Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Lawyers in McVeigh Case Study Uncovered FBI Documents

Aired May 12, 2001 - 09:13   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Lawyers for convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh are studying thousands of pages of documents the government turned over to them just days before the execution was planned. Meanwhile, Attorney General John Ashcroft has ordered an investigation to determine why the FBI failed to hand over the documents before the trial years ago.

CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena joining us with the latest. Kelli, what did the FBI know, when did it know it?

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Miles, the gathering of information started in December. Basically, it was part of an archiving process. All of the information relating to the Oklahoma City bombing investigation was to end up ultimately in one place.

During that investigation -- during that compilation of information, as early as January, we are told, some of the documents were suspect. They were basically cross-checked, as information came in, as paper documents came in, they checked with the database, the FBI's database, to see if those had been input. And in -- as early as January, there were signs that some of these documents that were trickling in from field -- FBI field offices around the country had not been input into these -- this central database system at the FBI.

But the -- those that were working on this compilation process did not let anyone here in Washington at FBI headquarters know that until this week. And in fact, FBI Director Louis Freeh, we are told by an FBI official, was not informed until Thursday of this week that there was a problem.

So it looks like what they did was, they waited until they had all the information gathered and then came out with 3,000 documents that had never been turned over to the McVeigh defense team, nor had they been turned over to prosecutors in the case. And that's something that is often overlooked, Miles.

O'BRIEN: Well, it's overlooked, but it doesn't -- it sort of compounds the problem from the FBI's perspective, that there was at least one aspect of this agency, far reaching as it may be, that knew about this as long as five months ago. Is that normal procedure? I mean, did somebody drop the ball as far as procedure goes, or is that the way it operates normally in a big bureaucracy like the FBI? ARENA: Miles, there's been a lot of criticism targeted toward the FBI in terms of its information gathering and its technology processes. Back in 1999, then attorney -- the inspector general then had issued a report saying that, you know, due to the inadequate procedures at the FBI, it was impossible to tell whether or not, by checking a central database, all of the information was included.

So they knew that back in 1999 from the justice's inspector general. We had a request from Congress just last month asking FBI Director Louis Freeh for an explanation about the so-called deficient computer systems at the FBI. So there has been a lot of criticism over the years over this, this information-gathering process. So this is, this is not new in terms of the FBI, Miles.

O'BRIEN: You mentioned that computer system. Is this something that would have been solved if they had a better, more state-of-the- art computer system at the FBI?

ARENA: I think that's part of the problem, Miles. This, though, -- don't forget this was a manual search of documents that had never even been put in to the central database. So this is not only a computer problem, this is also just a basic procedural problem, how information gets input into the system, so there are procedures here at issue that need to be changed, at least according to the FBI officials that we have spoken to.

They themselves admit they have to take a good, healthy look at top to bottom everything that goes into compiling information in any investigation.

O'BRIEN: All right, CNN's Kelli Arena, who tracks the Justice Department for us. Thank you very much for being with us on CNN SATURDAY MORNING.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, let's talk more about the implications of the execution delay and the FBI mistakes.

Joining me now from Washington is Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at William and Mary Law School. Good morning, Michael.

MICHAEL GERHARDT, THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY: Good morning.

PHILLIPS: You might have heard the talk there about the computer system. What has happened here? What is your feeling? Human error, computer mistake?

GERHARDT: Probably both. Certainly at the very least, it's human error. As Kelli just said, the indication that people knew as early as January, I think, already puts people on notice. And so they were on notice as early as January about the possibility that this error was going to exist, and in fact it didn't just exist, it compounded.

And I think in light of other errors in the past, with respect to releasing documents and keeping track of documents, I think the FBI has a lot to answer for.

PHILLIPS: Michael, there's this lingering fear now that McVeigh could be exonerated. What are the odds of that happening?

GERHARDT: I don't think there's any chance that he could be exonerated. I don't think the question of his guilt really is at issue at all. There may be a question about his sentencing, the degree to which, perhaps, the death penalty is the appropriate punishment. We don't know what's in those documents. We don't know what, for example, whether those documents cast some possible guilt on other people, or co-conspirators or the like, we just don't know that.

But it seems to me, especially with the publication of this recent book, there's absolutely no question of his guilt, there's no question he'll be at least in prison for life, and the odds are he will be put to death.

PHILLIPS: And here is someone who's saying he wants to be put to death. Why don't his words trump any decision here?

GERHARDT: I suspect that his desire to be put to death, if it remains constant, will ultimately be fulfilled. But I think the critical thing is what the attorney general said yesterday, and that is, what's at issue here is no longer what McVeigh wants or even necessarily what the prosecutors want. What's at issue is the integrity of the justice system. And that's what's being maintained here.

PHILLIPS: You bring up a good point, the integrity of the system. What happened here? Does it disturb you? And do you think it has any reflection on, say, low-profile cases? This is one that's gotten so much attention. What about all the other cases and questions about the validity?

GERHARDT: You put your finger on what is for me the ultimate tragedy. This was an incredibly high-profile case. One could not even imagine a more high-profile case, and look at the fact that we have this major screw-up.

What concerns me most is not ultimately about the justice in this case, but what happens in other cases where no one's looking. Because if a screw-up like this can happen in a big, high-profile case like this, imagine the corners that are cut and the possible screw-ups that can occur in cases where no one's watching.

PHILLIPS: And imagine the news coverage to follow that. Michael Gerhardt, law professor at William and Mary Law School, thanks for being with us this morning.

GERHARDT: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com