IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
 
Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
 
    Plaintiff,
 
vs.
 
TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,
 
    Defendant.
 
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
 
                     REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
                 (Trial to Jury:  Volume 127)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
         Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 8:45 a.m., on the 16th day of December,
1997, in Courtroom C-204, United States Courthouse, Denver,
Colorado.

 Proceeding Recorded by Mechanical Stenography, Transcription
  Produced via Computer by Paul Zuckerman, 1929 Stout Street,
    P.O. Box 3563, Denver, Colorado, 80294, (303) 629-9285
                          APPEARANCES
         PATRICK RYAN, United States Attorney for the Western
District of Oklahoma, and RANDAL SENGEL, Assistant U.S.
Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, 210 West Park
Avenue, Suite 400, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73102, appearing
for the plaintiff.
         LARRY MACKEY, SEAN CONNELLY, BETH WILKINSON, GEOFFREY
MEARNS, JAMIE ORENSTEIN, and AITAN GOELMAN, Special Attorneys
to the U.S. Attorney General, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1200,
Denver, Colorado, 80294, appearing for the plaintiff.
         MICHAEL TIGAR, RONALD WOODS, ADAM THURSCHWELL, REID
NEUREITER, and JANE TIGAR, Attorneys at Law, 1120 Lincoln
Street, Suite 1308, Denver, Colorado, 80203, appearing for
Defendant Nichols.
                         *  *  *  *  *
                          PROCEEDINGS
    (In open court at 8:45 a.m.)
         THE COURT:  Please be seated.
         Good morning.
         MR. TIGAR:  Good morning, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Ready to proceed?
         MR. WOODS:  Yes, sir.
         THE COURT:  Okay.
    (Jury in at 8:46 a.m.)
         THE COURT:  Members of the jury, good morning.
         JURORS:  Good morning.
         THE COURT:  We are ready to continue with the defense
closing arguments.
         Mr. Woods.
                  CLOSING ARGUMENT CONTINUED
         MR. WOODS:  Thank you, your Honor.
         Good morning.  When we broke last night, we were
ending up talking about Richard Wahl and his testimony about
seeing the two trucks at Geary Lake on April the 18th.  I
wanted to show you part of his grand jury testimony when this
is fresh in his mind.
         He testified to the grand jury July 19, '95.  And
describing the truck, he said that on the truck it had single
square headlights with a parking light under it.  It was
definitely a General Motors product.
         Well, the photos of Mr. Nichols' truck show that it's
dual headlights, stacked headlights, and the parking lights are
inside, as you can see on these two photos.  So the description
that he was giving does not match Mr. Nichols' truck.  That was
at grand jury.  Of course, at trial when he testified, he
didn't mention that at trial.
         The prosecutor mentioned to you that "We don't have
any witnesses that saw Mr. Nichols and Mr. McVeigh at the lake
building the bombs because they were so careful that they
avoided being seen."  Well, 300 years ago in Salem, when they
tried women for witchcraft, the prosecutor's argument was,
"These women are so clever that the proof that they're witches,
there is no evidence of witchcraft," and that's pretty much her
argument, "Well, we don't have any witnesses, but that's
because they were too clever to be seen."
         Let's look at two other witnesses the Government
brought you, important witnesses that they wanted to show prove
that Terry Nichols made the purchase of the ammonium nitrate at
the Mid-Kansas Co-op.  The first was Rich Schlender.  And if
you recall, Mr. Schlender stated that his memory of Mike
Havens -- and keep in mind that, you know, these purchases
occurred in September, '94, and October, '94, and the FBI is
coming to them at the end of April of '95.  So that's been
four -- seven months -- six months of constant customers
through there, and they're asking them to recall.
         So Schlender's testimony here at trial is that Mike
Havens was 5-foot-8 to 6-foot tall, he was driving a late 70's,
dark-colored pickup with a light-colored topper, towing a Ford
cutoff-pickup-bed trailer with white-type lettering on the end
gate.  It's a cutoff pickup that you make a trailer out of, and
he testified they're fairly common in Mid-Kansas.
         Well, under cross-examination, he admitted that when
he was first approached by the FBI, he told them it was a late
70's Dodge, had a four-wheel drive, was a three-quarter-ton
pickup, had Kansas license plates with a Marion County tag on
it.  These facts didn't fit the Government's theory because
they knew that Terry Nichols still had his Michigan plates on
his pickup at that time, so that testimony was dropped when
Mr. Schlender testified here.
         He also admitted under cross-examination that he told
the FBI when he was first approached that Mike Havens was
6-foot tall.  Now to get around that, his testimony when he got
to trial was, "Well, what I meant was it was 5-foot-8 to 6-foot
tall."  4 inches difference?  He didn't say that to the FBI
when he first approached; but to get it into the Government's
theory, it became 5-foot-8 to 6 foot.
         Now, he told when he was interviewed by the FBI, "Give
me a lineup of pickups, and I could probably pick out the
pickup it was."  So what did the FBI do?  They gave him a
lineup, all right.  It was all the photos of one truck, Terry
Nichols' truck; and not surprisingly, he was able to pick out
the truck.  And the FBI kept pushing him to identify the
Donahue trailers, those low, flatbed trailers that were at the
Donahue farm because that was going been to be their theory,
that Terry Nichols was using the Donahue trailers.  But to
Schlender's credit, he wouldn't be pushed that far.  He said,
"No, I described it as a cutoff-pickup-bed trailer," and he was
sticking with that.
         Now, it's interesting to note he didn't from the
witness stand say Terry Nichols is Mike Havens.  Some witnesses
can be pushed just so far, and they're not going to come in a
capital murder case and say, yes, that's the man.  They give
the FBI what they wanted by going, "Well, I'll give you the
description and I'll conform the testimony to close to the
description, but I'm not going to come in and identify the
man."
         Well, what about the other one?  Well, one other thing
he added for the testimony here, he said that he talked to Mike
Havens and Mike Havens said he was farming over near Durham.  I
asked him on cross-examination, "Weren't you asked that
question in grand jury?  Didn't they ask you that same question
and you said, 'I didn't have any conversation with him about
where he was farming'?"
         He admitted, "That's true, yes, that's what I said in
grand jury under oath."  He added the Durham because it's right
next to Marion where Terry was working.
         But he didn't identify the person.
         Now, Showalter -- remember Showalter?  He was the
person who wrote up the September 30 tag.  Not tag, but receipt
for the ammonium nitrate.  Now, see, the FBI has found this
receipt in Terry's house by then.  They found that on Saturday.
They unwrapped it.  When it's wrapped up around coins, you
can't see what's inside.  The fingerprints on the outside are
McVeigh's, not Terry's.  You heard the testimony.  There's no
fingerprint of Terry Nichols in there.  But the FBI has found
the receipt in Terry Nichols' so they're going to match that
receipt to Terry Nichols, come what may.
         They come to Showalter.  Showalter says, "I don't
recall the thing."  They came to him in late April of '95.  He
just tells them, "I don't recall the transaction."  He tells
them that all the way through '95 and up to October of '96; and
he admitted under cross-examination, "Well, the FBI started
meeting with me, Mr. Hersley and Mr. Mendeloff -- a prosecutor
who is no longer here -- started meeting with me and had a
number of meetings with them in October of '96.  And then in
'97, I started meeting with Geoff Mearns, a prosecutor, had
four meetings with him.  And now here's my recall."
         And his testimony was, Mike Havens was in his late
30's, early 40's, 5-foot-9, 5-foot-10, average build, with
dark, short, well-trimmed hair and wearing slacks and a sports
shirt.  He, after being worked with, came up with a
description, fairly specific, as to a September 30, '94
transaction, after being worked with by the FBI and
prosecutors.
         But you notice also he didn't in court say Terry
Nichols is Mike Havens because some witnesses just won't be
pushed that far in a capital murder case.  They're not going to
say, yes, that's the man.  But they'll give the FBI what they
want and come up with a good enough description.
         Now, you may think, well, is this the FBI that I've
seen on TV shows?  I think you've seen and understand that the
gap between the reality of the FBI and the myth of the FBI is
as big as the Grand Canyon and is growing daily.  You saw these
people.  They're ordinary people like you and I.  They take
them right out of college, give them -- what was it -- 14 weeks
of training.  Eight weeks are spent on firearms, so that leaves
six weeks to train them to be the investigators for the best
law enforcement agency in the world.  Six weeks.
         The Denver police officers that ride around in patrol
cars get more training than that.  These people are not
infallible.  They're not flawless.  But the difference between
them and you -- between you and them and I is they're operating
under incredible pressure to maintain the myth of the FBI.
         This case was solved right away.  In two days, we had
the suspects in custody.  You heard from Budke that Louis
Freeh, the director, was there one week later on the 26th
giving a speech.  What do you think that speech was?
Congratulations, you solved the case.  We look good in the
press.
         They've got to maintain that; and to maintain it,
they've got to get the conviction that goes with the early
arrest, and they made the decision to make the arrest with no
evidence.  They've then got to start putting these square pegs
in round holes, and that's what you've seen here.  And you've
seen a lot of speculation in the summary, just jumping over
these gaping holes, telling you this, this proves his guilt,
this proves the guilt.
         The one I really liked was Miss Wilkinson said, "Terry
Nichols went out and bought three newspapers on Thursday
afternoon.  That proves he's guilty because you only buy three
newspapers if the story's about you."
         Well, putting aside her personal experiences, most
people on some large event want to get as many sources of
information because the press is so notoriously inaccurate, you
try to get a number of sources, put them together, and maybe
you can filter out what the actual facts are.
         Keep in mind that he didn't have television at that
time.  At least on television you can see the visual image.
And when they interview witnesses, you can hear the live
witness being interviewed.  You don't have to take a reporter's
version of that.
         He didn't have television till Friday morning.  But
Miss Wilkinson tells you, "Because he bought three newspapers,
that proves he's guilty because he wanted to read about
himself."
         That's the kind of summation that she gave you and
asking you to speculate and just jump over things.  And what
we're going to ask you to do is carefully weigh and look at all
the evidence when you get back there.  You'll have all the
documents.  Carefully remember the testimony that you heard.
         Now, it was interesting to watch the treatment that
these witnesses got who didn't agree with the Government's
theory.  Jeff Davis, the person from Hunam Palace who delivered
the Chinese food, he tried to help when he told the FBI, "Look,
I don't think that guy that I delivered the food to at the
Dreamland on Saturday night, Room 25, was McVeigh.  I've seen
the picture in the paper, and I don't think that's him."
         Did you see the treatment that he got?  You recall how
many times he was interviewed by the FBI.  They kept going over
and over and over, repeating the same question.  What do you
think the point of that was?  They were trying to get his
testimony to conform.
         And you heard Nancy Kindle, the waitress from Denny's.
She did identify McVeigh, but he didn't fit the Government
theory because she said on Easter Sunday, when he came to
Denny's, he was with two other guys.  Well, you heard her
testify.  She said when she got back home after testifying in
the McVeigh trial, two agents called her up, and they were
badgering her so that she put it on speakerphone so her family
could hear it.
         And Mr. Ryan got up and very pointedly in front of you
jurors got up to talk to the two agents to let you know which
one it was because you certainly wouldn't suspect these two
fine agents of doing that, very pointedly doing that before
starting his cross-examination.  It was done for a point.
         She told you they harassed her, and she finally said,
"I'm not going to answer questions anymore," simply because she
was trying to help.  But her testimony didn't meet the theory.
         And they dismissed all the others with insulting
comments that they're similar to Elvis sightings.
         Let's talk about the DRMO for a second.  Terry Nichols
told the FBI in his statement -- and we'll get to that in a
minute -- that McVeigh wanted to borrow his car on Tuesday
morning and that he, Nichols, picked up McVeigh at McDonald's,
drove to DRMO, was dropped off, told McVeigh to pick him up
about noon, and that he went outside to view the items outside.
We know from the testimony that there were over 100 items
outside as part of this sale.  Some of them were in large lot
sizes.
         Now, the Government has made a big point with a number
of witnesses about how meticulous and how careful and how
fact-gathering Mr. Nichols is.
         Mr. Nichols knows he's there until noon, and he's
looking at items to buy and resell.  You've seen his photos of
everything in his garage.  He says he went through and looked
at a number of items outside in order to determine which ones
to make a bid on.  He testified that at noon, McVeigh wasn't
there so he went in the inside portion, which as you saw was
down the building to the other door.  And the Government made a
point, we didn't bring you the video.  We didn't need to bring
you the video, because they had shown so many charts and
diagrams of the place, you had a picture of it.
         He went in the door and, there's where he had to sign
in.  He told the FBI that on the statement.  You'll see it, I'm
going to read it to you in a minute.  He told them he went in
there right before 1:00 to sign in because to view the items
inside that's what you have to do.  And then he submitted his
bid at 1:37, which is approximately 40 minutes later from
12:50, 50 minutes later.
         And you'll see on the catalogue all the items that
he's looked at, that he's circled and put prices on.  And he
bid on ten items, and seven of the items were outside.  And you
saw that from Miss Garza who testified.  This is pretty dirty
from fingerprinting, but I'm not sure -- well, it's too
difficult to read.  But you heard Miss Garza's testimony that
the three items on top are the inside items, and the seven
below are the items that were viewed outside.  And you can see
the catalogue.
         Now, she testified as to how strict they are on their
sign-in procedures.  I'm going to show you what is in evidence
as Government's Exhibit 1956.  You'll have this back there to
look at.  Look at all the signatures that are signing in.
They're all different; right?  Look at the sign-in.  It's all
in the same handwriting.  It's the same handwriting on that
page.  The same handwriting on this page.  You'll see all these
different signatures.  Look at the sign-in sheet, the time
wrote.  That's all the same handwriting.  Same on this sheet.
All the different handwriting of people signing in.  Yet the
timing is all in the same handwriting.  Pretty strict there,
all right.  They've got a clock that's been broken for unknown
length of time that they can't get fixed.
         And Mr. O'Connell told you -- remember him, he was the
gray-haired gentleman that goes out there a lot to look for
electronic things.  He's the nurse from that -- nearby there.
He told you he goes outside to view -- and he's on this sign-in
sheet.  You'll see that he attended that auction.  There are
over 130 people that attended that auction that day.  And he
told you that he goes outside all the time without signing in.
He views the items that are on sale.  It sometimes takes him a
long time.  He spends a lot of time just looking at one tent.
He said he may spend 20 minutes looking at a tent.  But he also
looks at all the items that are not for sale, that are
flagged -- there's a flag separating them.  He said he's done
that a number of times; nobody ever runs him off out there.
         But he says one thing:  "Look, when I'm out there, I'm
looking at the items, I'm not looking at who the other people
are."  Well, the Government wants you to believe that Nichols
wasn't there, because Carolyn Marin didn't see him when she
went outside.  She was there with her baby and her son -- or
her child, I don't recall the sex of the child.  She was with
her husband and her child.  She was there to look at two
things, and she spent over an hour doing it.  She went inside
to look at dressers and she went outside to look at cars; and
because she hadn't dressed and she said it was cold and chilly,
she was carrying her baby and she was walking behind her
husband, acting as a wind guard for her.  Do you remember that
testimony?  She's not looking around looking as to who's around
looking at other items.  She went back to the back to look at a
car, and they actually bid and got the car.  She's driving it
now, she said.  Well, she wouldn't see anybody when she's --
walk out like that and walk back.
         The Government makes a point to you how meticulous
Mr. Nichols is in all of the things he does, but they don't
want you to believe that he might spend some time there looking
at the outdoor items.
         Let me get my documents straight here for a second.
         Now, Mr. Nichols told the FBI -- and we'll get to that
statement in a minute -- that McVeigh came back shortly after
he had submitted his bid and walked outside, he took McVeigh
back to McDonald's, and went by and picked up his mail and went
home.  And Marife Nichols testified on direct that Terry
Nichols came home about 1:30.  Now, in cross-examination, when
Mr. Ryan questioned her, she said, "Well, I remember he came
home at noon and then said he was going to the auction."  And
I -- on redirect, I questioned her, "Did you understand the
difference between going to and gone?"
         And she said, "Apparently not."
         And at that point, we were allowed to get into her
notes that she made while she was in FBI custody.  Remember her
testimony that she went with her husband down to the Herington
police station on April 21, Friday, 3:00?  She and her child
were separated and then taken by the FBI to Junction City and
then moved around for 36 days and eight different cities,
questioned over and over and over.  And because she wanted to
get it right, she, without consultation with Terry Nichols --

she's not in contact with Terry Nichols during this time -- she
sets (sic) down and writes her recollection because they're
asking her, "What all did you do in April."  So she sits down
and writes what's fresh on her mind at that time as to what I
and Terry Nichols did in April.
         Here are her notes that she made for April the 18th.
Get them where we can all read them.
         "April the 18th, Tuesday, 9:30 a.m.  Joshua called
from Las Vegas."  Remember that Josh had flown home the night
before.  So he's calling back.
         "11:30 a.m., I woke up.  Terry is gone/'The Lion
King,' Nicole watched the movie."
         "1:30 p.m., Terry is home.  He said he went to the
sailed" (sic) "bid somewhere in Fort Rally" (sic).
         "2:00 p.m., we eat Filipino food, broccoli with beef
and rice.
         "Terry made a phone call to a guy that's supposed to
send the laser."
         And you've seen the phone records, he's calling
Quarton and the other business for the beam shot and the
lasers.  Those records are in evidence.
         "I sit around, watch the rest of the movies.  Terry
was in and out the house.  He took some big ammo cans into the
house so that we can dust it.
         "We went to the IGA movie store, returned the movies,
and buy one Sing-Along movies, the 'Mermaids,' rent to tapes, a
'Girl to Kill,' western movies.
         "Sleep.
         "'Nice night, no arguments.'"
         Those were the notes she was making when under FBI
custody so they would be fresh on her mind.  Now, the
Government would make a big point that they confused her and
she said, well, he came home at noon and then said he was
going.  These are the notes she made at the time.
         You recall her testimony.  The FBI said -- or not the
FBI -- the Government lawyer told her after her second trip to
Oklahoma City to appear before the grand jury, "We're not going
to put you in front of the grand jury because we think you're
telling the truth."  And then they gave her her money back they
had held for 36 days so she could finally leave their custody
and fly back to the Philippines.  The Government had had these
notes for over two weeks because she left them there at her
first appearance; and when she came back at her second
appearance, they gave them to her.
         Now, the other items that the Government mentioned in
direct was the letter from Terry Nichols to Tim McVeigh which
they say proves his intent.  This is the clear letter of
intent.  First I want to show you the letter that he also left
with Lana Padilla.  There were two letters left.  This one, the
read-and-do-immediately letter, points out where the storage
is, the access code.  And then he says, "All items in storage
are for Joshua.  The round items are his when he turns age 21.
All else now.  Pickup can be sold, but money from pickup put
for Josh to buy his own vehicle."
         "Other storage, located in kitchen behind utensil
drawer between dishwasher and stove.  Remove drawer, there are
two small levers, one on each side of drawer, on rail, pull
drawer out till it stops, then flip levels down and pull drawer
completely out.  Then look all the way back inside, take and
push hard against back panel.  Both sides and back panels are
glued, top not.  After it's broke free, remove wood panel and
then remove plastic bag.  All items in plastic bag are to be
sent to Marife for Nicole if for any reason my life insurance
doesn't pay Marife.  Otherwise, one-half goes to Marife and
one-half to Josh."
         Continuation of the letter.  "Marife will know what is
at storage and home.  As of now, only Marife, you, and myself
know what there is and where it is.  I hope you will do as I
have stated.  Josh has just a few years before he's capable of
being on his own.  And Marife and Nicole have many more years
of support needed.  There's no need to tell anyone about the
items in storage and home.  Again, only the three of us will
know.  I have the most trust in you here in the U.S. to do as I
have written.  It would probably be best to wire the items to
Marife 3M at a time over two to three months.  You will have to
contact Tim to get the title for the pickup.  He should know
where it's at.  Write to his sister, Jennifer McVeigh, 6289
Campbell Boulevard, Lockport, New York, 14094.  You can tell
Josh after you finish with all the details.  There are two
stock powers of attorneys in the stock file signed but not
filled out.  You should be able to take care of them with the
stock powers of attorney."
         Now, it's clear from this letter that he is making
provisions, basically a poor man's will.  He didn't hire a
lawyer to write a will, but he's making provisions in the event
he doesn't come back for Josh, for Marife, and for Nicole and
if his life insurance doesn't pay.  So it's clear what the
intent was as he was writing these letters.
         Then the Government wants you to believe that his
companion letter that's to Tim is a letter of intent to engage
in the bombing.
         And the letter states:  "If you should receive this
letter, clear everything out of Council Grove 37 by February 1,

'95, or pay to keep it longer under Ted Parker of Decker."
         Now, their theory, that's where the bomb supplies are
located, the bomb components.  Why did he need to clear it out?
This letter is going to get to them in late January because the
provision if he didn't get back in late January, Marife
would -- not Marife, but Lana was to mail the letter to Tim
late January.  And he's saying clear it out by February 1, '95.
Why do you need to clear out components, bomb components, if
you're going to bomb something in April, '95?  That doesn't
make sense.  Yet the Government says this is a clear plan of
the bombing in April, '95, and it shows his intent.
         The letter goes on:  "This letter has been written and
sealed before I left, 21 November, and being mailed by Lana as
per my instructions to her in writing.  This is all she knows.
It would be a good idea to write or call to her to verify
things."  And it gives the numbers.  "You're on your own.  Go
for it."
         They say that statement means go for it, do the
bombing.
         He and McVeigh are splitting their business.  They're
not going to be in business anymore.  Why can't that mean
you're on your own in the gun show business, go for it?  Yet
the Government says, no, that is clear proof that that is
intent to bomb the building on April 19.  They're asking you to
speculate.  And you don't speculate at criminal cases where
their burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  They've done
that a lot.  And when you analyze what she said and then
analyze the evidence, you're going to see that she's asking you
to speculate a lot on a lot of things.
         Then he says:  "Also liquidate 40."  Well, now, 40 is
the one that was rented in October, '94, and it's the
Government's theory that that was rented at or about the time
of the second purchase of ammonium nitrate.  Well, why do you
need to liquidate a storage shed of ammonium nitrate in
February if it's going to be used for a bomb in April?  That
doesn't make sense.
         One of these storage sheds is going to have Terry
Nichols' furniture in it.  You recall Marife Nichols' testimony
that when she got back in March of '95, in the house there was
the bed, the couch, the table, and a dining room table that
they had back in Marion.  When Terry vacated the Marion
premises on September 30, one of the storage sheds has to be
for the furniture.  But the Government wants you to believe
that they're all for bomb components and stolen weapons from
Roger Moore.
         He goes on to say:  "Have my mail forwarded to Lana
but use my name and her address, 7160 Nordic Lights, Las Vegas,
Nevada.  Mailbox EtcÄÄ, Sherry, and a phone number, Box 197."
         He goes on to say:  "The Parker deal was signed and
dated 7 November '94, so you should have until February, '95,
plus five days' grace.  If close or they disagree, then should
pay another term period.  As far as heat, none that I know.
This letter would be for purpose of my death."
         That's written in connection with this letter would be
in the purpose for my death.  That could mean anything in
connection with his death or the Philippines.  Yet the
Government says, no, that means one thing, and they're asking
you to speculate what that means.  There's no proof that
they've offered.  They've asked you to speculate on a number of
things.  They said this letter, which you'll have back there
and you can read over and over -- this letter shows his clear
intent, even in death, to participate in an April bombing.
Well, that's a big leap to make, but they want you to make it.
And we ask you to go back and study the letter, look at it word
for word.  Does this letter show a clear intent to participate
in April 19 bombing?
         Now, Lana Padilla and Barry Osentoski testified about
going and looking in the storage shed.  Lana says she saw a bag
that had a wig and makeup and a face mask in it.  Barry
Osentoski says, "I saw the bag that still had the price tags on
it.  It had a wig and makeup.  I didn't see a face mask.  I did
see skis, saw a tent, saw a cooking stove, saw camping gear in
there."
         Now, on the last witness that we want to talk about
here, let's talk about the testimony of Marife Nichols.  As you
could see, Marife does not speak perfect English.  She speaks
pretty good English for somebody who's been here such a short
time.  And it certainly has improved since '95 when she was
interviewed by the FBI.  You heard her testify about her 36
days and her writing these notes.
         What she also testified about was that Tim McVeigh
visited them in Marion, Kansas, when they lived there from
March, '94, to September 30, '94.  Remember that she left in
(sic) September the 22d, '94.  McVeigh had even taken her to
the coin shop to handle the sale of coins so that she could
leave.  But she said during that time that when McVeigh came in
August and September, that he was in and out.  He didn't
stay -- he would stay a day or two, and then he was gone.  She
didn't know where he was going to.  One time he told her he was
going to Kingman and another time he told her he was going to
New York.
         But we know from the documents that the Government has
offered that he went to Junction City in August of '94 and got
a Blockbuster video rental.  So he was going to Junction City
to see somebody.  The Government hasn't shown us who he was
seeing at that time.
         She also told you that she made it a condition with
her husband, Terry Nichols, after she went over in September,
'94, to go back to school in the Philippines and when Terry
went back in November, '94, to surprise her and obviously ask
her to come back home, she told you that she made it a
condition that "If I go back home, McVeigh's not going to be
part of our life."
         And that was the condition that Terry accepted, and he
did bring her back.  She came back in March, '95.  And he told
her, "We were going to have -- I'm going to do my separate --
my gun show business separately, and I'll be able to spend more
time at home.  I'll just go to the gun shows on the weekend.
I'll be able to spend time with you and Nicole."  And that was
a condition she set and came back for.
         She told you that when she came back in March, '95,
she started going to gun shows with Terry.  The first one was
at the Salina gun show.  You know where Salina is.  She told
you that she herself sold some of the ammonium nitrate that was
in bottles.  Some of it was ground, some of it was in prills;
that she sold some there.  She told you that they then went to
Grand Rapids, Michigan, the first week of April and that she
sold some ammonium nitrate there.  And she told you about the
meeting with Kevin Nicholas where that was discussed with he
and his wife, Sheila, about why people would buy ammonium
nitrate.  And she told you that Terry reminded her, "Give this
sheet when you sell this," and the sheet was the description of
the fertilizer and that it was an explosive.
         She told you about Terry Nichols coming home on
Friday, April the 21st, and he was scared, he was pale, he was
upset.  They turned on the television set.  They saw the news
on the television set concerning the bombing, concerning the
arrest.  And that Terry Nichols then said, "I need to go to the
police station."  She stated that he was insistent on going to
the police station and that she and Nicole went with him.
         She stated they went by the Surplus City first where
Terry had mentioned trading shingles for nails but then went to
the police station because Terry didn't go in there at the
time.  There was some testimony about seeing perhaps somebody
following them.  But her testimony was, "We weren't fleeing.
We weren't going anywhere.  We were going to the police
station.  That's where Terry said he wanted to go."
         And you know from the witnesses that were at the
police station that when Terry walked in, they all described
him as pale, scared, nervous, concerned.  Barry Thacker, Dale
Kuhn.  We know that was his condition when he got there at the
police station.
         She further testified about, under cross -- under
questioning by the Government that Terry never discussed Waco
with her; but when Tim would come, Tim was always upset and
agitated about Waco, but that Terry wasn't near as agitated
about Waco.
         The Government kept telling you in their opening
argument over and over and over about how Terry Nichols hates
the government, was obsessed by Waco.  That's not the facts.
You don't have anybody that says that.
         Marife also testified that Terry told her the reason
he was using aliases at gun shows was because he didn't want
the customers coming back and bothering them if the items
turned out not to work or not to be satisfactory.  At gun shows
you sell things as is.
         Now, the FBI used aliases, as she told you.  The FBI
used aliases for her as they moved her around to the eight
different cities.  So the use of aliases can be, according to
the Government, beneficial or incriminating.
         She also testified that Josh and Terry told her that
McVeigh should be coming through sometime that week because he
had picked up the television set and that he was going to be
going East to see his family.  She testified she was expecting
him through sometime that week.
         Now, as to the interview by the FBI that Terry did on
September -- on April the 21st, remember that the people that
are interviewing him and taking notes are the ones that were
sent to Herington to arrest him.  Remember they followed him
around, they watched him go into the police station.  And
what's their conclusion, what's their immediate conclusion when
he went in the police station?  He's held them up hostage.
It's a hostage situation.  Here's a man with his two-year-old
daughter and his wife.  They've captured the police station and
they're hostages.  That's the mind-set of the FBI when they
went in to interview Terry Nichols.
         And early on in the interview, when there were three
people interviewing him at once, Scott Crabtree told him, "Stop
doing what you're doing.  Don't take time to think of these
answers."  Well, here's a man who's heard on television that
he's wanted in the largest criminal case that's ever occurred
and the Attorney General's seeking the death penalty, and he
wants to take time to answer questions?  The FBI, "Stop doing
that.  Don't take time to answer these."  Three agents are
firing questions at him.
         Now, these notes that Agent Steve Smith took.  Now,
this is a disgrace.  This is incredible.  The top law
enforcement agency in the world, the largest criminal case and
this is their evidence of what they obtained from the suspect
in nine-and-a-half hours of interview?  This is it.  If the FBI
doesn't change their procedures after this case, then you can
conclude they don't want the interview processes known to the
public.
         There is introduced into evidence at the same time
Mr. Smith's typewritten version.  And you can compare -- what I
would encourage you to do when you get back there is read this.
It's not that long.  It's 24 pages.  I would encourage you to
read it, either have the foreman read it out loud or, you know,
you can come up with however you want to do it, but read it
word for word.  That's the closest we can get to
contemporaneous what Terry Nichols said and what they asked.
They had nine-and-a-half hours to question him.
         And I want to -- I'm going to go through briefly --
and again I encourage you to look at this in full context, but
I want to go through briefly and read some of the statements
that were put in these notes, and you can remember these when
you go back and look at it.  I'm not going to read it all.  We
did that with Agent Smith with his totally illegible notes.  I
mean that -- that's a disgrace.
         You know, look -- what did Luke Franey tell you, the
ATF victim who was caught on one of the upper floors.  A good
law enforcement agent who says the first thing he did was start
talking into a tape recorder so he could capture everything he
saw and his observations and what he was seeing, observing,
that's what you do.  You don't make illegible notes like this.
On something important.
         At any rate, we have the benefit of Steve Smith
setting (sic) down and typing up what he wrote.  And I would
encourage you to compare them, if you can read the notes.
         But on page 1, the notes reflect:  "Came to PD to see
what's what.  Do not want another Waco.  Stopped at surplus
store, need shingle, trade tools for shingle, got out of car,
had a feeling that I was being followed, got back in car and
headed to PD."
         Page 2.  "Saw McVeigh Sunday.  Heard McVeigh is in
custody on the news.  Not see at any hotel in JC.  Do not know
if he rented a Ryder truck.  Saw in Oklahoma City on Sunday.
Picked him up there and my TV.  He called me and said I got car
problems and if you want your TV, come pick up.  Last November,
I dropped TV off with my wife and babies, Vegas.  Two months
ago, mentioned in a letter, if you are in the vicinity of
Vegas, you can pick my TV up.  I came back home.  Dropped him
off at JC McDonald's on Sunday night or early Monday morning.
Apparently left car in Oklahoma City.  He was vague on a lot of
things, lot of small talk.  Knew him in the Army and seemed
like he was different when he got out."
         Page 3.  "Drove down by self (five hours) then five
hours back with McVeigh.  Said he got a room in JC.  McDonald's
was closed, but the Denny's was open.  I dropped off and said
that I would catch him later.  He knew someone around JC where
he could possibly get a vehicle.  And head on his way back
home, New York, see relatives in New York.  Said he bought it
cheap, did not know if it was worth fixing."
         Page 4.  "Last contact prior to Sunday was in November
or January.  Son, Joshua, TV, got call at approximately
3:00 p.m. after Easter dinner.  I might not drop it off because
I'm pressed for time to get back east.  Assume call was from
Oklahoma City.  He was coming from out West to visit relatives
East.  Gave son TV in Vegas in November.  Thought if I wanted
TV back, then go pick up.  Send letter to mailbox in Arizona,
Kingman, told Tim if he was in the area, to pick it up.
         "Left about 10 minutes after call.  He gave me
directions to go downtown, gave me the exits, go around block
couple of times and I'll see you.  Decided it would take
approximately five hours.  Circle the block and picked him up.
Possibly Main Street exit (8th Street).  Went past that
building couple times.  On phone (just keep between the two of
us).  Just repeat Omaha if your wife asks.  Seemed private on
other calls, my business, no one is to know his business, some
private were trivial things.
         "Make sure you come down 8th Street, make your circles
(went south on 8th Street, possibly) drove around block for 15,
30 minutes.  Could have been half hour.  All big buildings,
went as far as a car dealer, and drove by a post office.  Route
of blocks were not always the same.  Glimpsed down an alley to
other street and saw that it was him when drove around block.
Driving east (saw through alley) then drove north and back
west, picked him up on a two-way street."
         This is page 6.  "He was not wet when he got in my
car.  It was raining when in Oklahoma City.  Go down 8th
Street.  Came from Arizona, going back East to see family and
bringing TV.  Going to meet someone else in Midwest.  He does
not want people to know what he's doing.  This is his nature,
so he told me to tell wife that you were going to go to Omaha.
I told wife that was going to Omaha to pick up Tim with car
problems.  Then told wife on way to PD today that I went down
to Oklahoma City instead of Omaha.
         Page 7.  "Tim had TV setting on sidewalk, not see his
car.  Way he talked, it sounded like a larger model.  Had a
compact Chevy before.  Went straight up to Junction City, got
to Junction City, about 1:30 a.m.  He said he knew somebody
there where he could stay and get a car."
         Page 8.  "Got home about 2 a.m.  Think it stopped
raining when got into Kansas.  McDonald's on Washington was
closed.  He said to 'drop me off' there and he'd call someone.
He said he was hungry but not opened, but Denny's was open.
Pulled in between McDonald's and service station.  And then I
got back on Washington Street.  He was walking towards Texaco
or Conoco.  He had a little bag, solid green laundry bag like
laundry -- like Army laundry bag with drawstring.  'Catch you
on the way back.'  Usually says this when we leave each other.
         "He gave me a call on Tuesday morning, approximately
6 a.m., and would like to use your pickup a little bit.  Fort
Riley had a sealed bid auction, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday.
Knows a couple of guys in JC, find a car.  Was just up when got
call.  'Can I use your pickup a little bit?  I need to pick up
a few things and look at a few vehicles.'  I said I want to go
to auction today, if it's not going to take too long, you can
drop me off at auction so I can review it.  Then borrow it;
then we would be going our own way, after that.  He said he was
not in a real hurry.  Home for an hour, left home at seven,
agreed to meet at McDonald's in Junction City at 7:30 a.m.
Picked him up, drove up to Fort Riley.  I got out and told him
to be back at noon.  McDonald's back on freeway, K-18, through
Ogden and then to post to Fort Riley.
         "He showed up after 1 p.m.; went into building and
signed in before one and looked at items inside, then left.
Went outside after bid and he drove up, dropped him off at
McDonald's, and that was it."
         Now, the Government will make a point that -- and has
made a point that there was no call on Tuesday morning.  The
call was on Monday morning.  And it's possible that Mr. Nichols
made a mistake as to the day he got a call from Mr. McVeigh
wanting to borrow the car.  There is a call on Monday morning.
Why couldn't the call concerning borrowing the car for Tuesday
be on Monday morning?  It's not impossible.
         Remember, he's under a lot of pressure and being
pressed by the agents, and he's saying what he recalls.  He's
telling them everything he's done with McVeigh on Sunday and
Tuesday.  I mean, the most incriminating thing is that he went
to Oklahoma City and picked up McVeigh.  He's telling them
that.  Yet the Government wants you to believe, well, he's
mistaken on the day that the phone call came in to borrow the
car.  So what?  He made a mistake.  How many other people in
this case have made mistakes to the FBI?
         Yet the Government says that shows proof of guilt.
Well, he got a call on Monday to borrow the car.  He returned
the call Monday night, as you recall.  He could have been given
the number to return and made that call on Monday night to see
if the truck still wanted (sic) to be borrowed on Tuesday
morning.  That's just as plausible as what the Government is
asking you to believe and convict him on.  There were two phone
calls.  And he tells you in here later that was the phone calls
that we got that set up the meeting to borrow the truck.
         Still on page 9:  "Said he was looking at a couple
cars.  Assume that he bought a car.  Got out of the car and not
seen him since.  I picked up my mail in Manhattan, and I got
home."
         Page 12.  "My and my brother's mention in regard to
OKC, two people from Michigan.  Heard about OKC bombing
yesterday at cable outlet in Herington.  Got a paper last night
and got three different papers.  Read about it last night.
Wichita, Salina, at home.  No reception on TV till today at
9 a.m.  Cable.  Home to lumberyard, parked there and heard
name, and did not go in.
         "Ask her if she had heard about it.  She does not
believe it.  Turned TV on a news station for 15 minutes.  Janet
Reno was on there discussing investigation.  General lingo that
they always give.  It was a press conference.  Then heard Tim's
name on TV for first time.  Said he was picked up for a car
violation not far away from OKC.  Thought and swore I cannot
believe it was him because he was heading back to see his
family and he was back there in OKC.  When I heard his name on
the TV, that is when I figured out why my name was on the
radio, because I was his friend.  I was feeling shock because
heard my name.  How am I involved?  How am I connected to it?
I must not have known him that well for him to do that.
         "Friendship is about the same with him now as five
years ago.  We went our separate ways lately because he did not
like all my practical joking and joking.  Told my wife he did
not like all that.  I feel upset that I am involved in a sense
because of him and knowing that I am not.  I feel I cannot
trust anyone any more than Tim (I have loaned him money in the
past).  I would be shocked if he implicated me.  Tim takes
responsibilities for his actions.  He lives up to his
arrangements.  My wife said this morning that Tim lives life on
the edge.  I did say this morning, and it was before heard that
Tim had been picked up, he likes to drive fast."
         Page 14.  "Heard on radio that two people in process
of being arrested.  Came into house and asked her if she heard
it on TV.  I said it was serious.  She said not believe.  She
did not believe.  Not headed out of town.  Should not find
clothing for going out of town."
         On page 15, a question:  "Looking back in hindsight,
anything he said on way up make you think he had done it?
         "Answer:  Yes.  He said on way from OKC to Junction
City, Tim, 'You will see something big in the future.'
         "I was talking about what I was doing, going to
military shows, selling surplus.  'I'm doing fine.  I should
get something going here shortly.'
         "'You will see something big in the future.'
         "'What are you going to do?  Rob a bank?
         "'Oh, no.  I got something in the works.'
         "Did not ask him what 'in the works' meant.  Tim said
'in the works' in the past.  This discussion ended when we got
distracted or talked about something else."
         Page 20, "Question:  Any storage facilities, care,
custody and control?  No. 1, had storage in Las Vegas,
November, '94 to 12-94 to January, '95.  Personal items, stored
pickup there when went to Philippines.
         "2, one in Herington.  I was asked to pick a couple
things up from -- by Tim.  At time not think much of it.
Yesterday picked up.  'If I don't pick them up, pick them up
for me,' told me on Tuesday.  Those items are sleeping bag and
rucksack in the garage.  His rifle in box next to meter now.
Combination, nothing left in storage.  Across from the Pizza
Hut, second up from south end on east side, it's a 5-by-10.
         "Question:  Are these your items?
         "Answer:  No.
         "What about your fingerprints on any items in the
rucksack?
         "May have given some items to McVeigh in the past that
are not rucksack.
         "I had one that I stored my stuff in Council Grove,
(furniture) (and guns, ammo in facility) stored there last fall
(or October to March) (until I got home).  Closed before I
moved in.  Nothing in house or truck that can be construed as
bomb-making material."
         Page 22.  "I bought two 50-pound bags of ammonium
nitrate about one month ago from Manhattan elevator (have
receipts in the house) because going to sell 1-pound bags for 5
to $10 instead of $35 that a Tulsa guy was selling for.  Read
books, sell as fertilizer with sheet that says plant
food/nitrogen and explain mixture for uses from plants.
Plastic containers in basement, 8-ounce and 24-ounce.  Sold at
shows every weekend except Easter weekend.  If I sell any more
at shows, they will question me.  Put it on lawn this morning.
Did not say earlier because it makes me look guilty."
         Page 23.
         "Question:  What are drums in the garage?
         "Answer: Trash and other uses, bought in Marion.  Fuel
meter to resell.
         "Question: No knowledge of him Jim Boy being involved
in OKC bombing?
         "Answer:  No.
         "Question:  What about Tim?
         "Answer:  I suspect it now.  Not recall a call from
Tim on Saturday morning at 6:30 a.m."
         And you recall the phone records reflected that phone
call was not answered.  It was zero duration.  But they were
asking him about that.
         "Michigan militia equals big, we (Marife, Nicole and
I) on 4-8 and 4-9, gone for a week, left on 4-9-95, and got
back on 4-10-95.  Went to a gun show, sold 30 cases of MREs in
15 minutes to people from Michigan militia.  Never identified
themselves.  Heard that they bought stuff.  Guys walking around
with full BDU, and aware they from Michigan militia.  Never
went to any meetings.  Sold ten cases right off the bat.  $30
then $32 sold.  Then sold two and three to 60-year-old ladies.
I do not know anyone in the Michigan militia."
         And then at 12:30 a.m., handed four pages of letters,
notes.  "I wrote it because I did not have a will.  In case of
event of death, this letter was going to be sent to Tim in
January if I did not return.  Ex-wife was instructed to mail it
to Tim.  Filipinos not like Americans, run over by car.  She
(Lana) had separate instruction, do not open until after
1-28-95.  She opened it up beforehand.  She said she opened it
up shortly after I left because Josh started cry and she felt a
need.  Some personal effects in letter for Tim.
         12:11, "Dan and Jack came in and left."
         There's no mention in there that the FBI questioned
him about the meaning of go for it or no heat that I know of.
There's no reflection of a question or a reference of no
answer.  Yet the FBI wants you to believe, yes, we did
answer -- we did ask that because it was so important.  If it
was so important, they would have put it in the notes.
         It would make all of our lives much simpler had they
tape-recorded that conversation.  We would know exactly what
was asked and exactly what was stated.  But the jury's going to
have to look at the notes and the typewritten versions to
recall what was said there.
         Your Honor, may I have one second?
         THE COURT:  Yes.
         MR. WOODS:  To find my note sheet.
         Some of the things that Miss Wilkinson mentioned:  She
stated that Donahue told you that Terry Nichols was advocating
violence and overthrow of the Government.  You heard the
testimony in cross-examination when Mr. Tigar questioned him.
It was normal political talk you hear in the coffee shop.  He
wasn't alarmed by it, he wanted to keep Nichols as an employee.
Yet they want you to believe this shows hatred of government to
the point where he would bomb a building?  They're asking you
to speculate a lot.
         They also brought up the phone conversation that Terry
had with Lana, where Lana Padilla admitted on the witness stand
she was irritated and upset with Terry when she got him on the
phone because Josh was threatening to run away and she couldn't
get a hold of Terry because he didn't have a phone.  She wrote
him a letter that said call me.  When he called, she was upset.
She admitted on cross-examination, yes, I was upset, I was
giving him trouble.  Terry like to avoid confrontations.  He
mentioned on the phone that he was concerned about civic
unrest, civil unrest.  He was concerned about citizens shooting
each other.  He wasn't advocating that.  You can recall her
testimony.  The Government played it one way, and when we asked
her on cross, she stated it the way she recalled it.
         Well, I'm going to save those notes and let Mr. Tigar
talk about them.  He's much more articulate than I am, and he
will be summing up for us.  And I appreciate the time and
paying attention to what I'm saying, thank you.
         MR. TIGAR:  Your Honor, may I approach briefly?
         THE COURT:  Yes.
         If you want to stand and stretch.
    (At the bench:)
    (Bench Conference 127B1 is not herein transcribed by court
order.  It is transcribed as a separate sealed transcript.)


    (In open court:)
         THE COURT:  Members of the jury, we're going to take
about a 15-minute recess at this point, and again of course,
we're going to give you the case today, but we haven't given it
to you yet, so please do recognize that and avoid discussion of
anything about the case now during the time of this brief
recess.  We'll be in recess about 15 minutes.  You may step
out.
    (Jury out at 9:49 a.m.)
         THE COURT:  All right, we'll recess.
    (Recess at 9:49 a.m.)
    (Reconvened at 10:03 a.m.)
         THE COURT:  Be seated, please.
    (Jury in at 10:03 a.m.)
         THE COURT:  Mr. Tigar.
                  CLOSING ARGUMENT CONTINUED
         MR. TIGAR:  Thank you.
         Thank you, members of the jury, for your patience.
This is our one and only one chance to address you.  When I'm
done, the prosecutor has a rebuttal, and we want to make sure
we didn't miss anything.  We probably did, but you'll have all
the exhibits in there and you'll have your collective memory of
the testimony; and so as the prosecutor talks at the end, you
have to -- for the rebuttal that we don't get to answer, I'm
sure that you'll think of the case in the way that the Judge
says that it is your oath to do; that is, you could look at a
defendant on trial and say let's take every single testimony,
every single piece of evidence, and let's try to figure out
what is the most sinister implication we could possibly attach
to it; or you could do it the way that stood us so well with
the centuries of our justice system piled so high and say no,
no, no, let's look at it with the understanding that there is a
presumption of innocence and it stays with that person
throughout the case and that it is the Government's burden.
         Let's view the evidence from that point of view.  And
in this final part of the summation, I want to do that for a
few more of these items.
         The Martin Marietta quarry:  You heard Mr. Radtke.
There was a report that a former employee, a disgruntled
employee, had made some threats; and yet nobody ever
investigated that.
         There was no evidence that Tovex or Primadet was even
used in the case.  There was a picture of the quarry.  The
front gates were always locked, and those locks were
undisturbed.  This is Government's Exhibit 119.  There is the
lock.
         Whoever came into that quarry that night, therefore,
either had to be somebody who had a key, or somebody who had
figured out that there is maybe a back road across this field
in there.  That's Government's Exhibit 118.  You'll have it.
         And yet from the road, you can't see the shed where
these items that they said were stolen are stored.  This looks
like an inside job.
         And if you want to take Mr. Cadigan after all the
water and the drill bit evidence -- Mr. McVeigh had his own
car.  Mr. McVeigh had access to Mr. Nichols' tools.  The
Government asked you:  Well, why would Terry Nichols drive
1100-some miles to Kingman, Arizona?  And the answer in the
evidence is that he didn't.  He was in Kingman, Arizona.  Never
went in the Fortiers' house.  He has a son named Joshua in
Las Vegas, Nevada; and that's where the phone calls are from.
         When you see Terry Nichols crisscrossing back and
forth across the United States, remember he has that family
there, and we'll hear a little more about what happened with
that in November.
         Suppose we looked at the Roger Moore robbery not with
a sinister eye but honestly at that testimony.  Suppose we
looked at Karen Anderson -- and the Government tells you they
don't rely on a certain list that she made.  This is
Government's Exhibit 2103.  Karen Anderson took that witness
stand right there and took an oath and swore to tell you the
truth and said that she had found this list and it was an old
list and it contained the list of the guns that she and Roger
Moore had.
         And then we found out that there was a gun on here
with a certain serial number, 189-57425.  So we went to the
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms and found out in Defense Exhibit D1166 that there is a
record of that gun, 189-57425, and that it was sold to a man
named "Terry Nichols" back in Michigan.
         Well, does it matter that the Government says they now
don't want to rely on it?  Where did Karen Anderson get that
serial number to make a fake list?  Did she make it up?  Where
did she get it?  There is only one place in the world she could
get it, and that's because the Federal Bureau of Investigation
showed her a bunch of guns that had been recovered from Terry
Nichols' house, told her what the serial numbers were so that
they could make up this phony document and then pretend to find
it and bring it in to you.
         The Judge will tell you that if you find that a
witness lied to you under oath from that witness stand, you're
entitled to disbelieve everything that witness said.
         The Moore robbery:  Walt Powell got a Waco tape and a
lot of political talk from Roger about black helicopters and
NATO forces.  Roger Moore denied that ever happened.
         Walt Powell?  He doesn't have an axe to grind.  He's
not coming in here as some buddy of Terry Nichols.
         Mrs. Powell welcomed Mr. Moore.  He made phone calls.
They put in some phone records that show that -- well, there is
no trace of Roger Moore's phone calls on his own phone, no
trace of phone calls on the Powells' phone.  He used a calling
card.  Did they subpoena the Bob Miller card?  Did they
subpoena some other card Roger Moore had?  The Powells heard
him make two phone calls, and Mr. Powell had to remind him to
call the sheriff.
         Lance Powell hears him talk:  "They got it all."  They
got it all?  Is that a reference to "they cleaned me out"?
Hardly.  Spivey has a picture -- and it's in evidence -- of
silver coins left behind by the robber.  "They got it all."
That's Roger Moore talking to somebody, and we may be able to
figure out who that was.
         Then the police arrived.  He says, "The feds did it."
Then he makes a list for the insurance agents.  One list, two
lists, three lists.  When Mr. Spivey comes, we're down to
Version 3.  And I asked Mr. Spivey to total up these numbers
that he was claiming from his insurance company; and lo and
behold, it's $400 more than the amount of his homeowner's
insurance contents coverage, and he has a $500 deductible.
         Roger Moore is hard of hearing but can hear footfalls
on a carpet.  He says a wood floor at first, but then it turns
out his floor is carpeted.  He's dragged; no, he's carried.
Which is it?
         He notes that the serial numbers of all his guns were
hidden in his van, maybe in a cabinet, maybe in a door panel,
maybe behind the glove box; but when the sheriff goes, the
serial numbers are mysteriously missing but the money that was
in the same place is still there, thousands of dollars left
behind, while the serial number list is missing.
         He tells Mr. Hethcox, the Little Rock police
helicopter pilot, "The robber fired a shot in the air."  Nobody
heard a shot.
         He tells Mr. Hethcox the robber forced him to open a
safe.  He doesn't have a safe.
         He tells Mr. Hethcox that paintings were taken.  He
doesn't have paintings.
         He tells Jan Dies -- you remember Ms. Dies and her
daughter, Dana Priddy?  They don't have an axe to grind.
They're not here to support somebody.  They come here because
they were subpoenaed.  "The feds did it."  "Here's a badge,
don't tell anybody."  "I'll put explosives around my house to
keep people away."
         The Fortier tired-robber story -- that's what McVeigh
told Fortier: that the robber got tired and then they helped
each other, and so on.  Nobody supports that.
         Roger Moore knows racing fuel.  He has a decal.
         "The FBI blew my cover," says Rodney Bowers Roger
Moore told him.  Moore denies it.
         He threatens Dana Priddy:  "I'll spread her all over
the counter."
         He gives Jan Dies and Dana Priddy a description that
doesn't include wire ties.  Another person, he tells they're
police ties.  Well, you saw the difference between what Roger
Moore said he was tied up in and real police ties.
         Government counsel said:  Well, of course you would
call a private detective; that shows he wanted to investigate.
         Well, if of course he would call a private
detective -- and Chief John Brown testified -- why under oath
when I asked him if he had done it did he deny it?  And when I
said, "Do you deny that?" he said, "Yes."
         Nothing wrong with calling a private detective.
What's funny is Roger Moore's credibility.  On his homeowner's
application, he says he has only a thousand dollars in jewelry
and guns.  Why does he say that?  "Well, I was told once by an
insurance agent not to buy insurance.  And I was told not to
buy insurance because if you buy insurance, somebody might tell
somebody else and then you get robbed."
         I was born at night, but I wasn't born last night.  I
mean, have you ever heard of an insurance agent that told you
not to buy insurance because buying insurance was the most
dangerous thing that you could do?  The insurance salesman --
John Prine sings a song:  "And all my friends are insurance
salesmen."  I mean, that's somebody at the end of their rope.
I never met -- and I suspect you didn't, either -- an insurance
salesman that didn't want to sell you insurance.
         And Roger Moore also tells you a lie about how much it
would cost.  Jan Dies said it only cost a tenth as much as
Moore said.
         He offers McVeigh, so he says, $100,000 to come and
solve the case, doesn't remember getting a call at the Powells.
Who knows to call him there?  And yet Trooper Karchefski
remembers that.
         Karen and Roger both say Roger doesn't sell porn, but
Roger has a sudden awakening and recollection that maybe he did
sell porn tapes.  That's his right to do it, but why deny it?
         Roger Moore deals in cash, not the small amounts like
Terry Nichols, but enough so he can pull $100,000 out of the
bank on a whim.
         His phone records will show, the ones introduced by
the Government, that he called Karen Anderson that day; but he
told Spivey that he didn't know where she was.
         He tells the cops and Spivey McVeigh is a suspect.
When the cops interview him and say, "Where can we find this
McVeigh," he says, "Oh, Fort Riley.  New York."  And yet he's
corresponding with him at least four times a year in Kingman,
Arizona, and knows it and knows it so well that he and Karen
can put McVeigh in touch with Steve Colbern.
         "Not a big enough closet for all those guns," Spivey
says.  Oh, the insurance company paid, yes.  But Spivey says,
"At some point we do make the decision to go ahead and pay the
claim instead of investigating it further."
         When Lance Powell goes to Moore's house, what's the
first thing Moore does?  He takes him around the back and says,
"That's where the phone lines were cut."  Well, how does he
know?  He told you on direct examination that he walked right
out his front door, put a gun in his pocket, and walked down to
the Powells.  How does he know to go back and say, "That's
where the phone lines were cut"?
         Well, what did happen?  Maybe Karen Anderson wasn't in
the know.  But Roger Moore's description, which looks very much
like the picture that was in his van, sure isn't Terry Nichols,
unless Terry Nichols grew 4 inches and 30 pounds.
         No description of any pantyhose being used.  Even
Roger Moore didn't say that, and he didn't say a wig.  He said
a beard, a full beard; and everybody that saw Terry Nichols
said he was clean-shaven at that time.
         No, folks, it doesn't make sense the way Roger Moore
tells it.
         How does it make sense?
         Terry Nichols told the Government he had the storage
sheds in Council Grove to store guns and ammo and furniture.
And that's right.  And Michael Fortier saw guns.  Tim McVeigh
was handing things out that were -- came out of Roger Moore's
house.  There is no question about that.  Tim McVeigh was
handing those out and saying, "Sell them."  And when Fortier
sold them, he said, "You got to give me some of the money."  He
said, "I have to give it to Terry Nichols."  There is no proof
he ever did.
         Tim McVeigh is in charge of distributing the goods and
directing the goods out of Roger Moore's house because Tim
McVeigh and Roger Moore have got a relationship; and Roger
comes here and tells you that he wanted to trap Tim McVeigh,
and yet he writes him a letter.  And it's in evidence and you
can read it, and I won't tax your patience with it.  That
letter is not the letter that somebody would write to somebody
that you thought had robbed you.
         And we can prove it.  The Government says through
Michael Fortier:  "I got a call, or Lori did, that there was a
code red from Tim McVeigh.  And then I went to a pay phone --"
pay phone "-- and I called back Timothy McVeigh.  And if you
don't believe me, here's a picture of the pay phone."
         Okay.  And that took place sometime November 14 or so.
         The Government then brought to you a chart.  And like
all these other charts, maybe those charts got made before the
evidence came in.  Maybe it's like that racetrack where they
put the numbers on the horses after the race is run, because
the chart doesn't tell you what the real evidence is.  The
chart talks about phone calls on the 6th and 7th of November.
Let's look.
         On November 5, before Roger Moore has had a chance to
fully elaborate and invent his story, from a phone in Kent,
Ohio, where Terry Nichols is not, is a call to Michael Fortier
for 11 minutes and 12 seconds.  That's page 68 of Government
553.  There it is.  Michael Fortier.  November 5.
         That's the first telephone call of these records.  The
page immediately before is November 1.  There haven't been any
calls on the 2d, 3rd, and 4th on this Daryl Bridges card, and
those calls are clearly made by Terry Nichols.  They're made to
the Philippine consulate and other people connected with
planning a trip to the Philippines.  And you remember Terry
Nichols had made -- Terry had made a reservation to fly to the
Philippines from Wichita.  That's November 5.
         What happens, then, on November 5 and 6?  Terry
Nichols is in Junction City; and he gets a letter from Lana
Padilla that says, "Your son is going to run away from home."
Now, this is the boy that Terry went up to Michigan to get to
live with him when he was in the Army.
         So let's look at the calls now, if we remember that
fact.
         Sure enough, Terry Nichols begins to call Tim McVeigh.
He's got the letter and he calls.  And you can see that he's
trying to call Tim McVeigh.  First he checks The Spotlight
balance.  Then he tries to call Tim McVeigh but apparently
leaves a message.  This is the morning of the 6th.  The very
next call is to Esquire Realty where Lana Padilla works, to
talk about Josh.
         Then again that night at 5:24, he calls Padilla home,
another 30-minute call to talk about Josh.  And in between
here, you're going to see a lot of calls back and forth in an
attempt to reach Timothy McVeigh.  Of course, you are.
Concluding with, though, a call here, another one on the 7th,
33 minutes and 19 seconds, Travelers Motel, to Lana and Leonard
Padilla, calling to talk to about Joshua.
         And it's in those calls that Terry Nichols, who has
this business with Tim McVeigh, is planning to not go from
Wichita but to change his whole plans, drop everything, not
meet McVeigh in the Midwest, get to Las Vegas as quick as he
can, take Josh camping in Zion -- which is in the desert where
it's cold at night and people might need to wear some head
covering, by the way -- and abandon whatever plans he had with
Timothy McVeigh.
         During that time, he also rents another storage shed.
         Now, if you look at this thing from the standpoint of
let's try to recognize the presumption of innocence and not
attach a sinister meaning, if, when he got to that storage
shed, McVeigh has caused to be put there the things that
McVeigh's friends have gotten from Roger Moore and they're
talking back and forth, the distribution of what was obtained
from Roger Moore begins right then.  And Terry Nichols gets
some, and Michael Fortier gets some, and Timothy McVeigh is in
charge of that and sending the dough back to Roger Moore --




Roger Moore, who writes letters to Tim McVeigh and writes
"burn" on them.
         You'll hear instructions from the Judge about how to
deal with the Moore evidence.  But we submit to you that the
Government's theory is riddled, riddled with doubts.  This is a
man on his way to the Philippines to accomplish a purpose that
I'm going to talk about in a minute and on his way to see his
son.
         Yes, members of the jury, there are other names.  But
watch out.  Shawn Rivers, Tim McVeigh.  Joe Rivers, Terry
Nichols.  Tim Tuttle, Tim McEeige.  Robert Kling.  Why use
other names if you're into the gun business?  Well, Roger Moore
told you why.  It's because you store things under different
names because you've got tens of thousands of dollars' worth of
stuff in a storage shed sitting out there beside the highway;
and in the gun business, apparently people use other names.
         I'll tell you something frankly that the evidence
shows.  The evidence shows that Terry Nichols doesn't pay
income tax.  The evidence shows he doesn't use a Social
Security number.  The evidence shows he doesn't use banks,
doesn't trust banks.  The evidence shows that he deals in cash.
The evidence shows that he is that kind of a person.  Maybe not
the kind of a person that you are or that I am, but that's the
kind of person he is.
         And if you look at that not as being sinister but as
one of those people who participates in a certain set of
economic relationships in this country like Roger Moore does,
it becomes clearer.
         But what about Havens?  Tim McVeigh is Shawn Rivers.
Terry is Joe Rivers.  Same last name.  There is no evidence
that Terry Nichols ever registered in a motel or ever filled
out a form that said he was Mike Havens.  Joe Havens, yes.
Terry Havens, yes.  No evidence he ever said he was Shawn
Rivers.  That was what Tim McVeigh said.  Joe Rivers, yes.
         When you get back in the jury room -- I made a great
deal, you'll recall, with Mr. Mr. Hupp about that receipt, the
ammonium nitrate receipt.  Take a piece of paper the size of
the ammonium nitrate receipt.  Take a coin the size of a Maple
Leaf and try to figure out how in the world you could get two
fingerprints on it in the way that the Government testified.

         1, 2, 3, 4 -- it was folded over the coins.  And what
are the prints?  One thumb, one finger like this.  There are
only two prints on it.  They belong to Timothy McVeigh, and it
is folded with the writing side inside.
         In January of 1995, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols
met in Junction City, Texas.  They were there for several days,
and Lana Padilla said after that she talked to Terry.  Remember
that?  No matter what Terry said in that conversation back in
November about whatever it was, Waco, she was willing to have
her son -- their son go live with them.  And he said, "I'm not
doing gun shows with Tim McVeigh anymore."  They had split
their stuff up, which included coins and things and guns and
ammo and all other sorts of stuff; and then Terry had begun to
accumulate his own.
         There is no evidence, nothing that shows beyond a
reasonable doubt, nothing that would satisfy folks that looked
at this without some sinister cloud over things, that Terry
Nichols ever saw that receipt.
         And that, put together with what Mr. Woods said about
Mr. Schlender and Mr. Showalter, who don't identify Terry
Nichols and who know what a three-quarter-ton Dodge
four-wheel-drive pickup truck is, should solve the matter.
         You see, the Government can't handle the truth.  They
can't handle it.  Because if Lea McGown is telling you the
truth that she heard voices in McVeigh's room and if that
Blockbuster Video application that McVeigh made clear up in
Junction City, when he was staying in Herington, showing that
he's got business up there other than with the Nichols in
Marion, and if Vicki Beemer, not exactly your Elvis-sighting,
National Enquirer, front-page-cover person, saw John Doe No. 2
and McVeigh talking to each other and if the car was there like
Eldon Elliott said and if the truck wasn't there, that big
chart "Nichols on the Road --" that must have been made before
Sergeant Wahl's testimony disintegrated in the cloud when
Christopher Budke came up with his note.  And we don't blame
that on prosecutors, by the way.  They didn't even have until
the day before.  They didn't know it.  It was the FBI that had
it.  But if all of those people are telling you these things
and they are right, the Government can't handle that because
then their whole theory that Terry Nichols mixed that bomb out
at the lake disintegrates, and all of a sudden the FBI has got
to answer some questions like why didn't you check the
fingerprints and why did you stop looking and why didn't you do
intercomparisons and why didn't you flag the fact that your
forensic evidence wasn't adding up?
         Terry Nichols had books in his house.  Sure he did.
Literature that Tim McVeigh gave him and literature of a
radical character.
         But are there differences?  Did anybody ever say they
heard Terry Nichols walk up and say, "Join me in a plot to
bomb"?  No.  Did anybody ever say, "I saw him at Elohim City"?
Elohim City.  The name of the merciful God.  Elohim City.
         And it is the right of Mrs. Millar to have her family,
the Millars, preside over it, I suppose, in America today and
introduce their gospel of hate.  And it is in her interest to
say that that's all they do is introduce that gospel of hate.
But there is a difference, we say in Texas, between preaching
and meddling.  And Andreas Strassmeier is not a preacher, and
Tim McVeigh and Andreas Strassmeier were walking together.
         They reached out, Fortier and McVeigh, to the National
Alliance.  They wanted to form a militia.  They reached out to
Mr. Coffman, and McVeigh reached out to Mr. Colbern.
         Now, that letter, they say, was never delivered.
Okay.  It was written in November, '94.  Roger Moore and Karen
Anderson and The Candy Store -- they put those two in touch.
         "SC:  I'll try to keep this generic.  What I am asking
you to do, then," says McVeigh, "is sit back and be honest with
yourself.  Do you have kids?  A wife?  Would you back out at
the last minute to care for the family?"  A sentiment echoed in
his conversation with Fortier, because in Timothy McVeigh's
version of the world, there is no worse insult than
"domesticated" and no greater glory than to be a desperado, not
tied town, traveling with a rucksack, moving back and forth
across the country.  People that are tied down and have kids:
Those aren't the ones that Timothy McVeigh wants.  But the
Government can't handle that truth because that truth matches
up with what Lea McGown saw and Vicki Beemer saw and all these
other people saw.  They can't handle it.
         And they even have the nerve to come in here and the
FBI agents say, well, I didn't see a library in Mr. Nichols'
house -- and I'm not going to put the covers of all the books
up there that you saw at his house that he read, the things
that he's curious about.
         They can't handle the Ryder truck inquiry that Tim
McVeigh made at Lake Havasu City.
         The FBI set up a roadblock near Geary Lake to ask
everybody, "Well, Did you see a Ryder truck?"  And then they
come in here and tell you that if you stop at the FBI's own
roadblock and didn't talk before, well, there must be something
wrong with your testimony.
         There are a dozen people or more came in here, almost
20 of them, saw a Ryder truck.  And Mr. Kitchener in his creel
survey contradicts only two of them, if you look at the time.
Why did we put those on?  To show that there are lots of Ryder
trucks out there -- one reason.  To show that if Sergeant Wahl
saw a Ryder truck and a gray pickup that completely doesn't
match Mr. Nichols' pickup truck that maybe, just maybe, if you
looked at this from a reasonable doubt point of view, you'd
say:  That must not be it, because the truck doesn't match.
That's not rocket science, that's just observation.
         They can't handle the truth.  They can't handle it; so
what they do is they take Tim Chambers from VP Racing Fuels, a
nice guy, and they bring him in here.  And they want you to
believe that that's Terry Nichols' pickup truck in Ennis,
Texas, and that Terry Nichols is there.  Nobody saw Terry
Nichols in Ennis, Texas, ever.  That's the evidence; not the
speculation, the evidence.
         What did Mr. Chambers see?  He saw a truck that wasn't
shiny.  Wasn't shiny.  See the pictures of Terry's truck at the
Herington police station?  He keeps it shiny.  The ones when
it's in the FBI evidence room after it's had dust all over it
that it's not shiny.  But his, he keeps it shiny.
         Chambers can't identify the pickup truck as to make or
model year.  He says it had a camper shell but it's faded.  He
says that Terry Nichols is not the man.  He cannot identify Tim
McVeigh.  The barrel rings don't fit.
         When he was asked in front of you, "What did the guy
look like that bought the nitromethane?"
         He said, "Well, he looked like a possum."  Pogo
bomber.
         That is not the quality of evidence that one would
expect in a criminal case.
         The Government can't handle the truth.  They can't
handle Tim McVeigh wanting money from Dave Paulsen and trading
him blasting caps for TNT.  They can't handle the truth that it
was McVeigh that reached out to Darlak and Pfaff.  They can't
handle the truth that the Belle Arte Motel in Kingman, Arizona,
had a group of people, one of whom resembled John Doe No. 2,
acting up around McVeigh's room.
         They can't handle the truth that when McVeigh showed
Fortier Geary Lake, he drove him up on a mountain near Geary
Lake -- that hill.
         They can't handle the problem that it would be a
strange bunch of bombers indeed that would mix their bomb in
full view of a whole bunch of fishermen coming and going with
boats and this and that, a story that begins to doubt when
there is no evidence of tire tracks or soil samples.
         They can't handle the truth of Mr. Farley with the
beard, with the mentally handicapped daughter, who late on the
18th sees a bunch of people with ammonium nitrate parked well
away from the fishing area in an isolated place with a Ryder
truck.
         They can't handle the truth that there is no evidence
where Timothy McVeigh stayed on Thursday night.
         They can't handle the truth that it was Tim McVeigh
who called Terry Nichols on the 11th and not Terry Nichols who
initiated the conversation, exchange of telephone calls.
         They can't handle the truth that there is a Denny's
open by the McDonald's and a Texaco station where Ms. Kindle
sees Tim McVeigh later at a time that fits because he can get
to Oklahoma City at an average speed of 65 miles an hour from
there after she says she sees him.
         And they can't handle the truth about Oklahoma City on
the morning of the 19th.  Mr. Cooper says, "I saw McVeigh and
the other guy, and he was with a car and I saw it."
         Why does McVeigh need somebody to be with him in
Oklahoma City the morning of the 19th when Terry Nichols is at
home?  Because the parking area in front of the Murrah Building
at 9:00 in the morning is still being -- it's rush hour, folks.
You see the pictures from the Regency Tower, and you see that
the truck stops for 20 seconds and then starts again.  Why do
you have to stop?  Because there is traffic.  That little
pull-out area in front of the federal building -- that's a
no-standing zone.  He can't leave the truck there for 20
minutes; a cop will come.  And he can never be sure that there
is going to be a parking place there when he needs it; and when
he lights that fuse, you know, he better be on his way.  There
is no electric timing device found.  Tim McVeigh better -- you
know, unless he's going to be consumed in the blast, he better
go; and so he needs somebody to scout it.  He needs a car to
run out there, and that's a reason why Mr. Cooper's sighting
makes sense.
         And then Germaine Johnston.  They insult us for having
brought her here.  Well, it's 77 miles -- a little more --
maybe 80, up to where Mr. McVeigh is stopped by Trooper Hanger.
There is a map in Oklahoma in evidence.  Ms. Johnston sees him
maybe around 9:25.  He gets stopped around 9:20 -- or 10:20 --
10:20; and you know that McVeigh drives like a maniac.  Lead
foot, everybody says.  What, you think -- and Trooper Hanger --
he said, "It took me 70 minutes at a speed-limit pace."
         Okay.  Fair inference.  Is he going to get out of
there at a speed-limit pace?  Is he going to get out of there
at what he thinks he can do, best he can do?
         He heads north to rejoin his comrades, not to be with
Terry Nichols.
         So suppose you did look at all the facts and you
respected the presumption of innocence and you didn't start out
saying that Terry Nichols must have done it.  Suppose you saw
him as secretive, as insecure.  Suppose you saw him on the 21st
as a citizen scared, as you or I would be if we went to the
police station, having seen Janet Reno on the television and
knowing that we knew this guy Tim McVeigh and had been in
business with him and trying to remember it all and give them
the leads:  Go get those sheds; I don't know about a Ryder
truck, but I do know about McVeigh; I can tell you details.
         Suppose you looked at him as a man who loved his
children and nurtured them.  Suppose you looked at him even in
the adversity that he did when Josh's mother wasn't around.
Suppose you looked at him as married and having started another
family.  Suppose you looked at him as someone divorced and yet
whose ex-wife was still saying, "Well, Josh can come and live
with you."  Suppose you understood that his marriage to Marife
was rocky and difficult, a fact we did not try to hide from
you.  Suppose you understood that Marife had said, "No more
McVeigh; I'm jealous, I can't stand it."  Suppose you heard
again the voice that morning on Friday when Lana Padilla had
insulted her, "She sleeps too late.  What's she doing?"  As
though it's any of Lana Padilla's business; but as the great
American novelist Kinky Friedman said, "ex-wives will stay with
you through thick."  You know, she said it, and Marife was
insulted by it; and she said she was going to leave is how bad
it was.  She even remembered in these notes on the 18th:  "Nice
night, no arguments."
         Maybe a guy with all that wouldn't want to tell his
wife, Well, I'm -- I'm going to go help Tim.  Maybe he wouldn't
level with her about that because he knew the tension and the
stress that was.  Maybe he'd say to his son Josh, who was 11,
"A 10-hour ride in a truck ain't for you."
         But what happened in November of 1995?  Lana writes
him a letter about Josh, and he calls right away, "What can I
do?"  And he goes to Las Vegas, changes his whole trip, takes
Josh camping for a week.  And what's he on his way to do?  He's
on his way to surprise Marife, who has said, "I'm leaving and
I'm leaving for a year with our baby daughter."  And she said
he came there.  And -- I don't know -- she was on the campus.
She didn't think he was coming.  And he said, "Come back," and
he did what he said:  "I'll buy a house.  I'll get these
things.  We'll furnish the house.  We'll go to these gun shows.
We'll work them together.  We'll do these things," printing up
his cards in his own name, building his life, pulling these
things together.
         And when he heard it, not attempting to hide the
Primadet, not attempting to hide any receipt because he didn't
even know it was there, not attempting to hide the guns,
consenting to a search of his house.  If you looked at what he
did and just focused on this or that and said he spread
ammonium nitrate and looked at it with a sinister way, you
might reach conclusions.  But if you respected the presumption
of innocence, you'd say:  Well, we understand.  He's human.
He's human.
         And then we'd understand, too, about Kevin Nicholas
who Tim McVeigh drops in on; the Fortiers, who he drops in on
and then leaves just as abruptly, using these people.
         Well, we end where we began.  It isn't just reasonable
doubt.  It is that to convict someone of a conspiracy, to
convict someone of aiding and abetting in this country today --
and it's different in other countries -- you've got to prove
more than mere association.  You've got to prove more than
presence at this time or place, and you've got to prove it all
beyond a reasonable doubt.
         They get a rebuttal, as I have said, and I will not
have the chance to stand up and answer.  So there it is.
You'll think of it because the evidence will be there with you.
         The charge is a conspiracy to blow up a building and
kill children, Terry Nichols who had gone to the Philippines
and said, "Come back with me," and he had started another baby,
who then was born in December.  A conspiracy is charged to blow
up a building and kill children.
         I have always believed that to make a decision to
bring children into the word is a bargain.  It is a -- it's a
bargain with the future.  It means that you are, in that word
of Timothy McVeigh's, "domesticated."
         The Court is going to tell you that the Government
never loses a criminal case.  A funny thing to say, but it is
on the wall inside the inner courtyard of the Justice
Department in Washington.  What that means is that the
Government wins when justice is done to one of its citizens.
         168 people died in Oklahoma City.  We have never
denied the reality of that.
         More than 30 years ago, I went to Washington, D.C.,
for the first time.  And the very first public building I ever
saw was the building of the Supreme Court of the United States.
And I saw that where it said, "Equal Justice Under Law."  And
that means rich or poor, or neighbor or stranger, or a tax
protester or not, or somebody who is different from us, or not.
         And wouldn't it be terrible if a memory -- if a
memorial -- if it was thought by anybody that the fitting
memory, a fitting memorial to the 168 who died would be to go
there some dark night and chop those words off where they are
on the lintel above the Supreme Court of the United States?
         Members of the jury, I don't envy you the job that you
have.  But I tell you this is my brother.  He's in your hands.
         THE COURT:  Mr. Mackey . . .
                       REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
         MR. MACKEY:  May it please the Court.
         THE COURT:  Counsel.
         MR. MACKEY:  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the men
and women and children inside the Alfred P. Murrah Building on
April 19 are your brothers and sisters as well, and the justice
that they demand is no more or no less in your hands.  You are
moments away from hearing the lawyers conclude, listening to
his Honor provide you the rules of law and taking charge.
That's when you step into control.
         It is an awesome responsibility, and everyone inside
the well of this courtroom has been most grateful for the
attentive manner, personal sacrifices, and all that you have
done to contribute to this process; but it's at a close.
         When I stood before you some seven weeks ago and told
you that in some fashion we would introduce to you each and
every one of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, I told
you how we would do it.  And in the course of this trial in an
understated and dignified manner, people, living people, came
before you and said:  These were my children, these were my
co-workers, these were my friends.
         And as Mr. Tigar and Mr. Woods told you in jury
selection and opening statement, everyone would be cross-
examined, and they were.  And we heard many questions to those
witnesses about smoke, about thick, black smoke.
         Many of them said:  Mr. Tigar, I couldn't tell you.
My face was bleeding, my friends were dying.  I didn't notice
the smoke.
         There was smoke that morning, and it engulfed the
parking lot on the north side of the building, a result of an
immense explosion that ripped that building apart.  And in
time, little time, that smoke cleared.  The sky was blue for a
moment.  And all of America could see what Terry Nichols and
Tim McVeigh had done:  A nine-story building ripped apart.
They could only imagine the death inside.
         In the course of this trial, witness by witness --
because no one witness can tell the entire story -- document by
document -- because no one piece of paper explains it all -- a
new picture has emerged as vivid as the one that America
remembers from the morning of April 19.  The background of that
picture is that building and that gaping hole and the lives
lost forever.
         And now, after this trial, in the foreground of that
picture stand Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh side by side, two
men responsible for America's most horrific crime.
         You have over these many weeks heard so many words
from lawyers and from witnesses.  And Joan Millar was mentioned
earlier, and it brought back to mind one rule that you should
apply as you discuss among yourselves the words you have heard
and the significance you should attach to them.
         There is no doubt about it that Ms. Millar lives among
people who believe in a certain ugly way, and she cannot change
the ugliness of that by telling you that her city is a village
and not a compound.
         You will see the truth through the words of each and
every witness.  You will see the truth emerge from your study
of the evidence in this case.
         "Burden of proof," may be the three most often-stated
words in the course of the defense arguments to you.  It means
something to people in this business.  It means something to
you.  We accept it.  We have met it in the evidence of this
case.
         But it entitles you to ask the same hard questions of
the evidence presented by the defense as that which was
presented by the Government.  And it is not and should not be
used as some shade to be drawn down in front of you as you
begin to peer in and examine carefully the evidence offered by
the defense in this case.
         As you do so, Rule No. 1:  Use your common sense.
Bring your life experiences to bear.  Talk among yourselves.
Ask the hard questions on each side of the evidence, and don't
let the burden of proof become a shade to dissuade you from
doing so.
         One of the best examples during closing argument
yesterday by Mr. Tigar about how if it gets too difficult we'll
pull the shade of burden of proof down before you is his
explanation to you about the Wal-Mart receipt.  How could one
small piece of paper get so much attention in one long trial?
We know why.  It's so very important to what it tells.  It
answers the question about what is the proof of when Terry
Nichols and Tim McVeigh first got together in Kansas in April
of 1995.  And Mr. Tigar suggested to you that you should stop
and pull down the shade behind the burden of proof and don't
answer any more questions or ask any more questions because who
knows but that somebody, somebody named Tim McVeigh, dropped
that oil filter and the receipt off on the porch at 109 South
2nd Street in Herington, an explanation for how it was that
Terry Nichols might have the receipt and never say he had seen
Tim McVeigh.
         Well, test that suggestion against your common sense.
Ask yourself questions like:  Tim McVeigh to do so must have
driven down to Herington and found no one at home, apparently
didn't call in advance to be sure someone might be there.  He
was in too big a rush apparently to stick around and see if
anybody is there, especially his long-time friend.  He must
have been in the neighborhood anyway, even though it's 50 miles
round trip between Junction City and Herington; and he must
have loved Terry Nichols to drive that far and give him a
receipt and a filter worth $2.54.
         I mean no disrespect by this, but as Mr. Tigar
suggested that that's one way that the receipt could have
gotten to Mr. Nichols and his statement to the FBI still be
true, I had a vision of the oil filter ferry cross my mind.  It
doesn't make sense; and that's the test of the evidence:  Does
it make sense?
         And the real problem with that suggestion, the nuts
and bolts, the bottom-line question, is if Tim McVeigh drove to
Herington, left the oil filter and receipt on his friend's
porch, never saw Terry Nichols, where is the television set?
Remember the origin of the story?  It begins with a letter by
Terry Nichols to his friend and says:  Please, if you're coming
this way, if you're going west to east, Kansas in the middle,
drop off that television set that has been sitting in my son's
garage out in Las Vegas.
         So Mr. McVeigh does so?  He brings the TV?  Drops off
the filter but not the television set?  It doesn't make sense.
         It didn't happen that way.  It happened just the way
Ms. Wilkinson told you yesterday.  It happened just the way
that the evidence supports.
         Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh got together on Friday
or Saturday of April of 1995, 14th or 15th.  They met and they

talked about the plans to bomb the Murrah Building.
         The reason the Wal-Mart receipt is so important, as I
told you in the opening statement, is both cannot be true.
Terry Nichols cannot have told the FBI the truth when he said
the only reason I went to Oklahoma City on April 16 on Easter
was to pick up a used television set.  That can't be true if
Tim and the TV are already in Kansas.
         The television set was a cover for Marife Nichols.  It
was a cover for you.  It's a cover like aliases and all the
other evidence in this case that points to deceit and less-
than-truthful conduct on the part of Terry Nichols.
         You have a job to do, and it soon will be yours.  And
people inside the well of this courtroom have been going about
their job for the past several weeks.  And it is fair for
defense counsel to comment upon the job done by the Government.
It's fair for me to respond.
         Mr. Woods has told you that the United States of
America, the FBI in particular, rushed to judgment; that by
April 21, 1995, with Terry Nichols in tow, all else didn't
matter; that within 48 hours of the bombing, everyone's mind,
from Janet Reno to me and everybody in between -- and there are
many -- had all they needed to know.  A rush to judgment.
         Mr. Tigar said that man after woman after employee of
the FBI came in here and did a sloppy, unethical, sometimes
perhaps borderline-perjurious job before you.  And he said the
reason they did so is because they don't care.
         There has been no rush to judgment in the
investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing.
The survivors inside that building wouldn't stand for it.  The
victims wouldn't stand for it.  The people of Oklahoma wouldn't
stand for it.  America would not stand for a rush to judgment
in that case of all cases.  There has been no rush to judgment.
There has been 30,000 interviews.  There have been thousands
upon thousands upon thousands of documents gathered, only a
small portion of which became evidence in this case.
         What has emerged is a complete and compelling picture
that it was Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh together, side by
side, who are responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma City and
the deaths of those innocent people.
         There were mistakes made, and we heard some of them --
a bit about that.  But those mistakes were not the product of
uncaring employees of your Government.
         Before Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh bombed the Murrah
Building on April 19, 1995, this country had never seen a crime
of such monumental portions.  And unfortunately, there are now
scores of FBI agents around this country who know what it is to
sift through thousands of pounds of debris looking for the
smallest clue, any clue, that will help anyone decide what
truly happened.
         And I pray that what the law enforcement community has
learned in the course of that experience will never be drawn
upon again.
         But I will predict one thing:  Some things won't
change.  And when there are fires engulfing cars near a bomb
scene, people are going to put the fires out.  They're going to
do that.  They're going to make the situation safe, and they're
going to step over truck parts and perhaps other important
criminal evidence if it means pulling one more survivor out of
a building.
         Those were the priorities on April 19, 1995; and
that's just the way they should have been.  There was a cost to
that, and we saw some of those costs; but in the long run, with
more than 192 witnesses and scores and scores of documents, the
truth has emerged.  We know what happened on April 19 and who
caused it to occur.
         There has been some FBI bashing for FBI bashing's
sake, I describe it.  Mr. Tigar gave you three examples of how
Lou Hupp, the FBI fingerprint expert, was not a very good
record-keeper; how on one report he would say there were X
number of fingerprint identifications and there would be a
handwritten chart with a different number.  He gave you three
examples, the Wal-Mart receipt, the Ted Parker Lease, and the
Shawn Rivers lease.  And the question is -- for you is does
that difference make the difference?
         Is there any doubt that the Wal-Mart receipt came out
of Terry Nichols' wallet?  Is there any doubt that both Terry
Nichols and Tim McVeigh have their prints on it, whether it's
two or more or one or more or three or more?  Is there any
doubt?
         Is there any doubt who Ted Parker is?  Why challenge
Mr. Hupp about his record-keeping on the Ted Parker lease when
they have stipulated and agreed that Terry Nichols is Ted
Parker; that it was him and him alone on November 7, 1994,
using that false name moments after the robbery in Arkansas to
rent the storage shed?
         And the Shawn Rivers lease?  Has there been any doubt
that it was Tim McVeigh in September of 1994 using that name to
rent the Herington unit?  That's the bottom-line question.
         The smoke will clear, the answers will emerge, and the
truth will be found.
         There is a good reason, especially in long trials, why
we have 12 jurors or more.  There is a lot of information
flowing your way, and not everybody is going to remember
everything in the same way.  That's why deliberations are so
important, why you take your time with each other and you
discuss and review the evidence that you heard.
         You will turn to leaning on one another in different
ways to be sure that when your verdict is arrived at it is
unanimous among all of you.
         And so it is, I'm sure, only accidental that Mr. Tigar
quoted to you Lea McGown's testimony yesterday and said that
the Government was being selective in her testimony.  They
didn't want us to know or you to know the truth about when it
was that there was somebody visiting Tim McVeigh's room at the
Dreamland.
         He said it was Friday or Saturday.  You'll remember
the testimony.  She said Saturday and probably Sunday.
         Sunday night:  What was going on on Easter Sunday,
Sunday night, April 16, 1995?  It's the tail end of a long
drive back from Oklahoma City.  Tail end of the trip by two
men, Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh, side by side, stashing the
getaway car in Oklahoma City, driving him back to the
Dreamland.
         How did Terry Nichols know to call the Dreamland
Motel?  Because he dropped Tim McVeigh off there on Sunday
night, late Sunday night.
         It is an immense task for you, and you have to begin
somewhere.  And I have one suggestion:  The place to begin is
the indictment.  And his Honor will provide to you copies of
the indictment, the written charges -- and they are only
that -- brought in Oklahoma in 1995.  It serves as a road map,
much like the road map that Ms. Wilkinson displayed to you
yesterday.  It recounts many but not all of the critical events
and dates that the Government alleged and that the proof has
correspondingly proven.
         And it also recites the names and ages of each and
every one of the victims inside the Oklahoma City Alfred P.
Murrah Building.  You'll be reminded that Dr. Charles Hurlburt
and his wife were the two oldest victims, age 73 and 67; that
Antonio Cooper was one of the youngest, born six months before
he died, about the time that Terry Nichols was sitting in a
kitchen in Las Vegas and writing a letter saying, "Tim, go for
it."
         There are 11 counts in this indictment, and you must
pass judgment on each.  They draw into question four different
violations of federal law.
         And I'll speak just very briefly about those.  His
Honor will address them in more detail.
         They charge that Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh
conspired together, made an agreement among themselves to use a
weapon of mass destruction -- in this case, the truck bomb, a
very, very big truck bomb -- to destroy the Murrah Building and
to kill people inside it.  That's Count 1, an agreement to do
so.
         Count 2 is that Terry Nichols aided and abetted Tim
McVeigh in using that truck bomb against the people inside that
building.
         And Count 3 is that he aided and abetted Tim McVeigh
in using that truck bomb against the building itself.
         Counts 4 through 11 are first-degree murder, naming
each of the eight federal law enforcement officers on duty
performing their responsibilities on that day and who each died
in the blast.
         You'll see from the instructions that each crime, each
of those four crimes has what's called "essential elements" and
will become for you what in effect is a checklist, what it is
you must satisfy yourself, each and every one of them, beyond a
reasonable doubt before returning a verdict of guilty.  And
you'll want to guide your deliberations in that fashion.
         As you study the crime of conspiracy, remember what it
is.  It's an agreement.  Federal law makes it unlawful for two
or more people to agree together to violate another law; in
this case, to destroy the Murrah Building and murder innocent
people.
         And if you find that Terry Nichols intentionally and
knowingly became a part of that agreement and did anything, any
of those many stops along the road to destruction, then he is
guilty of conspiracy.
         You'll come to know a little bit more about aiding and
abetting; and it's frankly one of those rare legal terms that
meets common expectation.  You could define it as well.  It in
essence means if you know what the plan is and you do anything
further -- that is, to help to make it succeed -- then you can
be guilty as an aider and abettor.
         Tim McVeigh was alone in Oklahoma City on April 19.
Terry Nichols was not there.  The law recognizes that the
responsibility is just the same.  If Terry Nichols knew of the
plan and did anything to help make that plan succeed, he's
guilty as if he were sitting side by side.
         MR. TIGAR:  Objection to misstatement of the law, your
Honor.
         THE COURT:  I'll explain the law in detail to the
members of the jury.
         MR. MACKEY:  One of the elements that you'll attend to
is the question of premeditation.  First-degree murder is
different than all other murder because of premeditation.  And
his Honor will tell you in words and substance that what you
must find is that the evidence proves to you that the defendant
considered and reflected upon preconceived killing at least
long enough to give it a second thought.  That's the definition
of "premeditation," and his Honor will explain it further to
you; and in this case -- in this case, ask yourself if seven
months is not long enough to give death a second thought, then
what is.
         There are going to be several pieces of evidence that
will guide you to a verdict of guilty on each of those counts
that have to do with interpreting and understanding Terry
Nichols' state of mind; and that's important:  Did he intend
and did he know someone would die when that bomb went off?
         Focus on the murder weapon in this case.  This is a
murder case, no doubt.  But it's very in many respects
different from other murder cases.
         This is not a murder case that emanated from a fellow
reaching under his coat and pulling out a gun and shooting
somebody in a bar.  This is a case where the murder weapon did
not exist until Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh decided it would.
         In prisons across this country, inmates, angry
inmates, will get a simple, innocent piece of metal; and over
the course of time, long periods of time, one stroke after
another, they will turn that piece of metal into a dangerous
weapon, into a shank that can be driven inside the body of a
prison guard.
         And that's the kind of murder weapon that was built in
this case, one that started with something quite innocent.  And
over time, with dedication, concentration, commitment, they
turned what was innocent into something so very deadly.
         When you think about whether Terry Nichols knew or
intended that someone would die when that bomb blew up, think
about the size of the bomb.  This is a man who knows about
ammonium nitrate, 8-ounce bottles that he labels for sale and
marks "explosives."  8-ounces.  Cleverly marketed under the
business name of Ground Zero Impact.
         Gun shows are lots of things, but I don't think of
them when I think of lawn and garden.  And yet that's what
Terry Nichols, a man always looking to make something appear to
be something different, intended to do when he said:  My
ammonium nitrate is fertilizer.
         It was an explosive, just like the 4,000 pounds that
he bought in the fall of 1994.  If you build a 4,000-pound
ammonium nitrate bomb -- if you build it, it will kill.
         No one expects -- excuse me -- no one would expect
that Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh would announce their coming
in Oklahoma City on April 19.  But think about it just for a
moment from the perspective of the victims.  It was a crowded
Social Security waiting room that morning.  It was Wednesday.
Mr. Eric McKisick described to you what it's like to be in that
business and to provide the services that he and his other
employees do.  It was a crowded waiting room with a glass
window on the first floor looking out on 5th Street 1.
         And to this day, we'll never know how many visitors
stood there, looked out that window, and saw a Ryder truck pull
up.  One thing we do know is they'd have no reason to be
afraid.
         It's different now.  It's different now.  In America,
in front of federal buildings across this country, if a Ryder
truck pulls up, people get nervous.  Those victims had no
warning.
         The weapon, the murder weapon that Terry Nichols and
Tim McVeigh built, was intended to kill; and it was intended to
kill without warning.
         I want to devote the balance of my time, and will be
relatively brief, not to answering everything that the defense
lawyers have said but attempting to focus on those things that
might most guide your deliberations.  And the fact that Terry
Nichols made lengthy statements to the FBI is something that
must be given consideration, and Mr. Woods has talked about
that.
         He criticized the FBI, Steve Smith in particular,
because on Friday afternoon after he had seen Mr. Nichols drive
first to the Surplus City and then over to the police station,
he decided he'd call in first to see if there was a hostage
situation.  At that moment in time, 3 p.m. on Friday, the work
of recovering the bodies out of the Oklahoma City building was
barely, barely started.  It would take weeks.  There was death
everywhere, and the FBI took the prudent measure of making sure
nobody else -- nobody else might get hurt.
         It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback.  It really
is.  It's so easy.
         But they did the right thing, and they made sure at
least for the moment that hopefully the unpredictable, the
absolutely unpredictable that had happened 48 hours earlier in
Oklahoma City might not repeat itself even on a small-scale
fashion.
         What's important isn't whether he made the phone call
to see whether there was a hostage situation.  What's important
is this testimony to you about what happened inside the police
station that evening.
         Agent Smith, in the FBI directory, if there were one,
would be right next to the word "conscientious."  You can make
your own decisions about his manner and demeanor.  But Agent
Smith knew that it was important to write down what Terry
Nichols said and to accurately report it to you, and he did
that in his testimony.
         Lots of things were said.  And what's important in
this case are four things, I would submit to you, four false
statements:
         Terry Nichols lied when he said, "I didn't see Tim
McVeigh until Easter Sunday in Oklahoma City."
         Terry Nichols lied when he said, "The only reason I
went to Oklahoma City was to pick up a used television set."  A
used television set, 10 hours drive, 500 miles.  A used
television set.
         He lied when he said, "I was at DRMO all morning on
April 18"; and he lied when he said, "I have no idea where Tim
McVeigh was staying."
         That's what's important about the Terry Nichols
statement.  That's what's important about Steve Smith's
testimony.  And there is no contradiction.  Those were his
statements.  That's what he said.  And we brought in to you
proof after proof, witness after witness, that demonstrated
that those were false statements.
         Well, what do you do with that?  Why is that
important?  Because it is the kind of window, much like the "go
for it" letter, that allows you to understand what's going on
in a man's mind at that time and what went on in his mind
between September and April, the years or the months of the
bombing conspiracy.
         Yesterday there was some discussion about Michael
Fortier, and I'll respond very briefly.  And remember this --
and it's true in every criminal case, in every criminal case
where another criminal gets on the stand and says I have
information to share with this jury.  And just like any other
witness, they're under oath and they must tell the truth.  And
unlike other witnesses, this witness was bound by a plea
agreement, a contract.  The breach of the contract will lead
to -- and you will see it -- very different results for
Mr. Fortier.
         MR. TIGAR:  Object to vouching, your Honor.
         THE COURT:  Overruled.
         MR. MACKEY:  But remember this:  The events that were
set in motion, that led to December of 1997, when Michael
Fortier testified, started many years ago, 10 years ago, in
friendships born -- it's a common experience, a time in the
U.S. Army, with Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.  And before
Michael Fortier ever came into this courtroom, it was Terry
Nichols who had his name, his address, and his phone number in
more than one of his phone address books.  Those are
relationships that existed long before the investigation
discovered that Mr. Fortier knew something about the bombing.
         You should consider Mr. Fortier's testimony.  You
should.  It's part of the evidence in this case.  But do so
carefully.  That's what the Court will tell you, that's what I
will tell you, and that's what I will remind you of, in the
opening statement.
         Mr. Fortier is a witness who should be given credence
where you find his testimony was corroborated; and in this
case, one witness out of a hundred witnesses called by the
United States, you'll find that corroboration on each key
important element:
         He said that Michael -- excuse me -- that Terry
Nichols and Tim McVeigh showed up in Kingman in early October
of 1994; and there is the receipt for the lease in the Kingman
storage shed.
         Time after time, you will see, as you examine the
evidence, that Mr. Fortier's testimony was corroborated.
         He is like in many respects someone quite different
from him.  Remember Steve Hodge.  Ms. Wilkinson talked to you a
little bit about him.  Steve Hodge is the lifelong friend of
Mr. McVeigh from New York, a regular correspondent with
Mr. McVeigh, 66-some-odd letters, all of which came to an end,
an abrupt end.  Years of a relationship ended in the summer of
1994, the same summer that words of hate evolved into a course
of action leading to death and violence.
         Michael Fortier is another example of Steve Hodge.  By
the spring of 1995, by his own description, he made clear to
all of us as, he did to Tim McVeigh:  Tim McVeigh, I understand
the difference between political rhetoric, between criticizing
the government, and murdering its innocent employees.  That's
how Michael Fortier and Steve Hodge are alike.
         That's how they're different from Terry Nichols,
because in the spring of 1995, when Tim McVeigh left his

friendship with Michael Fortier and told him, "We're on
different paths in life," his path, Mr. McVeigh's path, led
right to Terry Nichols, right to Kansas.
         Let me speak briefly to the Geary Lake proof.  And I
need to remind you of some things that defense counsel failed
to.
         Sergeant Richard Wahl, as he told you, had a reason to
remember his sighting that morning.  He told you he was with
his son who was visiting on spring break.  And he told you that
he paused and gave caution to going further, to fishing at
Geary Lake, because of his young son being along and because
something was unusual, a Ryder truck and a second vehicle.  But
he told you that he went further, honored his promise to the
son, backed his vehicle up to the lake, and went out on the
boat ramp.  And he showed you by way of picture the angle that
he had as he got into the lake in his boat and could see the
vehicles.
         It's not a front-on view like Mr. Woods displayed to
you.  It was several hundred yards, not a distance you could
read the GMC emblem on the face of the truck, but certainly an
angle where he could see the side of the vehicle, certainly an
angle where he could see there was something, as he described
to you, that went beyond the cab of that second vehicle.  And
he told you, as he told the grand jury, it was either a camper
top on a pickup or a Blazer-type vehicle where there was some
extension of that cab.  Any variation of Mr. Wahl's testimony
is no variation that makes any difference.
         What's important is time and place and the description
of those vehicles that have been consistent.
         The defense told you that it's important to know that
there were other Ryder trucks out at Geary Lake on other days,
and they suggested to you that that could be explained by a
desire on Mr. McVeigh's part to do practice runs, as if
Mr. McVeigh would go into more than one Eldon Elliott and rent
a truck, making sure for whatever reason that it could hold the
components; that it could drive the right speed -- a practice
run that makes no sense, ladies and gentlemen.  If you're on
the road to destruction, you're not going to increase the risk
of detection by renting yet additional trucks.
         There was only one truck that blew up in Oklahoma City
on April 19.  There was only one truck.  It was the same truck
that Tim McVeigh picked up on Monday afternoon, walking in at
about 4:22 in the afternoon, displaying a driver's license that
showed a date of birth of April 19, the kind of detail, the
kind of dedication to this crime that can't be overlooked.
         Geary Lake cannot be evaluated by you, I suggest,
without evaluating DRMO.  They go hand in hand.  They are
linked together, like twins, for life.
         And the defense either stands by what Terry Nichols
told the FBI as to his whereabouts that day, or they don't.
And his statement without a doubt is:  I was there for six
hours, dropped off before 8:00, and picked up by a friend who
broke his promise and didn't come until almost 2.
         You'll see the sign-in log there.  There are 77
different names on that sign-in log that you can show from the
time would have been there at the same time that Mr. Nichols
was.  You saw no witness -- no witness -- from that rich pool
of possibilities who could say I was there and I saw Terry
Nichols at the DRMO.
         He was not there until 12:50.
         And Marife Nichols is wrong in her diary when she says
that Terry came home at 1:30.  We know that.  We know that
because his bid is time-stamped at 1:37.  We also know it
because there is a Kinko's receipt in evidence that afternoon,
April 18, that's time-stamped 2:15.  Mr. Nichols left the DRMO
and went to Manhattan, where Kinko's is; and he conducted a
business transaction at 2:15.
         Mr. Nichols was not home in Herington until much later
that afternoon.  He may well have been, as Mrs. Nichols first
said, home briefly around noon where he said, "I'm on my way to
the sealed bid."
         Mr. Wahl said, "I left around noon.  The trucks were
still there."
         The question that remains about the Roger Moore part
of the proof is how did Terry Nichols end up with the property.
Mr. Tigar suggested to you this morning that he got it because
Tim McVeigh gave it to him.
         Well, one thing is absolutely clear, and that is that
Tim McVeigh was not the robber.  And the proof has shown that
he was a long way away in New York for all of the month of
November of 1994.  You know that from Sheila Nicholas'
testimony.  You know that from Andrea Augustine's testimony and
other proof in this case.
         You know, for example, if he's in New York in November
of 1994, then how was it that he would have posted the "SC"
letter in the desert in November of 1994?  Who was in the West
in November of 1994?  Who was in the West so that Mr. Pipins
could have discovered that letter posted in November of 1994?
The answer is Terry Nichols.
         What does that tell you about the relationship between
Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols?  It tells you it's all over
again.  This is all over again.  It's Michael Fortier, who has
already made well known his intention not to join this
conspiracy.  It's a letter to another possible co-conspirator.
Tim McVeigh always wanted his cell to grow larger.  He had
Terry Nichols in hand, and he wanted others.
         It was Terry Nichols who was in the West in November
of 1994.  He was the person in a position to help in that
aid -- or aid in that recruitment effort.
         If Tim McVeigh is in a position to hand out weapons
stolen from Roger Moore to Michael Fortier in December of
1994 -- and he was -- the question is how did he get into the
unit?  How did he know?  And who put it there first?  And the
only answer is Terry Nichols.  The only answer is he's the man
who robbed Roger Moore and who 48 hours later rented that
storage shed and put inside all of the stolen property.
         Mr. Tigar pointed out to you that there were some
phone calls in early November, 1994, some of those November 1
to the Philippine consulate.  Mr. Nichols was, in fact, just
before the robbery, planning a trip out of this country,
planning ahead, plans that he didn't bother to share even with
his wife, Marife Nichols.
         And when he made those plans, he did not include Josh
Nichols in them.  That's for sure, because as Lana Padilla
described that conversation, in early November we were like
ships passing in the night.  I wanted to talk about our son.
He wanted to talk about everything but:  Waco, civil unrest,
and the like.
         There was no nurturing going on in Mr. Terry Nichols'
heart in November of 1994, and Lana Padilla revealed that.
         Mr. Woods suggested to you that the "go for it"
letter, the letter that Terry Nichols drafted, could mean and
should mean a strange way, if you will, of separating a gun
show business.
         This is one very short-lived partnership.  On the
weekend of October 1 and 2, 1994, that was the first weekend
that these two men could have done any gun show; and within six
weeks, Mr. Nichols is out of the country.  That's one very
short-lived partnership.
         But what's most telling, of course, is there is no
proof -- and you can look through all of the 192 witnesses --
these two men ever attended a gun show in the fall of 1994.
That was a cover.  It was a false statement.  It was meant to
conceal what the real purpose of their activities were in the
fall of 1994.
         This poor-man's will was a will written by a man who
had stashed $20,000 in cash in a kitchen drawer, who had
$38,000 of gold and silver in a storage shed, and who had lots
of other valuables, including jade.  And Barry Osentoski, with
no more desire in his heart, I'm sure, than his mother, came
into this courtroom and said, "I got a piece of jade, and I
turned it over."  And you now have it.  And that's the piece of
jade that started in Royal, Arkansas, among the possessions of
Roger Moore and ended up in a storage shed in Las Vegas in
November of 1994.  The robber, Terry Nichols, put it there.
His stepson brought it to you.
         April 19, 1995, was the second anniversary of the
events in Waco, Texas.  And that date cannot be overlooked as
you examine -- and you must -- the question why would anyone --
why would anyone do what was done in Oklahoma City.  And the
answer by the date alone is to seek revenge for a government
that they despised because of the events at Waco.
         It is not irrelevant.  It makes a difference that
Terry Nichols inside his home had videos and literature and
other materials about Waco.  It should not control your
deliberations; but as his Honor will tell you, it is entirely
proper for you to evaluate it in understanding motive, why it
is that anyone would do what was done.
         We heard discussion yesterday about the storage sheds
and why, oh why, in this case would the FBI not find any
residue of any kind, any evidence linked to this criminal case
in all the storage sheds in all Kansas.
         And here's the answer:  The FBI got there after they
were gone.  Terry Nichols is no fool.  And as he told the FBI:
I went to the Herington storage shed the morning after the
bombing when I knew Tim McVeigh was not coming back, and I
cleaned it out.  He literally cleaned it out.  There was
nothing left, nothing in the way of clues.
         But what's important, what's most telling about what
was once in those storage sheds, is how many storage sheds
there were and all under false names.  That's what's important.
         The long list of aliases used by the storage sheds
(sic), enough to field a baseball team, with Terry Nichols as
the player/coach, is the real proof about what was inside those
storage sheds.
         As jurors, it must be frustrating at times because
you're not in control of what witnesses come in the courtroom,
you're not in control of the documents that are presented.  But
you are in control of your deliberations.  We stand here
silently and we wait.  And in your deliberations, keep your
focus on what's important in this case.  And what's important
is whether the Government of the United States has proved
beyond a reasonable doubt each of the allegations against Terry
Nichols.
         What's not important is whether there were yet other
co-conspirators, lots of proof, lots of evidence, and from many
witnesses, quite frankly, with the best intentions at heart,
who have put into question the existence of perhaps someone
else.
         The question to ask yourself is:  If so, so what?
What does the possible existence of yet another co-conspirator
do to negate proof that I have heard from other witnesses that
it was Terry Nichols who bought the ammonium nitrate; that he
burglarized the quarry; that he rented the sheds; that he
traveled across this country; that he robbed Roger Moore, and
on and on and on?  It's as if they would substitute -- the
defense -- the possibility of a third person for all the proof
about the conduct of their client.
         So keep your focus on what's important, and what's
important is the sufficiency of the evidence about Terry
Nichols.
         But that area of proof does beg one question, and that
is if there were another man, why didn't he have a car?  Why is
it that Tim McVeigh has to call Terry Nichols to come get him
in Oklahoma City?  Why is it that Tim McVeigh, according to his
statement, has to call Terry Nichols to loan him his pickup
truck?  This third person, if they exist, must be as Darvin
Bates described, a man riding on a bicycle.
         It doesn't make sense.
         What makes sense is the hard proof about Terry
Nichols, the focus of the case that the United States kept, the
conduct and activities of Terry Nichols.
         And lead foot or no lead foot:  Ladies and gentlemen,
on April 19, 1995, all of the proof points in one direction:
Tim McVeigh lit that bomb and raced out of town.  He didn't
stand down the street and ponder the destruction.  He'd learn
all about it soon enough.
         When Charlie Hanger pulled over Tim McVeigh, remember
this:  He wasn't speeding.  He didn't have a license plate.
That's why Tim McVeigh was pulled over.
         Tim McVeigh left downtown Oklahoma City at 9:02 1/2
and was arrested just as Charlie Hanger said, driving the speed
limit, north of Oklahoma City on his way to Kansas.
         We have heard in great length and heartfelt delivery
about Terry Nichols, the family man, as if a family -- the
family man can't be the terrorist.
         In November of 1994, Tim McVeigh was in New York
helping his father clean out his grandfather's home, working on
the estate.  We learned that from Ms. Augustine.  And several
months later, he put a truck bomb in front of a day-care
center.  Terrorists have families.  The question is how they
treat them, how they allow the dedication to a political
principle to corrupt what should be important to them.
         All of the witnesses -- and there were many in short
fashion -- who came into this courtroom and said I'm