OKC Bombing Trial Transcript - 06/11/1997 14:02 CDT/CST
06/11/1997
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH,
Defendant.
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
(Trial to Jury - Volume 145)
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 9:00 a.m., on the 11th day of June,
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, JAMIE ORENSTEIN, AITAN
GOELMAN, and VICKI BEHENNA, Special Attorneys to the U.S.
Attorney General, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1200, Denver,
Colorado, 80294, appearing for the plaintiff.
STEPHEN JONES, ROBERT NIGH, JR., RICHARD BURR, RANDALL
COYNE, and ROBERT WARREN, 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; MANDY WELCH, Attorney at Law, 412 Main, Suite
1150, Houston, Texas, 77002; 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; and MAURIE A. LEVIN, P.O. Box 280,
Austin, Texas, 78767-0280, appearing for Defendant McVeigh.
* * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
(In open court at 9:00 a.m.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
Are we ready for the jury?
MR. JONES: We are, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We'll bring them in.
(Jury in at 9:01 a.m.)
THE COURT: Members of the jury, good morning.
JURORS: Good morning.
THE COURT: We're ready to resume with further
cross-examination of Mr. Reavis.
Mr. Reavis, if you'll please resume the stand under
the oath you took yesterday.
(Dick Reavis was recalled to the stand.)
THE COURT: Mr. Ryan.
MR. RYAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may continue.
CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Reavis.
A. Good morning.
Q. I just have a few more questions for you. You talked about
a number of topics yesterday and generally with a view toward
what information was available to someone who read Soldier of
Fortune magazine back in '93 and '94; do you recall that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I'm not going to go over all of the various points that you
made, but I do want to ask you about three of them. One of the
questions asked of you was what information was available in
Dick Reavis - Cross
the articles that have been introduced in evidence in this
hearing with respect to who fired the first shot at the Waco
compound. Do you recall that question?
A. No, sir, but let's say I do.
Q. Well, what information was available in the Soldier of
Fortune literature with respect to who fired the first shot?
A. There were three theories, at least three. One that it was
an accidental discharge, one that it was a shot from the dog
team, and one that it was a shot aimed at David Koresh.
Q. Was there a fourth statement of facts as to who fired the
first shot contained in the Soldier of Fortune magazine
articles?
A. Probably said that there was also reports from the
government that the residents fired first.
Q. Did you not report in Soldier of Fortune magazine,
yourself, with respect to the findings of the trial judge?
A. I did.
Q. And did you not report that the trial judge found that the
Branch Davidians inside the compound fired the first shots on
February 28?
A. I reported that the trial judge found that, yes.
Q. So he's the one who had sat through 125 or so witnesses?
A. The jury also sat through and didn't find the same thing,
and I reported that, too.
Q. Now, the jury wasn't asked that question, were they,
Dick Reavis - Cross
Mr. Reavis?
A. The jury was asked if they were guilty of murder.
Q. You were also asked who started the fire, and do you
remember that question --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- what information was available in Soldier of Fortune
magazine?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you went on and told us about this investigator was on
the videotapes that determined that -- well, I don't want to
paraphrase what you said, but you basically told us some
information, but you didn't give us all the information, did
you, in the Soldier of Fortune magazine articles?
A. I did not give the government's point of view.
Q. You didn't tell the jury that the Houston Fire Department
arson investigator found that the Branch Davidians used
gasoline to set the April 19 fire?
A. I did not.
Q. And that was in the Soldier of Fortune magazine articles,
wasn't it?
A. It may have been even in the one I wrote.
Q. And you didn't tell the jury yesterday that Judge Smith
found that the Davidians had set the fire in his rulings in
open court, and that you reported on those in WW32?
A. That's right.
Dick Reavis - Cross
Q. You were also asked about how the Davidians were killed on
April 19 of 1993. You remember telling us about that.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you told us some information had been contained in one
of the articles concerning the Davidians being shot. Do you
recall that testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you reported, did you not, on the findings of the
trial court after the evidence had been presented with respect
to this issue, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you say in your article that the court said
finally, by a combination of suicide and murder inflicted
Davidian upon Davidian, all but a handful of the Davidians were
killed?
A. Yes, sir, I reported the judge said that.
MR. RYAN: That's all I have, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have some redirect?
MR. JONES: Yes, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WELCH:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Reavis.
A. Good morning.
Q. When I asked you questions yesterday, we didn't go over
each and every thing in each and every article, did we?
Dick Reavis - Redirect
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Do you recall the article that reported the interview with
Mr. Zimmermann?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And will you tell us again who Zimmermann was.
A. Mr. Zimmermann was the attorney for Steve Schneider. He's
an attorney who went into Mt. Carmel during the siege several
times to talk to the people inside.
Q. Do you recall which article that was?
A. I think it's called, "What the Feds Don't Want You to Know
About Waco."
Q. Does that article discuss the report from the Houston
fireman who -- I'm talking about the man that Mr. Ryan referred
to.
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Can you tell me a little bit more about that.
A. It discusses the report of Paul Gray who, as Mr. Ryan
pointed out, concluded that the residents of Mt. Carmel set the
fire.
Q. I'm showing you -- am going to show you previously admitted
WW15. Is this the article you're referring to?
A. Yes, ma'am. On page 74 it discusses Paul Gray -- 74 and
75.
Q. And I didn't ask you about that, did I?
A. No, ma'am.
Dick Reavis - Redirect
Q. Does it also discuss comments made by Mr. Zimmermann
concerning Mr. Gray's report?
A. It quotes Mr. Zimmermann.
Q. And where does it quote him?
A. At the bottom of 74.
Q. Can you point to it.
A. Yes, ma'am. Let's see. Bottom of 74 and then over at the
top of the next page.
Q. Could you tell us what he said.
A. Yes. It says that Paul Gray's wife works for the ATF and
that Paul Gray and his wife socialized with the ATF in Houston
and went to the funeral of one of the dead agents and that Paul
Gray for years worked in an ATF office and his business card
identified him as ATF.
And then Zimmermann says, "Out of all the independent
fire examiners they have in the United States, why didn't they
pick someone from Chicago or Philadelphia, New York, Miami, or
California; why do they pick a guy from Houston who worked in
the ATF office until three years ago?"
Q. Now, I didn't ask you any questions about the reports of
Dr. Gray from either perspective, did I?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Now, you recall yesterday that Mr. Ryan mentioned a book
review from the Military Law Review Journal?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Dick Reavis - Redirect
Q. And you recall that he also quoted to you from a book
review of Ashes of Waco that was published in the Washington
Post?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Do you have a copy of the Washington Post book review that
Mr. Ryan quoted from?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. I'm showing you what's -- excuse me, I'm showing you what's
been marked as WW61. And tell me what that is.
A. That's the Washington Post review of that book.
Q. Is the portion that Mr. Ryan quoted on the second page?
A. Do you want me to mark where it is?
Q. Not yet, no.
A. It's on the second page, yes.
MS. WELCH: Your Honor, we would move the admission of
WW61.
MR. RYAN: Judge, I have no problem -- objection, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled, received.
BY MS. WELCH:
Q. Would you mark the portion in that article that -- well,
mark the whole paragraph that the quote came from, and then
read it to the jury.
A. The pen seems to have quit. Go down on the page. There
you go. That's where it starts.
Dick Reavis - Redirect
Q. It starts on the --
A. Continues over.
Q. Okay. Read that and then we'll move it over.
A. "But," it says, "there's far more to Reavis's narrative, a
loosely woven -- and often loosely documented -- account of
events from February 28, 1993, through the trial of 11 Branch
Davidians a year later. Thousands of details, many quirky and
insightful, others ridiculous," parentheses, "('she was still
shapely at 46, despite having given birth to seven children'),
portray life inside the compound and offer a Davidian's
perspective of the attacks by federal agents. Others, from
autopsy reports and court records, suggest strongly the
government's culpability."
Q. Mr. Reavis, do you recall -- well, let me show you first
WW23. It's previously admitted.
Is this an article that you summarized yesterday?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Do you recall that Mr. Ryan suggested that you were not
fair in your summary of this article that discusses the
Department of Justice report because you failed to talk about
the conclusions of the independent investigators other than
Dr. Stone?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. What is this article about?
A. It's about the Department of Justice report and essentially
Dick Reavis - Redirect
about Dr. Stone's opinion of it.
Q. Have you reviewed that article and highlighted the portions
that refer to the other independent experts that you didn't
mention?
A. There are no other independent experts mentioned.
Q. Well, there are. They mention them in there, don't they?
A. They mention the existence of others without naming them
and saying what they said.
Q. Did you highlight every place in that article that
references the presence of other independent experts?
A. Okay. Let me see.
Q. I'm not referring to the one you're looking at. I'm
referring to the article that you looked at this morning.
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And did you highlight that article?
A. Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: I'm confused about what article you're
talking about.
MS. WELCH: Yes, your Honor. I'm about to show it to
Mr. Reavis. I'm sorry.
And this is just to Mr. Reavis.
BY MS. WELCH:
Q. Is this the copy of WW23 that you highlighted?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And you highlighted the portions that refer to other
Dick Reavis - Redirect
independent experts?
A. Yes, ma'am.
MS. WELCH: Your Honor, we would move the admission of
the highlighted article.
THE COURT: This is another copy of what's already in
evidence, and if you're offering it for the highlighting
only --
MS. WELCH: We don't need to offer it if we can just
show the highlighted portion and let him read from them to show
that the references to the other independent experts were
totally insignificant.
THE COURT: Well, what is it you want to do?
MS. WELCH: May we show this to the jury? It's a
highlighted copy of WW23, which was previously admitted.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. WELCH: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MS. WELCH:
Q. Now, would you read the small highlights that do refer to
the other experts.
A. It says, "Stone, one of ten unpaid experts empaneled to
weigh the wisdom of DOJ's decision in this case, quickly hit a
stone wall."
Q. Now, the caption under Dr. Stone's photo is also
highlighted?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Dick Reavis - Redirect
Q. And I assume that's because it also refers to other
independent experts, and would you read that.
A. "Dr. Alan Stone of Harvard's medical and law school
faculties was first of government panel of experts to conclude
the feds deserve some blame for the Waco standoff's fiery end.
His judgment prompted FBI denial claiming Stone's independent
study went awry." Photo courtesy Alan Stone, or A. Stone.
Q. Now, I'm going to show you the second page of that article
that has two portions highlighted.
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Are those also highlights that were made of references to
other independent experts in that article?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Would you please read them.
A. It says, "After he and other experts questioned the FBI's
assault with tanks and CS chemical agent, Stone noted that the
FBI," quote, "'misled panel members.'"
Then in the lower highlight it says: "Instead of
having this information available initially, DOJ's
investigative panel was provided with a rewritten evaluation
that tagged Koresh as an ordinary criminal who was a 'con man'
and whose followers were 'dupes.'"
Q. And this whole article is admitted into evidence, isn't it,
Mr. Reavis?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Dick Reavis - Redirect
Q. Now, you recall that Mr. Ryan asked you whether or not
Dr. Stone had concluded that the fire was not started by the
FBI? You remember that question?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And your answer was at that point he did.
A. That's right.
Q. What do you mean by "at that point"?
A. Dr. Stone's initial impressions when he had talked only to
FBI people were that the residents of the Mt. Carmel had set
themselves on fire.
Q. Now, you didn't report that in your summary of the article,
did you?
A. I did not.
Q. Is there a reference to Dr. Stone changing his mind in the
article?
A. Yes, ma'am. On page 55. Or 65, I guess. Yeah, 65.
Q. Would you circle the reference to Dr. Stone's later
opinion.
A. Yes, ma'am.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: What exhibit?
MS. WELCH: I'm sorry, this is WW23. It's the same
exhibit. Page 94.
BY MS. WELCH:
Q. Would you -- this is page 65. Would you please read from
that.
Dick Reavis - Redirect
A. It says, "After viewing a video analysis prepared by the
California Organization for Public Safety --" it includes those
pictures of the gym we showed yesterday "-- Stone told SOF the
video suggests to me -- plus what other people have told me --
that the tanks destroyed the gym area, where there might have
been people who got crushed to death. It may be that the FBI,
with the clumsiness with which they carried out this portion of
the breaching operation, may have accidentally ignited a fire."
Q. And I didn't ask you about that, either, did I?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Now, the article's about Dr. Stone, isn't it? And that's
what you summarized?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Does it report information from another expert?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And who was that?
A. Dr. Rodney Crow.
Q. And don't go into the details, but just tell me basically
what his reports were about.
A. Rodney Crow is a forensic dentist, was identifying the
bodies at Mt. Carmel. Soldier of Fortune interviews him to the
effect that there were people killed by falling debris when the
tanks came ramming into the building.
Q. And I didn't ask you to summarize that information, either,
did I, Mr. Reavis?
Dick Reavis - Redirect
A. No, ma'am.
Q. The article that you wrote about the trial in Waco is in
evidence also, isn't it, Mr. Reavis?
A. I believe it is.
Q. What is the name of it?
A. "Justice Takes a Holiday."
MS. WELCH: I'm sorry, your Honor, this will take one
second.
BY MS. WELCH:
Q. WW32. It has been admitted as WW32, Mr. Reavis.
A. Okay.
Q. And the jury can read that article for itself, can it not?
A. Yes, ma'am.
MS. WELCH: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Any recross?
MR. RYAN: One question, your Honor. May I do it from
here?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. WELCH: I'm sorry. It has not been admitted? It
has not been admitted. I'm sorry. Then I will show Mr. Reavis
WW32.
BY MS. WELCH:
Q. Is this the article that you wrote for Soldier of Fortune?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And is this the article that Mr. Ryan referenced?
Dick Reavis - Redirect
A. Yes, ma'am.
MS. WELCH: We would move its admission, your Honor.
MR. RYAN: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
MS. WELCH: Thank you, your Honor. No further
questions.
THE COURT: Now, you may ask it from there, Mr. Ryan.
MR. RYAN: Thank you, your Honor.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Mr. Reavis, following your cross-examination last night,
did you meet with defense counsel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And go over the testimony that you will give today?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. RYAN: That's all I have, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is the witness excused now?
MS. WELCH: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down. You're excused.
Next, please.
MR. BURR: Sheila Nicholas.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you raise your right
hand, please.
(Sheila Nicholas affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you have a seat, please.
Would you state your full name for the record and
spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Sheila Vianne Nicholas, N-I-C-H-O-L-A-S.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. BURR: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BURR:
Q. Good morning, Miss Nicholas.
A. Hi.
Q. If you would, get a little bit closer to the microphone so
everybody can hear you fine. Where do you live?
A. In Vassar, Michigan.
Q. And what part of Michigan is that in?
A. The Thumb area.
Q. Have you lived there all your life?
A. No. I've lived in the general area all my life with the
exception of a couple years.
Q. Where did you live for that couple of years, and when was
it in your lifetime?
A. North Carolina from about '89 to '93 or '94.
Q. What was the reason for you to be living there in that
period?
A. I was married to a military man who was stationed in
Fayetteville.
Sheila Nicholas - Direct
Q. Did you move back to Michigan after that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And why did you move back?
A. That's where I'm originally from, all my family's there.
Q. Did something happen with that marriage?
A. Yes. It ended.
Q. After you got back to Michigan, did you develop a new
relationship with somebody else?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Who was that person?
A. Kevin Nicholas.
Q. Did you and Kevin eventually marry?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Now, has Kevin, your husband, testified in this case
before?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. As a witness for the Government in the first part of the
case?
A. Yes.
Q. Ms. Nicholas, do you have any children?
A. Yes, I do. I have two.
Q. What are their ages?
A. My daughter is six, and my son is almost two.
Q. Do you know Timothy McVeigh?
A. Yes, I do.
Sheila Nicholas - Direct
Q. Before you first met Tim, had your husband, Kevin, told you
anything about him?
A. Very little.
Q. Had he said something?
A. Yes, he mentioned he had a friend who resided everywhere,
wandered around, popped in now and then.
Q. Did he say that you often did not know when he might pop
in?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did there come a time when Tim popped in?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. When was that?
A. Late fall of 1994. I believe it was October, November.
Q. Was that the first time you had the occasion to meet Tim
McVeigh?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. What were you doing at the time that he popped in?
A. I was in the process of moving in with Kevin. I had just
decided I was going to do that.
Q. Tell us about that first meeting with Tim, if you would.
A. Well, he just kind of popped in. He was very nice,
friendly, instantly just someone that you are kind of drawn to,
you know. Like him.
Q. I'm sorry, go ahead.
A. That's okay.
Sheila Nicholas - Direct
Q. Were you actually in the process of making the move by
putting things into trucks at the time?
A. No, not at that time. I had just decided that that's what
we would do. Nothing was moved as of yet.
Q. Within a short time after Tim arrived, did you actually do
the move?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did he help you do it?
A. Yes, Tim and I did it. My husband was working at the time,
full-time, so Tim was my moving partner.
Q. How long did it take you to move?
A. With Tim's help, not long. I think maybe a week. Two at
the most.
Q. What were your first impressions? You've given a little
bit of it, but I think I interrupted you. What were your first
impressions of Tim at that time?
A. He's very likable, you know. Someone when you meet them
for the first time, you're drawn to them.
Q. Did you have a chance to spend more time with Tim after
that?
A. Yes, I did. I spent quite a bit of time with him during
the days when my husband was at work.
Q. Were you working at that time?
A. Yes, part-time at a Wal-Mart.
Q. How did it work out? Was it part of each day or some
Sheila Nicholas - Direct
days --
A. No, just a couple days a week, you know, two or three days.
Q. And those other days, where were you?
A. Usually at home with Tim -- you know, we traveled together.
Q. You and Tim would travel about together?
A. Yeah, we visited relatives, my family, Kevin's family.
Q. How did it happen to be that he traveled around to visit
with other people with you?
A. Well, like I said, he's really likable, so we just -- you
know, we hit it off, we were friends. So when I went
somewhere, he went.
Q. Was he with you nearly every day, or were there some days
he was gone?
A. There was some days -- I mean he had a life of his own to
lead. I mean he went places and came back.
Q. Were there times that he left town and then came back?
A. Yes, twice, I believe.
Q. Do you know where he went during those times?
A. One time I believe he went to his grandfather's or New York
where his grandfather had passed. The other time, I'm not
sure.
Q. Was he gone very long each of those times?
A. No. Maybe a week.
Q. A week total?
A. No, I'm not sure, but I believe about a week each time.
Sheila Nicholas - Direct
Q. Now, in the time that you and Tim spent together, did you
talk very much?
A. Yes. It was kind of like a confidant -- you know, I was
moving. We went through my personal effects and sorted out
what was old and I wasn't going to need. You know, I confided
in him and I was going through a lot at that time with the
divorce and Kevin; and, you know, we just -- we talked about
everything.
Q. How did you find him in those conversations about what was
happening in your life?
A. Very receptive. He was very caring, you know. He listened
to whatever I had to say, whether he was interested or not. He
helped me, you know. I mean sometimes you just need somebody
to talk to that's going to listen and care, and he did.
Q. Did he seem interested in what you were talking about?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. How long would these conversations typically last?
A. You know, sometimes a couple hours. You know, we spent
most of the days together.
Q. In these conversations, did you talk very much about his
life?
A. Not much. A little bit. But I was going through a lot,
and I think he was more interested in what I needed to talk
about.
Q. Did you talk with him enough about himself to learn what
Sheila Nicholas - Direct
his -- his important interests were in life?
A. Somewhat. I knew he was interested in guns. He attended a
lot of gun shows, but we really didn't talk about it much. I
don't know much about guns, and I don't have an interest in
them, so --
Q. Did you find out anything else that he was particularly
interested in?
A. No. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Did you ever have occasion to talk with him about Waco?
A. I heard about it, and I'm sure he probably spoke about it
some, but I really didn't pay much attention. I really -- I
mean I knew it happened and I knew that he didn't like what
happened, but there wasn't many people that did. You know, it
just happened. You couldn't do nothing about it.
Q. Were you aware of whether he and Kevin talked about Waco
when he was with you this time -- this period of time?
A. I'm not sure. They probably did some.
Q. Do you know whether he had a videotape or tapes about Waco?
A. I believe he had one.
Q. Did you see it?
A. No. It was probably on some when I was at home, but I
didn't watch it. I didn't sit and watch it.
Q. Did you ever in your conversations with Tim -- excuse me --
did you ever talk with him about his views about the government
or politics?
Sheila Nicholas - Direct
A. Somewhat. I knew that he was unhappy with some of the
things that are going on, you know, in our government; but, you
know, everybody has their opinion.
Q. Did he talk with you about individual liberty and freedom?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. When Tim was -- what period of time was he around in the
time we're talking about?
A. You mean around how?
Q. I'm sorry. What length of time did he stay with you?
A. He stayed about two months with the exception of his
couple, you know, trips that he took.
Q. Do you remember when he last was with you?
A. January. I'm not sure what time in January. Super Bowl
time.
Q. And that would be 1995?
A. Yes.
Q. In the time that -- I meant to ask you this before. I'm
sorry.
In this period of time, was Tim living somewhere else
and visiting with you, or was he staying at your house?
A. He lived with us.
Q. Did he have any interaction with your daughter --
A. Yes.
Q. -- at that time?
A. They played horseplay, games probably. She liked him.
Sheila Nicholas - Direct
Q. Did you trust him with your daughter?
A. Yes. He was -- I just trusted him with everything. You
know, I mean he came and went in my house and . . . .
Q. In the time that you spent with Tim McVeigh, do you feel
like you got to know him pretty well?
A. Yes, I felt like I did.
Q. If you were trying to describe Tim to somebody who had
never met him before and never had a chance to spend the kind
of time with him that you did, what would you tell them?
A. He's a likable guy. He's full of fun. He's always funny.
He's caring. He cares about -- you know, like I said, whatever
you want to talk about, even if he really didn't know
or . . . .
MR. BURR: I have no other questions, your Honor.
Thank you, Ms. Nicholas.
THE COURT: Mr. Mackey.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MACKEY:
Q. Good morning, Miss Nicholas. How are you?
A. Fine, thanks.
Q. This is your first time in this courtroom, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you've not heard the testimony of upwards of 200
different witnesses from that witness stand talk about the
activities of Tim McVeigh, have you?
Sheila Nicholas - Cross
A. No.
Q. You've not seen the hundreds of exhibits that have been
admitted in this trial?
A. No.
Q. Your view of Tim McVeigh is drawn solely from about two
months' exposure to him in late 1994; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. A period where you shared residence with him in Michigan?
A. Yes.
Q. You and your husband or soon-to-be husband, Kevin?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And even during that time period, Mr. McVeigh was gone on
occasion to gun shows; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Took more than one trip out of the state with James
Nichols; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So when you count up the number of hours that you spent
with Tim McVeigh, it's not very many, is it?
A. In two months, a considerable amount of hours, but not if
you go by months or years.
Q. Even in that limited exposure to Tim McVeigh, it's your
testimony that he was open and honest with you in his dealings
with you?
A. Yes, sir, I felt like he was.
Sheila Nicholas - Cross
Q. Did he tell you that he stored explosives in your garage?
A. No, he did not.
MR. MACKEY: Nothing else.
MR. BURR: No further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down. You're excused.
Next.
MR. BURR: Mildred Frazer.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you raise your right
hand, please.
(Mildred Frazer affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you have a seat, please.
Would you state your full name for the record and
spell your last name, please.
THE WITNESS: Mildred N. Frazer. F, like Frank,
R-A-Z-E-R.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Burr.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BURR:
Q. Good morning, Miss Frazer.
A. Good morning.
Q. How are you doing?
A. Very nervous.
Q. We'll try to help that.
A. Okay.
Mildred Frazer - Direct
Q. Where were you born?
A. In Niagara Falls, New York.
Q. Can you move a little bit closer to the microphone so
everybody can hear you.
A. Okay.
Q. Let's try that again. Where were you born?
A. Niagara Falls, New York.
Q. Where did you grow up?
A. In Pekin, New York.
Q. Is that very far from Niagara Falls, New York?
A. It's about a 30-minute drive.
Q. Did you attend school and go through high school in Pekin?
A. I went to school in Wilson and DeSales High School,
Catholic high school, in Lockport, New York.
Q. Did there come a time when you met a man named Bill
McVeigh?
A. Yes. That was in 1963, March of 1963, when I was a senior.
Q. A senior in high school?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you and Bill become friends and develop a relationship?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Did you eventually marry each other?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And when was that?
A. We married on August 28, 1965.
Mildred Frazer - Direct
Q. Did you have any children in the course of your marriage?
A. We had three children.
Q. And can you tell us what their names are and their ages
today?
A. Patricia Davis is 31 years old. And Timothy is 29 years
old. And Jennifer is 23.
Q. Timothy McVeigh is your son?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. Did there come a time when you and Bill divorced?
A. We divorced in 1986.
Q. And did you take up residence somewhere else shortly after
that?
A. Yes. I lived in Lockport, New York, still. I moved
5 miles away from our home.
Q. Did there come a time when you moved to another state?
A. I moved to Florida in 1989.
Q. Is that where you now live?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What town do you live in in Florida?
A. I live in Ft. Pierce, Florida.
Q. What part of the state is that in?
A. It's in south Florida.
Q. What kind of work do you do in the Ft. Pierce area, Ms.
Frazer?
A. I work on school buses. I transport -- help -- I'm a bus
Mildred Frazer - Direct
assistant, transporting physically, mentally, and emotionally
disturbed and disabled children.
Q. How long have you been doing that?
A. Since 1994.
Q. Do you like your job?
A. I love my job. It's very rewarding.
Q. In preparing to testify today, did you and I meet some?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. What did I ask you to do to prepare?
A. You asked me to write a little . . . letter or note on my
feelings about what's going to happen to my son.
Q. Have you done that?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Is what you wrote all in your own words?
A. Yes, it definitely is. It took me three hours. Three
copies to get it done.
Q. Do you have that with you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you take a look at it?
Would you tell the jury what you'd like them to know.
A. Can I look at them?
THE COURT: We can't hear you.
THE WITNESS: I cannot even imagine the pain and
suffering the people from Oklahoma City have endured since
April 19th of 1995.
Mildred Frazer - Direct
BY MR. BURR:
Q. Ms. Frazer, let me just interrupt a minute. Why don't you
just take a breath.
A. Okay.
Q. Relax.
A. This tragedy has affected many people around the world,
including myself. I also understand the anger many people
feel.
I cannot tell you about Tim McVeigh, the son I love,
any better than it already has been told the last three and a
half days. He has -- he was a loving son and a happy child as
he grew up. He was a child any mother could be proud of. I
still to this very day cannot believe he could have caused this
devastation. There are too many unanswered questions and loose
ends. He has seen human loss in the past, and it has torn him
apart. He is not the monster he has been portrayed as. He is
also a mother and father's son, a brother to two sisters, a
cousin to many, and a friend to many more. Yes, I am pleading
for my son's life. He is a human being, just as we all are.
You must make this very difficult decision on my son's life or
death, and I hope and pray that God helps you make the right
one.
MR. BURR: Thank you, Miss Frazer.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. BURR: No other questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down. You're
excused.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Next witness.
MR. BURR: William McVeigh.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you raise your right
hand, please.
(William McVeigh affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you have a seat, please.
Would you state your full name for the record and
spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: William E. McVeigh. M-C-V-E-I-G-H.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BURR:
Q. Good morning, Mr. McVeigh.
A. Good morning.
Q. How are you doing?
A. All right.
Q. Where were you born?
A. Lockport, New York.
Q. Where did you grow up?
A. Lockport, New York. The town of Lockport.
Q. Have you lived in that area all your life?
A. Yes.
William McVeigh - Direct
Q. Was there a time that you lived somewhere else when you
were serving your country?
A. Just in the service, 1963 to 1965, Ft. Campbell, Kentucky.
Q. What branch of the service were you in?
A. Army.
Q. Have you and I met on a number of occasions since we've
been involved in this together?
A. Yes.
Q. At the end of last year, did we talk about making a
videotape about the places that your son grew up?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Timothy McVeigh your son?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. Did you help us in the production of that videotape?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember about when it was that the tape was taken?
A. There was two occasions. The last one was on Veterans'
Day.
Q. That would have been --
A. A couple weeks before that.
Q. -- November?
A. Last week in October, first couple of weeks in November.
Q. Did you provide some materials to go into the videotape?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What were they? Do you remember?
William McVeigh - Direct
A. Pictures, tapes, film, film reels from my grand -- from my
father that he had -- that I had got when he had died. They
went through that and picked pictures out.
Q. What we think of as home movies?
A. Home movies, yes.
Q. Have you seen the videotape?
A. I don't believe I've seen a final production.
Q. In the one that you saw, were the images that you saw there
accurate representations?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. And do you appear on the videotape?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. BURR: Your Honor, we would like to introduce and
publish videotape, Exhibit V, as in Victor -- VV6.
MR. HARTZLER: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. VV6 is received and may be
published to the jury.
(Exhibit VV6 played.)
MR. BURR: I'd like to show a photograph, just to
Mr. McVeigh, for identification.
BY MR. BURR:
Q. Mr. McVeigh, do you see the photograph on the monitor in
front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you identify that photograph? Just tell us what it is.
William McVeigh - Direct
A. It's myself and my son, Tim.
MR. BURR: Your Honor, this is PP4. We'd move for
admission.
MR. HARTZLER: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
MR. BURR: May we publish?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. BURR:
Q. Mr. McVeigh, do you remember about when this photograph was
taken?
A. I believe it was in '92. Somewhere between December of '89
and '92. I can't really put a picture (sic) on it.
Q. Where are you and Tim standing?
A. It's in the kitchen of my house.
Q. And is that the house that you presently live in?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Is there a garden back behind that house?
A. Yes, there is.
Q. How big is it?
A. About 90 by 90.
Q. Is it a pretty successful garden each year?
A. Usually.
Q. Looking at this photograph and just focusing on it, does it
bring back memories?
A. Yes.
William McVeigh - Direct
Q. Can you tell us about some of the memories that it brings
back?
A. Well, it's -- to me, it's a happy Tim. It's a Tim I
remember most of my life.
Q. Can you tell us about that Tim that you remember?
A. Oh, he's always good-natured, fun, always fun to be with,
always in a pretty good mood.
Q. Is the Tim that we see in this picture the Tim that you
know?
A. Yes. The Tim that I know most of my life.
Q. Is the Tim that we see in this picture still alive to you?
A. I believe so.
Q. Do you love the Tim --
A. Yes, I love Tim.
Q. -- in this picture? Do you love the Tim in this courtroom?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you want him to stay alive?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. BURR: Thank you, Mr. McVeigh.
No further questions.
THE COURT: Are there any questions?
MR. HARTZLER: No questions.
THE COURT: Mr. McVeigh, you may step down. You're
excused.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. JONES: Defense rests.
THE COURT: All right. Defense rests.
Are there any rebuttal witnesses?
MR. HARTZLER: No witnesses. Mr. Mackey has an
exhibit we would like to offer.
THE COURT: All right. And I'm not certain where we
were on this stipulation on defense exhibits. I believe AA2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; SS2 and VV5A; WW43, 44, 45, 46,
48, 49, 50, and 51 are to be received.
MR. JONES: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: In this case. And that's stipulated to.
MR. HARTZLER: Yes.
MR. JONES: And there is no objection to the
introduction of 1542, the Government Exhibit 1542.
THE COURT: All right. And what is 1542?
MR. MACKEY: Your Honor, it's the letter to the editor
by Tim McVeigh dated February 11, 1992, published in the Union
Sun and Journal newspaper, Lockport, New York. We'd ask
permission to publish just the first and last paragraphs of
that letter.
THE COURT: All right. Well, it's received without
objection, so you may publish.
MR. MACKEY: Your Honor, if the Court permits, I'll
just simply read into the record the first and last paragraphs.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MACKEY: This is the letter addressed -- or
entitled, "America Faces Problems," from Tim McVeigh.
"Crime is out of control. Criminals have no fear of
punishment. Prisons are overcrowded so they know they will not
be in prison long. This breeds more crime in a escalating
cyclic pattern."
The last paragraph is: "We have no proverbial tea to
dump; should we instead sink a ship of Japanese imports? Is a
Civil War imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the
current system? I hope it doesn't come to that! But it
might."
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, and I perhaps with respect to
this stipulation on the defense exhibits should just identify
what they are so the jury is not confused about it. Some of
these things you've already heard reference to; but the
exhibits that are received in the defense case through
stipulation are the Bronze Star and other -- two more medals,
Certificate of Achievement, other awards, diplomas, certificate
of promotion, photograph of award ceremony. Some of these
things were received during the taking of testimony:
certificate of commendation, certificate of training, the video
splice and "Day" which we also received. And then I believe
these others are all articles from Soldier of Fortune, Wall
Street Journal newspaper, and the seven-page compilation of
political quotations. Those things were previously referred to
in the course of the taking of information.
So that completes the presentation of information by
both sides of the case. Where we are, then, members of the
jury, is that you've now heard all that you're going to hear
with respect to evidence and information, evidence from the
trial and information from this sentencing hearing. But rather
than proceed directly to the arguments and instructions, we've
agreed to do that tomorrow, and give an opportunity for both
sides to prepare their remarks and also to review the
instructions that I'll give you with respect to the law and
then do it all at one time.
I don't mean at one time literally; I mean within the
same day and the sequence. And what you'll hear is just as
what you did at the trial, and it's as I've already described
to you when we started this sentencing hearing: You will hear
argument from the Government first. And then from the defense
counsel, then from the Government, and then instructions on the
law from me.
And then so that you'll have some understanding of
what lies ahead -- then you will have a form that's not quite
like the verdict form that was given to you in the other -- in
the trial. This will be called a special findings form. And
it will ask you a number of specific questions, and also
consistent with the instructions, it will give you some
guidance as to how under the law you must approach the
questions that will be before you; and those questions will be,
of course, whether the penalty in this case should be death,
life in prison without any possibility of release, or another
sentence to be imposed by the Court. And you will select among
those three choices.
But as I say, the findings -- it isn't just something
that we ask you now, go out and tell us what to do. The
instructions and the findings will guide you so that you can
make a reasoned, principled, and moral decision based upon the
evidence and the information that was presented to you within
the course of the trial and the hearing.
Now, we know that this is a heavy responsibility, and
you know that you have to address the questions in an orderly
way and also follow what I have to say to you about it. So
even though you've now heard the witnesses and even though the
exhibits that will be available to you have been identified, a
good many of them have been published to you -- that is to say,
that is our word for letting you look at them -- and also
portions have been read to you, they will all be available to
you for your consideration during the deliberations on the
question of sentence.
So what I want to ask each of you now -- and, you
know, I can understand your perhaps wanting to get right to
it -- but please give us the indulgence of allowing counsel the
time to prepare and also to permit us to make sure that we're
all on the same understanding with respect to the law. It's
only fair to the lawyers on both sides of the case that they
know exactly what I'm going to tell you, read to you; and what
I'll be doing is just as I did with instructions during the
trial, at the close of the trial. I'll be giving you, when you
deliberate, copies of what I read to you in the instructions
and of course the Special Findings Forms.
And what you must do now is withhold the natural human
reaction to your situation which is, Well, what do I think
about it and maybe to ask other jurors, What do you think about
it? Please do not do that. In fact, I'm not -- I'm saying it,
please, but you understand I mean more than please: You are
directed not to do that.
And also continue of course during this recess, which
will be overnight of course and come back in the morning, to be
very careful now about the things that you may read, see, and
hear, not only to avoid anything that could influence you with
respect to the reports concerning the trial or other people's
opinions that may be published about what they think you should
do as the jury in this case, but also anything that's really
outside of the evidence and the information that you've heard,
and certainly anything with respect to the law because you're
duty-bound under your oath to follow the law as I tell it to
you, not as you may understand it or interpret it from any
other source.
So what we would like to do, with your permission, is
to start at 8:30 in the morning and start with the arguments at
8:30 in the morning and proceed directly through so that -- I
can't tell you specifically at what time we would be completed
with the arguments and the instructions, but certainly there
will be time for deliberation tomorrow. We should complete
that well within the day and give you some time in the day to
deliberate. And of course the way in which deliberations will
be conducted will be explained to you then and also the amount
of time that you take to deliberate, as you well know now, is
the same as it was during the trial when you deliberated with
respect to the issues of guilt or innocence. The time it takes
for you to deliberate are up to the folks that are doing the
deliberation.
So with all of that, members of the jury, I think it's
time perhaps for you during this recess to sort of take a deep
breath and wait to hear from us now with these arguments and
instructions before even in your own minds you attempt to
answer the questions that will be put to you.
So you're excused now until 8:30 tomorrow morning.
(Jury out at 10:09 a.m.)
THE COURT: We'll be in recess. 8:30, tomorrow
morning.
(Recess at 10:10 a.m.)
INDEX
Item Page
WITNESSES
Dick Reavis
Cross-examination Continued by Mr. Ryan 13046
Redirect Examination by Ms. Welch
Recross-examination by Mr. Ryan
Sheila Nicholas
Direct Examination by Mr. Burr
Cross-examination by Mr. Mackey
Mildred Frazer
Direct Examination by Mr. Burr
William McVeigh
Direct Examination by Mr. Burr
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit Offered Received Refused Reserved Withdrawn
1542
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit Offered Received Refused Reserved Withdrawn
AA2-AA11
PP4 13079 13079
SS2
VV5A
VV6 13078 13078
WW32 13060 13060
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS (continued)
Exhibit Offered Received Refused Reserved Withdrawn
WW43-WW46
WW48-WW51
WW61 13052 13052
* * * * *
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from
the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. Dated
at Denver, Colorado, this 11th day of June, 1997.
_______________________________
Kara Spitler