The Oklahoma City Bombing Trial Transcripts
Terry Nichols
Monday, December 1, 1997 (afternoon)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,
Defendant.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
(Trial to Jury: Volume 100)
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 1:30 p.m., on the 1st day of December,
1997, in Courtroom C-204, United States Courthouse, Denver,
Colorado.
Proceeding Recorded by Mechanical Stenography, Transcription
Produced via Computer by Paul Zuckerman, 1929 Stout Street,
P.O. Box 3563, Denver, Colorado, 80294, (303) 629-9285
APPEARANCES
PATRICK RYAN, United States Attorney for the Western
District of Oklahoma, 210 West Park Avenue, Suite 400, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, 73102, appearing for the plaintiff.
LARRY MACKEY, SEAN CONNELLY, BETH WILKINSON, GEOFFREY
MEARNS, JAMIE ORENSTEIN, and AITAN GOELMAN, Special Attorneys
to the U.S. Attorney General, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1200,
Denver, Colorado, 80294, appearing for the plaintiff.
MICHAEL TIGAR, RONALD WOODS, ADAM THURSCHWELL, REID
NEUREITER, and JANE TIGAR, Attorneys at Law, 1120 Lincoln
Street, Suite 1308, Denver, Colorado, 80203, appearing for
Defendant Nichols.
* * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
(Reconvened at 1:30 p.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
(Jury in at 1:30 p.m.)
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Tigar.
MR. TIGAR: Thank you.
(Steven Burmeister was recalled to the stand.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Hello, again, Mr. Burmeister.
What's an EGIS?
A. EGIS?
Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q. Yes.
A. It is a instrument. It's a brand name for an instrument
that is a explosives screening device, but it can also lead to
chemical information for a particular sample.
Q. And did you run an EGIS test on Government Exhibit 664?
A. I believe it was conducted on that particular sample.
Q. Is that one of the tests that you reported in the chart
that was put up on the easel?
A. If I could just take a peek at the chart one second.
Q. Of course.
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, it is?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. How is it listed on the chart?
A. It is listed as the gas chromatography with the
chemiluminescence detection.
Q. Gas chromatography. Oh.
Putting 1744 up on the thing here. This, where it
says gas chromatography with chemiluminescence detection; is
that it?
A. Yes.
Q. And who did that test?
A. I'm not positive who the exact operator would have been.
Q. I'm going to show you page 222 of your notes and ask if
that refreshes your recollection as to who did the test.
Steven Burmeister - Cross
Does that refresh your recollection?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did the test?
A. That particular one was conducted by Special Agent Martz.
Q. Didn't you tell me on cross-examination before lunch that
Mr. Martz didn't do any of the work?
A. If I did, then I misspoke; but I thought at the time that I
testified it was in regards to the ammonium nitrate testing
itself.
Q. So the gas chromatography was for -- that was for the
high-explosive tests; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Martz is a cocky gentleman who shoots from
the hip, isn't he?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Do you have an opinion about Mr. Martz's abilities in the
laboratory?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, you'd have to ask me on what
particular types of examinations you're referring to.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Well, have you ever referred to him as a cocky gentleman?
Steven Burmeister - Cross
MS. WILKINSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Yes. We'll have to limit it to the test
that is involved here.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Have you ever criticized his overall approach to testing?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Do you have an opinion about his ability to operate this
machine?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is that?
A. He was competent to operate that instrument.
Q. Showing you now what I've marked page 222 of your notes as
Defendant's D1740. Do you recognize this as Mr. Martz's work
in connection with that particular test?
A. He was provided an extract that I did provide to him, and
he would have made notations on the chart following the
examination on the GC/Chemiluminescense instrument.
Q. And does that document which is -- is that document page
222 of your notes? Or is that part of your notes?
A. It is part of my notes on this sample.
Q. Does the document relate to Mr. Martz's testing of
Government Exhibit 664?
A. It does for 664 as labeled Q507. It was an extract from
Steven Burmeister - Cross
it.
Q. Yes.
MR. TIGAR: We offer it, your Honor.
MS. WILKINSON: I don't think I have any objection,
but I'd just like to look at it.
THE COURT: All right. Sure.
This is D1740?
MR. TIGAR: Yes, your Honor.
MS. WILKINSON: We have no objection.
THE COURT: All right. It's received.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Now, placing what's been received now as D1740 up on the
overhead television projector, we see -- the first sign we see
is No. -- Run No. 4, Q507; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And he records a positive for RDX; correct?
A. That's what's written, yes.
Q. Well, does that mean he found RDX on this item?
A. It doesn't mean he found it, no.
Q. What does it mean? Does it mean it's consistent with it?
Tell me what that means.
A. That would indicate that when he ran it, there was a
positive indication for RDX in the sample.
Q. Uh-huh. And your conclusion you testified on direct was
high explosive, not detected; correct?
Steven Burmeister - Cross
A. That's correct. But I had reviewed his work, and I didn't
agree with that particular finding.
Q. So what was it that caused you to disagree with Mr. Martz's
finding?
A. Well, I was the ultimate one who would review the charts
and the data on this particular run. I did not determine that
it was positive for RDX.
Q. And did you perform an additional test or just review the
read-out from the machine?
A. The additional testing was a mass-spectral examination for
that particular material.
Q. Did you do that?
A. It was at my request.
Q. And did you think this was an example of Mr. Martz'
shooting from the hip?
A. No.
Q. This conclusion?
A. No.
Q. Why did you think he made a mistake?
A. I didn't say he made a mistake. I said I reviewed the
chart and I didn't agree with the particular finding.
Q. Now, you testified that -- on direct examination that you
also went and looked at a storage shed; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That was on the 22d of April? A Saturday or Sunday, what
Steven Burmeister - Cross
day?
A. It would have been the 23d.
Q. 23d. Sunday?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's a storage shed that had chipboard walls and a
cement floor; correct?
A. That would -- that sounds -- yes, that sounds consistent
with what I recall.
Q. Are those surfaces, chipboard and cement, suitable for the
retention of explosive residues?
A. The wooden surface could be, and the protected environment
that a concrete floor would be on could definitely be a surface
that could retain it.
Q. In -- now, finally with respect to your collection
techniques, what is a control sample?
A. A control sample would be one in which you -- if, for
example, you're taking a swabbing with a piece of gauze, you
would want to know whether that piece of gauze has anything on
it to begin with. So in order to do that, you would capture
that gauze, package it up, and send it to the laboratory for
testing. If you're using a solvent in conjunction with that
particular swab, you would take the solvent and the swab and
send that in, and that would represent a control.
Q. Now, does the -- do you ever use control samples to
determine background levels of things to try to verify the
Steven Burmeister - Cross
results you're going to get in the laboratory?
A. Well, if you will, if you're determining background levels,
the background levels would be those that would be normally
present on the -- either the swab or in the solvent that you're
doing.
Q. So that the control samples you take -- when you go to the
scene, you take clean things; right? They're not supposed --
they don't have any stuff on them of the kind you're looking
for; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then to make a control sample, you take them out and
expose them to the environment that you're testing in; is that
the next thing you do?
A. Well, you're -- you in one way or another have to expose it
to get it out of the packaging to put it into the second
packaging.
Q. Yes.
A. But you're not really measuring the environment per se.
You're actually looking at the item that's taking the sample as
the control.
Q. Okay. And in that -- in that process, looking around in
the parking lot there, were you concerned about the background
levels of ammonia and nitrate ions?
A. Concerned is probably strong. I was aware that there could
be levels of ammonium ions, could be level of nitrate ions, and
Steven Burmeister - Cross
certainly that finding would weigh on my ultimate decision if
in fact I found ammonium ions and nitrate ions.
Q. And you were aware that the bomb had damaged sewer pipes --
correct -- waste pipes?
A. I'm not aware of that.
Q. Did you look at the damage to the Athenian Building
immediately adjacent to the parking lot, that brick building,
to see if any waste pipes had burst?
A. I didn't check for particular waste pipes, and I didn't see
any.
Q. Human waste contains ammonia; correct?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. I mean, do you have kids?
A. No.
Q. No? You ever looked at a diaper after it's been hanging
around for a while? There's an ammonia smell; right?
A. That's true, yes.
Q. And that is ammonia; correct?
A. It's in combination with -- my knowledge on the actual
breakdown of urine and those items, I know that you can detect
ammonia in some levels, but it could also come from the urea
that's present.
Q. Okay. Now, but as we've established before, you didn't
cause any samples to be taken around the items where these
items that were lying on the ground were recovered; is that
Steven Burmeister - Cross
correct?
A. I'm sorry, are you referring to soil samples?
Q. Yes, soil samples. Debris samples, really.
A. No soil samples were taken in that general area.
Q. And when we say soil samples, the parking lot surface was
asphalt; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But there was a lot of debris over top of the asphalt that
had resulted from things falling on or being deposited on it in
particular ways; correct?
A. There was a lot of debris on that parking lot, yes.
Q. And did you . . . you were aware at the time -- did you
cause the people that were doing the -- you didn't cause
anybody to do video-taping of the evidence recovery procedure;
correct?
A. No, I had nothing to do with that.
Q. And you were aware at the time in May, 1995, were you not,
that the methods of evidence collection in the field that were
being used by the United States lagged behind those used in
other parts of the world?
A. I didn't know that.
Q. Were you aware that in the United States the process of
collection of evidence in the field by bomb technicians had
been lagging for a long time?
A. I didn't know that.
Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q. Do you recall being interviewed on Monday, the 22d of
April, 1996, by Special Agent Joseph Lestrange?
A. The name doesn't ring a bell.
Q. Well, I'm going to show you page 89 of what I represent to
be a transcript of that interview and ask you to look there and
see if that refreshes your recollection about what you said on
this subject.
The second of the two paragraphs there.
A. I'd have to read the whole context --
Q. All right.
A. -- in order to see how it fit in.
Q. All right.
If you'll excuse my tabs there -- on here, I'll give
you the rest of the pages, sir.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Take your time.
Were you aware back in April, May, 1995, that the
United States was lagging behind other places in the world in
the control of evidence collection at bomb crime scenes?
A. That was -- that statement there was directed at prior to
that time. It was sometime before that. Essentially when I
first came into the laboratory.
Q. You're saying that when you first came in the laboratory,
you were lagging behind; but you think that by April, May,
1995, United States was not lagging behind anymore; is that
Steven Burmeister - Cross
what you're saying?
A. I would have to say yes.
Q. So you think in April, May, 1995, you were doing it right?
A. Yes.
Q. And were you aware, then, in April, May, 1995, of the
NFPA921, National Fire Protection guide, that said physical
evidence should be thoroughly documented before it is moved?
You knew that; right?
A. I don't know whether the document itself says that, but I
would concur with that topic.
Q. All right. Let me just show you and see. First, does the
document say it; and second, do you agree with it?
A. Uh-huh. Yes.
Q. And do you know whether that standard was followed with
respect to the search in the parking lot conducted on the 21st
of April, 1995, by Special Agent Wilson and Mr. Kelly?
A. Only reviewing the after-the-fact material that even in
preparation for this testimony, seeing the documents, I believe
what's mentioned in that article was in fact performed.
Q. It's your opinion that it was; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, next-to-last time. With respect to crystals, sir, at
the time you were doing the examination of Government's 664,
were you aware that ammonium nitrate crystals can occur in
different shapes?
Steven Burmeister - Cross
A. Yes.
Q. And those shapes can be influenced by the way in which the
ammonium nitrate is deposited; is that -- was that your
understanding?
A. Deposited and formed on a particular surface.
Q. Now, during the -- you did all the examinations that you
testified about on direct examination -- correct, sir --
including the ones -- or caused to be done or did -- the ones
that included the ones to try and detect high explosives;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also looked at all the fragments you talked about;
is that correct, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And you expressed your opinions to many, many people;
correct?
A. I don't know what you mean by that.
Q. Well, you expressed your opinions to your principal
examiner; correct?
A. He would have received my findings in a written form.
Q. And then he made a report based on those; correct?
A. A final, official laboratory report was issued.
Q. Yes. And did you read that?
A. I only recall seeing portions of that report. I don't
recall reading the entire report.
Steven Burmeister - Cross
MR. TIGAR: Just a moment, sir.
I got it.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Now, did you -- did you see the report after -- have you
previously testified that you saw the report after it was
prepared?
A. I would have seen it after it was prepared and in its final
form.
Q. Yeah. So you saw the whole thing; right?
A. Again, portions of it, I recall seeing. The entire report,
I'm not sure if I saw the entire report.
Q. Were you interviewed again Monday, the 22d of April, 1996,
by Special Agent Joseph Lestrange and others?
A. I'm not sure of the name. The name doesn't sound familiar.
Q. Do you remember on -- do you remember being interviewed on
or -- in or about April, 1996?
A. By whom?
Q. By a group of people that included Special Agent Lestrange.
A. Again, I'm not sure of the --
Q. How about Mr. Eldon -- was he there?
A. That name I recognize, yes.
Q. Do you recall being asked this question and making this
answer? Page 73.
"Now, did you review this report, the Dave Williams
report, before it went out? Let me just ask you that question
Steven Burmeister - Cross
first. Did you review it all?"
Agent Burmeister: "I saw it afterwards. I'm not sure
if I saw it before."
Do you remember being asked that question and making
that answer?
A. If you're reading it to me now, that would sound consistent
with what I recall saying.
Q. And does it sound consistent with what you remember
happening?
A. Again, my recollection is that I would have seen the report
but only read parts of the report. I don't recall reading the
entire report at all.
Q. Sir, do you have any doubt that you were asked whether you
reviewed it all and that you said you saw it afterwards?
A. Well, you're asking me what my recollection is. My
recollection today is that I don't recall seeing the -- reading
the entire report. I only recall seeing it but reading
portions of it.
Q. And your recollection today is that you told Mr. Eldon that
you'd seen it all; correct?
A. That sounds consistent with it, yes.
Q. Now, in addition -- you discussed your findings with
respect to high explosives, ammonium nitrate, examination of
plastic with your principal examiner, we established. And you
also made lab reports on the work that you've done; correct?
Steven Burmeister - Cross
A. I recall providing the principal examiner with my written
results.
Q. And you also discussed your findings with other people in
the Department of Justice; correct?
A. On various questions. You'd have to give me the particular
topics. I mean it's pretty broad --
Q. You discussed what you -- you discussed the chemical
composition of the device, didn't you?
A. See, I don't have the actual interview in front of me. I
may very well have. I don't know.
Q. Well, isn't it a fact, sir, that in your view, there's a
mystery behind not knowing what the device really contained and
how it was configured?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor. Again this is
beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Sir, you were the person who was responsible for doing all
of your -- you were responsible for overseeing all of the
chemical tests; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the chemical tests were designed to detect what the
device might have contained; correct?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Steven Burmeister - Cross
THE WITNESS: The purpose of the chemical testing was
to determine what explosives and explosive residues may have
been on the material itself. They can only provide suggestions
as to what the device may have contained.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. And you understood that was your purpose? You wanted to
provide suggestions as to what the device may have been
contained; correct?
A. That's part of the overall findings.
Q. That was your job; correct?
A. To conduct the chemical examination of the material.
Q. The -- all the examinations that you testified to having
conducted are in the context of helping to make suggestions as
to what the device might have contained; is that right?
A. It's information that can be used to determine what that
device may have contained.
Q. And you, as the acting chief of the Explosives Unit of the
FBI Laboratory, have expertise in the construction and content
of explosive devices; correct?
A. That's not my expertise.
Q. You know how to build them, don't you?
A. But I'm not an expert in those particular devices.
Q. Have you built explosive devices, improvised explosive
devices?
A. Yes, I have.
Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q. You've blown up trucks with them, haven't you, sir?
A. I've been involved with testing where vehicles have been
exploded.
Q. So you know -- you know how to make them; correct?
A. I'm aware of construction, but I don't consider myself an
expert in that area.
Q. And you've also read books on how to make them; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, in your work, was -- in the context of attempting to
help people figure out what this was made of -- correct -- or
not?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question?
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Yes. Your work was to help figure out what this was made
of; correct?
A. Chemical analysis is used to determine what that device may
have contained.
Q. All right. And in your opinion, there's a mystery as to
what it contained, to this day, isn't there?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. TIGAR: May I inquire? I don't want to trespass
on the Court's ruling. Is this a scope matter, your Honor?
Steven Burmeister - Cross
THE COURT: It is.
MR. TIGAR: Very well.
Agent Burmeister, then I have no further questions.
We would like to have the agent recalled, and I'll ask him,
then, when he comes back.
THE COURT: All right.
Miss Wilkinson, do you have any redirect?
MS. WILKINSON: I do, your Honor. Thank you.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, when you received Government's Exhibit
664, did you keep track of the chain of custody in your
laboratory?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you do that?
A. There's a chain-of-custody form that is kept in my notes
with that particular item.
Q. Are you familiar with something called a laboratory work
sheet?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. The laboratory work sheet is a document that is prepared by
the primary examiner which lists various information about the
case as well as informations about specific samples that are
submitted for examination.
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q. Does it include a description of the items you're receiving
for testing?
A. A very brief description.
Q. And do you annotate that to show when you received certain
items?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you annotate a laboratory work sheet to show when
you received Q507 as well as other items?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you provide those as parts of your notes to the
Government and to the defense?
A. Yes, I did.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we'd offer 2122.
MR. TIGAR: No objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: 2122 is received.
MS. WILKINSON: Thank you.
May I display this, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. It's a multiple-page document.
MS. WILKINSON: Yes. I'll start with page 1, and I'll
say for the record what pages we're looking at.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, is this the first page of your work sheet
for Q507?
A. Yes.
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q. Whose handwriting is that?
A. That's mine.
Q. What does that indicate?
A. This indicates that specimens Q482 through Q553 were
received on 4-28-95, with my initials from Mr. Mills.
Q. That would include Q507?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm going to turn to page 5 of this document. Do you
see Q507 there as the second entry?
A. Yes.
Q. And before we go to that, let me stop at the top. The
first entry says Q482 through 553.
A. Yes, it would.
Q. Does that show on what date you received it?
A. Yes.
Q. What date?
A. 4-28, 1995.
Q. And on the next line, does it show where Q507 went after
you had it?
A. Yes.
Q. Who does it show it went to?
A. That would have been Special Agent Buechele.
Q. And on what date did you send it to him?
A. It was sent to Agent Buechele on June 5, 1995.
Q. Now, let me show you 664.
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Do you see your initials on the back of Government's
Exhibit 664, Q507?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see anyone else's initials on there?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What other initials are on there?
A. It was Mr. -- Agent Buechele's initials.
Q. Now, let's look at the front here. Do you see this
marking -- the marking on the red and the marking on the
yellow?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Is there indication of the Q number on the yellow?
A. Yes.
Q. What does it say?
A. It's listed as Q507.
Q. Are there initials below that?
A. Yes.
Q. What does it say?
A. It's RCB, which is Agent Buechele's initials.
Q. How about on the red portion? Is there another Q marking?
A. Yes.
Q. That looks like in gold or some kind of light pen?
A. Yes.
Q. What's the marking there?
A. The Q is Q 507.
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q. And are there initials under that?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. It is RCB, which is Agent Buechele's initials.
Q. Starting with the front that you just described, let's see
if we can show the jury. Are these the initials you were
describing on the yellow portion?
A. Yes.
Q. And that says "Q507 RCB"?
A. Yes.
Q. And let me see if I can -- they're there in this lighter
writing. Does it say the same thing?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Q507 and RCB?
A. Yes.
Q. And on the back here -- first of all, let's see if I can
turn it so you can read it. Am I going the wrong way? Are
those your initials written sideways?
A. Yes, on the left side.
Q. And what are your initials?
A. SGB.
Q. And can you read these larger markings, here?
A. It's Q507.
Q. And the initials?
A. RCB.
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q. Now, when you were asked on cross-examination about the
ammonium nitrate crystals that you found on Government's 664, I
believe counsel referred to it as trace evidence. Would you
consider the ammonium nitrate crystals you found on the back of
664 trace evidence?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Trace evidence is typically those pieces or those chemicals
that are invisible to the naked eye and even some with the
aided eye. It's typically used on solvent-type extractions
where things are invisible.
Q. And you said that when you looked at this -- could you
actually see the crystals without the aid of a microscope?
A. I could take that object and look at the surface; and after
the finding, yes, I could find it.
Q. All right. And when you used your microscope to find the
crystals, does that still mean that it's not trace evidence?
I'm not sure I understand why, even though you looked through a
microscope, it's not trace evidence.
A. Well, once -- using the microscope, I can look closer to
the surface. These are particles. And really anytime I can
actually see a particle and physically remove it with a pair of
forceps, I don't consider that trace. That's almost a bulk
examination because I have material itself.
Q. In your business, in the explosive residue analysis
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
business, would those crystals be considered big evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you identified those crystals as ammonium
nitrate, did you identify them as ammonium ions and nitrate
ions?
A. No.
Q. Is there a difference between making a finding of
identifying ammonium nitrate crystals and just identifying
ammonium ions and nitrate ions?
A. Yes, that's different.
Q. Explain to the jury how that's different.
A. When you're detecting the ions themselves, you're now
detecting the trace amounts of these particular materials. The
source of those ions are not attributed directly to ammonium
nitrate, and they are found deposited on the surface from other
forms. The ammonia could be connected to something else. The
nitrate could be connected to something else. Ammonium nitrate
is in its form, in its solid form.
Q. Is it more or less significant when you find ammonium
nitrate crystals vs. ammonium ions and nitrate ions?
A. Much more significant.
Q. Why is that?
A. Because now we actually have the material itself of
ammonium nitrate.
Q. You told us, I think on your chart, Government's Exhibit
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
1744, that you did some tests that showed ammonium nitrate --
is that correct -- up here on the top?
A. Yes.
Q. But you also looked at ions?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that mean you only found ions during these tests?
A. I would have been looking for a panel of different types of
ions, and that was the purpose of that test, to see what ions
were present, what other materials were present.
Q. And how do these findings, when you used the ion
chromatography and the other tests of ions, support your
findings up here -- using the polarized light microscope and
the FTIR that you found ammonium nitrate?
A. Well, now that I'm taking the material, I'm applying it to
water, the water will break it down into its components, and
they would be cross-checked mechanisms for me to verify
ammonium nitrate in itself. I should find ammonium ions. I
should find nitrate ions.
Q. Now, during cross-examination, you were asked about a test
that you conducted in another test, using a solid probe mass
spectrometer; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you use the solid probe mass spectrometer in making
any of these determinations as to ammonium nitrate?
A. No.
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q. And do you have any reason to believe that any of these
tests that you relied on would confuse ammonium nitrate with
urea nitrate?
A. No.
Q. You told us that there were some tests conducted on
Government's Exhibit 664 to determine if there were high
explosives; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you sent a sample taken from this to Mr. Martz; is that
true?
A. Yes. I took an extract from that material and provided it
to him.
Q. Okay. And you told Mr. Tigar, I believe, that he did one
test, a screening test, using the EGIS, or EGIS?
A. Under my direction, yes.
Q. Did you cause other tests to be conducted to determine if
there were in fact high-explosives residue on Government's
Exhibit 664?
A. Yes. Yes, I did.
Q. And is that your policy in the lab, to conduct more than
one test to determine if there is in fact high explosives?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did that second test tell you?
A. That it was negative.
Q. And have you -- is that common practice in the laboratory
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
where one test might tell you one thing and one test --
MR. TIGAR: Objection: Leading, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. How do you explain the different results from one test to
the other, as to high explosives on Government's Exhibit 664?
A. It's useful to conduct cross-check mechanisms to check the
opposites of instrumentation to verify any findings that one
may have and cross-check it with another one. If you don't
have both in agreement, then you can't make any determination
as to a finding.
Q. Now, as with regard to ammonium nitrate, how many different
cross-checks did you do on Government's Exhibit 664?
A. Several different cross-checks were actually made above and
beyond what normally would have been an identification.
Q. Now, you were asked on cross-examination whether you
conducted test for hydrocarbons on Government's Exhibit 664,
and you said you did not?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn't you test for hydrocarbons?
A. Early on I made a determination that items that were
removed from that scene itself would not be tested for
hydrocarbons, and that was based on the vehicles that were in
the parking lot. Many of those vehicles had fuel tanks that
had ruptured. There were trucks that were in the proximity of
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
that particular scene. There was exhaust being displayed by
the vehicles themselves. And I felt based on that finding it
would be of no value to determine whether -- if a finding of
hydrocarbons was on a sample, what the significance of that
finding would be.
Q. So if you had found hydrocarbons on 664, would you have
been able to say anything about its significance?
A. No.
Q. And does that relate in some way to background levels that
are at the scene?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you were asked during cross-examination about why you
didn't take soil samples from the parking lot and other
background samples. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn't you -- or why were you unable to take background
samples of the bombing crime scene?
A. Well, there was a urgency to get the task done at hand.
There were various samples that -- in my particular case, I
wanted to capture as many different samples as possible in that
particular scene. And so taking samples that were viable
samples that seemed to me to be a good surface, those ones were
taken.
Q. To take ideal background or control samples, would you have
had to have had samples from before the time of the explosion?
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
A. Absolutely.
Q. Was that possible?
A. No. I don't have that luxury.
Q. And if you had found nitrates in the soils surrounding the
area where Government's Exhibit 664 was recovered, would that
have changed your findings that you identified ammonium nitrate
crystals on this exhibit?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. If you want to try to attach that the ions that came from
the soil were somehow part of the ammonium nitrate that's in
that particular sample, I -- it's my opinion that the nitrates
that are there would not have produced the types of crystals
that were formed and found on that particular sample itself.
Q. Now, during the -- your laboratory work on this case, do
you recall approximately how many different items in the
bombing crime scene you examined for explosives residue?
A. There were over 400 items that were examined by me for that
particular test.
Q. Did you find ammonium nitrate on any other exhibit or piece
of evidence from the bombing crime scene?
A. No.
Q. If the ammonium nitrate crystals had reformed under the
hypothesis that Mr. Tigar gave you, would you have expected to
see ammonium crystals -- ammonium nitrate crystals on other
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
items from the parking lot and other areas surrounding the
bombing crime scene?
A. I would expect that, yes.
MS. WILKINSON: No further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Tigar.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Why would you expect that?
A. If it was formed from nitrates and ammonium ions that were
floating around in the air or from the ground surface, they
would have been deposited on other items; and through my
microscopic examinations on other specimens, I would have
detected it.
Q. Now, you answered a lot of questions about ammonium ions
and nitrate ions at the scene; correct?
A. I answered questions about those ions, yes.
Q. Yes. Now, when you went to Mr. Nichols' house, you had
some little glass bottles with screw tops; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you could pick up things and put them in little
glass bottles and label them; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't take very long, did it?
A. Essentially, no.
Q. Now, when you were in the parking lot, did you have little
Steven Burmeister - Recross
glass bottles with screw tops?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you have looked at the sample of the soil underneath
the items you were picking up and put a few -- some of that
soil into a little glass bottle with a screw top?
A. If I were there at the time that it was actually collected,
I suppose I could have done that.
Q. Did you direct anybody to do it?
A. No.
Q. Now, if the dirt that was on the parking lot -- we've seen
pictures of the parking lot -- If the dirt and the debris that
was on the parking lot came from a place that had a little bit
of ammonium nitrate on it, you have no way of knowing that, do
you?
A. I have no idea.
Q. And because am -- ammonium nitrate is a very common --
commonly used in a number of applications, such as fertilizer;
correct?
A. It's used as a fertilizer.
Q. Now, you also said on redirect examination that -- oh, you
said that you had an urgency about collecting evidence; is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. How many days were you there?
A. When I say "urgency," I wanted to capture the scene as soon
Steven Burmeister - Recross
as possible. So I arrived on the 20th; and based on that, I
wanted to capture as many samples as possible.
Q. Now, you said that the -- you regarded the ammonium nitrate
you found on 664 as big evidence. You answered that question.
You said it was big; right?
A. Yes, I did, I said that.
Q. Is it big?
A. For me, it's big.
Q. Okay. It's significant; right?
A. Not in terms of significance. I'm talking about in the
size.
Q. Okay. Well, you also said it was significant; correct?
A. It would be significant finding, yes.
Q. Why is it a significant finding, to you?
A. In the times that I've been working, this is the second
time that I've actually seen crystals on a particular material
itself.
Q. Now, prior to April 21, 19 -- April 28, 1995, had you ever
seen crystals?
A. I have seen it only in one other incident.
Q. Okay. And what incident was that?
A. It was an incident -- I forget the exact location. It was
from a foreign country. And it was a sample of Tovex that had
been deposited on a particular object and had not exploded to
completion but was deposited on a material.
Steven Burmeister - Recross
Q. So you mean if somebody uses Tovex, that's that sausage
stuff?
A. Yes.
Q. And you mean that Tovex can go off and leave residues that
you can find?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you find any here?
A. Of Tovex?
Q. Yes.
A. I didn't find the other components that are found in Tovex.
Q. You didn't find the same thing you'd found in that other
case; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, you say that it was significant because you
never found it before. Does -- is there some book we could go
to and read how significant this is? Is there some scientific
test we could do to see if this was significant or not?
A. I don't know what you're asking there.
Q. Is there a book we could go to in the library that says if
I find ammonium nitrate crystals at a bombing scene, that has
some significance?
A. I'm not sure if it's actually addressed that way in texts.
Q. Is there a paper that has been delivered by somebody at a
scientific gathering, a peer-reviewed paper, that says that
this finding of crystals is significant in context of bombing
Steven Burmeister - Recross
crime scene?
A. There have been papers that have been written. There was a
document that was prepared by a individual in Canada, a Sandy
Beverage, who talked about various techniques for residue
analysis. I recall him addressing various findings. And right
now, I'm not sure whether he actually addresses the finding of
crystals. It's my recollection that he does, but I'm not
positive.
Q. So as you sit there today, you can't remember whether
there's any such document that addresses crystals; is that
right?
A. There are documents -- I'm not sure about findings that
directly address the significance of crystals that you would be
finding.
Q. Well, is it your testimony, sir, that this finding is
significant because it would help you figure out what the
device was?
A. As part of the residue analysis, yes.
Q. Well, if that's the reason, then, isn't it a fact that you
don't know what the device was made of?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. TIGAR: Okay. Well, Agent, I don't have any more
questions.
We will -- we'll ask him back, your Honor.
Steven Burmeister - Recross
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. WILKINSON: That's fine.
THE COURT: You may step down now, and --
MR. TIGAR: Excuse me, your Honor, one more. I'm
sorry.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Is there anything on that log, Government Exhibit 2122,
that shows where the thing, Government's 664, was when the
crystals disappeared?
A. I'm not sure. Which log are you referring to?
Q. Exhibit 2122, the log that was shown to you most recently
on redirect examination. My question just is: Is there
anything there that shows where it was when the crystals
disappeared?
A. The log itself does not go that far. It was sometime after
the generation of this log that the item was actually examined.
I believe it was sometime in November of '96 that it was first
discovered by myself that the crystals were not on 507.
Q. But that log does go through the time that Agent Buechele
had it and then gave it back to you; correct?
A. Well, the chain of custody that I'm referring to is a --
what I've seen earlier today, that's the chain of custody that
I'm talking about.
Q. I'm talking about that that log shows that Agent Buechele
Steven Burmeister - Recross
got it in June and gave it back in July; right?
A. This is up to '95; I'm talking '96.
Q. Yes, I understand. Does that log show that Agent Buechele
got it in June and gave it back in July?
A. Yes, June of '95, given back in July of '95.
MR. TIGAR: Thank you. No further questions.
MS. WILKINSON: Just one, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, you don't know when those crystals
disappeared or dissolved off Q507, do you?
A. No.
Q. You don't know if that happened during Agent Buechele's
examination?
A. That's correct.
MS. WILKINSON: No further questions.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down now, and
counsel will be in touch with you.
Next, please.
MR. MACKEY: Your Honor, we'll call Linda Jones.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you raise your right
hand, please.
(Linda Jones affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you have a seat, please.
Would you state your name for the record and spell
your last name.
THE WITNESS: Linda Edwina Jones, J-O-N-E-S.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Afternoon, Miss Jones. You've been sitting with us in the
courtroom today, haven't you?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And for the past several days?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you asked by the United States to do an independent
analysis of the bombing crime scene in Oklahoma City?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And are you here today to tell us about that?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you give us a little background and tell us where
you're from?
A. I'm from the forensic explosives laboratory of the Defense
Evaluation and Research Agency of the Ministry of Defense in
England.
Q. And were you born in England?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And how long have you been working -- can we call it DERA?
A. Yes, I think that's a good idea.
Q. Okay. And how long have you been working for DERA?
Linda Jones - Direct
A. It's been called different things over the last few years,
but I've worked for the Ministry of Defense for 24 years and
concentrated on forensic work for the last 12 years.
Q. Can you tell us generally what DERA does in England.
A. The forensic explosives lab of DERA conducts forensic
explosives investigations; for incident, suspected of involving
the criminal misuse of explosives, and this is mainly on behalf
of the British police and other agencies.
Q. And is there a laboratory located at DERA?
A. Yes.
Q. And what kind of forensic work have you conducted in that
laboratory?
A. I've conducted examinations of explosive devices that
haven't gone off but have been made safe, post-explosive
scenes, residue analysis, and finds and caches of recovered
materials suspected of having an explosives connotation.
Q. Have you also traveled to bombing crime scenes?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Now, when you did your work for the United States in this
case, what was your title at DERA?
A. I was the principal forensic investigator.
Q. What is your current title?
A. I'm a DERA fellow.
Q. How long have you been a DERA fellow?
A. Approximately six hours.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. Why is that?
A. I changed my title as of the 1st of December.
Q. And what is a DERA fellow?
A. It's the most senior professional title that DERA confers.
Q. Well, since you did your work in this case when you were a
principal forensic investigator, can you tell us generally what
a principal forensic investigator does?
A. I carried out some of the most important investigations in
England involving some of the most serious explosives crime.
Q. And in that capacity, have you reviewed or become familiar
with ammonium-nitrate-based explosives?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you become familiar with ammonium-nitrate-based
improvised explosive devices?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the jury what a improvised explosive device
is.
A. An improvised explosive device can take really two forms.
Either the explosive itself can be homemade and the other parts
of the bomb can be constructed from off-the-shelf materials, or
the explosive device can include a manufactured explosive but
the other bits that go in to make the explosive a viable bomb
are homemade.
Q. During your tenure with DERA as a principal forensic
examiner, what type of bombing crime scenes have you visited in
Linda Jones - Direct
England?
A. Bombing scenes that have ranged from the use of a few
pounds of explosive, both manufactured and improvised, right up
to thousands of pounds of improvised explosives.
Q. Have you ever seen a truck bomb before?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever seen one that was rendered safe?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you examined that?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you ever seen a truck -- crime scene where a truck
bomb had actually exploded?
A. Yes, on a number of occasions.
Q. Now, before we get into your specific findings in this
case, can you tell us a little bit about your educational
background and start with what you did after high school.
A. After high school, I left school at age 16 and initially
went to work for a pharmaceutical chemist. And then I stopped
my education for a period at that time.
Q. And what did you do next?
A. Next I joined the Ministry of Defense in England in an
explosives manufacturing plant.
Q. What did you do at that plant?
A. It was mainly the chemical analysis and testing of
explosives manufactured by that explosives factory.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. Were those military explosives?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was your purpose for examining those manufactured
explosives?
A. It was quality-assurance testing. The factory would make
the explosives, and we would check to make sure they'd made
what they thought they'd made.
Q. What type of explosives did you test?
A. They were all high-performance explosives: RDX, TNT, HMX,
HNS, and some intermediate products and ingredients.
Q. How long did you do that for?
A. From 1973 to 1978. So about five years.
Q. After that, did you move to DERA headquarters?
A. It wasn't called that at the time, but I moved to
headquarters in London, yes.
Q. What was your assignment there?
A. I carried out studies and chemical analyses of the
interaction of explosives with various polymers and plastics
and paints and adhesives. That was the main part of my work.
Q. Now, when you say the interaction of plastics and
explosives, what do you mean?
A. What we were concerned about was to make sure that some of
the plastics and other polymers that were being used, for
example, to put explosives in, the containers, weren't going to
react adversely with the explosives. So we wanted to make sure
Linda Jones - Direct
there weren't any extra dangerous by-products produced.
Q. While you were at the Ministry of Defense doing this work,
did you continue your education?
A. Yes. When I joined the Ministry of Defense, they sponsored
me to study for my degree, which was in chemistry.
Q. Did you complete that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And at some point after completing your degree, did you
become a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry?
A. Yes, in 1983.
Q. What is that?
A. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a professional body whose
headquarters are in England. And it furthers the science of
chemistry and represents chemists.
Q. Does it qualify and accredit chemists in Great Britain?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And does that mean when you joined the Society that you
were qualified or accredited as a chemist?
A. Yes. When I first joined, I was admitted as a graduate.
And then in 1983, I was made a chartered chemist and a full
member.
Q. And have you gone through the ranks, so to speak?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And what is your status now?
A. I am now a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. Is that the highest level?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you just told us that while you were completing your
education, you were working on plastics and explosives for the
Ministry of Defense?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do after that?
A. In 1985, I transferred to the forensic explosives
laboratory, where I am now.
Q. Did you have a training period?
A. Yes.
Q. How long was your training period there?
A. Two to three years before they considered me
appropriately -- sorry -- appropriately experienced to give
testimony in court.
Q. And approximately how many explosives or explosive-related
cases have you worked on in your career?
A. In the last 12 or 13 years, between 550 and 600.
Q. Do those include working -- looking at bulk explosives?
A. Yes.
Q. Improvised explosive devices?
A. Yes.
Q. A residue analysis?
A. Yes.
Q. Component parts of bombs?
Linda Jones - Direct
A. Yes.
Q. And explosives manufacturing?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you tell the jury approximately how many bombing
crime scenes you've been to.
A. Probably about a dozen.
Q. And since you've worked on 550 to 600 cases, is it
necessary to go to a crime scene to make findings?
A. No. What tends to happen is that in England, we get called
to the crime scene where the bombing is in some -- or the crime
scene is in some way unusual. Sadly, we have more than our
fair share of car bombs, which we regard as fairly ordinary.
So we get invited to some of the more unusual types of crime
scene.
Q. Even though you don't go to some of these crime scenes, did
you make findings?
A. Yes.
Q. And specifically have you studied ammonium-nitrate-based
bombs?
A. Yes.
Q. And why is that?
A. Because the IRA uses improvised ammonium-nitrate-based
explosives in their large truck bombs.
Q. Do they mix ammonium nitrate with fuel oil?
A. Not fuel oil. Not now, no.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. What do they do?
A. They mix it with confectioner's sugar.
Q. Do they grind the ammonium nitrate when they do that?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. And once you grind the ammonium nitrate and mix it with
sugar, is it an explosive material?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it considered a blasting agent, or is it considered a
high explosive?
A. It could be. It's a high explosive.
Q. And to detonate that, what would you need?
A. Some form of booster, which can be ammonium-nitrate-based,
and a blasting cap. The systems the IRA use, they not only
improvise their main explosive charge, they improvise their
booster, which is again ammonium-nitrate-based with detonating
cord, and they then use a blasting cap.
Q. So with your work investigating IRA bombings, have you
become familiar with the chemical properties of ammonium
nitrate?
A. Yes.
Q. And other ammonium-nitrate-based explosives?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you done testing with regard to ammonium nitrate
and its chemical properties as an explosive?
A. Yes.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. Have you testified previously in cases both here and in
England about ammonium-nitrate-based explosives?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, during your employment as a -- with DERA when you were
doing forensic work, did you receive specific training?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What type of training have you received?
A. When I came into the forensic lab, I already had extensive
explosives experience and had attended courses in -- throughout
my Ministry of Defense career, in the composition of
explosives, their testing, their performance, their safe
handling, how they would be used in a manufactured form,
manufactured explosive devices; for example, those used by the
military. And then when I came to the forensic lab, I
concentrated on the forensic side of the work, on how to
examine things in a forensic context.
Q. In your work, do you do instrumental analysis for chemical
residues?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you organized a little bit -- is your lab and your
work organized a bit differently from the FBI Chemistry and
Toxicology Unit?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you also look at the damage to the crime scene itself?
A. Yes.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. And have you had experience doing that, looking at truck
parts, buildings, and other witness material?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And have you testified concerning that damage previously?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you written any articles relating to explosives
residue?
A. I'm not sure specifically about residue, but forensic
explosives, yes.
Q. And about the investigations --
A. Yes.
Q. -- concerning those items?
Are you a member of any societies?
A. Yes. I am a member of the Institute of Explosives
Engineers.
Q. And in the past year, have you received any awards for your
work in the forensic field?
A. Yes, I've been awarded the honor of Officer of The Order of
the British Empire by her Majesty the Queen.
Q. When did you receive that?
A. I actually -- I was actually presented with it in March
this year, but I was given it in her New Year's honors list at
the beginning of this year.
Q. Now, did there come a time in this case when you were
contacted by the Government regarding the investigation of the
Linda Jones - Direct
bombing crime scene?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall when that was?
A. Yes. It was March, 1996.
Q. What were you asked to do?
A. I was asked to provide an independent evaluation of some
evidence.
Q. Since it was March of 1996, I take it you did not go to the
crime scene --
A. No, I didn't.
Q. -- at that point?
A. Not at that time.
Q. What type of analysis were you supposed to conduct?
A. I reviewed videotapes, charts and plans, and some items
recovered from the crime scene.
Q. Did you look at photographs?
A. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry, yes, and the photographs.
Q. And did you have access to any items that you requested in
connection with the crime scene?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, was there anything you weren't allowed to look at?
A. On my first visit, I didn't review any chemical evidence.
Q. And did you come to certain conclusions without reviewing
the chemical evidence?
A. Yes, I did.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. Did you then review the chemical evidence?
A. Yes. I produced a first report based on the videos, the
photos, some of the items from the crime scene, and the charts
and plans.
And then after I had submitted my first report, I was
asked to look at some chemical evidence from the crime scene.
Q. Did you make additional findings based on that chemical
evidence?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And were you specifically precluded from looking at FBI
Laboratory reports regarding the conclusions as to the type of
bomb?
A. I saw no reports which detailed any conclusions of the type
of bomb that had been used.
Q. All right. And have you ever seen such reports?
A. No.
Q. Tell us how you began your analysis in this case.
A. I began by coming to Denver and reviewing the photo -- the
video and photographic evidence, some charts and plans of the
crime scene, and looking at some of the pieces, particularly of
the truck that were recovered from the crime scene.
Q. Did you do your own examination of those truck parts?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And did you follow the same procedure -- that is, in
reviewing documents and examining the debris -- when you've
Linda Jones - Direct
worked on cases back in England?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. Now, have you also become familiar with the Government's
model of downtown Oklahoma City?
A. Yes.
Q. And would it assist you in showing the jury or explaining
to the jury your findings as to the damage at the Oklahoma City
bombing crime scene?
A. Yes, it will.
Q. Would it also assist you in describing the type of
explosive that you believe was used at the Murrah Building?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, may the witness step down?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Now, Miss Jones, if you can turn and face the jury so they
can hear you. You told us you reviewed some plans of the
Murrah Building; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you see the plans of what the Murrah Building
looked like before the explosion?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this building, marked the Murrah Building, consistent
with those plans?
A. Yes.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. Take out this portion, this area. Did you also review
photographs of the Murrah Building and the crater area?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you become familiar with the streets and the
surrounding buildings in the Murrah -- from the Murrah
Building?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, can you tell the jury first what you noticed about the
damage to the building.
A. The damage to the building, what struck me first was that
it appeared that a large bite had been taken out of the Murrah
Building, and that had slid down predominantly into 5th Street,
and that that site, the north side of the Murrah Building,
there was a crater.
Q. And what did you notice about the crater?
A. The thing that impressed me most was the size. From the
charts and the plans, it appeared that it was a big crater. It
was of the order of 32 feet in diameter.
Q. Does the size of the crater assist you in any way in
determining the size of the bomb that was used?
A. Very generally, yes.
Q. How is that?
A. It -- the size and shape of the crater will depend very
much on the size and the shape of the bomb, but a crater of
that size would be created by a big bomb.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. And what about the damage to the building that you
described?
A. Similarly, the building was extensively damaged. As I
said, a large bite appeared to have been taken out of
approximately two-thirds of -- I know it's the rear face, but
the face of the building fronting onto 5th Street.
Q. Did you select some photographs to show the jury that would
depict for them the damage that you relied on in making your
conclusions?
A. Yes.
Q. If you could take your seat, please.
Okay. I'm going to show you Government's Exhibit 848,
which I don't believe is in evidence yet.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recognize this photo?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Does this depict -- is this one of the photographs you
reviewed in doing your work?
A. Yes.
Q. What does it depict -- just briefly, 'cause it's not in
evidence yet.
A. Oh. It shows the crater.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we'd offer 848.
MR. TIGAR: No objection, your Honor.
Linda Jones - Direct
THE COURT: 848 received. You may proceed.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Now, Miss Jones, the jury can see what you see. So could
you tell them what you noticed about the crater?
A. As I mentioned, the crater is big. This photograph has
been taken very relatively soon after the explosion. And you
can get an idea of the size of the crater --
Q. Miss Jones, if you'd like to use that pen there to mark for
the jury --
A. Thank you.
Q. -- I think it's up top, right on the screen, and then
they'll be able to tell what you're talking about.
A. Well, we've got the crater here. And if we look at the
size of that, in comparison with the people standing around it,
we can think of the people as providing some scale, then we can
see that it's a big crater.
And then towards the right of the photograph, we can
see where some of the rubble and the front of the Murrah
Building has slid down towards the crater.
Q. Now if I could show you what's been marked as Government's
Exhibit 854.
Will this photograph help you describe the damage that
you saw to the building?
A. Yes, please.
Q. And does it show -- is this a side view of the Murrah
Linda Jones - Direct
Building?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we'd offer Government's
Exhibit 854.
MR. TIGAR: May I inquire briefly?
THE COURT: Yes.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Good afternoon, Miss Jones.
A. Hello.
Q. That picture that you're looking at: Does that -- does it
look like the crater has been filled in there? I can't see.
A. No, I don't know -- I don't know. I can't see -- I can't
specifically identify the crater in this photograph.
Q. All right. And do you know when it was taken?
A. Not specifically, no.
MR. TIGAR: Your Honor, I don't think we have any
objection. If I could know the purpose for which it's being
offered.
MS. WILKINSON: The damage to the building. But you
can see the date on there.
MR. TIGAR: 4-19. Thank you very much. Once we have
the date, I have no objection. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: It's received.
MS. WILKINSON: Just for the record, it's noted on the
Linda Jones - Voir Dire
photograph. Government's Exhibit 854, I don't think you can
see on the screen -- yes, you can see it in the bottom right
corner, April 19.
THE COURT: It's received.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Now, Miss Jones, you said this was going to explain
something about the damage of the building to the jury.
Excuse me. If we could have the photograph for the
jury.
A. Here we can see the damaged face of the Murrah Building.
And we can see that a bite -- well, the bite that I spoke of
has been taken out of this area of the building. And the front
of the building has slid down. The crater, I think is under
generally about this area. But rubble and debris has fallen
into it. So this would be 5th Street; and on the other side of
the photograph, along here, we see part of the parking lot with
some damaged vehicles.
Q. Now, I'm going to ask you a specific question about the
building, about how that assisted you in your conclusions; but
before I do that, would it be fair to say that you have to
consider everything that you're going to describe for the jury
before you came to any conclusions?
A. Absolutely.
Q. With that in mind, could you tell us if you could tell
Linda Jones - Direct
anything about the speed or the velocity of detonation of the
explosive when you looked at the damage to the Murrah Building?
A. In general, the damage to the Murrah Building and the
vehicles in the parking lot -- I concluded that the sort of
explosive that was indicated was a high-performance explosive
of midrange velocity and performance. It was generally a
heaving- and a pushing-effect explosive, rather than a
shattering explosive.
Q. All right. Now that you've put all those terms out there,
why don't you tell us what a pushing and a heaving explosive
is.
A. If we think of an explosive of a quarrying operation where
what you want to do is bring down a rock face to produce fairly
large materials for -- I don't know, as aggregate or whatever,
then you will use a certain type of explosive, one that will
heave and push, rather than shatter the material into little
tiny pebbles.
Q. And is there a term that you use for the shattering effect?
A. Yes. All high-performance explosives will have some degree
of shattering effect, and that shattering effect is termed
"brisance."
Q. Now, then, what is the effect between that midrange
velocity of detonation that you've talked about and the higher
range?
A. All high-performance explosives can detonate; that is, set
Linda Jones - Direct
up a shock wave to pass through them. And that can range
anything from around 6,000 feet per second to well over
20,000 feet per second. And in the higher range, it's not just
the velocity of detonation but very generally towards the
higher end, the explosives will exhibit more shattering
effects.
Q. And the damage to the Murrah Building you saw was
consistent with which range?
A. The heaving, pushing midrange.
Q. Did you see similar or consistent damage to the cars in the
parking lot?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, did you assist in constructing a chart that would show
the different velocities of detonation you could use to just
demonstrate to the jury what you've just described?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we'd offer Government's
Exhibit 695 just for demonstrative purposes.
MR. TIGAR: No objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Received for demonstrative purpose.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Miss Jones, if you could start on the left and tell us
what -- beginning with the high category, what we're seeing
here.
A. On the left of the chart, we've got the detonation
Linda Jones - Direct
velocities in feet per second, the next column gives examples
of the sorts of explosives that would fall into that category,
and the right-hand column gives information about the sort of
effect you would be likely to observe when those explosives
were detonated.
Q. Let's start with the examples you have for the high
velocity explosives. What are they?
A. The high-velocity explosives, that's that detonate at over
20,000 feet per second, include some military explosives, such
as your C-4 and Semtex. And they're used predominantly to
shatter matter. They might be used in military operations in
some sorts of shells, to breach tanks or metal structures.
Q. Below that you have examples for the medium range velocity;
is that right?
A. Yes. Very generally they can be regarded as detonating
between approximately 9- to 20,000 feet per second.
Q. What are examples of those types of explosives?
A. Some commercial blasting explosives, such as dynamite,
ammonium nitrate fuel oils, and water gels.
Q. And those are the ones that you described to us have that
pushing and heaving effect?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. Does that mean from this chart that if you had a midrange
velocity explosive, there would be no shattering to metal?
A. No, there would be some shattering.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. Why is that?
A. Because all high-performance explosives have some
shattering potential. It's just with the medium range, the
heaving and pushing will be the dominant feature.
Q. And do you have to look, if you're at a crime scene -- do
you have to look at the entire crime scene to make that
determination?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, down below, you have low explosives?
A. They're high-performance explosives, but in the lower of
the three detonation velocity ranges. And we're looking now at
the relatively slow shock waves that might go from about 6- to
9,000 feet per second.
Some commercial explosives fall into that category.
For example, some dynamites and water gels that could be used
in underground coal blasting where you want to give it -- the
rock face more of a nudge than the blasting it away.
Q. Now, just to be clear, then, so I don't use the wrong
terminology, these are all what you refer to as
high-performance explosives?
A. Yes. They all set up a supersonic shock wave.
Q. And that's what detonation is?
A. That's what detonation is, yes.
Q. So these are categories within high-performance explosives?
A. Yes.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. Now, did you select some photographs of cars in the parking
lot to explain to the jury the damage that you saw there?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Let me show you Government's Exhibit 847.
Do you recognize that photograph?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Does that show the parking lot area in front of the Murrah
Building?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we'd offer 847.
MR. TIGAR: No objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Received.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Tell the jury what you can see from this photograph,
Miss Jones.
A. If we concentrate on the parking lot, although it's quite a
distant photograph, we can see that a lot of the vehicles
appear to have been displaced from where they were originally
positioned. I don't think they'd have been parked quite this
randomly. We can see some of them have been moved, and there
appears to be a variety of damage to them.
Q. If we can, let's move on to Government's Exhibit 827, which
is already in evidence.
Do you recognize this photograph?
A. Yes, I do.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. What's depicted here?
A. This is the remains of a no-parking sign which was
positioned across the street in front of the parking lot from
the Murrah Building.
Q. And I'm going to show you that street sign. Government's
Exhibit 826. Did you examine this before coming to court
today?
A. Yes, I did. Thank you.
Q. And did that assist you in coming to your conclusions about
the type of bomb used in the Murrah Building?
A. Yes.
Q. How so?
A. The bending of this piece of the sign was bent away from
the Murrah Building. So a blast had come from in front of the
Murrah Building and hit this no-parking sign.
But equally as important is the damage to the no-
parking sign. It's been subjected to various shrapnel damage.
Fragments of whatever have hit the sign from -- the painted
surface and traveled through it. It's not shattered, it's bent
and buckled and been penetrated by shrapnel.
Q. What would have propelled that shrapnel into the street
sign?
A. The blast from the explosion.
Q. And does the blast from the explosion collect items or
fragments that traveled with the blast wave?
Linda Jones - Direct
A. That's right. Fragments from the explosive device itself
and from the surroundings will be projected at very high speeds
in the blast wave.
Q. How does that occur?
A. When an explosive detonates, the shock wave initially
passes through the explosive. At that stage, it will be
traveling at miles a second. It then hits the outside and
damages and breaches and to some extent shatters the container
the explosive is in. And then fragments of any container or
anything else that's in the path of the blast wave, which is
like a giant tidal wave, will carry items forward at very high
speeds which impact anything else in its pathway.
Q. Is there any way to predict what pieces will survive when
an improvised explosive device detonates in a container?
A. Very generally, with a little more information. To some
extent, yes, but not . . . not unequivocally because it's a
relatively random event.
Q. What other types of information would you need to know?
A. To know what's going to survive, you really need to know --
or to be able to estimate what might survive, you really need
to know how the bomb itself was made and what it contained.
Q. Do you need to know the size?
A. Yes. In general terms, yes.
Q. Now, did you also look at several photographs of the actual
cars that were in the parking lot?
Linda Jones - Direct
A. Yes.
Q. Did that assist you in coming to your conclusions?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Let me show you Government's Exhibit 850.
Do you recognize this photograph?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And is this a photograph of the parking lot?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Government would offer 850.
MR. TIGAR: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Tell the jury what you noticed about the cars in the
parking lot from this photograph.
A. Thank you.
Here we've got a closer shot of the parking lot. And
again, as I mentioned, some of the vehicles have been
displaced. Some of them have been fire-damaged. I think
perhaps some here. And certainly these in this general area.
Also, some of them have been ripped apart. Again,
this is quite a distant shot to look at specific damage; but we
can see that they're damaged and buckled, and some parts of
them are missing.
Q. Let me show you now Government's Exhibit 852. Is this a
closer shot that shows you some of the damage to the vehicles
Linda Jones - Direct
in the parking lot?
A. Yes, it is.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we offer 852.
MR. TIGAR: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. What does this show us, Miss Jones?
A. This shows more particular damage. Here we can see this
vehicle. Whoops. Some of the body panels are crumpled and
dished inwards. I think its tire's missing. But the general
area over here, we can see that vehicles have rolled and
tumbled. There's been a crumpling and heaving and pushing
effect on them. But most importantly, the damage appears to
have been inflicted to them from the outside of them. The
damage didn't occur from the inside to the outside.
Q. So what does that tell you about the improvised explosive
or the bomb that was used in the front of the Murrah Building?
A. It tells me that the bomb consisted of a pushing- and
heaving-type explosive and that the bomb wasn't in these
vehicles.
Q. And what about the fire damage that you saw: Is that
consistent, or inconsistent, with having one improvised device
in front of the building, the Murrah Building?
A. That's totally consistent. In my experience, the fire
damage tends to be rather random; that some vehicles will catch
Linda Jones - Direct
fire, almost as a spot fire, whereas other vehicles in the same
general area of the blast wave won't catch fire.
Q. Let's look at one last photograph of the vehicles, if we
could, Government's Exhibit 851.
Is this photograph significant to you?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Does it show damage to the vehicles in the parking lot?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we'd offer 851.
MR. TIGAR: No objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Received.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Tell the jury what's significant in this photograph.
A. We can see some vehicles that have been flipped and tumbled
and stacked upon each other. We can see one vehicle down here.
These wheels here are from another vehicle that has tumbled.
Its body work has been ripped off, and it's come to rest on top
of the vehicle underneath.
But again, the body panels of the lower vehicle are
crumpled and twisted and torn.
Q. And did that assist you in determining what type of
explosive, or at least the range of the velocity of detonation
of the explosive that was used in front of the Murrah Building?
A. Yes. In very general terms, yes.
Q. How is that?
Linda Jones - Direct
A. Again, it indicated a pushing- and heaving-type explosive.
Q. Now, in examining these photographs -- have you examined
the Ford truck parts identified by Mr. Paddock?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And have you examined the location of their recovery at the
crime scene?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that of significance to you in determining what type of
container was used to house this explosive device?
A. Very much so, yes.
Q. And were you able to determine what type of container was
used?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. I concluded that the bomb was contained in the load-
carrying compartment of a Ryder truck.
Q. Were you able to determine in what direction the vehicle
was parked before it was detonated?
A. Yes.
Q. And could you explain that to the jury by pointing out some
of the pieces that were recovered?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you also show the jury some of the damage that you
saw to the actual vehicle parts?
A. Yes.
Linda Jones - Direct
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, may the witness step down?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Miss Jones, we didn't wheel in all the pieces; but you're
familiar with some -- with the locations of some of the truck
parts; is that right?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And do you recall where the front axle of the Ryder truck
was recovered?
A. Yes. The front axle had traveled in an easterly direction
and come to rest approximately 700 feet from the crater along
N.W. 5th Street.
Q. Is that right before Broadway?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you familiar with where the rear axle of the
vehicle was recovered?
A. Yes. The rear axle had traveled in a westerly direction
along 5th Street and come to rest -- I think it was about
600 feet from the crater, outside the Regency Tower building.
Q. And did you review the location of any of the other major
parts of the truck that were recovered?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And can you point those out generally for the
jury?
A. The -- four of the wheels were important to me. The
Linda Jones - Direct
remains of two wheels were recovered from inside the Murrah
Building. One wheel had come to rest beneath a tree on North
Robinson, and another wheel had come to rest along 5th Street
between St. Joseph's Rectory and the Firestone building. That
told me that the wheels -- the wheels being on each corner of
the vehicle had gone in different directions.
Q. And was that consistent with your observations about the
recovery location of the front axle and the rear axle?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you determine about the location of the vehicle
prior to detonation?
A. I concluded that prior to detonation, the vehicle was
positioned in the area where the crater now is. It was parked
approximately midway or perhaps slightly easterly of the nine-
story section of the Murrah Building, and its cab would have
been facing eastwards; that is, towards North Robinson.
Q. And if 5th Street is one way this way, was the vehicle
parked going in the same direction as traffic?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you also look at certain vehicle parts for damage?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And have you brought some of those into the courtroom
today?
A. Not personally. They've been brought here for me.
Q. Okay. Let me start by giving you a very small piece,
Linda Jones - Direct
Government's Exhibit 720. Did you examine that?
A. Thank you. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you determine?
A. I concluded this piece of metal had been very close to an
explosion.
Q. How did you conclude that?
A. From the fact that I was aware that this had originally
been part of a frame rail from a truck, and I knew that -- I
knew that a frame rail is a substantial piece of metal. And
for the fragment to get in this size, it had been subjected to
a very strong force.
But also, there's a small -- it's almost covered by
the label, but there's a small little pit or crater on this
piece of metal which is indicative of a high-performance
explosive having detonated near to it.
Q. Did you find other items from the crime scene that had that
pitting and cratering?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Let me show you Government's Exhibit 654. Do you recognize
that?
A. Thank you. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you examine that?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you determine?
A. I concluded that this piece of metal had been close to
Linda Jones - Direct
the -- to an explosive event, particularly by the damage to it
and a large area of pitting and cratering.
Q. And what is the -- can you describe for the jury in holding
it up what you're talking about when you say "pitting and
cratering"?
A. Yes. When I'm talking about the pitting and cratering, I'm
talking -- I mean these little dents and indentations which are
characteristic of a high-performance explosive event having
occurred close to them, because when the blast wave comes out
of the bomb, it will be carrying big and small pieces of debris
and also unconsumed particles of explosives; and also there
will be the hot gases washing over the surface which create
these little almost moon craters.
Q. And did you compare this to a piece of the Ryder truck that
was brought in by Mr. Paddock, the next Ryder truck off the
line?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. Let me get that for you.
Excuse me. I'm going to show you what's been marked
for demonstrative purposes Government's Exhibit 655. Do you
recognize this?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would this assist you in explaining to the jury some of
your findings?
A. Yes.
Linda Jones - Direct
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we'd offer 655 for
demonstrative purposes.
MR. TIGAR: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Why don't you hold it up and you tell the jury what you
found about the piece you have in your hand.
A. Yes, just get my bearings.
Q. There you go.
A. The damaged piece has lost its lever, but this piece of
metal would have originally been mounted on the outside of the
rear roll-up door of a Ryder truck. So the pitted and cratered
surface, this side, would have been against the outside of the
painted surface of the truck.
Q. What does that tell you about the location of the explosive
device in the truck?
A. That the explosive device was in the box compartment of the
truck.
Q. You told us that you examined several wheel rims that were
found?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you examine Government's Exhibit 722?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what can you tell us about the damage to Government's
Exhibit 722?
Linda Jones - Direct
A. It's buckled and twisted, and in some places it's torn.
It's not shattered. It's crumpled and bent and buckled.
Q. What does that tell you about the explosive device used in
front of the Murrah Building?
A. That it was of midrange, heaving and pushing performance
and velocity.
Q. I don't know if the two of us can lift this, but this is
Government's Exhibit 787.
Did you examine -- did you examine this for explosive
damage?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you determine?
A. I concluded that this again had been bent and twisted and
torn, rather than shattered. This is one of the pieces of
frame rail.
Q. Can you show the jury some of the areas that were bent?
A. Yes. This piece would have originally been a C section, so
we can see it's been peeled open and just generally twisted and
distorted.
Q. Did that assist you in making your findings as to what type
of explosive was used?
A. Yes.
Q. What did it tell you?
A. Again, it told me that it was a midrange velocity and
performance explosive.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. Were you also informed that a portion of the frame rail was
found on top of a building approximately a block and a half to
two blocks away from the Murrah Building?
A. Yes. I was.
Q. And what did that tell you about the size of the device or
the power of the device?
A. Again, it was a big bomb for a piece of -- it was smaller
than that this -- but for a piece of frame rail to have been
projected from the seat of the explosion in N.W. 5th Street
over these buildings to land on a roof on 6th Street.
Q. And here we have Government's Exhibit 713. Did you examine
that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And do you recall where that was recovered at the crime
scene?
A. Yes. That -- this fragment originated from part of the
rear axle, part of the differential housing from the rear axle,
so it would have been the back of the truck. And we said that
the -- we established that the rear axle had come to rest
outside the Regency Tower. That piece of metal had gone
further than that in the same general direction, I think
approximately 800 feet.
Q. And did that tell you something about the size or the power
of the bomb?
A. Yes. It was a big bomb.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. You can take your seat.
Now, you described for us on the rear door latch, the
pitting and craters?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right? Did that tell you anything about the type
of explosive that was used?
A. Again, I concluded it was a midrange velocity because the
latch hadn't been shattered.
Q. Are you able to determine from pitting and cratering with
any more specificity -- excuse me -- specificity, the exact
velocity of detonation of the explosive?
A. No.
Q. That just gives you a range?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. Now, after you conducted this examination, did you also
review the chemical findings by Mr. Burmeister of Q507?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you examine Q507, yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have an opinion about Mr. Burmeister's findings
of ammonium nitrate on Q507?
A. Yes.
Q. What are they?
A. I concluded that the crystals that Mr. Burmeister removed
from Q507 were ammonium nitrate.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. Did that assist you in determining what type of explosive
could have been used in front of the Murrah Building?
A. In conjunction with the damage to Q507.
MR. TIGAR: Objection to could have been, your Honor.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Well, that's consistent with?
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, could we start that bit
again.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Sure. Based on your conclusions about Mr. Burmeister's
work on Q507 and all the damage, can you determine what
explosive would be consistent with the chemical findings and
the damage?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you find?
A. I concluded that all the findings were consistent with a
bomb containing or including an ammonium-nitrate-based
explosive.
Q. Now, with that in mind, could you tell the jury the exact
explosive that was used at the Murrah Building on April 19?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because the bomb had detonated efficiently and only
ammonium nitrate crystals were recovered. The ammonium nitrate
Linda Jones - Direct
wouldn't have been there on its own. As part of the
explosive -- the explosive wouldn't only have been ammonium
nitrate.
Q. Is the finding of ammonium nitrate consistent with the use
of ammonium nitrate and a fuel?
A. It could be, yes.
Q. Is it consistent with the use of an ammonium-nitrate-based
explosive like dynamite?
A. It could be, although the ammonium nitrate dynamites I'm
familiar with also include nitroglycerine explosive; and --
Q. Go ahead.
A. And if I found ammonium nitrate crystals, if I'd got as
much as -- enough to see, I would also expect to find some
nitroglycerine.
Q. It's your understanding there wasn't nitroglycerine found
on Q507?
A. That's right. To the best of my knowledge, no organic
explosives were found on Q507.
Q. Based on your examination, can you tell the jury whether
this ammonium-nitrate-based explosive was used in the main
charge or in the booster?
A. The finding of the crystals would suggest it was in the
main charge. I don't know if it was also in the booster.
Q. And are you aware that no other high -- or no
high-explosive residues were found at the crime scene?
Linda Jones - Direct
A. Yes.
Q. And is that consistent or inconsistent with a large,
improvised explosive device being used in front of the Murrah
Building?
A. Consistent.
Q. Why is that?
A. Some of the best materials for residue analysis will come
from components that were very close to the bomb, the center of
the explosion. And with a large -- particularly large bomb,
those pieces are likely to be shattered and not recovered.
Q. Have you come to any conclusions about the size of the bomb
used in front of the Murrah Building on April 19?
A. Yes. I concluded that it was a large bomb, and I estimated
it would be of the order of 3,000 to 6,000 pounds of explosive.
Q. And if something like Primadet shock tube had been used to
construct the explosive device in front of the Murrah Building,
would you expect the orange shock tube to survive the blast?
A. Certainly not.
Q. Why not?
A. Because the shock tube would be at the very heart of the
explosive device, and I would expect that it would be consumed
in the explosion.
Q. What if blasting caps were used to construct the device?
Would you expect fragments of the blasting cap to survive the
blast?
Linda Jones - Direct
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Again because the blasting cap is going to be in the center
or very seat of the explosion; and like any shock tube, it
would be a very small component relative to the main explosive
charge, and I would expect it to be consumed beyond
recognition.
Q. You've told us that you believe that this improvised
explosive device operated efficiently; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. I mean that it went off properly; that it didn't partially
explode; that it detonated successfully.
Q. Does that mean that no residues or no fragments would be
left behind?
A. No. Fragments and residues are always left behind. The
problem is locating and recovering them.
Q. As part of your analysis, were you asked to review plastic
fragments that were recovered from the crime scene?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you review -- I'm going to hand up to you 786, 785,
and 786B, which also have Q designators of 112 and 116.
A. Yes, I've seen these before.
Q. And did you come to any conclusions about those plastic
fragments?
Linda Jones - Direct
A. Yes. I concluded some of them had been close to an
explosive event.
Q. And how did you determine that those -- some of those
fragments had been in close proximity to an explosive event?
A. By their appearance. That some of them are blackened,
although I don't think they're particularly burned, but they're
shredded and damaged and distorted. It's almost as if they've
been chewed.
Q. Now, you told us you're familiar with the interaction of
plastics and explosives; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Why is it, Miss Jones, that if that plastic was in close
proximity to the explosion, it didn't just melt or burn or
disintegrate?
A. These fragments are quite thick pieces of plastic. And I
don't know how close they were to the explosion or the
explosive, but I concluded they're fairly light pieces, and
they could have been projected from the area of the bombing
almost ahead of the blast wave.
Q. If they were -- if they were contained -- or from
containers of ammonium nitrate and a fuel, could they have
survived a large explosion of the type you've described for us?
A. It's possible, yes. An explosion of any sort -- an
improvised explosion of any sort is a random event, so I
wouldn't be particularly surprised.
Linda Jones - Direct
Q. But you can't tell us how close these fragments were to the
blast; is that right?
A. Not specifically, no.
Q. Can you tell whether they were inside the building prior to
the explosion?
A. No, although the ones that were found outside -- I know
some of them were found outside the building. And based on
that, I conclude that they wouldn't have been thrown -- I think
some of them were some distance from the building. And because
the blast pushed into the Murrah Building, I wouldn't expect
the plastic to be thrown out for such a distance.
Q. Okay. So if some of that plastic was found here on the
roof of the Journal Record Building and the crater is here,
what do you conclude about the fragments that were here on the
Journal Record Building?
A. I would conclude that the plastic was either in or close to
the truck when it exploded.
Q. And what fragments that were found on the outside of the
Murrah Building over here on what's marked as "Murrah west
side"?
A. Similarly the plastic appears to have gone in a variety of
directions, which again we said that the blast comes out
radially from its seat in the truck. So, again, it would
suggest that the plastic was close to or in the Ryder truck.
Q. Let's go back to that, if we could. Did you determine
Linda Jones - Direct
whether the crater was the location of the explosive device?
A. Yes, I concluded the Ryder truck was parked over where the
crater now is.
Q. All right. And when it detonated, did you see a pattern of
damage in the downtown Oklahoma City area?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that pattern?
A. The pattern was radially from the seat of the explosion,
from the crater. The damage emanated in all directions.
Q. Did you make any conclusions about how many explosive
devices were used to cause the damage to the Murrah Building
and surrounding area?
A. From what I saw, I concluded there was one explosive
device.
Q. Did you conclude that it was manufactured or improvised?
A. Improvised.
Q. Did you conclude how it was transported and contained?
A. It was contained in the load-carrying box compartment of a
Ryder truck.
Q. Did you determine the range of the velocity of the
detonation of the explosive?
A. I concluded it was a midrange velocity and performance --
high-performance detonating explosive.
Q. And you already told us that it was -- could be -- it was
consistent with an ammonium-nitrate-based explosive?
Linda Jones - Direct
A. Yes, it was.
Q. You also told us the size; is that right?
A. Yes, between 3- and 6,000 pounds.
Q. Did you make any conclusions about the type of initiation
used to detonate this device?
A. Very generally. I concluded that there would have been --
likely to have been some form of booster and some form of
blasting cap. What I wasn't able to determine was what was
used to set the explosion off. For example, bombs -- to set
off a bomb, to protect the bomber, you need some sort of delay
between -- you need to put some distance between you starting
the explosive chain of events, as the bomber, and the bomb
exploding so you've got time to get away. Now, you can do that
with something like an electrical circuit with a timer in it,
or it can be a very straightforward sort of burning fuse.
But from what I saw, no evidence of any timing
mechanism were recovered.
Q. Can you tell the jury how difficult it would be for someone
to build a bomb of this size and type?
A. For someone with a basic knowledge of explosives and the
materials available to them, it would be simple.
Q. And if you had the materials such as ammonium nitrate,
nitromethane, det cord, Primadet, and blasting caps, could you?
MR. TIGAR: Object to the nitromethane, your Honor.
There is no evidence from this witness about the possibility of
Linda Jones - Direct
such a thing.
THE COURT: Well, this is a hypothetical question.
MS. WILKINSON: Yes.
MR. TIGAR: Okay. All right.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Could you manufacture or build such a device?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the jury how many people it would take to
construct a device that you've described.
A. One person could do it on their own. More than one person
could do it quicker.
MS. WILKINSON: We have no further questions, your
Honor.
THE COURT: We'll take our recess before the cross.
MR. TIGAR: All right.
THE COURT: You may step down now.
Members of the jury, we're going to take our usual
20-minute rest stop during which, again, please continue to
follow the cautions given always when we stop in recess of
avoiding discussion of the case or anything about it and
avoiding anything outside of the evidence.
You're excused now, 20 minutes.
(Jury out at 3:20 p.m.)
THE COURT: We'll recess.
(Recess at 3:20 p.m.)
(Reconvened at 3:39 p.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
(Jury in at 3:40 p.m.)
THE COURT: If you'll resume the stand, please,
Ms. Jones.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Tigar.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Jones.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. You -- you are an officer of the British Empire. Is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you joined such luminaries as my favorite author,
Gerald Durrell, in that and many other people who have
accomplished a great deal. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you had the opportunity over the time you were working
on this case to review the evidence that had been assembled at
the Murrah Building crime scene; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And in some -- you had questions that you would ask of the
agents and they would answer them; correct?
A. Yes.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. Now, in your -- in your work, this is not the first time in
which you have had to review work conducted by forensic experts
and agents from another country, is it?
A. That's right.
Q. And when you review work that's been done by agents from
another country, you look at it from the standpoint of what
your own standards are; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. For example, in the case of the Queen vs. Zekra, you were
limited in what examinations you could do of samples that had
been previously obtained by another police service in another
country because you didn't know how they were handled; is that
correct? Do you recall that?
A. Not -- I remember the case involving Mrs. Zekra, but I'm
not sure which piece of the evidence you're referring to.
Q. Well, in that case the Israelis had found components or
signs of PTA. Do you recall that?
A. No, there had been an indication.
Q. And you said that you didn't know how the samples were
taken, how they were packaged, how they were sampled, or how
they were protected against cross-contamination, so you didn't
examine any soil samples from the crater in that case. Do you
recall that?
A. I didn't examine any soil samples from the crater in that
case but not because of what you said to start with.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. Well, I'm asking you whether -- that case was tried in the
Central Criminal Court; is that right?
A. In London, yes, that is right.
Q. And that was in Courtroom No. 1 in the Old Bailey; is that
right?
A. I can't remember whether it was Courtroom No. 1 or 2, but
it was certainly at the Central Criminal Court in the Old
Bailey.
Q. And my question is do you recall testifying there "I don't
know how the samples were taken, how they were packaged, how
they were sampled, or how they were protected against cross-
contamination, so I didn't examine any soil samples from the
crater"?
A. I remember not knowing how the Israeli people had taken the
samples, but I don't remember saying about the soil samples as
a direct lead-on from the -- the first part of what you said.
Q. Well, let me show you this transcript and ask if that
refreshes -- excuse me.
I'm taking a trip, your Honor.
At the bottom, ma'am.
A. Thank you.
Q. -- if you recall saying that in front of his Lordship and
the members of the jury on that occasion.
A. That's right. What you read is what I said, but I don't
know without reading the rest of the transcript -- I don't have
Linda Jones - Cross
the context of the soil samples.
Q. I understand. I'm not going to ask you about that. That's
another case.
My question is in that case in which Mrs. Zakra was
charged, did you have some concern about how evidence had been
handled by the police service of another country?
A. I didn't have any information at all about what -- how --
the samples the Israeli personnel obtained. I knew nothing
about how the samples were recovered, packaged or analyzed,
other than they were screened only using an EGIS machine.
Q. And is it correct that you are as a forensic scientist
concerned about how samples are obtained in the field and then
handled on their way to the laboratory where they can be
analyzed?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And that is a legitimate subject of inquiry; is that
correct?
A. Most certainly, yes.
Q. And it's also a legitimate subject of inquiry to ask what
kinds of documentation is used by the police officials out in
the field in how they collect the evidence. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In the United Kingdom, it is the habit of police officials
at bombing crime scenes to use videotape; correct?
A. At some scenes they do but not at all scenes.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. I understand. Well, in -- what's the most recent important
bombing case in which you have given evidence? Would that be
the Queen vs. Gannon and others?
A. I was in court the week before last in an IRA trial.
Q. Do you remember -- I'm sorry.
A. I think the Gannon case was perhaps back in May.
Q. In the spring of this year; correct?
A. Of this year, yes.
Q. Now, do you recall in that case that there was a videotape
that showed a police officer using an unauthorized
evidence-collection technique in connection with one of the
defendants, Peugeot -- with a Peugeot automobile attributed to
one of the defendants?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. What's the relevance of this?
MR. TIGAR: To establish the witness' knowledge of
proper evidence-collection techniques.
THE COURT: Well, I think you can ask that without
getting into other cases.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Have you had experience with evaluating whether or not
evidence-collection techniques that are used by the police
create a risk of contamination?
A. I think almost certainly, yes. I'm not sure I can remember
a specific, but I feel I must have done.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. And in fact, the analysis that the -- the procedures that
are used to collect evidence have been of great concern in the
United Kingdom. Correct?
A. They are of great concern, yes.
Q. Because you have -- as a matter of fact, you have written
an article in which you state that "it is of concern that we
have safe convictions and safe acquittals"; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And a part of making sure that we have safe convictions and
safe acquittals is that we do not overstate the importance or
relevance of forensic testimony. Would you agree with that?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. And in your article, you gave an example of how it might be
possible to misinterpret forensic evidence. Do you remember
that?
A. Could you remind me which article you're referring to.
Q. This is an article -- did you write an article in which you
set out a case in which several people had had access to the
same storage area?
A. Is this the hypothetical area in the book chapter on
explosion?
Q. The truck driver.
A. I have written -- co-authored a book chapter which we hope
Linda Jones - Cross
will be published at sometime on a book on forensic science;
but the chapter I co-authored is on explosions. And I
formulated a hypothetical case as part of that book chapter.
I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to.
Q. Well, did this book chapter involve a passenger and a truck
driver?
A. I think I would need to refresh my memory on it; but I'm
sure it does. I'm not absolutely sure the scenario I created,
but it was an imaginary one.
Q. All right. Well, we'll find the article and then we'll
come back to it.
A. Thank you. I'd appreciate that.
Q. Now, when you've -- when is the first time that you became
interested in what's been identified here as Government's
Exhibit 664 or Q507?
A. I saw Q507 during my first visit to Denver, which I think
was about September time, 1996. But then I was only
concerned -- or I was only aware of its physical damage. I
wasn't aware during that visit of any chemical components that
had been analyzed from it.
Q. And did there come a time when you looked at the evidence
recovery log that showed when and where it had been recovered?
A. I've seen the FBI chain of custody log from the laboratory.
I don't know -- I can't remember exactly what other logs I've
seen. I have seen some because they're in my notes.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. I'm going to show you a page of what's been introduced in
evidence as Defense Exhibit E89. Do you recall having seen
that before?
A. I've certainly seen it this week or last week when I was
sitting in court. I think I have seen it before, but I
couldn't swear absolutely to that.
Q. Were you in court when this item was received in evidence?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And you recall the discussion at that time that the number
06 was missing?
A. I do.
Q. And the 06 is what would indicate Government's Exhibit 664
or Q507; correct?
A. So I have learned over the last week, yes.
Q. I'm going to show you now what I have marked as Defendant's
Exhibit E4 --
A. Thank you.
Q. -- and ask you if you can recognize that.
MR. TIGAR: It's a page of her notes, your Honor.
MS. WILKINSON: Thank you.
Your Honor, he just flashed a piece of paper at me.
All I want to do is take a look at it.
MR. TIGAR: They've had a list of these things, your
Honor, but here.
THE COURT: Well, she's entitled to what the witness
Linda Jones - Cross
is being shown.
MR. TIGAR: Of course.
MS. WILKINSON: No objection, your Honor.
MR. TIGAR: Then I offer it.
MS. WILKINSON: Not to it going into evidence, to you
showing it.
MR. TIGAR: All right.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Your turn.
A. Thank you.
Q. Do you recognize that as material from your notes?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. TIGAR: We offer it, your Honor.
MS. WILKINSON: I would object. I thought he was just
using it to refresh her recollection.
THE COURT: Well, for what purpose are you offering
it?
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Did you use this item to help you determine where Q507,
Government's 664, had been recovered?
A. No.
Q. For what purpose did you use it?
A. It showed me the position of some of the vehicles in the
parking lot. It was a piece of paper that was provided to me
Linda Jones - Cross
together with other pieces of paper.
Q. Do you see that -- the "06" there?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who wrote that?
A. No.
Q. Was that on there when you received it?
A. Without checking my copy, I cannot say.
Q. Do you have your copy with you?
A. Not here in the witness box. I have it here in Denver with
me.
Q. Is it in the court?
A. Yes.
MR. TIGAR: Your Honor, may she look at it for
comparison purposes?
THE COURT: Is it here in the room?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. It's in my case down
in the corner somewhere.
THE COURT: Well, you may step down and recover it.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Page 188.
A. 188. Thank you.
Sorry. I can't read my own writing.
Yes. I'm sorry. It's the photocopy. I do have it,
and "06" is present on my copy.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. Is what I'm showing you that has been marked as Defendant's
Exhibit E4 a true and accurate copy of what was furnished to
you by the FBI?
A. As I said, it hasn't copied -- yours hasn't -- hasn't
copied terribly well. Some pieces haven't come out on it; but
yes, it looks -- yeah.
Q. And does this notation at the top indicate that that's out
of your files; is that correct?
A. That's my handwriting, yes.
MR. TIGAR: We offer E4, your Honor.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, as long as we put another
copy in for Ms. Jones showing all the markings. If I
understand, her testimony is not all the markings came out.
But as long as we can do that after court, I have no objection.
MR. TIGAR: Yes. This is marked "best copy
available."
THE COURT: All right. Then another copy can be made
with your permission.
MR. TIGAR: Of course.
THE COURT: We'll receive E4.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. I'm now going to place what has been received as
Defendant's Exhibit E4 on the overhead. I'm going to zero in.
You see the 06 here?
A. Yes.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. Now, was that on there when you received this document from
the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you agree with me that the "06" is not present on
Defendant's Exhibit E89, the document that the FBI agents were
here and testified about the other day?
A. What you're showing me on the screen now does not include
"06."
Q. And you heard the testimony of the agents concerning that;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in terms of the procedures that are followed in the
United Kingdom, it is desirable, is it not, to record the
location of an item of evidence that is recovered at the time
that it is recovered and on the evidence recovery log that is
then being prepared?
A. Ideally, yes, at the time, or very soon afterwards.
Q. And you first received E4 when?
A. I'm sorry. Could you remind me what E4 is.
Q. I'm sorry. It's that page from your notes.
A. With the "06" on it?
Q. Yes, with the "06."
A. That would have been after the first report that I did,
so -- I can't remember the exact date, but it would be after
September, 1996.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. All right. Because you did two reports; correct?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And one did not take account of Q507 and the second one
did; correct?
A. The first one didn't take account of the chemical analysis
of Q507; that's right.
Q. And the second one did?
A. It did, yes.
Q. So you don't know, do you, who put "06" on there or when
they put it on you -- on there. Correct?
A. That's correct. I don't know.
Q. Now, is it also desirable in terms of the procedures
followed in the United Kingdom to photograph items of evidence
at a scene before they are moved?
A. In a -- in ideal circumstances, that's certainly preferable
but not essential.
Q. And you so heard the testimony that as to some items they
were photographed before they were moved and the agent
testified as to some items they were not?
A. Yes, and I think that's generally the same at home.
Circumstances dictate.
Q. But at home -- you mean in the United Kingdom?
A. Yes, in England.
Q. It is certainly the case that officers are supposed to
document in some way exactly where something was found, whether
Linda Jones - Cross
they do it by a photograph or marking on a grid or by a
videotape or some way; correct?
A. There will be some record made. Not always immediately
when the item is located but as soon as practical afterwards
and while their memories are still fresh.
Q. And you heard the testimony of the agents about who
remembered who took the photograph and all the rest of that;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, with respect to collection of evidence --
A. Yes.
Q. -- you're quite familiar, are you, with how you test for
these organic explosives; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And in the United Kingdom, if you intend to test for
organic explosives, would you use ordinary polyethylene bags to
collect evidence at a bombing scene?
A. Again, the polyethylene bags aren't ideal, but they're
often used.
Q. And why aren't they ideal?
A. Some high-performance explosives, particularly the liquid
ones such as nitroglycerin, are volatile and will seep through
polyethylene bags.
Q. And nitroglycerin is one ingredient of ammonium-nitrate-
based dynamites; correct?
Linda Jones - Cross
A. Some dynamites, yes.
Q. So if one were concerned to try to identify the presence of
ammonium-nitrate-based dynamites, one would not use
polyethylene bags; correct?
A. That wouldn't be ideal, but again circumstances dictate. A
polyethylene bag is better than no bag.
Q. Understood. But in the United Kingdom, what kind of bags
do you recommend?
A. For explosive-residue analysis, wherever practical, we
recommend a different type of plastic bag, which is a nylon
bag.
Q. A nylon bag?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you also agree that chain of custody of the
evidence is very important?
A. Yes.
Q. And it is important to identify who recovered the item?
A. Yes.
Q. To whom they gave it?
A. Yes.
Q. And who transported it to the Evidence Control Center?
A. Yes.
Q. And you heard the evidence with respect to that in this
case; correct?
A. Yes.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, in this scene, you've told us about a number of
findings that you were able to make based on analyses of
different things that were found at the scene; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. For instance, you told us about parts of the Ryder truck.
Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the piece -- this is Government's 654. That is a
piece of the handle on the cargo box?
A. Yeah. It's -- the flat piece with the damage -- that's --
would have been the part that would have been affixed to the
back of the truck, almost as support for the lever that would
operate --
Q. Is it your understanding that this is located -- do we have
the other sample?
MS. WILKINSON: It's right here. 655.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. 655. So 654 -- this flat metal piece with the pitting and
cratering would have gone on the outside. Correct?
A. It would, yes.
Q. Okay. And it's your testimony that the device --
MR. TIGAR: Excuse me, sir.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. -- exploded with sufficient force to create pitting and
cratering through the fiberglass-reinforced plywood and onto
this metal surface. Is that right?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, this is located at the rear of the cargo box; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is your conclusion as to where the device was
located in the cargo box?
A. I don't know precisely, but I think it would have been
likely to have been towards the cab end of the box.
Q. Now, you told us that the rear axle, which the jurors have
seen but we did not --
A. Yes.
Q. -- heft around here, was found here in front of the
Regency Tower. Correct?
A. That is right.
Q. You can't see it, but where I'm pointing?
A. Yes.
Q. And that the front axle was found about where?
A. I think -- keep going.
Q. Keep going?
A. Around there, I think.
Q. Around there?
A. I think so generally.
Q. Now, that's consistent with something having blown the rear
Linda Jones - Cross
axle backwards and the front axle forwards if the truck is
pointing in an easterly direction; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And does that suggest to that you the explosive charge was
placed forward of the rear axle so as to exert that backward
pushing force?
A. Yes.
Q. So it is your testimony that the pitting and cratering that
we see here was made -- was about how far from the explosive
device that was in the Ryder truck?
A. I don't know how -- I don't know the volume the explosive
would have occupied, but that would have been beyond -- that
latch would have been beyond the rear axle. I'm sorry. Is
that what you asked?
Q. Yes. By looking at a diagram of the Ryder truck and how
it's built, we could determine that distance; correct?
A. Yes, we could.
Q. Okay. Now, are you acquainted with a man named Paul
Rydlund?
A. No. I know the gentleman's name, but I've never met him.
Q. Do you regard him as authoritative in the field of ammonium
nitrate/fuel oil explosives?
A. From what I've heard, I certainly do.
Q. Have you read his testimony in this case?
A. Not in this trial.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. You read it in another trial?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, have you -- do you have an opinion as to
whether the device that blew up the Murrah Building exploded
efficiently or not?
A. Relatively efficiently, yes, I think it did.
Q. And do you have an opinion as to whether an efficiently
detonating ammonium-nitrate-based device contained in plastic
barrels would upon explosion consume the barrels?
A. It could do, but equally some fragments could remain.
Q. And that is your opinion; correct?
A. It is my opinion, yes, based on some experience of the
behavior of plastics in explosions.
Q. Now, you said that you had been to or examined between 550
and 600 crime scenes; correct?
A. Not crime scenes. Forensic explosives cases.
Q. And how many of those involved ammonium nitrate?
A. Ammonium-nitrate-based explosives, perhaps 20 -- I was
going to say about 20 to 30. There would be 20 to 30
post-explosions or recoveries of bombs, but there would have
been many more related to residue analysis.
Q. And when you say "residue analysis," what do you mean?
A. Looking for -- if I could explain a little bit.
Q. Of course.
A. When -- for example, if there is a large explosion of a
Linda Jones - Cross
truck bomb in England, then the -- the crime-scene case would
be -- would count as one, one case. But also associated with
that, if people are arrested, there might be residue analysis
carried out from various addresses or vehicles or so on, and
they will count as cases in their own right. So I would say
that probably 20 to 30 of the explosions or recoveries of
materials but many more --
Q. Many more cases.
A. Yes.
Q. So one explosion event can lead to more than one case. Is
that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, when you were first retained here, you were
concerned about what the weather conditions were; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what were you told?
A. I was told that -- I asked a series of questions in
relation to Q507 recovery and analysis.
Q. Yes.
A. I was told that it rained on April 19 and then there was no
more rain until after April 21. I think that's -- yes, until
after April 21.
Q. And were you told that the crystals were embedded into the
plywood?
A. Yes, I was.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. Were you told that there was a glaze of crystals in the
plywood?
A. I saw that in Mr. Burmeister's notes; that he described it
as a glaze.
Q. When did you first see the notes?
A. Between September and December, 1996.
Q. And did you regard what you had seen as trace evidence;
that is, the Q507?
A. No.
Q. Excuse me. Do you remember testifying in a previous trial
that "I've reviewed Steven Burmeister's finding with respect to
Q507 and some other of the trace evidence"?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you mean by that to distinguish the trace evidence
from Q507, or were you regarding Q507 as a part of the trace
evidence?
A. It wasn't well-worded, but I would regard Q507 not as trace
evidence, but it was a low level, rather than -- it wasn't
pounds of material. I would regard it as -- I think "bulk" is
too strong a word, but anything visible, I wouldn't regard as
trace. But I reviewed, I think, the results from about 350
samples.
Q. Yes. Now, you say you did review. You reviewed about 350
samples. Is that right?
A. Or the results from about 350.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. Now, have -- you have never found -- in all the
ammonium-nitrate-based explosive scenes in which you have ever
investigated, you've never found crystals. Is that right?
A. Only one instance, but I'm afraid that bomb didn't detonate
efficiently, so I got pounds of it, but not -- I haven't found
crystals in the Q507 way.
Q. In fact, you've previously testified, "I haven't found
crystals." Correct?
A. Not in the Q507 way; that's correct.
Q. For a device that detonated?
A. Exactly.
Q. And this device clearly detonated?
A. This device detonated.
Q. Is there any scientific literature that reflects that
anybody else has ever found crystals?
A. Not so far as I'm aware.
Q. This is one of these instances in which "anything is
possible"?
A. Within the context of the crime scene, yes.
Q. In fact, you've testified previously: "Anything is
possible"; right?
A. I might well have done.
Q. And so do you know of anybody who has presented a paper,
any scientific literature that says "I found crystals"?
A. Not in this sort of context, no. I can't say -- not so far
Linda Jones - Cross
as I'm aware.
Q. One of the elements of science is repeatability; correct?
A. In chemical analyses, yes.
Q. That is, where -- when we put diphen -- what's that stuff
called? That substance -- diphenylamine -- that makes things
turn blue?
A. I call it diphenylamine, but that's not how it's pronounced
here.
Q. All right. Well, whatever that stuff is, every time you
put it on an oxidizer, the stuff turns -- it turns blue?
A. On a range of oxidizers, yes.
Q. And that's called -- that's repeatability; right? It's
going to happen every time that it contacts an oxidizer --
that's what's going to happen; correct?
A. If you do exactly the same thing with exactly the same
materials and same amounts, yes.
Q. That's right. And that is the hallmark of the scientific
method -- correct -- is that you can get the same results again
if you do the same experiment? That's how you verify things,
isn't it?
A. Not in all scientific work, no. But with laboratory
testing as you describe with chemical analyses, you should be
able to devise experiments to illustrate the repeatability.
Q. But we don't have anything in the literature about crystals
for exploded devices, do we?
Linda Jones - Cross
A. An explosion is a random event. If we do exactly the same
explosion a number of times, we will get different results.
Q. Now, you also looked at pieces of plastic, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you tell me -- let us assume hypothetically that
the device -- we're talking about a device in the 4,000-pound
range.
A. It would encompass 4,000 pounds, yes.
Q. I understand that's your estimate, but I'm going to ask you
a hypothetical question.
A. Yes.
Q. I'm going to ask you to imagine that the device is in
plastic barrels.
A. Yes.
Q. That each barrel has ammonium nitrate and fuel oil in it.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I'm going to ask you when you -- if you use a
barrel -- if the bomber uses a barrel --
A. Yes.
Q. -- with ammonium nitrate in it and pours the fuel oil in,
the fuel oil will make contact with all the prills; correct?
A. It depends how much you put in, but it will be absorbed on
the prills it comes into contact with as it's seeping through
the barrel.
Q. In the 6 percent range. If you do it in the 6 percent
Linda Jones - Cross
range and use fuel oil, it would all come in contact with the
prills. Correct?
A. I can't say every single prill; but in general, yes, that's
the idea.
Q. Now, ammonium nitrate and fuel oil with a 6 percent mixture
of fuel oil is not necessarily cap-sensitive, is it?
A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. And by not "necessarily cap-sensitive," that means if I put
a blasting cap in the middle of that barrel and bang it off,
maybe it will go and maybe it won't?
A. That's right. It wouldn't be reliable.
Q. So to make this reliable, our bomber would have to put
something else in there as a booster. Correct?
A. That would be sensible, yes.
Q. So let's assume that a booster was used, some commercial
ammonium nitrate product.
A. Yes.
Q. And then that commercial product would be cap-sensitive;
correct?
A. That would be -- you would select a cap-sensitive booster.
Q. And for -- now, often when testifying in the United
Kingdom, you try to put yourself in the position of the person
that made the device; correct?
A. Sometimes I do, yes.
Q. Well, you did it, for instance, in the Gannon case; right?
Linda Jones - Cross
A. I might have done.
Q. And I only mention that because I think we saw each other
there.
A. Did we?
Q. Excuse me. I'm sorry.
Is it unfair to you -- is it unfair to you to ask you
to imagine yourself constructing this device?
A. No.
Q. All right. I'm sorry.
A. No, I'm sorry, too.
Q. Now, the booster is then cap-sensitive; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if our bomber used Primadet --
A. Yes.
Q. You're familiar with what Primadet is; right?
A. I'm familiar with the -- the shock-tube principle, yes.
Q. And you know that Primadet is a brand of shock tube?
A. Uh-huh. Yes.
Q. And in this case -- please go ahead and have a drink of
water.
A. I'm sorry. I'm trying to compose myself.
Q. In this case, you did examine pictures of Primadet. Is
that right?
A. No.
Q. Oh, did you examine -- did you find out about any Primadet
Linda Jones - Cross
that was recovered anyplace in this case?
A. Not until I sat in court last week.
Q. And have you -- are you familiar with the concept of
Primadet being or the shock-tube things having a very small
quantity of explosive on the inside of a plastic tube?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And are you familiar with the manufacturer's contention
that the shock tube survives the passage of the -- the fire
through the tube?
A. No.
Q. You've not read any product literature to that effect?
A. I don't remember that, no.
Q. Now, the plastic in which shock tube is made is what kind?
A polyethylene, or --
A. I don't know.
Q. Don't know. Now -- all right. Suppose our hypothetical
bomb, the Primadet -- or if a shock tube was used, that would
be placed in general on the outside of the barrels?
A. It could be, or it could be -- it could be outside, or
leading into the barrels.
Q. Now, if -- The cap, of course, would have to be down inside
the barrel; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then the other part might or might not be led out to be
connected. Correct?
Linda Jones - Cross
A. Yes.
Q. In the case we're putting here, this hypothetical case,
you'd have to interconnect the barrels; correct?
A. You wouldn't have to, but that would enhance the
reliability.
Q. All right. And again, we see that this was an efficient
device; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after -- and you did not -- there was no evidence in
this case of a time delay; correct?
A. Not from the --
Q. Or clock?
A. That's right. Not from the items that I examined or became
aware of. I didn't see any evidence of a timer.
Q. Now, does that lead you -- so does that suggest to you that
this was ignited by some sort of time-delay fuse?
A. It would suggest that, but it wouldn't rule out the use of
a timer.
Q. Did you review video taken from the Regency Tower video
camera shortly before 9:02 in the morning on the 19th?
A. I don't know what time it was. I saw a short sequence of
video footage from the Regency Tower. I wasn't aware -- I
don't know what time in the morning it was.
Q. Did you see a video of a Ryder truck coming into view,
pausing and then moving on?
Linda Jones - Cross
A. I recall seeing a video of a truck passing the Regency
Tower filmed apparently from inside the Regency Tower.
Q. Do you recall whether or not the truck paused?
A. I don't remember.
Q. So that didn't play -- whether it did or not, that did not
play any part in your analysis; is that correct?
A. No. I think I've only seen that relatively recently,
either just before the first -- I don't know. Certainly after
I wrote my reports.
Q. Now, if no timing device was used --
A. Yes.
Q. All right -- then the most likely method of ignition is
some sort of safety fuse that burns at a prescribed rate;
correct?
A. That would be easiest -- not the safest, but the easiest
method, yes.
Q. And once that fuse is lit, the bomber had better get out of
the way; correct?
A. The bomber certainly should make their escape quickly.
Q. If the bomber wants to survive?
A. Exactly, yes.
Q. Now, in our hypothetical case, is it your testimony that
the plastic barrels, if the device were efficiently
constructed -- that pieces of them might survive?
A. They could do, yes.
Linda Jones - Cross
Q. Now, again, is there any literature on that subject?
A. I don't know.
Q. Now, once this thing goes off, it exerts an enormous
outward force in all directions; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And for all practical purposes, that force is equal 360
degrees around; that is, in all directions. Correct?
A. It tries to be.
Q. Now, that could be influenced by the positioning of, in our
hypothetical, some barrels. Correct? They could be put in a
particular shape?
A. It's influenced by a number of factors, including the size
and the shape of the bomb, how it's packaged, how it's
contained. There is a dozen or a couple of dozen factors that
will influence that, yes.
Q. 30 centimeters or approximately 1 foot from the center of
initiation in any given barrel in our hypothetical case --
A. Yes.
Q. -- what is the temperature that one can expect to see a few
minutes -- a few milliseconds after explosion -- after
initiation?
A. I don't know. Again, it would depend on the explosive.
Q. I've asked you to assume ammonium nitrate/fuel oil boosted
with an ammonium-nitrate-based dynamite and ignited with a cap
integral to a shock tube.
Linda Jones - Cross
A. If you're asking me a specific temperature, then my answer
is I don't know.
Q. Can you give me a range of temperatures?
A. It will be likely to be thousands of degrees Celsius.
Q. And thousands of degrees Celsius is certainly enough to
create the toffee-apple effect on polymers?
A. It can be, yes.
Q. And what is the toffee-apple effect?
A. It's a melting of some of the pieces of plastic so that you
get little globules of plastic formed --
Q. And --
A. -- with some type