From: [Paul Schauble] at [f29.n15.z1.FIDONET.ORG] (Paul Schauble) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Linda's videotape 1/8 Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1993 22:31:19 -0500 * Original to All of 1:3624/7, on * Forwarded on by Terry Buyers of 1:3624/[REDACTED] at [Fidonet] Linda Thompson's video tape has recently been seen by a number of people on Bix. One person with a military background posted extensive comments. I they were interesting enough to bring back here. Posted with permission of the author. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ========== tojerry/long.messages #1697, from wclardy, 24433 chars, Wed Oct 6 14:30:59 199 Comment(s). ---------- TITLE: Report on the AJF Tape As have others in this conference, I just received my copy of the American Justice Federation videotape about the incident(s) at Waco. Before offering my interpretation of the events depicted on the tape, I should offer a couple of caveats to aid granting or denying credence to my opinions: 1. I served seven years in the Regular Army as an Infantry noncommissioned officer before obtaining a reserve commission (also in the Infantry). During that period, I was trained by the 7th Army in officially sanctioned methods of weapons and armored vehicle identification (which were pretty worthless), which I supplemented by studying the various _Jane's_ annuals, _International Defence Review_, and other weapons-related sources, in order to be accurate in my patrol reports (I was assigned to an armored cavalry squadron tasked with patrolling a section of the Czech border during my time in 7th Army). I also spent 1 year at Ft. Irwin assigned to the OPFOR, 1 year in Korea in the weapons platoon of a light infantry company, and a little over 1 year in the 101st as part of an air assault infantry company. Attach whatever import you feel appropriate to my military experience. 2. I am a life member of the NRA who has had case of the jaws with the BATF dating back to the days when it was still the ATFD. 3. The FBI types that I have had personal contact with have usually struck me as quietly professional patriots. These contacts were pertinent to my military service, and were concerned with domestic counter-espionage stuff (and would probably make for very boring stories if I told you about them), although the agents usually were doing counter-spook stuff in addition to law-enforcement duties. They may or may not be typical agents, but I doubt they would consent to participate in or even conceal deliberate murder. 4. I viewed the tape on a 12-year-old TV using a 10-year- old VCR, backing up and reviewing as best I can. However, the picture quality was poor enough that, in some instances I could not positively confirm or deny that the narrator was accurately describing the scene. I will try to identify those parts where I could not see sufficient detail. With those warning labels attached, here's my read on what I found to be the "highlights" of the tape (some of which are slightly out of sequence in relation to their appearance on the tape): 1. The narrator calmly walks the viewer through an itemized refutation of most of the charges against Koresh and the Branch Davidians, making effective use of tapes from courtroom appearances, an Aussie TV show and (presumably) other sources. This takes up probably the first 5-10 minutes of the tape, and includes Koresh specifically denying charges of adultery and child abuse, as well as verbal summaries (of indeterminate accuracy) of earlier investigations of Koresh et al. Significantly, the narrator points out that the charges of sexual misconduct and child abuse are not within the jurisdiction of the ATF and should have been irrelevant to any federal warrant. This raises the question of why the ATF agent felt obliged to include these allegations in his sworn affidavit. Perhaps an attempt to cloud the issue by demonizing the target of the investigation in the eyes of the judge? 2. The narrator also attempts to partially discredit the performance of the ATF in Waco by highlighting an "above- average" rate of gun-related prosecutions, and nit-picks the expertise of the ATF agent. Some of the narrator's comments strike me as disingenuous: a. The statement about AK47s having only a single receiver avoids the fact that the receiver cover (which is removed to field-strip the weapon) looks very much like an upper receiver. Also, if I remember the actual context of the agent's remark, AKs and AR-15s were mentioned jointly, so it is conceivable that the agent may have merely been using poor (confusing) English. However, this does not mitigate the erroneous assertion by the ATF agent that M16 upper receivers can convert AR-15s into machine guns (a point the narrator did *not* address. b. The narrator makes much of the ATF agent's apparent intermingling of the terms "machine gun" and "destructive device". This might make a difference to a lawyer, but to an agent offering testimony to obtain a search warrant, I think that it could be a case of sloppy terminology. Another item that the narrator overlooks (although the pertinent text is highlighted) is the ATF agent's assertion that a .50 caliber weapon is destructive device. The last time I checked the text of the law, it stated that weapons of a caliber _greater_ than .50 are destructive devices (Firearms Act of 1934). 3. The tape shows ATF agents engaging the Branch Davidians during the initial firefight. The narrator highlights 2 ATF agents, 1 armed w/ an M16 and the other armed w/ an MP5 (submachine gun). Although the quality of the picture on my TV was too poor to spot any spent casings being ejected, the agent with the M16 did not appear to be shooting (body motion indicating recoil absorption). I could not tell whether the MP5 gunner was shooting because he was in a much more supported firing position. However, automatic weapons fire is audible. 4. The narrator points out that there are no visible signs of rounds impacting near the ATF agents on the ground. As best as I can tell, she is right. 5. The narrator points out that the teams scaling the roof were not apparently under fire while going up the ladders. Again, the picture quality on my TV was poor, but this assertion seems accurate. The agents would have been easy targets for anybody shooting from the windows less than 10 feet from the ladders, and their body armor did not cover anything below the waist. 6. The narrator sounds almost gleeful describing the ATF agent with an AD (accidental discharge) apparently shooting himself in the leg. I cannot help but wonder if the agent actually did hit himself, as a leg wound would seem to have precluded him continuing as an assault team member. I think it credible that he (or one of the other agents with a grip on the ladder) might have been startled enough by the shot to almost topple him from the ladder. 7. No mention is made of the actions of the second roof team (which went over the ridge and out of view of the camera). Were they another entry team? Were any of them the ATF agents that were reportedly captured and released by the Branch Davidians? Under what circumstances did they return to ground level and rejoin (to them) friendly forces? 8. The narrator accurately points out that the ATF entry team on the near side of the roof were _not_ under fire while making their entry into what (if memory serves me correctly) the news media claimed was Koresh's arms room. No bullet impacts are visible while they are breaking the window and clambering inside. A grandmother with a broom could have literally swept the 3 entry personnel off the roof from inside that window. The entry was definitively unopposed. 9. The grenades that the narrator talks about look like flash-bangs. They are too small to be smoke grenades and nobody stands next to a window that they just tossed a frag into. Even the BATF isn't that stupid. BTW, flash-bangs do put out some smoke (they are basically high-tech firecrackers), so that would be consistent with the small amount of smoke venting through the window while the team enters (which is actually _way_ too little for what a smoke canister puts out). Tear gas is ruled out by the fact that the entry team is not wearing protective masks. Therefore, the entry team's actions were apparently to toss a pair of flash-bangs in, then to try not to stumble while crawling through the window. One thing that doesn't make sense is why nobody tried to just cut the damned curtain to keep it out of their way. 10. Next comes the infamous splice. The narrator does _not_ offer any explanation for who did it, merely a blank statement that it was cut. Which reminds me of a minor question: an earlier scene shown was an _overhead_ shot of the BATF laying siege to Mount Carmel, with BATF agents visible using the cars as cover. This _had_ to have been shot from the BATF choppers (nobody else was flying in the vicinity, were they?), so how did the AFJ get it? 11. Immediately after the splice, the agent who had been prone on the roof (apparently watching the other roof team) is now crouching beside the window. The narrator _says_ that he throws something into the window, but I could not tell. Next, the agent pulls back the curtain and points his MP5 into the room. The narrator _says_ that he fires 2 bursts, but, again, I couldn't confirm that. On my copy, there is a momentary flash near the muzzle of the MP5, but it looks more like static than a muzzle flash (which probably would not be visible in daylight anyway, and definitely not a foot long). No ejected casings were visible, but they would have been blocked by the curtain anyway. Smoke from muzzle blast or from the ejection port on the MP5 would have been obscured by all the debri caused by rounds coming out through the wall and window. If he fired (which seems likely), then he _did_ fire blindly, and would have run a major risk of hitting any friendlies inside the room. I can only presume that he was certain that the entry team was already dead or down (he did keep the MP5 level, so it would probably not hit anybody on the floor), as the only other explanation for his actions would be a decision to deliberately take out his teammates. That type of sacrifice wouldn't sit well with the other agents, so I have to discredit it. 12. While the agent is John Wayning it at the window, shots are coming out the wall. It looks to me like somebody walks their rounds rapidly down the wall to get a hit on the BATF agent, as the first round comes out about 6 feet away from the window, and then the exit holes appear closer and closer to the window, until several rounds splinter the window frame (on both sides). Some- where along in there, the agent takes a hit, decides discretion is the better part of getting killed and goes for the ladder. The narrator makes a big stink about 3 exit holes appearing simultaneously (I could only make out 2), but this proves nothing. A 3-round burst could have dispersed rounds that widely (I know that I spread rounds that far when I fired an Uzi on full auto for qualification w/ a Bundeswehr cav unit), but this would prove nothing as the Branch Davidians inside the room would have access to the BATF entry team's weapons. FWIW, if anybody has the equipment to show the tape frame by frame, the holes would appear 3-4 frames apart if they are from a single automatic weapon (MP5 cycle at 550-600 rpm, M16s at 700-800). 13. A BATF type in black assault uniform w/ a painted-on badge appears, talking about how the BATF had their plan, had their diversion... _What_ diversion? Weren't they supposed to surprise the Branch Davidians? Why hasn't anybody else (at least that I've heard, seen or read) mentioned this "diversion"? 14. A female BATF agent talks about how well-rehearsed the raid had been, and attributes the BATF defeat to the Branch Davidians having "bigger guns" than the BATF. The tape then shows the BATF retreating with their weapons and highlights an MP5 and M16 slung across one agent's back while the narrator adds a verbal reminder that the BATF was the side with heavier firepower. 15. The narrator describes the BATF disinformation about killing Mike Schroeder during the raid. However, while discounting the BATF version, the narrator does not offer any counter-vailing explanation of how Schroeder came to be shot by the BATF. Was he taken out by a BATF sniper or by a team of agents on the ground. If it was by sniper, why does the narrator not quention rules of engagement authorizing a sniper to engage an unidentified and unarmed person (who concievably could be a curious, albeit foolish, bystander)? (NOTE: On p. 102 of the October _Soldier of Fortune_, one paragraph discusses the ATF sniper team reporting that they believed that they had made 6 or 7 kills, and that they knew that 3 of their kills had been unarmed.) 16. The shows armored vehicles being trucked in from Fort Hood, while the narrator talks about violations of the posse commititus (sp?) act. Did they or didn't they? Only a lawyer could tell for sure. 17. The narrator also talks about the BATF using drug allegations to obtain use of Texas NG helicopters. However, the narrator makes this sound like a trivial point of law, barely mentioning that the helicopters in question were the ones used in the original raid. Nor does she remind the viewer that drug enforcement is outside of the BATF's juris- diction, which should mean that there any request by the BATF for equipment for purposes of drug enforcement should automatically be questioned. The narrator also left me wondering if Gov. Richards had ever offered any public explanation for not with- drawing the helicopters. 18. The narrator talks about the Branch Davidians being isolated from the news media, in order that only the official version of the news would be released. As presented, this assertion is meaningless, because controlling all communications is a standard police procedure when dealing w/ barricaded subjects. If the narrator has evidence of FBI/BATF untruths presented during this period, why doesn't she specify them? 19. Prior to discussing the final assault, the narrator describes the layout of the Mount Carmel compound. The underground bunkers are described as being located to the side of the house with 3 entrances: 1 coming from one corner of the house and 2 from outside. 20. The tape shows a Bradley located directly above the bunker at 6:00 am (according to the narrator). There is no way to tell when this segment actually took place, so it might be when claimed, or it might not. The narrator claims that persons can be seen exiting and entering the Bradley, but I could barely detect any visible movement (fuzzy picture). I think there was someone moving outside the vehicle, but I can't tell. The narrator also comments on the fact that the camera "conveniently" pans away whenever someone enters or exits the vehicle. This makes me wonder about the source for this footage. If it was made by a news crew, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't focus on people doing something. The only reason for the camera to deliberately avoid the dismounted personnel would be if it was made by federal agents who were making a poor attempt to conceal covert activity (why not just turn the camera off?). So where did this segment come from? 21. The narrator claims that the portion of the house above the bunker entrance has already been knocked off its foundation prior to the start of the assault, effectively cutting off retreat into or out of the bunkers. The narrator talks about a hole already having been punched in the bottom of the wall, but offers no explanation of how or why it was made. Instead, the narrator then talks about a red spot on another wall (with a line joining the circles around the hole and the spot), claiming it might be splattered blood. The spot looks like it must be at least 3 feet across, so it would have to be an awful lot of blood. There seems to be an implication that some projectile made the hole and then caused the blood to be splattered on another wall. The trajectory would be from about 1 foot above ground (location of the hole) to the middle of the second story. Not likely. 22. The narrator talks about smoke appearing to be coming from the bunker prior to the fire starting in the house itself. The tape shows what could be smoke above the location of the bunkers. Or it could be dust kicked up by the vehicles moving around. I can't tell which from my viewing. According to the narrator, most of the Branch Davidians died in the bunkers, where they should have been safe from the fires. My recollection of the news accounts at the time is that few bodies were found in the bunkers. Can anybody here confirm either version? 23. The tape shows what the narrator claims to be a tank recovery vehicle punching a hole in the house. In fact, the vehicle is an M728 combat engineer vehicle, using its turret-mounted crane to make the hole. The narrator claims that this particular impact (it looks like the CEV crew rotated the turret to make a slicing motion w/ the crane) collapses one of the stairwells and also further cuts off the entrance to the bunker. 23. The tape shows the first smoke and flames coming from the second-floor window. The narrator then talks about a person riding the turret of an armored vehicle round- ing the corner "as if they had just jumped on top". I couldn't make out anything useful. The narrator also talks about the person on the vehicle "removing a hood" and claims that it is clearly visible "in the studio" but not on TV, due to poor resolution. Considering the apparent pixel size on this scene, this claim seems a bit incredible. There is an implicit accusation here that a federal agent set the fire on the second floor then jumped on top of a waiting vehicle. Could be true, but I wouldn't bet on this piece of "evidence." 24. The tape shows a man moving across the roof, jumping to the ground and then walking away from the house. The narrator claims that he takes off a jacket while on the roof and appears to be carrying a rifle, but I could not tell. However, a man walking calmly away from a burning building full of people without being visibly challenged by law-enforcement types on the scene strikes me as a significant point of inquiry. If he was a Branch Davidian, as the feds claimed (according to the narrator), why can he be seen walking at least 100 meters (into the surrounding brush)? IMO, _This_ shot is one of the *most* chilling on the tape, especially in contrast to the scene I remember seeing at the time of a female Branch Davidian jumping off the same section of roof and being dragged away by the feds when she tried to go back in to save her children (as I recall). 25. The tape shows what the narrator claims to be a flame- thrower in action. The vehicle shown is another M728 with its A-frame stowed, apparently having just rammed the building with its dozer blade. As it pulls back, a flash of light appears in the opening it has just made. The shape and location of the bright spot is totally inconsistent w/ a flamethrower. If it was "spraying flame", it would be doing it right onto the top of the driver's hatch. The only useful way to use a flame- thrower is to project it some distance, so you *don't* toast your side. This is not to claim that this footage is faked. Watching the slow-motion view, the movement and growth of the bright spot looks consistent with a fire inside the structure being suddenly ventilated by 30+ knot winds blowing through the hole made by the CEV. One additional point deserves mention: the CEV crew might not have even noticed the fire if they were buttoned up. The driver would probably be the only one with a periscope in sight of the fire, and his vision would be extremely limited (3 fixed periscopes, each w/ a field of view roughly equivalent to what you can see in your rear-view mirror). But it deserves repeating: a. The vehicle shown is *not* a flame tank, it is an M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle (a modified M60 tank). b. The image of a flame is inconsistent w/ that produced by a flamethrower. c. The image is consistent w/ a fire suddenly fanned by high winds. 26. The tape shows a Bradley and a CEV moving around in front of the still-burning structure. The narrator claims that they are pushing debris back into the fire. I can't tell what they're doing from the pictures. I also find it curious that the narrator talks about the standard practice of preserving a crime scene, presents this unconvincing shot of the feds destroying evidence (allegedly deliberately), and then NEVER mentions the bulldozing of the compound AFTER the fire. 27. The tape shows a series of shots of people moving in the brush (presumably) near the house. The narrator makes much of the BATF/FBI agents moving about freely during the assault, as if they were certain that they wouldn't be shot at. I find this part unconvincing. Anybody with any infantry experience knows that a route or location that is concealed from the enemy's observation can still be perfectly observable from another location. Without some indication of where these agents were in relation to the house, and what terrain lay in between, there is insufficient reason to disbelieve that the agents could walk upright in perfect safety because they knew they could not be _by_ _the_ _Branch_ _Davidians_. 28. The narrator talks about the BATF acting more like a conquering army by flying its flag above the Branch Davidians final bastion. This is _very_ unprofessional, but unfortunately it is not a crime. (IMO, the person who raised that flag should have been run up the pole instead)(or maybe the pole should have been run up the person). In my analysis, this tape raises some disconcerting questions, many of them concerning its source(s). I find that it presents many of the more trivial arguments about BATF/FBI misconduct while ignoring some of the misconduct that is more severe and easier to prove. The most serious allegations that it makes are the ones that seem to be easily disproved. Why does the tape seem to divert attention from the more verifiable major offenses to minor offenses and easily discredited major allegations? Factor in the datum that at least some of the footage (e.g. the overhead shot of the raid) _had_ to come from federal sources (probably within the BATF). Then consider that the originator of the tape (Linda Thompson) has already demonstrated a willingness to take extremist positions that create doubt about her credability (even _Soldier of Fortune_ had enough reservations about her story to add a disclaimer when they printed it). What can we conclude from federal sources being made available to a person who comes across as a loony, and that person disseminating a tape that proves enough relatively minor accusations to convince people sympathetic to an independent inquiry to offer the videotape as evidence on its own merits? I know that I would be ill-advised to risk my credibility by basing my own arguments for criminal investigations into FBI/BATF misconduct solely on this tape. Setup, anybody? Bill Clardy Anaheim, CA p.s. Those of us who got copies of the tapes did so through the efforts of ico (bixname: glhurst). Thanks and monetary compensation should be directed appropriately (I'll get my own check in the mail to him asap). ========== tojerry/long.messages #1698, from clovis, 1600 chars, Wed Oct 6 16:20:18 1993 Comment to 1697. Comment(s). More refs to 1697. ---------- I would not be surprised, Bill, at all. Thompson may be a loon, maybe not. The fact is that modern police procedure goes closer to 1984 than any of us would care to admit. The use of informants (basically, the government spying on private citizens not otherwise under suspicion of anything) dates back to the VietNam War, and is an unfortunate legacy of the Cold War and the strictures surrounding it. So, I concur. This could be a setup. Even if Thompson is a sincere loon, I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone associating themselves with her is getting an FBI and BATF dossier on them at this very moment, being labelled as everything from a "machinegun nut" to a "revolutionary." I have doubts about everyone who is all in favor of rule by mob force, or through emotional incitement. One may become angry from time to time, nad bark a little, but a prolonged push to incite people is non-normative. The issues that most concern me are FBI misconduct in conclusion of the operation, Why BATF found it necessary to mount a pre-emptive first strike to begin with, against someone who was barely under suspicion and so on. As with you, I believe there are serious issues of bureau misconduct by both the FBI And BATF without silly claims like deliberate execution of their own agents (this strains credibility badly), or flamethrowing tanks. It should be pursued through Congress and the Courts, and Thompson is not doing the cause of Justice any real favors with a disinformation campaign. If the plain truth isn't enough to damn them, then let them be undamned. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 * Origin: BRASS CANNON | PAT_HENRY/PRNet/AEN 602-639-1039 (1:15/29)