Oklahoma city and Tim McVeigh

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

What I will never believe is that it didn't effect him. This was a man who as I said had been trained to shut down his emotions, to focus only on the task in front of him, on the mission, etc. Which is what he did despite what it cost him.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I am always struck by the first pictures and videos of him after he was caught. There is nothing on his face. He is absolutely blank, eyes dead, wearing a mask. He retreated deep into himself and locked up tight. He is so shut down emotionally that he looks like a completely different person when compared to these.

It may be pop psychology, but I think when you kill so many people, it is so difficult to deal with the guilt afterward that your mind prevent you from having regrets. I think this is what most mass shooters feel. For example Dylann Roof seemed to show some regrets during his interview with the police the day after the shooting, but his writing and letters in prison and what he said to his parents (that he wants to make things worse) seem to show that he became even worse and have no more regrets.

I find it very sad to see the pictures of McVeigh smiling. He could have chosen to do nothing, and he may have been very happy right now, with a family, and all the families of his victims would have been happy too.

Neah wrote:

It may be pop psychology, but I think when you kill so many people, it is so difficult to deal with the guilt afterward that your mind prevent you from having regrets. I think this is what most mass shooters feel. For example Dylann Roof seemed to show some regrets during his interview with the police the day after the shooting, but his writing and letters in prison and what he said to his parents (that he wants to make things worse) seem to show that he became even worse and have no more regrets.

I think it's more rationalization. They try to justify the act to themselves more once the regret starts to creep in. If Eric Harris, for instance, had been put on trial, he probably would've initially felt regret, only to double down a little later and claim that the killings were justified due to the poor treatment he received at the hands of other students.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Highlights from article-

At 9:02 a.m. April 19, 1995, a truck filled with diesel fuel and fertilizer rigged as a bomb exploded in downtown Oklahoma City, taking half of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and 168 lives with it.
About 90 minutes later, an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper pulled over Timothy McVeigh’s car near Billings for a missing license plate. McVeigh would go on to be charged with conspiracy and murder for detonating the vehicle bomb at the Murrah Building. Americans, especially those in Oklahoma, quickly began to spit his name in the same way a Jew might Hitler’s or a dissident Stalin’s.
Despite all of that, Randall Coyne, professor at the College of Law, gave six months of his life in an ultimately vain attempt to prevent McVeigh’s execution.

“There were many people that said ... if the death penalty was intended for any individual, it was intended for the likes of Timothy McVeigh,” Coyne said. “ ... but through experience and working in capital cases, I’ve come to believe, come to know, that the death penalty wasn’t reserved for the worst of the worst. And, although the enormity of Timothy McVeigh’s crime is undeniable, and my deepest sympathy and empathy was extended then and is extended now to the victims, those who suffered, I don’t believe Timothy McVeigh is the worst of the worst. Nor do I think any of us deserved to be judged by the worst thing we’ve done. Because that’s not who we are. That is the worst thing we’ve done.”

Coyne heard of the attack on the Murrah Building in the same way most Americans and Oklahomans did — first, from did-you-hear-about whispers, then on television. In an article he wrote for the Cooley Law School’s Journal of Ethics and Responsibility titled “Collateral Damage In Defense of Timothy McVeigh,” Coyne wrote about showing up for work April 19 to find television sets, students, faculty and staff filling the lobby of the College of Law.

As his role on the legal team expanded, so too did Coyne’s disagreements with a particular part of Jones’ strategy to, as Coyne said, use members of the press both as “additional investigators” who were out on the street developing information, and in an attempt to rehabilitate McVeigh’s public image. And, Coyne said reporters covering the case were “useful to some degree in developing information.” Jones said some media members “gave the defense some very important information that we would not have otherwise received.”

Coyne, however, disagreed with Jones’ close relationship with those reporters, which included answering calls from the New York Times during strategy meetings, he said.

Jones said he did not remember taking any such calls, but said it was “certainly possible.”

“I’m sure I took calls at all times from media people, [the] judge, [the] federal prosecutor, [the] FBI, lawyers [and] witnesses,” he said.

If a relationship with the media had value to McVeigh’s defense, it also delivered a huge setback when The Dallas Morning News and Playboy Magazine published what Coyne said were “alleged confessions” from McVeigh, regarding his guilt in the attack on downtown Oklahoma City.

Jones said the leaks came from members of the defense team, but he did not believe the information came from any of the lawyers defending McVeigh.

“Those types of leaks unfortunately happen, and it happened in this case and it was reprehensible and a lack of professionalism and a betrayal,” Jones said.

Court documents show the admissions were published less than a month after potential jurors in the Denver area received notice that they were candidates for empanelment in the McVeigh case. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a defense request for an indefinite continuance, and the void dire of potential jurors began barely a month after The Dallas Morning News published its article.

“The media is not the friend of the defense,” Coyne said. “It’s not the friend of the prosecution. And, although they can flatter you and give you national exposure and you can appear on Nightline and have lunch with Diane Sawyer and sip tea with Barbara Walters, the media has their job to do as well, and it’s dangerous getting too close.”

Despite the blow to the case provided by the publication of McVeigh’s confessions, Coyne said he had hope at least one juror would look at the whole of McVeigh’s life and be reluctant to impose a death sentence. McVeigh suffered through a difficult childhood and was an “exemplary soldier,” decorated with a Bronze Star with a V device, the V standing for valor. Following his conviction, Jones said 38 people testified on McVeigh’s behalf as the defense presented its mitigation case.

“He was, in many senses, a compassionate, dedicated person,” Coyne said. “He loved his country, up to a point. And then, obviously, things took a very ugly turn in his life.”

Coyne said the pivot point for McVeigh’s ugly turn was the 51-day standoff near Waco, Texas, between federal agents and members of a religious group known as the Branch Davidians. The showdown ended when the Davidians’ building burned, killing about 80 people. The federal government has claimed the Davidians started the fire in an attempt to commit mass suicide, but some surviving Davidians and a researcher for a documentary have claimed the flames erupted when federal agents used tear gas and flash-bang devices in an attempt to end the standoff.

“My conclusion was that experience profoundly changed him,” Coyne said. “And after that, there burned inside him a hatred of the government, that, unfortunately wasn’t extinguished before the Oklahoma City bombing.”

Two years to the day after the Branch Davidian building burned, the Murrah Building exploded.

“He was very disturbed by the government’s handling of the Waco ... situation.” Coyne said. “And did have enormous empathy for the people who died at Waco. ... That’s not to condone or suggest that his actions were in any sense justified or correct. But, just to make the point that Timothy McVeigh wasn’t a cold, heartless psychopath, utterly without feeling.”

Despite that emotion, and the love Coyne said McVeigh felt for his family, McVeigh did not show the same emotion, when it came to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, Coyne said.

“When you [talked] to Timothy McVeigh about the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, then a wall would come up,” Coyne said.

“And, I don’t know if it was self-protection, if he could never confront the enormity of the crime, and in particular the deaths of the 19 children in the day care center. But, his demeanor would change.”




Just dug this back up. It brings a few things into perspective. The article is from one of McVeigh's lawyers Randall Coyne. They had formed a very good friendship during the trial, which lasted even after Randy stopped working on Tim's case. They remained friends until the execution. This is the lawyer who ended up with most of McVeigh's private/personal possessions, even Tim's Military medals.  

The simple fact this man knew what Tim had done could still form any kind of a close bond is very telling. I believe he understood Tim, both his good and bad side.  I also truly feel that McVeigh did indeed shut himself down emotionally when he was asked about the victims. He would talk for hours about the bomb, but would clam up about the victims. The very few things he did say about them was indeed cold/cruel sounding, mainly because he went into a sort of "safe zone" mode and tried to feel nothing as he spoke.

Knowing this lawyer knew what McVeigh had done, had saw all the evidence, all the pictures of the victims, the dead children, etc. AND could still say that he didn't think Tim was the worst of the worst just hit me hard.

sscc wrote:

I think the most obvious reason that he would choose to specifically murder children is that the US government killed children at both Waco and Ruby Ridge and his motive was, at least in part, revenge for these incidents. It also allowed him to draw attention to the hypocrisy of Americans allowing the government nearly unlimited power to violently subdue its citizens while condemning terrorism that claimed innocent lives. My belief is that he denied knowing about the daycare center in advance because he realized that the media was focusing on the children and he knew that some people who might otherwise be sympathetic to his ideological motivations would have difficulty supporting him if they knew that he did it on purpose.

That is a very interesting angle to take and probably (assuming that he did know about the daycare center) the correct one.

I'm not sure this motivation alone is typical of psychopaths though. A lack of remorse and seeking revenge -that is typical. But it is revenge for offences done to the psychopath or his/her ego. In most cases psychopathic revenge is calculated to send out a message - "Don't do bad things to me, because I will fight back and do worse things to you".

Now McVeigh's revenge "per proxy" for injuries done to strangers at Waco - that does not seem all that psychopathic. Taking the mantle of a "greater cause" is more a narcissisitic thing to do (See A.Breivik) than a strictly psychopathic.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It was a sunny afternoon in 1995, a week after the Oklahoma City bombing, during the brief period that Dad knew Timothy McVeigh only as America’s most hated man, and nothing more.

A baby had been found buried in the rubble of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building after seven days, the media reported. Her last name was Coyne, like mine, and she was soiled in blood and soot and shit. She was 14 months old, five months my junior. Our mothers, who never met, both worked at courthouses in downtown Oklahoma City. I attended day care in Norman, the nearby college town where Dad taught at the law school. She was in the Murrah building’s nursery across the street from her mom’s office when McVeigh’s bomb went off. Any connection I shared with the dead little girl was, by all accounts, an unremarkable coincidence.

When Dad realized why the reporter simpering lukewarm condolences had called our house, he yanked our answering machine straight from the wall. The bastard had probably found our number in the white pages and mistaken our family for the little girl’s, Dad guessed. Or perhaps he’d simply called every Coyne in the book, for good measure. How callous, how cruel, turning tragedy into pity porn. Dad considered, for a moment, giving the reporter the sound bite he deserved, but as he thought of his own daughter, safe in the next room, a sick sadness overcame him. It didn’t matter anyway; the message cut off before the reporter gave his contact information.

One of Dad’s former law students from his capital punishment class, Jim Hankins, called three weeks after Dad reinstalled our answering machine. Now a bona fide member of the bar, Jim worked for a firm called Jones & Wyatt in Enid, Oklahoma. It was no secret the firm had a notorious new client, and the government wanted him dead. Dad, Oklahoma’s premier capital punishment scholar, could really help out, Jim said.

That’s how Dad became one of Timothy McVeigh’s lawyers. And that’s when Timothy McVeigh — the scrawny kid with blood vengeance and a buzz cut, the man who murdered Jaci Coyne — became Tim.

In total, Tim killed 169 people. Nineteen of them were children. The Oklahoma City bombing remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism to this day. It surprises me how many people my age don’t know that. I guess I can’t blame my peers; I don’t remember the bombing either.

My generation was the first to grow up under the threat of modern terror, taught to hide in bathroom stalls and crouch atop toilets so school shooters wouldn’t spy our sneakers. Our growth spurts and awkward phases have been documented in Transportation Security Administration-mandated full-body renderings.

The Oklahoma City bombing eludes me, though. I was 19 months old when the Alfred P. Murrah building exploded, 2 and a half years old when Tim’s trial began, 7 years old when he withdrew his appeal and accepted his death sentence, and nearly 8 years old when he died with his eyes wide open. By then I had grown into someone who could grapple with death. How could I miss that?

There’s a scene in “The Princess Bride” where Inigo Montoya, the Spanish swordsman; Fezzik, the gentle giant; and Westley, the farm boy turned pirate, crouch behind a balcony, overlooking the swarm of men guarding Prince Humperdinck’s castle. Westley, who spent the day mostly dead, has just regained consciousness. “Who are you? Are we enemies? Why am I on this wall? Where is Buttercup?” he asks with feverish confusion.

“Let me explain,” Inigo says, then pauses. “No, there’s too much. Let me sum up: Buttercup is to marry Humperdinck in a little less than half an hour. So all we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess and make our escape . . . after I kill Count Rugen.”

“That doesn’t leave much time for dillydallying,” Westley says.

Like Westley, I must rely on others to fill me in on what I have missed. My parents’ stories are at once plentiful and sparse, overwhelming and inadequate. I lose myself in questions. I succumb to nightmarish imagination. I haven’t figured out how to mourn what I can’t remember.

After I was born, Dad designed a set of personalized trading cards. A lifelong Red Sox fan, he distributed the novelty to family and friends, noting the potential value of a Marley Coyne original, collector’s edition.
On the front of the card sits me, in the mushroom cloud of my diaper, hoisting a yellow building block like a World Series trophy. The back of the card read:

"Marley B. Coyne: Peripatetic Prodigy. Ms. Coyne is an accomplished literary critic who enthusiastically recommends Pat the Bunny, Goodnight Moon and The Itsy Bitsy Spider. She speaks fluent Duck and delights in toppling tall stacks of building blocks. Her favorite pastimes: prattling and perambulation."

Dad gave a copy of the card to Tim when he first met him, six weeks after the bombing. Tim stared at the picture of my chubby face, then flipped it. “Oh, you meant business card!” Dad said. If Tim betrayed any emotion, it was placid bemusement. Dad took back my card and reached in his breast pocket for the business card Tim wanted. “Just a joke,” he added.

“He wasn’t very old. I don’t think he’d had much sex,” Dad told me over FaceTime. “He was shy and goofy and tall and awkward and disillusioned and immature and angry. He was all those things.”

I was a senior in college, writing about how the Oklahoma City bombing affected my family for my thesis. As it happened, the piece was due on April 19, 2016, the tragedy’s 21st anniversary. It felt right, necessary even, to end my formal education learning this story and telling it in my own way. I have never worked harder than I did on this project.

My parents answered my questions with caution, but they did answer them. Together we stifled the obvious horror of it all — the blood, so much blood, children’s blood — and looked inward. Dad told me the case “fucked things up pretty good” for him. He apologized, too often, for a hell I don’t remember. I failed to convince him of my forgiveness. Mom warned me to not get lost in the depths that nearly swallowed him. I couldn’t resist.

Dad shared photographs and anecdotes as if Tim were a troubled friend he had lost touch with after adolescence. He told me how Tim once sent me an episode of “Barney & Friends” on VHS. Tim knew Dad hated the singing, dancing dinosaur so much he banned the show from our house. It was just Tim’s little joke — using me to needle Dad.

Dad discarded the video, but he gave me a birthday card Tim wrote — official prison mail, resealed and government stamped — behind Mom’s back. “To honor Tim’s good gesture,” he said. That was the kind of rapport they had.

If Dad remembers correctly, I spoke to Tim just once. I was maybe 6. I answered his collect call from the Terre Haute United States Penitentiary on Christmas morning. We talked about Santa Claus.

“How did he deal with that? Talking to a child when he killed so many?” I asked.

“I don’t think he ever did,” Dad said. “Whenever we talked about the 19 children in the day care center, a wall just went up. I don’t think he could allow himself to even think about it because it would have crushed him — the horror of what he’d done.”

I scanned the pixelated image: Dad sitting on the couch in a room I once knew; his mutt, whose fleas we used to pick, wagging her tail in and out of the frame.

“I think it was really a boost for him.” Dad said finally. “Just to hear a little kid’s voice talking about the wonder of Christmas.”

I have never experienced a strangeness comparable to knowing that I once brought a mass murderer something close to happiness. I made Timothy McVeigh’s Christmas.

I won’t linger on the trial — the scandals and incompetence, the devastating run-ins with the victims’ families, the friendship Dad built with the man who had annihilated their loved ones, the animosity he and Tim harbored towards the case’s lead attorney. Dad left the case officially, after Tim was sentenced to death, but he agreed to help Tim pro bono get his will and other affairs in order. He remained his ally and confidant until the end.

I should mention: I have always been frantically protective of my father, though I have often felt powerless to defend him. Once at a gathering of colleagues and friends, and after what I’m sure was more than a couple of beers, Dad and one of his buddies decided to wrestle on the living room floor for the amusement of the crowd. I was a toddler curious about the source of excitement. To my dismay, I saw a man pinning my dad, who in turn was trying to grip his attacker in a headlock. I ran forward, shaking my inchworm of an index finger at the villainous stranger and cried, “Don’t hurt my Daddy!” The crowd laughed hysterically. I was quite serious.

After months of living in Denver and flying back on the occasional weekend, Dad returned to Mom and me and a life in Norman. He brought Tim home with him, too.

Dad balanced chores, like picking me up from day care, with errands, like mailing porn and books on anarchy to Tim. He took Tim’s sister out for Thai with Mom and me, “the girls.” He promised to smuggle Tim’s ashes into Giza and spread them at the base of the pyramids. He sent love letters and presents on Tim’s behalf. He handled all the minutiae that accompanies a death sentence.

Eventually Dad cracked.

The thing about the Oklahoma City bombing is that it follows you. At least, it follows Dad. A week after he returned home from the trial in Denver, he wrote in his trial journal, “Readjustment is incredibly painful for everyone. I hate myself for the damage I have done to my girls.”

As I said, I don’t remember much. But one memory sticks while the rest wither in oblivion. I was in the music room, surrounded by wall-to-wall bookshelves, packed with thick legal tomes. Tim smiled down at me from a framed photo atop the Yamaha piano that was Dad’s homecoming present. I was wearing a black velvet dress with silver stripes and an Empire waist bow. Dad swears he was sober that day; I remember he reeked of skunk and stale bread.

Dad wanted to take me with him to the Laundromat, and Grandma, who was helping Mom care for me, said no. He screamed at her. She screamed back. I felt oddly aware of my stature, my childishness. I watched the vitriol soar above my head. At some point, Dad pulled me to his side of the room and, in his fury, ripped the bow off my favorite dress. Quiet fell. The angry faces I didn’t recognize became familiar again. Dad — my daddy — asked me what I wanted.

In the car, I shuffled through the glove compartment and checked under the seats for spare quarters to feed the machines. Of course, I chose to go with him.

One night in the spring of 1998 while sitting on our front porch, head in her hands, wondering how she was going to shield me from her husband’s self-destruction, Mom swore she saw God. It felt as if someone were holding her in a blanket of sunshine in the middle of a cold night. I vividly remember her telling me this because I’ve carried that image with me every day since.

Dad had stopped showing up to teach his death penalty classes. He picked fights with the dean of the law school. He forgot to pay bills. He beat his drums so hard he nearly rendered himself arthritic. He screamed and thrust his finger in Mom’s face. He drank and drank and wrote letters to Tim.

On that night, Mom had discovered Dad was hiding a gun in his music studio. When either divine intervention or exhausted delusion returned her to the ground, she decided to divorce him.

Today, Dad is more or less retired. He focuses full-time on drumming, his first passion. (Before going to law school, he had taught high school band.) Pummeling his Yamaha kit at Chinese restaurants and Lutheran churches across Oklahoma helps him abate the nightmares filled with autopsied corpses rising from rigor mortis. He hasn’t had a drink in 18 years, and I’m so proud of him.

Dad also lives his life like he is on death row. He doesn’t go to the doctor as often as he should. His friends tend to die gruesome, premature deaths. On his iPhone, he keeps a playlist of songs to play at his funeral.

At least once a year, he reminds me to sell everything he owns after he dies. “I have Tim’s old Army fatigues, all his medals. . . . There are some crazies out there who would pay a good deal of money for that kind of thing. Just don’t throw it all out,” he says.

I dread the day I’ll have to sort through boxes of Tim’s fatigues and other remnants of Dad’s life to divide into keep, sell and toss piles. This is my inheritance, to pass on to the highest bidder. I want to feel liberated when I finally discard the man who has haunted us for 22 years. I want to find comfort knowing what remains of him will rot in the back of someone else’s closet. I want it to be that simple, but it’s not. I’m afraid the day my father dies, Tim will come to collect him. I’m afraid he will one day steal my daddy for good.
                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                   -MARLEY COYNE





While digging up the previous article I posted this morning, I was also lucky enough to find this one as well. Marley is the daughter of Randy Coyne who represented McVeigh, and also became a close friend to him. The effect Tim's trial had on her father and in a roundabout way her own life is very sad.

I think her father carried a lot of guilt over the fact McVeigh was sentenced to death, and was executed. I also feel he had a lot of guilt for befriending McVeigh after seeing firsthand what he had done, or what he had a hand in doing. But I also truly believe he saw Tim McVeigh for what he really was, rather then what everyone wanted him seen as. Coyne knew there was more to McVeigh then the cold, heartless killer the media showed.

That he would ask his daughter to not throw away Tim's belongings is quite heartbreaking.  All that happened during the case apparently still weighs very heavily on his mind. But her last paragraph gave me chills. She is well aware that McVeigh's trial along with his life and death have haunted her father, and in a way her as well.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



McVeigh's death certificate.

Still haven't found a full, uncut interview. I have been digging through archives for weeks.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



McVeigh's finger prints.

Funny he was held in Littleton Colorado.

Small world.

W.A.R. wrote:

Funny he was held in Littleton Colorado.

Small world.

Indeed it is.

It must be horrible being put to death by the country he was trying to save (in the wrong way).

W.A.R. wrote:

Funny he was held in Littleton Colorado.

Small world.

Didn't he also get housed next to the Unabomber at one point?

QuestionMark wrote:

Didn't he also get housed next to the Unabomber at one point?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


     Ted Kaczynski's letter about Timothy McVeigh written to the authors of McVeigh's authorized biography book American Terrorist.

  "I should begin by noting that the validity of my comments about McVeigh is limited by the fact that I didn't know him terribly well. We were often put in the outdoor rec yard together in separate wire-mesh cages, but I always spent most of the rec period running in a small oval, because of the restricted area of the cages and consequently I had only about 15 or 20 minutes of each rec period for talking with other inmates. Also, I was at first reluctant to become friendly with McVeigh because I thought (correctly) that any friendly relations between McVeigh and me would be reported to the media and I also thought (incorrectly, it seems) that such reports would lose me many supporters. But my reluctance very soon passed away: When you're confined with other people under the conditions that exist on this range of cells, you develop a sense of solidarity with them regardless of any differences or misgivings.

On a personal level I like McVeigh and I imagine that most people would like him. He was easily the most outgoing of all the inmates on our range of cells and had excellent social skills. He was considerate of others and knew how to deal with people effectively. He communicated somehow even with the inmates on the range of cells above ours, and, because he talked with more people, he always knew more about what was going on than anyone else on our range.

Another reason why he knew more about what was going on was that he was very observant. Up to a point, I can identify with this trait of McVeigh's. When you've lived in the woods for a while you get so that your senses are far more alert than those of a city person; you will hardly miss a footprint, or even a fragment of one, and the slightest sound, if it deviates from the pattern of sounds that you're expecting to hear at a given time and place, will catch your attention. But when I was away from the woods, or even when I was in my cabin or absorbed in some task, my senses tended to turn inward, so to speak, and the observant alertness was shut off. Here at the ADX, my senses and my mind are turned inward most of the time, so it struck me as remarkable that even in prison McVeigh remained alert and consistently took an interest in his surroundings.

It is my impression that McVeigh is very intelligent. He thinks seriously about the problems of our society, especially as they relate to the issue of individual freedom, and to the extent that he expressed his ideas to me they seemed rational and sensible. However, he discussed these matters with me only to a limited extent and I have no way of being sure that he does not have other ideas that he did not express to me and that I would not consider rational or sensible. I know almost nothing about McVeigh's opinions concerning the U.S. government or the events at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Someone sent me a transcript of his interview with 60 Minutes, but I haven't read it yet. Consequently, I have no way of knowing whether I would consider his opinion on these subjects to be rational or sensible.

McVeigh is considered to belong to the far right, and for that reason some people apparently assume that he has racist tendencies. But I saw no indication of this. On the contrary, he was on very friendly terms with the African-American inmates here and I never heard him make any remark that could have been considered even remotely racist. I do recall his mentioning that prior to the Gulf War, he and other soldiers were subjected to propaganda designed to make them hate the people they were going to fight, but when he arrived in the Persian Gulf area he discovered that the "enemies" he was supposed to kill were human beings just like himself, and he learned to respect their culture.

McVeigh told me of his idea (which I think may have significant merit) that certain rebellious elements on the American right and left respectively had more in common with one another than is commonly realized, and that the two groups ought to join forces. This led us to discuss, though only briefly, the question of what constitutes the "right." I pointed out that the word "right," in the political sense, was originally associated with authoritarianism, and I raised the question of why certain radically anti-authoritarian groups (such as the Montana Freemen) were lumped together with authoritarian factions as the "right." McVeigh explained that the American far right could be roughly divided into two branches, the fascist/racist branch, and the individualistic or freedom-loving branch which generally was not racist. He did not know why these two branches were lumped together as the "right," but he did suggest a criterion that could be used to distinguish left from right: the left (in America today) generally dislikes firearms, while the right tends to be attracted to firearms.

By this criterion McVeigh himself would have to be assigned to the right. He once asked me what kind of rifle I'd used for hunting in Montana, and I said I'd had a .22 and a .30-06. On a later occasion McVeigh mentioned that one of the advantages of a .30-06 was that one could get armor-piercing ammunition for it. I said, "So what would I need armor-piercing ammunition for?" In reply, McVeigh indicated that I might some day want to shoot at a tank. I didn't bother to argue with him, but if I'd considered it worth the trouble I could have given the obvious answer: that the chances that I would ever have occasion to shoot at a tank were very remote. I think McVeigh knew well that there was little likelihood that I would ever need to shoot at a tank---or that he would either, unless he rejoined the Army. My speculative interpretation is that McVeigh resembles many people on the right who are attracted to powerful weapons for their own sake and independently of any likelihood that they will ever have a practical use for them. Such people tend to invent excuses, often far-fetched ones, for acquiring weapons for which they have no real need.

But McVeigh did not fit the stereotype of the extreme right-wingers. I've already indicated that he spoke of respect for other people's cultures, and in doing so he sounded like a liberal. He certainly was not a mean or hostile person, and I wasn't aware of any indication that he was super patriotic. I suspect that he is an adventurer by nature, and America since the closing of the frontier has had little room for adventurers.

McVeigh never discussed the Oklahoma City bombing with me, nor did he ever make any admissions in my hearing. I know nothing about that case except what the media have said, so I'm not going to offer any opinion about whether McVeigh did what they say he did. However, assuming that the Oklahoma City bombing was intended as a protest against the U.S. government in general and against the government's actions at Waco in particular, I will say that I think the bombing was a bad action because it was unnecessarily inhumane.

A more effective protest could have been made with far less harm to innocent people. Most of the people who died at Oklahoma City were, I imagine, lower-level government employees---office help and the like---who were not even remotely responsible for objectionable government policies or for the events at Waco. If violence were to be used to express protest, it could have been used far more humanely, and at the same time more effectively, by being directed at the relatively small number of people who were personally responsible for the policies or actions to which the protesters objected. Such protest would have attracted just as much national attention as the Oklahoma City bombing and would have involved relatively little risk to innocent people. Moreover, the protest would have earned far more sympathy than the Oklahoma City bombing did, because it is safe to assume that many anti-government people who might have accepted violence that was more limited and carefully directed were repelled by the large loss of innocent life at Oklahoma City.

The media teach us to be horrified at the Oklahoma City bombing, but I won't have time to be horrified at it as long as there are greater horrors in the world that make it seem insignificant by comparison. Moreover, our politicians and our military kill people in far larger numbers than was done at Oklahoma City, and they do so for motives that are far more cold blooded and calculating. On orders from the president, a general will kill some thousands of people (usually including many civilians regardless of efforts to avoid such losses) without bothering to ask himself whether the killing is justified. He has to follow orders because his only other alternative would be to resign his commission, and naturally he would rather kill a few thousand people than spoil his career. The politicians and the media justify these actions with propaganda about "defending freedom." However, even if America were a free society (which it is not), most U.S. military action during at least the last couple of decades has not been necessary for the survival of American society but has been designed to protect relatively narrow economic or political interests or to boost the president's approval rating in the public-opinion polls.

The media portray the killing at Oklahoma City as a ghastly atrocity, but I remember how they cheered the U.S. action in the Gulf War just as they might have cheered for their favorite football team. The whole thing was treated as if it were a big game. I didn't see any sob stories about the death agonies of Iraqi soldiers or about their grieving families. It's easy to see the reason for the difference: America's little wars are designed to promote the interests of "the system," but violence at home is dangerous to the system, so the system's propaganda has to teach us the correspondingly correct attitudes toward such events. Yet I am much less repelled by powerless dissidents who kill a couple hundred because they think they have no other way to effectively state their protest, than I am by politicians and generals---people in positions of great power---who kill hundreds or thousands for the sake of cold calculated political and economic advantages.

You asked for my thoughts on the behavior of federal law enforcement officers. My personal experience suggests that federal law enforcement officers are neither honest nor competent, and that they often disobey their own rules.

I've found by experience that any communication with journalists is risky for one in my position. I'm taking the risk in this case mainly because I think that McVeigh would want me to help you in the way that I have. As I indicated near the beginning of this letter, when you're locked up with other people you develop a sense of solidarity with them in spite of any differences.

Sincerely yours, Ted Kaczynski."





[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Yes. They struck up a friendship during their time together. At the same time McVeigh was also housed with Ramzi Yousef. Who had bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. Their prison block was often referred to as Bombers Row. Ted and Tim kept up communications even after Tim was moved to a different prison.

Neah wrote:

It must be horrible being put to death by the country he was trying to save (in the wrong way).

Agreed.

It is weird to read such well-reasoned and understanding documents about two men who tried to change people's mind in a very extreme way.

Neah wrote:

It is weird to read such well-reasoned and understanding documents about two men who tried to change people's mind in a very extreme way.

I wholeheartedly agree. A lot of things they said made perfect sense, just their methods of trying to bring attention to the issues they felt so strongly about were as you said very EXTREME and off putting.

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Neah wrote:

It is weird to read such well-reasoned and understanding documents about two men who tried to change people's mind in a very extreme way.

I wholeheartedly agree. A lot of things they said made perfect sense, just their methods of trying to bring attention to the issues they felt so strongly about were as you said very EXTREME and off putting.

In fact what surprised me the most was to read Ted Kaczynski, who is not a good example of how to make your ideas heard in a good way, say that the Oklahoma Bombing was too extreme to be effective.

Neah wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Neah wrote:

It is weird to read such well-reasoned and understanding documents about two men who tried to change people's mind in a very extreme way.

I wholeheartedly agree. A lot of things they said made perfect sense, just their methods of trying to bring attention to the issues they felt so strongly about were as you said very EXTREME and off putting.

In fact what surprised me the most was to read Ted Kaczynski, who is not a good example of how to make your ideas heard in a good way, say that the Oklahoma Bombing was too extreme to be effective.

Exactly. I kinda wonder if Ted perhaps saw a younger version of himself in Tim?

Neah wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Neah wrote:

It is weird to read such well-reasoned and understanding documents about two men who tried to change people's mind in a very extreme way.

I wholeheartedly agree. A lot of things they said made perfect sense, just their methods of trying to bring attention to the issues they felt so strongly about were as you said very EXTREME and off putting.

In fact what surprised me the most was to read Ted Kaczynski, who is not a good example of how to make your ideas heard in a good way, say that the Oklahoma Bombing was too extreme to be effective.

He was wrong about that though. While most people would not give their ideas a second thought, there are a large number of people who would still hold both of them up as being worth listening to and McVeigh probably continues to draw more admiration than Kaczynski to this day despite killing over a hundred more people than Ted, most of whom had nothing to do with any of his ideological objections. I'd say that it's all about whether or not people already agree with the ideas they were touting. Apparently, mass murder changes no minds. They will convert no one but they will also not discourage anyone. Ideas either stand on their own or they don't stand at all. What I am most surprised to see in this thread is that people are not just sympathizing with McVeigh's ideas, but are sympathizing with McVeigh himself because of those ideas. Never thought I'd see that but clearly, I underestimate the power of identification.

sscc wrote:

Neah wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Neah wrote:

It is weird to read such well-reasoned and understanding documents about two men who tried to change people's mind in a very extreme way.

I wholeheartedly agree. A lot of things they said made perfect sense, just their methods of trying to bring attention to the issues they felt so strongly about were as you said very EXTREME and off putting.

In fact what surprised me the most was to read Ted Kaczynski, who is not a good example of how to make your ideas heard in a good way, say that the Oklahoma Bombing was too extreme to be effective.

He was wrong about that though. While most people would not give their ideas a second thought, there are a large number of people who would still hold both of them up as being worth listening to and McVeigh probably continues to draw more admiration than Kaczynski to this day despite killing over a hundred more people than Ted, most of whom had nothing to do with any of his ideological objections. I'd say that it's all about whether or not people already agree with the ideas they were touting. Apparently, mass murder changes no minds. They will convert no one but they will also not discourage anyone. Ideas either stand on their own or they don't stand at all. What I am most surprised to see in this thread is that people are not just sympathizing with McVeigh's ideas, but are sympathizing with McVeigh himself because of those ideas. Never thought I'd see that but clearly, I underestimate the power of identification.

I have no plans on getting into another long, drawn out, back and forth with you over this like we engaged in when you said the same thing in regards to Columbine and E&D.

But the same applies here as well. Can I feel sympathy for McVeigh? Absolutely.  Do I think some of the things he believed were right?  Absolutely.  Do I feel his methods of bringing attention to his beliefs were right?  Absolutely NOT.  The end.

sscc wrote:

Neah wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Neah wrote:

It is weird to read such well-reasoned and understanding documents about two men who tried to change people's mind in a very extreme way.

I wholeheartedly agree. A lot of things they said made perfect sense, just their methods of trying to bring attention to the issues they felt so strongly about were as you said very EXTREME and off putting.

In fact what surprised me the most was to read Ted Kaczynski, who is not a good example of how to make your ideas heard in a good way, say that the Oklahoma Bombing was too extreme to be effective.

He was wrong about that though. While most people would not give their ideas a second thought, there are a large number of people who would still hold both of them up as being worth listening to and McVeigh probably continues to draw more admiration than Kaczynski to this day despite killing over a hundred more people than Ted, most of whom had nothing to do with any of his ideological objections. I'd say that it's all about whether or not people already agree with the ideas they were touting. Apparently, mass murder changes no minds. They will convert no one but they will also not discourage anyone. Ideas either stand on their own or they don't stand at all. What I am most surprised to see in this thread is that people are not just sympathizing with McVeigh's ideas, but are sympathizing with McVeigh himself because of those ideas. Never thought I'd see that but clearly, I underestimate the power of identification.

Well I sympathize with some of McVeigh's ideas, I sympathize with McVeigh himself because when we go beyond the depiction that some medias made of him we see that he was human and probably even a nice person in everyday life, but I cannot sympathize with what he did and if I were born at the time I would have condemned the bombing. It doesn't mean that I would have changed my opinions though, but McVeigh would have been on his own and I don't think I would have tried to defend him or support him.

I think I sympathize with him because I am a foreigner so I was not there when it happened, I wasn't born either so I did not lived the emotion that followed the bombing, and because many medias depicted him as a monster so, in reaction, I started seeing McVeigh as a human. The media argument also applies with many mass shooters, but not Islamic terrorists.

Neah wrote:

Well I sympathize with many of McVeigh's ideas, I sympathize with McVeigh himself because when we go beyond the depiction that some medias made of him we see that he was human and probably even a nice person in everyday life, but I cannot sympathize with what he did and if I were born at the time I would have condemned the bombing. It doesn't mean that I would have changed my opinions though, but McVeigh would have been on his own and I don't think I would have tried to defend him or support him.

I think I sympathize with him because I am a foreigner so I was not there when it happened, I wasn't born either so I did not lived the emotion that followed the bombing, and because many medias depicted him as a monster so, in reaction, I started seeing McVeigh as a human. The media argument also applies with many mass shooters, but not Islamic terrorists.

I see Timothy as a human too. I don't see how you can see him as anything other than that. I don't disagree with his ideas about the government either, to be perfectly honest. I also think that he was an interesting person but I'm not sure if I would have wanted to know him personally. I do think that he displayed many potential traits of psychopathy (no, not the killing part, just his personality) but I am not sure that he would qualify as a psychopath. I am certainly intrigued by him and I would like to know what really made him tick.

I have a lot to say about him but it's mostly speculation based on everything I've read about him and everything he said himself so I'll try to keep it brief. 

I think that he might be given more credit than he deserves by those who sympathize with him. I'm not sure that he was a martyr to his cause. I suspect that Tim was just a mass shooter who thought bigger. I'm not even sure that he was politically motivated, as silly as that may sound. I do think that he was fixated on these ideas and that his stated motive was real but I think that his personal problems motivated him to kill, just like many mass shooters. Tim was angry. He had no patience for everyday life. He couldn't have survived a normal, boring existence. He had no long term goals and he was just drifting.

Once he failed his attempt at joining the special forces and left the service, he really had nothing to look forward to. He couldn't even look back fondly on his time there because he was disillusioned with the military after learning what makes a "war hero." He was semi-suicidal and had a sort of breakdown a few months after being discharged. I think that he craved meaning and he wanted to do something important and be someone important. He subsequently attached himself to a cause like many lost, young men do because it filled the emptiness and quieted the confusion inside of him. Unfortunately, he latched onto a form of "activism" that made killing hundreds of people seem like a good idea because it would give his life a purpose and he would be recognized by the entire country.

There is a very good chance that Tim could have gotten away with this, at least for some time, if he had left the plates on his car. He didn't know that they would be able to identify him from a piece of the rental truck. He wanted to be caught immediately. He wanted attention and recognition. There was a lot of narcissistic pride in his comments about the bombing. He wanted to make sure that his name was attached to the deed. I also think he was, if not blatantly suicidal, ready to die.

On top of that, I take issue with his rationalization. Here's how Tim explained why he did it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
He also talked about the hypocrisy of the American government and even the American people.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He was trying to push for a "necessity defense" when he went to trial. Did he genuinely believe that? I don't know but if he did then his own actions were an affirmation that violence is sometimes necessary and justified and that it can serve a purpose! That was the opposite of the point that he was supposedly trying to make. Who should decide when violence is and is not justified?

He said that the police were becoming increasingly militarized and violent against their own citizens. If he couldn't find a way to accomplish his goals without resorting to violence against American citizens, then how can he condemn the United States government for their own violent actions?  If he knows that this is wrong, then he can't justify doing the same thing. If he was just playing a game to make a point, then he was a psychopath toying with people's lives.

Anyone who agrees with him that the American military and government agencies were not justified in committing acts of violence must agree that McVeigh was not justified either. He nullified his own justification by doing this. He was either playing a totally narcissistic game with the lives of hundreds of civilians or he was a hypocrite who knew that he was doing something wrong and did it anyway "for the greater good." Should we bother listening to hypocrites? Where does this all leave us?

Tim was an angry, disillusioned guy who ended up with nothing to look forward to in life despite being bright and competent enough to achieve some happiness and success. He is just another "mass shooter" who filled the void with rage and rationalization and managed to betray his professed beliefs in the process, apparently without understanding that he was doing it. In instances of mass killing, it's always difficult to separate the man from the act but Tim did an excellent job of rationalizing the act, which most are not capable of doing, so it becomes nearly impossible to achieve in his case. You have to look at what he felt, not what he believed, to understand why he did what he did. It was 99% personal, not political. It was all supposed to be proof that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

All of that being said, I do feel for Tim. He was a relatively young guy who got lost in ideas, just like the rest of them, because real life wasn't what he thought it would be. Who can't relate to that?

I've rambled and I've probably said a lot that doesn't make sense but my thoughts about him are complicated. What a sympathetic, baby killing monster he was!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I will not quote your post because you wrote a huuuuuge post and it will take too much space. But it was very interesting to read and I agree with you on many points.

In fact I don't think I know enough about Timothy McVeigh, and yet I have the impression that I understand him, which I probably not. But here is how I see him:

I don't think he was a psychopath, nor do I think he enjoyed killing. This is why to me he is not "just" a mass murderer. He was a terrorist, we can't deny it, and yet as you said I don't think the bombing was only due to political motives.

I think he was depressed and hated his life so much, and when people feel that way they either do nothing, or join groups or a cause and are obsessed with it. I think he had the impression he failed his life and so became obsessed with that government thing, thinking that he was aware, unlike many people and so he had to be heard, no matter how. I think when you do something that will destroy your life, like a terrorist attack that big, it is very rarely due only to political opinions. He probably did that because he was ok to die or to destroy his life. If he had something to live for, a wife, a kid I don't think he would have done it. Yet, my thoughts about this are fine if McVeigh was ok to be arrested, but it doesn't really work if he thought he could never be identified. That said, this theory could still work, because as you said making people think was what gave his life a meaning, it was his purpose.

I think he fed himself off with his ideas and the more he thought about it the more he convinced himself that it was necessary. So even if it was not only caused by his political views, I truly believe he did the bombing thinking it was for the greater good, hence the collateral damage. So I would not call him a hypocrite, because unlike the government, I think he was a little naive and he thought that maybe one act of violence would be enough to make people start thinking.

But when we think about him being killed by the people he was trying to help, I wonder if his last moments were moments of disillusionment, as he realized that people didn't change and he did that for nothing, or did he die thinking he was a martyr and that one day people would understand he was right.

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

having this man helping you build a bomb while screwing his wife on the side. Just more proof that Tim was indeed a very bad boy.

There goes Tim McVeigh and his christian, red-blooded american morality.

sscc wrote:

Tim was angry. He had no patience for everyday life. He couldn't have survived a normal, boring existence.

Agreed. No wonder Eric Harris looked up to him, they were in fact very alike.

sscc wrote:

I suspect that Tim was just a mass shooter who thought bigger. I'm not even sure that he was politically motivated, as silly as that may sound. I do think that he was fixated on these ideas and that his stated motive was real but I think that his personal problems motivated him to kill, just like many mass shooters.

Again, agreed. I think his mental state is what chose him to committ mass murder. His political beliefs just made him choose the target.

I see a strong similarity to Eric and Dylan. I strongly believe that it was the same for them - that it was their mental states that prompted them to commit murder. Columbine was by all accounts a shitty place and this is why they chose it as a target. But if Columbine were to be a great school free of mindless drones, bullies, stupid teachers and whatnot - that would imho still not prevent the shooting. In that case they would just go shoot up a mall or some other place.

Well according to certain conspiracies some believe that McVeigh wasn't really executed since he was a sheep dipped, government op.

But when you dive into that aspect of the case its gets really fucking confusing and very shady all around.

Sabratha wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

having this man helping you build a bomb while screwing his wife on the side. Just more proof that Tim was indeed a very bad boy.

There goes Tim McVeigh and his christian, red-blooded american morality.

True!

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

I kinda wonder if Ted perhaps saw a younger version of himself in Tim?

Obviously he felt a kind of connection with Tim, possibly in an ideological sense. 

I do recall that Ted compared Tim to Eric Harris, which isn't that far off the mark honestly (though Eric was quite a bit more of a trouble-maker than Tim).

QuestionMark wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

I kinda wonder if Ted perhaps saw a younger version of himself in Tim?

Obviously he felt a kind of connection with Tim, possibly in an ideological sense. 

I do recall that Ted compared Tim to Eric Harris, which isn't that far off the mark honestly (though Eric was quite a bit more of a trouble-maker than Tim).

He did compare them, saying "We're allowing every Eric Harris, every troubled kid out there, to become the next Tim McVeigh."

QuestionMark wrote:

I do recall that Ted compared Tim to Eric Harris, which isn't that far off the mark honestly (though Eric was quite a bit more of a trouble-maker than Tim).

As far as I can tell, that quote was actually from Ted's brother, David Kaczynski. It is misattributed on a number quote based websites (that generally don't bother to fact check anything) but based on what I've found by searching, the context is that David was quoted in some articles from May of 1999 discussing the fact that bomb-making instructions are available on the internet and that they were used in Columbine.

Quote :

David Kaczynski, the brother of convicted "Unabomber" Theodore Kaczynski, said easy access to bombmaking sites can turn good kids bad. "We're allowing every Eric Harris, every troubled kid out there, to become the next Tim McVeigh," Kaczynski said.

It seems like a bit of an exaggeration, especially considering how Eric's bombs turned out with the help of his internet bomb tutorials. Also, saying that access to bomb-making instructions turns good kids bad is almost as accurate as saying that assault rifles commit mass shootings.

sscc wrote:

Also, saying that access to bomb-making instructions turns good kids bad is almost as accurate as saying that assault rifles commit mass shootings.

I do agree with that.

So I tend to agree with Ted Kaczynski in that basically McVeigh’s message that he was trying to convey was over shadowed by the people he chose to kill.  His problem was that he couldn’t get close enough to the people who were responsible for the decisions made at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and ultimately in the wars where he was sent to battle.  So instead he chose innocent people who had no direct decision making powers in the reasons for his actions.  In my opinion, on April 19, he ultimately became the exact version of the people/person that he supposedly hated by killing innocent men, women, and children to make a political/ideological point.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]






McVeigh at Waco. Also a few of the bumper stickers he was selling that day.

Nice pictures of him, when he tried to be heard peacefully.

Here is the first image in a fuller and larger version.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

McVeigh at Waco. Also a few of the bumper stickers he was selling that day.

Ok this particular sticker annoys the shit out of me. The Nazis actually loosened restrictions on gun ownership when they were in power.

QuestionMark wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

McVeigh at Waco. Also a few of the bumper stickers he was selling that day.

Ok this particular sticker annoys the shit out of me. The Nazis actually loosened restrictions on gun ownership when they were in power.

Yeah, except for Jews or other enemies:

Quote :

"The Nazis adopted a new gun law in 1938. [...] It deregulated the buying and selling of rifles, shotguns and ammunition. It made handguns easier to own by allowing anyone with a hunting license to buy, sell or carry one at any time. (You didn’t need to be hunting.) It also extended the permit period from one year to three and gave local officials more discretion in letting people under 18 get a gun."

Maybe he did that to shock people, or to show that he was not from the far-right. Or simply because he was ignorant. I think it is still a widespread false information.

I heard that McVeigh compared Waco to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, how delusional can you get?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]




Came across this again! This was a back and forth issue that McVeigh had with the prison. He wanted a certain type of dental pick and was illustrating what he wanted. Note he even admitted "I suck at drawing". At least Tim knew he had limitations!

Although in my opinion his picture of the dental pick is pretty dead on accurate, and much better then his stick figure FBI/ATF agents and tanks in his Waco drawing.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]





This was a letter written from a mother who lost her daughter in the attack. To my knowledge McVeigh never responded to any of the victims letters.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]




Then here we have a 16 year old Fangirl who wanted to break him out of jail and then go kill Bill Clinton.  I wonder if she is still on a watch list somewhere?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



So during my still ongoing hunt for the full uncut, unedited version of McVeigh's 60 Minutes interview I happened to find this.

I always find it heart breaking hearing about the families seeking answers

I don’t know this for a fact but I assume no answer will ever be enough

Look at Columbine. After 19 years, the depositions and Sues book the parents of the 13 victims are still not satisfied with the information:(

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



So during my still ongoing hunt for the full uncut, unedited version of McVeigh's 60 Minutes interview I happened to find this.

You see you didn't came back empty-handed!

Are you sure there was even a published unedited version?

Neah wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



So during my still ongoing hunt for the full uncut, unedited version of McVeigh's 60 Minutes interview I happened to find this.

You see you didn't came back empty-handed!

Are you sure there was even a published unedited version?

Hell who knows!? It's like looking for a needle in a haystack trying to find anything about McVeigh that hasn't been edited or cut.  I've been digging in archives and reading transcripts for fucking weeks.

Neah wrote:

Are you sure there was even a published unedited version?

I found this days ago and never posted because I'm not sure if this is the right interview. The copyright date seems wrong but the name is right and it definitely seems to me that this recording includes at least part of the interview that Tim gave on 60 minutes before being executed.

You can only see a sample of the video (some academic institutions provide full access here and in other places or you can purchase access) but the transcript seems to be complete (15 minutes for part one and 14 minutes for part two).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Even if this is the wrong interview, I am sure that it is available to view with a subscription somewhere.

If anyone is interested, there is another series that aired on MSNBC which includes recordings of audio tapes taken by his biographers during their interviews.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Screamingophelia wrote:

I always find it heart breaking hearing about the families seeking answers

I don’t know this for a fact but I assume no answer will ever be enough

Look at Columbine. After 19 years, the depositions and Sues book the parents of the 13 victims are still not satisfied with the information:(

Agreed. The letter the mother wrote was very forgiving in a sense. All she wanted was to know why. Sadly her questions were never answered. But truly what answer would be good enough?

Neah wrote:

It must be horrible being put to death by the country he was trying to save (in the wrong way).

He knew the stakes. Plus I'm pretty sure he would refer to the federal sevices as the "army of Babylon" or somesuch. He wasn't their friend, he knew they ain't his friends either. He knew he'd be facing the death penalty and I'm sure he believed the feds would kill him without blinking twice.

He was right on that last part.

Sabratha wrote:

Neah wrote:

It must be horrible being put to death by the country he was trying to save (in the wrong way).

He knew the stakes. Plus I'm pretty sure he would refer to the federal sevices as the "army of Babylon" or somesuch. He wasn't their friend, he knew they ain't his friends either. He knew he'd be facing the death penalty and I'm sure he believed the feds would kill him without blinking twice.

He was right on that last part.

Yes, to him he was probably another feds' victim. But I wonder if he thought the American people supported him or not.

sscc wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

I do recall that Ted compared Tim to Eric Harris, which isn't that far off the mark honestly (though Eric was quite a bit more of a trouble-maker than Tim).

As far as I can tell, that quote was actually from Ted's brother, David Kaczynski. It is misattributed on a number quote based websites (that generally don't bother to fact check anything) but based on what I've found by searching, the context is that David was quoted in some articles from May of 1999 discussing the fact that bomb-making instructions are available on the internet and that they were used in Columbine.

Quote :

David Kaczynski, the brother of convicted "Unabomber" Theodore Kaczynski, said easy access to bombmaking sites can turn good kids bad. "We're allowing every Eric Harris, every troubled kid out there, to become the next Tim McVeigh," Kaczynski said.

It seems like a bit of an exaggeration, especially considering how Eric's bombs turned out with the help of his internet bomb tutorials. Also, saying that access to bomb-making instructions turns good kids bad is almost as accurate as saying that assault rifles commit mass shootings.

Most online bomb making instructions are not good enough to wipe your rear end with. Most wannabie bombers will end up like Eric. This in no way means we should trivialize the potential danger. Because then some Breivik will pop up and detonate a large bomb killing numerous people.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Bombs are a potent weapon for any spree shooter. The power of a spree shooter is the element of surprise and the fact taht he/she has all the time in the world to plan the attack. But the, the shooter cannot directly strike in more than one place at the same time - and that's where bombs come in.

Sabratha wrote:

Bombs are a potent weapon for any spree shooter. The power of a spree shooter is the element of surprise and the fact taht he/she has all the time in the world to plan the attack. But the, the shooter cannot directly strike in more than one place at the same time - and that's where bombs come in.

Yeah, and even a bad and not powerful bomb can cause a lot of damage if it explodes near a crowd and create a panic reaction.