Niki Deutchman Interview


Niki Deutchman's Bio

Excerpts from Denver Post, Tulsa World, and Rocky Mountain News
---------------------------------------------------------------

Denver Post
December 14, 1997

[excerpt]

A delivery room nurse at Columbia Rose Medical Center who is
married to an obstetrician. She has a master's degree in infant
development and believes that a person's "personality style'' is
developed by the age of five. On top of her affinity for children,
she and her family have been long-time members of Klanwatch,
which keeps track of hate groups that terrorize or target
minorities in the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Tulsa World
December 27, 1997

DENVER -- She holds a master's degree in infant development, married
a physician and calls herself a "student of life."

The forewoman of Terry Nichols' jury, Juror No. 215, is an obstetrics
nurse who has a daughter and contemplated becoming a midwife. She works
two 12-hour shifts a week at a medical center.

Her husband is on the faculty at the University of Colorado School of
Medicine.

When she was about 3 years old, her infant brother died of something
similar to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

She was born in Kellogg, Idaho, and lived in Washington, D.C, Seattle
and Memphis, Tenn., before moving to Colorado.

Her employment history includes a stint working in a day-care center;
conducting child- abuse investigations for the Department of Social and
Health Services in Washington state; working for the federal government
trying to help Alaskan natives; working in the radiology department of a

Spokane, Wash., hospital; and serving as a field representative for the
March of Dimes.

Her father ran for Congress twice. She once worked in Washington as a
summer intern for a congressman. Her television habits include watching
"JAG," a program about military lawyers, and the news. She also has an
interest in "energetic healing," which she said involves "healing
energy."

She is a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center and a convert
to Judaism.

Like many of the jurors, she's read John Grisham books, which deal
with the legal system.

In a questionnaire she filled out in September, the woman said she
didn't think the judicial system was working well, citing tricks and
loopholes that are used but which don't have anything to do with
someone's guilt or innocence.

She told U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch during jury selection
that it may be easier to decide guilt or innocence than to determine
a penalty.

She also told lawyers she wasn't good at determining when people are
not telling the truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Rocky Mountain News
December 17, 1997

[excerpt]

No. 1, ''The nurse''

Personal: An Idaho native, she moved to Colorado about four years
ago and works as an obstetrics nurse at Columbia Rose Medical Center.
Her husband is a doctor. They have a 13-year-old daughter. She
converted to Judaism as an adult.

Jury selection: She laughed at the ornate oath she had to take
when she was sworn in for questioning as a possible juror, and she
cried when she was asked about the death penalty because she didn't
think the decision was "ours to make.'' Then she said she could
consider it.

"Obviously, whoever planned the Oklahoma City bombing had an
expectation that many people were going to die,'' she said.

Description: She wept uncontrollably when Nichols and his former
wife, Lana Padilla, cried during Padilla's testimony. She smiled when
a defense witness said he found a book about childbirth techniques
at the Nichols home.

She is 47, short, with curly, light brown hair.


CNN Breaking News

Foreperson Niki Deutchman in Nichols Trial Speaks About Trial

Aired January 7, 1998 - 2:05 p.m. ET

DARYN KAGAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A wrenching decision for the Terry
Nichols jury. In the end, a decision alluded the seven women and five
men. The panel could not agree whether Nichols should be executed for
his role in the Oklahoma City bombing.

In just a few moments, we will be hearing from the jury forewoman Niki
Deutchman. She will be holding a news conference to talk about the jury
and talk about the experience of the trial. Standing by for that news
conference is our Susan Candiotti in Denver.

Susan.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: She is approaching the podium even
as we speak and as soon as Ms. Deutchman does, we will take here
comments live. You will recall that this jury deliberated for two days,
13 hours all together before telling the judge that they could not
unanimously agree on two verdicts. That is, they could not agree on
imposing either a death penalty on Terry Nichols or a sentence of life
without the possibility of parole.

That meant that the decision would be up to Judge Matsch. And in fact,
the jury then dismissed -- the judge then dismissed the jury, thanked
them for their service. And we have been waiting ever since then to have
an opportunity to speak with members of the jury -- seven women and five
men -- to find out what went on during the course of their
deliberations.

Niki Deutchman has been selected as the jury forewoman and she is a
labor and delivery nurse at a Denver hospital. She led this jury through
obviously what were very difficult deliberations as they tried to decide
on how Terry Nichols should be punished on that one count of conspiring
with Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building.

Because this jury could not unanimously decide on it, and evidently one
of the problems they had was deciding on intent. Did he intend to kill?
That is why, ultimately it became a matter for the judge to decide some
lesser punishment. Now, he has some options.

He cannot, impose the death penalty on Terry Nichols. However Judge
Richard Matsch does have the opportunity or the option rather to impose
a life sentence on Terry Nichols. In addition, he could also impose
something less than a life sentence.

As we understand it, as it has been explained to us from the Justice
Department -- if indeed Terry Nichols received something less than a
death sentence then he could earn what is referred to as good time
credit up to 15 percent.

Ms. Deutchman now is approaching. So, I'm going to have the camera pan
over to her as she approaches the microphones and we get an opportunity
to speak with her about her deliberations. Here is Ms. Deutchman.

I know it's an uncomfortable situation but maybe Ms. Deutchman you can
tell us what went into the decision making process? Why was it difficult
for this jury, as you led them through their deliberations to make a
decision on either death or the life without the possibility of parole.

NIKI DEUTCHMAN, JURY FOREWOMAN, NICHOLS TRIAL, DENVER: I think I would
like to say a few things just about the trial in general. And I'll talk
about that too.

QUESTION: Can you spell your name for us, first.

DEUTCHMAN: Niki is N-I-K-I and Deutchman is D-E-U-T-C-H-M-A-N.

Certainly, it's been a long trial. And there's been an awful lot of
information that was presented. There was a lot of evidence to wade
through and sort out. As the judge said in chambers today, he felt it
was real important to separate the McVeigh trial -- the trial of Timothy
McVeigh from the trial of Terry Nichols because they are different
people and because there are things that are different between the two
of them.

I think that is really true. I think that -- we heard a lot of
information about Timothy McVeigh. And we heard a lot of information
that was evidence in the case. And it would have been fairly easy for us
to make a decision about Timothy McVeigh's involvement. But with all the
information that we were presented, it was not easy to make decisions
about Terry Nichols.

They are different people and their involvement was different, in
different ways. And it's very hard to say from the evidence that was
presented exactly what Terry Nichols' involvement was. And that's why
this has been such a difficult process.

Even though there was a great deal of evidence, it wasn't necessarily,
it was circumstantial. And a whole lot of it could be looked at in a lot
of different ways. And it did not prove, very much of it did not prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Terry Nichols was involved. And for that
reason, the decision was very difficult to make.

Obviously, because we as a jury came to the conclusion that he was
involved in the conspiracy, that he was guilty of conspiracy, we felt
like there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
he was guilty of conspiracy.

How much involvement that was, was very much debated. And there were a
lot of different views about that among the jurors. For how involved he
was all the way from a very tiny amount to totally. And I think it's not
fair to the jury or to our process for me to say how many people felt
one way or another way.

I think it's sufficient know and I think it's obvious from what the
verdict was that there was a lot of big range of opinion and because we
weren't able to come to a conclusion in the sentencing phase, that there
-- the differences of opinion were very strong and very definite. And
after considering long and hard, going back over a lot of evidence,
everyone being able to present their views in many different ways, we
still were not able to come up with a definite, yes or no, and the judge
will be making the decision.

I think that's reasonable. That was how the jury feels and to push it
any farther, would indeed have been pressure, I think, and is not what
the jury system is about.

QUESTION: Did the jury take some votes? Were there some votes taken?

DEUTCHMAN: Always, obviously.

QUESTION: How many votes were taken, and would you tell us what the
splits were?

DEUTCHMAN: No. I'm not willing to talk about what the splits were. There
were a lot of votes. Whenever they seemed to be indicated. Since the
trial, or since everything ended this morning, I've already seen some
things. I hadn't been reading the paper, and I hadn't been watching TV,
but I'd seen some things that suggested our verdict of conspiracy and
the rest of the things that we found was found because it was Christmas
and it let us out of there.

I think six and a half days, or how ever many days of deliberating, sort
of speaks for itself. That's a lot of days, there was an awful lot of
discussion. And I think that every single member of this jury took their
job very seriously, and really tried to follow the judges orders to keep
an open mind through the entire trial. And by the time it was done, I
think in fact, that is where it was, that people had an open mind. And
we just reviewed evidence.

QUESTION: Was there one specific thing you had a doubt about? One
specific act like building the bomb, or...

DEUTCHMAN: Yes, there were a lot of specific acts that I had doubts
about. I think that's part of the deliberation process, and I think...

QUESTION: What were some of those stumbling blocks?

QUESTION: Can you please look ahead Ms. Deutchman. Thanks.

DEUTCHMAN: I think -- I'm not willing to talk so much about what the
stumbling blocks were. I think some things that -- you know, I think I
really don't want to talk about the deliberations. I think it's not
appropriate to talk about the deliberations.

QUESTION: Was there ever any consideration of the punishment during the
-- your deliberations of guilt and innocence?

DEUTCHMAN: No, and as a matter of fact, we didn't know until we entered
the sentencing phase that there were other options. Well, I guess --
until we were ready to begin the verdict -- to begin our deliberations
for the verdict, we didn't know that there were going to be other
options than they were in the McVeigh trial -- that we would have the
option of first degree, second degree or involuntary manslaughter.

QUESTION: Was that confusing?

DEUTCHMAN: No, that was not confusing. And it was very helpful to have
those options. And the sentencing and what the results of our
deliberations were not part of what the original deliberations were for
our verdict. I think it was very honest.

QUESTION: One women who lost who daughter in the bombing said she was
disappointed in her fellow man. What do you say to the victims family
members who lost people in Oklahoma City and in the Murrah building?

DEUTCHMAN: I think that it's an incredible tragedy and an incredible
lost. And that the family members and the rescue people who came to talk
to us during the jury, spoke very eloquently and agonizingly, and they
had a lot to say. I think that the government didn't do a good job of
proving that Terry Nichols was greatly involved in all of this. And we
took our responsibility very seriously for justice and proving beyond a
reasonable doubt.

I think that just because someone has been arrest and in this case there
will be punishment that will be met out, because someone has received
punishment, it doesn't remove the empty places. It doesn't remove the
holes when you've lost someone. And it may help for some closure, but it
doesn't take away the lost, it doesn't take away the pain.

QUESTION: Niki what about the issue of intent? You seemed to have a
problem with that as a jury; that Terry Nichols intended to kill
hundreds of people.

DEUTCHMAN: I think that's a fair question, and I think that what that
gets down to is different jury members interpretation of how involved
Terry Nichols was, and what he actually did as far as conspiracy was
concerned and how much he knew about what the whole conspiracy was
about.

QUESTION: And you specifically?

DEUTCHMAN: I feel very comfortable with the verdict that we reached.

QUESTION: Did at any point the discussion over sentencing make you
rethink the verdict at all amongst the jurors -- the debate over the
sentencing?

DEUTCHMAN: Of course. It definitely did, and we all reconfirmed out
feelings about the verdict, and I think everyone certainly agrees with
that verdict of guilty with conspiracy and with the rest of the way that
we found to the verdict.

QUESTION: Can you explain why you personally had problems with what
aspect of the governments case in proving that he intended to kill?
Because in the first part of the guilt phase, all the jurors answered
the question that they did believe that death was a foreseeable result?
Speaking only for yourself, what problems did you have with the
governments case involving intent?

DEUTCHMAN: I think there were a lot of things that were very
circumstantial that could be easily explained away. There were a few
things that could not be easily explained away.

QUESTION: Such as?

DEUTCHMAN:There was a Wall Mart receipt that was -- as the prosecution
said before we went into out deliberations, this is the key. Well, I
think it definitely was a key. There -- and some of the activities in
the week just before the bombing; such as going down to Oklahoma City
and picking up the TV when the receipt showed that McVeigh was there.

And Terry must somehow have known, even if he didn't have direct
contact, so why do you go to Oklahoma City to pick up a TV when it's
already in Kansas? And some other -- if they rode back in the car
together from Oklahoma City and had some discussions and as a result of
that, Terry suspected that Timothy McVeigh might be doing something and
then he assisted him in the week following. Those are things that were
difficult for everyone.

QUESTION: Do you realize that this is considered a mix verdict and that
people find inconsistencies between the conspiracy conviction and the
not guilty verdicts on the murder charges.

DEUTCHMAN: Absolutely, and I think some of the jurors have that
difficulty as well.

QUESTION: What was the mood like in there, and where -- when did you get
to the point that you realized that you were not gong to be able to come
to unanimous decision?

DEUTCHMAN: Every different juror might have a different answer to that
question.

QUESTION: But as the forewoman, when did you realize that this was not a
situation that you were all going to be able to agree?

DEUTCHMAN: I think there was a point yesterday afternoon when we asked
for some information from the judge, the first time, that we were at a
place that it was very difficult to move beyond. And so we were asking
for more instructions from the judge to help us either get through that
or not.

And he gave us some more instructions and we considered for a while
longer, and then had another communication with the judge to help us a
little bit further. And his response this morning made it final, and I
think it really was at that point that we know that we really weren't --
I suspected that we had done as much as we were going to be able to, but
not everyone probably felt that way.

QUESTION: Could you tell me a little about the dynamics of this jury;
how you all got along? What kind of relationships there were? Are you
friends?

DEUTCHMAN: I think before the deliberations started we were getting
along wonderfully, and better than would almost ever be the case after
been so close together for such a long time. I think that every juror
considered this very seriously and very deeply and had deeply held
opinions. Deeply held feelings.

QUESTION: Is this a jury that you would trust your life or death
decision with?

DEUTCHMAN: I absolutely would. I think they made huge efforts to go
through all of the evidence and consider every detail in as much depth
as it was possible to do before coming to conclusions.

QUESTION: Finish your thought. You said before deliberations started,
the jury got a long very well. (OFF MIKE) happened afterwards?

DEUTCHMAN: I think there were sometimes that when people are taking
their job so seriously, feel like it's such an important job, and they
come to conclusions that they hold very strongly, that it's hard not to
personalize that and be made at somebody that has a different view. I
think that the way things are left is that we may not get together for
reunions, but that we all still very much respect each other and the
place that we've come from and feel like we've done the best that it was
possible for each one of us to do.

QUESTION: How did the jury feel about Michael Fortier and

QUESTION: What did you want the punishment to be?

DEUTCHMAN: I'm glad that the judge is going to make the determination.

QUESTION: What did the jury feel about Michael Fortier's as far as with
if he got some kind of a special deal?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't know that I'm going to talk about the special deal
that deal that was arranged for Michael Fortier. I think that the jury
considered what Michael Fortier had to say, that there probably were a
lot of things about what he had to say that was good information for us
to consider as part of the evidence, but someone who's used a lot of
drugs over a fair amount of time, may not have very good memory and very
good memory recall. So things that had to do with dates and times and
people, were certainly looked at suspect.

QUESTION: Niki do you think that Terry mixed the bomb, and do you
believe that he robbed Roger Moore? You personally?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't know that I'm prepared to answer that. I don't think
I want to answer that.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) testimony other Joe, two, three, four?

DEUTCHMAN: Thank you for asking about that. I think that the government
perhaps really dropped the ball. I think that there were a large number
of sittings right around before, the week before, and the days and month
after the bombing. And sketches of people that were recognizable.

In this trial there even was a photograph of someone who may have been
involved with mixing the bomb, with putting the bomb together. And that
person -- it was a photograph from a newspaper, obviously that persons
identity is known. I think there are other people out there and
decisions were probably made very early on that Tim McVeigh and Terry
Nichols were who they were looking for. And the same sort of resources
were not used to try to find out who else might be involved.

QUESTION: What were your impressions of Michael Tigar?

QUESTION: And does that influence your opinion on how the government
handled this case overall?

DEUTCHMAN: Definitely. I think the government was not able to prove to
all of us satisfactorily that Terry Nichols was greatly involved in this
process, only that he was somewhat involved in this process. And others
obviously feel like he was a lot involved.

But the law says, and our instructions were that if two possible
verdicts might be reached, both guilty and innocent, then innocent is
what -- the lesser is what needs to be followed.

QUESTION: What did you feel was the weakest part of the government's
case.

DEUTCHMAN: Terry Nichols wasn't directly present or implicated with
anything.

QUESTION: So why was he convicted?

QUESTION: You understand that in a conspiracy you don't have to be there
to be part of the planning or be responsible for a bombing.

DEUTCHMAN: And the -- as I mentioned before, the things that were the
most difficult that actually beyond the shadow of a doubt have to do
with the receipt and the trip to Oklahoma City and the things that
happen in the week after the bombing. But none of the rest of it was
strong enough for all of the jurors to say that Terry Nichols was really
there, or really did any of those things.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) fertilizer?

DEUTCHMAN: Someone with -- that used one of the aliases that he used,
purchased that. No one was able to really identify the person or really
identify the truck, and there were times that Timothy McVeigh used an
alias that -- last name that Terry Nichols also used and someone else
may have used that name.

QUESTION: What was the lynch pin then that allowed you to issue a guilty
verdict on a conspiracy count?

DEUTCHMAN: The things that I've mentioned already. The things in the
week before the bombing.

QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts about whether the...

QUESTION: Some jurors were crying last night. Can you explain or perhaps
tell us at all, was that really -- was that the clinch time, late last
night, when that final note went to the judge?

DEUTCHMAN: I think that the jurors have been under and awful lot of
stress and take their job really seriously, and we were working really
hard on the whole thing. There were very strong differences of opinion
that we were -- very -- for the most part -- not necessarily gently, but
considerately of each other airing. And the feelings were really strong,
and there -- they were very strong more than one direction. And so it
was a culmination of a long day of a lot of stress and there's tears
involved.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) was between Mr. Nichols and Mr. McVeigh?

QUESTION: Do you think it was a mistake that you couldn't agree on the
sentencing (INAUDIBLE).

DEUTCHMAN: No, I don't think it's a mistake that we couldn't' agree on
the sentencing process. I think what it says is that there were a
certain number of people who felt very strongly that Terry Nichols was
very involved, and there were a certain number of people who felt very
strongly that Terry Nichols was only involved in a very minor way. And
that makes a statement in itself. And it makes a statement that would
not be possible to make filling out the form that we were given to fill
out, which would effect say that we all thought he was very involved, or
that we all thought he wasn't.

QUESTION: What do you think his intent was in being in the conspiracy?
Do you think he intended to...

DEUTCHMAN: The definition of conspiracy and of intent has to do with --
and of conspiracy itself, could be even a very small way, as long as it
was still known that this was part of a plan and basically what the plan
was about. And even if he didn't know that there was a bombing involved,
he know that something big and nasty was about to happen because he said
so to the FBI. That Timothy McVeigh has said so.

QUESTION: Did the jury at all in the deliberating room discuss it? Did
you personally want Terry Nichols to take the stand?

DEUTCHMAN: I think it would have been really nice to have been able to
hear what Terry had to say. And he certainly was under no obligation to
have to do that.

QUESTION: What did you make of Karen Anderson's gun list?

DEUTCHMAN: It's very interesting that one of the things on the gun list
was a gun that Terry Nichols had purchased and registered in his name.
When we looked at that list very closely, the paper was

potentially old, and somewhat stained and had maybe been in the sunlight
for a while, but the pencil markings on the paper looked very fresh and
new.

QUESTION: Niki, do you think that the state of Oklahoma should go ahead
and try him again?

QUESTION: Do you think that Mr. Nichols knew that this bomb could kill a
lot of people?

DEUTCHMAN: Some of the jurors I think were not convinced that Terry
Nichols knew that it was a bomb that was the big plan. I think anyone
who knew that Terry Nichols knew about a bomb or who felt that Terry
Nichols knew about a bomb, felt like obviously he'd have to know that it
would cause a huge amount of damage and destruction and death.

QUESTION: I take it you did not?

DEUTCHMAN: I felt like he knew. I felt like knew that there was a bomb
and that he was involved right up the end. The motivations for that
could make a difference in how I felt about the rest of the verdicts and
the rest of the things.

QUESTION: What do you think his motivation was?

DEUTCHMAN:I don't know, and I don't think I want to talk about that.

QUESTION: Ma'am how would like this jury to remembered through history?
How would you like this jury to be remembered?

DEUTCHMAN:As people who took their role very seriously, approached it
very honestly, and worked at it very hard.

QUESTION: How would you describe your experience as a juror?

QUESTION: How hard has it been on you and on your family?

DEUTCHMAN:It's been extremely difficult. Just from the standpoint of
scheduling things and setting the rest of my life on hold and what my
family's had to go through with all of that, it's been difficult. But
what was even worse was the deliberations because nothing was clear cut,
and everything we had to really labor with and through, and not just
once but over and over and over again. And there are a lot of feelings
and emotions that are involved with that.

The sentencing phase -- there were times during the trial that were very
difficult to sit through. The sentencing phase, obviously was
excruciating. It was very agonizing for us and for the people who had to
be there to testify.

QUESTION: Should Nichols he be tried again in Oklahoma City?

DEUTCHMAN:That's, I suspect, a legal decisions and I don't want to get
into that.

QUESTION: Niki with such differing opinions among the jurors, why a
verdict at all? If you couldn't come to...

DEUTCHMAN:Because there was at least enough agreement to be able to say
that he knew that he was assisting in some kind of a plan that was going
to involve probably death and destruction.

QUESTION: What went through your mind when you looked across the room
and say Terry Nichols crying? Number one. Part two would be, any
reaction from you personally as to the my brother comments? Tigar
walking behind during closings. First the tears from Nichols and then
Michael Tigar.

DEUTCHMAN:Well, I think there was speculation among the jurors about how
much of what we observed was real. I think that most of the jurors felt
like Terry Nichols is someone who probably really cares very deeply for
his family. And his separation from his family and the changes that have
happen in his life with his family members and all of that is probably
very real and not -- maybe not all of us felt that way, but I think a
lot of people felt like that was very honest.

It makes a difference in the person that he is, if he can care so deeply
in one area, what does that mean for other things? Well it could mean,
it could mean almost anything. And it doesn't necessarily mean he could
not be involved in something like this if it was a cause he believed
very deeply.

QUESTION: And what about Michael Tigar's my brother comments and his
reactions, his tears?

DEUTCHMAN:Michael Tigar is one heck of an attorney, and he and Ron Woods
really did a job with this. Obviously the government was not able to
prove beyond a shadow of a doubt more than just the basic conspiracy.
And if Terry knew that there was death and destruction, then involuntary
manslaughter is a -- has to be at least that, as a result of that.

All attorney's use acting as part of what they do. And some are better
at it than others, and some make it seem very real and very heartfelt,
and in fact it might be, and that's probably when it's most effective,
is when there is some of it that's heartfelt. And it maybe that he
really feels that way about Terry Nichols.

QUESTION: Without getting into the vote count specifically, could you
talk about how many people...

DEUTCHMAN:Hold on a second.

QUESTION: Could you talk a little bit about -- there's been a lot of
speculation about the fact that maybe the jury was hung up on the death
penalty and whether or not you wanted to forward with that? Could you
give us any indication of how big a role discussion of the death penalty
played in these deliberations?

DEUTCHMAN:Well we at least polled each other to find out how many people
felt like that was the most appropriate outcome and how many did not.
And there were some who felt both ways.

QUESTION: More on one side or the other?

DEUTCHMAN:I don't want to talk about numbers.

QUESTION: Were you surprised this morning when Judge Matsch took the
sentencing decision out of your hands?

DEUTCHMAN:We though that that might be a possibility and I think that
there were a fairly large number of jurors who hoped that we might have
just a little bit longer to be able to continue. At the same time as the
Judge said in chambers, later in the day, there comes a point in time
when deliberations are no longer deliberations but turn into pressure.
And I think that that was a very real possibility. And pressure is not
the same thing as considering something freely and openly and honestly.

QUESTION: But you never actually decided as a jury to turn it over to
Matsch right? Even though that was actually one of your options.

DEUTCHMAN:At one point yesterday afternoon, we suspected that the
communication we were giving to the judge might result in that affect.
We didn't know if it would or not. And in fact it didn't and he gave us
a response back.

QUESTION: (OFF MIKE) decide that part of the (OFF MIKE) that says, we
want you to be (OFF MIKE)? Could you have all agreed to have done that?

DEUTCHMAN:To having the judge decided unanimously? I think there were
some jurors who felt like that was -- I think some who felt strongly
enough in the first two options that to them to allow the judge to make
the decision was a cop out. On the other hand, if we were at a place
where we could not agree, it's the only possible outcome. It's the only
for it to be considered?

QUESTION: What do you think about Judge Matsch?

DEUTCHMAN:I think Judge Matsch knows the law very well. And even if he
appears inattentive occasionally, while he's on the bench, there were
many times that an objection would be raised at a time like that, and he
immediately was very aware of what the legal issue was that was being
objected to and what had been said, and whether it was appropriate or
not and was able to make a ruling.

I think he did a very good job about screening what was allowed for
evidence or not allowed for evidence, at least as far as things that
wouldn't have made a difference in deliberations but could certainly
have made a lot of difference in the tone in the courtroom. And I think
he did a real good job.

QUESTION: You faulted the government for not looking harder for these
other people who may have been involved. Do you think they should know
reopen their investigation?

DEUTCHMAN:I think the government dropped the ball and if there are
people who were very actively involved in this horrible crime, that it's
an obligation to find them. And to bring them into the

justice system. I think this was a horrible thing to have done, and I
doubt very much that two people -- if Terry Nichols was even greatly
involved, that two people would have been enough to be able to carry it
off?

QUESTION: What about Beth Wilkinson's remark and closing statement. How
do you conspire to build a weapon of mass destruction and not know it's
going to kill people?

DEUTCHMAN:If -- you know that gets into individual jurors deliberations
and how much involvement they felt like Terry Nichols had. And if there
were some who felt like he didn't even know, necessarily that a bomb was
involved, just that something was involved, then -- or if he were
coerced for one reason or another and may have been involved at one
point and time, and then chose to get out, and felt there was a threat,
not necessarily to him, but to his family, which was in more places than
Kansas, and didn't know a good way to get out of that and participated
anyway, to protect his family. And indeed those were some of the views
that were held by some of the jurors, then his intent is a whole lot
different.

QUESTION: You touched on this earlier, but could you address again, at
this time perhaps the people who've lost loved ones in this bombing; who
are clearly frustrated and were hopeful that the -- his jury might have
made a decision on it's own as to the punishment.

DEUTCHMAN:I think that revenge and vengeance is very different from
justice. And that just punishing someone because they've been arrested
is not a solution to anything. And certainly even if punishment were for
the death penalty, it still doesn't fill the holes that have been left
when people are gone.

QUESTION: How do you know feel about the death penalty?

QUESTION: Niki several times today you've said that the government did
not prove it's case beyond a shadow of a doubt...

DEUTCHMAN:Beyond a reasonable doubt.

QUESTION: OK. Well, you said beyond a shadow of a doubt (OFF MIKE)

DEUTCHMAN:No. Beyond a reasonable doubt was the jury's...

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) some people thought that maybe acquittal was a
possibility earlier on -- was that -- did that come up?

DEUTCHMAN:Certainly, when we first got into the deliberation room, I
think that we still had been keeping an open mind, and there were a
large number of jurors, before we reviewed evidence and talked with each
other about out deliberations, there were a fair number of people who
felt like he may in fact have been innocent, and the more we consider
the evidence and what information that was there had been presented to
us, the more that opinion was changed.

QUESTION: Niki, do you think Terry Nichols tried to back out of this
spot?

DEUTCHMAN: I think that there were some who felt like that was a
possibility. And that he may not really have been involved willingly
sometime after November.

QUESTION: Do you think he should serve life in prison?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't want to talk about my personal views about that. I
think the jury, and what now is left with the judge is where that needs
to stay.

QUESTION: What about Marife Nichols testimony?

QUESTION: What about the family members of the victims in the penalty
phase?

Did you ever feel that they were angry with the jury because of your
original verdict?

DEUTCHMAN: A couple of times.

QUESTION: Marife's testimony, did that backfire on the defense, do you
think?

DEUTCHMAN: I think there are some victims who probably feel a real need
for vengeance. You know, that there were an awful lot of people who were
involved in this horrible crime, and an awful lot of people who died and
a lot of people who, have been permanently injured as a result of that.
It's hard not to be bitter when something like that happens.

QUESTION: What do you think of Marife Nichols testimony? Did that
backfire? Do you think she was good?

DEUTCHMAN: Um -- personally, I -- um -- things were clearer to me before
she of testified than after. And so I think it mostly was because it was
hard for her to remember a lot of things, that it didn't necessarily
help.

QUESTION: She screwed up on the time the first day. Then when they came
back during redirect that was fixed up somewhat, she said noon.

DEUTCHMAN: It was fixed a little. But then when we reviewed the events
of the day, I suspect the time that she even wrote down in her notes, a
couple of weeks later still was not an accurate time depiction.

QUESTION: How did this whole process affect you personally? Will your
life go back to normal, say by tomorrow?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't know.

QUESTION: If you had to do it all over again, would you do it?

DEUTCHMAN: I guess I felt all along like, if there was a reason for me
to be there, then, I was willing to be there, and to do the

best I knew how to do. I'd sure rather not do any of this again. And if
I can avoid being on a jury in the future, I probably will do that.

QUESTION: Niki, what do you say to the folks back in Oklahoma City who
were perhaps hoping, expecting more?

DEUTCHMAN: Sentencing hasn't happened yet. And the judge explained, as
we were beginning to go into our deliberations about sentencing, that
federal law does not provide for parole. And he has -- I don't know what
his guidelines are. He hasn't said what his guidelines are. But they
even included life. They included enough years that would mean the same
thing as life. I don't know what his sentencing is going to be. And I
suspect that Terry Nichols is not likely to be out walking around in any
kind of near-term -- or even long-term time period.

QUESTION: Did you volunteer to be foreperson, or how did the
selection...

DEUTCHMAN: It's a vote.

QUESTION: Did you campaign?

(LAUGHTER)

DEUTCHMAN: No. I definitely did not campaign. It's how it happened.

QUESTION: I know you don't want to talk about votes specifically, but
can you say which way the jury was leaning?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't think that's a good idea.

QUESTION: You were talking about the FBI's conduct in the investigation.

DEUTCHMAN: Thank you for asking that question. I think, as was pointed
out during the trial, there were over 30,000 interviews done by the FBI.
And you know, that's an awful lot of interviews, and an awful lot of
people. I suspect some of those interviews were same people over and
over again, because there were many people that did talk with the FBI
multiple times.

The fact that there were no tape recordings of any of the interviews,
especially of key people, really would have made, I think -- would have
made a difference to us, as a jury. We regretted that every single day.
Terry Nichols was interviewed for nine-and-a-half hours when he first
turned himself in to the police after the bombing, and there were
handwritten notes about what that interview was about. It didn't say
anything about the questions. It didn't hear -- it didn't allow for any
information about the tone of voice, either of Terry Nichols or of the
investigators.

The number of pages of notes that were left from that interview,
certainly take a lot less time than nine-and-a-half hours to read
through and sort through. They did go over things more than once but you
know, there are a lot of things that would have been very helpful

if it had been on tape. And it seems it may not be -- but it seems
arrogant to me on the part of the FBI to say, you know, we have good
recall, and you can take what we have said. There was FBI report after
report, after report, after report when they were talking with witnesses
and the attorneys would say: Do you recall in your report to the FBI
that you said such and such? And the witnesses said: No, I said
something else. And it was similar, but it was not the same words and it
had a different connotation. So you know, that is a real interesting
aspect of things, and I hope that that changes.

QUESTION: And the fingerprint...

DEUTCHMAN: I think there were a lot of things about evidence that seemed
to be sloppy. And in the fingerprints and even in the numbers that were
written down on work sheets and reported a couple of days later that
didn't agree. I mean there were a lot of things like that that seemed
sloppy. The FBI lab that got flooded and the drill got soaked, and most
of the contents were either rusty or ruined by water. And the drill bits
had rust on them. There were a lot of things that were sloppy about
that.

Some of the witnesses -- there was one, especially, who felt -- she
seemed to feel very badgered by the FBI, and refused to talk to them
after once or twice and -- all the way up to the trial and then talked
with the prosecutor -- or the defense some. And I don't know -- I don't
think it was very much. So, you know, the -- I think government's
attitude, and the FBI is definitely included in that, is part of where
all of this comes from in the first place. There are a fair number of
people out there who are pretty unhappy with the government, and feel
unsafe and very suspicious, and in many cases, very angry with the
government, and so many far-right groups show that there are a lot of
people who have some feelings along those lines.

QUESTION: Do you think it was deliberate misconduct?

DEUTCHMAN: No I don't think so, I don't know. I think it's the way the
government does business. I think maybe, it's time for the government to
be more respectful, and to be more aware of each of us, as people, with
the inalienable rights, equal rights, and not with the attitude of -- we
know, and you don't. We have the power and you don't. The recent things
in Congress, the findings with the IRS and some of the tactics that they
have used. You know, I don't think the IRS is the only government
enforcement agency that uses those kind of tactics, and I think that
might be part of the message from this whole incident in the first
place, and certainly from the trial, and from some of the findings, some
of the things the FBI was involved with, and their attitudes of their
involvement.

QUESTION: Did you carry that baggage into the jury box with you, or has
this developed through the presentation of the government's case?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't think anybody is -- who lives in this country hasn't
had some experience with the government that they were unhappy with. And
certainly, I have heard things like that before. I don't think that I
necessarily had that kind of attitude before we went in. But I think
that it was very interesting -- some of those issues were

brought out more by Ron Woods in his questioning of agents and of
witnesses than by others, and Ron Woods, I understand, is a former
agent, a former FBI agent. And who would know better what the FBI's
methods of doing business are, than one who has been part of their
number.

QUESTION: What was convincing though, from the government's case?
Obviously you still came up with nine guilty verdicts. So what pushed
you, though, in that direction, in spite of your criticism?

DEUTCHMAN: Who said we came up with nine guilty verdicts? Oh, on the
listing.

QUESTION: Eight counts of conspiracy.

DEUTCHMAN: OK. So what was your question?

QUESTION: What convinced you, then, in spite of the flawed case, that it
was strong enough to come up with conspiracy?

DEUTCHMAN: Oh. Those were the things I talked about already. The things
already immediately surrounding in the week preceding, and just
following the bombing.

QUESTION: Do you think you had adequate proof that Terry Nichols told
lies about his activities?

DEUTCHMAN: Well, if he said he didn't know that Timothy McVeigh was in
the area, but he had a receipt, a Wal-Mart receipt that Timothy McVeigh
had obtained before he took -- before there was a phone call on Sunday
asking him to come down to Oklahoma City to get him, that sounds pretty
much like he must have known that Timothy McVeigh was in the area, even
if he didn't get it directly from Timothy McVeigh.

QUESTION: Do you have trouble believing that Mr. Nichols -- taking it a
step farther -- knew -- knew what Timothy McVeigh was up to?

DEUTCHMAN: There certainly were some jurors who felt that way.

QUESTION: Niki, I know, we know you're not condoning what happened in
Oklahoma City a couple of years ago. But going back to what you said a
couple of seconds ago, it almost seems like you said you can understand
how someone would have hatred against the government to carry something
out like that? Can you expand on that?

DEUTCHMAN: I understand how someone can be unhappy with the government.
I think anything that carries things far is incredible. It's horrible. I
can't see how anyone could morally justify killing a whole lot of
people, even if it were directly the agents, or the people they felt
were directly responsible, and especially a whole lot of other people
and civilians and babies.

QUESTION: What about Kathleen Trainer(ph)? Obviously, the judge told you
all as a panel that she lost it. You mentioned acting earlier. Do you
think that was genuine, and how did the jury, or at least you feel about
her, on the witness stand pounding her fist, and basically yelling and
screaming.

DEUTCHMAN: May have been a combination of genuine and emphasis for the
jury's benefit. I think that she is really agonized. I think that she
said, there was -- she felt a whole lot of guilt. Her daughter pleaded
with her to stay home that day, and she didn't. And she felt really
guilty. And my interpretation of what happened is when you feel that
guilty, there is a whole lot of anger, and you have to blame someone.
And in that same 60-second period, she talked about how guilty she felt.
And then she talked about -- I can't remember what her words were, but
it was in effect, that she wanted us to find him guilty. You know, that
it's his fault, because she feels guilty. Well, it's definitely
someone's fault that there was a bomb that went off. And that's a
horrible thing, and she suffered an incredible loss, and the pain that
she feels every day is huge, and I hope that there can be some healing
for her. And know that she was not guilty for this horrible crime.

QUESTION: What part of the victims's testimony was most compelling for
the jurors?

DEUTCHMAN: I am sure it was different for everybody.

QUESTION: Did the prosecution go too far, though, in sentencing? Was
there too much blood and gore and heartbreak?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't think it made a significant amount of difference in
-- in the considerations that we were making during our deliberations. I
think that everyone felt like it was a horrible crime, and all of us
have had at least some experience with grief, and knowing that many
people are involved, you know, it's very compounded. It's a horrible
thing.

QUESTION: Would it made a difference if the testimony had been going on
during the verdict phase?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't think so.

QUESTION: No?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't think so. It wasn't part of whether Terry Nichols was
involved or not. It was -- it was what happened as a result of the
bombing. But whether Terry Nichols was responsible for the bombing or
not was the issue. And if he was, then it does make some difference in
the considerations when you're figuring out a sentence, but if he's not,
it doesn't matter how much of that pain and agony you know about. The
pain and agony remains. And if he's not the person responsible, you
know, what do you do with that?

QUESTION: What did you think of the nine witnesses that the defense put
on in behalf of Terry Nichols during the penalty phase?

DEUTCHMAN: Well, it was nice that Terry Nichols has friends and family
members that care a lot about him. I don't know -- there -- it sounded
like there might be some other things presented that might assist the
jury a little bit more with our deliberations.

QUESTION: Such as?

DEUTCHMAN: And that might have assisted a little bit more during the
trial, and certainly would have during this phase. That -- that would
say a little bit more -- Michael Tigar intimated there might have been
coercion in his opening statements for the sentencing phase, but there
were no witnesses that said anything about that. There were a few pieces
of evidence that were somewhat troubling that the defense did not have
an obligation to say anything about but didn't say anything about, and
it might have been helpful to have a little more information about.

QUESTION: What things were those?

DEUTCHMAN: Terry Nichols stayed in a hotel, a motel in Paul Valley(ph),
the night before nitromethane fuel was purchased in Ennis, Texas. The
prosecution talked quite a bit about -- not quite a bit -- very little.
It was simply introduced in evidence that Terry Nichols spent the night
there, and the prosecution showed on a map how far away that was from
Ennis, Texas and how that related to any of the known activities that
Terry Nichols had been involved in before and after that time. And it --
that was troubling, and it might have been helpful to have a little bit
of help with that.

QUESTION: What do you think the relationship was between McVeigh and
Nichols?

DEUTCHMAN: Obviously, they spent a lot of time together. They met in the
army. It sounds and appears as though they definitely had a friendship
over a fairly long period of time. Whether that friendship remained or
not, and how intimate it was or not, is not clear from what we heard
with evidence.

QUESTION: Do you think one is the leader, and one was the follower? Much
was made of that?

DEUTCHMAN: Much was made of that. And there -- from the evidence, it was
hard to tell which might be which. And there were many people, for a
long time, who felt like even if Terry Nichols might have been a leader
in -- when they first met, because he was the platoon leader when they
first got into the army and older, and Tim McVeigh was just entering the
army, and he was unsure, and lacking in confidence, that that sort of --
someone who is just out of high school often doesn't have much very
confidence, and it may not take a long time in your own life experience
to build some of your own, and begin to find out who you are as a
person. So just because there was that kind of a role when they first
met, doesn't mean it stayed that way.

QUESTION: What do you Mr. Nichols role was in participating in the
conspiracy?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't know.

QUESTION: Niki, what did you make of Roger Moore in the robbery, the
alleged robbery?

DEUTCHMAN: We talked about that a lot, as a jury. And there were a fair
number of things that -- that we recognized as a jury that were
inconsistencies that weren't necessarily brought out in a trial, but
were present in the evidence that was there.

QUESTION: For instance?

QUESTION: Judge Matsch...

QUESTION: For example, how do you explain away the stolen weapons that
were found in his house.

QUESTION: Wait, wait. She's trying to answer the question.

DEUTCHMAN: If there was, and it was suggested, but there wasn't any
evidence that was presented to help with that suggestion. It was
suggested that it may have been an arrangement which would help finance
this whole operation. It is entirely possible, from what was presented,
that that could be. It isn't definite. I mean, obviously, guns were
taken, and I think he really was tied up with duck tape and with wire
ties, and the events that happened, that were described, probably really
happened. What was behind all that, I really don't know.

QUESTION: You're not convinced Nichols pulled it off?

DEUTCHMAN: I have doubts Terry transported them, yes, absolutely. Some
of the evidence suggested that Tim McVeigh left the day before Terry
did, to go to Arizona.

QUESTION: And you didn't see enough evidence to determine a motive in
your own mind for the conspiracy on the part of Mr. Nichols, is that
correct?

QUESTION: You don't buy the anger over Waco or the literature found in
his storage area?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't know why he might have been involved. Certainly, he
had such literature and he talked with a couple of people about those
kind of issues.

QUESTION: How significant were all the Ryder truck sightings, which were
a major part of the defense's case?

DEUTCHMAN: Well, what it said is that there were at least -- there was
at least more than one Ryder truck in the area, probably several over
several is days, and just because one was spotted there on Tuesday
morning, didn't necessarily mean that that was Timothy McVeigh and Terry
Nichols mixing up a bomb.

And as a matter of fact, one of the jurors is an explosive expert, and
speculated that a lot of the mixing of the bomb was probably done a long
time before hand, because of the amount of time it would take. And that
there were some things that needed to be done at the last minute, and
may have been done there, and may have been done somewhere else. What
that said to us is that the government's speculation that they mixed it
up that morning at the lake may have happened, and may not have
happened.

QUESTION: Did you believe that Terry Nichols was at the military auction
the morning that the government says the bomb was being built?

DEUTCHMAN: I suspect he was there, at least part of the morning. I have
no idea how much of the morning he was there.

QUESTION: Niki, Terry Nichols didn't testify, but if he did was there
anything that might have answered ambiguities. Is there anything you
would have liked to have heard from him directly?

DEUTCHMAN: Of course. I would have liked for him to talk about a lot of
different parts of things, but he didn't have an obligation to do that.

QUESTION: You said you were glad when we asked about the FBI. Is there
anything else that we should be asking about, that we haven't? In other
words, jury story words?

DEUTCHMAN: I think I made a list of some things that I felt were issues,
and I think we've talked about those.

QUESTION: Will there be a book coming out by any of these jurors?

DEUTCHMAN: Not by me.

QUESTION: Have any of the media sources been hitting you up for
interviews? Larry King call you or Ted Koppel or anybody?

DEUTCHMAN: Larry King hasn't called me.

QUESTION: Are you going to be making any appearances on any networks or
anything?

DEUTCHMAN: I am not interested in a whole media show. And if this now is
enough, then I would leave it at that. If it seems like it's important
for me once more, or twice more or something. I thought this would last
for five minutes and it's been longer. Maybe there's been a chance to
say what needs to be said now. And I have to think about that. I don't
know.

QUESTION: When you all left the deliberation room for the last time,
what was it like in there? I know you don't want to say about votes and
all that, but give us a sense of a tone inside there.

DEUTCHMAN: I think there were a lot of very strong feelings. And a
feeling of frustration that we weren't at a place where we were
unanimous. And frustration at trying to find out how we could get to
that kind of place, and not knowing how we could do that. So there were
strong feelings and there was a whole lot of frustration. And a real
attempt being made to keep things civil and considerate of each other,
but some people feeling really so strongly, that they couldn't
understand how someone else would have a different view. And so it was
tense.

QUESTION: Some have reported less than civil exchanges?

DEUTCHMAN: It hadn't gotten to that place.

QUESTION: Was heard that there yelling among the jurors yesterday?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't think -- I wouldn't call it yelling. I think there
were people who had really strong feelings and voices raised a little
but I don't think -- I wouldn't call it yelling and wouldn't call it any
kind of thing where someone was intimidating or trying force someone to
change their mind.

QUESTION: Niki, you gave a lot of credence to Ron Woods, FBI service,
but would it change your opinion, knowing that he hasn't been in the FBI
for more than 25 years?

DEUTCHMAN: I think that they made a very good presentation. They did a
very good job of the defense for Terry Nichols.

QUESTION: Why don't you interpret the go-for-it letter that was left
behind?

DEUTCHMAN: That was very troubling to everyone. And I don't think there
was one interpretation of that by the jurors.

QUESTION: We missed the question.

DEUTCHMAN: The go-for-it letter. I think that was some -- those who felt
like there might have been coercion, I think that that was one of the
things that helped to show that there might have been. Why would he
write a letter when he'd gone to the Philippines a lot of times before,
and hadn't taken care of setting all his affairs in order and writing a
will and all of that. Why would he do that at this time and then talk to
his son, and his son think that his dad was never coming home again.
That's one thing that may have pointed toward coercion.

QUESTION: Was he as good a father as the defense wanted you to believe.

DEUTCHMAN: I don't know. I wasn't there.

QUESTION: Do you think there was sentiment among the jury that he was
coerced?

DEUTCHMAN: Probably, not by many.

QUESTION: Have you talked to other jurors about talking to the media?
Are you speaking for all of them, or did that come up?

DEUTCHMAN: I decided a few days ago that it might be easier to try to do
this for me to do this at once instead of having everybody pestering. I
told the other jurors I thought I might do that and invited anyone who
wanted to join me. I think there were several jurors who felt like they
really didn't want to talk to any media at all for any reason, and
others who all of us -- many of us have different opinions, and I think
that others who might want to talk to

the media would want to speak for themselves and not have it be part of
a group thing.

QUESTION: Niki, what is your opinion now about capital punishment, now
as you have lived through this trial? Capital punishment as a concept?

DEUTCHMAN: I guess, basically it hasn't changed a whole lot. I think
that as a general idea, it's a very bad idea. But I think when there's
public potential -- public great harm, by someone who has been involved
with something like this, you know, someone who has potential for
creating a large amount of death and destruction. If they have been
involved in something like that, are convicted of something like that,
if they remain alive and in prison, they are a hero figure, and that
there also is contact with people who are in prison, and that it
certainly could be a possibility to still be involved with further
things, and that that's a threat that probably is not reasonable.

QUESTION: Your emotional reaction during jury selection, you were the
first person spoken to, and you cried when you talked about capital
punishment. I'm sure you recall that. Now having gone through it
emotionally how do you feel about it?

DEUTCHMAN: I basically feel the same as I felt than. I've been
struggling with it for a while, before I got to the interview process.
As they asked me then, this is theory and later on it may be reality,
and for me actually being there and being questioned about it made it
reality and no longer theory.

QUESTION: Did you think that Michael Tigar was ever talking really to
you during the penalty phase, when he talked about Israel and about the
mercy extended to various people -- did you ever get that sense, and
with the midwife and your occupation, did you ever feel like that?

DEUTCHMAN: There were a couple of times when one of the attorneys -when
something was talked about a book about lamaze (ph) or something else,
one of the attorneys would look and smile about me. I suspect that that
was directed at me. But the comments made to the court in general, I
think were not necessarily directed towards me.

QUESTION: Do you think Terry Nichols in prison could pose such a threat
in the future?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't know.

QUESTION: Based on what you heard, do you agree with the McVeigh verdict
and death sentence?

DEUTCHMAN: Yes.

QUESTION: Were you relieved when you realized you would be a part of
sentencing Nichols to death?

DEUTCHMAN: My personal feeling was that, given who we were as a jury,
and how we felt as a jury, that was the most likely way for that for the
judge to decide was the most likely way it was going to end up, and I
think I feel most comfortable with that.

QUESTION: Some of the McVeigh jurors have said in effect, that they feel
that you dropped the ball, and that they, given what they saw during the
McVeigh trial would have convicted Terry Nichols on the same counts as
McVeigh.

How would you respond to them?

DEUTCHMAN: I think that they're different people, and they're different
trials. I think the government -- the indictments were worded Terry
McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and then each of the things. So they include
both names in everything. And we heard enough evidence in this to be
able, easily to make a decision about Timothy Mcveigh. But the evidence
was not so easy to do something with -- in terms of Terry Nichols, for
us.

QUESTION: Niki, it was also noted that in the last couple days when you
entered the courtroom you smiled broadly at the defense, not at the
prosecution.

DEUTCHMAN: Oh, I did too.

QUESTION: OK.

DEUTCHMAN: At both.

QUESTION: Well, that part wasn't noted. So there was speculation on what
that meant. Did it mean anything?

DEUTCHMAN: It didn't mean anything. I admire both sets of attorneys as
people, and as people who were doing their jobs. I guess there is one
other thing that might be an issue. That is: There were attempts
occasionally at using distortion and innuendo, both in the ways the
questions were asked, and certainly in the closing -- opening and
closing arguments that were used on both sides, but were used -- it was
-- it was less obvious, I guess I should say, with the prosecution than
it was with the defense, and I think it backfired. And I think it's good
that it backfired with this jury, because innuendo and distortion is not
-- um -- honest.

QUESTION: Give us an example, please.

DEUTCHMAN: I'm not good at remembering specific examples. There were
some statements that Pat Ryan made in his closing arguments that
rephrased some of the words of some of the witnesses. And the rephrasing
was just a word or two, but it changed the connotation. And it's
examples like that, things like that.

QUESTION: The prosecution did it more egregiously you felt than the
defense?

DEUTCHMAN: It was less obvious with the prosecution than it was with the
defense. I think that it is probably part of what happens any time,
especially when there's closing arguments, but Michael Tigar had a smile
on his face and sort of looked at everyone with this twinkle in his eye
as he was making some of those innuendoes, which were fairly mild. And
fairly easy to recognize, especially because he gave a lot of cues when
he was doing that.

QUESTION: Any of those come to mind?

DEUTCHMAN: No. No. But I felt like it was easier to tell and it was more
with a sense of drama than an urgency to change or alter how you felt
about something.

QUESTION: So it was less offensive to you?

DEUTCHMAN: Pardon me?

QUESTION: So it was less offensive then?

DEUTCHMAN: It was less offensive and it was easier to spot. And I think
that that's useful. When people are considering things, jurors are human
beings like anybody else, and some people are going to see that, and
some people aren't. And it's useful to know when that's going on and
consider it accordingly.

QUESTION: It sounds like you didn't trust what you were hearing from the
prosecution?

DEUTCHMAN: Um, it was conclusions about things and phrases about things
and including -- for example, when Ms. Wilkinson was doing her closing
arguments, she went through a whole lot of the things of the evidence,
and it was the prosecution's interpretation of that evidence. And it's
reasonable that they would talk about the evidence according to their
view of things, but it was very obviously not the view of all the
jurors. And we had looked at the same evidence and considered it very
strongly, and come up with our own conclusions about it. So them saying
this is how it is, wasn't necessarily in agreement with how the jury --
you know, this was closing arguments for the sentencing phase, so we'd
already come up with our verdict and knew very well what that meant to
us.

QUESTION: How did you feel about the Elvis sightings?

QUESTION: So you suggested that Terry Nichols was building a life and
not a bomb -- was...

DEUTCHMAN: Well I think he was building a life. He may also had been
building a bomb. I don't know.

QUESTION: Does the jury realize that they still have to go through a
sentencing phase after the guilt phase. It looks like some looked
surprised. Did you know that?

DEUTCHMAN: We asked for a vote on that. Once we got into our
deliberations in the sentencing phase. How many people knew that this
meant we were going to have to do this. There were a few jurors who knew
that, and most of us didn't. And I think it wouldn't -- and we talked
about that also, it wouldn't have made a difference in what our
deliberations were and what our conclusion was the first time, but there
were several of us who were surprised and who thought we probably were
done. And then it was like oh, no, look what we're in for now.

QUESTION: Were your verdicts in the guilt phase, in any way a
compromise?

DEUTCHMAN: When you're given instructions that say, in effect, this --
you have to come up with a verdict, and that when two possible choices,
exist, one of guilty and one of innocence, then because it's innocent
until proven guilty, that says there is a reasonable doubt and the
finding of innocence has been found. There has to be compromise.

QUESTION: But did you find any inconsistency yourself in -- we asked
this before I think, in the conspiracy verdict where you had to answer
the two questions: Was death a foreseeable result, and then define the
guilty verdicts on involuntary manslaughter, which does not imply
intent. Do you see...

DEUTCHMAN: I can see why it would be hard to wrap around that. But there
were a fair number of jurors who were not convinced of the extent of his
involvement, or his reasons for involvement. And that that's a lot of
where that came from. I think that was part of the frustration in the
sentencing phase. Because the -- what we were asked to consider used
words that sounded very similar to the words of the conviction
conspiracy. And there were those among the jurors who felt like they
really were -- could be interpreted as saying different things, and that
was some of the frustration that was felt during this last phase of the
deliberations.

QUESTION: Could you give us a sense again of how many times you went
around the table, or took a vote. Was it...

DEUTCHMAN: It was many.

QUESTION: Less than five? Many?

DEUTCHMAN: It was many especially in the guilty phase. It was many.

QUESTION: Were you ever close to murder charges in the first phase? Was
it ever close to being first-degree murder?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't know if that's reasonable for me to answer or not. I
think the final conclusion is enough for that.

QUESTION: In Mr. Tigar's words, what about the prosecutors, Wilkinson
and Mackey? What did you think of them as lawyers?

DEUTCHMAN: I felt that Mr. Mackey and Ms. Wilkinson, especially took
their job very seriously and very honestly, and for the most part,
except foreclosing arguments, presented things very honestly and
appropriately. Without trying to twist things one way or another but
simply presenting them for what they were.

QUESTION: Were they good lawyers?

DEUTCHMAN: I think they are very good lawyers.

QUESTION: Did you say think they really were until it came time for the
closing arguments.

DEUTCHMAN: I think they were still good lawyers then, but I think that
probably some innuendo can't be avoided, and there was a lot.

QUESTION: Good lawyers, but was the defense better, Michael Tigar better
than them?

DEUTCHMAN: The government wasn't able to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt, a whole lot of the evidence. And that isn't entirely the
attorneys. That's partly what they're given as evidence to be able to
work with.

QUESTION: You'd rather have Michael Tigar as an attorney than Seth
Wilkinson?

DEUTCHMAN: I would be comfortable with either of those.

QUESTION: Do you think it helped or hurt not to have been sequestered?
What did you think of that decision?

DEUTCHMAN: I'm really glad we weren't. My life was upside down enough as
it was. I think that during deliberations, I occasionally had the
feeling that it might have been easier. To just kind of stay there and
be with it. That coming home and switching gears and doing home things,
it was good that I could do that because of our schedule, and because of
my family, but it was hard.

QUESTION: What did you say to the judge in the note that you sent him?

DEUTCHMAN: If he wishes to talk about that, he can. He actually talked
about the contents of the note this morning. So.

QUESTION: Niki, what was your opinion about Pat Ryan?

DEUTCHMAN: I think he's someone who is really involved, who cares a
whole lot about this. Obviously, he's the attorney for the state of
Oklahoma. I think he probably feels very deeply that Terry Nichols is
totally guilty, and is doing the best that he can to take care of that.
You know, if someone is guilty you do what you can to prosecute them.
And I think he's doing did the best, that is possible, that he knows how
to be able to bring that about. I feel like he used a fair amount, not
only in the closing arguments, but sometimes during the questioning of
distortion and innuendo. I personally didn't appreciate that.

QUESTION: What did you personally do to avoid news accounts during the
course of the trial?

DEUTCHMAN: If the news was on and they said, and now the Terry Nichols
trial, we turned it off until it was over. I haven't read the paper,
more than once or twice, skipping over the parts about the trial, since
the whole thing started. Occasionally people will say hey, there was an
article that said, da da da da, and I said I can't talk about this. I
think that all of us made a real effort to stay away from it as much as
we could.

QUESTION: Are you going to go back and read the articles?

DEUTCHMAN: Absolutely.

QUESTION: How did the jurors leave each other at the end there, leaving
the courthouse. Was it cordial, did they hug, what did they do?

DEUTCHMAN: Some of the jurors hugged. Some of them didn't. I think there
was still a lot of thoughtfulness, you know, people were really thinking
about what had happened. And there were some who were trying to
reconcile things with -- I think those who especially who felt like we
needed to spend a little bit more time, felt like it ended before they
had a chance to do that, and were, you know, dealing with that a little
bit.

QUESTION: Any plans to get together in the future? Any telephone numbers
exchanged?

DEUTCHMAN: Some.

QUESTION: Some people are interpreting your verdict jointly, as saying,
it's OK to build the bomb, just don't plant it, and you could get away
with it.

What would your response to that be?

DEUTCHMAN: I think that there were jurors who felt like he was not
involved with the bomb at all.

QUESTION: What happens if you get a jury summons again in the mail?

DEUTCHMAN: Well, I will probably answer it. But there is a form you fill
out at the beginning, at the very beginning of the process that says:
Have you ever served on a jury? I expect I would say yes I have, and I
don't plan to serve another one. I think that's probably people who are
leaving. I think we have done enough.

QUESTION: Thank you very much Niki.

QUESTION: When the victims family were testifying, you closed your eyes.
Why?

QUESTION: You turned away sometimes from them, it seemed.

DEUTCHMAN: A truthful answer to that, is that I do energetic healing
work, and it seemed to me there were a very lot of very wounded people
testifying, and who were in the courtroom. And if it were possible for
there to be healing involved in some of this process and some healing
energy could be made available for that to happen, if anyone should
choose to. And I was able to do that, that I wanted to do that. And so,
truthfully that is what was happening. I was both listening and sort of
something between meditating and praying.

QUESTION: What is the energetic healing?

DEUTCHMAN: That's another whole -- I'm getting the message here. I think
that's probably...

QUESTION: How will you be healed now? What will you do? You are not
going to Disneyland.

DEUTCHMAN: I'm not going to Disneyland.

QUESTION: Maybe one last thing Niki, if I could, you said some people
felt he wasn't involved at all. Does that mean...

DEUTCHMAN: In building the bomb.

QUESTION: ... in building the bomb. Does that mean some people,
nevertheless felt forced into the conspiracy verdict?

DEUTCHMAN: No, there were people who felt like he was involved; that he
knew that there was a plan that involved something big and bad and
destructive; but not necessarily what it was, and some who even felt
like they didn't know necessarily, that he might not have known
necessarily when it was going to be.

QUESTION: Did you ever come close to deadlocking on the guilt part?

DEUTCHMAN: I don't think I need to say anything one way or another about
that. I think we came to a conclusion, and I feel comfortable with what
that conclusion was. I think most of the jurors felt at least
comfortable with it, and some of them felt very comfortable with it.

Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Thank you.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: We have been listening to Niki Deutchman. She
was the jury forewoman on the Terry Nichols jury. Today that jury turned
over sentencing of Terry Nichols to Judge Richard Matsch after failing
to agree on sentencing Nichols to conspiracy and involuntary
manslaughter charges.

The big question for this jury: How involved was Terry Nichols in the
Oklahoma City bombing. It's a question they could not agree on.
Deutchman had high praise for Terry Nichols' defense team, saying they
did a great job building the idea of reasonable doubt. At one point
saying, the jury actually considered acquittal for Terry Nichols, but
after reviewing much of the evidence, realized there were things that
could not be explained away. That was Niki Deutchman, forewoman for the
jury that turned over the sentencing of Terry Nichols to Richard Matsch.

Miles.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Also part of our team in Denver. CNN's Tony
Clark who has watched this trial from the outset, was in the courtroom
for much of it. And Tony, one thing that strikes me,

listening to Ms. Deutchman is the jury's apparent suspicion of the
government and criticism of the government, in general saying they
dropped the ball on this prosecution and this investigation.

Are you surprised they came away with this impression?

TONY CLARK, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think that's the impression
that Michael Tigar tried to give this jury in listening to her
description of how the jury felt -- what they believed -- what they
didn't. She commented several times about "John Doe" number two. Ryder
trucks, where Terry Nichols was or wasn't and the suspicion she had. She
had concerns about the way evidence was treated. And so I think what
appears to me is that Michael Tigar was able to convince the jury of
many of the defense arguments in this case to raise questions on
something like that.

O'BRIEN: It was interesting that she also noted that they felt they had
enough evidence right there to convict Timothy McVeigh if they were
called upon to so, and yet, the evidence led them to interpretation when
it came to Terry Nichols. Once again, does that surprise you?

CLARK: Well, this has always been a circumstantial case against Terry
Nichols and some of the hard evidence that was used against Timothy
McVeigh in the first bombing trial may have made it easier for the first
jury, the first bombing trial jury to convict McVeigh as opposed to this
one. It is interesting though that some of the jurors from the first
bombing trial said that they felt they heard enough evidence about Terry
Nichols to convict Terry Nichols in this case.

Marsha Kight lost her daughter in the Oklahoma City bombing. She has
been sitting here listening with us to the comments of the forewoman.
I'm curious of your impressions?

MARSHA KIGHT, VICTIM'S MOTHER: After listening to Niki, it sounds like
some of the jury used this trial as a forum about their issues with the
federal government or with the FBI. And this was Nichols' trial, it's
not about whether you're disgruntled with the FBI or something that you
are not happy about with the federal government and that is very
disappointing to hear.

CLARK: Did you get a sense that they took this very seriously -- their
charge in this deliberation very seriously?

KIGHT: I really said even a couple days ago, I felt like there were some
jurors that wanted to wash their hands. They didn't want to have
anything to do with this. And it was surprising to me that during this
trial, there were some jurors sleeping, and that attention wasn't called
to that. I think there is some inappropriate signals given in the
courtroom. I saw Niki yesterday smiling over to the defense. This is a
very serious trial that affects many, many lives and I think some people
took it very seriously and others I think, they probably shouldn't have
been those who served on this trial.

CLARK: And what of her comment that the government prosecutors dropped
the ball in presenting evidence against Terry Nichols?

KIGHT: I am really -- feel like the prosecution team needs a
congressional medal of honor with how they conducted themselves in this
case. I think they did it with a lot of dignity. I think they laid it
out. When a juror comes back with conspiracy and then doesn't hold
someone accountable, I think that is a very dangerous message that this
jury sent.

CLARK: Marsha Kight. Thank you very much.

As we have been reporting throughout the day, the penalty decision now
goes back to Judge Richard Matsch. There will be filings, briefs filed
by attorneys for both sides. Those are due February 9 and then sometime
after that Judge Richard Matsch will determine a penalty for Terry
Nichols for his conviction on the conspiracy charge and eight counts of
involuntary manslaughter. Miles?

O'BRIEN: Tony, as long as we are looking ahead, let's look ahead for
just a moment toward state charges in Oklahoma. Should clarify that
Terry Nichols still faces the possibility of trial (INAUDIBLE) and
possibly the death sentence there. What is the time frame on that? Do we
have any idea?

CLARK: Bob Macy, who is the district attorney in Oklahoma County and he
has had charges, 168 murder charges ready to be filed in Oklahoma, in
case -- in this particular instance, in case there was a not-guilty
verdict throughout, he was going to make sure Terry Nichols was not
released and so he is simply waiting, part of the appeal process going
on, there's a grand jury going on in Oklahoma County so those things are
all on hold for the time being, no definite date set yet on that.

O'BRIEN: All right, thank you very much. That is CNN's Tony Clark who
has been reporting on this trial from Denver since its inception and
we'll check in with him as updates are warranted.

It's time for us to take a brief break. We have been telling you all
afternoon that the president is announcing a big package of relief for
folks who need child care, some $21 billion. We will bring that to you
live after we take a brief break. Stay with us.

***** END *****

© 1997 Cable News Network, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.