OKC Bombing Trial Transcript - 05/19/1997 21:05 CDT/CST
05/19/1997
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 102)
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 1:40 p.m., on the 19th 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, SEAN CONNELLY, LARRY A. MACKEY,
BETH WILKINSON, SCOTT MENDELOFF, 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., and ROBERT WYATT,
Attorneys at Law, Jones, Wyatt & Roberts, 999 18th Street,
Suite 2460, Denver, Colorado, 80202; JERALYN MERRITT, 303 East
17th Avenue, Suite 400, Denver, Colorado, 80203; CHERYL A.
RAMSEY, Attorney at Law, Szlichta and Ramsey, 8 Main Place,
Post Office Box 1206, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 74076, and
CHRISTOPHER L. TRITICO, Attorney at Law, Essmyer, Tritico &
Clary, 4300 Scotland, Houston, Texas, 77007, appearing for
Defendant McVeigh.
* * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
(Reconvened at 1:40 p.m.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
(Jury in at 1:40 p.m.)
THE COURT: Next witness, please.
MR. HARTZLER: The Government calls Steven Burmeister.
Miss Wilkinson will question him.
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Raise your right hand, please.
(Steven Burmeister 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: Steven G. Burmeister,
B-U-R-M-E-I-S-T-E-R.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Ms. Wilkinson.
MS. WILKINSON: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Mr. Burmeister, tell the jury where you're employed.
A. I'm employed at the FBI laboratory in Washington D.C.
Q. What's your official title?
A. My official title is supervisory special agent.
Q. How long have you been working at the FBI?
A. Since March of 1987.
Q. Tell us where you're currently assigned.
A. I'm currently assigned to the Chemistry/Toxicology Unit at
the FBI laboratory.
Q. And do you have a supervisory position there today?
A. Yes, I do.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. What is that?
A. I'm currently the -- today, the acting unit chief.
Q. And you supervise all the other chemists and technicians in
your unit?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you concentrate in a certain area in the
Chemistry/Toxicology Unit?
A. My specialty right now is the area of explosive and
explosive residue analysis.
Q. Are you a qualified examiner in explosive residue analysis?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Tell us, is there also an Explosives Unit at the FBI
laboratory?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the difference between the Explosives Unit and the
Chemistry/Toxicology Unit?
A. Well, the Chemistry Unit is principally responsible for the
chemical analysis of explosives as well as the residues that
are formed after an explosive goes off. The Explosive Unit is
one unit which is responsible for actually the device itself
and blast damage and blast effects, those kind of things.
Q. So the Explosives Unit does not conduct any residue
analysis; is that right?
A. No.
Q. Now, in your Chemistry/Toxicology Unit, what type of
Steven Burmeister - Direct
employees do you have?
A. The staff in the Chemistry/Toxicology Unit is -- I believe
everybody right now, we have chemists on board, some who are --
have Ph.D.s and some who have master's degrees, some are
bachelor's degrees, and we do have two toxicologists on staff.
Q. Do you have people who are qualified as examiners?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you also have technicians?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the role of the technician in your unit?
A. The technician who is a chemist will work closely with the
examiner, under the direction of the examiner, and will conduct
actual chemical tests at the request of the examiner; will run
certain instruments and provide the data to the examiner. The
examiner will actually review the data itself, come to a
conclusion. If more tests are required, they will go back to a
particular chemist and have that done.
Q. Who is it that issues the findings as to the results of the
examination of evidence in your unit?
A. The actual person who renders an opinion is the actual
examiner itself. He or she will actually prepare a report
which goes out.
Q. Technicians do not offer official opinions; is that right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. I'd like to turn to your education and background. If you
Steven Burmeister - Direct
could tell the jury where you graduated from college.
A. I hold a bachelor of science degree in chemistry from
Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania.
Q. Did you pursue further studies?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. I went forward and obtained a master's degree in chemistry
and forensic chemistry from the University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Q. How long have you been working in the field of explosives
and explosives residue?
A. I would venture to say since the early 1980's.
Q. And after you graduated or after you obtained your master's
degree, what type of employment did you have?
A. After I received my master's degree, I went to work for a
short period of time at the Allegheny County crime laboratory
where I worked in their trace evidence section. After
receiving -- after working there at the crime lab, I went to
work for a company called Pharmakon, Incorporated, which was a
private forensic and toxicology lab.
Q. Before we get into your employment, let me go back to your
master's degree. Did you have an area of concentration when
you were working on your master's degree?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. The area that I specialized in and worked was the area of
microcrystal work and that specifically pertained to explosives
analysis where I was able to use the polarized light microscope
to analyze residues.
Q. All right. Break it down for us a little bit. Tell us
what you did. How did you look at crystals?
A. Well, actually, obtaining the crystals of materials and
examining them with a microscope, there's certain physical
characteristics and certain information you can derive, and
that's what I was trying to build on, and adding chemicals to
these materials and actually developing crystals that were
unique to explosives.
Q. And were you able to determine during that study that
certain crystals that come from certain explosives have certain
types of unique structures?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let's go back to your employment. You were telling us
about Pharmakon, Incorporated.
A. Right.
Q. And that is a private forensic and toxicology lab?
A. Yes.
Q. What type of work did you do there?
A. For the Pharmakon, Incorporated, I served as laboratory
manager as well as the supervisor of their forensic division.
Q. Were you ever asked to testify regarding your work when you
Steven Burmeister - Direct
were at Pharmakon, Incorporated?
A. Yes.
Q. And for whom did you testify?
A. While there, I testified for both the prosecution and the
defense as a defense expert for the public defenders' office.
Q. How long did you work at Pharmakon, Incorporated?
A. Up until 1987.
Q. Then what did you do?
A. In March of 1987, I entered into the FBI as a special
agent.
Q. When did you begin work in the laboratory?
A. I received official notification of assignment to the
laboratory in around November of 1991 and officially reported
on duty in January of 1992.
Q. Now, the jury's heard a little testimony on this, but can
you tell us whether, when you're assigned to the laboratory,
you immediately become a qualified examiner.
A. No.
Q. What happens?
A. The procedures in the FBI, as soon as you come on board,
you're assigned to work with an experienced examiner in the
area that you intend to specialize in. And that's what I did
in this particular case.
Q. With whom did you work when you were training as an
examiner?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. I was assigned to work with Special Agent Frederic
Whitehurst.
Q. And did he conduct training with you on the examination of
explosives residues?
A. Yes, we did. I would say a fairly intense preparation
procedure for approximately one year.
Q. Did you attend any type of specialized schools to further
your training before you became a qualified examiner?
A. Yes.
Q. What type of schools?
A. These schools were in the area of explosives, explosives
analysis, certain X-ray diffraction schools, pyrotechnic
schools, chromatography schools.
Q. When you say "chromatography" and "X-ray diffraction," are
these types of instruments that you use in your analysis?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went to that training for what purpose?
A. This was for training as well as understanding the
instrumentation that I was about to use, yes.
Q. After you -- had you used some of those instruments prior
to coming into the FBI?
A. Yes, I had.
Q. Would it be fair to say you're quite familiar with
chromatography, X-ray diffraction --
MR. TRITICO: Objection, leading.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
MS. WILKINSON: I'll rephrase it.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Are you familiar with chromatography techniques?
A. Yes.
Q. X-ray diffraction techniques?
A. Yes.
Q. And infrared spectroscopy?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you become a qualified explosive residue examiner?
A. January of 1993.
Q. Tell us briefly what you do as a qualified explosive
residue examiner for the FBI.
A. Again, I respond to various incidents and collect actual
physical evidence for chemical analysis back in the laboratory.
I analyze explosive residues associated with these incidents as
well as the actual examination of bulk explosive that may be
entered into the laboratory.
Q. You mentioned explosive residue analysis. Just tell us
briefly how you conduct that type of analysis.
A. Well, there's a procedure that I follow, and it's a
procedure that we work with. It's an actual chemical
extraction of the actual objects for residues, and then I would
actually use them and apply them to instruments and determine
what explosive residues are there.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Before you follow that procedure, how do you know where to
look for residues or whether you're looking for uninitiated
explosive matter?
A. Well, that's based on the training and the experience that
you develop over a course of time, actually finding the areas
that are good substrates for explosive residues.
Q. All right. Slow down. What's a substrate?
A. A substrate I would determine as being a surface, some sort
of material, either being plastic, glass, or metal. Sorry.
Q. Now, if you were to go to a crime scene after an explosion
had occurred or what you believe to be an explosion to occur,
what do you analyze to determine if there's uninitiated
explosives?
A. Well, the first thing I will do is assess the entire
situation. Then knowing from past experience, I will try to
focus my attention on areas and materials that will be likely
candidates for explosive residue examination.
Q. Can you tell us the difference between uninitiated
explosives and explosive residue?
A. Well, once an explosive goes off, actually explodes,
there's actually materials that are left behind that we can go
and look at those materials and then go backwards and determine
perhaps what the explosive was to begin with. There are
occasions where the explosive will actually explode and
particles of the original material will be dispersed out, and
Steven Burmeister - Direct
on those surfaces the actual material that we began with can be
obtained and collected and analyzed; so in those cases we can
definitely go back to the starting material.
Q. If you're looking at what you believe is uninitiated
explosives, can you see that with the human eye, in any case?
A. There are some instances, you can; some you need some sort
of aid device such as a microscope.
Q. What about when you're looking at explosive residue, can
you see those with the human eye?
A. Most of them I would presume you cannot see with the naked
eye.
Q. So how do you determine they're on a piece of evidence?
A. Well, then you will have to take some sort of solvent and
remove these residues from the surface and then analyze those,
the rest of those extracts you have taken with the solvents and
to determine what's present.
Q. Now, as part of your duties and responsibilities as an
examiner, do you participate in continuing education either as
a student or a teacher?
A. Yes.
Q. Describe those responsibilities for us, please.
A. Well, I've taught quite frequently at the FBI's
chromatography -- forensic chromatography school held at least
twice a year at the FBI Academy. I'm also involved in the FBI
explosive residue school that's hopefully -- we try to do it
Steven Burmeister - Direct
twice a year. We had one starting today. That's part of the
program. I've also taught in various schools around the
country and also in international settings to include even
Russia.
Q. Have you attended any conferences or symposia in your field
of explosives residue?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Did you conduct a conference back in 1993?
A. Yes, we were quite proud of that particular conference. It
was an international conference, both domestic representatives
and also international representatives, where we actually
discussed explosive residue analysis. I was quite pleased with
that program.
Q. During that conference, did you discuss the explosive
residue protocol that you and others had created?
A. One of the things that we tried to do with that particular
conference and symposium was to try to develop an actual
international protocol, one in which we could all agree on as
being the best one. It's kind of difficult to do with some
international guests in particular, some countries in South
America which did not have the type of instrumentation that we
had. So it was kind of difficult. But what it allowed us to
do is actually present our explosive residue protocol and
allowed people in the audience to discuss it, and it was a
healthy meeting.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. You did that back in 1993?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make changes to your protocol based on the comments
you had received from others?
A. The modifications were very small. Our protocol was
agreed, and it was well received.
Q. Do you continue to review your protocol as you're
conducting tests through the years?
A. Yes. It's a protocol that's evolving as we go along,
almost on a day-to-day basis.
Q. Why is that?
A. Well, as times and technology change -- we're trying to
keep pace with as many different advances and new procedures,
so that's why we leave it open for evolution.
Q. Now, let's start with the basics, if we could. Can you
tell the jury what an explosive is.
A. Whenever I try to describe what an explosive is, the best
way to do this is to -- I like to describe a definition by an
author by the name of Tenny Davis.
Q. And for of those who don't know who Tenny Davis is, can you
tell us?
A. Tenny Davis wrote a book on explosives. It's a well-known
book. It's a very widely read book, and it's an explosives and
powders textbook. One of the things that he talks about -- and
he says that an explosive is either a pure material, single
Steven Burmeister - Direct
substance, or a mixture of substance which is capable of an
explosion by its own energy; and if we take that apart and say
what is an explosion, we can then say it breaks down to either
a mechanical explosion or some sort of nuclear explosion or a
chemical explosion, and in this case we're focusing on a
chemical explosion.
Q. Tell us in as simple terms as you can how a chemical
explosion actually occurs.
A. Well, a chemical explosion occurs when -- you need to have
some sort of fuel and some sort of oxygen source present. And
when those two things are combined in the proper sense, you can
actually have an explosion take place, if you properly do it.
Q. And tell us what happens inside to cause that explosion.
A. Well, energetic materials are fascinating materials because
they -- they're packed full of energy, they're really tightly
held. And one of the best ways to describe it is if you
imagine several different rubber bands all fastened together
and twisted together in a tight, little ball. And I also use
that because if I held that tight, little ball together and
placed it on the table and allowed it to actually explode or
initiate, all of those rubber bands rapidly unwind and disperse
themselves all over the place. Well, that unwinding is the
actual explosion taking place, and the rubber bands are the
explosive being deposited all over in a dispersion pattern.
Q. Now, you mentioned that when you have this explosion, you
Steven Burmeister - Direct
need some kind of fuel or something to cause it to occur; is
that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So if you had -- using your rubber band analogy, if you had
these -- are they molecules or some other kind of chemical
compounds?
A. Yes, they can be incorporated into one molecule.
Q. And that's some type of explosive; correct?
A. It could be, yes.
Q. And what do you need to add to cause that unwinding or that
explosion?
A. You have to have some sort of external stimuli to cause
this energetic material, which is tightly -- in a kind of a
frustrated, aggravated state to go to a more relaxed state.
Everything wants to go to something where it's more relaxed,
and so that's -- the explosive is working the same way. It's
looking for a way to go to a relaxed -- relaxed state. If you
provide an adequate stimuli, it will easily go in that relaxed
state; and when it goes to the relaxed state, it emits energy,
and every one will have its own unique emission of energy.
Q. What type of characteristics makes a explosive either more
powerful or less powerful?
A. Well, there are certain chemical constituents that allow it
to be broken down into one that's either way, either a
designation of a certain type of an explosive.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Are there categories of explosives referred to as high or
low explosives?
A. This is -- to me there's principally three categories that
I would allow explosive to fall within.
Q. What are those three categories?
A. The three categories would be one be a primary explosive, a
low explosive, and also a high explosive.
Q. If you could just slow down a little bit and explain to us
what each of those categories are. What are the
characteristics of each category?
A. A primary explosive is one in which it's a material that's
extremely sensitive to shock, friction, or heat. It also has a
very high reaction rate. It will provide an intense energy
once it goes off. And that's when -- that's the category of a
primary explosive.
A low explosive is a material that will rapidly burn.
It falls in a category called deflagration, which is a rapid
burning.
A high explosive is a material which is one which will
detonate, and it has extremely high speeds and high reaction
rates.
Q. Going back to the primary explosives, can you give us some
examples of what common primary explosives are?
A. Primary explosives that would fall into this category are
lead and silver azides. Mercury fulminate is another one.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. What about high explosives?
A. High explosive, we're looking at things like PETN, RDX,
nitroglycerine.
Q. And low explosives?
A. Low explosives would be some propellants, flash powders,
and also black powder.
Q. Are you familiar with the term "blasting agent"?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is a blasting agent?
A. Blasting agents are typically the ones that are used in the
mining industry or those people that want to move soil and
dirt. But they're mostly explosives that will thrust and move
large quantities of objects.
Q. What are examples of blasting agents?
A. There are some dynamites that are blasting agents.
Typically we see things like ANFO, ammonium nitrate and fuel
oil, and a lot of ammonium-nitrate-based explosives fall into
that category of blasting agents.
Q. Now, referring back to the three categories you just gave
us on the primary, the high and the low explosive, where does a
blasting agent fall in those three categories?
A. It will fall within the area of a high explosive.
Q. Can a blasting agent, using ammonium nitrate and fuel oil,
for my example, detonate or explode on its own?
A. Not on its own, no.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. What does it need?
A. Blasting agent will typically need some sort of booster to
get it to go, and that's sort of an industry term, a "booster."
But it's another explosive that will provide that extra kick
for it to get moving.
Q. And what about the booster, will that explode on its own?
A. No.
Q. What else do you need?
A. You need some sort of detonator to set the booster off, to
initiate the booster. And then the booster will initiate the
entire large quantity of whatever the explosive will be.
Q. Now, do all explosives explode or detonate -- "detonate" is
the same term as "explode"; is that correct?
A. No, a detonation is in the category of a high explosive.
Q. Do all explosives detonate at the same speed?
A. No.
Q. Why is that?
A. Well, it's based on different chemical constituents of
certain explosives. That's principally the factor that's
involved.
Q. Can you explain to us the difference in the speeds of
detonation?
A. The speeds of detonation for certain high explosives can
run anywhere from around 3,000 feet per second to as high as
27,000 feet per second.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. And where do ammonium nitrate and fuel oil fall in that
range?
A. Dependent on its size and configuration, it can range
anywhere from about 9,000 feet per second all the way up to
about 16,000 feet per second. But that's dependent on its
configuration.
Q. What about ammonium nitrate and nitromethane?
A. I believe the numbers fall slightly lower, but it's in and
around that category. Again, it has to do with the
configuration of the particular device.
Q. Now, what difference does it make at what speed a explosive
detonates?
A. Well, the speed at which certain explosives detonate is
definitely -- somebody who's a manufacturer in the commercial
product would want an explosive to function at a certain rate.
As you go higher in the rates, up high into the
20-some-thousand feet per second, you're actually getting a
phenomena call brisance taking place, and brisance is a
shattering effect. So as you go higher, you're actually
shattering the material faster.
So if you're into the mining operation and you're
trying to move a large slab of rock, you don't want to remove
your rock and turn it into little, tiny pebbles. You may want
to just move sheets, so you may want to use an explosive that
has a slower speed that will actually move the whole sheet down
Steven Burmeister - Direct
instead of crushing it into little, tiny pebbles.
Q. So if you observed different explosives with a different
detonation speeds or detonation velocity -- is that what it's
called?
A. Yes.
Q. If you observed different explosives with different
velocity of detonations, would you see different types of
damage or different types of work done by these explosives?
A. It will cause different effects, yes.
Q. And have you yourself conducted experiments with different
explosives to determine the chemical reaction and the different
damage caused by those explosives?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you ever participated in the manufacturing or the
making of and detonation of a large, midrange velocity,
improvised explosive device?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. First of all, can you tell us what is an improvised
explosive device?
A. An improvised explosive device is one in which I would
categorize as not going down to the, to a commercial product
and actually used a commercial product, per se. Now, I can
take those pieces from commercial products and design my own
configuration. That's what I would consider an improvised
explosive device, either that or actually manufacturing the
Steven Burmeister - Direct
explosive itself. We know through past experience that people
will manufacture nitroglycerine, themselves, and incorporate it
in with other materials. And that's what I would consider an
improvised explosive device, one in which somebody actually
creates or builds.
Q. So it's a homemade bomb; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in a homemade bomb or an improvised explosive device,
can you use manufactured materials?
A. Yes, that's sort of what I just said, but you could go out
and use commercial products to put into it; but if you're
taking those commercial products and building some creation,
that would -- that's what I would consider an improvised
explosive device.
Q. Now, I used the term "midrange velocity." Can you tell the
jury what that term means?
A. That's typically what I would consider into the area of a
blasting agent, somewhere between the 6,000 to 15,000. Maybe
give or take a little bit on either side, but that's the range.
Q. Are there numerous explosives, either manufactured or
homemade, that could qualify for that midrange velocity?
MR. TRITICO: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. What types of explosives are in the midrange velocity?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. The classic one that would fall within that midrange
velocity are explosives like ammonium nitrate and fuel oil.
Q. Are there others?
A. There are certainly other explosives that will fall within
that category, but I believe, knowing the statistics on what
industry sells, that happens to be a big one in that category.
Q. Does urea nitrate also fall within that midrange velocity?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. You just told us that you have participated in experiments
where you've detonated large, homemade explosives; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've participated specifically in the detonation of
these midrange velocity explosives; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you recorded those detonations?
A. Yes, we have.
Q. Did you specifically participate in the detonation in 1993?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us about that.
A. In 1993, we developed a test in which we were trying to
record and see the kinds of effects of a large-scale device
containing urea nitrate placed into a van. This particular
device was then placed out in the middle of a range area and
exploded. We also wanted to see what kind of effects we could
Steven Burmeister - Direct
get on witness material for chemical analysis, and those
witness materials ranged anywhere from some plastics to pieces
of rubber to street signs that we had secreted all over the
range surface.
Q. How large was the improvised device that you put inside
that van in 1993?
A. The urea nitrate that we had inside the van weighed
approximately 1250 pounds of urea nitrate.
Q. Did you record the detonation --
A. Yes, we did.
Q. -- of that device?
And have you viewed the recording of that detonation
prior to coming to court today?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Would that tape assist you in explaining to the jury the
chemical reaction that occurs when a large, midrange velocity
explosive device detonates?
A. I think it will. And it will demonstrate some other
features as well.
Q. What other features?
A. I think the concepts of a dispersion of energy and the
dispersion of physical material as it -- as it's randomly
dispersed over a range -- I think it demonstrates it quite
well.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, may I approach?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, take a look at Government's Exhibit 846.
Do you recognize that?
A. I have seen the tape before. This cassette.
Q. And is that the tape that you just described showing the
detonation of the 1200-pound urea nitrate explosive device?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that a fair and accurate depiction of the detonation
that occurred in 1993?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Honor, Government offers 846 in
evidence, for demonstrative purposes.
MR. TRITICO: Object under Rules 402 and 403 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence. This is a urea nitrate bomb, has
nothing to do with --
THE COURT: I think you need to ask the witness more
about urea nitrate compared to ammonium nitrate fuel oil.
MS. WILKINSON: Yes, your Honor.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Do urea nitrate and ammonium nitrate fuel oil have similar
velocities of detonation?
A. They're very similar in the velocity of detonation.
Q. Do they have similar chemical properties when they're
involved with a detonation?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
MR. TRITICO: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Do urea nitrate and ammonium nitrate have similar chemical
properties when it detonates? Not the compounds themselves,
obviously -- maybe I'm using the wrong language. Similar
characteristics when it detonates?
A. The chemistry is somewhat the same. The features that are
different is ammonium nitrate and fuel oil actually has -- has
a fuel that's been added to it. Urea nitrate actually has the
fuel basically incorporated within the molecule itself. But
then chemically, once it's initiated, they're functioning about
the same.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, based on that, we offer --
THE COURT: Are you saying that the effects that are
to be illustrated by this videotape are comparable with both
types of explosive material?
THE WITNESS: I think they'd be very close. They're
very similar in functionality. If somebody saw two different
videos, I don't think anybody could tell the difference.
They're functioning the same.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. WILKINSON: We'd just like to publish it for
demonstrative -- and there will be no sound, and Agent
Burmeister will describe it after one section is shown and then
Steven Burmeister - Direct
the second and third section.
MR. TRITICO: I still offer the same objections that I
made a moment ago, and I would like the additional objection of
an improper foundation for the introduction of this type of
explosion as opposed to what the Government is alleging in this
case, and I object to it.
THE COURT: Overruled. 846 can be used to demonstrate
what the witness is testifying to.
MS. WILKINSON: We'll just need a minute to put it on
the computer.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Now, while we're getting that ready, Agent Burmeister, you
told us it's 1200 pounds of urea nitrate; correct?
A. 1250 pounds.
Q. How was it boosted?
A. It was boosted with 50 pounds of ammonium-nitrate-based
dynamite.
Q. How was it initiated?
A. That was electrically initiated.
Q. And why did you use an electrical system to initiate the
device?
A. Purely safety reasons.
Q. Agent Burmeister, before we play this, can you tell the
jury what they're seeing here at the beginning of Government's
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Exhibit 846?
A. Okay.
(Government Exhibit 846 played.)
THE WITNESS: Right down in the middle of the picture
there, we see a Ryder truck. It's yellow in the center.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. You can use your pen up there to mark it for the jury.
A. Sorry.
Right there, we see the Ryder truck that's in the
center of the picture. Secreted around the Ryder truck are
various vehicles that we've placed as witness material.
Q. What do you mean by "witness material"?
A. These are things that will actually record and take certain
material that is emanating out of the center of the blast area.
We can record the kind of effects that are going to happen once
the explosion takes place. Also --
Q. What -- go ahead.
A. I'm sorry.
Q. No, go right ahead.
A. It's kind of hard to see, but over in these areas and even
secreted out in this side, we have -- we have street signs that
are actually located -- that are also over onto the right. I
won't mark it on the screen. But this object right here was a
part of the -- some of the witness vessels that we had placed
across the entire range to capture some of the residues.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Why did you put street signs out on the range?
A. We felt that they were rigid enough, and we see these kind
of things occurring at various scenes; and we just wanted to
see what types of effects would come from these types of
objects.
Q. Where did this test occur?
A. This took place in Socorro, New Mexico.
Q. And I take it this is a blast range where you have this
material?
A. It's a range that was made available to us.
Q. If you can click off all those marks for us, please.
Before we begin the tape, was this explosion or
detonation recorded from several different angles?
A. Yes, there's certain high-speed photography that was used
to capture things in slow motion, but we had recorded cameras
from various different locations to capture the best possible
views.
Q. We're going to show the first section, and if after that's
through, you could tell the jury what they saw.
A. Okay.
One of the first striking things that you can see is
some of the debris that's scattered about; that right down the
middle of the scene, you saw a tire or some object being thrown
forward to us. That's one of the first things, there's a
dispersion of a lot of the materials. Once the smoke clears,
Steven Burmeister - Direct
we can see a little better.
Okay. Emanating out from the center of the site,
which is this being the center where we used to see the van,
there's a dispersion of objects heading in all directions. And
that outward direction can never be reproduced a hundred
percent each time. It will never go the same way each time.
That random dispersion is the same thing that causes problems
when we do explosive residue analysis, because we can -- we can
never go always to this particular -- for example, this car --
and get the same residues each time.
Q. Why is that?
A. That's the randomness of this explosive. When it -- and
all explosives. It will go in different patterns. So we could
continually go back to that automobile. Sometimes we will find
it, sometimes we will not.
Q. Now, despite the fact that each explosion is unique, have
you discovered through your testing and analysis and your
experience that there are certain general patterns that you see
in the explosion of high explosives?
A. Based on tests like this, we were able to come up with
there are certain pieces of material that will absorb and hold
certain types of explosive. And that's the power of this kind
of a testing, that we're able to find those pieces which are
the ones that we should center in for future events.
Q. What type of pieces have you determined are more likely to
Steven Burmeister - Direct
contain residues or contain evidence that you would find of
value, based on this type of testing?
A. Well, pieces of plastic, foam rubber, glass, pieces of
metal. For example, the street signs which we had placed out
on the range turned out to be excellent sources.
Q. Why is that?
A. Well, one, they serve as sort of like baseball mitts. They
capture and hold onto explosive as they're emanating out from
the particular source.
Q. Now, the next view is the rear view of the explosion; is
that right? And we'll play that, and then you'll narrate the
next segment.
A. Yes.
Q. Again, tell the jury what they're seeing there.
A. Well, down again the center of the screen, we have our
device itself. The witness material over here, some of this is
the witness material that was established; and then the street
signs, and you can't see them as they go out from the source.
Q. This is the same explosion, just from a different
perspective?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it slowed down so you can see some of the other
effects?
A. Yes.
Q. Agent Burmeister, would it assist you if we went back to
Steven Burmeister - Direct
the beginning of this slow motion and if you narrated so you
could tell the jury what they're seeing?
A. If we could see it right from the beginning, that would be
helpful.
Q. Give us a moment and we'll go back.
There we go, and if you could narrate it as it's going
along.
A. Right down in the center, we saw the first sign of the
explosion taking place. Here we're seeing a massive fireball
that's coming out of the particular explosive device. We're
talking intense heat from that particular source, and that will
emanate from the original site.
Q. Next?
A. And with that front of material coming all along here will
be portions of uninitiated explosive that's from the device
itself being blown out.
Q. How big would those uninitiated portions of explosives be?
A. It can depend on the particular device itself. It could be
microscopic, it could be macroscopic.
Q. Okay.
A. And it's hard to see it, but right along here, you can see
this, this wave progressing out, this kind of a white line as
we see right along here. You see it moving across towards us,
that's that blast wave that we're seeing coming out. That's
the thing that that's doing some pretty heavy damage to
Steven Burmeister - Direct
buildings and objects as it's moving out from the explosion
site.
Q. So in that particular videotape, you can actually see the
blast wave moving out from the seat of the explosion?
A. Right.
Q. Clear your screen.
Finally, we're going to show the third viewpoint, the
overhead viewpoint, is that correct, that will be next?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you use some infrared device to record that?
A. Yes. It was mounted on an aircraft.
Q. All right. Tell us about what the jury is seeing right
here.
A. Okay, down in the center here, we have again the van. Our
vehicles that are secreted around on either site, either side
of the van. And I guess the rest is just to show the film.
And we can see the intensities that are formed.
Q. Is that the benefit of this overhead camera?
A. Yes. The benefit of this is actually recording
temperatures as the heat is evolved from the actual site. So
not only will we see the temperatures, but we'll also see a
blast wave emanating out from the original site.
Q. Okay. Do you want to tell us what we're seeing there?
A. Okay. This white line that we see coming out from the
source was that blast wave moving out from the site and this
Steven Burmeister - Direct
being our intense heat that's formed from the actual explosion
itself.
Q. Clear those marks, please, and keep going from here.
A. And the other thing which is this demonstrates it really
well, you can see it over here. There's little tiny white
spots, but those white spots are hot portions of the material,
actually the van itself being dispersed out from the explosion.
We can see fragments of this particular device blowing off in
all directions.
Q. Do you recall the heat, temperature that was recorded from
this explosion?
A. The actual temperature, I don't recall the temperature.
But it's high. It's very high.
Q. Now, as you were describing the shock wave that was going
out, does that go out in a radial or a spherical direction?
A. I think it can be dependent on the particular device
itself.
MR. TRITICO: Excuse me, sir, I'm going to object to
the speculation on the part of the witness.
MS. WILKINSON: I'll rephrase the question.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, based upon this test and your experience
and your studies, do you know how the shock wave travels out
from the seat of an explosion?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us.
A. Well, based on the configuration of a particular device,
the blast wave can be channeled in certain directions. For
example, a shaped charge can focus the blast in certain ways
that it will go in a certain particular fashion.
Q. What if the charge is not shaped?
A. Then you're talking about a -- let's use, for example, a
perfect cylinder. In a perfect cylinder where it's initiated
perfectly down the center, it will emanate in a perfect
cylindrical shape going out from the source. Any alteration or
curvature from that can change the direction of that particular
blast.
Q. If one were to build an improvised device, would it be
difficult to predict how that shock wave would go out?
MR. TRITICO: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I think generally you could predict it
from the type of damage that you're seeing in the surrounding
areas. But it might be slightly different to predict the exact
way the blast wave went out.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Now, as an explosive residue examiner, are you sometimes
sent out to a crime scene to assist with the investigation?
A. Yes.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. What type of crime scenes do you go to?
A. I've been called to both domestic and international crime
scenes for explosion, explosive analysis.
Q. And do you go to the bombing crime scene itself?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you go to other scene, related scenes?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What type of scenes have you been to that are related to
the bombing crime scene?
A. These would be scenes in which somebody may be storing or
mixing and preparing certain explosives in preparation for the
device.
Q. When you go to crime scenes, do you go by yourself to
conduct your work, or do you go with others?
A. I typically go with others, but I have gone to some by
myself in my particular field.
Q. What type of equipment do you take with you, when you go to
bombing crime scenes?
A. Well, it depends on where I'm going and what available
transportation assistance I have as to what I will actually
take.
Q. And do you take certain, in some instances, mobile
instruments for screening purposes?
A. I have taken that in the past, yes.
Q. Explain what a screening device is used for.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. A typical screening device is one in which is employed --
in the term of screening, there are a variety of instruments
out there which can screen for a particular panel of types of
explosives. It's a select number of explosives that it will
actually look for. In the sense of screening, one is looking
for a yes or a no. But these devices can also be used to
derive --
MR. TRITICO: Excuse me, sir, I'll object to the
witness' narrative. It's beyond the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Continue.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Go ahead.
A. I was saying that certain instruments that although they
can used as a screening device, can also provide analytical
data; and that's typically when the instrument itself is
connected up to a computer which is actually reading some sort
of output, and that output is then recorded and reviewed.
Q. Well, we've heard about the screening device called an IMS.
Have you heard about that?
A. Yes.
Q. Can that also be used back in the laboratory and hooked up
to a computer like you've just described?
A. Yes, it can.
Q. And what kind of data do you get when you use it back in
Steven Burmeister - Direct
the laboratory with a detector?
A. Once it's back in the laboratory, you can actually print
out what the term is plasmagram or IMS result, and that's a
tracing of the results that are coming out of the instrument.
So you're actually getting the actual printout.
Q. When you bring that type of machine to a crime scene,
you're only use it -- are you using it as a screening device,
or are you using it to conduct that further instrumental
analysis?
MR. TRITICO: Objection: Leading.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Which one are you using it for, Agent Burmeister, at the
scene?
A. Well, we've used these types of instruments at scenes for
both ways, for screening as well as deriving analytical data.
Q. Tell us why you would bring a screening device to a large
crime scene.
A. Well, one of the things when you're placed in the position
to respond to a crime scene, there's hundreds and thousands of
pieces of evidence that need to be reviewed and examined prior
to coming back to the laboratory. It's a way of streamlining
and selecting the right types of pieces to come back to the
lab.
Q. Do you use a screening device at every major crime screen?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. I try to use some sort of method at a particular crime
scene to isolate and define what I would determine as being the
best possible pieces to bring back to the laboratory.
Q. When you go to a bombing crime scene, do you also collect
samples, yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us what your role is at a bombing crime scene.
A. My role is primarily to identify and collect specimens that
are going to be good, viable pieces for explosive residue.
Q. Who makes the decision for you as to what pieces you either
test on the scene or take back to the laboratory?
A. That decision is made by myself or a colleague of mine. We
will discuss it.
Q. Would it be a colleague who's in the Chemistry/Toxicology
Unit?
A. Yes.
Q. And you are the only people who make those decisions; is
that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's turn to April 19, 1995. Do you remember where you
were that morning?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Where were you?
A. I was in my office.
Q. And how did you find out about the bombing in Oklahoma
Steven Burmeister - Direct
City?
A. I received a telephone call from a gentleman in the
Explosives Unit who advised me that I needed to go and review
CNN to see that an explosion had taken place in a federal
building and I needed to see what -- see it on the television.
Q. What did you do?
A. I went to the television that was in the unit chief's
office and looked at it.
Q. And were you asked to participate in the investigation of
the Oklahoma City bombing crime scene?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you take -- were you sent to Oklahoma City that day,
April 19, 1995?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you take anyone with you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Who did you take?
A. I took Mr. Ron Kelly.
Q. What was his position at that time?
A. At that time, Ron was an experienced examiner. He was
qualified.
Q. And why did you take him to the crime scene with you?
A. I wanted him to go along with me to assist me in the
collection of evidence at the crime scene.
Q. Was he qualified to collect evidence?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Did you and Mr. Kelly take any equipment with you when you
went to Oklahoma City?
A. We took some bare essentials, basically collection
equipment, some Tyvex suits; and I don't believe we took along
actual instrumentation. Some of that we actually had sent to
the scene.
Q. When you said you brought some collection equipment, what
type of equipment are you referring to?
A. We responded with solvents, swabbing material, some
containment vessels for some swabs.
Q. Are those materials prepared by you before you go to a
crime scene?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Why is that?
A. One, I want to know that there are certain types of
materials that I want to use for the actual collection, so I
prepare that and so I know what I have available to me.
Q. Do you ensure that those materials that you take out aren't
contaminated?
A. Those materials that I take, I know they are clean, they're
from original sources. And when I do finally collect the
samples in the field, I will take a control sample for the
actual analysis.
Q. What is the purpose of a control sample?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. The control sample is designed to take a background reading
of whatever you're using. So if I'm using a piece of gauze, I
will actually put the gauze into the -- will collect the piece
of gauze that I'm using with the solvent that I'm using, and
that is a control. It monitors the natural background for the
actual gauze and then the solvent.
Q. When you get back to the laboratory, do you test that first
piece of gauze, that control sample?
A. Yes, and that will be considered the blank for the system.
Q. And if it comes up clean, what does it tell you?
A. That it is clean.
Q. And do you use that for the other swabs and samples that
you take that you test after that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. When did you actually arrive in Oklahoma City?
A. I actually arrived -- we departed on the 19th and actually
arrived the following day, which is the 20th.
Q. Why didn't you arrive on the evening of April 19?
A. Because of heavy storms in the Oklahoma area, we were
forced to set down in Little Rock, Arkansas, where we stayed
the night and departed early the following morning.
Q. Was that storm of significance to you as an explosive
residue examiner?
A. Yes.
Q. What significance?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Well, I remember sitting in the hotel room looking at the
television set and looking at the actual bombing scene and
seeing the rain coming down, knowing that water itself is one
which will cause certain explosives to be soluble in the water;
and so if anything is soluble in the water, it will wash away.
And so I saw the rain as being something that was taking away
the residues that I could potentially retrieve.
Q. You arrived early on April 20; is that right?
A. I believe it was early in the morning. Early,
approximately around 9:00 -- I believe that's the time we got
in.
Q. What did you do after you arrived in Oklahoma City?
A. Once we arrived in Oklahoma City, Mr. Kelly and myself
rented a vehicle. We drove and checked into the hotel and
cleaned up for the following day.
Q. When did you proceed to the crime scene?
A. As soon as we got to the hotel, we cleaned up, and then we
departed for the actual scene itself.
Q. And what did you do when you got to the crime scene? Where
did you go first?
A. Our first stop was to a command center that was set up some
blocks away from the actual crime scene itself.
Q. And how long did you stay at the crime scene? I'm sorry,
how long -- I didn't mean that. How long did you stay at the
command post?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Oh. I believe we might have been there for all of 45
minutes because of some checking-in procedures that we had to
do.
Q. What did you do after that?
A. After we checked in, got our badges for security purposes,
we then walked to the crime scene itself.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, may the witness step down
and use the model to depict where he went at the crime scene?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, you may step down.
MR. TRITICO: Your Honor, may I?
THE COURT: Yeah, sure.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: When you speak, speak up real
loud.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Yes, yes. Please keep your voice up and turn to the jury.
Now, using the model, can you tell the jury what you
saw when you first walked the crime scene on April 20, 1995?
A. Well, when we first arrived, we were down in this direction
down here. And we walked up this particular street right here,
which is labeled 6th Street.
As we approached up here, I noticed that there was a
lot of glass and metal fragments that were actually over on top
of the road surface here. I had not been able to see the
Steven Burmeister - Direct
actual scene itself from this vantage point as I was walking up
here.
Q. Keep your voice up, please.
A. All right.
Q. That's okay.
A. As I -- Ron and I approached this corner, I turned the
corner right here onto North Robinson Street; and at that
point, it was roughly in and around this region here that I had
my first glimpse of the actual building itself, which is over
here. I can remember that scene quite vividly, because I
remember the cast of the blue sky that was over the top of the
building; and it was a quite striking to see the immense damage
that I saw.
But all along here, there were pieces of fragments and
pieces of glass all into the roadway. And I believe I just --
Mr. Kelly and I just paused right in this region to decide what
kind of plan of action we would actually take to basically
attack this particular scene itself.
Q. What plan of action did you determine?
A. Well, one of the things that we wanted to do was to develop
some sort of strategy that would effectively take and collect
residue samples from this entire event. Taking into
consideration the night before with the rain situation,
obviously we wanted to go for pieces that had been sheltered or
somehow protected from the elements. So that would have meant
Steven Burmeister - Direct
pieces of material in the building, over in this area --
Q. Excuse me. Where are you referring to when you say "over
in this area"?
A. Over in the Athenian Building, and also into the Journal
Record Building, as well as the Murrah Building itself.
Q. Now, over the next few days, were you at or around the
crime scene?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you take swabs and samples from this area?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Can you tell the jury generally where you took your swabs
and samples?
A. The first day, our principal activity was to center in and
around the blast site itself. There were pieces of slabs of
the building contents, parts of the front exterior which had
crashed down onto the top here. Those areas were areas which
we did check and swab. So those were collected in and around
that region.
We also took an object from across the street as well
for swabbing. Various metal fragments which we observed
throughout the area were swabbed as well.
Q. Did you also recover actual pieces of evidence throughout
the area?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Take your seat. I'll take the pointer.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
You told us that you saw a lot of glass and debris at
the scene; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make any determinations about whether any of those
pieces should be recovered to test for explosives residue?
A. There were certain pieces which I did notice that were
surrounding some down in the side streets which were swabbed,
mostly on the undersides are the areas that I swabbed, but
those were ones that I decided. The glass that was in the
streets had been exposed to environmental factors, and those
were not swabbed or even collected.
Q. Now, I'm going to show you Government's Exhibit 826.
Do you recall -- before you hold that up, because it's
not in evidence, Agent Burmeister --
A. Sorry.
Q. Do you recall collecting any evidence on April 20, the
first day that you were at the crime scene?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recognize Government's Exhibit 826?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How do you recognize it?
A. I recognize the object itself as well as my initials that
are on the object.
Q. Are your initials also on the bag?
A. Yes.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. And is that object Government's Exhibit 826, also known as
Q501?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you recover Government's Exhibit 826?
A. Government Exhibit 826 was recovered across the street from
the blast crater and also the Murrah Building itself.
MS. WILKINSON: Government offers 826.
MR. TRITICO: May I have just a few questions on voir
dire?
THE COURT: Yes.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q. Agent Burmeister, are you the one that collected this piece
of evidence, or did somebody else collect it and give to you?
A. Well, it was a joint collection process with Mr. Ron Kelly.
We were together at the same time. I unscrewed the bolts that
attached the object to the post. I believe I lifted it off.
Mr. Kelly held the bag, and I placed it into the bag.
Q. What happened to it after you took it off the post and put
it in the bag?
A. At that point, it was checked into evidence.
Q. By whom?
A. I want to recall that I was actually present when we
checked it into the Evidence Control Center.
Q. Well, you want to recall. My question to you is were you
Steven Burmeister - Voir Dire
there? Do you know that you were there?
A. At the crime scene?
Q. At the Evidence Control Center when it was checked in.
A. I recall being present when I checked in the evidence in to
the Evidence Control Center.
Q. Was that on the same day that you found it?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was the next time you saw it?
A. I want to say it was back in the laboratory. That's when I
saw it next.
Q. Do you know what happened to it -- what date was it that
you found it? I'm sorry.
A. It would have been the 20th of April, the following day.
Q. And what day was it the next time you saw it?
A. I'd have to refer to my notes as to when I received Q501.
Offhand, I don't recall that.
Q. Certainly after you got back in the lab; right?
A. Once I got back to the laboratory, that's the next time I
saw this piece of evidence.
Q. When did you get back to the lab?
A. I arrived back into the laboratory -- I flew back on the
26th of April, was stopped into the laboratory. On the 27th I
had some testimony in New York and was physically back into the
laboratory on Friday, the 28th.
Q. So the first day you could have seen it really would have
Steven Burmeister - Voir Dire
been Friday, the 28th?
A. Well, that's -- I did stop into the laboratory on the 26th.
I offhand don't recall whether I received it on the 26th. I
was in for a half a day as I collected some items to -- for
transportation up to New York for testimony. It's very
possible I got it that day. I don't have a recollection right
now.
Q. So sometime between the 20th and the 26th, possibly the
28th, is the next time you saw it. Is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't know what happened to it after the time you left
it at the Evidence Control Center, do you?
A. No.
Q. You don't know where it went from there and how it was
processed and how it arrived at the lab, do you?
A. No.
MR. TRITICO: I'll object to no proper chain of
custody for this exhibit.
THE COURT: It depends on what it's being offered for.
If it's being offered right now for what he collected at the
scene, I'll admit it .
MS. WILKINSON: That's what it's being offered for.
THE COURT: That's what I'll admit it for.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Agent Burmeister, can you take Government's Exhibit 826 out
of the bag, please.
Can you show it to the jury and explain to them
whether it was in that condition when you recovered it.
A. Well, at the exact time that I recovered it, minus the
initials on the back, this is the same condition that I
received it.
Q. And were there photographs taken of Government's Exhibit
826 before you removed it from the pole?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me show you Government's Exhibit 829. Take a moment.
MS. WILKINSON: I'm going to need the computer,
please.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Do you recognize Government's Exhibit 829? Do you see that
on your screen?
A. No picture.
Oh.
Q. You see it now?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recognize that photograph?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And does that depict Government's Exhibit 827 before you
removed it from the pole?
A. It's 826.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. I'm sorry, 826.
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: We offer 829, your Honor.
MR. TRITICO: No objection.
THE COURT: Received, 829.
MS. WILKINSON: May we publish it?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, using your little magic pen, can you show
the jury where the street sign is that you recovered.
Where is that in relation to the Murrah Building?
A. This is the -- over in this location is the parking lot
across -- directly across the street from the Murrah Building.
This street sign is approximately 30 feet from the actual
crater itself.
Q. Let me show you Government's Exhibit 827. Do you recognize
that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a closeup photo of the street sign?
A. Yes, it is.
MS. WILKINSON: Government offers 827.
MR. TRITICO: No objection.
THE COURT: Received, 827.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Tell the jury what they're seeing there.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. This particular object is the -- the post in which the sign
was affixed to, and it was leaning over in that condition when
we saw it.
Q. And when you told his Honor that you removed some of the
bolts -- or Mr. Tritico -- some of the bolts, are you talking
about removing it from that pole there depicted in this
picture, Government's Exhibit 827?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you continue to collect evidence and take swabs on
April 21, the following day?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you work with Mr. Kelly that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in the vicinity at or around the time Mr. Kelly
recovered Government's Exhibit 664, which has also been
referred to as Q507?
MR. TRITICO: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Tritico, these are not
suggestive questions. Your objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I was.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. And at any time when you were at the crime scene, did you
see Government's Exhibit 664, Q507?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it placed in a plastic bag prior to you viewing it?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Now, when you and Mr. Kelly collected evidence, did you
wear gloves?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your procedure that you followed?
A. When we collected the evidence, the procedure was a -- what
I would refer to, what I like to call a Phase 1 and a Phase 2,
which is the -- Phase 1 is the first set of rubber gloves, and
then the second set is another pair of rubber gloves on top of
that original pair. So for all collections, don a pair of
rubber gloves -- that's your working glove. Then the second
one is the actual physical retrieval of the item, and that's
placed into the bag. So then, once you're completed retrieving
the item, the second pair of gloves is removed and now you work
with everything with the first pair of rubber gloves.
Q. It may be obvious, but tell us why you wear two pairs of
gloves to collect evidence.
A. Well, the obvious thing to do is to prevent contamination.
Q. Let me show you Government's Exhibit 664.
I believe 664A and B are also in there, the two
plastic bags. If you can take a look at all three of those
items, please.
Do you recognize those items?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you conduct any kind of analysis of Government's
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Exhibit 664 when you were at the crime scene?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, it was not the right environment to conduct any
chemical analysis on the evidence itself. That's something
back in the laboratory to perform.
Q. Why is that?
A. Well, once you're back into the laboratory, you're in a
controlled environment and you can better work with the
particular material.
Q. And are you trying to again avoid contamination of the
evidence by doing it in the laboratory setting?
A. Yes. That's why -- Once you're out of the actual scene
itself and back into a more controlled environment, you have
better controls over that. And obviously, contamination is the
priority that you want to remove.
Q. Did you later examine Government's 664 in the laboratory?
A. Yes.
Q. When you received it, how was it packaged?
A. It was received by me in two plastic bags, and it was in a
sealed condition when I received it.
Q. Now, when you saw it at the crime scene, was it in one
plastic bag, or two plastic bags?
A. I seem to recall that it was in two plastic bags when I saw
it.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Do you know for sure?
A. I don't know for sure, but I have a -- I seem to recall
that it was in two plastic bags.
Q. Now, before you left Oklahoma City, did you participate in
other searches?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you participate in a search of Mr. McVeigh's Mercury
Marquis?
A. Yes.
Q. How did that come about?
A. We -- Mr. Kelly and myself, that is -- actually took this,
several pieces of evidence down to the Evidence Control Center
for checking in. And at the time that we were down there, we
were advised that a vehicle was -- it was being brought in for
processing and that we would be there for that when it finally
arrived.
Q. Did you use any instruments when you conducted the search
of Mr. McVeigh's Mercury Marquis?
A. Yes.
Q. What instrument did you use?
A. We had the Baringer ion scan instrument that's based on IMS
technology. It was at the scene, and we had it at the Evidence
Control Center for processing. When I say "the scene," it was
actually housed at the Evidence Control Center.
Q. When Mr. McVeigh's car was brought into the storage
Steven Burmeister - Direct
facility, were you one of the first persons to touch the car,
or examine the car?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the car locked, or unlocked when you got to it?
A. It was locked.
Q. How do you know that?
A. It was locked because I -- I attempted to unlock the right
front door, and I was unsuccessful.
Q. So how did you get the car open?
A. I had to turn it over to Mr. Kelly, who was able to do it
faster than I would be able to do it.
Q. Did Mr. Kelly assist you in the search of the Mercury
Marquis?
A. Yes.
Q. Before you actually searched the vehicle, did you take any
precautions or take any steps to prepare for the search?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. What did you do?
A. Both Mr. Kelly and myself donned Tyvex suits with
protective foot gear, and we also had the double glove
preparation on our hands.
Q. Now, did you wear those Tyvex suits when you were out at
the crime scene?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. One, we were arriving in our clean clothes, and one of the
things that we wanted to do was to make sure that our gloves
were clean. So that's the front line of defense that we were
working at the crime scene.
Q. Then why did you need to put a Tyvex suit on when you
inspected the Mercury Marquis?
A. Anytime you actually leave the crime scene and go to
another scene itself, that's when you have to take full
precaution not to transfer anything from the scene itself to
some other object. So going from that scene to the vehicle
itself, we had to take full protective precautions; and that's
when we donned the suits themselves.
Q. Were you the only two in these Tyvex suits?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you the only two conducting the residue examination of
the Mercury Marquis?
A. Yes.
Q. And what were the results of that search?
A. No explosive residues were detected inside the vehicle
itself from the swabs that we were taking.
Q. As you were conducting that search, did you see anything on
the front seat of the Mercury Marquis?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you see?
A. Observed an envelope on the front seat of the vehicle.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Was it sealed, or unsealed?
A. It was in a sealed condition.
Q. What did you do with it?
A. The envelope itself, there was a decision made to actually
open up the envelope and see the contents of that envelope.
Q. Did you take the envelope out of the car?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you give it eventually to someone else?
A. Yes, to have it logged in.
Q. Who did you give it to?
A. I'm drawing a blank right off the moment.
Q. Did you give it to another special agent?
A. It went to another special agent who was checking the
evidence in.
Q. And did you then continue with your explosive residue
search of the Marquis?
A. Yes.
Q. After that search was completed, were you asked to travel
to Junction City, Kansas?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you travel to Junction City?
A. That would have been the following day.
Q. April 22?
A. Yes. In the morning.
Q. Okay. And do you remember what day of the week April 22
Steven Burmeister - Direct
was back in 1995?
A. Well, Wednesday being the 19th . . . I guess that's
Saturday.
Q. Okay. And what did you do when you got to Junction City?
A. Once we arrived in Junction City, we met up with an
Evidence Response Team that was headed by supervisory Special
Agent Mary Jasnowski.
Q. What were your duties with Agent Jasnowski?
A. We were there to assist in the collection of physical
evidence, explosive residue evidence that may be present.
Q. Did there come a time when you learned that the Government
had obtained an authorized -- a search warrant to search
Mr. Nichols' residence?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you asked to participate in that search?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make a plan?
A. Well, we discussed the entire search and search warrant,
which was read by all of the members that would be responding
to that incident.
Q. What did you decide to do?
A. Well, the initial decision was that those that would make
the initial entry into the building would actually don special
protective gear, both foot and outer-shell protection, gloves,
and that team, that initial team that would go in would have
Steven Burmeister - Direct
that on.
Q. Who was on that initial team?
A. It would have been myself, Mr. Kelly, Special Agent
Jasnowski, and I believe two other individuals who were part of
the Evidence Response Team, one being a photographer, another
being a recorder.
Q. And the five of you went into Mr. Nichols' house before the
rest of the search team; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your purpose?
A. Our initial scan of the entire structure was to move
through the building one room at a time, making the first weave
through the building, looking for evidence that might be
potential explosives or explosive residue evidence. As we
moved through the building, other teams moved in behind us.
Q. After you completed your search, did you go back and
participate in the remaining search with the other team
members?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you actually examine some of the evidence that was
found in Mr. Nichols' home?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall seeing some, what you later learned was
Primadet in Mr. Nichols' house?
A. Yes.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. What is Primadet?
A. Primadet is an initiation system. It's a plastic tubing
that has on the end of the plastic tubing a detonator. And
that plastic tubing which is the unique portion of this entire
device, it's a tubing that has a high explosive dispersed very
thinly on the inner walls of that plastic tubing.
Q. Now, you said a detonator. Is that also commonly referred
to as a blasting cap?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, may I have one moment?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, I would like to publish
Government's Exhibit 140 which has been previously admitted
into evidence.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Recognize this photo, Agent Burmeister?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Is that the Primadet that you found in Mr. Nichols'
residence, does it appear to be?
A. It appears to be. It's in the same container and where I
recall it being found.
Q. Was some of that material sent back to you in the
laboratory?
A. Yes.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Did you test it?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you determine?
A. The interior components of the tubing is consistent with
the type of explosive that's found in that product.
Q. What type of explosive is that?
A. It's a combination of HMX and aluminum powder.
Q. And what does the HMX do in that device?
A. The HMX mixed with the aluminum powder is a high explosive
and when initiated will actually transverse the entire tubing,
a very fast, rapid explosion throughout the interior of that
tubing.
Q. Going back to some of the testimony you gave earlier, you
told us if you had something like ammonium nitrate fuel oil,
you would need a booster; correct, to make that detonate?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would also need a detonator?
A. Yes.
Q. Could the Primadet serve as a detonator for such a device?
A. Yes.
Q. How would the detonator, blasting cap on the end of the
Primadet serve as a detonator for that type of device?
A. Well, the detonator is an object which is to initially get
the speed high enough to initiate the next material. And so we
call it an explosive train. So as the train picks up speed, it
Steven Burmeister - Direct
travels down to the end which the final product is the overall
explosive getting started.
Q. And where -- which end would you put into the main charge
and the booster, the end of the shock tube or the detonator,
itself?
A. Well, the detonator would go into the booster and then the
booster is placed into the large volume of the explosives that
you're trying to initiate.
Q. And how would you detonate the shock tube to begin this
whole explosive train you've just described?
A. There's a variety of initiation methods, you could use
spark or some heat source or electrical source.
Q. Are you familiar with safety fuse?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you use that to detonate the shock tube?
A. Yes.
Q. How would that work?
A. Well, if you initiate the safety fuse, the safety fuse
being connected to the end of the shock tube or the red plastic
tubing that we see here, that would initiate the HMX and
aluminum, it would travel down through that plastic tubing, all
the way down to the end, which is the detonator, the detonator
will initiate. The detonator once it initiates, it will
initiate the booster, the booster will then initiate the large
quantity of material.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Were you also asked to participate in other searches in the
Junction City area on April 22?
A. Yes.
Q. What other searches were you asked to participate in?
A. I -- a storage shed.
Q. And what were the results of that study -- of that search?
A. We examined the storage shed and found no residues of
explosives.
Q. Okay. Did you conduct any other searches in that area that
you recall?
A. None that I recall.
Q. Now, were you sent back to the crime scene after you
finished your searches in Junction City?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you remain at the crime scene?
A. For a short period of time.
Q. What happened?
A. I had been called to travel back to Washington, D.C., to
collect some notes and then to travel to New York City for
testimony.
Q. Was that testimony in an unrelated case?
A. Yes.
Q. And after you testified in New York City, did you return to
the laboratory?
A. The same day that I testified, I returned back to the
Steven Burmeister - Direct
lab -- back to the Washington, D.C., where I went home.
Q. On what date did you return to the laboratory to commence
working on evidence in this case?
A. I physically got back into the laboratory on the 28th which
is the Friday morning.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, this might be a good time
for the break.
THE COURT: All right. We'll do it.
You may step down, and we'll have you back in 20
minutes.
Members of the jury, we'll take our afternoon recess
with the usual precautions of course of continuing to keep open
minds and avoid discussion in connection with the case or
anything connected with it. Also continuing to avoid anything
outside the evidence, recognizing that you have to decide on
the evidence. You're excused now, 20 minutes.
(Jury out at 2:58 p.m.)
MR. JONES: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Bench Conference 102B1 is not herein transcribed by court
order. It is transcribed as a separate sealed transcript.)
Steven Burmeister - Direct
(In open court:)
THE COURT: We'll be in recess till 3:20.
(Recess at 3:02 p.m.)
(Reconvened at 3:20 p.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
(Jury in at 3:20 p.m.)
THE COURT: Please resume the stand.
Ms. Wilkinson, you may continue.
MS. WILKINSON: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, before we broke, you were telling us that
you got back to the laboratory sometime in late April; is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. Actually, physically was back into the laboratory on
April 28, a Friday.
Q. And you began testing some of the evidence in this case at
that -- or at or around that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, before we get into the items that you actually tested,
you've told us that there are different types of explosives
that you can look for; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And are there different categories commonly referred to as
Steven Burmeister - Direct
inorganic and organic?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me show you -- let's begin with inorganics and let me
show you Government's Exhibit 838. Did you prepare this chart
prior to coming to court today?
A. I assisted in the preparation of this chart.
Q. And does it summarize the type of instrumental techniques
you use in inorganic analysis?
A. Yes, it does.
MS. WILKINSON: Government offers 838, your Honor.
MR. TRITICO: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. 838 is received.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, before you explain these techniques, can
you tell the jury the difference between an inorganic and an
organic explosive?
A. I would refer to an inorganic explosive in which it is
typically one that is water-soluble. An organic explosive is
one which is typically soluble in an organic solvent, such as
one that is carbon-based, such as methanol, ethanol or acetone.
That would be an organic.
Q. All right. And what are examples of an inorganic
explosive?
A. An inorganic explosive would typically be those that are in
the nature of a nitrate or a perchlorate or chlorate-based
Steven Burmeister - Direct
explosive.
Q. Would that include ammonium nitrate?
A. Yes, it would.
Q. What is an oxidizer?
A. An oxidizer is a material which essentially provides oxygen
for any type of a reaction to take place.
Q. And are inorganic explosives often considered oxidizers?
A. Many of them are considered -- not the explosive itself,
but components within these explosives are considered
oxidizers.
Q. Would ammonium nitrate fall in that category?
A. Ammonium nitrate is considered an oxidizer, yes.
Q. Now, when you're looking at a piece of evidence or an item
that's submitted to the laboratory, do you conduct different
tests when you're looking at what you believe is inorganic
materials than the tests you conduct when you're looking at
organic materials?
A. Yes.
Q. And referring to Government Chart 838, can you tell the
jury the type of techniques you use to look for inorganic
materials?
A. Well, all of this -- all of the Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 are
components which I use for the inorganic analysis of an
explosive.
Q. And when you -- No. 1, the optical microscopy?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Yes.
Q. Would that be one of the first tests you do when you're
looking for an inorganic explosive?
A. Well, that's part of the first step for both an organic and
inorganic, but particularly an inorganic analysis will involve
an optical examination; and the optical examination is
typically with a microscope.
Q. What are you looking for when you first look through the
microscope?
A. Well, with the microscope, it's one -- it's a tool for you
to examine an item where your naked eye is unable to see that
close onto the surface. It just magnifies the surface up where
you can do some better examination.
Q. And if you saw a inorganic material, what would it look
like under the microscope?
A. Well, an inorganic material has a variety of shapes; but
typically it's in a crystalline form.
Q. Now, briefly tell us what these two techniques are under
No. 1 under "optical microscopy." How do you use them?
A. Well, the first one over here, the microscope is definitely
just that: It's a microscope in which you're magnifying the
object that you're placing underneath it so that you can look a
lot closer to the surface.
Q. What about the polarized light microscopy?
A. The polarized light microscopy is a specialized microscopy
Steven Burmeister - Direct
technique, where you're actually passing a beam of light
through an object and looking at its characteristics when the
light is bent a certain way. And it's a specialized method to
look at characteristics of crystals.
Q. Moving on, the X-ray diffraction technique or the X-ray
techniques, can you tell the jury what those two techniques are
briefly?
A. Both of these X-ray techniques are ones in which you can
examine a particular object underneath -- or rather with an
X-ray beam being placed onto the object and examine for
crystalline structure and crystalline nature of a particular
material.
Q. And do they tell you something unique about the crystal
that you're looking at?
A. Yes. You can actually tell what type of material it is.
It looks at the entire complex, it looks at the entire
molecule, and it determines specific information about that
entire molecule which can be compared back to a known material.
Q. So would the X-ray techniques help you actually identify
what the crystal is that you're looking at?
A. Some experts in the area of X-ray -- for example, X-ray
powder diffraction will say they can identify a particular
material; but I use it very closely not quite for
identification. I need more analytical information in order to
say I've identified a particular substance.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. So if you were identifying a crystal, would you use several
of these techniques before you identified the substance?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let's move on to No. 3, the SEM/EDXA, the elemental
exam. What is that?
A. No. 3, the SEM -- let's just start out with the SEM
portion. The SEM is considered the scanning electron
microscope, and all that's doing is a high-powered microscope
that looks very closely at little, tiny particles. And with
that microscope we can look at very minute areas and focus the
scope of our examination field down to a small spot.
Q. What about the other portion of the test?
A. The other portion of this test, the EDXA portion over here,
is an attachment that goes onto the side of the scanning
electron microscope and will actually examine for the elements
that are present in that little, tiny spot which we looked at
with the scanning electron microscope.
Q. When you say "elements," what do you mean?
A. We're looking at things that are our periodic chart, which
are things like element -- or things like iron, silver, lead,
nitrogen, oxygen. I can go on the list, but these are what we
consider our elements in our environment.
Q. Now, the machine that you use back in the laboratory for
this Analysis No. 3: Can it read every item on the periodic
chart?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. The way it's set up, it will not look at items below the
atomic number of 11, which is the number for sodium. So things
that are below sodium, such as nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen,
it will not see these items. But things that are higher in
weight to sodium, it will see those items, which is sodium and
lead, iron.
Q. So if a substance contained nitrogen or oxygen, you would
not see it using this test. Is that right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. Let's move on to No. 4, the cations and anions, and briefly
tell us about these tests.
A. When we look at inorganic materials, we look at the overall
crystalline structure, and the crystalline structure being it's
a salt; and a salt is composed of two different components.
One portion of the salt is positively charged, and the other
portion is negatively charged. And it's very much like the
ends of magnets that are attracted to one another; that
crystals are the same way.
And if we look at something like sodium chloride, it's
the best possible picture to show this; that if we took sodium
chloride and broke it down into two different components, we
would have sodium over here and chloride over here. While
there is a charge placed on these things, an actual electrical
charge placed on the sodium, there is an electrical charge
placed on the chloride. And what glues that together is the
Steven Burmeister - Direct
attraction of the positive and the negative, and they're glued
together electronically.
Well, the positive side, which in the sodium
chloride -- we call that a cation -- and the negative side --
we call that an anion -- and the same thing goes on with a
battery, when we call something a cathode or anode. You see
that on the sides of some of the batteries. They'll actually
label it that way.
We're doing the same thing here. For a cation
analysis, we're looking at those things which have a positive
charge to them; and when we do an anion analysis, we're looking
at those with a negative charge to it. And there are specific
types of analysis for those two separate components.
Q. Those are the ones you have listed here on this chart;
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you talk about looking at a crystal and looking
for the anions and cations, when you first have the crystal, do
you have it as one compound?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And are you breaking it apart with this test to look at
cations and anions?
A. Yes. It's going into a solution.
Q. So if you had an ammonium nitrate crystal and you conducted
one of these tests, what would you find?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Well, we can go down the list, if you'd like. I can start
with the first one. The chemical spot test that's the first
one is basically adding some other chemical to the crystal
itself and looking to see what kind of response we actually
receive out of it. Typically, the chemical spot test that I
apply is a diphenylamine solution, which once I add that, we're
looking for a color response. And if it turns a certain color,
it's a certain material, such as an oxidizer. In the case of
ammonium nitrate, I will receive a strong blue color.
The next step is ion chromatography. Ion
chromatography is a chromatography method which is a separation
tool to look for the different types of materials, such as the
cations and the anions.
Q. If you put ammonium nitrate in there, what would you find?
A. Well, the ion chromatography will show you and identify the
presence of ammonium ions, which is the positive thing we were
talking about; and it will show the nitrate ions, which is the
negatively charged item. Now, these are separate instruments,
and the one instrument will look for the positively charged
materials. I will go to a separate instrument which will look
for the negatively charged materials.
Q. Okay. Now let's turn to organic analysis. Did you create
a chart for the jury to show them the types of tests you do
when you're looking for organic explosives?
A. Yes.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Government's
Exhibit 837. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes.
Q. Are these the type of instrumental techniques you use when
you're conducting an organic analysis?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Government offers 837.
MR. TRITICO: I have no objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. 837 is received and may be
used.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Before you tell us about these tests, what type of
explosives are organic explosives?
A. Organic explosives are typically those that are
carbon-based explosives. They're classically the high
explosives; and these would include things like nitroglycerine,
RDX, PETN.
Q. What is TNT?
A. TNT is another high explosive.
Q. What is HMX?
A. HMX is another high explosive, yes.
Q. What about EGDN?
A. EGDN, another high explosive.
Q. So those are all organic explosives?
A. Yes.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Do the techniques that you've listed here look for some of
these explosives that you and I have just named?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's start at the top. And could you explain briefly what
gas chromatography is and the three detectors that you have
listed there?
A. Again, chromatography, if we look at it -- it's a
separation tool. It's one in which we take a bunch of complex
materials, place it into the front of this instrument, and it
will separate it according to the particular setup that you
have.
The best analogy is if I took a bunch of multi-colored
balls and placed it into the front end of this thing, as it
travels down through this instrument, I could conceivably
separate out all the blue balls and all the red balls and all
the pink balls; and that, I can collect.
Well, you need to have some sort of method to
determine what type of balls that are coming out on the end of
this, and so you need a detector.
And in this situation, what's propelling those balls
through the system happens to be gas. And we'll see there is
another way of propelling these balls through the system; but
in this case, it's gas that's propelling it through.
Then there is specific detectors that are used to
examine the balls that come off of the end.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Now, under the first portion, the gas chromatography is a
separation technique?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that give you some data that you use in your analysis?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. What type of data does it give you?
A. Well, it would develop a retention time; that is, the time
in which, for example, the red balls will come off of the
system. That's a unique time. We can clock that. Then when
the blue balls come off, we can clock that as well. The time
in which they come off is a unique time called a "retention
time."
Q. So if you were to put a sample into a gas chromatography
instrument and it had PETN on it, would you know the retention
time for the gas chromatography machine for PETN?
A. As long as I ran a standard through of known PETN, I would
develop a retention time for that PETN and then correlate that
to the sample itself.
Q. You can then match the questioned sample with the known
standard; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And see if they have the same retention times?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that what you do in part to identify or at least
analyze questioned substances when you put them into these type
Steven Burmeister - Direct
of machines?
A. Yes.
Q. And what type of data do you get from the detectors?
A. Well, you can determine what type of material -- the
organic material that's present in your sample.
Q. So the electron capture, the chemiluminescence, or the mass
spectrometry actually tells you whether you have a green ball
or a red ball or a blue ball?
A. There are methods that will help you make that
determination, yes.
Q. Okay. Turning to the No. 2, Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectroscopy -- and let's refer to it as FTIR, as you have it
there -- tell us what that does.
A. The first part of up here, the Fourier Transform portion,
is just a mathematical method to acquire large amounts of data
and place it into a computer. It's a complex portion.
The end of this, which is the important part, the
infrared spectroscopy, is a technique which has been around for
years; and typically the old systems would require several
minutes to run a sample. Now that we've coupled that front end
computer portion that can acquire large amounts of data, we can
now do it in seconds vs. minutes before.
But what you're doing is passing a beam of infrared
energy through the sample and measuring how much is actually
absorbed.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Now, gas chromatography: Has that been around for a while
also?
A. Yes, it has.
Q. Is the FTIR based on a totally different scientific
principle than the gas chromatography?
A. Yes.
Q. And what about the Ion Mobility Spectrometry, or IMS? What
does that do?
A. Basically, it's a methodology where a sample is introduced
into a reaction chamber; the material itself is broken into
little, tiny pieces. And these little, tiny pieces are allowed
to travel down an electronically controlled tube. And the
actual mobility is measured in a time, and that's where this
particular thing comes, the ion mobility; and that's the device
that's used there.
Q. Next we have the liquid chromatography. Is that similar to
the gas chromatography?
A. It's the same thing that we talked about up in No. 1. The
difference here is we're propelling the sample through with a
liquid.
Q. What about the detectors you have listed there?
A. Again, there are specific detectors that are used to aid in
that -- the analysis at the end for what type of ball we're
actually seeing.
Q. And finally, the Solid Probe Mass Spectrometry: What is
Steven Burmeister - Direct
that?
A. Well, the Solid Probe Mass Spectrometry is an adaptation of
the first portion up at the top, where we have the gas
chromatography with the mass spectrometry up at the top here.
It's just that we're actually introducing the sample itself
into the instrument vs. having it travel through the gas
chromatograph.
Q. Now, all of these techniques listed on Government's Exhibit
837 and the techniques listed on 83, the chart for inorganic:
Did you use some or all of these tests when you analyzed
Mr. McVeigh's clothing?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you use some or all of these techniques when you
examined Government's Exhibit which is known as Q507?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, have you developed in the laboratory a protocol or
procedure for what order you conduct these type of techniques?
A. Yes, we have.
Q. Let me show you Government's Exhibit 914. Do you recognize
that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How do you recognize it?
A. Well, that is our explosive residue protocol that I use in
the laboratory.
Q. Was this the protocol you followed in 1995 when analyzing
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q507 and Mr. McVeigh's clothing?
A. I will follow this protocol for the analysis. I may have
modified certain sections where I deemed that certain analyses
were not to be conducted; but yes, that's the protocol that I
used.
Q. Is that something you do when you conduct every test, make
a determination of whether further testing is necessary?
A. Yes. There are times where certain portions of the
protocol are not applicable and some will not be done, and you
will follow the flow chart down to a particular region.
MS. WILKINSON: Government offers 914, your Honor.
MR. TRITICO: No objection.
THE COURT: 914 received.
MS. WILKINSON: May we publish?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Now, Agent Burmeister, I don't want you to describe this
chart in detail. There is a lot of things written here, but
tell the jury very generally how it works.
A. Okay. Beginning at the top with our substrate, we talked
about that as our material itself that we're examining. The
next thing I will do is a microscopic examination, looking at
the material for anything that I can physically remove off of
that object.
Q. Would that formally be those inorganic particles that you
Steven Burmeister - Direct
were talking about earlier?
A. It's inorganic or can be organic particles themselves, but
these --
Q. Go ahead.
A. These are particles that I can physically remove off of the
surface.
Q. What do you do next?
A. The next thing -- once it's determined that there is really
no physical material that can be mechanically removed, the next
step is a solvent extract of the material; and we've broken
that down into the organic and inorganic, being the organic
over here and the inorganic over here.
Q. Okay. I think that's enough of the protocol.
Can you erase those marks, please.
A. Yes.
Q. Not to hurt your feelings, but . . . let's move on to
April 28, 1995. Did you receive some of Mr. McVeigh's clothing
on that day?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, do you have a pair of gloves with you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Look at those items in front of you, Agent Burmeister, and
Steven Burmeister - Direct
see if you can -- they're already introduced in evidence, but
see if you recognize those items. You should have Government's
Exhibit 428, which is also known to you as Q20, the jeans. See
those?
A. I see the Government's Exhibit 428, yes.
Q. Okay. Let's start with those. Now, did you receive
Government's Exhibit 428 on April 28, 1995?
A. Not on April 28, no.
Q. When did you receive it?
A. May 17.
Q. From whom did you receive it?
A. Mr. Brett Mills.
Q. And how was it packaged when you received it?
A. I received it in a plastic bag.
Q. Was the plastic bag sealed?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell us what you did after you received this item and
others.
A. Well, once I received the item --
THE COURT: Well, excuse me. You said "this item and
others"?
MS. WILKINSON: I'm sorry, your Honor. I'll go over
all the items he received that day, and then I'll go back to
what he did.
THE COURT: All right.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, did you receive other items along with
the jeans on May 17?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you receive Government's Exhibit 429, which should also
be Q24, the T-shirt?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is that the T-shirt with the writing on the front and back,
the picture on it, also?
A. I recognize that, yes.
Q. Okay. Do you also see in front of you Government's Exhibit
430, also known as Q23, the other T-shirt?
A. Government's Exhibit 430?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive that on May 17?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm not sure I asked you: Did you receive Government's
Exhibit 429, the other T-shirt, on May 17?
A. May 17 for 429, yes.
Q. Look at Government's Exhibit 431, the jacket, also marked
as Q19.
A. Yes.
Q. When did you receive that item?
A. That came in on May 17 as well.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Now look at Government's Exhibit 432 and 433, the left and
right boots marked Q21 and Q22. Do you recognize those?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. When did you receive those items?
A. These were received May 17, 1995.
Q. So you received the jeans, two T-shirts, the jacket and the
two boots on May 17?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive other items that day, also?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, after you received those items, Government's Exhibit
428, 429, 430, 431, 432 and 433, from Mr. Mills in sealed
packages, what did you do with them?
THE COURT: He hasn't testified they were all sealed
yet.
MS. WILKINSON: I'm sorry.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, how were all those items packaged when
you received them?
A. Each one of the items that we mentioned were all in a
sealed condition.
Q. Were they all individually wrapped?
A. Yes. They were all individually in their own separate
plastic bag.
Q. Each bag -- was each bag marked?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Yes.
Q. And each bag was sealed?
A. Yes.
Q. After you received them, what did you do?
A. Well, the next thing that I did is I inventoried basically
what I had received, and the next step was to begin the actual
examination of the items themselves.
Q. Did you prepare your work area before conducting any
examinations?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. The work area that I was about to conduct this chemical
examination was first cleaned with a solvent and then also a
bleach solution.
Q. What is the purpose for that?
A. Well, one, for keeping the area clean, not only bacterially
clean but also to remove any type of material that may be there
that may interfere with this examination.
Q. What did you do next?
A. The next thing, the -- I donned a clean laboratory jacket.
Q. How do you know the laboratory jacket was clean?
A. Because I launder it myself.
Q. What did you do after you put on your clean laboratory
jacket?
A. The next thing I did is I placed a pair of rubber gloves
Steven Burmeister - Direct
on.
Q. What did you do after that?
A. And I applied to the table surface a piece of brown paper.
Q. Is that disposable brown paper?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And after you laid down the paper, you were wearing your
one pair of gloves at that time?
A. The first pair of rubber gloves, yes.
Q. What was your next step?
A. The next step is to bring the actual piece that I was about
to examine close to the area that I would examine that
particular piece.
Q. Do you examine all the pieces at once or one at a time?
A. No, each item is examined separately from everything else.
Q. Now, do you recall which piece of evidence you examined
first?
A. I believe I examined the item which is not displayed out
here.
Q. Okay. And before you examined that first item, what did
you do?
A. The area was blanked for any type of background conditions.
Q. Okay. Tell us what you mean by "blanked"?
A. One of the things that I did is took a swabbing of the area
that was surrounding that particular site on the table surface.
Q. A swabbing to test that brown paper area, covered area?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Well, it's actually -- it's a vacuum/swabbing that is
actually taken.
Q. And what did you do after you did that vacuuming?
A. I then ran that particular sample on the instrument to
determine whether or not I had anything to worry about in that
general vicinity.
Q. What were the results?
A. They were negative.
Q. Which means?
A. No explosives were detected.
Q. Okay. And what did you do with that vacuum sample after
you examined it in the instrument?
A. That sample is discarded.
Q. What's your next step -- or what was your next step?
Excuse me.
A. The next step would be to take the item for examination,
place it onto the table surface where I'm about to examine the
particular item. The bag is opened with the first pair of
gloves. At that point, a second pair of gloves is donned.
The item itself is actually removed out of the bag and
placed onto the table for examination.
Q. You do that yourself; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So when you handle a piece of evidence -- and let's move to
the jeans -- were you wearing a second pair of gloves?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Yes, I was. I was the only one examining these items.
Q. What did you do with the jeans when you removed them from
the sealed plastic bag?
A. The jeans themselves were placed out onto the table, and a
microscope that is on a moveable pedestal was brought in for
examination.
When I moved the microscope in, I discarded the first
pair of rubber gloves because I had to move that vehicle in for
evidence examination.
Q. Then what did you do?
A. Focused it into the particular area where I was ready to
work, donned a second pair of gloves on the operation hand that
would move the evidence around, and the other hand was used to
focus the microscope.
Q. You were then looking for the visible particles that you've
told us about earlier?
A. Yes.
Q. And after you completed that, what did you do?
A. Once I examined the entire object -- and if we're looking
at the pair of jeans, in this particular case, I found no
particles that I actually physically removed. The next step
was an actual solvent extract of the object.
Q. Would that be looking for organic explosives?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you do the solvent extraction?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. In this case, I wanted to go to an area which I know is a
high-traffic area, and the high-traffic area being the pockets.
And so that's what I centered on.
Q. And how did you remove the material from the pockets?
A. The actual pocket itself was cut and removed away from the
jeans themselves.
Q. Did you cut those pockets out yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. And then did you use your solvent extraction on those two
pockets?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you mark those as separate testing samples?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, other than cutting out the pockets, did you
follow the same procedure with each piece of evidence that
you've discussed, the two T-shirts, the jacket and the boots?
A. In each case, the table surface, the brown paper that was
on the table surface was removed. The table surface was
cleaned one more time, new piece of paper was applied to the
table, new gloves, and the next item was placed for
examination; and the entire procedure was repeated one more
time.
Q. So you do that every time. Do you also blank the table
each time?
A. Yes.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Do you put -- did you put away the piece of evidence that
you had been working on before you brought out the new piece of
evidence and put down the new butcher paper?
A. Yes, definitely. Once it's out for examination -- only one
item is out at any one time for examination. Once it's
finished exam, it's placed back in the bag.
Now, in particular cases where there is solvents still
remaining on the item -- for example, acetone still on the
item -- I will allow it to evaporate before placing it back
into the bag because I don't want the bag to be filled with
acetone vapors.
Q. Now, you said that you do a solvent extraction. Did you do
that on all the pieces of that evidence that we've been
discussing? Do you recall?
A. I did it on the jeans and the shirts.
Q. And once you do a solvent extraction, what do you do with
that material, the liquid?
A. Well, the extract is usually a larger volume of the
solvent. That large volume needs to be reduced down to a
smaller volume, and so it's dried down to a concentrated
solution.
Q. What do you do with that concentrated solution?
A. That concentrated solution is then examined with the
instruments that we talked about earlier.
Q. In this case, when you tested the jeans and the T-shirts,
Steven Burmeister - Direct
what type of testing did you use on that dried, extracted
sample?
A. It was both chromatography, IMS, the GC chemiluminescence
technique, and mass spectrometry.
Q. Did you conduct several tests on each piece of evidence
that we've been discussing?
A. Yes.
Q. And after conducting those tests, did you review the data?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you come to some conclusions about any explosives
residue that were found on Mr. McVeigh's clothing?
A. Yes.
Q. And before coming to court, did you prepare or assist in
preparing a chart that sets forth those test results?
A. Yes.
Q. Look at Government's Exhibit 437. Do you recognize that?
Is that the chart -- you don't see it? Hold on one second.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, if we could have this
displayed just to the witness.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Now do you see it?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the chart that you assisted in preparing before
coming to court today?
A. Yes, it is.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Now, at the bottom of that chart is another item,
Government's Exhibit 426. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you also receive that item from Mr. Brett Mills?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you recall on what day you received Government's Exhibit
426?
A. It was on the same day.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Do you recognize Government's Exhibit 426?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is it?
A. Government's Exhibit 426 is a test tube, and inside the
test tube are two lime green earplugs.
Q. When you received those earplugs from Mr. Mills, in what
condition were they?
A. They were in the shape of what I have seen earplugs to look
like.
Q. Can you describe what you mean by that?
A. Well, they're foam-rubber-type objects that are designed
for placing into the ear, and they're sort of in a cylindric --
a tubular-type shape, cylindrical-type shape.
Q. Can they be molded to fit inside someone's ear?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Yeah, that's the object of an earplug. It would be
inserted into the ear.
Q. Did you put those earplugs in the test tube, or did they
come to you that way?
A. No. Once I started my examination, I placed them into the
test tube. And that's where the extraction took place, inside
that tube. They're in here now because I left them in the
tube.
Q. Why did you examine those earplugs for explosives residue?
A. One, because they would be a good surface for the handling
of an explosive. It would be a nice -- very much like foam and
suction-type material that would attract and hold certain
explosives. For example, high explosives would be absorbed
very readily into this material. And obviously, if you're
handling it to place it into an ear or something like that and
if it's on your fingers, it would be transferred to that
particular object; so that's the reason why I looked at these.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we would offer
Government's Exhibit 437, the test results.
THE COURT: I'd like to hear more about these earplugs
and how he received them.
MS. WILKINSON: Okay.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, tell us in what condition those earplugs
were in when you received them. I mean, how were they
Steven Burmeister - Direct
packaged?
A. I received a sealed plastic bag containing a variety of
also -- what we call "also submitted" items which ranged from
his -- his wallet, there was some money, some other
miscellaneous items that were in there. I'd have to look at
the actual inventory of the overall items, but I remember
earplugs being contained within that package of material.
Q. The earplugs did not have a Q number, did they?
A. No.
Q. They have just what you just referred to as "also
submitted" marking?
A. Yes, and that's an A/S designation.
Q. When you received these items from Mr. Mills, did you
receive a laboratory work sheet setting forth what you were
supposed to be receiving?
A. It was a laboratory work sheet which on that laboratory
work sheet had an itemized listing of those items found in the
"also submitted" package.
Q. If I showed you, would it refresh your recollection as to
what other items were submitted in that package when you
received it?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: May I have a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, perhaps I could show
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Mr. Burmeister his notebook of notes and he could find it.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Did you find it?
A. What I have -- what I have is the mis -- missing in here is
the actual work sheet, which is what we're looking for.
MS. WILKINSON: I think I have it right here, your
Honor. May I show it to him?
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Is that it, Mr. Burmeister?
A. Yes. This is the work sheet that I received. Yes.
Q. Is it stamped down at the bottom with your name and the
page number from your notes?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Take a look at that and see if it refreshes your
recollection as to what else you received with the earplugs.
A. This work sheet, I would have circled the items that I
actually received at the time that the submission came in, yes.
Q. What items did you receive?
A. Circled is $225 in cash, two Bicentennial gold coins, a
wallet, a black belt, two earplugs, a container, a Rolaids
packet that was open, and a Casio watch.
Q. And did you receive those separately from the clothes?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Yes. They came in a sealed plastic bag.
Q. Now, did you test those items for explosives residue?
A. I tested the entire group as well, yes.
Q. And then did you move on specifically to the earplugs?
A. Yes.
Q. And why did you do that?
A. I wanted to get a reading first of all from the entire
package; and then I moved to the actual item, which I thought
was a nice candidate for residue analysis.
Q. Did you get a general -- or a reading from all the "also
submitted" items that you did?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it a positive?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you continue to examine the earplugs?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we would offer
Government's Exhibit 437.
THE COURT: And it's to illustrate his testimony?
MS. WILKINSON: Yes.
MR. TRITICO: I'll object at this time, as there is no
foundation laid for the introduction of this exhibit as it
relates to his findings and conclusions that he's made.
THE COURT: Well, all it is is illustrating his
findings and conclusions.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
MR. TRITICO: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So are you objecting to his findings and
conclusions?
MR. TRITICO: Since there has been no testimony as to
how the tests were performed and how he arrived at the
conclusions, at this time I think it's improper to admit this
document.
THE COURT: Overruled. 437 is received to illustrate
his conclusions.
MS. WILKINSON: May we publish?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, first on the list is Government's Exhibit
431, the jacket received from Mr. McVeigh. Did you test that
jacket?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the results of your testing?
A. No explosives were detected.
Q. What does that mean, "no explosives were detected"?
A. My terminology for "no explosives detected" -- there is a
set number of explosives that I will examine for. And
obviously, I cannot examine for the entire world of explosives
out there, so I hone in on a specific set. And these were
examined for, and none of those candidates were found.
Q. Now, why is it that you can't examine for every single
Steven Burmeister - Direct
explosive?
A. There is -- if I looked for every explosive present, I
might be here -- still examining the jacket to this day; and I
may not be done next year, because of the number. There is a
huge volume of explosives that are out there. There is a text,
a 10-volume set of explosives that are out there; so the number
is extremely large.
Q. Do you and your colleagues in the explosive residue
community focus on certain common high explosives or relatively
common high explosives?
A. We've identified a series -- a number of explosives that
are readily found in the environment as far as explosion
environments, and so these are the ones that we will hone in on
when we look for these.
Q. When you state that there is none detected, could it also
mean that it was below the levels of detection of certain
instruments?
MR. TRITICO: I'll object to that as leading.
MS. WILKINSON: I'll rephrase it, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Do the instruments have any limitations?
A. All these instruments have a point at which they will not
be able to see any explosive if it is, in fact, present. We
call that a level of detection.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Are you familiar with the levels of detection of each of
your instruments?
A. Yes.
Q. And do certain of your instruments have different levels of
detection?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you consider that when determining which tests to
conduct?
A. If we're seeing a certain explosive present in one test, in
order to confirm it, we have to go to another test with equal
sensitivity.
Q. And did you do that in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let's turn to the next exhibit, which is 428, the
jeans. Explain to the jury what you found in the left pocket
of Mr. McVeigh's jeans.
A. The left pocket portion was extracted. The liquid extract
was then run on the various instruments, and the results that
were found are shown in the chart.
Q. First, it has "nitroglycerine identified."
A. Yes.
Q. Explain what that means.
A. The instrumental results identified nitroglycerin high
explosive on the object.
Q. And you have "PETN consistent for the presence of." What
Steven Burmeister - Direct
do you mean by that?
A. The PETN was observed in the particular sample, was not
able to actually identify the fact that it was actually there.
Q. So do you distinguish between "an identification" and
"consistent with"?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you distinguish between those two terms?
A. Essentially, it's having the alternate instrument being the
cross-check for the actual item itself. So I would need
another instrument to be there to cross-check and identify its
actual presence.
Q. Now, you're aware that Mr. McVeigh was carrying a gun when
he was arrested. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So can you tell us what, if any, significance there is to
nitroglycerine being identified in his left pocket?
A. For me there is really three possible reasons for the
presence of nitroglycerine. One, nitroglycerine can be found
in some heart medications and nitroglycerin patches. That's a
possibility.
The second being that it's present in ammunition which
is found in weapons, and anyone who is a shooter or goes out to
fire weapons can actually develop nitroglycerin and get it on
their clothing.
The third being that nitroglycerin is present in
Steven Burmeister - Direct
explosives, and anyone who is exposed to an explosive that
would contain nitroglycerin could get it onto their clothing.
Q. You can't tell from this finding where that nitroglycerine
came from, can you?
A. No.
Q. Now, what type of explosives have nitroglycerin in them?
A. Nitroglycerine is found again, like I said, in some
propellants, but it's also found in dynamites.
Q. You also analyzed the right pocket of Mr. McVeigh's jeans.
Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there you're telling us you found nitroglycerine and
you identified it. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's the same explanation that you've given for the
left pocket? You can't tell where that came from?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. But here in the right pocket you've actually identified
PETN. Is that correct?
A. Yes. I was able to cross-check that, and definitely it was
identified in the right pocket.
Q. Now, is PETN found in nature?
A. No.
Q. Where do you find PETN?
A. PETN is a high explosive.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. So what is the significance of finding PETN in
Mr. McVeigh's right pocket?
A. The presence of -- the presence of PETN, someone would have
had to have been exposed to the material PETN in order to have
contact onto the object.
Q. What explosives do you find PETN in?
A. PETN itself is a white, crystalline, powdered explosive in
its raw form, very much like table salt or sugar in the -- in
the crystalline form. In that manner, you can actually get it
onto you in the powdered or particle method.
PETN is also found as a component in other explosives,
high explosives, for example, Semtex, which contains other
explosives; and it's a component within another material.
Q. I'm not sure if I heard you correctly. You find PETN in a
powder form sometimes in an explosive?
A. Yes.
Q. In what type of explosive would you find PETN in a powder
form?
A. A commercial product that contains PETN in a powder form is
considered det cord, in which there is a liner down the center
of this powdered explosive; and it's wrapped on the outside
with some sort of cloth or plastic coating.
Q. If you were to cut that det cord or detonation cord to
attach it to a detonator, is the chances that some of that
powder be exposed and actually fall out of the detonation cord?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
MR. TRITICO: Excuse me, your Honor. I object to that
as leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: The det cord itself, like I said, is a
tubular type -- looks like string -- or rope, rather -- is
about the best way to put it. And if I were to cut that rope,
down the center of it is this powder. And the powder itself is
loose. It's not compacted or casted. And so if you cut it,
it's going to flake around in a little powdered form; so it's
easily transferred into the air.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. What if you were working with a cut section of the
detonation cord and you were trying to attach it to a blasting
cap or detonator?
A. Again, as you're working with this material, the PETN
powder will be dispersed onto your hands. It will be dispersed
onto the outside of other objects and will be floating around.
Q. Now, what is the significance of finding PETN or
identifying PETN in the right pocket but only finding
"consistent with PETN" in the left pocket?
A. The level of PETN detected was higher in the right pocket
than it was in the left pocket; and this was done basically
through the fact that the pocket itself was cut out. And
basically, a quantitative analysis was done essentially in the
left pocket and the right pocket, and the responses were then
Steven Burmeister - Direct
compared.
Q. So you found more PETN in the right pocket. Is that --
A. Yes.
Q. -- a colloquial way of putting it?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware of whether Mr. McVeigh is right-handed or
left-handed?
A. The only thing I can say is I've observed him actually
writing here in the courtroom and that I've seen him writing
with his right hand.
Q. Now, what would it mean, knowing that an individual is
right-handed, about where they would leave trace evidence if
they had been in contact with explosives?
A. Your activity into the pocket -- you would have more
activity into a right pocket with your hand; so I would
consider that that right pocket would have more explosive
placed into it.
Q. Let's turn to the boots, Government's Exhibit 432 and 433.
You found no high-explosive residues on those items, or none
were detected. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Government's Exhibit 430, the T-shirt with blue arms,
you've identified PETN on that T-shirt. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us where on the T-shirt you found -- you
Steven Burmeister - Direct
identified the PETN?
A. When I examined the Government's Exhibit 430, the T-shirt,
I did a solvent extract on the lower half of the shirt from
about mid level down. And that was a solvent extract on that
shirt.
Q. So can you only tell us it was somewhere in that area?
A. Somewhere from the midsection down.
Q. Do you recall how many different tests you conducted on
Government's Exhibit 430 to determine or identify PETN on that
T-shirt?
A. There were quite a few tests, which is kind of overkill;
but, yeah, there were quite a few tests conducted.
Q. What is the significance of using that many machines or
instruments to identify PETN on Mr. McVeigh's T-shirt? What
does it tell you?
A. Well, it tells me that the levels were definitely there in
identifiable levels and that each technique cross-checked the
other technique, so it was a positive finding.
Q. Now, you said "identifiable levels." Do you do any kind of
quantitative analysis in explosive residue examinations?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. One, finding it in a particular object to me, a
quantitative level doesn't mean anything in the sense that if I
do conduct a quantitative analysis, I would have to conduct
Steven Burmeister - Direct
that in the known area each time in the same type of
conditions.
Q. What do you mean "known area"?
A. Well, if I took a spot, say, that big and did a
quantitative analysis of, say, my jacket, every single jacket
that I would look at, I would have to use that same spot as a
reference source each time. If I broaden that area, I'm only
increasing the concentration.
If I go even larger, I've increased the concentration;
or we can go conversely and go smaller. The levels are going
to change.
So each time I would have to use the same area.
Every time we get a specimen in, we don't have the
same size to work with; so the numbers could change. That's
why a quantitative level is not something I really work with.
I mentioned about the jeans because in the jeans, I
cut out a known spot; and the known spot was the actual
interior of the pocket. The pockets were the same in the left
and the right.
Q. So you were able in a general sense to do a quantitative
comparison of those two pockets. Is that what you're telling
us?
A. A semi-quantitative analysis, yes.
Q. Now, Government's Exhibit 429, the other T-shirt that has
the writing on it: You've also identified PETN on that shirt?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately how many tests did you conduct before you
made the identification of PETN on Government's Exhibit 429?
A. Approximately four tests were conducted.
Q. What is the significance of those four tests?
A. The significance of these tests, the fact that a positive
finding was observed and that the PETN was identified on that
object.
Q. Again, were these of significant identifiable quantities?
A. Yes.
Q. Finally, look at Government's Exhibit 426, the earplugs.
And you've listed three residues that you found. Can you
explain those three findings?
A. Well, if we break them down individually, if we look at the
nitroglycerine, we're back up to the same level with the
nitroglycerine as being possibly from a propellant.
As we move across to EGDN, that's another high
explosive. Now, EGDN is a material which is often added to
dynamites for temperature regulation for cold weather use; so
EGDN in combination with nitroglycerin now sort of elevates the
interest level of nitroglycerine. Those two in combination to
me suggest a dynamite.
PETN alone obviously is in the same category as
before, something from a det cord, for example.
Q. Is EGDN found in nature?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. No.
Q. Is it found in any other substances other than explosives
that you're aware of?
A. No.
Q. So this is an -- EGDN or PETN are not the kind of
substances that you would commonly find in public areas. Is
that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you find three residues like that on one item,
does that have any significance in terms of whether these items
have been contaminated during your testing?
A. I think it indicates that the likelihood of contamination
is small.
Q. Why is that?
A. Well, these are diverse items, and they're only found in
that one particular specimen.
Q. Now, in this case, have you reviewed the chain of custody
to determine whether these residues that you've found and are
displayed in Government's Exhibit 437 could have been
introduced after the clothes had been seized by the Noble
County officials?
A. Yes.
Q. What conclusion have you come to?
A. I followed the pathway that these items took from the Noble
County Jail all the way through into my possession at the FBI
Steven Burmeister - Direct
laboratory. It's based on my finding that there is really no
possibility that contamination could have come into play.
Q. What do you base that on, Mr. Burmeister?
A. I base it on several different factors: the exposure that
people would have had to high explosives, the environment at
which it was collected, the vessels at (sic) which it was
collected in, and the type of explosives that we're actually
looking at.
Q. Meaning that these aren't commonly found in nature or
public settings?
A. Yes, and also in particular PETN -- it's transferability is
different from something like nitroglycerine.
Q. I'd like you to explain that a little bit. Tell us how
nitroglycerine can be transferred.
A. All of the explosives that we know have what we call a
vapor pressure, and the vapor pressure is a phenomenon as to
how much vapors are actually emanating or coming off of a
particular object. Some materials such as nitroglycerin have
high vapor pressures, where vapors are coming off pretty
readily.
PETN has a very low vapor pressure, so there is very
few vapors actually coming off of the surface. So as far as
vapors being transferred, it would be unlikely. More so, it
would actually be the particle itself being moved around.
Q. Is PETN relatively speaking a hard substance?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. It's a crystalline material, yes.
Q. And are you aware of any research or studies that show that
PETN transfers through paper bags or paper boxes in any kind of
short time period?
A. I'm not aware of any specific research in that particular
area.
Q. And do you believe that PETN could transfer through a paper
bag over several days?
A. It's my opinion that it would not transfer through the
paper bag in several days.
Q. What about through a plastic bag?
A. The same for the plastic bag.
Q. It would not transfer?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, as part of your review of the chain of custody, did
you also review some records of Noble County showing the arrest
of a defendant for possession of explosives?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall what kind of explosive device that
defendant was supposed to have possessed?
A. Yes.
Q. What was it?
A. The individual was supposed to have possessed a railroad
torpedo.
Q. And do you know what a railroad torpedo is?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Yes. I've contacted the manufacturer to find out what
components are found in that material.
Q. Before you tell us the components, tell us what a railroad
torpedo is.
A. A railroad torpedo is essentially an object that's placed
on the rail track prior to men or women that are working on the
railroad; and as a train is approaching that construction area,
the train will roll over this particular device. It will fire
a charge, it will let off a bang; and the folks down the way
will know that a train is approaching.
Q. What are the components of these railroad torpedoes?
A. The chemical components are inorganic -- for the most part,
inorganic, other than organic binders that hold it all
together; and the organic component is potassium chlorate and
sulfur. Then there is a gum that holds it all together.
Q. Did you find any of these items, potassium chlorate,
sulfur, or gum dextrine on Mr. McVeigh's clothing?
A. No.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, may we remove those so we
can do the next part -- the final part of his analysis?
THE COURT: All right.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. You can keep Q507 up there, Agent Burmeister.
I'm also handing you Government's Exhibit 663.
As part of this investigation, Agent Burmeister, did
Steven Burmeister - Direct
you also examine Government's Exhibit 664 or what we all refer
to as Q507?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When did you receive that in the laboratory?
A. This was received by myself on April 28, 1995.
Q. From whom did you receive Government's Exhibit 664?
A. Government's Exhibit 664 was received from Mr. Brett Mills.
Q. How was it packaged when you received it?
A. I received it in a sealed condition in two plastic bags.
Q. Did you begin examining it at or around April 28, 1995? Do
you recall?
A. I believe it was sometime after that, some short time after
that; but I'm not sure of the exact date.
Q. Did you receive other portions of the Ryder truck when you
were examining Government's Exhibit 664?
A. On April 28, I received several pieces of items, items of
evidence, for examination.
Q. Were some of them other portions of the box of the Ryder
truck?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you examine those and come to any conclusions about
the results of the tests of those other items?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you find any explosives or any inorganic materials on
those other items?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. No.
Q. And were some of those items tested before you examined
Government's Exhibit 664 or Q507?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Was that significant to you?
A. As a part of my analytical approach, I was examining those
items for residues at the time I was still searching for
whatever I was looking for.
Q. Okay. When you received Government's Exhibit 664 from
Mr. Mills in a sealed package, what did you do with it?
A. Well, the first thing that I did is obviously logged it
into my notes. The next thing is a physical examination of the
object through the plastic bag.
Q. What type of procedures did you follow in preparation for
that examination?
A. Well, first of all, the area was cleaned off. My
microscope area was cleaned off again with the two solvents
that I used, the bleach and the organic solvent.
Q. Did you follow the same procedures that you described
earlier of putting on your lab coat and gloves?
A. Yes, a new lab coat was donned that particular day. The
gloves again, the normal operating gloves was applied. The bag
was placed into the area. A piece of paper was placed over the
microscope stage.
Q. And once you had performed those procedures, what did you
Steven Burmeister - Direct
do with Government's Exhibit 664?
A. Next, a second pair of gloves was actually placed on the
hand. The object was removed out of the plastic bag, placed
underneath the microscope, and the material was examined with
the microscope in sort of a crisscross, back-and-forth manner,
as if you were sort of mowing the grass back and forth.
Q. And I think I interrupted you earlier. Before you
conducted the microscopic examination, did you conduct some
kind of visual examination?
A. Well, the visual examination was through the plastic bag,
just a general overall physical exam. And that was done for
every single item that I received.
Q. Take out Government's Exhibit 664. Would you? Tell the
jury what you noticed about 664 when you did a visual
inspection.
A. Well, the first thing that I noticed about Government's
Exhibit 664 was the definite color scheme that was on the front
or what I would call the one side, the front one side, which
had what appeared to be some sort of coating or the red
adhesive coating on the one side with the yellow painted area.
This was then on top of some sort of fiberglass
material and some wood material on the reverse side.
Q. Have you compared Government's Exhibit 664 to a portion of
the Ryder truck that you received from Ford?
A. A portion of the truck that I was provided, yes.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Is that in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. How is that marked? Is it Government's Exhibit 663?
A. It is marked as Government's Exhibit 663.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, we'd offer Government's
Exhibit 663 for demonstrative purposes only.
MR. TRITICO: I don't have a copy of that, your Honor.
May I take a moment to look at it?
THE COURT: Yes, you may look.
MR. TRITICO: I have no objection.
THE COURT: All right. 663 is received.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Tell the jury what 663 is, Agent Burmeister, and hold it up
and display it for them, please.
A. Okay. Government's Exhibit 663 is a cutout portion of the
side panel of a Ryder truck.
Q. And did you compare Government's Exhibit 663 to
Government's Exhibit 664?
A. Yes.
Q. What -- can you hold it up next to it?
A. One of the first things that struck me was the overall
thickness of the specimen, Q507, which is --
Q. Government's Exhibit 664?
A. -- 664. And the overall thickness was quite striking to
me. And that's what I used initially to determine that this
Steven Burmeister - Direct
thing had definitely gone through some severe damage.
Q. Did that assist you in your analysis of the materials that
you found on Government's Exhibit 664?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Let's turn to the testing that you did on Government's
Exhibit 664. You said you put it under the microscope and took
a look at it; is that right?
A. Yes. The whole object was examined microscopically, both
sides.
Q. Now, turning to the unpainted side, what did you find when
you examined that side of Government's Exhibit 664 under the
microscope?
A. There was a portion of this object that had a covering of a
white crystalline or clear crystalline material.
Q. What did it look like under the microscope?
A. Under the microscope, it looked like little particles of
table salt.
Q. Were they all over Government's Exhibit 664?
A. No. It was isolated to a particular region within the
range of the microscope screen. Some of the particles were
actually embedded up in the wood-type surface, up underneath
it; and some were yet -- actually had to pull back the
fiberglass materials to some of these crystals that were
embedded up underneath.
And that was -- that's what was observed.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. What did you do when you saw those crystals?
A. Well, like in the past when I have seen objects like that
for testing, I will take and remove one of those crystals and
perform a color spot test on that crystal to check for a
possible oxidizer.
Q. What did you determine?
A. That it gave a strong positive for diphenylamine.
Q. Which means what?
A. Well, a strong positive with diphenylamine indicates to me
that it's a possibility of a strong oxidizer present, and a
strong oxidizer being something like ammonium nitrate or a
chlorate-type salt.
Q. After you conducted that initial test, what did you do with
Government's Exhibit 664?
A. The next thing that I wanted to do from the fact that I had
this identified or shown to these crystals -- to show the
response that I had, I wanted to photograph the crystals in
place, and that's what I did next. I photographed it.
Q. Did you take a series of photographs of those crystals in
place?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And have you selected one photograph from that
series to show the jury the crystals that you found on
Government's Exhibit 664?
A. Yes. There is one photograph which I think really
Steven Burmeister - Direct
demonstrates it quite well.
Q. Did you ask to have that exhibit enlarged so you could
actually show the jury where the crystals were?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. TRITICO: Your Honor, may I go ahead and move over
to take less time?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, I'm going to show you Government's
Exhibit 836. Is that the photograph that you picked out before
coming to court today?
A. Yes.
Q. That this has some significant to you?
A. Yes, it does.
MS. WILKINSON: Government offers 836, your Honor.
MR. TRITICO: No objection.
THE COURT: 836 is received, may be displayed.
MS. WILKINSON: May Agent Burmeister step down to
display to the jury --
THE COURT: Yes, he may.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Would you like the pointer, Agent Burmeister?
A. I'll use my pen.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Tell the jury what's depicted in this photograph.
A. This is a photograph that's an enlargement of the actual
surface area of Q507, the wooded side of that object. It's
taken with a microscope which had a camera attachment on the
top end of it so I could focus in on the area that I needed to
photograph.
What is striking about the photograph are these
particles that are on the surface right here. Each one of
those particles, these little crystal-like material -- it's as
if we had sugar or salt on the surface. These are the
particles which were very significant to me at the time. I
took one of those particles and that's what I used to test with
the diphenylamine solution. And to me, that's striking that
these crystals are on the surface.
Some were actually embedded in underneath the
fiberglass or wood material.
Q. What was the significance of the fact that some of these
crystals were actually embedded into this material?
A. Well, obviously, something had forced it into the surface
in -- and embedded it into the surface material.
Q. And how would -- how could those crystals be embedded into
the surface?
A. Well, it would have been embedded by some sort of force;
and I would believe from the blast that it would have been
forced into the surface.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. You can take your seat.
Now, after you took this series of photographs as
Government's Exhibit -- or Q507, did you continue to do
additional testing on the crystals?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you told us you pulled one crystal out to do that
initial test.
A. Yes.
Q. I take it from your photograph that there were numerous
crystals on Government's Exhibit -- on Q507 -- Government's
Exhibit 664.
A. There were numerous crystals on the surface, and I felt
that I could definitely take one off and do the first initial
spot test with it.
Q. After you took these photographs, did you remove additional
crystals for testing?
A. Additional ones were removed for further testing, yes.
Q. And did you conduct a series of tests to determine what
that -- what those crystals were that were on Government's
Exhibit 664?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you use some of the tests that you described earlier
for us as inorganic test techniques?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me show you what's been marked Government's Exhibit
Steven Burmeister - Direct
842. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. This is a chart you had prepared to explain the tests and
the results of the tests that you conducted on Government's
664, also known as Q507?
A. Yes.
Q. Would this assist you in explaining the results of your
tests to the jury?
A. Yes, it would.
MS. WILKINSON: Government offers 842.
MR. TRITICO: I have the same objection I did to the
last one.
THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled.
842 may be used to illustrate his testimony.
MS. WILKINSON: Thank you. May we publish it?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, at the top of this chart, you have the
chemical spot test you've just described. Is that right?
A. Yes. That's the first thing on the top of the chart.
Q. And over to the right you have an arrow and it says
"inorganic."
A. Yes.
Q. What are you telling us there?
A. That's just -- it's an identification of the presence of
Steven Burmeister - Direct
some sort of inorganic oxidizer being present.
Q. So when you conducted that first test, that's all you knew.
Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you proceed and have other tests conducted on the
crystals?
A. Based on that initial finding, I moved to the next level,
which was -- which was a strict instrumental technique.
Q. Briefly tell us about these techniques that you have listed
here.
A. Okay.
Q. I think you've explained several of them previously,
haven't you?
A. Yes. The polarized light microscopy. We went over that
earlier. It's a microscoping technique with a microscope.
We went over the Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectroscopy. Again, we're passing a beam of infrared
radiation through the sample. The unique part of that
particular test is a microscope that's attached to this
instrument so we can focus our attention down to the single
little particles, and that's what was used on that technique.
The next test, the X-ray diffraction, is one in which
it's a X-ray technique where we're looking at the crystal
itself.
With the use of the Gandolfi camera attachment, we can
Steven Burmeister - Direct
take an individual crystal -- that is, plucking off of the
surface a single crystal, inserting it into this instrument,
and developing an array of X-ray beams that are diffracted off
of that sample. We can get a known crystalline pattern.
Q. When you do that, can you compare it, the questioned
pattern, with a known pattern?
A. Yes. That's what the advantage of that instrument -- you
can then compare it to known samples that have been run and see
similarities. It's very much like a fingerprint-type match.
Q. Was that done in this case?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And these three tests that you've just described: Did they
all indicate the presence of ammonium nitrate crystals?
A. Yes. Each one was consistent with ammonium nitrate.
Q. Did you conduct further tests?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us about those tests.
A. Further down we have ion chromatography. There we're
looking at the negative portion of the material, the nitrate
ions. And in the case here we identified the presence of the
nitrate ions.
Q. Does the chart speak for itself -- you did another test on
nitrate ions, and then you found ammonium ions on two other
tests?
A. Yes.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Based on all those results -- that is, the first two
boxes -- did you make an identification of the crystals that
were found on Q507?
A. The culmination of all of those techniques identified the
crystals as ammonium nitrate.
Q. And did you have any doubt after conducting all those tests
that those were ammonium nitrate crystals embedded in Q507?
A. No doubt whatsoever.
Q. Did you conduct additional tests to determine any other
materials that were present on Q507?
A. Yes.
Q. Are those results indicated in the last box on this chart?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Tell us what those tests were.
A. Well, the SEM/EDXA, the scanning electron microscope with
the energy dispersive X-ray analysis -- that's an elemental
exam. We went over that earlier, but that's looking at the
elements that are present in the crystal itself.
The next two tests --
Q. Go ahead.
A. Sorry.
Q. No, go ahead.
A. Okay. The next two tests were the tests to see if there
were any high explosives present in the sample.
Q. So you found no high explosives, or you detected no high
Steven Burmeister - Direct
explosives on Q507. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you conducted this SEM/EDXA test, that top test
in the last box, you found aluminum, silicon and sulfur. Is
that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately when did you conduct that test?
A. It was at the same time that I ran the other examinations
for Q507.
Q. That would have been back in April or May of 1995?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you record that data in your notes?
A. It was a recorded printout, yes.
Q. And at that time, did you know the significance of those
three elements being present in the ammonium nitrate crystal?
A. At the time, I did not know the exact significance of the
aluminum, silicon and the sulfur.
Q. But you had recorded that data at that time; is that right?
A. Well, the data itself was useful for the overall
determination even for the ammonium nitrate. But at the time,
the particular elements that were there, I couldn't come to any
conclusion as to their source.
Q. Now, you don't indicate that you found oxygen or nitrogen
or the other components of ammonium nitrate in that elemental
analysis. Why is that?
Steven Burmeister - Direct
A. Because those items are below the Element No. 11, which is
on the periodic chart; and those elements are, like we just
talked about, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. And so ammonium
nitrate is composed of just those items, nitrogen, hydrogen,
and oxygen; therefore, we would not see those detected. But
what -- we would see anything else higher than sodium.
Q. So that doesn't mean ammonium nitrate wasn't there; it just
means this machine couldn't detect those elements; is that
right?
A. That's correct. But the fact that we're not seeing
anything higher than sodium helps support the fact that there
is actually nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen present because
they're below the sodium.
Q. So you detected no other elements other than the ones
you've set forth here above the periodic weight of 11; is that
right?
A. Right. Yes.
Q. Now, did you later conduct further analysis to determine
the significance of the aluminum, the silicon, and the sulfur?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go to ICI in Canada and conduct tests with their
chemists?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. Samples of prills and also some ground or crystalline
Steven Burmeister - Direct
ammonium nitrate, which was taken from a search site, was taken
by myself to ICI in Canada for examination.
MS. WILKINSON: Your Honor, may I have a moment,
please?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Now, in front of you is Government's Exhibit 148, which has
previously been introduced into evidence. Do you recognize
that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that?
A. This is a bottle labeled "Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer
Prills," and this was taken off of a search site.
Q. Were you present when that was seized?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was it seized?
A. This was in Herington, Kansas, from Mr. Nichols' residence.
Q. Did you take a sample from that for testing?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you see Government's Exhibit 148C in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that one of the samples that you took?
A. Yes, it is.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
MS. WILKINSON: Government offers 148C.
MR. TRITICO: May I? I haven't seen it.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. TRITICO: I have no objection.
THE COURT: 148C admitted.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q. Agent Burmeister, before you went to ICI to conduct this
further testing, had you already analyzed the prills seized
from Mr. Nichols' house?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Had you made a determination as to what substance they
were?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you identified them?
A. Yes.
Q. What were they identified as?
A. They were identified as prills of ammonium nitrate.
Q. Did you take Government's Exhibit 148C with you to ICI for
examination?
A. Yes.
Q. And what type of tests did you conduct with ICI?
A. While at ICI, an elemental test using the scanning electron
microscope with that elemental attachment on the side -- that
was employed, along with an ion chromatography analysis was
conducted, as well as an ICP, which is a quantitative method
Steven Burmeister - Direct
for a specific element present.
Q. During the testing, did you learn of ICI's formula or
recipe for their low-density prills produced in Joplin,
Missouri, in 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you review the elements that are in that formula or
recipe?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you make a comparison of those elements and look at a
known ICI prill that had been manufactured in Joplin in 1994?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you and the scientists at ICI conduct this elemental
analysis of the exterior and the interior of those known
prills?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Did you also conduct that same type of analysis for the
prills seized from Mr. Nichols' residence?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Did you compare the data?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the results?
A. The prills that were from Mr. Nichols' residence closely
related to the prills that were from the Joplin plant -- ICI,
Joplin, plant; and the results were consistent with one
another.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. Did Mr. Nichols -- the prills seized from Mr. Nichols'
residence have the same elements in the additive that were in
the known ICI prills?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they have the same elements that were in the known ICI
prills in the coating?
A. Yes.
Q. And after you conducted that analysis, did you go back to
your laboratory and review the elemental analysis that you had
done on Q507?
A. Yes. When I reviewed it, it struck me.
Q. Okay. Let's go back to the chart, if we could publish that
again on the screen, please. It's Government's Exhibit 842.
Now, you've told us that early in your analysis you
came up with aluminum, silicon, and sulfur in the Q507
crystals. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And after learning the ICI formula, what did you determine
about the ammonium nitrate crystals that were embedded on Q507?
A. I was seeing the same elemental profile in the ICI prills
that we were examining as the ones that I saw on the Q507.
Q. Now, did you see every single element that you had seen on
the ICI prill?
A. When the ICI prills were examined for the interior portion,
I was seeing the same elemental profile, yes.
Steven Burmeister - Direct
Q. How about for the coating?
A. Not for the coating, no.
Q. So what were you able to determine about the crystals on
Q507?
A. The crystals were consistent with originating from a prill,
a commercial prill.
Q. Why is that significant that these crystals came from a
prill?
A. Because they're -- having these elements present, they did
not come from a crystalline form -- pure crystalline form of
ammonium nitrate.
Q. You told us earlier, I believe, that some different
explosives have ammonium nitrate in them. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What type of explosives contain ammonium nitrate?
A. Some dynamites, emulsions and water-gel-type explosives.
Q. And are you aware of the manufacturing process generally
used to put ammonium nitrate in those dynamites, emulsions and
gels?
A. Yes.
Q. Normally, do they put prilled ammonium nitrate or some
other form of ammonium nitrate in those explosives?
A. Generally speaking, it's the crystalline form of the
ammonium nitrate that's present in these products.
Q. So tell us again the significance of finding those elements
Steven Burmeister - Direct
and the ammonium nitrate crystals on Q507?
A. Based on this elemental profile, it was consistent with
originating from a prilled form of ammonium nitrate.
Q. And not from a dynamite or a gel or an emulsion. Is that
correct?
A. Yes.
MS. WILKINSON: We have no further questions, your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Tritico?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q. Good afternoon, Special Agent Burmeister.
A. How are you?
Q. My name is Christopher Tritico. You and I have never met
before, have we?
A. No.
Q. I've never had the privilege and the opportunity to sit
down and talk with you about the testing and the work that
you've done investigating this case, have I?
A. No.
Q. When you went to Oklahoma City and conducted your searches
and later did your testing, you found no PETN on the scene in
Oklahoma City, did you?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. When you did your searches and you did your later testing
Steven Burmeister - Cross
back in Washington, you found no EGDN in Oklahoma City, did
you?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. When you did your searches in Oklahoma City and you did
your later testing at your lab, you found no HMX in Oklahoma
City, did you?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. When you did your searches and you later did your forensic
work at your lab, you found no evidence of Tovex Blastrite in
Oklahoma City, did you?
A. Well, a component within the Tovex, there is a component
that is present; and that is ammonium nitrate. Now, ammonium
nitrate is an object that I found on Q507.
Q. So the ammonium nitrate found on Q507 is one of the
elements that is in Tovex; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Not in a prilled form, though, is it?
A. I'm not sure whether some Tovex formulations have prills in
it, but I do not believe -- I think it's all crystalline in
nature.
Q. You found no remains of shock tube in Oklahoma City, did
you?
A. I in particular wasn't looking for the remains of shock
tube at the site, but I'm not aware of any shock tube being
recovered.
Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q. You certainly didn't analyze any, did you?
A. Only the Primadet from Mr. Nichols' residence.
Q. Right. And that was not found in Oklahoma City, was it?
A. Right.
Q. In Oklahoma City, you found no evidence of the remains of
safety fuse, did you?
A. That's correct.
Q. In Oklahoma City, you found no remains or evidence
exhibiting to be the remains of a blasting cap, did you?
A. Again, I wasn't specifically looking for the remains of a
blasting cap, but the explosive that was contained were not.
You're right.
Q. You didn't find any; right?
A. Right.
Q. That would be electric or nonelectric blasting cap; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you testified earlier that you had found -- or
identified in one pocket PETN of Mr. McVeigh and "consistent
with PETN" in the other pocket. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your testimony to this jury that there is no other
possible way that Mr. McVeigh could have gotten the PETN in his
pocket other than contact with an explosive?
A. I cannot rule out to a hundred percent, but I'm confident
that it is there.
Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q. There are other ways that he could have gotten the PETN in
his pocket?
A. Other than exposure to the PETN?
Q. Yes.
A. Beyond a hundred percent, the only other way -- I'm not
aware of any other way.
Q. Do you know Dr. John Lloyd?
A. Yes, I am (sic).
Q. Do you find him to be an expert in the field of forensics?
A. In the area of forensics, I would consider him such, yes.
Q. Trace analysis?
A. In trace analysis, yes.
Q. Do you consider -- do you respect his work -- strike that.
Let me ask you: Would you rely on his work?
A. I have read some of his papers that he has published, and I
have found those papers to be very good.
Q. Do you know Dr. Jehuda Yinon in Israel?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you consider him an expert in the field of forensics?
A. Again, you need to define the area of forensics that you're
talking about.
Q. How about trace analysis?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection, your Honor. Can we say
whether it's explosives trace analysis? I think that's
contributing to some of the confusion. There is different
Steven Burmeister - Cross
types of trace analysis.
THE COURT: If you wish.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q. Well, let's do it two ways: Do you consider him an expert
in the field of explosives trace analysis? I'm referring to
Dr. Yinon.
A. I'm not aware of how much exposure Dr. Yinon has had to
actual crime-scene analysis. I know he has extensive
background in the mass spectrometry analysis of high
explosives.
Q. Do you consider him an expert in that field?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Rely on his work?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you consider Dr. Yinon an expert in -- generally in the
field of trace analysis?
A. Again, I don't know the scope of his abilities in the
general world of trace analysis. I'm only aware of his
capabilities in the area of mass spectrometry. And that area,
I do respect.
Q. Are you familiar with any of the books or articles that
Dr. Yinon has authored?
A. If you're referring to the text that he's had with
Dr. Zitrin, yes.
Q. Do you consider that work to be a good work?
Steven Burmeister - Cross
A. I found it to be a good text, yes.
Q. A book that you can rely on in your field?
A. We have used it as a textbook which I would recommend for
others to read, yes.
Q. You joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation when, sir?
A. I joined it in March of 1987.
Q. And if I understood your direct examination, prior to that,
you were -- after graduating from college, you were privately
employed?
A. After college?
Q. Yes.
A. Are you considering graduate school?
Q. I was referring to graduate school, yes, sir.
A. No. I worked for a short period of time at the Allegheny
Crime Lab.
Q. Is that in New York?
A. No. It's in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Q. How long were you there?
A. That period was approximately five or six months.
Q. And were you the only -- were you practicing forensic
science at that time?
A. I was working with another individual in the area of trace
analysis, and that involved paint analysis; but the area that I
was working in was arsons and explosives analysis.
Q. In the trace field, or generally?
Steven Burmeister - Cross
A. At the crime lab in the area of trace analysis, that was
the overall department that I was assigned to; but the
specialty which I was working in was in the area of arsons and
explosives analysis.
Q. And you were there for a few months?
A. Yes.
Q. And from there, you went to the private company?
A. Yes. Pharmakon, Incorporated.
Q. I'm sorry. Pharmakon, Incorporated?
A. Yes.
Q. How long were you with Pharmakon, Incorporated?
A. Up until March of 1987.
Q. That's when you joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. What were your duties at Pharmakon?
A. At Pharmakon, I was the laboratory manager as well as the
supervisor of the forensic division, which was a subdivision of
Pharmakon.
Q. Does Pharmakon handle trace analysis for explosives work?
A. The forensic division did that, yes, along with other
forensic-type samples.
Q. And that's the division you were in?
A. Well, I was the laboratory manager which handled toxicology
work, but I was also the supervisor of their forensic division.
It was under the same overall roof, if you will, but it was a
Steven Burmeister - Cross
subdivision of the overall parent company.
Q. As the laboratory manager, I take it you spent a great deal
of your time managing and not practicing forensic science?
A. No. I'd say contrary to that, I spent a lot of time doing
both.
Q. Rather be doing the forensic science than the management, I
take it.
You joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation in
1987; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. When you joined the FBI, was it your intent to work in the
lab, or was it your intent to be an FBI agent?
A. Actually, my intent when I got into the FBI was to work in
the FBI laboratory.
Q. And it took several years, as I understand your testimony,
for you to attain that goal?
A. Well, it was -- there were limited positions available in
the laboratory, and I was able to see a posting one day to see
that there was a position available. And it fit perfectly with
what I wanted; and I was quite pleased to find that.
Q. And with your education?
A. Right.
Q. How long were you an FBI agent before you joined the lab?
A. Well, like I said, from March of 1987, after following
through with the training period, I then was assigned to the
Steven Burmeister - Cross
Alexandria and Washington field office, where I conducted
criminal investigations; and from there, it was November of
1991 that I actually received notice that I was accepted into
the laboratory. And I did some back-and-forth visits to the
laboratory to get acclimated to it and then actually reported
on duty in '92, January.
Q. Now, when you first joined, you went to some school that
the FBI has for its new agents. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. How long is that school?
A. It's approximately 16 weeks. 13 to 16 weeks.
Q. And they have regular classes every day, I'm assuming, five
days a week?
A. It's a rigorous schedule.
Q. A full schedule of classes from 8 or so in the morning
until 5 or so in the afternoon?
A. It's a full plate, right.
Q. Covering a variety of topics involved in law enforcement, I
take it.
A. Yes.
Q. It did not cover forensic science, I take it?
A. No, we had a block on forensic science.
Q. Well, not -- the course that you took when you were a new
recruit into the FBI did not cover the use of the machines that
you talked about here today, I take it.
Steven Burmeister - Cross
A. You're right.
Q. Okay. This was a general overview of forensic science so
that people in the field know what to do and not to mess things
up; right? Is that fair?
A. It's a review of all of the capabilities that the FBI
laboratory has to offer. It's an introduction into forensic
evidence. It's an introduction into fingerprinting,
ballistics, those kinds of things.
Q. So this covers every aspect of the FBI, not just the
analysis for explosives section; is that right?
A. I'm not sure if it covers every aspect, but the major
components of the laboratory are covered.
Q. Okay. And after you completed the -- did you say 16 weeks?
I apologize.
A. I'm having trouble. It's 13 to 16, something like that.
Q. That's fine. After you finished the 16 weeks, you took
your regular assignment. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long were you in the first assignment?
A. Well, I was in my first assignment -- I'm not sure --
probably there for about a year, year and a half before the
actual Alexandria field office closed down and was absorbed
into the Washington metropolitan field office. And that's
where I remained since the time I came into the laboratory.
Q. Now, as a special agent, you're required to carry a
Steven Burmeister - Cross
firearm, are you not?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. Still?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're required to go to the firing range from time to
time to qualify with that firearm?
A. Yes.
Q. How often?
A. By our manual of operations -- has us qualify at a minimum
of four times a year. And in each one of those times, you have
to qualify.
Q. You have to pass the test?
A. Yes. You have to pass the test.
Q. Okay. And when you go to the range, the firing range -- do
you go to the range more than just your qualifying time? Do
you go at other times to make sure that you're still shooting
straight?
A. I -- for me personally?
Q. Yes. I'm asking about you personally.
A. I'm currently delinquent.
Q. Okay. I take it by your testimony, then, when you finish
here you will be going to take your test. Okay.
Now, do you go shooting from time to time to keep up
with your skills?
A. The shooting that I get in is pretty restricted to the
Steven Burmeister - Cross
times that I qualify during the year.
Q. Okay. When you go to the range to qualify, is this an FBI
range?
A. It's at Quantico. A range is set up for training purposes,
yes.
Q. And when you go there, do you wear some protective ear --
something to protect your ears?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you had occasion to view the other people that are
at the range either shooting or the instructors watching?
A. Well, you can see the opponents that are on the range
training area, yes.
Q. The opponents?
A. The other individuals that you're out there with.
Q. Okay.
A. Not like war games or anything.
Q. Well, just so we get this straight, you're all in one line;
right? You're not -- okay.
That's quite a school.
A. Sorry.
Q. Now, are they wearing ear covers?
A. Yes.
Q. And are the instructors wearing protection for their ears?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. You don't find it unusual that people who shoot firearms
Steven Burmeister - Cross
wear something to protect their ears, do you?
A. No.
Q. Didn't find it unusual -- you knew Mr. McVeigh was a
shooter. You found that out, didn't you?
A. Yes. I'm aware of that.
Q. Didn't find it unusual that he had earplugs, did you?
A. It's -- someone who would have a firearm would have
earplugs for shooting, yes.
Q. Do you know, sir -- well, you don't know of your own
personal knowledge where Mr. McVeigh may or may not have stored
those earplugs when he wasn't using them shooting; right?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Now, since we're almost out of time today, let me just ask
you a few questions and we'll try to finish tomorrow. How
much -- how many pounds of debris did you -- did you and the
other members of the FBI collect in Oklahoma City?
A. A lot. I don't think that I can put a number to it.
Q. Does over 7,000 pounds ring a bell to you?
A. I can't put a number to it. I just know that there was a
lot of metal. To me, one piece weighs a lot, so it's a lot of
pieces.
Q. And that was all transferred to the lab?
A. I'm not sure if every single item was transferred to the
lab. I know a lot of pieces were transferred to the
laboratory.
Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q. And out of all the evidence that you had available to you,
you found only the particles on Q507. Is that right?
A. From the scene?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you said Dr. Whitehurst trained you at the lab?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you consider him to be one of the finest forensic
scientists you've ever met? Is that right?
A. At the time that he was training me, I respected his
credibility -- his capabilities. Yes, I did.
Q. You no longer respect him?
A. I haven't had exposure to him for several years now, so I
can't make a judgment.
Q. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. The last time
you worked with him, you had the opinion that he was one of the
finest forensic scientists you had ever worked with; right?
A. I respected his capabilities.
MR. TRITICO: Your Honor, that's a pretty good place
to stop.
THE COURT: Since it's 5:00, you're right.
You may step down, and you'll return tomorrow.
Members of the jury, we will, as has been our
practice, recess now until tomorrow; and again, of course, as I
was mentioning to you at the noontime, with each witness that
comes in here, the scope of what you have to avoid
contamination with as far as anything outside of the evidence
increases. So once again, please, be very careful about
anything you may read, see and hear, to avoid anything which
could influence you in your decision. Keep open minds, and
don't discuss the case with anybody, including other jurors.
We'll excuse you until 9:00 tomorrow morning.
(Jury out at 5:00 p.m.)
THE COURT: Recess, 9 a.m.
(Recess at 5:01 p.m.)
* * * * *
INDEX
Item Page
WITNESSES
Steven Burmeister
Direct Examination by Ms. Wilkinson
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Tritico
Direct Examination Continued by Ms. Wilkinson 9590
Cross-examination by Mr. Tritico
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit Offered Received Refused Reserved Withdrawn
148C 9674 9674
437
437 9642 9643
663 9661 9661
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS (continued)
Exhibit Offered Received Refused Reserved Withdrawn
826 9588 9590
827 9592 9592
829 9592 9592
836 9664 9664
837 9620 9620
838 9612 9612
842 9667 9667
846 9565 9567
914 9626 9626
* * * * *
REPORTERS' CERTIFICATE
We certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from
the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. Dated
at Denver, Colorado, this 19th day of May, 1997.
_______________________________
Paul Zuckerman
_______________________________
Kara Spitler