posted on May 11, 2001 12:57:59 AM new
Sounds like quite a bit of investigative information that the defense never saw during trial. What a coincidence that this appears one week before the execution of McViegh.
posted on May 11, 2001 04:35:09 AM new
Well it does not change anything much about his guilt. We already knew they'd do anything to convict whether he was guilty or innocent.
It is to the point now with the FBI you should be thankfull they took him to court instead of just shooting him in the head.
posted on May 11, 2001 07:47:37 AM new
Apparently Mr. McVeigh thinks he is guilty. These types of documents didn't help Mr. Nichols either. What are we trying to prove here? How guilty he was? How many thousands of pieces of evidence does it take to back up his multiple confessions? The fact that he was proud of what he did? The fact that he has chosen to die for it? The fact that he said collateral damage seemed acceptable to him? These are his positions, and admissions, not the Justice Departments.
"A department official said the government considered the documents would have ``no bearing'' on the outcome, and although McVeigh has insisted he does not want any more appeals against his death sentence, his lawyers are reviewing their options."
"Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said, ``While the department is confident the documents do not in any way create any reasonable doubt about McVeigh's guilt and do not contradict his repeated confessions of guilt, the department is concerned that McVeigh's attorneys were not able to review them at the appropriate time.''
"``We have a number of different options. Some of those options have hurdles,'' Chambers said when asked how McVeigh's admission of the bombing would affect a stay of execution or any other move the defense might make, such as seeking a new trial."
"The Justice Department spokesman, Mindy Tucker, said in the statement: "On Tuesday, May 8, the Department of Justice notified Timothy McVeigh's attorney of a number of F.B.I. documents that should have been provided to them during the discovery phase of the trial. While the department is confident the documents do not in any way create any reasonable doubt about McVeigh's guilt and do not contradict his repeated confessions of guilt, the Department is concerned that McVeigh's attorneys were not able to review them at the appropriate time."
"The issue of whether the government was obligated to turn over F.B.I. documents to the defense has already been litigated unsuccessfully in the case of Mr. Nichols. In December 2000 a federal appeals court panel denied his motion for a new trial on the grounds that the bureau withheld information that could have helped his case.
"After Mr. Nichols's trial, lawyers said the government failed to turn over more than 35,000 "lead sheets," or reports that came from witness interviews after the bombing. But the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, ruled that even if the government had turned over the material in a timely manner, it would not have provided "a reasonable chance of changing the outcome."
posted on May 11, 2001 08:16:09 AM new
By the sigline I'll assume that I am being addressed directly in Mint4you's post.
Did I somehow give the impression that I, by posting, was arguing that McViegh is not guilty, or that any further action should be taken in courts concerning him? I hadn't thought so, but it appears that another poster has thought so with sufficient reason to feel a need to respond to my post in a very direct and demeaning manner.
You see, it certainly won't matter what YOU say, and it may not matter what McViegh HAS said, and it definitely doesn't matter what any court responded in a case of a claim of withholding documents unless those documents could be produced, but it may produce a stay of execution if McViegh's attorneys go forth with a claim that these new documents MIGHT effect the case.
Oh, and by the way, I don't think that simply incorporating an insulting remark into a sigline generalizes the insult. To me it would seem that by using it there is intent to insult every poster that is responded to by a post which includes the remark. But, of course, that's not for me to say.
posted on May 11, 2001 08:32:31 AM new
The thing which disturbs me most about this is that the dude gets EXACTLY what he has been craving all along: to be in the spotlight! He DEMANDED that his execution be televised, for ALL to see, not just the affected families....Well, in a round-about way, he now IS in the limelight...The reasons for his stardom are un-important to him, as long as he is shown and discussed..
The point of this thread never was to try to show how MUCH guilt McVeigh bears...but rather to show the total inefficiency of some branches of Government...
******** Gosh Shosh!
posted on May 11, 2001 08:48:57 AM new
What might embarrass the FBI - if that is possible - is that the documents might hint that there are other players that they completely missed who helped.
McViegh is going to die for it so it does not surprise me that he does not want to share the credit.
He is probably thinking his buddies will celebrate the anniversary of his exicution with something ten times as bad as his firecracker.
I will tell you I am mighty reluctant to go in any building that has a Federal office in it.
posted on May 11, 2001 08:53:40 AM new"The point of this thread never was to try to show how MUCH guilt McVeigh bears...but rather to show the total inefficiency of some branches of Government..."
posted on May 11, 2001 09:21:03 AM new"Oh, and by the way, I don't think that simply incorporating an insulting remark into a sigline generalizes the insult."
"To me it would seem that by using it there is intent to insult every poster that is responded to by a post which includes the remark."
P.S. The signature line is also for me to remember when posting on topics. The word "content" has several meanings, and they all apply in typical debate situations. "Content" of subject, and "content" of the poster often impacts their posts. Some post with a problem related to one, the other, or both. Most people it bothers are in one of the "content" areas, including me. It's also a reminder to me not to fall into the narrow minded point of view, as others sometimes do. I think it's rather catchy, and makes you think, before posting. I know it does me. AW allows the option of attaching, or not, to your posts. It is not a requirement to use it on all posts, otherwise we would not have that option prior to submitting a post. If my signature offended the majority I would remove it, or if a moderator would insist I do. It's pretty much a true statement, as I see it. I'm the one who thought it up, and I'll stand by it. Please don't use it without my permission.
posted on May 11, 2001 10:44:16 AM new
For those of you who do not understand why I addressed the "guilt" issue. Here is the reason:
gravid: "Well it does not change anything much about his guilt." 04:35:09 AM
krs: "if you take the position of the justice department as your own..." 06:20:21
My post on the above was made 07:47:37 AM
Numerous confessions of guilt by McVeigh were in the links posted. This is the reason I pointed out same, guilt has been admitted, there is no doubt of that. It is not solely the Justice Departments position that draws opinions of such guilt by persons following this tragedy. An assumption was made that guilt was based on the Justice Departments position, only.
It may be advisable to read all posts, not just the topic title, to find why a reply is posted regarding a certain matter. Please do make an assumption the post is only addressing the topic title, sometimes this is not true. It may be addressing support of a person who has made a statement that is true, and has somehow been misinterpreted by someone else. Assumptions are often problematic.
posted on May 11, 2001 02:36:42 PM newhuh????...By now, I am fetting lost...Must be time for this old lady's nap...
Krafty...Why, thank you... I normally agree with you also, and not because we are pals...
In any case, I really would HATE to see the guy walk because this might be seen as a mistrial! I am not saying U want to see him dead, but DEFINITELY NOT FREED!!!! As to his obsession about beeing televised, I cannot understand some people's need to want to watch...It sounds so...primitive...Like in the days of French Royalty....where the women would gather around the guillotine EARLY, with their knitting basket, ready to enjoy a show....Yuuuuukkkkks! Sick...Sick....
******** Gosh Shosh!
posted on May 11, 2001 03:19:32 PM new
Wow I thought the sig line was aimed at the FBI.
If he did walk - keeping him under a close watch for about a year would probably tell them more about what really happened than all the investigation to date. I can't believe ALL the player in this could resist thinking they are smooth enough to contact each other and get away with it.
posted on May 11, 2001 03:31:41 PM new
The irony of this whole thing is that McVeigh was moved to violence due to FBI misdeeds. Now due to another FBI misdeed, his conviction may be overturned.
In any event, his life is spared for at least 30 days due to a Constitutional guarantee which he thought the govt undermines.
It's getting to the point where you can't trust anybody.
posted on May 11, 2001 04:24:13 PM new
Compared to the contrived violence in the cinema and on television, McVeigh's death, if televised, would likely appear quite benign by comparison.
The sobering fact will be that it is a real and final act.
Personally, I don't think he has an agenda.....his has been completed and he now accepts the consequences of his acts.
I guess the reality of a speedy trial and execution continues to elude our system of justice, even in the most obvious of cases.
And so it goes....
Will the truck rental companies suddenly have a rash of rental cancellations this coming week? hmmm...
posted on May 11, 2001 04:33:22 PM new
camachinist....do you think they really would televise this?? I haven't heard either way.
I was thinking if it was, I bet it would make alot of people sick, no matter who it was or what they'd done. I just can't imagine it for some reason. Could you or any of you watch it?
posted on May 11, 2001 04:37:05 PM new
You mean sickos parking them downtown with a big fuse hanging out of the back door?
I bet they would wait for an anniversary.
They should at least not pick on Ryder for awhile.
I think it is probably harder to assemble a bomb like the Kansas City one now. They will probably move on to something easier to buy the ingrediants for like an air/fuel bomb.
If you hijacked a gasoline truck for example it would allow you to get very creative.
Forget avoiding Federal buildings. I think I just scared myself so bad I just want to move out in the boonies.
My opinion is that McVeigh's execution will not be televised....either on broadcast media or the internet...
If it was, yes, I would watch it.....I believe it would be the first televised execution in my lifetime...I think it would bring reality to a premise so often discussed in America.
gravid
As we both know, folks in our business have the means and materials to do very destructive things if we lack the direction of conscience.
There's nearly 40M Btu's contained in the LPG tank behind my office...I won't mention the obvious...
A sobering thought indeed....
And to think I once caught the LPG guy smoking downwind of the vent plume while he was filling the thing.....grrrrr
"Wow I thought the sig line was aimed at the FBI."
Could very well be; could be McVeigh's lawyers too. After all he hasn't decided yet if he wants a 'stay' of execution. I've used this signature for a long, long, time. I took it off when I came to the RT. I never thought anyone would feel it was directed at them only. One never knows, does one? I don't see any falsehoods in it, or direction at anyone in particular. I even admitted I need it at times. I didn't think I would need it at the RT, but I was wrong.
.
posted on May 11, 2001 05:27:18 PM new
I think they ought to televise executions. It would win/lose some supporters, it would probably help make the deterent agrgument, but if it is something the govt should do, it shouldn't be shrouded.
posted on May 11, 2001 05:27:42 PM new
kraftdinner
I wouldn't be interested in watching any human die. However, the needle is much more passive than the electric chair would be. I think they are only going to let the victim's families watch, if they decide to, the last I heard. I feel they should have that option, as all victim's families where a murder of their loved ones is concerned.
posted on May 11, 2001 07:04:22 PM new
camachinist - I am literal here when I say that you gave me stomach cramps to picture someone smoking in the vent plume of a LPG tank.
We lived in an aprtment a long time ago and some newlyweds moved in. My wife went to introduce herself and interupted the bride who had her husbands hand tools laid out on the kitchen table and was getting ready to pour a 2 gallon can of gasoline into a roaster pan to wash the greasy tools off for him. The old fashioned gas stove with pilot lights was about 3 foot away. She convinced her not to do it, but at one point she thought she was going to have to physically take the can away from her. This is in the same building where we lived.
In Texas a policeman getting up from having lunch and accidently caught the hammer of his revolver and pulled it back. The safety mechanism was faulty and it dropped the hammer back like an old single action revolver and shot it. Sorry to say the cop had a brand new disposable butane lighter in his pocket and the gun shot it in two and very very effeciently mixed the contents with air in the muzzle blast and ignited it. The miracle was that although he died none of the other people in the dinner were killed although it blew every window out of the building and injured everyone inside.
You know I can tell you understand - but most people have no idea at all how much energy is in such a small amount of fuel.
mint4you - I find you a very reasonable person and some of these people here the last couple days scare me pretty bad. I almost decided to unregister and go away. You sound like you had some very nasty things done to you growing up. At least most of my childhood abuse was from strangers. Congrats on overcoming it and not being hateful.
posted on May 11, 2001 07:16:10 PM new
I can't imaigine taking time and effort to see someone die. But people used to come and bring picnic lunches. I have never seen someone die that it did not make me feel sad.
Those monitors in a hospital make it even worse when they go flat and spell out the physical process for you.
