PWC Consulting


                  

Ronnie Lee Kimble 

                                                  

 Home   v  Search

 Timeline  v  Case File  v  Trial Record  v  Media Coverage

 

 

 

 

Richard Blakley, Witness for the State


 

179

(The witness left the witness stand.)

THE COURT: You may stand and stretch, members of the jury, if you'd like.

Next witness, please.

MR. PANOSH: Richard Blakley, please.

RICHARD BLAKLEY, being first duly sworn, testified as follows during DIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Would you state your name, please.

A    Richard Blakley.

Q    And you are Patricia's father; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And you live where, sir?

A    2547 Branchwater Road, Pleasant Garden.

Q    How far is that from Patricia's home on Brandon station Court?

A    Approximately two miles.

Q    So you're substantially closer than Reuben?

A    I would say so, yes, sir.

Q    On the -- in the few weeks just prior to her death, did you have conversations with your daughter?

A    Yes, sir, I did.

Q    And what, if anything, do you recall of those conversations, as it pertains to insurance?

MR. LLOYD: Well, object again, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.


180

A    She was concerned with him wanting to continually get more life insurance on her.

Q    with who wanted to get more insurance?

A    Ted.

Q    What was -- what did she tell you?

A    Well, she just said that they had had a big fight, and I understood it as being a verbal fight, over the insurance. He had several times tried to get insurance on her, and they had went to counseling about it a time or two, and

Q    Did she give you any specifics of the policy?

A    Well, the way I remember it, it was $87,000.

Q    And when did she tell you this?

A    The best of my recollection, it was approximately a week and a half before she was killed. I think it was probably on a Wednesday or a Thursday.

Q    What was her demeanor or how was she acting when she called you?

A    Well, she started out kind of shook up, and in the process of talking, we talked about a whole lot of things, and I don't remember them all, but she calmed down.

Q    Did she express any other concerns to you?

A    She expressed a concern about the way Ted handled guns, said he was real reckless with it.

Q    Did she make any reference to being required to have a physical examination?


181

A    Yes, sir.

Q    What did she say about that?

A    She said she was not going to have a physical examination.

Q    What was that about?

A    The insurance policy.

Q    Now, drawing your attention to that particular house that they were living in, how did she purchase the house?

A    We had seen that some person or persons were building a house there, and we told her about it, and she went up and looked at it, and at that time, there wasn't anything there but the foundation. And so, she got in touch with the gentleman that was building it and talked to him about it and made arrangements, from the time the foundation was there, up until the time it was finished.

Q    And about what time or what time frame did she purchase that home?

A    Well, I think it was probably in October, November of 1990, best of my recollection.

Q    Did you participate in that purchase?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Tell the jury about that, please.

A    Well, the finance company didn't want to let her have that big a purchase on her signature alone, because she had never really had any credit. She didn't need any. She


182

spent money or used cash for what she bought. And so, I cosigned the house, and it was in mine and her name, as well as her mother's. Her mother, I think the only reason her name was on it, because she was married to me, so a spouse's name is automatically on it.

Q    And who provided the money for the purchase?

A    Pat did.

Q    Did there come a time when you transferred the title or took your name off the title?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    When was that?

A    I can't remember the exact date.

Q    Well, let me ask you this. Was it after she married Ted?

A    No, it was before she married Ted.

Q    And then it became her property solely?

A    Yes, sir. Hers and the finance company's.

Q    Did she express any concerns to you in the weeks before her death about her homeowners insurance?

A    Well, being my name was on the house to begin with, I got all the notices that she got about anything concerning the house, even though it had been taken out of my name. And I got a notice that the homeowners insurance was being cancelled at the end of that policy, which if my recollection is right, it was the last day of October of


183

'95.

Q    And did you have a conversation with Patricia in reference to securing other insurance?

A    No, sir. I felt like at that time, it was not my business. The house wasn't in my name. The only thing I done was, I give her the notice, and it was her business.

Q    So you gave her the notice that you received in the mail; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Now, you visited her in her home quite frequently; is that right?

A    Occasionally.

Q    And when the house was first built, did it have a garage?

A    No, Slr.

Q    When did the garage get added, if you know?

A    In just a few months prior to her being killed.

Q    And there was a gravel driveway leading up to the garage; is that correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    What, if anything, do you know about her habits about parking her vehicle when she returned home?

A    Well, it seems to me like if she had had known she was

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.


184

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Do you know of your personal knowledge what her habits were on parking her vehicle?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled, if he knows.

Q    That is, what she usually did when she came home.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q    You can answer that.

A    She parked anywhere she wanted to. And they pretty much figured out where they was going to move things later.

Q    And after her death, did you bring this information that you knew about her insurance to the attention of the sheriff's department?

A    Yes, sir, I did.

MR. PANOSH: No further. Thank you.

THE COURT: Cross-examination?

MR. HATFIELD: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. HATFIELD:

Q    Mr. Blakley, did your daughter tell you that she had worked out an equity account with NationsBank, to draw money out of the equity in her house?

A    She told me some manner or something of that, yes, sir.

Q    So when she acquired the house in October of 1990, you cosigned it, along with your wife at that time, but later,


185

the -- she refinanced the house with another savings and loan, and your name and your wife's -- your former wife's name were removed, weren't they?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And at that point in time, Patricia owned her home solely in her own name?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Subsequent to that, she married Theodore Kimble, didn't she?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And then at some point subsequent to that, she told you that she opened up an equity account, didn't she?

A    I don't remember it being an equity account. I know they talked about the NationsBank and they had got a loan. I don't remember it being said it was an equity account.

Q    Have you heard the term "Line 1 Equity"? Did you ever hear anyone use that term in your family?

A    I don't think so.

Q    You do understand how an equity account works, though, don't you, sir?

A    No, sir.

Q    Now, if she borrowed money on her house with Nations Bank, would she have had to insure that loan with some other homeowners insurance company?

A    I have no idea.


186

Q    So when you received word of cancellation of her previous existing homeowners policy, that may have been because another policy was substituted for it; isn't that right?

A    No, sir. I talked to her enough about that to understand that she said that the insurance company used as an excuse that the house had been broken into twice, was the reason they were canceling the insurance.

Q    So they canceled it because they were tired of paying claims to Patricia; is that right?

A    I suppose so.

Q    Did Patricia tell you about her purchase of a vacation apartment in Williamsburg, Virginia?

A    No, sir. I didn't know about that until after she died.

Q    But it's a fact, isn't it?

A    Well, according to the -- what was in her lock box at the bank, they had some type of agreement on that, that was in there. I've never seen it. But it was an inventory of what was in that lock box, and that was one of the things that was mentioned in that inventory.

Q    But in any event, you assisted in selling her house later, after she had died, didn't you?

A    No, sir.

Q    You had nothing to do with that?


187

A    No, sir.

Q    Well, don't you know that when her house was sold, that the $18,000 owed to Nations Bank was paid back to Nations Bank?

A    Well, I was informed of that.

Q    Do you know what happened to the timeshare?

A    I have no idea.

Q    Do you know who owns it now?

A    No, sir.

Q    You don't own it, do you?

A    No, sir. Or if I do, I'm -- own something I don't know about.

Q    Were you aware that she and Ted had gone up to Williamsburg a number of times?

A    She went up there a number of times before she ever met Ted. She liked that area.

Q    And after they got married, they went up there a number of times, didn't they?

A    I suppose so.

Q    Isn't it a fact that they frequently took weekend trips?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And it was your information that they enjoyed those trips, wasn't it? Didn't they enjoy them?

A    Yes, sir.


188

Q    And weren't they regular churchgoers together?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And didn't your daughter tell you that she was trying to get pregnant?

A    No, sir.

Q    Never spoke to you about that?

A    She said at one time that her biological clock was going to run out one day, and she wanted to have children before it did.

Q    But she was talking about her husband Ted and her, wasn't she?

A    I suppose so.

Q    Did she tell you any other personal things about her relationship with Ted?

A    Well, a whole lot of personal things, but I don't remember them all right now. She told me one time that one of the reasons that she married him is because he reminded her a whole lot of me, the way that he worked, he could do about anything.

Q    Well, that was a pretty flattering comment for both of you, wasn't it?

A    Well, it was at that time, yes.

Q    Now, you said that when she mentioned this insurance that she didn't approve of, that she mentioned some $87,000; is that right?


189

A    Yes, sir.

Q    You did know that she and Ted were obligated to pay Mr. Lyles back a sum of money for the purchase of his business, didn't you?

MR. PANOSH: Object.

Q    Did you know --

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q    -- the details of that?

THE COURT: You may answer, if you know, sir.

A    I didn't know the details, but I was under the impression that they had borrowed $25,000 from Ted's mother and father to put a down payment on it, and I was under the impression they still owed Gary Lyles approximately $25,000.

Q    So were you under the impression that the total purchase price of the business was $50,000?

A    That was my general impression, yeah.

Q    And $25,000 of it was paid to Mr. Lyles up front, from money borrowed from Edna and Ron Kimble; is that correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And 25 more thousand was owed directly to Gary Lyles; is that right?

A    That was my impression, yes, sir.

Q    So to secure the acquisition of the business, it would have been necessary to have at least $50,000 in insurance, wouldn't it?


190

A    Yes, sir.

MR. PANOSH: We object.

Q    And the purpose --

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    The purpose of the insurance would have been for these two young married people, who were working so hard, would be to hold onto the Lyles' investment, in the event that one or the other of them died; wasn't that the plan?

MR. PANOSH: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, he knows the answer to this.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    You know that they were obligated to pay a total of $50,000 for the business, don't you?

A    That was my impression. I don't know. I've never seen it on paper.

Q    And this was a joint obligation of the two of them, wasn't it?

A    I've never seen that on paper either.

Q    Now, if one of them had died, based upon your knowledge of their finances, could the other one have held onto the business with all of that debt?

A    I didn't know the details of their finances.

Q    Do you know what the terms "key man insurance" is, what


191

that term means?

A    No, sir.

Q    Are you aware of the business practice of securing debts with insurance, so that if the debtor dies --

MR. PANOSH: He's already said he doesn't know what it is, Your Honor. We object, please.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I'm going to ask him if he has knowledge of this. If he doesn't know the name of it, maybe he has knowledge of it in some other fashion. I'd like to just question this witness

THE COURT: I'm going to limit it to that.

Proceed.

Q    You're aware that it is a common business practice to secure indebtedness by putting insurance on the life of the debtor, aren't you?

A    No, not really.

Q    Well, now, don't you know that Theodore Kimble made arrangements with Mr. Jarrell for a $25,000 policy on his life?

MR. PANOSH: We object, Your Honor.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor --

MR. PANOSH: He said he doesn't know.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Well, sustained.


192

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I represent this man, and --

THE COURT: Well--

MR. HATFIELD: -- every time I try to ask a question

THE COURT: wait just a minute, sir. He said he doesn't know anything about the finances. You may ask him specifically that question, and I'll let him answer it.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, he knows an awful lot about the finances.

THE COURT: Well, don't get into that, Sir.

Q    Don't you know that Ted Kimble negotiated for a $25,000 life insurance policy with Mr. Jarrell, from Life of Georgia, in order to secure his obligation to pay back his parents, in the event of his death? Don't you know that, sir?

A    No, sir. I heard Mr. Jarrell speak of that on the stand yesterday. That's all I know about it.

Q    And don't you know that your daughter also had an obligation to either Mr. Lyles or to the Kimbles, for her share of this business investment? Don't you know that, too?

A    No, sir, I didn't.

Q    Didn't she tell you

A    I didn't know that the business was ever in the joint


193

names of Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Kimble.

Q    Well, didn't you know that --

A    I've never seen the first piece of paperwork on it.

Q    Didn't you know that your daughter assisted in keeping the books at the business?

A    She did to start with, and then I was told later that Ted made her quit. He took his books to a bookkeeper.

Q    When were you told that, and were you told it by Patricia?

A    I was told by Patricia.

Q    Do you remember when that was?

A    Not exactly.

Q    Did Patricia know how to keep books?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    You recall that a week and a half before your daughter died, on October 9, 1995, that was either a Wednesday or a Thursday, that she discussed $87,000 in insurance, don't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Now, don't you know that your daughter already had $50,000 in insurance coverage, that she had arranged prior to marrying Ted?

A    I do now, but I didn't then.

Q    Don't you know there was at least one $25,000 life insurance policy, which your former wife, Patricia's mother,


194

was the beneficiary?

A    I know there was insurance, but I did not know the

amount of it.

Q    So you knew there was -- there were two $25,000

policies, didn't you?

MR. PANOSH: objection.

THE COURT: sustained.

Q    You just got through saying

THE COURT: He said he knew they were insurance.  He didn't know the amounts.

Q    I thought you said you didn't know who the beneficiaries were.

A    No. I said I didn't know the amount of the policy that her mother had taken out.

Q    All right. So her mother took a policy out on her and named herself as the beneficiary?

A    I think me and her mother both was the beneficiary at one time, but I understand now that's been -- that was changed after they were married.

Q    And who was the beneficiary of the other policy?

A    According to what I can understand, after she died, that Ted was.

Q    Now, do you remember talking about insurance with your daughter on any occasion other than the one you've told about, which was a Wednesday or a Thursday, a week and a


195

half before her death?

A    Not extensively.

Q    So the reason that you don't have any details about insurance today, when I'm questioning you, is because no one ever told you any details of the insurance situation; isn't that right?

A    No. I mean, it's something that, did I really need to know that?

Q    So if there was existing $50,000, and if she was talking to you about $87,000, then the amount that would have been put on her life a few weeks before she died was closer to $37,000, wasn't it?

MR. PANOSH: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Well, you can't think of any other explanation for the figure $87,000 than that, could you?

MR. PANOSH: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    Do you really want me to answer that question?

Q    You can't think --

MR. PANOSH: We'd like the answer in the record, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer the question, sir.

A    I think Ted was taking it out so he could collect it after she was killed.


196

Q    You think he was adding an additional $37,000, to the $50,000 that was already on her life, so he could collect it after she died? Is that your opinion?

A    No. I think he was adding $87,000 onto the -- whatever additional insurance she may have had.

Q    Now, did you hear Nancy Young testify a little while ago in this courtroom?

A    I heard part of what she said.

Q    Your various times when you saw both Ted and Patricia together, you saw affectionate people, didn't you?

A    Yes, Sir.

Q    And wasn't it your experience that in sometimes, they even seemed too affectionate?

A    Well, I'll agree with Ms. Young, the best I heard what she said. They embarrassed me at times with their affection.

Q    And they were regular churchgoers, at a church that Patricia had been a member of for a long, long time; isn't that right?

A    Well, I didn't ever see her in there, but I understand that's the truth.

Q    Well, were you there?

A    No, sir.

Q    So you know she was a regular churchgoer, but it just so happens that you weren't during that time?


197

A    That's right. I was not and still am not.

Q    You knew that these people were affectionate toward each other and that they both worked hard, didn't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And you never heard of either one of them shirking their duties at their places of employment, did you?

A    No, sir.

Q    Did you ever see Patricia operating a Jeep Cherokee that she and Ted bought?

A    No, sir.

Q    You never saw her drive it?

A    No, Sir.

Q    Did you know that she was jointly obligated to pay for it?

A    Well, I understood that after they -- after she was dead.

Q    Did you know that she and Ted had bought a boat?

A    Yes, Sir.

Q    Did you ever go riding on it with them on a lake somewhere?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And did you, was it your observation that Patricia enjoyed the boat?

A    Yes, Sir.

Q    And Ted enjoyed the boat?


198

A    Yes, sir.

Q    You never heard either one of these young people complain that their finances were becoming difficult for them, did you?

A    Well, she talked about money occasionally.

Q    She was a very resourceful person who always made enough money to take care of her needs, didn't she?

A    Well, I think she was a genius with figures, if that's the question you're asking me.

Q    Then if she signed on for a Line 1 equity with NationsBank, she would have had good judgment about whether that was the right thing to do, because she knew figures, didn't she?

A    Well, I think that was probably a move on her part to the least of the worst of two evils.

Q    Well, are you aware that she made double payments on her mortgage?

A    I have heard that recently, yeah.

Q    And that would have been a good way for her to make sure that some of the family money was heading her direction, since she owned the house; isn't that right?

A    Well, I think you're asking me to draw a conclusion there. I don't -- I don't know of that.

Q    But you do know that she made double payments on the mortgage?


199

A    No, sir, I donít. I have heard rumors to that effect lately, but I have not seen it on paper.

Q    Now, when you called her

A    genius at figures, do you mean that she can accurately keep track of complicated bookkeeping and complicated sums of money?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    On the uncomplicated level, do you know what happened to the proceeds of the yard sale that she may have had with her on October 9th?

A    I did not know of the yard sale until after she had died.

Q    Do you know what happened to the petty cash at her office after she died?

A    No, sir.

Q    Did you have any occasion around the fire scene, on the late hours of October 9th, to examine the Subaru vehicle that she drove?

A    Not any more than I examined that table there. (Indicated.)

Q    You looked at it, in other words?

A    I saw it was there.

Q    Did you know - -

A    I know about where it was parked.

Q    You didnít look inside or anything?

A    No, sir.


200

Q    Did anyone talk to you about the fact that the engine wouldn't start?

A    A few days later, yes, sir.

Q    And do you know what was done to get the car out of there, since the engine wouldn't start?

A    No, Sir.

Q    Who took care of that?

A    I have no knowledge of who moved the car.

Q    Did you attend the memorial service for Patricia?

A    I attended one.

Q    Do you remember an unidentified man --

MR. PANOSH: We object.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I thought the --

THE COURT: wait a minute. Ask your question and I'll rule. I don't know what the question is, sir.

Q    Do you remember an unidentified man in an intoxicated condition appearing at her memorial service?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PANOSH: We object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PANOSH: We'd like to be heard.

THE COURT: Step out, members of the jury, please.  Do not discuss the case.

(The jury left the courtroom at 12:08 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right, sir. What's the question,


201

Mr. Hatfield?

MR. HATFIELD: Excuse me?

THE COURT: What's the line of questioning?

MR. HATFIELD: I don't understand.

THE COURT: What's your line of questioning about the --

MR. HATFIELD: There -- an individual claiming to have been a former lover of Patricia was seen at the memorial service in an apparently intoxicated condition and said that he was a suspect.

THE COURT: Can you answer that question, sir?

THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of that.

THE COURT: okay, sir.  It'll be sustained.

MR. HATFIELD: Then I don't see why anyone objects then.

THE COURT: Well, the question is objectionable. I don't want you putting something in the minds of the jury that mayor may not be relevant to this case. He says

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I can assure you -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt.

THE COURT: He says he doesn't know anything about that.

MR. HATFIELD: Well, I can assure you that there are many people, including Detective Church


202

THE COURT: Well --

MR. HATFIELD: -- that do.

THE COURT: -- I'll let you do that, if that witness comes to the stand --

MR. HATFIELD: Thank you.

THE COURT: -- but this witness said he doesn't know that.

MR. HATFIELD: All right. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Panosh, do you wish to be heard?

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, in State v. Allen and the cases that follow it, they say, "As a general rule, evidence that another person committed a crime which the defendant is charged is admissible when it points directly to the guilt of a third party. Evidence tending to show that a crime was committed by another is inadmissible, however, when such evidence creates only an inference or conjecture as to the other's guilt."

Your Honor, we would ask that you rule at this time that unless they prove in the absence of the jury that they have direct evidence pointing directly to a third party, not evidence that is just some conjecture or speculation, that they not state it in the presence of the jury. And that --

MR. HATFIELD: I'd like to respond.

MR. PANOSH: That theory of law has been adopted in State v. Brewer, which is a 1989 case from our Supreme


203

Court.

THE COURT: Well, the Court's going to in this I don't know what the witness is going to say, only -- I don't even know what they might say. What's -- Mr. Hatfield, do you have any basis for that?

MR. HATFIELD: Yes, I do, extensive basis.

Furthermore, we're not trying to prove that someone else committed the crime. We're trying to show that there were people whose behavior attracted suspicion, who were not investigated. And there are a number of people like that.

I thought this witness knew full well who I was talking about, and that's the reason I asked this question. I've discussed it with Detective Church. There are other witnesses who we intend to ask the same question of. There are a number of people -- this was what Mr. Cochran, my great mentor, said was a rush to judgment. This case is all about fingerpointing at one suspect or two suspects, and forgetting everybody else. And there were at least a half a dozen logical suspects who were not investigated. And we don't have to come in here and do the sheriff's department and Mr. Panosh's work and solve this crime, in order to get a little evidence in. I think we have a right to cross-examine people. I thought that this man saw the individual that I'm talking about.

THE COURT: Unless you can put up credible


204

evidence or something of that nature, the Court's going to sustain the objection.

MR. HATFIELD: As against this individual?

THE COURT: As this individual and any others, unless you've got some basis for the accusation.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, it's in the pretrial discovery materials all over the place. That's why Mr. Panosh comes in here with a bunch of cases and a bad tone of voice when he's addressing everybody about it.

THE COURT: Mr. Panosh is doing his job as the prosecutor.

MR. HATFIELD: Well, I am, too, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I know both of you are, and you're doing fine so far. But unless you can lay some foundation for that or some basis for it. Just -- in any criminal investigation, there's a number of people who surface on the --

MR. HATFIELD: That's right. And when they abandon those without justification, it's worthy of consideration. When there is just as much evidence against another individual as there is against the individual charged, then the question needs to be answered, why was nothing done about that particular individual? Why was no further inquiry made? We have a right to cross-examine, to probe the investigative techniques that were used.


205

THE COURT: Well, this is not an investigator. This witness is her father.

MR. HATFIELD: No, but I thought --

THE COURT: He says he doesn't know anything about that.

MR. HATFIELD: I thought he -- well, I still think that he may know what I'm talking about, but I accept his answer.

THE COURT: Well, don't proceed any further with this witness.

Bring them back.

(The jury entered the courtroom at 12:13 p.m.)

THE COURT: You may continue, sir.

MR. HATFIELD: That's our examination. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

Any additional ---

MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: -- questions by the State?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Are you familiar of the approximate date that Lyles Building Supply became the property of Theodore Kimble?

A    Well, not at the time. I remember --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Well, sustained.


206

Q    Let me ask you this. When did you become aware that

Ted and Patricia were married?

A    May the 7th

Q    '94, sir?

A    I believe it was.

Q    Okay. A little more than a year before her death? Or -- Excuse me.

A    Yes.

Q    And after they were married -- or how long after they were married did it come to your attention that Ted had purchased Lyles?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection to this leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.  You may answer.

MR. HATFIELD: He's already said he doesn't know when he purchased Lyles.

A    My estimation was that they had bought it before they were married, but --

Q    So it was close to the time of the marriage?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And this is -- this discussion you had with her about insurance was close to the time of her death?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And not related to the purchase

MR. HATFIELD: objection.


207

Q    -- of Lyles?

MR. HATFIELD: It's already been covered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    You indicated to Mr. Hatfield that your daughter talked about money occasionally. what did she say?

A    That Ted was spending a whole lot.

Q    Did she give you examples?

A    The Jeep. But she agreed to the Jeep in -- so he wouldn't buy the motorcycle.

MR. PANOSH: No further questions.

MR. HATFIELD: Just a couple.

THE COURT: All right, sir.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. HATFIELD:

Q    You were deceived by your daughter about when she was actually married, weren't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Tell the jury about how she deceived you.

A    Well, I found out after she died, through this same inventory of the safety deposit box at the bank, that in that box was a marriage certificate or marriage license or marriage -- some type of document, from December the 21st, probably '93, Danville, Virginia, a marriage certificate, Ted and Patricia.

Q    So your daughter got secretly married to Ted several months before you found out about it; isn't that right?


208

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And even when you found out about it, it wasn't that you found out there'd been a prior marriage, you just thought they had a marriage in May, didn't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    That's a good indication how much you know about her personal life, isn't it?

MR. PANOSH: We'd object to the comment.

THE COURT: sustained.

Disregard that, members of the jury.

Q    Well, there were a great many things you didn't know about her personal business dealings; isn't that right?

A    I have no doubt of that.

MR. HATFIELD: Thank you. No further questions.

THE COURT: Additional questions?

MR. PANOSH: No further.

THE COURT: Step down, sir. watch your step. (The witness left the witness stand.)

 

 

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

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