Jim Quinn interview David Shippers and Janya Davis concerning OKC terrorist connection(6/27/02).

WRRK - The War Room archives ^ | 06/27/2002 | Quinn and Rose on WRRK

[honway]

Through her attorney, Tim McCoy, former KFOR reporter Davis disavowed some of the bombing conspiracy theories that have been reported.

"She also wants to make it perfectly clear that after her two-year exhaustive investigation, she has turned up no credible evidence that supports the theory that the federal government had sufficient prior warnings to prevent the bombing," McCoy said.

I have the utmost respect for the contributions of Nancie Drew. I do not believe she would write a lie on this forum under any condition. However, all of her information is second hand. Pat's information is first hand and I have never known him to lie on this forum. The only hard information I can find on this subject is the above quote from the article in the Daily Oklahoman in reply #43. In my opinion, Nancie's source is misleading at best in the above quote.

If the DA would not allow her witnesses to testify before the Grand Jury and provide sufficient evidence to indict John Doe 2 , she had an obligation to go before the cameras and explain the truth to the OKC survivors at the conclusion of her testimony instead of providing the above misleading statement.

I am sure in her heart Ms. Davis believes she is doing the right thing, but the only right thing now is to expose the criminal FBI/DOJ conspiracy to cover up the Middle Eastern involvement in the OKC bombing.

[Plummz]

has everyone on this forum forgotten about Jane Graham's deposition re the "maintenance workers" playing around in the basement?! C'mon, people. Sure there were ME types running around in this op, but let's not forget the extent that not only the cover-up, but the bombing itself was an inside operation.

[Askel5]

And perhaps more importantly, why would I get in a pissing match to defend people I've never personally met? My only answer to that is this: If the shoe were on the other foot, I would be defending you. You're just too busy whining to stop and figure it out.

I'm not defending anyone personally; I'm defending anyone who appears to be a victim of someone else's vindictiveness and personal animosity. To put it bluntly, appearing on a public forum and repeating personal conversations and interactions is downright rude, tacky and crass. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever other than to make you, Pat Briley, f-e-e-l better.

I appreciate the courtesy of your heads up and am doing my best to bring myself up to speed on the current conflict here. I know from experience I can rely on you to ask hard questions, research like a fiend and proffer plenty of food for thought.

But this rant seems over the top coming from you, Nita.

Probably best to leave the scolding to those who've never monopolized the forum with over a dozen threads based on some anonymous Freepmails from an alleged Insider portending a Clinton Third Term ... which coup, one assumes, could only have been perpetrated on this nation by a government whose federal agencies and/or military (at the time, anyway) appeared to you somehow Evil or sufficiently compromised to carry through with such a plot.

The Trannie threads not only served to ingrain Fear as galvanizing factor around here but resulted in certain personal polarizations between longtime acquaintances and fellow researchers that, sadly, never shall be undone entirely. You and Logos come to mind where I'm concerned -- a real loss that still bothers me.

I don't always agree with (or understand) everything Patrick says and myself am dubious over the facile way OKC has morphed into a Middle Eastern thing now that such an explanation serves the government's current purposes ... as did blaming it strictly on Just The Two Men and "militia mentality" at the time.

But over the years, I've developed a profound respect for OKCSubmariner's diligence in pursuing and broadcasting the truth. I have never once gotten the impression -- though this is a very personal matter for him -- that he is somehow in it "for himself". Quite the opposite.

I see no need, just as the stakes are being ratcheted publicly, for demonizing him and personally attacking him as being in the gutter or aggrandizing over the situation for his benefit. It can only serve to balkanize those who've and followed the OKC threads for years now and, truly, that would break my heart.

Regards, Nita. Keep up the good work and the tough questions. All of that is very valuable.

[Donald Stone]

BUMP !!!!!!

[honway]

but let's not forget the extent that not only the cover-up, but the bombing itself was an inside operation

Please see reply #41.Your point is well taken. We should not forget the participants like Peter Ward, Rosencrans, Andeas Strassmeier, Robert Jacks, or the others.

[Nita Nupress]

<< ..monopolized the forum.. >>

Your fangs are showing, dear.



To all: I said earlier I was leaving the thread and I said it for a reason. I'll bookmark it and come back in about a week to pick up where we left off.

[Nancie Drew]

I need to make a correction to my post #129 to you. It should read "He did not deem it credible in March of 2002." Sorry for the typo.

[Fred Mertz]

What honway said in #141 mirrors my thoughts. I just can't say it as well. Thanks, honway.

[Askel5]

Your fangs are showing, dear.

Damn straight. I think you're being absolutely irresponsible, divisive and -- worst of all -- patently hypocritical as you attack OKCSubmariner. Our past differences in no way diminish the fact I do respect you and therefore expect more of you.

As for your "monopolizing" the forum ... c'mon!!
(And please know that I'm laughing my ass off having gone back to take a look to check my facts here ... =)

In addition to the original "Third Term" threads ...

A Clinton Third Term: Nightmare or Reality? 
(written at Trannie's request and with his guidance and input) 
A Clinton Third Term: Nightmare or Reality? (THREAD 2) 
A Clinton Third Term: Nightmare or Reality? (THREAD 3) 
The Clinton Soliloquies: Gun Control 
JUST POST THE DANG THING! 
Just Post the Dang Thing, Part II 
(thread no longer on server; not sure why)

You've got a canon of 14 "REVISIT Wagging Trannie" threads before you put the sucker to bed. No. 5 in the series entitled:

Wag The Vice-President: Trannie Revisited (Thread 5 - Faster Load!)
The "faster load" (as well as the footnotes, links, recaps, summations, etc.) was very cool of you and obviously much-appreciated. You can open any of the threads -- all of which run to nearly 200 replies -- and find top notch research, analysis and replies by some of the most respected posters FR's ever had.

Would "mesmerized" have been the better word to use?

In all seriousness, Nita, I haven't any fangs to draw where you or the whole Trannie thing is concerned. What's done is done and, if anything, I'm not so much amused in retrospect as I am genuinely sorry for the sea change generally -- and with regard to specific relations -- the threads engendered.

I still believe diversion and discord, suspicion and mistrust were exactly Trannie's angle the whole time. That's certainly all we were left holding once the Evil Clinton took off to the private $ector, occasionally representing our nation abroad as Bush's adminstration sees fit. All's well that finally ends, I guess.

---

After reading "Just Post the Dang Thing" ⁹ several times and spending hours tracking down information, I became more and more convinced that Trannie was for real. There was integrity and passion in his writing.

---

It's just that I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by while you of all people elect to impugn as somehow deceitful, nefarious, self-serving and of the "gutter" the integrity and passion of Patrick Briley and his spending hours tracking down information to buttress what he posts.

Where you stick to the high road with your awesome research skills, database brain and skillful intellect, I will continue to admire and appreciate you from afar ... even if I refrain absolutely from posting to you, as has been my practice since you took the suitcase nuke comment so poorly.

But where you cross a line with a baseless personal attack on someone who surely doesn't need it from a fellow FR researcher unafraid to go out on a limb if she she must to ferret out the truth and warn others as she sees fit, I am indeed liable to come out of nowhere, fangs bared.

He's one of my own FR brethren too, as are many I've read for years around here. I'd lay down my life for him, or any of them, in a moment.

Probably has something to do with the integrity and passion I perceive in his writing as well as his fidelity, focus, and day-in, day-out diligence.

Know that I admire very much your same personal passion and faithfulness where Ted Maher is concerned. He is someone you've never met but are unafraid to go to the mat for ... making your own phone calls, doing your own investigation and reporting same here on the Forum, expecting us to trust your accounts even if "wild horses" could not drag actual names of your contacts from you.

Regards, Nita. I rarely see you around any more and that's actually a shame in many respects. But I know your family's delighted and I'm sure you must needs apply yourself to continued study and effort on behalf of your career. Truly ... all the best in what I'll always tell you are the greener pastures.

[Nancie Drew]

I was able to find a response that I had given to Honway on April 18, 2002. I am reprinting a portion of it because it gives some background on what is going on. The entire thread was pulled so this response was pulled when the thread was pulled. I know there have been some questions raised about Pat's background and he has responded. I am not sure what his present occupation is because he had said recently that he is still unemployed. He had said that he has been unemployed since 1986.

Here is what I posted on April 18:
A while back, I said something to you about responding to Pat Briley’s comments on Free Republic about Jayna Davis. This thread seems to have fizzled out, but maybe the people that are interested will still see it. If you find my comments helpful, please flag anyone you know that would be interested. Some of the comments I am responding to are on other threads. I know you feel that people should not be attacking one another, but also Freepers should not be allowed to get away with posting such lies.

The derogatory postings did not begin until this year. Pat had never criticized Jayna or BlueDogDemo until January of this year. The problem began because Pat was mad at them for not returning his telephone calls. He felt cut out and started lashing out on the Internet. He also felt like he was not getting credit for contributions he had made to the investigation of the OKC Bombing. His January postings give his motives for the sudden turn-around. Jayna has not been in any situation to acknowledge everyone that has helped her, so it is a shame that he is directing his anger at her.

Pat is also angry because no one has investigated for him his Traveler’s Aid evidence and feels like a lot of repercussions will come from this failure. He is lashing out at many people for this failure. He sees a lack of cooperation (His characterization) between different investigators as an impediment to getting the complete truth out. This makes him extremely angry. He has a lot of harsh criticism towards Jayna because of this. He wants to draw Jayna away from all she is doing to answer these accusations. Besides the physical toll that all this has taken on her, she frankly needs to devote her energies elsewhere right now. Free Republic is an important forum, but it is obvious from the comments that the Freepers still have great respect for her. However, I thought I would give it a shot to try to respond to some of the accusations. I will not try to do all of them, but I hope my answers will give you a sense of how Jayna operates and why I have such profound respect for her investigative abilities.

Since September 11, there has been renewed interest in the Middle Eastern connection to the OKC Bombing. Jayna is fielding calls from interested parties, and this has led to several articles being written. Fox News has done an outstanding job of bringing the issues to the public. She has made two trips to D.C. to meet with key people so she has had to spend countless hours updating her investigation. The part that she has left with several important groups and individuals has around 2,000 pages. Keeping in touch with witnesses, sending out press packets, “making copies”, is a full-time job. It has been since 1995. There is a limit to how much one person should be expected to do. She also has a 4-year old to raise. She cannot investigate all the information that is given her. She is doing her very best.

Jayna’s investigation has focused mostly on the Middle Eastern connection. The first lead came from a call to the station from a lady who was concerned that the FBI did not seem to be investigating a lead she felt was very important. That led to the initial story that was aired on KFOR. That initial tip would lead Jayna to start asking questions and one thing would lead to another. That is usually the nature of a good investigation. KFOR did not ignore the domestic side. In fact, there were several stories done about domestic terrorism.

I have had the privilege of observing Jayna first-hand in her investigation and have the utmost respect for her abilities. Unlike the amateur investigators, she was trained at the University of Texas as an investigative reporter. That was always her specialty and KFOR hired her as an investigative reporter. Her 2,000-page investigation is incredible! She has an extremely high standard for information to find its way into that report. She does not put in everything that comes her way.

One of the things that we were aware of early on is that there would be agents of disinformation sent our way. You had to do a lot of questioning of information knowing that 90% of it could be the absolute truth, but were these people giving you 10% lies in order to discredit you. It was hard to know whom to trust. It was also obvious that there were people willing to lie about Jayna to trash her reputation. A call fielded by the late Jack Eden, a radio talk show host in Oklahoma City, woke us up to that reality.

Pat mentions J.D.Cash in an earlier posting and how Cash threatened Pat’s life. So it does surprise me that Pat would want Jayna to work with him. I will not go into the reasons why, but Cash came under suspicion right away as being an agent of disinformation. Pat says that Jayna tried to steer Pat away from domestic terrorism. Since Jayna definitely believes in the domestic terrorism angle of all this, she would not steer Pat away from it. She would try to steer him away from certain individuals, like J.D. Cash. Pat says that Cash expressed disdain for his talking to Jayna and the Middle Eastern connection. The Clinton administration had a definite agenda and did not want the M.E. connection to come out. If Cash was an agent of disinformation, it makes sense that he would trash Jayna. In fact, I have seen information on Free Republic about Cash that indicated that others were suspicious of him. I would also put Roger Charles in the camp of the Clinton administration.

Pat mentions Charles Key in his posting. Key is one of those amateur investigators that did not filter out things, which may have been given to him to discredit him. He had a lady on his staff named Kate McCauley, who absolutely fit the profile of an agent of disinformation. I received a call from a relative who had heard Key speak. Kate was with him. My relative has had extensive experience investigating disinformation agents. She had investigated one such agent that was used after Waco. She said that she visited with Kate after Key spoke and was disturbed by how she ended up coming to Oklahoma City to help Key. Something did not add up to her. I also visited with Kate, and realized that she was another one that was trying to steer the investigation away from M.E. involvement and focus only on domestic. I am not sure how much harm she did to Key’s investigation since I was not personally involved, but I do know that Key was a late-comer to making the M.E. connection an important focus. Another problem is that he did not filter out the inconsistencies in the witnesses that he presented to the grand jury. His desire was that the grand jury would figure out the truth. This may have caused him to lose credibility. I do not know how much Kate had to do with his decision. If she was an agent of disinformation, then her goal may have been to try to discredit his investigation. Give him 90% truth, but ruin him with the 10% of lies. I have seen people lose their credibility with Freepers when there was just one little inaccuracy. It does not surprise me that Jayna would find it hard to work with Key, and I am sure that Kate wanted it that way, too. Kate McCauley was asked by McVeigh to be one of his witnesses when he was executed. She had started corresponding with him while he was incarcerated. She also assisted Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck with their book on McVeigh that spouted the official government line.

Another problem in investigating the domestic side was the long list of government informants, Carol Howe, Millar, Mahon, Strassmier, to name a few. Pat has mentioned these and others. The M.E. connection was easy compared to the mess on the domestic side. Jayna does not have the resources to begin to whack through that mess. She is comfortable with the accuracy of what she has on the M.E. side. It is not as simple as Pat makes it seem. It is a shame that he is criticizing her for not doing this investigation the way he wanted it done. It is O.K. to have a difference of opinion but he is publicly criticizing Jayna in a most vicious manner. This is bewildering.

Jayna has fought to maintain her credibility. When you are lumped in with people that have lost their credibility, it can be hard to overcome. Nita Nupress has had some very wise comments and some instruction on how to get people to listen. Glory girl also had some suggestions. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). You cannot just dump all you know on people and you have to use wisdom. Jayna has tried to use wisdom in every decision she has made. Others are second-guessing her, but I think she has done an outstanding job. She has had to negotiate minefields.

Pat obviously has alienated many people, (by his own admission). He has now alienated Jayna by his accusations. This posting does not begin to address all the untruths that have been told by Pat. For a while, I did not choose to respond to the untruths, hoping that his hurt and anger would subside. I have tried to respond in a way where I gave some information on how this investigation has progressed and why certain decisions were made. I tried to keep the attacks on Pat to a minimum although I am extremely angry with him. (You should have read my first draft!)

Free Republic is an incredible forum but it can be misused. In this case, it has been. I am glad that there are people listening to Jayna.

[Triple]

My Original Question:
"Did Jayna have a memo warning of the attack, that was not handed over to the TM defense or made public until recently?"

The First Part of Your Response:
"There would be a whole group of Freepers that would criticize Jayna if she had appeared at the McVeigh trial and had helped him. In fact, I am rather surprised at that criticism."

++++++++++++++++++++

The way I read your response is:
Yes, J Davis had the information, and No, she did not go public with it, and did not turn it over to the TM defense (until May 2001).

Thanks for your reply,

[honway]

Davis told me repeatedly and numerous times over the years that she was working FOR a US government official over a period of several years from 1997 to 2000. She even interrupted our phone calls (okay with me) over the years to take calls from the government offical she told me she was working FOR not just with.

There are only two people that know if this statement is true or false. One is Pat and one is Jayna Davis. As far as I know, I have never been misled by Pat. I can not say the same concerning Ms. Davis' statement at the conclusion of the Grand Jury testimony.

Thanks for reposting your reply. I appreciate the important information on McCauley and Cash. It puts in perspective what investigators have had to deal with.

[honway]

"When the word first got out that no Federal agents had been present in the building, the BATF produced its Resident Agent Alex McCauley who told a long story about his own heroism and that of a fellow ATF man who allegedly fell three floors in an elevator, walked away from it, and then helped rescue others trapped by the bomb. This was quickly exposed as a fabrication in an angry interview by building maintenance supervisor Duane James, who described McCauley's story as "pure fantasy". "

---------------------------------------------------

"Pat mentions Charles Key in his posting. Key is one of those amateur investigators that did not filter out things, which may have been given to him to discredit him. He had a lady on his staff named Kate McCauley, who absolutely fit the profile of an agent of disinformation"

--------------------------------------------------------

Is there any connection between Kate McCauley and Resident Agent Alex McCauley?

[Nancie Drew]

I do not know. She lived in Rhode Island.

[Nancie Drew]

There are many more people than just Jayna that know she has never worked for anyone but KFOR since 1995. I am still very disturbed on why Pat would make this up. It makes absolutely no sense.

[OKCSubmariner]

I do not know of any relationship between the two McCauleys but it is a good question-I do not know for sure either.

McCauley worked for McVeigh defense team investigators in Denver after leaving the employ of Charles Key. She also corresponded with McVeigh quite heavily at one point. McVeigh invited her to witness his execution which she did.

[OKCSubmariner]

Please see replies #153, #156 and #153. Thanks.

[Nancie Drew]

You have been told it was not true about Jayna working for the government and you still say it. That is a lie!!!!!!!!! I will call it like it is. If you did it only once and then were corrected, that would be one thing. But even after being told it was not true, you continue to say it. What in the world is going on? Are you privy to some little secret that Jayna only shared with you and did not even share with her husband, family, or friends? I think not. Working with someone is entirely different than working for someone and she did work with Bodanksky. She has made no secret of that. Surely you know the difference.

As for your statement about the domestic John Doe, I was a witness to some of the messages that you would leave on Jayna's answering machine. Yes, you have written about the Middle Eastern connection after getting on Free Republic in 2000. Think about all those calls you made to Jayna about her focusing on the Middle Eastern connection, berating her for not doing more on the domestic side, especially the first few years of the investigation. Charles Key finally came around, too, but not for the first few years. (See my reply #150 on this thread).

[Askel5]

Perhaps she meant working "with" ... in the same way Linda Tripp connected herself under oath to a man Vince Foster had been working with regarding tainted blood in the weeks just before his suicide.

---

   3               What I had told Lucianne Goldberg
       4     at the time was that it had been alarming to
       5     me that when I tried to enter data from a
       6     caller that I was working with on a tainted
       7     blood issue, that every time I entered a word
       8     that had to do with this particular issue, it
       9     would flash up either the word encrypted or
      10     password required or something to indicate
      11     the file was locked.  Had nothing to do with
      12     FBI files.

---

White House Secretary Linda Tripp said that a few days after Foster's mysterious death in 1993, she took a phone call from someone who said Foster had been very concerned about a tainted blood issue. Tripp also said when she tried to enter data from the call into the computer of Vince Foster's secretary..."every time I entered a word that had to do with this particular issue, it would flash up either the word 'encrypted' or 'password required' or something to indicate the file was locked."

---

Clearly she's working on behalf of the caller as part of her job as government employee. I do not see the "working for" as a big issue.

Additionally, if part of case being built against you is that Jayna cannot be all things to all people who give her leads or request her help, clearly she is working "for" all sorts of folks even as she's only employed by the one place and certainly rightfully focused first on her family.

I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding why this portion of the "he said/she said" is such a bone of contention when it seems but a case of semantics.