PWC Consulting


Ronnie Lee Kimble 


 Home   v  Search

 Timeline  v  Case File  v  Trial Record  v  Media Coverage





Closing Argument for the State of North Carolina, by Mr. Panosh


<page missing from transcripts>


is in fact true. The evidence is that prior to their marriage in 1993, Ted Kimble was dating not one, but two other women possibly at the same time he was seeing Patricia. That is two that we know. And that he asked or tried to get those women to marry him. In fact, then he tried to get one of them to go off and marry him secretly, just as he did with Patricia.

The evidence is clear that they were married in early '94. And by September of '94, knowing that Patricia had two life insurance policies, $25,000 each, he gets her to take out a third life insurance policy, another twenty-five thousand, for a total of seventy-five thousand. And with double indemnity, one hundred fifty thousand. And he gets her to transfer him as beneficiary instead of her mother in one of those policies. And about this same time, in November of 1994, he's talking to a real estate company, saying what would it take, what would it take for me to purchase the land that Lyles sits on. And you heard Mr. Routh testify: We talked, there was no firm agreement, but the price range was mentioned at a hundred eighty-five to two hundred thousand. Two hundred thousand. Does that number sound familiar?

I submit and contend to you that Theodore Kimble was planning her murder. At the time he married her?


Perhaps. But certainly when he started bringing this insurance on her.

So in November of 1994, now she has three policies, total of seventy-five thousand. Double indemnity, a hundred fifty thousand. And in March of 1995, he goes to not one, but two other agents, looking for more insurance on Patricia. You heard Mr. Apple testify that he, representing Mass Mutual, filled out an application, I believe it was for a hundred thousand dollars, on Patricia. And Patricia showed up and refused to sign that application. Specifically said, I don't need more insurance. And Ted goes to State Farm and talks to them about another policy, knowing that Patricia, in March of 1995, had said she doesn't need insurance. And then September 12, 1995, just a few days before her death, what does he do? He contacts Mr. Jarrell, and says, I need an insurance policy. Another two hundred thousand dollars.

And ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence is absolutely clear that he forged her signature. Patricia told her friends he forged her signature. Ted told the detectives he forged her signature. Now, ask yourself, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, why does a man need all that insurance on his wife? Why does he forge a signature? There's only one


reason: He's planning her death.

And then his conduct subsequent to her death. Within three weeks he takes up with another woman. Within three weeks he takes that woman back to the house and shows her that's where the body lied. No emotion. But when he talks about the insurance money, and Ms. McCloud, that's when he gets upset. They're not paying me my money.

Within days after her death, three days, he hires an attorney to file a demand on the insurance company. And you've seen it. You heard Mr. Hendrix and Ms. Miles -- Mize talk about it. He filed a demand on the insurance company, a demand for that two hundred thousand dollars. Even though he knew there was no blood test, he hired an attorney to get that money.

He called Mr. Sosnoff within three days of her death -- between her death and her funeral. He says, Mr. Sosnoff, I need that money. Process that claim. I need that $25,000. And he gets so upset when he finds out that it's Mrs. Blakley's money and not his that he calls Mrs. Blakley and tries to convince her, Give me that money. Patricia meant it for me.

He goes out and takes the church's collection; spends it on a motorcycle.

There is no question this man planned her death.


There is no question that he is the only one who could profit from her death. And there is no question that he knew as the husband he would be a suspect. He would be the suspect, the first and primary suspect. So he had to have an alibi. So what does he do?

September 7th, he goes to Precision Fabrics, gets a second job. And you heard the testimony of Precision Fabrics' Mr. Beaupre. He said there was a week there he worked third shift; second week he was on training; on October 9, 1995, he was to begin his first -- his third week there, his first week on the three-to-eleven shift. He was supposed to report in at three, but he had an excuse and it was prearranged for him to report in at six. And Mr. Chambers said the same thing. Why?

Because Ted needed an airtight alibi for every minute of that day, so he could not be suspected in the murder. Because he knew she'd be killed when he came home that evening. He knew that the house would be set on fire. But he had no way of knowing when the police would find the fire, find the body, and assume the time of death. He had to have an iron clad alibi all the way up to about 8 when he called Reuben.

Remember what Reuben said to you? Reuben said the concern and worry in his voice transferred to


concern and worry on my part.

Baloney. Ted knew exactly what was going on. He was insistent. That's why he was so upset. He wanted Reuben to go find that fire. He wanted Reuben to go find that body. Because he didn't want to come home at 11 and find it himself. Because he knew he was the primary suspect and it wouldn't be good for him to be finding the body. So he planned her death. But he couldn't do it himself.

I told you when this trial began there was only one person he could turn to to commit this murder, and that was Ronnie. Ronnie Kimble. Ronnie Kimble, who, I will tell you now and again and again and again, has no alibi for the time of her death.

Of course, you heard later on talk about a hit man. But use your common sense, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Hit men, if they exist, aren't cheap, and hit men don't work on credit. You're not going to find a hit man that's going to say I'll kill your wife, and when and if you get the insurance money I'll take a cut. The only person that's going to do that is Ronnie Kimble.

And there was a relationship between Ronnie and Ted, no matter how much he wants to protest it and say it wasn't true. Remember, by his own testimony, by


Ronnie's own testimony, on October 10, 1995, when they went to the Blakleys' residence, when Ted was to go 25, 30 minutes across town to get something, who went for emotional support? Not his father. Not Ronnie Kimble, Sr. Not Ted's mother, Edna Kimble. Ronnie Kimble went for emotional support.

Well, I submit and contend to you he did a lot more than emotional support. They did a little destroying of evidence. But Ronnie Kimble, through his own words, tells you he's the one that was close enough to Ted the day after the murder to provide emotional support.

And you've heard all this testimony about Joy Dyer. Remember, Ted Kimble is the one who said to Joy, You're not going to mess up my family. You're not going to ruin my family's reputation. Remember, Ronnie acted like he didn't know what to do and Ted steps up and shows his gun and says, You're not going to mess up my family. And within a week later, the next Saturday, Ronnie drives her for the abortion.

That's the kind of dominance, that's the kind of control Ted had over Ronnie. And don't you ever forget that Ted had that to use on Ronnie anytime he wanted to. He could reveal that information.

So Ronnie's the only person he could trust.


Ronnie has no alibi.

And then what happens on January 24, 1997? Ronnie confesses. He confesses to his friend Mitch Whidden. And why did he pick Mitch Whidden? Why didn't he talk to any of those other people down there at the base? Why is it human nature you've got to unload things? I don't know. I do know that's the way people act, just like Ted told his best friend Mr. Pardee about the murder.

I submit and contend to you the reason he picked Mr. Whidden is because Mr. Whidden was no longer on the military base; he moved to Virginia; he was separate; it was unlikely that the law enforcement officers would find him and question him. This was a man that Ronnie could trust, Ronnie sought out and said, I need to tell you this.

This is a man who has given his entire life to God; who believes in the Bible; who stands by the Bible; who lives the Bible every day. And I tell you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that he would not stand before you, put his hand on that Bible, and bear false witness. No one on this earth could make Mitch Whidden do that. And don't let Mr. Hatfield or Mr. Lloyd say, Well, this is just a mistake. Mr. Whidden just kind of


got things confused. He kind of twisted the dream into reality.

Because that's not what happened. Mitch Whidden said this was not a dream. There was no discussion of a dream until that second meeting down at Camp LeJeune. He told me he murdered his sister-in-law. And I became afraid. So afraid that I -- the first thing I did was I went to Jerry Falwell and asked him for advice. And I told Jerry Falwell the entire story. I got my sister to come down and bring me a gun so I could protect my family. I got my sister to help me get in to see Jerry Falwell because she and Jerry's daughter are closely associated.

He was scared. He was so scared he went to a motel that night. He was so scared that eventually he drops out of school and leaves the state and stays hidden. No one knows his location, not even law enforcement officers, only his attorney, until after Ronnie is arrested.

Now, don't forget, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this happened at the end of January, 1997, exactly the same time that Ted is giving his confession to Mr. Pardee, saying, The police are closing in on me, but I've got an alibi.

Alibi for what?


Patricia's murder.

Did you do it?

No. But my brother Ronnie did it. He shot her, poured gasoline on her, and burned her in the house.

That's what I promised you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that the evidence would show when I started this case, and that's what the evidence does show. And there is nothing -- I will say again and again. There is nothing, no power on earth that could make Mitch Whidden appear before you and say anything but the truth.

The defense started this case, Mr. Hatfield made some promises to you too. He said he's going to show that there were burglars at her house that night.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. I did not say that and I have a copy of my statement.

THE COURT: Remember, take your own recollection of the evidence.

MR. PANOSH: You recall what he said. There was someone at that house that night that broke in who was searching for love letters, photos, and money.

Have you seen any evidence of love letters, photos, and money?

You have certainly seen the money that was in this purse -- I believe it was $280. You take your


recollection -- that they passed up on the way out. You've certainly seen that photograph of the master bedroom with a drawer pulled out with a folder laying open with cash that wasn't taken. You have certainly seen the videotape that showed you the stereo, the TV, and all the other valuables that were not taken. But you have not heard one shred of evidence that someone was in there that day to find love letters, photos, and money.

Mr. Hatfield said this two hundred thousand dollars life insurance policy is just not accurate. Ted signed her name with her permission. And in fact there are documents that will show that she was drafting a will to take care of that two hundred thousand dollars.

Have you seen those documents?                                                                 

I submit today you haven't seen those documents because they do not exist.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

MR. PANOSH: There are no documents that show she was drafting a will and going to dispose of some two hundred thousand dollars. None.

He told you that on that day Ronnie Kimble was at Lyles Building Supply, 3:25 and after, the time of the murder. He told you that he talked to customers. He told you that Billy Smith would testify to


corroborate that alibi.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. That was not said in opening statement.

THE COURT: Don't interrupt, Mr. Hatfield. Members of the jury, take your own recollection

of the evidence when you begin your deliberations. You may object but not interject the other

things, Mr. Hatfield.

MR. HATFIELD: Yes, sir.

MR. PANOSH: He also told you that James Ogburn was there and saw the defendant and that James Ogburn may testify.

Have you heard from Billy Smith? Have you heard from James Ogburn? Have you heard from anyone who can support Ronnie's alibi? That was up to 5:40.

Of course, you heard from Mr. Stump who said about 5:50 -- excuse me, 4:50 to 5:00, he arrived. There's no question Ronnie has an alibi thereafter. But the time of the murder, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is 4, 4:15. Because all the evidence shows Patricia left her work that day about 3:30, and she was planning to go and cut the grass. She was seen about 3:40. And you saw right there the location where she was seen. It's on this diagram.

Mr. Hatfield says it's not a complete diagram,


and I agree it's not a complete diagram, but it gives you a general feeling of where all the places are.

She was right here. Just ten, twelve, fifteen minutes away from her residence. And that sometime between 4, or maybe 4:15, if she had to run an errand, she returned to that residence. When she returned to that residence, there was something in that driveway, a vehicle she recognized, because she wouldn't have gone in if it wasn't a vehicle she recognized.

I contend and submit to you it was Ronnie's vehicle. The reason she pulled way to the left is because Ronnie's vehicle was to the right. She went into that residence expecting Ronnie to be there, in fact, filing some tools in that back toolbox, we'll never know. As she walks in, a bullet crashes through her skull. She's dead instantly.

The evidence is that Ronnie had no alibi for that period of time before the death at 4 or 4:15. He had plenty of time to get into this house. To get into this house and disarrange the master bedroom and the back bedroom. Not the kitchen, dining room, living room. The living room where all the valuables were, the stereo, the TV. Didn't toss any of the drawers in the kitchen. Why? Because he knew that Patricia would be walking in, walking this way, and he knew that she -- if


she saw some disorder in this area or this area, she might be alerted. And that's why he faked the disorder back in these bedrooms.

And all the law enforcement officers who testified told you that's exactly what it was. It was staged. It was just not believable.

He walked in and killed her. And he poured gasoline down. Probably used a timing device on the stove. If nothing else, tossed a match in as he left the door.

Mr. Hatfield will tell you again and again and again there was no odor of gasoline on him.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have to be kind of foolish -- when you're planning to dump 3, 4, 5 gallons of gasoline and light it on fire, you'd be kind of foolish to get gasoline on yourself because that might mean you'd go up too. Real foolish.

It is perfectly consistent with the fact that he didn't want to get injured, that he did not want to get caught with gasoline on his self, that he took the precautions to pour that gasoline carefully and not get gasoline on himself. The fact that he did or didn't have gasoline on himself means nothing except that anyone exercising caution would not get gasoline on themselves when they're ready to torch it.


In any event, there was no evidence to support any of the contentions Mr. Hatfield made to you on opening.

And later on we hear about this dream. Ronnie Kimble testified, I told my wife about that dream.

Did you ever hear Kimberly Kimble tell you about that when she was testifying?

I submit and contend to you you didn't because there was no dream. There was no dream until Ronnie knew he was caught that day on January 28th at Camp LeJeune and he had to figure out a way to weasel out of it. And he said, Well, maybe it was just a dream. Maybe it was just a dream.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you're going to be submitted several issues. And the Court will -instruct

instruct you on the law. This is my opportunity to go over the law with you. If at any time I say something that differs from what the Judge tells you later on, of course, take his statements of the law. But I submit and contend to you you must decide several issues, and the first is is the defendant guilty or not guilty of first-degree arson.

For the State to prove that he is guilty of first-degree arson, we must prove several things beyond a reasonable doubt. And let me talk to you about that


term reasonable doubt. Because in jury selection you heard someone say a reasonable doubt is something -- a doubt to which you can assign a reason. And that is not the law.

The Court will tell you that a reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon common sense and reason. And the courts, beyond what the Judge is going to tell you, went on to define that in a case called State v. Adams, 1994, from our Supreme Court.

It says, A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible, fanciful or academic doubt, nor is it proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, nor proof beyond all doubt, for there are few things in human existence that are beyond all doubt, nor is it a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel or by your own mental ingenuity-and not warranted by the testimony, nor is it a doubt borne of merciful inclination or disposition to permit the defendant to escape the penalty of law, nor is it a doubt suggested or prompted by sympathy for the defendant or those with whom he may be connected. A reasonable doubt is a sane, rational doubt, an honest substantial misgiving, one based on reason, common sense, fairly arising out of some or all of the evidence that has been presented, or the lack or insufficiency of the evidence, as the case may be.


Remember those words, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Your duty is to determine whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element. And a reasonable doubt is a sane, rational doubt, an honest doubt, a substantial misgiving, one based on reason and common sense.

And it is not a doubt to which you can assign a reason.

We must prove, first, the defendant burned a building, that is, a house located at 2401 Brandon Station Court; second, this building was a dwelling. We've proved both of those, I submit to you. Third, this house was a dwelling house of someone other than the defendant; that is, Patricia and Ted Kimble. And fourth, that the house was occupied when the defendant burned it. That is, some person was physically present at 2104 Brandon Station Court at the time of the burning.

Now, you may say, Well, that causes me a little problem, because I believe that the evidence shows Patricia was dead at the time that they burned the house. At the time that Ronnie burned the house.

And I submit and contend to you the law goes on and says occupied. For you to find that a dwelling was occupied, you must find that the murder and the arson


were so joined by time and circumstances as to be part of one continuous transaction.

In a case called State v. Jaynes, it says, Our arson statute provides in pertinent part there should be two degrees of arson as defined in the common law. If the dwelling burned was occupied at the time of the burning, the offense is arson in the first-degree. For the purpose of the arson statute, a dwelling is occupied if the interval between the mortal blow and the arson is short and the murder and arson constitute parts of a continuous transaction.

I submit and contend to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that if you think about the law, this was a continuous transaction. She was killed and her body was burned almost immediately. And I know, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, a lot of time went by. I just ask you to remember the testimony of our experts. Our experts said -- first, what Mr. Rich said. That it's consistent with two hours or more. Mr. Webster says it is certainly more than two hours and is consistent with four or more hours of burning.

But what's more important is both of those experts agreed upon one thing. That this was an airtight house. That that gasoline, was poured and torched and that there was very little oxygen there to


support that burning. And that the oxygen being depleted, fire fell down to a very intense, very low-burning fire, and burned for a long, long time. It burned through 2 x 10s, four of them, completely destroying them. It burned through a double 2 x 10 which was underneath those. Destroyed. That, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, takes a long time.

And I submit and contend to you that there was smoke smelled at 5:15 or 5:30, I believe it was, by the fireman. And he said that smoke was consistent with a structural fire. And the two neighbors, Mr. Fryar and Ms. Ransom, I believe it was, changed her name to Dickerson, said that between 6 and 6:30, they saw and smelled smoke.

And that's important, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, because when you look at these photographs -­and you cannot just look at this one. You can look at every one. If you look at the windows and the vents, there's no sign of smoke coming out. Except for State's Exhibit 52. State's Exhibit 52 clearly shows you that here on the back -- and this was taken the night of the fire -- there's one window. You remember the fireman said that's the window he broke out to look for the body. That's got smoke. There's a lot of smoke under each of these crawl space vents.


What that tells you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is that this was in fact a closed fire, that it could not progress like a normal fire, that it was pressurized, that the fire fell down and concentrated on her body, and not until it went through the floor and got oxygen from underneath did the smoke start to come out these vents. And that's what the fireman smelled at 5:30, and that's the smoke that the neighbors saw at 6 and 6:30.

Yes, I know there was a lot of time there, but if you listen to the experts, if you watch that demonstration, it's clear that those experts know what they're talking about. This fire burned for a long time. It takes a long time for a low-intensity fire to go through 2 x 10s. And then when it dropped to the floor, the crawl space, it still didn't shoot up. It never broke through the ceiling.

Mr. Webster says fire will not spread to an oxygen-deprived area. It just won't happen.

Mr. Rich says that entire house was pressurized, forcing the fire down. So the only burning that there really was after it dropped through that floor was around her body. The floor and the parts of 2 x 10s that were saturated with gas and her body. That's what burned. That's what caused all that smoke that came out


that was smelled at 5:30.

It's entirely consistent that she was killed at 4, 4:15, and her body was set on fire shortly thereafter. And the defendant had plenty of time to travel that 8.3 miles back to his house and be there at 4:50 or 5:00, when Mr. Stump saw him.

The State must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that that house was occupied. And remember occupied doesn't mean that she was alive. It means that the arson and the murder were so joined in time by circumstances as to be part of one continuous transaction.

And fifth, the defendant did so maliciously. This case is loaded with malice, ladies and gentlemen.

We must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy. You must find that he did conspire with Ted. We must prove that, first, the defendant and at least one other person, Theodore Kimble, entered into an agreement; and second, that agreement was to commit murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another with malice.

Our courts have said in State v. Gibbs, it's also in our Supreme Court, A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or a lawful act with unlawful means. To constitute


a conspiracy it is not necessary the parties should have come together and agreed in express terms to unite for a common object. A mutual implied understanding is sufficient so far as the combination of conspiracy is concerned. The existence of a conspiracy may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. In other words, we can show it, because both Ted and Ronnie said it existed, or we can show it through the circumstances of this case. However, direct proof of the charge of conspiracy is not essential for it is rarely obtainable. It may be and generally is established by a number of indefinite acts, each of which, standing alone, may have little weight, but taken collectively they point unerringly to the existence of a conspiracy.

And this was a conspiracy, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. And no, you didn't find any evidence there was no physical evidence at that scene to link Ronnie.

Why? Because they planned it. They're not going to plan to leave fingerprints. They're not going to plan to leave physical evidence. You heard the testimony of the law enforcement officers. They went through every part of that house. They went and fingerprinted the car. They went and fingerprinted the


boat that was in the boat house behind the house. They fingerprinted or tried to fingerprint the door. They did everything in there possible to try to determine whether or not there was physical evidence there. They collected hair -- specifically, one hair -- in that mess. You've seen that -- that fire. You've seen

that -- how that house looked after it was done with all that insulation down. In that mess, they found one hair.

You heard him say -- Sergeant Lindell say that they were there Monday night, all day Tuesday, until 4:15 on Wednesday, looking for the evidence. They had the firemen come and look through the evidence handful by handful. They did a good job, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. And the reason that they didn't find any physical evidence is not because they didn't look. They looked. The reason they didn't find any physical evidence is because it was a plan. It was a conspiracy. Ronnie did not intend to leave evidence of his being there.

So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're going to show that there was an agreement to commit a murder and that they intended it to be carried out, and in fact it was carried out. And we can show that by direct evidence, by the statements of Ronnie, by the statements


of Ted, or by the circumstances here. All the information about the insurance; the fact that Ronnie did not have an alibi for that time frame.

The Court will go on to tell you again that you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the State has proved to you that he is guilty of first-degree murder, and you can find that he is guilty of first-degree murder under one or two or both theories. That is, premeditation and deliberation. And there's no question here this was a premeditated, deliberate murder. Second, that it was in the course of a felony: Arson.

If you find that she died in the course of a felony -- and again, this is a continuous transaction theory. If you find that there was an arson associated with her death in such a short time, then he would be guilty of felony murder in addition to premeditation and deliberation.

The Court will tell you you may find the defendant guilty of first-degree murder on either or both of two theories. That is, the basis of malice, premeditation and deliberation or under the first-degree felony murder rule. First-degree murder on the basis of malice, premeditation and deliberation is the intentional and unlawful killing of a human being with malice and with premeditation and deliberation.


First-degree murder under the felony murder rule is the killing of a human being in the perpetration of a felony; in this case, arson.

The State must prove, first, that Ronnie Kimble intentionally and with malice killed Patricia. Malice means not only hatred, ill will or spite, it also means the condition of mind that prompts a person to take the life of another intentionally or intentionally inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon upon another which proximately results in her death without cause, justification, or excuse.

The Court will tell you that, second, the State must prove that the defendant's acts were the proximate cause of her death. And, of course, you've heard Dr. Chancellor say she died almost instantaneously.

And third, the defendant intended to kill her. An intent is an element that is seldom proved by direct evidence. It must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which you may infer. An intent to kill may be inferred from the nature of the assault, the manner in which it was made, and the conduct of the parties or other relevant circumstances.

You can take into account the entire conspiracy to find that this was premeditated and deliberate and it was done with malice.


The Court will tell you also that you -- even if you find him guilty under that premeditation rule, you must go on and consider whether it was done in the course of a felony. And I submit and contend to you all the evidence is that he did in fact kill her and that thereafter he burned the house, and that was a felony.

Remember, for you to find the building was occupied, you must find the murder and the arson were joined by time and circumstances as to be one continuous transaction. It is not necessary that the arson comes ahead of the murder.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the evidence in this case. This evidence clearly shows a conspiracy. Clearly shows a plan. Clearly shows that Ronnie Kimble was the only person that the defendant -- the codefendant Ted Kimble could turn to to commit the murder.

And then you heard the evidence from the State. And I submit and contend to you when Ronnie Kimble took that witness stand, he was not credible. He was not believable. Time after time, he just went too far to try to explain something. Time after time, he got caught in inconsistencies and little lies. And each and every one of you had a chance to see him, and you know that he was not credible. He was not believable.


And then the defense went into this attack on Detective Church and his investigation, none of which had any bearing on this case. They talked to you for hours and hours about April 1st, and how Ronnie was deprived of his rights.

First of all, he wasn't deprived of his rights; and secondly, even if he was, there was no confession during that period of time. It has no bearing on this case. Even Ronnie had to admit that in the middle of that a marine captain came in and advised him of his rights, the rights forms are there, including the rights to an attorney, but he wants you to believe that for 11 hours or 12 hours, whatever he said, he was held incommunicado and questioned. But he told you on the witness stand there was not one single question directed to him. All they asked him to do was listen.

And you heard Detective Church say that when that was done, when they finally got him back to Guilford County after the process at the marine base, after that four-hour trip, after that accident they had to pause for, after the two or three breaks they took, when they finally got him back here and advised him of his rights, he said, I do not want to talk. Detective Church said, That's the end of it. And as they're leaving, what did Ronnie say? Thank you. I don't hold


this against you. I know you're just doing your job. Did you hear Ronnie take the witness stand and deny that? Never.

That's just an attack. That's just to take you off the track to try to make you think about something else instead of the evidence in this case.

And you heard this thing about Rodney Woodberry being .a hit man. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's clear that Rodney Woodberry is 30 odd miles away on October 9th. It is clear that Rodney Woodberry, on June of 1995, quit, left his employment at Lyles, and that Ted Kimble could not find him after that. Their own witness said that Ted kept coming around looking for Rodney. Their own witness said that in June of 1995, Ted cut off Rodney's pager. Ted cut off Rodney's pager.

Does that make sense to you? Because we know this murder was planned. We know it went back before June of '95, when he was trying to get all this insurance on her.

Does it make sense to you that he's conspiring with Mr. Woodberry? That he then cuts off the single most important and most immediate way that he can contact Mr. Woodberry? What does a pager cost? Four dollars a month? Five dollars a month?

Woodberry had nothing to do with this case.


Except, of course, Ted did talk to him about a hit man, and Ted did tell him if you're ever asked about Little Ronnie, you don't know anything about him. And Mr. Woodberry was scared of Ted, because he told Mr. Woodberry, just as he told the other people that he was associated with, about this high-powered five­thousand-dollar sniper rifle that he had that he could kill people a half mile away.

Mr. Woodberry brought in two alibi witnesses. That's what an alibi is. Other people come in and say he was somewhere else. He was in Graham that day.

Mr. Woodberry has nothing to do with this case. Again, they're trying to drag you off the track. Because if you stick to the track, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there's only one person who had a motive to kill Patricia. And there's only one person that Ted could turn to to do the murder without any money up front.

And you know there was no money up front. Patricia watched every nickel and dime that went through the house. She knew that that insurance application was paid for by cash. There was no check. She knew where the money in that family was going.

Ted Kimble needed money, had no money to hire a hit man, so the only person he could turn to was his


brother Ronnie.

Carefully examine the State's case. Carefully examine the defense's case. Because I submit and contend to you we have proved -- we have met our burden as to each and every element, and they have not proved anything they said they were going to prove at the beginning of this case. Stick to the evidence.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. We're going to take about a five-minute break. Those of you in the jury box, you may take about a five-minute recess to kind of refresh yourselves. If you'll go ahead and step out, please.

(Jury absent)

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we do have the -- we do have the autopsy photos. They still have the red stickers on them. Unless there's a need for further hearing, I'd like to put them into evidence.

THE COURT: Have you seen them, Gentlemen?

MR. LLOYD: No objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Place them back in evidence.

We're going to take about a five-minute recess. Those of you in the courtroom, do not go back in the back halls. Do not use the back elevators. Stay out in the main areas. If I see you in that area, I'll cite


you for contempt while this jury is deliberating. Five minutes.




Published August 15, 2006.  Report broken links or other problems.

© PWC Consulting.  Visit our website at for information on our Mission and Services, and to sign up for our Newsletter.