JAYNA DAVIS - why won't Rohrbacher bring my video interviews before his committee in closed session?

Jayna Davis and I had an interesting phone conversation this morning. She is still waiting for a plane ticket to D.C. and an invitation to testify about the OKC bombing. Neither has been forthcoming.

Is it good news that Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) is demanding a new probe of the OKC bombing? Maybe. But is it going to really get to the truth about the Middle Eastern connection to OKC? Maybe not.

Last year, David Schippers, famous for prosecuting both the Chicago mob and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, flew to OKC to meet Jayna and her witnesses. Dave spent 12 hours grilling 14 of them on camera.

When he was finished, he told Jayna that, with just three of them, he would get a federal indictment of Hussain al-Hussaini in one day. FBI agent Dan Vogel told her he could do the same -- with one of her witnesses. That is how credible they were.

So why, Congressman Rohrbacher, did you tell Jayna that the committee has no budget to fly her to Washington, D.C.? What is the problem? Are we finally going to get the truth or is this grandstanding?

Andreas Carl Strassmeier has six witnesses saying that he was building a fence at the time of the bombing. He couldn't have been with McVeigh. Of 1100 fingerprints tied to the crime scene, none are Strassmeier's. Not one of 30,000 witnesses ties Strassmeier to the crime.

Here is a question for you, Congressman. Well, actually seven questions. Ten months ago, Jayna gave these to you in writing and still is waiting for the answers.

1. Why has the Justice Department/FBI not issued an official on-the-record statement exonerating Hussain Al-Hussaini of complicity in the Oklahoma City bombing? Has the DOJ provided Congress with Hussain Al-Hussaini’s whereabouts for the critical hours of the morning of April 19, 1995?

3. Why did the FBI previously suspect Al-Hussaini’s employer of ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization?

4. Why were the original motel registration logs where witnesses testified McVeigh checked in with Al-Hussaini’s Iraqi cohort the evening of April 18, 1995, never returned to the establishment’s owner?

5. Whatever happened to the brown Chevrolet pickup that was seen carrying Middle Eastern suspects from the bomb site? The Oklahoma City police found fingerprints inside the recovered truck. Why were these prints not compared to the immigration files of the three Middle Eastern nationals whom witnesses observed in that getaway vehicle before, during, and after the bombing?

6. Why did the Bureau rebuff my efforts to surrender the witness statements and supporting evidence in September 1997? Why did the FBI withhold from the defense teams the twenty-two witness affidavits that I delivered to FBI Special Agent Dan Vogel in January 1999?

7. Why were the prior warnings issued by the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare that predicted an Islamic attack in the “heart of the U.S.” disregarded as an indicator of foreign participation?

Congressman Rohrbacher needs to bring Jayna and Schippers to meet with the committee in closed session. The committee needs to see the on camera interviews of 14 eye witnesses. It needs to be done in closed session to protect the witnesses. They stepped forward as patriots facing great risk.

The real story of OKC should have been told long ago. Let's finally get it told now. Bill Clinton did not want to deal with Middle East terror on our soil. He wanted this to be domestic terror. That is what he got. Who are those deep inside the FBI who are responsible for continuing the coverup?

The truth about OKC will forever end any remaining legacy of the impeached William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Had he dealt with OKC, 9-11 could have been prevented. He ignored Middle East terror, created the vast right wing conspiracy, and his Kool-Aid drinkers dug in their heels. He would be held accountable for nothing. They stood with him no matter what because they had to fight the dreaded right wing. That is how Clinton divided America as never before.

If anyone would like to join me in calling the congressman, he is at (202) 225-2415.

Susan Candiotti: McVeigh changed mind and was given last rites
June 11, 2001 Posted: 4:40 PM EDT (2040 GMT)

Susan Candiotti

CNN Correspondent Susan Candiotti was on the scene shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995 and covered most of the events in its aftermath. She was in Terre Haute, Indiana, Monday to report on the execution of bomber Timothy McVeigh.

For Oklahoma City bombing victims, the execution of Timothy McVeigh is one more event that has thrust them on the world stage.

"I was elated," said Susan Ashford. She was chosen in a lottery to be one of the victim witnesses.

But for Paul Howell -- also one of the 10 selected by chance to see McVeigh die by lethal injection-the experience left him feeling somewhat cheated.

Howell lost his daughter, Karan Howell Shepherd, in the murderous attack on April 19, 1995.

"What I was hoping for ... is that we could see some kind of, maybe, 'I'm sorry,' something like that," Howell recalled. "We didn't get anything from his face."

The reason Howell and others were frustrated? They had been longing for the opportunity to stare down McVeigh as he lay strapped to a table.

It was not to be.

The windows were tinted between the witness room and the death chamber. The 10 witnesses were able to see McVeigh's face clearly. McVeigh could not see them. A U.S. Bureau of Prisons spokesman said the windows were darkened to protect the privacy of the witnesses.

As a journalist covering the bombing in April 1995, I never would have predicted the fate of Timothy McVeigh would be resolved more than six years later.

The investigation took innumerable twists and turns. Conspiracy theories abounded. The trials of McVeigh and co-conspirator Terry Nichols held separately in Denver, Colorado, lasted about half a year. The appeals of both men failed.

Who could have predicted, only six days from McVeigh's scheduled May 16 execution, the FBI would admit a blunder that forced the Justice Department to postpone the execution for 30 days?

McVeigh's attorneys battled mightily to win more time to investigate information contained from more than 4,400 pages of material not previously available to the defense.

The FBI argued there was nothing in the documents that raised any doubt about McVeigh's conviction.

McVeigh's lawyers said that was not the point.

They contended McVeigh was cheated by the FBI. That it did not play by the rules. That, if given more time, they might be able to prove a fraud upon the court. If successful, they might be able to persuade a jury to overturn McVeigh's death sentence.

It was not to be. The legal arguments, in a flurry of briefs and oral arguments, ultimately fell on deaf ears.

In the end, with McVeigh's attorneys willing to fight on, McVeigh pulled the plug.

Unrepentant, we were told, to the end.

Until the day he died. Then, things changed.

Prison Warden Harley Lappin offered Tim a Catholic priest. According to McVeigh's lawyer Robert Nigh, Tim said he would consider it.

Nigh said after a 15-minute final meeting with his client during which they discussed whether McVeigh, a self-described agnostic, would see a priest and receive the final sacraments of the Catholic faith, McVeigh agreed.

Strapped to a gurney, McVeigh asked to see a priest.

The Bureau of Prisons says McVeigh received the sacrament called the Anointing of the Sick by an unidentified prison chaplain.

That sacrament includes a confession and absolution of sins.

Did McVeigh confess?

"I think it speaks for itself," Nigh said.

That may be true, but it doesn't explain Nichols; nor does it explain EITHER McVeigh's or Nichols' attorneys, who had an obligation to save their clients regardless of "how the guy wanted to be perceived."

Maybe their attorneys were not aware of such evidence. It wouldn't be the first time that a client was not totally honest with his lawyer or withheld information. In any event, the attorneys can't do anything against the wishes of their client nor can they release privileged information. Their "obligation to save their clients" is circumscribed.

Again, think of it this way: all EITHER attorney had to do was to introduce just enough evidence to create reasonable doubt and McVeigh doesn't die and Nichols gets a lighter sentence.

You are assuming the attorney had such evidence. McVeigh would have been sentenced to death whether he had Iraqi accomplices or not. The USG (read Clinton) had a reason to keep such a connection quiet, because it would have forced the US to confront Iraq and Saddam, something that Clinton was reluctant to do. It was much better politically to make OKC the act of White Supremacists

McVeigh's attorneys battled mightily to win more time to investigate information contained from more than 4,400 pages of material not previously available to the defense. The FBI argued there was nothing in the documents that raised any doubt about McVeigh's conviction.

McVeigh's lawyers said that was not the point.

They contended McVeigh was cheated by the FBI. That it did not play by the rules. That, if given more time, they might be able to prove a fraud upon the court. If successful, they might be able to persuade a jury to overturn McVeigh's death sentence.

It was not to be. The legal arguments, in a flurry of briefs and oral arguments, ultimately fell on deaf ears.

In the end, with McVeigh's attorneys willing to fight on, McVeigh pulled the plug.

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.

Many thanks to both of you for your continued courage in trying to bring the truth to the attention of the people of America!