The government used false testimony in the case against Tim McVeigh, and covered it up in order prevent any delay in his execution.

I've always wondered what their hurry was in carrying out his sentence. The apparent rush seemed unprecedented in modern times, and made it look like they were more interested in getting him out of the way than in dispensing justice. I'm convinced that there's much more to this case than meets the eye, or has been widely reported.

If memory serves her right, MB saw several headlines that McVey was demanding no more delays of his own execution; it was not all on the prosecution side.

Yes, McVeigh was in a hurry to die, and he wanted to take all the credit. That doesn't excuse the government, though.

Is there the insinuation here that McVeigh was innocent, or that the evidence would have reduced the penalty imposed on him? I don't see that as a substantial argument, and the legal standard across the board is that the evidence must be such that it could have changed the outcome of the trial. Given McVeigh's own involvement in expediting his execution and his virtual concession of guilt, I don't think we need to feel much concern about the grounds supporting McVeigh's execution.

I will grant you, though, that there is a legitimate concern about the implications that this situation has on other cases which are not so clear. Obviously, there should be some procedures implemented in future cases. I also would agree with the proposition that the expedited nature of McVeigh's execution appeared particularly poignant because of the absence of the voices that would normally have been claiming that there was a conspiracy or that McVeigh was framed or that the evidence was tampered, etc. Am I mistaken in believing that there were fewer expressions of concern about the civil rights implication in McVeigh's execution than there have been with respect to the investigations after 9/11?

Well, I'm not insinuating that. My issue is not that McVeigh was innocent, but that to the degree that the government refused to look into who else may have helped him (particularly the Middle East and perhaps Iraq connection), justice has not yet been served.

People like McVeigh and Oswald seem to be driven but stupid people who got lucky. What else can you say about a guy who gets away clean from the scene of his crime, only to be caught in a movie theater because he didn't plan about what to do next, or gets caught speeding away in a car without plates?

The problem is that people don't want to believe that such losers can be successful once in a while. But consider how many similar people never even get close to achieving their goals, and how you never hear about them, and the need for conspiracies melts away.

Raoul, I have no problem with the notion that McVeigh and Nichols could have done it unaided. My problem is with all of the evidence that they didn't, that the FBI deliberately ignored.

Junk Yard Blog did an excellent job about a year ago looking at the evidence of outside help for McVeigh & Nichols. Namely, Nichols quarterly visits to the Phillipines to apparently meet with the local al Qaedians & gather information on bombmaking, as well as probable financing. Also, the strong evidence for John Doe. With regards to Iraq, I'd be interested in what gets dug up with regards to the identity of Ramsi Yousef and the 1991 World Trade Center bombing. My guess is they'll wind up burying things so as to preserve the reputation of law enforcement. Same with the McVeigh case.