michael Bradford told the jurors that the plaintiffs failed to prove the government should bear responsibility for the deaths of sect members. "They set this place on fire. They're responsible for the deaths in there because they burned this place to the ground, '' Bradford said, referring to the inferno that brought the standoff to a deadly end. "This was one of the most terrible and horrible events in our history and they want to come into court and ask you to award them a judgment,'' Bradford said. "That would be wrong. It would not be supported by anything that would be just and right.'' (The Dallas Morning News, July 14, 2000)
Federal judge appeared to be "ignoring the law" and "engineer a verdict "
A plaintiff's attorney complained Thursday that a federal judge appeared to be "ignoring the law" and trying to "engineer a verdict" favorable to the government as both sides finished presenting evidence in the Branch Davidian wrongful-death lawsuit. Michael Caddell of Houston told reporters that the judge's written instructions and questions for the advisory jury unfairly lump the Davidians together as a group instead of allowing separate consideration of the death or injuries and actions or negligence of each individual in the case. "I think the jury may surprise the judge. I think that the judge would like to engineer a verdict," Mr. Caddell said on the steps of the federal courthouse in Waco. "I think we can get a jury verdict anyway. But it's clear that he doesn't want a verdict with respect to anyone 17 or older that will be inconsistent with what he wants to do." (The Dallas Morning News, July 14, 2000)
FBI agent acknowledged he fired pyrotechnic tear-gas
An FBI agent acknowledged Wednesday that he fired three pyrotechnic tear-gas rounds on the final day of the Branch Davidian siege but said they didn't go into the sect's building and were fired hours before it burned. Agent David Corderman denied sending any of the gas devices into the sect's kitchen, insisting that the three rounds he shot into that area of the building just after noon were all nonburning, plastic "ferret" gas grenades. He and other agents involved in an April 19, 1993, tear-gas assault on the compound have testified in the Branch Davidian wrongful-death trial that they saw white smoke wafting out of the kitchen area just after those rounds were fired. Agent Corderman acknowledged Wednesday that pyrotechnic gas rounds expel white smoke when fired, but he said the smoke he saw in the kitchen was "white smoke from a fire." A government fire expert also testified Wednesday that such devices were "very unlikely" to have started any of the three fires that leveled the Davidian compound with more than 80 sect members inside on April 19. (The Dallas Morning News, July 13, 2000)
Tank ripped down rear of compound was trying to clear a path for tear gas
The tank that ripped down the rear of the Branch Davidian compound wasn't trying to demolish the building but was trying to clear a path to get tear gas into the sect's hiding place, an FBI agent testified Tuesday. "We didn't want to just recklessly move through the place," said agent Gary Harris, who drove the 60-ton vehicle on the last day of the 1993 Davidian siege near Waco. "It wasn't a haphazard, just run up and smash and crash things. That's not the reason I was back there in my mind, and that's not the orders I was given." (The Dallas Morning News, July 12, 2000)
Governemt lawyers wrapping up thier defense of Branch Davidian siege
Government lawyers Thursday began wrapping up their defense of federal actions in the gunfight that sparked the Branch Davidian siege, meticulously detailing the sect's firepower and its absolute devotion to self-proclaimed messiah David Koresh. A succession of Texas Rangers were called to testify Thursday about their role in recovering more than 300 guns and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition from the charred wreckage of the Davidian compound. The Texas lawmen detailed how 60 M-16 machine guns, 60 AK-47 assault rifles, about 30 AR-15 assault rifles, several .50-caliber sniper rifles and dozens of pistols were discovered after the compound burned April 19, 1993. They told jurors in the Davidian wrongful-death suit how some weapons were arrayed in what appeared to be firing positions, and 133 were recovered from the concrete room where bodies of most of the sect's women and all of its children were discovered. (The Dallas Morning News, July 7, 2000)
Branch Davidian Clive Doyle acknowledged sect members considered Koresh as God
Branch Davidian Clive Doyle acknowledged Wednesday that sect members considered David Koresh as God incarnate, but he denied repeatedly that they fired the first shots in a deadly standoff with the government or torched their compound to end it. He wept as he told jurors in the sect's wrongful-death trial about how his daughter, Shari, died in the compound fire. But he acknowledged never trying to find the 18-year-old or even seeing her on the day that the FBI launched a tear gas assault and the building burned. Ms. Doyle was among more than 80 sect members who died in the blaze. Lawyers for surviving Davidians and the families of those who died have alleged that FBI tanks started or contributed to the fire and that FBI commanders were negligent in failing to have firefighting equipment available before launching a tank and tear gas assault. (The Dallas Morning News, June 29, 2000)
Youngest survivor of fire told jurors she noticed fire after a tank ripped up the second story
The youngest survivor of the Branch Davidian fire told jurors in a federal wrongful-death lawsuit Tuesday that extensive tank damage on the final day of the 1993 siege buckled upper floors, blocked stairways and nearly cut off her escape from the burning building. "I tried to get out the hallway, but I couldn't go that way. . . . That was the only way out," testified 24-year-old Misty Ferguson, describing her final minutes in the smoke-filled, damaged building. "I didn't want to be burned." Ms. Ferguson told jurors that she noticed her hands were badly burned after leaping from the second story of the building. She offered mute evidence of her injuries as she took the witness stand, raising a right arm to expose the stump of a hand with no fingers. She also suffered severe facial burns and lost the fingers on her left hand in the fire that took the lives of 80 Branch Davidians on April 19, 1993. Ms. Ferguson, a North Carolina resident who was 17 at the time of the fire, appeared as the final witness for plaintiffs represented by lead lawyer Michael Caddell. Speaking in a quiet voice, Ms. Ferguson testified that she noticed the fire "15 to 25 minutes" after a tank ripped up much of the second-story bedroom where she had been waiting out the FBI's tear-gas assault. (The Dallas Morning News, June 28, 2000)
Sect argues government agents used excessive force
Day after day, Branch Davidian Sheila Martin sat quietly in the back of a federal courtroom last week, reliving the tragic events that brought her here. It was the beginning of the long-awaited trial in the sect's wrongful-death lawsuit. She has been joined in court by other Branch Davidians and relatives of the dead, some who say they came for truth and justice. Her daily presence in court has been to show that "this is very important to us and to the families that are not with us," she said. The sect argues that government agents used excessive force in their initial 1993 raid on the group's rural compound and also helped cause the tragic ending of the ensuing 51-day standoff. But the government asserts that its agents acted properly and should bear no responsibility for the final fire that consumed the sect's home with more than 80 Branch Davidians inside. (The Dallas Morning News, June 26, 2000)
Six-member jury to hear the civil case
A federal judge picked a six-member jury to advise him as he hears a $675 million civil lawsuit brought by Branch Davidians and their families charging that federal agents caused the deathsof 80 cult members in a fiery siege seven years ago. The jury, consisting of four women and two men, plus one alternate, will hear the case and advise Federal Judge Walter Smith on his ruling. Smith will make the final decisions in the civil case that claims government agents forced the 51-day-long standoff with Branch Davidian leader David Koresh and then caused the fires that destroyed the compound. The judge ordered Monday that the names of the jurors in the high profile case be kept confidential and set opening statements in the case for Tuesday. The jurors were picked from a pool of 60 and include a social worker, a homemaker and an elementary school teacher. (Reuters, June 20, 2000).
Jury selection to begin in lawsuit by Branch Davidians
Jury selection was scheduled to begin on Monday in a lawsuit by Branch Davidians and their families charging the U.S. government caused the deaths of about 80 sect members in a siege of their central Texas compound seven years ago. At issue is the question, still hotly debated in America, of whether the FBI or Branch Davidians are responsible for the deaths of cult leader David Koresh and many of his followers.
The plaintiffs, numbering around 100, are Branch Davidians who survived the siege and relatives of those who died on April 19, 1993, when the rural compound went up in flames as FBI agents using armored vehicles and tear gas tried to end a 51-day standoff. The $675 million wrongful death lawsuit alleges that federal agents triggered the standoff by using excessive force in a raid aimed at arresting Koresh on weapons charges, caused the fires that destroyed the compound and kept firefighters away. The government denies all those allegations.(Reuters, June 19, 2000).
Six years ago, as lawyers were preparing to bring the 1994 Branch Davidian federal criminal case to court, San Antonio defense lawyer John Carroll made an unusual request of Walter S. Smith Jr., the Waco judge who heard the case.
All 11 of the San Antonio defendants had lost their worldly possessions in the fire that consumed Mount Carmel, and his client had no suit to wear to trial, Carroll said. He asked if the court would authorize a sum to buy the prisoner appropriate court attire.
"I'm not a tailor, and I'm not a retailer of clothes," the judge quipped. In subsequent orders, Smith noted, "There are some 16 male attorneys representing the defendants in this case, all of various sizes and shapes. It is probable that all of them have spare clothing in their closets that could be lent to the defendants." Their attorneys, he ruled, should save the public the expense of dressing the defendants for court.
This simple ruling showed the judge fully in the character for which he is known best, by those who know him best, the lawyers who appear before him at the bar. He is, they say, tight-fisted and efficient — a guy who makes the trains run cheaply and on time. In the phrase most often used to describe him, he is "a Republican judge." His credentials as a law-and-order jurist will again be tested in the continuing Davidian case when he opens the wrongful-death lawsuit this week brought by survivors of the government's April 19, 1993, final assault at Mount Carmel, which killed leader David Koresh and 73 of his followers.
The Republican tag may puzzle those convinced there isn't much difference between the two big political parties, but it was loaded with meaning for the criminal defense attorneys in the San Antonio trial, who, like most members of their trade, were mostly Democrats and strong supporters of their party. In their mouths, a "Republican judge" is a jurist who, in gray areas of his craft, "won't give the little guy a break."
Their sentiment is echoed, on the civil side of the docket, by plaintiffs' attorneys who have argued cases in his court. "If a bank is getting sued, he's going to be on the bank's side," one of them said. Smith's batting average as a judge is about in the middle of the pack. Fifty-eight percent of Smith's rulings were upheld on appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in 1999. Four Western District judges of his rank had higher rates of reversal; four had lower rates. But perhaps because of his reputation for severity, he led the district in the number of cases that the 5th Circuit reviewed — 12 — compared with an average of nine.
Smith is indeed a Republican, and a Republican's Republican at that. "He's always been a stalwart stalker for the Republican Party," said Stanley Rentz, a Waco defense attorney in the San Antonio criminal trial. That Smith was a conservative judge seemed evident at the end of the six-week 1994 San Antonio trial, which ended in an unwieldy, contradictory verdict. Though the jury returned a finding of manslaughter against eight of the defendants, it did not find any of them guilty of the principal charges — conspiracy to murder federal lawmen, which was Count One of the indictment, or the murder of federal agents, the indictment's Count Two. The jury did find seven of the defendants guilty of the indictment's Count Three, using a firearm in the commission of a federal offense.
The verdict was contradictory because the firearms charge was without its necessary companion, a guilty finding on the Count One conspiracy charge. Smith's immediate reaction, expressed at a bench conference, was that the verdict of guilty on the gun charge would have to be thrown out. "The guilty finding as to Count Three will have to be set aside," he said, "because of necessity, the jury could not find the defendant guilty of that offense without first having found that defendant guilty of the conspiracy offense alleged in Count One. ... That portion of the verdict simply cannot stand."
Defense attorneys were overjoyed. They held an impromptu news conference with two of the defendants, who had been immediately set free, then adjourned to Polo's bar at the Fairmount Hotel, where they uncorked bottles of champagne. But within two days, Smith changed his mind. "The bottom line is that it didn't matter what I said," he explained recently, "if I was wrong." A brief hurriedly submitted by prosecutor LeRoy Jahn persuaded him he could sentence the defendants, and he did. Some observers were outraged. Jury forewoman and San Antonio schoolteacher Sarah Bain is still appalled by Smith's move. "I just thought he totally, totally had gone beyond what the jury intended. I was really upset," she said.
In sentencing the guilty defendants, Smith faced a choice. He had to decide whether the guilty defendants had used ordinary or "enhanced" weapons — grenades and automatic rifles and such — in resisting federal officers. The difference was great: Federal guidelines prescribe a five-year sentence for use of ordinary weapons and 30 years for weapons of an enhanced kind. No testimony showed that five of the defendants had used enhanced weapons, but Smith ruled they had done so anyway. On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the issue should have gone to a jury, and ordered the 5th Circuit to reduce the sentences of those Davidians who had appealed.
Smith's about-face
In the aftermath of the San Antonio trial, a new corps of lawyers came onto the Davidian scene, plaintiffs' attorneys who wanted to hold the government liable for the deaths of Koresh's followers. Some of these attorneys filed suit in Houston, not Waco, "because we knew who the judge would be," one of them said.
Those who filed in Houston spent most of two years trying to keep the case out of Smith's Waco court; others were still trying to have him recused as late as last fall. When those efforts failed, some began to worry he would grant government motions to dismiss their claims. But July 1, Smith stunned the plaintiffs' attorneys and most Waco-watchers by ordering the case to go forward.
Late last summer, "looking over his glasses at the government because of a pattern of delay and abuse," former federal prosecutor Bill Johnston said, Smith ordered federal agencies to turn over all of their records about the Mount Carmel raid and siege. On May 26, Smith surprised Waco-watchers again by authorizing a jury trial of the case, instead of using his discretion to hear the case without a jury.
"I was very pleased by what I think was a very wise decision by the judge," plaintiff's attorney James Brannon said. During the criminal trial, defense attorney Dan Cogdell of Houston said, "Smith was very pro-government, very anti-Davidian — no ifs, ands or buts about it." But recently, he said, the judge "has impressed me with the fairness of his rulings in the civil case."
All adjudication is local, Part I
Neighbors in Waco's legal community say they are not wholly surprised by Smith's apparent shift in sympathy. If all politics are local, as former U.S. House Speaker Tip O'Neill said in hyperbole, it's possible that all adjudication is local, too. And if that's the case, the extrajudicial motives for Smith's seeming about-face are to be found close to his home.
Smith was born and raised some 30 miles south of Waco, across the McLennan/Falls county line in Marlin. The son of a physician, he spent his college years at Baylor, both as an undergraduate and as a law student. He finished law school in 1966. Within a month, on the recommendation of a Baylor dean, Smith said, he was offered a job in a Waco firm. Waco's legal-and-law enforcement community is more tight-knit than perhaps is true in more populous jurisdictions.
Felipe Reyna, for example, is a former state district attorney whose older brother, Filiberto, or "Bert," is a former federal probation and parole officer. Felipe's younger brother, Feligomio, or "Phil," supervises the federal pretrial affairs office. Two brothers, Parnell and Mike McNamara, are federal marshals. Their father, T.P, served 37 years as a federal marshal himself. At one time, the father and sons worked together in the marshal's office. Smith fits the pattern, too: His wife, Brenda, works in the magistrate's office.
But the togetherness of the courthouse community has a judicial consequence, some lawyers say, although not on the record. It is that a kind of in-group mentality prevails. "Because he is a federal judge in a small town, he really is a big fish in a small pond," one of the Davidian defenders said. "There's sort of a clique that develops in courthouses, and the federal judge is usually the head of it. "
Group thinking
The influence of group opinion and standing became evident in the Waco affair within hours after the 51-day siege ended, in an incident involving the late Jack Harwell, the McLennan County sheriff for a quarter-century and perhaps the only beloved figure to emerge from the Mount Carmel controversy.
The sheriff's deputies manned roadblocks throughout the siege, and Harwell, who knew Koresh personally, once went to the telephones to negotiate. As McLennan County's chief and senior law enforcement officer — he was then in his 60s — Harwell had done what he could to aid the hundreds of federal agents who had descended on his town.
On the afternoon of April 21, two days after Mount Carmel became ashes, Harwell, a daughter and a son-in-law, both of whom lived outside the area, were cruising in the countryside. From a public road that ran some 300 yards in front of the ruin, Harwell took pictures of Mount Carmel for his kin with a snapshot camera — which already contained shots of family life.
A state trooper pulled up, warning that photography was forbidden. But because he recognized the sheriff, the trooper called federal authorities. He wanted to be sure the prohibition applied to everyone. Leadership in prosecuting the federal government's case against the Davidian survivors had already been turned over to LeRoy and Ray Jahn of San Antonio, who outranked Johnston, the Waco assistant U.S. district attorney. The trooper's call reached LeRoy Jahn, who ordered that the trooper seize the sheriff's camera. The trooper did as he was told.
Harwell, humiliated, expressed his outrage to a member of the courthouse crowd, who carried the complaint to Smith. As he had done in earlier disputes in prosecutorial circles, Smith went to bat for the local interest. He wrote a letter to the Jahns, scolding them for snubbing Harwell. They returned the sheriff's camera and also replied to Smith.
"They sent me a four-page bureaucratese letter that must have taken six people to compose," Smith said. "I don't know what it said." The Harwell incident helped set the stage for the San Antonio trial, in which Ray Jahn would play the leading role. Smith was not pleased by the indictment that Jahn drew, which sought to hold the defendants responsible for a whole series of acts, including child molestation and arson, when the formal charges against them — murder and conspiracy — could have been proved, the judge thought, largely on the basis of the ATF-Davidian shootout on Feb. 28.
"He has many times expressed to me frustration with the way the case was prosecuted," said Johnston, who was assistant prosecutor during the trial. If there was bad blood between the judge and the Jahns before and during the San Antonio trial, harsh feelings weren't mended when Ray Jahn testified at congressional hearings on the Waco affair in 1995. Jahn used the occasion to criticize Smith. "Isn't it true that the Davidians stated that they were acting in self-defense?" Rep. Bill Zeliff of New Hampshire asked Jahn.
"That was a charge that was given to the jury, but there was no evidence to support that charge ... The court bent over backward and gave them a self-defense charge," Jahn said. His complaint was well founded, however much it displeased the judge. When the 5th Circuit Court reviewed the trial record in 1996, it opined that, "The evidence did not require the proposed self-defense instruction," and added that, "even evidence that the ATF agents fired the first shot would not have been sufficient by itself to warrant the self-defense instruction."
But Smith is unfazed by the circuit court's finding. "I didn't think for a moment that the law required that," he said. The 5th Circuit did not review another contentious decision of Smith's, in which he departed downward from federal standards in setting prison terms for two of the defendants, Graeme Craddock and Ruth Riddle. Instead of sentencing them, like the others, to 30-year terms on the gun charge, he sentenced Craddock to 10 years and Riddle — who is now free — to five years, on all charges. There was no legal basis for him to do so.
"It was a discretionary decision that could have been appealed by the prosecutor," Smith said. "Sometimes justice requires that one has to risk getting reversed on appeal." The Jahns, who decline to comment on the trial, did not appeal the downward departures.
All adjudication is local, Part II
Ill will between Waco's courthouse crowd and the Justice Department has not dissipated since the 1994 trial. Instead, it has acquired new dimensions. In 1998, Colorado filmmaker Mike McNulty, as part of his effort to produce a sequel to his 1997 documentary, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," decided to pry for access to physical evidence from the Mount Carmel affair. The evidence was stored in a locker at Department of Public Safety headquarters in Austin.
But McNulty was trapped in a Catch-22. When he asked the Rangers for permission to view the evidence, he was told that only the Justice Department could grant him access. When he asked the Justice Department, it passed the buck to the Rangers. Johnston was assigned to deal with the pesky filmmaker. Though he said he believed that McNulty's first Waco film was "inaccurate, if not irresponsible," he also felt that "to stonewall McNulty tended to lend some credence to his already-held belief that the government had something to hide."
The Waco prosecutor received permission to grant McNulty access to the Austin locker, and he accompanied him on the filmmaker's first visit. Soon, Johnston said, he found himself in hot water with his superiors. McNulty's examinations of the artifacts had spurred the Rangers to do some checking of their own, and last summer they confirmed that, as McNulty charged, the locker contained pyrotechnic rounds capable of having sparked the fatal blaze at Mount Carmel. The Justice Department had long denied using such rounds.
By summer's end, a feud was brewing between Johnston and the Justice Department, and, Johnston said, especially with his superiors — San Antonio U.S. Attorney Bill Blagg and Marie Hagen, the chief Justice Department attorney in the Waco civil case. Blagg, like the Jahns and Hagen, refuses to comment about the affair.
Johnston wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno, explaining his actions. Smith telephoned Reno, warning that no reprisals should be taken against Johnston. Reno did not intervene, and early this year, Johnston resigned from the post he'd held for 12 years. The trial attorney who had appeared before Smith more than any other, and who had consistently won praise for his preparation and manner, a fellow Baylor alumnus, a newly minted Republican — and a sometimes Smith hunting buddy — was at the end of his career.
"The Justice Department has turned on Bill Johnston, and that's got (Smith) upset," local attorney Rentz said. In defending Harwell and Johnston, Smith says he was concerned about fair play. But the judge was also defending Waco against Washington and San Antonio — the "little guys" against powers in distant places.
A bipartisan judge?
For his part, Smith denies any party bias. "I am a pragmatist," he said. "I was always more concerned with whether a candidate could get elected than what his ideology was. " A bit of Waco courthouse lore may contribute to the picture.
Local attorney Tom Ragland, like Smith and Johnston, a Baylor man and a longtime Waco attorney, received a telephone call from Washington when Smith's confirmation to the federal judgeship came up for congressional review. "Somebody called me from Sen. (Lloyd) Bentsen's office to check on Smith's fitness as judge," Ragland said. "I gave him a clean bill of health, notwithstanding that I was chairman of the McLennan Democratic Party."
Walter Smith may be a Republican, but he became a federal judge with bipartisan support. The political terrain has shifted. The Davidian case is no longer about armed "cultists" against sensible lawmen. It is now also about Bill Johnston, Jack Harwell and the courthouse crowd, versus a federal bureaucracy. It is about the "little guys" whom Democratic lawyers love to defend. By Dick J. Reavis (Express-News 06/17/2000).
Jury will not concider issue of federal agents firing on compound on end of 1993 seige
The jury in the Branch Davidians' wrongful-death trial will not consider the issue of whether federal agents shot at members of the sect during the fiery end of the 1993 siege, a judge ruled Monday. Instead, U.S. District Judge Walter Smith said he will take up the issue separately when a court-appointed expert - who is unable to attend the trial set to begin next week - is available to testify. Attorneys for both sides said they believe the issue won't be addressed until August. The jurors will hear testimony on other issues, including whether federal agents used excessive force in the initial raid on the Branch Davidian compound that started the 51-day standoff, and whether they helped caused fires that destroyed the compound. (AP, June 12, 2000)
Seven years after the Branch Davidian compound fire
Seven years after the FBI's siege of the Branch Davidian compound near here ended in fire and death, the city of Waco is fed up with the awful images its name evokes. Who's to blame? Did the religious cult cause the catastrophe, as federal officials contend? Did the FBI use grossly excessive force," as a lawsuit against the government alleges? Waco's citizens aren't much interested. The disaster is an ugly memory they'd like to forget. But of course they can't. And now this central Texas city is wearily braced for a
co | |
| courtroom replay of the nightmare. The federal government is scheduled to go on trial here June 19 as the defendant in a wrongful-death civil case brought by scores of plaintiffs, most of them relatives of Branch Davidians who perished in the April 19, 1993, conflagration. (Washington Post, June 9, 2000)
Supreme Court reduced prison terms of some Branch Davidians
The Supreme Court on Monday substantially reduced the prison terms of four men convicted of killing federal lawmen at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco in 1993. In their 9-0 decision, the justices said U.S. District Judge Walter Smith of Waco improperly lengthened the sentences of the men found guilty of slaying four Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents. (Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau, June 6, 2000)
May 2000
May 27, 2000 - DALLAS, Texas - The wrongful death suit blaming the government for the fire that ended the 1993 Branch Davidian siege will be decided by a jury and not a federal judge alone. The decision Friday by U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith comes only weeks before the June 19 start date of the trial. Federal limits on private lawsuits against the government and its agencies require that most such cases be heard and decided by a judge without a jury. But federal judges have discretion to bring in juries to hear some civil cases. ``I applaud the judge for doing this,'' lead attorney Michael Caddell said in Saturday's editions of The Dallas Morning News. ``I think the government won't like it.'' (AP, May 27, 2000)
May 17, 2000 - WACO, Texas - The FBI may have mishandled some key evidence related to the deadly 1993 Waco siege, but Branch Davidian lawyers failed to prove the government intentionally altered or destroyed any items, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Walter Smith, who is presiding over a wrongful-death lawsuit set to begin June 19, said there is ``no basis'' for him to order the government ``to turn over any additional evidence or to impose sanction for actions which apparently occurred over seven years ago when the evidence was first collected and collated.'' (AP, May 17, 2000)
May 15, 2000 - WASHINGTON - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said on Thursday she has been questioned by the special counsel investigating the disastrous 1993 raid at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas. A spokesman for Reno said the questioning by former Sen. John Danforth, who is investigating whether federal agents caused any deaths in the assault or covered up evidence, took place on May 3 and lasted nearly six hours. (Reuters, May 15, 2000)
May 14, 2000 - WACO, Texas - A lawyer representing surviving Branch Davidians in a wrongful-death lawsuit says the death of an infrared expert who contended that shots were fired by the government during the Waco siege is a major setback in the case. ``We're not giving up, but I don't know how we'll replace Carlos Ghigliotti,'' said attorney Mike Caddell. (AP, May 14, 2000)
May 10, 2000 - WASHINGTON - An independent study of aerial infrared tapes taken by the FBI on the final day of the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas, seven years ago found no evidence that FBI agents shot at the compound. A British company, Vector Data Systems, analyzed the video shot on April 19, 1993 and compared it to footage from a reenactment conducted in March. The analysis was paid for by Special Counsel John Danforth, appointed by the Justice Department to provide an independent investigation of the governmentactions in the Waco case. (CNN, May 10, 2000)
May 04, 2000 - The FBI rarely admits its mistakes. But two G-men come clean in an upcoming documentary linking the 1992 Ruby Ridge tragedy to the ones that followed in Waco and Oklahoma City. …"Had the FBI made the admission that the [Ruby Ridge] case was mishandled from the beginning, there might not have been the tragic outcome there was at Waco, because the policies and the personnel might have been changed," said the documentary's producer-director, Craig Santy. (News and Views,
Daily Dish, May 04, 2000)
May 3, 2000 - Special counsel John C. Danforth has asked the U.S. Marshals Service to collect the computer hardware and software used by Carlos Ghigliotti to analyze infrared tapes of the Waco incident in 1993. Ghigliotti, an infrared expert, was found dead last week in his home in Laurel, Md. (The Post-Dispatch, May 3, 2000)
May 2, 2000 - The lead lawyer in the Branch Davidians' wrongful death lawsuit asked a federal judge Monday to impound all information relating to the 1993 siege of the sect's compound from a Washington-area office where an infrared expert was found dead last week. (Dallas Morning News, May 2, 2000)
April 2000
April 25,2000 - The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the way a judge sentenced Branch Davidians who are seeking to cut 25 years from their prison terms for the deadly 1993 raid near Waco. (Dallas Morning News, April 25,2000)
April 24, 2000 - A federal judge in Waco, Texas, said Monday the question of whether FBI agents shot at members of the Branch Davidians on the final day of the 1993 siege remains unanswered, despite a finding by independent experts that no shots were fired. Judge Walter Smith said he will wait to hear all the evidence and other expert testimony before determining if the agents shot at the Davidians. (CNN, April 24, 2000)
April 24, 2000- Lawyers for surviving Branch Davidians urged a federal judge on Monday to rule that the U.S. government tampered with evidence from the 1993 Waco siege. The sect's lawyers contend there are gaps in surveillance videos, photographs and wiretap tapes from the last day of the siege. After the hearing, Waco U.S. District Court Judge Walter Smith said he would make a decision soon on whether evidence was tampered with and, if so, whether to impose sanctions on the government. (Reuters, April 24, 2000)
April 22, 2000 - A simulation of the deadly 1993 Branch Davidian siege showed that flashes caught on videotape were most likely sunlight reflecting off debris, not government gunfire as claimed in a wrongful death lawsuit, according to a preliminary report.
Vector Data Systems, the British firm that conducted the March 19 simulation at an Army base in Texas, submitted its report earlier this month to U.S. District Judge Walter Smith Jr., who is presiding over the Branch Davidian lawsuit, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Saturday, citing unidentified informed sources. Vector found that flashes produced by sunlight reflecting off debris lasted considerably longer than flashes produced by gunfire, the newspaper said.
But an attorney for Branch Davidian survivors and relatives, Michael Caddell, insists he does not have to prove government gunfire caused the deaths of more than 80 members of the sect. And he said his own experts will contradict the conclusion that the flashes were reflections.(AP, April 22, 2000)
April 22, 2000 - The lead lawyer in the Branch Davidians' wrongful-death case charged Friday that the Justice Department is "misrepresenting the law [and] the facts" to avoid being assessed even partial responsibility for the 1993 Waco tragedy.
His lengthy motion alleges that government officials from Attorney General Janet Reno on down were "continuing their seven-year spin" as they seek dismissal of legal complaints that the government and its agents were negligent in failing to bring in adequate firefighting equipment before launching a tear-gas assault on the sect's home and prematurely ordering tanks to start demolishing it. (The Dallas Morning News, April 22, 2000)
April 19, 2000 - Organizers of a new Branch Davidian church dedicated the modest one-story structure today on the seventh anniversary of the government siege that ended in the deaths of some 80 people. Nearly 300 people, most of them volunteers, survivors and their family members, packed into the church on the site of the Branch Davidians' former Mount Carmel compound to remember those who died and to celebrate a new beginning. (AP, April 19, 2000)
April 19, 2000 - The smoke has cleared, but nagging questions linger. Seven years after the Branch Davidian fire, a battle rages over who was responsible for the deadly end to the 51-day standoff between federal agents and a little-known religious sect holed up in a ramshackle collection of plywood buildings 10 miles east of Waco, Texas.
With attorneys for the two sides watching [on March 19th, 2000], men playing the part of ATF agents fired a variety of weapons into the "compound" as a British helicopter equipped with a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) video camera recorded the scene from high above. Comparisons were made between the 1993 tape and the 2000 tape and, within a day, both sides were eager to publicize the results. (ABC News Internet Ventures, April 19, 2000)
April 6, 2000 - Attorney General Janet Reno acknowledged in a videotaped deposition last week that FBI agents operating near Waco, Tex., lacked authority to use potentially flammable tear gas devices or to demolish the Branch Davidian compound that went up in flames in April 1993, leaving 75 people dead. (Washington Post, April 6, 2000)
April 6, 2000 - Armed with new testimony from Attorney General Janet Reno defending the FBI's actions at the end of the Branch Davidian siege, Justice Department lawyers again asked a federal judge Wednesday to dismiss most of the sect's lawsuit against the government. (Dallas Morning News, April 6, 2000)
March 2000
March 31, 2000 - The federal wrongful-death case arising from the Branch Davidian siege will be delayed until mid-June to allow more time to study results from a field test aimed at determining whether government agents fired at the end of the 1993 incident, sources said Thursday. (Dallas Morning News, March 31, 2000)
March 28, 2000 - The lead attorney representing the Branch Davidians in a wrongful death lawsuit against the government said he believes Attorney General Janet Reno was "less than candid" in a portion of her two-hour deposition Tuesday. (CNN, March 28, 2000)
March 20, 2000 - Lawyers on opposing sides of the legal battle over the FBI's 1993 assault on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Tex., both claimed yesterday that the results from Sunday's live-fire exercise supports their version of events.
The experiment, carried out at an Army base, involved eight shooters firing a variety of weapons while two aircraft with heat-sensing cameras recorded the activity. The tapes will be scientifically compared with images recorded by a similar camera on an FBI plane during the 1993 raid to determine whether agents fired gunshots at the religious sect's burning building. (Washington Post, March 21, 2000)
January 2000
January 26, 2000 -- Government lawyers formally denied Tuesday that anyone in federal law enforcement or the U.S. military shot at the Branch Davidian compound at the end of the deadly 1993 siege.
Their four-page federal court filing, including sworn statements by Defense Department and U.S. Treasury Department lawyers, came a week after lawyers for the Branch Davidians complained to a federal judge in Waco about the government's refusal to answer that key question (Dallas Morning News, January 26, 2000).
January 25, 2000 -- The federal prosecutor who warned Attorney General Janet Reno of a possible government cover-up after the 1993 Branch Davidian siege resigned Tuesday. Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston, has been at odds with Justice officials since he paved the way last year for independent filmmakers to review evidence sifted from the charred ruins of the Davidians' compound.
Filmmaker Michael McNulty's discovery of a spent pyrotechnic tear gas canister forced the FBI to recant its longstanding denials that potentially incendiary devices were fired on April 19, 1993. Johnston, 40, acknowledged mounting frustration with Justice officials, whom he called ``less than forthright.'' (AP, January 25, 2000)
January 19, 2000 -- Relatives suing the government over the deadly Branch Davidian standoff claim they are getting stonewalled on a key question in their wrongful death case - whether anyone under the direction of U.S. authorities fired shots on the compound. (AP, January 19, 2000)
December 30, 1999 -- FBI tactical missteps in the first weeks of the Waco siege hopelessly fouled negotiations with the Davidians, according to previously undisclosed Justice Department memos (Dallas Morning News, December 30, 1999).
December 22, 1999 -- The Justice Department reverses course, agreeing to an infrared film test that could help determine whether federal agents shot at the Branch Davidians in the 1993 standoff (Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1999).
December 20, 1999 -- Government lawyers argue that field tests cannot re-create the last day of the Branch Davidian siege, proposing instead studies of what gunfire might look like on the infrared camera used by the FBI at Waco (Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1999).
December 15, 1999 -- Government lawyers ask a federal judge to block release of documents surrendered to lawyers for Branch Davidians, arguing that disclosure poses security risks for federal agents and military personnel (Dallas Morning News, December 17, 1999).
November 15, 1999 -- Justice Department officials, facing possible contempt of court charges, turn over files demanded by U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Branch Davidians (UPI, November 15, 1999).
November 8, 1999 -- FBI marksman Lon Horiuchi, present at both Waco and Ruby Ridge, is depicted by a major news magazine as "the most controversial law enforcement officer in America" (U.S. News, November 8, 1999).
November 3, 1999 -- The film Waco: A New Revelation is screened in Washington for press and government officials, showing alleged shooting by federal agents and demolition of the Davidian "bunker" by high explosives (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, November 4, 1999).
October 29, 1999 -- Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that the military was for the most part a reluctant participant at Waco, agreeing only after a bitter internal struggle (Waco Tribune-Herald, October 29, 1999).
October 8, 1999 -- The FBI turns over to investigators thousands of newly- discovered documents that paint a detailed picture of aggressive federal tactics used during the 51-day siege at Waco (Washington Post, October 8, 1999).
October 5, 1999 -- An infrared-image expert retained by the House Government Reform Committee says he believes that an FBI agent fired shots during the Branch Davidian siege (Washington Post, October 6, 1999).
September 13, 1999 -- A document detailing an FBI sniper's assertion that an agent fired at the Branch Davidians is among 25 motions, rulings and exhibit lists filed in the multimillion-dollar Davidian lawsuit (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, September 13,1999).
THE WACO INVESTIGATOR
Attorney General Janet Reno has appointed John Danforth to investigate the role of the FBI during the Branch Davidian standoff. Margaret Warner discusses the appointment with the former senator.
September 8, 1999 -- Former Republican Sen. John Danforth of Missouri is chosen by Attorney General Janet Reno to direct an independent investigation of the FBI siege of the Mt. Carmel compound (Dallas Morning News, September 8, 1999).
September 1, 1999 -- Federal marshals enter the FBI's headquarters and impound previously undisclosed Waco evidence, including infrared videotapes taken at the scene (Associated Press, September 1, 1999).
Reno planned final assault with Delta Force
Reno Says FBI Misled Her About Waco Arms, but classified documents show she planned final assault with Delta Force operatives. Special Forces sources show military warned her about use of CS gas. Contrary to public statements made in recent days, Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI officials planned the final deadly assault on the Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas, with top officers of the Delta Force, according to classified documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and Special Forces sources. (WorldNetDaily September 1, 1999)
August 30, 1999 -- Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston of Waco warns Attorney General Janet Reno that evidence may have been withheld from her by "individuals or components" within the Justice Department (Dallas Morning News, August 31, 1999).
August 26, 1999 -- Attorney General Janet Reno says she was "misled" by the FBI about devices used in the final assault, which she believed were not incendiary (Washington Post, August 27, 1999).
August 25, 1999 -- Former CIA officer Gene Cullen says he learned from Delta Force commandos that members of that secret Army unit were "present, up front and close" in the final assault at Waco (Dallas Morning News, August 26, 1999).
August 24, 1999 -- A former senior FBI official admits the agency fired two pyrotechnic tear gas grenades on the last day of the Waco siege (Dallas Morning News, August 24, 1999).
July 27, 1999 -- The head of the Texas Department of Public Safety says that evidence held by the Texas Rangers calls into question the FBI's claim that its agents used no incendiary devices (Dallas Morning News, July 28, 1999).
July 14, 1999 -- Federal judge Walter S. Smith Jr. clears the way for a $100 million civil lawsuit by Branch Davidian survivors and relatives, alleging that the FBI was reckless and negligent in its tank and tear-gas assault at Waco (Washington Post, July 14, 1999).
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
| reply to guitarzan
said by guitarzan:As for official court records on Waco or docket numbers pertaining to the governments case against the Davidians..nothing exists to be found so far. Perhaps I need to contact my Senator and requet that information through the Freedom of Information Act, as i do not believe the government will release information that casts a bad light on itself. Court documents are not government documents. If they exist you can find them in public records. Pretty much all court cases are wide open for viewing. Just ask any lawyer. As for the rest of that extremely long-winded answer you still haven't provided any information regarding who shot first. Nobody is challenging the fact the ATF screwed up, but the other party has to fess up for how they handled it too. | |
|
