linked - Investigating the Terror

may have been preferable for a chemist to testify to these matters.
4. Williams' attempts to explain how nitroglycerin will precipitate from a
methanol solution and how nitroglycerine decomposes were poor. A
knowledgeable chemist could have provided better explanations.
Nevertheless, Williams was asked the questions, and he no doubt did his
best to answer them accurately. Williams should have told the prosecutor
ahead of time that these matters would be best left to another witness.
5. Williams was asked what the components of urea nitrate are, and he
said, urea and nitric acid. We think the answer was a fair response to the
question. Urea and nitric acid are the ingredients, which when mixed
form a new substance, urea nitrate. One definition of component is
ingredient. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 270 (1990).
6. Whitehurst claims that Williams testified falsely that he (Williams)
researched the use of urea nitrate in the United States. This claim is
apparently based on the fact that Whitehurst did research on the subject.
That Whitehurst did some research does not mean Williams did not.
Williams insists that he did some research. Accordingly, we conclude that
Whitehurst's claim is unfounded.
7. Whitehurst criticizes Williams' testimony about the possible explosive
uses of certain materials. Generally, we have no problem with Williams'
testimony on this subject, and believe it was within his area of expertise.
Williams can be second-guessed on certain matters (e.g., the discussion
of phenol ), but any errors were harmless and insignificant.
8. Whitehurst's claim that Williams cannot consider the results of a
chemist's analysis in rendering Williams' own opinion is frivolous.
9. Whitehurst criticizes Williams' description of nitrocellulose. We think
that Williams' description was accurate for one form or type of
nitrocellulose, but was not a good generic description.
10. Despite Whitehurst's criticism, we find that Williams' testimony about