He notes that in the 1970s terrorist organizations were often less focused on killing and carnage than on drawing attention to their causes; in FALN’s case that was support for Puerto Rico’s independence. That led to a theory that perhaps the bomb was meant to go off at 6:30 in the morning when fewer people were likely to be present, not in the busier evening.
Another suspect, Zvonko Busic, drew investigators’ attention after he led a group of Croatian separatists in hijacking a TWA flight in 1976 and told authorities if their demands weren’t met a bomb they’d placed in a locker at Grand Central station would be detonated.
“When the police went to the locker, they found the live bomb and took it to a range to dismantle it, but it went off and killed one policeman and injured another,” Simon, who later interviewed Busic for one of his books, says. “Busic became a main suspect in the LaGuardia bombing because he was responsible for that bomb in that [Grand Central station] locker.”
When asked how he felt knowing he was responsible for a policeman’s death, Busic told Simon he had “great remorse,” but later followed up asking to change his quote to “great sorrow.”
“It was interesting semantics that a terrorist would [differentiate] between remorse and sorrow,” Simon states. “That was why I'm pretty convinced that he and the Croatian separatists were not responsible for the LaGuardia bombing. They would have wanted to advertise their cause.”
Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the LaGuardia bombing is that a similar incident happened at the Los Angeles International Airport the previous year when the Alphabet Bomber set off a bomb there, also in a coin-operated public locker. The bombing killed three people and injured 35 others.
“This was a warning sign to airports everywhere, and other places, to watch out for lockers and have them in secure areas,” Simon suggests. “But a year and a half later in LaGuardia, the lockers in the baggage claim area were still unsecured. There were no security checks, so it was easy for anybody—or any group—to place a bomb there and put a timer on it and wait to see what happens.”
Lack of Investigation Techniques Impacts the Case
“The overall difference between then and now is not just the investigative techniques, it’s more about how the world is so interconnected now,” Kenneth DiBella, who served as an FBI Special Agent with the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force for 11 years, tells A&E Crime + Investigation. “The information renaissance that's taking place right now when it comes to video, audio, GPS technology and everybody carrying a little computer in their back pocket has changed the way investigations happened immensely. What people put out there about themselves gives us these breadcrumbs to be able to follow while they didn't have that in 1975.”
The LaGuardia investigators also lacked access to modern closed-circuit video systems most airports and large cities have today that, in theory, could track someone moving from one location to another throughout the day of an attack.
“[With today’s technology] you could tell how the bomb was made by the materials and the residue and then track some of those materials down to specifics like ‘this was probably this part of the world where they bought it,’” DiBella says, noting that that capability makes it easier to identify which terrorist group is likely involved.
If enough has been DNA preserved from 1975, finding a match would be possible, but that is unlikely in this case. “I couldn't really tell whether DNA samples were being collected or could even be collected in 1975,” DiBella adds, “but sometimes investigators were savvy enough to know, ‘Hey, we should keep these pieces of evidence—maybe someday it will be helpful to us when technology gets better.’”
DiBella, who collaborated closely with state, federal and regional partners on high-priority investigations during his time with the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force, notes today’s investigations tend to be proactive, meaning they identify a threat and stop it before an attack occurs, while the LaGuardia investigation was done in reaction to the bombing. Forensics and eyewitness statements were just about all they had to go on at the time.
“Back then, it was reconstructing the scene and investigating anybody that may be among the dead that may have been a target of whoever set off the bomb,” Simon explains. “The authorities were really baffled and had very little to go on in terms of the technology they could use, and there wasn't an internet where somebody may post a manifesto. If I had to say what type of terrorist would have done this bombing, I would say it was an emotionally disturbed lone wolf.”
