The Oklahoma City Bombing Trial: The Sentencing of Terry Nichols
Thursday, June 4, 1998 (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
(Sentencing Hearing)
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 1:00 p.m., on the 4th day of June,
1998, 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, JANE TIGAR, and SUSAN FOREMAN, Attorneys at Law,
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1308, Denver, Colorado, 80203,
appearing for Defendant Nichols.
* * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
(In open court at 1:00 p.m.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
We're convened in criminal action 96-CR-68, United
States vs. Terry Lynn Nichols, scheduled for sentencing
hearing.
Appearances, Mr. Mackey?
MR. MACKEY: Good afternoon, your Honor. For the
Government, Mr. Larry Mackey, of course. With me is Sean
Connelly, Beth Wilkinson, Pat Ryan, Geoff Mearns, Aitan
Goelman, and James Orenstein.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Tigar?
MR. TIGAR: Good afternoon, your Honor. Michael Tigar
representing Terry Nichols, who is here in court. With us
today, Ron Woods, Reid Neureiter, Adam Thurschwell, Jane Tigar,
and Susan Foreman.
THE COURT: Thank you.
About an hour ago, I received a newly filed or then
filed the motion for new trial filed by counsel on behalf of
Mr. Nichols and requesting an evidentiary hearing. Has the
Government got its copy of this?
MR. MACKEY: We received it, your Honor, when we
walked in court.
THE COURT: All right. The motion seeks a new trial
under Rule 33 and Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the
Constitution on the ground that jury deliberations were
tainted; that the jurors worked in small groups outside the
formal deliberative process, and the motion is based on
newspaper articles that are attached as Exhibit A to the
motion, articles which seem to be based on interviews with
members of the jury in this case. And there is a request that
there be an evidentiary hearing, also recognizing the
limitations on questioning of jurors with respect to the Rule
606.
This procedurally, as I interpret it, is a motion for
new trial based on newly discovered evidence in the sense that
it is not a motion made within the seven days from the verdict
because this information was not available to counsel within
that time. Therefore, I think that procedurally, we will go
forward with this hearing, set a time for the Government to
respond to the motion for new trial. It's my understanding
that that will not affect the time for appeal. The time for
appeal would be the 10 days from judgment here, and then it's
my understanding of the law that the Court has jurisdiction to
hear such a motion but would not have jurisdiction to grant a
new trial except on remand from the Court of Appeals for that
purpose on the request of the court to be made for that
purpose. So that's how I propose to proceed on this and give
it time for the Government to respond.
MR. TIGAR: May I speak from here, your Honor?
THE COURT: Of course, yes.
MR. TIGAR: It had not been our thought that this
would be any impediment to what your Honor had planned to do
today. Mr. Manspeaker had called me and said, you know, you
should look at the Sunday papers in Denver, which I promptly
did.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. TIGAR: We thought we ought to file it as soon
after getting the Sunday papers as possible so that no one
could accuse us of delay. But your Honor's understanding of
Rule 33 is also our understanding of Rule 33, and should your
Honor eventually deny the Rule 33 motion, then we understand we
would have -- that would itself be an appealable order which
would be separate from a judgment to be entered today.
THE COURT: Yes. The Government concur on that
procedurally?
MR. MACKEY: We do, your Honor. We'd need roughly
seven days to respond to the motion.
THE COURT: Roughly seven days, you say? How roughly?
MR. MACKEY: How about seven, Judge?
THE COURT: All right. We'll call for the response,
then, June 11, or you can have the 12th, June 12, to file a
written response to that. We'll deal with that in due course.
We -- the agenda that I propose to follow for this
hearing will be that we will first review the presentence
investigation report and the objections that are made to it.
And then the Court has already, of course, had a hearing on the
guidelines March 25 and at that time set out findings to
establish the guideline levels resulting in the conclusion that
under the guidelines, the adjusted total offense level is 46
and the criminal history category is I.
There has also been the restitution hearing on May 13
resulting in the ruling of restitution in the amount of $14 1/2
million. There has been no ruling with respect to a fine.
And as I outlined at the guidelines hearing, the
issues of upward and downward departure are to be considered
here and were reserved for ruling at this hearing. But I don't
intend to reopen the matter of the guideline determination or
the restitution determination so that we would be considering
upward and downward departures after dealing with some other
matters; and I've also ruled after a hearing that under Rule
32(c)(3)(E) balanced against the statute, the Victims Act, it
is, with a crime of violence, statements from victims are a
part of the sentencing hearing. I received from the Government
the names of 12 persons who wished to make statements here. In
that regard, I've already heard the objections from the defense
to that and the defense position that both the statute and the
rule are inapplicable. It's not necessary to review those.
Those objections are saved, preserved for the record.
And then of course, we have, as usual, the opportunity
for allocution and statements by counsel for the defendant, by
the defendant, Mr. Nichols, and by the Government.
So what I propose, then, is that we will first deal
with the presentence investigation report and the objections
made, and then I will hear the statements from the victims; and
then we'll proceed to the oral motions for upward and downward
departure and the statements with respect to sentencing.
So given that, first, we have the presentence report
prepared here dated March 6.
And Mr. Tigar, you have reviewed -- or you and other
counsel have reviewed this report and reviewed it with
Mr. Nichols. Is that true?
MR. TIGAR: Yes, your Honor. We have reviewed the
presentence report and reviewed it with Mr. Nichols. All
counsel on our team have. We have filed a disagreement with
respect to the Government's position; but other than that, I
think there are no issues remaining with respect to the PSI.
THE COURT: Well, there were the objections raised and
are recited in the addendum.
MR. TIGAR: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: That dealt with -- well, they're contained
in the letter of March 23.
MR. TIGAR: That's right, your Honor.
THE COURT: And that's a part of the report. And I
have reviewed that. The Government has also made a statement;
but first of all, with respect to the issue of irrelevant and
prejudicial political statement, there were objections
specifically to paragraphs 16, 19 through 21, and 25.
MR. TIGAR: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: And under the rule, you already
anticipated this, of course, because you cited appropriate
excerpts from the transcripts of the trial -- both trials,
wherein I excluded that material from trial as not relevant.
And I'm also excluding it from consideration here by me on the
ground that Mr. Nichols' views and positions with respect to
the tax and credit systems are not relevant to the
determination of the appropriate sentence for the crime of
conviction.
Then the other was the characterization of the marital
relationship; and that's in paragraph 36. And I'm not -- I'm
not going to consider that.
There were, then, the factual clarifications section
of that letter --
MR. TIGAR: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: -- to which the Government did make a
response, principally with respect to participation in gun
shows. And I'm not going to make findings on that, either,
because I don't believe that to be relevant to my determination
here.
The final thing was a factual correction, and I
discussed this with Chief Miklic, and he agrees that he does
not have any information to contradict that Osentoski Real
Estate was not owned by Lana Padilla now but by Mr. Osentoski;
so that correction is made.
Now, I believe that takes care of the presentence
report.
MR. TIGAR: I think so, your Honor. Excuse me, your
Honor. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: I was just going to check with the
Government. I did not find objections filed by the Government
but simply the contradicting statements to the extent that they
may be considered contradictory with respect to the factual
clarifications section.
MR. MACKEY: That is correct, your Honor. We have,
for the record, received two documents from Mr. Miklic: The
original report dated March 6 and his supplemental of May 14.
We have no objection to his original report and agree with the
submission of the supplemental making part of the record our
factual contentions to some of the defense objections.
We agree with the Court that those issues, if an
issue, need not be resolved for purposes of today's
proceedings.
As to the criminal fine, your Honor, since you raised
it earlier, I did want to announce that in light of the
restitution order, the United States would waive imposition of
any criminal fine.
THE COURT: Well, I do not intend to impose a fine in
addition to the amount of the restitutionary order because I
think to put anybody in the position of attempting to collect
on the fine and on the restitution order is just not
practicable. So there isn't going to be any fine.
Now, I think I cut you off, Mr. Tigar. I don't know
whether you were about to add something or --
MR. TIGAR: Your Honor, it's sufficiently unusual that
I will say it: I agree with the Court's characterization, and
I think these matters have been resolved at the last hearing,
so we agree with the Court's recitation of what the positions
are.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
Now, as I announced in sort of announcing the
procedure that would be followed here, I will call on the
persons who wish to speak.
As I understand it, Mr. Mackey, this paper that I have
about the sequence is the sequence in which these persons are
prepared.
MR. MACKEY: Yes, your Honor. We should begin with
Ms. Marsha Kight and end with Mr. Cash.
THE COURT: All right. Marsha Kight, if you wish to
come up to the lectern here and make your statement.
MS. KIGHT: May it please the Court . . .
THE COURT: Ms. Kight.
MS. KIGHT: On April 19, 1995, at 9:02, a bomb
exploded in Oklahoma City. And the echoes of that day still
reverberate in the countless souls that were shattered by its
impact. In a split second, the Alfred P. Murrah Building was
reduced to rubble and thousands of lives just as surely
shattered and crushed. 168 lives were violently destroyed.
Those that survived the war zone carry their scars for life.
We all carry the emotional scars. The veil of innocence was
ripped from our eyes and our lives forever changed.
The blood of the innocent was the price of hatred, and
its toll of grief and anguish will be exacted for a lifetime.
Families are still struggling to cope with the tremendous void
left in their hearts, images of their loved ones' death
haunting their minds and tormenting them in the night, daily
living with the strife of trying to make sense of the
senselessness. Families that were once close are now in
shreds, torn apart by the emotional wake of the bomb. Those
who survived the blast suffer with their physical and emotional
wounds. All of them carry deep scars; some that can be seen
and some that cannot.
They saw unspeakable horrors that day and still
struggle with the sights, smells, and sounds forever burnt into
their very soul.
Each one of the 168 that were lost were also a
co-worker and a friend to many of the survivors. Survivors
lost more friends in one moment than most people could
experience in several lifetimes. They often had to attend
three and four funerals a day. Grief that enormous is
difficult to comprehend, and even more difficult to carry in
one's heart.
Survivors and the rescue workers were truly the heros
of April 19, 1995. They were the ones who disregarded their
own injuries and their own safety to rescue fellow co-workers
from the rubble, many of them going back into the building
instead of away from it in order to help the injured, many of
them lovingly tending to the wounds of others with no thought
to their own.
The bomb not only ripped through the concrete and
steel that were a building, but it tore through many hearts and
minds of many lives, as well. There are no scales with which
to measure pain or grief. Though the circumstances may vary,
the threat of anguish squeezes itself through any loss.
It's one of life's ironies that I appear before the
Court for the reason that I do, but I do so to represent my
daughter, Frankie Ann Merrell. She worked on the 3d floor of
the Alfred P. Murrah Building in the credit union. She was
blown from her teller's window and found by the shaft of the
elevator on the first floor. The body was located the very
first day but was not removed from the rubble and we weren't
notified until the 5th.
I do so to represent my granddaughter Morgan who was
two years and six months when she lost her mother. I do so to
represent a little girl that still grieves for her mother and
asks unbearable questions.
I do so to represent my son, who lost his father 14
months prior to losing his sister.
I do so to represent my daughter's family, her
husband, and my family.
Words seem trite in describing what follows when your
daughter is murdered in the worst act of terrorism on U.S.
soil, when your daughter is stripped from your life; but I will
try. April 19, 1995:
It's the sheer horror of turning on the television and
hearing that tremendous explosion and seeing the building where
your daughter worked reduced to a pile of rubble. It's a
terrifying realization that your child might be seriously
injured or worse yet, dead.
It's having to have someone come watch your
granddaughter while you go search for your child. It's getting
into your car to go search for your daughter, not knowing what
to expect to find. It's the sounds of sirens and the cars
racing on the side of road with the hazard lights flashing as
you make your way down to look for your child -- the sheer
terror of it all.
It's walking upon shards of glass and debris floating
around you as you get to the site and you're only sent away.
It's going to St. Anthony's Hospital, seeing people
bloody and lifeless as you frantically search for your child.
It's searching pages that are posted on the basement of the
hospital, looking for your daughter's name and calling all
hospitals, trying to find her.
It's having to call your son who had just lost his
father 14 months prior to cancer and tell him that his sister
was missing and he needed to come home.
It's going to the First Christian Church and being
asked by funeral directors for a personal description of your
daughter so they can identify her. It's being asked to look at
a Jane Doe who fits the description of your daughter, who is so
severely injured she's almost beyond recognition. She is not
your child, but she's someone's.
It's being told that Frankie had been found and taken
to St. Anthony's Hospital, then finding out that it was a false
report.
It's having unwanted cameras shoved into your face
wanting pictures of a grieving mother, much like shooting a
dying animal.
It's watching the rain begin to fall and the wind pick
up and you're told that the search is being called off and you
wonder if she's lying there in the building calling out for you
to help her. It's not knowing if she's alive or dead or dying
and feeling so powerless, knowing all I can do is sit and wait.
It's waiting Thursday and no word. It's waiting
Friday and no word. It's waiting Saturday and no word. It's
dealing with a grieving two-year-old and not knowing what to
say or how to comfort her.
It's being unable to comfort your son who is hurting
because you're dealing with your own grief.
It's hoping for the best and trying to prepare for the
unthinkable, burying a child.
It's an endless stream of phone calls and visions of
the building being played over and over and over again in your
mind.
It's sitting in your living room and having visions of
your daughter playing with her baby or looking at the fireplace
where she stood on the day she got married and feeling so empty
inside.
It's wanting to reach inside your chest and pull out
your heart because you hurt so bad.
It's remembering the day your daughter was born and
for the first time, I touched her and held her in my arms,
wishing I could hold her again. It's the last kiss and the
last "I love you."
It's Sunday, the 23d of April. The phone rings. No
words need to be spoken, for you know the worst in life has
happened. Then you're asked to go to First Christian Church
for notification and that you hear the feared confirmation: My
daughter was dead.
It's the memorial service that was in progress during
the notification at the state fairgrounds and the message that
was delivered that day, "let the healing begin," by our
president. I had only begun to grieve.
It's the hardest thing a mother will ever have to do,
is bury a child.
It's walking into a viewing room at a funeral home and
looking at your child's swollen, lifeless body and feeling like
dying yourself. It's planning a memorial service to honor your
precious child and what she stood for, which no parent should
have to do.
It's packing up her things from her home item by item,
memory by memory. It's reading the letters and the cards and
the things she has written, secreted away in her most private
places, realizing that the one she invariably saved are the
ones that just said "thank you" or "I love you," and really
understanding for the first time that's all she ever needed to
hear or to receive in return.
It's carefully folding each of your daughter's things,
as I have always done, to either save them for Morgan or so
they would be neat when they were given away.
It's the memories of her childhood every time I walk
through her door and sometimes even dread going home because
the pain is so great and the memories are so fresh. It's
watching the footage of your daughter's murder time and time
and time again on television, day and night and every time you
pick up a newspaper. It's getting down on your hands and knees
and packing the fresh dirt around your child's grave and
pulling the weeds so it will be perfect. It's sitting across
from each other at Thanksgiving dinner and each knowing that
there is but one thing on each other's mind, yet pretending
otherwise for their sake.
It's wishing for the first time in your life that
Christmas would never come. It's not being able to go to
shopping malls anymore because all you see is mothers and
daughters. It's trying to pick out gifts for your
granddaughter that your daughter would have picked out for her.
It's hearing your two-year-old granddaughter ask for her mother
and having to tell her she is gone now.
It's living the rest of your life with the fact that
your daughter suffered one of the most horrifying deaths
possible.
It's knowing you never had or will never have that one
last kiss and "I love you" and thanking her for the joy that
she brought into my life.
It's knowing that a little girl who had a mother who
loved her more than life itself was taken away from her, a love
that no one can replace.
We live by laws in this country so that ideally, no
one will ever have to know what it's like to be a victim of a
violent crime. If I had one wish in the world, it would be
that no one would ever again have to go through what I and my
family have endured since April 19 of 1995 and what our family
must carry with us for the rest of our lives. Crimes such as
what was committed against my family are intolerable in any
society that calls itself not only free but civilized. The law
recognizes as much and provides for punishment that will ensure
at least that others will not suffer again at the same hands,
even if it does not prevent recurrence at the hands of others.
I do not know what your Honor's sentence will be. I
do know for the families, survivors and the rescue workers,
there is no time off for good behavior. For all the sorrow and
the tears that we have shed, there is no parole. And our
sentence from this tragedy is life of only memories of those we
loved.
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Kight.
We have Mr. Stan Mayer. Please come forward.
MR. MAYER: May it please the Court.
THE COURT: Mr. Mayer.
MR. MAYER: I am the grants manager for a division of
the Oklahoma Historical Society. On April 19, 1995, I was at
work in the Journal Record building. Our offices were directly
across the street from the Murrah Building and I had been
looking out our windows to the entrance where the Ryder truck
was parked. I turned around. With my back facing the window,
the bomb exploded. At that moment, I was standing less than
200 feet from the truck; and I believe I submitted two
pictures, one shows where our offices were and --
THE COURT: Yes. I have them.
MR. MAYER: Okay. The force of the blast tore the
clothes off the back half of my body and propelled me several
feet down the hall. Approximately 300 pieces of shrapnel
entered the back half of my body. Several pieces went around
my skull and came out the side of my face and ears. Objects
hitting my head caused a severe skull fracture and cut my
jugular vein on the left side of my neck. My left ear was only
attached at the top by a piece of cartilage, and both ears were
shredded. From the top of my head down to my feet, there was
not an inch of skin on the back half of my body that was not
shredded by shrapnel, and there is another picture that shows
my body.
THE COURT: I have it.
MR. MAYER: My left side of my body received a
crushing blow that broke several ribs. Shrapnel punctured my
left lung, causing it to collapse. A larger piece of shrapnel
cut both of my legs to the bone just below the knees. A 2-inch
square piece of glass entered my left arm at the elbow and
ripped down the inside of the bone, resting above the wrist.
Hundreds of pieces of glass and metal shredded both my biceps,
shoulder, neck, back, hips, and thighs.
Not knowing what was happening or the extent of the
damage at the time, I was disoriented but fully conscious.
Before the shock waves of the blast finished destroying our
office, I was trying to help an injured co-worker get up and
get out of what had been our area. I could not use my left
arm, and I could see and feel large pieces of shrapnel sticking
out of me. I assumed that no one could help me or stop my
bleeding and that I would be dead in a few minutes. With that
thought in mind, I tried to help the other people out of the
building. The explosion and thick smoke made us think that our
building was on fire and we only had a few minutes to get out
before being burned to death. As we stood up, we realized our
office no longer existed. The first exit we tried to go down
had completely collapsed. We had to come back up to the 3d
floor and find a clear exit. At this point, while still on the
3d floor, I leaned against a wall and started going into shock.
I believed that I would die in the building but I knew that my
co-workers had gotten out.
Mike Oelke, a state worker, came back into the
building and found me on the 3d floor. When he found me, he
did not think I had a chance of making it due to the amount of
blood that I had lost. He carried me out of the building,
found an ambulance, and told them to leave immediately or I
would be dead.
When the ambulance arrived at St. Anthony's, I was
taken directly to surgery. For over five hours, two nurses
held me up while four doctors and hospital staff worked to
remove 100 pieces of shrapnel, stop major bleeding, stabilize
my breathing, and close gaping holes in my body. During this
time, a plastic surgeon sewed my ears together and worked on my
face. They gave me 4 units of blood and 3 units later that
evening. As I started to regain consciousness, my first
thought was that I was going to stop breathing again. They
assured me that if that happened, they would breathe for me.
It was several hours before I started believing that I was not
going to die that day.
Later, I found out that due to the limited number of
life support units at the hospital, they waited to see if my
lung would reinflate before deciding not to put me on a unit.
This meant they were unable to give me anything for pain during
this entire period. In fact, I was not given any pain
medication till much later that evening. As a result, I
remember them pulling every piece of shrapnel out of my body
and giving me over 400 stitches and staples.
Until -- since April 19, I've had over 40 surgical
procedures to remove another 98 pieces of shrapnel, relocate
major nerves, close open wounds, remove scar tissue, and
plastic surgery on my face, ears, neck, and arms. I have
suffered long periods of depression with extreme fear, anxiety,
and hallucinations. Altogether, I've spent more than 30 days
in the hospital, missed more than a year of work, and spent
three years in physical therapy rebuilding my body.
A workers' compensation doctor examined me and gave me
a permanent disability rating of 96.3 percent. X-rays still
show more than 100 pieces of shrapnel in my body, and he listed
the back half of my body as permanently disfigured.
As a result of the injuries and the resulting
permanent disabilities, I have lost one of my jobs and
one-third of my annual income. I have had to fight to retain
my remaining job with no guarantee that I will be able to work
enough hours to keep it. I will have to have surgery
periodically to remove more shrapnel as it becomes problematic.
I will have to do physical therapy at least three times a week
for the rest of my life. This greatly limits the type of job
that I can perform, and it limits many other areas of my life
as well.
Every day, every time I move my body, take a step,
lift an arm or turn my head, I feel the effects of the bombing.
I work and fight every day, but my life has been permanently
altered and I've had control of my life taken from me.
In addition to the physical pain, I've had to fight
through the deep and severe depression and guilt and all the
psychological trauma that comes from being a victim of a
violent crime. I will never be totally free of the physical
pain and/or the memories and knowledge of what can happen.
Michael J. Fortier (sic) supported this violent and
cowardly act, and for this he should be punished with his life.
He had a choice to stop it or allow it to happen. He chose to
support it and has shown that he is not a responsible
individual that should live free in our society. Your Honor, I
respectfully request the maximum sentence for Mr. Nichols.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
Sandy Battreall.
I hope I didn't mispronounce your name, if I did.
MS. BATTREALL: It's Battreall. Battreall.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. BATTREALL: May it please your Honor . . .
What kind of a person was Harley Richard Cottingham?
Three and a half years ago, my brother was alive, walking
around on solid ground, enjoying life, making friends, working,
planning for his future, never once thinking that his life
would be taken in a split second, crushed by nine floors of
solid concrete, having to lay in this pile of rubble for 12
days, then to put -- be put in a cardboard box and shipped as
freight on a plane to his home state of Nebraska. His
relatives and friends were there to meet the plane and watched
while this box was unloaded by a forklift into the cargo
terminal. From there, he was placed into a waiting hearse and
taken to a mortuary 30 miles away. His body was placed in a
final casket, never to be seen again, buried with the clothes
he wore the day of the bombing.
His casket was draped with the American flag. You
see, he was a veteran of the Vietnam War, served in the U.S.
Navy for four years and did four tours to Vietnam. He was
proud to serve his country.
Harley was a person who would help anyone, enjoyed
working with people. Harley did things in a small way. People
will remember him for that. Harley was proud to be an
American, who was also a big fan of the Nebraska Cornhuskers.
He was buried with the national championship banner.
Born and raised on a Nebraska farm, he went to a one-
room country school and graduating from a small town high
school where everyone knew everyone. He served in the U.S.
Navy. After the Navy, Harley would work part-time jobs and
attend the University of Nebraska in Omaha, graduating with a
degree in criminal law.
His first job after graduating from UNO was with the
Veterans Administration, counseling veterans. After cutbacks
in the VA, he pursued another line of work. Harley was offered
a job as an investigator for the Defense Investigative Service.
Harley enjoyed this line of work very much.
Through this department he would travel from Omaha,
Nebraska, to Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, meeting many people and touching many lives.
One of Harley's good friends, who was also an agent
for the DIS, had this to say: "Harley was a friend and
confidant. When Harley left, I lost someone I could bounce
ideas off, get advice from and give advice to."
Harley was not larger than life. He was a common man
whose generous spirit touched many people in small ways. His
friends remember him for his love of trees and nature. He was
unpretentious. It was easy to remember that Harley was human
because he made the same petty mistakes the rest of us made
every day. He was distinctive, however, because he could look
back on his errors with humor. He was more apt to avoid or
forgive anyone who upset him than to hold a grudge. He was
concerned for those in life who do not have access to power or
authority. He did not, however, crusade or make speeches. He
was more likely to comfort with quiet words, a small joke, or
ready shoulder.
After Harley's body was unloaded from the plane and
into the hearse, his best friend, Jim, was so angry that his
friend was dead that he threw his car keys across the parking
lot at the airport. This bombing not only has affected family
but hundreds of thousands of people. Our family alone received
600 sympathy cards.
Harley had a passion for growing trees. Every year,
he would plant 500 seedlings and watch them grow into Christmas
trees. He owned a choose-and-cut tree farm in Nebraska.
People would come from miles around to buy one of his trees.
He took care of these trees, pruning, shaping and spraying them
so they would grow just right. It was hard work for him, but
he enjoyed it and it gave him peace of mind.
When it was time for him to sell his trees, he would
travel to Nebraska every weekend, starting the weekend of
Thanksgiving through Christmas. On a couple of his trips, he
would bring his trailer with him and take back his trees to
Oklahoma City for his friends and co-workers. He was very
proud of them.
Harley enjoyed playing golf, also. One of his dreams
was to play at Saint Andrews golf course in Scotland. In March
of 1995, he was able to fulfill that dream. He got to play at
Saint Andrews golf course. He also got to visit the township
of Cottingham, England, where the home of our ancestors came
from.
Harley had many plans for the future, enjoying life,
planning his retirement, improving and expanding his tree farm,
where he had planned on building a home on this farm, maybe
even raise a few animals; but all these plans were blown up on
April 19, 1995, by selfish individuals who had a disliking for
the Government.
Harley was a true patriot. He loved his country and
the people who live on this great earth. I know he is in God's
country and is safe from all evil. He is missed very much.
No words can describe the pain our family has had and
is still going through. Just hearing the names of Timothy
McVeigh, Terry Nichols, or Michael Fortier tears your heart
out. Seeing a Ryder truck traveling down the road or even
parked makes you take a second look and another reminder of
that terrible day. Even hearing "Oklahoma City" sends cold
chills down my spine.
Our family has never had to go through such a tragedy
as this; the waiting, traveling to Oklahoma City to wait again,
and after the 12 days, the news that finally came: Your
brother/son/uncle/friend has been found crushed to death under
nine floors of concrete.
Our father hardly ever talks about his namesake, his
eldest son, a son who helped him on the farm, never to have the
enjoyment of playing a round of golf together, the family
dinners and discussions.
Mom has taken his death very hard. She would always
worry about him. If he didn't show up on time, she would call,
to phone to find out where he was or if he was all right. To
lose a child is such a vicious -- to such a vicious crime or
act is more than any person can bear.
As for myself, words cannot describe the feelings I
get knowing that the individuals who are responsible for this
vicious crime are still alive and walking around, speaking
their feelings and saying they are sorry and waiting and
wanting a lesser sentence.
Harley has no say in this matter. He can't. His life
is over, killed by the people who were a part of the bombing.
Things will never be the same. You try to go on with
life, but once in a while, you get a flashback of that awful
day. And after the pain goes away, you start over again.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Sharilee Lyons.
MS. LYONS: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Lyons.
MS. LYONS: I would like to share with you just a
little bit about what happened to me in the bombing. I worked
for the Department of HUD on the 7th floor of the Murrah
Building, over by the northeast windows where the most damage
was done. And the blast cut a path right through my work area.
My desk fell seven stories. By God's grace, I wasn't there
that day, and that's what saved my life.
However, 38 people I knew and loved very much were
there that day and were killed. One of those 38 people was my
co-worker and my best friend, Diane. She was taken from me and
I never got to say good-bye to her.
Another one of those people was my beloved minister
from church, Pastor Martinez, who just happened to be in the
Social Security building that morning, helping a church member
fill out some forms. I never got to say goodbye to my pastor,
either.
I live with a tremendous amount of guilt for having
survived that day, and I may never get over it. I don't know.
For me, the trauma was so severe that I transferred to
another HUD office in Cleveland, Ohio, thinking that it would
help me heal. I'm finding practically no healing, being in
another office, city and state.
The grief, the pain, the loss, and the memories follow
me wherever I go.
On top of all this, I lost my two sons because I had
to leave them behind in Oklahoma City due to a financial
hardship created by the bombing.
I couldn't take them to Ohio with me, and their lives
have been torn apart by the stress and the strain of my
leaving. You see, I'm the only parent that my sons have who
they can turn to for any kind of support.
So the past three years have been one continuous
nightmare for me. I'm so grateful, though, that God spared my
life that day. Nevertheless, deep down inside me, I feel just
as dead as those 168 people who were murdered.
Whenever I think of my best friend Diane, and whenever
I think of Fran and Charlotte and Sandy, three more co-workers
and special friends of mine who died that day, and the unique
bond we had as friends -- almost like sisters, we were -- I
still cry. It's kind of like a type of death or a type of
imprisonment. It's kind of like a type of life sentence placed
upon me, to lose so much, so many, so precious to me.
I think that anyone who takes away a person's life and
freedom, as taken away from me on April 19, 1995, ought to
experience that same kind of loss themselves. I know that
won't bring back the ones I love; but I'm hoping that just
maybe, it will help bring some sort of relief to me, because
that's what I really need most of all.
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Lyons.
Doris Jones.
MS. JONES: Good afternoon, your Honor.
THE COURT: Good afternoon, Ms. Jones.
MS. JONES: I'm the mother of Carrie Ann Lenz, and she
was killed on April 19, 1995, in the bombing of the Alfred P.
Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Along with her was my unborn
grandson, Michael James Lenz, III.
From that day on, my life will be forever changed. I
would like to tell you a little bit about Carrie and who she
was while she was here with us.
Carrie grew up in South Oklahoma City and she was a
member of Draper Park Christian Church since she was five years
old. She was baptized in that church, married, and we had
planned the funeral for there; but we found out that there were
too many attending and we had to move it to another church.
Carrie attended Moore High School. While she was in
grade school, she was a Campfire Girl. I was the leader. We
were -- we did a lot of outdoor activities.
While she was in high school, she took floriculture at
the Moore-Norman vo-tech; and in her senior year, she decided
that she would attend college rather than going into the floral
business.
Also, in her senior year, she met the love of her
Mike -- life, Mike Lenz, whom she would later marry.
Carrie and I were truly best friends. We would talk
to each other at least once a day and saw each other at least
once a week and usually more often than that. Carrie and I
talked about her career, her work. Carrie started working just
after she started to college. She started to work for the ATF,
and she worked there for just a brief time, a few months; but
she decided that she wanted to stay in school, and they found a
place for her with the Secret Service, with the Stay-in-School
program. And she stayed with them until she graduated from
college. And at that time, she found a position with the Drug
Enforcement. And that's where she was the day of the bombing.
We used to go shopping together. Grocery shopping was
our ritual. We both lived in the country; and once a month, we
would take a trip to the grocery store and buy all of our
groceries. And I have a real hard time shopping. I can't -- I
can't stay in the grocery store for very long.
And when the bomb took Carrie, it also took my
son-in-law. I will never have another one. Carrie was my only
daughter; and one day, Mike will marry and he'll be someone
else's son-in-law and I will not have one any longer.
We used to -- my husband and I used to do things
together and go places with Carrie and Mike because they were
outdoors people and we were outdoor people, and we just did a
lot of activities together.
Carrie and I had so many plans. I was -- I had
already decided that I would quit work and take care of the
baby. When he got old enough to go to school, I'd be there so
I could take him to school and Carrie wouldn't have to worry
with him about being at a day-care center. As I stated, we
live in the country and she was just 11 miles from me; and
that's real close when you're out a long ways from everything
else.
I have a hard time still taking those roads that led
to their house. I find myself going around and avoiding those
roads because I can't -- I can't handle the sinking feeling
that I get.
My husband misses her also. She was always the fix-it
person at her and Mike's house. She would work on the lawn
mower or anything -- anything that needed to be fixed, Carrie
would work on it. And if she didn't know for sure how to do
something, she'd call my husband and say, "Mom, can I talk to
Bob? I have to ask him how to fix" whatever it was she was
working on.
Her life was important to so many people. My son,
Chris, told me just after the bombing that he didn't want to be
an only child. My only answer to him was he would always have
his sister and never to forget that she had been a very big
part of his life for 23 years.
His daughter Kelsey, my one and only grandchild, will
never know her Aunt Carrie. She was about to be one year old
at the time of the bombing. Carrie had already bought her a
birthday present and we were able to get it from the car
after -- after the car was released from the garage.
Carrie's funeral was two days after my -- I mean, my
granddaughter's birthday was two days after my daughter's
funeral. I tell Kelsey about Carrie all the time, every chance
I can. Carrie -- sorry. I do that all the time. Kelsey is
four now and she talks about her Aunt Carrie as if she knows
her. One day, she told me that she wished Carrie would stop
being an angel so she could see her.
I told her I wished that same thing every day. I know
that if you believe in God -- and I certainly do -- that one
day I will see her and be with her again, but it doesn't help
the wanting to go shopping, the having the honesty like when
your daughter can tell you, Mom, you need to cut your hair, you
don't need to cut your hair, you need to color it, or let it
go.
I find myself struggling with these little things that
she could be so honest to me and I can't find that honesty with
anyone else.
It's hard to explain to people about having a child,
no matter how old, being killed. It's the most hopeless
feeling. All my parenting life, if the kids had a problem, I
was supposed to have an answer or solution, but there is no
answer or solution to this. There is nothing I can do to
change things or bring her back. She's gone.
Sometimes when I meet people and as we talk and get to
know each other, the conversation always comes around to, Do
you have children, how old are they, and do they have children?
I always have to pause for a moment, because how do I
tell about Carrie? I just say I have two children, a daughter
and a son. Then comes the question, How old are they? How do
I tell them Carrie will forever be 26? And they ask me then if
she had children, and I have to tell them that she was six
months pregnant with my grandson.
And I know that makes them feel bad and want to back
off, but I have to tell them it's okay because I have -- I have
to speak of Carrie because this -- then she becomes real to
them. Sometimes I wear her clothes, her shoes, and some of her
jewelry. I wear her bracelet every day just to keep her close
to me, and I wear a pin so that people will ask about it and I
can tell them about Carrie because if I can't be with her and
talk to her, the next best thing is to talk about her to anyone
who will listen. She was very special to me.
When I'm talking about her, I try to explain Carrie's
life. She would get so excited and squeal and make this funny
expression. It's hard to explain. You'd have had to seen it.
Sometimes I sit and look at pictures or videos, just
so I can see her pretty face and hear her voice.
You know, I never even got to see the ultrasound
pictures of my grandson because she had just got them taken the
day before the bombing and she had taken them with her that day
and was showing them to the girls in the office.
Sometimes when I need to talk to Carrie, I find myself
at the cemetery or at the bomb site at the fence. I talk with
her and tell her things, but, you know, she doesn't talk back.
There is only silence and it makes me feel that I'm about to go
crazy.
A little over a year ago, I was not dealing with
things very good and my job was becoming less important to me.
And I just quit caring and my job reflected this. I felt I was
about to get fired, so I talked with my supervisor and he let
me change jobs within the company.
I ask myself all the time: How can I go through the
rest of my life, missing her so much? It's now been three
years, and I think I miss her more as the years go on. I know
that nothing that will happen here today will bring her back,
but at least I know that the people responsible for this have
to think about my daughter and my unborn grandson and what a
good life they could have and should have had.
I hope that you will consider my daughter's life when
you -- before the day ends today.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Jones.
Dr. Paul Heath.
DR. HEATH: Your Honor, may it please the Court.
THE COURT: Dr. Heath.
DR. HEATH: On April 19, 1995, my office was located
in the west end of the 5th floor of the Murrah Building, and I
was there at the time the bomb was exploded. Probably about
65 feet from the truck itself. And when the smoke cleared
around me, covered up, I was able to see over my right shoulder
the bomb pit burning and the explosive small pieces of
explosive material popping in the air.
I have submitted to this court my family's financial
losses due to the bombing through the pardon and parole office,
and I will not repeat those in my statement today except to say
that my own personal financial losses are of no consequence to
my family when compared to the loss of human life and its
aftermath as exhibited in the lives of those affected by the
bombing of our community.
I will give this statement today in an intellectual
fashion with as little emotion as possible, but let this court
know that the emotions are there.
And on behalf of my family, some bombing survivors
that I assisted, and my VA co-workers, I do thank you, Judge
Matsch, for allowing myself and others to speak concerning the
impact these criminal acts have had upon myself and others.
Like some other bombing survivors, your Honor, I have
experienced the strongest emotional reactions possible,
including a video that ran in my head 24 hours a day for at
least six months, and reruns can come at any time that I allow
them.
These criminal acts of the party found guilty by this
court did result in unforgettable human suffering and trauma
similar to what people witness during wartime. Two of the
several people who lost sight in one or more eyes were my
closest VA co-workers that I assisted out of the bombed
building and one has since died of stress-related physical
problems, certainly aggravated by the bombing.
He was a wonderful man who always had a joke to tell
anybody. He had grown up with Walter Matthau and had gone to
school with him. And I miss Stan a great deal.
His wife recently talked with me and she, too, from
the stress, has suffered some physical activity that includes a
heart attack. And her mother that she was taking care of and
her retarded sister had to be relocated now because of the loss
of her husband and her own problems, all associated with this
bombing.
I work every day with an outstanding VA co-worker who
works every day with a permanent major arm bombing injury; and
like most of us who were at the bombing, she, too, has
bombing-related emotional scarring.
One of my clients that I had worked with that was so
proud to be studying elementary education as a disabled veteran
died in the Water Resources Board across the street from my
office at the time of the bombing.
Like so many, I am troubled by the reality that one of
three citizens found guilty of criminal acts associated with
the bombing could have prevented all of the injuries and all of
the deaths.
Some have said: "But Dr. Heath, you -- you survived,"
as if that was some curse. And my answer is, yes, I survived,
but as a new and different person who served, deliberately
served, disabled United States veterans since 1966. I survived
like others, asking how could one of our own who served our
country while in the military return to couple up with persons
of ill will to self and others. In unison we ask: Why didn't
they return committed to serving instead of stealing and
destroying?
I survived to assist injured and bleeding friends out
of the A.P. Murrah Building, one an architect who can no longer
hear well enough the musical sounds so that he can participate
in his lifelong hobby of singing with barbershop quartets.
Yes, I survived to hold and to hug tightly a mother
wracked with shock and grief, struggling to get into the bombed
building's day-care center while screaming, "Where is my baby;
I want my baby." I survived to hold and attempt to console a
senior citizen first response rescue worker with tears
streaming down his cheeks, upset because he was required to
leave a trapped person in the building when a desk ornament
that resembled a bomb was found in the rubble, survived to
start a new office the next day and to reenter the bombed
building daily to rescue Veterans Affairs equipment, vital
records to keep military families from being denied their next
months' subsistence allowances and to rescue plans of special
adapted homes of 13 paraplegic and quadriplegic homes that were
under construction.
Yes, I survived to attend 50 or more of my co-workers'
memorial funeral services. I survived to try to rescue -- I
have survived to try to reassure a baby boy named Tevin's older
sister that life in the future will be okay without her
brother, but with a grieving mother; survived to make multiple
hospital visits where injured co-workers suffered needlessly.
Yes, I survived to tell the survivor -- to feel the survivor
guilt of one -- of being one of only a few who did not have to
be provided immediate medical treatment nor be hospitalized on
April 19.
As a citizen and as a civil servant, I survived and
was driven by the gravity of these criminal acts to participate
as fully as possible in these trials, encouraged by
representatives of the majority of federal agencies who
occupied the Murrah Building. I was asked and volunteered to
establish the OK City Building Murrah Building Survivors
Association, survived in spite of three stress-induced heart
attacks, shortness of breath, and persistent deep leg muscle
pains, numbing of both feet and a hearing loss since the
bombing that almost cost me my own life the other day, when I
almost entered an intersection where an emergency vehicle was
coming through that I didn't hear because of the high frequency
hearing loss from the bombing.
Fortunately, I survived to explain to my 83-year-old
mother, who daily bucked rivets on C-47s during World War II so
that her five children would hopefully not be affected by or be
the target of those who preached hate and committed unthinkable
crimes against humanity and why I have been so preoccupied and
unavailable for her these past three years.
I survived to have my family, neighbors, friends and
clients ask me and others whether the past 1,141 days since the
bombing were invested wisely. We each may continue to struggle
with our changing answer and questions, and we each will live
with our own choices of whether or not these last 1,141 days of
investment were wisely invested.
Your Honor, I have developed strong views that it
would have a most regrettable effect on me and my family if
this court had not provided a fair and just trial, because in
doing so, for us it would have dishonored all, including those
who died, those injured but who survived, and those like
myself, whose life have been changed forever.
I believe I'm leaving this courtroom together with a
deepening respect of the law and the United States system of
justice, including the professionals who are appointed or
employed to administer it. I am leaving this court applauding
whatever this court's judgments are regarding this historical
but oh-so-very-serious matter concerning the just sentencing of
this United States citizen who was found guilty of criminal
behavior.
Your Honor, as I close this dark chapter of a book I
should not have been required to experience but did so with the
relentless questions of why and what, I believe I know who.
This court has answered that question for me.
Why one or more of our fellow citizens would ever
promote their cause or profit from criminal acts by
participating through conspiring in unthinkable acts that were
directed at children who were resting in cribs and playing in
our federal building where I served as the medical safety
officer for the building; what motivated citizens to be
influenced by friends who have a dark and ill-will agenda that
included lying, stealing, storing, and selling stolen guns and
explosives, whose proceeds could be used to finance living
expenses, transportation, phone card payments, and plans and
ingredients to build, then have delivered and exploded an
instrument of mass destruction?
What will we do -- what will we and others do to
kindle respect for our country's constitutional intent embodied
in her law? What will we do to show our personal respect
toward all of our fellow citizens, including elected and
appointed civil servants at all levels of government, whose
dedicated sacrifice and work product so often goes
under-evaluated -- undervalued?
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Dr. Heath.
Constance Favorite.
MS. FAVORITE: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
MS. FAVORITE: I'm Constance Favorite, the mother of
Lakesha Levy.
Lakesha was born and raised in New Orleans, Louisiana.
And at the age of 13, Lakesha wrote such a profound letter to
me about her ten goals in life. I can't remember exactly those
ten goals of life she had written down for me, but I do
remember she intended to complete high school and attend
college and to become successful.
And at the end of that letter, Lakesha wrote to me
that said, "I'm going to be -- I'm not going to be something,
I'm going to be somebody."
Lakesha completed high school. She went to college.
And she married, had a baby; and to better her lifestyle and to
make a good life for she and her family, she turned to the
military. She went to boot camp in San Antone, Texas; and
after a few weeks of being there, I can remember Lakesha
calling me, regretting that she joined the military because of
the strict discipline.
And then a few weeks passed, and she got over that
part of it. Lakesha called back to tell me she was in charge
of the latrine; and to me, I didn't think it was an honor, you
know, but to her, she was proud to be in charge of the latrine.
And I laughed; and she said, "Ma," over the phone, "I'm
crawling now, but watch me walk."
And so she was still in San Antone, and I got a phone
call from work one day. And she called, disturbed about not
graduating from boot camp. She just didn't know that she
would. She didn't feel like she could.
And I asked her -- I said, "Lakesha, why are you not
graduating from boot camp?"
And she said to me, "Mom, I can't do the laps."
And I said, "But have you tried?"
And she said, "I did."
I said, "But you hadn't given it 110 percent."
And she tried to convince me that she did all that and
she still couldn't do it.
And I told her -- I said, "You know, you have little
Cory at home waiting on you to complete boot camp so you guys
could be together." I said, "When you try again, just imagine
that you're running to rescue your child."
And she told me I didn't understand.
I said, "I do understand. You're my child, and I know
what you are capable of doing. And I will tell you I expect
that of you."
So she cried and sobbed over the phone; and I listened
to that for a minute and I told her -- I said, "Lakesha --"
She said, "Okay, Mom. I'm going."
And I said, "No, Lakesha. Forget about the minutes
and just do the seconds."
And she said, "Yeah, right."
And I said, "Call me back and let me know if you
did -- how you do."
And she said, "I will."
And I told her that I love her and I believe in her
and I know she could do it. And she hung up.
And she called back and she said, "I did it."
And I told her, "I know that you could do it."
So graduation came, and she wasn't expecting me to be
there because I told her the finance, I couldn't make it and
Cory and the baby were going -- and I showed up and her eyes
lit up to see me there.
And then she was stationed in Oklahoma City. It
wasn't where she wanted to be. She wanted to be closer to New
Orleans, but she didn't feel like that was so far away that she
can drive that distance to be home.
On Sunday, Easter Sunday, she called early that
morning to wish me a happy Easter. And I was preparing to go
to church, so I didn't talk to her too long. And she knew what
time we would get back from church to find out what we were
doing. And I was preparing myself to go to my family's for
dinner. And she and I briefly talked.
On Monday, she called at 7 with a personal problem;
and she and I talked for about 2 hours about it. And I tried
to console her as much as I could and give her the confidence
she needed that it would all work out; didn't talk to her
Tuesday.
And April 19 came. I can imagine my child getting
dressed for work. She had three uniforms she could have worn
that day: Her blues, her lab uniform, and her fatigues. That
day, she chose to put her fatigues on. And I can see her
marching her way to the federal building with her cap and her
shirt buttoned up to her leg and the crease to be just right
and the boots with a spit shine on it, because that's the way
she was.
She walked like a stallion, proud and confident. I
can imagine her going to the federal building to take care of
business, looking like a proud soldier.
Well, nine days later, I was told that Lakesha was
killed in the bombing. I didn't see her, but the only image I
have is that -- that suit was bloody and muddy. That boot
didn't have a shine to it anymore.
And upon request, I've asked for Lakesha's boot; and
today, I'm supposed to receive that boot. I can't imagine what
it would look like, but I'm anxious to have that boot, because
she had aspirations. One was to be a good wife; and if you
talk to her husband, he claimed he would never, ever find
another person like Lakesha for a wife. One was to be an
excellent mother. And her five-year-old can remember his mommy
saying, "I love you" to him; so I think she succeeded in that.
Another was to be a proud daughter of mine; and I am.
And then she wanted to be a great soldier; and today,
when I receive that boot, it would indicate to me that she was
just that, a great soldier; that she had this ladder to
succeed, most likely to succeed, and she had her right foot
about a foot up that ladder and her left foot was blown away.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Favorite.
Patti Hall.
MS. HALL: Good afternoon, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Hall.
MS. HALL: Very much a privilege for me to be here.
It's taken me three years to get here. I worked on the 3d
floor in the credit union; and when the bomb exploded, I was
sent to the hospital. At that time, I really didn't know what
had happened. I was terribly concerned about a green linen
skirt I had on, and no matter how badly damaged I was, being
the vain person I was, I didn't want that skirt cut off of me.
But it ended up that I had 40 broken bones, I have a
punctured lung, I was put on a respirator, one of those funny
moving beds, and a tracheotomy; and I was in a coma for five
weeks. The doctors helped to put me in this coma because they
had nine surgeries to do on me and they were not sure I would
even come through it.
It took me two months to even understand what had
happened.
Excuse me.
But when I did, I had so many things in me and
everything; and I asked this Doctor -- I said, "Will I ever
walk again?"
And he said, "You will if you want to."
Unbeknownst to me, they were contemplating taking my
legs off because they really did not think I would ever walk.
At the time, I really couldn't understand what was
going on. I was able to go home on June 17; and right away, I
started extreme therapy. It was about nine months later that I
was able to take my first step. That was a joy to me. It was
a joy to be able to go to the rest room. It was a joy to pour
my own glass of water and to brush my teeth, because when I
first came out of this coma, I couldn't talk, I didn't know how
to eat, I -- I had no use of any of my limbs whatsoever.
But I had a strong spirit that I didn't realize I had;
and I vowed that I would walk again, and I vowed that I would
do everything I could to make it out of this.
Now, I've had a rough time along the way, because I
have a mother that's 82 that's had two emotional breakdowns
over this. I have a sister. I do not have a husband, I do not
have children; but I had a tremendous family in that building.
We were not just people working. We were people that reached
out and helped people. We were people that reached out and
wanted to do for others. We had bake sales, we had cookie
sales; and the money all went to charity.
The credit union would dress up in Halloween costume
every year, and we would go all over the building with
trick-or-treats and we would entertain those children. And I
was very greedy. I wore a bumblebee costume to win $15. I had
several ideas. But when I look back on that now, those were
the most wonderful times of my life.
I've gone through 13 surgeries. I still have several
more to go. I have a breathing machine. I have asthma. I
have arthritis, and I have a tremendous disbelief of why this
ever happened.
I'm sorry to be so emotional.
But I thought to myself, you know, things happen that
we can't explain; but deep in my heart, I am very, very hurt by
this, very hurt. To lose all these people, to see what this
has done to our nation, to put such a test to so many that did
nothing to deserve this.
I -- I am -- I'm in therapy three times a week, in
swimming for my legs, and I still have pins and plates in my
left leg and knee and in my right shoulder blade. I still have
a bad elbow, and they are contemplating replacing my knees
whenever I think it's time.
Then I'm under tremendous therapy for horrible
depression, because I lost all of these things. And I have
also lost my job due to total disability, and I -- I'm trying
to learn how to deal with that. That just happened last month.
But I'll tell you what: I will never lose my dignity,
I will never lose my spirit, and I will never lose the love and
the admiration I have for Oklahoma City and everyone in that
building. A lot has been taken away from me, but that will
never, ever be gone. I may have lost a lot -- and I have --
but that's going to stay.
In all the times that I've done so many interviews,
some people asked me once -- they were from a foreign
country -- they said -- asked me all these questions; and I
said, "Why are you so interested in this and why are you so
interested in me?" I said, "This happens in your country all
the time."
They said, "Yes, it does; but never of this magnitude,
and it wasn't one of our own that did it."
I've never forgotten that, and it breaks my heart.
This country deserves more. All of us deserve more.
I'm here to pray that the Court will not show
leniency, please, and assess the greatest sentence that can be
given by law.
Most of all, your Honor, I just thank you for the
privilege that I could come here today and talk to you and
thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Betty Hawthorne.
MS. HAWTHORNE: On June 12, I will be 77 years old.
Being a mother to my daughter, Donetta, my son Tom, has been
the very best part of those years. Losing my son, Tom, has
been the worst.
The Oklahoma City bombing took the life of our son,
Tom. It has changed our lives forever and ever. He was in the
Social Security office, trying to help straighten out some
papers for a fellow worker.
Tom was a person that enjoyed life, people. He loved
to talk; but most of all, he loved his family. He was a good
son, a good brother, a good husband, a good father, and he
would have been a good grandfather; but now, there is four
little children in Oklahoma City that will never know that.
One day, Tom -- Tom and I were shopping together, and
I saw a penny on the sidewalk. I bent over to pick it up. Tom
put his hand on my arm and he said, Don't pick it up, Mom. He
said, Sometimes when Donna and I can, we throw pennies down or
dimes or nickels so some child might find them. So now when I
see a penny or whatever on the sidewalk, I don't pick it up. I
think maybe Tom was here.
My granddaughter, Mary, and I were talking about what
I was going to say here today and how it has affected me. She
said: What I hate most about this is what it has taken away
from -- a part of you that I will never get back.
Now, this next part, I'm speaking for my daughter,
Donetta, and these are her words: "My brother and I have for
several years been working together on our family genealogy.
He took great delight in finding his mailbox full of my letters
and many other -- much other information that I had collected
to send him. I loved reading his long letters that he wrote to
me, always in his own handwriting.
"From April 19, 1995, to this day, the letters and
information Tom sent me have remained untouched in a filing
cabinet because I cannot bear looking at that handwriting.
"Tom loved watching and feeding the numerous birds
that came to his yard. He devoted a great deal of his time
trying to come up with a foolproof method of keeping the
squirrels from eating the bird food. He told me one day that
despite their small brain size, squirrels had to be the
smartest animals he had ever seen.
"My brother had a gift for offering -- affirming
people and life itself. After he was gone, I realized just how
much he made me feel valued, not only as a sister, but as a
human being."
Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Hawthorne.
Virginia Moser.
MS. MOSER: Your Honor . . .
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
MS. MOSER: My husband works for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and he is a survivor of the
April 19 bombing in Oklahoma City. I would like to share my
story with you and the impact it has had on our lives.
My grief is different than those whose loved ones
died. It is not greater or less, for no one can compare grief.
HUD is very near and dear to my heart. It was my
first real job. I worked at HUD from February, 1972, until
spring, 1976. HUD is not just federal employees who work for a
federal agency located in a federal building. It is full of
wonderful, caring people trying to help others obtain decent,
fair housing. I know this because I worked with these people
for four years and my husband Calvin has worked with them for
over 21 years. They became a part of my family.
HUD is what brought Cal and I together. It is where
our love and life began.
And on April 19, 1995, at 9:02 a.m., I thought it was
where our love and life had ended.
In 1973, I was working in the multifamily housing
section of HUD; and Cal was an architect/engineer, designing
multifamily housing units for HUD. A friend in the A & E
section introduced us. I remember the day Cal walked over to
my desk and asked me out on a date. I can hear him now saying,
"Would you like to go out next weekend?"
I smiled at him and said, "Well, what are you doing
this weekend?"
He said he had to go to Dallas to sing barbershop
music.
I thought to myself, "Sure, you do."
Well, he was telling the truth. That was more than 25
years ago, and barbershop music has been his hobby for almost
30 years -- that is, until April 19, 1995. Cal has had a
50 percent hearing loss and could no longer hear well enough to
sing lead in barbershop anymore. This is a great loss to him.
He used to practice with the OK Chorale Barbershop
Chorus every Monday night and sometimes on Thursdays with a
quartet. Every summer, our family vacation would be wherever
the OK Chorale would sing. Sometimes, I would get aggravated
he had to practice so much, but now I wish he could hear and
sing and share his hobby with others once more. It brought him
great joy, and it is a great loss to him.
Every day at 9:30 a.m., Cal would call me at the
office. We would talk only a couple of minutes to check with
each other, say, "I love you," and "talk to you later."
Well, on April 19, Cal called me at 9:00. I asked him
why he was calling me so early, and he told me how he and David
Walker had gone to coffee early because Dave was hungry and
wanted to get something to eat. He also wanted to tell him
about a boat light that Dave's wife Janet had bought for him.
On the way back from coffee break, Cal stopped at Dave's desk
to look at the boat light. They laughed and joked, as they
often did; for Cal and Dave were more than just friends, they
were more like brothers.
Dave was already talking about where they would go to
lunch when Cal left him to call me. That's the last time he
saw David Walker alive.
Dave brought Cal great joy, and it is a great loss to
him.
As soon as I hung up the phone from talking to Cal,
there was a loud boom and the dental office where I work in
Edmond shook. We all thought it was a sonic boom or perhaps a
plane had crashed at Tinker Air Force Base in Midwest City.
Not long after that, we heard that a bomb had blown up the
federal building, but I told everyone that was impossible
because I had just hung the phone from talking to Cal.
We turned on the TV monitors in the operatories, and
there was the front of the federal building, only a shell
remaining. My heart dropped because Cal's office was on the
8th floor, north side of the building, only inches away from
the glass wall.
Our oldest son, Eric, was working at a horse ranch in
Edmond at the time and rushed to my office to tell me about the
bombing. We immediately went downtown to search for his dad.
After a frantic search, we found Calvin hurt but alive.
I left Eric with his dad and went to help with search
and rescue. I had CPR training and they were needing help
desperately, and I knew I had to do something.
Someone handed me a pair or gloves and sheets and
blankets and sent me up to the plaza on the south side of the
building. It was only then that it hit me. You see, the
sheets and blankets were needed to cover the bodies.
Four tiny broken bodies covered with sheets and
blankets, gently placed on two park benches. I touched them
and whispered: "It's okay, sweet baby. It's okay." I have
been a mom for almost 28 years. It's really what I do best.
You know how Mom can usually make everything better? Well,
that day, I tried to be a mom to those four tiny babies, but I
couldn't make it any better.
Now whenever I see those mothers with empty arms, I
wonder, Was that your baby I held that day? Was that your baby
I kissed on his way to heaven paved with streets of gold and
into his arms, now, God would hold?
On April 19, those babies did not cry, but I hear them
crying in my nightmares, and Mom still wants to make it all
better.
Though it has been three years since the bombing, in
my nightmares, it is now. I search the building for Calvin;
and all the while, I am stepping on bodies and the babies
continue to cry and cry.
The sights, sounds, and smells of that day never leave
me. I wake up two to three times every night. I have not
slept through the night since the bombing. I still feel guilty
and helpless because I couldn't do anything to save anyone.
There are many nights when Cal doesn't sleep, either.
We often pass each other in the hall. He gets up and draws and
sketches, and I get up and try to run away from my nightmares;
but you see, there is no escape. We grieve together, yet
separately. We grieve for friends and co-workers lost. HUD is
what brought us together. It is where our love and life began.
Though it has been three years since the bombing, our grief is
ever present. It is our life sentence.
This crime committed deserves a life sentence.
Nothing less. For, you see, Judge Matsch, for Cal and I, it
will always be April in Oklahoma and our heart aches so.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Moser.
Rudy Guzman.
MR. GUZMAN: May it please the Court, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Guzman.
MR. GUZMAN: Basically, my life after April 19, 1995,
has been a living hell. Terry Nichols planned on doing some
harm and changing thousands of lives, and he succeeded, knowing
the fact that in constructing a bomb with all intent and
magnitude to hurt, maim, and kill anybody and anything in its
path. Mr. Nichols made sure this will happen.
One of the folks he decided to kill was my brother,
Captain Randolph Guzman. Your Honor, you should have a picture
of Randy in front of you.
THE COURT: I do.
MR. GUZMAN: Okay. A great person me, my family, and
our country lost in this horrific act.
My brother Randy, as most people know him by, was a
kind and caring person. He was the type of person when in time
of need, he will try his best to be in support. He will laugh
with you, he will cry with you, and he will always offer that
shoulder to lean on.
Earlier, I referred to my brother as Captain Randolph
Guzman because he was killed in line of duty, serving our
country as a United States Marine, which he was proud to be.
Prior before being stationed in Oklahoma City, he had
several tours of duty, in which one of his tours was
representing our country during the Persian Gulf War, as most
people know it by as Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
He dedicated himself and risked his life for liberation of
Kuwait.
After a few years of doing several physical jobs for
the Marines, he earned his way to a desk job, being assigned to
the recruiting station in Oklahoma City on the 6th floor of the
Alfred P. Murrah Building. He started as the operation
officer, then he became the executive officer.
Again, he was serving our country, encouraging young
men and women to devote themselves to serving our country, the
way Randy chose, as a United States Marine.
I can't say how proud Randy was on being a Marine, but
on a scale of 1 to 10, it seems to be a 20. He was really
proud, wearing the uniform of the Marines, especially when he's
in his dress blues. He made sure everything was in perfect
place, from no lint on his uniform, to using a ruler to
perfectly place his ribbons on his chest.
I only had two occasions seeing him in his dress
blues. The first time when he was back home in the San
Francisco Bay Area in the summer of 1994. He wore this uniform
to his 10-year class reunion. The second and final time was
after the bombing. He was laying in his casket, again his
uniform in tiptop shape, again his ribbons on his chest
positioned perfectly. But seeing Randy's face all swollen and
battered was a sight I was not ready for. It seemed like
someone used a hammer on his face and hit him several hundred
times.
I tried to hold back my tears, but I couldn't. I said
all the goodbyes on behalf of our family and friends. Then I
turned around to the funeral director and said, Please, close
the casket. I don't want anyone to go through what I just went
through. At this date, I still have that horrific picture in
my mind on the condition of Randy.
Randy served his country well, even risking his life
in time of war. Also, Randy was a great person out of uniform.
He was definitely an officer and a gentleman.
My family and I were deeply affected by losing Randy
in this violent manner. My mom and dad had to go through the
trauma of burying their child. There is times while, even
watching TV, especially last Memorial Day, my mom gets upset
seeing a color guard, especially if it's a Marine Corps color
guard. She doesn't cry out loud, but I can tell she's thinking
about Randy because her eyes start to get glossy.
For myself, going through this trauma has been eating
me away slowly but surely. I'm taking medication for
hypertension so my blood pressure can be controlled. I
suffered two anxiety attacks in which I thought I was having a
heart attack. My lack of happiness and increasing anger
affected a special relationship that I had. Sometimes the
pressure and frustrations makes me think if it's worth going
through life. Sometimes I have a sense of guilt of why it was
Randy. It should have been me.
A lot of my friends and family and my new friends I
met due to this crime that always see me smiling and laughing
and occasionally joking around -- that's my outside. Deep down
inside, I'm really crying out loud.
Now I'm seeing a therapist so I can deal with my life
with this tragedy hovering over my head.
Randy and I, while growing up, did most things
together, since we were only a year and a half apart and two
siblings in the family, just me and Randy. We had the same
friends, shared the same activities. We were practically a
team. We were both altar boys at our neighborhood Catholic
church, working together as a team. We both competed on our
high school track and field team. Randy was a distance runner
while I was the shot -- I did the shot put and discus. We
cheered each other on and supported each during -- our
respective events. Again, we were both a team.
We were both involved in student government, both
working on projects and activities during our high school life.
In student government elections one year, Randy ran for student
body president and I ran for student body vice president during
the same election. We were both a team, both campaigning
together. We both lost, but we were still a team.
And on April, 1995, Mr. Nichols chose to break up our
team.
Your Honor, please give Terry Nichols the stiffest
punishment you can impose. Let him stay in prison for the rest
of his life, thinking about what he did. In court, Mr. Nichols
didn't shed a tear for any of our 168 lost loved ones.
Hopefully, sitting in prison, besides crying for himself, he
will think hard enough to even shed one tear for us.
Please keep him locked up so he can never hurt anybody
again.
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Guzman.
Martin Cash.
MR. CASH: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Cash.
MR. CASH: May it please the Court. I never really
understood what that meant. I guess if you didn't please the
Court, you would let me know.
THE COURT: I've been known to.
MR. CASH: I think so. I've been here often enough.
Your Honor, I asked to come before this court to make
a statement for myself and hopefully, for some of the hundreds
of other survivors of the crime committed on April 19, 1995, in
Oklahoma City, an instant in time when America lost its sense
of security and all our lives were shattered and forever
changed.
Having my left eye literally ripped from its socket,
standing in what was left of my VA office, and pulling a two-
or three-inch jagged piece of glass out of it, looked at it,
and threw it down -- I didn't know what else to do; all my
teeth later lost from trauma to my jaws, quarter-sized hole in
my skull, now covered with a metal plate, and all the upper
ligaments in my left hand severed at the wrist, I could say
that the biblical judgment of an eye for an eye would mean
justice for me and perhaps for the 12 others who lost an eye or
the complete loss of sight of an eye that day. Others suffered
far more injuries, more serious injuries to their bodies and to
their minds.
We need not be reminded how blessed we were by having
survived, and we've been further blessed by having so many
families of those who died make us feel that we, too, are part
of them.
No matter how great our injuries, we lost so much more
that day. I lost friends and colleagues; many close, and many
I just knew worked somewhere in the building. Other survivors
lost members of their own family, along with very close
friends. And I lost two brothers, Mike Loudenslager and Bob
Walker, whose fate that day was in the hands of Mr. Tigar's
brother.
Yes, our petition did ask for financial restitution,
and I want it to be known it wasn't for vengeance or benefit
but rather to assure that those who died and those who survived
would not have their tragedy turned into profit by the cowards
who conspired to commit the crime.
And yes, there are numerous questions that must in
time be answered; and they should be answered soon by those
responsible. Naturally, we ask why, although we know there can
be no answer which remotely justifies what they did. Was it
truly because of Waco? Because a man who called himself Jesus
incarnate became a martyr in their warped minds? Because he
chose to emulate Joan of Arc, putting himself to the torch
along with all those others? Certainly, Waco was a tragedy,
and I do not wish these remarks to be taken as a political
statement; but even if it could be proven that the government
was totally at fault after losing the lives of their agents and
negotiating for 51 days, would it, could it, possibly justify
Oklahoma City? No.
Was it because they hated our government so much even
after having served honorably in its armed forces and swearing
to support and defend it and whose citizenship Mr. Nichols
sought later to renounce? Certainly not. How could he then
accept payment for his defense by that very same government?
Who controlled who? I believe -- and I'm not alone --
that Terry Nichols controlled the conspiracy. His attorneys
convinced me that he really was that smart, smart enough to
have gathered the funds and materials necessary to build the
bomb, smart enough to supervise its construction. And Terry
Nichols wasn't there because he was smart enough to stay safely
at home and send his personal grunt, the still subservient foot
soldier, to Oklahoma City to slaughter -- and it was slaughter;
call it manslaughter if we must -- to slaughter babies and
dozens and dozens of other good, decent human beings.
They were not, nor was I, the enemy. My only purpose
with VA was to help veterans and their families, veterans like
Mr. Nichols and McVeigh. I enjoyed doing it for 22 years; but
I couldn't do it anymore, so I retired, looking forward to a
few peaceful moments a day I might not think about April 19,
1995, not think about the look on my grandson Andrew's face the
first time he saw me in the hospital, knowing I no longer had
friends on each floor to see or talk to or even harass Raymond
Washburn about the prices in his snack bar.
I've yet to find that peace, but those who returned to
work tell me that they feel the same void or even more so.
Your Honor, we ask that Terry Lynn Nichols never again
be permitted to see the light of day outside the walls of a
prison. For me, each minute of a life sentence is 59 seconds
longer than the sentence he and McVeigh imposed on 168 men,
women, and children and three unborn babies.
As for the others unknown named in the indictment, if
there was one more or two or two dozen, it still would not
diminish the degree of conspiracy in which Mr. Nichols along
with Mr. McVeigh has been found guilty.
I thank you for letting us speak and for showing us
all how the American system of justice is supposed to work.
You know, your Honor, somewhere in the pile of ashes
west of Oklahoma City, I think, in the rubble from our building
are pieces of the cup that was on my desk that morning. On
that cup were these words: "If at first you don't succeed,
change the rules."
Some of us had a hand in changing the rules for you
during this process. You accepted those changes because they
were made constitutionally and properly by the other two
branches of our government. There is no other method in our
democratic republic to effect change. May those who believe
that terrorism and violence can do so some day somehow realize
that they are so very, very wrong.
Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Cash.
We're going to take a recess at this time. Before
doing so, though, I wish to thank those who have appeared and
given these very eloquent and dignified statements, and I know
that you are here as representatives of many and accept your
statements on behalf of all.
We'll take a 20-minute recess.
(Recess at 3:00 p.m.)
(Reconvened at 3:20 p.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
I have received and read the submission of letters in
connection with sentencing of Terry Lynn Nichols submitted by
the defense, which includes the letter from Mr. Nichols of
March 10.
I also received on June 2 a letter from Dr. James S.
Gordon concerning the sentencing of Terry Lynn Nichols, and a
letter from Dr. Reed Meloy, responding to that letter, filed
June 3.
Mr. Tigar, I'll hear from the defense.
MR. TIGAR: May it please the Court, counsel, members
of the jury, Mr. Nichols, this is a time when a lawyer can
speak as and for a client. And the legal description of the
proceedings we're now having, having to do with the legal cause
for now imposing sentence, is a kind of historical artifact.
There are issues pending, of course, including the new trial
motion filed today and the one that we will file on our review
of the lead sheets yet to be produced.
In addition to that, we don't need to go back over our
motions addressed to the subject matter jurisdiction of the
Court; that is to say, we have filed motions beginning in 1995
contending that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in
the classical sense that the indictment fails to state an
offense and that the statutes involved are deficient under the
Federal Constitution.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. TIGAR: I'm going to talk a little bit about Terry
Nichols, the Terry Nichols that I have come to know and that
all of us on the defense have come to know in the three years
that we have been involved in the case. I do that with this
preface: When we last were here, I said something about the
jury's verdict with which your Honor disagreed. And everybody
knows that in this room today, your Honor has the last word.
I'm not saying things that I know your Honor will disagree with
to make your Honor angry. I'm saying them because I hope that
I might persuade your Honor; and if I don't, there is a
building across the street. As Justice White himself reminded
me the last time I saw him two weeks ago, it has his name on
it.
I am aware that the jury did not find that Mr. Nichols
had any intent to kill anyone. Indeed, the jury found --
acquitted on all counts in which an intent to kill was an
element of the offense. And so any suggestion by anyone here
either in what we've heard so far or what we may hear in the
future that he possessed any such intent, I put aside.
In addition to that, there is the ongoing dispute as
to whether or not it was right to have stricken from Count One
the allegation concerning intent to kill.
I'm also aware of what the 12 people who preceded me
to this lectern said and what the 54 people who sat in that
witness chair during the penalty phase said. We ourselves had
acknowledged in opening statement the devastation and
destruction wrought by the bombing in Oklahoma City.
This is not the first case in which I have been called
upon to represent someone accused of so great a crime. I was
reminded of that just 10 days ago in the memorial service for
Justice Brennan in the United States Supreme Court; that I had
been appointed to represent John Demjanjuk, who had been
charged with killing 100,000 people during the horror of the
Holocaust. Drew Days, who was Solicitor General of the United
States, sat down next to me in the chamber of the Supreme Court
and told me a story about how a lawyer in the Solicitor
General's office had come to him to tell him that one of the
prosecutors in the Demjanjuk case had admitted back in 1980
that he, that prosecutor, had evidence that someone else other
than John Demjanjuk had been responsible for these deaths,
someone else had been Ivan the Terrible, but that the
prosecutor had said at that time that he had no intention of
telling the court or the other side about that.
Solicitor General Days confronted that situation
admirably; but I think it is a reminder to all of us how
fallible we are, and it is a reminder to us that maybe some of
the things that I will say today, people will disagree with,
but in the fullness of time, we could have some hope that
reason will prevail and another view will come to the fore.
Of course, the absence of any intent to kill, the
presence of a possible proceeding in Oklahoma, are all reasons
for downward departures. But let me begin first by addressing
some of the legal issues your Honor will confront today.
First, your Honor has indicated the intention to enter
a restitution judgment. I am not sure from the Court's
description of that judgment whether it is to be in favor of
the General Services Administration qua victim or the General
Services Administration qua the United States of America. Of
course, if the latter, there are different consequences in
terms of an execution on that judgment, and I'll have something
to say about that.
I'm not going to repeat our legal analysis of
conspiracy as a nonpredicate for felony murder. I'm not going
to attempt to reparse the jury's verdict. I'm not going to go
through the public statements by jurors. Those are things that
are going to be litigated.
When we were here at the sentencing law hearing, your
Honor offered Mr. Nichols some choices; and one of the things
you said is that there are unanswered questions and he might
come forward and answer them.
I filed a memorandum about the burden that that places
on Mr. Nichols, and he wrote a letter in response. I've
communicated with the Government, and I'll say some things
about that. But I agree with the Court that there are
unanswered questions here. And I think that if the Court is
going to enter a judgment that vindicates the rule of law in
the Court's function as an Article III judge, I hope the Court
will consider that some of those unanswered questions can be
laid directly at the feet of these prosecutors, directly at the
feet of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; that the
responsibility for failing and refusing to answer those
questions does not lie with us and never has: the unanswered
question of who was in the Elliott's Body Shop, the unanswered
question of who took the food order at the Dreamland, the
as-yet unanswered question of the 1,034 fingerprints, the
unanswered question as to why Michael Fortier received a
sentence of 12 years, although the Government had recommended
slightly more, when a life sentence is being thought of here.
Michael Fortier, if your Honor, please -- Michael Fortier,
everything that has been said here about Terry Nichols, could
be said of him. Oh, yes, he wasn't charged with conspiracy,
and sentences do tend to be indictment-driven; but that, after
all, lies somewhere within your Honor's discretion.
Your Honor heard witnesses come forward and talk about
Terry Nichols, Terry Nichols who saved somebody's farm, Terry
Nichols who helped a wounded brother, Terry Nichols who went
back and raised his children and Lana Padilla's children under
the circumstances that your Honor heard about.
I wonder how many people in this courtroom could
summon up folks who would talk about acts of human compassion
such as those. Michael Fortier in the sentencing proceedings
of which we read never attempted to do any such thing. Michael
Fortier's conduct up until the 17th of May, 1995, and in the
wake of this bombing was entirely different from that of
Mr. Nichols. His 12-year sentence, I respectfully submit,
stands as some kind of a benchmark.
Then there is the unanswered question why is there no
move to prosecute Karen Anderson for perjury when it turned out
that a list that she presented as an authentic list clearly had
to have been faked and faked with the aid of evidence provided
to her by the Government, not that they were necessarily
witting accomplices but presented here in court as an authentic
list of things. Why is there no move, despite the fact we've
communicated with the prosecutors?
Your Honor, it is clear to us based on our
investigation that Roger Moore was not robbed. It is clear to
us that he gave those guns to Timothy James McVeigh through an
intermediary per an agreement with Mr. McVeigh and not an
agreement with Mr. Nichols; and yet the Government, in the wake
of all the evidence we presented at trial and we have offered,
has done nothing.
Why is it, your Honor, in these unanswered questions
that the 40,000 lead sheets -- we'll get some of them to review
in a redacted form -- but why is it that we had to have the
proceeding here, the charade here, where Agent Budke was on the
stand and we find out that he makes handwritten notes and we go
to the bench and the prosecutor has the lead sheet in his
locked briefcase and brings it out and that's the first time
that we hear about it?
Why is it, your Honor, we read in the newspapers over
the weekend that some jurors were impressed by drill bit
evidence? And yet I think as we look back on this case that
early on, there was a dispute -- and I respectfully submit that
the Court decided that Dr. Frederic Whitehurst was not to be
believed or that he had an axe to grind or that he was not a
person that was -- that was reputable, in whose judgments we
could place any confidence; and as the Court knows, when we
found out things that we thought justified putting him on the
stand, his testimony was excluded.
Well, if Dr. Whitehurst is not to be believed, when
Dr. Whitehurst offers to come in court and say that the
metallurgical and other evidence that the FBI tried to use to
tie Terry Nichols' drill to this event is a fake and a fraud,
why is it that the Government doesn't say, Well, let's let him
on? Do they think that he's a kook, a flake? Well, why did
they pay him seven figures in his settlement? Why is it that
their own respected agent, Agent William Tobin, has now left
the FBI and gone to Dr. Whitehurst in an attempt to redress
injustices based on forensics?
With respect to the restitution order, I'm not going
to argue at length about this, your Honor; but there is still a
chance to turn back. The GSA? It is proposed to enter a
judgment in favor of the General Services Administration, your
Honor, and to enter a judgment which if it runs in favor of the
United States means that Mr. Nichols would not have exemptions
from execution such as homestead, in effect a judgment that
would take food from the mouths of Mr. Nichols' children to
give what little is there, what little substance, to the
General Services Administration.
Now, your Honor, I remember when the building across
the street was being remodelled, and I remember talking to a
judge of the Tenth Circuit about it. And I remember that the
judges of the Tenth Circuit were, if memory serves, thankful
that the GSA was not in charge of that project; that the
restoration money came elsewhere and the Judicial Center had
saw to it. It's ironic that the Court proposes to enter a
judgment in favor of the GSA for $14 million when on February
9, 1998, we read in the national media that that's exactly
amount -- the amount that the GSA wasted by renting a building
that stood empty for a year in Washington, D.C., because they
couldn't get it together to get the FCC into it in a timely
fashion.
We're talking, your Honor, not about your power. You
clearly have power to do it. We're talking about the question
of whether in a rational world, these kinds of choices ought to
be made.
One of the things your Honor asked me was how can the
Court enter a judgment that attempts to secure respect for law,
not just specific deterrence or special deterrence, as it's
sometimes called, and general deterrence, but how can we secure
respect for law?
Everything that I have said up to now, I respectfully
submit, is geared toward trying to answer that question; that
is to say, is there something the Court can do in the exercise
of its Article III power to recognize that the things that have
been laid at Mr. Nichols' door don't entirely belong to him and
that the responsibility here belongs to the Government, which,
unless some judge somewhere does something, is going to
continue to say that they get to do whatever they want; that no
message would ever be sent, then, that these prosecutors and
these FBI agents have any duty to care a moment about the
truth, let alone about seeing that the truth gets out in court
when we ask for the materials to try to prevent -- present,
rather, to a jury?
Mr. Nichols, as the Court charged the jury, can be a
conspirator without knowing all the rest of it. Mr. Nichols,
your Honor, told the FBI and through his lawyers here told the
Court what he knows about this. And we spent three years, and
I thank the Court for every dollar that the Court put out there
so that we had the investigative resources. We presented
everything we know about the conspiracy to bomb the Murrah
Federal Building. We presented it.
We also presented the evidence that there is a great
deal more that could be known but not on our side of the aisle.
If the Court please, we didn't go much into the FBI
Laboratory. We didn't go much into the FBI Laboratory report.
We cross-examined those witnesses one at a time. And yet, if
the Court please, why is it that prosecutors felt free to put
FBI agents together in rooms and have them compare their
testimony to talk about how evidence was found? Why is it that
prosecutors felt free to put on witnesses whose science was not
worthy of the careful consideration of responsible people? Why
is it that the FBI felt that they had to hold Mrs. Nichols in
custody for five-and-a-half weeks without the opportunity to
contact anybody?
I know that the Court in other contexts has had a
great deal of respect for citizens who serve on federal grand
juries and for citizens who may look at what prosecutors and
investigators do and say, We're the grand jury, we have a
function under the Constitution, we think that what's going on
here is something that shouldn't happen, we want to assert
ourselves.
And yet I think that in the fullness of time, we'll
all come to see that Hoppy Heidelberg turns out to be wiser
than any of us knew, because of all these gaps in the case, all
of these gaps in the evidence, all of these things that the
Government simply refused to have anything to do with are the
very kinds of questions that he was attempting to raise at a
time when something effective could be done about it.
Now, your Honor, we saw today a letter from this
Dr. Reed Meloy. We did file a letter from Dr. Gordon not based
on any doctor-patient privileged communications -- we're not
waiving that -- but just because he's a concerned citizen. He
saw the trial. But what a commentary Dr. Meloy's letter is,
your Honor. I've never had a chance to address it, and I'll do
it now. What a commentary.
You know that in the Soviet Union, if the Court
please, they had psychiatrists who would analyze people and say
they were antigovernment, so they had to lock them up. Some of
them became great novelists, but others, of course, simply
wasted away. But at the very least, in the former Soviet
Union, the psychiatrists met with the people before they went
into court and gave their opinion that they were antigovernment
and should be locked up.
Here is Dr. Reed Meloy, your Honor, who claims to be a
scientist. He reads the contents of Mr. Nichols' library,
reads a bunch of material that your Honor has held to be
inadmissible and completely irrelevant even for sentencing
purposes, sits across the room with his ponytail neatly coiffed
in one of his scoochies or rubber bands or whatever, sees
Mr. Nichols from no closer than 40 feet distance, and then
writes a letter, professing to give an opinion that he calls
science, your Honor. If that is the executive branch's
version; that they've got a bunch of shrinks that are going to
read the contents of our library, observe us from 50 feet away,
and give our expert opinion, we should all be locked up. Well,
I'm going to get my toothbrush, your Honor, because I'm sure I
exhibit behavior -- maybe I'm doing it right now -- that's
every bit as dangerous as everything that Dr. Meloy found.
Now, throughout this trial, your Honor, the Court
knows that we did not try our case in the press. I don't know
if that's the basis for a downward departure or not.
Mr. Nichols and his defense team decided, your Honor, that we
were going to be here and show up every day. We were going to
have confidence in the system; and yes, things I've said have
disagreed with your Honor's ruling; and yes, things I've said
have disagreed with parts of the jury's verdict, and we know
there is a Court of Appeals across the street to redress them.
But we tried our best, in the face of leak after leak
after leak and in the face of the most incredible journalistic
irresponsibility it has ever been my misfortune to witness.
One reporter for a news magazine, when I called him to complain
about a story that was outrageously biased and inaccurate,
said, Well, I wrote it biased -- or excuse me -- I wrote it
unbiased and fair and accurate, but the editors cut it down and
that's why it appeared as it did.
I imagine, therefore, the Newsweek magazine editorial
room is a kind of giant abattoir of the truth, where the
editors dine on the good steaks and chops of truth while the
public, including members of the prospective jury, are fed the
organ meats and offal of speculation and leaks from the
government.
I don't have a copy of your Honor's speech in Tulsa,
but I read about it. And I'm glad that your Honor made that
speech. I'm glad that your Honor went back to Oklahoma and
talked to the people of Oklahoma about the Constitution that
we've all taken an oath to support and that your Honor and I
may see differently at times; but, you know, I trust we
understand we're part of an adversary process that means
something. And your Honor talked about the way in which the
Constitution ought to trump certain things that are stated in
the Declaration of Independence. I don't think your Honor was
talking about anybody in particular's political views or
disagreeing with political views attributed to Mr. Nichols. I
didn't take it that way, but I was struck by the fact that your
Honor saw fit to remind folks of that.
Your Honor faces a horrific responsibility in
sentencing in this case. The 12 people who spoke so eloquently
to you spoke eloquently, but many of them said things about
Mr. Nichols that under our constitutional system can't be
attributed to him. Many of them spoke about things that are
simply irrelevant. Many of them put forward a theory -- one of
the last speakers, Mr. Cash, put forward a theory that the
jurors had to have rejected in coming to their verdict and that
the Government didn't even embrace except fitfully and only
then through a witness -- and you remember one witness; that
was Mr. Dilly; and we saw what happened to him.
But I think there is a message deep here about what
the Constitution means. The people who wrote it were not
strangers to disorder. They were not strangers to violence.
They indeed had been responsible for some of it themselves, but
they wrote the Bill of Rights. And once again, to refer to
that event of a couple of weeks ago in the United States
Supreme Court, all the justices took the unusual step of coming
onto the bench to honor their late brethren (sic), Justice
Brennan; and Chief Judge Richard Arnold, recently stepped down
as Chief Judge of the Eighth Circuit, took the podium and
reminded us all of what Justice Brennan had said at NYU Law
School during the Madison lecture which inaugurated Justice
Brennan's lifelong concern with criminal procedure in a
constitutional sense. And what Judge Arnold pointed out was
that because of the legacy of Justice Brennan and those who
worked with him, as Justice Scalia said afterwards, he was the
most influential justice of this century and he -- Justice
Scalia -- didn't agree with a single thing he wrote except the
flag decision, but so be it. But what Justice Brennan and the
other justices taught us all is, as Judge Arnold said, that we
are safer -- yes, safer -- as well as freer if we will observe
the limitations placed by the Constitution upon the conduct of
all who seek to exercise governmental power over others.
And I hope that in your Honor's sentence today that
your Honor will reflect upon and reflect in that sentence that
a message needs to be sent to the executive branch as well as
to Mr. Nichols, if your Honor wants to, about these events.
And if for some reason, we walk out of here and we have a
sentence with which we disagree, I'm not going to be insulting
to your Honor. We know that there is a Court of Appeals there
and we'll go -- we'll go argue about it, because that's the
process.
In that sense, your Honor, everybody who stepped up
here today who asked you to do anything asked you to put
Mr. Nichols away for the rest of his life. Now, everybody who
stood in the witness chair during the penalty phase knew that
when they were all done speaking, the Government would ask that
Mr. Nichols' life be taken. All of us understood, all of us
heard, all of us wept, if not openly, then inwardly, at these
stories of devastation and harm. That has never been the issue
in this case. That has never been the issue. We have never
denied that that happened.
But the question before the Court is what is it that
one seeks to accomplish with a sentence, with a judgment? Is
it that Mr. Nichols has no contribution to make ever again in
the world and that this is simply punishment? Is it that we
are to respond to what is, after all, a cry for vengeance in
this courtroom and on the street? Or rather, is there an
opportunity to go forward, to think about a sentence that
contributes to rebuilding, a sentence that is didactic, not
just for Mr. Nichols? Your Honor has got plenty of power to
teach Mr. Nichols a lesson. That's what these folks are
talking about.
But in our constitutional system, I respectfully
suggest that your Honor has the right, the obligation, to teach
a lesson elsewhere as well, to stem the cry for vengeance,
which is a cry for vengeance that has gone unabated since the
very first moment that I was in this case. It was a cry to
have the case tried in Oklahoma City, and if not there, in
Lawton. It was a cry to have it tried by a judge from
Oklahoma; and when that was denied, it was a cry to have it
tried in Oklahoma by your Honor. And it was a cry to have it
tried with Mr. Nichols and Mr. McVeigh together. And it was a
cry, even after the jury acquitted of first and second degree
murder, to take this life.
When that sort of a cry gets started, aided and
abetted by prosecutors at every single step of the way, I
respectfully submit that the Court has an opportunity to say
something, to say something about the man Terry Nichols, to say
something about the process, and to say that there is more to a
system of justice than vengeance.
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Tigar.
Mr. Nichols has the right, of course, to speak in
allocution for himself. I have Mr. Nichols' letter of March 10
of this year, as I've already announced, and have read it.
Mr. Nichols, do you desire to speak?
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I adopt Mr. Tigar's
statements.
THE COURT: Very well.
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Mr. Mackey, you speak for the Government?
MR. MACKEY: I do, your Honor; and I will do so
briefly.
This is not Washington, D.C. It's not the Supreme
Court. It's not the Soviet Union. It's not Nicaragua. It is
a trial courtroom in the city of Denver, a place where, over
the watchful eye of this court, Terry Nichols received a fair
trial. Terry Nichols stands convicted by a jury of his peers;
and regardless of the number of light fixtures in this
courtroom, that verdict stands.
It represents the unanimous vote of 12 citizens who
believed beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly and
intentionally conspired to blow up the Murrah Building and the
persons inside of it. The instructions of law that you gave
the jury, your Honor, make that clear. There can be no doubt
as to what Count One's verdict finds.
There are some unanswered questions, but the only
question that has to be dealt with today is not unanswered.
Has Terry Nichols been convicted under the rules of law of a
crime of conspiracy, use of a weapon of mass destruction?
I won't talk further about the verdict, Judge, because
this is a different place and time. The jury's job is over.
Their work has been done, and now the final question is now for
you and you alone to answer; and that question is what is a
fair and just sentence for a man convicted of intentionally and
knowingly conspiring to blow up a federal office building and
the innocent men and women inside.
It's our view, of course, that a life sentence is the
only appropriate sentence, no matter how you look at it.
There is the question of departures, and I will
address that only briefly, your Honor. Our legal position is
staked out by two rules of law. One, of course, is any
downward departure carries the burden with the defense. They
must convince this court that a downward departure has been
proven beyond a preponderance of the evidence. And secondly,
your Honor, any downward departure, of course, is subject to
your discretion. It is not mandatory. And if there is a case,
this is the case, where all of the circumstances dictate
against any downward departure.
As to the grounds for upward departure, we've set
those forth in our brief and will rely upon those in support.
Your Honor, no one can disagree with the purpose of
the sentencing guidelines, the idea that like offenders should
receive like sentences regardless of what place that crime is
committed or what judge is assigned to hear that case.
But you know, your Honor, that the guidelines have
changed the very nature of sentencing in federal court. We
seem to have lost fundamental purposes behind individualized
punishment. We seem, as lawyers and judges, to spend our time
sounding more like accountants calculating a tax bill. And so
I was struck by your observation during our hearing in March
that this is a case, because it has facts never, ever possibly
contemplated by the commission, that we can return to some of
those fundamental purposes, some of the traditional questions
that surround sentencings in Federal Court. And so the more
precise question becomes what sentence will reflect the
seriousness of the crime, promote respect for the law, provide
a just punishment, and ensure adequate deterrence.
Again, the only conceivable sentence in this case on
these facts for this defendant is life imprisonment.
There is no way to overstate the seriousness of the
crime in Oklahoma City. It is an event that remains the single
most horrific act of terrorism on American soil. And there is
no quarrel about the terrible facts, as Mr. Tigar has
mentioned. We need only to look at the venue pleadings of the
defense, where they outlined those horrible consequences,
including, for example, in the defendants' pleadings that the
economic loss as the result of the bombing tallied as much as
$650 million, and what other crime has led to such economic
disaster? But that's only the beginning. What about the
untold emotional and psychological harm caused to the people of
Oklahoma City and beyond? What about the hundreds of people
who suffered physical injuries, including people like Martin
Cash and Patti Hall and Stan Mayer, people who will wear those
marks of disfigurement for the rest of their lives?
But the effects of the defendant's crime did not end
even there. The effects extended, as well, to the foreseeable
deaths, foreseeable loss of human life. 168 entirely innocent
men, women, and children, aged between four months and 73 years
of age, are now dead.
As your Honor remarked to us in our last gathering and
told the story about the argument you heard in the Colorado
Supreme Court, were reminded that human life is priceless, so
then how are we to begin to measure the value of the 168 people
who died in Oklahoma City on April 19, died as a result of a
conspiracy in which this defendant was a member?
That loss cannot be measured in dollars and cents. We
know that and if it can be measured at all, it is best done in
words of survivors and loved ones. And they've done that in
their testimony during the trial, and they've done that this
afternoon before your Honor.
Those words best describe the seriousness of the crime
that Terry Nichols stands convicted of.
When we consider the seriousness of the crime, Judge,
however, we should not overlook the target of the defendant's
conspiracy, our federal government. The same institution that
has guarded this defendant's constitutional rights throughout
the past three years, for the conspirators, for Terry Nichols
and Tim McVeigh, that government was a faceless evil. And
ironically, Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols' conspiracy of
violence has done more than any other event to reacquaint
America with the faces, the hardworking, dedicated, and caring
people who work for that same federal government. It's a
government made up of people who go to work every day with no
other goal in life than to recruit people who will serve in our
military and protect our country, to assist veterans who have
already served in the military, to build the highways that
carry our country's commerce, to arrive as a building manager
at 5:00 in the morning to warm the building so those citizens
can do their jobs, to help those who can't afford to obtain
housing, to enforce our criminal laws, and to protect our
highest officials and to care for the children of all those
employees.
Terry Nichols' conspiracy brought to a virtual
standstill those government services and others.
Judge, the seriousness of the crime alone demands a
life imprisonment sentence. The statute also talks about other
factors, the need to promote respect for the law, just
punishment for the offense, and adequate deterrence. All those
factors again, Judge, dictate the very same result.
Some of the victims today, your Honor, spoke
eloquently about their faith in our system of justice. The
statute makes clear that your sentence is speaking not only to
the people in this courtroom today, the parties, the defendant,
the victims as well, but to this nation, beyond the doors of
this courtroom. And your sentence has to speak to anyone,
anyone else, who would think there is value to participating in
a crime of violence and terrorism. It should speak to anyone
who thinks a political point can be made through violence and
terror. It should speak to anyone who would conspire to use a
weapon of mass destruction against innocent Americans.
These people -- and they are out there, your Honor --
must know that while they are afforded their rights during the
course of trial proceedings, once convicted, our courts will
not shirk from the duty of dealing with them severely.
Americans, your Honor, I think can be proud of the way
that this system of justice has worked in this case. Both the
defendants were provided with top-notch legal counsel. The
trials were fair fights. The adversary process worked. This
court, which has done so much to restore the faith in the
American judicial system, should end this process by designing
and imposing a sentence that will do all those things that
we've discussed: Deterrence, respect for the law, the need to
provide a just punishment.
Your Honor, last summer, when the Court convened for
the Tim McVeigh sentencing, the Terry Nichols case was sometime
on the docket. And obviously, because of the possible impact
on the jury pool that would be assembled some day for the Terry
Nichols case, your Honor was constrained from speaking. Those
limitations don't exist today.
Having presided over the only two trials to date about
the Oklahoma City bombing, your Honor is in a very uniquely
informed position to speak to this country about the bombing,
its effects, and the rationale for the sentence to be imposed
in this case.
After all that time, Judge, it is now time for the
voices on this side of the bench to fall silent and for this
court to speak.
On behalf of the United States, your Honor, we ask
that this Court impose a sentence of life imprisonment on the
defendant, Terry Nichols.
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Tigar?
MR. TIGAR: Yes. Your Honor, Mr. Nichols reminded me
that I forgot to say one short thing. I know I'm out of order.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. TIGAR: May I say it? I'm sorry.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. TIGAR: Thank you.
I thought the Court should be aware that I've received
from Mr. Timothy McVeigh a copy of a paperback book entitled
Into The Wild, which arrived in my office about two months ago
addressed to "Mike Tigar, domesticated man who nonetheless has
some redeeming qualities, TJM." And in the book, the only mark
in it, your Honor, is that someone -- and since I'm the -- you
know, I'm the one who got it -- put in it a post-it, a sticker,
your Honor, at pages 54 and 55. And I'm passing this on for
whatever it's worth, your Honor. That tells the story of the
hero of the book, Mr. McCandless, who walked into the Alaska
wilderness, and then was never heard from, gave up everything.
And while he was on his way to commit this solo act, he stopped
at a friend's house and got food and got help and contacted
this friend, and it tells a story of how he did not tell his
friend of what he was up to.
I relate that to your Honor. I don't know the
significance of it. I could make an argument about it, but
I've taxed your Honor's patience enough.
THE COURT: Before actually imposing the sentence and
asking the defendant therefore to stand and with counsel at the
lectern and hear the sentence, I think it is appropriate for
the Court now to speak.
I have -- Mr. Tigar has referred to some public
remarks that I made on the occasion of a Law Day celebration in
Tulsa, Oklahoma, on May 1, where I did speak about the
Constitution of the United States and made some reference to
the differences between the rhetoric of rebellion in the
Declaration of Independence and the civil language of the
United States Constitution. I was not addressing this case. I
have never publicly outside of this courtroom spoken about the
charges or the results in the Timothy McVeigh trial or the
Terry Nichols trial. And I never will. The appropriate place
for me to speak here as a judge is in this room and in the
context of this process.
What I may believe personally about all of the events
that I've heard about in the months of trials and pretrial
motions is of no consequence. What is important is what I do
in my duty as a United States judge.
This case is different -- Mr. Nichols' case is
different from Mr. McVeigh's case. I granted separate trials
because that difference was pointed out to me early on.
Mr. Tigar has spoken eloquently here about resisting
the cry for vengeance. I perceive that -- and I'm not saying
this disrespectfully of anyone -- but it was in the air in
Oklahoma City and it was the reason for bringing the case here
to Colorado.
This case, as I said, is different. The evidence was
different. The juries' verdicts were different.
I have, in thinking about what the appropriate
sentence is for Terry Nichols, considered the separate
evidence. I do not think it is appropriate to determine a
sentence of Terry Nichols and match it with Timothy McVeigh;
and, of course, a death sentence is not within my power.
What is important, I think, for everybody to know is
that this is not a murder case. There were charges of
murder -- eight counts of first-degree murder -- but it was
under a federal murder statute dealing with the killing of law
enforcement agents of the federal government because of their
status. And here, the convictions, of course, are involuntary
manslaughter. The crime of conviction that requires sentencing
is the conspiracy, the violation of 18 United States Code
Section 2332(a), a conspiracy to use a weapon of mass
destruction against property and people of the United States.
Now, that, of course, is appropriately prosecuted in Federal
Court. It is a crime, and the victims have spoken eloquently
here, as I said; but it is not a crime as to them so much as it
is a crime against the Constitution of the United States.
That's the victim; and the Constitution of the United States,
of course, creates this form of government by consent of the
governed that includes us all.
The evidence in this case shows that Terry Nichols
participated in a plot to undermine that government. He joined
with those who think of the United States government as some
kind of occupying foreign power or some kind of oppressive
force that is taking away the freedom of the people of this
nation.
There is, in some of the evidence here, I think, a
gross distortion of the language of the founding fathers. The
government that we live under and with and serve is that
government established by the Constitution and exists of, by,
and for the people, as a great president told us.
The evidence in this case demonstrates, I think, so
vividly what that government is and who the government is. I
refer to the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States,
familiar words: "We, the people of the United States, in order
to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."
What was going on in the Alfred Murrah Building in
Oklahoma City on April 19 of 1995? Well, it's been told to us
in the evidence and spoken to us here today. The Preamble
talks about establishing justice and ensuring domestic
tranquility. In that building, agencies of the Bureau -- such
as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the |
