Blood relations: Collective memory, cultural trauma, and the prosecution and execution of timothy McVeigh

• Pages: 75-138
• Date: 01 September 2008
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(08)45003-2
• Published date: 01 September 2008
• Author: Jody Lyneé Madeira

BLOOD RELATIONS: COLLECTIVE

MEMORY, CULTURAL TRAUMA,

AND THE PROSECUTION AND

EXECUTION OF TIMOTHY

MCVEIGH

Jody Lynee

´Madeira

ABSTRACT

Based on interviews with 27 victims’ family members and survivors, this

chapter explores how memory of the Oklahoma City bombing was

constructed through participation in groups formed after the bombing and

participation in the trials of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. It first

addresses the efficacy of a collective memory perspective. It then describes

the mental context in which interviewees joined groups after the bombing,

the recovery functions groups played, and their impact on punishment

expectations. Next, it discusses a media-initiated involuntary relationship

between McVeigh and interviewees. Finally, this chapter examines

execution witnesses’ perceptions of communication with McVeigh in his

trial and execution.

Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Volume 45, 75–138

Copyright r2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1059-4337/doi:10.1016/S1059-4337(08)45003-2

75

1. INTRODUCTION

On April 19, 1995, thousands of pounds of fuel oil and fertilizer brought

down the nine-story Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. A total of 842

persons were injured or killed as a direct result of this tragedy; 168 of

the 842 were killed, 19 of whom were children (Sitterle & Gurwitch, 1999,

p. 163). The blast left 462 homeless and damaged 312 buildings and

businesses (Sitterle & Gurwitch, pp. 163–164). In the weeks and months

following the bombing, several groups emerged and became extraordinarily

active, serving as magnets for community membership and resources;

formative among them were the Oklahoma City National Memorial Task

Force, charged with overseeing the building of the Oklahoma City

National Memorial, and a group comprised of family members and

survivors seeking to shorten the lengthy habeas appeals process so as to

bring peace to victims’ families. In subsequent trials, Timothy McVeigh

and Terry Nichols were indicted and charged with eight counts of first-

degree murder for the deaths of federal officials as well as several other

federal charges, including conspiracy. While McVeigh was convicted in

June 1997 on all counts and sentenced to death, the jury in Nichols’ trial

found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter and conspiracy after

deliberating for 41 hours, failing to reach a unanimous verdict on whether

Nichols planned the bombing ‘‘with the intent to kill.’’ After being

sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, Nichols was tried

and convicted in 2004 of 162 counts for first-degree murder in Oklahoma

state court, but again escaped the death penalty.

The legal aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombing culminated in the

execution of Timothy McVeigh. On June 12, 2001, 232 witnesses – 10 in the

death house at the state penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana and 222 at

a remote viewing location in Oklahoma City – prepared for an event that all

hoped would bring some ending to an unspeakable period in their lives.

Whereas ‘‘live’’ witnesses viewed a side profile of McVeigh, ‘‘remote’’

witnesses observed the closed circuit feed from a camera positioned on the

ceiling directly over McVeigh’s face. Although the remarks of Attorney

General John Ashcroft emphasized ‘‘closure,’’ most witnesses found some

element of the execution disappointing. Sue Ashford, a survivor who

witnessed the execution via closed-circuit transmission, stated ‘‘the man just

went to sleep’’ (Romano, 2001). Paul Howell, another witness, lamented,

‘‘We didn’t get anything from his face. His facial expressions were just about

as calm as they could be’’ (Romano). Larry Whicher said that ‘‘it doesn’t

provide as much as I thought it would’’ (Romano).

JODY LYNEE

´MADEIRA76

Dramatic and tragic deaths are cultural traumas that require explanation.

In their wake, understandings are formed collectively through such

processes as interpersonal discussion and media coverage. ‘‘Interest’’ groups

form in the aftermath of traumatic events to facilitate collective informa-

tion-gathering and mourning. In the context of the Oklahoma City

bombing, memory of the bombing as a culturally traumatic event was

constructed through social processes, and ties formed out of bloodshed that

both helped and hindered family members’ and survivors reconstructions of

meaning. Rapport that developed between members of prominent task-

oriented community groups which formed in the days and weeks after the

bombing was a key source of mnemetic energy, and these bonds were often

felt to be as strong as those of blood kinship. In addition, an involuntary

association between victims’ families and survivors and perpetrators

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols crystallized at 9:02 a.m. on April

19, 1995. If voluntary relationships between members of community groups

were strengthening and constructive ties, then this involuntary victim-

offender relationship was a destructive and confining tie that trussed victims

to the bombing as an event.

To study these relationships, their construction and representative effects,

is to step into a realm where research has yet to shed light. This article

considers how family members and survivors made sense of the bombing

through both group membership and participation in legal proceedings.

Engaging in collective memory work, their responses to the bombing were

shaped by two primary relationships: the positive, healing, unmediated

relationships formed between group members and the negative, destructive,

mediated relationships between family members/survivors and Timothy

McVeigh. Specifically, it poses three research questions. First, in the wake of

collective cultural trauma, what impact, if any, does advocacy group

membership have upon memory? Second, when pursuing accountability for

criminal perpetrators of collective trauma, how do victims’ family members

and survivors negotiate institutional constraints to form perceptions of these

perpetrators and conclusions about the ‘‘meaning’’ of the traumatic event?

Finally, how do victims’ family members and survivors react to the

execution of a criminal perpetrator, and what factors are ‘‘meaningful’’ in

the reactions they have?

In endeavoring to answer these important questions, I conducted in-

depth, face-to-face open-ended interviews with 27 individuals who were

either victims’ family members or survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Throughout this chapter, I refer to these interviewees as research

‘‘participants.’’ This interviewing technique allowed me to conversationally

Blood Relations 77