CCTV camera in downtown OKC. Image courtesy of CNN.
“All they showed us were a series of video still photographs showing the Ryder truck, but no one in or around the vehicle.”
“We were never allowed to see the photo evidence from the cameras on the Murrah Building that would have shown the truck being parked and the people who got out of the truck”
“That’s all on tape, and we were authorized to see all of that, but we weren’t allowed to see it…and in fact, nobody has been allowed to see it.” — Federal Grand Juror Hoppy Heidelberg
Today, closed circuit surveillance cameras are ubiquitous. You’ll find them everywhere: gas stations, at stoplights, on government property, on private property. At the time of the April 19th, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the situation was roughly the same. In downtown Oklahoma City, you could find surveillance cameras mounted at over a dozen properties: on the Regency Towers apartment building, the Journal Records Building, the Southwestern Bell building, the post office, and elsewhere. The properties surrounding the Alfred P. Murrah federal building were saturated with surveillance cameras, some of which, FBI records reveal, actually captured the April 19th, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing on film.
The first reports concerning surveillance camera footage were aired on CNN within days of the bombing. One early CNN report broadcast that “the FBI says that it has surveillance camera video of the bomb site” which was then followed by a clip of FBI on-scene-commander Weldon Kennedy urging all businesses in the area to come forward to provide their security camera recordings, which they did do. Summarily, later that same week, CNN further reported that “the FBI says that it has obtained videotapes from security cameras in the vicinity of the blast and may have tape of the Ryder rental truck used to house the enormous bomb.”
Note that in CNN’s second broadcast about the tapes, CNN reported that the FBI had “videotapes,” plural, and “security cameras,” plural, implying that more than one recording had been obtained. This is confirmed by FBI investigatory records, court transcripts, and even testimony under oath by an FBI agent assigned to the case. Indeed, just eight days after the bombing, a preliminary hearing held in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma shed considerable light on the FBI’s evidence in the case, to include both witnesses and surveillance recordings.
By the time of the April 27th, 1995 preliminary hearing, the primary suspect — Timothy McVeigh — was in custody. The purpose for the preliminary hearing was to show probable cause and a reasonable basis for proceeding in case no. CR-95–98, the United States of America vs. Timothy James McVeigh. Leading the charge in the government’s case at the preliminary hearing was principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Merrick Garland, a top aid to Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. Garland’s chief witness at the hearing was FBI Special Agent Jon Hersley, who would go on to give testimony that would serve to confirm that the FBI had in its possession multiple surveillance camera recordings.
Special Agent Hersley would recount during the hearing that he had seen both video and photographs (still-image video frames) taken from surveillance recordings seized by the FBI. Hersley testified that one of the photos he had seen depicted a Ryder truck moving east on 5th street. This photo was sourced from a surveillance camera identified as having come from the Regency Towers apartment complex. The Regency Towers was located less than a block from the Murrah Building and had an unobstructed view of the north face of the building.
Hersley’s testimony is worth citing here because it is so specific concerning footage that the FBI had seized during their investigation:
Q. So you say there is film available that shows the — a Ryder Truck in an easterly direction, that is traveling in an easterly direction on Fifth Street?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it past the street that we know as Harvey?
A. I am not — I have not studied that film in detail. It’s in that general vicinity right in there. It may be the video that I saw. I believe it is just before — well, I am not sure. I better not say that.
Q. Well, Harvey Street —
A. I don’t know.
Q. Harvey Street is the street that is immediately west of the Murrah Building?
A. That is correct.
Q. Are the photographs that you saw or, is it still photo or film?
A. What I saw was the still photos.
Q. Is it a still photo that has been removed from a film?
A. Yes.
Q. So it was a close-up more of the truck than it’s location?
A. It wasn’t a close-up photo, it was taken from a camera off one of the buildings in the vicinity.
Q. Did you make a determination of what building it came off of?
A. No, I did not myself.
Q. Okay, did anyone?
A. I believe one of the other agents was able to determine that it came from one — one of the films came from the Regency Tower Apartments.
Q. Was there a time indicated on the picture of the film that you saw?
A. Yeah.
Agent Hersley’s testimony clarifies that the FBI had in its possession multiple surveillance camera recordings from the area. When Hersley testified that “one of the films came from the Regency Tower Apartments,” his use of the word “films,” plural, indicates there was more than recording.
In addition to having seen photos taken from a surveillance video depicting a Ryder truck on 5th street, Hersley testified that he had seen photos depicting another location —a parking lot next to the Journal Records Building.
Hersley testified at length about a key witness (Gary Lewis) who had seen Timothy McVeigh — and another suspect — speeding away from an alley adjacent to the Journal Records Building and that this vicinity was covered by the seized surveillance footage.
Hersley’s testimony concerning the Journal Records building and associated surveillance footage recordings were covered during the preliminary hearing—to varying degrees of specificity—and these key portions are excerpted below:
Q. Where did this witness see the yellow Mercury speeding away?
A. Over in the direction — in the parking lot, in an area where the witness I had previously testified about said that the individual he identified as Mr. McVeigh was walking in a northerly direction towards.
Q. Where is that parking lot, sir?
A. Over on the north side of Fifth Street, close to the Journal Record Building.
Q. This particular male witness has indicated that he saw the — a yellow Mercury speeding away?
A. Yes.
Q. Did this particular witness indicate to agents of the FBI how many persons were in the speeding yellow Mercury?
A. Two.
Q. I assume speeding away on Fifth Street; is that correct?
A. Well, I think it is actually the alley area that would be immediately north of Fifth Street.
Q. Immediately north of Fifth Street is a parking lot there. Are you talking about the —
A. The north side of that parking lot.
Q. So the alley between the Journal Record Building and the parking lot? I’m sorry to interrupt you, I didn’t mean to.
Are you talking about that area, that alley?
A. I’m talking about the area on the north side of the parking lot that we have been speaking about.
Q. That’s where you are telling the Court that the yellow Mercury was speeding through that particular alley?
A. Yes.
Q. In your review of the surveillance photos, did you find any surveillance photos of that parking lot across the street from the Murrah Building?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you been shown a photograph of that particular parking lot, sir, across the street from the Murrah Building that includes the speeding Mercury in the photograph?
A. We don’t know for sure yet. Those photographs are not real clear. They are taken from a pretty good distance away. There appears to be a light-colored car in the very vicinity where this witness testifies — or provides the information was speeding away from. We are not able to determine yet if that is in fact the yellow Mercury.
Q. The pictures that you saw of that particular parking lot — now I’m talking about the parking lot across the street from the Murrah Building — in a northerly direction, that parking lot, there is a film of that parking lot prior to the time of the explosion?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it time-stamped so that you can tell a particular time of day on the 19th of April that that camera is viewing, scanning that parking lot?
A. Yes.
In addition to confirming that the FBI had in its possession surveillance camera footage, the April 27th preliminary hearing also makes it very clear that the FBI had multiple eyewitnesses to Timothy McVeigh — with an accomplice — in downtown Oklahoma City that morning. Agent Hersley’s testimony reflects this, and he testifies no less than three times during the preliminary hearing words to the effect that “our primary focus right now is to try to determine the identity and the location of the other subjects.”
Agent Hersley testifies at length concerning the eyewitness accounts of Gary Lewis, Rodney Johnson, Dena Hunt, and Mike Moroz. All four of these witnesses saw McVeigh with another person in downtown Oklahoma City. One of them, mechanic Mike Moroz, picked McVeigh out of an FBI lineup in downtown Oklahoma City within days of the bombing. Moroz saw and spoke to McVeigh up-close, giving him directions from Johnny’s Tire about 20 minutes before the bombing. According to Moroz, there was a passenger in the Ryder truck with McVeigh when he spoke to him that morning. That passenger has come to be known as John Doe #2.
The other suspect— John Doe #2 — has never been captured and the FBI today denies that he exists. The man’s identity remains a controversial subject, the basis of much speculation.
What can be said with certainty is that many witnesses observed Timothy McVeigh with another person in downtown Oklahoma City and the surveillance footage of the bombing, described in the April 27th preliminary hearing, may depict that other suspect. Fueling speculation about this other suspect is the fact that Associate Deputy Attorney General Merrick Garland issued objections during the preliminary hearing whenever direct questions were asked concerning the surveillance camera footage or John Doe #2:
MR. COYLE: Who are those agents that are tasked with the responsibility of reviewing photographs and film footage?
MR. GARLAND: Objection, Your Honor. This is now purely speculative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HERSLEY: The agent that showed me the photographs was Walt Lamar.
MR COYLE: And is he the one that you inquired as to whether or not there were any photographs of the accused, Mr. Timothy McVeigh, in possession of the government, at or about the Ryder Truck? You asked him that question I assume; did you not?
MR. HERSLEY. I did not inquire of Agent Lamar about these photographs. He brought it to my attention because there is a possibility of a particular car being involved in one of those photographs that he was showing me. We are continuing investigation to try to determine the actual identity of that car.
MR HERSLEY: I know there was at least one male that observed the Ryder Truck and the occupants of the Ryder Truck. That person also advised that the individual in the truck closely resembled the individual depicted in composite one.
MR COYLE: Did you tell me he saw occupants of a Ryder Truck and there were more than one?
MR. GARLAND: Objection. The only person on trial at this hearing is Mr. McVeigh. It doesn’t matter whether there were two or a hundred people in that truck as long as there was somebody representing Mr. McVeigh there. It is discovery and totally outside the scope of this hearing.
MR. COYLE: May I respond? I think it is important to see if we distinguish it as the same truck or not. I think it is very important to the credibility of the witnesses and credibility of the evidence and what they saw as to whether or not the next person saw three or five or six or —
THE COURT: Objection overruled. Go ahead.
MR. HERSLEY: This witness advised that there were two individuals in the truck. The individual resembling Mr. McVeigh was the driver.
None of the surveillance videos mentioned in the CNN broadcasts or the April 27th preliminary hearing were shown at the McVeigh and Nichols federal trials in 1997 and 1998. It was as if they simply did not exist. This made little sense — if the FBI had videotape showing McVeigh in Oklahoma City that would constitute “best evidence” that could put McVeigh at the scene of the crime. The eyewitnesses who saw McVeigh in downtown Oklahoma City would also be damning evidence. Yet, none of those eyewitnesses were called to testify at trial. This could be because every one of these witnesses saw McVeigh with another person and that other person is still unaccounted for today.
It was four years after the bombing, after Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols had both been convicted, that the full scope of the FBI’s surveillance footage of the bombing emerged. In 1999, during a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, it was revealed that the FBI had in fact taken into possession nearly two dozen recordings from surveillance cameras in the downtown Oklahoma City area.
FOIA Lawsuits Reveal Secret Footage
A 1999 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by investigative journalist David Hoffman produced documents that revealed the FBI had twenty two video surveillance recordings of the Murrah building and surrounding area stored at the FBI’s Oklahoma City field office. Curiously, a single surveillance tape was listed as housed under lock and key in Washington, D.C. at FBI headquarters.
The central issue of Hoffman’s lawsuit was that the FBI had conceded to the existence of the surveillance camera footage but refused to release it pursuant to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
During Hoffman’s FOIA suit, FBI lawyers filed multiple motions for summary judgment — essentially asking the judge to throw the case out in their favor. Each subsequent motion filed by the Department of Justice cited entirely different reasons for withholding the material, seemingly coming up with new excuses each time. These motions were summarily dismissed with increasing criticism from the judge presiding over the case, U.S. District Court Judge Wayne Alley.
Alley wrote that the FBI had put forward insufficient “justifications for withholding all materials in its investigative files concerning the Oklahoma City Bombing” and further stated that the FBI had exhibited “shoddy conduct” during the litigation.
Judge Alley wrote that “the court would be inclined” to compel the FBI the release the surveillance footage, however, ultimately, the Judge ruled that he was unable to do so. A previous order issued by Judge Richard P. Matsch, presiding judge in the McVeigh and Nichols Federal trials, deemed that the surveillance camera footage from the bombing investigation was under seal while the McVeigh and Nichols trial convictions were subject to appeal(s). As a result, Judge Alley ruled that “the Court is presently powerless to grant plaintiff relief under FOIA” in view of Judge Matsch’s ruling.
Judge Alley would add, however, that Hoffman “raises a legitimate point” that the federal criminal case against bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols was nearing end and thus Matsch’s order to seal the evidence would presumably expire as those cases and subsequent appeals ended. Judge Alley spells out this position by writing that the FBI’s “justification for its shroud of secrecy may likewise soon end.”
Hoffman’s suit wouldn’t be the last time the FBI would face legal challenges concerning the secret footage. The video recordings seized by the FBI during the OKC bombing investigation have once again become central to a legal battle. A FOIA lawsuit concerning the tapes is currently being litigated by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue. The FBI sent Trentadue a batch of 30 recordings following a Freedom of Information Act request that Trentadue filed. However, Trentadue noted that the footage the FBI produced was of little value — it shows absolutely nothing of interest. The recordings released by the FBI don’t show anything whatsoever prior to the 9:02 AM blast. Jesse Trentadue says the tapes are clearly incomplete. “Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995? There ain’t no such thing as a coincidence” Trentadue told the Associated Press after receipt of the incomplete footage.
The FBI claims that the security cameras failed to record the moments leading up to the blast because “they had run out of tape” or, improbably, because “the tape was being replaced” during the minutes and hours prior to the April 19th, 1995 bombing.
Trentadue noted that “the interesting thing is [the tapes] spring back on after 9:02 AM” and that “the absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn’t want anybody to see.”
The surveillance tapes released to Trentadue appear to be incomplete and this can be reasonably demonstrated based on what has previously been written about the surveillance recordings in FBI and Secret Service documents from the bombing investigation. These supporting documents were introduced as exhibits in Trentadue’s FOIA lawsuit currently being litigated in Salt Lake City. Additional insight as to what appears on the tapes can be gleaned from statements by FBI agents and law enforcement personnel who have seen the footage.
