A Waco FBI Report News Briefing Part 2 Of 2 [bSAnljzhY8M]

00:01 ♪♪ ♪♪ you And the ruint. Can you have information before, the location of the children before the incursion of the tanks into the compound? But Richard maybe... I think i can answer all those questions first of all did law enforcement know specifically where in the compound the children were located prior to the insertion of gas The evidence we determined was no they did not

01:08 During the course of the insertion of the gas there was constant watch out by The people in the vehicles he armory vehicles and by the people in the various observation posts trying to determine where the children were To the best we could determine that It would there was really no definitive word as at any time At all as to where the children were located only at one point This was at approximately 12 o'clock, right before the fire. One of the armored vehicles went fairly deeply into the building and there's a bunker in the middle of the building if you've seen the photographs What we see here is its main tower facility right here in the middle The taller portion that you have seen before Underneath that tower portion is a concrete bunker

02:09 What happened was that the vehicle... Could you say it by the microphone? What we saw then during the course of our inquiry was, The front side is the side facing down. It's an armored vehicle went in very closely toward that tower area and breached a hole in there Went fairly deeply into that area And saw what they believed were a group of people inside the bunker They believed that they were women and children. That was the first definitive word, where the children were. Was it clear that all of the children were there? No, it was not clear. The vehicle then, the armored vehicle backs back out and pulls away as far as it can leaving a breaching hole here in front of the building to allow those people to depart if they wish too. The fire broke out about four or five minutes after the vehicle had pulled back right about here

03:09 Then to answer the final part of your question, were all the children ultimately found to be located in the same place? The answer was yes. I think almost without exception they were all found to be in the concrete bunker area but I want to say this and I want to say this very carefully because it's something that is disturbing to all of us and I'm sure will be disturbing to all of you We believe that there were approximately 15 children inside. And I say believe is because of the intensity of the fire and the small body mass of the children, that it's very difficult to determine with any preciseness how many children there were. There could have been children in other locations that we simply were just not able to discover in all the ashes and rubble.

04:03 You said there was a disagreement between the hostage negotiator and the tactical people about whether to wait or to go ahead with the operation? No, that... There wasn't a disagreement in terms of going ahead with the operation on 19 April. The tear gassing of the compound. The way I would describe this agreement was that in the earlier phases of the negotiation There were certain pressure tactics which were being employed on the Davidians with which the negotiators disagreed. It was their view that you couldn't pressure Koresh, that what he wanted was a confrontation and that he expected law enforcement to be action-oriented, to be oriented towards hardware and towards firearms, and if that was the confrontation that he was inviting

04:59 So that they felt that the way to deal with Koresh was to basically pull back the hardware, to reduce the level of confrontation insofar as a weaponry was concerned. In order to, as they put it, take power away from Koresh Since his hold over his followers was based upon their belief that his prophecy was about to be fulfilled To the extent that they could Could present a face of law enforcement or present actions. That seemed less threatening The negotiators felt that they might have a better chance of the negotiations being successful so that was early on in

05:38 Later on, as the negotiations broke down near the end of March I think it was fairly well agreed that Koresh was not coming out and that more aggressive action would have to be pursued. Was there dissent to the idea that further negotiation was fruitless? I'm sorry that further negotiation was fruitless the way in which the way in which the negotiators Presented their evaluation at the time that the the The decision to take more aggressive action Was concerned was that they did not believe that there was any substantial departures in terms of numbers That was imminent. They felt that over a longer period of time

06:28 that the perhaps the outcome for success, whatever that meant looked good. But in the shorter term they did not, They did not, they were not sanguine that there... Let me finish. They were not sanguine that there would be a large exodus anytime soon. Say though that over the long haul that there was some prospect that further negotiation might be successful? I think that's it. Excuse me, can you just follow up? The AG said immediately after the 19th that there was unanimous opinion, that going ahead was a good idea. That proves rather misleading in light of what you just said It was not misleading when you...

07:14 You will have access to the information. You can review it for yourself, you can disagree or agree. I'm telling what was said at the time. The negotiators did not disagree with the plan to move forward First of all...you don't have all the details That particular decision and that evaluation was made almost a month before the tear gas plan was executed. In that month period, not one person came out of the compound with the exception of two who went into the compound and were not Davidians to begin with So when you get all the facts then you can argue with me about whether it's correct. Can you describe a level of consensus among your experts on possibility of mass suicide?

08:02 There was well there was a substantial agreement among the experts that that was a risk And that it was a pretty good risk now as I stated in the report The information and evidence on that was contradictory what the FBI did. Was it questioned Koresh as well as Questioning those that came out of the compound about any suicide plan etc It was Denied on numerous occasions, which is a kind of an unusual situation. I think Usually Suicide Situation is a call for help the person who's about to commit suicide will will generally make that known so that they were faced with

08:48 opinion on the one hand and Koresh's and Schneider's and other Davidians declaration that Suicide was against their religion plus we have the fact that as on April 19th We're not sure how many of the people inside knew that That in fact, the place would be set on fire whether or not they were contemplating that so it is contradictory as I say in the report. I'm not sure that the experts were asked whether or not to believe Koresh's statements that suicide was not planned. I don't think that was it.

09:30 tear gas attack was this was the time to do that. Did they agree with that? Was there unanimity among the behavioral scientists? There wasn't any, when I say behavioral scientists...I think there were a number of them. I think there was one behavioral scientist outside the FBI who although he I think followed the main line of thinking insofar as a negotiation strategy and so forth, recognized at that point that negotiations further negotiations were likely to be fruitless. And a number of the behavioral scientists after the fact also expressed the belief that further negotiations were unlikely to be fruitful.

10:16 Most of them there was no dissent from the plan. I think that that the ones that I spoke with Felt that Koresh would not come out They felt that there would be a large core that would remain in there with him The real issue was whether or not If the negotiating plan had been followed more rigorously, more than 35 people might have come out. That was sort of the issue. Why is it that directors... Two things one you now have the Attorney General two so you can address questions to any one of us and number 2 The only thing isn't working is I'm maintaining no control of who's asking questions whatsoever The woman in the back. I'll try to be fair

10:58 I have a question about your description of your envisioned role for the crisis managers at the FBI. For several years, the military has had a program whereby they rotate their public affairs officers at private PR firms like Hill and Knowlton versus Marsteller to gain expertise in PR as practiced by the private sector. Do you think that type of training would be helpful for FBI crisis managers? suggesting nor have I ever thought about PR training. We're really talking about much more serious matters, we're talking about capacities to save lives yes sir

11:40 discussion about the Lyndon Thompson video leading to speculation in some quarters that the government either inadvertently or by design ignited the fire at the compound. The report deals with that video and some detail and dismisses that speculation, yet it draws no conclusions on the video where it appears to show flames coming from the front of the tank if those aren't flames what are they? What's your conclusion on this? We've seen the video and obviously it raised our eyebrows and caused the same concern with us as it did with I'm sure any of you that have seen it. We have submitted the video for expert analysis to a university, local university at University of Maryland. I can only tell you what they told us preliminarily so this is very preliminary

12:35 First of all, as I'm sure you'll see in the report is the vehicles were not outfitted with any type of flame throwing capability. Secondly is that the only way that a flame could have come from the front would have been through some type of busted hydraulic line or something like that we looked for that We did not find that yet hang on just second yet You still see stuff be the first one to concede there you see something We have asked the experts to take a look at it and to come back with another independent assessment, which you will get. That's forthcoming because we only got the tape kind of laid on in this whole process. The preliminary assessments are—and I want to stress preliminary are that

13:17 there were dispersal agents that were used to disperse the gas. And when I say gas, really CS gas is not truly a gas it's a particulate and so this like a powder that falls on an area and spreads out it takes a dispersal agent to then project it into an area the dispersal agent used in this was a was a gas carbon monoxide and something else that was heavier the opinions are that is the dispersal agent which is by the way questionable whether that's flammable but the general consensus is it's non-flammable and apparently, that is a light perhaps dust perhaps its defect in terms of where video was taken and it's the dispersal agent falling to the ground.

14:12 Yes, sir. Some people at R&D military sources I've showed that video to have told me that's not a conventional vehicle but it was to use their words jury-rigged at Fort Hood for the express mission at hand in Waco. That is generally true. Is that correct? It was what it's a boom that was rigged there were two vehicles. There was CEV compact engineer combat engineering vehicle one and two, CEV1 was rigged with the boom to be able to insert gas into the second level, CEV 1 into the first level. Are there any safety parameters and performance standards established for that vehicle before it was taken to the site?

14:55 I'm not sure how to answer your question on that one. Did this boom in any way alter the vehicle's already known safety standards? To the best of my knowledge, the answer is no and in no way altered it. It contributed or possibly cost an ignition source because they didn't know its performance standards We looked at that and that's what we addressed in the report We had the people take a close look at that vehicle, the very same one. We saw no problems, no indication of fire first of all and we saw no busted fuel lines, no change capabilities. We looked very carefully at that vehicle and we saw nothing like that." You don't think there was flame in front of that tube in the video?

15:32 I don't know what it is. I have to be honest with you, at this moment i don't know what it is. There's other video that take from... Okay I'm sorry go ahead and let me say one more thing just to finalize that the fire did not start in that location and that video that you saw was taken approximately 30-45 minutes before the fire began and the fire did not started on location yes. To the Attorney General if I may Ms. Reno, according to Mr. Scruggs' report at some time prior to April 16th you had decided against the FBI's tear gas plan and then on the 16th you had a meeting with FBI officials and after that decided to go forward can you explain to us first why you had decided against it? And secondly what changed your mind

16:31 As I took each step, I had determined not to go forward with it until I satisfied myself as I have explained previously as everything that I could possibly consider to avert it and at the same time still succeed in getting people to come out safely. I'd like to make a comment now just so you can understand the parameters on which I can discuss all of the concerns First of all, I'm deeply grateful to the experts. To Mr. Dennis and Mr. Noble for all that they have done and I appreciate their efforts more than I can tell them. I've received these reports and am in the process of reviewing them very carefully. I'm also looking forward to reviewing Dr. Stone's report as it is complete and comment on additional information when it becomes available

17:24 Thus, in terms of commenting I cannot comment fully and completely. But I think it is clear that we must all work together to address such situations for the future in terms of ensuring proper staffing appropriate organization the expertise and negotiation and behavioral sciences that fits the particular problem we face the training of all concerned, both people in the field and supervisors. Coordination of all the people concerned. The development of a solid and current information base as to what is happening from second-to-second and an ability to make sure that that information is appropriately exchanged."

18:14 I'm sorry, but I could not hear the question. Allow me to repeat it essentially about a week ago Secretary Benson issued his report on the ATF's role in this and it contains significant mea culpa The report of the Justice Department today lacks significant mea culpas How concerned are you about the perception of a whitewash of the Justice Department's actions in this case developing? I'm always concerned about the perception of a whitewash, but i don't go out to seek mea culpas and we didn't do anything wrong. I go out to seek the truth and that is what I've tried to do here And I am going to do everything I possibly can to seek the truth

19:03 I realize you haven't read it in detail, but it certainly seems to vindicate and support the actions of the FBI. I know you were supportive of the FBI's role right from the beginning from your first briefing and then before the House Judiciary Committee Can you give some preliminary reaction to this report? And was this the vindication you were looking for? I wasn't looking for vindication and I think the FBI would share with me that we both will...that this whole event will be with us all the agents more so than me and for me it will be with us for the rest of our lives. I don't think any of us came to seek vindication, i think every single one of us if we were asked what did we want? We want to find out what we can do to prevent this tragedy for the future and I think

19:50 I think they would share with me the desire to go forward and do everything we can to learn from this experience as to what can be done to prevent it in the future. Attorney General Reno, were you told that negotiations might succeed in the long run? As we've been told earlier at this press conference and if so why didn't you wait We were told at the outset that negotiations were underway, and we waited and took no action. And resisted action every step of the way because we wanted to make sure that negotiations if they were possible occurred and were successful

20:30 I made a point of making sure that the Associate Attorney General talked personally to the negotiators, to make sure that at the final point when the decision was made, they did not feel there was further avenue for negotiation. At the time of your press conference, when we were all up there in conference room B you talked about child abuse and your fears about child abuse as one of the motivating factors in your decision. But the chronology indicates that there was no evidence of child abuse during of the standoff. Could you comment on that? Yes, I have commented on it before and will comment again with my understanding from what was told to me that the child abuse was ongoing What i understand is that the bureau believed it be ongoing based on what they had learned previously and what they forecasted as ongoing

21:26 Three or four more questions and then we're going to call it. Who in the Bureau told you that it was ongoing? Do you remember that specifically where that information came from? As I tell, as I told you, I am now understand that nobody in the Bureau told me that it was ongoing. We were briefed and I misunderstood when I under, I thought there was actual evidence after February 28th of ongoing child abuse it was represented to me and I don't remember the specific person that the information was available based on what had happened prior to February 21st, and based on that information it was expected that it was ongoing. Along those same lines you had mentioned uh...and FBI Director Sessions had mentioned that there was not-the feeling of the experts was that the Davidians would not likelihood would not commit suicide we now learn that behavior expert

22:22 of the fbi had specifically in memos said that this was a uh... very real possibility we did you see those memos that we are he quoted in this report where you informed him at the time and they were all concerned if there might have been some misleading statements made uh... at the time at right after the raid about that issue i don't think there were any misleading statements made about suicide because we talked about it and what I talked about was the worst case scenario that could possibly happen which was. I didn't think of in terms of fire thought of it in terms of explosions he made the best judgment we could recognizing that we might be able to prevent it then but if the

23:03 situation continued on there was no assurance that we could prevent it in the future when we might have less control over the situation. That issue was directly addressed. What is the most compelling reason, in your view for going in at that time? At that moment in this process. What finally compelled you, what fact to go into that time? There was no one fact that ultimately compelled me it was reviewing all the circumstances the negotiation the ability of the hostage team be prepared necessity to secure perimeter, the fact that there were dangerous people in there and that we could not walk away from it. All of those factors and those that I have previously stated were what made me approve the final decision. Two more questions

23:51 I can't, didn't hear the first part of your question. Had you correctly understood that there was no ongoing child abuse? Do you think he would have allowed the standoff to continue or would you have made the same decision to go in with the gas? I don't know whether there was ongoing child abuse or not. May I perhaps misunderstood you... You misunderstood me because none of us will ever know whether there was ongoing child abuse What we did know was that there was evidence previously, that based on the information the Bureau had and what the Bureau advised me of they anticipated it was continuing. We will never know. May I ask you to say that you misunderstood and it was your belief that they had told you there were ongoing child abuse? No If you will continue to hear me what I understood is that they have evidence of ongoing child abuse after February 28th

24:46 What they had was evidence prior to February 28, and based on the information prior to February 28 they continued to believe that it was ongoing. We are ready to roll over at 1230 so we're going to ask you a final question or two. Ms. Raynard-Allen? He expressed any reservations at all on April 18th when you told him about the impending tear gas incursion Did he express any reservations about the safety either of the agents in the field or the safety of people inside the compound? The president from the outset, when we first talked with Mr. Gerson as acting attorney general expressed concern about the safety of all involved When I talked to him on April 18th He wanted me to make sure that we had carefully considered all factors and I advised him that we did Thank you

25:41 Nice. This news conference was held to release the results of a new Justice Department report detailing the way the federal government handled the standoff between law enforcement officials and residents at the Branch Davidian religious compound near Waco, Texas. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where brutality

26:48 will go unrewarded. Just in case you don't remember, let me jog your memory In a church they called the Waco-Com back in April 93 17 little children All so helpless and so small Died a senseless death of gas and flame How many names can you recall? Seventeen little children Don't it make you wonder why Seventeen little chi- How could they deserve to die

28:06 Maybe we should stop and ask ourselves If we become so blind Will seventeen little children Finally open up your mind? How did you sleep last night, Bill Clinton Tell me did you feel their pain As seventeen little children Cried out and perished in the flames Attorney General Janet Reno I accept your offer to resign How can you stand for law and order now?

29:11 When you won't answer to your crimes Seventeen little children All so helpless and so small Seventeen little children How many names can you recall? Maybe we should stop and ask ourselves If we become so blind Will seventeen little children Finally open up your mind? I've heard it said the Branch Davidians Only got what they deserved

30:17 Yet no one seems to know what laws were broken What was in the war they never served Yesterday I sold my TV set Stopped my subscription to The Times To me it's plain to see the media Was an accomplice to these crimes Seventeen little children Don't it make you wonder why? Seventeen little children How could they deserve to die

31:17 Maybe we should stop and ask ourselves Have we become so blind? Will seventeen little children Finally open up your mind Open up your mind