From: [s--sh--e] at [cco.caltech.edu] (Tom Renner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Massacre of Branch Davidians 4/5
Date: 12 Feb 1994 11:03:26 GMT

13.   SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY BY FBI AGENTS
      Indianapolis attorney Linda Thompson created a
controversial and widely distributed video tape called
"Waco, the Big Lie."  It details important BATF and FBI
violations of rights, use of excessive force and coverup in
the massacre of the Branch Davidians.[289]  The video tape
footage clearly shows suspicious activity by agents (or
suspected agents) which the Justice report does not explain
and which must be explained by FBI agents and personnel
under oath. 

      a.    Agents Jumping in and Out of Tanks
            The Justice report frequently mentions that FBI
agents were in constant danger of being shot at by Branch
Davidians.  According to Newsweek, "HRT was under orders not
to leave its tanks or enter the compound on foot. . .HRT
agents did have authority to leave their tanks but only in
the rarest circumstances, such as children being killed or
held hostage."[290]  During the April 19th, 10:30 a.m. press
conference SAC Bob Ricks stated, "We are not exposing any of
our agents individually to firearms."[291]  The Justice
report never mentions such directives, only that during the
fire agents left their tanks to arrest Branch Davidians who
were exiting the burning building and to look for survivors
in the buried bus.
             However, in one portion of the "Waco, the Big
Lie" agents clearly can be seen jumping in and out of the
swung-open back of a tank, near the buried bus and a large
hole in the building, during the gassing and before the
fire.  The Fire Report states that the M79 grenade launchers
were "hand held." (JDR:Fire Report:8)  Therefore, to use
them agents would have to open the hatches of, or even
leave, their tanks to fire the grenades.  Neither the FBI
nor the Justice report admits that agents left their tanks
until after the fire was well underway.
             Later video footage shows what looks like a
dark-clothed individual riding on top of a tank which is
pulling away from right side of the building as wisps of
smoke are seen coming from second floor.  (However, some
think it may not be a person but either debris or the tank's
boom.)  If it is a person, his activities, and those of all
the agents outside their tanks, must be investigated.
             The agents being outside their tanks, plus news
reports that survivors last saw David Koresh at 10:00 a.m.
and Steve Schneider at 10:30 a.m.[292] and autopsy reports
that both died of gunshot wounds, have fueled speculation
that agents may have killed Branch Davidians inside the
building.  The Reno-approved rules of engagement--fire only
if fired upon--still would have given FBI agents wide leeway
to fire at Branch Davidians, since allegedly they were
firing out of Mount Carmel.  This would be especially true
if any agents decided to apply the rules of engagement
Richard Rogers approved in the Weaver case--fire if you see
anyone with a gun.  The hostility expressed by Jamar, Ricks,
Rogers and Sage may have communicated the message that FBI
agents were permitted to use "any means necessary" to end
the siege.
            Pathologist Cyril H. Wecht, who conducted an
independent autopsy on the body of David Koresh, said
because the bullet wound was in the middle of the forehead,
he did not "`rule out' the possibility that Koresh and
Schneider were shot by outside snipers."[293]  Dick DeGuerin
admitted, "I have heard a rumor that six or eight specially
trained [men] were sent in to shoot people. . .when you look
at some of the wounds, they were not suicide wounds.  Not
typical suicide wounds."[294]  Darren Borst, son of Mary
Jean Borst who died from gunshot wounds in the back,
insisted that an "FBI hit team" killed his mother and other
Branch Davidians found with gunshot wounds.[295]  Some even
speculate one or more Branch Davidian fire survivors will
testify they saw government agents shooting Branch
Davidians--accusations they will have withheld for their own
safety's sake until the trial.

      b.    Questions About Individual Who Jumps Off Roof
            There are also questions about the individual
seen jumping off the front roof, and, untouched by fire,
walking away almost nonchalantly.  He takes off a hood and
then the walks at least 150 feet away from the burning
building with his hands at his side, seemingly carrying a
long stick or a rifle.  These actions are contrary to the
FBI's repeated instructions to individuals to put up their
hands and not carry anything.
            Only one Branch Davidian male, Renos Avraam,
jumped off the roof.  The Justice report states, "Avraam
then jumped off the roof, and walked toward one of the
Bradleys with his hands up." (JDR:298)  Newsweek reports,
"One cult member, Renos Avraam, appeared on top of the
burning roof.  He fell to the ground, and FBI agents rescued
him."[296]  Time reports, "A man appeared on the roof,
clothes aflame, rolling in pain; he fell off the roof, and
the agents ran over, tore off his burning clothes and got
him safely inside the armored vehicle."[297]  And during the
April 28, 1993, House Judiciary Committee hearing, FBI
Deputy Director Floyd Clarke said HRT members had seen a man
"consumed by fire" fall off the roof and ran over to help
him into a vehicle.  Considering that these accounts do not
describe the individual seen on "Waco, the Big Lie," further
investigation of who this individual was must be done.

14.   LACK OF FIRE PRECAUTIONS
      According to the Justice report, "In one of the
meetings held in Waco in early April. . .[Assistant U.S.
Attorney] LeRoy Jahn raised the possibility of fire at the
compound and suggested to the FBI that fire fighting
equipment be placed on standby at the scene. . .[Deputy
Assistant Director Danny] Coulson explained . . .due to the
range of the Branch Davidians' weapons, fire fighting
equipment could not be brought into the proximity of the
compound.  Coulson further explained that structural fires
cannot be fought from the outside.  The only way a fire
could have been fought at the compound would have required
fire fighting personnel to enter the compound.  That option
would have posed an unacceptable risk to the fire fighters."
(JDR:302-303)  (Again, one wonders why the FBI was concerned
about fire fighters and not about the agents seen jumping in
and out of tanks on "Waco, the Big Lie.")
      Janet Reno admits she gave little thought to the
possibility of fire.  Her worse case scenario "would be an
explosion, not a fire. . .She recalls lying awake at night
asking herself. `Oh my God, what if he blows the place up?'"
(JDR:274)  Reno did assert at the April 28, 1993, House
Judiciary Committee hearing: "I was concerned about
intentional or accidental explosions and ordered that
additional resources be provided to ensure that there was an
adequate emergency response."  During her April 19th press
conference, "Ms. Reno said she thought that the fire
department had been" given advance notice.  However, the
Waco fire department said it had not been given advance
notice of the assault by Federal agents.[298]       Reports
that the FBI had called Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas
about its burn unit were confirmed in November, 1993, when
Parkland announced it was planning to sue the federal
government for refusal to pay $370,000 in medical bills of
three Branch Davidians in the hospital's burn unit. 
According to the Dallas Morning News, Tom Cox, Parkland's
legal director "said he thinks the government should be held
responsible because federal authorities called the hospital
the day of the assault on the cult compound, asking about
the burn unit and available bed space.  He said a call was
made to the hospital about 6 a.m. that day, but it was
unclear if it was during that call or a later call that day
that the burn unit was mentioned.  The FBI began its tear-
gas attack about 6 a.m.; the fire did not begin until
shortly after noon. . .[and]. . .the Davidians `certainly'
were in federal authorities' custody when they were taken to
Parkland."[299]
       Fire trucks were not summoned until 10 minutes after
the fire broke out.  The FBI then held them up for 16
minutes after they arrived. "Although the fire crews did not
approach the burning building until 31 minutes after the
fire had first been reported, it would not have been safe
for them to do so earlier given the reports of gunfire from
inside the compound." (JDR:303)  Of course, Houston
Chronicle photos and video tapes show that 31 minutes after
fire was first reported, the building is entirely gone!  SAC
Ricks "conceded, officials in charge of the operation had
not expected a fire."[300]  After the fire, Representative
James Traficant commented on the FBI plan. "When you have
100 TV crews but not one fire truck, that's not a well-
thought out plan, that's box office."[301]

15.   BRANCH DAVIDIAN STATEMENTS THAT DEMOLITION TRAPPED
PEOPLE       The streams of gas from the Mark-V delivery
system, the rampaging ferret tear gas rounds and the ramming
tanks drove Branch Davidians into the interior of the
building where they were trapped when the fire started.

       a.    Effects of the Gas
            The gassing had relatively little effect on the
Branch Davidians because they wore gas masks and because
stiff winds rushing through the large holes created by tanks
quickly dispersed the gas.  Some children's masks were made
to fit with the help of wet towels; other children were
placed in the concrete room with wet blankets over their
heads to protect them from the gas.  "During the hours
before the fire, when the building was under assault,
[attorney Jack] Zimmerman said, cult members donned gas
masks and went about their normal routines while Koresh
checked to see if everyone was all right. . .It bothered
them, but it didn't cause pandemonium," he said of the tear
gas. "People remained calm."[302]  Zimmerman also said:
"They thought they were going to spray some tear gas and
retreat," and added that the survivors thought Koresh would
be allowed to finish his book about the Seven Seals, after
which they'd go to court.[303]  What was terrifying was the
dangerous ferret tear gas rounds smashing through the
building which drove most Branch Davidians into the concrete
room or to the second floor hallways.  And those who were
most severely affected by the gas may have been too
debilitated to leave the building once the fire began.      

     b.    Effects of the Tanks 
            At the April 19th 10:30 a.m. press conference
SAC Ricks told reporters, "The pounding of the compound that
you see is really a necessary function of the insertion of
the gas. . .So, it's not necessarily, at this point, one of
destruction to the compound."  When reporters asked if they
warned those inside each time a tank was about to smash into
the building, Ricks answered, "We are not advising them
ahead of time.  We are continuing to advise them to please
exit the compound."  (Remember it was Ricks who also told
the Dallas Morning News, "we felt that if we got any of them
out safely, that would be a great bonus.")
            According to the Justice report, "Members of the
HRT were assigned to be tank drivers, tank commanders,
Bradley vehicle crew, snipers, and sniper's support. . .An
orbiting helicopter with SWAT personnel aboard would
apprehend and arrest subjects attempting to flee from the
crisis site." (JDR:279)  Well before April 19th FBI agents
had been criticized for their sloppy tank driving
techniques, especially after a Bradley Personnel Carrier
driver trying to move a Waco Tribune-Herald vehicle stranded
on the property, ran over and crushed it.[304]  Doubtless,
the tanks were driven with similar carelessness as they
rammed their way into the building.
            Tanks rammed the front staircase, pushed in the
bullet-riddled front door, collapsed the walls and then the
roof of the gymnasium as they pushed their way back towards
the back of the building where they bashed in the dining
room walls and the back doors.  And then, around noon, the
tanks began the final, fatal round of tank attacks.  FBI
Deputy Director Floyd Clarke told the April 28, 1993, House
Judiciary Committee hearing admitted to simultaneous tank
attacks when he said: "at this time we made some openings in
the building where we actually drove the tank in here
through this door, through this side of the building and
through the back side here to give these people ways to exit
the building--which some later used."  That the FBI believed
it needed to punch out new "ways to exit" indicates they
knew they already had blocked the existing exits.
            News reports provide more details of the damage
caused by the tanks.  "By noon, whole sections of the
exterior walls had been demolished.  Portions of the roof
were collapsing.  Cult members inside had been forced into
an ever-narrowing circle of interior rooms."[305]  According
to Associated Press, "Then the FBI sent in its biggest
weapon--a massive armored vehicle larger than the
others[306] and headed for a chamber lined with cinder
blocks where authorities hoped to find Mr. Koresh and Mr.
Schneider and fire the chemical irritant directly at them. 
When the tank rumbled in, it produced such trembling it felt
like an earthquake.  The tank took out everything in its
path.  The front door went.  So did an upright piano
standing as a barricade behind it."[307]  "[E]very assault
by a tank rattled the poorly constructed buildings, and cult
members dodged falling sheet rock and doors."[308]
            Attorney Jack Zimmerman said, "People were
trapped: the building was falling down, the damn tanks had
just destroyed the structure and nobody knew where they were
because the ceiling had fallen in."[309]  He also said the
big tank's "concussion tipped everything over on the second
floor, collapsed the walls and stairwells, trapping women
and children upstairs."[310]  Dick DeGuerin told the
television show "Prime Time" that those who sought shelter
in the second floor hallways were trapped because doors were
twisted and jammed by the tanks ramming the building and
they could not get into rooms that had windows from which
they could escape.
            Fire survivor Jaime Castillo "tried to move
around the building, but the repeated pounding on the
exterior had left piles of rubble everywhere.  The central
stairway between the first and second floors was littered
with plasterboard and wood and had partially
collapsed."[311]  Ruth Riddle explained why people didn't
get out when the fire started: "I believe that they couldn't
get out.  Where the buildings were rammed is where the
staircases were."[312]  David Thibodeau told "Good Morning
America," "I could see people being trapped, 'cause when the
tanks did go in there, there were hallways, there were
places that were cut off."[313]  Survivors recall that after
the fire started, even those who had been in the outside
rooms "fled them for interior areas, but within a few
minutes these were ablaze, too."[314]  David Koresh's mother
Bonnie Haldeman told a television interviewer that a
survivor told her that "all the back exits had been blocked. 
The whole back building had been pushed in.  The back doors
had been pushed in.  There was no way for anyone to get out
the back."[315]
            After the fire SAC Jeffrey Jamar said: "Mr.
Koresh obviously intended for the children to die or he
would have put them in a safe place--such as the buried bus
beneath the compound. . .`When our [hostage rescue team] was
able to get down into the bus, hoping we could find the
children. . .in that bus, the air was cool--and no gas.  Had
Koresh wished those children to survive, that was one place
they could have been put safely when he had the fire
started."[316]  President Clinton also mentioned this "fact"
during his April 20 press conference.  However, as we know--
and Jamar should have--during the morning tanks had been
running back and forth over the tunnel and part of the house
had been pulled down on top of it.  The Fire Report also
admits that "a significant amount of structural debris was
found in this area indicating that the breaching operations
could have caused this route to be blocked." (JDR:Fire
Report:10)

       c.    Position of Bodies and Autopsy Reports
            The Justice report confirms that most of the 80
or more people who died were found in the furthest interior
areas: inside the concrete room (32), in front of it (3), in
the nearby kitchen (16), in hallways (6), in the
communications room (3).  During the April 28, 1993, House
Judiciary Committee hearings, Representative James
Sensenbrenner, who himself had barely escaped a disastrous
house fire, questioned why so many bodies were found near
the middle front of the building, which caught fire later
than the back and the side.  Assistant Director for the
Criminal Investigative Division Larry Potts answered that
the FBI had "statements from people in there who chose to
come out" that others had "chosen not to come out." 
However, no such statements were included in the Justice
report.
             The Justice autopsy report notes that one
unidentified 30-50 year old female "died of multiple
fractures of the cervical spine, caused by blunt force
trauma probably associated with a fall.  Her body was found
in front of the bunker." (JDR:322)  It is possible the woman
was either crushed by a tank or that the tank brought down
part of the second floor, killing her.  There may be no
survivors from this area of the building to testify as to
what happened to the woman.
            Despite all this evidence, the Justice report
refuses to admit the possibility that the gassing attack--
including more than 400 ferret rounds--and tanks ramming the
building trapped the Branch Davidians. "While the fire was
burning the negotiators repeatedly broadcast repeated
messages to the compound, pleading with the residents to
leave.  Only a few of the Davidians heeded those pleas."
(JDR:300)

16.   BRANCH DAVIDIAN STATEMENTS DEMOLITION STARTED THE FIRE 
      Below we detail the statements of fire survivors that
FBI tank activity caused the fire that consumed Mount Carmel
and killed 80 or more people.  Later sections will present
FBI and fire investigators' conclusions that the fires were
started by Branch Davidians.

      a.    Building Filled with Flammable Fuel
            After the FBI cut off the building's
electricity, the Branch Davidians became totally dependent
on flammable fuel for light and heating.  Attorney Jack
Zimmerman noted that "almost every room had a coleman
lantern."[317]  These lamps use kerosene as fuel.  Renos
Avraam's attorney Dick Kettler said of that morning, "As
they awoke, kerosene lamps hanging on the outside walls were
lit."  According to the same news account, "Some of the
upper rooms also contained butane gas heaters, and propane
gas tanks were located throughout the compound."[318]

      b.    Ferret Rounds and Tanks Dispersed Fuel 
            A Branch Davidian survivor told Dr. James Tabor
that rocketing ferret rounds knocked over the kerosene
lamps, spilling so much kerosene and making the floor so
slippery, they sometimes had to go down on "all fours" to
get around (private communication).  The Fire Report does
admit that due to "structural damage. . .it is possible that
some flammables were spilled inside the building as a
result.  These flammables could have contributed to the
destruction of the building as the fire spread to them. 
There is no positive proof of this but it cannot be
eliminated." (JDR:Fire Report:9)

      c.    Allegations Final Tank Assaults and Demolition
Started Fire 
            As our chronology illustrates, there were major
tank assaults in the areas where the fires started just
minutes before fires were first seen by outsiders.  The
assaults on the back of the compound--at the dining room and
concrete room--and the collapse of half of the huge
gymnasium were never shown in television news reports and no
newspapers included them in their diagrams.  Television
footage and newspaper photographs did show clearly the fire
which began on the second floor, the fire in the back of the
building, once it reached the second story of the tower, and
the fact that the middle and left front of the building
caught fire later than either of those sections.  The
Justice report does not include a very clear description--or
any graphics--of these last tank assaults before the fire,
leaving anyone who has not studied the full aerial infrared
video tape of the tank attack somewhat confused.
            The two "official" descriptions of the tank
attacks below seem to describe tank attacks at the rear of
the building that collapsed the gymnasium.  Evidently the
tanks were blocked by fuel tanks from reaching the back of
the building from the left side of the building, so they
tried to squeeze through the narrow space between the
swimming pool and the gymnasium walls.  In so doing, they
brought down those walls, and half the gymnasium roof. 
Justice Department report reviewer Edward Dennis writes that
the "CEV2 was ordered to clear a path through the compound
in order to clear a path to the main tower so that CEV-1
could insert tear gas in that area.  In that endeavor the
CEV started to knock down a corner of the building and a
portion of the roof collapsed.  Very shortly after this
happened, fire was observed in several locations in the
compound." (JDR:Dennis:59)  (The "tower" was the three
stories built on top of the concrete room.)  During the
Justice Department press conference October 8, 1993,
Assistant to the Attorney General Richard Scruggs, who
compiled the factual report, explained: "Four to five
minutes before the fire broke out the vehicle went through
the tower area and breached a hole in there and saw what he
believed to be a group of people inside, he believed women
and children."[319]  (Because we do not have a video tape of
the press conference, we assume that Scruggs was pointing to
photographs of the back of the building; however, he may
have been pointing to entry of the tank through the front
door.)
            The Associated Press account in a section above
describes the entry through the front door.  "Then the FBI
sent in its biggest weapon--a massive armored vehicle larger
than the others and headed for a chamber lined with cinder
blocks." i.e., the concrete room.  "[Survivors] said the
tank took out a barrel of propane, flattening the container
and spilling its contents.  And as the tank thundered
through the house it tipped over lit camping lanterns,
spitting flames that ignited the propane and other
flammables. . .The building erupted.  It happened too fast
to pull fire extinguishers from the walls."[320]  Although
Branch Davidian survivors claim it was this tank entry which
started the fire, the Justice report does not mention its
entry in its section on the final tank attacks. (JDR:294) 
The report does include the 11:59:16 infrared photo of the
tank at the front door.
            "Jack Zimmermann, who said he spoke Wednesday
with four survivors and attorneys for two others, said all
six survivors say an armored vehicle that smashed through a
wall hit the propane tank and started the fire.  `One person
heard someone screaming from the area where the tank was, `A
tank has come in!  There's a fire started!'  They said the
smoke was so black, that one of them said within seconds he
couldn't see where he was.'"[321]  According to the New York
Times, "The survivors said that the fire began after an
especially violent tank collision plowed far into the
building.  The [tank] crushed a container of propane,
according to the account that lawyers gave the news agency. 
It also tipped over lighted camping lanterns, which spit
flames that ignited the propane and other flammables. .
.escape attempts were hampered because gas masks clouded up
in the smoke and heat."[322]
             It is possible that the tank which rammed the
second story at about 12:06 p.m. also started a fire--the
"flicker of orange" one reporter described shortly after the
ramming.  Attorney Dick Kettler reported his client Renos
Avraam "was with a number of people squeezed into a hallway
on the second floor when the fire started.  He heard a tank
crashing against the wall in a room near them.  Then that
room caught fire.  He said it was terrifying.  The tanks
were crashing into the walls, and the whole building was
shaking.  He thought he would get crushed between the walls. 
Others in the hallway didn't have time to escape.  The fire
went too fast.  It was total blackness and confusion.  In
seconds, everybody was disoriented."  The story notes that
Avraam was apparently the only survivor from that hallway,
having found a window to crash through that led to the front
roof.[323]
            Even with this sketchy evidence, we can see that
the tank that rammed through the back wall near the dining
room clearly could have started the fire seen minutes later
which quickly consumed and collapsed the tower above the
concrete room.  And the big tank that rammed through the
front door towards the tower could have started both the
second story fire and fires deeper inside the chapel,
including near the dining room.  Alternately, the tank
ramming the second floor may have started that fire.  Either
the second story fire or any other internal fire could have
spread rapidly through the puddles of spilled lantern fuel
into the chapel area to the back of the stage where infrared
photos show flames raging a few minutes later.
            The collapse of half the huge gymnasium's roof
also could have started a fire in that back area.  A
California gun rights organization obtained CBS footage of
the April 19th attack and found that news footage clearly
shows the gymnasium collapsing sometime between 11:55 and
11:59 a.m.  The group claims that a heat plume indicating
fire in the gymnasium area can be seen in the 11:59:16
infrared photo included in the Justice report.[324]

      d.    Questions about "Flaming" Tank
            The most controversial part of the video tape
"Waco, the Big Lie" is a scene of a tank pulling out of the
middle front of the building (not the front door) which
appears to be shooting flames from the end of a boom. 
Thompson claims this is "proof" that the government
intentionally started the fire.  A number of FBI critics,
including some Branch Davidians, doubt the tank is shooting
flame, based on other footage of the same scene which makes
the alleged "flames" look like a reflection from building
debris or from escaping gasses.  Others claim that no such
light can be seen on high resolution tape of the same
footage.
             Because Thompson had distributed her video to
television stations and politicians all over the country,
the Justice report answers Thompson's allegations in a
section entitled "False Accusations that the FBI Started the
Fire." (JDR:304-307)  Note that the Justice Department did
not bother to address survivors' more credible accounts of
how FBI tanks "started the fire."  Right after the fire,
Justice Department spokesperson Carl Stern's dismissed the
six survivors' statements saying, "That stuff is
preposterous."[325]
            The report asserts that the time when that shot
was filmed is "unclear." (JDR:305)  However, earlier the
report mentioned the existence of "split-screen video
prepared by the FBI laboratory, containing the infrared
footage from the air on one side, with the televised footage
from the ground on the other." (JDR:296)  Analysts should
have been able to ascertain the time through the videos'
"time meters."  The report also asserts that infrared photos
show no indication of heat coming from the front of the tank
(they do show heat from the exhaust at the back of the
tank).  Evidently, Justice report experts did not watch the
whole tape for signs of heat coming from the front of all
the tanks.
            The Justice report asserts that the army "has
examined all the CEVs used on April 19th to see if they had
been outfitted with a flame-emitting device or if there was
any evidence of charring or fire.  "No such evidence was
found."  Of course, this investigation probably was not
launched until mid or late summer, when "Waco, the Big Lie"
began to have political impact.  By that time, the tanks,
some of which had pushed burning debris into the fire, would
probably have been cleaned, refitted and repaired.  The
report does not mention if maintenance or repair records
were checked.
            A reporter asked about the "flaming tank" at the
Justice Department's October 8, 1993 press conference. 
Richard Scruggs provided more information from "preliminary
assessments" by University of Maryland "experts."  Scruggs
speculated that a flame could have come from a "busted
hydraulic line or something like that" but said that the
Justice Department had inspected the CEV's and found no
evidence of broken parts.  During his statement Scruggs
asserted that "carbon monoxide"--a poisonous and sometimes
flammable gas--was used to propel the CS gas into the
compound.[326]  Because the Justice report states the
dispersant was carbon dioxide (JDR:287), this prompted
speculation that the Scruggs had accidently "let the cat out
of the bag."  However, Scruggs later told Washington Times
reporter Jerry Seper that he had in fact made an error
(private communication).  (The fact that the Fire Report
labels "CS" gas "CN" gas (JDR:Fire Report: 8) has also
prompted speculation.)  Further, investigation is in order
as to whether any tanks were somehow spewing flames or
casting off sparks that caused one or more of the fires that
consumed Mount Carmel Center.

       e.    Evidence Fire Drove Some to Suicide
            Because gun shots were heard during the fire and
twenty-one Branch Davidians died from gun shot wounds,
various FBI and Justice Department officials, and the mass
media, have alleged the fire and shootings were either "mass
suicide" or "mass murder" as a few Branch Davidians set the
fires and shot those who tried to escape.  SAC Jeffrey Jamar
said, "maybe some were forced to stay" because gunshots were
heard as fire started and one body bore a bullet hole in the
head.[327]
            However, given the fact that most exit routes
were blocked by debris from the tanks when the fire roared
through the building, survivors and others believe that some
of those trapped in the fire chose suicide over asphyxiation
or burning to death.  Fire experts who viewed video tape of
the fire opined, "it was a text-book example of a deadly
fire involving a unsafe building and a 30-mile-an-hour wind. 
Cult members may have had less than five minutes to escape
after the fire began. . .Once one room had become engulfed
by fire, a point referred to as flashover. . .the fire
produces an enormous amount of toxic gases that cause
confusion."[328]
            When asked about the fact that bodies had been
found with gunshot wounds to the head, Branch Davidians
denied there was a suicide pact.  David Thibodeau said, "No,
there was not a suicide pact. . .I know that if I were
trapped in a fire and there was a fire next to me, and I
was. . .it was very probable that I was going to burn, that
I may, I may just taken the easy way out."  When the
interviewer asked why people didn't try to get out,
Thibodeau answered, "I believe some people did try to get
out or else I wouldn't be sitting here. . .obviously."[329]  
          Fire survivor Ruth Riddle said, "Given the fact
that they may have been trapped, they may have opted for
that rather than burning to death, that's a terrible way to
die."[330]  Jaimie Castillo told a reporter, "If I was in
that situation, where I couldn't get out and the fire was
coming my way, I'd probably take myself out."[331]  Derek
Lovelock said Koresh "didn't want to commit suicide and he
didn't want to be killed. . .We knew the end was coming, but
we honestly thought it would all pass peacefully, David
included."[332]  Louis Alaniz, the "visitor" who left Mount
Carmel a few days before the fire, also agreed that there
was no suicide pact.[333]
            Pathologist Dr. Rodney Crowe told the Maury
Povich audience, "I think they did what you would have done,
what I would have done and I've put myself in that position. 
If I was on fire, if my child was on fire, if the heat was
so unbearable, I'd shoot my child. I would hope I'd have the
strength to shoot myself.  As we were examining these people
we hoped that we would find gunshot wounds because we knew
that they went out quickly that way rather than suffer the
horrible death that we knew some of them did."
            Dr. Crowe was also incensed by some newspaper
interpretations of the autopsy findings.  "In our local Fort
Worth paper on the front page it said `Cultist Children
Executed'. . .and mentioned that children were shot,
stabbed, beaten to death. . .[The paper wrote] `It is
apparent that the parents turned on their children in favor
of David Koresh's teachings.'  This is why I'm here because
our product has been twisted. . .Nowhere did we say
execution.  Nowhere did we say beaten to death.  It was
blunt force trauma.  Three children had blunt force trauma. 
But it was from the falling concrete in the bunker that fell
on them.  There's an opening in the top of the bunker eight
feet approximately in diameter and large chunks of concrete
fell on these people.  And to say these children were beaten
to death is unconscionable."
            The Justice report alleges (JDR:7), and some
papers repeated, that one child had been stabbed to death. 
Dr. Crowe later told an audience member that the child who
reportedly had been stabbed may also have been hit by
falling concrete or other materials; the mark on a rib which
suggested stabbing might also have been an old wound from a
childhood accident (private communication.)

17.   FBI ALLEGATIONS BRANCH DAVIDIANS STARTED THE FIRE 
      As soon as the fire started, SAC Ricks, who earlier in
the day had assured reporters the FBI was confidant there
would be no mass suicide, proclaimed, "Oh, my god, they're
killing themselves!" as if that was the only possible cause
of the fire.  Below is evidence the government presents that
the Branch Davidians started the fire, plus comments on that
evidence.  Discussion of the Fire Report follows in a later
section.

      a.    Testimony by Agents
            The Justice report states, "At 12:10 p.m.
another HRT agent, who was 300 yards away from the compound
at Sierra One post, actually saw a Branch Davidian start the
fire.  The agent later reported to investigators what he had
seen: `. . .he noticed the man was moving back and forth
behind the piano and the individual then assumed a kneeling
position.  [The HRT agent] noticed the man's hands moving
and immediately after that [he] noticed that a fire started
in that position.  The man immediately departed the area of
the piano.  At the same time [the HRT agent] noticed a fire
start on the red or right side of the building." (JDR:296) 
However, as the Justice report's own 12:09:50 p.m. infrared
photos show, by the time the agent made that report the
whole front and right of the building were fully aflame.
            The report goes on to say, "The HRT agent
reported what he had seen over the radio.  Two HRT snipers
simultaneously noticed fire breaking out in two different
parts of the building -- at the front-right corner, and at
the third or fourth floor of the tower on the back-left
side." (TDR:297)  However, at that time they would have seen
well-developed fires.  The report adds, "Another HRT sniper
thought it odd that, from his vantage point, the fire
appeared to spread in the opposite direction of the wind,
which was blowing from the right side to the left side of
the complex." (TDR:297)  The implication seems to be that
the fires were deliberately started, since they go against
the direction of the wind.  However, fires started by tanks
also could go against the direction of the wind.            
     The Justice report does not mention SAC Jeffrey Jamar's
April 20th allegation to reporters that, "At least 3 people
observed a [cult member] spreading something. . .with a
cupped hand and then there was a flash of fire."[334]  (Two
other reporters also mentioned Jamar's claim: one described
it as "three FBI sharpshooters had seen a fireball shortly
after they had watched cult members sprinkling liquid
inside."[335]  The other described it as "three snipers,
peering through binoculars from a station 100 yards away
from the compound, could see a cult member start the
blaze."[336])  Nor does the Justice report mention Bob
Rick's account of an agent's version reported in the
Washington Post: "someone appeared on the second floor of
the compound wearing a gas mask and made a throwing motion. 
Flames erupted, and the person signaled to agents he did not
want to be rescued."[337]  There is no evidence either
version was "redacted" in the Justice report.  SAC Jamar and
these agents must be interviewed under oath so that we may
discover if any agents fabricated stories about seeing
Branch Davidians start the fire.

      b.    Surveillance Recordings
            During his opening statement in the Branch
Davidian trial, lead prosecutor LeRoy Jahn alleged that
surveillance devices had picked up voices saying, "spread
the fuel," and "light the fire."[338]  Jahn told jurors that
they would hear an audio tape in which one individual asks,
"What's the plan?"  A second individual laughs and answers:
"Haven't you always wanted to be a charcoal briquette?"[339]
            However, the prosecutor will have to prove that
the individuals speaking are Branch Davidians (since we know
FBI agents were outside their tanks); that they are
referring to spreading fuel to start a fire--not moving fuel
out of the way of tanks to prevent one; that the individual
says "light the fire" and not something indistinguishable--
or something closer to "a tank's light a fire".  In relation
to the "charcoal briquette" joke, the prosecution will have
to prove that this is a statement of intention to light a
fire--not a joking response about what will inevitably
happen if they don't leave the building--a firetrap
surrounded by rampaging tanks!  One reporter writes that the
FBI has admitted that the listening devices "had yielded
only fragmentary and inconclusive information about Mr.
Koresh and the conditions inside the complex."[340]  This
may well be true of these surveillance tapes as well.

      c.    Alleged Testimony By Fire Survivors
            FBI agents interviewed surviving Branch
Davidians as they escaped the burning buildings.  "During
those interviews three of the survivors made statements
about the cause of the fire.  Renos Avraam told the agents
that he had heard someone inside the compound say, `The fire
has been lit, the fire has been lit.'  Clive Doyle told the
Texas Rangers that the fire was started inside the compound
with coleman fuel.  Doyle said the fuel had been distributed
throughout the compound in specific, designated locations."
(JDR:300)  However, on April 20th Renos Avraam called to the
press as he was led into court, "The fire was not started by
us.  There were no plans for mass suicide."[341]
             The report describes at length only Graeme
Craddock's alleged comments to the FBI: "Craddock advised
that when the Bradley came in through the front entrance,
they started moving fuel.  Craddock believes that the
compound had a total of approximately one dozen, one gallon
containers of lantern fuel and that they had been located in
the lobby area.  He said he saw a lot of people grabbing
fuel containers and moving them to other areas.  Craddock
believes that possibly three or four of these containers had
been put next to the window that had already been knocked
out by the Bradley on the southern side of the chapel area. 
Craddock said he had heard someone talking about shifting
the fuel from the hallway near the chapel . . .He said he
had heard someone complain about fuel being spilled inside.
. .Craddock indicated that he had heard shouts about
starting the fire. . .Craddock also said that he had heard
someone say, `Light the fire,' and that he had also heard
someone else say, `Don't light the fire.'"
             Craddock allegedly told the Texas Rangers: "He
said he went into the chapel area with several other people. 
He heard the word passed to `start the fires.'  He said that
someone said `make sure.'  He said that word was then passed
to not start the fires . . .Craddock said that if there was
a suicide pact, he knew nothing about it.  He said that he
knew nothing about a plan to burn the building until he
heard someone pass the word to start the fire."
(JDR:300-301)  However, Craddock has told the press, "No one
inside set any fires.  The tanks knocked over the gas
lanterns. . .There was no suicide pact."[342]

18.   FBI AND BATF CRIME SCENE COVERUP
      The FBI's disinformation campaign--and their disregard
for preserving the "crime scene"--only increased after the
April 19th fire.

      a.    FBI Disinformation After the April 19th Fire
            SAC Jeffrey Jamar's claim that some Branch
Davidians may have shot others trying to escape is just one
example of the kind of disinformation the FBI, and
especially SAC Bob Ricks, disseminated after the fire. 
Other examples are:
       *     On April 19th, Ricks told the press: Koresh
"wanted to have as many people killed as possible.  That's
why it was called Ranch Apocalypse."[343]; and "David
Koresh, we believe, gave the order to commit suicide and
they all followed his order."[344] and Koresh "was demanding
provocation to get in a fight with us. . .We believe they
were preparing for another armed standoff."[345]
       *     On April 19th, "Mr. Ricks said it was only
speculation at this point, but that authorities had received
reports, apparently from some of the survivors, that the
children had been injected with some kind of poison to ease
their pain."[346]  However, the Justice report made no such
claim.
      *     During the April 28, 1993, House Judiciary
Committee hearings, Ricks told lawmakers that when a
released child heard his father and Koresh were dead he
said, "I don't care.  No more beatings." and the children
had asked if their new home had a "beating room."  The
social workers have not revealed publiclly that any child
making such a statement.  During the hearing Texas
Representative John Bryant said that he was bothered that
the FBI seemed to make a lot of statements whose purpose was
to create public opinion supportive of the FBI.
       *     In August of 1993, in a speech before a Tulsa,
Oklahoma civic group, Bob Ricks speculated that David Koresh
ordered the cult compound burned down to kill followers and
federal agents, but screamed, "Don't light it up!" when he
realized agents were retreating.  However, the order to hold
back came too late.  "What we think was in his mind was that
he expected us to come in and mount a frontal tactical
assault against the compound.  Once we were inside, he would
light it up and burn us up with his own people." Ricks
added, "I never wish ill will on anybody, but he's one guy
I'm glad who was in there."[347]  A later news report quoted
Ricks' speculation that Steve Schneider had shot Koresh out
of anger.  "In the end, he probably realized he was dealing
with a fraud. After [Koresh] had caused so much harm and
destruction, [Koresh] probably now wanted to come out, and
Mr. Schneider could not tolerate that situation."  Officials
familiar with the evidence questioned Ricks' comments and
FBI officials refused to comment."[348] 

     b.    April 19th Destruction of Evidence and the Crime
Scene
             News videotapes like those in "Waco, the Big
Lie" clearly show tanks equipped with plows pushing burning
walls into the flaming rubble.  These walls might have
contained evidence that BATF agents had shot
indiscriminately and illegally through them.  The FBI may
assert this was done to prevent injuries from detonating
ammunition and explosives.  However, news video tape shows
agents walking close to the building as it burns and walking
through the rubble the evening of the fire with little
concern for their safety.  At the end of "Waco, the Big
Lie," Branch Davidian Brad Branch cries out over a phone
from jail, "They're destroying the crime scene, this is the
biggest lie ever put before the American people."

       c.    FBI and BATF Assisted Texas Rangers In Search
for Evidence
             As we have seen, the Texas Rangers took
"official" control of the scene after Mount Carmel burned to
the ground. "Immediately following the April 19th fire the
Texas Rangers, working with the FBI, arranged to take
command of the remains of the compound. . .The Texas Rangers
assumed primary responsibility for combing through the crime
scene and recovering evidence.  The FBI provided substantial
assistance to the Rangers in performing this task."
(JDR:308)  The Justice report notes that during the search,
"The Rangers divided the physical area of the compound into
sectors, rows and grids, then formed teams comprised of
Rangers, FBI and other technicians, and other law
enforcement agents." (JDR:309)  The Justice report does not
mention the presence of BATF agents, as does the Treasury
report which states, "after the Compound was ravaged by
fire, ATF firearms and explosives experts collected evidence
of the firearms and other destructive devices."(TDR:128)
            Defense attorney Dan Cogdell commented that it
was mere "window dressing" to have the Texas Rangers put in
charge of the criminal investigation.  "The Texas Rangers
are very respected around here, but it's stretching it to
say they are bringing any kind of true independent
judgement.  They are in charge, but Federal agents are
dissecting the crime scene and cross-checking all the
evidence."  Also some legal experts called for greater
separation between the Texas Rangers, FBI and BATF,
including "a completely independent panel. . .to do the
criminal investigation. `When the Challenger exploded, we
didn't have NASA investigate the accident.' said Bruce Fein,
a Washington lawyer who was an associate deputy Attorney
General in the Reagan Administration and wrote guidelines of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation on procedures for
conducting investigations."[349]
             Whatever little separation there was between
state and federal officials quickly ended.  The New York
Times reported: "State officials overseeing the
investigation announced, in an apparent shift in policy,
that once the voluminous amount of evidence from the
compound is all collected, it would be shipped to Federal
laboratories. `Our crime laboratory in Austin has to be
available to handle criminal matters that come up in Texas,'
said Mike Cox, a spokesman with the Texas Department of
Public Safety.  Earlier, officials conducting the
investigation into how the fire started said that they were
using private laboratories in an effort to avoid any
appearance of conflict of interest that might arise from a
Federal laboratory making conclusions about evidence in a
case in which Federal agents' actions were being
questioned."  Cox told reporters, "The Texas Rangers are
investigating the crime scene and if you are concerned about
a conflict of interest, you should talk to the U.S.
Attorney's office."  However, the reporter writes that when
he tried to do so: "The U.S. Attorney referred inquiries to
the Department of Justice, and Carl Stern, a department
spokesman, said, `All the shifts in police (sic) I know of,
are the ones you invented,' referring to the news
media."[350]

      d.    May 12th Destruction of the Crime Scene
            Two weeks after the release of the "independent"
fire investigators' report, but before Branch Davidian
attorneys could send in their own fire investigators,
bulldozers rolled across the burned rubble of Mount Carmel
Center, filling in all the holes with dirt and burned
rubble.  SAC Jeffrey Jamar defended this action. "They're
just filling holes so people won't fall in the pits.  That's
just part of taking care of the scene."  And Mike Cox,
spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, said
bulldozing was necessary so the Texas Health and Water
departments could begin work at the site.  However, attorney
Jack Zimmerman said,  "I guess what it does, it forever
prevents any checking on the ATF's rendition that the fire
was intentionally set."[351]  Defense Attorney Jeffrey
Kearney told local reporters: "Government agents can say
what they want now and there's little physical evidence to
dispute it."[352]

      e.    Possibility FBI will Tamper with Audio/Video
Evidence
             There exists a full record of what happened
during the siege and on April 19th--news footage, aerial
infrared and other video tapes, and surveillance audio
tapes.  However, as we have said, because modern audio and
video techniques allow tampering which can go virtually
undetected, any such taped evidence the prosecution uses
against Branch Davidians will remain suspect.

19.   "INDEPENDENT" FIRE INVESTIGATOR COVERUP
      The head of the so-called "independent" fire
investigation team was Paul C. Gray, Assistant Chief of the
Houston Fire Department.  However, Gray had very close ties
to BATF.  BATF officials recommended him.  He had served as
a member of the BATF's National Arson Response Team and
taught classes for BATF agents.  And his wife was a
secretary in BATF's Houston office."[353]  Attorney Jack
Zimmerman revealed, ">From 1982 to 1990, [Gray's] office was
on Imperial Valley Drive, in the ATF office. . .He carried a
card that identified himself as a special agent of ATF.  He
handed that card out to people when he interviewed
witnesses."[354]  Finally, Gray had socialized with BATF
agent Steve Willis, who was killed February 28th, and
attended his funeral.[355]
      Zimmerman criticized Gray's selection and his
conclusions that Branch Davidians set the fires.  "Until I
see the evidence from an independent, impartial expert, I
choose to believe the firsthand account of eyewitnesses who
were in the center who said there was no fire started by the
Branch Davidians."[356]
       The Fire Report does not mention if investigators
interviewed any of the fire survivors, something which would
be done routinely in other fires.  In fact, the Fire Report
rejects "media" accounts of the survivors very similar
statements about how the fire started--despite the fact
survivors left the building at different exit points, were
immediately arrested, and had little opportunity to get
together to "concoct" similar stories.

      a.    Fire Report Asserts People Not Trapped In
Building
             Despite the extensive testimony about people
being trapped by falling debris, blocked stairways, jammed
doors, caved-in walls, and rapidly spreading smoke and fire,
the Fire Report concludes, "Considering the observable means
of exit available, we must assume that many of the occupants
were either denied escape from within or refused to leave
until escape was not an option." (JDR:Fire Report:9)  The
report does not mention what other fire experts would
emphasize: "Cult members may have had less than five minutes
to escape after the fire began. . . the fire produces an
enormous amount of toxic gases that cause confusion."[357]

      b.    Fire Report Implies Flammables Present for
Purpose of Arson
             The Fire Report notes, "the physical evidence
collected at the scene included the remains of several metal
containers commonly used for the storage of flammable
liquids." (JDR:Fire Report:3)  It does not bother to mention
that the 90 or more inhabitants of Mount Carmel were totally
reliant on coleman lanterns fueled by kerosene, on butane
gas heaters, and on propane gas for heat and light.  Again,
the Fire Report does admit that, "it is possible that some
flammables were spilled inside the building as a result" of
the tanks activities. (JDR:Fire Report:9)
             The report also exhaustively lists all the
flammable materials found on survivors' shoes and clothes,
as if this is evidence of arson.  However, since fire
investigators evidently did not interview survivors, they
had no way of knowing that Davidians sometimes had to crawl
on their hands and knees because of fuel knocked over by
ferret rounds. 
            According to Newsweek, just after the fire arson
investigators found "metal lantern-fuel containers with what
appeared to be deliberate punctures."[358]  However, neither
the Justice factual report or the Fire Report mentions such
punctures in the containers and this may have been more FBI
disinformation.  The Fire Report also denies that the "CN"
gas, as it mistakenly calls CS gas, could have started or
contributed to the fire.       

        c.   Fire Report Asserts Accidental Fire Impossible  
          The report attempts to debunk what it calls
"another theoretical explanation reported by the media,"
i.e., that tanks rupturing "a propane cylinder or flammable
liquid container" started the fire.  Again, it does not
admit that this is survivors' testimony.  The Fire Report
claims, "if this had happened, an immediate vapor air
explosion or flash fire would have occurred involving the
vehicle itself.  It did not happen.  All law enforcement
vehicles were well away from the building prior to the start
of the fire." (JDR:Fire Report:9)  However, one assumes that
the tanks are sufficiently well armored to withstand
proximity to such a relatively small fire.  And, as we have
seen, tanks smashed into the building minutes before the
fires began.
  
    d.    Fire Report States Separated Points of Origin
Means Arson
             The report states, "Fires were set in three
separate areas of the structure identified as points of
origin 1, 2, and 3.  This investigation establishes that
these fires occurred in areas significantly distant from
each other and in a time frame that precludes any assumption
of a single ignition source or accidental cause." (JDR:Fire
Report:3)  In an April 26, 1993, news conference, Gray told
reporters, "We believe it was intentionally set by persons
inside the compound. . .It is the opinion of the
investigative team that this fire started in the interior of
the building in at least two separate locations, at
approximately the same time."  These locations "were
significantly distant enough from each other that they
couldn't have been set by the same source at the same
time."[359]  He asserted "evidence showed a time gap between
the last battering of the compound by an FBI armored vehicle
and the appearance of the blaze."[360]
            Again, the fire investigator is denying what we
can plainly see, that a last barrage of tank attacks
occurred in separate locations within the six to eight
minute period during which the fires began.  He also rejects
simple common sense: if even one massive tank smashes deep
inside a rickety wooden building filled with dozens of
lighted lanterns, propane tanks and other flammable
containers, that one tank alone could start two or three
fires in widely separated parts of the buildings.  If two or
three tanks do so within a short time period, all three
could start fires.  Also, the further inside the building
the fire starts, the longer it will take after tanks have
withdrawn for outsiders to see the fire.  And even if
outsiders see fires appearing at about the same time, it
does not mean they started at the same time.  Depending on
how great the "fire load" of flammable materials in each
room, fires could have started several minutes apart, but
appear to outsiders to start virtually simultaneously.

      e.    Fire Report Downplays Breaching's Role in
Spreading Fire  
           The report lists as "contributory factors" to the
fire's spread: poor construction; highly combustible stored
products such as baled hay, large quantities of paper, and
other flammables; strong wind; and "breaching operations." 
The report admits "the FBI removed several large sections of
the building's exterior walls. . .these openings are
contributory to the fire's spread."  However, it asserts
that the "fresh air" the openings let in ". . .while fanning
the flames. . .would have also lowered the concentration of
carbon monoxide. . .increasing the amount of time a person
might have survived if trapped inside."  This weak apology
for the breaching operation's contribution to spreading the
fire at least admits that people might have been trapped
inside. (JDR:Fire Report:6)

      f.    Gray Inaccurately Claimed Escape Tunnel Was
Usable
             During his press conference Paul Gray claimed,
"I do believe that a person could have survived the fire.  I
could speculate that there was ample room in the open pit
area for everybody to have gotten into."[361]  However, this
statement directly contradicts what Gray put in his own
report regarding the buried bus that served as a tunnel
system connected to the open pit: "It is also possible that
the escape route planned included the aforementioned tunnel
system accessible through an opening in the floor at the
west end of the building.  A significant amount of
structural debris was found in this area indicating that the
breaching operations could have caused this route to be
blocked." (JDR:Fire Report:10)

20.   JUSTICE DEPARTMENT COVERUP
      Because Justice Department officials were involved
more deeply in the disastrous decisions at Waco than were
their Treasury Department counterparts who approved the
original BATF raid, the Justice Department coverup is much
more systematic than the Treasury Department coverup.  The
Treasury Department had to explain only ten deaths and the
Department could easily blame several agents and officials
for going against orders and covering up their misdeeds. 
However, the Justice Department had to explain away the
horrible deaths by fire of more than 80 people--25 of them
children--who had made a very credible promise to surrender
within a few days.  The Justice Department did dismiss FBI
Director Sessions shortly after the April 19th fire, but on
other grounds related to incompetence and misconduct, not on
his handling of the Waco standoff.

     a.    Conflicting Statements About Reasons for the
Assault 
             In the days after the fire, Attorney Janet Reno
and her representatives, and President Clinton and his
representatives, emphasized "humanitarian" reasons for the
assault, ones that presumably would play well with the
public.  Janet Reno began a media blitz where she repeatedly
said in a press conference and on several television
programs: "I approved the plan.  I am responsible.  The buck
stops here."  She explained the prime reasons for the
assault were the "fatigue" of the hostage rescue team and
ongoing evidence that "babies were being beaten."[362] 
Reno's efforts were extremely successful.  Justice
Department spokesperson Carl Stern asserted that while on
April 19th the reaction from those who contacted the Justice
Department was 10 to 1 against the assault, on April 20th, 8
out of 10 said they agreed with Janet Reno![363]
             In his April 20th news conference Bill Clinton
emphasized that Reno had told him that the primary reason
for the assault was: "It's because of the children.  They
have evidence that those children are still being abused,
and that they're in increasingly unsafe conditions."[364] 
White House communications director George Stephanopoulos
said, "I think there is absolutely no question that there
was overwhelming evidence of child abuse in the Waco
compound."  He alleged David Koresh was "marrying children"
and "sexually abusing children" and that children were
"being taught how to commit suicide, how to put guns in
their mouths, how to clamp down on cyanide.  That is child
abuse by any definition of the word.  It was continuing, it
was going on."[365]  However, in the months after the
assault, Attorney General Reno has come to admit that "she
may have misunderstood [FBI] comments to her and that there
was no evidence of recent child abuse by the
Davidians."[366]
            Clinton also attacked Koresh. "The bureau's
efforts were ultimately unavailing because the individual
with whom they were dealing, David Koresh, was dangerous,
irrational and probably insane. . .Mr. Koresh's response to
the demands for his surrender by Federal agents was to
destroy himself and murder the children who were his
captives as well as all the other people there who did not
survive."[367]  Reno agreed.  "I have absolutely no doubt at
all that the cult members set [the fire], based on all the
information that has been furnished to me."[368]            
     However, while Janet Reno and Bill Clinton may have
stressed "humanitarian" concerns and Koresh's "wickedness,"
it is obvious that the FBI had other concerns.  In a
briefing for reporters FBI Director William Sessions said
his agency had "no contemporaneous evidence" of child abuse
during the siege.  A reporter writes that Larry Potts,
Assistant Director of the FBI's Criminal Division, asserted
that the FBI's prime reason for going forward with the
assault was that Koresh had "treated their efforts to
negotiate with contempt," he was never going to surrender
voluntarily, and "it was not in the nature of law
enforcement officials who had seen the Federal agents killed
during the initial raid on Feb. 28, to let the cult go on
with its way of life."  Potts told the reporter, "These
people had thumbed their noses at law enforcement."[369] 
Columnist Paul Craig Roberts wrote of the true concerns
underlying the government's action: "If the Branch Davidians
could hold out, others might get the same idea.  Heavens,
people might stop paying their taxes.  There was too much
rebellion in the defiance of authority."[370]

      b.    Justice Department Attempted to Forgo Full
Investigation 
            During his April 20th news conference President
Clinton said: "We want an inquiry to analyze the steps along
the way.  Is there something else we should have known?  Is
there some other question they should have asked?"  He
appointed Philip B. Heymann, a Harvard Law School professor
who had been nominated to be Deputy Attorney General, to
lead the Justice Department investigation of the incidents
at Waco.  The New York Times reported that not-yet-confirmed
Heymann told an interviewer that "investigators would not
look at the decision to assault the compound with tanks and
tear gas, which was made by Attorney General Janet Reno and
William S. Sessions, Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.  Department officials have not yet decided
whether even to pose questions to Ms. Reno, he added. `I
never wanted us to claim that we're doing a Warren
Commission report that will try to stand for the agents, or
that this will be the ultimate truth about what happened,'
said Mr. Heymann."  Because Congress and Americans
overwhelmingly supported Reno and blamed the Branch
Davidians for the fire, other unnamed officials "concluded
that nothing could be gained by looking more closely at her
order to carry out the assault."  The article also reports,
"Ms. Reno urged that there be `no recriminations,' and
Justice Department officials involved in the investigation
have interpreted that to mean that the decisions of the
department and the FBI would be immune from review."[371]
            The day after the story appeared, and after
several Congressional representatives criticized this
revelation, the Justice Department contended that Heymann
"had erred" and that there would be a full investigation. 
Officials gave different reasons for Heymann's inaccurate
statement, including his not being fully briefed, his
attempt to reduce expectations about the review, and, most
revealingly, that his "remarks reflected a division within
the Justice Department about how closely it should look at
the events, with some high officials arguing forcefully that
the inquiry should be more limited, to focus only on what
should be done in future cases."[372]

      c.    No Testimony Taken Under Oath
            Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heymann told
reporters the review group did "not have the authority to
issue subpoenas or grant immunity but could refer findings
of wrongdoing for criminal prosecution."[373]  Presumably,
this means that agents and officials were not interviewed
under oath.  The Justice Department report makes no
reference at all to these issues.  There is also no evidence
that any of the FBI agents or officials who testified before
Congressional committees were sworn in, though they still
could be prosecuted were it proved they had lied to a
Congressional committee.  As we noted in the BATF section,
much of the truth about what really happened at Waco will
come out only during the trials of the Branch Davidians,
civil law suits against the government or through an
independent investigation.

      d.    Review Team and Outside Expert Conflicts of
Interest
             First, it is questionable whether Deputy
Attorney General Heymann or Assistant to the Attorney
General Richard Scruggs, working as they do under Attorney
Janet Reno, could do any "independent" investigation of
errors in the Justice Department decision-making or in the
actions of the FBI.  Heymann was also the head of the
Criminal Division under President Jimmy Carter, so he has a
long history of loyalty to the institution, as well as to
his superiors. 
            The most noted conflict of interest is Heymann's
appointing another former Chief of the Justice Department's
Criminal Division, Edward S.G. Dennis, Jr., to review the
procedures, decisions and actions of the Justice Department
in the Waco matter. This choice came under scathing attack
by William Safire who noted that Dennis was in charge of the
botched investigation of Banca Lavoro and its relation to
Iraq-gate: "Ms. Reno's Criminal Division directed Atlanta
prosecutors to shoot down the explosive case with a plea
bargain, avoiding a public trial that would have exposed the
machinations of the Bush- Thornburgh-Dennis crowd.  How
could Ed Dennis not be grateful?  His judgment about the
Waco fiasco: `there is no place in the evaluation for blame,
and I find no fault.'  One hand whitewashes the other."[374] 
Mary McGrory also criticized the decision to end the Iraq-
gate inquiry: "During the campaign, Bill Clinton indignantly
promised to get to the bottom of it.  But a deep incuriosity
has set in, and so far his Justice Department has accepted
the finding of an in-house whitewash headed by retired Judge
Frederick Lacey."[375]
            According to James L. Pate, as U.S. Attorney in
Philadelphia, Dennis also oversaw the investigation of the
Philadelphia police department's bombing of MOVE in 1985. 
Another MOVE veteran assigned to review the Waco disaster
was Los Angeles Police Department Chief, who was formerly
Philadelphia's police commissioner.  Pate writes: "If one
was looking for two guys who might empathize with heavy-
handed cops who screwed up, the phone numbers of Willie
Williams and Eddie Dennis would be a must."[376]
            Another questionable Heymann appointment was
Israeli professor Ariel Merari of Tel Aviv University as an
outside expert.  Professor Merari currently has a contract
with Mr. Heymann to write a book, something which
technically does not violate federal guidelines.  Professor
Merari's report does not offer any criticisms, only
suggestions for improving future law enforcement efforts. 
Another former Heymann associate was more critical. 
Harvard's Alan A. Stone, M.D. first requested a "complete
record of the events at Waco."[377]  When he finally issued
his report it was extremely critical.
            Former FBI director William Webster also was
asked to be an outside expert and review the Justice
Department's action.  Since Webster authorized the creation
of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team, it is not surprising he
writes, "the unfortunate tragedy at Waco does not in any way
diminish my admiration for the men and women who serve in
HRT."  However, he does urge that such "special response
teams," including BATF's, should not be used without the
approval of the Attorney General. (JDR:Webster:4)

      e.    Possible Clinton-Hubbell-Lindsay-Foster Coverup  
          Associate Attorney General Webster L. Hubbell, the
third ranking official in the Justice Department, was the
liaison for Waco between the Attorney General's office and
the White House and attended meetings there.  He passed on
FBI chief negotiator Byron Sage's negative assessment of
negotiations to Attorney General Reno and was involved in
decision-making regarding gassing Mount Carmel.  He was with
Janet Reno in the FBI Operations Center on April 19th and
was the highest ranking official there after she left.  On
April 19th Janet Reno told television viewers that Hubbell
had called President Clinton the afternoon of the fire. 
During the April 28, 1993, House Judiciary Committee
hearing, Representatives Hughes and Sensenbrenner expressed
great interest in Hubbell's role in decision-making and
about Reno's assertion Hubbell had spoken with Clinton April
19th.  One even asked "whether Sessions and Reno were `out
of the loop' with Hubbell."  Reno told the Committee she had
been in error and the Justice report claims Hubbell called
White House Chief of Staff Thomas McLarty. (JDR:245)
            Webster Hubbell was one of Hillary Rodham
Clinton's law partners in the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock
as was Clinton's Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster,
who was also involved in Waco decision-making.  Foster's
July suicide may be linked to mismanaged or even illegal
Clinton business dealings associated with the Madison
Guaranty Savings and Loan Association and the Whitewater
Development Corporation.  Hubbell's father-in-law also
received a questionable loan from the savings and loan.  
            Another Clinton-Hubbell-Foster crony,
Presidential Advisor Bruce Lindsay, also was involved in
Waco decision-making with Hubbell.  Lindsay was a senior
partner at a law firm which, like the Rose Law firm,
received hundreds of thousands of dollars in bond counsel
fees from the Arkansas Development Finance Authority. 
Allegedly doing business with the Authority was a form of
"payoff" for Clinton supporters.[378]  Many suspect that
Clinton-Hubbell-Lindsay-Foster cronyism would certainly
extend to covering up any errors or crimes related to the
massacre of the Branch Davidians.  Therefore, the matters of
whether Hubbell had some outside-the-chain-of-command
contact with Clinton, whether Hubbell helped withhold
Koresh's April 14th letter from Reno, whether he was
involved in a decision to proceed with the demolition that
led to the April 19th fire, all might be subject to
investigation as part of Independent Counsel Robert Fiske's
probe of obstruction of justice in the "Whitewater" affair.

      f.    No Fault Finding for FBI and Justice Department
Errors or Crimes
             At the October 8, 1993, press conference where
the Justice Department presented its report on FBI actions
at Waco, outside "reviewer" Edward Dennis stated, "I find no
fault in the performance of law enforcement during the
standoff and the tear gas assault," and asserted
"speculation regarding them coming out is irresponsible." 
Likewise, Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann said, "We
can't come out with a scapegoat when there's no severe blame
to be placed."[379]  However, outside expert Alan M. Stone
disagreed, writing: "There is a view within the FBI and in
the official reports that suggests the tragedy was
unavoidable.  This report is a dissenting opinion from that
view." (Justice:Stone:46)
             Reporters at the press conference asked Heymann
if the Justice report was a "whitewash," especially compared
to the Treasury Department report.  Heymann answered that
the Treasury report found "recklessness (in the initial
raid) followed by a coverup," and that in the FBI and
Justice Department's handling of the Branch Davidians, the
"underlying facts are different."[380]  Attorney General
Janet Reno said: "I'm always concerned about the perception
of a white-wash.  But I don't go out to seek mea culpas and
I don't go out to seek [a report that says] we didn't do
anything wrong.  I go out to seek the truth..."[381]  When
Alan M. Stone issued his highly critical report of the
FBI/Justice Department handling of the siege, Janet Reno
refused to comment.  The FBI released a statement defending
its actions.[382]
            Despite Reno and Heymann's denials that the
Justice report was a whitewash, a number of publications and
respected columnists called it just that: the New York Times
("The Waco Whitewash," 10/12/93); the Washington Times ("The
truth about Waco, still untold," 10/13/93);  Paul Greenberg,
editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette;
Leonard E. Larsen, a columnist for Scripps Howard News
Service; columnist Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant
secretary of the U.S. Treasury; and many others.

      g.    Evidence of Coverup in Justice Department Report 
           Throughout this report we have noted where the
Justice report has failed to provide information--even when
it would not seem necessary to "redact" it per law--or has
provided questionable information.  The examples most
indicative of coverup are: no mention of disinformation
spread by SACs Jeffrey Jamar and Bob Ricks; failure to
specify whether the use of the tanks was illegal; refusal to
admit FBI reliance on Rick Ross and Marc Breault or
knowledge of Dr. Miron Murray's anti-cult sympathies;
failure to name those who recommended and ordered the use of
harassment techniques; failure to admit that Koresh's letter
was a promise to surrender; failure to state whether the
letter was shown to FBI Director Sessions or Attorney
General Reno and if not, who withheld the letter from them;
failure to mention whether the ground commanders kept
control of the whole operation or were given any orders from
the FBI Operations Center regarding the speed up of gassing
and the order to proceed with demolition; refusal of factual
report and Justice Department officials to admit there was
an order to proceed to demolition, as Dennis does; no
mention of whether agents used "handheld" grenade launchers
and why agents were outside their tanks; no mention of
discrepancy between Jamar's April 19th comment that three
agents saw Branch Davidians starting fires and Justice
reports' account of only one; no mention that both Renos
Avraam and Graeme Craddock deny the statements the Justice
report says they made about Branch Davidians starting fires;
no mention of tanks pushing burning debris into the fire; no
mention that BATF agents aided in the post-fire
investigation; no mention of the chief fire investigator's
ties to BATF. 
  
     h.    No Justice Department Report on Tampering with
911 Tapes
             As indicated earlier, during the June 9, 1993,
House Appropriations subcommittee hearing, an FBI agent gave
a staff member an excerpted tape of the "911" calls between
Lieutenant Larry Lynch and Branch Davidians.  Waco police
said it gave a "false impression of how the event occurred"
and Janet Reno promised the department would investigate the
editing and dissemination of the tape.[383]  In the tape,
the section where Wayne Martin complains about helicopters
shooting at him has been moved to a time period after the
helicopters withdrew from the scene.  The Subcommittee Clerk
told us that as of January 19, 1994 the Justice Department
had not reported back on this possible tape tampering.

      i.    Weak Recommendations to Prevent Another Tragedy  
          Representative Don Edwards, chair of the Judiciary
subcommittee that oversees the FBI, expressed
dissatisfaction with the results of the Justice Department
report. "This is essentially an in-house review. It seems to
me there is nothing in the report to indicate that if the
same crisis arose tomorrow we wouldn't have the same tragic
results."[384]  Outside expert Alan Stone wrote: "One might
think that the highest priority after a tragedy like Waco
would be for everyone involved to consider what went wrong
and what would they now do differently.  I must confess that
it has been a frustrating and disappointed experience to
discover that the Justice Department's investigation has
produced so little in this regard. (JDR:Stone:37)
            Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heymann's
report, "Lessons of Waco: Proposed Changes in Federal Law
Enforcement," recommended increasing the size of the Hostage
Rescue Team, closer consultations between Hostage Rescue
Team tactical people and negotiators, better behavioral
science understanding of non-traditional groups, better
crisis management training for special agents-in-charge, and
replacing them with more highly trained managers in some
crisis situations. (JDR:Heymann:5-14)  The new FBI Director
Louis Freeh has instituted many of these measures and even
insisted that Janet Reno undergo "dramatic tactical
training" to help improve the Justice Department's response
to crises like the 51-day standoff" with the Branch
Davidians.  However, according to news reports, Freeh
continues to defend the FBI's handling of the tragic episode
at Waco.[385]

       j.    Refusal to Consider Discipline or Prosecution
of Agents or Officials 
            During the October 8, 1993 Justice Department
press conference, Deputy Attorney General Heymann said that
the report had been given to the FBI's new Director Louis J.
Freeh who would decide if any disciplinary action was
needed.[386]  A few days later Freeh said a final review of
the bureau's handling of the incident was continuing. 
However, he added, "I do not know at this time or
contemplate at this time that any disciplinary action would
be taken."[387]
             The FBI has been conducting investigations into
the overly aggressive and irresponsible actions of the FBI
Hostage Rescue Team, and its commander Richard Rogers, in
the Randy Weaver case, and of the officials who supported
them.  Freeh has even spoken to agents about possible
prosecutions in the matter.  And Freeh suspended Assistant
FBI Director James Fox for violating repeated judicial
admonitions to refrain from commenting on the World Trade
Center bombing to the news media.  Therefore, Freeh's
refusal to look at the overly aggressive and irresponsible
actions of the very same FBI agents and officials at Waco
must be questioned in terms of a larger, ongoing Justice
Department coverup.

21.   COMMITTEE FOR WACO JUSTICE CONCLUSIONS

      a.    FBI and Justice Department Actions Responsible
for Branch Davidians Deaths
            The Committee for Waco Justice believes that FBI
gassing and demolition actions trapped Branch Davidians in
fires caused by massive military tanks, causing the deaths
of more than 80 people.  Therefore, FBI agents and FBI and
Justice Department officials responsible for the decision to
gas and disassemble Mount Carmel are legally responsible for
the deaths of the Branch Davidians.  Even if it should be
proved beyond a doubt that any fires were started by one or
more Branch Davidians, we still believe these decision-
makers remain legally responsible for driving the
perpetrator(s) to this desperate act and for causing the
destruction that trapped so many people in the building when
the fires started.

       b.    Independent Counsel Should Prosecute
Responsible FBI Agents and FBI and Justice Officials
            Under current law, the Attorney General can
appoint an Independent Counsel to identify and prosecute any
FBI agents and FBI and Justice Department officials
suspected of committing any and all relevant crimes,
including the following:
      *     Official Misconduct for giving the Attorney
General misleading information that led to the decision to
gassing and demolishing Mount Carmel Center and for any role
in covering up any irresponsible or illegal acts.
       *     Multiple Counts of Intentional or Negligent
Homicide or Manslaughter for carrying out an unnecessary and
violently executed gassing and demolition of Mount Carmel. 
Decisions of whether to charge FBI agents with intentional
or negligent homicide would depend on further
investigations.
      *     Conspiracy against the Rights of Citizens  U.S.
Code Title 18, Section 241 reads: "If two or more persons
conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any
inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any  right or privilege secured to
him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
because of his having so exercised the  same; or if two or
more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his 
free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so
secured- they shall be fined not more than $10,000 or
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both: and if death
results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term
of years or for life."[388]
      *     Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law  U.S.
Code Title 18, Section 242 reads: "Whoever, under color of
any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory or
District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws
of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or
penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or
by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the
punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily
injury results shall not be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of
years or for life."


Footnote [388] John McCaslin's August 4, 1993 Washington
Times column quotes Stacy Koon, one of the two Los Angeles
policemen convicted in federal court of felony violations of
Rodney King's civil rights: "The government used the same
arguments in Waco--the suspect(s) set the tone and the
officers responded to it. . .The difference is that we had
82 seconds; the federal government had 50-plus days in Waco.
. .They had time to think and analyze and come up with game
plans and they had the ability to wait out--we didn't have
that. They used the same argument, and, in that case, people
died, multiple people died." Speaking of Janet Reno, he
said, "She, like I, took responsibility. . .Then there was a
negative outcome--50 people died.  The state of Texas should
try her for multiple cases of murder.  If the state of Texas
then does not find her guilty, the federal government should
come in and try her for civil rights violations." 
Similarly, Paul Craig Roberts wrote in his April 22, 1993,
syndicated column, "If Rodney King's civil rights were
violated, what happened in Waco?. . .If a billy club is
excessive force, what is a tank?"