(Part III)
[This material is copyrighted]
Devvy Kidd
Let's go back to Mr.
Williams for a moment and look at the OIG's own words about the federal
boys
back at their lab:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/fbilab1/08okcity.htm
"In 1995 SSA Frederic
Whitehurst sent the OIG correspondence criticizing members of the Laboratory
for their handling of
the Oklahoma City case. On January 9, 1996, Whitehurst sent the OIG a 30-page
letter criticizing the
September 5, 1995, FBI Laboratory explosives report of SSA David Williams
in that
case. Whitehurst contends
that Williams' report goes beyond Williams' expertise, is biased in favor
of
the prosecution, and
contains unjustified conclusions.
"To investigate Whitehurst's
allegations, we interviewed Whitehurst, Williams, EU Chief J. Thomas
Thurman (who reviewed
and approved Williams' report), Steven Burmeister (a CTU explosives residue
examiner who worked
on the case), James Corby (former MAU Chief), as well as other FBI and
ATF
personnel, some of whom
worked at the scene of the blast. We also submitted written questions to
Roger Martz, the CTU
Chief who worked briefly on the Oklahoma City case. Additionally, we
considered pertinent
FBI documents and applicable literature in the field of explosives.
"As explained below,
we conclude that in his report Williams repeatedly reached conclusions
that incriminated the
defendants without a scientific basis and that were not explained in
the body of the report.
We find fault with other aspects of the report as well. We also
conclude that Thurman
performed an inadequate review of Williams' report by allowing Williams
too
much discretion and
by approving conclusions with which Thurman disagreed and could not support.
Further, we conclude
that Martz improperly deviated from the explosives residue protocol in
his
examination of some
specimens. Finally, we conclude that Whitehurst's numerous other
contentions lack merit.
"For the reasons stated
in our discussion of the World Trade Center case (see Part Three, Section
C,
p.118, supra), Williams'
specific VOD opinion in the Oklahoma City case lacked an adequate scientific
and
empirical basis.
"Williams also stated
in his report that [a] fertilizer base explosive, such as ANFO (ammonium
nitrate
and fuel oil), among
other commercial and improvised explosives, has an approximate VOD of 13,000
fps. Williams thus stated
that the approximate VODs of both the main charge and ANFO were each
13,000 feet per second,
which supported his theory that the main charge was ANFO.
"The statement of the
VOD of ANFO, however, is incomplete because ANFO has a broad VOD range.
For example, the Dupont
Blasters' Handbook (Dupont) shows commercial ANFO products with VODs
in the 7,000-15,600
feet-per-second range. When Williams wrote his Oklahoma City report, he
was
aware of this range:
"OIG: . . . [A]t the
time of the World Trade Center bomb [February 1993], what did you understand
the
velocity of detonation
of ANFO to be?
"AGENT WILLIAMS: About -- about 13,000 feet per second.
"OIG: Okay.
"AGENT WILLIAMS: And that was the average.
'And I did know that
ANFO can function as slow as 8,000 feet per second or slower and as fast
as, if not
faster, than 15,000
feet per second.
'Additionally, Williams'
working hypothesis in the Oklahoma City case was that the ANFO used by
the
perpetrators was not
produced commercially but was rather improvised -- that is, the offenders
mixed
the ammonium nitrate
and diesel fuel themselves. Presumably the quality control of improvisers
would
be inferior to that
of commercial manufacturers. If the ingredients were not combined in the
correct
ratio, the VOD of the
resulting explosive might be reduced. Accordingly, improvised ANFO would
have
at least as broad a
range of VODs as that of commercial ANFO.
"Thus, ANFO can detonate
at a VOD of 13,000 feet per second, but it can also detonate at lower (7,000
feet per second) and
higher (15,600 feet per second) velocities. By only mentioning an ANFO
velocity of
13,000 feet per second,
Williams suggested too strongly that there was an exact match between the
VOD
of ANFO and his reported
VOD of the main charge.
B. Identification of the Explosive
"Williams testified at
his OIG interview that determining that the main charge had a specific
VOD of
13,000 feet per second,
with a tolerance on either side of 1,000 feet per second, did not limit
the main
charge to a specific
explosive. Williams acknowledged that there are a lot of different explosives
in the
range of 12-14,000 feet
per second. Williams also acknowledged that although ammonium nitrate
crystals were found
at the post-blast scene, there are many explosives in the range of 12-14,000
feet per
second that have ammonium
nitrate in them. Nevertheless, Williams concluded in his report ( it is
also
the opinion of this
examiner ) that the main explosive used at Oklahoma City was ANFO. He
acknowledged that he
reached this conclusion, in part, because Terry Nichols, one of the defendants
in the case,
purchased ammonium nitrate
and diesel oil prior to the bombing. Without the evidence of these purchases,
Williams admitted he
would have been unable to conclude that ANFO was used. Indeed, Williams
stated that
based on the post-blast
scene alone [i]t could have been dynamite; I'm suggesting that there could
have been
other things.
"We conclude that it
was inappropriate for Williams to render a categorical opinion in his report
that the
main charge was ANFO.
As discussed with reference to the World Trade Center case, it is
inappropriate for a
forensic Laboratory examiner to identify the main charge based in whole
or in part on
prior knowledge of the
explosive components purchased by a defendant. Such an identification is
not
based on scientific
or technical grounds and appears to tailor the opinion to evidence associated
with the
defendants.
"Moreover, Williams'
report does not mention that the defendant's purchases were the basis of
the ANFO
opinion. The report
is presented as an FBI Laboratory report. It begins with the phrase, Results
of
examination: The reader
is left with the impression that the opinions presented are based on the
scientific
analyses of the FBI
Laboratory. Accordingly, Williams' opinion that the main charge was ANFO
appears to be
based solely on his
technical expertise as an explosives examiner and thus appears to be very
incriminating to
someone (like defendant
Nichols) who allegedly purchased ANFO components before the Oklahoma City
explosion. The opinion
is thus misleading and presents the case in a way most incriminating to
the defendants.
Had Williams explicitly
stated in his report that the ANFO opinion was based on the defendant's
purchases, the opinion
could have been appropriately discounted as a non-expert conclusion that
seeks
to match the characteristics
of the explosion with evidence associated with the defendants.
"As indicated, Williams
told us that the crime scene was consistent with the use of an ammonium
nitrate
dynamite, which could
have had a VOD in the range Williams estimated. The major components of
ammonium nitrate dynamite
(ammonium nitrate and nitroglycerin) were found at the crime scene. A
dynamite wrapper was
also found. Williams' report, however, fails to address the possibility
that the
main charge consisted
of dynamite, which an objective report would explicitly have discussed.
"We conclude that Williams'
categorical conclusion that the main charge was ANFO was not scientifically
justified and was based
on improper grounds.
C. Weight of the Explosive
"We question the basis
for Williams' conclusion that the weight of the main charge was approximately
4000
pounds of ANFO.
"As discussed in the
section on the World Trade Center (see Part Three, Section C, pp. 132-134,
supra),
Williams' method of
determining weight is impressionistic and depends on his VOD estimate,
which is itself
speculative. As noted
in that section, other members of the EU do not routinely estimate the
quantity of
the explosive from a
damage assessment because the placement and confinement of the explosive
have a
significant effect on
the amount of the damage. Nevertheless, we concluded in the Trade Center
case
that Williams' size
estimate of 1,000-1,500 pounds, which he characterized as a ballpark figure,
was not,
as such, an unreasonable
opinion because he offered such a broad range.
"With respect to the
weight of the explosive, Williams' Oklahoma City report differs from his
trial
testimony in the Trade
Center case in two respects. First, the Oklahoma City report does not offer
a
broad range but limits
the estimate to approximately 4000 pounds of ANFO.
"Second, it appears that
Williams' opinion was based in part on the recovery of receipts showing
that
defendant Nichols purchased
4,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate. Williams testified at the OIG
interview:
"OIG: . . . [Y]our conclusion as to 4,000 pounds, is that based on your observations at
the crime scene?
"AGENT WILLIAMS: Within this report, yes, it is.
"OIG: That's not based
on the searches or anything? Your conclusion as to 4,000 pounds, is that
based on
anything that was recovered
in the searches or receipts or what they ordered?
"AGENT WILLIAMS: Yes,
it is. . . . It's not solely based -- my estimate of 4,000 pounds is not
solely
based on the receipts.
By looking at the crime scene, the crater, looking at this Conwep program[]
and
such, all of these things
suggest that by the crater size and by the crater size alone with Conwep
suggest
4,000 pounds.
"By other things, including
the crater size, the blast damage, breakage, building damage, I can estimate
it's
approximately 4,000
pounds.
"Saying that his 4,000
pound estimate is not solely based on the receipts implies that the opinion
was
based on the receipts
in part. To this extent, the opinion was flawed for the same reason Williams'
ANFO opinion was flawed
because it was based on the receipts. Moreover, if Williams' opinion was
based, in part, on the
receipts, his report should have said so.
"We conclude that Williams'
weight estimate was flawed because it was more specific than warranted
by
the application of the
forensic science and because it was based in part on collateral sources
unrelated to
laboratory or crime
scene observations.
D. Other Conclusions Concerning the Explosive Device
"Several other conclusions
in Williams' report were overstated and conformed to evidence associated
with
the defendants.
1. The report concludes
that [t]he explosive main charge was contained in 50 gallon size white
plastic
barrels and white plastic
barrels with blue plastic trim. Recovered at the blast site were white,
blue, and
black plastic fragments.
Williams testified at the OIG interview that these fragments showed very
unique
explosive damage. Assuming
the pieces were from a plastic barrel, [y]ou could tell the inside as compared
to
the outside of the barrel
[fragments]. And in many cases, you could see that the explosive force
came
from inside to outside
of the barrels. According to the AE dictation, the markings on one of these
plastic
fragments are similar
to markings on 50 gallon size white plastic barrels and white plastic barrels
with
blue plastic trim recovered
at defendant Nichols' residence.
"We think it is unwarranted
to render a categorical conclusion that the main charge was contained in
plastic
barrels of the same
description as those found at Nichols' residence. First, Williams assumed
that the main
charge was ANFO, which
would need containers for transport or storage. As explained above, the
conclusion that the
main charge was definitely ANFO was unwarranted. Second, since the Laboratory
apparently has not made
measurements such as the radius of curvature of the fragments (assuming
they
came from containers),
it is virtually impossible to know that the containers definitely were
50 gallon barrels
that were white or white
with blue trim.
"We conclude that Williams
lacked a proper basis to state categorically that the main charge was contained
in
50 gallon size plastic
barrels of the description of those found at Nichols' house.
2. Williams' report states
that [t]he initiator for the booster(s) was either a detonator from a Primadet
Delay system or sensitized
detonating cord. Primadet systems were found at defendant Nichols' house
and an accomplice's
house. Detonating cord normally contains PETN, which laboratory examinations
associated with defendant
McVeigh. No evidence of a Primadet system or sensitized detonating cord
was
found at the crime scene.
As Williams told us at his OIG interview, the device used in the bombing
is
consistent with a Primadet
system or detonating cord. I can't say yes and I can't say no. EU Chief
Thurman
told us in his interview
that the appropriate conclusion was that the Primadet system or sensitized
detonating cord could
have been used. We conclude that it was improper for Williams to render
a
categorical conclusion
identifying the initiator for the booster.
3. Williams' report also
states that [t]he initiator for the primadet or the detonating cord was
a non
electric detonator;
[n]on electric, burning type fuse of either hobby fuse or a commercial
safety fuse was
used as a safe separation
and time delay system; and [t]he time delay for the burning fuse was
approximately 2 minutes
and 15 seconds. Evidence linked the defendants to a burglary in which
non-electric detonators
were taken, and the named fuses were found at locations associated with
the
defendants. No evidence
of a non-electric detonator or the named fuses, however, were found at
the
crime scene. Williams'
conclusions were based in part on a videotape showing a Ryder truck appear
near
the Murrah Federal Building
2 minutes, 15 seconds before the explosion. Based on the tape, Williams
posited that a 3 foot
burning fuse was used, which he said would correlate with 2 minutes, 15
seconds.
"We find that Williams'
conclusions are overstated. The scenario he posits is one of many possibilities.
For example, as acknowledged
by Thurman, the initiator could have been electric, and the fuses named
in
the report were possibilities
but not the only ones. Further, there could have been a longer time delay
that was initiated before
the truck appeared in the video.
"Williams also stated
in the OIG interview that his conclusion that the bomber used a 3' foot
fuse was
based on his assumption
that the perpetrator had a military background. (Both defendants have military
backgrounds.) It was
improper for Williams to make that assumption unless he could do so based
on the
scientific evidence,
and there is nothing in his report suggesting that the evidence indicates
that the blast was
perpetrated by someone
with a military background.
"We conclude that the categorical conclusions discussed above were inappropriate.
"We think it is unwarranted
to render a categorical conclusion that the main ingredient
was ANFO.
"We conclude that Williams'
categorical conclusion that the main charge was ANFO was
not scientifically justified
and was based on improper grounds.
"Williams reproduced
this passage verbatim in a report issued before his September 5, 1995,
explosives
report. But in the September
5th report Williams stated as follows: Traces of PETN were located on
specimen Q18, however
could not be confirmed. This statement comes in the section of Williams'
report
dealing with the booster
used in the explosion, and the report states that a booster can take the
form of
several different high
explosives including PETN.
"The statement [t]races
of PETN were located on specimen Q18, however could not be confirmed is
internally inconsistent
and nonsensical. Confirmation is a prerequisite for a determination that
a
substance is located
on an exhibit. Without confirmation of PETN, the exact identity of the
traces on
Q18 is unknown. Because
there was no confirmation here, the report should not have said that traces
of
PETN were located on
specimen Q18."
More: http://www.cnn.com/US/9705/27/mcveigh.final/
McVeigh Defense Ready to Wrap It Up
Latest developments:
Whitehurst criticizes work of FBI colleagues
British expert criticizes evidence handling
May 27, 1997
DENVER (CNN) -- FBI whistle-blower
Fredric Whitehurst on Tuesday contradicted testimony about a
truck fragment used
as evidence against accused bomber Timothy McVeigh.
"Whitehurst, a chemist,
said he was "not sure I can agree" that ammonium nitrate crystals were
found on
the fragment because
rain on the day of the bombing would have dissolved them.
"Whitehurst's testimony
was the strongest the defense has offered from about two dozen witnesses
in
the three days since
it began presenting its case. The defense is expected to rest Wednesday.
"It's really not much
to offer in a case of this magnitude," said legal analyst Andrew Cohen.
"With so
many millions spent
in taxpayer dollars on the defense, three days isn't really much. It could
send a signal
to the jury that they're
giving up."
Whitehurst criticizes work of FBI colleagues
"Whitehurst admitted
he first thought the ammonium nitrate finding by FBI chemist Steven Burmeister
was "brilliant." But
he said he later changed his mind after considering the rain.
"There's some data missing
that I find an enigma -- that the crystal survived in a 100 percent humidity
situation," he said.
"I don't know how that could have happened."
"The prosecution used
the truck panel shard evidence in its case. FBI chemist Ron Kelly testified
earlier
this month that he personally
removed it from a parking lot across the street from the scene of the
bombing.
"I don't think that at
that time Mr. Kelly had the hands-on experience to understand the implications
of
what he was doing,"
Whitehurst said. "I think he could make mistakes without realizing it."
"Although Kelly took
credit for finding the evidence, Whitehurst said he was told by FBI explosives
unit
examiner David Williams
that "a civilian brought it in. We've got a problem with the chain of custody
so
we're not going to use
it."
"Williams, recommended
for censure in a Justice Department report that criticized the FBI lab,
testified
Tuesday that he didn't
remember the conversation with Whitehurst.
"Whitehurst said his
concerns about the crime lab prompted him to conduct contamination tests
in its
receiving area in May
1995.
"He said he found traces
of the explosives residue PETN in the lab. PETN was allegedly found on
McVeigh's clothing and
earplugs. The defense is suggesting the evidence may have been contaminated
with PETN in the lab
itself.
British expert criticizes evidence handling
"Next on the stand, British forensic scientist John Lloyd criticized the handling of key McVeigh evidence.
"It is not forensically
sound," Lloyd said, explaining that McVeigh's clothes were packed in paper
and
plastic, both of which
can be penetrated by explosive residues. Nylon film bags, metal foil-lined
bags or
paint cans are preferable,
he said.
"The defense has tried
to show the clothes, in a box placed on the floor of the lab, could have
been
contaminated with explosive
residue from people's feet. Theoretically, it could then have been spread
to
the table and onto the
evidence.
"Lloyd agreed with that
assessment, saying without controls for contamination, none of the evidence
should be trusted.
"Matsch did not allow
testimony from former ATF informant Carol Howe because it lacked "relevance
to McVeigh's case and
could confuse or mislead the jury." Howe reportedly has said she turned
over
recordings and information
to authorities four months before the federal building explosion that a
bombing could occur
in 15 U.S. cities."
The FBI ended up paying
Frederick Whitehurst $1.1 million dollars of your money to settle Whitehurst's
claim against the FBI.
Do you think they ponied up those kinda bucks just to make him go away?
I do. He
already proved what
a bunch of incompetent scallywags these people are, it was best to pay
up and shoo
him away.
What would you have thought
about all this if you were a juror serving at McVeigh's trial? Does anyone
really know how much
fertilizer is alleged to have been in that Ryder truck based on this kind
of junk science
and deliberately tailoring
the evidence to go against the defendants who are supposed to enjoy the
presumption
of innocence? Frederick
Whitehurst did testify at McVeigh's trial:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/okc.trial/transcripts/may/052797.am.txt
There is one other segment in this OIG report that defies logic based on evidence:
"2. Whitehurst questions
Williams' conclusion that none of the structural damage evident within
the
Murrah building was
caused by secondary explosive devices or explosions. Whitehurst asserts
that
Williams cannot test
his hypothesis unless he rebuilds the Murrah building and explodes it again
with
secondary charges to
see whether the damage is different. We reject Whitehurst's assertion that
the
Murrah building must
be rebuilt and destroyed again in order to render a valid opinion about
secondary
explosive devices. We
find reasonable support for Williams' opinion. This included the failure
to find
damage consistent with
another seat of an explosion and the opinions of seismologists who
concluded that there
was a single blast with ancillary or auxiliary blast effects traveling
surface and subsurface."
That final statement
above is a lie. The seismology graphs and charts show at least two explosions,
approximately ten seconds
apart. The feds massaged the truth, as usual, in order to mislead people.
The
truth is in the actual
graphs and charts. The feds know it and so millions of us out there who
have
bothered to look at
key pieces of clues.
Frederick Whitehurst
sent a letter on January 9, 1996 criticizing members of the Laboratory
for their
handling of the Oklahoma
City case. The OIG's report was released in April 1997. McVeigh's trial
began
April 24, 1997. This
whole deal makes me ill.
Recently a man by the
name of Michael Salvati of Massachusetts was released after spending 30
years in
prison for allegedly
murdering a man in 1965. How come? Because our good law enforcement folks
at the
FBI had suppressed evidence
that would of cleared this man. 30 years of his life down the tubes because
of
corrupt individuals
acting under the authority of the color of law.
You have read the caliber
of work that has been sending defendants to prison and in some cases, the
death penalty. The government's
solution, and you can read about this in the trial transcripts, was to
bring in an expert from
Great Britain by the name of Linda Jones. Damage control at all costs.
It galls me to
have to pay taxes for
paychecks to these kinds of incompetent and obviously dishonest, corrupt
individuals. Anyone
else would have been fired or indictment. In government, you get promoted.
While I have not studied
the Terry Nichols case as closely as I have McVeigh's, his conviction is
based
upon his participation
in the building of the bomb that killed the building. Everything hinges
on what killed
the building, because
whatever killed the building, also caused the deaths of 168 people and
changed
thousands of lives forever.
Not too surprising, his attorneys are also having a difficult time with
the FBI:
Nichols' Team Wants More Access to Reports
2001-03-21
By Nolan Clay/Staff Writer
The Oklahoman
"Terry Nichols' judge
heard defense complaints Tuesday about lack of access to federal witnesses
and
missing FBI reports.
"This is a problem," attorney Barbara Bergman said at a hearing in the Oklahoma County jail.
"Nichols, 45, is facing
a state murder case over the Oklahoma City bombing. He was convicted at
his
federal trial of the
bombing conspiracy.
"District Judge Ray Dean Linder will continue the hearing at 9 a.m. today.
"Nichols wants the judge
to throw out his state murder charge as unconstitutional. His attorneys
argue
federal and state prosecutors
cooperated too closely to permit two trials.
"Attorneys sought to
question former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, former Oklahoma City
U.S.
Attorney Pat Ryan and
FBI agents about the cooperation. The judge, however, refused to allow
them to be
subpoenaed.
"Attorneys did get to
question Sean Connelly, one of Nichols' federal prosecutors. He testified
voluntarily.
"But the attorneys complained
the U.S. Justice Department is restricting their access to other federal
witnesses.
"They said they haven't
even gotten permission to interview former FBI scientist Frederic Whitehurst,
who disputes the official
conclusion about the ingredients of the bomb.
"Defense attorneys also
said they know of witnesses who spoke to FBI agents, but no reports can
be
found.
"Among their examples was Debra Kay Kelley of Midwest City.
"She said she told two
FBI agents she was almost hit by a speeding brown pickup in downtown
Oklahoma City seconds
after the bombing. Bergman said no record of that interview exists.
"Defense attorneys also
told the judge the FBI refused to accept information that could have cleared
Nichols.
"As an example, they
put on testimony from former television reporter Jayna Davis, who could
not get
the FBI to accept her
files on possible suspects."
This man could get the
death penalty in the State of Oklahoma. He's there in county jail right
now
awaiting trial. Why
is the judge restricting his access to key law enforcement?
More reports that existed
at one time, held by the FBI, suddenly no longer exist? Why would the
government fight so
hard to keep Frederick Whitehurst off the stand? If they are so sure about
their
forensic conclusions
about the bomb, why are they so afraid to put one of their former staff
members on the
stand?
Why? Because their entire
cases against McVeigh and Nichols rest on the truck bomb. They know it's
a flimsy
house of cards, so do
I. The FBI refused to accept information that would have exonerated Nichols?
Doesn't this sound like
the Stella Nickell case? How many more? Think this can't happen to you?
It is my opinion that
none of the testimony from the FBI on the McVeigh or Nichols cases should
be
considered. Their own
inspector general has stated firmly, succinctly and in no uncertain terms
that these
agents who worked these
cases lied, they tailored the evidence to reflect as badly on the defendants
as
possible and guessed
at the amount of fertilizer used, as well as guessed what kind of bomb
was allegedly
used. How could any
jury in this land give an ounce of credence to any of the findings or testimony
offered up by
such a corrupt crime
laboratory?
I can't and will not.
Yes, it is the OKC bombing trial we're talking about here. Does that mean
that we
should simply put aside
the corruption and lies for this case and let stand this kind of lawlessness
just to
convict McVeigh and
Nichols? Every life is precious whether the life was lost at OKC or someplace
else.
Yes, we want to catch
every person who commits murders and see them prosecuted to the fullest
extent
of the law and that
includes OKC. But, this grotesque evidence manipulation by that lab can
only be
called obscene and it's
the work of these FBI lab personnel that have sent people to prison and
McVeigh
to his death.
I would also point out something that I believe is important in finding out:
Lou Hupp testified on
April 29, 1997 for the prosecution. He works fingerprints for the FBI.
He took a
full set from McVeigh.
I would give a lot to compare those fingerprints with the fingerprints
taken from
Timothy James McVeigh
when he joined the U.S. Army, when he was arrested, when he was transferred
to the SuperMax federal
facility out in Florence, CO., and then finally, Terra Haute. I would give
a lot to
have all these prints
compared by an independent lab that has no ties to the U.S. government
in any way.
You should also go and
look at the photos of the Murrah Building before the bombing. This will
give you
a good idea of what
the building and surrounding area looked like before the bombing. It will
also help to
reinforce the obvious
visual confirmation that all the debris is blown from inside the building
outward
and not the other way
around:
http://www.fireprograms.okstate.edu/OCFD/jpeg/mur0_lg.jpg
http://www.oklahoman.com/opub/bombing/photo_html/75.html
Despite all the testimony
during the trial about the crime scene, the real weapons of mass destruction,
the charges placed inside
on specific columns, was completely ignored and serious attempts were made
to
deflect any real inquiry
into this area. The government immediately focused on a truck that allegedly
was
rented by the defendant
and they never deviated from that path. The government's case was
circumstantial and flimsy
at best, however, you, as the juror, may find differently.
On March 25, 1997, McVeigh's
legal team filed a Write of Mandamus Of Petitioner- Defendant, Timothy
James McVeigh and Brief
in Support.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mcveigh/part01.htm
At the beginning we read:
"I. INTRODUCTION.
The Government of the
United States is hiding from the defense and the trial court evidence and
information that the
government had a prior warning that the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
in
Oklahoma City (and possibly
federal property in Tulsa) was very likely a target of a terrorist attack
on or
about April 19, 1995.
This information came
to the government from a variety of sources, including Carol Howe, a paid
ATF
informant for about
6 months, who infiltrated Eloim City and the Christian Identity Movement
and who
provided specific information
prior to April 19, 1995, that an illegal German national, the grandson
of
one of the founders
of the German Nazi Party, proposed to bomb federal buildings and installations
and
engage in mass murder.
Information also came to the government through foreign intelligence services
in
the Middle East and
from the government's own assets that an attack was being planned on the
"heartland" of America.
The government responded to part of these warnings by conducting a superficial
security examination
of the federal building complex in Oklahoma
City on the early morning hours of April 19, 1995.[1]
---------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Several witnesses
interviewed by ABC News 20/20, including an attorney and a private process
server, among others,
claim to have seen law enforcement using sniffer dogs, as well as a "bomb
disposal" or "bomb squad"
unit truck near the Murrah Building in the early morning hours of April
19,
1995, shortly before
the bombing. See attached Exhibit "D" (transcript of ABC News 20/20 broadcast,
January 17, 1997). Oklahoma
County Sheriff J.D.
Sharp denied the presence
of the Oklahoma County bomb squad truck, telling local media on the record
that the county bomb
truck was ten miles away from downtown and nowhere near the country
courthouse. See attached
Exhibit "E."
However, the County Sheriff's
office later stated that the bomb squad unit was in fact in downtown
Oklahoma City the morning
of the bombing for a routine training exercise. See attached Exhibit "H."
This information was
confirmed to the defense through discovery. See exhibits "J" and "K" The
presence
of the bomb squad truck
was commented on by several other persons and mentioned in a business
newsletter of one downtown
Oklahoma City business. See attached Exhibit "F';; see also Exhibit "G"
(news account of witness
in Oklahoma City who recalled that, "The day was fine, everything was normal
when I arrived at 7:45
to begin my day at 8:00 a.m., but as I walked through my building's parking
lot, I
remember seeing a bomb
squad.")
---------------------------------------
But rather than admit
that it acted, no matter how superficially or limited on this information,
the
government has chosen
to deny, and maybe even withholding from the chief prosecutor, evidence
of this
prior warning from an
informant it deemed reliable because she regularly passed polygraph tests.
The
defense has repeatedly
sought by letter, motion, argument in
chambers and in open
court, detailed information which it knows the government has.
The district court has
repeatedly advised the government, both in published opinions and in judicial
statements, of the government's
duty. The government has claimed it understood its duty. We submit the
government has affirmatively
misled the district court repeatedly on this subject, through prosecutors
who may or may not know
the truth. The government, in short, is stonewalling. The Defendant has
made
a sufficient showing
below for a judicial order compelling the FBI, the Department of Justice,
ATF,
Department of State,
the National Security Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency to produce
information to support
the Defendant's claims which are a material part of his defense.
Timothy McVeigh's defense
is that (1) he did not rent the Ryder truck (2) he did not assemble a bomb
at
Geary Lake State Park
(3) he did not drive the Ryder truck to Oklahoma City, and (4) he did not
detonate the bomb. There
is a lack of credible government evidence to convince any fair-minded jury
beyond a reasonable
doubt that he did in fact do these things, and there is
credible testimony and
evidence known to the government and the defense which impeaches each of
the
government's claims
down to and including who rented the truck the number of conspirators,
where the
bomb was assembled,
and who left the truck after parking it in front of the Murrah Building.
The
information which will
help to establish Mr. McVeigh's innocence in front of the jury, particularly
in light
of the recent bizarre
disclosures by two thieves[2] masquerading as journalists, is uniquely
in the hands of
the government."
In Jones' opening statement
during McVeigh's sentencing, he said very emphatically that McVeigh did
this
horrible thing, no question.
Funny how lawyers work sometimes. This guy Jones spends all this energy
and $10 million bucks
of our money putting on the weakest defense you can imagine trying to convince
everyone his client
kinda, sorta didn't do it and then, wham! In his eloquence, his client
did it, but please
spare his life. This
leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
In the trial transcripts
on April 29, 1997, you will read testimony from Clark Anderson, brought
in from
Florida and who represented
Ryder, that the theft of commercial trucks each year runs as high as 50%.
I
would draw your attention
at this time to an odd picture taken by a pilot that I believe is too afraid
to
come forward:
http://www.devvy.com/trucks.html
This area is allegedly
close to Oklahoma City. There are individuals who know who the pilot is
and he
should have been subpoenaed
and required to bring all his pictures with him.
You will read in the
trial transcripts the conflicting information and time tables about McVeigh
and
Nichols being at Hardy
Lake building this big bomb. Very flimsy. But, this was a very high-profile
case. By
the time it came to
trial, the government had already spent $50 million dollars. The g-men
had their guy
and that was going to
be that. Very much like Bruno Hauptmann and the Lindberg kidnaping.
After studying and reading
that case, including application of advanced science, this guy was a patsy,
set
up from the git-go.
He was a German who spoke poor English. Anti-German sentiment was running
high
in America during this
time period. The Lindberg's were very popular. Very high profile case.
Grab
Hauptmann. Execute Hauptmann.
Case closed. But it isn't and I have my own theory as to why that
particular baby was
snatched and murdered and it had everything to do with the baby's grand
dad. But, I
get off course here
and I apologize. If you are interested in that case, you may read about
it at:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Hauptmann/Hauptmann.htm
This concludes the segment
on the weapon of mass destruction. It is the key to this mystery. Where
are
the bombs taken out
of the building? Can anyone say with absolute certainty that a Ryder truck
bomb
blew off the front of
that building and did such incredible damage to the surrounding area? Only
the
government and their
various agencies. Any other qualified experts are surely members of the
vast
right-wing conspiracy
and their opinions were neither welcomed nor wanted. Reprehensible.
Now I ask you this, not
to prove Timothy James McVeigh innocent, but because it must be asked if
you
the jury are going to
deliberate and come to any conclusions about the crime scene. I ask you
this
because every defendant
is supposed to be given the presumption of innocence.
Who killed the Murrah Building? The Ryder truck or bombs inside the building?
If a man walks up to
a corpse and puts a bullet through the dead, what is the crime? There is
none
because the person is
already dead.
Now, did the truck bomb,
if the yellow Ryder truck seen in front of the building did indeed contain
an
ANFO bomb, blow up first
and then ten seconds later, the bombs in the building went off?
The proof is available
regarding multiple blasts recorded on seismology graphs. If indeed this
truck was a
bomb and it exploded
first, even though the evidence is overwhelming that it could not have
done that
level of damage to the
building, is McVeigh guilty of killing 168 people?
If the building blew
first and the truck second, assuming there was a bomb inside, then McVeigh
did not
use a weapon of mass
destruction. Please set aside his so-called confessions for this moment.
We are
dealing only with science
here.
This raises another interesting question:
If there was this truck
bomb and it went off and you had bombs in the building that went off, either
way,
one or the other first
- wouldn't someone have to have been watching the building to hit the switch
on
the devices inside the
building? Please remember the affidavit on the video, Cover-Up in Oklahoma
City, by
survivor Jane Graham.
She observed two men in the basement of the building the day before the
bombing
fooling with wiring;
they took off as she walked towards them. Also recall the following covered
in prior
posts:
"During the twelve months
preceding the bombing, at a secret range in the New Mexico desert, ANFO
explosives experts constructed
and destroyed at least eight vehicles in test bombing experiments. The
"vehicle bomb expert"
is none other than Special Agent Harry Everhart, an employee of the Bureau
of
Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms [ATF].
"Amazingly, and just
another government coincidence, Agent Everhart was one of the first to
report the
bombing. This was confirmed
by the Department of Treasury that Everhart called the ATF office in
Dallas on his cellular
phone around 9:20 am.
"Agent Everhart was based
out of the ATF's OKC Resident Agency, serves on the National Response
Team (NRT), which is
a group of experienced bomb and arson investigators who respond to major
bombing crime scenes
in the U.S. It has also been confirmed that Everhart served on a secret
government
project in 1994 that
conducted ANFO testing and C-4, to blow up cars and vans in a government
experiment known as
"Project Dipole Might" - only a year before the bombing. This project,
also
coincidentally, was
initiated under Bill Clinton's NSC White House staff shortly after he took
office in
1993. This report, released
under a FOIA [Freedom of information Act request."
It seems we have another
coincidence: ATF Agent Everhart just happened to be standing near the Murrah
building when the bombs
went off and phoned in the bombing to the FBI, along with the information
that
it was an ammonia nitrate
truck bomb. How did he know this before anyone else on site did?
The FBI lab concluded
that the bomb was contained in plastic barrels found at Nichol's farm.
We recall
that a witness testified
that blue plastic containers were around the Murrah Building for trash
collection.
The FBI lab overstated
the weight of ingredients. Why? To make them fit the testimony of witnesses
regarding the purchase
of fertilizer and attempted purchase of racing fuel. How would you like
to be the
target of this kind
of "justice?"
When investigators look
at a crime they try to determine motive and opportunity. First you look
at the
crime scene and the
building itself tells the truth. The question is did this Ryder truck parked
in front of
the Murrah building
really have an ANFO bomb in it?
It my is opinion from
studying the photos I have provided you in prior posts, that the first
decoy bomb
went off across the
street in the Southwestern Bell Building parking lot. The next series was
from inside
the Murrah Building.
However, this is just my opinion, you have to make up your own mind.
Remember Hoppy Heidelberg
says that based on everything presented while he was foreman of the
original federal grand
jury that indicted McVeigh and Nichols -- there had to be two yellow Ryder
trucks
in OKC that morning
for the government's story to work.
The indictment against
McVeigh and Nichols was not only for delivering this weapon of mass
destruction, but for
conspiracy in the deaths of federal employees. I have consulted with Larry
Becraft
about culpability regarding
conspiracy since he has more than 20 years in trying cases in federal court.
He
stated that anyone involved,
pulling the trigger or just driving the car is, equally guilty under federal
law.
The question still remains: What was in this yellow Ryder truck and who was driving?
What was the sequence of explosions?
Which came first?
The other question that
must be challenged in a court of law is the constitutionality of the feds
bringing
charges in this type
of state murder case, even when loss of life includes federal agents.
The OIG concluded that
Agent Williams used incorrect conclusions when he decided it was ANFO.
In
other words, the ANFO
bomb that grew from 1200# from the time of the bombing to 4800# by trial
time - may not have
actually been ANFO after all. This changes the entire scope of evidence
and destroys the
government's case, at
least in my opinion.
Please recall the testimony
of Chief Mike Shannon and the clock face that was found and mistaken for
a
bomb inside the building.
Let's look at this a moment. For the sake of argument, and I don't believe
for a
second that trained,
highly qualified personnel wouldn't be able to recognize the difference
between a
bomb and a clock face,
that no other explosive devices were found in the building. It was all
just a
mistake. We are still
faced with the problem of what killed the building: internally placed devices
or a truck
bomb parked out front?
Let us say for the sake
of argument that there were one, two or possibly three more bombs in the
building as so much
of the film and witnesses indicates, does this make a difference? We can
again use the
corpse example. A corpse
had a bullet hole in the head. Laying on top of the prone corpse are two
bullets, not spent shell
casings, but whole, unfired bullets. Now, the unfired, unspent bullets,
while
valuable pieces of evidence,
didn't cause death, the bullet that went into the head did and that's where
you focus. It is no
different with this multiple bomb problem.
This concludes my segment
on the crime scene and the weapon of mass destruction. I would like you
to
weigh everything you've
seen and read, both in my prior posts and from the court transcripts.
As the defense in this
closing argument, I submit to you at this time that any reasonable person
would not
be able to reach a decision
without knowing definitively whether or not the yellow Ryder truck parked
in front of the building
did actually contain bomb materials.
I submit to you that
any reasonable person would come to the inescapable conclusion that the
government, specifically
the FBI, lied, falsified and twisted evidence to convict the defendants
in custody.
I further submit to you
that the weapons of mass destruction that did the actual damage and resulted
in
the deaths of 168 Americans,
over 500 injuries and destroyed the lives of thousands, was charges placed
on the columns inside
the building, not a yellow Ryder truck.
The crime scene, specifically
the building, is and always has been the key, not the truck. I rest on
this
point.
Opportunity
This obviously is so
very critical. Let us travel back in time and take a look at witnesses
who could place
McVeigh at the scene
of the crime:
February 16, 1997
Web posted at: 9:30 p.m. EST
From Correspondent Tony Clark
DENVER (CNN) -- The only
remaining eyewitness who might place Timothy McVeigh at the Oklahoma
City bombing scene has
been dropped from the case, CNN has learned.
One by one, each of the
eyewitnesses the FBI said it had to link McVeigh to the bombing scene where
168 died is fading away.
Now, there are none. There was one more witness that you would think the
feds would have called:
Germaine Johnston. She testified in Carol Howe's trial but I did not see
her name
on the witness list
or transcripts in McVeigh's trial. She was injured in the bombing, you
will read more
about her testimony
in Part IV. She testified she spoke with McVeigh after the bombing. Why
didn't the
government call her
as a witness in McVeigh's trial? They desperately needed someone to testify
that
they could place McVeigh
there. Why was she not called to the stand and put under oath?
The first witness to
disappear was a driver who the FBI said recognized a composite sketch of
McVeigh
shown on television
as the man he had seen walking away from a Ryder truck in front of the
federal
building.
That witness could not
pick McVeigh out of a police lineup held shortly after his arrest, CNN
has
learned.
Story Not Credible
The next to go was a
witness who said he saw McVeigh speeding away from the scene. The FBI decided
that story was not quite
believable.
On the eyewitness list
submitted for the trial: One man from the scene, a passing motorist, William
Dunlap. The prosecution
quoted him as saying he saw a man standing behind the bomb truck and thought
it was McVeigh.
But he wasn't sure. CNN has been told the prosecution now has taken Dunlap off its list.
The prosecution did not
say why it had removed Dunlap, but CNN has learned prosecutors never asked
Dunlap to identify McVeigh
in a police lineup.
The loss of Dunlap leaves
the government with no one to place McVeigh at the scene of the crime.
And
such a setback could
prove costly to the prosecution, which has seen more and more of its evidence
evaporate before it
ever gets to trial.
"I think it's an important
element of our case that the government, after all of this publicity, has
decided
not to call a single
person from Oklahoma City who can positively identify Tim McVeigh," said
Stephen
Jones, McVeigh's attorney.
Junction City Witness Under Fire
Next to come under attack
are the eyewitnesses at a Ryder office in Junction City, Kansas, where
the
bomb truck had been
rented.
The owner and a mechanic
identified McVeigh as the man who rented the truck that carried the bomb,
but McVeigh's attorney
contends the FBI botched the identification process. Both men have identified
McVeigh as the man who
rented the truck with a phony driver's license. However, there are
discrepancies in what
they remember and how many men they saw that day.
The two are scheduled
to appear at a hearing Tuesday in Denver to decide whether they can testify
in
the trial. The defense
is challenging a half-dozen prosecution witnesses.
CNN has learned the mechanic
who helped the FBI prepare a sketch of the suspect has troubles of his
own, having been arrested
several times recently.
The only witness to take
the stand to try to place McVeigh near the bomb scene will be a gas station
attendant from a truck
stop about 80 miles north of Oklahoma City. That witness has identified
McVeigh
as the man who paid
cash to buy gas for a Ryder truck sometime after 1 a.m. on the morning
of the
bombing. However, CNN
has been told, that witness once filed a compensation claim for blurred
vision."
CNN was right for once. These folks did not take the witness stand.
July 15, 1997
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Oklahoma
County grand jurors heard from two conflicting witnesses Monday
who claim they spotted
Timothy McVeigh just before the Oklahoma City bombing. One says the
convicted bomber was
driving a car and the other claims he was a passenger in a Ryder truck.
The two reported sightings
-- one by banker Kyle Hunt and the other by warehouse worker David
Snider -- occurred just
two minutes apart and only blocks away from each other.
Hunt and Snider were
the first two witnesses to testify before a six-woman, six-man grand jury
investigating the April
19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. The blast resulted
in
168 deaths. McVeigh,
29, a Gulf War veteran, was found guilty in a Denver federal court June
2 of
blowing up the building
with a fertilizer bomb in a Ryder truck. He has been sentenced to death.
The grand jury was convened
June 30 after state Rep. Charles Key and Glenn Wilburn, an Oklahoma
City accountant who
lost two grandsons in the blast, were successful in collecting enough signatures
on
an initiative petition
to call for another inquiry.
Six people were subpoenaed
last week to testify before the grand jury. A seventh witness was asked
Monday to appear this
week before the panel, The Daily Oklahoman has learned.
Gary Lewis, a printer
working for the Journal Record newspaper the day of the blast, has been
asked to
testify.
Key, R-Oklahoma City,
wants Lewis to tell the grand jury about his reported sighting of a Mercury
Marquis in an alley
close to the Journal Record Building, which was near the Murrah Building.
Key claims
Lewis saw McVeigh and
another person in the car, which almost hit Lewis as it sped away about
15
minutes prior to the
bombing.
Key also claims Lewis
saw a white license plate dangling from the Mercury Marquis. An Oklahoma
Highway
Patrol trooper arrested
McVeigh after the bombing driving a 1977 Mercury Marquis without a license
plate.
Lewis told The Daily
Oklahoman last week he has no information to provide the grand jury. Lewis
said the
FBI cleared up his confusion
more than a year ago.
"What I seen wasn't a fact, it wasn't true," Lewis said.
Lewis said the FBI showed
him a photograph of the Mercury Marquis that McVeigh was driving. Lewis
said it wasn't the same
car he spotted on April 19, 1995.
"It was real similar to it," Lewis said. "It was real close, but it wasn't it."
Lewis said his story has been exaggerated by Key and Wilburn.
"I don't care for (Wilburn)
or Charles Key," Lewis said. "They kind of pushed it along for reasons
I don't
know why. That is about
all I have got to say."
Hunt, the first witness
to appear Monday, spent 55 minutes with the grand jury. The 52-year-old
banker
was coming to a meeting
in Oklahoma City and told the FBI he spotted a Ryder truck accompanied
by a
light-colored sedan
about 30 minutes before the explosion.
Hunt called the FBI hot
line several days after the bombing, claiming he saw three people in the
car and
identified McVeigh as
the driver. Hunt claims McVeigh glared at him as he passed the car. Hunt
said he
could not identify anyone
in the Ryder truck.
Hunt, who was reluctant to testify, declined comment both before and after his testimony Monday.
Snider believes he witnessed
McVeigh with another man in a Ryder truck 30 minutes before the deadly
blast. McVeigh was the
passenger, he said.
Snider claims the man
with McVeigh was Dennis Mahon, a self-proclaimed white separatist from
Tulsa,
who is a leader in the
White Aryan Resistance. Mahon is scheduled to testify Wednesday.
Snider, who testified
for 70 minutes, presented the grand jury a videotape of a television interview
with
Mahon and a composite
sketch the warehouse worker had drawn of the man he saw driving the Ryder
truck.
"He was wearing a pair
of shades, a particular pair of shades, I have him on tape wearing the
same shades
he had on that morning,"
Snider said.
Carol Howe, Mahon's former
girlfriend and an informant for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and
Firearms, claims Mahon
and German national Andreas Strassmeier were casing the Murrah Building.
Mahon, who operates a
Dial-A-Racist hot line, denies any involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing.
He claims never to have
been in downtown Oklahoma City.
Snider said he is confident of his identification.
"Yes, or I wouldn't say
a word," Snider said. "I have done everything I could to prove myself wrong
because I wanted to
be wrong and I can't do it."
After testifying Monday,
Snider told The Daily Oklahoman, "I feel like about a million pounds have
been
lifted off my shoulders.
Now it is on the jurors' shoulders."
Key is one of four people
subpoenaed to testify Tuesday. The lawmaker is expected to give the grand
jury a list of 38 witnesses
he would like questioned. Also scheduled to appear Tuesday are V.Z. Lawton,
66, a management specialist
for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Oscar
Johnson, the general
manager of the Mid-Western Elevator Co.
Johnson's company maintained
the elevators in the Murrah Building. Johnson, 48, said he will tell the
grand jury that none
of the seven elevators fell in the blast. ATF agent Alex McCauley claims
he and an
agent from the U.S.
Drug Enforcement Administration were in an elevator that dropped five floors."
Will the real Timothy
James McVeigh please stand up? Oh, that's right, he can't. He's dead. Recall
what
Jane Graham has maintained
all along: A Timothy McVeigh was seen going to the ATF offices. He was
in
the Murrah Building
prior to the bombing. Someone who looked like Timothy McVeigh allegedly
got out
of the big, yellow beacon
in front of the building in broad daylight, took no precaution to disguise
his looks,
sets a bomb and casually
walks off. This sure makes sense to me. I think part of the problem here
was the
media coverage. There
was so much of it, so much speculation, everyone saw something, but then
again,
this was the OKC bombing
and it was treated differently than the World Trade Center bombing. I
believe these two bombings
are tied together.
Then McVeigh drives 75
miles in 75 minutes and is stopped by an Oklahoma State Trooper. I drove
that
exact route. 75 minutes,
no way unless you wanted to travel at a high speed and wave a red flag
under
the nose of any state
troopers along the highway. Trooper Hanger testified that McVeigh was not
speeding when he pulled
him over.
Was there any other eyewitnesses
to individuals in or around that yellow Ryder truck? Yes. On May 23,
1997, during the trial,
Daina Bradley testified. She was trapped in the building for five hours
and had to
have her leg amputated.
Her mother, son and daughter were killed; her sister badly injured. She
was
there to get her son's
social security number and an appointment for SSI. What can anyone say
to Ms.
Bradley about her loss?
The Social Security office was on the first floor.
Mrs. Bradley was compelled to testify under a subpoena issued by the defense:
THE WITNESS: Daina Bradley, B-R-A-D-L-E-Y.
THE COURT: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q. All right. Do you think you got there around 8:00 when they opened or was it later, if you remember?
A. I don't.
Q. Okay. When you got
to the Social Security office -- first of all, where is the Social Security
office in
the Murrah Building?
Where was it on April the 19th?
A. It's on the first floor.
Q. Okay. When you went
into the Murrah Building and went into the Social Security office, then
what
happened next?
A. I went in and signed
the papers, and my mom was standing in line for -- for us -- for me. And
I was
doing the papers. I
went to her and let her look over the papers.
Q. Okay. So she was actually holding your place in line?
A. Yes.
Q. While you were trying
to get everything ready to present to the person you were going to talk
to at
Social Security; is
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. You went
over and talked to your mom about the papers that you had filled out; is
that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what happened next?
A. At this time, I turned around and looked out the window.
Q. Are there all -- is the front part of the Social Security office windows?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And so you looked out the window, and what did you see?
A. I seen the yellow Ryder truck drive up.
Q. And what did you think when you saw the Ryder truck pull up into the -- pull up?
A. That it was very unusual
that -- downtown, they do not allow moving trucks as far as those kind
of
vehicles being parked
down in that area.
Q. Okay. And did the -- what did the truck do when you saw it?
A. It -- they stopped.
Q. Did it park?
A. Yes. It parked.
Q. Okay. And did you
see anything else at that time or did you continue your conversation with
your
mother?
A. I went back and I
looked up and I started talking to my mother again and I looked back out.
I seen two
men get out of the truck.
Q. All right. Did you
say anything to your mother about the Ryder truck when it pulled in and
parked, or
did you just think it
to yourself?
A. I -- me and my sister and my mother, we both thought that it was unusual.
Q. Okay. So there was something mentioned about it?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, you saw the men get out, and then what happens next that you remember?
A. I seen the driver get out.
Q. I don't want to get
into your -- what happened at that point yet. What happened after you saw
the
Ryder truck park and
the men get out? Did you go back to talking with your mother?
A. No. At this time,
my mother had told me to go back to my sister to -- for her to help me
fill out the
part that -- that I
did not fill out on the application. At this time that I was going back,
that's when I was
looking out the window.
Q. Okay. You went over to your sister; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You were talking with her?
A. Yes.
Q. Right? And then what happens next? Does the explosion occur shortly thereafter?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. How long
were you in the Murrah Building, do you think, before the explosion occurred,
if
you remember?
A. I don't. All I know
is that when I was talking to my sister, that a flash of light came over
the desk, and
that's -- that's where
I -- I don't know how long that it was there.
Q. And what is it that you remember next?
A. That I was trapped.
Q. All right. How long were you trapped in the building?
A. Before rescue or completely out?
Q. Completely.
A. I was in there for five hours.
Q. All right. And during that time that you were trapped, you had to have your leg amputated, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. In order to be released from the building; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did your mother and your two children survive?
A. No.
Q. And your sister was severely injured, also, wasn't she?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were then
taken to the hospital at some point after you were retrieved from the building;
is
that correct?
A. Right.
Q. How much time did you spend in the hospital? Do you recall how many days?
A. No, I don't, because
I lost day and time at that point. I don't -- I don't know -- I don't even,
you know
-- people coming and
going. I couldn't tell you, you know, day or time or where I was most of
them.
Q. All right. Now, since
this -- since April 19 of 1995, you became pregnant and had another child;
isn't
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's the child that you were speaking of that you wanted to be home with; isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And he was not involved in, nor were you pregnant at the time?
A. No.
Q. Okay. While you were in the hospital, were you contacted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Haven't
you -- I gave you and your attorney the -- what we call the 302's of your
statement --
statements with regard
to the two times or three times that you've talked with the FBI; isn't
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, when you
first talked with the FBI was on May the 3d and May the 4th, when you were
in the hospital; isn't
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you tell the FBI agents with regard to the Ryder truck, if you recall?
A. I --
Q. Did you tell them the Ryder truck came up and parked?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Did you
tell them that you observed an individual get out of the passenger side
of the
vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And did you give them a description of the person?
A. Yeah.
Q. All right. And what did you tell them about the person that got out of the vehicle? Do you recall?
A. I recall telling them
that -- that it was a olive-complexion man with short hair, curly, clean-cut.
He had
on a blue Starter jacket,
blue jeans, and tennis shoes and a white hat with purple flames.
Q. All right. And did you tell him that -- or tell them that he was wearing a baseball cap?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you also tell
them when you talked to them on May the 3d and 4th that you observed him
from a side view?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you also tell the FBI what this person did when he got out of the Ryder truck?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you tell them?
A. I had told him that
-- I told them that he had got out of the truck, went to the back of the
truck, and
proceeded to walk very
fast forward in front of the truck. He went back on the sidewalk and left.
Q. All right.
A. In a rapid speed.
Q. And he was walking very quickly?
A. Yes.
Q. And did that also call your attention to him?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you also
talk with the FBI on May the 3d and 4th about the sketch that you had seen
when
you were in the hospital?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you tell the FBI about that sketch?
A. That that man was familiar; that I had seen him get out of the truck.
Q. All right. And when
had you seen that sketch? Did they show it to you or had you seen it when
you
were in the hospital?
A. I had seen it when I was in the hospital.
Q. When you saw the sketch
when you were in the hospital, were you with someone or were you by
yourself?
A. I was by myself.
Q. Now, on your screen,
I have what's previously been admitted as Government's Exhibit 320. Is
that the
sketch that you saw
on television?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And when
you saw this sketch, did you say to yourself -- I believe you told the
FBI that you
were certain that this
was the person that you had seen get out of the Ryder truck?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe also,
you told the FBI that when you saw him get out of the truck and walk down
the
sidewalk very quickly,
the next thing that you recall was the explosion; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did the FBI also show you sketches on May the 3d and 4th when you met with them?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you tell them that you had only seen one person --
MR. RYAN: Your Honor, I'm going to object to leading.
MS. RAMSEY: I'll rephrase the question.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MS. RAMSEY:
Q. Did you tell them about anyone else getting out of the vehicle?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did they -- did the FBI show you a sketch of the other person?
A. Yes.
Q. And you could not identify that; isn't that correct?
A. Right.
Q. Because you said you'd only seen one person; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, you also met with the FBI on May the 21st; isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When you met with them on May the 21st, had you been released from the hospital?
A. Yes.
Q. And you met with them where?
A. I met with them at my lawyer's office.
Q. At Ms. Wallace's office?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that in Oklahoma City?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you met with the FBI on May the 21st, did you tell them about the Ryder truck?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you tell them about the Ryder truck?
A. That it parked in front of the Social Security office.
Q. Did you also give them a description of the person you saw get out of the vehicle?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what was that description?
A. The olive-complexion
man and the short hair, curly hair, with the Starter jacket, blue jeans,
and tennis
shoes, with the baseball
hat with the flame, purple flame.
Q. Did you also tell them that the hat was white on one side with a purple flame on it?
A. I told him the hat was white with flames on it.
Q. Okay. And did you
also tell them that he -- the person left the vehicle and walked at a very
rapid
pace?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you also
on October -- did you also have a conversation with an investigator from
Mr.
McVeigh's defense team?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that -- do you recall when that was? Was that in 1995?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've had --
this will be your fourth conversation with regard to what happened that
morning
with either the Government
or someone from the defense; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you tell
Wilma Sparks when you talked with her on the telephone with regard to that
day, if
you recall?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you tell her what time you got to the Social Security office?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Do you recall what time that was?
A. I -- I had told her 8.
Q. Okay. And you've seen a copy of this, haven't you?
A. Yes.
Q. The transcript? Okay. And did you also tell her about an individual getting out of the truck?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you tell Ms. Sparks with regard to a description of that person?
A. I told her that it was the same man.
Q. The olive skin?
A. The olive complexion, yes.
Q. And did you give her any further description of that person?
A. The same as the olive
complexion, short hair, white ball cap with purple flames, blue jeans and
tennis
shoes.
Q. All right. And did you also tell her what height you thought he might have been?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Could you have told her that he was approximately 6 feet tall?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you tell Ms. Sparks with regard to his wearing gloves or glasses?
A. He had none.
Q. Okay. And did he have a beard or a mustache?
A. No.
Q. Clean-shaven.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you also tell
Ms. Sparks that the sketch that you had seen of the John Doe 2 was the
person that
you saw get out of the
Ryder truck?
A. I don't understand.
Q. Did you tell her that
the sketch that I just had on the monitor was the person that you saw get
out of
the truck?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you also talk with her about how this person was acting?
A. Yes, I did. I told
her that he was acting very mysterious and that he was walking off very
rapidly and
very nervous.
Q. Okay. Did you also tell her that that was the only person that you saw get out of the truck?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, these interviews were in 1995; is that correct?
A. Right.
Q. And you had not been interviewed with regard to this case until 1997; isn't that correct?
A. Right.
Q. Now, were you advised by your attorney that I wanted to interview you approximately three to f