The People V. Timothy McVeigh

By Andrew Goldstein

It wasn't until March, after losing his final appeal, that McVeigh claimed sole responsibility for the Oklahoma City bombing. Before then his lawyers maintained that the government had withheld evidence showing that other unnamed suspects may have been responsible. Here's a crib sheet on the worst terrorist attack in American history.

--How the government won its conviction

No credible eyewitness saw McVeigh construct his 2-ton bomb, nor could anyone positively identify him as the driver of the Ryder truck who parked the explosives beneath the Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995. Prosecutors based their case on evidence that showed McVeigh planned the bombing, rented the Ryder truck, moved into a nearby motel to make preparations and bought a 1977 Mercury as a getaway car. The testimony of McVeigh's friend Michael Fortier, who admitted to helping McVeigh plan the bombing, and the traces of explosives found on McVeigh's clothing were particularly damning. And McVeigh's team failed to present a plausible alternative scenario.

--What evidence did the jury never see?

Two weeks before the trial's opening statements, the Justice Department released a report slamming the FBI forensics lab for sloppiness in gathering evidence, specifically citing the Oklahoma City case. Bureau whistleblower Frederick Whitehurst claimed that agents were routinely pressured to commit perjury in order to win convictions. But U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch allowed only six pages of the 517-page Justice report to be presented at trial. During McVeigh's subsequent appeals, his attorneys repeatedly claimed the government was withholding information helpful to McVeigh--allegations that, of course, the government denied.

--Could it have been a wider conspiracy?

McVeigh's best hope may have been to convince the jury that someone else planted the bomb or that McVeigh was simply a pawn in a vast conspiracy. His lawyers claimed that Carol Howe, a onetime informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, was prepared to testify that she had heard militia leaders discuss blowing up buildings in Tulsa and Oklahoma City and that she knew several men who traveled frequently to Oklahoma City to inspect the Murrah Federal Building. The government claimed that despite spending eight months as a paid informant, Howe had gathered no evidence of a conspiracy in the works, coming forward with her tale only after the bombing had occurred. Judge Matsch refused to let Howe take the stand, ruling that her testimony was irrelevant. McVeigh's lawyers also wanted to depose witnesses in the Philippines who might point to an international conspiracy, but Matsch rejected this request as well.

WHY THE NEWLY RELEASED DOCUMENTS MATTER

--Was there a John Doe No. 2?

Many of the 3,135 documents the FBI failed to turn over to McVeigh's lawyers came from the early stages of the investigation, when the bureau was pursuing leads about McVeigh's possible accomplices. According to present and former Justice and FBI officials, the documents are mostly "negative reports"--leads that didn't pan out. Many were tips from people saying that they recognized the so-called John Doe No. 2, whose composite sketch, based on a grainy photograph taken from a bank camera near the Murrah Federal Building, had been released by the FBI. Before the trial, several witnesses told prosecutors they saw a possible accomplice, described as being in his late 20s with a medium build and straight black hair, with McVeigh in the days before the bombing. If the new documents point to the existence of such a figure, McVeigh's lawyers might argue that it was this individual who was primarily responsible--and seek a new trial.

--Could McVeigh or Nichols get a new trial?

Legal experts say that considering McVeigh's admission of guilt, it would be unlikely for a court to grant a new trial, even if the new documents prove central to the case. Terry Nichols, on the other hand, has maintained his innocence. At trial he was convicted by a confused jury that found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which means he did not intend to kill, and conspiracy, which means he did. The jury deadlocked at sentencing, so it was Judge Matsch who sentenced Nichols to life without parole. Nichols' lawyers say evidence pointing to the involvement of others could exonerate him. But last year a federal appeals panel denied a similar motion for a new trial, ruling that the outcome of the case would not have changed.

--By Andrew Goldstein