Nope. But it taints any scenario that relies on that description of the video tape.
The indictments against Nichols and McVeigh accused them of plotting the bombing with other unnamed individuals. When did the prosecution change their minds on that?
My personal take: the prosecutors have no particular desire to find those "unnamed others," because it will come to light that a lot of them were getting lots of cash from Uncle as paid informants while helping McVeigh blow up the building. Look at it from the standpoint of a dedicated militant: he gets the government to help defray the cost of the bomb, and he feeds misinformation to the government so that they misunderestimate his strategery. It's a win-win--heck, it's a win-win-win when you factor in the fact that the government will have a big problem trying to prosecute.
My personal take: the prosecutors have no particular desire to find those "unnamed others," because it will come to light that a lot of them were getting lots of cash from Uncle as paid informants while helping McVeigh blow up the building.Yes and no. Yes in an ideal world where we have a lot of confidence in the desire of the FBI and Congress that the truth generally be known.
Not as much in a world where both are negligent, and videotapes of such things as questionable airline crashes are regularly supressed. Such suppressions only raise doubts or foster tinfoil.
Not an unreasonable scenario, but one that would provide yet another motivation for Uncle Sam to suppress or destroy evidence.
Nor do I find the various ME-related scenarios to be all that outlandish.
In either case, it would be irresponsible and highly suspect for Burton to shut down the investigation over one cop's allegedly perjured testimony. The inquiry should run the course.
And in an unrelated case, the NTSB ought to release those Flight 587 tapes yesterday.