The Timothy McVeigh trial further demonstrates the concept for obtaining counsel to represent you by a criminal trial. As mentioned in the previous post, McVeigh wanted to use a necessity defense, meaning that he was compelled to blow up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City because the US government was out to kill him. His lawyer talked him out of using this defense because it was not a defense that would be accepted by any jury. Even if McVeigh personally felt that way, no jury would believe that as a reasonable defense.
United States District Court Judge for the District of Colorado, Richard Matsch, is a no-nonsense judge. A party looking to submit evidence must have a solid basis for that evidence and it must satisfy all Federal law evidentiary rules to be submitted. While there are some questions about who supported McVeigh, those discussions are for conspiracy theorists and not for the courtroom. It is imperative to have an advocate who understands what type of evidence will be compelling and not rely on a pro se litigant’s conspiracy theories as to why an event occurred.
Irregularities in the McVeigh Case
There was a string of irregularities in the McVeigh case. These irregularities spawned numerous people to question McVeigh’s role and whether others were involved. There are also a number of similarities to the World Trade Center bombing from 1993, which is also gives fuel to conspiracy theorists.
One questions was what type of ability and bomb making skills did McVeigh and co-conspirator Nichols possess? The two tested numerous homemade bombs while they were in Arizona and did not have much success. Yet, several months later, McVeigh, with the help of Nichols, is able to create a large bomb and blow up a building despite seemingly having limited skill. This suggests that others were involved, namely the United States government aiding McVeigh in the bombing, White Supremacists who shared many of McVeigh’s views, and al-Qaeda or a similar group who collaborated based on their mutual hate of the United States government.
The evidence showed that McVeigh rented a truck in his own name and that VIN matched the one used in the bombing. There is nothing else suggesting that McVeigh, a survivalist, an anti-government idealouge, and someone who practiced bomb making, conspired with anyone else.
Another issue is a blown-off leg found next to the truck that carried out the bombing. Does it suggest that someone else carried out the bombing? Was that the leg of an FBI operative? Al Qaeda operative? Or is it meaningless because it may have been from one of the dead bodies damaged in the building blast?
The defense pointed to the leg to suggest that someone else carried out the attack. The defense did not make the claim that the leg was a proof of a conspiracy theory, only that it suggested there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that McVeigh committed the crime.
Facing criminal charges? Do not go it alone. Contact the criminal defense firm of Christopher Abel.
(image courtesy of Joe Perales)