Time: Sun Nov 24 07:49:28 1996
To: minutemn@pcl.net (Mike Kemp)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: OKC Discussion
Cc:
Bcc:
Dear Mike,
I am going to be out of my office today,
celebrating the Lord's Day and enjoying
the outdoors on this beautiful fall day.
I should be back in the late afternoon.
Let's touch bases together, okay?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 08:48 AM 11/24/96 -0800, you wrote:
>To All:
> I was asked to forward this anonymously onto the 'net. That is
>not typically my style.
> I have spoken of my minor disagreement with Mike Vanderbroegh and
>the matter of Oklahoma City. I think that there are MANY unexplored *hot
>trails* leading to and from the Murrah Building.
> It is not that Mike isn't on to something. He most assuredly is.
>In point of fact, he and I share a source (at least one). However, Mike
>DOES present this *Aryan connection* to the exclusion of all others. From
>the information I have seen (from the author of the note which follows,
>amongst others) there can not be a definitive conclusion drawn from the
>information that Mike V. has. But Mike seems to draw a definitive
>conclusion, and I think it is too early and still WAY too foggy to go
>*full steam ahead* on any chosen course.
> For that reason I post this *anonymously,* for purposes of
>civilized discussion only. This is only an effort to get to the truth,
>the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
> Since I am the *posting person of record,* comments may be
>addressed to me- good, bad, or ugly. But, folks, let's keep the
>flamethrowers and the napalm held in abeyance this time, ok? Let's talk
>about the issue.
>
>In Liberty,
>Mike Kemp
>
>
> >
>> [begin message]
>>
>> Well,
>>
>> Vanderbeough is at it again. While I appreciate his sense of humor and
>> applaud his efforts, he is, in point of fact, not a professional investigator. He inserted himself into
>> this investigation, and he makes presumptive assertations which are almost
>> as irresponsible as those Bill Cooper puts out. In short, he is not
>> professional.
>>
>> I agree with Vanderbeough on some points, and again, I commend his efforts.
>> But he is sadly lacking in one thing so important to serious researchers:
>> humility. I have seen no humility in any of his writings. I have seen much
>> arrogance though. Enough to give me pause.
>>
>> As to Michele Moore. I have dealt with Michele, and she is not a
>> professional investigator. But as for her book, I have found nothing in it
>> that is off-base in any serious way. Her facts, for the most part, seem to
>> be on the money. In this, her first of a series on Oklahoma, she draws no
>> real conclusions, she simply presents evidence of what went on during the
>> first 48 hours.
>>
>> In terms of professional responsibility, I would say that Vanderbeough is
>> on no higher level than Michele Moore. I think Michele, for who she is, is
>> doing a fine job. The problem is that she's associated with Bill Cooper,
>> and draws from him as a mentor. That is the problem.
>>
>> Vanderbeough comes off like he knows everything (that humility thing
>> again). I seriously doubt he is privy to everything that is involved in the
>> Oklahoma case. Especially when he works full-time elsewhere,
>> while a handful of us are here in Oklahoma interviewing witnesses and
>> working on this full time. Some of us are professionals. And even as such,
>> we have more humility--enough to realize that we certainy don't know
>> everything--than Vanderbeough has as a non-professional. What does that say
>> about Mr. Vanderbeough?
>>
>> I certainly have nothing aagainst Vanderbeough per se. But he has no right
>> to set himself up as an *authority* on the Oklahoma bombing while accusing
>> others who are on a similar level as himself of not having *their* facts
>> straight. Moreover, I am disturbed that he is presenting his conclusions
>> (even if they should turn out to be right) as fact. That is the height of
>> arrogance.
>>
>> I know a lot of facts about the Oklahoma City bombing. More than Mike
>> Vanderbeough will ever know. But I do not consider it responsible to
>> present them in their incipient stages on the Internet. Moreover, I
>> certainly would not attempt to draw definite conclusions from them, and
>> present them as fact as Vanderbeough does.
>>
>> Personally, I think Vanderbeough, is on the right track, for the aspect of
>> the case that he is working on and privy to. But that's it. He doesn't know
>> the rest of the case. He will never know it until someone tells him, because he is not out here spedning 10-12 hours a day, every
>> day, working on it.
>>
>> Have a little humility Mike. And keep up the good work.
>>
>>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail