Can someone please educate me about Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Sidebar: Judicial Override

Agree with TallPine, there is a huge difference between overturning a conviction and overturning an acquital.

Judges have many tools at their disposal to dismiss cases and acquit a suspect, this is consistent with the principles of "benefit of the doubt" and bias towards erring on the side of acquital, and I have no problem with this.

What I was was alarmed about was the assertion that judges where overriding jury acquitals, and convicting folks at will.

If anyone can show confirmed cases of this, I think it bears (A LOT! of)scrutiny. If not, then I'm content to drop this sidebar and let it lie.

Biased feelings are no match against the facts, the two are not interchangeable but often are to serve those with an ax to grind.

Click to expand...

They often also serve those with a screwup to cover up or a career to save.

For the last time, telwinz, find Ashes of Waco. It's available in hardback from Simon & Schuster, and was written by an award-winning journalist who examined the situation quite carefully from both sides. It's hardly a nut-fudge-fringe book, and is considered the definitive book on the topic. (It contains everything you've already referenced, for instance.)

No anger here, just puzzlement. Some conclusions made are lacking expert sworn testamony, questions/doubts are passed off with the same weight as facts, a lack of evidence (if it ever existed at all) to prove a BELIEF means a cover-up by the government. Prove your point with the unbiased facts, if you can't...well maybe YOU have the closed mind. But none the less this is THR and puzzled or not I'm interested in everyone's feelings and facts. Thats the purpose of this forum. Haven't heard from Mike yet.

telewinz,

Facts?

You haven't read a single book on the topic, you don't know what the charges were, you don't know what the verdicts were, and you're asking me to provide facts?

Read Reavis' book, it's chock full of facts: transcripts of trials and phone conversations, interviews with participants, outcomes of investigations, et cetera.

The facts are this:

In both cases, questionable criminal investigations were screwed up by the numbers, the actual on-site operations were goat-ropes of epic proportions, and then the various branches, agencies and departments involved engaged in an orgy of finger-pointing, obfuscation and name-calling to divert blame. I'm not saying that in either case any federal agency went in with murder in their hearts, but the results were just the same as if they had. Every jury the facts were presented to seems to have agreed with that, which is why Randy Weaver has several million of your tax dollars right now.

Like I said previously: Always an Apologist. And just like the other Apologists I've encountered in threads on Waco, Ruby Ridge and OKC, they refuse to answer direct questions, ignore obvious points and continue to preach the goobermint line. The only useful method in dealing with them? Ignore them and move on, you can't "change their mind" because they aren't voicing their opinion anyway, just advancing the "party line".

Telewinz, if you are anything other than a mouthpiece then be silent till you read the books and actually have a breadth and depth of knowledge to comment with. The worst thing that can happen is you'll learn something. The best thing that can happen is it'll shake this apparent faith you have in the corrupt and mostly unnecessary entity of Big Government.

Coming late to the discussion; my ISP went wonky, last night...

telewinz: It's pretty much an open secret that the feds lied to Governor Richards about the drug issue. That issue was the only way under the law that she could release the N.G. helicopters to them.

Koresh and the Davidians had been pretty thoroughly checked out by the state's child welfare people as to allegations of child abuse. They were pretty thoroughly checked out as to allegations of drug use or meth-labs. They had a comfortable relationship with local area neighbors, and with the McClennan County SO. Koresh was a regular attendee and sit-in musician at local rock-music clubs. And, the sheriff was quoted as saying that any time he heard of any problem, all he had to do was call Koresh and he'd come to the sheriff's office. I have read the ATF warrant, and it's contradictory to many, many other independent accounts of the behavior of Koresh and the Davidians.

Note I do not claim the Davidians didn't buy various parts and pieces to convert an AR15 to full-auto.

The day after the ATF raid, I read newspaper interviews with various Waco citizens and with the sheriff of McClennan County. Basically, all the allegations against the ATF are essentially correct. This is reinforced if you read James Pates' series of articles in Soldier of Fortune magazine; excellent journalism. It is further reinforced if you watched the Congressional hearings as broadcast on C-Span. I followed the whole deal closely. Later, Pate covered the kangaroo-court trial in San Antonio.

Cogito ergo vomitum, or something like that.

Weaver was a separatist, not a supremicist. He avoided the Aryan Nation crowd and its politics. He couldn't be very bright, to have allowed himself to be conned into a subornation of felony situation. Regardless, the two BATF agents incited/enticed him to modify the two shotguns. Because of an erroneous date on the document given him as to a court appearance, the heavy-duty surveillance began, lasting for around a year (!). The rest is history.

My own comment about Horiuchi's story about the shot is that he was totally under-qualified as a shooter, aside from any other under-qualifications that he lacks. Again, I refer you to Pate's articles and C-Span's coverage of the hearings. I like to believe I'm halfway competent at recognizing blarney when I hear it, competent at reading body language when someone is obfuscating if not outright lying. Magaw, et al, were not what I'd call truthful witnesses. Last, the Fibbies aren't in the habit of paying $3.2 very-large to guilty people.

Art

I think the big thing that bothers me about Waco is the fact that the local 911 center was given the wrong radio frequency to communicate with the BATF. If you listen to those 911 tapes of the call from the Dividians attempting to get the shooting to stop, it's just chilling. The feds didn't bother to communicate with the Dividians until they were low on ammo and needed to remove their wounded. Ands while the feds were pulling their wounded back, not a shot was fired from thet compound. There could have been a slaughter of fed agents right then and there, but there wasn't. So who was the violent aggressor?

FWIW, Weaver was found guilty of the original weapons charge and spent a few months in the pen for that. The BATF was fined by the judge for mishandling, fabricating, and destroying evidence.

I 'm not going to read all the pages on this much discussed topic, so if the answer to my question is there, forgive me. Living in Texas, it's my understanding that the local sheriff has supreme LEO authority, trumping even that of the Feds, should they all be needed at a crime scene. Without question, the local sheriff in this state is a person who generally commands a high level of respect.

Here's where I could use the input of some Texas LEO's. If my premise is true, why wasn't the local sheriff summoned by the Feds and told that there may be a big problem brewing, so Sheriff can we count on you to help? The Sheriff at that point could walk up to the front door of the compound (alone) and ask to speak to Koresh, and then point out all the charges and accusations (and commensurate penalties). To my knowledge this was never attempted, and it's always puzzled me as to why not. geegee

Uhh, hmm.

I disremember the Dallas Morning News reporter who did a lot of digging into Waco during the subsequent trials. Anyone help? Art? Anyway, I remember these reports were quite well written, and raised quite a few questions. For example, why was the Fed Attorney out of San Antonio (originally assigned to the case because it was in his jurisdiction) dismissed? Why were his records confiscated? Why did the Feds bring in a ringer? A lot of questions went unanswered during the trial, and a lot of testimony changed. Specifically the official interpretation of the FLIR footage.

Additionally: IF (and I mean IF) Koresh molested any of the girls in his care, why is this an ATF issue? Why didn't the STATE OF TEXAS arrest Koresh? I have never seen the Federal justification for an arrest on state charges.

Congressional hearings are a joke. Period. Kennedy was never inditied for his responcibility in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The only ones to take any heat there was the CIA. There are plenty of other examples. They make good PR, but serve no real purpose.

There are still Nixon apologists who insist that he did no wrong. Why would we expect any less of the Reno/Clinton/FBI/ATF apologists?

GinSlinger

...Magaw, et al, were not what I'd call truthful witnesses....

Click to expand...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, Magaw was the head of the ATF during both Ruby Ridge and Waco. President Bush later "rewarded" Magaw as the initial head of the Transportation Security Administration, where he did everything possible to prevent arming airline pilots. His obstinance eventually got him to "retire to spend more time with the family". Magaw's replacement at TSA, Admiral Loy, is carrying on splendidly in his predecessor's tradition. While Loy is not quite as obstinant, he is still impeding this necessary step to preventing another 9/11.

I didn't see the Dallas Morning News series, but I heard good things about the quality of the reporting.

Magaw came across to me as a stereotypical bureaucrat, who'd been nice to the right people on his way toward the top. More cunning than intelligent, and no conscience. In theRuby Ridge hearings, he raise "obfuscation" to a whole new level.

As head of the TSA, "inept" was far too mild a word for Magaw. A major reason for his firing was the incredible amount of money he was spending on his office and its furnishings. Aside from the "arm the pilots" issue, Loy is getting high marks for hard work, attention to detail, and interest in the grunt-level people. He inherited a lot of problems, many of them inherently built into the system.

Art

Facts from the other side?

"In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to a BATF informant.

Click to expand...

It was alleged that Randy Weaver recieved $50 for cutting a shotgun barrel 1/2 inch shorter than "legal" length. He was subsequently aquitted of that charge. In American justice - like it or not - that means that his jury didn't believe beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. Your JBT buddies probably don't like that, but it isn't going to change at least as long as I draw breath.

There were no "weapons", it was a weapon. One. If those are the facts you are presenting, then it looks like they didn't get past the first line before resorting to lying.

What does that tell you? :banghead:

1) Government incompetence and coverups are real.

Click to expand...

2) Some folks will always martyrize kooks, fringe elements, and criminals.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to repost AZ Husker's reply, just in case somebody missed it. It seems to me that we have reached an impass on this one.

Please pardon me while I go into full rant mode:

It amazes me that some people seem to believe that their thoughts and words are God's Truth. "Well, I said this, and you didn't say anything to dispute it, so that proves I'm right!" Um, no, maybe that just means you didn't say anthing intelligent/important/credible, and it's not worth a response.

Holier than thou, that seems to be the approach of some. "Well I read John Doe's book about Ruby Ridge/Waco/Whatever, and that makes me an expert. I now have all of the facts of the case, and you cannot dispute what I say." Is John Doe a credible author? No. What was John Doe's motive for writing this book? Truth or $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

Rant mode off:

I don't know what happened. Why? Because I wasn't there. There are a lot of facts in these cases. You can't just look at the one's that bolster your beliefs, and ignore the others. All must be weighed. Do I have opinions on the case, yes, but I'm not going to slam my head up against a brick wall trying to convince someone that I'm right, when they may very well be right.

Sorry for the

Stinger

Geek.45


Initially, on the concept of a judicial review over-ruling a jury

Er, actually, I can't find any evidence of that, and it generally flies in the face of the point of having a jury in the first place.

Click to expand...

Ok, so you want to differentiate between guilty and innocent judicial, I can appreciate that, but you now have actual quoted examples of a judge overturning BOTH an acquittal and a guilty verdict, that generally suffices for proof.

Judges can, AND DO, overturn ANY jury ruling, you seemed to doubt that. Their ability to do so is enshrined in law, what more is there ?

Newton

The original post asked to be educated about Ruby Ridge and WACO, in fairness I assumed he wished for the non-fiction account not the "urban legend" or the "fairy tale" version. If you are unhappy with the facts and the results of the official/responsible investigation thats not my fault. If you cannot cite any official/unbiased reports to support your positions that is not my fault either.

Reading a book(s) on the matter may or may not be of value, it depends on the author's bias (if any). I suspect that your definition of a good book or author depends on whether they write what you wish to read (good marketing, you are his target audience). If one of the paperback books you have read presents any compelling new EVIDENCE (not questions or opinions) not already considered, then it is you duty to bring it to the attention of your elected officials. But beware, the main purpose of the books you refere to ("preach to the choir") are intended to make a profit, not to inform or perform some public service. "Don't believe everything you read in books" may apply in your case. 2+2 equals 4, reading no books or 20 books on math does not change this simple fact (for most people).

When expert, sworn statements are available and independant investigations are properly conducted then the results should be acceptable to any reasonable person. Both investigations I cited still stand as valid by MOST (unbiased) responsible people, that they were sponsored by the US Government seems to offend you.

If you have compelling evidence that you feel proves the investigations are as a whole invalid, why don't you send the New York Times or the Washington Post a heads-up (deep-throat). If you have no such evidence, then you are just barking at the moon. Have you tried obtaining reports more to your liking from other governments such as France, Syria, or Libia?

QUOTE]Few of the bodies were located at points of exit from the building, and the cause of death of several of the bodies at exit points were self-inflicted gunshot wounds or gunshots from very close range."[/QUOTE]

I'm not a foresic expert, but since the compound literally burned to the ground, how can you determine the nature of a gunshot wound from a charred body?[

Majic....

As in most cases an expert can but a layman can't, but nothing prevents the laymen from writing a book questioning the expert's opinion.

BTW I agree with Stingers comments, in short you get the best information you can and then arrive at your own conclusion. I do not pretend to be an expert on Ruby Ridge or WACO, therefore I rely on the expert/informed opinions of responsible people.

I rely on the expert/informed opinions of responsible people.

Click to expand...

And you apperently believe someone can only be an expert/ responsible person if they draw a government paycheck.

Is John Doe a credible author? No. What was John Doe's motive for writing this book? Truth or $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

Click to expand...

And what was G-man's motive for issuing reports clearing fellow G-men of all wrongdoing? It's on Government letterhead so it must be true.:banghead:

It appears to me that this is an emotional matter and therefore will not be settled here or elsewhere. After reviewing some of the posts to this thread, I am somewhat shocked and a little disappointed at some of the comments made by a few of THR regulars. For my part I apologize for any comments I made that may have offended someone's personal beliefs. I greatly enjoy "hot" topics but this is getting a little too heated. I bow out. Thanks for your opinions.

telewinz,

First:

When expert, sworn statements are available and independant investigations are properly conducted then the results should be acceptable to any reasonable person. Both investigations I cited still stand as valid by MOST (unbiased) responsible people, that they were sponsored by the US Government seems to offend you.

Click to expand...

So a government agency's in-house after-action report that attempts to minimize the various Bozo-like mistakes they made is an "unbiased source" just because it's from the government? Riiiiight. Wanna buy a bridge? Cheap, unused, you just gotta drive to Brooklyn and pick it up.

Second:

Reading a book(s) on the matter may or may not be of value, it depends on the author's bias (if any).

Click to expand...

...whereas watching a sanitized HistocoveryLearning Channel docudrama makes one an expert? Considering that you still don't even know what the two cases were about, the charges, nor the outcomes of the trials, that's a pretty interesting statement.

Third:

The original post asked to be educated about Ruby Ridge and WACO, in fairness I assumed he wished for the non-fiction account not the "urban legend" or the "fairy tale" version. If you are unhappy with the facts and the results of the official/responsible investigation thats not my fault. If you cannot cite any official/unbiased reports to support your positions that is not my fault either.

Click to expand...

You're right, it's not your fault. What is your fault, however, is that you come in here with your woefully uninformed views of "Koresh was a baby-raping, machinegun-making, meth-selling wierdo, and Weaver was a nazi. Or something. I know this because I saw it in two thirty minute TV shows, plus something on the net from the government told me so." and paint anyone who is more informed on the topic as some kind of weirdo. This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Lalalalalalala! I can't hear you!"

Since you're all up on the "facts" riddle me this:
1) Why did the FBI defend its decision to replace the ATF's ad hoc negotiator (who had developed a rapport with Koresh and secured the release of four children) with a Colonel Blimp-style idiot who proceded to screw up by the numbers?
2) Why did the FBI los... er, "misplace" several crucial pieces of evidence, like the Davidian compound's front door?
3) Why did a court of law give Randy Weaver over three million of your tax dollars in a wrongful death settlement?
4) Why did a DA issue a murder warrant for Horiuchi?
5) Why did a PhD from Ft. Dietrich assure Reno, Sessions, Hubbell and others at a Justice Dept. briefing on 4/14 that CS could not cause a fire or harm small children when the amount of Ferret grenades used would cause a serious concentration of the stuff which is banned from use in warfare by the US and is known to cause death in large indoor concentrations?
6) Why were the Feebs so intent on overriding Reno's 4/15 proposal to wait 'til the water supply in Mt. Carmel ran out?
7) How many machineguns were found in the wreckage?
8) How much meth was found in the wreckage?
9) Why did nobody tell Reno that the Bradleys would not be delivering CS through pipes in a CO2 suspension (like the CEV's did) but by firing Ferret rounds, which contain CS suspended in methylene chloride? (Seen the MSDS on methylene chloride, BTW?) Combustion of methylene chloride (such as by the open heaters in the compound) creates hydrogen chloride and phosgene. You know what phosgene is, right? Interesting way to "save the kiddies", no?

He's not going to give those direct answers. You know it, I know it. They never do.

Tamara, you're biased.

After all, this is the same government that steadfastly denied researching the effects of tertiary syphilis on blacks...until biased, anti-government folks proved the government did it. That's right, isn't it, telewinz. The folks who proved our government did this were foes of all true Americans, weren't they? Oh, it was the experts employed by the government who did the research.

This is the same government that recklessly experimented with the effects of nuclear explosions on thousands of military veterans. Then the government lied for decades about it. And stonewalled. And prevaricated...with official investigations and reports(expert, unbiased investigators per telelwinz. Only one problem with the government's scenario...in the final extreme they lost in court. The courts ruled that the unbiased, official, expert investigators had turned out decades of reports that were a pack of lies.

But, oh, it's un-American to mention all of the examples of government idiocy. Isn't it?

Newton:

but you now have actual quoted examples of a judge overturning BOTH an acquittal and a guilty verdict,

Click to expand...

There seemed to be some controversy as to whether or not the judge over rode the jury in the BD case, I was looking for confirmation of the actual facts here, and the details around it. The Branch Davidians is the only time I've ever heard of this being asserted.

Can anyone confirm/cite any case of a judge over riding a jury returning a "not guilty" verdict, resulting in conviction of the accused?

Their ability to do so is enshrined in law, what more is there ?

Click to expand...

If that is indeed the case, that judges can overturn jury acquitals, I'm looking for exactly where that is enshrined in the law; what is the root authority to do so? The divine right of judges? What are the limitation on it? And how on earth does it square with the right of trial by jury, and the pre-eminence of the jury?

"The Subcommittees believe that the question of who fired the first shot on February 28th cannot decisively be resolved given the limited testimony presented to the Subcommittees. It appears more likely, however, that the Davidians fired first as the ATF agents began to enter the residence."

Click to expand...

A glut of who D.K. was boinking but when it comes to testifying about who shot first someone must have stammered with bated breath “we’ll get to that, tell us more about the young girls…â€

Since there is no evidence, um, we’re gonna go with, um… “THEY DID, THEY DID!â€

Sheesh, some people’s kids.