The fourth week of the Branch Davidian trial in San Antonio, Texas has concluded with 98 witnesses having been called by the prosecution. As I originally noted Lieutenant Frank Drebbin of Naked Gun fame was in charge of the BATF attack it appears The Three Stooges are conducting the prosecution.
To summarize this week and the preceding three weeks, the prosecution has failed to produce one witness that supports its case and many who flatly contradict the charges. Those who do not contradict the charges have been neutral merely testifying the gun purchases were legal. And to do this the government transported gun dealers from all over the country to testify to nothing illegal was purchased or sold.
So far the government has been unable to produce one witness who can definitely testify as to who shot first. The prosecution has produced witnesses to testify there was no identification and no warrant announced. Prosecution witnesses have clearly testified there were no plans and there was no conspiracy to shoot any federal agents.
These witnesses have testified as to the likelihood at least two of the agents who died were from friendly fire. The BATF story that one of their number was shot as soon as he left the horse trailer has been testified to as untrue. We have prosecution witness testimony that Koresh came to the front door unarmed. We have seen every major and minor point to substantiate the charges collapse under the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
A key prosecution witness testifies she was in a hospital for the criminally insane after she left the compound, that she does not remember saying she would say anything to get back with her children, that everything she said prior to the plea bargain was a lie, and that her movie deal has no bearing upon her testimony.
The crux of the trial and the charges is actually having shot agents and having conspired to do so. The charge of conspiracy has collapsed. The charge of having fired upon federal agents has no support. And yet the trial continues. Upon what grounds did the prosecutor think he had a case in the first place?
It appears to me that if there are to be charges then it is incumbent upon the prosecution be able to produce at least one witness that can support the charges. It appears reasonable to me the prosecutor would at least have taken depositions to the effect there were charges to bring. The closest thing we have in testimony to supporting the charges are in every case testimony was changed from the original statements to what was given as testimony.
In other words, the prosecution collaborated with the witnesses to create the best case possible. For example we have a 70 year old woman who gave some explicit testimony but her original statements to the Texas Rangers were an example of the most rambling and incoherent and uncomprehending of events that can be imagined.
Add to this prosecution testimony of indiscriminate firing at anything that moved or simply at the house in general and the indiscriminate use of grenades and we have a clear picture of what happened. The picture is quite simple. The BATF placed itself in a position and took actions such that prudence dictated the use of deadly force in self defense by the Branch Davidians.
And the defense has yet to call its first witness. At this point it hardly seems worth the time and effort to present a defense at all as not one charge has been supported.
It is natural at a time like this for supporters of the Branch Davidians to hope for a slam dunk defense to sink the government once and for all. However that is not necessarily in the best interests of the defendants.
As these charges stem solely from the initial attack there is no way to introduce anything about the siege or the final attack. The substance of the case has already been covered.
I found it difficult to believe the government would stage such a massive raid based upon no evidence. I find it harder to believe the government would in the cold light of day actually charge and prosecute based upon even less evidence. I do not understand why this trial is being held.
Perhaps someone could explain it?