Q: Did you, or members of your team examine any remains?

A: Not the remains in the bunker, but yes we did examine the remains of Jimmy Riddle. His body was recovered about March 12th, and his remains were examined extensively by our forensic pathologist Dr. Ronald Graeser. He did an analysis that told us many interesting things about the death of Mr. Riddle, that are in the film.

Q: What was concluded about his death?

A: That the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head, that he was shot to death and that his body was disarticulated by a tank at a location outside of the building, and that apparently his remains were removed to the interior of the building. Dr. Graeser also discovered in the process of examining the body that certain bones present when the body was presented to the medical examiner had been removed, were nowhere to be found, and were not turned over to the deceased's next of kin. These included the forehead plate from the skull with the bullet wound to the skull, and the ends of certain ribs that had been adjoining the severing injury to the right side of the body by the tank. But there was enough there to draw some conclusions about the involvement of the tank. The autopsy report clearly indicates that Mr. Riddle was shot and killed before the fire started, and that his injuries according to the medical examiner were consistent with either the building falling on him, or a tank running over him. The forensic pathologist who did the examination said that the latter was true, that the injuries to his body occurred due to the shearing and tearing effect of being engaged by a tank track.

Q: And this was consistent with the film that was taken, it was analyzed in the FLIR film, is that correct?

A: Well, the FLIR tape of Mr. Riddle being shot is still mysteriously not available. However, the tape of what we believe to be the location of the body and the tank engaging the body is available, and that's what appears to happen.

That whole incident of Mr. Riddle's death and his colleague Phillip Henry is a very significant and important event in the story of the last day. The plan of the gassing attack on the Branch Davidians was to insert gas over a 48 hour period. Then and only then, if the gas did not have the desired effect would they begin to slowly disassemble, what I call demolish, the building, forcing the Davidians out of the structure. But in fact, the gassing was escalated to such a degree that within the first three to four hours the gas supply intended for 48 hours was used up.

That was the first escalation of the day. We believe that the net result of Mr. Riddle's presence outside, at the back of the building unannounced, unexpected and uncalled for, prompted the second escalation of the day, which was the demolition of the building. That demolition was in our opinion, prompted by the death of Jimmy Riddle at the back of the building; an event probably witnessed by a number of other Branch Davidians.

When you stand back and we look at all the evidence, the evidence is rather compelling that in fact someone, somewhere, probably in Washington DC, made a decision that, that incident was the end of the game. I believe everything in the footage from that point on is indicative of that decision, and was meant to eliminate the witnesses and to destroy the evidence.

Q: Is there any evidence showing where such a decision might have come from?

A: Yes. The chain of command, according to the evidence that we've uncovered, relates from the field to what's called the SOAC, Special Operations And Command offices in Washington DC of the FBI. According to the evidence, the FBI top echelon command was in that room that day, Floyd Clark, Larry Potts and others. William Sessions was there from time to time. And Webster Hubbell representing Miss Reno and the Justice Department, and I might add, the President of the United States.

At that particular juncture we find the evidence chain going from Web Hubbell to the White House. At the White House we find the evidence chain flowing to the offices of Vincent Foster and the evidence indicates that Mr. Foster’s records and thereby the chain of authority appear to then flow to a very curious, interesting, and strange place. One would think that it would be the President of the United States' office, but it wasn’t, it was the First Lady's office, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Another chain of command has to do with the military presence at Waco. In the United States, the military, the Delta Force operators, properly known as the Combat Applications Group of Fort Bragg North Carolina, could not be present much less operational at Waco, without presidential authority. That authority would have had to have been signed off in a waiver, probably taking the form of a presidential decision directive. Mr. Clinton recently has indicated that he was not asked to, and did not sign a presidential decision directive, or any other kind of waiver. Well, what does that mean? That Mr. Clinton did sign it, and no one can get access to it? Because, you see, all Presidential decision directives are classified, on a need to know basis.

Q: This was not an executive order?

A: I doubt that it would be an executive order because that has to be made public. Interestingly enough, historically in most administrations, not all presidential decision directives are classified. But in the case of the Clinton administration all presidential decision directives are classified.

Q: Out of this whole spectrum of people and expertise, what would you say are the three most significant, most telling, most damning aspects of the investigation?

A: FLIR video is one, ordinance explosives and residues is two, and the third is probably the overall ability to access the evidence itself even in spite of denials and refusals to cooperate. For example, the significant event here of course is our entry into the evidence lockers. And our request for that and support for that activity by the Asst. US Attorney in Waco, Mr. Bill Johnson. He played a pivotal role in helping us find the information. After an initial visit with him, he felt that it was imperative that everybody, including himself, know what the heck happened. And so, considering that the criminal case had completed or concluded, prior to our visit, he felt that it was appropriate that we have access. He championed our cause with the Justice Department, and the Justice Department acquiesced, but denied our request to interview him or Janet Reno. But they did allow me to go in, examine the evidence, bringing experts along, etc. etc.

Q: Why would they do this?

A: I can explain that, that's easy. Time has passed, and I believe the people that were originally involved at the Justice Department and the FBI, are no longer with the agency. The people who had first hand knowledge of what happened had long since departed the agency.

Q: When you first approached William Johnston it didn’t look like you were going to get any open doors.

A: He was dubious at first, and it wasn’t until much later that he began to understand that maybe there was more here in terms of the overall evidence accumulation than what he had been led to believe. The one thing that I counted on very much with Bill Johnston was that the Texas Rangers and others I had spoken with indicated that he was a stand up guy, that he was thoroughly honest. And felt that he responded appropriately as an Assistant US Attorney, to the idea that there may be evidence of criminal wrong doing on the part of law enforcement officers present that day. And he went forward to take a look at it in an honest and forthright manner.

Q: This was really the pivotal point, would you say, of the whole investigation?

A: I think that was the break point. It was where things started turning around and becoming much more viable in terms of finding out what the truth was. I think going to Johnston was an inspired move. And what I mean by “inspired move” was that, it wasn’t Mike McNulty's intelligence or anything like that, I believe it was something that the man upstairs who watches over us all wanted done. After that, the pieces fell together and lo and behold what seemed impossible was possible. I believe that if you tell people the right thing for the right reason, and they're good people, they're going to respond positively. Even in ways that might seem somewhat miraculous. And that seemed to be what was going on there, telling Bill Johnston the truth elicited a truthful response from him. And thereby we achieved what others would have considered to be miraculous. The bottom line is, it was just telling the truth. He did, we all did, and therefore we have a little bit more of the truth relative to what happened at Waco in 1993.

Q: The overall conclusion of your investigation is obviously in the film, but I'd like to hear it in your own words.

A: What we found was what I hoped we wouldn't find. What we found was that the absolute image of perfection of the FBI, did not hold up under close scrutiny regarding the Waco matter.

I think what we're dealing with here is that basically absolute power corrupts absolutely. Disraeli from the British Parliament in the 1800’s said that, and I believe it is the natural consequence of human behavior.

Human nature does not change radically from one century or eon to another. And the problem is that the American people tend to forget the frailties and weaknesses of their fellow humans, and we become lulled into thinking that somehow this government is better than any other government that's ever existed. While this form of government may be the best form that's ever existed, the human beings that inhabit that form certainly do not take on God like qualities. If anything they take on the qualities of the “other guy” in the good and evil spectrum. The net result is that we have to expect the inevitable return of evil to the national scene, and to think otherwise is worse than naive, it can be fatal to a nation.

What this film is about, is a reminder to the American people about who's really in charge. Is it the FBI, is it the Justice Department, is it the President of the United States? No, it’s the people reading this text, and the people seeing this film, they're the ones that are really in charge. If they forget that, well, somebody else will come along and pick up the reigns of power, and you may not like the results.

The power of the people is the ultimate power and always should be. Mr. Clinton works for us, we do not work for him. Ms. Reno works for us, we do not work for her. And probably most importantly people need to remember, that the FBI agents that were working at Waco, were working for us. They represent all of us. So that's why their behavior is so disturbing, because it directly reflects on each of us as citizens. And in so doing we therefore are all culpable morally, in the Waco tragedy.

What was so important as a film making crew, an investigative unit, and for me personally, was to find the evidence, the truth, the best we could, and present it to the American public. Our job was to find the evidence and present that information to the American public so that THEY could decide whether something should be done further about this incident.

Q: What do you want to see come out of the Danforth investigation?

A: The truth. And justice based on the truth. If criminal offenses were committed by either Federal operatives or the Branch Davidians, I would like to see these people identified, I'd like to see the crimes identified, and the perpetrators prosecuted. If those people are military personnel, or FBI, or Branch Davidians or occupants of the White House, I want lady justice to be as blind as possible. The truth is that important. The American people need to see what actually happened there, even if it is in the ugliest of terms.

And the question that rings in my mind is this: understand I think Timothy McVeigh and his cohorts, did a horrible, evil thing when they blew up the building in Oklahoma City as a response to the Waco issue. However, the question of the government's involvement and wrongdoing still stands in spite of McVeigh's insane actions. And I fear that the biggest danger we face is that the government will try to protect itself by not telling the truth.

If that happens, will there be more people out there that will respond in kind? Those actions may not be justified, or moral, or legal, or in any way appropriate, but the question is how many more opportunities do we want to give the Timothy McVeigh’s of the world to blow up innocent people? By not dealing with the truth, we're inflaming those kinds of radical extremists. Yes, by not telling the truth we inflame them. We, meaning the rest of society and in particular those responsible for the dumbing down, the squashing and compressing, the narrowing of the truth.

Q: How do you want people to perceive this film, what do you want them to remember?

A: Well, I want them to sit and think about not only the particularly horrendous events in the film, but what the impact is on the entire nation, and where we're at as a country. When the people that govern us, could not only do this, but get away with it for six and a half years, what does all that mean?

Because there's a much bigger picture here, and something much more important is at stake. It relates to what kind of a nation we're going to leave our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. This is not just the simple case of a few idiots out on the plains of Texas doing themselves in, that wasn’t what happened there. What happened there was far, far worse than that, with consequences that could be more far reaching than most of us can really understand at this time. The final historical impact of this wake-up call is yet to be understood by the majority of us.

I fear the impact will be far greater than the politicians will admit, than the bureaucrats will admit, or that even a filmmaker can portray. So, how far it will go? I fear it’s a lot larger circumstance than almost anybody can imagine. And it’s important for all of us to pay attention.

People don’t yet see the threat of dumbing down, narrowing, and/or eliminating part of the truth relative to what happened at Waco. There's a good portion of the American public that doesn't understand it yet. But, that's indeed why we made “Waco, A New Revelation”.

Q: Finally, having attained the goal seeing this film introduced to the public, how do you feel personally about being involved?

A: Tired, real tired. I've been banging my head on this brick wall since May of 1993. I hope that the American people will find it worthy of consideration. But you never know about the public, we're a funny group of people all of us, and I'm not sure exactly how the film will be received.

But one of the things I've learned in this process is that there are three major emotions in a human being. Love, hate, and probably the most significant: denial. The power of denial is amazing. American citizens could look at this film and say: oh, I'm sorry, but not OUR government. Because if they admit to seeing the wrong doing, they would have to look at themselves. And when they look at themselves they don’t want to see atrocities committed by their government. They don’t want to admit to that. Denial is extremely strong. But if they don’t admit to seeing it, will it be to their own destruction?

Part I:	The investigators and researchers, the technical experts and the origin of the evidence
Part II:	The evidence lockers & disappearing evidence, the hole in the bunker,
Part III:	The body of Jimmy Riddle, the chain of command, the turning point in the investigation, conclusions