Lew—apropos your blog on the OKC Bombing, here is an independent report done by Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, USAF (Ret.) a few months after the bombing took place. What I "love" about cases in which government employees are involved as victims is that the prosecuting side (the government) is either the only side that is allowed to examine the evidence or, even if that is not the case, their "official" report is always the last word on the subject, e.g., the Warren Commission Report and the 9/11 Commission Report. Did Timothy McVeigh's attorneys even bother to send their own investigators to the OKC bombing site? How come the evidence—i.e., the building site—was torn down a few months after the incident? I remember hearing at the time that it was because the sight of it "upset" the citizens of Oklahoma City. Actually, that lame excuse has now been replaced with: "For safety reasons, the building was to be demolished shortly afterward." The "safety" of what—protecting a possible government lie?*
____________________________________
*I'm not implying (for a change) that the U.S. government blew up the building for political gain. There was a story going around that a certain department had weapons on the premises that should not have been on the premises (for safety reasons); the government would not have wanted this information getting out because those weapons—not the McVeigh truck bomb—might have been responsible for most of the horrific damage done to the building.