Judge Walter Smith has been overseeing the introduction of perjurious testimony since 1994, when he presided over the criminal trial of the Branch Davidians. Recall that the US charged the Branch Davidians with conspiracy to murder ATF agents on February 28, 1993. During the trial, prosecuting attorney Phinizy called medical examiner Nizam Peerwani to testify at length about the February 28 deaths—but then allowed him to testify about the manner in which the mothers and children allegedly died 50 days later on April 19, 1993. Judge Smith allowed this completely irrelevant testimony and neither the Davidian defense lawyers nor the Department of Justice lawyers objected.
The testimony was not only irrelevant to the matter being tried, it was also perjurious. Peerwani testified that the woman and children died within minutes of each other (on April 19, 1993), but his own autopsy reports showed great variation in the decomposition states, indicating the victims had died on different dates, many earlier than April 19.
Peerwani also told the court that many of the mothers and children died when the concrete room ("bunker") collapsed. That was untrue and Peerwani knew it, for he testified he had visited the scene just after the fire.
Moreover, at the same trial the Texas Ranger in charge of collected evidence in the concrete room testified repeatedly about the condition of the concrete room. Yes, the roof had been damaged by a 18-24 inch hole, but the room had not collapsed at all.
Here are two photos published on May 3, 1993, just two weeks after Peerwani had visited the site. They show that the edifice was not a bunker and neither did it collapse.
Since the newsmagazine photos cited above appeared well before the criminal trial and the Davidian defense attorneys heard the Taxas Ranger's testimony about conditions in the concrete room, the Davidian defense attorneys had to know Peerwani's testimony was false. But just as they did not object to the inclusion of this irrelevant testimony, they did not recall or cross examine Peerwani to expose his perjury. Judge Smith and the Department of Justice lawyers kept their mouths shut, too. The result was that Peerwani's lies, given under oath and unchallenged, were etched in stone in the court record and became an officially blessed "truth." Now let's look at Judge Smith's July 1, 1999 Order.
"We are overjoyed and excited, and quite surprised by Judge Smith's opinion. All of our core issues survived," said Caddell, speaking of Judge Smith's July 1, 1999 Order. (Washington Post, July 14, 1999, "Trial Set in Suit Over Davidians' Fiery End"). "I looked at that fire on the final day and said, 'That is not right.' That's what the case is about," said Caddell, according to the Post.
Let's look at what made Caddell overjoyed and excited. Given the lawyers' perfect set-up for the judge, this finding comes as no surprise
Judge Smith says: "The fact that tear gas may be dangerous through long-term exposure is a red herring raised by Plaintiffs. Tear gas, obviously, is not intended for long-term exposure, and there is nothing to indicate that the Defendants had any intention of subjecting the Davidians, adults or children, to long-term exposure. The obvious intent was to use the tear gas to force the Davidians to voluntarily leave the Compound." (pgs. 49-50.)
Thus we see the beauty of keeping the content of the Autopsy Reports of the mothers and children out of the legal suits. The judge can pretend the mothers and children were alive on April 19. Smith continues:
"Any long-term exposure was the result of the Davidians' choice to remain in the Compound after the tear gas had been inserted and to force their children to remain there, also. Although much has been said of the heartlessness of the Government in subjecting innocent children to tear gas, it should be noted that those who had the power to protect the children, their parents, did not do so.
"The adult Davidians elected to remain in the Compound, and kept their children there, even after repeated warnings by the FBI that tear gas was going to be inserted. The Davidians chose to allow their children to be exposed to the tear gas for over six hours, even though they had no gas masks that would fit the children." (pg. 50.)
The judge relies on the discreditable story told by the alleged survivors of the fire: the mothers had gas masks on April 19, but the children did not; rather than surrender, the mothers allowed their children to writhe and splutter and gag, and all the while the mothers looked on, safe in their gas masks.
But there is no forensic evidence of gas mask remnants found on or near the mothers' bodies, either. In fact, there is no record in the Autopsy Reports that gas mask remnants were found near any Davidian corpse. Moreover, among those adult corpses that were found with heads, the faces show no signs that the deceased were wearing gas masks when they died. A gas mask, of course, would produce uneven burning of the face or, if destroyed, leave residue on the face.
In short, there is no evidence ANY of the dead Davidians wore gas masks on April 19, 1993. Now back to Judge Smith:
"There is, therefore, no basis for liability based upon the stand-off or the decision to insert tear gas into the Compound." (pg. 50).
Again, we see why no forensic evidence concerning the deaths of the mothers and children was included in the lawyers' complaints. The forensic evidence simply does not support the US-Davidian story of April 19, 1993. And the story, as told by the so-called fire "survivors," is the foundation on which the Big Lie is built.
There is no way the survivors' stories can explain the condition of the mothers' and children's bodies. And what are we to make of the bodies that have never been found?
The "fire survivors" claim to have been inside the Mt. Carmel Center from 6am to noon when the fire broke out. During these six hours the complex was saturated with CS, which, according to Caddell, causes skin burns, blistering rashes, and first degree burns. (pg. 107) Yet none of the "fire survivors" had to undergo treatment for CS poisoning, despite having their skin exposed to the noxious substance for six hours.
Several years ago, this writer asked Clive Doyle whether his skin was affected by the CS. He replied no, and explained that when the attack started he ran and got a sweater. How likely is this?
Clive Doyle ran to get a sweater to protect his skin, but never checked on the whereabouts of his 18 year-old daughter? Shari Doyle's body was found on top of the concrete room, but Clive escaped with his life. Why wasn't Shari at Clive's side that morning? And what of the well-being of the mothers and children and babies in the concrete room? It is hard to imagine that the Clive Doyle presented on TV and in the newspapers would be so unspeakably callous: To run and get a sweater to protect his skin and leave the moms to fend for themselves, the children choking to death without "gas masks" to protect them from the CS. No, Doyle's story does not wash.
David Thibodeau's internally contradictory stories of the last day fall apart in a similar fashion. Thibodeau first told this writer that he had seen no women and children on April 19; when asked who told them to go into the concrete room, David said he did not know. He did, however, say that the mothers took the children there to protect them from the gas attack, that the mothers had gas masks, and that the children had no gas masks.
To protect their children from the gas, Thibodeau said that the mothers had buckets of water and cloths with them; the mothers dunked the cloths into the buckets of water and covered the children's faces with cloths. When asked how he knew what was going on in the concrete room during that morning, Thibodeau replied that one of the mothers came out of the room and told him. When asked which mother had told him, Thibodeau said he could not remember.
How likely is all this? Thibodeau's wife Michelle Jones and his three step children were in that room. If the mystery woman could get out, Thibodeau could have gotten in. But we are asked to believe he did not stop in to check on his family, or even remember the identity of the other mother sharing his wife's fate.
During the 1994 criminal trial, Sgt. Raymond Coffman, the Texas Ranger in charge of collecting evidence in the concrete room, did not report finding any buckets or gas masks. The Autopsy Reports do not indicate that any buckets, gas masks, or remnants of gas masks were found on or near the bodies.
When this writer asked David Thibodeau if he needed skin treatment after being exposed to six hours of CS he replied no, that the Mt. Carmel Center was a big building and it was possible to run from one place to another to escape the CS. What a shame that his wife Michelle and the three girls were not at his side that morning, running from place to place with him. They, too, might have lived.
For more information on unbelievable "fire survivors" stories, see:
The evidence is mounting. There is something very wrong with the US-Davidian story of the CS attack. None of the Davidian corpses wore gas masks, nor do we find evidence that they ever wore gas masks that day. The "fire survivor" stories don't check out. The descriptions of the bodies contained in the Autopsy Reports, the entirety of the physical and circumstantial evidence—all indicate that the CS attack and fire were covers for murders that had already been committed.
The conclusion is irresistible: The elaborate story of April 19— the US warnings of attack that morning, the reported reactions among the Davidians, the alleged Davidian conversation about starting a fire, the flight of the mothers and children into the concrete room, the "accidental" cutting of the phone line by the tanks, the Ghostly Horde running out the back and getting mowed down by the FBI—are bogus.
Parkland Hospital treated a number of Branch Davidians who had been wounded in the helicopter and ground troop raid of February 28, 1993. Parkland treated these people in March and April, before the events of April 19 were played out before the world. Parkland Hospital went on to sue the US for payment. The records with the details of treatment and payment are now sealed.
Misty Ferguson was 17 years old and living in the Mt. Carmel Center with her mother, Rita Riddle, at the time of the February 28 raid. Rita Riddle left the Mt. Carmel Center on March 21, 1993. But we are asked to believe Ms. Riddle left her 17 year-old daughter in the company of a sexual profligate in a house surrounded by hostile troops roaring around in tanks, throwing grenades and mooning the residents. What mother would do this? We are asked to believe Rita Riddle would, and did.
Misty was injured, allegedly when escaping the fire on April 19. She received severe injuries to her face and hands and reportedly lost some of her fingers. Her injuries are consistent with injuries a person might sustain if she were fending off a grenade. Misty's injuries are scarcely consistent with the injuries that might be sustained escaping a house fire; a house fire would not selectively burn off fingers and leave the victim still capable of walking out.
Indeed, we can understand why Misty Ferguson was not asked to testify before Congress. Having lived at the Mt. Carmel Center, her testimony concerning Koresh's sexual practices would have been more compelling than Kiri Jewell's, who testified before Congress but was never a resident. But just as no one wants to look at the Autopsy Reports, no one wants to hear from Misty Ferguson or question her about her injuries.
By now, all indications point in this direction: The injuries received by the "fire survivors" were actually received on February 28, not on April 19, 1993. The US-Davidian story of April 19, 1993 recalls "Mission Impossible" scripts that depict the clever feats of intelligence operatives who assume identities of real people and act out a script written to deceive unwary spectators. But let's get back to Judge Smith:
"Additionally, although the decision to use tear gas to attempt to oust the Davidians from the Compound may not be actionable, the method in which it was inserted may have been negligent if the Government agents actually blocked the Davidians from safely exiting the building after inserting the tear gas." (pgs. 67-68).
Let's not spoil Judge Smith's fun. Let's pretend we all take the CS attack at face value. After all, he has gone to the trouble of writing an Order for a "trial" at which he will preside without benefit of jury. He will go through the pantomime of hearing both sides and arriving at a Solomonic decision.
What are the odds that Smith will find the US did bungle and block the exits, preventing the dead from walking? He has already given us a hint.
In the same July 1, Order in which Smith raises the question of negligence, Smith also said: "The use of the tanks not only destroyed exterior walls, but caused damage to the interior of the building including smashing some staircases and blocking some interior access, including the doorway that led to the bus buried beneath the Compound." (pg. 14).
Seeing that he has boxed himself in this far, how likely is it Smith will find the US was NOT negligent? "The exits were blocked," is vital for the cover story: the US needs this excuse to explain why the Davidians did not leave during the CS attack and fire. "They were dead already" may be the truth, but that just won't do.
Barring unexpected public opinion survey results, we may safely assume that the judge will follow through and award the plaintiffs damages because the US negligently blocked the exits of the Mt. Carmel Center on April 19, 1993, thus failing to let the corpses escape the "tear gas."
This finding will prompt a monetary award to the Davidians. An award of money is essential to the public perception that justice has been done; and such a public perception is essential if psychological warfare is to neutralize the protest over the Waco Holocaust.
Surely no one can be surprised at the following, given the charges made by the FBI, Mike McNulty, and Michael Caddell. Here are Judge Smith's words:
"The Fire: As to the fire itself, there is nothing to indicate that the Defendants [US agents] deliberately set fire to the Compound." (pg. 50.)
Of course not. When the lawyers weren't telling the court that Mrs. O'Leary's cow started the fire, they were telling the court the Davidians started the fire. The judge continues in Footnote 18:
"In fact, there is a good amount of summary judgement proof that the Davidians themselves started the fire. Tape recordings made from concealed listening devices inside the Compound revealed a number of individuals discussing spreading fuel and starting fires in several different places." (pg. 50.)
We understand why the judge and the lawyers conveniently disregarded the phenomena of bare ground burning in the Mt. Carmel Center fire and the copious amounts of pitch black smoke. Those are the indicators of a petroleum fire, similar to the signature demolition fires set by Special Operations during the destruction of their targets.
The fires are set using drums of jet fuel. Much better to ignore that evidence, it might lead to embarrassing questions about what really happened to Mt. Carmel and the Branch Davidians who remained loyal to David Koresh.
Later in the Order, the Judge says: "Further, there is insufficient evidence at this point for the Court to determine, as a matter of law, how the fire was started in the Compound … If tanks inserting the tear gas actually did topple lit lanterns into carelessly stored hay, there could be a finding of negligence. Finally, the decision not to allow the fire trucks immediately upon the property has not been addressed by the parties. There might be a claim for negligence in that regard, also," (pg. 68).
Let's revisit Robert Suro's October 17, 1999 BOOK WORLD piece: Suro gives us a hint of what the judge might find. Speaking of putative fire survivor David Thibodeau, Suro says: "… he 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 …"
Barring some unexpected findings from the public opinion polls, expect Judge Smith to find "that although neither the Davidians nor the FBI deliberately set the compound ablaze …" etc., etc., (see previous paragraph), that the US negligently blocked the exits, and that the US negligently refused to admit the fire trucks.
As we might have predicted, Judge Smith likes the FLIR tape. He says: "One issue that is not so readily dismissed … is the Plaintiffs' assertion that FBI agents fired into the Compound without provocation during the insertion of the tear gas and after the fire started. Plaintiffs assert that the FBI's actions kept a number of Davidians from leaving the Compound. If Plaintiffs' allegations are true, due process would be implicated as such behavior would rise to a level that would shock the conscience. Plaintiffs present at least some evidence to support their claim, including the affidavits of Clive Doyle, David Thibideau (sic), and the opinions of Edward F. Allard and Maurice Cox, experts in thermal imaging who proffer the opinion that certain images on the FLIR tape taken on April 19 are muzzle flashes from a fully automatic firearm being fired from outside the Compound." (Pgs. 52, 53).
Judge Smith does not mention the obvious: FLIR equipment records body heat (London Times, March 21, 1993, cited above.) The FLIR equipment on April 19, 1993 would have recorded Davidian body heat as well as muzzle flashes. Where are the images of the Davidians running out the back and being mowed down by FBI firepower?
Smith refers to Clive Doyle and David "Thibideau", who, as we have just seen, both effectively admit they abandoned their loved ones at time of need and ran out of a burning house, leaving the others to their deaths. How credible are the affidavits of these two men? They are parties in law suits in which they, through their lawyers, tacitly admit they cooperated in the sexual abuse of children, and they claim that their friends and relatives murdered each other and set Mt. Carmel afire. How credible are two men who cooperate with the felonious slander of their murdered friends and relatives while simultaneously claiming to be victims?
But from the US view, you can't beat the FLIR tapes with a stick. Experts will disagree forever on what they show. This expensive public relations campaign (it is hoped) will deflect attention from the real evidence of murder and inoculate the public against looking at real evidence in the autopsies.
The FLIR footage provides a confession and avoidance opportunity for the FBI. We can hear the argument now: "The FBI shot the Davidians as they tried to escape the fire. That shows the Davidians were still alive then. OK. Maybe some hotheaded, spiteful *individuals* in the FBI took matters into their own hands and shot the Davidians but on the other hand the Davidians shot at the FBI first. You can't blame the FBI for shooting back. That's not murder with malice aforethought!"
Judge Smith would have us believe he honestly wants to know whether FBI agents shot Davidians who were trying to escape from the Mt. Carmel Center. He hasn't asked to see evidence to back up the claim, but on November 15, 1999, Judge Smith asked for a reenactment of the alleged shooting spree.
If the judge has seen the FLIR footage or read about it in the newspapers, he would know that the alleged shooting spree took place in the back of the Mt. Carmel Center. Since he presided over the 1994 criminal trial, he should also know that, according to official records, no bodies were recovered from the back of the Mt. Carmel Center.
We would expect the judge to demand some evidence that there were such victims. Either the allegations are groundless or the FBI moved the bodies. Smith should be screaming for answers, either way.
But instead of requesting the basics, on November 15, 1999, Smith asks for the reenactment the McNulty/Caddell scenario. Anything to take attention off the real evidence, or lack thereof!
In the July 1, Order, Smith says: "… if one or more ATF agents shot into the Compound indiscriminately and without provocation such would be the type of behavior that could lead to liability." (pg. 67.)
To the reasonable man, firing indiscriminately with or without provocation into a house full of children is criminal. But this judge would disagree. Such an act could only "lead to liability." If the US showed the ATF agents took careful aim at the Davidians, why, then, arguably the judge would find no "liability."
Finding the US liable, however, would have benefits: The Davidians can be awarded monetary damages, "Rules of Engagement" could be crafted governing future military raids on civilians, and the lawyers would be paid.
Much has been made of Judge Smith's insistence that every last government file on Waco be handed over to him. Indeed, all these files and whatever statements made by witnesses during depositions may be sealed for an indeterminate period. The US could use a number of mechanisms are to achieve this end.
One such mechanism is described in a December 17, 1999 article written by Lee Hancock for the Dallas Morning News: "Government lawyers have asked a federal judge to block public release of hundreds of government documents recently surrendered to lawyers for the Branch Davidians, arguing that disclosure poses security risks for federal agents and military personnel." Should the judge seal these records, the "trial" over which he will preside will in effect be a secret trial.
Even worse, the Department of Justice is seeking to seal documents that have already been publicly released to Congress and attorneys in earlier trials. "Having to sort out what has been made public before designating documents confidential would take too much time and effort, Justice Department lawyers argued," according to Lee Hancock.
There is another mechanism that could be used to seal the files. Civil suits are often settled before trial. When this occurs, it is common that parties agree to seal whatever evidence either side has developed. Should a settlement occur, rather than a "trial," all those files and whatever information developed through depositions could arguably be sealed as part of the agreement.
But still, this concern about the files is farcical and just part of the vaudeville act. Some of the most damaging evidence of government misdeeds (the Autopsy Reports) is already public, but has been ignored by Davidian lawyers, Congress and the press. Other vital elements of the story lie in the institutional memory of the Special Operations Command, the black operation behind the Waco Holocaust. Special Ops., whose tool of trade is deception, would of course not take seriously requests for information pertaining to some petty civil case, particularly a case in which they were players.
The reason the US wants to seal evidence already released and the evidence collected as a result of this legal trial is this: The US cover-up of the deliberate murders of the Branch Davidians- especially the Davidian mothers and children—was done in such a sloppy fashion the truth is obvious to all who are willing to look. And more and more people ARE willing to look. So something must be done!
The public relations groundwork has already been laid for freeing the Davidian prisoners, an act which the US hopes would neutralize much of the outrage stirred up by the Waco Holocaust.
As mentioned earlier, Judge Smith made sure a number of the Branch Davidians got 40 year prison sentences, even though they were found not guilty by the jury of murdering the ATF agents on February 28, 1993. Legally speaking, even Judge Smith might be hard put to free these prisoners on the basis of what did nor did not occur 50 days later, on April 19, 1993. So a different mechanism has been developed …
On August 30, 1999, The Wall Street Journal published an article written by designated Waco critic Alan A. Stone ("To Make Amends for Waco, Pardon the Branch Davidians." Stone suggested just that:
"It is said that the search for justice and the search for truth eventually reach the same destination. Perhaps as the Waco survivors and their families pursue their civil suit against the government, the Branch Davidians will at least get a bit of justice and the American people will learn the truth. But there is one truth that should be obvious by now: The Branch Davidians were more victims than culprits. They are certainly not common criminals as president Clinton once characterized them.
“Seven Branch Davidians who survived the final conflagration were charged with violent crimes and are still serving long sentences in federal prisons. Mr. Clinton should pardon them. By now he must realize both that the government made reckless mistakes at Waco and that those federal prisoners were motivated by deeply held religious convictions. Pardoning them would have no political value; it may even have substantial political costs. But Mr. Clinton should do it—with Ms. Reno's encouragement. I believe in their hearts they both know it is the right thing to do."
Waco is not a lone incident. The intrusion of the military and military methods into US civilian life has been going on for decades. Columnist Richard Poe ( http://www.RichardPoe.com/) recently commented on the 1985 MOVE incident in Philadelphia. A house full of political dissidents ran afoul of the local constabulary. The police, encouraged by the FBI and the ATF, used massive artillery and a satchel of plastic explosive dropped from a helicopter to destroy their targets. The fire they started burnt down a whole neighborhood and killed 11 people, including five children. As Poe pointed out, the massacre was attributed to bungling cops, so the mayor proposed "reforms." The proposed reforms would have solidified and expanded the militarist tactics responsible for the massacre. These proposed "reforms" included the creation of a counter-terrorism strike force and the establishment of unprecedented liaisons with federal "law-enforcement" (i.e., paramilitary) agencies.
Now we see the same pattern with Waco, which has been presented to the public as a series of bungles by federal "law enforcement" agencies. "Lessons of Waco: Proposed Changes in Federal Law Enforcement," was written for the Department of Justice by Philip B. Heymann and published by DoJ on October 8, 1993. Heymann suggests the US adopt various "rules of engagement" to prevent future Wacos. The spirit of these recommendations seems to have transmigrated to Caddell's pen and found a new voice as Caddell's "Complaint," as we have discussed above. Indeed, Heymann's booklet could have been Caddell's template.
Heymann gives us a sample of a situations to which these new rules of engagement may apply. Speaking of Waco, Heymann says:
"… the rules of engagement were complicated by the fact that many of the inhabitants were not suspects but also were not traditional hostages because they had no desire to leave. This category includes the children and any of those adults who shared Koresh's beliefs but did not take up weapons. The rules of engagement for freeing hostages where innocent civilians are in imminent risk of harm are different from the rules of engagement in situations where there in no imminent threat to life. If an innocent person's life is in immediate danger at the hand of the suspects, then immediate action using deadly force against the suspects may be justified. This urgency characterizes many hostage situations especially terrorist incidents. In other situations, like the one at Waco, the absence of an imminent threat means there is time to develop a plan and carefully review it. It also complicates decisions about the use of deadly force." (pg. 4)
Do you believe what you have just read? Heymann acknowledges that "many" of the Davidians were not suspects, and had no desire to leave their home where they were living in peace. This situation "complicates decisions about the use of deadly force," says Heymann. Heymann is right. There is no de jure justification for military raids, torture, gassing, public humiliation, assassination, or razing of the homes of Americans who are living at peace in their own homes. But this will change soon. That's why Heymann and others are proposing Rules of Engagement.
Rules of engagement are rules issued by commanders of armies. They are orders concerning the strategy to be used in conduct of a war and they govern encounters with the enemy. They have no place in a genuine constitutional republic, where the armed forces are under the control of The People. The People govern themselves by laws which are immutable, except as modified by duly authorized bodies in accordance with the principles of the republic. In our case, those principles are found in the Bill of Rights. In contrast, Rules of Engagement can be changed at whim of the commander.
We have been primed. The name of the cover-up video "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" was no accident. Waco is presented as a bungled law enforcement action. "If only we had better Rules of Engagement Waco would not have occurred." McNulty's video is just a part of the program, as are the civil suits and the so called "investigations" of Danforth and Congress.
We are being conditioned to accept martial law and rules of engagement. We are being conditioned to forget the rule of law and the Bill of Rights. How nice to have Rules of Engagement, so that holocausting and summary executions can occur within federal guidelines!
The US wants the American public to come "closure" on the Waco Holocaust. What better way than to show the surviving Davidians are coming to "closure"? If the Davidians don't hold grudges, why should we? Therefore the Davidians should be viewed as happy campers who believe in the system.
To this end, "patriot" happy campers are joining Davidian happy campers. Linking arms,
together they are stepping forth to rebuild a new Branch Davidian church on the killing fields
of the old Mt. Carmel Center. The timing of all this is coincident with the media
coverage of the civil suits and the Danforth and Congressional "investigations," of course.
On September 19 a ground breaking ceremony was held in Waco, complete with a flagpole flying the American flag. According to an article in the Associated Press, "Volunteers Rebuild Davidian Church," (September 19, 1999), talk show host Alex Jones lead a group of 60 people, many with shovels and pickaxes, to break the ground. "This is to about saying the witch hut of 1993 is over," Jones is quoted as saying. Then, with a great deal of honesty, Jones says:
"All of it—it's all about public opinion. We know that now is the perfect time, that's why we're doing it."
According to AP, David Koresh's stepfather said that he "felt good" about the project, but the significance was "too deep" to explain. The following month, the National Enquirer ran "Waco Cult Church Rises Again." Citizen volunteer Mike Hanson, a contractor, is quoted:
"We are rebuilding it— because it's the right thing to do … People have been calling local hardware stores and using their credit cards to purchase building materials."
All this is heart warming, to be sure, if you don't know the facts. But notice that the press never once quotes the happy campers suggesting that US military and civilian employees be indicted and tried for the murder of the Davidians.
Tom Cook is a confidante of "fire survivor" Clive Doyle. In his e-mail signature block, Cook describes himself as "Administrator of The Seven Seals and the Trustees of the Branch Davidians in Waco." This writer had an exchange with Doyle, Cook and others concerning the lack of indictments for the murderers of the Davidians and the rebuilding of the Davidian church over the killing fields of the Mt. Carmel Center.
On September 26, 1999 Cook revealed how far he was willing to go to come to "closure" on the Waco Holocaust:
"The very kind and God fearing people that have begun the task of rebuilding our church are trying to show by their efforts that the America they believe in is still alive. By their actions they hope to inspire the rest of the nation."
All of this is as we have said. If the Davidians don't hold grudges, why should we? Cook confirms that the purpose of rebuilding the Mt. Carmel Center is to "show" … that the America Americans believe in "is still alive." Cook wants us all to be happy campers. Then Cook says:
"The detractors of such exercises, drowning in legalism, come from the root of the problem. They, maybe unknowingly, cause division and stress leading to uncertainty and failure."
In other words, those who expect murderers to be indicted and brought to trial are "drowning in legalism." Cook continues:
"We must not lose sight of the goal. The goal of renewal of our heritage, returning to charity, backing away from judgement, lending a helping hand without lusting for recognition and learning the very basic, simple method of behavior and thinking which results in achievement instead of suffocation."
Notice the words "returning to charity, backing away from judgement." What Cook is saying is that we should let US employees get away with murder: to do otherwise would be uncharitable and judgmental. The rest of the paragraph is sheer bafflegab.
Thus Cook recommends that the US have carte blanche to murder at home in the US, just as they have carte blanche to murder abroad. The surviving Davidians and the family members of the deceased, for whatever undisclosed reasons, are colluding with the government to achieve that very end.
This text appears as footnote 10 on pg. 17 of Judge Walter Smith's July 1, 1999 Memorandum Opinion And Order.
"The claims asserted by the Plaintiffs were originally filed in this Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas in nine separate lawsuits. Judge Nancy Atlas in the Houston Division granted the Government's motion to transfer the cases to this court. When filed in the Waco Division, the cases consisted of the following: Andrade, et al., v. Chojnacki, et al., W-96-CA-139; Holub, et al., v. Reno, et al., W-96-CA-140 (Holub I); Ferguson, et al., v. Reno, et al., W-96-CA 141; Brown, et al., v. United States, et al., W-96-CA-142 (Brown I); Riddle, et al., v. Reno, et al., W-96-CA-143; Gyarfus, et al., v . United States, et al., W-96-CAA-144; Martin, et al., v. United States, et al., W-96-CA-145; Holub, et al., v. United States, et al, W-96-CA-146 (Holub II); and Brown, et al., v. United States, et al, W-96-CA-147 (Brown II). A subsequently filed suit, Sylvia, et al., v. United States, et al, was assigned cause number W-96-CA-373. All of the cases were consolidated for pre-trial, with possible consolidation for all purposes. After consolidation, the Plaintiffs have been separated into three groups, represented by three separate groups of lawyers: (1) the Andrade plaintiffs include those filing claims in W-96-CA-139, W-96-CA-141, W-96 CA-143, W-96-CA-144, W-96-CA-145, and W-96-CA-373; (2) the Brown plaintiffs include the claims filed in W-96-CA-142 and W-96-CA-147; and (3) the Holub plaintiffs include the claims filed in W-96-CA-140 and W-96-CA-146. For simplicity, the Court will refer to the factions as the Andrade, Brown, or Holub plaintiffs."
On January 5, 2000, at approximately 9:15 p.m., Brig. General Partin telephoned this writer with a single correction to this article. Partin denied he had ever worked at McDill Air Force Base.
I asked Partin to send me written notification of any disagreements he had with my representation of him. When I receive Partin's written and signed statement, I will attach it to this article. To this date (January 19, 2000), I have received nothing in writing from Partin.
The issue of "Davidian survivors" is fraught with questions, as told in these exhibits: