The jury's decision was based solely on circumstantial evidence, because the prosecution was unable to definitely place McVeigh in Oklahoma City at the time of the bombing. John Zitko, a third-year Law student, has mixed feelings toward the verdict. In terms of direct evidence, McVeigh's involvement is questionable, Zitko said. I think there's some question as to whether he really is guilty or not. However, Robert Precht, a defense attorney in the World Trade Center bombing and director of the Office of Public Service at the University's Law School, said the prosecution's use of indirect evidence is no cause for worry.
Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence.
Matsch, a 1953 University Law School graduate, received praise for the manner in which he conducted the trial. Richard Rohr, a Detroit lawyer, who worked with Matsch on the University Law Review, said Matsch's personality helped keep the trial in proper bounds. I thought his rulings were good and he kept things from becoming a circus. It is nice to see such a superior intelligence at work on the bench. The jury's decision was not made without an emotional toll.