PWC Consulting


Ronnie Lee Kimble 


 Home   v  Search

 Timeline  v  Case File  v  Trial Record  v  Media Coverage





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

THE COURT: At this point, members of the jury, Mr. Panosh will have the final argument on behalf of the people of North Carolina.

You may address the jury.

MR. PANOSH: Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Hatfield had some pretty disparaging remarks to say about lawyers. And I don't want you to think that when I'm pointing out a few things that I'm in any way saying anything disparaging about Mr. Hatfield or Mr. Lloyd, because they simply made mistakes.

Both of them said to you that Ted Kimble got $50,000 as a result of this insurance claim. I'm sorry. That's not true. You have in front of you State's Exhibits 104 and 105 which are the estate of Patricia Kimble. If you look in these, there is a statement indicating exactly what money went in and what money went out, and I believe there's actually cancelled checks. And you'll see here that there was a $52,606 payment and a $53,417 payment, and both of them went to Cathe Henderson, an attorney who represents the estate. And there are dispersals. She keeps an accurate record of everything that goes in and everything that goes out. And there are no dispersals to Ted Kimble. None. He


didn't get that money. The reason he didn't get that money is because it's in the estate of Patricia Kimble. And it will stay there until the estate is closed. And the estate will never be closed until the guilt of Theodore Kimble is decided, because he is one of the people who can take from that estate, and until it's decided that he is not responsible for her death, he will not be able to take from that estate. So Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Lloyd just made a mistake. They weren't trying to deceive you.

Mr. Hatfield says to you this case is simple. Theodore Kimble murdered her. Should have been served with a warrant right away. He had no alibi.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I want you to remember the evidence, because there was a fella that testified by the name of Gary Reilly. You remember Mr. Gary Reilly? He testified that he took a 40-page statement from Theodore Kimble about his whereabouts on October 9, 1995. A 40-page statement. And he covered from 8:30 to 5:30, when he closed Lyles, to 6, when he got to Precision, and after that.

And remember, it wasn't 6:20, when he got to Precision. Mr. Chambers, who was his lead man, testified and said it was 6:00 when he got to Precision. I looked at my watch. And Mr. Reilly said I interviewed


the people, including Mr. Chambers and the other people at Precision, and verified that he was there at 6.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. He did not say that.

THE COURT: Take your own recollection of the evidence, members of the jury.

MR. PANOSH: And a fella by the name of Jim Church testified -- or the other thing that Mr. Reilly said was that he allowed Theodore Kimble to list every person he came into contact with on that day. And you'll remember the list. He said there was the employee, Mr. Ogburn; the employer, Mr. Swaney; and the customers that he remembered; the bankers; his father; his mother; everybody he came into contact. He said his father wasn't there because his father was at Lynchburg University. And Gary Reilly said that he went and he interviewed each one of those people.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. He missed some of them.

THE COURT: Overruled. Take your own recollection of the evidence, members of the jury.

MR. PANOSH: And verified that he was there from 8:30 to 5:30.

And do you remember what Ronnie Kimble said? Ronnie Kimble said that he was there until 4:15, and Ted was in the office.


Mr. Ogburn was interviewed. Mr. Swaney was interviewed. And there was another interview. You remember that? Detective Church told you about it.

Mr. Reilly told you about it. Ted's mother. Remember? Because at 5:30, he couldn't just go to Precision Fabrics. He had to drop off the dog with his mother

So I guess this is a backwards rush, a negative rush to judgment. You heard Mr. Lloyd say it was a rush to judgment against Ronnie. I guess this was a negative rush against Ted. Because, gee, if it was so simple, if there was no alibi, don't you think Mr. Church would have gone out and arrested him real quick? I mean didn't Mr. Church recognize this was his gun; he's the one that had the motive. If he didn't have this airtight alibi, don't you think Mr. Church would have arrested him right then and there?

Of course, he would have. This 40-page statement is important, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. It's important because Theodore Kimble was interviewed on October 16th, just seven days after the death of his wife, and was allowed to spell out his activities minute by minute. And you heard who he listed. Bill Harris. Precision Fabrics.

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor. Not for the truth of the matter asserted. Statement made


out of court, not under oath.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PANOSH: You have heard his testimony. He listed everybody he came into contact with except Ronnie Kimble. Never in 40 pages did he list Ronnie Kimble by name. There was one time when he said my brother -- no name -- my brother was there at the fire. That's all he ever said.

Why, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Because on that day he knew that Gary Reilly was going to go to each and every one of the people he had talked to, each and every one of the people that Ted listed, and follow up, and follow up on what Ted told them. And he didn't want -- he desperately did not want Mr. Reilly to come into contact with Ronnie Kimble. Why? Because Ronnie Kimble wasn't doing so well.

Do you remember the testimony of Mr. Stump? Mr. Stump said yes, in fact I was with him that night. He was doing just fine.

And then I showed him an affidavit he gave in December of 1996. And in that affidavit he said Ronnie Kimble was terribly upset, he was crying, he was -­seemed to be grief stricken.

He didn't remember that the first time he testified until he looked at his statement from December


of '96. And then he remembered it.

That's why Theodore Kimble did not want to mention Ronnie. Because he knew Ronnie wasn't handling the murder very well. If Mr. Stump knew it, Theodore Kimble knew it. And he knew that if that insurance investigator or anybody else found Ronnie, that Ronnie might -- Ronnie just might say something that would implicate the two of them.

Ronnie Kimble testified. And he said, I was upset. I was outraged by the sheriff's department. They had had that receipt, and they never came and talked to me. That bothered me.

Remember him saying that?

But he was in town on October the 9th, the day of her death; October the 10th; 11th; 12th; 13th; 14th; and Sunday, the 15th. Didn't go back to work until the 16th, that Monday. He was in town each and every one of those days.

I asked Mr. Stump, Well, was he working on that underpinning?

No. I don't know what he was doing.

Ask yourself, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you were at your sister-in-law's home the day that she was brutally murdered, the day that her body in her home was set on fire, is there anything in the world


that would stop you from going to the police and saying this happened, this is what I saw, this is what I didn't see?


There's only one reason that man, Ronnie Kimble, did not go to the Guilford County Sheriff's Department: Because he knew he wanted to slip out of town and be gone.

You remember much, much later Mr. Charles Dunn testified -- and I don't remember what he was testifying about, but he was here to say I am Ronnie Kimble's best friend. And I think he was telling about sometime when they went shooting together. And maybe about this abortion.

I said to him, Did you learn of Patricia's death?

Yes, I did.

Did you learn it from Ronnie?

No, I didn't. I didn't even know he was in town that weekend.

Ronnie's best friend didn't know he was in town - that weekend.

Ronnie leaves without seeing the police. Ted never mentioned that Ronnie was with him at 7:00 in the morning when he picked up the truck, at 9 or 10 when he


picked up the pickets, right after that when he came back for the gas, and then again at 3 o'clock, until 4:15. He never mentioned that.

You have to remember, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Ted is Ronnie's alibi. And Ronnie is Ted's alibi. Why would Ted be keeping that quiet? Why would he not be saying hey, I can tell you all about my day. My brother was with me this time, this time, this time, and this time. Why did he never tell Detective Church that? Why did -- when Detective Church finally confronted him, why did he say I was scared?

He was scared all right. He was scared that Detective Church would get ahold of Ronnie and he would talk to Ronnie and Ronnie would say something that would lead them to suspect Ronnie and Ted. And you bet'cha, there's telephone calls on here. And I had -- first of all, I asked him, I said, Did your brother ever call you at Camp LeJeune?

Nope. Brother never called me.

I brought up a piece of paper and said list these numbers. You recognize these numbers?

Oh, yeah. Those are the base chaplain -- base barracks. I recognize all those numbers.

Didn't you, in fact, get calls from Ted on that day, October 30, 1995, the day that NIS was interviewing



Nope. That must have been my mother and father. Well, look here. It's in the afternoon and then it's again in the evening. Who called you?

Well, maybe it was Ted. Yes. I think maybe he did call me.

Mr. Hatfield said I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Ted didn't call him on that day.

Why was he calling him, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? He was calling to make sure that information didn't come out, information about their conspiracy.

And there was a conspiracy in this case, no matter what Mr. Lloyd says to you. Mr. Lloyd says with every fiber of my being, I believe he's not guilty. Well, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is improper for me to stand here and say what I believe.

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor. That's not what I said.

THE COURT: Well, sustained. Take your own recollection of the evidence, members of the jury.

MR. PANOSH: It is improper for any attorney to submit his opinion. You're the ones to decide the guilt or innocence.

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, let the record note that what I said that I was going to convince them that


Ronnie Kimble was not guilty.

THE COURT: Take your own recollection of the evidence, members of the jury.

MR. PANOSH: He went on to say that those telephone calls, there was no evidence that Ted made those calls to Ronnie. But you remember what Ronnie said? Ted may have called. I just don't remember.

Yes, we may have discussed it. We did -- I think we may have talked in the evening.

Mr. Lloyd said, Well, it could have been the mother. It could have been Edna Kimble. It could have been Ronnie Kimble.

Again, have you heard from Edna Kimble or Ronnie Kimble to say they did in fact make those calls? I contend to you you didn't, because that was part of the conspiracy. That was something they wanted to cover up.

And we heard a little bit about Joy Dyer. Joy Dyer came in here and she testified. Mr. Hatfield said the only reason we brought her in was to smear Ronnie Kimble's name and reputation. But you remember the testimony, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. She got up there, and I asked her a very few limited questions, and those questions were designed to say yes, I knew Ronnie; yes, I dated Ronnie; and yes, about in 1992, I remember Ronnie and Ted, and I remember them coming and target


practicing with this pistol, or a pistol like this, with a laser sight in my yard. That's the only reason she was here. We didn't bring her here to smear anything. It was through cross-examination and the direct examination of Ronnie Kimble that all the romantic information came out about the pregnancy and the abortion.

And yes, that is important, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, because it conclusively shows -- it conclusively shows -- that there was a relationship between Ted and Ronnie. And when Ronnie got in trouble:, Ted is the one that stepped in. And Ted said you're going to -- not going to embarrass my family.

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is the murder weapon. I submit to you I don't believe that they're contesting that anymore. Mr. Hatfield said science was not used. Science was not used to get the fingerprints, or we would have known only Ted's fingerprints were on there.

Well, first of all, at some point Ted's fingerprints were on there. I'll admit that. That doesn't mean somebody else with a glove could not have touched that. And secondly, I want you to look at these keys. Because this gun has been cleaned. You'll remember Mr. Ware said before I did my analysis I


cleaned this gun, because I couldn't fire it until it had been cleaned.

Look at these keys that went through a fire. This is the condition that gun was in or worse. You've seen the photographs. Remember the explanation you heard of fingerprints from Ms. Huntington and Sergeant Lindell. Fingerprints are moisture left on a surface. How could any moisture be left to be detected on that surface when it's covered with grit and soot from the fire? How could any fingerprints be lifted from this particular gun?

And these keys are important too, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Very important. Because

Mr. Hatfield or Mr. Lloyd, one of them, argued Patricia came home that day and used her keys to get into her house and left them in her kitchen.

And I submit and contend to you there is no evidence of that. These are her keys. They were left in the ignition of her car. These also belong to that household. No question about it. They're identical. You can compare the keys. For example, you can compare-the Subaru keys. They're exactly the same. But Patricia didn't need these keys that day. Somebody else needed keys to move the truck. Somebody else had access to the keys. And I submit and contend to you that yes,


they were found in the kitchen. I submit and contend to you yes, they were probably laying on the countertop. And I submit and contend to you that when the firemen came in there, they said the heat was so intense they opened that big nozzle and they sprayed, and that's how they got from the countertop to the floor. And I submit and contend to you it makes no sense for Patricia to have these exact same keys in her car in the ignition and then use those keys.

I submit and contend to you that those keys and this gun came from Lyles Building Supply, and Ronnie was there on one of those trips that he made to Lyles Building Supply. Probably early in that morning. needed tools. He didn't need a saw. This is the tool he needed. This is the tool he needed to get in.

Because the evidence is absolutely clear that this poor young lady was deathly afraid of another breaking and entry. And when she left that house that morning, that dead bolt was locked. Because she was afraid. She had had two breaking and enterings in her house. She's not going to leave that house empty and _ unlocked. She locked that dead bolt. And when she came home, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she didn't remove these keys from the ignition, because she didn't need them. She knew Ronnie was there. Ronnie's vehicle


was right there in the driveway. That's what I submit and contend to you.

And when Ms. Dyer testified about the shooting, it was relevant, because it was in 1992, which seems like a long time ago now. But remember this murder occurred in 1995. So it was within a three-year time span.

And Mr. Hatfield made a big thing. He said, Well, you know, they're going to make it look like they tricked -- like my client wasn't telling the truth about this wedding picture.

And I submit and contend to you it's true. He was not telling the truth. He was up there and he said, time and time and time again, We weren't close. And on direct examination he said, I wasn't even in the wedding.

So on cross-examination, I came back and said, Were you in the wedding?

No. I wasn't in the wedding.

So I picked up this photograph and started to go over to Mr. Lloyd and show him what I was going to give - him. He says, Let me correct myself. I was in the wedding. There, there, that's my picture. He said, But it was a last-minute thing. It was done at the last minute. They just decided to have me -- unless you've


got a printed announcement there, well, I guess then it was planned.

This young man does not know the truth. He certainly didn't tell you the truth.

What did he tell you about pornography? What did he tell you about pornography? He made that speech all by himself. He said pornography, I can't stand it. I can't abide it. I won't have it around me. I don't let my roommates have it. I told them if I see it around, I'm going to destroy it. Don't have it around me.

And after the break, I said, Now, do you remember that speech?

Yes. It wasn't true. I do struggle with pornography. I have had it in the past. And it's a temptation to me.

Another little lie that he got caught in.

It's about the same time he was telling you about how he is faithful to his wife who he has no secrets from; his wife who he says he told about the dream; he told about this dream about Patricia's death._ Did you hear Kimberly Kimble say she was told about the dream? She didn't. The dream is the whole defense here, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. If Kimberly Kimble knew about the dream, she would have told you.


I came back to him, I said, You mean you told her?

Yes, I did.

When did you tell her?

I don't recall.

What did you tell her?

I don't remember.

Did you tell her details?

I don't -- I didn't tell her details. I just said it was a dream about Patricia. Or Patricia's death, I think he said.

And then I asked him, Is this your book, 138? Yes, it is.

Are these pictures that you had in that book? Yes, they are.

Are they your wife?

No. They're Janet Smith.

But he wanted you to believe that he was a loving wife -- husband, they had a good marital relationship, and he didn't keep secrets from his wife.

Now, there's something you should have noticed - here, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You have heard two witnesses -- Father Soutiere and Ms. Kelly. Ms. Kelly who said she's a surrogate mother to him.

Both of them said one thing about his character. He's a


good Marine.

Have you heard one single witness take the witness stand and say, I've known Ronnie Kimble for five years, ten years, fifteen years; he's credible, believable, of good character? Anything along those lines? Not subject to violence. Have you heard one?

MR. LLOYD: Objection, Your Honor. There's no evidence of that one way or the other.

THE COURT: Overruled. Comment on the evidence. MR. PANOSH: Have you heard one character witness come in for Ronnie Kimble?

I submit and contend to you you have not. And you can consider absence of character evidence --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. That is not the law.

MR. PANOSH: -- when you're determining -‑

THE COURT: Members of the jury, you will take your own recollection of the evidence during your deliberations.

MR. PANOSH: -- whether you believe him or whether he could commit this type of crime.

Ask yourselves, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if I, if I was falsely accused of a crime, how many character witnesses could I bring in?

Let's see. There would be my minister, my teachers, my neighbors --


MR. LLOYD: Objection, Your Honor. Improper argument.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PANOSH: Have you seen those people? There's a reason, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

And you heard I believe Mr. Lloyd say that Father Soutiere was here for a reason. He was here to say that Ronnie did not confess to him and therefore he is not guilty.

Well, that's such a strange argument. I'm not sure how to address it. But, first of all, if Ronnie did confess to him, he certainly could not come in here and tell you about it. And, if Ronnie did confess to six other preachers on the base, they could not come in here and tell you about it. So what does it mean?

It means that he didn't go to Father Soutiere, because Father Soutiere was a Catholic priest and he was a Baptist. Baptists don't believe in the Pope. They don't believe in confession. If a Baptist is going to seek forgiveness, he's going to seek it from his God. And he's going to go and talk to another Baptist: Mr. Whidden.

And Mr. Lloyd said that Ronnie did not -- did not -- call Mitch Whidden a liar. But I submit and contend to you, again and again, he did. He said Mitch


Whidden is deceitful.

There are multiple levels here. First, he says Mitch Whidden told you a lie when he said I confessed this murder to you -- to him. Then he says Mitch Whidden told you a lie when the next day he said he wanted me to leave, because really Mitch -‑

MR. LLOYD: Objection, Your Honor. He did not testify to that.

THE COURT: Members of the jury, again, take your own recollection of the evidence.

MR. PANOSH: Mitch Whidden wanted us to stay. He was practically begging us to stay. And Debra Whidden -- Debra Whidden is also not telling you the truth, because he never made the statement that he had a haunted past. And he never said to her, I wouldn't be so sure about that, in a very serious manner, when she said, Well, we've all done things we regret in our past.

And then Mr. Lloyd said, Well, you know, doesn't make sense that he went down to Camp LeJeune, and when Ronnie said to him it was just a dream, he didn't confront him.

Well, ask yourselves, members of the jury, why did Mitch Whidden go there? He told you he went there because he was concerned about this suicide thing. He


told you he went there to get him to turn himself in. And all of a sudden -‑

MR. LLOYD: Objection, Your Honor. He never said he went down there about suicide.

THE COURT: Again, members of the jury, you will take your own recollection of the evidence when you begin your deliberations.

MR. PANOSH: And when Ronnie says it was all a dream, no, he didn't confront him. Are you going to confront a murderer and say, You confess to me? Common sense says that's the time you walk away. You can't help this man. You can't talk him out of suicide. You can't talk him into turning himself in. And that's exactly what Mitch Whidden did.

And they said we didn't bring in a whole bunch

of witnesses to tell you that they might know something. Well, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I say again and again, these witnesses are important. Because Ronnie Kimble took that witness stand and he says that he was there on three occasions. He was at Lyles. And every time, he talks to Mr. Ogburn, and he talks to Mr. Ogburn. about selling him his car, the last thing he did when he left that day. And Mr. Ogburn would be a one-hundred­percent alibi, because we all agree that if Mr. Ogburn was talking to him here at 4:15, then he couldn't be


over there killing Patricia Kimble at the same time.

And yes, it is important they didn't bring in Mr. Ogburn or Mr. Smith, or any other people they said they were going to bring in.

MR. HATFIELD: We never said we were going to bring those in. I have my statement. I would like it read to the jury again.

THE COURT: Mr. Hatfield, just sit down. Cool off.

Members of the jury, again, take your own recollection of the statements made by the attorneys and the evidence that's been presented to you.

MR. PANOSH: They want you to believe that there are four theories here. Actually, there's five, because Mr. Hatfield came up with a new one. That -- well, I think there were four theories: Ted did it, a burglar did it, Ted hired somebody to do it, or Ronnie did it. Isn't it amazing that they would give you that option?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this was not a burglary. First of all, you know that Patricia was afraid of burglars, and she had her house broken into twice. She wouldn't go into this dwelling knowing that it was being broken into. And if there was a burglar back here in this back bedroom, you know where he would have gone. He would have gone right out that window,


and all she would have seen were the back of his heels as he was disappearing into the woods. You know that this woman would not have gone and armed herself with a kitchen knife to go and confront a burglar. And you know it didn't happen that way, because if she was confronting someone with a kitchen knife, she wouldn't have been shot in the side of the head. This was not a burglary.

They passed up the money that was in the master bedroom, the stereo, the TV, the purse, the pager, all the money that was in there, the portable compressor that was in the garage. This was not a burglary. And the most important thing that they passed up was this gun. This gun is worth a lot of money on the street. If this burglar was so desperate that he had to kill, then he probably would have hung onto this gun because he might have to kill again. And certainly he would be able to sell this thing for a couple of hundred dollars on the street.

It doesn't make sense. The reason it doesn't make sense is, just as the officers told you, this was not a burglary.

And a burglar would not have burned that house. There would have been no reason for him to burn that house. That house was burned for one simple reason. It


was part of Theodore Kimble's attempt to defraud insurance companies.

Here is his proof of loss, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Remember, this is an 80-thousand-dollar house. Remember, it's got approximately $60,000 worth of property in it.

What does he claim? $247,842 in loss.

The reason that house was burned was so that he could continue his insurance fraud.

This is what he stood to gain, ladies and gentlemen of the jury: There was twenty-five thousand from her work; twenty-five thousand that she had originally; another twenty-five thousand that she got after she married Ted. Each of these had a double indemnity. Just before her death, he applied for another two hundred thousand dollars. And yes, he thought he was going to get it because that's why he hired an attorney. And he also expected to get, based upon his proof of loss, another two hundred forty thousand -- forty-seven thousand dollars. Of course, he'd have to pay off the mortgage, seventy-nine thousand, but he would still have lots and lots of money. And he would still have his cars paid for, free and clear. That was the motive for this killing.

Kimberly Kimble testified. And I submit and


contend to you when she testified, the first thing she said -- and she said it four times in her testimony -­was Ronnie was a procrastinator. Ronnie didn't get things done. But you remember what she said in direct testimony? Ronnie got up at 7:00 in the morning, Ronnie went to get that truck, and he was going to go and work on that underpinning that day. It doesn't sound like a procrastinator to me.

Do you remember when she testified, she said just two weeks ago I was asked about this and I said I don't remember anything about that time frame, but since then I've had a chance to talk with my mother and now it's all come back to me.

You remember what she testified? She said that I was with my -- with Ronnie all that night and that we - went out and we went to the supermarket, and we saw Ms. Williford.

And again I say to you where is Ms. Williford?

And what did we do? We went and bought stuffed flounder -- two stuffed flounders and some potato tots I think she said. She bought a meal for that hungry marine for $4.06. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if she can buy a meal for the two of them for $4.06, then the Marine Corps needs her because they'd love to be able to feed people for that amount of money. It didn't


happen. She simply was not telling you the truth.

The reason that Ms. Williford isn't here is because Ms. Williford didn't see Ronnie that day. And if in fact Ronnie was seen in the area of the fire, it's quite possible that it was because he was not with Kimberly, as she said, because this, if anything, is a meal for one, not a meal for two.

And she wanted you to believe that Debra -- that she was with Debra Whidden every minute of the time and that Debra Whidden -- when she said that Ronnie told her that he had a haunted past that Debra Whidden was not telling you the truth. This is -- she went on to say that they have a wonderful relationship, but they are getting divorced.

Mr. Stump testified. And Mr. Stump, if you remember, said that Ronnie is the closest thing I've ever had to a son, and he wanted to push the time back that he saw him. He wanted to say, well, it was closer to quarter to five. But when shown his affidavit, his affidavit clearly says 4:50 to 5:00. He wanted to tell you that he did not -- that Ronnie was not upset that-night. But when he was shown his affidavit he had to admit that Ronnie was upset that day.

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor. It doesn't refer to that time period.



THE COURT: Again, members of the jury, take your own recollection of the evidence.

MR. PANOSH: That night.

And then Ronnie Kimble was asked about these records. These records which he said -- first of all, he said when he applied he put down that he didn't have periods of unconsciousness; that he had never been a sleepwalker. And he wanted to say to you, when I pointed that out to him, that first of all that was a mistake, somebody else must have told him to do it, or maybe he was just answering the question in the alternative. All these things just tell you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he was not telling you the truth.

He wants to tell you that they weren't close. Well, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I point out to you that they were close. They worked together. It was back at that time, back in 1991, when they took care of Ronnie's problem together. Ronnie got his building supplies through his brother, his gravel, his timbers, the skirting for his house. He borrowed his trailer. _ He borrowed his truck. He must have borrowed his truck more than once, because he said he knew the truck needed to be warmed up. He went there and blew leaves on at least one occasion for his brother. And most


importantly of all, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, on October 10, 1995, when Ted made that trip that he needed a flashlight for to go back to Lyles Building Supply, he went with him. It wasn't Edna. It wasn't Ronnie, Sr.

It was Ronnie Kimble that went with him. He went with him because they were going there, I submit and contend to you, to destroy evidence. Not to get rid of some pornography. He wants you to believe that they drove 25 minutes there and 25 minutes back and did not discuss anything. He had no idea what was going on except Ted was looking for some records. He wants you to believe that they drove 25 minutes there and they were thwarted by the fact that the flashlight didn't work. He wants you to believe that then Ted went and got some box with some pornography and threw it away.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the reason they were together that day was because they were discussing the murder and discussing how they were going to get away and probably they needed a flashlight to go and find and destroy some evidence.

And then October 30th, when NIS is interviewing_ him, again there are telephone calls.

And then you heard him tell you about the dream. Not a lot of dreams, just one dream. He started off by saying I don't dream a lot and I don't remember the


dreams but I remember this particular dream. And what I was telling Mitch Whidden about was a dream.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mitch Whidden specifically told you that Ronnie Kimble was talking about suicide. You don't talk about suicide over a dream. You just don't.

Ronnie Kimble was undergoing all this analysis. He went to a psychiatrist. He went to a sleep therapist. He didn't tell anybody about that dream. And I submit and contend to you he certainly did not tell his wife about that dream.

And then on cross-examination, he said something that was just totally incredible. He said that when we were discussing it, I told Mitch that part of the dream was the $20-thousand reward. I told Mitch that part of. the dream was the $20-thousand reward. And then at Camp LeJeune, Mitch said to me, Well, if you go and ask your brother for the reward, you'll know it wasn't a dream.

Does that make sense to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? I asked him that three times to try and pin him down. He said yes, we were talking about the reward money.

What happened, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, was not reward money. What happened was that Ronnie Kimble told Mitch Whidden that he had in fact killed his


sister-in-law. He had done it for greed, he expected to be paid by his brother, and he had not been paid. There was no money mentioned. He had not been paid. And that's why Mitch Whidden said to him, Go to your brother, and if he gives you the money, you'll know it wasn't a dream. That makes sense. And what Ronnie was trying to tell you does not make sense.

You know. It's just so implicit in their defense is that Mitch Whidden is telling you a lie. Now he is lying to you. He is not making this up. mean he is not misunderstanding this. He is making it up.

Mr. Hatfield said that Mitch formed his opinion before he left the Marine Corps.

I've got to ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if it's all a lie, if Ronnie Kimble did not tell Mitch Whidden that he had killed his sister-in-law, if Mitch made it up, how could he know when he made it up in January of 1997, that Ronnie Kimble has no alibi for the period of time that she was killed? How could he know that at about the same time in Greensboro, Patrick-Pardee was being told by Theodore Kimble that he had in fact killed -- had his wife killed and that Ronnie had killed her, and that Ronnie had shot her and Ronnie had poured gasoline on her.


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Patrick Pardee is a very important witness in this case. Because between Patrick Pardee and the statements he made to you about what Ted Kimble told him, the conspiracy is established. There is an agreement -- it's 115. Excuse me. 116 -- that has to do with Patrick Pardee. And I would ask that you take this back and read it. Because what it says to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is that before he made any kind of a deal -- months before he made any kind of a deal with the State, he told about the breaking and entries that he was involved in. He helped them recover property. He pointed out where the breaking and entries occurred and where other property was stored hidden around the county so they could recover it. And most important of all, it says that it is the understanding of the parties that the defendant, through counsel, will at the appropriate time request the sentencing Court to consider the First Offender Program for the defendant Pardee if he is eligible.

He's a first offender, ladies and gentlemen of_ the jury. That's what it says. If you use your common sense, on April 1, 1997, when Mr. Pardee was arrested, if he had done nothing at all, being a first offender, what would he have gotten? Probation.


MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor. MR. PANOSH: Just exactly what he got.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PANOSH: If you use your common sense, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if he went and pointed out where all this property was recovered, what would he have gotten? And I submit and contend to you he would not have gotten one shred of a better deal than he got because he testified.

MR. LLOYD: Objection, Your Honor. Absolutely no evidence of that.

THE COURT: Sustained. Disregard that, members of the jury.

MR. PANOSH: You can take this agreement and you can read it, you can go through it carefully, and I submit and contend to you there's nothing in here that would make Mr. Patrick Pardee tell you anything but the truth.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the State's case is very, very simple. These two brothers conspired to commit this murder, they did commit this murder, and they committed it for money. Patrick Pardee told you that. He took the witness stand and told you that Theodore Kimble admitted to him that Ronnie Kimble, his brother, had committed the murder. And he had no reason


to lie. And by that, and by that alone, you should be able to convict Ronnie Kimble.

Mitch Whidden, who is a clergyman, took the witness stand and said that I really liked Ronnie Kimble, I invited him into my home, I had nothing against him, and he told me that he killed Patricia Kimble. He told me he killed his sister-in-law. And I became so afraid that I went to Jerry Falwell, and I told Jerry Falwell. Jerry Falwell referred me to an attorney, and the attorney got an agreement to protect my family. And then I told the law enforcement officers. And I'm here today to tell you that he confessed to me that he killed his sister-in-law. Mitch Whidden had no reason to lie.

And you've heard about Leviticus, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You heard Mr. Lloyd make reference to it.

It says in Chapter 5 -‑

MR. LLOYD: I would object to this, Your Honor. It purports to be evidence because it's something that Mitch Whidden referred to.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PANOSH: It says in Chapter 5, If any person refuses to give information which as a witness of something he has seen or learned, he has been adjured to


give and thus commits a sin and has to bear guilt.

Leviticus had nothing to do with what Ronnie Kimble said. Leviticus deals with the duty of Mitch Whidden to come forward. And you've heard about these other readings. The Catholic readings that the priest referred to.

And in those Catholic readings in the book of -­MR. LLOYD: Well, objection to this, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LLOYD: Highly improper.

MR. PANOSH: In the book of Sirach which is one of the readings that he identified as being part of the group that is left out of the Baptist Bible, it says, Chapter 34, Trust in the Lord and not in dreams. Empty and false are the hopes of the senseless and fools are born aloft by dreams. Like a man who catches that shadows or chases the wind is the one who believes in dreams. What is seen in dreams is to reality what the reflection of a face is to the face itself. Can the unclean produce the clean? Can a liar ever speak the truth? Divinations, omens and dreams are all unreal. What you already expect the mind depicts. Unless it be a vision specially sent from the most high, fix not your heart on it for dreams have led many astray and those who believe in them have perished.


Believe in the Lord, trust in the Lord, and not in dreams.

Mitch Whidden lives by this book.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. There's not a shred of evidence he lives by that book.

THE COURT: Take your own recollection of the evidence, members of the jury.

MR. PANOSH: He lives by the Bible. He said he studied that particular passage. And there is nothing in that Bible anywhere that says that you can bear false witness. There is nothing in that Bible that says you can rely upon dreams. He studied that and he knew that he should trust in the Lord and not in dreams. And there was no way he would come before this jury and say that in fact Ronnie Kimble told me he committed this murder when it was just a dream.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this was a conspiracy. That's why there's no evidence. There's no physical evidence there. Ted Kimble has been ruled out. The motive was money. There was no one Ted Kimble could go to to get this thing done on credit without payment-except Ronnie. Ronnie was in town. But he denied it. He never told anyone about it. Ted Kimble knew he was in town, but he never told anyone about it. They got together on October 10th, and they got together later


when Ms. McCloud was there.

Do you remember that conversation? Ms. McCloud said that she was at Theodore Kimble's home; Theodore was living then with his parents; that there was a telephone call; that it was Ronnie; that Ted got upset. That they got in the car and they drove over to the Stumps' residence, and there was a conversation. And Ted said, You stay in the car. You stay there. And she saw the conversation, but she couldn't hear it.

This was just months after -- this was November. Just a few weeks after the death of Patricia. And she saw the two brothers being animated and being upset.

When Ronnie Kimble testified, he said it didn't happen that way. First of all, I don't recall calling my brother. Secondly, he came in and he visited for a while, and then I just walked him to the car, and I might have gotten upset because he had a girlfriend already.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that conversation was part of the conspiracy. Everything in this case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, points to a conspiracy, points to these two brothers acting together, and there is nothing before you to say that Mitch Whidden or Patrick Pardee would lie.

You must believe them, ladies and gentlemen of


the jury, because they had no reason, no motivation to lie. And if you believe them, you must find him guilty of arson, of murder, and conspiracy to murder. Because that day, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Ronnie Kimble, not for money, but for the promise of money, went into Patricia Kimble's home, and turned that home into a crematory. We cannot allow that. We cannot allow that.

THE COURT: Again, members of the jury, you'll take your own recollection of the evidence when you begin your deliberations. This completes the arguments. And due to the nature of the time, the Court will not have adequate time to make the charge as to the law and give you an opportunity to deliberate, so we'll do that in the morning when you return at 9:30.

Be very careful at this point that you do not discuss this case with anyone or allow anyone to talk to you about the case or talk about the case in your presence. Do not attempt to go out and visit the scene or do any research or investigation on your own. Do not read, watch, listen to any news or media accounts.

Does everyone understand those instructions?

Have a restful night, and I'll see you in the morning at 9:30.

You may let the press representative out. You


may let the press representative out. The media. (Jury absent)

THE COURT: Anyone that's in the media may leave. The rest of you will have to wait until the jury clears the building.

As soon as the jury clears the elevators, I'll have the bailiffs to excuse you. Please just be patient for the next few minutes.

Let me see the attorneys up here a minute.

(The following side-bar conference was held out of the hearing and presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: I was just complimenting

counsel on their arguments. You both did a good job on your arguments.

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, how long will the charge take?

THE COURT: It won't take 15, 20 minutes.

MR. HATFIELD: Going to begin at 9:30?


(Open court resumed)

THE COURT: All right. You may declare a recess until 9:30 in the morning, Sheriff.

(Whereupon, an evening recess was taken at 4:47 p.m., to resume proceedings on September 1, 1998, at 9:30 a.m.)



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.