From: Ambrovista@aol.com
Date: Mon Jun 11, 2001 11:43 am
Subject: Revealing the truth about OKC Part 1

SUNDAY JUNE 3 2001
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23076
Revealing the truth about OKC
Geoff Metcalf interviews bombing investigator Charles Key

Editor's note: Charles Key, a former Oklahoma legislator, is in charge of
likely the most comprehensive independent investigation of the Oklahoma City
bombing tragedy ever undertaken. As chairman of the Oklahoma Bombing

Investigation Committee, Key is putting the finishing touches on the panel's
final report – a 500-page document that includes revelations and eyewitness
testimony that have not been reported anywhere else. Much of the data starkly
contradict the official government explanation of the bombing. WorldNetDaily
writer and talk-show host Geoff Metcalf recently interviewed Key about his
eye-opening findings.

Metcalf's daily streaming radio show can be heard on TalkNetDaily weekdays
from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time.

Question: When do you expect to release the final report of the Oklahoma
Bombing Investigation Committee?

Answer: All the recent developments and just the enormity of the case have
caused us to get bogged down. We're working on it as you and I speak and are
hoping that it goes to press this week.

Q: This has been a work in progress for some time, but just recently we had
four FBI agents on "60 Minutes II" say they are not surprised that evidence
was ignored. Notwithstanding the protestation of Attorney General Ashcroft
and others, it looks like there are still things continuing to unfold after
all this time.

A: Yes, they are. There is so much more to this case, and I hope – I sure
hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist – but I hope this isn't some form of
damage control. There are big issues with the Oklahoma City bombing,
particularly with the FBI and the Justice Department, how they handled this
case and how they have been operating for quite some time even in relation to
many other well-known cases and not so well-known cases. They are what need
to be investigated.

Q: I've been meaning to ask you something for some time. I remember when we
first spoke. I think it was shortly after Brig. Gen. Ben Partin joined me on
the air and presented an overwhelmingly compelling case that the Ryder truck
bomb just could not have done the job that was done. This has become kind of
an avocation for you. What sucked you in to devote so much energy on this?

A: It's not something that you can really foresee. I couldn't foresee that I
would still be involved in this six years later, that it would have taken me
down this path and I would have experienced all the things I have
experienced. But that's the way it is. The bottom line is, I care about the
truth, and as idealistic as that sounds, that's as simple as it is.

Q: I remember when it happened, we had people who went down to Oklahoma City
and watched things unfold. There were a number of things that were just
really hinky. First you have Ben Partin's analysis. Then there are the
contemporaneous reports that were coming out from witnesses that day. Did any
of that stuff ever make it into court in the Tim McVeigh trial?

A: There is a little bit of witness testimony that got into either Tim
McVeigh's or Terry Nichols' trial. As a matter of fact, just recently the New
York Times was the first to report about one of these "lead sheets," one of
the documents from these recent FBI files called a "lead sheet." That
person's testimony was heard in the Nichols trial. As the story goes, an
attempt was made to discredit him. He's one of the many witnesses that are as
credible as anybody you would ever want to find, and his testimony was
ignored. That's very common in this case.

Q: One of these FBI agents said one of the things that got him cooking was
some of the stuff he worked on. He was personally involved in collecting
evidence, and the evidence just sort of went away.

A: I hope that guy is real honest and sincere about this. I know there are
good people in the FBI like there are anywhere else. On the other hand, we
have experienced situations where an FBI agent looks at a witness right in
the eyes after he tells his story and says he's going to report the
information a different way.

An agent and this witness had an exchange three times, and the witness comes
back and says, "No. That's not what I said." He tells his story again, and
the agent says, "Well, I'm going to report it this way." The witness says,
"No. That's not the way it happened." The third time, the agent says, "Well,
I'm just going to write it down that way anyway." That's the kind of things
we're dealing with, not just in the Oklahoma City bombing case but with the
FBI and the Justice Department. And it has to be fixed. It hasn't been
addressed, and it's a mechanism that is in place that goes beyond whatever
administration happens to take over every four years. It's a problem with the
institution. My information is the FBI hasn't even been audited in almost 50
years.

Q: I've heard the same allegation. Do you think Tim McVeigh is going to roll
a seven on June 11?

A: No, I don't. If anybody deserves to get the death penalty, it's someone
who participates in the murder of 168 people. On the other hand, if the
system doesn't work the way it's supposed to work for even the worst of
criminals, then it's no good for the rest of us. It has to work the same and,
in this case, they have violated their own rules, regulations and laws. It's
an outrage.

Q: Beyond the long litany of apparent discrepancies between what the
government is contending and the facts that have developed and are included
in your forthcoming book, what was the biggest surprise to you?

A: I've been asked that a lot of times, and it's really a tough one because
it is hard to put your finger on just one thing. I just have to innumerate
two or three things. One of the things I have always been interested in from
when I was in the legislature is juries, grand juries, courtroom procedures
and things like that.

As I have seen in this case and over time, juries have been attacked, and
eyewitnesses have been attacked. And now you hear, "Well, you can't depend on
eye witnesses' testimony." You know, that's really not true. Sure there are
studies that say eyewitnesses sometimes can't be depended upon.

Q: That's why you talk to a whole bunch of eyewitnesses to get a consensus.

A: Right. But what some are trying to do is say, "Therefore, no eyewitness
testimony is trustworthy or valid." And that doesn't add up. If we ever do
away with eyewitness testimony, we might as well throw the whole system out,
the baby with the bathwater. That really disturbs me.

Here's what a lot of people don't know: In a preliminary hearing in El Reno,
Okla., just about a week after the bombing – and that's after they had taken
Tim McVeigh into custody – they held what is called the probable cause
hearing, in which the government laid out it's case on why they should hold
over and charge Timothy McVeigh with the charges they ultimately charged him
with. About 95 percent of their case was based on eyewitness testimony –
eyewitnesses who saw not just McVeigh but somebody else with him. That's what
their case was based upon. Then what happened within the year or so, they
start saying, "There are not any John Does. Those eye witnesses can't be
depended upon." What does that say about their case if that's really true?
And it's not, of course. Eyewitnesses can be trusted. It's the fact they
wanted to make the John Does go away.

Q: Arguably, because one of them may have been an FBI agent!

A: That's exactly the reason. That's exactly the reason. The truth will
convict the guilty parties. Period. Case closed!

Q: Before we get into a lot of the specifics that continue to raise eyebrows,
let me just throw some names at you and get you to comment – Congressman
Istook and Lana Tree.

A: Interesting story about how they came to the bomb site. Congressman Istook
apparently mistook a deputy reserve sheriff who had a hat on that looked like
a highway patrolmen – one of those "Smokey" hats – and made some comments
to
him. He then realized he was talking maybe to the wrong person and quickly
walked away.

Q: What was it he said?

A: He made the comment that they had knowledge about this for quite some
time, that it was a radical Islamic terrorist organization that was going to
strike here in Oklahoma City.

Q: It has been a point of discussion that none of the ATF office workers
happened to be in the office that day. That kind of suggests something beyond
coincidence.

A: Yes. There were two that were there. They were ATF employees, compliance
officers, and they actually officed in the DEA office. They didn't office in
the regular ATF office because they weren't field agents. We know those two
people were there. There are three others that are in question. One of those
was Alex McCauley of the famous five-story falling elevator story, which has
been debunked, not only by private elevator technicians, but even GSA federal
government technicians say it didn't happen.

Q: Also weren't the kids of the ATF agents who normally would have been in
the day care center in the building not there that day?

A: That's what we've heard, and we've heard from pretty good sources, but we
haven't been able to tie it down with affidavits and other real hard
information.

Q: Wait a minute! It's been six years, for crying out loud. How hard can
something like that be to corroborate?

A: We've had to say there is a cut-off point. We've been trying to say that
and do that for months now on this case, but we could work on this for
another one or two years easily. There is so much material here, so much
information and people to go talk to and information to track down. It's a
huge case, and a lot of people just don't want to talk. A lot of people don't
want to go on the record, and they're hard to track down. It takes so much
time, and you have to make a living while you do something like this.

Q: They count on that. I have always thought it was a little beyond weird
that the government would try to sell that a Ryder truck with a fertilizer
bomb did what happened when contrasted with what Gen. Partin showed me. And
not just me, every member of Congress at that time got a copy of Ben Partin's
report. What is your reaction to Gen. Partin?

A: I think Gen. Partin is a very honorable man. He is an expert's expert, as
he was described to me way back in the beginning. I still believe that today.
He has the credentials and experience that outshine everybody else out there.
We have five other experts that we have gone to. They have real good
credentials and background also, and they are in this report we are
releasing. We've got some very, very solid documentation from experts and
other proof that that ammonium nitrate bomb could not have done the damage by
itself.

Q: What is the official government line on the necessity for raising the
building as quickly as they did. Basically, they were destroying evidence.

A: They don't really have to give an official line about a lot of things, and
they don't. In this case, the only explanation that we and the people have
heard along the way is that they had to take that building down to "allow the
emotional healing to begin." So, what do we have now down here in Oklahoma
City? We've got a beautiful memorial that people come and see every day from
all over the place. And you've got signs, almost like flashing neon signs –
not literally of course – saying, "This Way to the Bomb Site." That kind of
flies in the face of the need for tearing down that building so quickly and
trying to bring "emotional healing."

Q: Rather, they keep picking at the scab with all the signs directing people
to where the tragedy occurred.

A: Yeah. It's a beautiful site, but you should never destroy a crime scene
like that. There are a lot of big problems with that. For example, the FBI
claimed the crater – which is an important piece of evidence, especially in
determining how big a bomb was used – was 32 feet wide in diameter.