An ATF informant warned of the Oklahoma City bombing months in advance, and the mysterious 'John Doe #2' was never identified

On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people including 19 children. What remains contested nearly three decades later is whether the government had advance warning and whether McVeigh acted alone.

An ATF informant named Carol Howe had infiltrated Elohim City, a white separatist compound in Oklahoma, months before the bombing. In January 1995, Howe filed a report warning that Andreas Strassmeir, a resident of the compound, had discussed destroying a federal building. Her report also noted that Strassmeir had visited the Murrah building itself. Despite this specific intelligence, the report was not acted upon before the attack.

The official response was dismissive. Government agencies maintained that Howe's information was vague and that Strassmeir was merely talking, not planning. After the bombing, federal investigators focused exclusively on McVeigh and his co-conspirator Terry Nichols. The case was presented as a tidy narrative: two men, clear motives, clear evidence.

But eyewitness testimony complicated this narrative. At least a dozen witnesses reported seeing McVeigh with another man, described consistently enough to produce a composite sketch known as "John Doe #2." Gas station attendants, motel clerks, and other observers gave descriptions that didn't match Nichols. The FBI pursued John Doe #2 briefly, generating considerable media attention, then abruptly shut down that line of investigation.

The government's explanation was that witnesses had simply misidentified someone else or that collective memory had created a false composite. No additional suspects were ever charged. The sketch was filed away. John Doe #2 was never found.

Democracy Now! and other investigative outlets have examined this gap between witness statements and official conclusions. While no definitive proof emerged that a third conspirator existed, the lack of aggressive follow-up investigation contrasts sharply with how thoroughly the government pursued other aspects of the case. The sudden pivot away from John Doe #2 raised questions about whether investigators encountered information they chose not to pursue.