--=====================_373656==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Sharlene, You do seem to have a genuine interest in this matter and I appreciate your attempts to determine the truth behind it all. While it is true that Elizabeth and I were probably the best people to consult with the FBI, it has to be said we were not the most recent to leave. There were a number of people who left after us and knew more first hand of what life was like there. Nevertheless, I had the best grasp of his theology. What makes the FBI’s indifference sadder still is the fact that the ex-members were pretty much unanimous in their assessment of Koresh. We were not the only ones trying to talk some sense to the FBI. One of the FBI’s lies about me came out in the Justice Department report which came out afterwards. It stated the FBI never contacted me for advice but that I tried to give it because I was interested in making a name for myself. At no time did anyone from the justice department, a supposedly independent agency investigating the matter, contact Elizabeth or I to get our version of accounts. In fact, once the FBI got on the scene, they made the initial call. A twist of fate occurred which allowed this to be videotaped. As soon as the story broke nationally, everyone scrambled for information. The Waco Tribune Herald series of articles, the first of which was published on the 27th, and the rest of which came out immediately after the shootout, was required reading by the media. The series gave them the whole story and I was the main source, along with Robyn Bunds. You can imagine what happened next. Media from all over the world, along with talk show hosts, and agents (for book and/or movie deals) rang our phone continuously. Our policy has always been to speak frankly on this issue and it was pointless trying to dodge the media. They descended in swarms. The Australian media hit us during the day time (here in Australia) and the Americans descended at night (which was day in America). A prominent Australian current affairs program happened to be interviewing us at our home. The anchor of the show, Derryn Hinch, had helped us in the past, and we were returning the favor as it were. While they were interviewing us, the phone rang (again). It was Max Howard, one of the negotiators from the FBI, who was on the scene. You can imagine what the crew did. Australia is a small country in terms of population and it is seldom a newsmaking nation around the world. Here was the biggest story in the world at the moment, and suddenly they were filming someone in live contact with the FBI negotiating team. This was on Feb. 1st if I’m not mistaken. It wasn’t any later than that. I was too busy talking to them to pay much attention. To Mr. Hinch’s credit, he simply showed the video of the conversation and did not air anything of what was said, realizing the matter was too sensitive. Mr. Hinch is one of the most honest and courageous reporters I know anywhere. Thus, there is irrefutable video evidence that the FBI lied to the Justice Department in their report. They initiated contact with me. You see, the FBI had two problems. First, they didn’t know the background of the Branch Davidians. Second, they were concerned about a groundswell of sympathy which was building in the media for David Koresh. Radio talk shows throughout the country, and some of the media, were already starting to ask questions. Koresh was being portrayed as a patriot persecuted for upholding the constitution. And so forth, and so on. This worked in Koresh’s favor. So long as he knew people were perceiving him as a sort of folk hero, he held the upper hand in negotiations. He had no reason to release anyone since he was the innocent victim. True, many reporters already called the group “cult” and all that, but the government had not yet recovered from Ruby Ridge and other fiascoes and many of the common people were not buying into all the cult, nut case, and child abuse material which had been reported by the Waco Tribune Herald. And when you think of it, how many people had access to the Waco Tribune Herald articles? The media did, but Joe Public had not yet actually read the material. Thus it was that the FBI had a problem. Why should Koresh release anyone? He had what he wanted, and make no mistake that Koresh wanted it. He was the center of attention of the western world. Everyone waited to see what he would do. In speaking to the FBI, they officially/unofficially encouraged me to continue to tell my story. I am a pretty reasonable sort of person and people are naturally inclined to at least listen to what I have to say. Thus it was that when people began seeing a reasonably well spoken person explaining both the good and bad of both sides, I started to be believed. In the early days of Waco, I was severely vilified on just about every media there was. I was a liar, an attention seeker, and so forth. The Branch Davidians who were not at the compound during the shooting were happy to chime in. Besides, I was blind. How could I possibly have “seen” what I said I saw. The FBI and I hoped that as I became more and more credible, Koresh would counter by releasing children in order to show that I was a liar. I knew those children would not be physically abused during the crisis. Thus, with the FBI’s blessing, I stepped up my efforts. The ploy worked to perfection. As Koresh realized he was increasingly the villain, he released more and more children. It was reported that there was no evidence of any child abuse. This gave fuel to those who wanted to see me go down. At this stage, however, everyone’s concern was that people get out of there. I have confidence in my ability to win debates and have credibility, so I was not frightened by confronting my accusers. I have always been a fighter anyway. I outlined earlier how things broke down between the FBI and my wife and I. I mean, Koresh could only release so many children. Besides, the FBI cut him off from the media. Now Koresh had no way to counter me and he gave up trying to appear decent in public. I had won the media battle, but I didn’t want to win it. I am of two minds here. I can understand why the FBI wanted to cut Koresh off from the media. It should be pointed out they genuinely feared copy cat crimes. In fact, there were, and have been several, in the sense that someone will grab hostages, and try to air his sob story on the media. That’s all some people want. Do we let them for the sake of hostages, thereby encouraging more people like that? Or do we deny them access? It’s a hard one and I do not believe one can make a hard and fast rule on this subject. I will say one thing about the children. Koresh had no intention of abusing any of them during the crisis. I knew that, The FBI new that. Everyone knew that, including Koresh. Anyone who has had dealings with those children on an extensive basis has no doubt the children were abused quite severely in the past. They might not have been beaten during the crisis, but they were before the group became the center of public scrutiny. It has taken some years to recover and the scars for some still remain. The self righteous hypocrites who scream that children were never abused and that this was all made up, do not know what they are talking about, and would do better to shut up rather than pretend they know the actual situation. Such actions only make things more difficult for the children who survive. That they were abused has now been proven beyond any doubt. Back to the story. Thus, when the Department of Justice released their supposedly independent report, it contained lies with respect to myself. If they investigated other aspects of Waco as thoroughly as they investigated my role, then nothing in that report is worth the paper it is printed on. The best government report is the Treasury Department’s report which focuses mostly on the raid. That report is pretty accurate. Before getting to the fire, I want to say something about Waco, The Rules of Engagement Documentary which received critical acclaim. It does bring out some interesting points, but I believe that the people who made it, with whom I have had dealings, are very biassed. For instance, the autopsy reports were not discussed in the detail they should have been, and there was no clear motive given for the government to massacre the Branch Davidians. Usually, in a crime, you have to have motive in order to convict someone. This statement might sound strange at first, but I think a critical examination of the situation will bear this out. Once the siege started, the FBI had one of two options. They could either convince Koresh to surrender, or they could take the compound by force. They had no choice but to surround the compound once the shootout had taken place. I have no doubt that if Waco had taken place in Israel, the compound would have been stormed on day two or three, and the situation would have ended one way or the other. The same would have been true in other countries too. That the FBI waited 51 days does speak somewhat to their credit, and I am no friend of theirs by any means. I mention Israel specifically because I had dealings with their government as well. There comes a point in which you realize you are not going to convince the bad guy to surrender. What do you do then? My contention is that the FBI went about the process of convincing all wrong. By not taking the religious aspects seriously, they messed up any chance they had of convincing him. By not listening to those who knew Koresh, they lessened their chances even further. By not compromising on any point, they decreased their chances still further. I do not know whether anything the FBI could have done would have made Koresh surrender. My opinion remains as it was then, that nothing would work. I never believed for one second Koresh would surrender to the authorities. Not one ex-member believed he would either. Still, it would have been nice if the FBI had gone about the process in a better way. Thus, 49 days later, the FBI realized it was in a no win situation. It had genuine concerns, such as the copy cat crimes I mentioned. There were already a few which had sprung up around the world. The FBI had to do something. Koresh’s lawyer, as well as others, say that if they had been given more time, they could have convinced Koresh to surrender. This is, of course, speculation. We do not know they would have. They did not know Koresh’s mind. They only knew what he told them. I think probably what the FBI should have done was publically say to the world, and to the Branch Davidians something like: “Ok, we will give you five days, and only five days to surrender. If you do not, we’re coming in.” Perhaps Koresh would have come out, maybe on the 56th day, or perhaps he would not. But the FBI should have made their intentions clear to everyone. If Koresh did not surrender after the given period, I would have moved in, but I would have moved in with the media allowed to take whatever pictures they wanted, from whatever angle they wanted. I would have moved in slowly, with the world watching. I would have given the Davidians every opportunity to kill themselves in front of everyone. The FBI would have put itself in a win win situation from their point of view. If Koresh killed himself, along with everyone else, then the group would be seen as suicidal. The FBI would have received some criticism, but nothing like what they have now. If Koresh decided to fight, they would have endangered the public, and ruined their public image. And on it goes. Instead, they moved in with a tank. Just who started the fire? I have seen strong evidence both ways. After viewing all the evidence, and knowing of some not available to the public, my opinion is that Koresh started it. This is, however, a very tenuous guess on my part, and I would not be surprised if I am found to be wrong on this one. Fire played a huge role in Koresh’s theology. The prophecy of Daniel 11 is of crucial importance here. According to that prophecy, some “good guys” would be killed by fire. Prophecy had to be fulfilled. Why did the FBI use a tank? Were there other assault options? I am not a military man so I cannot say for sure. The leader of Delta Force seems to think there were other options, so I’ll take his word for it. I do not believe the FBI should have gone in with a tank. In fact, a few days before the fire, the FBI reopened contact with us. They asked us specifically what we thought about the possibility of Koresh burning the place down. We told them in no uncertain terms that this was a very real possibility and that a direct assault might well result in such a thing happening. These are not my exact words (they were never recorded verbatum), but I said something like this: “If you are going to go in their with cops, make sure they are in a tank or something like that or they will get killed by the Branch Davidians, either when they shoot, or if Koresh tries to burn the place down. Can’t you guys get Delta force or one of those kinds of people to go in there instead?” I never thought they would actually use a tank. I did specifically use the word tank. I thought the idea of sending standard FBI agents in there was so stupid, it wouldn’t be taken seriously. What this needed was a professional unit such as Delta force or whatever to do the job. Since military vehicles were already there they might as well use a competent military unit. I realize that some say the military should not have been there since it is illegal for the military to be used against US citizens. Perhaps so, but they were already there anyway. The government had well and truly crossed that line long before, so they might as well use people who knew what they were doing, instead of trying to smash the place down with a tank. Given that they did decide to send agents in, the tank was probably the best option from their point of view. Thus, my summary of the FBI’s attitude here goes something like this: FBI Well, if we go in there with a tank, and something goes wrong, and they die, will it really be much of a loss? GOV Probably not. Are there any other options? FBI Not really (lie). GOV Go ahead then, and let’s hope for the best. To the power brokers, a loss of Branch Davidian life was the lesser of several evils, no big deal really, in the greater scheme of things. Was it a sinister plot? That is, did they say: “We hate these people so let’s just kill them and get it over with?” I do not believe so directly. Films like Rules of Engagement fail to establish a motive for such an attitude. Why would they massacre people with the world watching? They would have lost so much. As it is, many perceive this is what happened, and the FBI has already lost a lot of credibility. Their only real option was to make the Branch Davidians look bad, and going in there with a tank did not accomplish this at all. I believe the tactical decisions were made by people who had egos larger than their brains. They thought since the Branch Davidians were criminals, they would be impressed with the tanks, and surrender. But they weren’t criminals. If you want some idea of their mind set, go to the video store and hire Masada or read the book. You’ll see exactly why the Branch Davidians would not surrender under such provocation. It was therefore a stupid decision, not a sinister one. As it was, the media were watching, all be it from a distance. There was no truth for the FBI to suppress. In other words, killing the Branch Davidians would not prevent the “real facts” from emerging. Some suggest they burned down the place to prevent the public from seeing how nasty they really were during the initial raid. As you know, many Branch Davidians contend they did none of the shooting and the authorities did it all. They contend the choppers shot through the ceiling and so forth. You can see this in such masterpieces as Day 51 and Waco, the Big Lie. This is garbage. The fact is that Koresh’s lawyer went in there and Koresh was allowed to make a video. What a golden opportunity to tape the evidence! The public knew a video was being made so if the FBI destroyed it, Koresh could have won any trial on that fact alone. Any conviction would have been easily over turned in the court of appeals. The FBI took a huge risk when they allowed that video to be made. Mr. DeGuerin would have insisted that the “evidence” be used in trial, and that the public not be allowed to see the evidence. Suppose there was evidence. The FBI would have been happy to keep it quiet. Koresh would have surrendered because he knew the evidence would show that the government tried to kill them (as later maintained by Branch Davidians in Day 51), and that his killing of the federal agents was an act of self defence. Once Koresh was convinced of that, he would have surrendered. Koresh being convinced he would beat the charges was the surest way of ending the crisis. The fact is, there was no evidence like this. There was nothing they could videotape which would prove their case that the government raided the compound with the intent to kill. Therefore, the video contained nothing of the sort, and the FBI allowed it to be played publically. A far more credible massacre theory is that the FBI was afraid that if the siege ended peacefully, people would have discovered there were no illegal weapons in the first place. The whole reason the BATF attempted to raid Mt. Carmel in the first place was because they alleged the group had illegal weapons. Some make a big deal out of the fact Koresh offered to let the BATF in the compound (before the raid) to inspect it. Anyone who believes the ATF should have taken him up on that offer, and believed what they saw, should take a course in basic logic. I won’t comment on that further here because it doesn’t deserve even this much. Back to the weapons. Did the Branch Davidians have illegal weapons, and was the evidence doctored, first by burning down the compound, and second, by the FBI’s barring the “crime scene” from the public? The problem with this theory is that the BATF actually had very strong evidence to suggest there were illegal weapons. I am not certain of the legal implications of revealing that evidence fully and I realize some might suggest I am also covering up. There’s not much I can do about that. I think it is safe to say the Branch Davidians actually had illegal weapons. Consider Koresh’s own actions during the raid. We know now beyond any shadow of doubt, that Koresh knew of the raid before it happened. In fact, Koresh knew approximately one hour before it happened. We can say with certainty he had at least 30 to 60 minutes worth of notice. This would not have given him time to hide any illegal weapons outside of the property. He would have had to hide them in or very near the property itself. And there is no guarantee he would have succeeded in hiding them very well. At any rate, his arrest would open up the whole compound to a thorough search which would have uncovered any hidden weapons anyway. Thus, hiding illegal weapons was not an option for Koresh. Suppose Koresh had no illegal weapons. Given 30 to 60 minutes of notice, Koresh could have instructed his followers to lay down their legal firearms, walk outside, and allow the BATF to take him in peacefully. The BATF would have done this, executed a search warrant on the compound, and found nothing. Koresh would have escaped conviction as he did before in 1988. The BATF would look stupid, and no lives would have been lost. If the Branch Davidians had made it clear they intended to surrender in the first place, and we know they had more than enough time to make this fact known, and given the fact that the media were there before the BATF itself, even if the BATF wanted to massacre the Branch Davidians, they would not have been able to shoot down unarmed men, women, and children, with their hands up, so to speak. In other words, Koresh had plenty of opportunity to ensure beyond any doubt, that no shooting would have taken place. Koresh also knew the media were coming. He knew this because David Jones, his follower, learned of the raid from the media prior to its taking place. David Jones called Koresh and told him a raid was coming. This is how Koresh knew absolutely, positively, the BATF were coming, and that the media were coming as well. In short, if Koresh had no illegal weapons, and therefore nothing to hid, then there would have been no raid. The fact is, he did have something to hide, and this is why instead of doing the smart thing and surrendering before the raid even got started, he resisted. This alone shows that Koresh had illegal weapons. Thus, once again, the burning down of the building, and subsequent denial of access to the crime scene does not constitute evidence that the FBI planted weapons, or skewed the evidence to show there were illegal weapons. It also shows that an all out massacre for the purpose of suppressing the “truth” that the Branch Davidians did not have illegal weapons, is ridiculous. Once again, no one has succeeded in showing the government had any motive in purposely massacring these people, or in purposely burning down the place. Thus, the FBI had nothing to suppress by purposely killing the Branch Davidians and burning down the building. Add to this the fact that several adult Branch Davidians had already emerged, ready and willing to tell their story. The FBI could not shut them up permanently. So once again, the question must be asked, why did the government intend to massacre these people? The answer is simple. There was no motive to do so. Therefore, because we cannot prove motive, we cannot convict the government of, say, first degree murder. The government had everything to lose with a direct massacre, and nothing to gain. This argument also applies to the theory that the government deceived the public, that they actually intended to massacre them, but wanted us to believe they were trying not to. This line of reasoning assumes, once again, the government had a reason to massacre them. I believe the best explanation is that the government decided that the potential loss of life was worth the risk and that if lives were lost, well, people would get over it. That was certainly the attitude around anyway. Did the world really care whether they lived or died? Not really. And so the FBI decided to end it, no matter what the consequences. When things went horribly wrong, Janet Reno said they went in there because of the abused children. That was a stupid attempt to justify what they did. Yes, the children were abused, but the first thing is to save their lives, then worry about helping them recover. Ms. Reno had no direct proof at that time anyway, except the evaluation of those who were dealing with the children who came out during the siege. They believed the children had been abused before the crisis, but there was no real evidence to suggest they were during the crisis. In short, then, even if the government started the fire, it was unintentional, and due more to stupidity and a lack of caring any more. On the other hand, Koresh and fire were very much linked. It formed a huge central part of his theology. It is somewhat complex and I won’t explain it here except to say that he believed the place would burn up and that the good guys would supernaturally be able to survive the flames whereas the wicked would not. If you read Daniel 3, you’ll see a similar story. Koresh did not believe Daniel 3 was prophetic, but I use it to illustrate that he felt he, along with the “good guys” were going to go through a very similar experience. Well hopefully this answers your questions. If anything is unclear or you wish to discuss things further, feel free. I always try to find time to discuss this with people who seem sincere in their desire to make sense (if that’s possible) of what happened. Cheers, Marc Marc Breault Phone/Fax (03) 9569-5976 Internet mbreault@ozemail.com.au http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mbreault "Logic is a systematic method for arriving at the wrong conclusion with confidence." --=====================_373656==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Dear Sharlene,

        You do seem to have a genuine interest in this matter and I appreciate your attempts to determine the truth behind it all.  While it is true that Elizabeth and I were probably the best people to consult with the FBI, it has to be said we were not the most recent to leave.  There were a number of people who left after us and knew more first hand of what life was like there.  Nevertheless, I had the best grasp of his theology.  What makes the FBI’s indifference sadder still is the fact that the ex-members were pretty much unanimous in their assessment of Koresh. 

        We were not the only ones trying to talk some sense to the FBI.  One of the FBI’s lies about me came out in the Justice Department report which came out afterwards.  It stated the FBI never contacted me for advice but that I tried to give it because I was interested in making a name for myself.  At no time did anyone from the justice department, a supposedly independent agency investigating the matter, contact Elizabeth or I to get our version of accounts.

        In fact, once the FBI got on the scene, they made the initial call.  A twist of fate occurred which allowed this to be videotaped.  As soon as the story broke nationally, everyone scrambled for information.  The Waco Tribune Herald series of articles, the first of which was published on the 27th, and the rest of which came out immediately after the shootout, was required reading by the media.  The series gave them the whole story and I was the main source, along with Robyn Bunds.

        You can imagine what happened next.  Media from all over the world, along with talk show hosts, and agents (for book and/or movie deals) rang our phone continuously.  Our policy has always been to speak frankly on this issue and it was pointless trying to dodge the media.  They descended in swarms.

        The Australian media hit us during the day time (here in Australia) and the Americans descended at night (which was day in America).  A prominent Australian current affairs program happened to be interviewing us at our home.  The anchor of the show, Derryn Hinch, had helped us in the past, and we were returning the favor as it were.  While they were interviewing us, the phone rang (again).  It was Max Howard, one of the negotiators from the FBI, who was on the scene.  You can imagine what the crew did.

        Australia is a small country in terms of population and it is seldom a newsmaking nation around the world.  Here was the biggest story in the world at the moment, and suddenly they were filming someone in live contact with the FBI negotiating team.  This was on Feb. 1st if I’m not mistaken.  It wasn’t any later than that.  I was too busy talking to them to pay much attention.  To Mr. Hinch’s credit, he simply showed the video of the conversation and did not air anything of what was said, realizing the matter was too sensitive.  Mr. Hinch is one of the most honest and courageous reporters I know anywhere.

        Thus, there is irrefutable video evidence that the FBI lied to the Justice Department in their report.  They initiated contact with me.  You see, the FBI had two problems.  First, they didn’t know the background of the Branch Davidians.  Second, they were concerned about a groundswell of sympathy which was building in the media for David Koresh.

        Radio talk shows throughout the country, and some of the media, were already starting to ask questions.  Koresh was being portrayed as a patriot persecuted for upholding the constitution.  And so forth, and so on.  This worked in Koresh’s favor.  So long as he knew people were perceiving him as a sort of folk hero, he held the upper hand in negotiations.  He had no reason to release anyone since he was the innocent victim.

        True, many reporters already called the group “cult” and all that, but the government had not yet recovered from Ruby Ridge and other fiascoes and many of the common people were not buying into all the cult, nut case, and child abuse material which had been reported by the Waco Tribune Herald.  And when you think of it, how many people had access to the Waco Tribune Herald articles?  The media did, but Joe Public had not yet actually read the material.

        Thus it was that the FBI had a problem.  Why should Koresh release anyone?  He had what he wanted, and make no mistake that Koresh wanted it.  He was the center of attention of the western world.  Everyone waited to see what he would do.

        In speaking to the FBI, they officially/unofficially encouraged me to continue to tell my story.  I am a pretty reasonable sort of person and people are naturally inclined to at least listen to what I have to say.  Thus it was that when people began seeing a reasonably well spoken person explaining both the good and bad of both sides, I started to be believed.  In the early days of Waco, I was severely vilified on just about every media there was.  I was a liar, an attention seeker, and so forth.  The Branch Davidians who were not at the compound during the shooting were happy to chime in.  Besides, I was blind.  How could I possibly have “seen” what I said I saw.

        The FBI and I hoped that as I became more and more credible, Koresh would counter by releasing children in order to show that I was a liar.  I knew those children would not be physically abused during the crisis.  Thus, with the FBI’s blessing, I stepped up my efforts.  The ploy worked to perfection.  As Koresh realized he was increasingly the villain, he released more and more children.  It was reported that there was no evidence of any child abuse.  This gave fuel to those who wanted to see me go down.  At this stage, however, everyone’s concern was that people get out of there.  I have confidence in my ability to win debates and have credibility, so I was not frightened by confronting my accusers.  I have always been a fighter anyway.

        I outlined earlier how things broke down between the FBI and my wife and I.  I mean, Koresh could only release so many children.  Besides, the FBI cut him off from the media.  Now Koresh had no way to counter me and he gave up trying to appear decent in public.  I had won the media battle, but I didn’t want to win it.

        I am of two minds here.  I can understand why the FBI wanted to cut Koresh off from the media.  It should be pointed out they genuinely feared copy cat crimes.  In fact, there were, and have been several, in the sense that someone will grab hostages, and try to air his sob story on the media.  That’s all some people want.  Do we let them for the sake of hostages, thereby encouraging more people like that?  Or do we deny them access?  It’s a hard one and I do not believe one can make a hard and fast rule on this subject.

        I will say one thing about the children.  Koresh had no intention of abusing any of them during the crisis.  I knew that, The FBI new that.  Everyone knew that, including Koresh.  Anyone who has had dealings with those children on an extensive basis has no doubt the children were abused quite severely in the past.  They might not have been beaten during the crisis, but they were before the group became the center of public scrutiny.  It has taken some years to recover and the scars for some still remain.  The self righteous hypocrites who scream that children were never abused and that this was all made up, do not know what they are talking about, and would do better to shut up rather than pretend they know the actual situation.  Such actions only make things more difficult for the children who survive.  That they were abused has now been proven beyond any doubt.

        Back to the story.  Thus, when the Department of Justice released their supposedly independent report, it contained lies with respect to myself.  If they investigated other aspects of Waco as thoroughly as they investigated my role, then nothing in that report is worth the paper it is printed on.  The best government report is the Treasury Department’s report which focuses mostly on the raid.  That report is pretty accurate.

        Before getting to the fire, I want to say something about Waco, The Rules of Engagement Documentary which received critical acclaim.  It does bring out some interesting points, but I believe that the people who made it, with whom I have had dealings, are very biassed.  For instance, the autopsy reports were not discussed in the detail they should have been, and there was no clear motive given for the government to massacre the Branch Davidians.  Usually, in a crime, you have to have motive in order to convict someone.  This statement might sound strange at first, but I think a critical examination of the situation will bear this out.

        Once the siege started, the FBI had one of two options.  They could either convince Koresh to surrender, or they could take the compound by force.  They had no choice but to surround the compound once the shootout had taken place.  I have no doubt that if Waco had taken place in Israel, the compound would have been stormed on day two or three, and the situation would have ended one way or the other.  The same would have been true in other countries too.  That the FBI waited 51 days does speak somewhat to their credit, and I am no friend of theirs by any means.

        I mention Israel specifically because I had dealings with their government as well.

        There comes a point in which you realize you are not going to convince the bad guy to surrender.  What do you do then?  My contention is that the FBI went about the process of convincing all wrong.  By not taking the religious aspects seriously, they messed up any chance they had of convincing him.  By not listening to those who knew Koresh, they lessened their chances even further.  By not compromising on any point, they decreased their chances still further.  I do not know whether anything the FBI could have done would have made Koresh surrender.  My opinion remains as it was then, that nothing would work.  I never believed for one second Koresh would surrender to the authorities.  Not one ex-member believed he would either.  Still, it would have been nice if the FBI had gone about the process in a better way.

        Thus, 49 days later, the FBI realized it was in a no win situation.  It had genuine concerns, such as the copy cat crimes I mentioned.  There were already a few which had sprung up around the world.  The FBI had to do something.  Koresh’s lawyer, as well as others, say that if they had been given more time, they could have convinced Koresh to surrender.  This is, of course, speculation.  We do not know they would have.  They did not know Koresh’s mind.  They only knew what he told them.

        I think probably what the FBI should have done was publically say to the world, and to the Branch Davidians something like: “Ok, we will give you five days, and only five days to surrender.  If you do not, we’re coming in.”  Perhaps Koresh would have come out, maybe on the 56th day, or perhaps he would not.  But the FBI should have made their intentions clear to everyone.

        If Koresh did not surrender after the given period, I would have moved in, but I would have moved in with the media allowed to take whatever pictures they wanted, from whatever angle they wanted.  I would have moved in slowly, with the world watching.  I would have given the Davidians every opportunity to kill themselves in front of everyone.  The FBI would have put itself in a win win situation from their point of view.  If Koresh killed himself, along with everyone else, then the group would be seen as suicidal.  The FBI would have received some criticism, but nothing like what they have now.

        If Koresh decided to fight, they would have endangered the public, and ruined their public image.  And on it goes.

        Instead, they moved in with a tank.

        Just who started the fire?  I have seen strong evidence both ways.  After viewing all the evidence, and knowing of some not available to the public, my opinion is that Koresh started it.  This is, however, a very tenuous guess on my part, and I would not be surprised if I am found to be wrong on this one.

        Fire played a huge role in Koresh’s theology.  The prophecy of Daniel 11 is of crucial importance here.  According to that prophecy, some “good guys” would be killed by fire.  Prophecy had to be fulfilled.

        Why did the FBI use a tank?  Were there other assault options?  I am not a military man so I cannot say for sure.  The leader of Delta Force seems to think there were other options, so I’ll take his word for it.  I do not believe the FBI should have gone in with a tank.  In fact, a few days before the fire, the FBI reopened contact with us.  They asked us specifically what we thought about the possibility of Koresh burning the place down.  We told them in no uncertain terms that this was a very real possibility and that a direct assault might well result in such a thing happening.

        These are not my exact words (they were never recorded verbatum), but I said something like this: “If you are going to go in their with cops, make sure they are in a tank or something like that or they will get killed by the Branch Davidians, either when they shoot, or if Koresh tries to burn the place down.  Can’t you guys get Delta force or one of those kinds of people to go in there instead?”  I never thought they would actually use a tank.  I did specifically use the word tank.  I thought the idea of sending standard FBI agents in there was so stupid, it wouldn’t be taken seriously.  What this needed was a professional unit such as Delta force or whatever to do the job.  Since military vehicles were already there they might as well use a competent military unit.

        I realize that some say the military should not have been there since it is illegal for the military to be used against US citizens.  Perhaps so, but they were already there anyway.  The government had well and truly crossed that line long before, so they might as well use people who knew what they were doing, instead of trying to smash the place down with a tank.

        Given that they did decide to send agents in, the tank was probably the best option from their point of view.  Thus, my summary of the FBI’s attitude here goes something like this: 

FBI     Well, if we go in there with a tank, and something goes wrong, and they die, will it really be much of a loss?
GOV     Probably not.  Are there any other options?
FBI     Not really (lie).
GOV     Go ahead then, and let’s hope for the best.

        To the power brokers, a loss of Branch Davidian life was the lesser of several evils, no big deal really, in the greater scheme of things.

        Was it a sinister plot?  That is, did they say: “We hate these people so let’s just kill them and get it over with?”  I do not believe so directly.  Films like Rules of Engagement fail to establish a motive for such an attitude.  Why would they massacre people with the world watching?  They would have lost so much.  As it is, many perceive this is what happened, and the FBI has already lost a lot of credibility. 

        Their only real option was to make the Branch Davidians look bad, and going in there with a tank did not accomplish this at all.  I believe the tactical decisions were made by people who had egos larger than their brains.  They thought since the Branch Davidians were criminals, they would be impressed with the tanks, and surrender.  But they weren’t criminals.  If you want some idea of their mind set, go to the video store and hire Masada or read the book.  You’ll see exactly why the Branch Davidians would not surrender under such provocation.

        It was therefore a stupid decision, not a sinister one.  As it was, the media were watching, all be it from a distance.  There was no truth for the FBI to suppress.  In other words, killing the Branch Davidians would not prevent the “real facts” from emerging.

        Some suggest they burned down the place to prevent the public from seeing how nasty they really were during the initial raid.  As you know, many Branch Davidians contend they did none of the shooting and the authorities did it all.  They contend the choppers shot through the ceiling and so forth.  You can see this in such masterpieces as Day 51 and Waco, the Big Lie.  This is garbage.  The fact is that Koresh’s lawyer went in there and Koresh was allowed to make a video.  What a golden opportunity to tape the evidence!  The public knew a video was being made so if the FBI destroyed it, Koresh could have won any trial on that fact alone.  Any conviction would have been easily over turned in the court of appeals.  The FBI took a huge risk when they allowed that video to be made.

        Mr. DeGuerin would have insisted that the “evidence” be used in trial, and that the public not be allowed to see the evidence.  Suppose there was evidence.  The FBI would have been happy to keep it quiet.  Koresh would have surrendered because he knew the evidence would show that the government tried to kill them (as later maintained by Branch Davidians in Day 51), and that his killing of the federal agents was an act of self defence.  Once Koresh was convinced of that, he would have surrendered.  Koresh being convinced he would beat the charges was the surest way of ending the crisis.

        The fact is, there was no evidence like this.  There was nothing they could videotape which would prove their case that the government raided the compound with the intent to kill.  Therefore, the video contained nothing of the sort, and the FBI allowed it to be played publically.

        A far more credible massacre theory is that the FBI was afraid that if the siege ended peacefully, people would have discovered there were no illegal weapons in the first place.  The whole reason the BATF attempted to raid Mt. Carmel in the first place was because they alleged the group had illegal weapons.

        Some make a big deal out of the fact Koresh offered to let the BATF in the compound (before the raid) to inspect it.  Anyone who believes the ATF should have taken him up on that offer, and believed what they saw, should take a course in basic logic.  I won’t comment on that further here because it doesn’t deserve even this much.
        Back to the weapons.  Did the Branch Davidians have illegal weapons, and was the evidence doctored, first by burning down the compound, and second, by the FBI’s barring the “crime scene” from the public? 

        The problem with this theory is that the BATF actually had very strong evidence to suggest there were illegal weapons.  I am not certain of the legal implications of revealing that evidence fully and I realize some might suggest I am also covering up.  There’s not much I can do about that.  I think it is safe to say the Branch Davidians actually had illegal weapons.

        Consider Koresh’s own actions during the raid.  We know now beyond any shadow of doubt, that Koresh knew of the raid before it happened.  In fact, Koresh knew approximately one hour before it happened.  We can say with certainty he had at least 30 to 60 minutes worth of notice.  This would not have given him time to hide any illegal weapons outside of the property.  He would have had to hide them in or very near the property itself.  And there is no guarantee he would have succeeded in hiding them very well.  At any rate, his arrest would open up the whole compound to a thorough search which would have uncovered any hidden weapons anyway.  Thus, hiding illegal weapons was not an option for Koresh.

        Suppose Koresh had no illegal weapons.  Given 30 to 60 minutes of notice, Koresh could have instructed his followers to lay down their legal firearms, walk outside, and allow the BATF to take him in peacefully.  The BATF would have done this, executed a search warrant on the compound, and found nothing.  Koresh would have escaped conviction as he did before in 1988.  The BATF would look stupid, and no lives would have been lost.

        If the Branch Davidians had made it clear they intended to surrender in the first place, and we know they had more than enough time to make this fact known, and given the fact that the media were there before the BATF itself, even if the BATF wanted to massacre the Branch Davidians, they would not have been able to shoot down unarmed men, women, and children, with their hands up, so to speak.  In other words, Koresh had plenty of opportunity to ensure beyond any doubt, that no shooting would have taken place.

        Koresh also knew the media were coming.  He knew this because David Jones, his follower, learned of the raid from the media prior to its taking place.  David Jones called Koresh and told him a raid was coming.  This is how Koresh knew absolutely, positively, the BATF were coming, and that the media were coming as well.

        In short, if Koresh had no illegal weapons, and therefore nothing to hid, then there would have been no raid.  The fact is, he did have something to hide, and this is why instead of doing the smart thing and surrendering before the raid even got started, he resisted.

        This alone shows that Koresh had illegal weapons.  Thus, once again, the burning down of the building, and subsequent denial of access to the crime scene does not constitute evidence that the FBI planted weapons, or skewed the evidence to show there were illegal weapons.  It also shows that an all out massacre for the purpose of suppressing the “truth” that the Branch Davidians did not have illegal weapons, is ridiculous.  Once again, no one has succeeded in showing the government had any motive in purposely massacring these people, or in purposely burning down the place.

        Thus, the FBI had nothing to suppress by purposely killing the Branch Davidians and burning down the building.  Add to this the fact that several adult Branch Davidians had already emerged, ready and willing to tell their story.  The FBI could not shut them up permanently.  So once again, the question must be asked, why did the government intend to massacre these people?  The answer is simple.  There was no motive to do so.

        Therefore, because we cannot prove motive, we cannot convict the government of, say, first degree murder.  The government had everything to lose with a direct massacre, and nothing to gain.

        This argument also applies to the theory that the government deceived the public, that they actually intended to massacre them, but wanted us to believe they were trying not to.  This line of reasoning assumes, once again, the government had a reason to massacre them.

        I believe the best explanation is that the government decided that the potential loss of life was worth the risk and that if lives were lost, well, people would get over it.  That was certainly the attitude around anyway.  Did the world really care whether they lived or died?  Not really.  And so the FBI decided to end it, no matter what the consequences.

        When things went horribly wrong, Janet Reno said they went in there because of the abused children.  That was a stupid attempt to justify what they did.  Yes, the children were abused, but the first thing is to save their lives, then worry about helping them recover.  Ms. Reno had no direct proof at that time anyway, except the evaluation of those who were dealing with the children who came out during the siege.  They believed the children had been abused before the crisis, but there was no real evidence to suggest they were during the crisis.

        In short, then, even if the government started the fire, it was unintentional, and due more to stupidity and a lack of caring any more.  On the other hand, Koresh and fire were very much linked.  It formed a huge central part of his theology.  It is somewhat complex and I won’t explain it here except to say that he believed the place would burn up and that the good guys would supernaturally be able to survive the flames whereas the wicked would not.  If you read Daniel 3, you’ll see a similar story.  Koresh did not believe Daniel 3 was prophetic, but I use it to illustrate that he felt he, along with the “good guys” were going to go through a very similar experience.

        Well hopefully this answers your questions.  If anything is unclear or you wish to discuss things further, feel free.  I always try to find time to discuss this with people who seem sincere in their desire to make sense (if that’s possible) of what happened.

Cheers,
Marc




Marc Breault
Phone/Fax (03) 9569-5976
Internet mbreault@ozemail.com.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mbreault
"Logic is a systematic method for arriving at the wrong conclusion with confidence." --=====================_373656==_.ALT--