Caddell says: "On April 19, US Officials directed gunfire at the Plaintiff who were present at Mt. Carmel on April 19, 1993, killing some Plaintiff Decedents." (pg. 65); and "On April 19, 1993, US Officials also ordered, supervised and/or directed gunfire at the Plaintiffs who were present at Mt. Carmel on April 19, 1993 (i.e., deadly force), killing some of the Plaintiff Decedents." (pg. 103.)
Given that Caddell asserts the US shot certain Davidians, we might expect Caddell would mention the names of the victims and back up his claim with findings from the Autopsy Reports. But no victims are named and no Autopsy Reports are cited.
Caddell seems to be echoing the charge against the US made in the Waco disinformation video, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." On the day of the fire, a surveillance plane equipped with Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) equipment flew over the Mt. Carmel Center. FLIR equipment records differences in radiated heat. "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" charged that this FLIR footage showed flashes from gunfire FBI agents directed at Davidians who attempted to escape the fire from the back of the Mt. Carmel Center. For reviews of the video and a copy of the script go to "Waco 'Documentary' Is a Hoax!" at:
High tech, esoteric evidence such as FLIR footage must be interpreted by experts. And experts in esoteric technology often disagree with each other. In fact, the experts interviewed in "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" are contradicted by other experts quoted in the media just months after the video's release.
Thus the reliability, specificity, and volume of the FLIR evidence on which Caddell is apparently relying is a far cry from the reliability, specificity, and volume of the Autopsy Reports and other forensic evidence which Caddell is ignoring. Caddell thus bases his most serious charges on the weakest evidence.
The London Times of March 21, 1993 ran an article "FBI brings out secret electronic weapons as Waco siege drags on." The article explains the capabilities of the FLIR equipment: "Aircraft flying overhead can pick up conversations between cult members and pinpoint their position using infra-red devices that lock on to heat sources … They need to know exactly who is in which room …"
If the FBI fired at the Davidians as they were escaping the fire from the back of the Mt. Carmel Center, we should be able to see the heat radiated by Davidian bodies in that same FLIR tape. Where are they? Is there something wrong with the picture?
The diagrams showing the locations where bodies were recovered are part of the official record and have
been available from the McLennan County Justice of Peace, and on the World Wide Web for years:
Those official records show that no bodies were recovered from the back of the Mt. Carmel Center. The bodies of Peter Hipsman, Jaydean Wendel, Perry Jones, and Winston Blake, killed on February 28, were buried along the side of the complex and recovered at that site. The body of Peter Gent, who was also killed on February 28, was buried in the front of the complex and recovered there.
If Caddell wishes to assert that Davidians were killed at the back of the Mt. Carmel Center on April 19, he has a problem which he should have addressed fully. The bodies don't appear on the recovery maps. If he believes the FBI moved the bodies, he should say so and furnish evidence.
No names of victims, no specific information from those individuals' autopsy reports, no mention of FLIR images of victims fleeing, no record of bodies found at that location … these escaping Davidians were truly the Ghostly Horde.
Michael Caddell places so much weight on McNulty's "research," we should devote some space to him. McNulty is said to have been an insurance salesman before turning into a Waco sleuth. He first caught public attention in 1994 when he circulated bogus footage in an attempt to discredit Waco researcher Linda Thompson, who had convincingly portrayed the military character of the Waco Holocaust. In a widely distributed video, Thompson had shown footage of a tank backing out of the Mt. Carmel Center with flame spouting out of the cannon.
McNulty charged Thompson had dishonestly edited the footage, and came up with footage which he said Thompson had edited from the original. McNulty said this additional footage showed the flame was construction debris, and circulated a video containing the footage Thompson allegedly edited. SOLDIER OF FORTUNE (a magazine run by, and catering to, Special Forces/Special Operation commandos and commando wanna-bes) reported in its February, 1994 edition (pg. 59) that McNulty had digitized the footage in question and had it computer enhanced. This report blew McNulty's claim out of the water of course, for images can be altered and fabricated with computer enhancement. (The capabilities of computer enhancement is entertainingly portrayed in "Through The Eyes Of Forest Gump," Paramount, 1994.)
Two months later, SOLDIER OF FORTUNE ran a letter from McNulty admitting he digitized the footage but denying he had it enhanced. Some time after that, McNulty admitted on a radio talk show that his research on the tank footage had been sponsored by SOLDIER OF FORTUNE. The admission about the computer enhancement was made inadvertently, it seems, by a magazine staffer who had inside information but who was unfamiliar with computer graphics and did not realize the significance of what he was reporting.
Now in 1999, McNulty is pulling down even bigger assignments: he is a man of great influence. The question is, whence does this former insurance salesman's influence come?
An article describing plans for the premier of McNulty's new movie, "Waco: A New Revelation," appeared in the Village Voice on November 3, 1999. According to the article, McNulty and his backers invited "some 200 top officials from the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, Justice Department, and Congress," as well as 160 journalists to the first showing at a theater in the basement of Union Station, Washington, DC.
It is quite a feat for a former insurance salesman to invite "200 top officials from the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, Justice Department, and Congress" and 160 of the US government's media flacks to a private showing of a home video and have them show up. Let's analyze what must have been involved. There are two possibilities:
1. McNulty has 200 personal friends in the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, and Justice Department who suddenly have developed a social conscience. He invited them on a personal basis and luckily, they were able to take time off the job to show up to watch a video made by their friend.
2. McNulty sent out invitations via the bureaucracies in the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, and Justice Department. Those agencies assigned 200 people to attend the movie and develop a social conscience as part of their job assignment.
In either case, the media flacks came because, hey! Suddenly they've done an 180 degree turn: Now, despite their complicity in the Holocaust when it was happening, and now they want to expose the truth …
Several independent observers went to Union Station on the morning of November 3 and confirmed the showings were well attended. These observers also reported elaborate and professional security measures. Receptionists with computer printouts of those invited were seated near the entrance of the theater in which the video was to be shown (there are a number theaters accessed by one hallway in the facility. McNulty's video was shown at the theater at the end of the hallway). The receptionists checked the ID of each person entering against the printout of those invited. At lunchtime, when the regularly scheduled movies were starting in the other theaters, one observer spotted a bouncer: a man in a business suit and a military haircut, standing to block the entrance against uninvited guests.
If 200 officials of the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, and Justice Department and 160 members of the press that helped the US destroy the Davidians were so carefully screened and admitted, one must ask: Who was McNulty trying to keep out?
What startling new revelations are in "Waco: A New Revelation"? According to AP's Michelle Mittelstadt, one of McNulty's "new revelations" is that the Davidians set the fire of April 19, 1993!
Mittelstadt says: "Because of bugging devices in the compound, the FBI was aware of the Davidians' talk of setting the place aflame. Bureau officials have long denied that they had advance knowledge of the cult members' intent, saying the transmissions were too garbled to understand."
None of this "news" about the tape is news, of course. It is the same charge the FBI has been making against the Branch Davidians ever since the day of the inferno. And McNulty has been helping the FBI publicize it ever since, first in "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," and now in "Waco: A New Revelation."
Does it make sense? McNulty accuses the FBI of shooting Davidians to death as they try to escape the fire—surely a heinous act. But we are not supposed to consider those very murderers might do something really naughty, like lying or fabricating an audio tape.
On October 31, 1999, Lee Hancock of the Dallas Morning News ("The Waco Network") reports that by the time "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" premiered in 1997, McNulty "was tapping still more sources of Waco information. He was hired as an investigator by lawyers defending Timothy McVeigh, the man sentenced to die for bombing the Oklahoma City federal building on the second anniversary of the Waco fire. From the lawyers, he [McNulty] gained access to previously undisclosed FBI reports and other information on Waco, the event that prompted Mr. McVeigh's attack."
The more we know of Timothy McVeigh's defense team, the crazier it seems. Now McNulty, the Waco disinformation maven, works to uncover information for McVeigh's lawyers to *defend* McVeigh, who, we are told, committed his crime to avenge Waco. The arrangement ends with McVeigh's lawyers giving *McNulty* access to previously undisclosed FBI reports and other information about—*Waco.*
—WACO? McVeigh was accused of blowing up a building in Oklahoma City. Why would the FBI give McVeigh's lawyer information about Waco? This is logic only spooks can follow.
Now let's look at how Caddell promotes the government's damage control and black propaganda campaign against the Davidians, wording them as "complaints" against the US. "These April 19th acts and omissions by the US Officials caused … other Davidians to mortally assault Decedents …" (pg. 64).
It is very clear Caddell is NOT talking about "mercy killings," for in his next phrase Caddell adds that the US is also responsible for causing: "… Decedents' suicide or death by mercy killing." (pg. 64.)
No, Caddell is saying, loud and clear, that Davidians murdered each other. He launches this assertion without citing evidence; not surprising, because there is no evidence.
If Caddell knows Davidians murdered each other, why is Caddell asking that the survivors/murderers in question share the over $1 billion he seeks from US taxpayers? Caddell is simply using his position as the Davidians' lawyer to slander the Davidians and, for whatever reason, surviving Davidians and family members of the deceased are going along with the program.
We have seen that Kirk Lyons and Ramsey Clark sued for the wrongful death of persons whose bodies have never been found and for whom death certificates have not been issued (Startle Summers, Lisa Marie Martin, Sheila Renee Martin). Caddell has this problem, too. He represents Samuel Oresta Henry, father of Paulina Henry. Paulina was one of those people who allegedly went to the concrete room along with Startle, Lisa Marie, and Sheila Renee to escape the CS. Her body has never been found and no death certificate has been issued.
Once again, we might expect the lawyers defending the Department of Justice to seize upon this anomaly, but once again they apparently keep their silence. Judge Smith, the great facilitator of perjury, never mentions the lack of a corpus delicti in his July 1 Order, of course.
"US Officials launched their April 19th final assault against the Decedents and Survivors even though they knew that there was no evidence that anyone inside Mt. Carmel, including the children, was in danger of death or serious bodily injury … They knew that David Koresh had been shot in the pelvis and was bedridden, severely limiting his ability to sexually molest children." (pg. 101.)
Caddell cannot believe the charges of child molesting against David Koresh, and it is obvious the government does not believe the charges either. Not one surviving Davidian has been charged with being accessory to, or aiding and abetting, child molestation. And the record of Davidians being given 40 year prison terms even after being found not guilty of murder proves beyond a shadow of a doubt US enthusiasm for prosecuting Davidians. Had there been any credible evidence for the child molestation charge, the surviving Davidians would have been prosecuted long ago.
Why does Caddell even bring it up? As we read the "complaint," it becomes obvious that he is etching in legal stone every single slander of the Davidians.
Recall that three armed helicopters strafed the women's and children's quarters in a private residence on February 28, while at least 76 armed stormtroopers shot through the fragile wooden building with heavy caliber weapons. It was a murderous military assault on Americans living quietly in their own home.
Caddell presents this murderous military attack as a "law enforcement" action executed by bunglers. In a backhanded manner he provides many justifications for the US actions, wording these justifications as complaints.
There is purpose to this, of course: If the deaths of the ATF agents and Davidians could be shown as the result of inept "rules of engagement," then the promulgation of efficient "rules of engagement" could prevent future "tragedies." In the text below, we will see how this "rules of engagement" theme is developed. In the meantime, let's look at the bungling excuse put forth by Caddell:
"ATF Officials intentionally or recklessly used deadly force longer than was necessary during the February 28th assault." (pg. 78, emphasis added.)
Used deadly force longer than was necessary? This of course boldly states that deadly force was necessary at some point.
"They failed to get the church phone number so that on February 28th they could contact the Church to arrange a cease-fire, minimize the loss of life and avoid any further violence." (pg. 79)
If the ATF wanted a ceasefire, all that was necessary was that they cease firing and withdraw.
"The ATF Officials also … acknowledged that the 'element of surprise' was essential to an
assault which minimized injury and loss of life." (pg. 73) "[The ATF Officials] violated the
orders of their superiors by going forward with the February 28th assault even after they learned that
the 'element of surprise' had been lost and that the danger to ATF agents and Davidians had increased."
(pg. 74); and "They ignored evidence that the Davidians regularly watched the approach of people to the
Church." (pg. 79) These excuses back up the government claim the ATF agents were law enforcement
officers who were "ambushed." In fact, the raid was designed to fail.
"ATF agent Philip Chojnack, from Houston, who was in charge of the February 28th assault, placed himself in a helicopter during critical phases of the operation." (pg. 81); "Charles Sarabyn, from Houston, who was an ATF Senior Commander of the February 28th assault, was unable to see the Church during his trip from the staging area to the Church." (pg. 81). Lawyer Caddell seems to be using this complaint to conduct a shooting review.
Still other "complaints" against the US include: "They chose not to develop hundreds of photos of the church … Furthermore, they did not review most of the few photographs which were developed." (pg. 80); "They failed to review videotapes, logs, and other material …" (pg. 80) "They ignored the Davidian beliefs that the Mt. Carmel Church was sacred ground …" (!!!) (pg. 81) "They failed to establish a pool of behavior science experts with which to consult during the planning stages of the February 28th assault." (pg. 82) "They failed to place an individual in charge of the February 28 assault who had behavior science training." (pg. 82)
Surely this is the piece de resistance: "They failed to consult with experts, within and outside federal and state governments, who had substantial academic, law enforcement or military experience regarding with (sic) an assault on a peaceful group of family members who, because of their religious beliefs, would view the raid as a prophesied assault by the 'forces of evil.'" (pg. 82)
What is more evil than armed helicopters strafing a home full of children with machine gun fire or ground forces indiscriminately peppering their home with heavy caliber firepower? One does not have to be religious to object to murder, which offends civil law. But Caddell paints objectors to such murderous activity as quirky, and fitting subjects for psychological study.
In other words, the Branch Davidians were a quirky, eccentric cult that required special kid-glove handling. We are led to believe that all the violations of the Bill of Rights would have been OK on regular people, but should not have been practiced on the Davidians because they were weird.
This device is used over and over again by Waco disinformation agents. Here is a sampling:
"US Officials were completely unwilling to discuss the scripture with David Koresh, crippling negotiations." (pg. 94) "U.S. Officials ignored that they controlled the environmental context through which David Koresh determined whether this assault was the final battle between good and evil." (pg. 92) "They rejected the assistance of religious experts such as Dr. Phillip Arnold and Dr. James Tabor, who understood David Koresh's philosophy and intentions and whom David Koresh respected." (pg. 94) "They launched their April 19th assault, ignoring that the Davidian religion preached that the Davidians were all to die, together, in Jerusalem, Israel …" (pg. 100). "They launched their April 19th final assault even though they knew that religious experts studying the Davidian religion and Koresh's teachings were convinced that Koresh had concluded that this was not yet the final phase of the apocalypse and that time remained for him to continue what he considered to be his prophetic mission." (pg. 99.) Huh?
The technique is this: Shift the subject from the government's murderous acts against the Davidians to the Davidians' religion. Present the religion as bizarre or inexplicable, then blame the government for not bending over backward, or being too incompetent, to understand the religion.
In the Smart Diagram of the Mt. Carmel Center used by the ATF when planning the raid,
We see the name "Teresa Noriega" listed as one of the residents. No one bearing the name
"Noriega" left Mt. Carmel during the siege or died in the blaze.
Clive Doyle lists "Theresa Nobrega" as one of the Davidian victims:
Theresa Nobrega is also listed in the Identification Matrix
But the deceased's surname name "Nobrega" is transformed once again in Caddell's suit: On pg. 17, the surname is "Nogrega" before returning to "Nobrega" on pgs. 20, 38. Is the victim so unimportant, the name so insubstantial, or the legal work so sloppy?
Of all bizarre twists, Caddell uses this Complaint to assure the world Janet Reno is a nice person. She meant well—she was just misled and emotionally manipulated.
"FBI Officials … failed to tell their superiors, particularly Attorney General Reno, the full extent of the negotiations …" (pg. 100.);
"Some of these officials intentionally or recklessly misinformed Attorney General Reno that there was ongoing child abuse or sexual molestation during the Siege. Attorney General Reno based her decision to launch the April 19th final assault on that misrepresentation." (pg. 101)
"Some of these officials were aware that Attorney General Reno was a major advocate of children's right as Dade County, Florida Prosecutor. Accordingly after she had repeatedly rejected the FBI's gas/assault plan to end the Siege, they intentionally misrepresented to her that there was ongoing child abuse or sexual molestation at Mt. Carmel to trigger an irrational response and trick her into approving the final assault." (pg. 102);
"Some of these officials ignored, and failed to tell Attorney General Reno, that an international treaty, to which the US was signatory, banned the use of CS gas during war." (pg. 108).
Space limitations prohibit the reproduction of the many other excuses Caddell offers for Reno, but we shall end with this:
"Some of these officials misrepresented to Attorney General Reno that the CS gas was safe … They misrepresented to Reno that the CS gas would not likely hurt the children … Reno would not have ordered the use of the gas without these misrepresentations." (pg 108, emphasis added.)
How could Caddell possibly know what Reno would do or not do had she had certain information? He could not, of course. Nor would a real lawyer representing real clients in a real law suit defend the person his clients are suing, especially the person who had publicly taken "responsibility" for killing his clients' relatives.
Caddell does not mention any of the evidence concerning the fire you will see at:
Instead, Caddell first he says Mrs. O'Leary's cow started the fire before dropping the Big One: The Davidians started the fire.
The Mrs. O'Leary's cow version runs like this: Davidians were using kerosene lamps and candles for light, hay for warmth, yet on April 19 the US "ignored these facts and they ignored that the tanks would knock over everything they ran into, that the tanks movements caused the ground to shake, and that the tanks would panic the Davidians causing them to run wildly though the Church, all of which caused a deadly fire by knocking over lamps and candles." (pg. 195). In several following paragraphs, Caddell blames the fire on other causes: heat from CS canisters, methylene chloride, propane, flashbangs, the high wind, etc., etc. Now the meat:
"Alternative to Plaintiffs' allegations that the Defendants caused the April 19th fire, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE THAT THE DAVIDIANS STARTED THE FIRE [emphasis added] and this was foreseeable by Defendants. Thus, US Officials launched their April 19th final assault without thoroughly analyzing all available data collected with their electronic surveillance, including the transcriptions of conversations by the Davidians inside the Church, which would have told them that some Davidians may start one or more fires if the FBI assaulted the Church. These officials failed to timely enhance tapes of conversations by some Davidians or even to listen closely to these conversations, either of which would have revealed the possibility of a fire, caused the cancellation of the April 19th assault, and saved the Decedents' lives." (pg. 113)
In other words, if only the government had been more efficient in its violation of the Bill of Rights, the government could have prevented these lunatics from burning themselves alive …
Lest Judge Smith forgets about Molotov cocktails, Caddell reminds him: "… the Plaintiffs allege that, in ordering the April 19th armored assault against the Davidians, US Officials ignored that some of the Davidians would fight back using home-made pyrotechnic devices, which … would cause a fire." (pg. 107)
Surely it doesn't get more obvious than this. These surviving "Branch Davidian" plaintiffs mouth the government's most pernicious calumny against their dead relatives and friends. What kind of Branch Davidians are these, and what moves the family members of the dead to slander those who can no longer defend themselves?
If these "Branch Davidians" ever had a sense of what was right, it has been replaced by something sinister. If the Branch Davidian survivors and the family members of the deceased ever had any credibility, surely such credibility has now vanished.
Here's that key phrase again—and again—and again. "Agents of the US violated the rules of engagement which prohibited gassing the children." We may be tempted to ask Caddell which rules of engagement allow the gassing of the children's parents. Caddell continues:
"They violated the rules of engagement which prohibited gassing any area where they expected children to be. They violated the rules of engagement which prohibited them from continuing the assault if there was any indication of danger to the children. They violated the rules of engagement by proceeding and continuing with the plan even though they reasonably feared that the Davidians would commit suicide because of the assault …" (pgs. 114-115).
The Constitution and Bill of Rights defines the Rules of Engagement between government and the people. The people are sovereign, the government is servant. But Caddell, like McNulty, would persuade us the people exist at the government's sufferance. The servant (government) can decide under what conditions ("rules of engagement") they may gas, torture, or summarily execute the sovereigns.
Here is the game plan: Use the Waco Holocaust to ratchet forward a process that was begun long ago: the abrogation of the Rule of Law and the substitution of Martial Law. To put it another way: To replace the Bill of Rights with the Rules of Engagement.
The news media is an arm of the secret government. One of its roles is to engineer public consent for government programs, or at least give the appearance of public consent. This is done, in part, by molding public attitudes and emotions. We have seen this technology in use in the wars on Iraq and Serbia, where atrocity stories were fabricated to create American public support for intervention. Many "news events" are actually events that have been planned, designed, carried out, reported as news events, and editorialized upon for one purpose: To mold public attitudes and emotions and engineer consent. (For a discussion of the engineering of consent, see "PR! A Social History of Spin" by Stuart Ewen, Basic Books, 1996; for an illustration of practical application, see "Wag the Dog.")
In the age of engineered consent, opinion polls and surveys help the spinmeisters understand the public's current attitudes and design new programs. They tell the spinmeisters which stories will fly and which stories won't. "News" stories incorporating the winning lies are crafted and released.
The Internet has to some degree spoiled this system. For example, truthful information concerning the Waco deaths has been available via the World Wide Web for some years, and this truthful information has changed public opinion in a way the spinmeisters don't want.
This changing public opinion is being carefully monitored by public opinion surveys. In his October 17, 1999 article in the Washington Times BOOK WORLD ("The Burning"), spinmeister Robert Suro discloses how closely public opinion is monitored and damage control efforts are crafted.
Suro discusses David Thibodeau's book, "A Place Called Waco" and writes of Thibodeau:
"… he [Thibodeau] concludes that although neither the Davidians nor the FBI deliberately set the compound ablaze, the law-enforcement side knowingly created the conditions for a conflagration. That captures much of what has changed in the public view over [the] last six years, according to opinion surveys that now show deep skepticism about the FBI's role at Waco."
(Suro also says, revealingly, that Thibodeau's accounting of events is objective. How could Suro know?)
Yes, changes in public opinion are carefully monitored. The US needs a firebreak in the forest fire of growing public awareness of the truth. The psychological warfare flacks are betting that pubic attention can be focused on false issues. At the same time they will try to convince the public that the wrongs inflicted on the Davidians have been righted.
To do that, the US must admit as little wrongdoing as it can credibly get away with and hope the public will then tire of the subject.
What can the US credibly dish out to the public? The civil suits and Judge Smith's resulting Order of July 1, 1999 give us insight into what the US thinks it can credibly get away with. Regard the items in the judge's Order as a selection of dishes on the coverup smorgasbord.
During the next year, careful public opinion polls will be conducted, and based on the results, helpings from these dishes on the coverup smorgasbord will be arranged on the public platter. Whatever protest neutralization cannot be achieved by the mechanism of the civil suits will be implemented through the "investigations" of Congress and Sen. John Danforth and other artifices that are being designed and executed. Before we sample Judge Smith's cover-up smorgasbord, let's look at his prior contribution to the cover-up.
The issue of "Davidian survivors" is fraught with questions, as told in these exhibits: