The Oklahoma City Bombing Trial Transcripts
Terry Nichols
Tuesday, December 2, 1997 (morning)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,
Defendant.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
(Trial to Jury: Volume 101)
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 8:45 a.m., on the 2d day of December,
1997, in Courtroom C-204, United States Courthouse, Denver,
Colorado.
Proceeding Recorded by Mechanical Stenography, Transcription
Produced via Computer by Paul Zuckerman, 1929 Stout Street,
P.O. Box 3563, Denver, Colorado, 80294, (303) 629-9285
APPEARANCES
PATRICK RYAN, United States Attorney for the Western
District of Oklahoma, 210 West Park Avenue, Suite 400, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, 73102, appearing for the plaintiff.
LARRY MACKEY, SEAN CONNELLY, BETH WILKINSON, GEOFFREY
MEARNS, JAMIE ORENSTEIN, and AITAN GOELMAN, Special Attorneys
to the U.S. Attorney General, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1200,
Denver, Colorado, 80294, appearing for the plaintiff.
MICHAEL TIGAR, RONALD WOODS, ADAM THURSCHWELL, REID
NEUREITER, Attorneys at Law, 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1308,
Denver, Colorado, 80203, appearing for Defendant Nichols.
* * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
(In open court at 8:45 a.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
MR. TIGAR: May we approach, your Honor?
(At the bench:)
(Bench Conference 101B1 is not herein transcribed by court
order. It is transcribed as a separate sealed transcript.)
(In open court:)
THE COURT: Bring in the jury.
(Jury in at 9:49 a.m.)
THE COURT: Members of the jury, good morning.
JURORS: Good morning.
THE COURT: We're ready to resume with the next
witness.
MR. MACKEY: Yes, your Honor. United States would
call Matthew Cooper.
THE COURT: All right.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Raise your right hand, please.
(Matthew Cooper affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you have a seat, please.
Would you state your full name for the record and
spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: My name is Matthew Henry Cooper, last
name C-O-O-P-E-R.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Ryan.
MR. RYAN: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Mr. Cooper, are you in the Marine Corps?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is your rank?
Matthew Cooper - Direct
A. My rank is captain, sir.
Q. Where do you live right now?
A. Currently live in Encinitas, California.
Q. Are you assigned there?
A. I'm assigned to Marine Corps base, Camp Pendleton.
Q. What are your current duties?
A. I currently serve as the fire support coordinator for the
11th Marine Expeditionary Unit.
Q. Would you tell us where you were born and raised.
A. I was born in Little Rock, Arkansas, and I grew up in
Conway, Arkansas.
Q. And about your education?
A. I graduated from Conway High School in 1986. Upon my
graduation, I received an appointment to the United States
Naval Academy and graduated from Annapolis in 1990.
Q. What was your degree in?
A. I have a bachelor's of science in economics.
Q. And are you married?
A. I am married.
Q. Would you briefly describe your Marine Corps career
following your graduation from Annapolis.
A. Upon graduation from Annapolis, I was commissioned in the
Marine Corps as a second lieutenant. I spent the next six
months in Quantico, Virginia, at Marine Corps basic school.
From there I went to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for five months at
Matthew Cooper - Direct
artillery training. Spent the next two-and-a-half years in the
fleet Marine force in California. From there I was assigned to
Recruiting Station, Oklahoma City. I spent two-and-a-half
years there, then another year in Quantico, and now back to
California.
Q. And when were you assigned to Oklahoma City at the Marine
Corps Recruiting Station?
A. I received orders to Oklahoma City in December of '93, and
I reported to Oklahoma City in January of 1994.
Q. So prior to April, 19, 1995, approximately how long had you
been assigned to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City?
A. A year and three months.
Q. Now, I'm going to show you what has been previously
admitted in evidence as Exhibit 952. It should be on your
screen there.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recognize that?
A. I do recognize that.
Q. What is that?
A. This is the sixth floor of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building, which was the headquarters for the Oklahoma City
Recruiting Station.
Q. And Marine Corps space is designated by the yellow
coloring?
A. Yes, sir.
Matthew Cooper - Direct
Q. Now, it appears that the Marine Corps space is a third or
40 percent or so of that sixth floor space.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What occupied the remainder of the floor?
A. During the first year I was assigned to Oklahoma City, the
remainder of the floor was occupied by the Small Business
Administration, the SBA. They moved out, I think probably
November or December of 1994. So on April 19, it was not
occupied by anybody other than us.
Q. And how many men and women worked in the Marine Corps space
there on the sixth floor --
A. We had --
Q. -- in April of '95?
A. We had 14 people assigned to the headquarters in the
federal building: 13 Marines, and one civilian.
Q. Now, if you would, can you use the pen there that's on your
desk and show us where the elevator doors are that people would
arrive to the sixth floor in.
A. Okay, sir. When you came up the elevator, you would -- the
doors right here, and you would come out and you would enter
our office through this route right here, and you would come
into our office through this hatch right there.
Q. Now, if you would, tell the jury about the people that
worked in the building, where they officed; and if you would
just start with the front door and take us around the office
Matthew Cooper - Direct
space, if you would.
A. Okay. When you came through the main hatch, you could take
either a left or a right into our office. If you took a left,
this was our -- the foyer of our office, the main part of the
office. This first office right here was Sergeant Major Philly
Lowa's office. He worked out of it.
We had two administrators who worked in the lobby
right here, Staff Sergeant Anthony Elder and Sergeant Max
Monty.
This office right here was Captain Randy Guzman's
office, our executive officer.
This was our commanding officer's office, Major Don
Geffing.
We had two recruiter instructors in this office, Pat
Waters and Walter Atwood, a gunnery sergeant and a master
sergeant.
And like I said, if you entered the building, you
could also come to your right, into this area. This was my
office. This portion here was our operations section. My desk
was about right here.
I had another Marine who worked with me, Gunnery
Sergeant Maureen Kyle whose desk was right next to mine.
My operations clerk, Sergeant Ben Davis, worked in
this part of the office.
We had Gunnery Sergeant Paul Cooper, who had a desk in
Matthew Cooper - Direct
this corner.
Our civilian, Barb Hedrick, worked out of this office
right here. She was our computer programmer.
And then if you went through to the back, this was our
supply section back here; and we had a supply chief, Gunnery
Sergeant Earl Bussel, and the supply clerk, Sergeant Ted
Snedicker, who worked back here.
Q. And if you would, please erase the marks on the floor plan.
If you would, leave the plan on the screen.
A. Do I erase that from here?
Q. Just, on the side of your pen there is a little mark that
if you keep pressing, it will --
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. Now, let's talk about the morning of April 19, 1995.
If you would, tell us about your morning, when you got up and
what you did.
A. Okay, sir. I was the operations officer for the Recruiting
Station. As such, I was normally the first person into the
office. I would come in between 6 and 6:30 in the morning. I
would unlock the doors and open the office. The other members
of the office that I just showed you would trickle in, and
normally everybody would arrive by about 8:00. On that
particular morning, some of the individuals that I just marked,
that I just designated, were not in the office.
Q. All right. Who were those who was not there that day and
Matthew Cooper - Direct
why were they not there?
A. The individuals who were not in the office that day,
Sergeant Major Lowa was down in Durant, Oklahoma, with a
recruiter, doing some one-on-one instruction. Major Geffing
was in Independence, Kansas, conducting one-on-one instruction
with a Marine in Kansas. We had our two instructors, Master
Sergeant Pat Waters and Gunnery Sergeant Walter Atwood, as well
as my ops chief, Gunnery Sergeant Maureen Kyle, three of them
were in New Orleans for a conference. That should be it as far
as the people that were out of the office that morning.
Two more, Anthony Elder and Max Monty, were not in the
office; however, they were on the road, they were en route to
the office at the time of the bombing.
Q. All right. If you would, start with about 8:00 and take us
through what you did that morning, your work and your duties
and who you saw.
A. Okay, sir. My duties required me -- I processed all
applicants, all Marine applicants, to boot camp. The early
part of the morning is the busiest part of the day for us,
because I receive numbers, recruiting numbers and recruiting
data, from recruiters on the street, and that covered all of
Oklahoma and the southern one-third of Kansas, and so -- and
about 8:00 that morning, I was taking phone calls from our
street recruiters as well coordinating with a couple of
applicants that we were trying to get to the airport to send to
Matthew Cooper - Direct
recruit training at that time.
At about 8:30, a Marine, a recruiter from Oklahoma
City, Staff Sergeant Jack Hoxing, came into the office and
asked to speak to me privately. He had some personal matters
he wanted to discuss. So about 8:30 I went into a side office
that I keep to interview applicants, and I was talking to Staff
Sergeant Jack Hoxing.
Q. And is that where you were at the time of explosion?
A. Yes, sir, I was.
Q. If you would take your light pen and place a fairly large X
where your office was normally; not where you were, but where
your office was.
A. My office was normally right here, sir. That's where my
desk was. And that's where I worked. And that's where all of
my operations people worked.
Q. Now, if you would, place a smaller X where you had moved to
to talk to Sergeant Hoxing.
A. Okay, sir. This side office right here is where I moved to
talk to Sergeant Hoxing. As I said, it was an office I kept to
interview applicants.
Q. Tell us what happened at 9:02.
A. At 9:02, as I said, sir, I was in the office with Staff
Sergeant Hoxing, and he and I were talking. And suddenly we
just heard a huge explosion and an earth-shattering noise that
lasted 30 to 45 seconds. There was an explosion and enormous
Matthew Cooper - Direct
concussion followed by just the sounds of the building falling
down around us. And it was an ongoing -- there was no -- there
was no split in the noise or two separate explosions. It went
from the concussion of the blast to the noise of the building
coming down and the floors falling around us.
Q. What happened to you?
A. I was in this office right here, sir, and it lasted --
everything lasted about 45 seconds with the walls falling down,
the ceiling tiles, the light fixtures. Everything was coming
down on top of us. And when the noise and the explosion
finally stopped, I was able -- I was able to dig myself out
from under the rubble that had fallen down on top of me.
Q. What did you do next?
A. I stood up and I looked around. First thing I noticed was
an enormous amount of black smoke was pouring into the
building. I thought the building was on fire. Alarms were
going off. And I noticed Barb Hedrick, our computer
programmer. She had been in her office right here, and she was
standing somewhere in this area, right here, as soon as I was
able to dig myself out.
Q. What was her condition?
A. She was screaming and crying very loudly. She appeared to
be disoriented and didn't know where she was. She had
apparently had her back to the window right here, and her head
was covered in blood and her face was covered in blood. And
Matthew Cooper - Direct
she couldn't see, and she was crying, trying to get out of the
building.
Q. Did you assist her?
A. Yes, sir, I did. I was able to make my way through the
rubble, and I led her to the stairs. She was able to walk even
though she was injured. And I led her to the fire escape and
sent her down the fire escape.
Q. What did you do after that?
A. After I got Barb to the fire escape, I returned to the
office; and on my way back to the office, I passed two Marines.
Randy Norfleet was a captain, our officer -- selection officer,
who normally worked out of Stillwater, Oklahoma, but he had
come down to pick up some supplies; and as I was going back
into the office, I passed him, and I passed Gunnery Sergeant
Earl Bussel. Both of them were injured severely, injured about
the head. Randy had a bandage up to his eye, and he couldn't
see very well. Bussel was injured about the head and face,
also, covered in blood; but they were both able to move on
their own. I passed them.
I went back to where I'd been with Hoxing. About the
time I got back to that area, Sergeant Ted Snedicker, who was
our supply clerk, had made his way over to Hoxing and he was
pulling the rubble off Hoxing. Hoxing was not able to free
himself. So the two of us got him out from under the rubble.
Q. What did you do after that?
Matthew Cooper - Direct
A. Hoxing was injured severely. He was cut about the face.
His upper lip was almost severed entirely from his face. He
had a gash on his arm that apparently had severed a tendon. He
couldn't bend his arm, and his leg was severely cut. So I put
him over my shoulder and carried him over to the ladder and
took him down about three floors. When I got down to about the
third deck, there was some other people making their way out of
the building; and they took Hoxing out, and I went back up to
the sixth floor.
Q. Once you arrived back up to the sixth floor after taking
Hoxing down to the third, what did you do then?
A. When I got back up to the building, everybody was out
except for one last person, who was Gunnery Sergeant Paul
Cooper. His desk was right here. And he was buried under more
rubble and heavy rubble than anybody else. He had a lot of
concrete that had fallen down on his desk. Fortunately, he was
able to shelter himself somewhat with his desk. But it took
Snedicker and myself about, I would say, 5 or 10 minutes to get
the concrete off of him. And we were right at the edge; right
at the lip of the collapsed part of the building, so we were in
a precarious position, so we had to take our time to dig Paul
Cooper free.
Q. And were you able to free him?
A. Yes, sir, we were able to free him. And his injuries were
probably the most severe of any of the people that we got out
Matthew Cooper - Direct
or at least from what I could tell on the spot. His leg had an
open cut that was cut almost to the bone. His face was cut
severely. Part of his scalp appeared to be pulled back. He
couldn't see very well or walk.
Q. How many Marines were in the duty station that morning?
A. There were a total of nine people in the building, eight
Marines and Barbara Hedrick.
Q. Now, at this point, after you freed your last colleague,
how many people had you accounted for in your space?
A. We'd accounted for seven, sir.
Q. So how many were missing?
A. Two were missing.
Q. And who were they?
A. Captain Randy Guzman and Sergeant Ben Davis.
Q. What did you do to try to locate them?
A. We knew that Captain Guzman and Captain (sic) Davis had
been in my portion of the office when it was destroyed. After
I got Paul Cooper down to the street, I went back up to the
sixth floor. Sergeant Snedicker was still searching the sixth
floor in hopes that they might have been blown clear of the
collapsed part of the building. I looked over the edge of the
collapsed part of the building and I looked down, and it
appeared to me that a lot of the rubble had landed on the third
floor or about the third floor. So I thought perhaps if they
had fallen, that they might be in that vicinity. So I went
Matthew Cooper - Direct
down to the third floor to continue searching down there.
Q. And to what avail?
A. To no avail. There were two civilians, two females,
trapped on the third floor when I got down there. But of
course Captain Guzman and Sergeant Davis were not there.
Q. Were you eventually ordered out of the building that
morning?
A. Yes, sir, I was eventually ordered out of the building.
Q. Now, if you would erase your marks here on the floor plan.
Keep hitting the side of the pen.
A. Does everybody have trouble with this, or is this just
Marine-proof?
Q. No, it's everybody.
Thank you.
If you would, Captain Cooper, would you draw a line
that approximates the best of your ability where the building
had blown away on your space?
A. Based on what we could tell at that time, sir, it appeared
that the collapsed part of the building started about right
here in this corner of Barb Hedrick's office, went up, all the
way through our operations section, and off into this area
where it was unoccupied, so all of this part of our office
collapsed.
Q. And that included your office?
A. Yes, sir, that included my work space.
Matthew Cooper - Direct
Q. Now, where -- you say Captain Guzman and Sergeant Davis
were located where now, again?
A. Captain Guzman was sitting at my desk, which is right here,
sir. Sergeant Davis was at his desk, which was located right
here.
Q. Thank you. Now, let me show you what has been marked as
Exhibit 2101. And if you would, take your light pen and show
the jury where the Marine Corps Recruiting Office was and where
your office was located.
A. This was the Marine Corps Recruiting Office, the sixth
floor; right here. And our office was right here; right here
behind this pen mark.
Q. Now, we have -- you've looked at two photographs of Captain
Guzman and Sergeant Davis before coming here to court today?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. RYAN: With the marshal's assistance, if I could
display those photographs at this time, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right.
What's the exhibit number?
MR. RYAN: 1168, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Your position with respect to the exhibit is a
continuing one.
MR. TIGAR: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: 1168 is received.
Matthew Cooper - Direct
MR. RYAN: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Captain Cooper, if you would, just state each person's
name, their rank, and how long they'd been with the Marine
Corps and their official position with the Marine Corps.
A. Sir, on the left is Sergeant Benjamin Davis. He was a
Marine sergeant who had been in the Marine Corps at the time of
the bombing approximately eight years.
To his right is Captain Randy Guzman, came into the
Marine Corps in 1989, so he spent almost six years in the
Marine Corps at the time of the bombing, sir.
Q. And each of these men died on duty?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. April 19, 1995?
A. That's correct.
Q. My final question is would you tell the jury briefly what
effect this explosion and the loss of these two Marines had on
operations in the Marine Corps Recruiting Station.
A. It had a tremendous impact on our ability to accomplish our
mission, sir. The Marine Corps recruiting -- we work on a
monthly -- monthly mission. At the time of the bombing,
besides the physical damage of all our files and records being
lost, the impact of losing these two Marines had a tremendous
morale impact on the entire Recruiting Station. And we did not
meet mission the month of April, and we missed mission several
Matthew Cooper - Direct
months after that.
MR. RYAN: Marshal, would you please take the poster
down. Thank you.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Now, Captain Cooper, prior to coming here today, did you
look at a floor plan that had the names of Captain Guzman and
Sergeant Davis?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. And were they correctly situated in terms of where these
two officers -- these two Marines were at the time of the
blast?
A. It is correct, sir.
MR. RYAN: Your Honor, we would offer Exhibit 952 in.
MR. TIGAR: Subject to our discussion.
THE COURT: Yes. It's received.
MR. RYAN: Thank you, your Honor. No further
questions.
THE COURT: All right. Any cross-examination,
Mr. Tigar?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Good morning, Captain.
A. Good morning, sir.
Q. My name is Michael Tigar. I'm one of the lawyers appointed
to help Terry Nichols.
Matthew Cooper - Cross
A. Sir.
Q. In that situation there, your primary concern was to care
for people who were injured and get them some help if you
could; is that correct, sir?
A. That is correct.
Q. And that is a mission that you were trained, starting at
the academy and then after that at Quantico and in your
service, to perform; is that right, sir?
A. Yes, that's correct, sir.
Q. Now, the injuries that you saw on the people that you --
were there, did some of those injuries appear to have been
inflicted by shards or shrapnel-like material that was blown at
these people by the force of the blast?
A. Yes, I would say some of their injuries were consistent
with that, sir.
MR. TIGAR: Thank you. I have no further questions.
MR. RYAN: He may be excused, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down. You're excused.
THE WITNESS: Sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Mackey.
MR. MACKEY: Yes, your Honor, with the Court's
permission, at this time we would move to display to the jury
the floor plans previously admitted to the jury, 952A through
I.
THE COURT: They've been received, so you may publish
them to the jury.
All these have been mentioned at times in the
testimony of different witnesses who said they placed these
names there. What we're doing now is just displaying the
results of their work.
That's 950 --
MR. RYAN: Yes, your Honor, this is 952A, which is the
first floor of the building.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. RYAN: 952B, which is the second floor of the
building.
952C, which is the third floor of the Murrah Building.
952D, which is the fourth floor of the Murrah
Building.
952E, which is the fifth floor of the Murrah Building.
952F, the sixth floor of the Murrah Building.
952G, seventh floor of the Murrah Building.
952H, the eighth floor of the Murrah Building.
952I, the ninth floor of the Murrah Building.
THE COURT: All right. Each of these exhibits has
been placed on an easel before the jury box, and the jury has
viewed it -- each of them.
Mr. Mackey.
MR. MACKEY: The United States rests its case.
THE COURT: All right.
Now, members of the jury, that means you've heard from
the witnesses called by counsel for the Government in the case;
and while it is still early in terms of our regular recess
scheduling, we're going to take a recess now at this time
because before we shift over to the defense case -- that is to
say, to call for witnesses called by the defense -- there are
some things that I must take up with the lawyers in the case so
that we're sort of shifting over. And this will take a few
minutes. I can't tell you exactly how long, but it is a
necessary interruption before we start with the additional
witnesses. So I'm going to excuse you from the courtroom now
for this recess.
And of course as I mentioned to you when we recessed
yesterday afternoon, the fact that the Government has rested
the case and has identified to us that these are the witnesses
called by the Government and the evidence that is offered by
the Government, the case is far from over. There will be
witnesses and exhibits received in evidence offered by the
defense; and then of course even beyond that, there are other
parts of the trial that go beyond the taking of the testimony
and the introduction of exhibits, and that is the arguments of
counsel and the instructions that I'll give you about the law.
So we've yet a ways to go. And accordingly, this
recess is not different from all other recesses that we've had
in the course of the trial, and that is to say that you're
subject to the same cautionary instructions that I have
routinely given to you every time we've excused you from the
courtroom: Do not discuss the case among yourselves or with
anyone else, of course, and continue to be careful about
anything that you read, see, and hear to avoid anything that
could influence your decision on the issues that you will
decide. And of course keep open minds, recognize that you
haven't heard it all. And until you've heard it all, you
should not even in your own minds begin to come to any
conclusions about what it is that you have heard and what it
means.
So at this time, members of the jury, I'm going to
excuse you; and we'll let you know about five minutes ahead of
when we're going to bring you back in. So I can't give you an
estimate as to exactly how much time this recess will be.
You're now excused from the courtroom.
(Jury out at 9:19 a.m.)
THE COURT: Mr. Tigar.
MR. TIGAR: Mr. Thurschwell will argue.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Thurschwell. Thank you.
DEFENDANT'S RULE 29 MOTION
DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENT
MR. THURSCHWELL: Thank you, your Honor.
May it please the Court, Terry Lynn Nichols moves for
judgments of acquittal on all of the counts of the indictment
on the grounds that the Government has failed to provide
sufficient proof of one of the particularly crucial elements in
this particular case, and that is the intent elements.
The indictment charges four distinct crimes in 11
counts, each of which incorporates an intent element that
amounts to a specific intent to bring about some prohibited
result. In addition to that, as charged, the indictment
requires proof that Mr. Nichols knowingly, intentionally,
willfully, and maliciously brought about the prohibited result.
The murder -- the first-degree murder counts require
proof of a specific intent to kill, and not just a specific
intent to kill but a premeditated intent to kill. We have
taken the position, as the Court is aware, that the other
counts also incorporate a specific intent-to-kill requirement,
and we understand that the Court has taken a somewhat different
view of the statutes involved.
But even under the Court's reading, there is a
specific intent with respect to each of the first three counts,
a specific intent in essence to use a truck bomb against both
the Murrah Building and the people within it. And the
Government has simply failed to provide sufficient evidence to
establish that specific intent with respect to each of the 11
counts.
I will not address the evidence in any detail. The
Court is familiar with it, and I need not go into it now except
to characterize it generally, which I will do. But I wanted to
talk about some of the general principles of proof and
inference that seem particularly applicable in this case.
Mr. Nichols has been charged as a pure accessory,
accomplice -- that is, to use terminology that is still used in
some of the state statutes -- pure accessory before the fact.
And the Federal Code, as the Court is aware, has abolished the
old distinctions within accessorial liability, but I think they
are quite useful for these purposes in talking about the kinds
of proof that are required and the inferences that are
permissible with respect to different conduct that amounts to
accessorial liability.
Before I do that, though, there is -- we acknowledge
there is one category of proof that, so to speak, cuts across
all these lines; and that would certainly be good proof or
legitimate -- legitimate proof of intent regardless of the
particular role in the offense. That would be, of course,
statements by the defendant of his intentions.
For example, if Mr. Fortier is to be credited at all,
Mr. McVeigh told him on numerous occasions that he intended to
blow up the Murrah Building and was happy to be killing and
intended to kill the people within it. That is certainly
legitimate -- there is a legitimate inference from that
evidence that Mr. McVeigh had the specific intents required by
the -- by all of the counts.
But there is no such evidence in this case as to
Mr. Nichols. So when we're looking at proof of Mr. Nichols'
intent, all we have is the conduct that is proved or not proved
by the Government. And with that in mind, I want to turn to
these different distinctions within the roles in the offense
that are recognized by the common law that I think are
illustrative here.
The first -- the highest level of involvement, of
course, is the principal, the person that actually goes to the
scene of the crime and performs the crime itself. And in the
case of an individual who is proved to have committed the
crime, we have the corollary principle that one is -- one can
be assumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of
one's actions. A person who puts a gun to the head of another
person and pulls the trigger can be assumed to intend that the
other person be killed. A person who drives a truck bomb to
the front of a building during a weekday morning and lights a
fuse may be permissibly inferred to have the intention --
specific intention to kill the people within the building.
That, of course, also does not apply to Mr. Nichols in
this case. Mr. Nichols is charged simply as a pure accessory
before the fact.
There is another category, of course -- and I'll just
mention briefly -- a principal in the second degree at common
law was an individual who accompanied the principal to the
scene of the crime and provided aid and assistance at or near
the scene of the crime. And for example, an individual who
accompanies -- who drives another person to a house and waits
outside in the car while that other person goes inside, takes a
gun, and shoots and robs the individuals within, there is a
much stronger inference of intent than in the case of accessory
before the fact because of a proximity to the acts that clearly
constitute the crime.
Of course, as the Supreme Court has warned in Enmund
vs. Tison, (sic) even in that case, the requirements of proof
are quite different from that of a principal, and there is no
automatic inference of intent to kill in the particular
situation I described there. But once again, Mr. Nichols was
not charged as a principal in the second degree, he did not
accompany Mr. McVeigh, and the Government does not so contend.
Once you get to the category that -- in which
Mr. Nichols allegedly falls, accessory before the fact,
inferences of intent are far more difficult to make. By way of
example, an individual who the defendant -- call him the
defendant -- who loans another person, the principal, a gun,
whereupon the principal takes the gun, leaves, and
premeditatedly kills and intentionally kills another person --
it's not clear at all from those facts what the level of
culpability is of the person of the defendant. The defendant
may be completely innocent because he had no reason to think
that what the defendant -- the principal intended was a
first-degree, premeditated murder.
He may be -- have the culpability required for
involuntary manslaughter because he knew or had reason to know
based on other statements of the principal, perhaps, or other
information that there was a substantial risk that the -- that
the principal upon getting his gun would go and shoot the
victim. He may be guilty of second-degree murder if he, beyond
being aware of a substantial risk, was certain or near certain
that what the principal intended was a first-degree murder. He
himself not intending and premeditating the murder but being
callously indifferent that the use that the principal was going
to put his gun, I think there would be a argument that he has
the culpability required for second-degree murder.
And finally, there is an argument if certainly the
defendant was in on the plan and premeditated the murder along
with the principal that he might be -- have the culpability
required for first-degree murder.
But what is clear is that as the proof -- as the level
of culpability ascends, so to speak, the requirements of proof
become more difficult and the inferences become more difficult.
What we have here is a situation like the proof of the fact
that the defendant in the hypothetical I just gave loaned the
gun to the principal. Mr. Nichols is allegedly in the position
of the individual who loaned the gun; and the inferences of
intent, whatever they may legitimately be, our position is the
evidence adduced to date does not rise to the level of the
specific, either the specific intent to kill or the specific
intent to use a truck bomb against the Murrah Building and the
people in it.
I -- there simply is not -- and I would just allude to
the cases that we cited in our brief, which I think are quite
illustrative of the fact that the evidence in this case is
strikingly weak for a first-degree murder case. I mean the
evidence in the cases that we cite that was found sufficient or
insufficient for a second-degree murder had more evidence of
intent than has been adduced here.
That's on the assumption, of course, that the
Government has even proved the specific episodes of conduct
that they have proved. There is no -- there is no basis for
inferring that highest degree of specific intent. We do not
concede that the Government has successfully proved what they
allege to be these episodes that Mr. Nichols was supposedly
involved in, and that adds an extra layer of inference, of
weak, and we think unsupported, inference to the inference to
be then drawn from these episodes to the intent to kill, the
intent to use the truck bomb.
And the weakness of the evidence, I will not go into
in detail; but suffice it to say that I think it's fair to say
the more incriminating the alleged episode in which Mr. Nichols
was involved, the weaker the proof. And we could go through
that, but I will not tax the Court with that analysis. You're
familiar with the -- the Court is familiar with the evidence.
The Supreme Court has warned in the context of proof
or conviction of conspiracy that courts should be on guard
against convicting an individual by -- quote, "by piling
inference on inference," in Direct Sales Co. vs. United States.
That is precisely what we have here: inferences that are weak
and unsupported to prove the specific episodes of conduct and
then further weak and unsupported inferences to this highest
level of intent. And given that chain of inferences required,
our contention is that the Government has failed to prove that
a rational verdict of guilty could be returned by a jury.
With the Court -- we do -- if the Court disagrees, we
have an alternative request for relief, which I want to address
briefly.
We have contended since the outset of this case that
the alleged episode involving Roger Moore and Mr. Nichols (1)
not only did not happen but -- or at least did not happen the
way Mr. Moore testified it did but that even if it did happen
or there was sufficient proof that there was a robbery of the
type that Mr. Moore described, there is no rational basis for
connecting that episode to the actual charges leveled in the
indictment; i.e., the conspiracy to use a truck bomb against
the Murrah Building and the people in it. And I think the
proof has borne that out very, very clearly.
There is one brief sentence that allegedly connects
the Moore robbery to the conspiracy to use the truck bomb, and
that occurs in Michael Fortier's testimony at page 8315 of the
transcript. He says that it -- that is the robbery, the
alleged robbery -- was Mr. -- his, that is Mr. McVeigh's -- way
of contributing to their upkeep.
Now, that statement is not only ambiguous on its face
and taken alone, but I think in the context of the other proof
in which Mr. Nichols' association with Mr. McVeigh for innocent
purposes -- i.e., the gun show business and sharing resources
and time and traveling together to go to gun shows -- there is
simply no basis for inferring his contributing to their upkeep
means contributing to their upkeep for purposes of the illegal
conspiracy. And there again is a principle, well-established
principle, of inference and sufficiency of the evidence that if
two inferences are equally well supported, that inference will
not, cannot be deemed to suffice to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the individual was guilty of the crime.
What we have here, I think, is a situation that goes
beyond that. The stronger inference is that Mr. -- their --
quote, "their upkeep" refers to the legal business of gun
shows, not to the illegal conspiracy. There is no rational
basis for connecting the Moore episode to the illegal
conspiracy; and therefore in the alternative, we request that
the allegations and the evidence relating to this alleged Moore
robbery be stricken.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
RULING
THE COURT: I am not going to require the Government
to answer the argument. The motion under Rule 29(a) is denied;
and of course, at this time the Court must accept all of the
evidence submitted by the Government without evaluating its
credibility or making any findings with respect to it and
simply address the question of whether, assuming the truth of
all that has been submitted in evidence, there is a basis for
the jury to rationally make the inferences that are necessary
with respect to a finding of all of the elements of each of the
offenses charged in the indictment, which necessarily include
the necessary findings with respect to scienter or intent.
It is my view -- and the rule does not require me to
make particularized findings with respect to this -- that a
jury could, viewing everything most favorably towards the
Government's view of the case -- and that means towards the
indictment -- find the requisite elements from this evidence.
And in this regard, I'm not particularizing the necessary
intent here for this purpose excepting that there has to be a
showing of an intention to participate in the conspiracy -- in
the formation of the conspiracy and participate -- and to aid
and assist Timothy McVeigh in carrying out the objectives,
which include the delivery of a bomb to this building and the
explosion and the consequences of it.
And of course, this requires that the jury find that
Mr. Nichols had full knowledge of what was to take place. And
my view of the case is that the jury could make such a finding.
With respect to the alternative motion to strike the
evidence relating to this robbery, I'm also denying that motion
on the same basis; that there's -- a jury could find and infer
that the objective there -- first that the robbery took place;
and secondly, that the purpose of it was to support the
enterprise outlined in the conspiracy. So the motions, both
motions, are denied.
Now, before we proceed with the defense case, counsel
for the defense have informed me that two of their witnesses
are here and that lawyers are here saying that they are
representing them. One of these witnesses is Eldon Elliott.
Is there a lawyer here representing Eldon Elliott?
MR. NEUREITER: They were asked to leave, your Honor.
Mr. Manspeaker met them outside.
THE COURT: Well, I didn't ask them to leave the
courtroom. All I asked them to do was leave the well of the
court.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'll get them.
THE COURT: Get them.
I'm asking first for -- Defense Counsel have advised
me that witnesses Eldon Elliott and Vicki Beemer are here
pursuant to subpoena and that they've been informed that
counsel has appeared for these witnesses, for Eldon Elliott,
are you --
MR. ROBISON: Yes, your Honor. I'm Reid Robison. I'm
here for the witness Eldon Elliott.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Robison.
And for Vicki Beemer?
MR. MORRIS: John Morris, your Honor.
THE COURT: And counsel for the defendants -- defense
has also advised me that you gentlemen have been retained by
Ryder Truck Rental and not by these witnesses. Just tell me,
please, what the situation is.
MR. ROBISON: Well, your Honor, we are paid -- our
fees are paid by Ryder, but we've been retained by the
individuals, as we've told defense counsel, so I'm not sure
where that information originated.
THE COURT: Well, they've also advised me that these
witnesses have refused to speak with them or their
representatives pursuant to advice given. That's what I'm
informed.
MR. MORRIS: Your Honor, that is not correct. From
the very beginning -- I've been representing Mrs. Beemer, since
the grand jury in August of 1995; and Mrs. Beemer has chosen,
not upon recommendation of counsel, but simply by herself, not
to talk to the media, not to talk to defense. And that was
true in the McVeigh case, in which I represented her and was
present in the courtroom, and that's true today; so I have
never recommended that she not talk to defense counsel. That
has been her choice. Her choice.
MR. ROBISON: Same with Mr. Elliott, your Honor. We
have not given him any advice on that. Whatever he has done on
that count has been his own choice.
MR. WOODS: Well, your Honor, the two gentlemen
represented to me at quarter to 9 that they would not allow
their clients to talk with me.
MR. ROBISON: No, your Honor, that's not true.
THE COURT: Just one at a time, please.
MR. WOODS: And the grand jury transcript reflects
that Vicki Beemer related to the grand jury that Reid Robison
was her lawyer at that time.
MR. ROBISON: Your Honor, I told counsel this morning
that our clients didn't want to talk to them. He came over to
us as we came in and said -- I had not even met the man at that
time -- said, "Your clients won't talk to us. Is that right?"
MR. WOODS: The question was, "You're not going to
allow us to talk to your clients, is that's correct?"
And their answer was, "Yes, that's correct."
MR. ROBISON: No, that's not what I said. I said, "It
is their choice, Counsel."
MR. WOODS: You didn't say that, sir.
THE COURT: Well, you know, it should be their choice,
obviously. And that's why I've called -- taken the strange and
unusual step of calling on counsel to ask them directly both,
you know, who retained them and, secondly, what their
instructions are. I don't mean to interfere with the
attorney/client privilege, but at the same time it's important
to find out here that there's -- what the situation is. And
you've both represented to me that your respective clients are
taking this position after conferring with you but making their
own decision.
Is that the situation?
MR. ROBISON: Yes, sir.
MR. MORRIS: That is correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. You may be present in the
courtroom when they are called.
MR. ROBISON: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: I'm not precluding you from that. The
reason that I moved you -- and I didn't mean to move you clear
out of the courtroom -- was that counsel were objecting, for
the defense, to your being with those who are in the well of
the courtroom representing the defendant. That was the reason
why I rather abruptly instructed that you be moved.
MR. MORRIS: Yes, your Honor. When we were here for
the McVeigh trial, I sat on both sides, inside the well,
including the defense, when Mrs. Beemer was called for
Mr. Jones. We didn't realize that we were doing anything to
infringe on the defense.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TIGAR: Your Honor, please, with respect to the
record here, counsel have represented that they were retained
by the respective witnesses. That still doesn't answer the
question by whom were they contacted, what is the arrangement,
how is the money paid, do the clients review the bills, if
there is reimbursement situation; that is to say, is this truly
a lawyer/client relationship between the witnesses and these
lawyers or is this in fact counsel selected by Ryder and
directed as to what they do by Ryder.
THE COURT: Well, counsel said they're paid by Ryder.
Correct?
MR. ROBISON: Correct, your Honor.
MR. MORRIS: Correct.
THE COURT: And I simply -- I don't have to go through
all of these individual questions suggested by Mr. Tigar.
Of what bar are you gentlemen members?
MR. ROBISON: Actually, your Honor, I'm a member of
the bar of both this state and the state of Oklahoma.
MR. MORRIS: The state of Oklahoma and several federal
bars, including the Supreme Court.
THE COURT: Well, the Rules of Professional
Responsibility are relatively the same for both Oklahoma and
Colorado and the Federal District Court in the Western District
of Oklahoma and in this district, and I simply ask directly of
each of you if your fidelity under the rule is with respect to
the clients who are witnesses in this case.
MR. MORRIS: Absolutely, your Honor.
MR. ROBISON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm satisfied with your
statement there. I'm not going to inquire beyond it. So, as
members of the bar, as identified, I'm entitled to rely upon
your conclusory representations.
MR. ROBISON: But as relatively new in this proceeding
this morning, your Honor, where does that leave us with regard
to where we can sit when the proceedings resume?
THE COURT: Find a place.
MR. ROBISON: All right.
MR. MORRIS: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MORRIS: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, perhaps we can arrange a place for
you here. Mr. Manspeaker will help you with that.
MR. ROBISON: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: I don't know when these witnesses are
going to be called.
MR. ROBISON: We were told very soon.
MR. WOODS: They'll be very soon, your Honor. The
first witness is Lea McGown -- excuse, second witnesses, after
Mr. Burmeister.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WOODS: Lea McGown and then David Ferris, David
D'Albini, Vicki Beemer, Eldon Elliott.
THE COURT: Does that sound like it's going to be this
morning?
MR. WOODS: Yes, your Honor. These are very short
witnesses.
THE COURT: We'll work out the seating arrangement
during the recess which we're about to take.
MR. ROBISON: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I think we'll take -- we probably
should take about 20 minutes.
MR. TIGAR: Your Honor, so that our record is
protected -- and I'm not attempting to insult these gentlemen.
It's my duty to protect the record here -- we would ask for an
evidentiary hearing with respect to the circumstances of
retention, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Well, that request is denied.
We'll take a 20-minute recess.
(Recess at 9:45 a.m.)
(Reconvened at 10:04 a.m.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
MR. TIGAR: May we approach the bench, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Tigar.
(At the bench:)
(Bench Conference 101B2 is not herein transcribed by court
order. It is transcribed as a separate sealed transcript.)
(In open court:)
(Jury in at 10:57 a.m.)
THE COURT: All right, members of the jury. We're
ready to proceed.
MR. TIGAR: Call Steven Burmeister.
THE COURT: All right.
Agent Burmeister, you're being re-called to the stand
under the oath earlier taken.
Mr. Tigar.
(Steven Burmeister was re-called.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Mr. Burmeister, you have training as an arson investigator?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you described your qualifications on direct examination
by the Government. Do you recall that, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And in how many bombing crime-scene investigations have you
participated in your career as an FBI agent?
A. Are you referring to scenes in which I've gone out and
collected physical evidence?
Q. How many bombing crime-scene investigations have you
participated in any way in your career as an FBI agent?
A. Is that -- you're referring to ones which I've traveled out
to from the field office?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Well, let's start with that. How many have you traveled
out to?
A. Right at this point, I'm coming up with approximately
seven.
Q. And how many bombing crime-scene evidence analyses have you
participated in in addition to the seven?
A. Evidence that I've received in the office, several hundred
actual cases.
Q. Do you believe yourself qualified, sir, by your knowledge,
skill, experience, training, or education to give an opinion to
a reasonable scientific certainty as to what was in the device
that exploded in front of the Murrah Building on April 19?
A. My expertise would be able to say based on the chemical
findings what chemicals may have been present within that
particular device.
Q. All right. And what chemicals -- you say "may have been
present." I asked you whether you could give an opinion to a
reasonable scientific certainty what was in the device. Would
you be able to do that?
A. Based on the chemical findings, yes.
Q. What chemicals did you find present there?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor. May I voir
dire the expert before he's qualified to give his opinion?
THE COURT: Yes.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
Steven Burmeister - Voir Dire
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, in the FBI Laboratory are you given
guidance on your area of expertise to which you may testify?
A. We understand the areas and our limitations as to what we
can testify to, yes.
Q. And can you tell us what you're qualified to testify about.
A. The chemical findings, the chemical-residue analysis of
particular items and materials that are submitted for
explosives analysis.
Q. Is it beyond your area of expertise to tell the jury what
the bomb was constructed of?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Is it beyond your area of expertise to tell them the type
of damage and whether that's consistent with a certain type of
explosive?
A. Yes.
Q. And are there others that are qualified to do that for the
FBI Laboratory?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that how the work is divided up at the FBI
Laboratory?
A. Yes.
Q. Are your qualifications and the division of labor in the
FBI Laboratory different from those in DERA where Ms. Jones is
employed?
Steven Burmeister - Voir Dire
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we would object to using
Mr. Burmeister for this purpose.
THE COURT: Mr. Tigar?
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Mr. Burmeister, when you say "division of responsibility,"
you mean the courtroom testimony policy, don't you, sir?
A. No, it's within the FBI Laboratory and those personnel in
the FBI Laboratory.
Q. So there are regulations that say when you're called out to
testify on behalf of the Government: These are the areas in
which the Government can offer your testimony. Correct?
A. The regulations are guided by the individual's expertise
and how far that individual can testify based on that person's
background and training.
Q. Okay. Do you possess knowledge concerning the components
of improvised explosive devices?
A. I'm aware of components that can go into those devices.
Q. You know how to build them, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You've read books on it; correct?
A. Some texts, yes.
Q. Do you possess skill with respect to the construction of
improvised explosive devices?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. I don't know what you mean by a "skill."
Q. Could you build one that would work?
A. I could certainly build something that would work, yes.
Q. Have you built one that would work, an improvised explosive
device?
A. I have been present during the construction of devices,
some of which I haven't placed all of the pieces together, only
parts of the pieces together.
Q. Have you been present at and assisted in the construction
of any improvised explosive device that you blew up?
A. Yes.
Q. So you have experience in the construction and detonation
of improvised explosive devices; correct?
A. I would say that the experience is present but not
extensive.
Q. In order to be able to construct the explosive device, you
had training; correct?
A. I have -- I have had no official training in the actual
construction of devices.
Q. You worked with more senior FBI agents than yourself in the
construction of the improvised explosive devices that you made;
correct?
A. These are individuals in another unit of the FBI Laboratory
which I associate with during the course of investigations.
Q. And you have read publications concerning the components of
Steven Burmeister - Direct
improvised explosive devices; correct?
A. I've read texts on that, yes.
Q. Have you attended conferences where that was discussed?
A. I have attended some conferences in which some devices were
presented as interesting devices but not specifically on the
design and manufacture or creation of particular devices.
MR. TIGAR: Your Honor, I'd like to ask him his
opinion.
THE COURT: Well, with respect to what exactly?
MR. TIGAR: Whether or not he's able to say what this
was made of, this device.
THE COURT: All right. And are you objecting to that?
MS. WILKINSON: I am. I don't believe he's qualified.
THE COURT: Well, your objection is overruled.
MS. WILKINSON: Okay.
THE COURT: Now, let me make it clear to you you're
not here under some FBI directive about what you can or can't
say. You're here as a scientist. Understand?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE COURT: So the question is being asked of you as a
scientist whether you have an opinion.
Correct?
MR. TIGAR: That's right.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. And I want to give you -- I'm going to ask you the
Steven Burmeister - Direct
question: Is it possible as a scientist to say what were the
components of the device that destroyed the Murrah Building?
Can you say it?
A. Now you're outside of where I would view myself as an
expert. I can only give the chemical side, and that's the --
that's the scope of which I want to keep myself within. When
you start talking components, you're getting out into an area
which is broadened beyond my scope.
Q. Elements, then. You tell me what -- tell the jury: What
are you able to tell us about it? That's what we want to know.
What are you able to tell us based on your best science?
A. What would you like me -- can you give me some direction as
to what area you would like me --
Q. Do you think ammonium nitrate was present in the device?
A. Yes.
Q. And you base that on Q507; correct?
A. Based on the findings on Q507, the device -- it's my
opinion that it contained ammonium nitrate.
Q. Are you able -- are you able to make a conclusion that
Tovex was present?
A. That's the part of --
Q. As a scientist. I'm just talking as a scientist, based on
the analyses that you've done and seen. Are you able to tell
us that Tovex was present?
A. Based on the chemical findings, one would have to go back
Steven Burmeister - Direct
and basically -- there is ammonium nitrate present on the
particular sample. Back-stepping and trying to decide what
type of explosive that could have originated from -- first of
all, you would say whether nitroglycerin was present. There
was none present on Q507.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. So in essence, it's consistent that dynamite could be ruled
out.
If we look at the area of Tovex --
Q. Dynamite can be ruled out based on Q507. Correct?
A. If we're looking at the ammonium nitrate on Q507, yes.
Q. Now, did you -- when you tell us dynamite can be ruled out,
did you take into account the finding of a dynamite wrapper in
the building?
A. I'm not qualified to say that the wrapper was, in fact,
dynamite wrapper.
Q. Did you look at -- You look at the work of other agents --
correct -- when you do your work?
A. Only the agents that are within my particular section.
Q. And were you ever asked to examine something that was
thought to be a dynamite wrapper?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you tell us that you can rule dynamite out, you
rule that out because you didn't find any nitroglycerin
anywhere -- right -- at the crime scene?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. The evidence that I reviewed, I did not find dynamite -- or
I did not find nitroglycerin present.
Q. Anywhere at the crime scene.
A. At the crime scene, yes.
Q. Now, the question we started was: Did you find chemical
evidence that would indicate that Tovex was present?
A. Again, we'll fall back on the ammonium nitrate that was
found on Q507. Based on my past experience with residues of
Tovex, I would find other chemicals substances that would be
present on that; for example, metallic particles of aluminum.
This is being the shiny particles that are just like aluminum.
Typically, I would find that. None was found in this
particular situation.
Q. Okay. And are you able based on your science to say that
Primadet was or wasn't used?
A. I can't make any determination on that.
Q. Are you able based on your science to say that any
particular type of blasting cap was used?
A. I can't talk about that, either.
Q. Are you able based on your science to say that a timing
device was or wasn't used?
A. I can't talk about that area.
MR. TIGAR: Thank you.
THE COURT: When you say you can't talk about it,
you're talking about your own qualifications and testing?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Based on what you feel qualified to talk about. And you
understand, sir, that other -- other experts have looked at
this and indeed other experts have testified in this case;
right?
A. I'm aware of that, yes.
MR. TIGAR: All I'm asking you is to just do your
best.
Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE COURT: All right. Is there any
cross-examination?
MS. WILKINSON: Just a few questions, your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Mr. Burmeister, you were asked about a wrapper that you
examined. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall what color that wrapper was?
A. It was a brown -- slightly brown-paper-type material.
Q. You tested that for high-explosives residue?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you find any?
A. No.
Q. And if it had been a dynamite wrapper, would you expect to
Steven Burmeister - Cross
find certain explosives residue?
A. Yes.
Q. What residues would you have expected to find?
A. Typically nitroglycerin would be the leading explosive.
There could also be EGDN, ethylene glycol dinitrate, as well as
any inorganic material such as sodium nitrate or ammonium
nitrate.
Q. Now, nitroglycerin as well as EGDN are both vaporous high
explosives; right?
A. Yes.
Q. If this had been a dynamite wrapper, would you expect those
residues to have seeped into the brown paper?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't find any of those?
A. No.
MR. TIGAR: Object to leading.
MS. WILKINSON: I believe it's cross.
THE COURT: This is cross-examination.
MR. TIGAR: I would like him declared an adverse
witness, your Honor. He's employed by the adversary.
THE COURT: Objection is overruled.
MS. WILKINSON: No further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. TIGAR:
Q. Did you test all of the items that came into your
Steven Burmeister - Redirect
laboratory from the crime scene for nitroglycerin?
A. I would say 90 percent of the items that came in were
tested for nitroglycerin.
Q. Is nitroglycerin -- are polyethylene bags permeable for
nitroglycerin?
A. Yes, they would be.
MR. TIGAR: No further questions.
MS. WILKINSON: No further questions.
THE COURT: Now is he excused?
MR. TIGAR: He is excused, your Honor.
THE COURT: Now you are excused.
Next witness, please.
MR. WOODS: Lea McGown.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Raise your right hand, please.
(Lea McGown affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you have a seat, please.
Would you state your full name for the record and
spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Lea McGown. M-C-G-O-W-N.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Woods.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Good morning, Ms. McGown.
A. Good morning.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. Would you tell the jury where you live, please.
A. I live in Junction City, Kansas.
Q. Will you speak into that microphone a little louder so that
everyone can hear you.
How long have you lived in Junction City?
A. Since 1981.
Q. Do you own and operate a business in Junction City?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is the name of the business?
A. Dreamland Motel.
Q. Where is it located?
A. On Flint Hills Boulevard, 520, on Exit 300, I-70.
Q. And how long have you owned that business?
A. Since 1988.
Q. If you will look on the envelope in front of you there, the
first exhibit in the front of it. Do you recognize the
exhibit, and is it accurate?
A. Yes, I do. Yes, it is correct.
Q. Have you seen it before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that a map of the Junction City area?
A. Yes, it is.
MR. WOODS: Your Honor, we would offer into evidence
Defense Exhibit 1697 identified by the witness as a map of the
area.
Lea McGown - Direct
THE COURT: Is it D1657?
MR. WOODS: 1697, your Honor.
THE COURT: Excuse me. All right. Any objection?
MR. MACKEY: None, your Honor.
THE COURT: Received.
MR. WOODS: May I publish it to the jury?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. WOODS: Thank you.
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Now, Ms. McGown, do you see the map that's in front of you
there?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. We'll move it up a little bit.
Does that show the location where the Dreamland Motel
is?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you point out for the jury -- there is a pen there,
and you can operate it by going under the top and onto the
screen directly. And if you'll hold your pen straight up as
much as you can. Point out for the jury where the Dreamland
Motel is.
A. Right here on Exit 300.
Q. And what is the main highway that goes by the Dreamland
Motel?
A. 57.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. All right. And is there an interstate that goes by?
A. Right above is I-70.
Q. All right. Is that the interstate that goes east and west?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, there are other businesses marked on this map
provided by the Government. And I'll ask you to look at --
down in the bottom, there is an indication of a location for a
McDonald's restaurant.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you point that out for the jury, please.
And is that restaurant -- what street is that on?
A. It's on Madison.
Q. Is it near the intersection of the highway?
A. Yes. It's right on Exit 296, right off the ramp.
Q. And is -- where is Washington Street on that map?
A. Washington Street is the extension of Madison.
Q. So is the restaurant -- McDonald's restaurant located on
Washington, or Madison?
A. It's actually Madison.
Q. And Washington is the extension of it?
A. Yes. It fills into it.
Q. Have you been to that restaurant before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was it in operation in April of '95?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. All right. And there is also an indication on the map
there of Elliott's Body Shop. Would you mark for the jury
where that is.
I'll move it up a little bit for you.
And have you done business at Elliott's Body Shop
during your stay in Junction City?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you're familiar with the location?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you give us an estimation how far it is from the
McDonald's restaurant to Elliott's Body Shop --
A. 4, 5 minutes.
Q. -- in time? Can you --
A. Driving, 1 mile.
Q. Approximately 1 mile?
A. 1 mile.
Q. Okay. Now, there is also an indication on the map of a
Firestone store. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you visited and done business at that Firestone store
during your stay in Junction City?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And would you point that out for the jury, please.
Now, there is one other location on the map, Hunam
Palace, Chinese restaurant. Would you point that out for the
Lea McGown - Direct
jury, please. Approximately how far is that from your motel?
A. 10, 15 minutes.
Q. Now, would you point out for the jury where Fort Riley is
in relation to Junction City and your business?
A. It would be in the upper right-hand corner, in between
Grand Avenue and Grandview Plaza.
Q. Is Fort Riley a large area that encompasses several acres
around Junction City?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Or several square miles, shall I say?
A. Several square miles.
Q. Is this marked on the map accurately?
A. Yes. It's correct.
Q. Now, how long have you owned the Dreamland Motel?
A. Since August, '88.
Q. And if you will, inside that envelope, the next five
exhibits are a series of photographs. And two of them have
already been admitted into evidence as G283 and G287. I would
ask you to look at three photographs that are identified as
D1700, 1701, and 1702.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Those three that begin with D have not been admitted into
evidence yet. Have you seen those photos before, Ms. McGown?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do they accurately depict the scene that is
Lea McGown - Direct
photographed therein?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And have you seen that scene before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that a scene of your motel?
A. That's correct.
MR. WOODS: Your Honor, we would offer into evidence
those three photos that haven't been admitted yet, D1700, 1701
and 1702.
MR. MACKEY: No objection.
THE COURT: They are received.
MR. WOODS: And we would like to publish those three
along with the two that have not been published yet.
THE COURT: Those being 283 and 287?
MR. WOODS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. You may do so.
MR. WOODS: Thank you.
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. If you'll click the pen --
MR. WOODS: Well, she's already done it.
THE COURT: Yes, she did.
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Ms. McGown, I'm going to show you first what is -- this has
been admitted into evidence as Government's Exhibit 283, which
is an aerial view. And can you describe for the jury the
Lea McGown - Direct
layout of your motel?
A. On the beginning is 57, which is on construction with the
bridge to your left side. Then the round drive going into the
motel parking lot, the motel itself, and the back area and is a
driveway on the right-hand side, is going into the church area.
Q. Let me take it out of the plastic envelope. It may be
clearer.
Now, how many rooms do you have in your motel, the
Dreamland?
A. 24.
Q. And where is your office located there at the motel?
A. In the middle right across the grass area.
Q. Would you point out for the jury with that pen where your
office is.
All right. And do you live at the motel, Mrs. McGown?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you point out for the jury where you live.
Okay. Do you have children?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How many?
A. Two.
Q. And what are their names and ages?
A. Kathleen McGown is 17. Eric McGown, 19.
Q. During April, 1995, were your two children living with you
there at the motel?
Lea McGown - Direct
A. That's correct.
Q. Was there another person that was staying there with one of
your children?
A. Renda Truong, a girlfriend of my daughter.
Q. Would you say that slowly for the jury, please.
A. Renda Truong.
Q. How do you spell the last name?
A. T-R-U-O-N-G.
Q. She was living with your daughter?
A. That's correct.
Q. Would you point out for the jury where Room 25 is.
And is that the first room next to your office?
A. That's correct.
Q. How are your rooms numbered across both sides there from
your office?
A. To the west wing, 25 through 34. The east wing, 24 through
10.
Q. Would you point out for the jury which one is the west
wing.
And those numbers are 25 through what?
A. 34.
Q. All right. And then the east wing?
A. 24 through 10.
Q. And do all the rooms have doors that open up on the parking
area?
Lea McGown - Direct
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And again if you point out for the jury where the parking
area is for a car that comes to an individual room.
All right. Let me show you the other exhibit that
previously has been admitted, Government's 287. And if you
would click the pen so that those marks go off.
Would you point out again where your office is and
where Room 25 is. All right.
And you have a large sign there in front. Is that
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is there a parking area near that sign?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Let me show you also Defense Exhibit 1701. If you would
click the pen again. This photo shows a new bridge there. In
April of 1995, was that bridge there at the time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it under construction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember approximately what date the construction
started?
A. 14th of April.
Q. And I'll show you Defense Exhibit 1700. Would you point
out for the jury where the bridge was being constructed at that
time.
Lea McGown - Direct
All right. Now, where -- how did one get to your
motel from the interstate, I-70?
A. You take the Exit Ramp 300, and this ramp will lead more or
less straight into the motel.
Q. All right. And this frontage road in front of your
motel -- what's the name of it again?
A. K-57.
Q. Okay. Now, within your office -- I'll show you what's
marked as 1702. Is your office all windows surrounding all
sides?
A. Three sides of my office have windows.
Q. And where is your apartment or home located in relation to
your office?
A. To the north.
Q. Is it right behind your office?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is there a door that enters from your home into the office?
A. Two doors. Three doors. I'm sorry. Three doors.
Q. All right. And this one photo that shows the windows:
Approximately what level do they start from the floor up?
A. At chair-high level.
Q. Do the windows then open up to view the whole front of your
motel, both the east wing and the west wing and the front?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, if you would click that pen again.
Lea McGown - Direct
I want to call your attention to the period of April,
1995. Do you recall the day of the bombing in Oklahoma City,
April 19?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Had you seen any news broadcasts or heard anything
about the news concerning the Oklahoma City bombing on that
day, April 19?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you receive a visit the following day, on Thursday,
April 20, from any law enforcement officials?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Do you recall who they were, what agency they were
with?
A. Mr. Burgess from the local police, and later I was told
Mark Bouton from the FBI.
Q. So there were two individuals that visited with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did they show you any objects at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did they show you?
A. Two composite drawings.
Q. Composite drawings?
A. Two drawings of --
Q. And were the drawings of males, or females?
A. Two male.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. Would you look at the envelope that's in front of you. And
there is an exhibit marked D1706 and an exhibit marked D1699.
I'm sorry. It should be marked 1731 and 1699. Do you
see those two exhibits?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you seen those exhibits before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were those the two composite drawings that were shown you
by the law enforcement authorities on Thursday, April 20?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. WOODS: Your Honor, we would move into evidence
the composite drawing of Un. Sub. No. 1, which is D1699, and
composite drawing of Un. Sub. No. 2, which is D1731.
MR. MACKEY: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. They're received. I'm a
little confused, though. On my list I had D1698 as the --
MR. WOODS: Yes, your Honor. That was a composite
drawing of John Doe No. 2 that was drawn later.
THE COURT: Oh.
MR. WOODS: We've substituted with the first drawing.
THE COURT: The identified exhibits are received.
MR. WOODS: Thank you. May I publish, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Ms. McGown, I'm showing you now that's been marked and
Lea McGown - Direct
admitted as D1699. Was this one of the drawings that was shown
to you by the law enforcement officials on Thursday, the day
after the bombing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you seen that sketch on the news, on television, or in
the newspaper that day at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. That was the first time you saw it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I'll show you also what's been marked as D1731. Is
that the composite -- the second composite that was shown to
you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you seen an individual with the likeness of John Doe
No. 1 as of that date on April 20?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you advise the law enforcement officials of that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you provide them a copy of a registration form from
your business records there at the Dreamland Motel?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. WOODS: Okay. Your Honor, Exhibit -- Government's
Exhibit 294A, the clean copy, has previously been admitted into
evidence, and we would like to publish that to the jury.
THE COURT: You may.
Lea McGown - Direct
MR. WOODS: And if we could pull that up on the
screen.
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Now, Ms. McGown, I don't know if you can read that clearly
on the screen there.
There. It's blown up a little bit.
Do you recognize that form?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is a form that you've designed yourself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is that the form that you provided to the law
enforcement officials on Thursday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And would you read into the record who the individual was
that registered there at that time?
A. Tim McVeigh.
Q. And did he give an address?
A. "3616 North Van Decker -- Van Dyke, Decker, Michigan; car
license LCC034, Arizona; make, Mercury; number of people, 1;
pets, none."
Q. Now, the writing on the top half before that line: Is that
done by you from what the individual gives you, or is that done
by the individual that's registering there at your motel?
A. The individual writes the address and all the information.
Q. Okay. Now, below that line: Who fills that part in?
Lea McGown - Direct
A. I do.
Q. Okay. Now, what time did -- excuse me. What date did the
individual register at your motel, the Dreamland Motel in
Junction City?
A. Friday, April 14.
Q. All right. Do you recall the time of the day that it was?
A. Late afternoon around 4 p.m.
Q. All right. Now, do you recall and at that time did you
recall specifically this individual, Timothy McVeigh?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you advise the law enforcement officials of what
you recalled at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, will you tell the jury what you recall when you
first saw Mr. McVeigh on the 14th of April. What conversation
did you have with him and when did you first notice him?
A. He came into the office and I asked what I can do for you;
and he said, "I would like to have a room for one person." And
then he stated he wants to stay several days, if he would get a
discount, because I quoted the regular rate.
Q. What was your regular rate at that time?
A. 24.
Q. And did you negotiate a discount with him after discussing
a discount?
A. Yes, we did.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. How many days did he want to stay?
A. Four nights.
Q. And what negotiated rate did you arrive at?
A. $20.
Q. What was his appearance?
A. Very neat and clean.
MR. WOODS: Okay. Your Honor, we would ask that we
publish the photograph of Mr. McVeigh, which has previously
been admitted into evidence as Government's Exhibit 318.
THE COURT: You may.
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Now, Mrs. McGown, do you recognize the individual that's
depicted in that photograph?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the Timothy McVeigh that registered on that day,
April 14?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Thank you. We can turn that off now.
Was there further discussion other than arriving at a
discount rate for four days?
A. No. We have all the time exchange of words. He wanted to
know if he can park a van, if it would matter if he brings two
cars and he would bring a van in to where Gracie's Beauty Shop
is.
Q. When he said "a van," did he describe it in any way?
Lea McGown - Direct
A. No.
Q. Is it usual, or unusual that people bring a van to your
motel?
A. No, sir.
Q. "No, sir," is it usual, or unusual?
A. It's usual that somebody brings a van.
Q. And why is that?
A. We have Fort Riley next door, which means many people move
in and out. They most of the time have a moving van.
Q. And sometimes they stay at your motel; is that correct?
A. Quite often.
Q. And he asked you where Gracie's was? Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what is Gracie's?
A. A beauty shop.
Q. Is that a place where men get haircuts?
A. Sometimes.
Q. All right. Any further discussion that you had with
Mr. McVeigh at that time?
A. I noticed the discrepancy between the two states, Michigan
and Arizona, and I asked him --
Q. When you say "discrepancies," what are you speaking of
between the two states?
A. Most people do have the same state and the same number on
the license plate as home address, if they're not military,
Lea McGown - Direct
except then. So I ask him how come he has two different
states.
Q. And you're speaking of he gave an address of Michigan but
he had an automobile with an Arizona tag; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. What explanation did he give?
A. He says he travels quite a bit in the last one-and-a-half,
two years, and he said that's a friend's address.
Q. He said that's a friend's address?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you notice the automobile that he was driving?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And can you describe that automobile for us?
A. It was an older, yellowish-grayish --
yellowish-beigish-looking Mercury, and it has had some spots
where you fix it with some plaster.
MR. WOODS: Your Honor, we would ask that Government's
Exhibit 414, which has previously been admitted into evidence,
be published again.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Ms. McGown, will you look at this photograph which is in
evidence as Government's Exhibit 414. Do you recognize that
car?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. And where have you seen that car previously?
A. On the parking lot at Dreamland Motel.
Q. Was that the automobile that Mr. McVeigh was driving?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Did you ever see the license plate of that
automobile while he was there during those four days?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What day did you first notice it, if you recall?
A. I don't recall exactly if it was the first afternoon or the
second. I recall he's driving out of the driveway and the
license plate was hanging sideways, was only secured with one
bolt.
Q. So normally license plates -- is fastened on both sides and
you're saying it was only fastened on one side?
A. Yeah. It was hanging sideways.
Q. Could you see the number of it?
A. Yes. I saw the numbers, and I made myself a mental note
because I looked on the registration slip. The numbers will be
kind of turned around, not quite correct; and I wanted him to
come in and correct it in his handwriting.
Q. So you saw the number clearly and then looked at your
registration receipt?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell if it was an Arizona?
A. I don't recall.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. You were just looking at the letters and numbers?
A. That's correct.
Q. And was it totally wrong, or was it close, or do you
recall?
A. It was very close. It was, as I recall, the numbers turned
around.
Q. And you made a mental note to yourself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. McVeigh after that time about the
license number and the correct number?
A. No, sir.
Q. And what day is it that you recall that happened?
A. Friday or Saturday afternoon.
Q. All right. Now, based on Mr. McVeigh's appearance and
based on the appearance of the automobile -- and we can turn
that off now -- did you make any decision as to which room to
assign him to?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And which room did you assign him to?
A. No. 25, next to the office.
Q. And why was that?
A. Because there was a difference between his appearance and
the appearance of his car.
Q. All right. And why would you assign him a room close to
the office?
Lea McGown - Direct
A. To keep an eye on the person.
Q. Why would you want to keep an eye on the person?
A. He was very neat, the car was very raggedy; so I thought in
case he's not a good client, I can ask him to leave.
Q. And you try to judge your clients that way when they check
in?
A. I -- yes, I do.
Q. And do you have clients that are there full-time pretty
much?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have 24 rooms; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Approximately how many people are living there on a
full-time basis?
A. Four.
Q. So you assigned Mr. McVeigh Room 25, which is closest to
the office. Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the first one to the west?
A. First one on the west wing.
Q. Now, did you -- what further discussion did you have with
Mr. McVeigh before he left the office that day when he checked
in?
A. I don't recall any.
Q. Did you collect any money from him or a credit card or a
Lea McGown - Direct
check?
A. I collected money, all the payment for four days in
advance.
Q. And how much was that?
A. $88.95.
Q. Now, on your registration receipt, you circled several
dates. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is that a form that you designed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you also had the dates April 14 through April what
marked down?
A. I wrote down 14, 15, 16, 17.
Q. All right. And what time -- what date was he to check out?
A. On the 18th morning.
Q. And this is information that he provided to you?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you -- since his room was right next to the office, did
you observe Mr. McVeigh unload his car when he checked in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What, if anything, did you see him taking into his room?
A. I only noticed how the trunk opened, and he grabbed
something and hold it with both arms. That's all I observed.
Q. And did you ever go into his room during those four days
that he stayed there?
Lea McGown - Direct
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you have a conversation at all with Mr. McVeigh further
on that day, Friday, April 14?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see him the next day on Saturday, the 15th?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Okay. Did you see his automobile present there at the
motel on Saturday, April 15?
A. I don't recall specific times.
Q. All right. On the following day, April 16, did you see
Mr. McVeigh, which is Easter Sunday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did you first see Mr. McVeigh on Sunday,
April 16?
A. Shortly before 11 a.m.
Q. And how are you able to recall the time?
A. It's Easter Sunday. We were getting ready to go to church.
Q. And who was going to church with you?
A. My daughter and I.
Q. And your son, Eric: Was he present at the motel at that
time?
A. Yes. He stayed to watch the place.
Q. And when you saw Mr. McVeigh -- with your daughter,
Kathleen -- where was he?
A. He was at his car.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. And where was his car?
A. Next to our car. We were parked in front of the side door.
Q. Was his car parked in front of Room 25?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did Mr. McVeigh say anything?
A. He said hi to my daughter. I turned, looked at him, and
opened the door for my daughter to get in the car.
Q. All right. And did you say anything to Mr. McVeigh?
A. No, sir.
Q. And did the two of you then go to church?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. After church, did you return back to the motel?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you notice whether or not Mr. McVeigh's automobile was
there at that time?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Okay. After returning home from church, what did you next
do?
A. We got ready to go out to go to Carlos O'Kelly.
Q. What is Carlos O'Kelly?
A. A Mexican restaurant in Manhattan.
Q. Who went with you?
A. Eric, Renda, Kathleen, myself.
Q. Renda is the girl living with your daughter?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. Was anyone left in the motel to run the office?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you have any employees, Mrs. McGown, that help you run
the office other than the maid service?
A. No, sir.
Q. You do that pretty much by yourself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So did you lock up the motel at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you went to Carlos O'Kelly's; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, did you provide to the law enforcement officers a
receipt showing that day that you had been to Carlos O'Kelly's
and the time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you would look in that envelope to the next exhibit, do
you see a receipt in there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what's the D number on that?
A. 1704.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. 1704.
Q. Okay. And is that the receipt that you provided to the law
enforcement officers?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. Did you do that on Thursday when they were there for the
first visit?
A. No, sir.
Q. What day do you recall doing that?
A. It was later on. I do not recall the date.
Q. Did those two law enforcement officers and/or others come
back and interview you on a number of occasions?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. WOODS: Your Honor, we would offer into evidence
D1704, the receipt that -- Carlos O'Kelly's that she's
identified.
MR. MACKEY: No objection.
THE COURT: Received, D1704.
MR. WOODS: And we'd like to publish it.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. WOODS: Thank you.
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Now, Mrs. McGown, can you read that off of the screen
that's in front of you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And does that give a date and time at which you paid at
Carlos O'Kelly's?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What date and time is reflected on the receipt?
A. Date, 04-16-95; time, 1434.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. And do you recognize what 1434 is?
A. 2:30 -- 2:34.
Q. Is that afternoon time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. After having lunch there at Carlos O'Kelly's, what
did you next do?
A. Returned home.
Q. And how long did that take?
A. Approximately half an hour.
Q. Did you notice anything in the parking lot when you arrived
back to your motel that was out of the ordinary?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. Later on in that afternoon, did you notice a Ryder
van in your parking lot or approaching your parking lot?
A. I don't recall. I only recall whenever the truck came in.
Q. You recall what?
A. I recall what -- as the Ryder truck came in, but I do not
recall exact what date.
Q. Have you previously told the officers and grand jury that
it was on April 16, Easter Sunday, after you returned home?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And what did you notice when the -- where was the
Ryder truck when you first noticed it?
A. As I stepped out in the office, I seen a Ryder truck with
the back backing down the driveway towards the office.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. Okay.
A. And it was in very short, jerky motions. And I waited
until the Ryder truck turned around the swimming pool towards
the west.
Q. Was it backing towards the swimming pool?
A. It was backing, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
A. And as the Ryder truck backed around the curve, I saw
Mr. McVeigh sitting in the truck; and I told my son, "Please
tell Mr. McVeigh to park under the sign."
Q. Okay. Where was Mr. McVeigh trying to park the Ryder
truck?
A. The end of the west building towards the end of the
swimming pool.
Q. And why did you not want him to park in that area?
A. For two reasons. On the end of this area is a high ditch
of 50 feet dropoff, and the clientele who lives on that wing
cannot get in and out if a big vehicle is parked there.
Q. And was there an individual back there who lives there
full-time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who was that?
A. Mr. Bigelow.
Q. And was the Ryder truck then moved to your knowledge?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. Where was it moved to?
A. Right underneath the big display sign up front, right
across the office.
Q. Now, on Monday, the following day, April 17, did you notice
whether or not Mr. McVeigh's automobile or Ryder van was
present?
A. I recall writing on the maid's list "gone" after I seen the
truck early in the morning. I got up around 5, make coffee. I
seen it very early; and later on, as I make the maid's list,
the car and the truck wasn't there; so I write -- wrote on the
maid's list "gone," which means the clientele will not return
to the room.
Q. And does that mean that they're supposed to go clean the
room?
A. That's correct.
Q. And who was that you instructed to clean the room?
A. Hilda Sostre.
Q. And did you have a conversation with her, then, later that
day?
A. She came in later on and said somebody is in the room.
Q. In Room 25?
A. Yes.
Q. So did you do anything concerning your records as to
whether or not Mr. McVeigh was still present on Monday,
April 17?
Lea McGown - Direct
A. No, I -- I just told the maid to take care of the room.
Q. Okay. Did you see the Ryder truck, then, on Monday coming
and going at any time, Monday, April 17?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Do you recall telling the grand jury and also the law
enforcement authorities that you saw the Ryder truck several
times on Monday, April 17; would be there and then it wouldn't
be there?
A. It's normal people come and go, so I didn't pay any
attention when he came, when he did go.
Q. Now, Tuesday morning in the early hours, did you have an
occasion to see Mr. McVeigh in the Ryder truck?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. What time was that?
A. Around 4 in the morning.
Q. Okay. And what was the occasion that you were up at 4 in
the morning?
A. I heard doors getting opened and closed and car doors
various times, so I got up and did go to the front office to
check what's going on. And the room right next on the east
wing, Room 24, David King was standing at the car door with a
bunch of young people; and I rolled the shades up to be able to
see everything, and I saw a Ryder truck sitting underneath the
sign.
Q. And did you see anybody in the Ryder truck?
Lea McGown - Direct
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did you see?
A. Mr. McVeigh.
Q. How could you tell -- what was the lighting? How could you
tell someone was there and how were you able to identify them?
A. I have two flat lights. One on top of the building shines
onto the parking lot, one on the sign itself on the side who
(sic) shines onto the parking lot; and the door was open on the
cabby and the dome light was on, so I could see the person
sitting in there.
Q. What did he appear to be doing?
A. He looked at something on his lap, seemingly a map. I
assumed a map.
Q. All right. Now, what did you do then after 4 a.m.? Did
you go out and talk to Mr. King and his guests, or did they
depart?
A. No, they did go in the car, and that's why I returned back
into my house. And shortly after that, around 5:00, my alarm
normally rings. I got up and make coffee, and there was no
truck anymore.
Q. So at 5 a.m. your alarm goes off. And it's your habit to
make coffee for the guests and yourself in the office there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And through the open windows, could you determine whether
or not the van was still there?
Lea McGown - Direct
A. The van was gone.
Q. And was that the last time that you saw Mr. McVeigh or the
moving van, at 5 a.m. on Tuesday morning, the 18th?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now -- what is your son's birthday?
A. April 14.
Q. Okay. Is it your habit to normally walk the premises of
your motel at night?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what -- why do you do that?
A. To keep security and know if anything is going wrong.
Q. And by "walk the premises," what do you mean by that?
A. I walk the whole length of the building very close to the
doors and windows so I can observe any problems within the
room.
Q. And do you recall whether or not you walked the premises on
Friday, the day of your son's birthday?
A. I did not.
Q. And why was that?
A. I have had family problems.
Q. Okay. Concerning an automobile?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Did you walk the premises, then, on Saturday and
Sunday?
A. I walked it one of the following nights.
Lea McGown - Direct
Q. And do you recall walking by Mr. McVeigh's room, Room 25?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall approximately what time it was?
A. Around midnight.
Q. And do you recall which day it was?
A. Sunday night, which is after midnight.
Q. Are you sure as to that date?
A. No, sir.
Q. All right. Do you recall telling law enforcement officials
it was on Saturday night?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Okay. At any rate, Saturday or Sunday night, you heard a
conversation. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you walk by rapidly, or did you stop, or did you pause,
or what did you do?
A. On my way from the office to 34, I walked normal pace. And
as I walked by, I heard several voices in 25. And I thought
about it walking to the end of the building; and it's supposed
to be one voice, but it could be a TV in there going. So on my
way back I decided to walk very slow by the door and the window
to hear better. And I could hear several voices in the room
because the seating is right next to the window, and I could
hear the voice on the window side talking and the answering
voice right across where the bed is, and the TV is to your left
Lea McGown - Direct
side against the bathroom wall.
Q. Okay. From listening to the voices, could you determine
how many people were talking?
A. I know by (sic) sure it was two people and possible three.
Q. And did you recognize Mr. McVeigh's voice?
A. I do believe the voice on the window was Mr. McVeigh's.
Q. All right. Did you recognize the other voice or voices?
A. Not clearly.
Q. How would you describe the other voice?
A. Kind of velvety deep voice.
Q. And that's the description you gave the law enforcement
authorities; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you heard the voice before, the velvety deep voice?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Do you recall whether or not you told the law enforcement
authorities that this voice sounded like the one that had
called Mr. McVeigh two or three times previously while he was
staying there?
A. It could be the same voice.
Q. Now, when a -- one of your tenants in the room receives a
phone call, does the call come in to you there in the office
and then you move it over or dispatch it over to the room?
A. That's correct.
Q. So if an individual is receiving a phone call, you answer
Lea McGown - Direct
it first?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did Mr. McVeigh receive several phone calls?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall how many?
A. No. It was a few phone calls.
Q. Okay. And did you describe this voice as someone that had
called him on two or three occasions earlier?
A. It could be the same voice.
Q. Okay. Now, why did you provide the law enforcement
officials your receipt for Sunday, April -- Sunday -- Easter
Sunday, the Carlos O'Kelly's receipt?
A. Later on, I do not recall the exact date.
Q. No. Why did you give it to them?
A. Because I was asked what time I returned from O'Kelly's.
To check with myself, I pulled the receipt out of my file.
Q. Have you earlier described to law enforcement authorities
that you saw Mr. McVeigh in the Ryder van shortly after
returning from that Easter lunch?
A. I tied it to the activity of my son getting ready to work
on the pool.
Q. And when your son came back from the Easter Sunday, did he
change clothes to work on the pool?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, have you ever seen Terry Nichols before, Mrs. McGown?
Lea McGown - Direct
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't see him there present with Mr. McVeigh at any time
that he was there?
A. No, sir.
Q. In April, '95?
A. No, sir.
MR. WOODS: Thank you very much, Mrs. McGown.
THE COURT: Mr. Mackey.
MR. MACKEY: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MACKEY:
Q. Good morning, Ms. McGown.
A. Good morning, Mr. Mackey.
Q. You and I have met before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I'm going to ask a question that might reveal the
obvious. Were you born in Germany?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Fell in love with a U.S. soldier?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And came to Kansas in 1976?
A. That's correct.
Q. Divorced in 1981?
A. Correct.
Lea McGown - Cross
Q. And been raising your two kids ever since?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have owned and operated the Dreamland Motel since August,
1988?
A. That's correct.
Q. Place of business and your home?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Throughout that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I have some other pictures that I'd like for you to
identify, Ms. McGown. Take a look, please, at Government's
Exhibit -- we'll start with 288.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. I missed the number.
MR. MACKEY: 288.
THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MR. MACKEY:
Q. Do you find that, Ms. McGown?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that another photograph of the front of the Dreamland
Motel?
A. That's correct.
Q. Concentrating on two doors immediately west of the office
area?
A. That's correct.
MR. MACKEY: Your Honor, we'd move to admit
Lea McGown - Cross
Government's Exhibit 288.
MR. WOODS: No objection.
THE COURT: Received, may be shown.
BY MR. MACKEY:
Q. Ms. McGown, with the pen, just take a moment and orient the
jury as to where the office area is as shown in this
photograph.
And moving west, do we see a white door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Circle that, please.
A. Not quite.
Q. We got the idea.
And immediately to the left of that on the
photograph -- that would be again moving west -- what is that
room?
A. 25.
Q. Now, the white door, Ms. McGown, leads where?
A. Into the laundry room.
Q. And that is not a guest room?
A. No. And into my house.
Q. Do you use that door on repeated occasions?
A. This is our in-and-out door.
Q. It's like your front door?
A. Yes.
Q. You can get into your home and to your office from that
Lea McGown - Cross
door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you use that door in fact more often than the front door
to the office area itself?
A. We don't use the front office door. We use the side door.
Q. So is the closest motel door as shown in this photograph to
the door that you use most often Room 25?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And circle that, please, for the jury as well.
Let's turn now, Ms. McGown, to Government's Exhibits
290 and 289. They should be together there. A couple more
photographs.
Do you have those as well? And also 292. Do you find
that as well?
You have all three of those?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do each of those photographs show views from inside the
office area looking out into various parts of the parking lot
of the Dreamland?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. MACKEY: Your Honor, I'd move to admit
Government's Exhibits 289, 290, and 292.
MR. WOODS: No objection.
THE COURT: They are received.
BY MR. MACKEY:
Lea McGown - Cross
Q. Let's start with 280 -- excuse me -- 292, please. See that
in front of us?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The door that appears in the far right-hand corner of that
photograph: Is that the door through which guests come and go?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And mark on the photograph where the registration counter
is. That would be the far right-hand part of this photograph?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So if I were a guest coming into your motel, I'd walk
through the door, turn to my left?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would I find a registration counter running perpendicular
then to the wall of windows we see?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do we see in the foreground of this photograph?
What's there?
A. The windows and the seating.
Q. And is that provided for your guests?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What sorts of things do you keep in that area?
A. The coffee machine, candy machine, and the ice machine.
Q. And how large an area is that, the waiting area?
A. It's a small area.
Q. And can you gain access to your home through that same
Lea McGown - Cross
area?
A. There is a door leading into the lobby from my living room.
Q. Let's take a look now, Ms. McGown, at Government's Exhibit
290. And tell us the view that we are showing the jury at this
time. Where are we standing to see this view?
A. Looking out to the west wing from 25 through 34.
Q. So if I were at your registration counter behind the
counter as if I were you, if I were turning around, I'd see
this view; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which direction are we looking?
A. West.
Q. In this photograph?
A. West, towards the bridge and towards --
Q. Would this be your view as you stood behind the
registration counter looking towards Room 25?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in this particular photograph, there is a car down
there, looks to be yellow, beige in color. Do you recognize
that vehicle?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in April of 1995, including the time period that
Mr. McVeigh was there, was that particular vehicle parked on a
daily basis at various places throughout the Dreamland area?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Cross
Q. Let's take a look now at 289. And we shift our line of
sight just a little bit in this photograph?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And now what are we seeing?
A. You look out to the south and partially to the west towards
the interstate and towards the bridge and 57.
Q. So we're still looking west?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But we've shifted our view just a little bit left from
your --
A. Southwest.
Q. There is a driveway, is there not, that appears in this
exhibit, 289?
A. Yes. That's the west driveway.
Q. That is the driveway that you observed the Ryder truck
jerk, jerk, jerk, backing down the driveway?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What sort of grade, if any, is there between the level of
the Dreamland Motel and the Flint Hills Boulevard?
A. Several feet, 7 or 8.
Q. Thank you, Ms. McGown.
Mr. Woods asked you to look at a diagram of some areas
inside Junction City, including some businesses. Do you
remember that photograph?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Cross
Q. The diagram? And there was a couple sites for the
Firestone store and the J & K Bus Depot. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You've been to both those places?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you stand at the Firestone store in downtown Junction
City, can you see the bus depot?
A. If I go to the alley on the back of the building at the
parking, where they park the cars.
Q. And if you stand at that location at the Firestone in
downtown Junction City, can you see the pay phone at the bus
depot?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You recall April 14, 1995, for a number of reasons.
Correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It's your son's birthday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they put up the barricades at the bridge that would
lead to your place of business; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long were the barricades up before they actually tore
down the bridge?
A. Close to two weeks.
Q. Incidentally, Ms. McGown, do you know where the Sunset
Lea McGown - Cross
Motel is?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And where?
A. West of me right over the bridge, right over the ditch on
the other side. It's visible from my place.
Q. As you're heading back into Junction City, is it the first
motel you come to as you cross that bridge?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were asked some questions about your clientele at the
Dreamland. Do you recall those questions?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you know about business in Junction City. You've been
on the Board of Tourism and the Chamber of Commerce; correct?
A. Board of Tourism, Preservation Board and Public Health.
Q. And it is a community, we'd agree -- depends in large part
upon business derived from Fort Riley?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A lot of military traffic?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that's business that comes your way, is it not, with
military personnel coming in and out of the Dreamland Motel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And with those ins and outs, those individuals bring in
large moving vehicles, do they not?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Cross
Q. And have you estimated before that on 20 to 60 occasions
every year you'll have a guest who will bring in a large moving
vehicle?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that a correct estimate?
A. Yeah.
Q. When Mr. McVeigh checked in on Friday, April 14, 1995, did
you ask him whether he was in the Army?
A. No, sir.
Q. But you do recall part of the conversation included his
intent to bring in a moving truck and moving van?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you remember any instructions you gave to Mr. McVeigh at
that moment in time about what he should do with that vehicle?
A. Yes. I told him to park it under the sign and pointed at
the sign and showed him where.
Q. Ms. McGown, as part of your cooperation with law
enforcement, did you provide a listing from your motel records
of all phone call activity recorded by your computer on-site?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And let me show you Government's Exhibit 295, if I can.
Is that the list of telephone activity at the
Dreamland Motel for the time period including that of the stay
of Mr. McVeigh?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Cross
Q. And at the Dreamland, is every outgoing phone call recorded
by your computer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does it record information about incoming phone calls?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you reviewed Government's Exhibit 295 before coming to
court today?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And does it contain or include entries concerning phone
activity from Room 25?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. During the time period of Mr. McVeigh's stay?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. MACKEY: Your Honor, I'd move to admit
Government's Exhibit 295.
MR. WOODS: No objection.
THE COURT: Received, 295; may be shown.
BY MR. MACKEY:
Q. You'd agree, Ms. McGown, this detail is a little bit too
small to really show the jury; correct?
Can you read it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Feel free to pull out of Government's Exhibit 295, from the
plastic, the document itself and turn to Saturday, April 15,
1995.
Lea McGown - Cross
Do you see in front of you highlighted for the members
of the jury from your records two entries for a phone call --
two phone calls I should say from Room 25 to No. 238-8888? Do
you see those?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you circle on the screen, Ms. McGown, what it is
about the record that tells you those calls were made from Room
25?
A. The No. 25 indicating it.
Q. Do you recognize the phone number 238-8888?
A. No.
It's a Hunam express phone number to restaurant,
delivery restaurant.
Q. Is that the Hunam Palace Chinese restaurant in Junction
City?
A. That's correct.
Q. In April of '95, did you at your desk -- or in the waiting
area have brochures of various restaurants?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Including the Hunam Palace?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. According to this record, were the two phone calls made to
that Hunam Palace restaurant on Saturday evening sometime,
early in the evening?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Cross
Q. Circle for the jury the time of those two phone calls.
Ms. McGown, do you know whether the time that's
printed or was printed on your record by your computer was
precisely accurate on April 15, 1995?
A. No. It's quite often half hour to an hour off.
Q. Do you recall after the bombing doing a test call to
determine that your clock was approximately 15 minutes fast?
A. That's correct.
Q. I want to direct your attention to another entry for
Saturday, April 15. Do you see that highlighted before the
jury?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us, please, what's shown there.
A. April 15, 9:50, (800) 793-3377, station to station, Room
25, 36 seconds, no payment.
Q. If a guest is in a room and makes a phone call to a 1-800
number, is that information -- or was it then recorded by your
computer?
A. Yes, it is; correct.
Q. Is that all the information that the computer records, that
which is shown on this piece of paper?
A. That's correct.
Q. Can you tell what time of morning the phone call from Room
25 was made to that particular number?
A. Printer shows 10 minutes before 10.
Lea McGown - Cross
Q. With the adjustment, it would be approximately 9:35 or
thereabouts?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me show you an entry from Government's Exhibit 1888 for
Saturday, April 15, 1995. Can you read that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. This shows, does it not, that that phone call originated
from the Dreamland Motel to the residence of Terry Nichols at
or about 9:36 that morning; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You see the phone number under the Dreamland Motel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was that your phone number on April 15, 1995?
A. That is our phone number, one of the lines.
Q. Let's return our attention again with the phone records to
Monday, April 17, 1995. I'll show you a record from your
record, 295. Do you see what's highlighted there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you tell from this record that the guest in Room 25
dialed the same 800 number that you previously told us about?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On Monday, April 17?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Again, about 9:35 -- excuse me. Earlier than that. About
9:25 that morning?
Lea McGown - Cross
A. 9:40, yes.
Q. Let me show you a page from Government's Exhibit 1888 for
the same day. You see the first entry for Monday, April 17?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The phone call at 9:25 a.m. lasting 57 seconds placed from
your motel to the residence of Terry Nichols?
A. That's correct.
Q. See that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ms. McGown, on April 20, 1995, do you recall being visited
by two law enforcement officers, as Mr. Woods has elicited?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They asked you some questions about whether a man by the
name of Kling had been a registered guest at your motel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you check your records and determine that nobody by
that name had registered at the Dreamland Motel?
A. Nobody was registered with that name.
Q. Do you recall them asking you some questions about whether
any guests had recently been at your motel driving a Ryder
truck? Do you recall them asking that question?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you remember them asking you whether you had a guest who
you had seen driving a Ryder truck at any point in time?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Cross
Q. And did Mr. McVeigh's name come to your mind at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at that point in time, Ms. McGown, did you reach into
your records and find the registration card that we've shown to
this jury previously?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was there on hand?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time, did you give a copy or perhaps an
original, then, to the law enforcement officers?
A. I gave the original.
Q. And kept a copy for your own records?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On that same occasion, Ms. McGown, they showed you two
composites. Recall those questions by Mr. Woods?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Artist's drawings of two male individuals?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You looked at Un. Sub. No. 1 carefully?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you told the law enforcement officers, "That picture
bears a real likeness to a man who had stayed in my motel for
several days"?
A. I said, "This looks like very much like Mr. McVeigh who
stayed in 25."
Lea McGown - Cross
Q. And then you gave the same degree of attention, did you
not, to the second photograph -- or excuse me, the second
composite?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you remember telling the law enforcement officers,
"That's nobody I've seen"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ms. McGown, you've been asked any number of occasions
before your appearance here this morning about when it was that
you first saw Tim McVeigh in a Ryder truck.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And your testimony today is what date did you first see
Mr. McVeigh in a Ryder truck?
A. Sunday or Monday.
Q. Do you recall being asked questions about what event was
going on such that you fixed in time the sighting of
Mr. McVeigh in a Ryder truck on a Sunday?
A. Because my son changed clothes. We had been working on the
pool for 14 days, and the only way to change clothes is after
you have had different clothes on. That's what I tied it to.
Q. On Easter Sunday, in fact, the family dressed up and went
out to dinner in Manhattan?
A. That's correct.
Q. And when you came back, in fact, Eric worked on the pool?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Cross
Q. Now, the pool project took a number of days, did it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the next day, on Monday, he would have been at school,
would he not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would have gotten home sometime after 3 p.m., would he not?
A. At 3:15, yes, sir.
Q. Did Eric McGown on Monday afternoon, April 17, change his
clothes, his school clothes and go work on the pool?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ms. McGown, as you've reflected on the events involving you
and Tim McVeigh, you have relied, have you not, on the entries
on that registration card that you made on April 14 as the best
evidence of when Tim McVeigh first checked in your motel;
correct?
A. I remember because my son has had birthday and I write the
dates down.
Q. And that was a record that you made on the day that he
checked in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that you had on hand several days later when the law
enforcement officers came back to ask you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen any record of when it was that Tim
McVeigh first rented a Ryder truck?
Lea McGown - Cross
A. No, sir.
Q. Ms. McGown, you told us earlier that you live and work at
the Dreamland Motel; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which means you're there virtually every hour of the day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, it's very uncommon for you to be away from the
Dreamland Motel?
A. I try not to.
Q. Given that, Ms. McGown, you have frequent opportunity to
see the guests?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And anybody who comes to see those guests at the Dreamland;
correct?
A. Yes. I go in front some, in the front office, yes, sir.
Q. It's part of your business interest to keep in mind or keep
tabs on who it is that's using your business premises; correct?
A. I step quite often in the front office if I hear noise or
anything.
Q. And you told us earlier with the aid of the photograph that
the door that you use when you come and go at the Dreamland is
the one right next to Room 25; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So if you need to run out to the grocery store, you're
going in and out of that door; correct?
Lea McGown - Cross
A. That's correct.
Q. If you need to run down and pick Kathleen at the high
school up, that's the door you're going to use?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you're going to run down to the hardware store and pick
up some lightbulbs for the motel, that's the door you're going
to use?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On frequent occasions, you're going to be coming and going
within a few feet of Room 25; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ms. McGown, let me direct your attention back to the
composite -- I'll ask that it be displayed -- of Un. Sub.
No. 2.
THE COURT: Is this D1731?
MR. MACKEY: Yes, it is, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MACKEY: It's been previously admitted as Defense
Exhibit 1731.
BY MR. MACKEY:
Q. Ms. McGown, this is the composite that the law enforcement
officer showed you Thursday afternoon, a few hours after the
bombing in Oklahoma City, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. This is the composite that you looked at and studied in
Lea McGown - Cross
your waiting area on that afternoon. Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, thinking back on all of the opportunities you had to
see and observe the people in and around Room 25 at the
Dreamland Motel, had you ever seen this person?
A. No, sir.
Q. Take a look, Ms. McGown, as well at Government's Exhibit
1629. Do you have that up there in front of you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It's not yet in evidence, Ms. McGown, so I'm simply going
to ask you to study the photograph -- excuse me -- the
composite. See that? Government's Exhibit 1629?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I'd ask you the very same questions about this
composite as the one I've just showed you. Had you ever seen a
person of this likeness at the Dreamland Motel at any point in
time during the stay of Tim McVeigh?
A. No, sir.
MR. WOODS: I'm sorry. Was that one shown to the
jury?
MR. MACKEY: No. It's not yet admitted.
THE COURT: It's not in evidence. 1629 wasn't
displayed.
BY MR. MACKEY:
Q. Ms. McGown, as you reflect on the events that took place at
Lea McGown - Cross
your motel back in April, 1995, are you positive that Tim
McVeigh checked in as a guest on Friday, April 14?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are you positive that you saw him leave in the early
morning hours of Tuesday, April 18?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you positive that when he drove in, it was in a
Mercury?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are you positive that you did not see that Mercury at
any point in time after Easter Sunday, 1995.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are you positive, Ms. McGown, that the last vehicle
that you saw Tim McVeigh in was a Ryder truck outside your
window in the early morning hours of Tuesday, April 18?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. MACKEY: I have nothing else.
THE COURT: Mr. Woods, do you have any follow-up?
MR. WOODS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. Ms. McGown, Mr. Mackey asked you is it true that you and he
have met a number of times. Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Lea McGown - Redirect
Q. And have you met a number of times?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many times would you estimate that you've met with
Mr. Mackey?
A. 10 times.
Q. How many times did you meet with the FBI agents?
A. 30 times.
Q. Okay. And after the event occurred in April, '95, did you
decline to be interviewed by representatives from the defense
side?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And until yesterday -- was the first time that we
were able to talk; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Do you recall going to Oklahoma City in August of
'95, shortly after the bombing, and testifying in front of a
grand jury?
A. I recall going to Oklahoma.
Q. Okay. And do you recall the date being August 2 of '95?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know which day it was?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Is August approximately the time that you went to
Oklahoma City?
A. It was high summertime, yes.
Lea McGown - Redirect
Q. Did you meet with some prosecutors there before you went in
to testify to the grand jury?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Okay. Do you recall the people that were inside the grand
jury, the prosecutors that were questioning you when you were
inside the grand jury?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. Who do you recall questioning you when you went
inside the grand jury?
A. I think it was a female that asked questions.
Q. Did she ever identify herself as an assistant U.S. attorney
to you?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Okay. And had you met with that lady previously to going
into the room there with the grand jury?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Do you recall going over your statements that the FBI had
taken from you refreshing your memory before you went into the
grand jury?
A. I don't recall those events.
Q. Do you recall being asked the question there in grand --
were you placed under oath? Do you recall that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you recall some individuals that were sitting in front
of you that were members of the grand jury?
Lea McGown - Redirect
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the lady was asking you questions; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you know whether or not she worked for the Government?
A. No, sir, I don't recall that.
Q. All right. Was there just one person that was asking you
questions in front of the grand jury?
A. I do believe so.
Q. Okay. Do you recall being asked the question: "Did you
see Mr. McVeigh that Easter Sunday when you got back?" Do you
recall that question?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you recall giving the answer: "Yes, later on that
afternoon, I seen a Ryder truck. My son and I -- we stepped in
front office to -- I don't know -- to discuss something; and we
stood there and we seen a Ryder truck with the back where the
door is coming down the driveway very jerky. And right away --
no, that's Mr. McVeigh. Why, I don't, because probably he
asked me earlier"?
Do you recall making that statement to the grand jury
that you saw McVeigh in the Ryder truck on Sunday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And was your memory fresher at that time in August
of '95 than it is today?
A. I do believe so.
Lea McGown - Redirect
Q. Pardon me?
A. I think so.
Q. Okay. And was your memory fresh when the FBI was
interviewing you on Thursday and Friday and Saturday, April 20,
and -- Friday, the 21st, and Saturday, the 22d, concerning
events of that week?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that the time that your memory was the freshest?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And you mentioned that the agents was Mark Bouton
with the FBI?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you came to know him fairly well because he interviewed
you a number of times; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you already know Detective Sergeant Gary Burgess with
the police department there in Junction City?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long had you known him?
A. Several years.
Q. And do you recall on April 25, which would be the following
Tuesday, telling Agent Mark Bouton that you first saw the
yellow Ryder truck parked at the Dreamland Motel in Junction
City, Kansas, on Sunday, April 16, "when she came back to the
Dreamland Motel after going to church and then to a restaurant
Lea McGown - Redirect
in Manhattan, Kansas. She and her son, Eric McGown, her
daughter, Kathleen McGown, and Kathleen's friend, Renda Truong,
all ate together at Carlos O'Kelly's restaurant in Manhattan,
Kansas"?
Do you recall telling Agent Bouton that on Tuesday,
April 25?
A. No, sir.
Q. And do you recall telling Detective Sergeant Gary Burgess
and Mark Bouton that "on Monday, April 17, at about 7 a.m. to
8 a.m., she noticed that neither the Ryder truck which she
associated with Tim McVeigh or the yellow car he drove when he
arrived at the motel were parked at the motel lot; therefore,
she thought McVeigh had left a day early. She wrote 'gone' on
the maid's list to indicate that the maid should clean the
room. She threw away this maid's list and no longer has the
list since the trash was picked up"?
And that -- do you recall telling the agents that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that again is Ms. Sostre?
A. Yes. Hilda Sostre.
Q. And she was the person who went to clean the room?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you recall being asked in the grand jury again back
in August, 1995 -- do you remember during the course of that
day if you saw the truck again or another Ryder truck and your
Lea McGown - Redirect
answer, "On Monday?"
And the question: "Yes, on Monday."
MR. WOODS: And this is page 32 of her grand jury
testimony.
BY MR. WOODS:
Q. And your answer was, "I saw it setting there, but it came
and stood there. And, you know, he was like most people who
bring moving trucks: They come and go to empty buildings. I
figured he has an apartment somewhere and he's packing up and
taking a break, coming back, taking a map, going back out
there. That's what I figured."
"All right. But we're focusing now just on Monday.
Would that be true of Monday?"
"Answer: Yes."
And the question was, "Was it your impression that --"
And yo