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.
 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
                      REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
                 (Trial to Jury - Volume 104)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
         Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 9:00 a.m., on the 20th 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 WYATT, and STEVEN ENGLAND,
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
    (In open court at 9:00 a.m.)
         THE COURT:  Be seated, please.
         Good morning.  Are we ready for the jury?
         MR. TRITICO:  Yes, sir.
         THE COURT:  Okay.
    (Jury in at 9:00 a.m.)
         THE COURT:  Members of the jury, good morning.  We're
ready to proceed with further cross-examination of
Mr. Burmeister by Mr. Tritico.
         Mr. Burmeister, if you'll resume the stand, please.
    (Steven Burmeister was recalled to the stand.)
         MR. TRITICO:  May I proceed?
         THE COURT:  Yes, please.
                  CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Good morning, Special Agent Burmeister.
A.  Good morning.
Q.  Did you have a restful evening?
A.  Pretty well.
Q.  Yesterday when you were testifying on direct examination,
you -- I believe you testified you are currently the acting
chief of the C/TU.
A.  Yes, I am.
Q.  That's the Chemistry/Toxicology Unit within the lab; is
that right?
A.  Yes, it is.
Q.  How long have you been the acting chief?
A.  Probably since January of this year.  Sometime in and
around that time frame.
Q.  Who was the chief before you became the acting chief?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Sustained.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Who was the chief of the Chemistry/Toxicology Unit when you
joined the lab?
A.  When I joined the laboratory, it was Special Agent James
Corby.
Q.  And who was the chief of the Chemistry/Toxicology Unit in
April of 1995?
A.  Special Agent Roger Martz.
Q.  Is Special Agent Roger Martz still at the lab?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Sustained.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Yesterday you testified that you sponsored, I believe, an
international conference on protocols in 1993?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Where was that conference?
A.  The conference was held at the FBI Academy at Quantico,
Virginia.
Q.  And how many countries attended?
A.  We had approximately 100 guests present at that particular
conference, and I would venture to say 50 percent of those
guests were from international countries.
Q.  And I believe, if I understood your testimony, you



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
discussed your protocols that existed at your lab in 1993 at
this conference; is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And presented those protocols at the conference for
discussion; is that right?
A.  Our protocol was introduced and discussed amongst the
group.  We also had other countries present their protocols and
procedures as well.
Q.  Let me show you what's already been introduced as
Government Exhibit 914.
         This is -- can you see that on your screen?
A.  I can see it, yes.
Q.  And this is Government Exhibit 914; is that right?
A.  Yes, that's 914.
Q.  Is this what you testified yesterday is the protocol that
you used in your lab in April of 1995?
A.  Yes.  It would be, yes.
Q.  Is this the protocol that you submitted to the conference
in 1993 on the international conference?
A.  It may have one or two additions, but I believe it's the
same -- same structure that was presented at the conference.
There may have been one arrow that might have been changed, but
that's the protocol and procedure that was presented, yes.
Q.  Is that the only protocol and procedure that was presented
at the conference?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  It was the only one that the FBI presented at the
conference, yes.
Q.  Let me show you, sir, what's been marked as McVeigh Exhibit
J400.
         MR. TRITICO:  Your Honor, may I have Mr. England sit
up there and hand him the exhibits?  It may make things move a
little smoother.
         THE COURT:  Are there going to be a lot?
         MR. TRITICO:  There might be.
         THE COURT:  All right.
         Have copies been provided to Ms. Wilkinson?
         MR. TRITICO:  I have them here for her, your Honor.
         MS. WILKINSON:  I just received them, your Honor.
         MR. ENGLAND:  400.
         MR. TRITICO:  J400, please.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Would you take a look at McVeigh Exhibit J400, please.
         THE COURT:  What are we doing, reading every page of
this?
         MR. TRITICO:  I was --
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Have you had a chance to review it?
A.  I'm in the process.  You asked me to review the documents.
Q.  Do you recognize those documents?
A.  Well, half of them that I've been able to go through.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  Go ahead.
A.  Okay.
Q.  Have you had a chance to review those?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Are those the protocols that were in effect in your lab
from April 1, 1995, until at least December the 19th, 1996?
A.  It's the protocols and the foundation material for those
protocols.
Q.  That would be the procedures?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Okay.
         MR. TRITICO:  I'll offer McVeigh Exhibit J400, your
Honor.
         MS. WILKINSON:  Your Honor, I'm going to object at
this point to relevance.  I'm not sure --
         THE COURT:  What are you offering them for?
         MR. TRITICO:  Let me ask a few more questions.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Did you submit any of these at the conference in 1993?
A.  The -- there was a page in here which I recognize, which
was a protocol presented at the conference, yes.
Q.  Only one page in there?
A.  Well, it was the overall protocol for analysis that was
presented at that conference.
Q.  Is that the same protocol that's in evidence as Government



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Exhibit 914?
A.  I believe it may have one additional instrument listed --
or I'm sorry -- one instrument removed from the list, but
there's a -- there's a protocol sheet that's in here that's not
the one that you showed me on the screen.
Q.  Other than the one instrument, is it the same chart?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Okay.  And other than that, you didn't submit any of the
protocols that are in Exhibit J400 at the conference; is that
right?
A.  No.  The protocol that was presented is shown in this
packet, yes.
Q.  Other than that one, you presented no other protocols out
of J400 at the conference; is that right?
A.  Well, that was our protocol at the time that I presented
it.
Q.  Okay.  Now, this protocol --
         MR. TRITICO:  Can I have this on?
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  The protocol that's in evidence as Government Exhibit 914,
you did not submit this solely to ASCLD as your protocols for
certification, did you?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection.  Your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Sustained.
BY MR. TRITICO:



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  Is the lab currently seeking certification from a group
called ASCLD?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection.
         THE COURT:  Sustained.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Has the FBI lab ever been certified by a certification
group?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection.
         THE COURT:  Overruled.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Has the FBI lab ever been certified by a certification
group?
A.  You'll have to ask particular areas.  It's possible that
the DNA unit has been certified by particular agencies.
Q.  How about the trace analysis section?
A.  We don't have a trace analysis section.
Q.  How about the residue analysis area of the Explosives Unit,
have they ever been certified by a certification group?
A.  We have not been certified by any particular group in the
explosive residue area.  And I'm actually not sure of any
particular group that will.
Q.  Does trace analysis include the residue area?  Is trace
analysis included within the residue area, explosives residue
area?
A.  Well, trace analysis is certainly a part of the residue



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
analysis, yes.
Q.  Are you currently seeking certification by any group in
that area?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection.
         THE COURT:  Sustained.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  You recall yesterday I asked you about your opinion of
Dr. Whitehurst?
A.  Yes, I recall that.
Q.  And I believe your testimony was that you respected his
ability; is that right?
A.  At the time that I worked with him, I respected his
abilities, yes.
Q.  Have you ever made a statement different than that?
A.  Not to my knowledge.
Q.  Did you offer testimony to investigators from the Inspector
General's office?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection.
         THE COURT:  Sustained.
         MR. TRITICO:  Your Honor, may I respond?
         THE COURT:  No.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Yesterday you testified that you have found that explosives
adhere to plastic, foam rubber, glass pieces, and pieces of
metal.  Do you recall that?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, you took what's in evidence as Government's Exhibit
826 back to the lab; is that right?
         MR. TRITICO:  May I have that, please?
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  You took this sign and took it back to the lab; is that
right?
A.  I personally didn't take it back to the laboratory, but
yes, it arrived back at the laboratory.
Q.  Right, you removed it and then it was taken back to the
lab; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Did you test it?
A.  Yes, I did.
Q.  Found no explosives residue on it?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You found no traces of ammonium nitrate on it?
A.  Well, there were -- there were ammonium ions and nitrate
ions found on that particular object, but I couldn't attribute
it to any significance at the time.
Q.  Because ammonium ions and nitrate ions happen naturally;
correct?
A.  That's correct, yes.
Q.  You didn't find them attached together?
A.  Right.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  As a matter of fact, when you have like nitrate ions on a
surface -- for instance, Government Exhibit 826 -- they --
nitrate ions can attract ammonium ions and they can attach
together before you test it; right?  That can happen?
A.  The -- you really don't know that -- you don't know that
the nitrate ions are attached to some other metal.  It could be
sodium, potassium.  You don't know.
Q.  Sure.  But my point is ions, ammonium ions and nitrate
ions, can attract together naturally; isn't that right?
A.  Given the right conditions, it could.
Q.  And you wouldn't know when you test something and find
ammonium ions and nitrate ions attached together -- you
wouldn't know how and when and under what circumstances those
two ions attached together, would you?
A.  Well, if you're testing the surface and you're only looking
for the ions themselves, you don't know whether those two
species are actually affixed together.  For example, the
ammonium ions that are found on that piece of metal and the
nitrate ions that were found on that piece of metal, it could
very well have been ammonium nitrate at one time; and when I
did the water extract on that surface, I was removing the
ammonium nitrate and putting it into a solution, so --
Q.  So what you're telling me is you found no crystals?
A.  There were no crystals on that surface, that's correct.
Q.  Is it true that ammonium ions and nitrate ions can



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
crystallize on their own?
A.  They can certainly do that, yes.
Q.  And when you find crystals, you don't know under what
circumstances they crystallized, do you?  In other words, you
don't know if they started from a prill of ammonium nitrate or
if they joined together naturally and formed crystals, do you?
A.  Well, that's part of the analysis and the size of the
crystal and the shape.  There are certain conditions that come
into play that you have to analyze those to make that
determination.
Q.  But you don't necessarily know, do you?
A.  The -- when you look at the surface, I've seen a lot of
material when it's recrystallized -- I spent some time doing
microcrystal work, and there is under -- when the material
recrystallizes and precipitates out, there's a different
appearance that's formed when it's doing it.
Q.  Did you have any discussions with other experts in the
field back in 1995 regarding the crystallization of ammonium
and nitrate ions?
A.  I don't believe I've had specific conversations in that
area.  I know from my background in microcrystal work that what
I've seen before and what tests I've run at that time.
Q.  Did you have a discussion with Dr. Fred Whitehurst about
ammonium ions and nitrate ions on May the 4th, 1995 -- May the
3d, 1995?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  I don't have a specific recollection.  Dr. Whitehurst and
I, especially during my training period, routinely would
discuss ions and how they interact within the environment; and
certainly that -- it would be consistent with a conversation I
may have.  I don't recall that particular conversation you're
talking about.
Q.  Were you still in training on May the 3d, 1995?
A.  No.
Q.  You were just working together with Dr. Whitehurst in the
same lab?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And you did work together from time to time?
A.  Yes.
Q.  As a matter of fact, you worked together to build the urea
nitrate bomb that was shown yesterday; right?
A.  That's correct, yes.
Q.  That was -- that test that you performed was actually
performed in preparation for testimony in the World Trade
Center case, was it not?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  That was not a test that was done by the FBI lab just for
forensic purposes in general; it was for a specific case;
right?
A.  Well, it had a dual purpose.  At the time when we put that
entire examination into play, we were looking not only for the



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
blast and for detonation velocities coming off of that
particular material, we also had the availability to set up
witness material at the time.  So that was a capture material
for us.
Q.  But the test was performed -- I'm sorry.  The test was
informed -- performed in preparation for testimony in the World
Trade Center case; right?
A.  Well, it certainly wasn't performed for my testimony.  I
had an interest in it for residue analysis at the time, and
that's how I was brought on board.  The test was in play and it
was being organized, but I had the availability.  It doesn't
come very often that you have a chance to actually take a
real-life sample like this and put out witness material.
That's what I had the opportunity to do at this particular
case.
Q.  And that's when you found that unexploded explosives may be
found on things like Government Exhibit 826, the sign which
acts like a glove; right?
A.  Right.
Q.  The one in this case which you found no explosives residue
on; right?
A.  Well, there's an explanation as to why I didn't find it,
but you're correct.
Q.  You found -- you take other signs back to the lab?
A.  I'm sorry?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  Did you take other street signs back to the lab?
A.  That particular sign was in the -- in an area which I
thought was probative, so that's the reason why we took that
particular sign back.
Q.  Did you take other street signs to the lab?
A.  No.
Q.  Did you take the pole on which you removed Government
Exhibit 826 back to the lab?
A.  No.
Q.  Now, when you -- did you find through your research and
discussions with other people in your lab that nitrates are
ubiquitous in the environment?
A.  That's correct, they are.
Q.  What does that mean?
A.  It means that unfortunately with our environment with the
pollution that occurs, there are nitrates present as the
rainwater comes down.  And they are present not only from the
rainwater, but there are other sources of nitrates in the
environment.  So detecting nitrates on surfaces doesn't
necessarily mean anything at the time.  You need to have some
sort of history of that material.  You also need to have some
sort of control samples; that is, a -- what is the normal
background of that area.  So those are the things that you have
to take into consideration before understanding what a nitrate
reading means.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  Do you have information in the FBI lab or have you received
information in preparation for your work in this case that the
FBI lab has information which indicates that an explosive could
detonate, deposit nitrate only, and before analysis have
ammonium ions form?
A.  Say that one more time.  I'm sorry.
Q.  Sure.
A.  If you could repeat that.
Q.  You have information in the FBI laboratory or have you
received information from others that an explosive could
detonate, deposit nitrate only, and before analysis have
ammonium ions form?
A.  There was a situation which was shown that understanding --
that if you take a aqueous extract of a material --
Q.  I'm sorry, a?
A.  An aqueous.  I'm sorry, it's a water extract.
Q.  Okay.
A.  If you do a water extract of a material and you take that
extract and you let it sit for some period of time and you only
detect nitrate ions in that solution, there is a possibility
that that nitrate can convert over to ammonium ions, and then
those ammonium ions can convert back over to the nitrate ions.
The concentration is low, but there is a back-and-forth if you
let the solution sit.
         I recall an instance with Dr. Whitehurst in which that



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
event took place, and I believe he presented that to me at the
time.
Q.  He wrote you a memo about that, didn't he?
A.  Boy, I'm not sure if he wrote me a memo.  I remember
discussing that feature with him.
Q.  Let me show you what's been marked as Defendant McVeigh
Exhibit J444.
         Do you have that?
A.  Yes, I do.
Q.  Is this a memo that you received from Dr. Whitehurst on May
the 4th, 1995?
A.  I recall receiving the memo itself.  I'm not -- I think
I've seen the attachments.  I'm not sure if the attachments
came at the same time as the memo.  But I do recall seeing the
attachments.
Q.  In the memo --
         MR. TRITICO:  I'll offer McVeigh Exhibit J444, your
Honor.
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection.
         THE COURT:  What's the objection?
         MS. WILKINSON:  It's hearsay, first of all.  It's an
memo from Dr. Whitehurst to Agent Burmeister.
         THE COURT:  You ask additional questions whether he
considered it in forming his opinion.
BY MR. TRITICO:



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  This memo was the result of a conference or conversation
that you and Roger Martz had with Agent Whitehurst regarding
this case; is that right?
A.  I don't recall that.  I don't recall that I had a
conversation and that precipitated this memo.  I don't recall
that.
Q.  Did you look at this memo -- you read the memo after you
got it; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  The memo discusses searching for ammonium nitrate?
A.  Yes.
Q.  It discusses the things we were talking about regarding the
ubiquitous nature of nitrates?
A.  Yes.
Q.  It discusses things relevant to your investigation in this
case, does it not?
A.  Well, the material that's presented here was all review to
me, and at the time none of it was new information that I was
receiving from Dr. Whitehurst.  I remember receiving it and
reading over it; and there wasn't anything in the memo that
struck me as being something I should have taken note of.  I
already knew what was in the memo.
Q.  So you did read over it?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And did you utilize it in any form or fashion in your



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
investigation in this case?
A.  No.  Not really.  Because there wasn't anything new brought
up in this memo.  I had already had my ideas set forward.  The
ideas coincided with what was presented in the memo.
Q.  What ideas?
A.  About the nature of ammonium nitrate, the presence of
ammonium and nitrate ions at a scene, the significance of those
ions.  Those are things which I had already known prior to even
coming to that crime scene.
Q.  Did you take soil samples from the area around which Q507
was found?
A.  No, I did not.
Q.  One of the things Dr. Whitehurst was discussing with you in
this memo --
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Yes, you can't get into that until the
memo is in.
         Do you still object to the memo?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Yes, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Overruled.  But I'm not sure about the
attachment because I didn't understand your testimony about the
attachment.
         THE WITNESS:  The attachments -- I recall seeing the
attachments, but I'm not sure whether the attachments came with
this memo.  I've seen them before, but I'm not sure if they



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
came --
         THE COURT:  Okay.  Only the memo is received.  The
first three pages of Exhibit J444.
         MR. TRITICO:  444.
         THE COURT:  Yes.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Now, you took no soil samples from around the area from
which Q507 was found; right?
A.  I'm not sure that it was actually on soil that the Q507 was
recovered.
Q.  How about anything around the area where Q507, did you take
any samples?
A.  No other evidence was collected in that vicinity, no.
Q.  Matter of fact, you weren't there when Q507 was discovered
by Agent Kelly, were you -- or Mr. Kelly, were you?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You don't know if Mr. Kelly moved it and then took it back
to the space where he had found it, do you?
A.  I'm not aware of how it was actually recovered.
Q.  You don't know of your own personal knowledge if it was
Agent Kelly who found it, do?
A.  In conversations with Mr. Kelly --
Q.  Sir, do you know of your own personal knowledge that
Mr. Kelly was the one that found Q507?
A.  Not personally, I wasn't physically there.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  Now, the memo that you have here from Dr. Whitehurst --
strike that.
         Without taking the samples from around the ground area
from where something is found, in discovering the amount of
nitrates in the area, you don't know if the nitrates from the
ground attached themselves to the subject object, do you?
A.  Well, I have no reason to believe that the ground itself
had nitrates on them.
Q.  But you didn't check, did you?
A.  It's typically not a procedure that I would actually take
only --
         THE COURT:  Just answer the questions, please.
         THE WITNESS:  Sorry.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Did you check?
A.  I did not check the soil or the surface around that object.
Q.  Now, let's talk for a minute about the other items that you
did or did not look at and examine.  If I understood your
testimony yesterday, that there was a lot of glass laying
around the area?
A.  Approaching the scene from 6th Street, I did see glass in
the roadway, and then turning onto Robinson, I did see glass in
the roadway and some metal fragments that were in the roadway.
Q.  You didn't test any of the glass, did you?
A.  No.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  You didn't test any of the glass, if I understand your
testimony, because it was exposed to the rain that had occurred
on the 19th?
A.  That's correct, yes.
Q.  Was Q507 exposed to the rain?
A.  Yes, it was.
Q.  Does the glass have a bottom side to it?
A.  The glass would have a bottom side to it, yes.
Q.  Yet you tested none of it?
A.  I did not test the glass that was in the roadway.  It was
some distance away.  I wasn't sure of the source of that piece
of glass.
Q.  I see.  How about the glass that would have been closer to
around the building?
A.  One of the things that we looked at was glass which was
close to the building.  We actually -- one of the things we
were looking for was pieces and materials that would have been
sheltered; and we did go into the Murrah Building, and glass
fragments were recovered from inside the Murrah Building.  They
were recovered and tested.
Q.  Found nothing on them?
A.  No, that's -- the glass actually had -- inside the Murrah
Building, there were fragments of glass that had elevated
levels of ammonium ions and nitrate ions, and these were high
levels compared to everything else that I tested at the scene.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Because of the fact of the noncontrols of what the glass should
normally have on it, I reported that as no significance,
because of the fact that I didn't have controls.  But the
levels of the glass that were actually found in the building
were elevated amongst everything else.
Q.  So the ammonium ions and the nitrate ions that you found on
the glass that was in the building, you could attribute no
significance to because you can't tell from which they came;
fair?
A.  I can't -- based on -- without the control samples, I'm not
able to draw a conclusion at this time.
Q.  Control samples from where?
A.  I would need control samples of that area for the glass
what normally is on that building, whether there's specific
coatings, what kind of solvents they use to clean the windows,
those kind of things.
Q.  And you made no attempt to discover any of those things;
right?
A.  Well, the incident had already occurred.  I would have
loved to have taken controls a week before this event.
Q.  Well, you could have found out where the glass was
purchased from, right, and what kind of glass it was, could
you?  Yes or no?
A.  I could have, yes.
Q.  You could have found out what type of cleaning solution



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
they used at the building; yes or no?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You didn't do that?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Let's talk for a minute about your investigation that you
conducted at the Murrah Building.  You arrived on the 21st, I
believe you said yesterday?
A.  No, I arrived on the 20th.
Q.  20th, I'm sorry.  And who came -- Agent Kelly was the
only -- Mr. Kelly was the only person that went with you?
A.  Yes.  He was from my area, yes.
Q.  Anybody else from the lab go that you're aware of?
A.  I believe Special Agent Hechman was with me and perhaps a
photographer was with the group that I was traveling with.
Q.  Anybody else?
A.  No.
Q.  Do you know of anybody else from the lab that went to the
scene that didn't travel with you but was at the scene?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection.  Relevance of the other
people not traveling with him, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  I don't understand the objection.
         MS. WILKINSON:  I think he's asking what other
laboratory personnel went to the scene but didn't travel with
him.  I don't know if he has any personal knowledge about that
and how it's relevant to this testimony.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
         THE COURT:  Well, what is your question?
         MR. TRITICO:  The question was who else from the lab
went.  That's what I really was trying to get.  And I was
trying to exclude the previous --
         THE COURT:  Well, I guess instead of asking "went,"
you could ask who was there.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Other than the people that you testified traveled with you,
who else from the lab was present in Oklahoma City?
A.  There were -- there were other individuals present at the
site.  There were some people from the photo section that were
there.  Other individuals from the Explosives Unit were present
at the scene.
Q.  Who else from the Explosives Unit?
A.  The one person which I recall was Special Agent Dave
Williams.
Q.  Anybody else from the Explosives Unit?
A.  I think further down -- I could be wrong on this, but I
think Special Agent Mohnal might have arrived at the scene.
I'm not positive of that.
Q.  Do you know Special Agent Mohnal's first name?
A.  Yes, Tom Mohnal.
Q.  What is his position at the lab?
A.  He is an examiner in the Explosive Unit.
Q.  Special Agent Dave Williams, what was his position in the



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
lab in April of 1995?
A.  He's an examiner in the Explosives Unit.
Q.  Is he still there?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection.
         THE COURT:  Sustained.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Now, when you arrived on the scene in Oklahoma City, who
did you report to?
A.  There were some agents that met us at the airport just as a
logistical coordination.  Those individuals, I believe, were
from the Oklahoma office.  I'm not sure of their names.  I
wouldn't even be able to recognize their faces at this point.
But we went and were guided to the place where we could rent a
vehicle.  We rented a vehicle.  And after leaving the hotel, we
went to the command post, and we checked in at the command
post.  The individual that I believe was Agent Hahn that I
might have -- might have actually contacted once we were at the
command post.
Q.  Rick Hahn?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Was Agent Hahn the person in charge of the scene?
A.  I really am not sure who was directly in charge of the
scene.  There were numerous hats being shared by several
different individuals.
Q.  You reported to Mr. Hahn, though?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  I reported really to my section chief as far as back at the
laboratory.  He was the one coordinating my response to the
scene.  But actually at the scene, there were just logistical,
knowing that we were on site.  So I wasn't really reporting to
one individual person.  They had -- as the command post wanted
to know who we were, where their contact numbers were, we were
assigned pagers, those kind of things.  So there really wasn't
a central person or anything that I went and reported to.
Q.  If I understand your testimony, then, you got no direction
from anybody in Oklahoma City as to what you were to do and how
you were to do it; is that fair?
A.  Actually on site, that's correct, yes.
Q.  Were you the person from the lab who was in charge of the
laboratory's investigation?
A.  No, I was on site to -- in charge of the chemical analysis
area, but if you want to subdivide it into the chemical
analysis, that was my role.
Q.  Was there somebody from the lab who was in charge of the
laboratory's investigation?
A.  I'm not sure if you could actually say in charge of the
laboratory investigation.  Like I said, there were numerous
hats being worn.  I'm not sure exactly who was in your sense of
what you mean in charge of the laboratory.  We had different
phases that were working there at the scene.
Q.  So if I understand you correctly, the person from



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
special -- from photo, I believe you said, Agent Williams --
Dave Williams, he was in the Explosives Unit; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And you and the people from the C/TU; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  That's the Chemistry/Toxicology Unit?
A.  Right.
Q.  And you each went your own individual ways and did your own
thing?
A.  It was understood when we arrived at the scene that the
chemistry individuals would be taking the chemical analysis of
the site.  It was an understood thing.  And we arrived at the
scene; they knew we were there, we were given a blanket access
to the entire scene.  The understanding was that we would go
in, collect the samples we needed, and then depart.
Q.  So the answer to my question was yes.
A.  If you could rephrase the question.  I think I answered the
question, but --
Q.  When you got to the scene, the individual departments from
the lab went and did their own thing; right?  You didn't
coordinate with each other as to what your activities would be?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Your Honor, could he just ask his
personal knowledge?  I think that's where there's some
misunderstanding.  As to what other people did.
         THE COURT:  You're asking his understanding of what



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
was going on?
         MR. TRITICO:  Yes, sir.
         THE COURT:  All right.
         THE WITNESS:  I don't know if you can actually say
that we were sort of just cut loose to do whatever we wanted.
We certainly contacted the command post.  They knew what we
were doing.  But directly speaking, essentially what you're
saying is correct, we were allowed to go out and do what our
specific function was.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Now, your function was the residue analysis; right?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Trace analysis; is that fair?
A.  I prefer residue, but --
Q.  Okay.  That's fine.
         When you got there on the 20th, what was the first
thing that you did?
A.  I said the first thing that we did was rented a car.
Q.  At the scene?  At the scene?
A.  The first thing that we did when we got to the scene was
again we went to the command post and checked in at the command
post.  There we received ID badges, we received pagers, we
relayed our hotel phone numbers, logistical things of that
nature.
Q.  What was the first thing you did forensically at the scene?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  First forensic thing was actually just walking up to the
scene.  That was the first thing.  Sizing it up.
Q.  And how long did you size it up?
A.  I want to think we probably -- Mr. Kelly and I walked for,
up Robinson Street, probably 20, 30 minutes.
Q.  And after you walked up Robinson Street for 20 or 30
minutes, what was the next thing that you did?
A.  At that point we discussed what our next procedure would be
and how we would go about actually collecting the samples.
Q.  And what was the next procedure you were going to do?
A.  That would be the walk-through of the scene and see if we
could determine specific samples that would be appropriate for
residue analysis.
Q.  And that was the next thing that you did?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Where did you start your walk-through of the scene?
A.  The actual walk-through began at the corner of Robinson,
and I guess that's 7th Street -- or 5th Street, rather.
Q.  How long did that take?  Did you break it down into areas,
I guess is my question.
A.  Yes, we broke it down initially to the front of the
building.  We worked on that area.  And then we proceeded down
5th Street down towards the Regency Tower.
Q.  When you say the front of the building, do you mean the
street immediately in front of the building?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yeah.  I believe it's 5th Street.  I believe that's
correct.
Q.  So you searched the area immediately in front of the
building and then you worked your way down toward -- on 5th
Street, worked your way down toward the Regency Tower
Apartments; is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  How long did that take?
A.  Well, it was into the afternoon because I know the sun was
setting, but it was -- it took a good portion, quite a few
hours to do that entire walk-through.
Q.  And as you're walking down 5th Street and working in front
of the building, are you identifying items that you wish to
analyze at the lab?
A.  No.  We would stop off -- I remember there was a red
vehicle close to the Regency.  There was a fragment that was
close to the vehicle there.  We stopped and we actually swabbed
that particular item.
Q.  That was a big item?
A.  Yes.
Q.  All right.  Are you identifying the smaller items that you
wished to have transferred to the lab?
A.  There was a piece of tire that was observed, and that was
actually physically collected.
Q.  So -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes.  There was a piece of tire which was physically
collected.
Q.  That's the only thing that you physically collected on your
walk from the front of the building down to the Regency Tower
hotel?
A.  No, we physically collected the street sign.  It was
directly across from the building.  And then the rest were
swabbings that we took.
Q.  So the time it took you to search in front of the building,
take the sign, pick up the tire, and swab how many items?
A.  Without checking my log, as far as the evidence that was
collected that day, I want to think about ten items, ten swabs.
Q.  And during that time you didn't identify -- you didn't walk
around looking and seeing small things that you might want to
analyze later and identify them for later pick-up on the
street; is that right?
A.  We were looking for items at that time that would be
probative for swabbing.  And these were items that would be
sheltered in some respects from the weather.  So it was looking
around for certain things that would be appropriate for the
examination, some of which were certainly out in the weather.
The street sign, it served no purpose to swab it.  There was
characteristics on the street sign, for example, that I wanted
to collect, so that's the reason why we collected the street
sign.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  After you worked your way down the street to the Regency
Towers Apartments, what was the next thing you did?
A.  I believe we came up -- I'm not sure of the street.  If I
came over to the diagram, I might be able to tell the street.
But we rounded the curve on the right side, if we're all
looking at the Regency Tower, the right side, came up the
street, and there was a parking lot and then we came back
towards the scene.
Q.  So you went all the way around the Regency Towers
Apartments?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And did you collect or identify items of evidence that you
might wish to analyze at the lab when you did that?
A.  I believe there was a object which was behind the Regency
Towers, if I'm correct on the location, but it was in that area
which was swabbed, and then we proceeded back towards the
Murrah Building.
Q.  Okay.  My question, did you identify items that you might
like to take back to the lab and analyze further?
A.  I did not identify particular items that I wanted to take
back, no, not at that particular time.
Q.  Was the photographer with you when you were walking down
the street and around the building?
A.  No.
Q.  You swabbed one item after you went around the Regency



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Towers and back toward the scene; is that right?
A.  That's my recollection, yes.
Q.  After you walked around the Regency Towers and back toward
the building, what was the next thing that you did?
A.  If we were complete for that day -- which is my
recollection, that there may have been some additional items in
and around there -- we then took those items down to the
Evidence Control Center for submission.
Q.  What items?
A.  The swabbings that we had collected, the street sign, and
the piece of tire that was collected.
Q.  That's the only things that you took to the Evidence
Control Center on April the 21st (sic), 1995; is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And was Agent Kelly with you when you did this?
A.  Mr. Kelly was with me the whole time.
Q.  Mr. Kelly, I'm sorry.  He was with you the whole time?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And that sums up the day that you had on April the 21st
(sic), 1995, in Oklahoma City; is that right, forensically?
A.  That would do it, yes.
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection, your Honor.  I think he's
misstated the testimony.
         THE COURT:  Well, the witness answered yes, he agreed
with the characterization.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
         Proceed.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Now, on the 22d, did you continue searching in Oklahoma
City?
A.  On the 22d?
Q.  I'm sorry, on the 21st, excuse me.
A.  Okay.  We continued our searching on the 21st, yes.
Q.  Did you make contemporaneous notes of the activities that
you were doing while you were conducting these searches?
A.  No.
Q.  Do you ever make -- after you finish with a day or whatever
you do, do you make notes to document the activities that you
did on that day?
A.  No, I don't.
Q.  The activities that you were -- strike that.
         Now, on the next day, which is the 21st; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  What time did you get started that morning with your
search?
A.  I recall it was sometime early in the morning.  It was
crisp in the morning.  I want to think around 9:00, something
like that, 8 or 9:00.
Q.  And did you meet up with Mr. Kelly?
A.  Yes, we did.
Q.  What was the first thing you and Mr. Kelly did on that day?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  We again designed a type of strategy as to how we would go
through several of the buildings.  We started with the Journal
Record Building and began searching the inside of that,
principally looking for things that might have penetrated into
the building; and they, being sheltered, would have provided a
good avenue for residues.
Q.  Did you identify items of evidence in the Journal Record
Building that you might like to take back to the lab for
analysis?
A.  No, the floors that I went through, I couldn't find
anything in there that would have been a viable material.
Q.  How long did it take you to search the Journal Record
Building?
A.  I was in there probably an hour and a half, maybe more than
that.  I do recall receiving a page at that point to place a
telephone call.
Q.  After you placed a telephone call, did you go back to the
Journal Record Building?
A.  No.  I didn't answer that page for a little while.
Q.  Oh, you didn't leave, you stayed there and continued your
search?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Okay.  And did -- I'm sorry, I think I asked you this; I
don't remember what your answer was.  Did you spend how long in
the Journal Record Building?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  It had to have been an hour and a half, two hours maybe
max.
Q.  And did you and Mr. Kelly leave at the same time?
A.  Mr. Kelly had left the building and had begun a search on
the exterior of the parking lot area out in the front of the
Murrah Building.
Q.  Did you have a photographer with you in the Journal Record
Building?
A.  I believe I did, yes.
Q.  Did you ask the photographer to photograph any particular
items in the Journal Record Building?
A.  No, there was nothing significantly -- there was nothing
significant in the building that required photography.
Q.  You found no unconsumed or unexploded prills of ammonium
nitrate in the Journal Record Building; is that right?
A.  No.
Q.  You found no PETN in the Journal Record Building; is that
right?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  No EGDN in the Journal Record Building; is that right?
A.  In cautioning some of these comments of mine, I wasn't
really looking for these items in that building, and I didn't
find any specimens that were removed from that building for
testing.
Q.  So you found none.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Well, I wasn't looking, but . . . .  I probably misspoke
there by saying that I was looking for it when I didn't
actually look for it.
Q.  So I guess the answer is you didn't take anything back to
test.
A.  Right.
Q.  And therefore you don't have any evidence that there was;
right?
A.  There was nothing recovered from the Journal Building that
I took back to test to see if anything was present.
Q.  You were looking for unconsumed prills of ammonium nitrate;
is that right?
A.  Definitely something that I would be looking for, but
principally I was looking for objects that would have
penetrated into the building, and those objects would have been
protected and those that I could take back to the laboratory.
Q.  You were more concerned with the objects than finding
unconsumed prills of ammonium nitrate?
A.  Yes, because I would believe those objects to house these
materials.
Q.  You have information, do you not, that ammonium nitrate and
fuel oil bombs are not very efficient?  Do you not?
A.  No, because I've talked to commercial manufacturers who --
one of their flat-out statements to me has been, "My product
will go to completion."  And I personally know that not to be



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
true, but there is factual information out there to support
that.
Q.  You personally know that not to be true because you know
that ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bombs are not very
efficient; right?
A.  No, I wouldn't say that.  It's dependent upon the
construction of that particular device.
Q.  Exactly.  The commercial manufacturer of the ammonium
nitrate and fuel oil would be better than the impoverished or
the homemade ammonium nitrate and fuel oil; right?
A.  No --
Q.  In quality?
A.  No, I wouldn't say that.  It's all in the construction.
Q.  What did Agent Whitehurst tell you on May the 4th, 1995,
about his experience with ammonium nitrate and fuel oil
explosions?
A.  Are you referring to this memo?  I don't recall this
conversation.
Q.  Looking at McVeigh Exhibit 444.
A.  Uh-huh.
Q.  Five lines down, do you see where the -- well, actually,
the second full sentence, you see where it starts, "When I was
in training"?
A.  Yes.
Q.  That says, "When I was in training to become an examiner,



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
one of the things that I was taught and that I have myself
taught to my students is that because of the inefficiency of
these explosives, one can expect to find prills or unconsumed
ammonium nitrate at the crime scene."  That's the memo he wrote
you on May the 4th; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You were his student; right?
A.  During training, I was, yes.
Q.  Now, I think you testified that after you finished in the
Journal Record Building, you went outside to do some more
searching?
A.  I was beginning to do that.  And I knew about the page that
I had to respond to, so I went to the command post and did
place a telephone call and finally returned the page.
Q.  And did you return to search, or did you leave Oklahoma
City at that time?
A.  No, I returned actually to advise Mr. Kelly that we both
needed to make plans to travel the following day.
Q.  So the last search that you did in Oklahoma City was in the
Journal Record Building; is that fair?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You never searched the parking lot across the street from
the Murrah Building, did you?
A.  I personally wasn't searching.  That's correct, yes.
Q.  Now, you never searched the interior of the Murrah



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Building, did you?
A.  I did enter parts of the parking garage, I believe, on the
left side of the building.  But that was for a very brief
period; that's correct.
Q.  You made no extensive search of the interior of the Murrah
Building, did you?
A.  It was part of my strategy to do it, but I didn't have time
to do it; but you're correct in --
Q.  Agent Whitehurst told you on May the 4th that the interior
of the building might be a great place to look for unconsumed
prills of ammonium nitrate; did he not?
A.  That would be the reason why we would look at these areas,
to look for this kind of material.
Q.  Yet you didn't do it.
A.  I was tasked to do other things and due to a timeliness and
even being called in testify in another court, I didn't have a
chance to do it.
Q.  Didn't leave Agent Kelly -- Mr. Kelly there to do it.
A.  Yes, we did.  He stayed behind.
Q.  Oh, I thought your testimony was you and he had to leave.
A.  Well, he did.  He came with me; but when we returned back
to the scene, he stayed behind; I left to travel to New York.
But he remained on the scene to continue just that effort.
Q.  And you don't know that he went into the Murrah Building to
search for unconsumed prills of ammonium nitrate, do you?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  No, he did.  He made entry into the building.  That's how
the pieces of glass were recovered.
Q.  He found no unconsumed prills of ammonium nitrate in the
building?
A.  I would assume he would be looking for that and also
collecting pieces that would be viable and possibly have that
on it, yes.
Q.  I believe you just testified that you assumed he would be
looking for it.
A.  Yes.
Q.  He found no unconsumed prills of ammonium nitrate in the
Murrah Building, did he?
A.  He never reported the finding to me, if there was any; and
I never received any evidence that had anything on it from the
Murrah Building.
Q.  Now, where did you go -- you said you were ordered -- told
to leave.  Where did you go?
A.  It was a departure to Junction City, Kansas.
Q.  And what was that for?
A.  We were advised that upon our arrival at Junction City,
Kansas, we were to assist in a search, and that search would be
conducted with the assistance of an ERT team or Evidence
Response Team.
Q.  And when you got to Junction City, Kansas, was Mr. Kelly
with you?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes, he was.
Q.  And you left Oklahoma City immediately upon getting the
call to go to Junction City; right?
A.  No.  It was the following morning.
Q.  I see.  And when you got to Junction City, you were
searching what?
A.  When we were -- when we arrived in Junction City, we drove
to Herington, Kansas, where we went to a staging area where a
command post was established.
Q.  And you were to search what?
A.  A residence.
Q.  Mr. Nichols' residence?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Did you search anything else in Herington, Kansas?
A.  Not at Herington, Kansas, no.
Q.  Did you search any storage --
A.  Yes, I apologize.  There was a storage facility there.
Q.  And you participated in that search?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Who all was present at that search?
A.  Mr. Kelly, myself, and I believe Special Agent Jasnowski
was there.
Q.  Your purpose in conducting -- in participating in the
search at the storage unit at Herington, Kansas, was to search
for explosives residue evidence; is that right?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes.
Q.  What did you -- when you went into the -- were you the
first person into the storage unit?
A.  No.
Q.  Who was the first person in the storage unit?
A.  The first and only person in the storage unit was
Mr. Kelly, who was suited up and ready to proceed and process
the scene.
Q.  So you never entered the storage unit?
A.  That's correct.  I was on the -- at the door.
Q.  Did you watch Mr. Kelly?
A.  Yes.  The door was wide open.  I could watch what he was
doing.
Q.  When you opened the door, there was nothing in the unit;
correct?
A.  That's right.
Q.  Did you swab the door handle?
A.  Not the exterior, but we did swab the interior.
Q.  Swabbed the interior door handle.  Did you swab the walls?
A.  I believe we swabbed the floor adjacent to the walls, right
at the bottom, as the wall joined the floor.
Q.  Never swabbed the walls?
A.  I don't believe we swabbed the walls.
Q.  How many swabs did you take from the floor?
A.  I'm not positive at this point.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  Well, actually, how many swabs did Mr. Kelly take?  I guess
the question, you didn't take any; right?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You don't know how many swabs Mr. Kelly took?
A.  There were several swabs.  I know there were several swabs
taken.  The exact number, I'm not sure right at this point.
Q.  And you took those swabs back to the FBI lab; is that
right?  They were sent back to the FBI lab; is that fair?
A.  Yes.
Q.  For later analysis?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You analyzed those for PETN, correct?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Found none.
A.  My recollection of the results for those swabs, that's
correct, yes.
Q.  You analyzed those for EGDN?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Found none.
A.  Yes.
Q.  You analyzed those for HMX?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Found none.
A.  Yes.
Q.  You found no explosives residue in the storage unit in



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Herington, Kansas; is that fair?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You found no ammonium nitrate, combined ammonium nitrate in
the storage unit in Herington, Kansas; is that fair?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You found no prills of ammonium nitrate in the storage unit
in Herington, Kansas; correct?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Did you search any other storage units in Kansas?
A.  That was the only one that I recall in Herington, Kansas.
Q.  Did you search any other storage units?
A.  No other storage units that I searched.
Q.  Were other storage units searched that you're aware of?
A.  I'm aware, I believe, of one additional storage unit that
was searched.
Q.  Do you know where that was?
A.  I think -- I believe it was in the same vicinity as this
other one.
Q.  How about Council Grove, Kansas?  Does that ring a bell?
A.  That site doesn't ring a bell, the address.  I just know
that there was another one searched.  I wasn't personally on
that search.
Q.  Who from the lab assisted in the search of the storage unit
that you're referring to now?
A.  It was -- would have been Mr. Kelly -- would have been



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
involved in that.
Q.  And Mr. Kelly sent some swabs back to the lab to be
analyzed; is that correct?
A.  My recollection of those swabs is that's correct, they were
sent back.
Q.  Did you personally run those, the tests on those swabs?
A.  I need to actually see my results for those particular
swabs, but . . . I'm having a difficulty recalling those exact
swabs or the results of those.
Q.  To the best of your recollection, was any explosives
residue found?
A.  I seem to recall that there was some nitroglycerine found.
Q.  Nitroglycerine is -- you testified yesterday nitroglycerine
can be a high explosive; right?
A.  Yes.  And I believe there was some ammunition present, so
that would have explained.
Q.  And that was my next question.  Nitroglycerine is a
component in ammunition; is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  It's what makes it fire; right?
A.  That's what propels it, yes.
Q.  And people who use firearms and handle firearms can often
get nitroglycerine on them; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Like when you go to the shooting range and qualify, when



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
you get through here, you're going to have nitroglycerine on
your hands, aren't you?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Probably?  Possibly?
A.  I would say probably.
Q.  Generally when you fire, you're going to get it on you;
right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And when you find nitroglycerine, you can't ever say that
that nitroglycerine was a result of just an explosive other
than -- and not just from gunpowder; correct?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  What's an SEM/EDX?
A.  The SEM/EDX -- EDXA is a scanning electron microscope with
an energy dispersive X-ray analyzer.
Q.  That's the test you can use to analyze nitroglycerine to
determine if it is the result of gunshot residue, is it not?
A.  No, not for nitroglycerine it's not going to be very good
because these are carbon and carbon-based materials, and I can
see that with the SEM.  You're --
Q.  I'm sorry.  If the nitroglycerine you have is a result of
gunshot residue, it should have the carbons in it; right?
A.  The nitroglycerine has carbon in it, and you're correct.
Q.  So if you run it through the SEM/EDX, you can rule out
whether it's the result of gunshot residue, can you not?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  No.
Q.  Is there a test available to you at the FBI lab for which
you can test nitroglycerine to rule out the possibility of
gunshot residue?
         THE COURT:  The question is not clear to me -- it may
be to the witness -- as to whether you're distinguishing
nitroglycerine from ammunition, gunshot residue, or from
another source.
         MR. TRITICO:  Okay.  Let me reask it, then.
         THE COURT:  All right.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Is there a test available to you at the FBI lab wherein you
can distinguish nitroglycerine you find from gunshot residue as
opposed to bomb or explosive residue?
A.  Well, the -- you're talking about a complex area.  There's
a chemical analysis that can be conducted of the residues.  And
there's certain chemicals that can be present in those residues
that will suggest a propellant which is in a bullet.  Now, when
you're talking about gunshot residues, gunshot residues is
almost a specific area.  And that specific area is detecting
metals that are found when the projectile comes out.  And it's
typically residue that's formed on a shirt where there's a
bullet hole.  That's where they usually do gunshot residue.
         There are some elements that are present, and that's
what the scanning electron microscope will do.  It reads the



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
elements that are present on the surface of a material.  But
it's not going to do you any good to tell whether it was
ammunition or not.
Q.  Well, not having ever taken chemistry, please forgive me
for some of my questions; but is there a test that you can do
to distinguish nitroglycerine residue from that having been
part of gunpowder or part of an explosive?
A.  Yes, there is a --
Q.  What is that test?
A.  You can use gas chromatography with a mass spectrometer or
any other gas chromatography technique to actually distinguish
other chemicals that are present, and those other chemicals are
those that would be present in a propellant.  But they're not
always there, not always there in levels.  We see that with
pipe bomb explosions.  We detect nitroglycerine.  We may find a
particle of smokeless powder there which is in the bullets, but
we may not find the other features that are present within the
smokeless powder.
Q.  Now, you ran no tests to attempt to distinguish the
nitroglycerine that you found at this storage unit that we were
talking about to determine if it was a result of the gunpowder
or an explosive; is that correct?
A.  Well, the analysis was run.  It was determined to be
nitroglycerine.  There was also ammunition present, so the
conclusion was one in which we couldn't state that it came from



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
an explosive or not.
Q.  My question to you, sir, was did you attempt to analyze it
to determine if it was a result of the gunpowder or an
explosive?
A.  No test was done to go further with that as it served no
more purpose to do that.
Q.  As a matter of fact, you didn't do that on any of the
nitroglycerine samples that you found anywhere in this
investigation, did you?
A.  I didn't go further to determine that because of the
significance that I placed to the finding of nitroglycerine.
Q.  No significance; right?
A.  Well, it has a significance; but there are other viable
sources of nitroglycerine that -- that doesn't necessarily say
that it's from an explosive; i.e., dynamite, for example.
Q.  Was the storage unit in Kingman, Arizona, searched?
A.  I'm sorry.
Q.  The storage unit in Kingman, Arizona:  Was it searched?  Do
you know?
A.  There was, I believe, a facility in Kingman.
Q.  And I missed a question when we were just talking about the
other one.  There were no ammonium nitrate prills found in the
storage unit that we were just talking about a moment ago; is
that right?
A.  The one that I wasn't involved?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  Yes, sir.
A.  Yes, that's my recollection; that there were no prills
found.
Q.  Now the Kingman, Arizona, storage unit:  Did you
participate in that search?
A.  No.
Q.  Who from the lab assisted in that search?
A.  I'm not sure who was from the lab on that search.
Q.  Were samples, swabs, forwarded to the lab for testing?
A.  Without the items that were recovered from that particular
site, I'm not sure.
Q.  Did you participate in the search of Rooms 23 and 25 at the
Dreamland Motel?
A.  No.
Q.  Did Mr. Kelly?
A.  I don't believe Mr. Kelly was involved in that search.
Q.  Did anybody from the lab participate in the search of Rooms
23 and 25 at the Dreamland Motel, to your knowledge?
A.  Direct knowledge, I don't know who from the lab would have
been on that search.
Q.  Were you submitted swabs taken from Rooms 23 and 25 of the
Dreamland Motel?
A.  I'm not sure if I received swabs.  I know there were
articles removed from that room.
         THE COURT:  Well, you mentioned two rooms.  Which



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
room?
         THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure which room.  I just
remember receiving articles from the Dreamland Hotel (sic).
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Which articles -- I'm sorry.  Which articles did you get
from the Dreamland Hotel?  What, do you recall?

A.  My recollection, a bible, a telephone book -- or I'm sorry,
a telephone.  Some other articles in the area.
Q.  Those were submitted for testing to the lab?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, did you participate in the search of Mr. McVeigh's
car?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Was Mr. Kelly with you?
A.  Yes, he was.
Q.  Let's talk about that search for just a minute.  You took
swabs of the interior of the car; is that correct?
A.  These were vacuums from the interior of the vehicle.
Q.  Is that like a small vacuum cleaner that will suck things
up into the machine and keep it in a filter for later analysis?
A.  It's a device in which -- what you're talking about, a
vacuum cleaner, but the vacuum cleaner will draw the material
over a filter and that filter is then analyzed on the
instrument.  And we had an instrument there to do the testing.
Q.  You do this testing on the scene?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes.
Q.  What was this machine?
A.  It was the Baringer ion scan.  It was -- had the IMS
technology, ion mobility.
Q.  This is the screening device that the lab has?
A.  It has a dual function.  It provides analytical data, but
it can also be used in a screening fashion.
Q.  If I understood you yesterday, your testimony, that you can
use it in another fashion at the lab when you can attach
additional instrumentation to it.  Is that your testimony?
A.  If you're at a scene, you can acquire data which can be
used.  Usually you need to have a computer to acquire the data,
but that data is an analytical piece of data to be used.
Q.  I thought, if I understood your testimony yesterday
correctly, when you use this on the machine, you just get a yes
or no, you don't get the analytical data.
A.  You can use the unit to get the yes or no that you're
talking about; but if you plug in a computer to the back end of
the instrument, you get analytical data that comes off of the
instrument.  The fact that it has a yes or no on the front of
the instrument is for individuals in airports and traffic areas
so that they can quick scan the object and look for the yes or
no.  But I'm acquiring the actual analytical data that's coming
off of the instrument.
Q.  Did you take the computer with you?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes, the computer was present, yes.
Q.  Now, when you did -- is this the only test you did on
Mr. McVeigh's car was the SEM -- I'm sorry, what test was it?
A.  It's the IMS, Baringer IMS.
Q.  The IMS.  Is that the only testing you did on Mr. McVeigh's
car?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You took no swabs to take back to the lab for later
analysis?
A.  That's correct, yes.
Q.  Did you -- did you do the IMS vacuuming on the floors?
A.  Yes.  I recall that.
Q.  You found no PETN; correct?
A.  That's correct.  Yes.
Q.  You found no EGDN; correct?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You found no HMX; correct?
A.  Yes.
Q.  As a matter of fact, you found no explosives residue in the
floorboards of Mr. McVeigh's car; is that right?
A.  On the floorboards, that's correct.  Yes.
Q.  You found no ammonium nitrate on the floorboards of
Mr. McVeigh's car; is that correct?
A.  I had my head down to the carpet, and I couldn't see any;
that's correct.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  So -- I needed to break my question down.  I was really
referring to with the testing, you found no evidence of
ammonium nitrate; is that correct?
A.  Well, the instrument that we had, the IMS would respond for
the presence of nitrates, and we didn't get a huge response for
nitrates, and that would have been an indicator that we had a
nitrate there for further examination.
Q.  Of course you don't know where it came from, the nitrates?
A.  Right.  The signal on the instrument wouldn't tell you;
right.
Q.  You don't know how long they'd been there; correct?
A.  Correct.
Q.  I'm not arguing with you, but you didn't answer.
A.  I'm sorry.
Q.  Now, if I understood what you said a moment ago, you went
down and looked pretty hard on the carpeting for some prills of
ammonium nitrate; is that right?
A.  Well, I was also looking for prills and also any
crystalline material that would be removed physically.
Q.  You found none?
A.  I didn't find anything that I removed.
Q.  Did you vacuum the seats?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You found no explosives residue?
A.  Yes.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  You did not?
A.  I'm sorry.  That's correct, none were found.
Q.  You found no prills of ammonium nitrate in the seats?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Did you vacuum the steering wheel?
A.  I believe we did vacuum the steering wheel.
Q.  You found no -- excuse me -- no residue of explosives on
the steering wheel, did you?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You found no ammonium nitrate residue on the steering
wheel; is that right?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Are these all the searches that you participated in during
the course of your investigation in this case?
A.  Once the items were transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas,
there were some additional searches there.
Q.  The items we've already talked about?
A.  From Mr. Nichols' residence, they were transported to Fort
Riley, Kansas.  There were some things that were at that site
that were examined at that site.
Q.  Sure.  But other than what we've talked about, the storage
unit that you did, the search at the scene, Mr. McVeigh's car,
and Mr. Nichols' home, are those the only searches you
personally participated in?
A.  Yes.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  When did Mr. McVeigh's clothes arrive at the lab?
A.  My recollection from seeing logs, I believe it was the 22d.
I couldn't be -- I could be wrong, April 22d.
         THE COURT:  We're going to start a new subject matter
here?
         MR. TRITICO:  Yes, your Honor.  Do you want to take a
break?
         THE COURT:  Yes, I think we will.
         You may step down now for the morning recess.
         And, members of the jury, you'll also be excused
during this time for the usual 20-minute break period, with the
usual cautions, of course:  Continuing to avoid discussion of
the case or anything about it or anything connected with -- and
avoid anything in any form of communication or publication
relating to issues on the trial.
         You're excused, 20 minutes.
    (Jury out at 10:15 a.m.)

         MR. JONES:  Your Honor, could we just approach the
bench briefly?
         THE COURT:  I want to ask Mr. Tritico something first.
         I did not permit you to respond with the jury present
on the objection that I sustained to the question to the
witness, Mr. Burmeister, about his -- I think it was with
respect to his having previously expressed a different opinion
of Dr. Whitehurst; right?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
         MR. TRITICO:  I believe that's what it was, yes, sir.
         THE COURT:  Do you wish to respond further now?
         MR. TRITICO:  I think that what my response was I had
a prior inconsistent statement from sworn testimony and I would
like to impeach him with was the response I was going to give
the Court.
         THE COURT:  Yes, well, I'm still sustaining the
objection, because it goes to his opinion of Dr. Whitehurst;
right?
         MR. TRITICO:  Yes.  Yes, sir, it did.
         THE COURT:  Okay.  That's the basis upon which I
sustained the objection.
         MR. TRITICO:  Yes, sir.  May I inquire of the Court?
Does the Court not wish me to respond to objections at the
time?
         THE COURT:  Well, I can't answer that yes or no.
         MR. TRITICO:  Okay.
         THE COURT:  But I'll ask you for a response -- I mean
I'll give you permission to respond if I'm uncertain about it.
         MR. TRITICO:  Okay.
         THE COURT:  But then when you need to make a record on
it further, I'll of course grant you that opportunity with the
jury outside the courtroom --
         MR. TRITICO:  Yes, sir.
         THE COURT:  -- if you want to make a further record.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
         Now, Mr. Jones.
         MR. JONES:  Your Honor, we don't need to approach the
bench on this.  We have an agreement with the Government, with
Mr. Mackey, and the motion is simply we be permitted to
withdraw from evidence the Regency videotape at the lunch break
to return it to the Court at 5:30 this afternoon to make copies
from the original, and it will be appropriate safeguards with
the Government.
         THE COURT:  Is that agreed, Mr. Mackey?
         MR. MACKEY:  It is, your Honor.  I'll just alert
Mr. Jones, as we developed in the testimony, the original is
not real time, so it will take some time to get a version of
that scene.
         THE COURT:  Well, the agreement is to withdraw the
original.
         MR. MACKEY:  Yes.
         THE COURT:  That came out of the camera, so it's --
         MR. MACKEY:  Yes.
         THE COURT:  -- it's the time on the camera.
         MR. MACKEY:  Yes.
         THE COURT:  All right.  We'll take 20 minutes from
now.
    (Recess at 10:17 a.m.)
    (Reconvened at 10:37 a.m.)
         THE COURT:  Please be seated.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
    (Jury in at 10:37 a.m.)
         THE COURT:  Mr. Tritico, please resume.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Agent Burmeister before -- Agent Burmeister, before we took
our break, I was beginning to talk to you about the examination
of Mr. McVeigh's clothing.  Do you recall that?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, the clothes arrived in the lab on what day?
A.  My understanding is that it arrived on April 22.
Q.  Who was the first person to work on the clothes?  I'm not
referring to Mr. Mills checking them in.  Who was the first
laboratory person to actually work on the clothes?
A.  The first examination on the clothes?
Q.  Yes.
A.  That was Special Agent Roger Martz.
Q.  When was his examination of the clothing?
A.  That would have been on the -- he would have received those
clothes on the 22d of April.
Q.  Do you know what test he performed on the clothes?
A.  Yes, I do.
Q.  With respect to the testing that he performed on the
clothes, his results are inconsistent with the testing that you
performed on the clothes.  Isn't that true?
A.  I don't -- no.  That's not correct.
Q.  He didn't find inconsistent -- he did not give inconsistent



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
results with yours?
         Let me ask that another way.
A.  I'm sorry.  I don't understand --
Q.  The testing that he performed on the clothes and the
testing that you performed on the clothes:  Is it your
testimony that there are not some inconsistencies with respect
to the results of those tests?
A.  The results are consistent with one another.
Q.  Now, there are other areas of the lab that work or examine
the same items of evidence that your area of the lab might
examine; is that correct?  Did you understand that?  That was a
very poor question.
         After you finish with an item of evidence, might it
possibly go to another area of the lab like Special Photo to be
photographed?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Okay.  And if I understand correctly the procedure that you
followed and that your lab follows in the C/T Unit -- which is
where you are; correct?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, you weren't always in the C/TU -- your area was not
always in the C/TU.  Right?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  It used to be in the Materials Analysis Unit?
A.  Yes.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  When was it moved?
A.  The exact date, I'm not sure.  It was prior to, I think,
January of '95, sometime before that, shortly before that time
frame.
Q.  Was it actually moved sometime before April of 1995?
A.  It was -- it had been moved prior to that date and time.
Q.  Now, this move was really on paper, wasn't it?  In other
words, you didn't pick up your machinery and move to another
part of the lab.  Right?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  It was a flowchart change.
A.  Yes.
Q.  The C/TU, the Chemistry/Toxicology Unit, did not draft and
write and prepare new protocols with respect to the trace
analysis area that was now in the C/TU.  Is that right?
A.  The explosives residue?
Q.  Explosives residue.
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Now, the protocol and the system that you like to follow is
if you're going to do some explosives residue analysis, you
like to make sure that that evidence stays with you in your
unit until you've finished examining it.  Right?
A.  It depends on the particular piece of evidence.  There are
times where midstream it will be transferred to some other
area.  Perfect example is to have something photographed.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  My question to you is is that the procedure you prefer to
follow; that it stays with you?
A.  Well, what I'm saying is it's a procedure.  It's a
procedure that I follow, but it doesn't necessarily -- it's not
cast in stone.  There are times where it could go to another
section for some other work.
Q.  Other areas of the lab do not take the precautions
necessary to ensure that contamination in trace amounts does
not occur at their section of the lab.  Isn't that true?
A.  No, it's not true.
Q.  Every area of the lab takes those precautions.  That's your
testimony?
A.  The areas that I've been exposed to take good cautions to
prevent any type of contamination.
Q.  There are areas of the lab that assume that the trace
analysis has already been conducted and therefore they don't
have to worry about it.  Isn't that true?
A.  I don't think that you will find anybody who will say they
don't worry about it.  I think everybody is concerned about the
evidence.  They know where it's going and they don't want to
introduce anything to evidence.
Q.  Now, when -- after Mr. Martz finished the testing that he
conducted, where did the items of clothing go?
A.  That was returned back to Mr. Brett Mills.
Q.  And from there, where did they go?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  It then went to the Special Photo Section.
Q.  Who took them to Special Photo?
A.  I've been advised of this as far as looking at the pathway,
and I was told that Mr. Mills took it to Special Photos.
Q.  Did Mr. Mills provide you with any swabs taken of the area
in the Special Photo Section before the clothes were placed in
there?
A.  No.
Q.  Did Mr. Mills provide you with any swabs taken of the
Special Photo area after the clothes were in there?
A.  No.
Q.  You don't know what, if any, contamination existed, trace
amounts of explosives, in the Special Photo Unit prior to the
time that you tested the clothing.  Is that right?
A.  I have no reason to believe that there was a contamination
of explosives there.
Q.  But you didn't test; right?
A.  There was no testing taken.  Right.
Q.  After Special Photo, where did the clothing go?
A.  After Special Photo, it went to the Hairs and Fibers Unit.
Q.  Who took them to Hair and Fiber?
A.  Again, I was advised as far as I -- what I know the pathway
of the specimens, it would have been Mr. Brett Mills.
Q.  Did Mr. Mills provide you with any swabs taken from the
testing areas in Hair and Fiber?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  No.
Q.  That would be before the clothing were placed down on the
tables; right?  He didn't take any before?
A.  My understanding is they don't place items directly on the
table in the Hairs and Fibers Unit.  I'm aware of their
procedures, but no swabs were taken.
Q.  Or after?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You don't know what, if any, contamination for explosives
residue may have been present on the examination tables in the
Hair and Fiber Unit when the clothes were in there before you
tested them.  Is that correct?
A.  Knowing their procedures, I have no reason to suspect that
explosives would be there.
Q.  You don't know what, if any, explosives residue may have
been there, do you?
A.  Again, I have no reason to suspect that they would be
there, and I wouldn't have tested for it.
Q.  But you didn't test.  Right?
A.  That's right.
Q.  Where did the clothes go after Hair and Fiber?
A.  After the Hairs and Fibers, they went back to Mr. Mills.
Q.  And from there?
A.  They came to me.
Q.  When you got the clothes, how many bags were they in?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Well, it was in a box and the -- each item was in a
particular plastic bag.
Q.  One bag?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, do you know the condition that the clothes were in
when they arrived in the lab?
A.  No, I don't.
Q.  Now -- and then you proceeded to conduct your testing on
the clothes.  Is that right?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You cut the pockets out of the pants and made a separate
extract from each pocket.  Is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Prior to the time that you did that, Mr. Martz ran an
extract for both pockets together.  Right?
A.  No.
Q.  Now, you testified yesterday that your finding of the PETN
and EGDN in the pockets -- the PETN identified in the left
pocket and "consistent with" in the right pocket.  Right?
A.  No.
Q.  Is that the other way around?
A.  Yes.
Q.  All right.  "Consistent with," when you use that in the
forensic sciences field, doesn't mean an identification of the
explosives residue.  Is that right?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes.
Q.  And what that means is that it could be consistent with
another compound; right?
A.  A similar-type compound, right.
Q.  Last night when you finished here, did you look to see if
PETN can be found in anything other than high explosives?
A.  Not last night, no.
Q.  Now, you tested the pockets, as I understand your
testimony, because they're -- that's where you would expect
someone to be placing their hands and that's where you might
find the residue.  Right?
A.  I would find that to be what I would consider a
high-traffic area, so that's the reason why the pockets were
looked at.
Q.  What about the back pocket?  Didn't test that, did you?
A.  No.
Q.  Now, from your experience, do men carry their wallets in
their back pocket from time to time?
A.  I would agree with that.  I do myself.
Q.  Especially when you're wearing blue jeans and you might not
have a coat pocket to put it in?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Yet you didn't test that for explosives residue?
A.  The wallet?
Q.  The pocket.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Oh, the pocket.  Yeah.  That's correct.
Q.  Didn't test the wallet, either, did you?
A.  Yes, I did.  The wallet was in what we considered the
also-submitted items, and they were collected and sampled as a
group; and a positive finding was in that collection.
Q.  On the wallet, or on the earplugs?
A.  It was everything that was in that group.  I can't
specifically say it came from the wallet, but everything as a
group was sampled.
Q.  I see.  Now, how were those also-submitted items packaged
at the Noble County Jail?  Do you know?
A.  I received them in a plastic bag.
Q.  Do you know how they were packaged at the Noble County
Jail?
A.  My understanding was that they were placed into a paper
bag.
Q.  The also-submitted items?
A.  Yes.
Q.  That's how they were stored at the Noble County Jail?  Do
you know how they were stored at the Noble County Jail?
A.  That's my recollection.  I could be wrong, but that's my
recollection.
Q.  If they were kept in a paper bag, did you make any effort
to determine how many other people's items had been placed in
that same paper bag?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  I believe it was an original bag.
Q.  Did you make any effort to determine how many other
people's items were placed in the same bag as Mr. McVeigh's
also-submitted items?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection, your Honor.  Asked and
answered.
         THE COURT:  Overruled.
         THE WITNESS:  I had -- when determining the pathway of
these clothing -- the clothing items, the information I was
provided was that that was an original bag; that it had not
been used for any other items.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Perhaps my question was inartfully phrased, and I
apologize.  Did you personally make any effort to determine how
many other people's items may have been kept in the same
container as Mr. McVeigh's also-submitted items?
A.  When I went through trying to find the pathway of the
clothing, that was part of the -- the questioning process to
find out was that an original bag or had somebody else used
that bag or what else was stored in that area.
Q.  And you spoke to whom at the Noble County Jail?
A.  It was the individuals that were present at the time that
the clothing was obtained.
Q.  Do you know who they were?
A.  The sheriff -- right offhand, I can't recall his name; but



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
two individuals that were also present.
Q.  You spoke to the sheriff personally?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And you spoke to the other two individuals whose names you
now do not recall, personally?
A.  Well, she testified just the other day -- yesterday.  Her
name slips my mind.
Q.  And you spoke to that person personally?
A.  This was some time ago, but yes.
Q.  You spoke to three individuals at the Noble County Jail?
A.  Not at the jail; but yes, I did.
Q.  Employed by the -- at the jail.  Right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And the purpose of this call was to discover the -- the
containing method of the also-submitted items and the history
of that containing -- container.  Is that right?
A.  That and the pathway of that clothing and where it was
placed.
Q.  Can you show me the notes that you took from those
conversations?
A.  There were no notes collected on that, no.
Q.  What's a 302?
A.  It's a -- usually that's involved with writing an interview
that will come up during testimony purposes.
Q.  Did you write a 302 with respect to your interview of the



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
three individuals whose name you now do not recall at the Noble
County Jail?
A.  No.
Q.  You made no recording, no memo, memoranda, or anything
regarding those conversations.  Is that right?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Who else from the lab talked to the individuals at the
Noble County Jail regarding the container for which
Mr. McVeigh's also-submitted items were collected in?
A.  I was the only one from the laboratory to obtain that
information.
Q.  Did you go to Noble County, or did you call them, or did
you bring them to you?
A.  No.  They were -- they were here.
Q.  Oh, met with them here in Denver?
A.  Yes.
Q.  When was that?
A.  Some time ago.  I'm not sure of the exact time.
Q.  Well, would you agree with me that if you met with them
here in Denver that was certainly after you performed the test
on the also-submitted items?
A.  It was a time after the test was conducted, yes.
Q.  Well over a year after you conducted the tests on the
also-submitted items, did you have the conversation with the
three individuals whose names you now do not recall?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes.
Q.  You made no attempt at the time that you were conducting
the tests on the also-submitted items to determine the
containment system for those items, did you?
A.  At the time that it arrived into the laboratory, I was -- I
did make a check on how it had come into the laboratory and the
pathway which it took in the laboratory.
Q.  So is your testimony now that you've had more than one
conversation with the three individuals whose names you now do
not recall?
A.  I've only had one conversation with them.
Q.  You did not make any attempt in May of 1995 to determine
at -- in Noble County how and under what circumstances the
also-submitted items were stored and contained.  Is that
correct?
A.  At which time frame?
Q.  May of 1995 was when you tested them; right?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You made no attempt then to discuss this issue with the
individuals at the Noble County Jail.  Is that correct?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You made no attempt to determine in May of 1995 if any
other individuals in the Noble -- that had been incarcerated in
the Noble County Jail had recently handled explosives, did you?
A.  At that time, no.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  You made no attempt to determine if any of the individuals
that had been incarcerated in the Noble County Jail had been in
recent proximity of explosives, did you?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You made no attempt in May of 1995 to determine if any of
the employees at the Noble County Jail had been in recent
proximity of explosives, did you?
A.  At that time, that's correct.
Q.  You made no attempt in May of 1995 to determine if any of
the employees at the Noble County Jail had recently used
explosives, did you?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Now, if I understand your testimony correctly with respect
to the also-submitted items, you ran one extract from all of
them together; is that right?
A.  All of the also-submitted items were packaged in one bag as
a collection; and yes, they were sampled as a group.
Q.  Does that include the earplugs?
A.  No.  The earplugs were separate at the time.  I separated
those and sampled everything else as a group.
Q.  Okay.  And you don't know the source of any of the residue
that you found on any of the also-submitted items; is that
correct?  You don't know the source of it.
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Now, if I understood you correctly, you found some residue



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
on the wallet or attributed to the wallet?
A.  The wallet and other items that were in the bag at the same
time.
Q.  But nothing in the rear pockets?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Now, with the shirts -- I want to get back to the clothes
for a minute, if I may.  The shirts:  If I understood you
yesterday, you took an extract from the shirts from a pretty
good portion of the shirts.  Is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Show me again what part of the shirt you were describing
yesterday.  Can you show me?
A.  Yes.  It would be from the midriff down to the bottom of
the shirt.
Q.  Would you take a look at No. 430, please, Government's
Exhibit No. 430.
A.  Do you want me to remove it from the bag?
Q.  If you don't mind.
A.  Okay.
Q.  Now, on that shirt, Government's Exhibit 430, show me where
you would have taken the extract up to.
A.  It would have been taken from approximately that high and
into a solvent.
Q.  Almost up to the arms?
A.  Yes.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  Okay.  Thank you.  You can put that down.
         Are you aware of what items Mr. McVeigh had on him
weaponwise when he was arrested?
A.  My understanding is he had a weapon on him, handgun.
Q.  And you were aware that it was a shoulder holster?
A.  I believe that's correct, yes.
Q.  Do you wear a shoulder holster?
A.  No.
Q.  Have you seen individuals that do?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Shoulder holster, if I'm right-handed, will come under my
armpit; right?
A.  If -- it depends on what side you wear the shoulder holster
on.
Q.  If I'm right-handed, it would go like this.  Right?
A.  That would be a good place for it.
Q.  And it would be right there up against the clothing; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, if you had a weapon in that position, that would be a
good place to deposit nitroglycerine, would it not?
A.  I could -- I would expect to find it if there is
high-traffic area and you're actually physically touching the
clothing with your hands.
Q.  Or the holster itself or the weapon itself?
A.  I'll have to say I've tested my holster and I haven't found



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
a whole lot of nitroglycerine on my holster.  I've had it on my
hands, but my holster -- this is on personal testing myself;
but it's entirely possible, I agree with you.
Q.  Sure.  And if I understood your testimony about your own
personal holster, you haven't found a whole lot, but you have
found some.  Fair?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Okay.  Now, the earplugs were originally packaged with all
of the also-submitted items, were they not?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Okay.  On the earplugs, if I understood your testimony
yesterday, you found nitroglycerine.  I believe you said
consistent with PETN.  Is that right?
A.  Yeah -- yes.
Q.  And EGDN?
A.  Yes.  Not consistent with EGDN.  It was --
Q.  You identified EGDN?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Did you perform the tests that we talked about before the
break to determine if the nitroglycerine was a result of
gunpowder as opposed to explosives residue?
A.  It would have shown up in the chemical analysis, and once
the determination was made for the nitroglycerine and no other
chemicals were found, that's as far as it went.
Q.  So that would show up in the testing that you did?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes.
Q.  Which test was that?
A.  It would have been the gas chromatography with the mass
spectrometry.
Q.  The GCMS?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, with respect to the PETN and the EGDN, did you run any
tests to determine if PETN can be mimicked by the compounds
that compose the plastics?
A.  I'm aware of studies that have been done with this
particular substance.
Q.  And my question to you, sir, is did you run those tests?
A.  Did I personally run the tests?
Q.  Yes, sir.
A.  No.
Q.  Nobody at the FBI lab ran a test to determine if the PETN
you were finding on the earplugs was actually being mimicked by
the components of the plastic.  Right?
A.  Well, there were two separate tests that were conducted for
the PETN; and I know from the one, the one would not mimic, if
the plastic that you're referring to, the plastic -- the
composition in the plastic would not mimic it on this other
instrument.
Q.  There have been studies that show it has mimicked in the
past; right?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes.
Q.  Did you run any tests to determine if the plastics --
components of the plastics were mimicking EGDN?
A.  I'm not aware of any component that reproduces that.
Q.  Would you agree with me that nobody was aware that PETN was
mimicked by plastic until they tried?
A.  That's the nature of research.  We're constantly learning
and progressing forward.  This was research that had been done,
and that's how I know about it now.
Q.  But you did not try?
A.  I didn't run the particular plastic that you're
referring -- or the component of the plastic that you're
referring to.
Q.  I want to talk to you for a few minutes, if I may, Agent
Burmeister, about contamination issues.
         Now, you would agree with me that items of evidence
can get contaminated at many various stages of the
investigative process, from the scene all the way through the
lab; right?
A.  If improperly processed, it could be contaminated.
Q.  It can get contaminated at the scene if you have
individuals who are not taking proper precautions to protect
the individual items of evidence from contamination; right?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Like changing gloves?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Wearing protective clothing?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Proper packaging?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Now, in this case, many of the items of evidence that were
delivered to the lab were not properly packaged, were they?
A.  I don't know that to be true.
Q.  Are you aware that many of the items of evidence entered
the lab in open, unsealed bags?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Sustained with respect to its being vague.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  How about the clothing?  It came in a paper bag, didn't it?
A.  The paper bag was sealed.
Q.  Sealed how?
A.  My understanding is that the paper bag was sealed.  How it
was exactly sealed, I'm not sure.
Q.  Would you agree with me that taking the top of it and
rolling it down is not sealing it?
A.  If it's not open, it's somewhat sealed.
Q.  Would you agree with me that that's not sealing it closed?
A.  It's not perfectly closed as far as what you're referring
to as sealing it.
Q.  Would you agree with me that forensically speaking a paper



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
bag is not the appropriate method for transportation of items
of evidence?
A.  I would say that there are better methods of
transportation.
Q.  Paper bag does not provide protection against contamination
by other explosives.  Is that right?
A.  It depends on the explosive that you're referring to.
Q.  Sure.  What items of evidence, if you know, were
transferred to the lab on April 26?
A.  I don't know what items were transferred -- on the 26th of
April?
Q.  Yes, sir.
A.  I believe I transported some items on the 26th of April.
Q.  And did you do that by plane?
A.  Yes.
Q.  What other items of an explosive nature was on that plane?
A.  I have no idea.  I had the package with me, so there is
nothing -- it was well within my confines.
Q.  Now, when the item -- the clothing arrived at the lab,
there are no notes to reflect how -- the condition the package
was in when it arrived; is that right?
A.  I don't have any notes that I have.
Q.  You've never seen any?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  The FBI lab in April of 1995 did not keep those kind of



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
records; is that correct?
A.  They may be present in their acceptance notes, in their
file.  I'm not sure.
Q.  The FBI lab had no general lab-wide protocol in April of
1995 regarding the collection of evidence, did they -- the
receipt of evidence at the lab, did they?
A.  I believe there was a procedure that was in place for the
receipt of evidence and the processing of that evidence.
Q.  Do you have it with you?
A.  No.
Q.  When was the last time you saw it?
A.  The last time I've seen it -- it's been updated numerous
times, but I've -- I've probably seen it the week before I came
here because of some preparation that I'm doing with those
manuals.
Q.  Preparation you're doing with the lab-wide protocols?
A.  That and other particular documents.
Q.  That would include the Explosives Residue Analysis Section?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Why are you updating them?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection.
         THE COURT:  Overruled.
         THE WITNESS:  The reason we're updating them:  One is
for the material; but we have two inspections that are coming
up within the laboratory, one an in-house inspection and then



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
an external inspection.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Who is performing the in-house inspection?
A.  Well, the in-house inspection is an FBI inspection mostly
for documentation paperwise.
Q.  And who is doing the external inspection?
A.  The external inspection is being conducted by a group, an
organization called ASCLD.
Q.  What is that?
A.  It's the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors.
Q.  Why are they inspecting the FBI lab?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection.
         THE COURT:  Sustained.
         MR. TRITICO:  May I have a moment, Judge?
         THE COURT:  Yes.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Now, the protocol that we talked about earlier,
Government's Exhibit 914 -- do you recall that?
A.  The -- my explosive residue protocol?  Is that 917?  Sorry.
Q.  You may be right.
         914.  Do you recall that?
A.  If that's 914 -- I can't see the bottom.
Q.  Oh, yes, sir.  How about that?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Did you submit this for the ASCLD inspection coming up?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Sustained.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Now, we were talking about contamination.  I want to get
back to that for a minute.
         Contamination can occur in the transportation
vehicles; right?
A.  Again, if improperly packaged evidence, it could possibly
be.  If that vehicle is contaminated.
Q.  For instance, the items of evidence that were seized from
Mr. Nichols' home were transported in an Army transport truck;
is that right?
A.  I don't know that to be the case.
Q.  Were you there?
A.  I'm sorry?
Q.  Were you there --
A.  His clothing?
Q.  The items of evidence that were seized from Mr. Nichols'
home:  Were you present?
A.  I apologize.  Yes.  It was transported in a vehicle like
that.
Q.  Nobody took control swabs of the vehicle prior to the time
that the items of evidence were placed into that transport
truck; is that right?
A.  Those items were in sealed containers, but you're correct,



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
yes.
Q.  The planes that transported the items of evidence that were
taken from Oklahoma City to the lab in Washington were not
swabbed prior to the time that the evidence was placed on the
planes, were they?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  And that would be something that you would expect to be
done to determine whether or not there was any contamination
present before the items of evidence were placed on there;
right?
A.  Well, if items were not packaged properly, that's something
that would be considered.
Q.  Well, they can be contaminated even if they are packaged
properly, can't they?
A.  Again, you're talking about transfer of trace amounts.  I
don't know -- you'd have to look at a specific situation to say
if it's actually present in a vehicle and how much contact has
to be done and the exact location, concentration.  There is a
lot of variables that come into play.  I can't say flat out
that just because you're making that scenario that it
automatically transfers.
Q.  And I think you're exactly right.  But if you don't check
the contamination level of the transport vehicle in the
beginning, you will never be able to rule out the possibility
that the contamination occurred.  Is that fair?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Again, it's the scenario that you're talking about.
You're -- I don't know levels or whether there is actually pure
material in that vehicle or not.  A lot of parameters that --
I'm sorry I can't answer that exactly the way --
Q.  I think the reason that you're having trouble answering the
question is because you don't know if the transport vehicles
were contaminated when the evidence was placed in it.  Is that
right?
A.  That's correct.  I don't know if those vehicles were used
to transport anything in the past.
Q.  Were you present in Oklahoma City for any of the evidence
collection and sifting?
A.  I was there when some of the evidence was being processed,
and I'm not sure if I actually saw the sifting.  They did a lot
of material removal, but I'm not sure if they were doing
sifting at the time.  They may have.
Q.  And -- so you didn't see it?
A.  I don't have a direct recollection of seeing the sifting
operation.  They could have been doing sifting.
Q.  Is it your recollection that the evidence collection was
not done in an orderly fashion in Oklahoma City?
A.  I can't really answer that on how the actual scene was
processed and what order it was processed.
Q.  Now, in the lab in Washington -- is it in Washington?  I
keep saying that.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes, it is.
Q.  You have within the lab raw bulk explosives; is that right?
A.  There is an area that some of that is stored, but they're
small amounts.
Q.  Sure.  But those raw bulk explosives can be the biggest
contamination problem for a lab.  Is that fair?
A.  If improperly handled and packaged, it could be a problem,
yes.
Q.  The FBI lab in April of 1995 had no written protocol for
dealing with the storage of raw explosives, did they?
A.  There was nothing written down on how that should be
handled.  You're correct.
Q.  Now, a protocol is something that tells you the process and
procedure for which the lab will operate within that given area
that the protocol is addressing.  Is that fair?
A.  It's a written protocol for operation, yes.
Q.  Now, if those raw explosives are used on an examination
table, placed on the examination table, they can and probably
will contaminate that table.  Is that fair?
A.  If I take a piece of raw explosive and place it on the
table and if I don't sanitize the table afterwards, yes, you're
right.
Q.  And sometimes, depending on the amount of the explosive,
you can't see it by just looking at it.  Right?
A.  I think you could get a scenario together that would place



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
something that's invisible on the table, yes.
Q.  So by visual inspection, you can't tell if the table is
contaminated with the explosive compound.  Is that fair?
A.  Yes.
Q.  There are also some circumstances and situations where more
than just washing down the table might be necessary to remove
the explosive compound.  Is that fair?
A.  I think if the concentration and level is high enough, yes,
you would have to take more drastic measures.
Q.  That's all the kind of things that you would expect to see
in a written protocol dealing with the use of bulk explosives
in the lab; right?
A.  It could be something you could put into a protocol, yes.
Q.  That way, you know, and you're assured that the other
people working in the lab are taking the precautions necessary
to keep from having the area contaminated?
A.  Well, I would hope that there is only a very select group
of people who would be handling the bulk explosives; and those
people would be only those who are authorized to handle it.
Q.  Well, what controls were in place in April of 1995 to
prevent the entry and egress into the lab of people who did not
work there into the explosives residue area?
A.  Well, they -- they were restricted basically from coming
into my work area, into my room.  My room was specially locked,
and that's where I conducted the examinations.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  Well, my question to you is what controls were in place to
prevent people from coming into the explosives residue area?
A.  I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.
Q.  There was no lock on the exterior door and into the
explosives residue area, was there?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection, your Honor.  Perhaps this
is vague.  If he could specify . . .
         THE COURT:  Yes.  The witness doesn't understand, as I
understand it, what the residue area is -- the explosives
residue area is.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Is there an area and was there an area in 1995 for which
the explosives residue analysis was conducted?
A.  There were -- there were two areas that were designated --
I'm sorry.  There were three areas that I will include into
that, yes.
Q.  Okay.  Which ones?
A.  There was a locked room where some bulk samples could be
examined on a trace table, then my office, and then the outside
area, which is the laboratory where the actual instrumental
examination of an extract is performed.
Q.  Was there a door that locked the instrumental area from the
outside?
A.  From the outside, being it -- this was the FBI building.
Q.  I mean from people walking into that examination area.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  People could walk into that examination area, yes.
Q.  Was there carpeting in that area?
A.  A distance away, yes.
Q.  This was a carpeting that was kind of like an aisleway
through the middle of the work area.  Is that fair?
A.  No.
Q.  Was the whole area carpeted?
A.  No.
Q.  How much carpeting was in the room?
A.  The carpet is probably 3 feet wide by 10 feet.
Q.  Carpets can be a major source of contamination for a lab,
can they not?
A.  It's something that I wouldn't put into an actual
examination area.
Q.  Because they can gather and hold contamination or gather
and hold explosives residue in the carpet.  Right?
A.  Well, we've used carpet in the past as a substrate for
explosives.  It -- really, the true reason is so that you don't
have the ability to clean it the way you would like to clean a
floor.
Q.  Exactly.  So you never know if it's contaminated or not?
A.  Well, you can take steps by having the carpet cleaned, and
we have the carpet cleaned in that region.
Q.  But you still never know if it's contaminated, do you?
A.  Unless you test the carpet, that's correct.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  You didn't do that on a regular basis, did you?
A.  Not the carpet, no.
Q.  Now, in 19 -- April of 1995, did the FBI lab have a
protocol or a procedure in place whereby individuals entering
the lab swabbed and tested their hands prior to coming into the
lab for explosives residue?
A.  Are you referring to the actual people who were handling
the explosive residue analysis?
Q.  Well, let's start with them.
A.  This was basically a training process that people were
trained in how to do this; and so those people that were
trained knew the procedures.
Q.  And my question to you, sir, was in April of 1995, did the
FBI lab have a written protocol or directive, directing people
to do that?
A.  There was no written procedure for that.
Q.  You don't know on any given day if anybody in the lab is
following the training that they received.
A.  That's not true.
Q.  Now, in April of 1995, did the FBI lab have a written
protocol for -- regarding the swabbing of hands of other
individuals who might enter the lab?
A.  There was nothing written down for that, no.
Q.  Shoes can be a source of contamination, can they not?
A.  Given the right scenario, it's possible.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  In April of 1995, did the FBI lab have a protocol dealing
with the shoes of the individuals who were in the lab, whether
they worked there or not?
A.  There was no procedure for sampling of shoes.
Q.  Are you aware of other labs requiring people to either
change shoes or put protective covering over their shoes before
they enter the lab?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You didn't do that in April of 1995 at the FBI lab; is that
correct?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Lab coats can be a source of contamination in a lab; is
that correct?
A.  It's a possibility, yes.
Q.  In April of 1995, the FBI lab had no protocol or procedure
dealing with how often an examiner should change his or her lab
coat.  Is that correct?
A.  There was nothing written down for that.
Q.  As a matter of fact, yesterday when you were testifying
about changing lab coats, I thought I understood you to say
when you were referring to the clothes when you tested the
clothes, "At this time, I changed my lab coat."  Do you recall
that?
A.  I was just -- if that's the sequence that I said that, I
was basically pointing out at that particular time that was the



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
step: change the lab coat.  Changing lab coats is a routine
procedure for me.  It wasn't just in that case.
Q.  Others in the lab may not have followed that same rigid
policy that you did?
A.  Oh, I know others that do, yes.
Q.  Do you know others that don't?
A.  But those, I'm not aware of.  I know others that do.
Q.  How about air-conditioning systems?  Can that be a source
of contamination in a lab?
A.  I really don't know how that can -- if given the wrong
conditions, it's a question.  I don't know.
Q.  Have you ever heard of a positive pressure lab?
A.  Yes.
Q.  What is that?
A.  It's basically one in which there is a flow of air into a
particular area that maintains constant pressure.
Q.  And it's on a single system in and of itself?
A.  It's a separate entity, yeah.
Q.  Not connected to the remainder of the lab is what I'm
trying to say.  Is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  That's not what you had in April of 1995 at the FBI lab; is
that correct?
A.  That's correct, yes.
Q.  You're on a main system with other parts of the lab,



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
however many systems they may have -- I don't know how big the
lab is, but you're on a system connected with other parts of
the lab.  Is that fair?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, converse to a positive pressure is a negative pressure
lab.  Is that right?
A.  I'm aware of two different types, yes.
Q.  Do you know what a negative pressure lab is?
A.  I -- what I believe a negative pressure -- but I'm not sure
of a negative pressure lab.  I've known of negative pressure
work hoods and workstations.
Q.  Okay.  Now, in April of 1995, the FBI lab had no written
protocol dealing with the wearing of protective clothing with
respect to individuals entering the lab.  Is that right?
A.  There was nothing written down.  That's correct.
Q.  And the regular practice of the lab was the lab coat.  Is
that correct?
A.  Wearing of lab coats is a regular procedure, yes.
Q.  Individuals entering from the outside who don't work in the
lab were not required to put on protective clothing.  Is that
correct?
A.  We would hope that these folks would not be exposed to the
evidence.
Q.  Were they required to put on protective clothing?
A.  If they were to come in contact with evidence, they would



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
be required, yes.
Q.  As a general rule, were they required to put on protective
clothing when they entered the lab?
A.  If they're just entering the laboratory, they're not
required to put on a lab coat.  If they're coming into my area
where I'm going to be handling evidence, they're required to
wear protective covering.
Q.  From time to time individuals from the FBI bomb range would
come into the lab; is that correct?
A.  No.
Q.  Never seen one?
A.  We don't have a bomb range, an FBI bomb range.
Q.  Is there a bomb range around that the FBI uses?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Do individuals from that area, that range, who have worked
out there come into the lab from time to time?
A.  I don't know their frequency of coming from the range to
the laboratory.  I don't know that.
Q.  Have you seen them in the lab?
A.  I've certainly seen the people who have exposure to that
range in the laboratory.
Q.  You took no swabs of those individuals who work at the bomb
range, did you, when they enter the lab?
A.  I have conducted some undocumented experiments with that,
yes.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  And that was a test that you conducted with Agent
Whitehurst -- is that right -- that you're talking about right
now?
A.  I'm not sure if I conducted it in conjunction with him or
not.
Q.  Well, the test you're talking about occurred in the late
80's or early 90's; is that fair?
A.  I'm not sure -- maybe we're not on the wavelength.  Which
test are you referring to?
Q.  Well, tell me which one you are.
A.  It was -- I remember an instance when an individual from
the Explosives Unit, Mr. Mike Fanning, came to me and expressed
a interest to have his hands swabbed; and the time frame on
that I'm not too sure.
Q.  You don't recall if it was before or after April of 1995?
A.  I don't recall the exact date.
Q.  You conducted another test or in conjunction with --
Dr. Whitehurst -- I'm not sure -- with Mr. Fanning, did you
not?
A.  Help me.
Q.  Did you send Mr. Fanning to the bomb range to get exposed
to explosives residue, go home, sleep all night, shower, change
clothes and come back and be tested the next day?
A.  I don't remember an exact study like that.  Now, that
doesn't ring a bell with me.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  You didn't participate in that, if it happened?
A.  I don't recall that -- that particular study.
Q.  Okay.  As a matter of fact, the individuals who work at the
bomb range have a storage locker at the FBI lab, do they not?
A.  Yes, they -- well, it's not in the laboratory space, but
it's a -- area within the building that they have available to
them.
Q.  That's what I meant.  And they store explosives in there?
A.  Yes.
Q.  The area that we were just talking about, where the bomb
range individuals keep -- have their storage locker:  Do you
recall that a moment ago?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Evidence from this case was stored in that same area, was
it not?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  What's the objection?
         MS. WILKINSON:  I believe he's talking about evidence
that's not been introduced in the case.
         THE COURT:  Yes.  You're using "evidence" a lot
without identifying what kind of evidence, so I sustain the
objection as to vague.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  I'd like to talk to you briefly about the examination that
you conducted on Q507.  That's the piece of wood.  Is that



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
fair?  Yes?
A.  Fiberglass or wood, yes.
Q.  Now, when did Q507 arrive at the lab?
A.  Q507 arrived -- ooh -- I can only speak to the date that I
actually officially received it.  I'm not sure of the exact
date that it arrived at the laboratory.
Q.  Who was the first person to test Q507?
A.  That would have been myself.
Q.  Roger Martz didn't conduct any testing on Q507 before you
did?
A.  Not before me, no.
Q.  Did Roger Martz conduct testing after you did?
A.  He conducted a test of an extract that was removed off of
Q507.
Q.  His results were inconsistent with yours, weren't they?
A.  No.
Q.  Now, you also took one of the crystals off of Q507 to ICI
for examination.  Is that correct?
A.  I took the entire Q507 with me to ICI.
Q.  Okay.  And did they remove a crystal?
A.  We -- we attempted to remove crystals from the Q507
surface.  I was unable to locate any of the crystals at that
time.
Q.  They were gone?
A.  When I -- when I attempted to look for the crystals, I



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
could not find them.
Q.  What happened to them?  Do you know?
A.  That piece has gone through a lot of hands since the times
that I've seen it; and I can't speak to how they would have
disappeared.
Q.  There was a means whereby you could have protected and
preserved the crystals on Q507, is there not?
A.  The results were obtained.  I was completed with my
analysis and it had been bagged and packaged, and I would
have -- would presume that the bagging would have preserved it.
Q.  It was bagged and packaged like it is today, sort of
similar to this?
A.  Yes.  In an envelope --
Q.  My question to you, sir, was is there a means whereby you
could have protected and preserved the crystals that you found
on Q507?
A.  It's not normally a procedure that I follow.  I'm sure that
there is special packaging I could have done to preserve them
for the future, but I feel that I've documented it enough that
there was no need to do that.
         MR. TRITICO:  May I have a moment?
         THE COURT:  Yes.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Have you ever heard of a desiccator?
A.  Yes.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  What is that?
A.  A desiccator is a material which is applied or -- let me
just back-step.  It's a material that will absorb moisture; and
if you wanted to put it into a container, it will keep the
humidity level down in that particular container.
Q.  And might have protected the crystals on Q507 had you used
that system?
A.  Yes.
Q.  When did you take Q507 to ICI?
A.  That would have been November of '96.
Q.  Was this the first time that you discovered that the
crystals were gone?
A.  It had been the first time that I had seen Q507 since the
time that I had analyzed it, yes.
Q.  When did Linda Jones analyze Q507?
A.  I'm not sure if she has actually seen the piece physically,
or at least I don't have a recollection of her touching the
piece.  I know she's seen photographs of the piece.
Q.  Now, you testified that you were not -- I'm paraphrasing;
please correct me if I'm wrong -- you were not overly concerned
with the fact that the crystals were gone because you had
completed your testing.  Is that fair?
A.  I had completed the test, placed it back into the package,
yes.
Q.  Has it been your experience during the time that you've



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
worked at the lab that the defense in cases would like to
analyze the things that you claim to have found?
A.  The evidence itself was packaged up and was certainly
available.
Q.  Has it been your experience in the past in working at the
lab that the defense would like to examine the -- and test the
things that you claim to have found?
A.  Yes.  They've actually wanted to look at it.
Q.  And when the defense in this case got a chance to look at
Q507, the crystals were gone.  Right?
         MS. WILKINSON:  Objection, your Honor.  Only as to his
personal knowledge.
         THE COURT:  Well, yes.  Answer if you know.
         THE WITNESS:  I don't know.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Now, it was your testimony yesterday that it's your belief
that the crystals that you found on Q507, which are no longer
here, were blasted into the back side of this exhibit, piece of
wood.  Is that fair?
A.  It's my opinion that it was -- that some pressure placed
those crystals into that object.
Q.  Did you testify yesterday that it was your opinion they
were blasted in?
A.  And it would be something like a blast would force it into
that surface.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  Now, what is in evidence as -- for demonstrative purposes
as Government's Exhibit 663 is an exemplar.  Is that fair?
A.  Yes.
Q.  This is the same width that Q507 would have been in the
beginning?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Is this the same type of material that Q -- that you claim
Q507 started out as?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, how thick is this?
A.  Oh, it's -- without a measuring device, it's thin.
Q.  I'll go along with that.
         How thick is this?
A.  Again, the same response but thicker.
Q.  About a half inch maybe?
A.  That's a good guess, yes.
Q.  Now, this would have been the inside of the Ryder truck,
this side that I'm showing, the white side with the black on
the bottom of Government's Exhibit 663; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And, of course, the yellow and the red side is the outside.
Right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  So looking at Q507, this would have been the outside;
right?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  Yes.
Q.  And this side that looks like just wood would have been the
inside; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, in the -- you testified yesterday about explosions and
how they occur.  Do you recall that?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Just so we have a number to use, let's talk 5,000 feet per
second.  Okay?  Now, when the explosion occurs, if where I've
got my hands here is the base of the explosion and the blast
wave is moving at 5,000 feet per second, it moves out away from
that explosion all in the same direction; right?  In other
words, 90 degrees away from the center of the explosion is what
the blast wave does.  Is that fair?
A.  Well, it's somewhat true, but we have to put into the
factor of again what we talked about yesterday, the shape of
the device certainly can change those characteristics.
Q.  Absolutely.  I'm referring to just a round charge.  Okay?
It's going to move 90 degrees away from the center of the
explosion in every direction; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And it's all going to be moving at 5,000 feet per second,
assuming under our scenario here?
A.  At some point everything will be moving at that speed, yes.
Q.  Now, it's not like a tornado.  In other words, you don't



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
have winds moving in different directions; right?
A.  It's a wave moving out from the source, yes.
Q.  Somehow, it's your belief and your testimony, Q507 was
separated from the rest of the piece of wood; right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, this is a piece of plywood that is -- you know how
plywood is constructed?
A.  I am not -- not an authority on plywood, no.
Q.  Did you check into any of the Morgan Box Company standards
with respect to the plywood and how it's constructed when you
were conducting your analysis in this case?
A.  Only from the fact that there is a wood layer and then a
fiberglass outer layer that's connected.
Q.  And it's all glued together?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Somehow, it's your belief that the blast occurred; over
90 percent of this piece of wood was dispersed.  Right?
Correct?
A.  That's probably a good number.  I may go a little lower
than that, but you're right.
Q.  Was it burned away?
A.  It's pressure that's forming.
Q.  Was it burned away?
A.  I don't see any characteristic signs of a burning on that
piece.



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
Q.  Did you examine this for burning or charring, Q507, which
is Government's Exhibit 664?
A.  When I'm looking at it under the scope, I would see burned
areas.  I didn't see that.
Q.  So somehow we separated 90 percent or so of Q507 away from
the rest of the wood.  Right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  We're moving away at 5,000 feet per second?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, these crystals of ammonium nitrate got enough speed to
catch Q507 and get embedded in it.  Is that your testimony?
A.  A portion of that Q507 was stripped off, and the explosive
was traveling and smashed into it, yes.
Q.  Even though the blast wave is moving at 5,000 feet per
second?
A.  We're talking about amazing things at very split-second
opportunities.
Q.  In this split-second opportunity, the crystals had enough
common sense to wait until the rest of Q507 was blasted away
and then catch it?
A.  You're -- you're -- you're into the realm of the amazing
part of explosives, how unpredictable they are.  We could take
and try to find Q507 every single time and we could run it ten
different times, and maybe one out of those times we'd find the
crystals on Q507.  You're predicting into a world that is



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
unpredictable.
Q.  Okay.  And this is the only piece that you found that had
any crystals on it; right?
A.  I looked at a lot of pieces of the truck and the side wall
of the truck, and I didn't find any other pieces that had it on
it.
Q.  Had crystals on it?
A.  Yes.
Q.  What is the melting point of ammonium nitrate?
A.  I'm not sure the melting point.  I'd have to look it up.
Q.  Around 200 degrees, 190 degrees?
A.  I'm not sure.  I'm not going to predict it.
Q.  At what temperature does ammonium nitrate evaporate into or
totally break down into ammonium and nitric acid vapors?
A.  I'm not sure of the exact number, but I'm going to have to
estimate higher than 200.  I could be wrong.
Q.  Would you agree with me that the blast when it occurred
reached temperatures of higher than 200 degrees?
A.  The blast itself would have, yes.
Q.  If there is charring on Q507, would you agree with me that
it had to reach a temperature of higher than 200 degrees?
A.  If there is burn marks on Q507, yes, I would agree it would
reach high temperatures.
Q.  Assuming that is correct, you would not expect crystals of
ammonium nitrate to survive those conditions, would you?



                   Steven Burmeister - Cross
A.  That's -- that's hard to predict.  I could definitely find
them on that particular object.
         MR. TRITICO:  May I have just a moment, Judge?
         THE COURT:  Yes.
         MR. TRITICO:  I need just one more moment, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  All right.
BY MR. TRITICO:
Q.  Now, your finding of the crystals of ammonium nitrate on
Q507 do not mean that an ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb was
used in Oklahoma City, do they?  That's not conclusive proof,
is it?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  You found no fuel oil on Q507, did you?
A.  No indications of fuel oil on that object.
Q.  You found no nitromethane on Q507, did you?
A.  That's correct.
Q.  Now, the amazing things that you were talking about with
respect to the crystals getting embedded on Q507 are still
subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, aren't they?
A.  I would agree with that.
         MR. TRITICO:  I thank you, sir.
         I'll pass the witness.
         THE COURT:  All right.  Redirect.
                     REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WILKINSON:



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q.  Agent Burmeister, I'd like to begin where Mr. Tritico left
off; and that's with Q507.  You showed us one photograph that
you thought depicted the crystals that you found on Q507.  Is
that correct?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Did you show a series or did you take a series of
photographs preserving the crystals that you had found on Q507?
A.  Yes.  I took several.
Q.  I'm going to show you Government's Exhibit 830, which
should be on your screen.  Do you recognize that?
A.  I --
Q.  Hold on one second.  Sorry about that.
         Do you recognize that?
A.  Yes, I do.
Q.  Is that one of the photographs you took when you were
looking at Q507 under the microscope?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Did you take that back in May of 1995?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Did you take that to preserve or in part to preserve a
record of the work that you had done?
A.  Yes.
         MS. WILKINSON:  Government offers 830, your Honor.
         MR. TRITICO:  No objection.
         THE COURT:  830 received.



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
         MS. WILKINSON:  May we publish?
         THE COURT:  It may be displayed, yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q.  Agent Burmeister, tell the jury what they're seeing and
what you saw under the microscope.
A.  This particular photograph depicts the wood side of Q507,
and it specifically shows the area at which these crystals were
observed.  The major abundance was in this region right here,
although they did continue down and into this area right here.
Q.  Let me show you an increased magnification of Government's
Exhibit 830, which is marked Government's Exhibit 831.  Do you
recognize that?
A.  Well, it's a reduced magnification.
Q.  I'm sorry?
A.  Yes.  It's another photo of Q507.
Q.  Did you also take that back in May of 1995?
A.  Yes.
         MS. WILKINSON:  Government offers 831, your Honor.
         MR. TRITICO:  Your Honor, I'm going to object to this
as cumulative to the other photographs that are already in.
         THE COURT:  Does it show something different?
         MS. WILKINSON:  I believe it does, your Honor.  May I
have --
         THE COURT:  Ask the witness.
BY MS. WILKINSON:



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q.  Agent Burmeister, can you explain what we're seeing here in
Government's Exhibit 831 that differs from Government's Exhibit
830?  Is this a different perspective?
A.  It's a different perspective.  It shows the entire piece
from a distance.  It gives you a better idea.  If you were to
look at the piece and be able to refer to the photograph, you
would be able to take the piece and the photograph and hold
them side by side and show where the -- where the material is
located.
         MS. WILKINSON:  Your Honor, we offer 831.
         MR. TRITICO:  I'll offer the same objection, your
Honor.
         THE COURT:  Overruled.  831 is received and may be
published.
         MS. WILKINSON:  Thank you.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q.  So would it be fair to say this would orient you on the
piece so you could recall exactly where you found the crystals?
A.  Yes, it would.
Q.  Can you show the jury by using your pen where you found the
crystals on Government's Exhibit Q507, which is also 664?
A.  Okay.  The bulk of the crystals were observed within that
circle, and then again they were down along this edge and in
that cavity right there.
Q.  Now, if I hand you Government's Exhibit 664, using that



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
photograph, can you point out to the jury on this piece exactly
where you saw the crystals?
A.  Yes.
         MS. WILKINSON:  Your Honor, may I approach?
         THE COURT:  Yes.
         MR. TRITICO:  Your Honor, may I move over?
         THE COURT:  Yes.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q.  Do you need to look at any of the other photographs, Agent
Burmeister?
A.  I might need one more photograph.
Q.  Would it be one you've already looked at, or the additional
photographs you've already taken?
A.  It would -- no.  I'm okay.  I've got my orientation.
Q.  Okay.  Can you show the jury on Government's Exhibit 664
where you found the crystals?
A.  It would be right in this region right here as they reflect
to the photograph.
Q.  Can you give a verbal description of the area that you're
pointing to?
A.  It's about 1 inch down from the top portion here and
approximately 1 inch over from this side, and you can see the
cavity which we see right here in the photograph is right here.
Q.  Thank you.
         Now, do you know when defense counsel requested to



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
examine Q507 for the crystals?
A.  No.
Q.  And after you tested Q507 for the crystals, did you write a
report documenting your findings?
A.  After I tested the crystals?  Yes, I did.
Q.  And are you aware of whether that report was turned over to
the defense?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And did you also disclose the notes that you had made while
you were conducting the tests to Q507?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And were those notes disclosed to the defense?
A.  Yes, they were.
Q.  Now, Mr. Tritico asked you how you could be so sure that
those crystals were embedded by some form of pressure or blast.
Can you explain in more detail how an explosion works and how
you believe those crystals could have been embedded in that
piece of evidence?
A.  Well, as the explosion is emanating out from the source --
if we take the perfect cylinder -- as the force is blowing out
from the center, with that force and blast wave there is
unconsumed material also being pushed out in a front, if you
will.  And as the front is moving out, it's reacting as it's
moving.  That's the process.
         As it's moving out, there is pockets that are



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
unconsumed and pockets of these things that are banging into
objects and moving in all sorts of different manners; so it's
entirely possible that an unconsumed portion is traveling at a
high speed and would impact on something that is like this.
         Now, the surface area on this is much larger than a
piece of unconsumed material.
Q.  Mr. Tritico asked you to assume that the detonation
velocity was 5,000 feet per second.  If this were a midrange-
velocity explosive that were used at Oklahoma City somewhere in
the range of 13- to 16,000 feet per second and the explosive
was an ammonium-nitrate-based explosive using some form of
prill, would it be reasonable that some of those prills could
be unconsumed at the very beginning of the explosion -- and I
understand we're talking about milliseconds now -- and could
have hit this piece and been blasted into Q507?
         MR. TRITICO:  Objection.  Compound question.
         THE COURT:  Sustained.
         MS. WILKINSON:  Let me rephrase.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q.  Let's assume that this was a midrange-velocity explosive.
Can we do that?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And that ammonium nitrate prills were used as part of the
explosive.  Correct?
A.  Yes.



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q.  Based on that, can you explain how some unconsumed matter
or materials made of ammonium nitrate could be embedded in
Q507?
A.  Well, it's the same discussion that I just mentioned: that
as that front moves, there is unconsumed material being moved
along with that front, unconsumed being prills of ammonium
nitrate traveling at that speed that the front is moving.  And
that front and unconsumed material is going to impact and hit
objects.  Some of it is heated up and lost.  Some is impacting
on objects.
         If this happened to be in the way of the object, of
the material, the unconsumed material, it's going to strike
this surface.
Q.  Is that a random occurrence in an explosion?
A.  It's not predictable.  The dispersion of this material is
unpredictable.
Q.  Does it depend in part on how the device is constructed?
A.  It could be.
Q.  Does it depend on how the device was boosted?
         MR. TRITICO:  I'm going to object to the leading
nature of these questions.
         MS. WILKINSON:  I'll rephrase it, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  All right.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q.  What does it depend on, Agent Burmeister?  What are the



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
factors you would consider?
A.  There is a variety of different factors:  Shape, how --
just what you said, how it was boosted, the configuration of
how it was initiated overall, the actual vessel that it was
housed in, the outside vessel that it's being housed in, the --
there is other factors, temperature of the day, the pressure of
the day.  Those are some other things.  Humidity.
Q.  Now, once this explosion occurs, are there also different
factors you have to consider about whether explosive residue
would be recovered at the scene at all?
A.  Yes.
Q.  What factors did you consider in this case?
A.  Environmental factors.
Q.  Give more detail on that, please.
A.  Well, if the -- if it's a high humidity or if the rain
might have occurred, the rain is going to wash explosives away,
not only organic but also inorganic explosives.  So these
environmental factors are definitely present and must be
considered when you're approaching and evaluating a particular
scene.
Q.  Is it common after explosions such as the one that occurred
in Oklahoma City that there are ancillary fires in the area?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And could fire -- those ancillary fires also consume any
uninitiated explosives that were in the area?



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
A.  Certainly possible.
Q.  What about the use of water by the firefighters in the
area?
A.  That's entirely possible to have washed away residues.
Q.  Did you consider that when you were analyzing the evidence
in this investigation?
A.  Yes, I did; but the major consideration was the rainstorm
the night before.
Q.  Now, Mr. Tritico asked you about the efficiency of ammonium
nitrate and fuel oil or ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.  And
you said there can be some inefficiencies.  Is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Can you explain that to the jury?
A.  Well, the one portion that you want to do whenever you are
mixing the two together, the ammonium nitrate and the fuel, the
concept here is to take the ammonium nitrate, which is the
oxidizer, and blend it with the fuel; and that's the intimate
mix that you need to try to obtain.  If you obtain that blended
mix, then obviously there is going to be portions that will not
react and be consumed effectively.  Those are the areas that
I'm referring to.
Q.  Is there a range of effective mixtures where the device or
the materials or components of the bomb would be consumed after
an explosion?
A.  Are you referring to a portion of the device as far as



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
consumption?
Q.  Yes.
A.  The areas on the exterior would be the ones that I would
predict to be the likely area that would be unconsumed, on the
exterior, because it's being forced on the "out."
         The interior portion would be consumed in the
reaction.
Q.  Is it your experience that ammonium nitrate and fuel oil
when detonated leaves prills after an explosion?
A.  It could, but this is the first time that I've seen and
recovered crystals.
Q.  So would it be fair to say it hasn't been your experience
to find prills after an explosion like that?
         MR. TRITICO:  Excuse me, Judge.  Leading.
         THE COURT:  Well, sustained.  You're talking prills,
and you're talking crystals.
         MS. WILKINSON:  I'm sorry, your Honor.  I'll clarify
my question.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q.  Agent Burmeister, is it your experience to find prills --
not crystals; prills -- after an explosion of ammonium nitrate
and fuel oil?
A.  I've never seen prills after that.
Q.  Why is that?
A.  The prill itself is a fragile, little species.  It's



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
traveling at a high rate; and when it impacts on something,
it's going to get crushed.
Q.  And what about your experience in finding crystals of
ammonium nitrate after an explosion of ammonium nitrate and
fuel oil?
A.  My experience, it's rare to find it.
Q.  So was this an unusual occurrence in this case for you to
find those crystals on Q507?
         MR. TRITICO:  Objection.  Leading, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Overruled.
BY MS. WILKINSON:
Q.  Was it an unusual experience?
A.  Yes, it was.
Q.  And are you aware of other research that's been done with
ammonium nitrate and fuel oil explosions?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And are you aware of whether residues, crystal residues,
were found after those experiments when the ammonium nitrate
and fuel oil was detonated?
A.  The studies that I've been aware of and have been a part
of, I've not seen the actual crystals being observed.
Q.  Have you spoken to other experts in the explosive residue
field who have conducted crime-scene examinations of
ammonium-nitrate-based explosives?
A.  Yes.



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q.  Are you aware of whether they have ever found ammonium
nitrate crystals at the scene after an explosion that they
believed was in part caused by an ammonium-nitrate-based
explosive?
A.  Yes.  My conversation with them is they have not found
crystals, either.
Q.  Tell the jury why it's so unusual to find the crystals at
the scene.
A.  It's the principle, the randomness of an explosion: that
the probability of finding the right piece with this material
on it -- there is a probability factor.
Q.  What about finding other explosives -- high explosives
after an explosion of an improvised explosive device?
A.  It depends again on the scene and type of device that
you're referring to.
Q.  Well, let's go to a large explosion.  Have you ever in your
experience found PETN at a post-blast site when there has been
a large explosion?
A.  I have not found PETN at a large explosion scene.
Q.  Now, if an explosive device used detonating cord with PETN
or blasting caps with PETN, why in your opinion would it be
typical not to find PETN residues after an explosion?
A.  It's my opinion that it would be consumed in the overall
reaction, and the quantity is so small compared to everything
else that we wouldn't find any residues.



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q.  What about EGDN, if dynamite were used to detonate an
improvised explosive device?
A.  The material itself, again, you have to take into
consideration the type of explosion that you're referring to;
but again, it would have been consumed and, due to the heat of
the reaction, driven away.
Q.  So would it be unusual, or usual, in your experience, to
find no high-explosive residues after or in investigating a
post-blast explosion crime scene?
A.  It's not unusual not to find any.
Q.  What about finding the remains of any kind of shock tube or
safety fuse used in an improvised explosive device?  Is it
common, or uncommon, to fail to find remnants of shock tube or
safety fuse at a post-blast crime scene?
A.  Again, those items would be consumed.  I think under the
blast pressure that it would have been destroyed in the overall
reaction.
Q.  Yesterday, you narrated a videotape of the 1993 explosion
of a 1200-pound improvised explosive device.  Correct?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And after that, did you test any of the witness material to
determine if there were any residues present?
A.  Yes, we did.
Q.  What did you find?
A.  There was ammonium ions and nitrate ions found, but no high



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
explosives were detected.
Q.  Let's talk about the difference between ions and the
crystals that you found.
A.  Yes.
Q.  Is there a difference to you as a scientist in finding
ammonium ions and nitrate ions and finding a crystal of
ammonium nitrate?
A.  If we look at the crystals, we're looking at a solid
substance.  When we talk ions, we're looking at two that are
separate; and if we look at ammonium nitrate, we're looking at
ammonium ions and nitrate ions.  When we glue the two together,
then we have the crystal and we have ammonium nitrate.  So when
we're referring to ions, we're talking about the two being
separated.
Q.  So which is more important to you as an explosives residue
expert?
A.  When they're glued together and we find the actual crystal
itself.
Q.  Once you find the crystal, can you break it apart to
reassure yourself that you have ammonium and nitrate ions?
A.  Sure.  There is instrumental methods you can use to examine
it, either not breaking it apart -- but you can break it apart
and look at the different components within it.

Q.  You were asked on cross-examination about the chance that
the ammonium nitrate crystals that you found on Q507 somehow



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
were ions before you saw them and recrystallized and formed the
ammonium nitrate crystals that you examined.  Do you recall
that?
A.  Yes.
Q.  In your mind, is that possible?
A.  I don't think it happened.  It's not -- I don't think it
was formed.
Q.  Did you find other elements present on Q507 that suggested
that this -- these crystals were in their original form?
A.  Can you state that -- rephrase that.  I'm sorry.
Q.  Yes, I'm sorry.  Did you find other elements -- when you
did your SEM/EDXA, did you find other elements present on Q507
crystals?
A.  Yes.  There were other elements that were present on the
crystals themselves.
Q.  What did that suggest to you about whether this had been a
crystal in its original form or whether it had been these ions
that somehow magically recrystallized?
A.  The elements that were present were consistent with those
used in the coatings for prills, and that suggested to me that
they originated at one time from a prill vs. an actual
crystalline material.
Q.  You mentioned that you had prior experience in crystal or
microcrystal analysis; is that right?
A.  That's correct, yes.



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q.  In your opinion, is there a difference in the crystal
structure of ammonium nitrate when it's in its original form
and when it recrystallizes?
A.  There is an appearance that you will see that is different,
yes.
Q.  And did you observe that when you examined the crystals
in -- or embedded in Q507?
A.  Yes.  They were not like what I was referring to as a
recrystallized form.  These were crystals.
Q.  You were also asked on cross-examination about the earplugs
that you examined from Mr. McVeigh, and Mr. Tritico pointed out
that the nitroglycerine that was on those earplugs could have
come from someone who was handling firearms.  Is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Are you aware of any firearms that also contain PETN and
EDGN (sic)?
A.  None that contain PETN or EGDN.
Q.  So when you found those high-explosive residues on the
earplugs, was that consistent with someone who was only
handling firearms?
A.  No.
Q.  You were also asked about the T-shirt that you tested, the
one that you held up with the blue arms and the white T-shirt,
and Mr. Tritico suggested that you -- if someone were holding a
holster, they might find nitroglycerine on that T-shirt.  Do



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
you recall that?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Did you find any nitroglycerine on that T-shirt?
A.  Yes.
Q.  On the blue T-shirt, blue sleeves with the white T-shirt?
         Would it help if I showed you the chart that you
constructed?
A.  Yes, that would be helpful.
Q.  I'm referring to Government's Exhibit 430, which was Q23.
What did you find on that T-shirt?
A.  I'm sorry.  I was slightly confused before.
Q.  I'm sorry.  I didn't refer to the exhibit number.
A.  You're right.  The -- there was no -- there was no
nitroglycerine observed on the blue-armed T-shirt.  That's
correct.
Q.  And what did you find on that T-shirt?
A.  PETN.
Q.  Again, that's not consistent with handling of firearms.  Is
that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  When you had discussions or received that memorandum from
Dr. Whitehurst about the ammonium ions and the nitrate ions,
were you two specifically discussing the crystals, or were you

discussing the significance of finding separate ions?
A.  I don't recall a discussion that took place prior to this.



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
I remember receiving that memo that he presented to me, and
there really was no preliminary foundation for receiving that
memo whatsoever.  He just provided it to me almost as a
for-your-information-type memo.  And like I had mentioned,
everything in that memo I had already known; so there was
nothing new that I was finding out about that memo.
Q.  In that memo he pointed out to you that when you find just
the ions separately, the nitrate ions and the ammonium ions,
that is not as significant as finding the crystal.  Is that
correct?

A.  Yes.
Q.  And you were aware of that before Dr. Whitehurst shared
that memo with you?
A.  Definitely.
Q.  In fact, when you did your analysis in this case, you
carefully reported the ammonium ions and the nitrate ions you
found on the glass that you discussed with Mr. Tritico; is that
right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And what did you say about the significance of those
elevated levels of ammonium ions and nitrate ions found on the
glass inside the Murrah Building?
A.  Essentially in the report, I said I couldn't attribute any
significance to them without further information of the
environment -- perhaps not in those words, but that was the



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
information that I was relaying in the report.
Q.  And you did that without talking to Dr. Whitehurst; is that
correct?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You also examined and Mr. Tritico asked you about the sign,
the parking sign, Government's Exhibit 826.  Do you recall
that?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, you knew that it had rained the day before you seized
this; is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And just to clarify a date, what date did you seize this
piece of evidence?
A.  That would have been the 20th of April.
Q.  Go ahead.  I'm sorry.
A.  20th of April.
Q.  Mr. Tritico asked you about a series of pieces of evidence
that you seized including this and you stated that you seized
on April 21.  Were you misspeaking at that time?
A.  I was incorrect, yes.  That was seized the first day that
we were there on the first walk-through.
Q.  So it was April 20, 1995, a Thursday?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You were aware that it had rained the day before you seized
this; correct?



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
A.  Yes.
Q.  Why did you seize this parking sign, then?
A.  It was for the characteristics of the sign based on the
information which we had from the previous testing that we had
had out at Socorro, New Mexico, and also for any types of
residue that might be on that -- that particular sign.
Q.  What are the characteristics that you were looking for in
Government's Exhibit 826, the parking sign?
A.  The significance of the sign shows the bending action of
the sign, and what that would do is show directionality for
that particular device.
Q.  Knowing that it had rained, torrential downpour on
April 19, 1995, did you expect to find a lot of explosive
residues at the scene?
A.  No.
Q.  Now, when you were asked by Mr. Tritico about the recovery
of Q507, you told him that you weren't present when Mr. Kelly
picked it up; correct?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Do you know what day it was seized at the crime scene?
A.  That would have been the 21st.
Q.  Was that when you were paged and you were called away?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You told him that you didn't search the area or test the
area for nitrates.  Is that correct?



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
A.  Yes.
Q.  If you had found nitrate ions there, would that have
changed your finding about identifying the crystals on Q507 to
ammonium nitrate?
A.  I would have used it in the consideration; but no, it would
not have changed the finding.
Q.  Why not?
A.  Again, we can't attribute to where those nitrate ions are
coming from.  In this particular case, we have crystals of
ammonium nitrate.  We know the source of those nitrates.
Q.  Let's go to the laboratory.  And you were asked a series of
questions about contamination.  Do you recall that?
A.  Yes.
Q.  One that you were asked was about the air-conditioning
system.  Now, if there was contamination in your
air-conditioning system, would you have seen evidence of that
at the laboratory?
A.  Yes, I think I would.
Q.  Is there a common term referred to, that type of
contamination?
A.  As a background study, control study.
Q.  And is it commonly referred to as "systemic contamination"?
A.  I would consider it as being a systemic contamination.  If
I'm starting to see appearances in the routine evidence that
I'm processing, then I would see that to be a problem.



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
Q.  And what would that mean, this kind of systemic
contamination?  How would you see evidence of it?
A.  Well, I would find positive findings in evidence.  That's
where I would find it.
Q.  On a repeated basis?
A.  On a repeated basis, yes, and also in the blanks that I'm
running.
Q.  Now, you ran blanks on every piece of evidence that you
tested in this case.  Is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And did you see positive, or did you get positive findings
for contamination?
A.  No.
Q.  In fact, you conducted hundreds of tests for high
explosives in this case; is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And did you find a large amount of positive findings for
high explosives residue in this case?
A.  No.
Q.  What does that tell you about the possibility of systemic
contamination in the laboratory?
A.  To me, it doesn't exist.
Q.  Now, what about random contamination that Mr. Tritico was
also asking about, about particles that might just randomly
transfer from one area to the other?  Are you familiar with



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
that?
A.  I recall that.
Q.  The general concept?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And you were asked, I think, about the carpet that's in
your instrumental area?
A.  Yes.
Q.  If there was PETN on that carpet, would you expect that
PETN to be able to move up from the carpet, up to where you
test your samples and into your sample?
A.  No, unless I'm actually wiping the sample on the carpet.
Q.  Did do you that in this case?
A.  No.
Q.  And when you test your samples out in the instrumental
area, are you testing the actual piece of evidence, or are you
only testing the sample?
A.  I'm -- in the laboratory, I'm testing the extract removed
from the sample.  That's placed into a vessel that is then
transported to the instrument.
         The actual evidence handling is done in a separate
room.
Q.  All right.  Let's explain that a little bit, because I
don't think that's clear.  When you first took out the clothes,
for example, to do your examination and you went through your
procedures, you told us about where you put on your clean lab



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
coat and you clean the area, put down the paper, put on your
gloves, and doing an extraction of a piece of evidence.  Where
do you conduct that -- that examination?
A.  That's in an office.  That's a special room for the
examination.
Q.  Is that the office that's locked?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And after you take the extract -- let's say from the shirt
that you were discussing -- what do you do with that extract?
A.  The extract is taken for concentration, so it's dried down
to a concentrated volume, and that's done under a nitrogen gas
that's blown over the top of it.
Q.  And is that put into some kind of test tube or beaker?
A.  Well, the extract itself is placed into a disposable test
tube.  That test tube is dried down again, concentrated.  The
volume may start large, and you want to reduce that volume down
to a concentrated level.  That concentrated level is then
what's taken to the instrument for analysis.
Q.  So by the time you're walking out to your instrument, you
have a tiny, little sample; right?
A.  Yes, in a tube.
Q.  In a tube.  Is the tube covered as you walk from your
office to the instrument?
A.  It has a screw cap on it.
Q.  So what is the opportunity for these random PETN particles



                  Steven Burmeister - Redirect
or other high explosives to jump inside the test tube?
A.  I think it's unlikely to have occurred.
Q.  What about EGDN?
A.  You must take the proper procedures for EGDN; but again, it
has a little higher vapor pressure in and around with the
nitroglycerine, so it has some sort of a transfer capability.
Q.  So what is the transfer capability of PETN vs. EGDN
relatively speaking?
A.  There is a difference between the two.
Q.  And which one is more difficult to transfer?
A.  The PETN.
Q.  Now, you were asked about some contamination studies that
were done; and are you aware that your area, where you do your
testing, and the area where Mr. Martz does his testing was
examined for contamination?
A.  Yes.
Q.  By Dr. Whitehurst?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And what were the results of the tests of your area and
Mr. Martz's area?
A.  There were no explosives detected.
         MS. WILKINSON:  Your Honor, this would probably be a
good breaking point.
         THE COURT:  All right.
         You may step down now.  We'll have you back after
lunch.
         And, members of the jury, we'll take our luncheon
recess at this time.  And of course, as usual, I must caution
you for the record and with emphasis, as always, to keep open
minds.  Don't discuss the case among yourselves or with anybody
else, and be very careful to continue to avoid anything outside
of our evidence that could affect your decisions.
         You're excused now till -- we'll make it 1:45.
    (Jury out at 12:13 p.m.)
         THE COURT:  There is a sort of an open record with
respect to J400.  It was offered at one time.  There was an
objection.  Then there was some additional effort to lay a
foundation for it, I think, but it was never reoffered.  This
is the memorandum with all of these attachments.
         MR. TRITICO:  I believe that's right.  I don't recall
if I reoffered it or not.
         THE COURT:  No, you didn't reoffer it.
         MR. TRITICO:  I reoffer it at this time.
         THE COURT:  It's been reoffered.
         MS. WILKINSON:  We have no objection, your Honor.
That's fine.
         THE COURT:  We'll receive J400.  I'll mention that to
the jury so they're up to speed on it with us, but I didn't
know what you wanted to do about it, so --
         MR. TRITICO:  Thank you.
         THE COURT:  That's fine.
         We'll recess till 1:45.
    (Recess at 12:14 p.m.)
                         *  *  *  *  *
                             INDEX
Item                                                      Page
WITNESSES
    Steven Burmeister
         Cross-examination Continued by Mr. Tritico       9701
         Redirect Examination by Ms. Wilkinson  
                     PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit      Offered  Received  Refused  Reserved  Withdrawn
830            9807     9807
831            9808     9809
                     DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit      Offered  Received  Refused  Reserved  Withdrawn
J400 
J400           9832     9832
J444 
J444 pp. 1-3  
                         *  *  *  *  *




                    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 20th day of May, 1997.
 
                                 _______________________________
                                         Paul Zuckerman
 
                                 _______________________________
                                          Kara Spitler