I really haven't made up my mind as to his guilt, but I really believe in the adversarial process--something that is lost all too frequently these days.
The Founding Fathers believed that it was the obligation of defense attornies to ensure that prosecutors proved their case. This is different than "proving someone innocent". The OJ trial was a great example. The government spent about TEN TIMES what OJ spent and still his lawyers were able to make the government's case look like swiss cheese. Imagine if that was you on trial. Would you have had the resources to prove Mark Furhman was a liar and a racist? (in order to get the audio tapes, the lawyers had to pay $50,000 and offer even more).
The same situation took place in the last election. It shouldn't have been about anything but putting the process on trial. The Civil Rights Commission in their draft report said that blacks were TEN TIMES more likely to have their votes rejected in Florida. Shouldn't this have been examined rather than people entering government buildings and chanting?
If we give up challenging what we are told and what the status quo is, we risk our freedom. Who will speak up for you if you don't speak up for others.
When they kill McVeigh, it will also kill a little bit of all of our freedom.