Eldon Elliot: FBI pressured me to drop John Doe 2 claim

Daily Oklahoman ^ | 5/8/2003 | Daily Oklahoman

[JohnBerger]

Also in Wednesday testimony, Marife Nichols contradicted previous testimony about Terry Nichols November 1994 Philippines trip, see http://www.whoisjohndoe2.com for more details and a link.

--JMB

[Teetop]

Good article, thanks for the link as well. The link for JaynaDavis.com never comes up for me anymore....

[B Knotts]

Very interesting...not surprising though.

"Repeat after me: there was no other man with him."

They sure wanted (heck: still want) to keep John Doe No. 2 under wraps. The fascinating question is: why?

I mean, if they're convinced he was not a conspirator, why don't they just say so, instead trying these Baghdad Bob-like claims that he doesn't exist?

[lelio]

State prosecutors have said only that Elliott?s belief is not relevant to Nichols? preliminary hearing.
Wow, so the prosecutors can pick and choose what testimony they like.
Everyday I have less and less faith in the FBI. Can't find their man? Well he simply didn't exist then.

[dogbyte12]

Obvious question is... does this Bunting guy, who appears to be innocent... look anything like John Doe #2 sketch?

[JudgeAmint]

Ping...) ) ) Just like you have been stating Miz..

[Mind-numbed Robot]

They sure wanted (heck: still want) to keep John Doe No. 2 under wraps. The fascinating question is: why?

Two likely reasons, one benign but the other is more far-reaching:

The first - they felt they could convict McVeigh and Nichols with what they had and chasing some third person would only delay matters. They preferred to just wrap things up neatly.

Second - Clinton was trying hard not to face the terrorists factor and was, instead, trying to pursue all terrorists under his well-controlled Justice Department as criminal offenses rather than international terrorism. There were many reports of Arabs involved with McVeigh and that was a road Clinton did not want to go down.

[Nita Nupress]

The FBI searched for weeks for a second man and released three sketches of the suspect that came to be called “John Doe No. 2.”

You mean to tell me it took "weeks" for the FBI to get Bill Clinton's message that the OKC bombing was pulled off solely by "right-wing extremists?" I think we've already established that Clinton was calling the military Arabic interpreters back to DC within a few days. So what took the the FBI so long to get the message?

It must have really sucked to have the Clintons as your boss.

[mwyounce]

It must have really sucked to have the Clintons as your boss.

You sure you don't want to rephrase that? ;-)

[JohnBerger]

Obvious question is... does this Bunting guy, who appears to be innocent... look anything like John Doe #2 sketch?

Unfortunately, this is a highly subjective call. The short answer is: Yes, he's within the margin of error.

The problem with the sketch is that you can find very vocal camps who will insist the sketch looks like whoever their preferred suspect is, and nothing like anyone else.

Ultimately the sketch has to be treated as generally suggestive but not proof of any particular thing. Police sketches are useful tools for directing an investigation, but they're not rocket science and they won't stand up against a direct identification in court of law.

Interestingly, a San Antonio online newspaper showed Elliott a picture of Jose Padilla and asked if it was JD2. Elliott referred them to his lawyer and refused to answer.

[wayoverontheright]

Second - Clinton was trying hard not to face the terrorists factor and was, instead, trying to pursue all terrorists under his well-controlled Justice Department as criminal offenses rather than international terrorism. There were many reports of Arabs involved with McVeigh and that was a road Clinton did not want to go down.

Also, if you'll remember, a LOT of political capital had been expended on the Clintons behalf that this had to be a right wing extremist who perpetrated this masacre. If there had been Islamic ties it would have obliterated this theory.

[Dixie Mom]

From the archives: Man Who Fingered McVeigh Stays Mum On 'John Doe #2'

You were right, PJ.

[sharktrager]

That's not quite fair.

Nichols' guilt or innocence is based on his actions and his actions alone. The fact that McVeigh may have been accompanied by someone when he got the truck really doesn't have any bearing on whether or not Nichols was involved. The prosecutors are not trying to say that Nichols was there at the time. If they were, and he didn't match the description, then it would be relevant.

[B Knotts]

I think you're right; there was some kind of Arab connection, possibly with Iraq, but that just complicated things. Clinton/Reno preferred to keep things simple, regardless of future consequences.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

IMHO, the VRWC conspiracy was a political angle well along in its implementation and was simply used here to divert attention. Hillary used that VRWC line even before they were elected. (Yes, I meant to say they.) Of course, McVeigh and Nichols fit the bill so that was an easy game to play. Dealing with Middleastern terrorists was much gamier, required more guts and intelligence, and had no immediate political advantage because it could not be solved quickly and could easily become a quagmire. (That is why that word was right on the tips of their tongues when Bush acted.)

On the other hand, blaming white extremists played right into their game plan so, you are right, too.

[MizSterious]

Nichols was involved. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I also don't think anyone disputes the fact that McVeigh was guilty as sin itself. What a lot of us want is justice: we want them all caught and punished. I don't think we should stop with just those two if more were involved--and the evidence points in that direction.

[wayoverontheright]

I believe that there was some Arab tie to OK City, and that the Clinton machine had it covered up.

What if we discover evidence in Iraq that this event was either planned or funded there? Will we get the investigation we want then?

[B Knotts]

What if we discover evidence in Iraq that this event was either planned or funded there? Will we get the investigation we want then?

No. Because then, they'd have to admit that the government lied, which then makes further statements by same less credible.

Lying kinda gets you in a bind, y'know?

[VOA]

bump

[firewalk]

.