(1)David Koresh died in the seige. You have no proof that he murdered anyone, let alone "mass-murdered" anyone. The facts don't indicate that he murdered anyone at all.
(2) Its not logical to assert Reno and the Feds were heavy-handed but then dump all the guilt on Koresh. The Cato Institute's analysis indicates otherwise.
(3) Your obvious hatred of Koresh may be clouding your views. Many of us are able to separate our dislike for his ideologies and are concerned with the rights of our fellow citizens.
Its unknown which of us will wash up as victims on the tides of changing political opinion, and it behooves us all to watch out for the rights of everyone--even those we hate.
Where has that been conclusively proved?
We who float upon the churning seas of ideology will no doubt someday steer our rudders into the safe harbors of Reality, lest the storms of oppression wreak havoc upon our forecastles and shaft alleys. The flotsom of our ideas will live on long after the ship of state has been scuttled into the ocean of despair.
David Koresh died in the seige. You have no proof that he murdered anyone, let alone "mass-murdered" anyone. The facts don't indicate that he murdered anyone at all.If DAVID didn't pull the trigger multiple-times inside the compound - WHO DID? Remember, we're playing under Saddam-type rules here where what David (the big cheese) says goes so if there was ANY shooting inside - 'ol Dave must have given the order ...
A review of Peerwani's crew's autopsy work - note the portion of the report on 'gunshot wounds'.Page 9 of 151Davidians killed by firearms and later recovered from the burning structure were found in the communications room (MC 7, 8), kitchen/stairway/serving area (MC 43, 44, 45), (MC 20, 21, 22), top of concrete bunker (MC 34, 35, 36, 39, 41), on the surface in the concrete bunker (MC 31A, 31DE, 47) and in the concrete bunker debris (MC 53, 56, 66, 67-7/67-8).
Each of the Branch Davidian decedents succumbed to handgun/rifle injuries except one, MC 47, who died of a shotgun wound to the head. There were 16 Branch Davidian decedents with gunshot/shotgun wounds restricted to the head (12 adults and 4 children) (14 with single shots and 2 with multiple shots), 6 with gunshot injuries isolated to the torso (4 adults and 2 children) and 4 having gunshots to the head and torso (4 adults).
The determination of muzzlevictim distance, i.e. range of fire, involves identifying the presence and/or absence on or in the body of a variety of materials that are discharged from the muzzle of the gun in addition to the projectile.
These materials include flame, gas, smoke and gunpowder particles. The presence of searing, tissue disruption by gas and/or soot-powder propelled into the wound track indicates the muzzle of the gun was in contact with or very close to the surface when the gun was discharged. Gunsmoke deposited on the surface of the body, usually in conjunction with marks caused by powder particles striking the body (powder stippling or tattooing) denote a close range wound (usually within approximately 1 foot).
Powder stippling in the absence of smoke indicates a maximum range of fire of 2-3 feet depending on a variety of factors including the physical configuration of the gunpowder particles. Any material between the muzzle and the skin surface (such as clothing, dense scalp hair or other intermediate target) may affect the ability of these firearm discharge products from reaching the skin and thus affect the ability to accurately determine the range of fire. In the absence of material interposed between the muzzle and the target, wounds lacking the aforementioned features are classified as distant wounds. It should be remembered that in scientific parlance a distant wound is generally any wound received in excess of a few feet and does not necessarily entail great distances between the shooter and target. The progressive spread of shotgun pellets as the muzzle-target distance increases is also used to further estimate the range of fire in shotgun wounds caused by pellets.
Page 10 of 151
All of the gunshot injuries seen in the decedents recovered from the burned structure are consistent with having been received from guns fired from within the structure itself.
I do not see any evidence to indicate any of the Branch Davidian decedents recovered from the burned structure received gunshot injuries originating outside the complex on April 19, 1993. There is no pathological evidence to suggest than any firearm death on April 19, 1993, was caused by a U.S. Government agent.
Determination of the range of fire is able to be made in 12 Davidian gunshot fatalities and, to a limited degree, in the shotgun wound death. The effects of fire and decomposition preclude determining the range of fire in 13 decedents. Range of fire determinations are made in individuals recovered from the burned structure (MC 7, 8, 20, 21, 41, 31DE, 47), burial sites (MC 76, 77, 78, 79, 80) and ravine (MC 81). Of the 20 individuals recovered from the burned structure, range of fire is able to be determined in wounds involving 6 of them (5 adults and 1 child). Each of these individuals (MC 7, 8, 20, 21, 41, 31DE) have head wounds involving very close-contact range. Ranges of fire of other gunshot wounds are not able to be determined due to the loss of tissue at the entry sites and, in some cases, the loss of interposed clothing. The absence of the aforementioned markers used to determine the range of fire in those cases where alterations of the body (i.e., decomposition, fire, loss of interposed clothing) may have obscured or erased them does not mean the wounds are distant range wounds. The adult with the shotgun wound (MC 47) sustained the injury at a muzzle-target distance before the pellets extensively spread (certainly from a shotgun discharged within the complex).
The extent of the tissue damage and the ammunition recovered from the bodies indicates wounding by low velocity ammunition with the exception of 1 person recovered from a grave (MC 77) who sustained a very close/contact range high velocity gunshot injury to the head (.223 caliber). Although one of the experts who previously reviewed some of the deaths opined that the .223 injury was received from a substantial distance or through an intermediate target because the bullet did not perforate the head as, according to this expert, a high velocity bullet would, the deposition of grossly apparent gunpowder in the depths of the wound conclusively indicates that the gunshot was received at very close/contact range.
I did not see any wounds that suggested to me the use of a sniper rifle (.50 caliber or .308 caliber).
Branch Davidian decedents with wounds consistent with being self-inflicted were found in the burned structure (MC 7, 8, 43, 20, 21, 41) and graves (MC 77, 80). Some areas of the burned structure contained remains of more than one person having wounds consistent with being self-inflicted. However, even though these wounds could have been self-inflicted, the possibility that they were inflicted by another person cannot be excluded. Determining whether a gunshot wound is self-inflicted or not involves assessing the range of fire, accessability of the entry site and physical/mental capability of the person. Any wound that is consistent with being self-inflicted could also have been inflicted by another person. Self-inflicted wounds are usually in relatively predictable sites but are not exclusive or restricted to these sites. A large number of the gunshot wounds of the head found in the remains involved entry sites typical of self-infliction (forehead, temple, oral cavity). The range of fire of some of these wounds was able to be determined and found to be very close-contact. All the contact gunshot wounds of the head found in adult Branch Davidian decedents recovered from the burned structure involved entry sites typical of being self-inflicted. However, when interpreting these “typical” injuries it must be remembered that they were not sustained in a “typical” event; instead, they have been sustained in an “atypical” situation by individuals who are not “typical” members of the general population.
Overall, the pattern of the gunshots involving the head supports self-destruction either by overt suicide, consensual execution (suicide by proxy) or, less likely, forced execution by “death squad.” At least one child (MC 31DE) sustained a very close-contact gunshot wound. The wounds sustained by 5 adults (MC 45, 22, 36, 39, 66) and 6 children (MC 35, 31A, 31DE, 53, 56, 67-7/67-8) recovered from the burned structure do not appear to be self-inflicted. Not enough information is available to assess whether the wounds of 3 other Branch Davidian decedents (MC 34, 44, 47) were likely self-inflicted. Two bodies recovered from the concrete tornado shelter grave site have gunshot wounds involving the head which may have been selfinflicted.
The entry site involving the .223 injury (MC 77) is accessible to self-infliction using this type of weapon but is not a typical entry site of a self-inflicted rifle injury and is more likely a wound inflicted by someone else. The other body (MC 80) has an intraoral gunshot entry site which, although it is a very typical entry site for a self-inflicted injury, it is not necessarily selfinflicted and can be inflicted by someone else. In this case (MC 80), surviving Branch Davidians Kathryn Schroeder and David Thibodeau indicate Mr. Jones may have been killed by another Branch Davidian. The wounds of the other individuals recovered from the graves and from the ravine are not consistent with being self-inflicted. Some of the distant entry wounds found in the Branch Davidian decedents buried in graves or found in the ravine were caused by government agents during shooting incidents on February 28, 1993. One Branch Davidian decedent (MC 79) sustained gunshot wounds of the torso and arm apparently from government agents’ fire and was subsequently executed by a fellow Branch Davidian who administered two lethal close-contact wounds to the head/neck area. One Branch Davidian (MC 8) apparently received a non-lethal gunshot during the firefight associated with the initial confrontation at the complex and subsequently received a lethal gunshot to the head on the day of the fire. Another Branch Davidian (MC 51) who died of undetermined cause on the day of the fire had received a gunshot wound of the hand on February 28, 1993.
The characteristics of the wounds also allow some assessment of the accuracy of accounts offered by various individuals involved in the incident describing the course of events (see case evaluations regarding MC 76, 77, 79, 80 and 81).