Skip to comments.
JUSTICE ALERTED TO FALSE LAB TESTIMONY AGAINST McVEIGH, DID NOT TELL DEFENSE
Fox News/Associated Press ^
| April 30, 2003
Posted on 04/30/2003 7:01:14 PM PDT by Marianne
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:36:17 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fredthompson; mcveigh; nichols; okc; okcbombing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
FYI
1
posted on
04/30/2003 7:01:15 PM PDT
by
Marianne
To: Marianne
Oops!!!
2
posted on
04/30/2003 7:04:37 PM PDT
by
JZoback
(Don't have such an open mind, your brain falls out)
To: Marianne
Confirmed by AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Ten days before Timothy McVeigh was executed, lawyers for FBI lab employees sent an urgent letter to the attention of Attorney General John Ashcroft alleging that a key prosecution witness in the Oklahoma City bombing trial might have given false testimony about forensic evidence. The allegations involving Stephen Burmeister, now the FBI lab's chief of scientific analysis, were never turned over to McVeigh, though they surfaced as a judge was weighing whether to delay his execution because the government withheld evidence. The letter, however, was recently turned over to bombing conspirator Terry Nichols who faces another trial on Oklahoma state murder charges.
``Material evidence presented by the government in the OKBOMB prosecution through the testimony of Mr. Burmeister appears to be false, misleading and potentially fabricated,'' said the June 1, 2001, letter to Ashcroft obtained by The Associated Press.
The letter cited Burmeister's testimony in a civil case as evidence contradicting his earlier McVeigh testimony. It was sent to Ashcroft's general fax number and by courier with the notation ``URGENT MATTER FOR THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.''
Justice officials said Wednesday the letter was routed to Ashcroft's clerical office in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, where it sat for nearly two months and then was forwarded to the FBI - well after McVeigh was executed.
Neither Ashcroft nor other top officials in the Justice Department who handled the McVeigh case saw the letter, spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said. It was never reviewed to determine if it should be handed over to McVeigh's lawyers, officials said.
Prosecutors are obligated by law to disclose any potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense.
McVeigh's lawyers expressed dismay at the revelation. At the time the letter was sent, a judge had dramatically delayed McVeigh's execution by one month because of other evidence the FBI failed to turn over during his trial.
``It is truly shocking and just the latest revelation of government conduct that bankrupts the prosecution, investigation and verdict,'' said Stephen Jones, McVeigh's lead trial attorney.
3
posted on
04/30/2003 7:07:13 PM PDT
by
RLK
To: Marianne
McVeigh more or less confessed anyhow.
4
posted on
04/30/2003 7:13:16 PM PDT
by
jlogajan
To: Marianne
I know cops who refer to court appearances as "testalying." Nothing new here.
5
posted on
04/30/2003 7:16:52 PM PDT
by
Lysander
(My army can kill your army)
To: Marianne
"The letter cited Burmeister's testimony in a civil case as evidence contradicting his earlier McVeigh testimony. The letter specifically challenged Burmeister's testimony that chemical residues found on evidence came only from McVeigh's bomb, not other sources such as lab contamination."
I'm stunned. So far as I know, no lab tests were *ever* done on bomb residue. A sample was sent to the FBI lab, but it was never tested, having "evaporated" before it actually got to the lab.
Anyone have a link to this guy's testimony at trial?
To: Marianne
"I mean the effect of that is to embarrass the FBI."Can't have that, can we.
7
posted on
04/30/2003 7:18:26 PM PDT
by
Navy Patriot
(The cat's already out of the bag.)
To: RLK
so which gubment exactly ??
To: jlogajan
McVeigh more or less confessed anyhow. Not more or less. He did confess. And never protested his execution.
9
posted on
04/30/2003 7:33:20 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: Marianne
And where is the bankruptcy? Enron you say? Worldcom? American Airlines?
10
posted on
04/30/2003 7:34:40 PM PDT
by
ladyjane
To: sinkspur
"Not more or less. He did confess. And never protested his execution."
Of course you realize what you said was kind of stupid... What a convicted person says to a tabloid or even a "real" newspaper in no way can be considered a confession. To suggest that it can is being ignorant. Such a confession under those circumstances would, in no way, be acceptable in a court of law. Period.
If it makes you feel better though, so be it.
The problem with the death penalty is that we will never know now
Except of course, you know.
11
posted on
04/30/2003 7:50:18 PM PDT
by
babygene
(Viable after 87 trimesters)
To: babygene
The problem with the death penalty is that we will never know now
Except of course, you know. There's no problem with the death penalty, especially where a criminal like McVeigh is concerned.
Except to the tinfoilers, who think McVeigh DIDN'T do it, or that, after six years, he'd finally talk.
12
posted on
04/30/2003 7:54:27 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: babygene
Such a confession under those circumstances would, in no way, be acceptable in a court of law. Period. The point is that once he admitted he blew up all those people, it is hard to get all worked up about his being "railroaded."
13
posted on
04/30/2003 8:03:59 PM PDT
by
jlogajan
To: sinkspur
Wrong again, as usual... MANY convicted murderes have been released from death row in recient years due to new evidance.
McVeigh was probably guilty, however in this country, that has to be proven with a fair trail. Do you for a moment think he got one?
14
posted on
04/30/2003 8:06:54 PM PDT
by
babygene
(Viable after 87 trimesters)
To: *OKCbombing
To: babygene
Do you for a moment think he got one? Yes.
16
posted on
04/30/2003 8:11:03 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: Marianne
More of the cover-up coming out. I want/need to know ALL of who was involved. Like why did they give up on "John Doe #2" so quickly? Iraqi involvement? I would guess so, after reading what Jayna Davis uncovered.
17
posted on
04/30/2003 8:21:34 PM PDT
by
Teetop
(democrats....... socialist.........whats the difference?)
To: Marianne
Wow. This entire case just reeked with mistakes. It really seems that the Clinton justice dept was trying to hide something. Hope someday we all know exactly what.
To: ladyinred
"the Clinton justice dept was trying to hide something"
Ashcroft did not work for Clinton.
To: jlogajan
there are actually some people who believe a fertilizer bomb could blow up a steel reinforced building built specifically to withstand such an attack after the Army Math building attack in Madison Wi from Carlton & Dwight Armstrong
Or that even one or two guys could have properly mixed it all up over night without contaminating it with moisture
Clinton waves his GOOJF card and the whole thing just goes away....once Terry N is roasted it will just dissapear into conspiracy websites to be bandied arround..
Heck people still belive Arlyn Spector and Gerald Ford's magic bullet theory...
That case will never be solved until Jesus comes back and tells us who did it...
OrJesse Ventura reveals what Castro told him :)
20
posted on
04/30/2003 8:32:12 PM PDT
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson