OKC Bombing Trial Transcript - 05/08/1997 14:31 CDT/CST
05/08/1997
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH,
Defendant.
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
(Trial to Jury - Volume 85)
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 9:00 a.m., on the 8th day of May, 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 M. RYAN, United States Attorney for the
Western District of Oklahoma, 210 West Park Avenue, Suite 400,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73102, appearing for the plaintiff.
JOSEPH H. HARTZLER, LARRY A. MACKEY, BETH WILKINSON,
SCOTT MENDELOFF, JAMIE ORENSTEIN, AITAN GOELMAN, and VICKI
BEHENNA, Special Attorneys to the U.S. Attorney General, 1961
Stout Street, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado, 80294, appearing
for the plaintiff.
STEPHEN JONES, ROBERT NIGH, JR., RICHARD BURR, AMBER
McLAUGHLIN, and ROBERT WARREN, Attorneys at Law, Jones, Wyatt &
Roberts, 999 18th Street, Suite 2460, Denver, Colorado, 80202,
and CHERYL A. RAMSEY, Attorney at Law, Szlichta and Ramsey, 8
Main Place, Post Office Box 1206, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 74076,
appearing for Defendant McVeigh.
* * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
(In open court at 9:00 a.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
Good morning. Are we ready for the jury?
MR. HARTZLER: Yes, we are.
MR. NIGH: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
(Jury in at 9:00 a.m.)
THE COURT: Members of the jury, good morning. You'll
recall that when we recessed yesterday afternoon, Ms. Ramsey
was just beginning her cross-examination of Mr. Dexter.
So proceed with that, Ms. Ramsey.
MS. RAMSEY: Thank you, your Honor.
(Frederick Dexter was recalled to the stand.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MS. RAMSEY:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Dexter.
A. Good morning.
Q. I even wrote down my next question for you yesterday so I
wouldn't lose my train of thought.
How -- or have you ever worked with other companies
whose records are like WCT?
A. When you say "like," as in a debit card?
Q. Well, or as in the 3910, 3911, OPUS.
A. No.
Q. Okay.
A. That's debit-card type of information.
Q. And that is unique to a debit card as opposed to just
making a phone call; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Did you just have one meeting with the people
at WCT?
A. One time, I met with them in -- in California, and then
there were numerous phone calls where I talked to them and then
Frederick Dexter - Cross
I -- I'm trying to remember. I met Mr. Kane once more either
in Oklahoma or here in Denver to discuss the technical things.
Q. And how many hours had you spent with Mr. Kane on that
other occasion?
A. When I say the other occasion, that is -- I saw him on -- I
want to add one thing. I saw him pretrial. He's been in and
out, so I saw him here, but that wasn't to do with the
technical nature of things.
Q. Okay.
A. I would say probably three or four hours.
Q. Was he at the first meeting at WCT at their offices?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. And I believe you said that was about eight hours?
A. Ten-hour meeting.
Q. Ten hours. All right. And then you met with him about
four hours, I believe you just said?
A. And a lot of phone calls.
Q. And a lot of phone calls back and forth. And did he assist
you in doing anything other than providing the data to you that
have been submitted into evidence?
A. He explained totally how the system worked out there. The
port matrix, the clocks, all of those things. The technical
things that we would have to do, in fact, to match those was
provided by WCT.
Q. Have you done any research with regard to other debit cards
Frederick Dexter - Cross
other than the Spotlight calling card?
A. No, I have not.
Q. So you are not aware of whether or not the records of WCT
are consistent with other businesses that have debit cards?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Okay. Now, I believe you said yesterday that you were
assigned to this case in the latter part of May; isn't that
correct?
A. I was assigned to this case --
Q. I'm sorry.
A. -- on May -- April 25.
Q. Latter part of April.
A. Correct.
Q. And you met with the WCT people in June?
A. Correct.
Q. Is that correct?
And do you recall what day Timothy McVeigh was
arrested?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Was it prior to your being assigned to this case?
A. Prior to me getting to Oklahoma, yes.
Q. Okay. And do you recall when Terry Nichols was arrested?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Was it prior to your being -- was it prior to you going to
Oklahoma?
Frederick Dexter - Cross
A. I do not know that.
Q. Okay. Are you aware that the Spotlight calling card
information with regard to Daryl Bridges was found at Terry
Nichols' residence?
A. I -- you said that yesterday; but before that, I was not
aware of where it was found.
Q. Okay. And all of this was prior to your first conversation
with WCT on June the 1st; is that correct?
A. All of those things transpired, yes.
Q. And you were aware of those; is that correct?
A. I was not aware of where the debit card -- I was aware they
were arrested, yes, before I went to WCT.
Q. And when would you say that you actually began comparing
information that you had received from WCT with regard to the
Spotlight calling card?
A. The electronic, we actually in California set down with
them and compared some records. We took a laptop computer and
dealt with the electronic files out there so that we understood
the process. And from that day forward, we started doing
initial work and then later on the comparisons and the
matchings.
Q. And that was on June the 1st; correct?
A. I believe -- I traveled on the 1st and was there on the 2d.
I'm not sure if -- it's one of those two days.
Q. All right. And what was your goal with regard to the
Frederick Dexter - Cross
records that you received at WCT?
A. The -- the goal that we had was to find the originating
phone number that attached to each one of the OPUS records
since each one of the OPUS records had basically all of the
information that was needed to make a legitimate phone call, if
you will, the "from," the "to," the date, duration. The OPUS
record had all of that. The only thing it did not have was the
originating number.
Q. And your goal was to find this originating number in order
to attempt to piece together the case against Timothy McVeigh
and Terry Nichols; isn't that correct?
A. No. My goal was to take the information on the Bridges
card as I was assigned and match that and then what -- however
that assisted in the investigation, that was what -- I was not
assigned to do it against any particular person.
Q. I understand that, but it was in the case of the United
States versus Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols; correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. Now, did you testify yesterday that you had to
get rid of some of the duplicate 3911 records before you could
begin the work with the data?
A. We didn't get rid of them. They are still on the disks and
everything. It's just that we ran a program to see which
records were, in fact, duplicates, and we just didn't use them
in the process.
Frederick Dexter - Cross
Q. So they were discarded in computer language, so to speak?
A. We just didn't use them. We didn't discard anything.
Q. All right. And was that an error that was created in the
3911 files by having that duplicate?
A. No. It's just when they pulled the information out of
their billing records, they went back and did it twice for --
and they overlapped a period of time; so for that period of
time that was overlapped, they pulled the same records twice.
Q. And was that something that WCT did or something that you
did when you were pulling the records?
A. WCT pulled the records. It was them.
Q. You didn't actually pull any records, did you?
A. No, we did not.
Q. All right. When you were doing your work on this, you came
up with a methodology that has been admitted, I believe, as
Government's Exhibit 551.
A. I would have to look at the number.
Q. Do you have the exhibits there with you?
A. Yes.
Q. It's not a notebook. Let me rephrase that question. Do
you recall preparing a methodology for producing the Bridges
summary that you provided --
A. Yes. Yes, I do.
Q. -- to the Government?
A. Yes.
Frederick Dexter - Cross
Q. In that summary, do you have that when you identify all of
the phone numbers that you compare the beginning time with the
plus or minus two-minute error or two-minute time difference?
A. Yes.
Q. And would that equal then an actual four-minute time
difference as possibly fitting into your summary?
A. No. It would never be more than two minutes. It was
either two minutes before the L.A. switch or two minutes
afterward, so it could never be more than two minutes.
Q. All right. If you have two minutes before and two minutes
after, wouldn't that be a possibility of four minutes?
A. It -- yes. I mean, there's a four-minute gap.
Q. Right.
A. But it's never more than two minutes away from the L.A.
switch.
Q. I understand that. Do you recall telling Mr. McVeigh's
attorneys in August of 1996 that that was a plus or minus
four-minute window?
A. I told them that when -- at that time, when we ran those --
that for records that we did not hit within two minutes, we
expanded it to four to check for the matches; correct.
Q. Okay. Did you know that Mr. Kane said that he uses the
port matrix to match all of his calls?
A. No. I'm not aware of that.
Q. Okay. In your work with him on June the 2d of ten hours
Frederick Dexter - Cross
and your four hours later here in Denver, he did not tell you
that he used the port matrix to match all of his calls?
A. I mean, we discussed the methodology, etc. And he uses
that to match all of his calls through the L.A. switch. But in
the billing records, he does not have a port in his 3911, so I
don't know how he could do that.
Q. Okay. You only use the port matrix in the L.A. switch;
isn't that correct?
A. Or the 3911-OPUS match.
Q. Right.
A. For the non-L.A. switch, you still use the port matrix for
the 3910.
Q. Right. Okay. So if Kane used the port matrix to match all
of the calls, that's probably not possible; isn't that correct?
MR. MACKEY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: What's the objection?
MR. MACKEY: Calling on this witness to testify about
other testimony presented.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question, please.
BY MS. RAMSEY:
Q. If Mr. Kane said that he used the port matrix to match all
of the calls, that's not possible, is it?
A. As far as I'm concerned, it's not.
Q. All right. Now, when did you actually prepare the Daryl
Frederick Dexter - Cross
Bridges summary?
A. We prepared the first version that was given to the defense
the beginning of January of '96, I believe it was.
Q. Prior to --
A. Continued to work on it before that and had iterations that
were corrected and modified based on subscribers being added,
etc., as the subpoenaed records came in.
Q. And are you aware -- I believe you testified on direct that
the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation had previously
prepared an OSBI time line, what they call an OSBI time line.
A. I'm aware of that, but I have not testified to that.
Q. I thought you said yesterday you were aware one of them had
been prepared.
A. No. Nobody asked me.
Q. All right. Are you aware whether the names of the places
that were called and the names of the places that were called
from are listed on that OSBI time line?
A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
Q. And did you have the OSBI time line prior to your beginning
work on the summary that you prepared?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you use it at some time in preparing -- or did you use
it at some time prior to your preparing the Bridges summary
which you said you gave the defense the first copy on -- in
January of 1996?
Frederick Dexter - Cross
A. I did not.
Q. Have you ever used that for any purpose?
A. I did not use it. I compared it.
Q. Okay. Looked at it?
A. Once -- in the last six weeks to compare it to it so that I
could see if there were differences between the two, but I did
not use it at all in -- in preparation of the summary.
Q. Do you recall when that OSBI time line was prepared?
A. There were numerous ones that were prepared. I was told
the one that I used to do the comparison was May 19.
Q. Of 1995?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. Now, you prepared a Bridges summary, so to
speak, on January the 16th of 1996; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that was provided to the defense; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And there was also another version that was given to the
defense on August the 16th, 1996; is that correct?
A. It was August something, yes.
Q. And was there another version given to the defense on
December the 12th of 1996?
A. Correct.
Q. And was there another version given to the defense on April
the 21st of 1997?
Frederick Dexter - Cross
A. I believe so.
Q. And in that final version that was given or in the last
version of April the 21st, there was a phone call that was
missed; isn't that correct?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. There was a phone call that had been previously missed?
A. That is correct.
Q. Wasn't that a phone call to Lana Padilla or Padilla,
however you pronounce that?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And are you still working on that summary?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Okay. Your summary was not prepared in the regular course
of your business, was it?
A. I don't understand the question.
Q. Well, you said you'd never done this for a debit card
previously; is that correct?
A. My course of business is to support every field office in
any major investigation. During the last two years, I've
supported probably eight or ten field offices in major
investigations. So doing this particular job was in the normal
course of my business, yes.
Q. But it was the first time you'd ever done it?
A. A debit card, yes.
Q. All right. Now, when you testified yesterday, you talked
Frederick Dexter - Cross
about preparing certain programs or certain queries in order to
come up with the information you needed in order to prepare
your summary; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And I -- I believe you said algorithms?
A. That's one of the -- buzzwords, yes.
Q. What's an algorithm?
A. It's a formula that's used -- the example that I used
yesterday was to -- you could say it was an algorithm or
formula to calculate tic time to the clock time. I mean,
there's many, many of those that get used. You could say that
doing plus or minus two minutes is an algorithm.
Q. Okay. And how many algorithms -- or let me withdraw that.
Do you prepare an algorithm?
A. It's -- it's -- it's put into the software. I mean, I
don't know what you mean by "prepare" it.
Q. Well, is it something in this particular case -- do you
determine what the algorithm is going to be in order to prepare
the software? This isn't something that you could go down to
the corner store and purchase; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So did you or someone at your direction prepare this
algorithm in order to get the information that you needed from
these disks?
A. Yes.
Frederick Dexter - Cross
Q. All right. And did the first algorithm work that you
prepared?
A. Yeah. I mean it did what it was supposed to, yes.
Q. Okay. And then did you add other algorithms in order to
further define the information that you needed?
A. We -- we wrote other programs to verify and validate the
information, but the original methodology algorithms were not
modified.
Q. Okay. How many algorithms or programs did you write in
order to obtain the information that you needed in order to
make your summary?
A. I don't know. There were -- there were lots. Probably --
Q. Numerous?
A. Probably over two dozen.
Q. And is that typical?
A. Yes.
Q. And prior to putting together this summary, you had never
gathered any records from OPUS or West Coast Telephone; isn't
that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Looking at the summary that you prepared for calls that
were placed on April the 11th of 1995, you state that there
were two calls placed from the Imperial Motel, one at 2:49 and
the other at 2:51. Do you recall that?
A. Can I look at --
Frederick Dexter - Cross
Q. Sure.
A. Okay.
Q. All right. Got it?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is that correct?
A. The question again, please.
Q. There were two calls that were placed from the Imperial
Motel, one at 2:49 and one at 2:51; is that correct?
A. Correct. Correct.
Q. And then there was another call that was supposedly placed
on April the 11th from the Food 4 Less pay phone in Kingman,
Arizona, to the residence of Mike Fortier -- is that correct --
in Kingman?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, are those all the Bridges calls that were found or the
Bridges summary calls that were found on that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that Special Agent Gray interviewed a Mr. and
Mrs. Blakesley in Iowa regarding an alleged phone call from the
Dreamland Motel to the Blakesley residence with that Bridges
debit card on the evening of April the 11th?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. You never did find that in your records?
A. No, I did not.
Q. All right. Are you aware that Mr. and Mrs. Blakesley said
Frederick Dexter - Cross
that they did not receive such a call?
MR. MACKEY: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. RAMSEY:
Q. Did you review the phone records from Illinois Consolidated
Communications with the records of the Grant Motel?
A. The subscriber data or the -- I --
Q. And the telephone call data.
A. I read so many of them that I can't, without a particular
call for me to go back and review, recall the names of all of
them.
Q. Okay. Do you recall finding that there were two long
distance calls from the Grant Motel on December the 17th and
December the 18th?
A. Can I look?
THE COURT: What exhibit are you using?
THE WITNESS: The summary. 554.
THE COURT: Well, I don't -- 55 --
THE WITNESS: '4.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. RAMSEY: It's been admitted, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, I know. But the record doesn't show
what he's using.
MS. RAMSEY: I'm sorry.
THE WITNESS: I'm showing two calls from the Grant
Frederick Dexter - Cross
Motel on the 17th of December.
BY MS. RAMSEY:
Q. All right. And who are those to?
A. One is to David Paulsen, and the other one is a balance
check.
Q. Okay. And in your analysis of the calls on December the
14th, did you discover that the calls were placed from the same
town the same day using two Spotlight PIN number -- two
different Spotlight PIN numbers? I'm sorry.
A. I'm sorry. I didn't --
Q. December 14.
A. Using two different Spotlight PIN numbers?
Q. Uh-huh. From two different accounts.
A. I have no knowledge of other PIN numbers of Spotlight. I
only analyzed from the summary the Daryl Bridges PIN number.
Q. Did you ever, in your perusal of the records from WCT, look
to see if there were any other Spotlight PIN numbers that were
being used in this area of the country that you were dealing
with?
A. I looked for particular time periods to see if Spotlight
customers were making calls out of Kansas. Let's say that as
an example.
Q. Okay.
A. For a particular time period, yes, I did do that.
Q. Did you find any of those such people?
Frederick Dexter - Cross
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And when you were dealing in -- and getting the
first information with regard to this PIN number and the
Bridges calling card, were you aware that there were more
people or that there were phone calls made from different
places that were across the country but about the same time
with the Daryl Bridges card?
A. That there were other Spotlight customers in the same
cities as the Daryl Bridges?
Q. No. Other people using the Daryl Bridges card at different
locations at about the same time.
A. No.
Q. Never found that in any of your records?
A. I mean, I don't know who used the card. All I can do is
match up the records, so I have no idea who was using the card.
Q. Okay. Do you know of any legal prohibition from copying
the card?
A. You're out of my territory. No, I'm sorry.
Q. Is it unusual when using a debit card, if you know, by two
different people?
A. Again, I have no knowledge of -- I mean, I have a calling
card and I'm the only one that uses it, so that's the only
thing I can tell you.
Q. All right. But it's not unusual to give it to your
children or to your wife or someone like that, is it?
Frederick Dexter - Cross
A. I do not do that.
Q. Okay. Now, did your summary reflect all of the calls that
were placed in the Bridges calling card, including all of the
misdialed numbers?
A. There were four records that were -- of the original 687
that are not in the summary.
Q. Four records?
A. Correct. Four of the OPUS records are not included in the
summary.
Q. Why not?
A. The test call on the 24th was not put in there since we
know that it -- who had did it, etc.
Q. Okay.
A. There were two partial calls that didn't fit the -- the
software, if you will, since when we put it into the system, it
looks at area codes or country codes; and since it was less
than the number of digits, we did not put that -- those two
calls in. And then there was one other call. It was -- I
believe it was a balance check that there was no 3911 that we
could find at all anyplace for it. So therefore, that was not
included.
Q. And how did you find the call to Lana Padilla that you just
put in the revised Bridges summary?
A. The WCT had told us back in 1995 regarding the rebooting of
the system. At that time, they also told us that at the very
Frederick Dexter - Cross
instant that the system was rebooted, whatever record was being
written at that time to the OPUS file was lost. It was only
March of this year that they told us that they ran tests and
they determined that all calls in progress at that time were
lost. Once they told us that, then we went back and wrote
another program to go in and find out whether -- during any
reorigination proc