Did what happened to Randy Weaver and his family at Ruby Ridge represent justifiable law enforcement or facsist tyranny? Was it the full force and power of the United States Government upon hardened criminals or murder ?
Senate Judiciary Committee Testimony: Randy Weaver (Sep. 6, 1995)
Senator SPECTER. You may be seated, Mr. Weaver, and you may proceed.
Mr. Weaver, you have a prepared statement that will be made a part of the record fully, and you are invited to proceed as you choose and to take your time. As noted, we have a mockup of the Ruby Creek area. We have the door of your house, so to the extent you find it convenient, appropriate to make references to that physical evidence, you may do so.
TESTIMONY OF RANDY WEAVER, ACCOMPANIED BY GARRY GUMAN, COUNSEL, AND GERRY SPENCE, COUNSEL
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Specter and honored Senators, I would like to introduce you to my daughter, Sara. Two of my daughters are back home. Two of my family members are dead: my son Samuel, and my beloved wife, Vicki.
On August 21, 1992, Federal marshals shot my son Samuel in the back and killed him. He was running home to me. His last words were, "I'm coming, Dad." They shot his little arm almost off and they killed him by shooting him in the back with a 9-millimeter submachine gun. The gun had a silencer on it. He was not wanted for any crime. He did not commit any crime. The marshals killed his dog right at his feet. He only tried to defend himself and his dog.
Sammy was just 14 years old. He did not yet weigh 80 pounds. He was not yet 5 feet tall. The marshals who killed Sammy were grown men. They were in combat gear. They had their faces painted with camouflage. They were wearing full camouflage suits with black ninja-type hoods. They were carrying machineguns and large caliber semiautomatic pistols. They were trained to kill. Two of them were hiding behind trees and rocks in the woods where they could not be seen. The third was around a bend in the trail in thick forest. They were under direct orders from Washington to do nothing to injure the children. They were to have no contact or confrontation with me or my family. They killed him anyway in violation of their orders.
On August 22, 1992, completely without warning of any kind, an FBI sniper shot and killed my wife, Vicki. He was using a .308 caliber sniper rifle with a specially weighted barrel and a 10-power scope. He was using match grade ammunition. He had years of training to kill. I heard him testify at the trial that he wanted to kill. He shot my wife in the head and killed her. She was not wanted for any crime. There were no warrants for her arrest. At the time she was gunned down, she was helpless. She was standing in the doorway of her home. She was holding the door open for me and Sara and for Kevin Harris. She was holding Elishe a our 10-month-old baby girl, in her arms. As the bullet crashed through her head, she slumped to her knees, holding Elisheba tightly so she would not drop her. We took the baby from her as she lay dead and bleeding on our kitchen floor.
Senator SPECTER. Take whatever time you need, Mr. Weaver.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you.
I am not without fault in this matter. I was convicted of failure to appear for trial on charges I had sold a sawed-off shotgun to an ATF informant named Gus Magisano. He testified at trial under a different name—Kenneth Fadeley. That was probably not his real name either. I was found not guilty of the original weapons charge, and I was found not guilty of every other crime I was charged with, including murder and assault on Federal officers. I was charged with conspiring against the Government, and I was found not guilty of that charge. I was in jail for about a year before and during the trial. I have served time after the trial and am now on unsupervised probation. I faced my accusers at a trial. I faced the FBI, the Marshals Service, the U.S. attorney, a Federal judge and a jury of my peers. I faced the death penalty. I have been accountable for my actions. I now face you Senators to ask that those responsible for the killings of my wife and my son be brought to account for their actions.
If I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I would make different choices. I would come down from the mountain for the court appearance. I would not have allowed a deceitful, lying con man working for ATF to push me for almost 3 years to make a sawed-off shotgun for him. I would not allow myself to be tempted in a weak moment when my family needed money. I would not let my fears and the fears of my family keep me from coming down. But my wrongs did not cause Federal agents to commit crimes. Nothing I did caused Federal agents to violate the Constitution of the United States. I did not cause Federal agents to violate the oath of their office. My actions did not cause Federal agents to violate direct orders from Washington. My choices did not cause Federal agents to violate State and Federal law. My behavior did not cause Federal agents to violate their own agency policies. Federal agents have admitted to illegal acts. Judge Freeh, the head of the FBI, has made statements to the press that the so-called rules of engagement were unconstitutional. Federal agents have tried to cover up their illegal actions. That was their choice, not mine. I have been accountable for my choices. They should be held accountable for their wrongs. But no Federal agent has been brought to justice for the killings of Sam and Vicki Weaver.
In fact, agents of the FBI have been part of the coverup of what really happened. One, after flunking a lie detector test, has admitted shredding documents that might clear up who authorized the death warrants on my family. I feel I have a right to know. Whether it was officials of the FBI or Department of Justice, the citizens should know who gave the shoot-on-sight orders and who approved them.
The Department of Justice has covered up what really happened by delaying, even now, the official release of two 500-page reports concerning the conduct of Federal agents at Ruby Ridge. What we know about those reports was leaked to the media, but even as we speak, Attorney General Reno and the Department of Justice have still not officially released a single in-depth report about FBI and Marshals Service conduct.
The coverup has its roots in Ruby Ridge, where Federal agents lied by telling Washington officials that the Weavers had ambushed Federal marshals and had pinned the marshals down by firing hundreds of rounds at them. According to their own testimony at my trial it was hiding in the trees when my boy came walking down the trail following his dog. The FBI testified of numerous grid searches of the Y using metal detectors and even using a person who was supposed to have powers as a 'dowser" to find bullets with a forked stick. In all of their many searches, they found only 19 rounds fired: 3 by Kevin Harris, 2 bySam, for a total of 5 by the boys; l byMarshal Roderick, 6 by Marshal Cooper, and 7 by Marshal Degan, making 14 fired by the marshals.
Larry Cooper continued the coverup by testifying at my trial that the first shot was fired by Kevin Harris. He claimed Kevin killed Marshal Degan with a 30.06. Marshal Frank Norris, who was further up the mountain on that day, testified that the first shots were the distinctive sound of a .223, not a 30.06. Cooper testified that Mr. Degan fell over as he was shot and never got up again. That testimony was false. Evidence showed that Marshal Degan traveled over 22 feet, firing his weapon 7 times, before he was killed.
The coverup continued during the trial. My lawyers sought records of the FBI investigation of Lon Horiuchi's shooting of my wife, myself, and Kevin Harris. They sought the records long before the trial began and continued requesting them during the trial. The FBI and the U.S. attorney did not furnish the records until after Horiuchi's testimony was completed and he had returned to Washington. Among the papers given to us late was a drawing made by Horiuchi s owing that he could see people behind the door when he shot my wife. Judge Lodge was outraged and ordered that Horiuchi return for further cross-examination. In a rare move, he also ordered the Government to pay a fine for their conduct in delaying disclosure of that information.
Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper who killed my wife, said in a statement given to FBI officials on September 1, 1992, 10 days after he killed my wife, that he went through the rules of engagement in his mind just before the shooting. He decided to shoot to kill be-cause Kevin Harris had a weapon in the vicinity of the cabin. He decided to neutralize Kevin, but the crosshairs of his sight were on the window of the door where my wife was standing. No other sniper fired. To my knowledge, Lon Horiuchi has never been disciplined in any way for killing my wife.
Some say that all of this could have been avoided if I had simply come down from the mountain and gone to trial. When I chose not to come down, I knew that I would be set up at court, just as I had been set up by the ATF. In fact, the ATF spy appeared at trial and admitted to 31 lies while he was on the stand and admitted that he was going to get a monetary settlement from ATF if I were convicted, but he would not get paid if I was acquitted. I was told at my arraignment by Steven Ayers, a Federal magistrate, that I would probably have to forfeit a $10,000 bond if I lost my case. He said it was to pay the Government back for the cost of my court-appointed attorney. That meant that if I were convicted, my family would be left destitute, penniless, and homeless. The only asset we had to pay such a debt was our home on Ruby Ridge. Judge Ayers admitted at my trial that he misstated the law to me. There really was no law that I had to pay the Government back for my lawyer if I lost my case. When ATF officers arrested me for selling the shotgun, they did so by pretending to be a family with car trouble. They knew I was the kind of person who would try to help someone in trouble. It was a cold and snowy day. . They were stopped on a bridge. When I walked up to try to help, several agents jumped me and threw me to the ground. A female agent, posing to be the stranded wife, threw Vicki to the ground with her face in the snow. Vicki had done nothing wrong.
Court officers confused me about the court dates. I was first told my court date would be February 19, 1991. The judge later changed that to February 20 because he did not want court staff to have to travel on a holiday. Another court official named Karl Richins, a probation officer, wrote me on February 7 and told me that my court date was on March 20. When I did not appear on February 19, an article appeared in a local paper quoting Chief Probation Officer Hummel saying that no letter had been sent telling me of the March 20 court date. I provided the Senators a copy of the letter telling me the court date was on March 20.
Even though they understood my confusion and mistrust of the court system, including the mix-up over the court date, Deputy U.S. Attorney Ron Howen obtained an indictment charging me with failure to appear, and a Federal judge issued a warrant for my arrest. There was testimony at my trial that Mr. Howen obtained that indictment knowing that he would most likely have to dismiss the case because of the confusion caused by the Richins letter. Howen admitted that to the marshals, who wrote it out in a memo. The Marshals Service requested that they be allowed to contact me and try to clear up the confusion before any warrant had to be served. Both the judge and Mr. Howen refused.
I wanted reassurance that I would get a fair trial, without all the deception and trickery. I wanted to know that the Government was not going to take away my home, leaving Vicki and my children homeless. I needed to know that the Government would not take our children away from Vicki if' I were sent to jail. I needed to know that my wife and my children were not going to be prosecuted for any crimes. At my trial, I learned from the testimony of Marshal David Hunt that he wanted to give me assurances on all those points, but was prevented from doing so by Mr. Howen. Mr. Howen told him in a letter dated October 17, 1991, that Marshal Hunt could not discuss these issues with me and that these issues were not proper to address unless I agreed to plead guilty to the charges.
Because of our confusion and fear and mistrust, my family made a decision that I would not come down. That decision brought the marshals to my home on the mountain on August 21, 1992. But that decision did not cause the marshals to kill my son and the FBI to kill my wife. That decision did not cause Federal agents to lie and coverup what they had done, leading to further tragedy. That decision did not cause the FBI to send snipers to the mountain with orders to kill my family, to shoot them on sight without investigating what had happened the previous day. When the sniper killed my wife, he had not witnessed any one in my family commit a crime. No sniper or FBI agent on the mountain had witnessed any of my family commit a crime. No FBI agent had even with the marshals that had been involved in the shooting the previous day. The FBI sniper was executing suspects and witnesses. The FBI sniper was judge, jury, and executioner.
I am here today to do all in my power to avoid such tragedies in the future. I want the citizens of this country to learn from our tragedy so that no one else will have to suffer as my girls and I have had to suffer. I am here today to do all in my power to see that all citizens, including law enforcement officer, obey the law. I am here today because there must be accountability for the killings of my wife and son. When high-ranking FBI officials issue death warrants and coverup their involvement, the message they send to police officers all over the country is: It is OK if you can get away with it. Citizens who cannot trust their Government band together in fear. If people in positions of power commit unlawful acts and are not held accountable, then the citizens' fear of the Government is justified.
I ask you to uncover the truth about the Federal agents who have committed wrongs. I ask you to bring them to account before you. I ask you to see to it that those persons who killed my wife and my little 14-year-old son are brought to justice. I ask it for me. I ask it for my family. I ask it for my country.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Weaver.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you.
Senator SPECTER. Mr. Weaver, you have been consistently referred to as a white separatist. When we met back on May 13 of this year, I asked you what that reference meant, to the best of your knowledge, and I think it is an appropriate starting point for a response today.
Were you a white separatist? What does that mean as you understand it?
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Chairman, what to me separatist means is a couple different things. No. 1, I am not a hateful racist the way most people understand that, but I believe that if there is separation of the races, scripturally speaking, that is what I believe is right. It sounds like an impossible task and most likely is, but I believe that people of every race should be proud of who they are and what they are. There are good people in every race; there are bad people in every race.
And I have to say that as far as this meeting today is concerned, I am almost totally emotionally overwhelmed that it is even taking place.
And another thing about separation is, when we moved from Iowa to Idaho, we wanted to separate into a remote area to give the children a good area to grow up, and we had had beliefs that, you know, if there ever was a natural disaster or downfall of the Government or whatever, we wanted to be separated from the rest of the world. We did not want to be a part of it. Survival, you might call it. We wanted to separate out and be able to survive, you know, in bad times ahead if there were going to be.
Senator SPECTER.. Beyond that being your own personal view, did you ever take any specific action? Not that you are not entitled to take lawful action, but did you ever take any action to try to implement those views aside from holding those views as your own personal belief?
Mr. WEAVER. Never.
Senator SPECTER. Now, there has been considerable reference made to the Aryan Nations as a possible basis for the action from the Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco Bureau. Would you tell the subcommittee what contacts, if any, you ever had with the organization known as the Aryan Nations? Start, if you would, by describing what you understood the Aryan Nations organization to be with respect to its purpose.
Mr. WEAVER. To this day I am not sure what their total purpose is. We attended—or I should say I had been to Aryan Nations three, maybe four times over a 4-year period, and I was originally invited to go down there by some guy who had claimed to be a friend of mine, and I found out later he was not.
Senator SPECTER. When you say to go down there, what do you mean by that?
Mr. WEAVER. To go down to Aryan Nations to—they have a yearly conference in the summer. They call it their World Congress or something like that. But he said that--
Senator SPECTER. And where do they hold that meeting?
Mr. WEAVER. Where do they have it?
Senator SPECTER. Yes.
Mr. WEAVER. At Hayden Lake, ID. And I went down there to exchange ideas with people, talk to people, and usually ended up arguing with people that attended regularly. But I never joined, did not want to join. I am not a joiner of anything. I have not for a long time.
Senator SPECTER. How many meetings of the Aryan Nations did you attend?
Mr. WEAVER. Four—between three and five over a 4-year period. I did not actually—you know, it was not like Sunday services and all that. It was an annual conference thing.
Senator SPECTER. Mr. Weaver, there was a very extended effort made by Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco to secure your services as an informant. Can you shed any light for this subcommittee on why the Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco unit made such an extended effort to bring you on as an informant?
Mr. WEAVER. Actually, I can only speculate on that. We discussed that a little bit before. You would have to ask Mr. Byerle and Gus Magisano, or whatever his real name is, why. Because from what I heard later, they wanted me to infiltrate, inform on this certain person that I did not know very well, but whenever we ran into each other at the Aryan Nations meetings, he would end up starting an argument with me, usually over religious issues, etcetera. So I could not figure out—you know, to this day it does not make any sense to me why they wanted me to try to go buddy up to this guy when we did not get along that great, anyway.
Senator SPECTER. And what specifically did Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearems do to try to bring you into their informant network? Start, if you will an briefly outline the series of events which led to the sale of the sawed-off shotguns for which you were indicted and tried, and as the court records show, you were acquitted after having made a defense of entrapment. Entrapment is a defense in law which exonerates an individual for conduct if the ideas are planted and instigated by law enforcement officials. But exactly what did happen, factually, with respect to the initial contacts and what did you do as to the sale of those sawed-off shotguns?
Mr. WEAVER. OK. The very first meeting that I went to at Aryan Nations was in 1986, if I remember right, and I was introduced to this Gus Magisano by another man, and he became—well, we became acquainted, and he for the next 3 years, you might say, befriended me. Is that the right way to say it? He acted as though he was my friend and made contact with me several times and tried to talk me into doing illegal acts.
Senator SPECTER. What illegal acts did he try to talk you into doing?
Mr. WEAVER. Well, specifically, He claimed to be a gunrunner, making big bucks, had a good business going. And I shied away from him all the time. I kept shying away from him, and about 3 years later, why, he caught me in a weak moment when I needed some money, and by this time I was—I just, biggest mistake of my life, went ahead and did it. I sold two guns. He showed me what he wanted, what he wanted me to do with them, and I said, yeah, I can do that. He offered me more money than has ever come out in testimony, but—
Senator SPECTER. How much money did he offer you?
Mr. WEAVER. He offered me $700 for 2 shotguns, which I had $250 in the guns, and I was going to make a good profit. But even if I would not have made that much profit, just to sell the guns, I would have took it anyway because I needed—you know, $700 is a lot of money out there at that time.
Senator SPECTER. And after you sold him the sawed-off shotguns, what happened next?
Mr. WEAVER. I heard through the grapevine that this guy was an undercover agent or a Federal agent, and I did not know if I could believe the source that came from. But then I became real leery and wary. I had one more meeting with the guy, and I asked him about it, and he denied it vehemently. But after that, apparently he did not trust me and I did not trust him anymore, and I had no more contact with him.
Approximately 6 months later, I was approached by two ATF agents, Mr. Herb Byerley and Mr. Steve Gunderson. They approached me. They were in civilian clothes, in a Forest Service truck, came up; basically what the said was that we are going to take you to court on six or seven firearms violations if you do not join our team.
Senator SPECTER. And did they clarify what they meant by join-our team?
Mr. WEAVER. I knew—and they knew I knew—what they meant. When I said—
Senator SPECTER. What was your understanding as to what they meant by join their team?
Mr. WEAVER. To go undercover for them for—
Senator SPECTER. Why were they so anxious to have you go undercover?
Mr. WEAVER. I can only speculate. You mean why they would want me to or why they had people do it?
Senator SPECTER. Well, either way. As you have described it and as we will have a further factual basis, the Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco unit went to very elaborate lengths to get you to be an informant. And one of the things that this subcommittee wants to find out is what the purpose of that was and what Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco were really doing in the use of the kind of resources they used. We will get into that in some substantial detail regarding these prolonged contacts which resulted in the sale of sawed-off shotguns in what turns out lo be under a judicial decision, entrapment and improper law enforcement activities. But why target Randall Weaver in Boundary County with this kind of an elaborate process? What are they looking for, as you understand it?
Mr. WEAVER. I can only speculate as to that, sir. I wish they would tell me, to be honest with you. I hope that comes out sometime.
I believe that undercover agents like Gus Magisano do not have a lot of courage, and he knew that—you know, he would go pick on someone like me. He knows that I am not going to come back and shoot his head off. He was not afraid of me.
Senator SPECTER. Well, moving ahead, Mr. Weaver, to a central part of this entire matter, as your statement outlines and as we will go into greater detail, you were subsequently arrested. There was an elaborate procedure for your arrest where they pretended to have a breakdown on the road. And when you were trying to help them, they took you into custody, which showed concern of theirs as to using that elaborate ruse, instead of simply coming and serving a warrant of arrest. We will try to find out what it was for law enforcement to undertake that kind of an unusual procedure.
Then you did not respond to the process, as you have described it, which is a fairly common occurrence for people and it is not unusual not to respond to a summons. When I was district attorney of Philadelphia, we had thousands outstanding, and we tried to serve them, and it is important for people to respond. But that raises the next question as to why in this context on this kind of a charge did the Federal law enforcement agencies mount such a substantial law enforcement effort, with people coming to your home to take you into custody. That is a central question this subcommittee will pursue in some depth.
Obviously, the real answers will have to come from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as to why they proceeded as they did and from the FBl as to why it proceeded as it did. But I think it is important for you to tell this subcommittee, to the extent you can, even though it is speculation, why you were the subject of this kind of law enforcement activity.
That is the end of my time, Mr. Weaver. You are on your own time now.
Mr. WEAVER. Why they came after me, like the ATF even to start with the way they did—you know, have you ever seen the bumper sticker, "They will take my gun away from me when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers?" a one of those on at least one rig when I was up there, which a lot of gun advocates put on their bumpers stickers. Most gun advocates out there, law-abiding citizens, do not really mean what that sticker says. If they believe that bumper sticker and that is the way I was thinking mentally, then I can understand why they arrested me the way they did they did, I would really like to find that out myself. I would love to hear that.
Senator SPECTER. Stay tuned. Senator Kohl.
Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weaver, welcome here this morning. Just following up a little bit beyond what Mr. Specter said, why you, and it will take several days for us to find out why you, if, in fact, it made any sense at all. But I would like to pursue getting some kind of a description from you as to what kind of a person you are, what kind of beliefs you hold, simply because it rounds out our picture of Mr. Weaver and his family.
You talked about the Aryan Nations, and one of their beliefs, as you pointed out, is that the races should be separated. You said that you agree with that. Would you tell us why you agree with that and—I am sure you have thought about it—how the races in this country would be separated?
Mr. WEAVER. OK, sir. It cannot happen. You know, the best you can do is go off in a remote area yourself, but my beliefs—you know, I hate being on the hot seat talking about my beliefs, political or religious, whatever. My family has been tore apart partially because of that, and I think my first amendment rights allow me to keep those to myself. I am not trying to be rude.
My wife and I, if you knew us and followed us from the late 1970's, even before that, early 1970's, through 1992, you would see change after change after change after change. We studied and read, and we were, you might say, on a search for, quote, the truth. Our beliefs changed constantly.
Senator KOHL. All right. Well, just to continue that so we get, again, an understanding of where you were and where you perhaps are today. But the letters from your wife, Vicki, and statements made by you at the time that you were arrested indicated that your family would stand and fight to protect you. In fact, right after you surrendered to Federal officials, you wrote a letter in which you stated, and I quote, "Sam and Vicki have always been ready and willing to do exactly what ~they did. What more could a man ask than to be able to say that under fire from ZOG, zionist-occupied government, his family stuck together?" By ZOG, the zionist-occupied government, I assume you meant the Federal Government. Could you explain to us what that was all about?
Mr. WEAVER. That is a long question.
Senator KOHL. Is the Federal Government the zionist-occupied government, beyond what you said in your letter?
Mr. WEAVER. I do not know. That was part of our beliefs at one time. All I have to know, if it is, they are giving me a fair shake now to come forward and tell—you know, bring the facts out about what the Government did wrong. I have been wrong. I have said things that have been wrong. I have done things that were wrong. And I have paid a big, a very heavy price for those things.
Senator KOHL. OK. In an interview you gave to the Waterloo Courier in 1983, you were reported to have said that you were developing defense plans that included developing "a 300 yard kill zone’ around your compound. What was
Mr. WEAVER. That was a lie. That was a straight-up lie. That reporter at that time, when he left our house that day, he told Vicki and I—Vicki asked him, she said, Well, what do you think? He came in there looking for a bunch of nuts, and when he left, he stood there at the door, and he says, "I don't know whether to feel relieved or disappointed."
Senator KOHL. OK All right.
Mr. WEAVER. And he went and made up his own story.
Senator KOHL. Another incident: Two neighbors who had bought land near your house apparently came to you once to inspect property markers. According to them, the neighbors, they were greeted by you and your son holding rifles. They told law enforcement officials later that you told them that you would shoot Federal law enforcement officials who came on your property. According to them, you said, if they take me I will take some of them with me, and that is why we have guns.
Mr. WEAVER. That is not true.
Senator KOHL. All right. Another letter I have— Mr. WEAVER. Sir?
Senator KOHL. Pardon me. Do you want to elaborate on that?
Mr. WEAVER. Who said that, anyway? Could I ask?
Senator KOHL. This was reported by Ed and Beverly Torrance, apparently neighbors of yours, were neighbors of yours.
Mr. WEAVER. For a very short time. They did not—
Senator KOHL. All right. We’ll, just to go on, I have another letter that was written by a neighbor of yours that appeared in the Bonners Ferry Herald in April 1992. It was written by Ruth Rau. I will just quote a few things. She says, "I have remained silent long enough. I cannot take another article or letter about innocent Randy Weaver and his nice family. I think it is time the truth be revealed. Yes, they have a religious front, and they have deceived many with it. But there is no true substance to it. They are full of evil and lies. Two years ago, we suffered several months of torment and harassment from the Weavers and their friends. Some of the crimes they committed against us were vandalism, theft, disturbing the peace, trespassing, and Randy Weaver threatened my husband's life. Randy once forced an innocent woman's car off the road and threatened her life in front of her small children. He supposedly did this because she had warned someone about what a crook that he was. I guess his belief in free speech does not always apply.
"Another thing I read is that they are not Nazi. Their children used to march back and forth by our house wearing Army jackets with Nazi arm bands, carrying guns, shouting white power slogans, and doing the Hitler salute. They would stop occasionally to draw swastikas and write dirty words on the road. They have been raised to be little Nazi soldiers.”
This is Ruth Rau, not [illegible] she goes on to say that the Weavers, you know, are reprehensible people, according to her experiences with as a neighbor.
Is Ruth Rau a person who is a reasonable person?
Mr. WEAVER. Not to me she is not, but Ruth Rau upset my children several years before that by—how do you put it? She started and you get the neighbor kids upset with you and how they may come and want to soap your windows at Halloween? Well, she made my kids probably more upset than that. But what she has stated, besides being paid by the Government to help them watch my family—OK? You know, one time she said that I shot over her house and things like that. It never happened, and most of what she said there I have never even—some of it I have not even heard before.
Senator KOHL. All right. On March 5, 1991, you sent a letter to the U.S. Marshals Service signed by every member of your family in which you stated, and I quote, "Whether we live or whether we die, we will not obey your lawless Government." What was that about?
Mr. WEAVER. Right. I cannot remember the exact time that was written, but I believe it was written sometime after the Government had lied and deceived me so many times. And my wife understood it, and my children understood it, and my wife—you know, she was a pretty hard-headed gal. She did not like being lied and deceived. And we figured the Government is not there to treat us citizens like that, and if they are going to do that, then apparently it is a lawless Government. And that is what she meant by it.
Senator KOHL. Let's talk about our Government just a minute. Now, as I think occurred, you finally did go to court. You were basically acquitted and exonerated. The laws of justice rolled on, and just in terms of what you were hauled into court for, you did all right by the American system of justice on that, did you not?
Mr. WEAVER. Absolutely.
Senator KOHL. Does that have some new feelings about our system of justice today?
Mr. WEAVER. It worked for us very well. Yes, sir.
Senator KOHL. Do you perhaps wish that you had allowed it to work earlier?
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. If I could change, believe me, I would—I would give my life to have my son and wife back.
Senator KOHL. And had you allowed our system of justice to roll on earlier, as reprehensible as what occurred was—and we are here to talk about it. But had you allowed that system to roll on earlier, as most Americans do and are obligated to do, then justice would have been done by you; is that a fair statement?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you, very much, Senator KOHL. The Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson will inquire.
Senator THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weaver, I think one of the questions that people initially ask is what has already been asked and that is why you did not go on down and go to trial to start with? You mentioned some thing that I just want to verify in painting the picture as to why you did not and why, in turn, it led to confrontation and tragedy.
As I understand it and it is your position that in the first place the Government deceived you by entrapping you
Mr. WEAVER. Yes.
Senator THOMPSON. As we all know, the Government can give you an opportunity to commit a crime and if you commit it that is your fault and that is OK, but the Government cannot encourage you to commit a crime when you do not otherwise have the propensity to do that.
And what you are saying is over a period of 3 years they encouraged you to commit a crime?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. And that crime was to saw off the barrel of a shotgun?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. Let me ask you parenthetically, in your mind, why did it not occur to you that these people you were selling these guns to could have sawed those barrels off just as easily as you could have?
Mr. WEAVER. Well, this Gus Magisano was not the type mechanically. Now, sawing the barrel off is easy but if you wanted, he wanted pistol grips and I would challenge a lot of people in this room to make a nice decent pistol grip out of a good butt of a shotgun and not wreck it and ruin the whole thing.
Senatorr THOMPSON. So it took some ability to do that?
Mr. WEAVER. That is right.
Senator THOMPSON. Second place, you say they deceived you as far as the arrest was concerned. They posed to be people in distress. What happened, you were driving along and you stopped your vehicle, got out into the snow to help what you thought were some people in distress there, is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. So that is the way in which they chose to arrest you?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. Then you went before the magistrate and the magistrate misinformed you in terms of the consequences if you lost your case, right?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. He basically said if you lost you would have to reimburse the Government for your court-appointed attorney?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. And to you, I assume that meant you would lose the only asset that you had, which was what?
Mr. WEAVER. My property.
Senator THOMPSON. Your property and your cabin?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. So you went away, in your mind, thinking that if you were convicted you were wiped out?
Mr. WEAVER. That is right.
Senator THOMPSON. Did you later learn that the magistrate was incorrect about that?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, I did.
Senator THOMPSON. Then the probation office sent you a letter.
Senator THOMPSON. It had originally been set for February 19, and you received a letter saving it was really March 20, is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. And then you read in the paper, while holding that letter, presumably you read in the paper where the magistrate or the probation office was denying that they had sent you such a letter?
Mr. WEAVER. That is right.
Senator THOMPSON. Now, what did that cause you to think?
Mr. WEAVER. This just added on to everything we were thinking before, we could not trust anything that was going on.
Senator THOMPSON. So that was the background in which you found yourself in, in determining whether to come down or not
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON [continuing]. And to go to trial?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. You know now that a couple of good lawyers and a good jury can cure a lot of ills, do you not?
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. Then the question arises as to when your son got killed. Why did you stay in the cabin there that extra day with your son lying in the shed there? You have this background that we have just discussed. Then you have, in addition to that, your son having been killed.
Did you know at that time—that is immediately after your son had been killed—that it was law enforcement authorities who had shot him?
Mr. WEAVER. We heard it over the radio what had happened, their version of the story, which about blew our minds, but— Senator THOMPSON. What did you hear as to their version of the story as to what happened?
Mr. WEAVER. That they said that Kevin Harris and Randy Weaver had attacked U.S. marshals or ambushed—whatever they want to say—from a truck while they were surveilling our property up there.
Senator THOMPSON. Was there any truck involved at all in this process?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir. They admitted that was false themselves later.
Senator THOMPSON. So, in addition, you had that information from your radio?
Mr. WEAVER. Right.
Senator THOMPSON. That they were putting out information.
Mr. WEAVER. They never mentioned a thing about Sam
Senator THOMPSON. They never acknowledged the fact that your son had been killed?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. Would that have been something that they would have known? I mean he was obviously lying there. Did you subsequently find out that they were in a position to see the act that he had been shot and killed?
Mr. WEAVER. Sir, we went down, Vicki and I went down within 30 to 40 minutes after the initial firing and picked him up off the road and it could not have been more than maybe 60 or 80 feet from where the Marshals were hiding in the woods right there. Vicki and I did not know they were still there. We figured they were gone. Because when we walked down to pick him up, we figured they would probably shoot us, too.
So, when we got there and we sat on the ground with Sam for a minute or two before we started to carry him home—
Senator THOMPSON. And this was a 14-year-old boy?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. Weighed less than 80 pounds?
Mr. WEAVER. About 80 pounds, 4 foot, 11. Still had a voice of a kid. He had not matured yet.
Senator THOMPSON. Let me ask you about these rules of engagement. You have heard, obviously, about all that, lived with that for a long time. There is controversy about that. I understand from reading the record that you and your children, too, at least your older children, every time you went out of the cabin you were armed in one fashion or another, is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Well, we had done that for several years.
Senator THOMPSON. Why was that?
Mr. WEAVER. In the mountains, mountain kids, a lot of them, they will get a gun and a dog like the city kids get a basketball and a bicycle. My children, I taught them, when they turned 8 years old I taught them all how to use BB guns safely; how to use the sights, and they used the BB gun for 2 years and could practice with it whenever they wanted. When they turned 10 they could go to a .22 rifle or whatever and they could progress in the use of firearms.
And out in that area we were right in the middle of grizzly territory, mountain lions, moose. They are very dangerous animals. I always taught my kids, I always told them, I said, if a moose or a bear or anything acts like he wants to give you a hard time never shoot him, because they would never probably be able to kill him with what they had, but fire in the air and the sound, many times, would scare the animal away. Where if they were to shoot and wound the animal they might just continue.
Senator THOMPSON. Did your wife also go armed when she left the cabin up there for the same reasons?
Mr. WEAVER. Sometimes, not every often. My wife actually did not like to shoot that much.
Senator THOMPSON. But she sometimes would—
Mr. WEAVER. Sometimes, yes, she would go armed for the same reasons.
Senator THOMPSON. In fact, when she was killed, was she armed at that time? Did she have a handgun on her at that time?
Mr. WEAVER. She had a .380 semi-automatic pistol that was right down here on her side, under her sweater, which I did not even know she had it on until after I had brought her into the cabin. But she was used to packing a gun. When she went, when you go huckleberry picking out there and stuff like that everybody packs a gun as far as l know when they do that.
Senator THOMPSON. How long did they have you under surveillance; your cabin and your family?
Mr. WEAVER. From what I understand, 18 months.
Senator THOMPSON. Eighteen months. So they would have clearly known that practically every time you left the cabin you were either armed or there was a good chance that you or your wife or your children would be armed one way or another with either a rifle, a hand gun, or a shotgun?
Mr. WEAVER. Right.
Senator THOMPSON. These rules of engagement say that if any— and there is some difference here as to what actually was applicable, and we will get into that later, at the time, whether it pertained to adults or adult males—and it says, under the rules of engagement, "If any adult was observed with a weapon prior to the surrender announcement, deadly force could and should be used, if the shot could be taken without endangering the children.
And so I take it this rule of engagement was put down at a time when the law enforcement authorities apparently knew that if you were outside there, or they could see you inside that you or your wife would be fair game, is that right?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir, yes, sir. In Boundary County, ID, you can pack a gun almost anywhere except a courthouse or bar yet which I did for years.
Senator THOMPSON. So I take it there has been a lot of controversy about this shooting of your wife, obviously. I think the FBI took the position, originally, that that was within the rules and now I think they are backing off of that or what not, and that it was a tragic accident and all of that.
But if I understand the rules of engagement correctly, shooting her deliberately would have been perfectly permissible under these rules of engagement. Counsel, can you verify that? Am I looking at that correctly?
They could have deliberately shot her, standing there in the doorway with that child, because she had a gun on. And maybe she did not know she had the gun on at that time, but she did, in fact, have the gun; she was armed.
Mr. GILMAN. That is absolutely correct, Senator Thompson.
In fact, if you will look at the rules of engagement, as expressed in the tactical operations plan—which we have provided, I think, to the Senate; I could provide a copy now if someone wants to look at that in more detail—not only did these rules specify any armed male, but the last paragraph of that specifically excepted Vicki Weaver from the ordinary rules of engagement; said that the ordinary FBI self-defense-type rules of engagement would apply to everyone except Randy Weaver, Vicki Weaver, and Kevin Harris.
And so when you talk about the shoot-on-sight rules or what we have called, death warrants, Mrs. Weaver was the subject of a death warrant.
Senator THOMPSON. Well, now, I understand that the FBI takes the position that the rule pertained—at the time of the shooting, at the time Mrs. Weaver was killed—pertained to any adult male. Is there any reason to believe that their position is not correct?
I understand that originally the rule was any adult. And they say it was changed to any adult male before the event and I understand that, at least Mr. Spence maybe had some question about that as to whether or not it was changed after the fact. Is there any evidence to indicate that it might have been changed from adult to adult male after the fact so that the position could be maintained by the FBI that this was just a tragic mistake, that there was no intention to shoot her at all?
Mr. GILMAN. I am looking. I have in my hand now a document dated August 23, 1992, which is the Tactical Operations Plan which I believe has been supplied, but I will give it to your person to make copies. This is sets out the so-called modified rules of engagement and let me just read it into the record, if I could. It is item number 4 under G, Rules of Engagement, subpart (a), "If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual."
Subpart (b), "If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement, deadly force can and should be employed if the shot can be taken without endangering any children."
Subpart (c), "If compromised by any animal, that animal should be eliminated."
Sub part (d), "Any subject other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to oneself or that of another."
Now, we know that is the standard FBI policy. But subpart (d) excepts Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, and Kevin Harris and specifically Vicki Weaver is excepted.
Now, this document speaks in grammatical tense as though it were written prior to the shootings, but it is dated the day after Mrs. Weaver was shot.
Senator THOMPSON. My time is up. Thank you.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Thompson.
We have been joined by the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, Senator Thurmond. And we yield to you at this time, Senator Thurmond, for an opening statement. I understand that you have just a few questions that you would like to ask now.
Senator Thurmond has been occupied as the floor manager of the Defense authorization bill. I have asked Senator Leahy if he would mind yielding to Senator Thurmond to not only make his opening statement, but to ask a limited number of questions. He has agreed, so the floor is yours, Senator Thurmond.
Senator LEAHY. In fact, I might say, Mr. Chairman, that prior to arriving I think I was the most senior Member here, but my seniority pales as compared to Senator Thurmond's.
Senator SPECTER. Well, I said, Senator Leahy, the request has been made. It is really not optional. We always yield to Senator Thurmond.
STATEMENT OF HON. STROM THURMOND, A US. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Thurmond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and Senator Kohl for convening this hearing and for the subsequent hearings scheduled on the tragic events at Ruby Ridge. There are a number of unresolved questions concerning the actions of law enforcement and the policies they followed at Ruby Ridge.
Yesterday I met with FBI Director Freeh and he said he is resolved and determined to restore credibility to the FBI following Ruby Ridge. Even though Judge Freeh was not the FBI Director at the time of the Ruby Ridge incident, he acknowledges responsibility to get to the bottom of this matter, avid has begun to take steps to ensure that there will be no more instance as occurred at Ruby Ridge.
Mr. Chairman, I can think of no reason surrounding this matter that would have justified the rules of engagement followed at Ruby Ridge by the FBI. There is an ongoing criminal probe covering adoption of the rules of engagement and the aftermath. I am hopeful that this probe will bring out all of the facts and that justice will take its due course.
I have nothing else to say at this time.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you, very much, Senator Thurmond, thank you. We will now turn to the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy.
Senator LEAHY. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have noticed a number of the questions I might have asked have been answered. But I was struck, as I believe Senator Kohl and others were, when you said at one point, Mr. Weaver, and I think I am quoting you correctly, that you, "are totally emotionally overwhelmed that this hearing is taking place." Would you elaborate and tell me why you said that?
Mr. WEAVER. It was not too long a time ago hat I never believed this was going to happen. I could not believe it. I appreciate this very much. My family appreciates it. Many people in this country appreciate this, believe me. I will thank you for myself and them, too, if I can.
Senator LEAHY. In fact, Mr. Weaver, you have a situation where the jury found you were not guilty of the most serious charges brought against you and obviously the jury listened to you and listened to the persuasive arguments of your attorneys.
We now have an active criminal investigation ongoing into questions of obstruction of justice by people in the Government. We have obvious public attention to the events about which you are testifying through these hearings. As you, yourself, have said, it gives you faith in your Government.
It seems to me it is almost ironic had you had that faith to begin with, would it be safe to say, perhaps none of this would have happened?
Mr. WEAVER. Can I quote my dad, and he was quoting his dad? He said the Government is just like a garden and once in a while it needs to be weeded. You know, we have got citizens. There are good citizens, bad citizens, good people in Government and bad ones, and hopefully this is going to help weed some of the bad from the good.
Senator LEAHY. You had a post office box that the court used to correspond with you. Was that your post office box?
Mr. WEAVER. What was that again, sir?
Senator LEAHY. You had a post office—I am trying to sort of walk the dog back a little bit here. You said you had a post office box that you got your mail in and when you had the court matters that is where the court mailed to you. Was that your own post office box?
Mr. WEAVER. Our post office box was at Naples, ID, about 6 miles away, yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. Did you check it very often?
Mr. WEAVER. I never checked it for 18 months.
Senator LEAHY. But that was where the court was supposed to contact you?
Mr. WEAVER. Either that or by telephone, I guess.
Senator LEAHY. But did you have a telephone in your cabin?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator LEAHY. You spoke of the man who asked you to alter the shotguns, to shorten the barrel and fix them with a pistol grip. You said after 3 years you needed money so you went ahead: $700 for 2 shotguns that you had about $250 invested in. Did you offer to sell him any guns beyond that?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator LEAHY. Did you ever tell him that you could sell him four or five guns a month?
Mr. WEAVER. I probably said that because it sounded like such a good deal and at the time I thought I will keep this good deal going, but I changed my mind shortly after that.
Senator LEAHY. Well, when you said that to him you were willing to go forward and make more guns at those prices?
Mr. WEAVER. It went through my mind.
Senator LEAHY. Now, did that remain in your mind until the time you started hearing rumors he might be a Federal agent?
Mr. WEAVER. I cannot remember when I changed my mind, sir. But at the time, I was just interested in the $700 to get groceries for that week, groceries and a few other things.
Senator LEAHY. How did you make your living prior to that time?
Mr. WEAVER. Working off and on logging, felling trees, running skidder, ranching horse, cattle, sheep, dairy ranch, working tree nurseries, whatever came along at different times.
Senator LEAHY. In answer to questions by Senator Thompson, you had spoken of the fact that most people carry guns out in the woods in these areas. There is no law against that in Idaho. Actually Idaho's laws are very similar to Vermont's laws. They, I think, restricted people from carrying a weapon into a courthouse or into a Statehouse and that is about it.
Let me ask you, is that a pretty accurate mockup of the area around your cabin? You have seen it before today?
Mr. WEAVER. Excuse me, sir?
Senator LEAHY. You have seen this mockup before?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. Does it seem pretty accurate to you?
Mr. WEAVER. It is pretty close. Yes. They did a real good job whoever did it.
Senator LEAHY. Now, you said your wife was carrying a .380 semi-automatic pistol with about a 4-inch barrel?
Mr. WEAVER. It was probably like a 2 1/2-inch barrel.
Senator LEAHY. It is a small—
Mr. WEAVER. Small sidearm.
Senator LEAHY. Now, the FBI agents were approximately how far away from your cabin?
Mr. WEAVER. They say about 200 meters, I believe.
Senator LEAHY. So about 600 feet, a little over 600 feet, 650 feet.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. A .380 is not much of a threat at that distance, is it?
Mr. WEAVER. I believe that—no.
Senator LEAHY. I mean you are really talking about a weapon that loses accuracy once you go beyond the distance of this hearing room, are you not?
Mr. WEAVER. When they shot her, sir, the only thing she had in her hand was my baby.
Senator LEAHY. I understand. But even if she had been standing on the front steps with a gun in her hand and pointing it toward them that weapon is not much of a threat at that distance?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator LEAHY. That is the point I am making.
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator LEAHY. However, we also had the door, window, and the shade there. Is that pretty accurate the way it looked at the time of the shooting?
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, you mean like the curtains and everything?
Senator LEAHY. Yes.
Mr. WEAVER. I would have to—I, personally, I could not remember. I figured they were open part way. I cannot remember exactly where they were but I am positive they were open part way. One of my daughters thought she believed that they were tied back in the center like the wife used to do it and she released them later.
I, personally, believe that they were open enough that Horiuchi knew she was standing there. I believe that without a doubt.
Senator LEAHY. Again, standing there or anywhere else, a .380, relatively small hand gun, that is no threat at that distance.
Let me ask you about when you said your children, your wife, yourself carried guns because of concern of animals. In talking with your children and wife, among yourselves, was that the only reason you carried guns when you left your cabin?
Mr. WEAVER. It was just a real habit that we had. To this day I believe that, you know, a man should be able to pack a weapon. I am a gun advocate. But I believe in self-defense.
Senator LEAHY. Was there a discussion among your family that that self-defense might include more than mountain lions, grizzly bears, moose?
Mr. WEAVER. Only in the case of a natural disaster, people would need food. We had a lot of storage food up there. I taught my kids that the day may come when all heck breaks loose, there might be hungry people coming up there who would want to take their food. It has happened in many countries before during wartime and all that.
Senator LEAHY. But you are talking about an apocalyptic breakdown circumstance?
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. Did you also talk about there may be Government agents coming there?
Mr. WEAVER. I taught my children only in self-defense against anything, animal or people, or in the case of animals if they were going to shoot an animal they eat it. My children were taught never to point a gun at anybody. I did not tell my children, hey kids, if a Federal agent comes up here and starts shooting, no, no, sir. I would not do it. I love my kids too much. I love my family. I would never tell them to start anything with anybody.
Senator LEAHY. Would you be willing to demonstrate for us how you remember the curtains were at the time of the shooting?
I want you to show where you thought the curtains were, but then I want you to show the angle of the bullets between the window and the curtain.
Mr. WEAVER. Show the what now?
Senator LEAHY. There is a bullet hole in the window.
Mr. WEAVER. Right.
Senator LEAHY. There is a bullet hole that is in the curtain.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, that probably is right there. So that has got to come over a little further there. That much, no, a little more.
Senator LEAHY. So, depending on which angle you go, you could move that back and forth, you could actually move that curtain a few inches either way and it would be in line with the—~—
Mr. WEAVER. I see what you are saying.
Senator LEAHY. If it was closed, would it even reflect the hole in the window?
Mr. WEAVER. What do you mean, sir, reflect?
Senator LEAHY. Well, close it, close the curtains.
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, they are closed, OK. I thought you meant the door there.
Senator LEAHY. Does the hole in the curtain even appear to be in line'?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir. And from what I understand, a weekend or so ago, when I was up there with ABC was the first time I got up to where they said the sniper was. He was shooting straight through this door.
Senator LEAHY. OK.
Mr. WEAVER. So that bullet hole or that curtain where the hole is had to be at least right there.
Senator LEAHY. OK, thank you.
Mr. WEAVER. You are welcome.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you, very much, Senator Leahy.
Senate Judiciary Committee Testimony: Randy Weaver (Sep. 6, 1995)(continued)
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Senator Abraham.
Senator ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weaver, in reading your testimony and hearing you earlier, you indicated that if you obviously could do it again, you would have made different choices.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator ABRAHAM. I think we all are confident you would have. And you also have indicated your hope today, at least that one of the things our efforts here at this hearing and the follow up hearings will produce is an end to these kind of tragic outcomes. And that is, I think, in no small measure what our job is here and we are going to be hearing later on from others in the law enforcement as to what they might be willing to do, what they have already begun to do and so on.I guess I see my job here as trying to come up with some ideas, suggestions and changes in the policies. I think a number of the questions I was going to ask actually Senator Thompson has already touched on, because it does seem that the rules of engagement as described would have made it very difficult for any outcome to have been other than the one which happened.
I guess my question though kind of goes to the other side of the situation in trying to find a different approach and that is this:
From the descriptions in your testimony and what I have read, you had basically made the decision not to come down from the mountain, not to submit yourself to arrest or, you know, the warrants that had been brought. I am trying to determine what might have been an approach, short of the agents, short of the marshals never coming to get you, that could maybe have been a better outcome. Obviously we know shooting innocent people under any circumstances is not acceptable, but was there some other—as you and your family talked this through and made these decisions, what had you decided, what had been sort of the conclusion you had reached? I mean if marshals in a very overt way, openly had come up and said, maybe made announcements, was there some circumstance that you had prepared for where you would have submitted yourself to the marshals?
Mr. WEAVER. We were basically looking for a miracle. They asked me many times, you know, what is it going to take to solve this situation? I said, I want the ATF to admit that they set me up. I said, I want my .22 pistol back and I want the local sheriff to apologize for calling me paranoid and dangerous.
Sorry, you know, I never got a decent response to that. Plus, also we wanted assurances that my children would not, my wife and my kids would not be messed with or broken apart and my property stolen from us. They would have had no where to go other than back and leach off the relatives back home or whatever. We did not want that.
And by the time all this came about, sir, we had been deceived and lied to so many times we were looking for a miracle. I was looking for Jesus Christ to walk in and solve the situation because at that time he was the only one I would have believed in.
Senator ABRAHAM. So, well, I guess I am trying to get a sense of it. At that point, it was a circumstance where a confrontation was the only option to a total withdrawal then by the Marshals Service?
Mr. WEAVER. No.
Senator ABRAHAM. How were you conveying your position?
Mr. WEAVER. If they would have told us and convinced us that my wife and children would have been all right, and we would not have lost the property, any one come up there and confront me face-to-face with common sense and tell me that in straight-up and forward, I think we could have resolved it very easily.
Senator ABRAHAM. And you had conveyed that through your lawyer or in some way to the—
Mr. WEAVER. To the different people come up to visit us and they would bring us food and just come visit and the kids would play and all that. And they would say that the marshals would stop them and talk to them down below and all of that and that is what we would send back and tell them.
Senator ABRAHAM. So that was sort of the word you sent back but there was never an effort on the part of the Marshals Service to sort of directly negotiate with you, is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. They said the only thing they could do was to arrest me and take me to court and let the court decide. I cannot remember where I heard it now, I heard it through the grapevine or whatever, that the attorney they had assigned to me had made it, told me, I cannot remember if it was in a letter or what it was, said that this is no more serious than a traffic violation. And by the time all of this was going on, I am going, really? I mean if you get arrested for a traffic violation they want you to go and snitch on other people, lie and deceive them? They are going to take your property from you if you lose your case in court? Things did not make sense to me at all.
Senator ABRAHAM. Did you ever communicate with your court-appointed lawyer about the issue of his payment?
Mr. WEAVER. Not directly.
Senator ABRAHAM. I know it is in your statement that you were told that your bond money was going to have to be used; you were going to have to pay that if you were convicted, to pay the lawyer. But you never asked the lawyer?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator ABRAHAM. I guess then I go back to the first question I began with. In other words, at the stage when you were more or less under siege, in your mind you would have submitted yourself to arrest if someone had conveyed to you that the Government would not take away your property and essentially leave your children without protection, is that right?
Mr. WEAVER. You know, the local sheriff and the deputies they all knew my family. If Bruce Whittaker, the local sheriff at the time, would have come up to my door and said, Weaver, come on, we are going down. I knew Bruce Whittaker. I would have gone with Bruce Whittaker. He did not have the courage to do that.
And some time along, one time he told the Feds they should back off and he would arrest me later, but then later on he said some statements he was lying about me. I did not know where Bruce Whittaker stood either by the time it was all said and done, but I know that he never did just come up and say, come on, Weaver, I got a warrant for your arrest, let us go.
Senator ABRAHAM. So if the sheriff had come to try to—
Mr. WEAVER. Absolutely.
Senator ABRAHAM. (continuing]. Apprehend you, you would have gone without any confrontation?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator ABRAHAM. Did you ever convey to anybody that that was a circumstance under which you would have been willing to—
Mr. WEAVER. I ran for sheriff in 1988 and I said that the local sheriff knows the people, knows the situation. He is there to do the job. If someone breaks the law he has the courage to go and do what he has to do. They knew how I thought and felt and to this day I think and feel that way.
Senator ABRAHAM. You ran for sheriff you said?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator ABRAHAM. But during the point, after which you had been initially arrested and after you had missed your trial date, there was nobody—I mean on either side, either your side or the side of the marshals—who ever negotiated the issue of whether or not Sheriff Whittaker was willing or able or available to try to help bring about a peaceful resolution of this, is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. No. The U.S. marshals, they had been notified that I would come down if I was assured, had the assurances of the things we were asking for. And that we had discovered that the U.S. attorney had said, sorry, cannot do it that way, cannot work that way. I would have to plead guilty to the charges before he would agree—it is like a plea bargain.
Senator ABRAHAM. Sure. But you were familiar with a plea bargain and how those arrangements could possibly have been entered into?
Mr. WEAVER. Somewhat, but
Senator ABRAHAM. But your attorney was not in communication with you at this point either, right?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator ABRAHAM. So, obviously we are going to hear from the marshals at some point and we will be asking them their view of this and their version, obviously. But your statement is that the marshals were aware there were circumstances or assurances you were seeking as a basis for peacefully ending this standoff?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator ABRAHAM. They conveyed back that they would not—
Mr. WEAVER. They could not
Senator ABRAHAM [continuing]. Agree to those.
Mr. WEAVER. Right.
Senator ABRAHAM. At that point, was there any, then, option? I mean there was no—short of their withdrawal—no chance for a nonconfrontational ending to the circumstance?
Mr. WEAVER. I cannot remember. You know, when I thought about—I cannot remember everything I thought about because it has been a long time ago.
Senator ABRAHAM. Sure, I understand.
Mr. WEAVER. But if one—at no time did any law enforcement official come up there in uniform with a badge, walk in my yard, say, Weaver, I have got a warrant for your arrest. If they had done that, you know, what? I respect courage and I would have trusted that man.
Senator ABRAHAM. Does that mean that you would have peacefully surrendered?
Mr. WEAVER. That is right.
Senator ABRAHAM. And that never happened?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator ABRAHAM. OK. What I am going to now ask you is just a couple of questions that pertain to circumstances that we have talked about in terms of the degree to which the agents took on a sort of armed approach. Partly, I am going to try to ask questions— we will be hearing from them next so we will not have a chance to ask you about their version—so I am going to maybe make some speculation here as to their version. Obviously as you have described it and as we have heard, there were a great deal of weapons involved, camouflage and so on. Obviously somebody made a decision and we will investigate further as to why that degree of force and that degree of preparation was entered into.
We have heard earlier indications that the rumors were that you had underground tunnels, that you had various howitzers and other. What would possibly be the basis for this kind of speculation or is this, in your judgment, after the fact fabrication?
Mr. WEAVER. Not everybody loves Randy Weaver. And there were people, there were so many lies told about me prior to all this. It goes back to 1985. That is another story, long, a whole bunch of lies. I cannot help that, you know? It is unbelievable. I have heard so many lies about Randy—everybody else talking, saying what Randy Weaver believes. I have sat back and had to listen to all of this and it has been tough to do. I cannot believe—I have never told a lie about anybody in my life out of vindictiveness and some people that do not like me because of the way I believe or whatever nailed me down.
Senator ABRAHAM. So you think this is possible that neighbors— we heard some letters referred to here—were creating this image of you out of vindictiveness or for whatever possible reason?
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, absolutely, absolutely. A lot of people that talked bad about me were paid, were being paid by the Government for one thing or another and really never had anything to do with me.
Senator ABRAHAM. Is it possible-I mean were they paid before they—I mean is it possible that people who had grudges, whatever their basis, were sending out these inaccurate accounts of the armaments that you had just as a sort of—is that your suspicion as to some of the basis of that?
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, a lot of it was that way. One, I will give you one real good example that just blew my mind was when I found out that the bailiff of Boundary County told the grand jury and the marshals before that, that I had held him at bay with a rifle for 20 minutes or something. Absolutely did not happen. How does he get away with this?
Senator ABRAHAM. Yes, well, yes.
Mr. WEAVER. The present sheriff of Boundary County was with the guy at the time that this supposedly happened. Of course, he admitted it was not true.
Senator ABRAHAM. We are almost out of time. My last question in just following up on this. Is there anything that you might have done or said that would have conveyed the impression you had more armaments or a greater desire to employ them? I do not mean in the context of the confrontation. I am thinking about your meetings, where you went and attended the Aryan Nation conference or at any point where, as you said, guns, everybody has them. Do people up there maybe say that they have got more than they have or create the impression they are a little better armed than they are? I mean was there any way that that might have been the basis for these concerns?
Mr. WEAVER. I do not understand it because, you know, like when it comes to boobytraps and stuff that would have been stupid. There is wild animals running. Our dogs and stuff was runmng around, the kids were running around. I would never have boobytrapped my property because they would have set them off before the Feds ever got there. It would not make any sense to me.
Senator ABRAHAM. My time is up. If I could have just one last quick question. When you were arrested initially in the situation where the car was stopped by or you stopped your car, were you armed at that time?
Mr. WEAVER. When was that? When I was originally arrested on the gun charge?
Senator ABRAHAM. Yes.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir, I had a .22 pistol, a Beretta model 21—A.
Senator ABRAHAM. And did you or your wife do anything in terms of brandishing the weapon or in any way ?
Mr. WEAVER. I did not have a chance. Even if I had wanted to I did not have a chance, but I would not have. That story was another good one.
Senator ABRAHAM. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Abraham.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weaver, you mentioned receiving a letter from the probation officer. Was that the letter dated February 7?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am, I believe it was.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And in this letter, which I am holding, the probation officer indicates that they did not have your phone number and gave you a number to call. Did you call that number?
Mr. WEAVER. Could you repeat that? I am sorry, ma'am. Could you repeat that question, please?
Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, I will. Let me read you the letter, dated February 7, which you just said you had.
"On January 18, 1991, you were released on pre-trial supervision pending your trial set for March 20, 1991. You contacted our office, and I advised you we would be getting back with you as soon as we received the paperwork from Magistrate Ayers. I have long ago received the paperwork but have been unable to locate a telephone number. Accordingly, with this letter, I am requesting you to contact me"—and he gives you a number—"as soon as possible. You may call collect if you choose."
Did you return that, did you make that call?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir, or, no, ma'am. I do not believe I had any contact with them after that.
Senator FEINSTEIN. So, you never responded to this letter, is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. That is right.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. So, you knew they were trying to reach you?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Are you aware, in October 1991, the U.S. marshals Service entered into negotiations with you via intermediaries to try to arrange for you to turn yourself in?
Mr. SPENCE. I did not understand the question.
Mr. WEAVER. Or the dates. Could you—
Senator FEINSTEIN. In October 1991, the U.S. Marshals Service entered into negotiations with Mr. Weaver through intermediaries.
Mr. WEAVER. Do you have the names of the intermediaries?
Senator FEINSTEIN. No, I do not. I am asking you, did anybody talk to you about turning yourself in?
Mr. WEAVER. I believe there were several people sent up there— neighbors, supposed-to-be-friends, even people coming up we did not know—and some of them said that they had talked to Federal marshals and they were supposedly bringing me messages or questions from them and I would send them back, yes.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Did they ask you to turn yourself in?
Mr. WEAVER. I cannot remember that, to be honest with you. I think what they would say is what would it take to resolve this issue? Questions like that.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And what did you tell them?
Mr. WEAVER. I said I wanted assurances that my family would be okay, that the property would stay there and I wanted the ATF to admit they were wrong, I wanted my .22 pistol back, and I wanted the sheriff to apologize for calling me paranoid and dangerous.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. But you did not agree to turn yourself in at any time or come down off the mountain, despite these entreaties, is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. I would tell them that, yes, they said, what would it take to resolve the issues? And I told them, and then they would come back and say, well, that is not going to resolve the issues. And then other than that, that is all we said.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. How many weapons did you have?
Mr. WEAVER. I cannot remember. It must have been 10, 11, or 12, maybe, including BB guns.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Fourteen sound correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, OK.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And were they all loaded?
Mr. WEAVER. Most likely.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And how many rounds of ammunition did you have in your home?
Mr. WEAVER. I am going to guess—I have seen different reports—personally, I am going to guess between up to maybe 20,000 rounds and half that was .22 ammunition that I believe an undercover agent gave to me, lots of .22 ammunition.
Senator FEINSTEIN. So, 20,000 rounds of ammunition?
Mr. WEAVER. Approximately.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And all of the weapons were loaded?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And did you have any explosive materials?
Mr. WEAVER. The only thing explosive would have been we had some blasting caps that had been given to me by a guy that I barely knew and I cannot remember. It must have been, well, it was prior shortly, very shortly prior to my arrest on the original gun charge.
They gave me about four or five or six blasting caps. That is the only explosives I had.
Senator FEINSTEIN. On how many occasions did you sell weapons?
Mr. WEAVER. I could not even remember, ma'am, over the years. Buy, sell, and trade weapons, all legal.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Hundreds or dozens or?
Mr. WEAVER. At least, well, probably close, up to 100, I will say.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Up to 100 and did you know it was illegal to sell sawed-off shotguns?
Mr. WEAVER. I figured without a permit, yes.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And you were aware of the fact that you were illegally in possession of these weapons?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. Did your children actually wear Nazi armbands and shout Nazi slogans at neighbors?
Mr. WEAVER. I do not remember my children ever wearing a Nazi armband. I would have to say, no, to that, and I never heard them yell any slogans at any neighbors. When we drove the kids past the neighbors or were around the neighbors and we knew they were mad, we just said, be cool, be calm. Now, if my children were down there taunting the neighbors at any time, I would have to take their word for that, but I know that the neighbors had had it in for my children for a long time and had taunted them, too.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Did you possess Nazi armbands?
Mr. WEAVER. I did not, no, never.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Did you possess any Nazi swastikas?
Mr. WEAVER. Swastikas, maybe. I had a—I have to go to the restroom really bad.
Mr. SPENCE. He is trying to say that the Senators have an unbelievable capacity. [Laughter.] It must come from long experience.
Senator SPECTER. Mr. Weaver, would you like a break?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir, I would, I would appreciate it.
Senator FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to—
Senator SPECTER. Well, it is almost a lunch break. Senator Feinstein, would you be willing to come back?
Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I do not want to—I would be happy, I would wait for him. I would like to finish my time if I could.
Senator SPECTER. OK Then we will take a short recess.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you, very much.
Mr. SPENCE. Thank you. I thought I would never hear that.
[Recess.]
Senator SPECTER. Senator Feinstein was in the midst of her questions. Just to make a comment about scheduling, the subcommittee will hear the conclusion of Senator Feinstein's round and then Senator Thurmond has asked for just a few minutes before lunch and we will proceed in that manner and then we will return. After lunch we will see how late we go to make an assessment as to the return time.
Senator Feinstein, the floor is yours.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Weaver, just to try to set the stage so that we understand what happened when it happened, is it not true that you knew for some time that you essentially were a fugitive, that you had not turned yourself in, that the U.S. Marshals Service was interested in having you do so, is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And you discussed this with your family, as you said to Senator Kohl?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And you knew that in all likelihood, either the sheriff or the Marshals Service or some law enforcement agency was going to come up and attempt to take you into custody, is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And what did you tell your family to do when this would happen?
Mr. WEAVER. What did I tell my children to do if I was going to be arrested?
Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes.
Mr. WEAVER. Nothing. I told my children nothing if I was going to be arrested. If somebody came and arrested me I did not tell them to do anything.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. And what did you decide to do?
Mr. WEAVER. I was just waiting for someone to come up and show me a warrant and arrest me.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And you were going to go peacefully?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am, I would have.
Senator FEINSTEIN. So if someone had come to the house with a warrant—
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. You would surrender yourself?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. Let us go then to the day—
Mr. SPENCE. Can he answer the rest of the question, please?
Senator FEINSTEIN. Certainly, go ahead.
Mr. WEAVER. I was to the point, Senator, all this was going on over a couple of sawed-off shotguns. I was beginning to believe it was something more to it than that and I could not figure it out. I hope that we can figure that out. I hope that somebody here can get those answers out of people that started the whole thing. I really do.
If that comes out in the open, I think that could be very interesting.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, during the time I mentioned to you that the Marshals Service was using intermediaries to try to get you to surrender, October 1991, you, in fact, learned that, did you not?
Mr. WEAVER. That is what I was told. I will give you one example. One of the neighbors who had brought some food up to us said that Dave Hunt, Marshal Hunt was down there talking to him and he wanted to know what I wanted. And I said, "Tell Marshal Hunt I want the truth about what is happening."
And Marshal Hunt sent the message back, if I can trust what this guy said and I am not so sure I can, but he come back and he said Marshal Hunt said that the truth was only philosophical.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. Then in March 1992—now, you learned in October 1991 that there was a warrant for your arrest; the Marshals Service had been detailed to come and get you; they were exploring through intermediaries whether you would surrender—in March 1992, do you recall U.S. marshals driving on your property?
Mr. WEAVER. In March 1992?
Senator FEINSTEIN. In March 1992.
Mr. WEAVER. You know, I did not. Strange people came up. I do not remember the exact date. If you are referring to the time that the marshal said that the dog went down and barked at him and all of that, I do not, I never knew when, who was ever an agent or just a citizen looking for land or whatever. Lots of strange people, I did not know if they were marshals or who they were.
Senator FEINSTEIN. In March 1992—and please, remember you are under oath.
Mr. WEAVER. Right, ma'am.
Mr. SPENCE. That is not necessary. He understands that, Senator.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, very much.
Mr. SPENCE. He understands he is under oath.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I would like to speak to Mr. Weaver, if I could.
Senator SPECTER. Just a minute, Mr. Spence. It is not an inappropriate reminder for Senator Feinstein to do that. Senator Feinstein, you may proceed.
Senator FEINSTEIN. That in March 1992, it is my understanding that U.S. marshals drove onto your property and were confronted by you with arms, is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, that is possible.
Senator FEINSTEIN. That is possible?
Mr. WEAVER. That I went and talked to them with arms?
Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes.
Mr. WEAVER. That is very possible.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And what did they say to you?
Mr. WEAVER. I have no idea which incident you are talking about because they never, ever told me they were marshals The only thing people ever told us when they come up there that they were looking to buy land or they were hound hunters looking for a place to run bears or cougars or whatever. No one ever told me they were a marshal.
And I never once ever threatened anybody with a weapon or threatened them with anything. I was cordial to everybody that come up there. And I can tell you, I cannot tell you for a fact, but I believe I had U.S. marshals or agents sitting in my house having coffee with me several times during that 18 months. And we never threatened any of them.
Senator FEINSTEIN. But to the best of your knowledge then, in March 1992, no U.S. marshal asked you to surrender?
Mr. WEAVER. No way, no way.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK Now, let us go to August, that first August 21. What called your attention to the fact that something irregular was happening?
Mr. WEAVER. I was sitting in the house. I do not know who all was outside. I know my son, Sam, was outside and maybe one of my other kids.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Your son was outside. Was he armed when he was outside?
Mr. WEAVER. At that time, I do not know, probably was. I do not know. Someone came to me and said, hey, dad, Sam says come on out here, Striker is really raising Cain and acting really weird. I said, OK.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And you went out?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And could you tell us what happened?
Mr. WEAVER. I came outside and Sam yelled at me, Striker is down by the pumphouse acting really crazy. And I mean, when I got down there the dog was more worked up than I had ever seen him before. And I will tell you what, this was one of the biggest mistakes I have ever made in my life. It is hard to talk about.
Part of the reason for living out there is to see wildlife. The way the dog was acting, what really went through my mind it was probably a bear or a cougar or something other than just deer. The dog did not get excited about deer. You know, to see a cougar, especially—the dog saw bears quite a bit, but if I—that is probably what went through my mind. I let my kid go one way following the dog and Kevin, and being older and lazier, I said I am going to take the logging road. I am going to head down this way. The dog had headed west through the woods, and I thought maybe I could see something. If the dog has flushed something down in the woods, I would see it.
Anyway, I went walking down the logging road, and I got down almost right to the Y, within a few feet, and either Cooper or Roderick—I do not know which one for sure—jumped out in front of me and yelled at me, and I yelled back. Scared the—I do not know if I scared him. He scared me. I turned and I ran back up the hill toward home, and then immediately started yelling for Sam and Kevin to get home. I said, "Get home, get home. Sam and Kevin, get home." And according to court documents—I had to run backward. I was running backward mostly, after I got out of sight around the bend of the Y. I got about 450 feet up the hill and I heard a bang, whoo, whoo, and I heard the dog yelp, and I just yelled, 'They shot the dog, they shot the dog. Get home, get home." Bang, bang. And I did not hear anything. I am going, "Get home, boys. Get home."
The next two shots, I figured they finished the dog off. I did not realize at that time that Sam and Kevin had made it down to the Y.
Senator SPECTER. Senator Feinstein, although your time is up, you are right in the middle of an important sequence. If you want to proceed, go ahead.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Please continue, Mr. Weaver.
Mr. WEAVER. I guess what happened was Sam had seen Roderick shoot the dog, and he said—he yelled, he cussed at him, and he fired two rounds in anger back toward Roderick. I think it was Roderick who shot the dog. And I am up the hill, and the reason I did not hear Sam yell and cuss—if I would have, I would have known that that was him shooting, I guess. I would have been back down there. But I did not. I had—sometime right in that sequence, I had drawn-—I had shot my 12-gauge shotgun off in the air hoping—I did not know what I was hoping for, to draw attention to myself or whatever. I did not know but what there was these people all around me. And then it went—this is all happening in seconds. I am thinking—pretty soon this other shooting started, and I am thinking I have got to get back down there. The boys are involved in this. And I tried to reload my 12-gauge shotgun, and I jammed the stupid thing. So I threw it down on the ground, and I threw my 9-millimeter pistol out, and I fired three times. I said, "Sam, get home, get home." I heard him yell, "I'm coming, Dad." And I thought, good, that is great. And I headed on. I kept moving up the hill toward home.
There was a few more shots fired, and here I am back up in the yard, and I am waiting. I am yelling, "Get home, Sam. Come on, Kevin, get home, get home." And pretty soon Kevin comes walking up the road, and we yelled at him, said, "Where is Sam?" And he said, "Sam is dead." And we just went berserk, all of us. We just lost it. And I grabbed Sara's mini-14 and it had 15, 18 rounds in it, and I just fired them all off in the air just as fast as I could pull the trigger. And my wife is going, "He is not dead, he can’tt be dead." And Kevin is going, "Yeah," he says, "I stopped and checked him. He is dead."
And I do not know how long—I just—I do not know how long it was after that, and Vicki says, "We got to go get Sam." And I said, "Yeah, you are right." I gave her the mini-14. I said, "I will have to carry Sam. Let's go get him." And all the way down there, we were not talking on the way down. But what was going through my mind was we are going to get down there to where this kid is at and we are going to be dead, too. But I will be honest with you. At that point I did not care. And I know my wife did not either.
Where we found that kid was right in front of them boys. They knew they had killed that kid. In fact, I believe—I cannot tell you right now which way I found him. I think I found him like this. Kevin said he was on his back when he found him, if I remember right. Anyway, whichever way it was, it was the opposite. I believe that their own medic came out and checked Sam and found out he was dead, and they left him there and they went back in the woods.
Senator SPECTER. Mr. Weaver, take your time. If you would like a break, we can take a break now.
Mr. WEAVER. I will be all right.
We were there a couple of minutes. I was cussing and screaming and yelling and kissing him and holding him in my arms. And Vicki was walking around yelling. I do not know what she was yelling. She probably—I do not know what she was doing. And so I finally said, "Grab Sam's weapon," and she grabbed his weapon, and I picked him up the best I could and started taking him back up toward home. And we got maybe a third of the way up there, and it is pretty steep going. And he got heavy, and I told Ma, I said, "Tell Kevin to come down here and help me. I need help getting him home. He is too heavy." So she-Kevin, I do not know where he was at. I do not think he was up the road too far because he got there pretty quick and started helping me carry him the rest of the way. And we took him up and laid him in the shed up home, and I undressed him, down to his underwear, anyway, and washed him off. And I wanted to look at his wounds. I wanted to see how he had been killed. I could tell what had happened to him.
I wrapped him in a sheet, and I cannot remember how soon after all this happened that we started hearing sirens from everywhere, sirens, sirens, all around below down the valley. And we just decided to sit there and wait and see what happened next. We did not know what to do. We were not going to run away. That is where we was.
And nothing happened the rest of that night. I cannot even remember what I did that night. The rest of that day and that night, I do not know what I did, to be honest with you. I think we moved some food around and got water and stuff and supplies. The next morning I know we went to the root cellar, and I got food out of the root cellar, and we was bringing it into the house.
Things were just quiet most of the day, and nothing was happening. About 5:00 or 5:30 that afternoon, the dogs, the two dogs we had left out in the yard, started whimpering and I said I am going to go see what is—I said somebody is out there. I am going to see what is going on.
Sara goes, "I am going with you, Dad." And Kevin yes,"Me, too." I said, "OK, let's go." And I went out the door and walked over and started talking to the dogs. And they simmered down quite a bit. I said, what's the matter, you know? Somebody out here? And I kind of—I was more or less talking to myself. I walked out on this rocky area overlooking the driveway, and I was just looking and listening. It was just real quiet. And I might have made comments to the kids, you know, well, apparently if they are here they do not want to talk. And I cannot remember if I told them I was going to go look at Sam or not, but that is what went through my mind. I was going to walk along the top of the ridge there over to the little shed, and I wanted to go see my boy one more time, at least one more time.
I just walked over there, and I turned the corner, and I switched my rifle from my right hand to my left hand, and I reached up to turn the latch, and I got shot in the back, shot through this shoulder. And the first thing was, you know, that hurts like hell. The second thing was they are going to shoot me again. And they had not yet, and I thought the guy was standing real close behind me. That is the way it sounded.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Was there any warning?
Mr. WEAVER. No way. It was just as quiet as it is in here when I am not blabbing.
Sara came around the edge of the building. She says, "What happened, Dad?" And I said, "I've been shot." She says, "Get to the house." She started pushing me, telling me, "Get to the house." And Vicki had come outside in the yard She said, "What happened?" I said, "I've been shot, Ma." And she says, "Get in the house, get in the house." And she jumped back on the porch and opened the door. And Sara was pushing me. I think Kevin came in off from the right and back in and fell behind Sara. I did not even—I did not actually hardly even see Kevin, I do not think. But he fell in right behind us. And as we went running through the door, there was another shot, and—loud boom right there. And I am just inside the door off to the right, and by the time I turn around—I hear a commotion behind me, and Rachel is standing right over here about as far as I am from that thing there. Rachel is 10 years old. Vicki was turned around laying down on the floor with her head—in a kneeling position with the baby underneath her. Kevin—Kevin was sprawled out on the kitchen floor clear inside the door. Vicki's head was about at his feet. And the girls were screaming.
I went over and picked the baby out of Vicki's arms and checked her out. She had blood in her hair, and she was all right. It was like she was—I cannot remember how—you know, it was like he had not shot. I handed her to Rachel and checked Vicki. She was just—when I picked her up and over, she was just like a washrag. She was gone. And I pulled her inside the house and laid her beside the kitchen table. She was gone. And I went to check on Kevin, and I looked. I knew he was still kicking. I said, "I better get a tourniquet on your arm, Kevin." And he says, "Forget it." He says, "Just let me die." And the girls started screaming and yelling again, and I asked Sara to help me with Vicki. I said, "Get a blanket," and she did, and we covered Vicki up and we just—I do not know if it was 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes. I do not know. Pretty soon Kevin says, "Hey, Weaver?" I said, "What?" He says, "Help me up." He says, "I'm not dying," and my girls said, "Yay, yay." Made him feel a little better.
So we helped him up in a chair, up on a couch, whatever. I think we moved him to a recliner later. An hour or 2 hours later, sometime in there, Kevin, he says, "Hey, Weaver?" I said, "What?" He says, "Don't let me know when it's coming." He says, "I want you to blow my brains out." He says, "I'm hurting."
Of course, the girls went crazy again, and then I started—I think we was all crying, anyway. I said, "Can't do it, buddy. You got one good arm." I said, "Here's a revolver." I said, "You do it yourself. Just make sure which way you're going to point that thing when you do it. Don't let me know."
Kevin was—he did it because he was in so much pain. He wanted to die. But he stuck around. He would not do it to himself. And after, I do not know how many hours it was, he decided that he was feeling good enough he did not have to do that.
I do not know how far you want me to take the story.
Senator SPECTER. Just proceed, Mr. Weaver. This is an obvious amplification of what you said in your opening statement, but this is a very center part of the entire incident. So just take whatever time you need and describe what happened.
Mr. WEAVER. It is hard for me to remember lots of details of things we actually did for the next 8 or 9 days, whatever it was. I had to take care of the baby. My daughters helped me take care of the baby real well. Take care of Kevin, wash his wounds and everything, the best we could.
After Vicki was shot and Kevin was shot—right now I cannot remember when they first came up and started talking to us. They would have to tell me that. But needless to say, I was not in any mood to—by this time I did not want to negotiate with anybody. I did not want to talk to anybody.
I do remember when they would come on the bull horn at different times of the day. They would want to talk to Vicki, and they would say: How you doing, Mrs. Weaver this and what about that? I know at that time that they knew she was dead.
They would say things like, "Good morning, Mrs. Weaver. How are you doing this morning? How is the baby? We had pancakes for breakfast. What did you have?" They call these people negotiators. I am going to tell you what—
Senator SPECTER. You say at that point you think they knew Mrs. Weaver was dead?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, I do.
Senator SPECTER. Why do you say you think they knew she was dead at that point and would still say those things?
Mr. WEAVER. Bo Gritz, when he found out that Vicki had been killed, went to Dick Rogers and asked him, after he had been up talking to us that day—this is just one reason. And he said, "Why did you have to kill Mrs. Weaver?" And Dick Rogers did not say, oh, well, I am sorry, you know, that was a mistake, that was an accident. He said, "We had to take Vicki Weaver out of the equation because we was afraid she would kill her children."
Senator FEINSTEIN. Was this after the fact? When was this conversation?
Mr. WEAVER. I cannot remember the day Bo first came up to talk to us, but that would have been the day that he found out my wife was dead.
Oh, yes, well, as far as the negotiators trying to talk to us, I told them right from the start they had murdered my boy and my wife. We coud hear them under the house, tromping around under the house, and I do not know what—they said he was placing microphones and explosive charges. I do not know. I never saw those. But, anyway, we yelled. I was yelling at him through the flooring, and they could—the way I was screaming, they could have heard me as easy as I am talking to you, I tell you that.
Senator FEINSTEIN. So you are saying they knew she was dead?
Mr. WEAVER. Absolutely.
Senator FEINSTEIN (continuing]. When she died, essentially?
Mr. WEAVER. You bet, absolutely.
Anyway, then they had my relatives put on tape recording that they would play to us over loudspeakers begging me to pick up the telephone off the robot. And they had my sister come up there and do that, and they asked Paul Harley to do that: Pick up the telephone, Randy; we want to negotiate; we cannot hear you, we cannot hear you.
And I told the girls, I said, "Nobody's going after that telephone because there's probably a bomb or gas in it or something." I said— by this time after they had shot Vicki and that day, that moment, by then we knew we was dead. I believe we was all dead. My daughters felt that way. We all felt we are dead meat; it is just a matter of time. Why even try to, you know, do anything they want us to?
Come out and get the telephone, and later on I got a chance to look at that robot sitting out there, and it had a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun on the side of it, bolted to it, aimed aright at the telephone, which later they said was empty. I do not believe that. I will never
believe that. If they want to negotiate with you and they honestly want you to come out and pick up a telephone, they are not going to have a shotgun there, because they know if I see that I am not going to come out after that telephone. They was hoping I did not see it, and the way it was aimed at the house, I did not see it the first time I looked at it. The second time I looked at it, I saw the hole of that barrel pointing up, and I got to looking better, and I said, holy cow, that is a sawed-off shotgun pointed at the telephone. I did not see it the first time.
But I have no doubt in my mind whoever grabbed that telephone is dead meat. They had a camera in the front of that robot, and they could see what was going on. And as soon as someone grabbed that telephone, they was going to shoot him. But it was not because they could not hear us. They did not need a telephone to hear us. They was bragging about—within a short time after it was up there, they was bragging about how they could hear the baby crying. They could hear us coughing, and blah, blah, blah. They knew. They knew everything that had happened. We were guinea pigs.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, would you just allow him to recount the part where he finally surrendered so that we might just have it in context?
Senator SPECTER. Proceed, Senator Feinstein.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Weaver, I have gone well beyond my time, and the chairman has been very gracious to let me continue. Could you finish this narration and just take us to the time when you surrendered and what the circumstances there were?
Mr. WEAVER. Bo Gritz, sometimes during the week they said, you know, who will you talk to, who do you trust—either that or they come along and they said Bo Gritz is here, will you talk to—I cannot remember right now. But I had requested to talk to Bo Gritz before any of this stuff came down earlier. I was looking for a miracle. I wanted somebody to come help negotiate something because I knew, you know, things were not right.
But, anyway, Bo Gritz is up there, and I said, 'Yeah, I'll talk to Bo Gritz," and he come up there. It took us a couple of days to trust him enough to surrender, but he come up and he says, you know, we got to get Kevin out of the cabin because he is the only' witness from our side to the original shoot-out at the Y. That made sense. Besides, Kevin was in pretty bad shape, and we did not want the kid dying. It was not too hard talking us into that. Kevin is the one we had to talk into doing that. But he also said that Gerry Spence promised to take the case, and to be honest with you, I did not know who Gerry Spence was at the time. But he said that he represented Imelda Marcos, and I thought, that is big time, you know. [Laughter.]
And I knew that he had the time and the money to look for the facts and find the truth, and that was a big factor. Besides that, I knew that eventually they were going to come in and at least kill me and Kevin, possibly Sara and Rachel, and wound them or whatever, and I did not want to see them—all I could picture in my mind was my kids just laying around bleeding with their arms blown off or whatever. I did not want that to happen. I did not really know if I could go out. I thought maybe I would step out the door with Bo Gritz and they would kill us both and then tell the whole world that we had started shooting at them, Bo joined my side and we was fighting the Feds together and all that. They would have made up—I just figured they can make up all kinds of stories.
But I thought this was the only chance we got. We are dead if I, you know, do not do this, and anyway, Bo finally made sense and we agreed to come out.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPECTER. I think this is an appropriate point to terminate your sequence. We will come back to it doubtless later, Mr. Weaver, but Senator Thurmond has a few questions that he wanted to ask at this time.
Senator THURMOND. Thank you very much for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. I was late. I will be brief.
Mr. Weaver, I want to make clear, did you make plans with your son and Mr. Harris as to how you would avoid the Federal agents coming to arrest you? In other words, were you prepared to resist with arms?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir. Not—all I was waiting for was one man in uniform to come up and serve me with a warrant, and I would have gone with him. But they never did that. There was not anyone there that had the courage to do that. The local sheriff, Bruce Whittaker, knew me. He could have done that, but he did not—apparently did not think he could.
Senator THURMOND. Mr. Weaver, why do you believe that Federal law enforcement found you to pose a very high level of threat?
Mr. WEAVER. From false rumors. Military background; other than that, false rumors, a lot of false rumors about me.
Senator THURMOND. Mr. Weaver, on the day that your wife was killed, and at the time you were about to enter the shed where your son's body lay, were you aware of the helicopter over the property which the FBI sniper thought you were about to fire upon?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir. I do not believe there was a helicopter anywhere. I do not—if I had heard a helicopter at that time, I would have run to the house and told the kids to run to the house, too.
Senator THURMOND. You were not prepared then to shoot at the helicopter?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir. No, sir.
Senator THURMOND. My last question, Mr. Weaver. It is clear that mistakes were made by Federal law enforcement officers at Ruby Ridge. Does the outcome of your civil case and the ongoing criminal probe of law enforcement actions give you encouragement that these mistakes will not be repeated?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir. I pray that this does not happen again.
Senator THURMOND. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Thurmond. It is now 1:28. We will resume the hearing at 2:30. Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., the same day.]
AFFERNOON SESSION—2:37 P.M.
Senator SPECTER. The subcommittee will come to order.
Mr. Weaver, you have been sworn, and you are under oath. We now turn to the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley.
Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, could I please have permission of the committee to put two letters from relatives of Vicki Weaver's in the record?
Senator SPECTER. Those letters will be admitted for the record without objection.
(The letters follow:]
JULIE A. BROWN,
Urbandale, LA, Apr. 26, 1995.
Hon. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
Des Moines, IA
DEAR SENATOR GRASSLEY: On August 21 and 22, 1992, 14-year old Sam Weaver and his mother, Vicki Weaver, were shot and killed by federal agents at their home on Ruby Ridge in the Selkirk Mountains of Idaho. The chronological sequence of events that occurred on Ruby Ridge are documented very well in the attached Des Moines Register article. But the following is a short summary of the key points our family would like you to know and understand:
The first shot was fired by a U.S. Marshal who was on the property without an arrest warrant on August 21, 1992. (See transcript from trial)
Fourteen year old Sam was shot in the back and killed as he ran for home on August 21, 1992.
On August 22, 1992, Federal agents surrounded the property with approximately 400 military personnel. This included members of the elite hostage teams, snipers, military war-fare equipment including tanks, helicopters, high-powered rifles, machine guns, infrared heat scanning equipment, listening devices, etc.
Federal agents did not notify the family that they were surrounded, nor did they give anyone in the family an opportunity to surrender prior to the attack on August 22 which killed Vicki and wounded Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris.
The sniper who attacked Randy and Kevin, and killed Vicki was acting under orders to "shoot to kill any armed adult."
The snipers actions were later justified by Janet Reno and the Justice Department because he claimed Randy and Kevin were aiming guns at a helicopter pilot, and Vicki was accidentally killed when she placed herself in harm's way. During the trial, the helicopter pilot testified that he was nowhere near the vicinity of the cabin during the time of the sniper's attack. The judge dropped any charges related to a supposed threat against a helicopter pilot due to lack of evidence to support such a claim.
Vicki was killed while holding their 10-month old baby in her arms. The bullet traveled through her face passing within inches of 16-year old Sara's face. Kevin Harris was wounded in the chest and arm by the same bullet that killed Vicki.
Vicki and Randy's 11-year old daughter, Rachel, was also standing inside the front of the cabin within a few feet of Vicki when she was shot.
While my husband and I ware legal guardians of Randy and Vicki's daughter, the girls began receiving mail with propaganda from numerous right wing extremist groups who were exploiting what happened on Ruby Rid for their own purposes.
We cautioned the girls not to get caught up in the rhetoric,and to let us responsibly work through the justice system to resolve the wrongs that had occurred. Randy and Kevin went to trial and were acquitted of all charges relating to the events that occurred during the week of the stand off. The original weapons charge was ruled "entrapment" and the judge who presided over Randy's first hearing on the weapons charge admitted during the trial that he had erroneously led Randy and Vicki to believe that if Randy went to trial, he and Vicki would probably lose their land and their children. Randy was convicted on the original "Failure to Appear" charge. He served 16 months in jail and was released to Iowa on probation.
When the handling of the results of the investigate report b Janet Reno and the Justice Department was released to the press, I heard that Ruby Ridge had once again become a hot issue for the extremist groups. Not only did Janet ~no ignore the report’s recommendations for criminal charges, but the FBI Director promoted Larry Potts (the man who authorized the "shoot to kill" order) to the number two position in the FBI. The most powerful law enforcement agency in the land had failed to check and balance itself when it had abused its power. A clear message was sent to my family—and to many people across the country: It is okay to shoot at unarmed women and children and that members of the FBI are not subject to the same laws which govern the rest of us.
Nothing can justify the tragedy in Oklahoma City. Two wrongs will never make a right. But how many wrongs will we continue to perpetuate before responsible people in authority stop this cycle of events that are action-reaction related? When law enforcement agencies practice violence against their citizens unchecked, how can we not expect some sort of counter reaction to this violence? The government must always act with moral integrity and a high sense of ethics. When mistakes are made—which tends to be the rule where humans are involved—then our government must have a higher standard for dealing with its own mistakes. When the government fails to adhere to these higher standards, then dissension is a natural result. Every society has its extremists, but conditions must be fertile for their numbers to grow. Giving more power to an agency like the FBI which has already demonstrated an unchecked abuse of power will not stop this cycle.
We don't want Vicki's and Sam s deaths to be a battle cry for violence by any more sick people. Vicki's revolved around children. She would not want the deaths of innocent children and people in her name. If government officials who were responsible for violating laws on Ruby Ridge were brought to trial, then perhaps Ruby Ridge could be laid to rest. The same team of FBI personnel were in charge at Waco, and these two incidents remain as festering sores for the country that very irrational, crazy people are exploiting for their own ends. They couldn't have done this so successfully if the justice system had demonstrated responsible checks and balances on itself.
Now we have Oklahoma to add our wounds and a great deal of emotional reactions by people everywhere. We hope you, and others in law-making positions will step back from the emotionalism and use caution and reason with regard to any legislation that provides more power to the FBI. I was there at Rub Ridge, along with the rest of my family. We will forever be haunted by the horrendous display of military power our FBI turned against a family. That can't be allowed to happen again. Please don't let this become politics where decisions are based on the popular thing to do at the time. Please don't give any more power to an agency which has not demonstrated that it can handle the awesome amount of power it already has. You must find another way to handle the extreme fringes. Most important Senator Grassley, please look deep enough to find the reasons why these groups are growing arid becoming so aggressive. What we are seeing are symptoms of a disease in this country. Please don't feed the disease by using legislative power as a quick fix reaction.
We don't ever want a repeat of Oklahoma City—especially not in revenge for something that is done and can't be undone. Ruby Ridge should be resolved. Unresolved situations like Waco and Ruby Ridge are not healthy for our country. If you tell us to leave it alone, we will as we do not want to contribute to the unrest. But we are concerned about the messages sent when accountability is not demonstrated for past abuses and more power is given to these same people.
We look forward to discussing this with you further.
On behalf of: David and Jeane Jordison, Lance D. Jordison, Vicki Jordison-Weaver (Deceased), Samuel Weaver (Deceased).
Sincerely,
JULIE JORDISON-BROWN.
JULIE A. BROWN,
Urbandale, IA, Sept. 4, 1995.
Hon. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
Des Moines, LA.
DEAR SENATOR GRASSLEY: As you and other Senators begin to address the events and deaths that occurred on Ruby Ridge in 1992, the family of Vicki and Samuel Weaver hopes that both parties (Democrat and Republican) will set politics aside in a conscientious effort to seek the truth. It is time for healing, not only for Vicki and Sam's family but for Officer Deagan's family and others in this country who were affected by the aftermath of government officials who decided that excessive force and violence were an appropriate solution and who subsequently behaved outside the law.
We have heard the concerns voiced by many members of Congress regarding the link in holding these hearings to growing militia groups and a general lack of respect for law enforcement. It truly amazes us that those who voice these concerns have so much tunnel vision and a seeming inability to see the larger picture. Many individuals within law enforcement and judicial branches of our government behaved irresponsibly in the Ruby Ridge situation. Key information in the beginning was distorted by some officers, and decisions were made based on this distorted misinformation. People like Dick Rogers and Duke Smith decided to draft unconstitutional rules of engagement and succeeded in getting these illegal rules approved by their superiors. It was these orders to field officers which resulted in the loss of human life. Later, others tried to cover up their involvement—and presiding over all of this was a judicial branch of the government which chose to close its eyes and ignore the evidence of illegal behavior rather than prosecute and attempt to set things right.
How is it possible for members of Congress to not see the connection in why the actions and behaviors in this whole fiasco contributed to disrespect for law enforcement in general, and an increased attraction to militia groups? Is it not also sheer common sense that says setting this straight, no matter how late, can only help in regaining some respect for our system of law and order?
Following the Oklahoma City incident, we heard many people say that the way to correct the wrongs in this country is at the ballot box—not by joining militia groups. We agree—this should be the way to change what we don't like in our country. But how do we get to people through the ballet box like the Director or Assistant Director of the FBI, or an FBI hostage team commander who is out of control, or members of the Attorney General's staff who close their eyes to their responsibilities? These people are all protected by a web of government bureaucracy, and the only way the American people have of reaching individuals is through you— our elected officials in your oversight responsibilities.
Herein lies our plea to you Senators—please, in your duty to oversee government officials who have behaved outside the law—get to the core of the problems that occurred on Ruby Ridge. Identify the people who suggested illegal actions, those who approved illegal actions, those who acted and carried out illegal orders, and those who ignored the evidence of citizens constitutional rights being violated, and see that they are held accountable. Please remember that three people died on that mountain, but only one death was prosecuted.
This should be primary focus of the investigation—determining who should be prosecuted for the other two deaths. Suspending an individual with pay or a simple demotion surely cannot seem like reasonable accountability to anyone. Prove to our family and the rest of the people in this nation that our system of checks and balances works and that no one is above the law!
Lastly, we would like to address comments made by Deputy Attorney General, Jamie Gorelick in recent articles. She appears to be upset because these hearings may impede her investigation. We know that it was Ms. Gorelick who reviewed the 542+ page Justice Department Investigative Report on the Ruby Ridge Incident. Even with the recommendation to prosecute, Ms. Gorelick chose to ignore their findings that unconstitutional rules of engagement had been in force during the time Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris were attacked and Vicki killed. We couldn't believe that someone sitting in the highest justice seat in the country could simply ignore the fact that government officials were operating under illegal rules of engagement. It is difficult for us to hear these complaints now, when we finally have a chance to get to the core of what happened—while she has had the past three years to resolve this!
Thank you Senator Grassley, and Senator Specter, and the rest of the Senators on this committee for finally holding the hearings and asking the questions we've fought so long to get asked. We will forever be grateful that someone finally listened.
On behalf of: David and Jeane Jordison, Lance and Melanie Jordison, Vicki Jodison Weaver (Deceased), Samuel Weaver (Deceased).
JULIE AND KEITH BROWN.
Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Weaver, you were asked about why you think the FBI might have known your wife was dead. You said one of the reasons that you knew was because Bo Gritz told you. What are any other reasons that make you believe that the FBI knew that they had killed your wife?
Mr. WEAVER. Because almost every time that they would attempt to talk to me and I would try to yell to them, yell back to them, I always told them that they had killed my son and my wife. And it seemed as though every time I wanted to tell them something
56
they could say, well, we can kind of hear you, can you repeat that? The same way when they had my sister up there trying to talk to me. When I would tell her stuff that was not real important, it is like she—if it was not real important, she could hear that. And then if I would—I yelled and told her that my wife was dead and all that, then they would—it was like, I cannot hear you, brother, get the phone, please get the phone.
Pretty soon I got suspicious of what they were doing, and I just started yelling, "Go home, Marnus. Just get on the plane and go back home. I don't want you up here." And she did not hear that either.
Senator GRASSLEY. We got a little bit into the rules of engagement in the context of your wife's death. There appears to be evidence that the authorities believed that your wife, Vicki, was the spiritual leader of the family and may have been a major power in keeping the family together. Some have charged that Vicki was targeted by the FBI because if she would be neutralized, the family would lose its central power and would give up. So I would like to have your explanation of your wife's role and your view on whether or not your wife's death was accidental.
Mr. WEAVER. My wife was definitely the smarter one of the two, by far, and they probably knew that. She could speak very well. Many times I wish she was here instead of me. She could tell you like it was a lot better than I can. I think they were afraid of that.
Senator GRASSLEY. Obviously, on the part of my question about whether or not you believe your wife's death was accidental or not?
Mr. WEAVER. Do I believe that it was? I do not believe that her death was accidental, no. The sniper had a 10-power scope. He had drawings made up on his original 302 file to the FBI claiming that he saw heads behind the door. With a 10-power scope, if he saw the heads, he certainly knew who was there. That is the way I see it.
Senator GRASSLEY. So you do, then, believe that Vicki was targeted by the FBI?
Mr. WEAVER. Absolutely.
Senator GRASSLEY. And you also believe that they knew that she was a very competent individual?
Mr. WEAVER. Absolutely.
Senator GRASSLEY. With the volumes of the investigative material that the subcommittee has obtained, it is a little bit unnerving to see the many instances where different agencies made very different and even sometimes contradictory conclusions regarding the same fact situations. For instance, this whole tragic episode would not have happened if there had not been what jurors in your trial believed to be entrapment. In its Ruby Ridge review, the ATF repeats its conclusion that you initiated and offered to supply sawed-off shotguns to their informant.
On the other hand, the Department of Justice report, in direct contradiction of the ATF, found no evidence that you initiated the sale. In addition, jurors in your trial apparently believed you were basically set up by the Government.
Why do you think that the ATF seems to be the only one to believe
57
Mr. WEAVER. Well, because that responsibility falls on them, and they just do not want to admit that they entrapped me. I mean, that is against the law, I guess—I hope.
Senator GRASSLEY. So it is kind of common sense from your standpoint that if they admitted that, they would have admitted some wrong.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator GRASSLEY. And it would make them look bad.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Now, on another point, there appears to be evidence that rather than negotiate with you, the FBI was intent on coming in and getting you dead or alive. After your wife was killed, you were taunted with loudspeakers asking such ridiculous things as what your wife was having for breakfast. According to Bo Gritz, a person I have quoted before, who was the one who actually convinced you to give up and turn yourself in, the FBI HRT commander, said to him: It is over tomorrow; if Bo Gritz can't get them out, we're going to take them out.
Mr. Weaver, were there any real attempts to negotiate with you or to convince you to give up peacefully other than when Bo Gritz, who is not with the Government, stepped in?
Mr. WEAVER. Only Bo Gritz made a decent attempt for us to give up. Before that, no one did.
Senator GRASSLEY. When was the first time that you knew that you were being confronted by law enforcement personnel. Did the marshals ever identify themselves, and when did the FBI tell you who they were?
Mr. WEAVER. I personally never ever heard the marshals identify themselves ever. Kevin said that they identified themselves after Degan got shot. The FBI, I did not know they were there until after my wife was dead. We were in the cabin; sometime later, shortly after that, I believe the same night, then they came up in an armored personnel carrier and announced who they were. And that is the first time I knew who they were.
Senator GRASSLEY. Did you ever have any idea of the size or the power of the Government arsenal that was set up around you and around your property and putting you under siege?
Mr. WEAVER. That first afternoon or that morning after Sam had been killed, we heard enough sirens in the valley. It sounded like every patrol car in the State had pulled into the valley, and we knew there was a lot of people around. But even after what had happened to Sam, the next day I still had the faith, believe it or not, that I could walk out of that house and somebody would talk to me. If I did not believe that, I would not have gone out, let alone let my daughter go out with me or Kevin. When the dog started making the noises and I said I am going to go check and see what the dogs are barking at, there was apparently somebody there, and I figured they would want to talk to us. But they did not. They just shot at us.
Senator GRASSLEY. The marshals and others claim that you were dangerous, but you allowed a number of people on your property and house over a period of time, didn’t you?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
58
Senator GRASSLEY. So there was never any attempt on your part to keep people from coming up to talk to you?
Mr. WEAVER. That is right.
Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I believe I am done with my questioning. I thank you very much. I thank you, Mr. Weaver, once again for coming here to testify.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you, sir.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley.
The Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig.
Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Weaver, a great deal has been covered this morning already, and into the early afternoon. Let me pursue, though, a line of questioning that I think will build a little more upon this important record.
You have told us why you and your wife came to Idaho, partly because of what it offered and partly because of your beliefs as a white separatist. Is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir. At the time we moved to Idaho, we did not understand anything about the racial thing. What we understood scripturally, once we got to Idaho, we were accused of being white supremacists, Aryan Nation Nazis. We did not even understand why that happened.
After so many years in Idaho with some more study and change in beliefs and thoughts and what-not, we became—you know, everyone was trying to label us, and I eventually came to a point where I said, OK, I will accept a white separatist because I believed that that was not only—you know, separating out into the country, getting away, as well as racially. I believed that racial separation might be the proper thing.
Senator CRAIG. But you came as a former Green Beret and as an honorably discharged sergeant in the U.S. Army?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CRAIG. You also came as someone who, to that time, had never violated or been charged with a violation of law?
Mr. WEAVER. Minor traffic violations back in the 1960's, probably shortly after high school. Between high school and college, I had a couple of—maybe a couple of speeding tickets. That was it.
Senator CRAJG. So you came to Idaho primarily with your religious beliefs.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CRAIG. Did the opportunity for your children to be educated in a home environment lend to any of that?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir. We decided that we wanted to teach them at home.
Senator CRAIG. Was it true that in the State of Iowa that was against the law at that time?
Mr. WEAVER. The way we understood it, we could teach them at home but had to be supervised by the State, so we could not see much difference in that.
Senator CRMG. Did that have anything to do with your religious belief?
59
Senator CRAIG. In other words, your religious belief led you to think that the public school system was not preferable to private home schooling or home schooling?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CRAIG. And Idaho was that opportunity?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir. We wanted to be able to teach them reading, writing, and arithmetic, basically, and there is a lot of stuff in the public school system we did not figure they needed, that they would have—
Senator CRAIG. You ran for county sheriff in Boundary County.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CRAIG. On what ticket?
Mr. WEAVER. Republican.
Senator CRAIG. In a primary?
Mr. WEAVER. Republican primary is all the further I got, yes, sir.
Senator CRAIG. How many votes did you get?
Mr. WEAVER. One hundred and two out of approximately 450.
Senator CRAIG. What would you believe that the people of Boundary County would have known of what you believed by the time that campaign was over? In other words, what did you talk about in the campaign?
Mr. WEAVER. I cannot remember everything I said, but at the time I believed that local law enforcement should basically police the county. I cannot remember what all
Senator CRAIG. Did you campaign on the platform that would have led some people to believe you might be radical in your views of law enforcement or the Government?
Mr. WEAVER. I believe that most of the people that had negative views of me at the time when I ran for sheriff had already been placed in their head by an incident that happened in 1985 when—
Senator CRAIG. And what was that incident?
Mr. WEAVER. With some people that did not like me who wrote to the President of the United States a threatening letter and signed or typed my name to the letter. I am still not sure which because I never saw the letter. But we were investigated by the Secret Service and the FBI, and they found out that we had not done this. And after that, we figured, well, they know the truth about who did it. We did not do it. And all that we had to go through— and I asked him. I said, you know, have you checked the backgrounds on these people that are involved in setting us up on this kind of garbage? Because if you check their backgrounds, you are going to find out that they are pretty shady characters.
Senator CRAIG. In other words, by the time of the confrontation that we have been discussing in some detail, you were not an unknown person in Boundary County?
Mr. WEAVER. Right.
Senator CRAIG. Your views and your attitudes about Government were already well-known by most people?
Mr. WEAVER. I would not say well-known. I could sit and talk to a lot of people at length, a long time, and they still would not totally understand where I am coming from. But, no, people would pick up bits and pieces here and there. and then they would associate me with other people. They would make up views. This is no one in Boundary County to this day right now knows what Randy Weaver believes. You could not go out there and ask them. They might give you a whole bunch of answers, and a few of them would be right.
Does that answer your question?
Senator CRAIG. Were you attending Aryan Nations meetings in or about the time you were a candidate for sheriff?
Mr. WEAVER. I cannot remember. If I did, it would have been one meeting that year, but I cannot remember if I went in 1988 or not.
Senator CRAIG. And you only attended those large annual gatherings?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir. I might have stopped by there one time. I remember one time when I was looking for a used snowmobile, I stopped and asked people there, you know, about that. Other than that, I never went to that place other than for their summer conference deal.
Senator CRAIG. I think the record now shows with some detail the relationship you had with BATF and what brought you to the point of dealing with an illegal firearm and selling it. What I am concerned about—and it is of great frustration to me—is as to your knowledge or lack of knowledge or your family's lack of knowledge of the environment and the circumstances going on around you after the court notification and your failure to appear and the ensuing months until the confrontational time.
Did you know the marshals had been keeping an eye on your property?
Mr. WEAVER. I had heard that they were. I heard that people—
Senator CRAIG. How did you hear that?
Mr. WEAVER. Through people coming up to talk to us, neighbors, strangers.
Senator CRAIG. How did they know that?
Mr. WEAVER. Because the marshals at times would stop them and talk to them, and it became generally well-known, according to them in the county, that they were around.
Senator CRAIG. Prior to the incident that resulted in your son's death, were you aware that you were at that time under surveillance by the marshals?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir. Not that day. If I had
Senator CRAIG. Had you given your family any instruction, relating to the possibility of being under observation as to how they might act?
Mr. WEAVER. As to how who would act?
Senator CRAIG. Your family, family members or Kevin Harris.
Mr. WEAVER. Never start any trouble with anybody.
Senator CRAIG. When you heard Striker barking that Friday, did you have any idea the marshals might be on your mountain?
Mr. WEAVER. I do not—no, sir. I—
Senator CRAIG. Why were your son and Kevin Harris in the location they were at the time the dog was shot and your son was killed?
Mr. WEAVER. They thought that the dog was pursuing an animal and Sam and Kevin wanted to see the animal, and so did I. That is way. They were following the dog.
61
If those men would have stopped and yelled, "Halt, U.S. Marshals," whatever, my boys would have turned and run for home right then. But until they actually got right on those men, they did not realize who was there, who that dog was following.
Senator CRAIG. You mentioned a moment ago in questioning by the Senator from Iowa that there was a moment in which Kevin Harris was notified or in some way it was expressed to him that there were marshals in the area. Would you recap that again for me?
Mr. WEAVER. According to Kevin, after—of course, Sam had already been shot. Degan was down, and somebody yelled, "US. Marshals," and maybe something else, I do not know. You have to ask Kevin.
Senator CRAIG. This is Kevin Harris' recollection?
Mr. WEAVER. Right. And Kevin said—when they did that, he turned and started to run back through the woods up toward home, and then he apparently got to thinking he better check Sam. He came out on the road, and he looked down toward these guys. He laid his rifle down, put his hands up, said, "I got to check Sam." And he said that—I cannot remember if they said they were checking the marshal or if they said anything after that. But he come down and said he was going to check Sam. They let him go down and check Sam, and he said Sam was dead, so he turned and come back up, picked his rifle up, and come on home.
Senator CRAIG. Where were you before the shooting took place at the Y?
Mr. WEAVER. Walking down the road, came to the Y. One of these guys jumped out and screamed at me. I yelled back, and I turned and ran for home and began screaming for the boys to get home.
Senator CRAIG. Did you have a gun on your person at the time?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir. I had two of them. I had a double-barrel
12-gauge shotgun and a 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol.
Senator CRAIG. Did they attempt at that time to apprehend you?
Mr. WEAVER. No.
Senator CRAIG. Apprehend you or stop you at gunpoint?
Mr. WEAVER. Well, yeah, when he jumped out in front of me. He just had his weapon—
Senator CRAIG. Did he identify himself?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir, lie said, "Freeze, Randy." And I cussed at him and turned and ran for home.
Senator CRAIG. And he did not attempt to shoot you?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir. That surprised me, but he did not.
Senator CRAIG. Did you at that time go in that approximate time hear the shots that killed your son?
Mr. WEAVER. According to the court testimony where they found my shotgun shell and three 9-mm shells up the road, that, when I heard the first shot and the dog yelped, I stopped and that is where I had fired my weapon in the air out of frustration, hoping for—I did not know—you know, draw attention to me. I did not know what to do.
Senator CRAIG. You, from that point of firing returned to the house?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
62
Senator CRAIG. Kevin Harris then came to the house?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CRAIG. Told you and your wife what had happened?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CRAIG. Vicki, your wife, at that time and during that episode up until the point of Kevin Harris coming to the house, was in the house?
Mr. WEAVER. Vicki—you would have to ask—or read the court record, whatever. What I remember from the court record, Vicki had been in the house, or maybe outside walking around the yard. I am not sure where she was at when the firing started and all that. I just know that she was outside when I got up there and the girls were outside. And I do not know if she was outside when the firing started. I cannot remember.
Senator CRAIG. That was on the day that your son was killed?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes sir.
Senator CRAIG. The next day Kevin Harris was shot, you were shot, and your wife was killed.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CRAIG. Prior to that latter engagement that took your wife's life, this team of experts came, the sharpshooter or the sniper came, were put in place, and we will in the course of this hearing search out the rules of engagement and how they were or were not brought about. But I have in front of me the document that proposes or supposedly speaks to the rules of engagement. This is something that has frustrated me a great deal in all of my examinations of this engagement and your involvement and your family's involvement.
The day that you and Kevin Harris and your daughter walked from the house, the second day, the day after the death of your son, you went out to the shed or the birthing shed to look at your son.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CRAIG. You were out walking in the open.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CRAIG. You were at that time still convinced that you were not surrounded or that you were under surveillance?
Mr. WEAVER. I figured that we were surrounded, to be honest with you. They had not approached the house. It had been all night and most of that day. No one had approached us about anything. When the dogs started whimpering—excuse me—I thought, well, maybe they are close enough now and they want to speak to us.
Senator CRAIG. Would you stop at that point? Prior to you being shot, Kevin Harris being shot, and your wife being killed, there was never a surrender announcement or a notification over a loudspeaker of any kind that you were surrounded and that you were asked to surrender?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator CRAIG. None whatsoever?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator CRAIG. Thank you. My time is up.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.
Mr. WEAVER, it would be very useful to the subcommittee to understand to the extent possible the trajectory of the bullet fired by
63
FBI Special Agent Lon Horiuchi which resulted in the death of your wife, Vicki Weaver. This large mock-up has been prepared by the FBI for use at the trial, and there are markings where Special Agent Horiuchi stood. And I think it would be useful if you could identify the layout generally for the committee, with particular reference to your residence there, and also particular reference to where the door which we have in the hearing room today was located, in an effort to try to line up the door and the curtains to see what visibility was present.
As we conduct this hearing, we are going to be asking you questions, and we later presumably are going to hear from Mr. Horiuchi as to his testimony, so that we have to anticipate to some extent what we will hear at a later time. And obviously you do not have his exact line of visibility, but you are obviously intimately familiar with the locale since it was your home. So would you please walk over to the mock-up and point out where your home is located and where that door was located?
Mr. Weaver, we have a portable microphone which should be a little easier to handle there.
Mr. WEAVER. This is not exact. It is a pretty good job, but it is not exact.
These buildings here are just——they look real close to the way things were. The guest shed was off to an angle like this. That all looks pretty good. This is where my son was laying, in this shed here. This is what we called the front door. That door opened like this on that front porch, closed, open
Senator SPECTER. Now, where is the door precisely here?
Mr. WEAVER. Just about in the middle, right underneath the peak here on the middle of the porch, and the sniper was just about in a straight line across here. And he could see me.
Senator: SPECTER. Now, where were you situated? Start the sequence of events.
Mr. WEAVER. OK
Senator SPECTER. As you moved back to the house towards the spot where your wife was standing when she was shot.
Mr. WEAVER. OK. After I had been shot and we headed Lack toward the house—can I come back? I come out here, check the dogs. We are out on this rock out here checking out the driveway and stuff. Nothing—we didn't hear anything, so I started walking across here with it in mind to go in the shed to see my son. I walked around here—
Senator SPECTER. Would you pinpoint where the shed is when you were looking at your son, Sammy?
Mr. WEAVER. This is the shed right here, what we called the guest shed. I walked around and just—we had a wooden pallet there for a doorstep, and I stepped up on that. I just switched my rifle, stepped up there, and I reached up to turn the latch on that door. And from over here—
Senator SPECTER. Let me ask counsel to specify where Special Agent Len Horiuchi was standing at that time.
COUNSEL. Mr. Gilman was at the trial. and my understanding was he was standing at that door. Right here, with my back to them. Right here. The door of the shed was right on this end.
64
Mr. GILMAN. He was designated as CR4, so I am presuming that S4 represents the approximate location of Lon Horuchi when he fired both shots.
Senator SPECTER. And that was established at the trial?
Mr. GILMAN. At trial.
Mr. WEAVER. So from that point, he was shooting right there at me, and then when we—
Senator SPECTER. Were you able to state the approximate distance at that point?
Mr. WEAVER. They said approximately 200 meters, maybe 220 to the house. That is my recollection. Sara—
Senator SPECTER. Would counsel produce a photograph of the house so we can have it in large dimension, please?
Now, Mr. Weaver, line up the photograph of the house as to where it was situated here on the mock-up?
Mr. WEAVER. This is the front porch, covered with the green rug. The sniper would have been over here, shooting in that direction. These tanks were right on this side right down in here. Then when we come running back toward the house-.--and I did not find out until this week, and Kevin—I didn't know if he came around this way or this way. He said he came around—
Senator SPECTER. Mr. Spence, perhaps you could help us with the door to get the line-up from where Special Agent Horiuchi was shooting so we can see how the angle came to the door. Would you mind bringing it over here so that the committee members can see it?
Mr. Weaver, what would the angle have been on the line-up?
Mr. WEAVER. Okay. The way that house is sitting, the door is open. You come through here. The door is open just like this. And Vicki was like this, holding it, when we went running through like this.
Senator SPECTER. How does the door line up on the line-up of the house?
Mr. WEAVER. When it was open, it was perpendicular to the house, just like that. Right angle. Yes, right angle.
Senator SPECTER. Was it open at the time the shot was fired?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. How do you know that?
Mr. WEAVER. Because we were running through it, and Vicki was holding it like this, "Get in the house, get in the house." All three of us run right through.
Senator SPECTER. So the door, then, is perpendicular to the front of the house, and she is standing in front of the window? Can you position yourself approximately where she was standing?
Mr. WEAVER. Probably just like this, probably had her hand on here like this and holding the baby like this.
Senator SPECTER. Would you mind telling us where the bullet entered Mrs. Weaver?
Mr. WEAVER. Somewhere in here, somewhere out on this side.
Senator SPECTER. And to the extent you can tell us, how far were the curtains closed?
Mr. WEAVER. According to the bullet hole, it was at least open that much.
65
Senator SPECTER. Would you line up the hole in the window with the hole in the curtain?
Mr. WEAVER. OK.
Senator SPECTER. Is there a total level trajectory or a slightly downward trajectory?
Mr. WEAVER. Probably slightly downward.
Senator SPECTER. Approximately how tall was Mrs. Weaver?
Mr. WEAVER. She was 5 foot, 2 1/2 inches maybe.
Senator SPECTER. And the bullet entered approximately where?
[Mr. Weaver indicating.]
Senator SPECTER. Let me ask you in a nonleading way. To what extent, if at all, was Mrs. Weaver obscured from the line of sight of Special Agent Horiuchi?
Mr. WEAVER. Somewhat, most likely.
Senator SPECTER. This is going to be a critical point as to whether—— Mr. WEAVER. I know. I understand that.
Senator SPECTER [continuing]. The special agent could see her or not.
Mr. WEAVER. It was partially open; "Get in the house, get in the house." She had beautiful long black hair. He knew who she was. He knew who was holding that door open.
Senator SPECTER. Now, why do you say he knew who was holding the door open?
Mr. WEAVER. He knew—he said that he thought Sara was Vicki Weaver. At that time she was much smaller than all that. But even at that—
Senator SPECTER. Now, when did Special Agent Horiuchi say that he thought that Sara was Mrs. Weaver?
Mr. WEAVER. I can't remember when he said that, if it was the 302 file or what it was. I recall that he claimed at first that he thought when we came out it was me and my wife and Kevin Harris. I wanted to make a point. And he said that he was leading Kevin Harris.
Senator SPECTER. Which way was Mr. Harris running to be leading
Mr. WEAVER. OK. From this area up in here, I was out there for the first time a week and a half or so ago, and I went up, and we was watching, looking to see if he could lead anybody. You cannot. Kevin, for the first time I understood, he came back and fell in behind Sara and I, right here. At that time, with this shed here and the trees and stuff, he would not have been able to see us well enough to shoot us when we come around this rock here. He could not see any of us until we actually hit the porch, and
Senator SPECTER. Why could he not see any of you until you hit the porch?
Mr. WEAVER. Because of the lay of the land. There are rocks, trees, trees here, this shed was here. From right about here, for sure, over to here, you cannot lead anybody until you hit the porch.
Senator SPECTER. Now, where again were you when you were shot in the shoulder?
Mr. WEAVER. Right here, with my back to them here. The door of the shed was right on this end.
66
Senator SPECTER. And where was Mr. Harris when he was first shot?
Mr. WEAVER. Just coming through the door, here, right beside Vicki, when they shot—
Senator SPECTER. The same bullet that hit Mrs. Weaver hit Mr. Harris?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Mr. GILMAN. This is the line that goes up to the porch. I do not have a ruler, but if I had a ruler, I could just lay it—he was shooting right over those banks.
Senator SPECTER. And Mrs. Weaver was holding the door open, at a perpendicular to the front of the house, and Mr. Harris ran in first—you ran in first?
Mr. WEAVER. I was first. Sara was pushing me, and she—
Senator SPECTER. Sara was right behind you?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. You were in first, Sara was right behind you
Mr. WEAVER. Right, and she said that
Senator SPECTER [continuing]. And how far behind Sara was Mr. Harris?
Mr. WEAVER. She said that just as we were going through the door, her and I, Kevin was like right beside us and just slightly ahead of her, because as soon as that bullet struck, she got hit with fragments, Sara did
Senator SPECTER. Sara got hit with fragments?
Mr. WEAVER (continuing]. Blood and bone. Kevin was just enough ahead of her that it caught him instead of her, and when he fell down, she tripped over him coming in. And I did not understand that
Senator SPECTER. Now, was Mr. Harris armed at that time?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. And what was he armed with?
Mr. WEAVER. Probably the 30.06 bolt action rifle.
Senator SPECTER. Would that have been reasonably within view of special agent Horiuchi?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. So he would have known that Mr. Harris was armed?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. Now, were you armed at that time?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. What were you armed with?
Mr. WEAVER. With Sam's .223, a mini-14.
Senator SPECTER. Would special agent Horiuchi reasonably have seen that you were armed at the time he shot you?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. Was Sara armed?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. And what was she armed with?
Mr. WEAVER. She probably had the stainless steel mini-14—-her gun, her rifle.
Senator SPECTER. And would that have been visible from where special agent Horiuchi was located?
67
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir
Senator SPECTER. Well, taking special agent Horiuchi's contention that he was leading Mr. Harris when Mr. Harris was running into the front door, would it be reasonable that he could in fact have been leading Mr. Harris and had the bullet go through the window and the curtain and strike Mrs. Weaver?
Mr. WEAVER. He couldn't have been leading him, because from that position, you can't see these rocks and stuff out here. There are other trees out here, further. You cannot lead anyone—at least from this distance to the porch, you cannot lead anything running through there because you cannot see it.
Senator SPECTER. Well, there is some point where special agent Horiuchi located on that line would see Mr. Harris as he approaches the door.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes. When he came running in behind us here, I believe-I told Sara, and we talked about it—he was waiting; he had the gun on my wife's head—
Senator SPECTER. You say he was waiting—special agent Horiuchi was waiting.
Mr. WEAVER [continuing]. Lon Horiuchi was waiting. He wanted to get two with one shot, and he did. He thought, when they hit the door—and we are so close together, you cannot separate us
Senator SPECTER. Your contention is that he deliberately
Mr. WEAVER. Shot Vicki
Senator SPECTER [continuing]. Wait a minute-that he deliberately and intentionally used one bullet to shoot both people—
Mr. WEAVER. Yes.
Senator SPECTER [continuing]. Mr. Harris and Mrs. Weaver.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes.
Senator SPECTER. Well, why do you say that there was no point here where special agent Horiuchi could not see Mr. Harris?
Mr. WEAVER. He could tell that we was running through there, but it is so broken up and concealed, that you cannot follow anybody running through there. He knew that we were running to that door. He placed his scope on the door, and when he saw motion go through that door, he pulled the trigger. He knew he was going to hit Vicki, and hoping to get somebody else; when we went through the door, he wanted to get two with one.
Senator SPECTER. But he did in fact fire at a time to hit Mr. Harris after the bullet passed through Mrs. Weaver, just as Mr. Harris was passing through the door.
Mr. WEAVER. Right, and at that very moment, he had just barely gotten beside and a little bit ahead of Sara; they was both trying to get in the door at the same time. He could have hit Sara. He could have hit me.
Senator SPECTER. And Mrs. Waver was standing, obviously, right at this point.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. And where was Mr. Harris at that precise time?
Mr. WEAVER. Let's see. I'm here, probably here; Sara's here
Senator SPECTER. And which way is Mrs. Weaver facing?
Mr. WEAVER. She had to be like this.
68
Senator SPECTER. Because the bullet entered on the right side of her face.
Mr. WEAVER. Right.
Senator SPECTER. And Mr. Harris is right beside her.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. And where does the bullet enter Mr. Harris?
Mr. WEAVER. In his left bicep, and it left a big tear, like the size of a—
Senator SPECTER. So Mrs. Weaver is in this position—
Mr. WEAVER. Uh-huh.
Senator SPECTER (continuing]. And Mr. Harris takes a shot here—
Mr. WEAVER. Right there.
Senator SPECTER (continuing]. When the bullet goes through Mrs. Weaver and hits Mr. Harris as he is running into the door.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. Well, Mr. Weaver, why isn't that consistent with what special agent Horiuchi claims is an effort to hit Mr. Harris?
Mr. WEAVER. If that was true, he's a damn lucky shot. He could not—he might be good, but he's not that good. We were all too packed together, too tight, too close, and like I say, he could not be leading Kevin.
Mr. GILMAN. He drew the picture.
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, yes, right. Well, Sara, too, Senator, Sara was like right here when that happened. Kevin was just, like, right here.
Senator SPECTER. Sara was behind Mr. Harris?
Mr. WEAVER. What happened, when we got to the—no, well, not to start with. We were running to the house———
Senator SPECTER. As Mr. Harris comes in the door Mr. WEAVER. Right as the bullet hit, Kevin come up on the porch; Sara and I were in the way, and he was trying to get behind the door, and he come up beside Sara, right here, and Sara's head was actually right here, Kevin would have been here, and I was right here.
Senator SPECTER. At the point where Mrs. Weaver is right here, and Harris is right here, with the bullet passing through the jaw into Harris' arm, where was Sara then?
Mr. WEAVER. About right here.
Senator SPECTER. So she is barely out of the line of fire.
Mr. WEAVER. Right.
Senator SPECTER. And, one more time, why isn't that consistent with special agent Horiuchi's effort to shoot Mr. Harris?
Mr. WEAVER. In that sense, it is, as far as him hitting him. But I believe he was trying to take my wife out first and hoping he would hit one of us three going through. That's the way I see it.
Senator SPECTER. Why do you believe he was trying to take your wife out first?
Mr. WEAVER. He had orders that he could and should—any adult—oh, yes, OK. The picture that Horiuchi drew, yes. He drew a picture for the FBI after he had done this, and he said that he saw two heads right here, like this, and then he changed his story later and said he did not see anybody.
69
Senator SPECTER. If Mr. Spence has the picture handy, we will take a look at it at this time.
Now, describe the situation, Mr. Weaver, with reference to this picture drawn by special agent Horiuchi.
Mr. WEAVER. OK. He said that this was two people. He says that he was aiming—that is pretty accurate. No one in our family is that—no one that was in the door, anyway, is that short, except the baby, and she was being held about right here.
Mr. SPENCE. And the lead; see where the lead is?
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, yes, yes. His mil-dot—I think that's what they call it, I do not know; that is my recollection.
Senator SPECTER. And this depicts Mr. Harris?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. And these are the two heads which Mr. Horiuchi says he saw?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SPECTER. OK. Thank you very much. Your attorney suggests that we put one more question on the record, and that is, when you fired the gun, does the bullet go where this mil-dot is, or where the crosshairs are?
Mr. WEAVER. The crosshairs; the mu-dot just indicates where the subject is, and by the time the subject gets to where the crosshairs are, he and the bullet come together—or she. But if the crosshairs are already there, steady, I mean, you are not leading him; you are just waiting.
Senator SPECTER. Senator Kohl.
Senator KOHL. Thank you very much.
Just one more question on that, Mr. Weaver, before we are finished. Did the door swing open and you and the others were running toward the cabin? The door was not open——
Mr. WEAVER. The door was open when Vicki came outside—we had a spring on that door, a bungie cord, and sometimes it was hooked, and sometimes it was not. If it was hooked, it would eventually slowly close itself. But my wife had come outside in front of the rock and asked what happened, and I yelled and told her I had been shot. She came back up on the porch and said, "Get in the house, get in the house." If it had swung shut, then she would have opened it back up, stood in to hold it, and I had a toolbox there on the porch, and that door, when you opened it as far as it would go, it would be perpendicular—that toolbox stopped it right there-and she had opened that all the way up, and we were trying to get through.
Senator KOHL. The reason I am asking the question is if the door was swung open by your wife as you and Kevin and your daughter were racing toward the door, then wouldn't the sniper have known that someone was behind that door?
Mr. WEAVER. I would think that he would assume there was if he could not see anybody. It is hard to say. Shouldn't assume anything. But I believe he knew my wife was holding the door. She was yelling, "Get in the house, get in the house." And then he claimed he—you know, out there, sound travels really well—he heard, us yelling, what we were yelling, and then he said after he
70
Senator KOHL. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Weaver, there is a certain mythology that has grown up surrounding your name that people are using or have used to talk about in relationship to an even justify violence of one sort or another, and I am thinking about what happened in Oklahoma City; we are thinking about Waco, and people are using your name as a justification for some of that violence. I would presume that that offends you a great deal.
Mr. WEAVER. Sir, I am so sick of that, and I am sick of my name being in the news, period. I never, ever wanted to lead anybody anywhere; I don't know. I want to be left alone and get on with my life and my kids. And I cannot be responsible for what other people do, but I'm not going to go out and lead them anywhere, I'll tell you that much.
Senator KOHL. Are you a different man today from what you were back then?
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, yes.
Senator KOHL. How would you describe yourself in basic ways as being different from what you were a few years ago?
Mr. WEAVER. I was always a pretty compassionate person. I am probably a hell of a lot more compassionate than that now. After you've seen things happen to people you love, like I did—I wouldn't have done that to anybody before, but it is hard to understand until you've been there.
[Pause.]
I don't know, like, what are you—I do not understand—have I changed—like how do you mean?
Senator KOHL. Your relationship to your community, your children, the larger world in which we all live.
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, yes. I—I do not know how to put how I have changed.
[Pause.]
Senator KOHL. What are your hopes for your children as they grow up?
Mr. WEAVER. What's that?
Senator KOHL. When you think about your children several years from now, how do you hope to see them?
Mr. WEAVER. With happy families and grandkids and living in peace.
Senator KOHL. Living in peace?
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, yes.
Senator KOHL. Obeying the law?
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, yes; yes, sir, yes, sir.
Senator KOHL. Good. All right. Well, I thank you very much, and with your permission, I would like to turn now to Mr. Spence, who has represented you through the-—yes, sir, would you like to say a few more words?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes. I would like to say this much. I owe so many people thank yous, apologies. I do not know how I could ever do it. I appreciate your time, your efforts. I love you all. This guy right here, as ornery as he is, he's a great guy. My family and friends and everyone that supported us, I appreciate it. I am going to say thank you to everybody now, because I'll never get it done or probably get another chance. Thank you very much.
Senator KOHL. We thank you for being here.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you.
Senator KOHL. I would like to turn now to Mr. Spence, who has been your lawyer. As has been said, he has worked pro bono, has not gotten paid a nickel for his representation of you, and he has, I would expect, a perspective on this whole Ruby Ridge episode that he perhaps would like to convey to us.
So, Mr. Spence, what would you like to say?
Mr. SPENCE. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, my views politically, my political views and my client's, surprisingly, do not match; and my religious views are quite different from his. I would feel more comfortable sitting on your lap, Senator Kohl, than I would be with the views of my client.
Yet we all see something that is very sacred to us, irrespective of what our personal views are, and that is our right to believe religiously as we please and our rights to believe politically as we please—even if those beliefs are repugnant to us individually.
And this case became a compelling case to me because that became the issue in the case. The prosecutor from the very beginning, the Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mr. Howen, from the very beginning attempted to prosecute this case based upon a process that we have learned to call "demonization," the demonization of this man. He told the grand jury all about the Aryan Nations, about an organization connected with the Aryan Nations called The Order, in which members of The Order allegedly robbed banks, burned down churches, and did a variety of other heinous acts, and suggested to the grant jury that members of The Order had their organizational headquarters just down the street from Boise; and then he began to try to tie Randy Weaver into that organization.
And it became a problem in the trial, because the first thing he did in his opening statement, the prosecuting attorney, was to mention the existing of the Aryan Nations and tried to tie Mr. Weaver to the Aryan Nations. And my objections always were, as I have just suggested to your Senators, that a person may not believe as we do, and his beliefs may be offensive to us, but he has the right to believe it in this country. Otherwise we leave to our Federal authorities the power to kill people with whom we disagree. That is something that happens in a totalitarian nation.
And I objected to this process throughout the trial, every chance I got, and every time I objected to it, the prosecutor rose to his feet and said to His Honor, "I will tie it up. I will show that there is relevance to it," and His Honor continued to let this kind of information come in.
I think if you were to check with the jury, that that was offensive to the jury as well, that we want not to have to believe as others believe, but we want to have the right for ourselves and others to believe as we choose.
So that became the primary issue in this case so far as I was concerned. The prosecution's case ultimately was so weak that we did not have to call Randy Weaver. This is the first time he has testified. There was no reason to put him through the misery that he has gone through today at the time of the trial.
We cross-examined most of them, 51 witnesses, and rested without calling a single witness of any kind in this case in his defense.
72
A few other things that I would like to say that I found shocking in the presentation by the officers. One of them was the fact that this little man became one of the 10 major cases, one of the major cases of the Marshals Service, and by virtue of that, by designating this little man and his family for the crime that was committed, so far as the marshals were concerned, the only crime he committed was his failure to appear—by virtue of that, they were able to bring in the SOG force, the special operational people, Mr. Degan and the others who, as Mr. Weaver stated, are trained killers, were trained killers.
Senator SPECTER. Mr. Spence, all the time allotted to Senator Kohl has expired. It is unusual to call on counsel, but when the ranking Democrat sought to do so, it is permissible. But we will give you, say, 5 more minutes to sum up.
Mr. SPENCE. Thank you. That is very kind of you.
They plotted—according to Mr. Weaver's religious beliefs at the time, and they are always changing—I have never seen a man search so hard, read the Bible so many times, search so many avenues as he has, and his viewpoints are changing, as he suggested, all the time—but one of their beliefs is that, according to the Old Testament, the women in the household were required to go to the birthing house during their menses, and the marshals, by their surveillance, discovered when Sara went to that house, and their own written documents here will attest to the fact that they intended to kidnap Sara and the other children when they came out to visit Sara in an effort to apprehend Randy Weaver. It shows you how far they were willing to go and how wild power had gotten, how uncontrolled.
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that at every stage of this game, every Federal agency involved exceeded and abused their power, beginning with the ATF, who took a decent citizen and made a criminal of him and charged him with the crime not of having sawed off a shotgun, but he was charged because he would not snitch for them. The next were the marshals, who killed this little boy, shot him, and then covered it up by making up stories about him having shot out of a pickup and a series of other stories that later proved to be false.
Then, the next thing that came along was the FBI with their hostage rescue team, and their abuse of their power and their coverup is replete. The Federal magistrate gave this man the wrong information and really was responsible in many ways for what happened here, because his resistance was not based on anything more than his fear that his home and consequently his family would be taken from him.
And finally, when there was an opportunity for the U.S. attorney to solve this matter by simply reassuring Mr. Weaver that if he would come down, that his wife and children and his home would be safe, he refused to do it.
So even through the trial, we found the FBI manufacturing evidence that did not exist. There was a magic bullet that you probably have all heard about that was manufactured here. They refused to provide exhibits when they should have been. The Horiuchi exhibit that you have seen was held by the FBI and kept from us until after the case was closed, or until after--excuse me— Horiuchi's testimony was completed.
Even at the time—Mr. Chairman, I am aware of my time—even at the time of the trial, Mr. Horiuchi's hostage rescue team was there, and took over the very corridor that the jury went up and down and had their machineguns underneath their blouses in the courtroom, or in the courthouse. It was quite reminiscent of frightening times that we have read about in the history books that refer to the Second World War.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.
Senator KOHL I thank you very much, Mr. Spence.
I met with Mr. Spence for a few hours at his home in Wyoming last week, and I was so impressed with him, I wanted to give him an opportunity to speak today.
You do not have a stronger advocate or a better friend, Mr. Weaver, than Mr. Spence.
Mr. SPENCE. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Spence.
Thank you, Senator Kohl.
Senator Thompson.
Senator THOMPSON. Mr. Weaver, I think we have gone over most of the important points, but I just have a couple of other questions concerning the circumstances surrounding your wife's death.
I was sitting here, listening to you relate your theory as to what happened and why it happened and how it may have happened. You were shot there at the shed. They said you were aiming at a helicopter, or something. I think you addressed that while I was out of the room. You said, basically, that if there had been a helicopter out there, you wouldn't have been; is that basically right?
Mr. WEAVER. That's right.
Senator THOMPSON. Then you ran back to the house. How far is it from the shed to the cabin? Could you perhaps use this room to describe the distance?
Mr. WEAVEJI. I'd say from the corner back there—
Senator THOMPSON. Back here, where this gentleman is sitting?
Mr. WEAVER [continuing]. Yes—coming around the rock and maybe into about where these ladies are sitting, right back here.
Senator THOMPSON. All right. What is that—40, 50 yards?
Mr. WEAVER. That sounds—50 yards, probably, maximum.
Senator THOMPSON. Getting back to when your wife opened the door, I take it you do net know exactly when she did that. Could she have opened it when she heard the gunshot fired?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir. When she heard the gunshot, she had been in the house, and she came out, off the porch, yelling over those rocks that were out front, and she said, "What happened?" And then, after I told her, and we were already running to the house, she got back on the porch and said, "Get in the house, get in the house."
Senator THOMPSON. All right. She got there before you did; is that right?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. And held the door open for the rest of you?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
74
Senator THOMPSON. So about how long was she standing there, holding the door open for the rest of you, before the first one of you, which was yourself~ arrived? Were you halfway there?
Mr. WEAVER. Ten seconds, probably.
Senator THOMPSON. Ten seconds?
Mr. WEAVER. Ten to fifteen seconds..
Senator THOMPSON. And during that period of time, you were running to the house, and you say the view from the sniper's standpoint would have been obstructed, and he would not basically have been able to follow you all the way to the house?
Mr. WEAVER. That's true.
Senator THOMPSON. So that would have been 10 or 15 seconds that, if he had wanted to, he could have trained on that open door, which he could have seen—
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON [continuing]. Is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. Now, you and Kevin and Sara were out at the shed; is that right?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. That just left Mrs. Weaver and Rachel—who is how old— Mr. WEAVER. Ten.
Senator THOMPSON. [Continuing]. Ten—and the little baby—
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON [continuing]. In the shed.
Mr. WEAVER. In the house.
Senator THOMPSON. In the house. So I take it from the vantage point of those who had you under surveillance, they would have known anybody in the house would have had to have been your wife or two small children; right?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. Well, I must say that from that—we will perhaps never know the answer to it.—but from that, there is a certain plausibility to your theory in terms of how it could have happened. If in fact he could not have seen you and been following you for that period of time, that is a pretty long stretch of time and space. The first question, I guess, is that somebody with the ability to hit a quarter at 200 yards, why he did not shoot you before you got there, if he could have seen you. And of course, your answer is he could not see you, basically.
Mr. WEAVER. Off and on, he could probably see real quick glimpses of us, our heads or whatever, running different places. We weren't running—it wasn't like a flat out fast run, either. because the ground is rough, and coming around the rocks, you've got to watch—you can trip real easy—and besides that, I wasn't feeling too good myself, and I was not in what you'd call a dead run. It was more like a——
Senator THOMPSON. So it took a little while to get there, and he
would have had a clear and unobstructed view for 10 or 15 seconds of that open door.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
75
Senator THOMPSON. And if he saw two heads in that door, he would have had to have known that it was either your wife or one of two small children?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator THOMPSON. I believe that's all I have.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Thompson.
Senator Leahy?
Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weaver, what time of day was this?
Mr. WEAVER. I believe it was abut 5:30 in the afternoon, sir.
Senator LEAHY. What was the light at that time of day?
Mr. WEAVER. Good.
Senator LEAHY. Was the sun high, or was it near the horizon?
Mr. WEAVER. I believe it was overcast, but it was—I do not remember it misting or raining or anything yet. I think it started to rain later on that evening.
Senator LEAHY. What direction does the door face?
Mr. WEAVER. West.
Senator LEAHY. So the light would be on the door at that time, what light there might be?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. And you have electricity in your cabin, do you not?
Mr. WEAVER. Only when the generator is running.
Senator LEAHY. I see. Were the lights on in the cabin at that time of day?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator LEAHY. If your lights go on only with a generator, would it be normal not to have the generator on at that time of day?
Mr. WEAVER. We usually only use the generator for a vacuum cleaner, once in a while to watch the news on TV or a movie for he kids. Normally, we had propane lights that were very bright.
Senator LEAHY. You had TV, radio.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir. Senator LEAHY. No telephone?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator LEAHY. Let us back up a little bit to where Kevin Harris came back after the confrontation with the marshals. Did he tell you that he had shot a marshal?
Mr. WEAVER. He said that he thought he had shot a marshal, yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. And he knew that it was a marshal?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. Did he know that he had killed the marshal?
Mr. WEAVER. He said he thought that he had shot a marshal. We heard on the news the next day that they said that we had killed marshal.
Senator LEAHY. What did he, say, as near as you can recollect, about the shooting?
Mr. WEAVER. He just—when he came up, he said, "Weaver, I think I shot a marshal" and—
Senator LEAHY. That's it?
Mr. WEAVER. From all the court testimony and everything I saw, I still believe its possible that when he fired his third round.
76
Larry Cooper could have shot Marshal Degan at the same time, and he fell, and Kevin might have thought that he hit somebody. But these guys were so hard to see, and Degan, Mr. Degan, was closer to Cooper—in fact, he was right in front of him—when Cooper said he was shooting over the top rock like this—
Senator LEAHY. I think your counsel wants a word with you.
(Pause.]
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Spence wanted me to tell you about the fact that, according to testimony, Mr. Degan had covered at least 22 feet of ground, fired 7 rounds, and in doing this, he ran right in front of Larry Cooper's position, and it was late in the testimony that we found out—I think it was Chuck Peterson, one of the attorneys—
Mr. SPENCE. Kent.
Mr. WEAVER [continuing]. Kent found that—was checking out Mr. Degan's backpack and found out that he had actually been shot through the backpack once or twice—I can't remember now; at least once. And what I was thinking was, when he got shot through the backpack, which the bullet apparently did not hit him, he was going in front of Cooper, he turned and said, "What's going on?" and then, the way everything was sitting, the position and everything, Larry Cooper could have shot Marshal Degan at the same time that Kent fired his third round, and Kevin saw this guy fall and maybe—he heard Sam get hit.
Senator LEAHY. And what kind of a gun, what kind of weapon was Mr. Harris carrying?
Mr. WEAVER. A 30.06.
Senator LEAHY. That was the bolt action?
Mr. WEAVER. Bolt action, right.
Senator LEAHY. Was he carrying a handgun?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, I believe Kevin had a .22 pistol on him.
Senator LEAHY. To your knowledge, after the surrender, was that bolt action 30.06 confiscated by the Federal authorities?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. And the pistol?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. So if they wanted to do ballistics or forensics tests with it, they could?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. Did he say anything more about the shooting?
Mr. WEAVER. Just that he was feeling bad—he wished—he thought he'd hit the marshal and he said, "I wish I hadn't done that." Other than that, no. You know, we never even talked about this stuff very much. When we made our statement, that one statement come out of the house, that is the most in-depth any of us said anything about anything. We just took turns talking. We didn't even want to talk about it.
Senator LEAHY. Then, let us go to—and I realize how difficult this is for you, Mr. Weaver, and I commented to one of the other Senators that if faced with a similar thing, I think I would find it very, very difficult to be testifying—but take the time shortly after your wife was killed; Kevin Harris was injured. Then, am I correct from your testimony, at that point the FBI tried to speak to you over a loudspeaker?
77
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. What did they say?
Mr. WEAVER. I can't remember. I can't remember the exact words they said any time; I just can't.
Senator LEAHY. There was a time, then, when they sent a robot device up to the cabin with a telephone on it; is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. And why did you not use the telephone?
Mr. WEAVER. Why—what was that, sir?
Senator LEAHY. Why did you not use the telephone that was on the robot?
Mr. WEAVER. I was afraid to show my face anywhere, through a curtain or anything. And my daughters—if I stood up straight in the house, my daughters would freak out—"Get down, Dad, get down, get down."
Senator LEAHY. Did you have any kind of communication device in the house yourself, a CB radio, or anything?
Mr. WEAVi~R. No, sir.
Senator LEAHY. So that if you had wanted to communicate at that point, you'd have to communicate with that telephone or nothing else, is that right—or scream?
Mr. WEAVER. I yelled through the walls, yes.
Senator LEAHY. Now, were you aware that listening devices had been placed on or around your cabin?
Mr. WEAVER. I didn't, no, sir. I didn't know what they were doing. I figured—I heard that they were putting an explosive charge, and that's what I figured they were probably doing.
Senator LEAKY. Did you think your cabin was bugged?
Mr. WEAVER. Before this?
Senator LEAHY. No, no; after the shooting.
Mr. WEAVER. Oh, I really didn't think about it and didn't care.
Senator LEAHY. Did you at any time do anything that would communicate as though the FBI had a bugging device there?·
Mr. WEAVER. What was that question again?
Senator LEAHY. Well, let me phrase it another way. The FBI had used a loudspeaker to call to you.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator LEAHY. They sent the robot up with a telephone, and you have explained why you did not want to expose yourself to any people to try to go out and pick it up. Did you think that the FBI had any other way of hearing what you were saying?
Mr. WEAVER. I figured that anybody standing outside the house could hear me screaming at them. I remember they had me—to start with, before they used the robot, they were saying, "Could you repeat that? Could you yell louder?" And I was standing in this one spot, and then we could hear people in the house, and I thought, they are trying to locate me—somebody is around the house, trying to locate exactly where I'm standing, and they want me to keep repeating myself I thought they were going to shoot me through the floor, and I just shut up. I said they are trying to locate where I'm at. That's what I figured.
Senator LEAHY. Going back prior to the shooting and after you knew that your son had been shot, and Kevin Harris said that he
78
had shot a marshal, did you consider turning yourself in at that point?
Mr. WEAVER. No, I didn't, not until—no, I didn't think that was going to be allowed.
Senator LEAHY. What do you mean, "allowed"?
Mr. WEAVER. I figured if I come out and said, "Here I am," I was going to die right then.
Senator LEAHY. Had you discussed that with your wife and Kevin Harris, the possibility of surrendering?
Mr. WEAVER. My wife was dead—after—
Senator LEAHY. No. I'm talking about from the time of the shooting of your son and the shooting of the marshal; between that time and the shooting at the cabin, had you discussed with Kevin Harris and your wife the possibility of surrendering?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, we probably discussed a lot of that stuff, but the thing was, we heard on the radio their side of the story already, and I wasn't planning on getting a fair shake on the gun charge let alone murdering a U.S. marshal, like I was charged like they were saying on the radio. But I was willing to talk to them. I wanted our side of the story out, and I wanted to come out. I wanted them to talk to me, and I come outside that day, hoping that there was somebody on a bullhorn to talk. I wanted to talk about it.
Senator LEAHY. But there was no approach made to talk to you prior to the shooting by the sniper?
Mr. WEAVER. No, sir.
Senator LEAHY. The last thing—and I realize that in each one of these steps, I have been going backwards in time, Mr. Weaver, but I just want to make absolutely clear on a question asked of you this morning by another Senator. There were people who owned land adjacent to you, a Beverly and Ed Torrance; is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Well, yes. I believe her dad owned the land, yes.
Senator LEAHY. But it has been reported that they told the marshals that you had said—and this was now prior to the shooting of the marshals or anything else—they were reported in September 1991 as having said that you were expecting federal agents to come to your home, that you were not going to be arrested by anyone, and that you would rather fight than go peaceably. Is any of that true?
Mr. WEAVER. I don't think that was my frame of mind at that time, no, sir.
Senator LEAHY. Might you have said something like that in a sense of bravado or braggadocio?
Mr. WEAVER. That's possible, especially after later on in the situation, when things got tight.
Senator LEAHY. By "later on," you mean prior to the shooting of the marshal and the shooting of your son?
Mr. WEAVER. Not—I don't know, sir. I don't remember. I don't remember making that statement. But Ed Torrance, I remember, made a bunch of statements about me, I think, more than that, and I remember he made a lot of stuff up. And Ed Torrance, I believe— I am not positive-I think he was like a part-time deputy. Ed Torrance was mad at me because I wouldn’t let people through my property to get up and check land at his place, which I had the
79
legal right to do. I had the legal right to block my road off and not let anyone through. And he went to court some time, and somebody said that I was wrong, and later on, we found out that I was right about it. I was in jail at that time.
We were not getting along, Mr. Torrance and I weren't. He was up there trying to sell property, and I don't remember making that statement to him.
Senator LEAHY. Mr. Weaver, my time is up on this, and I unfortunately have to go to another matter. I do appreciate you testifying. As I said, I am not sure I would want to, and I can imagine it is difficult for you and your daughter, and I suspect you and I, while we might not agree on a lot of things philosophically, we probably both agree that we wish there was some way to turn the clock all the way back and start this thing anew.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
Senator LEAHY. Thank you.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Mr. Weaver, would you care to have a recess?
Mr. WEAVER. Sure. That would be great.
Senator SPECTER. We will take a 5-minute recess.
[Short recess.]
Senator SPECTER. Mr. Weaver, if you wouldn't mind taking your position again, we now have a round of questions from Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein, you may proceed.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weaver, I hope to wrap this up, and I really thank you for your cooperation.
Mr. WEAVER. You are welcome.
Senator FEINSTEIN. As I understand it, the distance between— and I just want to clear this up about the FBI sniper specialist— the distance from where he was to where you were at the birthing shed was 579 feet, and the distance from where he was and the front door of your house was 646 feet. So it was quite a ways away.
I put that photograph—could you tell me the overhang over the front door, the green—it looks like a corrugated material—that overhang—how wide it was, how much it penetrated from the house?
Mr. WEAVER. The narrow part was probably 5 to 6 feet and the wide part 8 feet.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Eight feet. And that door was directly under that overhang; is that correct?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And the sniper was northerly of the house, 646 feet away, as I look at it, directly at right angles?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. So he could no way, no how, see flesh in the doorway. And your wife, as I look at it, was behind the door, opening the door.
Mr. WEAVER. Right.
Senator FEINSTEIN. There are no tiebacks on the curtains, so the curtains were most probably moving somewhat. How would it be possible for a specialist 646 feet away, under an overhang, at 5:30
80
in the afternoon, with no light behind your wife, to possibly see that there was someone behind that door?
Mr. WEAVER. Well, there would have been light behind my wife because she was outside, and he was looking across the porch, and behind her, there was no wall.
Senator FEINSTEIN. But the curtains were directly in front of her. We know the bullet went through the curtain.
Mr. WEAVER. Right. They weren't totally—you could see through those in the center there somewhat. And he said that he can shoot a quarter at that distance that he was shooting from—
Mr. SPENCE. Quarter of an inch.
Mr. WEAVER [continuing]. Quarter of an inch, is that what he said? If he can hit it within a quarter of an inch at that distance, those curtains don't have to be open that far. And with the other statements, like what Mr. Rogers told Mr. Gritz and all that—I mean, something that serious, when Bo asked Dick Rogers why they had to kill Mrs. Weaver, I think is the way he said it, Dick Rogers didn't say, "Oh, that was an accident"; he said, "We had to take her out of the equation because we was afraid she would kill her children."
Senator FEINSTEIN. I read Mr. Horiuchi's testimony, and I believe what he said is that he was leading Mr. Harris with his scope—
Mr. WEAVER. Right.
Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. And fired and did not see your wife behind the door. Based on the door that we now see today, the curtains and how they are, the fact that it was open, the absence of visibility, you cannot be certain that he saw your wife.
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Horiuchi's story changed at least twice, three, maybe four times. Our stories never changed, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. Well, we will be sure and ask him.
Mr. WEAVER. OK
Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me clear up one other thing. When your son left your home, he had two weapons with him. Was this the Ruger mini-14 rifle and the .357 magnum? Were those the weapons he was carrying when he left the house?
Mr. WEAVER. My son, Sam?
Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. And were you aware that he had these weapons?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Why was he leaving the house with these two weapons, a 14-year-old youngster? You mentioned because you thought there might be animals.
Mr. WEAVER. Weapons were a hobby with my kids as well as myself. Yes, wild animals, and at this particular time, ma'am, if I had known that the dog was going after anything besides animals, I would not let my little boy go running down through those woods, no way. I'd rather—no way.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you recall, when the marshal first saw you, him shouting at you, "Back off—U.S. marshal"?
Mr. WEAVER. That’s not what he said
81
Mr. WEAVER. No.
Senator FELNSTEIN. Do you happen to recall what he did say?
Mr. WEAVER. What I believe he said was, "Freeze, Randy," and I just cussed at him, and I ran back to the house.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. I would like to clear something up, because there is quite a mix of evidence here, and that is the 1985 letter dated May 6, 1985 that you wrote to President Reagan, which in essence—and I am paraphrasing—indicates that you believed someone forged your signature on a letter which I gather contained a threat to the President. And you are saying that this was a forgery. Do you recall that letter?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Could you discuss and tell us the circumstances under which you wrote this letter?
Mr. WEAVER. Our apology letter?
Senator FEINSTEIN. It's an apology letter, that is correct.
Mr. WEAVER. It was probably my wife's idea, and that was quite an emotional thing that we went through at that time. We could not believe that these people had set us up in this matter, and after they had done that, the Federal agents didn't care about the people going to all this trouble to set us up on this charge, send the President this letter and get him involved in this. And we wanted to apologize for trouble to him, trouble to the country, whatever.
Senator FEINSTEIN. What I understand is that the original threat against President Reagan was not written; rather, it was made orally, allegedly to neighbors, by yourself. Do you recall that?
Mr. WEAVER. No, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. And the neighbors then reported the threat to the Secret Service.
Mr. WEAVER. Is that what—wait a minute—I didn't hear the first part. Did you say that they never wrote a letter?
Senator FEINSTEIN. That there was never an original letter, I have just been told, but allegedly you made a threat about the President to your neighbors, and the neighbors reported it to the Secret Service. Are you aware of that?
Mr. WEAVER. No, that's the first time I knew that, but can I say something?
Senator FEINSTEIN. Certainly.
Mr. WEAVER. We had witnesses. These people that made this claim sat at Deep Creek Inn and conspired to do this whole story in front of witnesses, and these witnesses are the ones that came and warned us about the fact that they were doing it. I could give you the names of the people that were witnesses to that whole conspiracy.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Why would they do that? Why would they conspire to set you up that way?
Mr. WEAVER. They did not like my racial and political views. ma'am, I’d rather you ask them that. I don't like to talk about that. But the FBI and the Secret Service did later admit that they knew the whole thing was a hoax.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. Let us go to another letter if we can, dated February 3, 1991. Now, this is that year 1991, and your trial is coming up, and this is a letter signed, “Mrs. Vicki Weaver,” and
82
it is addressed to "The Servant of the Queen of Babylon, Maurice
0. Ellsworth, U.S. Attorney," and it is addressed to the Federal Building in Boise, ID. And it says: "Please pass the attached message up the line of your chain of command." It goes on to say: "Yah Yashua, the Messiah of Saxon Israel, is our advocate and our judge. The stink of your lawless government has reached heaven, the abode of Yahweh or Yashua. Whether we live or whether we die, we will not bow to your evil commandments."
Are you aware of this letter sent by your wife?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. Could you explain why this letter was sent and what the meaning of it is?
Mr. WEAVER. I wish she was here to explain that, but I'll tell you, it was her frame of mind. It was like we had been picked on for so many years, so long, because of our beliefs and everything, we were at that time probably in the frame of mind that we were being persecuted for those beliefs, and she was just—we had come to a point where we believed that the Government was very lawless and become the new Babylon, and she was just totally frustrated.
But it's like, you know, we never went looking for trouble. We stayed home, and it's like it just kept coming to us. In 1985, we were snowed in all that winter. We didn't know this was coming down, what these people were doing to us. People had to come and tell us what was happening. After so much time, you start to get frustrated.
Senator FEINSTEIN. I believe my time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Weaver.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein.
Mr. Weaver, I just have a few more questions for you.
I have talked to Mrs. Karen Degan, the wife of deputy marshal Degan, to express our regrets, as we had expressed our regrets to you, and I talked to her with her attorney, Tom Kiley, Esquire. And she asked me to ask a few questions, which I would like to propound to you at this time.
One was her interest in knowing why you kept your family in the secluded spot and why you had trained, or permitted your children to carry guns.
Mr. WEAVER. (Pause.] Was that a two-part question? Why I was in a secluded spot—peace and quiet.
Senator SPECTER. Why you kept your family in such a remote spot.
Mr. WEAVER. Peace and quiet.
Senator SPECTER. And why you encouraged them to have guns, illustratively, with your daughter's gun strapped to her waist.
Mr. WEAVER. My children—like I said, weapon's was a hobby, and my children enjoyed weapons, like lots of neighbor kids did. Right from the beginning, I taught them safety rules, told them never to point them at anybody, which they did not—my children had a lot of common sense, and they did not ever play wildly with weapons. They enjoyed them.
83
Senator SPECTER. Mrs. Degan also asks why you had so many guns and why you had so much ammunition, as much as 20,000 rounds of ammunition.
Mr. WEAVER. So many guns—there were times in my life when I had more guns than that. That really wasn't very many, actually, compared to lots of people. I know a judge that has a collection of over 2,000 guns. But so many bullets—like I said, about 10,000 of those bullets had been given to me by someone not too long before all this happened.
When I left Iowa and moved to Idaho, I had in my mind that I wasn't going to be—I might have work at certain times, and I might not at certain times, and I had bought quite a few rounds of ammunition before I left there, when I still had the money to do it. And I know people that's got a lot more rounds than that. And like, when I say we was of the frame of mind that some day, there might be, say, a breakdown of Government or a natural disaster or whatever, and when you're in a situation like that, it's like a survival situation, and you can't go back down to the store and buy bullets.
Senator SPECTER. And Mrs. Karen Degan also asked for the inquiry to be made as to why you fought your battle with guns instead of fighting your battle in the courts.
Mr. WEAVER. We didn't fight a battle with guns until they fired first, and we held off for months and months and never went looking for trouble. And I would have gone to court if I at that time would have trusted the court, and up to then, I didn't.
Senator SPECTER. Mr. Weaver, a few final questions on some of the information that may be presented by the Government that I would like to ask you about now, since you will not be returning.
According to information provided by Mr. Terry Kinson, you had talked about assassinating the President of the United States and other governmental officials. You had said you would like to be the one who kills the President, the Governor, or any other lawm enforcement officials. Also you and a Frank Kumnick had spoken of burning churches, with threats being specifically directed toward Catholic churches; and that you had spoken of assassinating various officials of the Catholic Church including priests, bishops and the Pope.
What is your response to that?
Mr. WEAVER. Terry Kinson is a flat liar. Terry Kinson—I could sit here and tell you a lot of things about Terry Kinson. That's just like him badmouthing me. He's one of the guys I told the FBI and the Secret Service, I said, "Have you checked the background on these guys?" when they were coming down on me, and they said no. And I said, "Well, you'd better do that." But you know what? They didn't care. They just dropped the case and went home. Vicki and I never thought that was quite fair.
I would love to have anybody with the time and the effort to go and check Mr. Kinson's background, and you'll find out that he's a liar and a deceiver and a thief, and on and on and on and on.
Senator SPECTER. And Mr. Kermit Black reported his conclusion of you being a dangerous individual because your driveway was, as he put it, “rigged with bombs.”
84
Mr. WEAVER. You know what? I probably talked to Kermit Black two or three times in my life. I remember who he was. He used to hang out at the gun shop. That, I can't believe he did that. I don't know why, because I didn't even hardly know the guy. That was total, made up baloney.
Mr. Specter, Chairman Specter, I'm going to tell you what. Just like the bailiff making up the story, like Herb Byerle making up lying about me resisting arrest on the road when they arrested me on the gun charges and all that, they were making a profile out of ne to the U.S. marshals later on—lie, lie, lie.
I don't know why, as far as Mr. Black, Mr. Byerle. Kinson and I had a tiff, but you have to ask them that question. Totally false.
Senator SPECTER. And reports from neighbors that you would shoot any law enforcement authorities who entered the property and that you supported and encouraged violence as a means to achieve your political and religious goals.
Mr. WEAVER. All I can say to that is I didn't quite have an army big enough to even attempt such—I'd like to talk to the neighbors that said this stuff I had a lot of neighbors out there that would tell you just the opposite.
And that's another thing. It seems like when most of this comes down, as far as the Federal officers were concerned, investigators, or whatever, they didn't ever, ever quote any of my friends. All they ever did was quote people that didn't like me. And I admit, not everyone in the world loves Randy Weaver.
Senator SPECTER. And comments from Ms. Ruth Rau about your being bigoted against African-Americans, wanting to kill all the Jews and members of the Zionist-organized government?
Mr. WEAVER. Not true. I never said that. You know, she made a statement once, too, about—she said I couldn't wait to have a shoot-out with the Federal Government. That's crazy. I mean, I'm not the smartest man in the world, but I'm not totally nuts. That would be a stupid thing to want, and she made that up. She made that up, and I've explained to you before—I don't hate people because of being a different race. I don't hate anybody. I believe there are good and bad in every race, and I have always taught that, I have always said that.
Senator SPECTER. Any further questions, Senator Kohl?
Senator KOHL. Yes, just a couple.
I do not know if you have answered this question, Mr. Weaver, but what would you have done if the marshals had just come knocking and said, "Look, you belong in court. We are here to ask you to accompany us to go to court, very peaceably, without any violence"? What would you have done?
Mr. WEAVER. I'll tell you the way I would have liked to have it done. I would have liked Bruce Whittaker, the local county sheriff, to bring a warrant up and come and say, "Weaver, I've got a warrant for your arrest," and I would have walked out with him.
Senator KOHL. All right. Have you ever shot a gun at anybody?
Mr. WEAVER. Never.
Senator KOHL. All right.
85
Senator KOHL. All right. And you sold your property out on Ruby Ridge?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator KOHL. You just decided to move out, move back to Iowa?
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.
Senator KOHL. You got a reasonable price for the property and just decided to leave?
Mr. WEAVER. Well, actually, I left first, and then I made the deal on the property later, yes, sir.
Senator KOHL. All right. And finally, it has been about 3 years now since the incident. Do you have an employment history in those 3 years?
Mr. WEAVER. Do I have what, sir?
Senator KOHL. Employment. Are you working at a job, or have you worked at a job?
Mr. WEAVER. Well, it's kind of like a housewife that takes care of the kids.
Senator KOHL. That's a job.
Mr. WEAVER. That's a real good job, and Vicki and I always believed that the parents—the mother —should be home with the kids. My kids don't have one right now, and I'm kind of playing that role—as lousy as I do it, I'm trying to do it, and—I don't know. My frame of mind in the last 3 years, I don't think you'd want to hire me to go out and do much of anything for you, because I'd waste a lot of time; it's hard to concentrate on a lot of things. But that's what I do—take care of the kids at home.
Senator KOHL. All right. We thank you for being here today, Mr. Weaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPECTER. Any; final questions, Senator Feinstein?
Senator FEINSTEIN. Just a couple of quick questions just to clear the record here. When you were arrested, Mr. Weaver, by the BATF on January 17, 1991, did you attempt to grab one of the agent's guns?
Mr. WEAVER. No, ma'am.
Senator FEINSTEIN. That is not correct; OK.
Mr. WEAVER. And I did not make a comment about, "You'll never fool me again." That was made up.
Senator FEINSTEIN. You never said, "You'll never do that again.
Mr. WEAVER. I did not say that.
Senator FEINSTEIN. OK.
Mr. WEAVER. And when I started hearing all this stuff—
Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPECTER. Mr. Weaver, we thank you very much for stepping forward. Many members of the subcommittee have expressed with regret about the entire incident, and we have articulated and identified many questions which have been raised, we have asked you many questions, and we intend to continue to ask others who were parties to these transactions to respond as well.
Now, you have your daughter Sara with you, and I had discussed with you, counsel, and Sara a few moments ago during the break.
That was Mr Weavers version which, by any American Citizens standards, was a complete travesty of Weavers Civil Rights and cover up (I would say 'attempts of' a "cover up" but as you'll see, they succeeded) as provided for under the Constitution of The United States and, showing complete disregard of said rights by an overzealous, out of control bunch of cowboys with badges which, this being September 10, 2011 was not the last time tyranny has exploded into the bodies of American Citizens, Waco for one comes to mind but most recently with the creation of Homeland Security, a nobly intended result Muslim Terrorists bringing down the 911 Twin Towers but with the destruction of the Constitutional Protections given us by our Noble Founding Fathers which are all but trashed now with the Executive branch in conjunction with the Legislative Branch making mute the intended checks and balances of the Senate and most importantly, the "Peoples House Representatives" - just sayin !
Below is the official version of the Governments case against Weavers Family;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CRM
FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 1997 (202) 616-2777
TDD (202) 514-1888
EVIDENCE FROM INVESTIGATION OF 1992 RUBY RIDGE MATTER ONLY
SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE ONE OFFICIAL WITH CRIMINAL CONDUCT
Disciplinary Penalties Being Weighed for Others
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- After an exhaustive investigation
involving hundreds of interviews and the review of hundreds of
thousands of pages of documents, the Justice Department announced
today that the available evidence does not support further
criminal prosecutions of FBI officials arising from the August
1992 incidents, at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and their aftermath.
In October 1996, E. Michael Kahoe, Chief of the FBI's
Violent Crimes and Major Offenders Section, was charged with, and
later pleaded guilty to, obstruction of justice charges relating
to his destruction of an FBI "After Action Critique" on the Ruby
Ridge matter. He is scheduled for sentencing on September 11.
The Department's Justice Management Division will propose
what, if any, disciplinary sanctions should be imposed on any
other individuals. Their recommendation will follow a review by
the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility
(OPR), which has been furnished with the investigation's
findings.
The criminal investigation examined events both during and
after the crisis to determine whether there was evidence
sufficient to support the criminal prosecution of any federal law
enforcement officers.
A recommendation against criminal prosecution was made after
an investigation by the United States Attorney's Office for the
District of Columbia, led by Michael R. Stiles, the United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The
recommendation was approved by the Attorney General.
While the prosecutors conducted a thorough, nationwide
investigation, the evidence was insufficient to warrant a
criminal prosecution.
Scope of the Criminal Investigation
The investigative team used a variety of techniques to
collect all available evidence in this matter. They gathered
large amounts of documentary material that had never come to
light during prior internal inquiries into the events at Ruby
Ridge. FBI offices were searched, and more than half a million
pages of documents were obtained and analyzed. Previously
unreviewed files containing the bulk of FBI Headquarters records
relating to the crisis, including files from the FBI's Strategic
Information and Operations Center (SIOC) and the Violent Crimes
and Major Offenders Section.
Investigators also conducted more than 600 interviews
involving 378 witnesses. Many of the witnesses hold key
positions, particularly in FBI Headquarters and the SIOC, and had
never been questioned in any detail about the matter before. The
investigation was also conducted in connection with a federal
grand jury.
In addition, toll records relating to 226,960 telephone
calls were examined, 143 exhibits were submitted to the FBI
Laboratory, and another 97 were sent to the Postal Inspection
Service Laboratory for examination. Two hundred eighty-nine
computer hard drives and 351 disks from the FBI were also
examined for pertinent material.
Investigators also thoroughly reviewed the investigative
work product and conclusions of the six prior investigations and
inquiries into the 1992 Ruby Ridge matter. That record included
more than 500 witness interviews, sworn statements and
transcribed testimony.
The Ruby Ridge criminal investigative team consisted of
experienced federal prosecutors from Philadelphia and Washington,
D.C.; Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agents, including
agents with experience in the FBI's Inspection Division,
Independent Counsel investigations and Office of Professional
Responsibility matters; and United States Postal Inspectors
versed in complex white collar cases.
The Incidents at Ruby Ridge
On August 21, 1992, Deputy United States Marshal William
Degan and Samuel Weaver were killed at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, during
a confrontation between the Marshals Service and Randall Weaver,
Samuel Weaver, and Kevin Harris.
The following day, a member of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team,
Lon Horiuchi, fired two shots. The first shot struck and wounded
Randall Weaver. The second shot struck both Vicki Weaver and
Harris, killing Vicki Weaver instantly and wounding Harris. A
stand-off between law enforcement and the occupants of the Weaver
family cabin ultimately resulted in the surrender of Randall
Weaver and Kevin Harris to the FBI.
Initial Inquiries and Discipline
In July of 1993, a task force was formed by former Deputy
Attorney General Phillip Heymann to investigate allegations
concerning the conduct of federal law enforcement at Ruby Ridge.
The investigation, supervised by Justice Department attorney
Barbara Berman and FBI Inspector Robert E. Walsh, was conducted
from July 1993 to June 10, 1994. The FBI issued a report on
January 19, 1994, and the Justice Department attorneys issued
their report on June 10, 1994.
On July 13, 1994, the former Deputy Attorney General
referred the Justice Department's report to the Justice
Department's Civil Rights Division for a determination of whether
a criminal civil rights prosecution was warranted. After
reviewing the evidence gathered by the Task Force, the Civil
Rights Division declined prosecution, finding insufficient
evidence of a willful violation of the Weavers' or Kevin Harris'
civil rights.
Following the conclusion of the Task Force investigation,
the FBI conducted an administrative review of the findings of the
Task Force. The purpose of the review was to determine what
administrative action, if any, should be taken as a result of the
Task Force's findings. The review, led by FBI Inspector Charles
Mathews, III, was conducted between October 1994 and January
1995. A final administrative report was issued on January 27,
1995.
As a result of the Mathews review, the FBI disciplined 12
employees on January 5, 1995. This included letters of censure
for then-FBI Deputy Director Potts and Danny Coulson (former
Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Criminal Investigation
Division) and more severe discipline for others--including Eugene
Glenn, Special Agent-In-Charge, Salt Lake City, Utah, who was the
highest ranking FBI official at the scene.
The Potts and Coulson letters of censure were based on
claimed failures in management, but also commented that:
"neither Potts nor Coulson nor any other FBI
Headquarters official approved or were aware of the
improper ("can and should") Rules of Engagement."
On the other hand, Glenn's letter of disciplinary action
stated that:
"As on-scene commander you approved Rules of Engagement
... [that] could reasonably have been interpreted to
direct law enforcement officers to act contrary to FBI
policy and law."
Those rules of engagement, which were employed at Ruby
Ridge, provided that:
a) if any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the
[surrender] announcement, deadly force can and should be
employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any
children.
b) If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon
after the surrender announcement is made, and is not
attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be
employed to neutralize the individual.
c) If compromised by any animal (dog), that animal should be
eliminated.
d) Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicky [sic]
Weaver, Kevin Harris, presenting threats of death or
grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in
effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death
or grievous bodily injury to one's self [sic] or that of
another.
Following the FBI disciplinary action, SAC Glenn wrote a
letter to OPR Counsel Michael Shaheen on May 3, 1995. Glenn
alleged that the administrative review was designed to cover up
the responsibility of higher level FBI officials for the events
at Ruby Ridge. Specifically, Glenn wrote that Potts told him
during the crisis that he had approved the Rules of Engagement,
and Coulson at one point reminded him to act in conformity with
the Rules of Engagement. Glenn, therefore, claimed that FBI
Headquarters had approved the Rules of Engagement. In May 1995,
the Justice Department's OPR began an investigation of Glenn's
allegations.
As a result of the Justice Department's OPR investigation,
on July 11, 1995, Kahoe was placed on administrative leave with
pay by the FBI. On August 11, 1995, Potts, Coulson, Evans and
Anthony A. Betz, former FBI Domestic Terrorism Chief, were also
placed on administrative leave with pay.
Mandate of the Criminal Investigation
Based on information uncovered in the course of the OPR
investigation begun in April 1995, a criminal referral was made
to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia,
resulting in an investigation by a criminal investigative team
assembled just for this matter. Eric Holder, then United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia, recused himself from this
matter. The Attorney General appointed Michael R. Stiles, United
States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to
supervise the investigation.
As noted previously, the Ruby Ridge criminal investigative
team was asked to examine events both during and after the crisis
to determine whether there was evidence to support the criminal
prosecution of any federal law enforcement officers. This
included the issue posed by the referral from OPR, whether Potts
and Coulson had falsely denied knowledge or approval of the "can
and should" Rules of Engagement used at Ruby Ridge. It also
included a determination of whether there was any evidence not
uncovered during the Task Force review that would change the
prior conclusion of the Justice Department's Civil Rights
Division declining a civil rights prosecution for the shootings
of Vicki and Randall Weaver and Kevin Harris on August 22, 1992.
Finally, the investigative team was asked to explore the
conduct of the Deputy United States Marshals in the firefight
that led to the deaths of Deputy Marshal William Degan and Samuel
Weaver on August 21, 1992. In sum, the investigation was asked
to search for any and all evidence of possible criminality by
federal law enforcement, and to follow that evidence wherever it
might lead.
Conclusions -- Coverup Allegations
As a result of the investigation, the investigative team
submitted detailed reports recommending against prosecution of
federal law enforcement personnel, other than E. Michael Kahoe.
Concerning the agents placed on administrative leave with
pay prior to this investigation, it was determined that Anthony
Betz was not criminally implicated in this matter and thereafter
returned to work in June of 1996. Michael Kahoe resigned in
December of 1996 following his guilty plea to obstruction of
justice and is awaiting sentencing.
The conclusions with respect to other agents on
administrative leave are as follows:
* With regard to Larry Potts and Danny Coulson, it was
determined that there was insufficient evidence against
either to obtain or sustain a conviction on charges that
they had falsely denied knowing of or approving the "can and
should" rules of engagement, or had otherwise destroyed or
falsely created records to cover up such culpability. A
successful prosecution of Potts or Coulson would have
necessitated proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew
of or approved the specific word "should" in the Rules of
Engagement. Despite intensive efforts, the investigation
did not uncover that proof. There was also insufficient
evidence to prove other criminal violations by Potts or
Coulson relating to either the shooting or its aftermath.
* With regard to FBI Special Agent Gale R. Evans, it was
determined and also publicly acknowledged by his supervisor,
E. Michael Kahoe, during Kahoe's guilty plea, that, at
Kahoe's direction, Evans destroyed copies of the FBI Ruby
Ridge After-Action Critique, as well as his computer disk
containing the critique. The Investigative Team recommended
against prosecution on the basis of Evans' significant
cooperation, without any promises, from the outset of this
investigation; the nature of his subordinate role in the
criminal conduct; and the availability of administrative
sanctions.
* With regard to FBI Special Agent George Michael Baird, the
investigative team determined that Agent Baird's actions did
not amount to a criminal violation.
The cover-up phase of the investigation also explored the
conduct of FBI Headquarters officials generally as they responded
to the various inquiries and litigation that followed the Ruby
Ridge crisis. This included the examination of whether any other
FBI Headquarters officials lied in their denials of knowing about
or approving the Rules of Engagement issued at Ruby Ridge. No
evidence was uncovered which would warrant criminal prosecution
of other FBI Headquarters officials.
Although the investigation concluded no further criminal
prosecution was warranted, OPR is reviewing what, if any,
misconduct occurred that might warrant administrative sanctions,
up to and including termination of employment.
Conclusions -- Civil Rights Allegations
As noted above, the investigative team was also instructed
to review the question of whether there was sufficient evidence
to prosecute any federal law enforcement officer for civil rights
offenses occurring at Ruby Ridge. In October of 1994, after a
review of the earlier Justice Department's Ruby Ridge Task Force
Report, the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division
concluded that there was not.
After substantial further investigation, the Ruby Ridge
criminal investigative team reached the same conclusion: there is
not sufficient evidence to obtain or sustain a conviction for
violation of the federal civil rights statutes for the shooting
of Vicki Weaver, Randall Weaver, or Kevin Harris on August 22,
1992. In essence, the critical element of willfulness necessary
for a civil rights violation cannot be established beyond a
reasonable doubt. Such willfulness, or knowing, intentional use
of unreasonable force cannot be made out against FBI Agent Lon
Horiuchi, who fired the shots which struck Randall Weaver, Vicki
Weaver, and Kevin Harris, since those shots were within the
guidelines set forth by his superiors in the controversial rules
of engagement. There was also no evidence from which it could be
concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Horiuchi actually saw
Vicki Weaver at the time he fired the shot that killed her.
Moreover, it was concluded that such willfulness could not
be established against the on-site supervisors responsible for
drafting and implementing the rules of engagement and other
tactics at Ruby Ridge. In summary, the little circumstantial
evidence from which it could be argued that there may have been
an intent to use more force than was necessary was far outweighed
by a significant amount of evidence that law enforcement had no
such intention here. Instead, there was substantial evidence
that FBI law enforcement efforts were undertaken by on-site
supervisors with the actual, although not completely accurate,
belief that Randall Weaver and Kevin Harris posed a severe threat
to law enforcement officers requiring the use of deadly force.
Such a conclusion does not amount to a finding that the
rules of engagement or other tactics employed at Ruby Ridge were
appropriate or even constitutional. Instead it is based on the
determination that there is insufficient evidence to prove that
excessive, unlawful force was knowingly and intentionally
employed by FBI personnel in their response to the situation they
confronted at Ruby Ridge. Thus it mandates against a federal
criminal prosecution for civil rights violations by law
enforcement personnel at Ruby Ridge.
Finally, it was also determined that there was no basis to
support a federal civil rights prosecution or other prosecution
of United States Marshals Service personnel for the initial
August 21, 1992, confrontation which resulted in the deaths of
Samuel Weaver and United States Deputy Marshal William F. Degan.
Although it could not be conclusively determined whether the
first shot in this confrontation was fired by U.S. Marshals
Service personnel at the Weavers' dog or by Kevin Harris at the
Marshals, under either scenario there is no basis for a
prosecution of United States Marshals for their conduct relating
to Ruby Ridge.
Administrative Sanctions
This decision means that FBI personnel, including Larry
Potts, former Assistant Director of the Criminal Investigation
Division and Deputy Director of the FBI; Danny Coulson, former
Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Criminal Investigation
Division; Michael Baird, Supervisory Special Agent; and Gale
Evans, former Unit Chief of the Violent Crimes Unit of the
Criminal Investigation Division, will not face federal criminal
prosecution for any matters arising out of the Ruby Ridge
incident.
This decision does not preclude the imposition of
disciplinary sanctions against these individuals or other FBI
officials. Accordingly, the investigation's findings have been
furnished to OPR for its review and additional investigation, if
necessary. If appropriate, OPR will recommend to the Justice
Department any disciplinary sanctions, up to and including
termination of employment. The FBI will not be the decision-
maker regarding any disciplinary sanctions.
# # #
97-337
The Governments entire case is based on the Governmets justification of un-Constitutional gun laws and the tyranny used via trespass, violation of the Fourth Amendment (warrantless search and seizure based on wreckless use of "gun laws") entrapment, destruction of private property (the family dog), willful murder (Mrs Weaver)and wreckless endangerment (baby Weaver in the arms of his Mother)of non combatants used in forcing submission of a sovereign citizen of the United States of America.
And you haven't seen the end of it - yet !
Someday, and it may be soon, the American people will stand up and take America back as was deemed fit and responsible behavior of an American Patriot by the Founders.
