Preliminary Critique of the Danforth Report

Jon Roland 2000 July 22



This critique is based on news reports and television interviews of 

Danforth, as I do not yet had a copy of the complete report on the Davidian 
massacre. However, several conclusions can be reached.



Jack Danforth is lying. It is not possible to reach the conclusions he has 

announced based on the evidence that has been discussed. Such evidence and 

analysis cannot prove a negative, and therefore one cannot be "100 percent" 

certain that government agents did not start the fire, direct gunfire at the 

Davidians on April 19, 1993, use military personnel, properly or otherwise, 

or conduct a coverup.



Danforth maintains there must be a "presumption" of innocence of the 

government. Nonsense. The standard of presumption of innocence unless proven 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies to individuals charged with a 

crime, but not to institutions or government offices. The appropriate 

standard for those who hold a public trust is merely "probable cause to 

suspect", and if such probable cause exists, it justifies defunding the 

agency, excluding its personnel from further government employment, and the 

creation of a new agency with new personnel to take over its functions. Such 

probable cause to suspect certainly applies in this case and justifies such 

terminating action for the FBI.



First, Danforth is lying about the alleged tape of the Davidians presented 

as evidence they started the fire. Even if they had started some fires, that 

is not proof the FBI or Delta force agents did not also do so, and their use 

of incendiary rounds during the engagement is strong evidence that the 

agents either intended to start a fire or were reckless in their use of 

methods that could be expected to cause one. The Davidians might have been 

intending to use Molotov cocktails against the tanks. The injection of CS 

gas alone could be expected to have caused a fire in that environment, when 

any spark or even gunfire could have set it off. The progress of the fire 

clearly indicates the detonation of CS, and therefore the injection of CS 

must be considered the primary cause of the fire, along with those who 

decided to inject it.



I have heard the tape before it was "enhanced" and it is incomprehensible. 

That is not to say that computer "enhancement" could not extract voices 

saying words like that. I would have to have the original tape and try to do 

it myself. But from what I heard, I doubt that it is possible to extract 

what they presented in court from that tape. Nor would it be possible to 

reliably use such an enhanced version either as evidence or to identify the 

person speaking. At best it is an indication, which might be used to find 

other evidence, if it existed, but not as evidence in itself.



Similar considerations apply to computer enhancements of video or film 

footage. You might be able to identify, say, a license plate number, which 

might point to which vehicle to further examine for evidence it was involved 

in a crime, but lacking such further evidence, the computer-enhanced image 

alone should not be used as evidence.



Second, Danforth is also lying about the gunfire. He stated categorically 

that there was no credible evidence of gunfire by government agents, when he 

has the preliminary report of Carlos Ghigliotti and the earlier report by 

Allard, which are nothing if not credible. Perhaps not conclusive in the 

view of some, but certainly enough to doubt and prevent any conclusion that 

one can be "100 percent" certain no gunfire occurred. The fact that 

Ghigliotti is no longer alive to present his conclusions in personal 

testimony, and that Allard is unable or unwilling to do so because of his 

stroke, is not grounds to dismiss their work from consideration, and accept 

only the work of a contractor controlled by the government.



However, the fates of Ghigliotti and Allard could explain why Danforth is 

lying. Perhaps he got the message.



Third, Danforth is lying about the use of military personnel. He states that 

their use was not "improper" in a way that is intended to convey the 

impression that they were not used at all, but that is tergiversation. 

Statements by military personnel make it clear they were used, and any such 

use was not just "improper" but illegal, despite attempts to wiggle out from 

under the Posse Comitatus Act.



Fourth, Danforth is lying about the absence of a coverup. He admits the FBI 

had a "bunker mentality" and failed to "be forthcoming" with evidence, 

especially about the use of incendiary rounds, but claims that is not 

obstruction of justice? Of course it is a coverup. It continues to this day. 

Does he think the American people are idiots to believe such a preposterous 

quibbling over words? That it depends on what "is" is? Gimme a break!



It is reported that polls indicate 61 percent of the American people think 

the federal government caused the tragedy at Mount Carmel, and is guilty of 

crimes in that matter. After the Danforth Report, that percentage will only 

increase. The only thing that will make this issue go away is to criminally 

prosecute all the government personnel involved, up to the President of the 

United States, to exonerate the Davidians charged with crimes, to fully 

compensate the survivors of the victims, and to make reforms to insure that 

nothing like this ever happens again. Nothing less will do.