|
James D. Church, Witness for the State
|
MR. PANOSH:
Detective Church, please.
JAMES D. CHURCH, being first duly
sworn, testified as
1152
follows during
DIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:
Q Would you
state your name, sir.
A James D. Church.
Q And your occupation, sir?
A I am a
detective with the Guilford County Sheriff's Department.
Q In the
course of your duties with the Guilford County Sheriff's Department,
are you assigned to handle homicide investigations?
A Yes, sir.
Q And in the course of your duties
on or about October the 9th of 1995, were you assigned to
investigate the death of Patricia Kimble that occurred on that date
at Brandon Station Court?
A Yes, sir, I was.
Q And what was the first time you
received notice of that
particular event?
A On the 9th of October, 1995.
Q And on October the 9th, did you
receive notice at your home, or were you on duty?
A I was at home. I was the
detective on call that week.
Q Did there come a time when you
responded to Brandon Station Court?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you got to Brandon Station
Court, what actions did
1153
you take?
A When I initially arrived on the
scene, I talked to the uniform officers that was already there. I --
the fire department was still on the scene. My supervisor was there,
arrived shortly thereafter. We talked to him. I stayed out of the
house, until the fire was completely suppressed, everything was
taken care of, and let the ID people do their job.
Q You indicated your supervisor
was present. Who would that be?
A Excuse me?
Q Who was your supervisor that you
indicated was present?
A Sergeant Deberry.
Q And there were other members of
the sheriff's department present, also?
A Yes, sir.
Q Sergeant Deberry heads up the
homicide investigative --
A Yes, he does.
Q By the time that you arrived
there, had members of the families of Patricia Kimble and Theodore
Kimble left the area?
A I don't recall seeing any of the
Kimble family there. As a matter of fact, I didn't know any of them.
I didn't know any of Patricia's family. However, I did know
Patricia.
1154
Q And when you say you did know
Patricia, how did you know her?
A By
investigating a burglary that occurred in '92 or -I think it was
1992 or '93 at her residence, before she was married.
Q And in the
course of that investigation, did you come to the point where you
could charge the individuals responsible?
A I didn't -- I wasn't actually
the officer that arrested the person, but the person that broke in
that house that time was arrested.
Q And in the course of that
investigation, did you get to know Patricia Kimble?
A On a limited basis, only as a
victim of a residential B&E.
Q And on that limited basis, as
the victim of a residential breaking and entry, what observations
did you make of Patricia Kimble?
A Patricia Kimble told me that she
was very afraid to go back to her house, because she thought
somebody might come back and break into it again. And I tried to
reassure her that this wouldn't occur, but we couldn't guarantee
that this wouldn't occur. And she emphasized to me of her fear of
going home and some unknown person being there and walking into the
house.
1155
Q And this would have been
approximately 1993; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q
Certainly prior to her marriage?
A Excuse me?
Q
Prior to her marriage?
A Yeah. She wasn't married.
Q
In the course of the investigation, did there come a time when you
were able to enter the residence at Brandon Station Court on October
the 9th of 1995?
A Yes, sir. I did enter the
residence of Brandon Station Court. I'm not sure if it was on
October the 9th or after midnight, on October the 10th. I don't
recall exactly what time in the night it was.
Q As soon as it was safe to enter,
did you enter?
A Yes.
Q And were you in there before or
after the ID personnel who have already testified collected certain
evidence?
A I was in there after they
collected the -- most of the evidence, and I was in there before
some of it was collected.
Q
When you went into the home, what did you observe?
A I observed the --
I observed the burn patterns in the house.
Q Drawing your attention to the
kitchen area, when you
1156
went into that
kitchen area, it was still dark outside; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And the power was off to the
home; is that correct?
A Yes. No power.
Q How was the lighting being
supplied?
A Lighting was supplied by a
portable generator by the fire department.
Q And they had auxiliary lights
inside?
A Yes.
Q And based upon your observation
-- First of all, was there sufficient lights for you to be able to
see the inside?
A Yes, sir, it was.
Q Based upon your observations of
the kitchen, what, if anything, did you notice?
A In the kitchen, I noticed that
there was a great deal of water that had been sprayed in the kitchen
or -- by the fire department. And on the kitchen floor, I observed a
set of keys.
Q Did you also observe the pour
pattern that's been previously drawn there on the board?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q When you went to the living room
area, what, if anything, did you observe?
1157
A In the living room area, I
observed the pour -- also the pour pattern that went across the
sofa. I also observed what appeared to me clothing that had been
taken out of the dryer and folded up, that was laying on part of
that sofa. Of course, the normal things in a living room, TV,
videos, that sort of stuff.
I also observed behind the sofa and
on the corner going down the hall, I think it was a -- it might have
been a sewing machine or some kind of little box table. And under
this table, I observed a case that had a camera in it.
Q Did you or someone acting at
your direction recover that camera?
A Yes, they did.
MR. PANOSH: May I approach the
witness?
THE COURT: You may.
Q Did there come a time when you
were able to look at the-- condition of the various rooms, and
particularly the living room?
(Mr. Panosh handed exhibits to the
witness.)
A Yes, sir.
Q What, if anything, did you
notice about the living room, the TV -- excuse me, about the TV and
the stereo that were in the living room area?
A I noticed it was all there. It
looked intact, other than the fire damage.
1158
Q Did it appear to you that any
item or items were out of place?
A No, sir.
MR. HATFIELD: Objection. How could he
possibly know that?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q When you went on and went to the
first bedroom on the right, going down the hallway --
A Yes, sir.
Q -- did you have an occasion to
observe that particular bedroom?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q I believe -- I don't believe
there's a photograph there
A Okay.
Q -- of that bedroom.
A No.
Q Tell the jury what you recall of
that.
A As I done a walk-through of the
house, there was -- it shows in this photograph the ladder that was
laying across the burned hole. I walked down the ladder, went to the
bedroom on the left and just looked in.
Q All right. And drawing your
attention to the first bedroom there, that would have been on your
right, did you go into that bedroom?
1159
(The witness approached the diagram.)
A This bedroom? (Indicated.)
Q The next one to the left.
A Yes. That's the bedroom I walked
in first, I think.
Q Let me try
this again. Drawing your attention to the first bedroom you would
have come to on the hallway.
A Here? (Indicated.)
Q Yes, sir.
Did you go into it?
A I went in this bedroom, yes.
Q
What, if anything, did you observe?
(The witness returned to the witness
stand.)
A The bedroom was intact. Didn't
appear to me to be anything out of place.
Q Did you then continue to do your
observations into the second bedroom on that side of the hallway,
the one there in the diagram --
A Yes, I did.
Q -- the lower right?
A I did. Actually, I thought I
went to the back bedroom first, but right now, I don't recall which
bedroom I went to first.
Q When you
looked into the bedroom which is the lower right one on the diagram,
what did you observe?
A I observed there
was some drawers pulled out in a desk that sat on the front wall
approximately right here beside
1160
this window.
(The witness approached the diagram
and indicated.)
A It was a small like student's desk.
I also observed a tool box that was right in this area right here,
pulled out from -- away from the wall. (Indicated.)
Q Did there come a time when you
went into the last bedroom, which is designated as the master
bedroom?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you observe?
(The witness returned to the witness
stand.)
A I observed the room in disarray.
The drawers had -some of the drawers had been pulled out and
stacked on top of each other. I recall a drawer laying in the floor
that was pulled out, appeared to be out of the nightstand, set on
the floor. I looked in the drawer and I saw a little packet or a
leather thing that U.S. currency was in. I think there was also --
there was a lot of items in that drawer, but I remember the money
and a magazine for a semiautomatic pistol.
MR. PANOSH: May I approach the
witness?
THE COURT: You may.
Q Showing you then State's Exhibit
73, does that show the drawer that you're referring to?
A Yes, sir. This is the drawer.
Q And does it show the currency
that you're referring to?
1161
A Yes. You can identify it as
currency.
Q Now, did you also look into the
closet area of that room?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did
you also look into the bathroom area, where the dog was?
A Yes, I did.
Q Based upon
-- and detective, before you were in the homicide unit, were you in
the -- did you have any experience in the breaking and entry unit?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many years?
A I worked five years in burglary.
Q And in the course of your
experience there, as a burglary detective, did there come times when
you observed burglary scenes?
A Many times.
Q And based upon your observations
and training as a burglary detective, what, if anything, did you
note about the back two bedrooms of the residence on Brandon Station
Court?
MR. HATFIELD: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I don't
believe he's entitled to give an expert opinion on burglary.
1162
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Well, in law-enforcement terms,
it appeared to me to be a staged B&E.
Q Would you explain that to the
ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
A Well, in the course of a normal
breaking and entering, the -- especially the master bedroom, things
are not arranged as those were in that room, especially the stacking
of the drawers. And the nightstand drawer on the floor, with money
visibly that you can see, was not taken. There was a jewelry box, I
think, on top of a, what appeared to be a lingerie chest, and there
was still jewelry in it. Just the overall view of the room and its
condition was not consistent with breaking and enterings that I had
worked and been on the scene with.
Q Now, based upon your
observations of the other portions of the house, did you see
anything that was similar, in terms of disarray, in the portions of
the house, in the kitchen, living room and that first bedroom?
A No, sir, just the -- what I'd
mentioned in the other two end bedrooms. (Indicated.)
Q Other than the stereo, TV and
the camera that you reported in the living room general area, were
there other items of objects -- other items of value that you noted
in that particular area?
1163
A There were other items of value,
but just like's in a normal household. I don't recall every item
that was in there. I just recall the -- what I had spoke of, the TV,
entertainment, videos, and the camera. I remember the camera
underneath there.
MR. PANOSH: May I approach the
witness?
THE COURT: You may.
(Mr. Panosh placed exhibits on the
witness stand.)
Q Drawing your attention to the
first photograph, the large color photograph of the garage area, do
you see that?
A Yes, sir.
Q In the course of your
investigation, did you inspect the garage area?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q And did you note the lawn mower
that was there?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you note any other items in
that area?
A Close to the lawn mower, there
was what's referred to as a construction air compressor.
Q Would you describe that, please.
A Well, it's something can be
moved, mobile, that can be picked up. It has two smaller air tanks
on it, that they can use nail guns and this sort of stuff on
construction sites.
Q Can you see it on that
photograph?
1164
A No, sir. Somebody -- when this
photograph was taken, it had been covered up by a sheet.
Q Do you see the location where it
is?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you step before the --
MR. PANOSH: May he step before the
jury, Your Honor?
THE COURT: He may.
Q Would you step before the jury
and show them the location of the air compressor.
(The witness approached the jury
box.)
A The lawn mower he's referring to
is here. (Indicated.) This white sheet is covering up the item that
I told you about. (Indicated.)
(The witness moved to the middle of
the jury box.)
A The lawn mower and the item
right here. (Indicated. (The witness moved to the other end of the
jury box.)
A The lawn mower and the item that
I testified to. (Indicated.)
(The witness returned to the witness
stand.)
Q Now, after you made those
observations, did you go on to look at the car that belonged to
Patricia Kimble?
A Yes, sir, I looked at the car.
Q And do you see a photograph of
the car there in front of you?
1165
A Yes, sir.
Q And what
number is that, please?
A It's State's Exhibit 7-A.
Q And does 7-A show the location
of the victim's purse?
A Yes, sir, it does.
Q And in the course of your
duties, did you cause that purse to be seized by the evidence techs?
A Yes, I did. Well, I asked that
they seize the purse.
Q And is State's Exhibit 48 the
purse that was seized? That bag there, sir.
(The witness removed a purse from the
bag.)
MR. PANOSH: May I approach?
THE COURT: You may.
(Mr. Panosh took exhibits off the
witness stand.)
A Excuse me. It's been dumped out.
Q Okay.
(The witness placed items back into
the purse.)
Q Drawing your attention to
State's Exhibit 48, what is that?
A This is the purse that was found
in the passenger seat of the victim's car.
Q And later on at the Guilford
County Sheriff's Department, did you do a closer inventory of that
particular purse?
A Yes, sir. I don't recall the
date, but it was after it
1166
was placed in
evidence -- or it was in the evidence -excuse me, the ID section of
the sheriff's department.
Q Drawing your attention first to
the pager, would you pick that up, please.
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you identify that pager?
A Yes. This is the pager that was
attached to the --
Q Okay. And were you able to
determine who the owner of the pager was?
A Yes.
Q Who –
A The victim.
Q -- was
that?
A The victim, Patricia Kimble.
Q And did there come a time when
you caused the pager to be illuminated and show the various numbers
that were on there?
A I did.
Q Showing
you now State's Exhibit Number 3, do you recognize Number 3?
A Yes, sir, I
do.
Q Did you prepare State's Exhibit
Number 3?
A I did.
Q How did you do that?
A I took the numbers off the
pager, recorded the numbers,
1167
and placed them
in the case file. I wanted that done before the battery would be
allowed to go dead in the pager.
Q And
drawing your attention to State's 3, are those the numbers that were
displayed on the pager in the order they were displayed?
A Yes, sir.
Q From most recent to least
recent?
A Yes, sir.
MR. PANOSH: We seek to introduce
Number 3, please.
THE COURT: The Court'll allow the
introduction.
Q Drawing your attention then to
the purse itself, did you continue to inventory the purse?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Would you tell the ladies and
gentlemen of the jury what items you found inside Patricia Kimble's
purse.
A Found --
Q And as you do so, would you take
them out.
A Okay. I found a change purse
with U.S. currency in it, and also change. I found many coupons that
she had clipped out. Bank deposit slips, more than one.
Q And do those bank deposit slips
bear her
identification?
A Yes. Patricia Kimble, Theodore
Mead Kimble. And -- do you need the --
1168
Q No, just --
A Okay.
Q What were the next items you
reviewed?
A Luggage tags, ID of Patricia,
driver's license, YMCA card with her picture on it.
Q All right. Drawing your
attention to her driver's license.
A Yes.
Q Does it indicate her height and
weight at the time the driver's license was issued?
A Yes, it does.
Q What was her height?
A Five foot, six inches.
Q And her weight?
A I don't see the weight, sir.
Q All right. It indicates her
height?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was the next item that you
reviewed?
A Well, I don't know if it was in
this order or not, but I can testify as to what -- that this was the
items that was in here. And there was a box with some earrings.
Q Do those appear to be new?
A Yeah. They're still on the
little tag they come from -- that they were purchased. Appear to be.
There was these savings statement Wachovia book here.
1169
Q Can you keep your voice up a
little bit.
A Yes, sir.
Q Inside the
Wachovia book, was there checks?
A As I recall, there were checks
in this --
Q The savings account on it?
A No. This is -- this is a savings
deposit here.
Q All right.
A I think there was a checkbook in
here, as best I recall.
Q What other items
did you review and find?
A Checkbook.
Other identifying cards.
Q Any credit
cards?
A Yes, sir, I believe there --
Q Identify them as you pull them
out, please.
A As I recall, there were credit
cards in here. (Time was allowed for the witness.)
Q What was that item you just
removed, sir?
A These are keys.
Q And were you able to identify
that particular set of keys?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that?
A These are the victim, Patricia
Kimble's, keys. And also on this particular key ring is the master
key and keys to Cinnamon Ridge Apartments.
1170
Q All right. What's the next item?
Before you go on, detective, drawing your attention to the vehicle,
there was a set of keys in the ignition; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are those
the same keys that you just displayed?
A No, sir. Not -- I -- let me
retract that. I don't know. I would say no. But I --
Q All right.
Drawing your attention to State's Exhibit 7, what does that show?
(Mr. Panosh handed the exhibit to the
witness.)
A Shows the victim's vehicle, with
the keys in the ignition.
Q On that night and today, did you
make a visual comparison between the keys in the ignition and the
keys in the pocketbook?
A No, sir, I didn't. I saw the
keys in the ignition --
Q Based upon your observations of
the keys at this time, are those the same ones that are in the
pocketbook?
A It appears to be the same one in
the ignition that is right here.
Q What other items did you find in
her purse?
A In the
zipper portion, I was -- I found an envelope from a bank that
contained quite a bit of U.S. currency.
Q Could you
pull that out, please.
(The witness complied.)
1171
A Also
contained receipts pertaining to Cinnamon Ridge Apartment.
Q Based on
your investigation, were you able to identify that particular item,
which consists of receipts and amounts of money?
A Yes, sir. It was --
Q What is that?
A This belongs to Cinnamon Ridge
and --
Q And what does it refer to?
A As the --
Q Did there come a time when you
were --
MR. HATFIELD: Objection. He hasn't
answered the question.
A It's the --
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Well, we refer to it as chump
change in our office, but it's money that's on hand, that is kept,
cash money that's kept by a business, in this -- in this case,
Cinnamon Ridge, for small expenditures that they would need to go
and buy and purchase things.
Q Petty cash fund? Is that a petty
cash fund?
A Petty cash, yes, sir. That's
what I couldn't think of.
Q Now, drawing your attention to
that coin purse itself.
A This? (Indicated.) Yes, sir.
Q Is there a second compartment
there?
1172
A Yes, there are.
Q And would
you open that. (The witness complied.)
Q What's
contained in that?
A Yeah. I thought they were in
here. Credit cards and bank cards, Social Security cards, things of
that nature.
Q You can return that to the
pocket, please.
(The witness complied.)
Q Is there also another driver's
license in there?
A Yes, there are, a previous set
of driver's license. I think it's a previous set. But there is
another set here. They expired in '92.
Q Are those all the items that
were found in the purse?
A Yes, other than a few items of
Tylenol. There is another key, Chrysler key. This is a valet key.
Q What do you mean by that?
A I think the valet key is the key
that fits the glove compartment and/or the trunk and not the
ignition of a vehicle.
Q Was there anything else in that
purse, sir?
A A
fingernail file. Yes, sir. There was a safe deposit key from
NationsBank, the container of the safe deposit key. But the key was
not in it. The key was gone.
Q Does it
have a safe deposit box number?
A Yes, sir. It has Number 157.
1173
THE COURT: How much longer are you
going to be with the witness, Mr. Panosh?
MR. PANOSH: I can stop with this
question, if you'd like.
THE COURT: All right. This might be a
good point.
You may step down, Officer Church.
(The witness left the witness stand.)
THE COURT: We'll take our lunch
recess, members of the jury. Please again remember the juror
responsibility sheet instructions. Have a nice lunch. I'll see you
at 2:00.
(The jury left the courtroom at 12:29
p.m.)
THE COURT: Any other matters before
the lunch recess?
MR. PANOSH: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: 2:00 p.m., sheriff.
(A recess was taken at 12:31 p.m.)
(Court reconvened at 2:04 p.m. The
defendant was not present. The jury was not present.)
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, there's a
real brief evidentiary matter.
THE COURT: Wait. We've got to get the
defendant and get him in here first.
MR. PANOSH: All right.
1174
(The defendant entered the courtroom
at 2:07 p.m.)
THE COURT: All right, sir.
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, the State
intends to bring as a witness tomorrow morning a representative of
Days Inn, to show that this exhibit, 117, is an official business
record of Days Inn.
(Mr. Panosh showed the exhibit to Mr.
Lloyd.)
MR. PANOSH: It's been disclosed to
counsel. If we can get a stipulation that it's an official business
record, then we can avoid bringing that gentleman from Virginia.
THE COURT: Is the defense willing to
stipulate to that?
MR. HATFIELD: No, Your Honor, we're
not.
THE COURT: What is it, a motel
receipt or something, sir?
MR. PANOSH: May I approach?
(Mr. Panosh handed the exhibit to the
Court, and time was allowed for the Court.)
THE COURT: What's the purpose of the
exhibit?
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, Mr. Whidden
will testify as to his activities on that particular day, and this
corroborates his activities, that he went to a motel. And I believe
he's going to testify because he was afraid to stay at his home,
after talking to the defendant. Simply
1175
corroborates that he
did go to a motel on that day, I believe it's the 25th of January of
'97.
THE COURT: On what date, sir?
MR. PANOSH: I believe a 25th arrival
and departure on the 26th.
THE COURT: What's the objection? Why
did --
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, there's
hardly been a day in this trial that he hasn't confronted us with
something brand new. He sent me something to my office today, having
to do with this same witness changing his testimony. This is the
only witness they have against Ronnie Kimble. They've --
THE COURT: This is simply the --
MR. HATFIELD: I'm not helping them.
Let them get their case ready on time.
THE COURT: You can -- is there some
reason why - you can't stipulate this is an authentic Days Inn --
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, the reason
I can't is, because I don't have my client's permission.
THE COURT: Mr. Lloyd? It just seems
like it's foolish to bring -- the taxpayers of North Carolina to
that expense to bring him down here, just to prove this is an
official log-in at a motel.
(The Court handed the exhibit to Mr.
Panosh.)
THE COURT: I guess you'll have to
bring him in,
1176
Mr. Panosh.
MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.
That's all.
(The jury entered the courtroom at
2:09 p.m.)
THE COURT: Well, I hope everyone had
a nice lunch and feeling okay. Anyone experiencing any problems this
afternoon, if you'll raise your hand, I'll talk with you about it.
Officer Church, if you'll come back
to the stand, please, sir. You're still under oath, sir.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
(The witness James D. Church returned
to the witness stand.)
THE COURT: You may
continue with your examination, Mr. Panosh.
MR. PANOSH: Thank you.
CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION by MR.
PANOSH:
Q Detective Church, before lunch
you made reference to State's Exhibit 48, the purse, and there was
certain money in there. Would you pull that money out and count it,
please.
(The witness complied.)
A $280.
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, that's been
introduced. We'd like to mark that item specifically as 48-A, for
the convenience of the clerk.
1177
THE COURT: The
Court'll allow that to be marked as 48-A.
Q Detective
Church, after you did your initial investigation there at Brandon
Station Court, did there come a time when you went to South Elm
Street Baptist Church?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did you go there by
yourself?
A No. Sergeant Deberry and I went
together.
Q What was
the purpose of going to South Elm Street Baptist Church?
A To talk to
Ted Kimble, to attempt to gain information as to medical records, so
that we might be able to identify the body, in case it was his wife.
Q At this point in your
investigation, the identification had not been completed; is that
what you're indicating?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what
medical records were you looking for?
A Dental records, specifically.
Q After you
went there, did you speak to Ted Kimble?
A Yes, I did.
Q And in the course of your
interview with Ted Kimble, were you able to find where in fact
Patricia Kimble's medical -- or that is dental records were?
A Yes. I think he gave the
dentist's name. And the following morning, we were able to obtain
those dental
1178
records.
Q And those were submitted, along
with her body, for autopsy; is that correct?
A Either that or somebody
transported them to the medical examiner's office.
Q In the course of speaking to
Theodore Kimble, did he tell you about his activities of May --
excuse me, October the 9th of 1995?
A Yes, he did.
Q What did he tell you?
A He said he got --
MR. LLOYD: Object for the record,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Ted Kimble said
he got up, left home approximately 7:30 in the morning. His wife was
still in the bed. He proceeded to go to Lyles Building Material and
he worked. He had ate lunch with his wife, Patricia. He said that
Patricia called him around 3:30, and then he -- after that, as I
recall, he said that he went to a second job and arrived at around
6:00 p.m.
Q Did he
indicate to you how long he'd known Patricia before being wed?
A Yes, he did. He said that he had
first met Patricia about five years prior to this.
Q Did he indicate to you whether
or not he owned the
1179
business at Lyles?
A Yes.
Q What did he tell you?
A That he had
bought the business from Gary Lyles, who now lives at 26 Northeast,
Long Beach, North Carolina.
Q In the
course of that conversation, did he give you the telephone number
for Mr. Lyles?
A He did.
Q Did he give you the details of
the purchase?
A He gave me
the details of the purchase. I don't recall if it was that night or
not.
Q Did he
indicate to you whether he went anywhere, between the time he left
Lyles Building Supply, and the time he went to the second job, which
he described as being at Precision Fabrics?
A Did he -- Excuse me. Did he --
Q Did he go anyplace between Lyles
and Precision?
A Yes, he did. Not at this time,
but he did tell me later that he went -- stopped at Mrs. Winner's
chicken and got a chicken biscuit, a cup of water. And he also met
his mother and dropped the dog off with her, that he had been
keeping at the business that day.
Q Okay. Drawing your attention to
the paragraph -middle of the paragraph, when it says "went to
second job," does he indicate the time that he dropped off the dog?
1180
A 1745, which would be 5:45.
Q So on that original occasion, he
did tell you about dropping off the dog?
A Yes, he did.
Q Did he indicate to you why or
how it came to be that he contacted Reuben Blakley?
A On that night, October the 9th,
he stated to me that he had tried to contact his wife, and was
unable to contact his wife, by pager or telephone, and that after
not being able to contact his wife, he called her brother, Reuben
Blakley, and asked Reuben Blakley to go check on Patricia.
Q Did he give you information in
reference to the house insurance at that time?
A Yes. He told me who it was
insured with. I don't think he gave me an amount.
Q Did he give you any other
details about the house insurance?
A Yes, he did. He said that the
homeowners policy on the home was being cancelled as of October 30th
of the same month (sic), 1995.
Q Did he indicate to you whether
or not he knew if the policy was in effect?
A Are you referring to the life
insurance policy?
Q What did he tell you after that,
sir?
A He had an auto policy with State
Farm, a disability
1181
life insurance
with Mass Mutual. Harvey Apple was the agent. And Life -- and
Georgia Life. And that he had took the policy one month ago on
Patricia. And he said that he didn't know if the policy was in
effect. They decided together that they needed additional life
insurance.
Q Did he go on to say anything
more about that life insurance policy?
A He did. At -- later on, after
that statement, Ted Kimble told me that Patricia was upset with the
$200,000 policy, the life insurance policy, and that he had
cancelled it. It was no longer in effect.
Q Did he indicate to you what, if
anything, was missing or that he expected to be missing from the
home?
A Yes, he did.
Q What did he tell you?
A
I particularly asked Ted Kimble if he had any guns, and he said he
did. I asked him where they were. He said they were under the bed in
the master bedroom. I asked him what type weapons they were. He said
it was a Glock .45 pistol, a 1100 Remington shotgun and a 300 Win.
Mag. rifle.
Q What did
you do next in the course or your investigation? Let me ask you
this. After interviewing him, did you leave the church?
A Yes, I did, went back to --
Q Did you interview anyone else
there at the church?
1182
A No, I did not.
Q And detective, what did you do
next, in the course of your investigation?
A Went back to Brandon Station
Court.
Q And when you inspected the home,
did you find the weapons that Mr. Kimble had told you about?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q None of them?
A We found a Glock pistol. I was
not the one that found the Glock pistol, but the Glock pistol, the
one that's in evidence here, was found in the house.
Q Did you find the Remington 1100
or the Win. Mag.?
A No, sir.
Q Any indication that they were
destroyed in the fire?
A No, sir.
Q What did you do next, after you
finished your duties at Brandon Station Court?
A Further the investigation, that
is when we made the walk-through in the house and --
Q Okay. After that night, what did
you do next?
A Okay. The following day, which
-- we continued at the -- the investigation at the crime scene. The
crime scene techs were finishing up doing what they -- you know,
their jobs they had to do. And I did go back to the scene, and we
started canvassing the neighborhood and talking to people,
1183
as to anything
that might have been seen. Not only me, several officers did that.
Q And then on October the 11th,
did you meet with Theodore Kimble at his house?
A I did.
Q And this
was the house at Brandon Station Court?
A Yes.
Q And did you
confer with him about the items that were missing from the home?
A Excuse me.
Let me back up. I conferred with him about the items from the home
the next day, the 10th. It was about 5:30 in the evening. And the --
I did confer with him and approached him and informed him about his
wife, that it was a positive identity, that she was the person that
was in the fire, in fact, the victim. And at that time, I asked him
about the weapons again. I said, "Mr. Kimble, I have a problem with
the weapons that you told me were in the house." I said, "I think we
found the Glock .45, but we were unable to find the two long guns
that you mentioned."
Q What did he say?
A He said, "Well, I want you to
know that the 1100, I have it at work. I had it there cleaning it.
And I don't own a 300 Win. Mag., but I'm thinking about buying one."
Q After that, did you also confer
with him on October the 11th?
1184
A Yes.
Q At this time, did you make an
inspection of the home itself?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what, if anything, did he
indicate was missing from the home?
A We initially went through the
front door. And I had previously asked Ted, "Well, let's go in the
house, and you point out and see if anything's missing." And we
first entered the house and he pointed and said the VCR was gone,
and then he said, "No, it's not. Patricia has that at Cinnamon
Ridge." And he says, "Well, it looks like a few videos are gone. The
Disney videos that --"
Q Other than the Disney videos,
was he able to identify anything that was missing from the house?
A Not that day.
Q In the course of going through
the house, what, if anything, did he do in reference to the hole
where Patricia's body was?
A Ted asked if he could go to the
rear of the house, and I said, "Sure. It's your house." So there's a
hole. The ladder was not in the hole -- over the hole at that time.
So when he come to the hole in the floor that went down to the
ground, jumped down in the hole and jumped up the other side. And I
followed and -- to the back of the hallway, to
1185
the back
bedrooms, in this end of the house. (Indicated on the diagram.)
Q Did there come a time when you
and he inspected the house -- the door that led to the kitchen from
the garage?
A Yes, we did.
Q What, if anything, did he say
about that?
A I asked him about the catch
plate, the little plate that goes on the door casing, and I asked
him if it always been that-a-way, and he said, yes, that that catch
plate comes loose and he has to put it back on or tighten it up from
time to time.
Q After that interview with him,
what did you do next in the course of your investigation?
A On October the 19th, Sergeant
Deberry and I drove to Lyles Building Material.
Q And what was the --
A Excuse me.
Q -- purpose of going to Lyles on
October 19th?
A That was on the 18th. Excuse me.
The purpose of me going there at that time was to give Ted a receipt
for a partial box of .45-caliber ammunition and some personal papers
that I had taken off the kitchen cabinet in the house, and also, two
of Patricia's bank statements, before they were married, the bank
statements before they were married.
1186
Q After giving him that receipt,
what, if anything, did he tell you?
A When we approached him there, he
was working on a blue and white Suzuki motorcycle. As I recall, it
was an 1100 size. He asked "How do you like my motorcycle?" "Okay."
He said -- he
commented that he had just got the motorcycle, and that he had
purchased the motorcycle from $2,500 proceeds that the church had
took up for him, and he put the remainder on his credit card. And he
said that the total amount he paid for the motorcycle was $7,400.
Q Did you then return on October
the 19th and interview him again?
A Yes. Sergeant Deberry and I went
back.
Q What was the purpose of going to
see him on October the 19th?
A The purpose of going to see Ted
on the 19th was, we -- I had received a copy of the insurance
application. As I stated before, I took known signatures of
Patricia's from the house before they were married. And in our
opinion, the signature on Patricia's --
Q Without stating your opinion,
what did you go there to ask him?
A I went
there to ask him who signed that insurance application.
Q Who did
the interview?
1187
A Sergeant
Deberry.
Q And were
you present?
A Yes, I was.
Q And when he was -- what was he
asked?
A He was asked who signed the
insurance application for $200,000.
Q What did he tell you?
A He said that he signed it.
Q And
drawing your attention to your report, what were the specific words
that he used?
A He said, "I
forged it."
Q What occurred then?
A Sergeant Deberry asked him why.
And Ted Kimble said that he had gone home with the papers, and that
his wife had had a hard day at the office, and that someone had
cursed her out at work, and she was very upset, and he just signed
her name.
Q Now, up until this point, were
you aware that Ted Kimble had a brother Ronnie?
A No, sir.
Q And up until this point, had
anyone pointed out to you that Ronnie Kimble was in Guilford County
on October the 9th of 1995?
A No.
Q When was it that you learned
about Ronnie Kimble?
1188
A I first learned about Ronnie
Kimble -- I don't remember the exact date. It was seven to ten days
into the investigation. And as I recall, I learned that Ted Kimble
had a brother Ronnie from Reuben Blakley, and we were discussing at
the church that night, and that Ted Kimble's family was there, and
he mentioned his brother. And said he was in the Marine Corps. So
that's the first that I knew that he had a brother.
Q And when was it you learned that
he was in Guilford County on October the 9th?
A That was on or about, I think
the -- I think the 19th of October.
Q Thereafter, did you interview
Theodore Kimble in reference to Ronnie Kimble?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what did he tell you?
A In an interview on November the
1st, I spoke with Ted Kimble, and I asked him why he did not tell me
his brother was in Guilford County on the day that his wife was
murdered. Ted Kimble told me that he knew his brother didn't have
anything to do with it, so he didn't want his name involved. And I
informed Ted Kimble at that time, if he didn't realize that his
brother was the last known person to see his wife alive or be at
that residence. And I don't recall getting a comment on that, before
-- but I did say
1189
before she was
murdered.
Q Did you
subsequently have a telephone conversation with him on or about the
2nd?
A Yes.
Q And what, if anything, did he
say in reference to not telling you about Ronnie Kimble being in
Guilford County? (Time was allowed for the witness.)
Q Let's go
on, detective. After that, did you have further contact with Ted
Kimble?
A Yes.
Q And when was the next contact?
A November 2nd. I spoke with Ted
at his workplace by telephone. The purpose of the call at that time
was to ask him about the gun permits that he had obtained.
Q And after that conversation, did
you have further contact with him?
A Yes. Yes, I did.
Q Did there come a time when you
asked him to sit down and give you a formal interview, in reference
to the events of October the 9th of 1995?
A Yes, I did. I asked him to do
this several times.
Q And was he -- did he ever
arrange for you to give him that formal interview?
A No, he didn't.
Q Did there come a time when you
asked your sergeant,
1190
Detective Deberry, to
look into that?
A I did. I informed my sergeant
that I couldn't get Ted Kimble to come and sit down for a formal
interview, other than a brief chat at the workplace or a telephone
call or something of this nature, and I needed to sit down and do an
in-depth interview with Ted Kimble. So I asked Sergeant Deberry if
he would then go by Lyles Building Material and encourage Ted to
come in, so we could get an interview.
Q After that, did you ever have a
formal interview with him?
A No, sir, never did.
Q Did there come a time
when you verified the information he gave you about being at Lyles
and then going to Precision Fabrics?
MR. HATFIELD: Objection to his
verifying things, unless he tells how he did it.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Do you recall the date that you
asked Sergeant Deberry to go by Lyles and ask Ted Kimble for an
official or a formal statement?
A November 30, 1995.
Q In the course of your
investigation on October the 13th of 1995, did there come a time
when you interviewed Mr. and Mrs. Coble, who've previously
testified?
A Yes, I did.
1191
Q And what did they tell you?
A Mr. Coble stated that he'd not
been out of the house that day, he didn't see anything unusual going
on that day, and that he had not burned any trash that day.
Q In the course of your
investigation, did there come a time when you interviewed Mr. Fryar,
who's previously testified, on October the 15th of 1995?
A Yes. I think I talked to Mr.
Fryar twice, but I did --
Q And what did he tell you?
A Mr. Fryar told me --
MR. HATFIELD: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Are you offering it for
the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the witness?
MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Members of the jury, this
is being offered for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of
an earlier witness. It would be for you to say and determine whether
it does in fact so corroborate that witness's testimony. It's not
being offered for the truth or falsity_ of the statement, but
whether in fact the statement was made on that occasion.
Q What did Mr. Fryar tell you?
MR. HATFIELD: Objection. It's too
broad
1192
reaching. We didn't
challenge Mr. Fryar's testimony. Why are they corroborating it?
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Mr. Fryar told me approximately
6:00 o'clock in the evening, he took his daughter to Pleasant Garden
school for cheerleader practice, returned home. After returning
home, he prepared to do some yard work. While out in the yard, at
approximately 6:30, as I recall, he looked across the road, to where
the Kimble residence was, obscured by trees, and he saw out in the
field low-lying smoke.
Q And on October the 10th of 1995,
did you interview Cara Dudley?
MR. HATFIELD: Objection. She's
already testified.
THE COURT: Well, sustained.
Move along, Mr. Panosh. They've
already testified. The jury's got their testimony.
MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.
Q In the course of your
investigation --
MR. PANOSH: The Court's indulgence.
(Time was allowed for Mr. Panosh.)
Q In the course of your
investigation, did you determine the temperature on October the 9th
of 1995?
A Yes, I did.
Q How did you do that?
1193
A We
contacted the weather service at Piedmont Triad International
Airport.
Q Do you
have that with you?
A I don't have it up here with me.
Q Do you have it available in the
courtroom?
A Yes, sir.
MR. PANOSH: May he step down and get
it?
THE COURT: You may do that.
(The witness left the witness stand,
picked up a folder and returned to the witness stand.)
(The witness handed a document to Mr.
Panosh, and Mr. Panosh marked the document as an exhibit and showed
it to Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Hatfield.)
Q Showing you now State's Exhibit
Number 118 --
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, we object.
This has got writing on it, and we don't know who did the writing.
THE COURT: Finish your question, sir.
What's the number, sir?
MR. PANOSH: 118.
Q What is
Number 118?
A It is a copy of the weather
temperatures and relative humidity on the -- October 9, 1995.
Q And again,
where did you get that information? A It came from the -- I don't
know the exact name, weather bureau that's in Guilford County at the
Piedmont
1194
Triad International
Airport.
Q And in reference to the relative
humidities, did you --
MR. HATFIELD: Objection. Those were
all added in handwriting. We ask the Court to review this document,
before the --
THE COURT: Let me look at it, sir.
(The witness handed the exhibit to
Mr. Panosh, and Mr. Panosh handed the exhibit to the Court. Time was
allowed for the Court.)
THE COURT: Overruled at this point.
Q Based upon the inquiries you
made at the weather bureau
MR. PANOSH: May I approach?
THE COURT: You're going to have to
establish whose handwriting that is on there.
MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.
(The Court handed the exhibit to Mr.
Panosh, and Mr. Panosh handed the exhibit to the witness.)
Q And drawing your attention to
the temperatures only, do the temperatures indicate the official --
the information you obtained from the weather bureau?
A Yes, it did. I might add that --
Q And what --
A Go ahead.
Q What were the temperatures at
the various times
1195
throughout that day?
MR. HATFIELD: Objection. That's
really irrelevant.
MR. PANOSH: Well, I'll let the
document in, or he can read them. I don't -- it doesn't make any
difference to me.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I didn't object
to the --
THE COURT: Pare it down to the time
at issue, Mr. Panosh.
MR. PANOSH: All right. May I
approach?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
(The witness handed the exhibit to
Mr. Panosh.)
Q Drawing your attention then to
the readings that were
(The witness indicated.)
Q -- made at closest to 4:00 p.m.,
what were the readings?
A The temperature was 70 degrees.
Q All right. And the readings that
were made at -(The witness indicated.)
A Four minutes to 5:00.
Q 5:00 p.m.?
A 68 degrees.
Q And at 6:00 p.m.?
A 65 degrees.
1196
Q Now, in the -- does the document
also reflect the humidities at those three times?
A Yes, it does.
Q And what were the humidities at
4:00 p.m.?
A 51 percent.
Q At 5-- I mean at 5:00 p.m.?
A 61 percent.
Q And at 6:00 p.m.?
A Excuse me. I'm one ahead of
myself. At 6:00 p.m. was 61 percent. 5:00 p.m. was 51 percent. 4:00
p.m. or thereabouts was 47 percent.
Q Now, in the course of your
investigation, did you measure the distances from the various
locations and prepare a diagram showing the distances from the
various locations?
A Yes, I did.
(Mr. Panosh showed an exhibit to Mr.
Lloyd and Mr. Hatfield.)
THE COURT: You may stand and stretch,
if you'd like, members of the jury.
(Time was allowed.)
MR. PANOSH: Bailiff, could you --
(Mr. Panosh conferred with the
bailiff.)
(Mr. Panosh placed an exhibit on the
board.)
Q Showing you then what's been
marked as Number 119, is this the document that you prepared with
the relative --
1197
with the distances to the various
locations in this case?
A Yes, sir, it is.
Q And did you personally measure
those distances?
A I did.
Q And in preparing the diagram,
did you use an existing map of Guilford County?
A Yes, I did.
MR. PANOSH: We'd seek to introduce
Number 119.
MR. HATFIELD: Objection, until he --
THE COURT: The Court'll allow the
introduction of Exhibit Number 119.
Q Now, would you step to the
diagram, please, and explain the different locations that you
measured and the amounts that you measured them.
(The witness approached the diagram.)
MR. HATFIELD: Can I stand up here,
Your Honor? (Indicated.)
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
A The locations that I measured
were from 5821 Monnett Road, which is located in the legend as
Number 2, the Ronnie Kimble residence, to Lyles Building Material,
which is not indicated on this map.
Q Okay.
MR. HATFIELD: Object and move that
the map be
1198
THE COURT: Overruled.
A And that route that I -- that
was taken was to Donna Road to Liberty Road, to Woody Mill Road, to
Highway 421, to Martin Luther King Boulevard, to Lee Street, which
was a total of 15.4 miles, took 24 minutes.
There was a second route that I
measured from Lyles Building Material out Lee Street to Highway 29,
back to Highway 421, to Woody Mill Road, to Liberty Road, to Donna
Road, Monnett Road, back to 5821 Monnett Road, which is 16.4 miles,
which was a mile further, but still took 24 minutes.
From Lyles Building Material, I
measured the distance from Lyles Building Material to Brandon
Station Court. And through the route of Lee Street to Highway 29,
421 south to Highway 22, which is Alliance Church Road, to Brandon
Station Court, which is 12.1 miles, took 18 minutes.
Q Was there an alternate route
that you could observe?
A To --
Q Was that the most direct route
from Lyles to Brandon Station Court?
A Yes. There's --
Q And that's 12.1 miles in how
many minutes?
A 18 minutes.
Q Now, when you make these -- when
you record these minutes, what speed are you driving?
A The normal posted speed. That's
allowing for traffic
1199
signals, traffic. And these times
were done in 3:00, 4:00 o'clock, during the day.
Q And did there come a time when
you made further measurements and observations?
A Yes, I did. From Brandon Station
Court, which is Number 3 on the legend, the home of Ted and Patricia
Kimble, to Number 2, Ronnie Kimble residence, was 8.3 miles, takes
10 minutes to drive it.
Q And did you also reflect on
there the Stump residence?
A Yes, I did. In the legend, the
Stump residence is Number 1 here, which is approximately two-tenths
of a mile from -- on the roadway, from Ronnie Kimble.
Q In the course of your -- did you
make any further measurements?
A Not on this, not -- no, sir.
Q Does that particular diagram
reflect the location where Patricia Kimble was last seen?
A Yes, it does.
Q Where is that?
A It'll be right here on Number 7,
the intersection of Creek Ridge and Randleman Roads, right before
you get to Interstate 85, Randleman Road. (Indicated.)
Q Did you make any measurements
from that location?
A I did, sir, but I don't recall.
From Cinnamon Ridge, where she worked, to here; is that what you're
referring to?
1200
Q Yes.
A It's -- no,
I don't recall. Number 6 is Cinnamon Ridge, where she worked. Number
7 was where she was -where she was last seen. (Indicated.)
Q You can
resume your seat. Thank you.
(The witness returned to the witness
stand.)
Q Now, in
the course of your investigation, did you interview Robert Nicholes?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did he
make the statements to you -- did he make any statements to you?
A Yes, sir,
he did.
Q What date did he make statements
to you?
A The first statement that Robert
Nicholes made to me was on November (sic) 18, 1997.
Q When was the next one?
A The next statement was on the
9th of May, 1997.
Q And when was the next one?
A The next statement was on the
12th of May, 1997.
Q And the next statement?
A The next statement was the 29th
of May, 1997.
Q And thereafter, did he give any
statements?
A Yes. I have another
statement 12th of May. I think that is -- Excuse me. That's a
duplicate. That's all I have, I mean, that it shows the times that I
interviewed Rob
1201
Nicholes, Robert Nicholes.
MR. PANOSH: May I approach the
witness?
THE COURT: You
may.
Q First of
them is April the 18th; is that correct?
A Yes. (Indicated.)
MR. HATFIELD:
April or November?
Q What's the
date on the first interview, sir?
A April 18, 1997.
Q What's the date on the second
interview?
A 9th of May. Excuse me. It's May
16, 1997.
(Mr. Panosh indicated.)
A May 17, 1997.
(Mr. Panosh indicated.)
A And May 19, 1997.
(Mr. Panosh indicated.)
A And May 29, 1997.
(Mr. Panosh indicated.)
A That's a duplicate.
MR. PANOSH: I take it your rulings on
corroboration applies to this witness, also?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LLOYD: Well, Your Honor, we'd
specifically object here. Mr. Nicholes never testified to having
made any statement to Detective Church. He's testified in this case.
Mr. Panosh had every opportunity to ask him about it,
1202
but he didn't do it.
THE COURT:
Sustained.
Q Now,
before you took those statements, did you make any promises to
Robert Nicholes?
A No.
Q Did you also interview Mr.
Pardee?
A Yes, I did.
Q On what occasions?
A Did you say what occasion or --
What dates, please?
A The first interview with Patrick
Pardee was April 7, 1997.
Q Did you have subsequent
interviews with him?
A Yes, I did.
Q When was that?
A On the 27th of May, 1997.
Q And did you have any subsequent
to that?
A 15th of July, 1997.
Q After that?
A July 21, 1997.
Q And in the course of that
interview, did he give you the check which has been previously
admitted as part of the estate proceeds, or a copy of that check?
A On the July -- on Monday, July
28, 1997, he brought the copy of the cancelled check that he had for
$5,500.
1203
Q Did he give you any further
statements after July 28th?
A Yes, he
did.
Q When was
that?
A Mr. Pardee told me that Ted had
come to him -
MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your
Honor.
Q When was it, sir?
A Oh. Excuse me. When did he --
Q After the
July 28, '97 statement, did he give you further statements?
A On July
31st. Excuse me. I -- He did.
Q Now, prior to him making any of
those statements to you, did you make any specific promises to him,
in order to obtain his information?
A I made him no promises.
Q And have you had an occasion to
listen to the testimony of Robert Nicholes in the courtroom today?
A Yes, I did.
Q Was that consistent with the
statements he gave you previously?
MR. HATFIELD: Objection.
MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we'd like to
be heard real briefly.
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
1204
(The following proceedings were had
by the Court and all three counsel at the bench, out of the hearing
of the jury.)
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PANOSH: I know Your Honor wants
to move it along, but we'd like to be able to corroborate this
witness from his prior statements. It's something that's very
normally done. If we can't use the prior statements, I'd like at
least the detective to say that he's heard his testimony, it's
consistent with the prior statements. I think the jury certainly
looks for prior statements which are consistent or inconsistent.
Certainly if there was an inconsistent statement, the defense would
be able to use it to impeach, but --
THE COURT: Well, you can always put
him back up and ask him if he made the statement.
MR. PANOSH: My recollection is, he
told us that he did make these statements.
THE COURT: Your recollection any
different than that?
MR. LLOYD: Well, you know, if Mr.
Panosh wants to ask him if it's consistent, and that's the only
question he asks, I'll withdraw the objection.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PANOSH: I mean, I'm not trying to
drag it out, but instead of just putting --
1205
MR. LLOYD: I'm interested in moving
it along.
MR. HATFIELD: Excuse me. I've never
heard of a witness being allowed to make the decision that is the
sole basis for the jury being here.
MR. PANOSH: Well, we would submit
that it's perfectly admissible to put in consistent statements.
MR. HATFIELD: Haven't been impeached
yet.
THE COURT: Just let him read -- I
mean, you can ask him if he heard his testimony, if there's anything
in his testimony that's different from the statement he made to him.
MR. PANOSH: All right.
THE COURT: You can't introduce the
statement.
MR. PANOSH: We can?
THE COURT: If they object --
MR. LLOYD: We're going to object to
that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LLOYD: What Your Honor suggested
is far more preferable than the introduction of the statement.
THE COURT: Well, that's the way -- if
you don't object, then they'll put it in. Just prove the statement
-that he made the statement.
MR. LLOYD: So Mr. Panosh can ask him
if there was anything in the statement that was inconsistent with
what he
1206
heard?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. LLOYD: All right.
(Proceedings continued in open
court.)
Q Drawing your attention to the
statements that were given to you by Mr. Robert Nicholes, and
comparing them to the testimony you heard in court today and
yesterday, did he tell you anything that was inconsistent with his
testimony before the jury?
A No.
Q Drawing your attention then to
the statements made to you by Mr. Pardee, and comparing them to his
statements before the jury that you heard today, was there anything
in his statements that he made to you on those various occasions
that was inconsistent with the information he provided to the jury?
A No, sir.
Q Now, did you also interview
Mitch Whidden in reference to this particular case?
A Yes, I did.
Q And subsequent to the interview
with Mitch Whidden, did there come a time when you obtained a
certain receipt in reference to Mr. Whidden?
A Yes, sir, I did.
MR. PANOSH: May I approach?
1207
(Mr. Panosh
showed an exhibit to Mr. Lloyd.)
Q I'll show
you now State's Exhibit Number 117. Do you see that?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is 117?
MR. HATFIELD: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HATFIELD: It's the one we've
already objected to.
THE COURT: Well, he can ask him what
it was. Overruled as to that.
A It is a receipt from Days Inn,
Lynchburg, Virginia.
Q And subsequent to the interview
with -(Time was allowed for Mr. Panosh.)
(Mr. Panosh showed an exhibit to Mr.
Lloyd.)
Q Subsequent to the interview with
Mr. Whidden, did you receive State's Exhibit Number 120?
(Mr. Panosh
handed an exhibit to the witness.) A Yes, I did.
Q And what
is Number 120?
A Number 120 is a receipt of -- a
parking receipt from the Marine Corps base, Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina.
MR. HATFIELD: We object to this.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HATFIELD: I'd like to be heard.
1208
MR. PANOSH: I'm not moving to
introduce it at this time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled at this point.
MR. HATFIELD: As long as he doesn't
describe it to the jury.
THE COURT: All right, sir.
Q Now, in the course of your
investigation, did you interview most of the other witnesses who
have testified before the jury during this trial?
A As best of my knowledge, I did.
MR. PANOSH: No further questions.
THE COURT: Well, let's take our
break, before we get into cross-examination.
Are you going to be some time on
cross-examination, Mr. Hatfield?
MR. HATFIELD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
Members of the jury, we'll take our
--
You may step down, Officer Church.
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, there'll be a
matter of law before the jury comes back.
THE COURT: All right.
You may take your afternoon recess.
It'll be a 15-minute recess. Do not come back in the jury room if
court's still in session in here.
1209
(The witness left the witness stand.)
(The jury left the courtroom at 3:06
p.m.)
THE COURT: All
right, sir.
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, as we have
previously indicated, the State maintains that evidence of other
suspects are inappropriate, unless it is brought to the Court's
attention in the absence of the jury, and they're able to show that
these are not just suspicions. I believe this came up in reference
to information that they had tried to introduce about another
perpetrator.
Citing specifically State v. Allen,
the general rule is, evidence that another person committed the
crime is not admissible if it only creates an inference or
conjecture as to the other person's guilt. And they -- that's also
cited in State v. Brewer, which is 1989, from our Supreme
Court, and State v. Hamlet.
And I anticipate what they're going
to do is, ask questions of the detective about other suspects that
were brought to his attention, that he may or may not have
interviewed. And we would submit that this is basically just
speculation and conjecture and should not be heard in the presence
of the jury, until Your Honor has been able to rule that there is
sufficient evidence to be admissible under 404(b), indicating that
some other perpetrator committed this crime.
1210
(Time was allowed for the Court.)
THE COURT: All right. Gentlemen, what
evidence do you have of any other perpetrator, or what do you intend
to ask this witness about that?
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, this is not
the time for this Court to make an inquiry of this kind. This is
once again the obstructionist tactics of Richard Panosh.
THE COURT: Well, let's don't get into
that.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, here's what I'd
like to say to the Court. He would like to curtail
cross-examination, and every prosecutor in the world would like to
prevent cross-examination. And he would like to stake out
cross-examination. And he has no basis for what he is saying. We
have a right to probe the investigative techniques that the witness
who just testified employed. We have a right to look into what he
did. And we certainly have a right to find out, when there was
evidence that might point away from one of the defendants, toward
perhaps another individual, to what extent that is the case, and
whether or not the officer was aware of that and whether he pursued
it.
I have never heard of a prosecutor
being able --
THE COURT: I don't have any problem
with that. I'm going to allow you to do that, but what I want to
avoid is, bringing this jury in and out, in and out, in and out, as
we go through these different --
1211
MR. HATFIELD: You know, I haven't
ever been in a trial with which the two defense lawyers did more to
facilitate a speedy resolution of the case than this one. I think at
this point in time, we should be given a little bit of latitude.
THE COURT: You've done well so far. I
commend you.
MR. HATFIELD: We have left hundreds
of witnesses, if not more than that -- I'd have to ask the newspaper
how many people have actually been here -- 60 or 70 witnesses, and
we've cross-examined about 20 percent of them. The rest of them,
we've just --
THE COURT: Well, all --
MR. HATFIELD: -- said, "Thank you."
THE COURT: -- I'm asking, Mr.
Hatfield, is, these reference to other people who may have been at
some point suspects in the case, do you have something other than
just an inference of that or conjecture, or are you just going to
fish around on it?
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I'm going to find
out who the gentleman named Sam was that wrote Patricia a letter,
that Mr. Church showed me a few weeks ago. I'd like to find out why
he didn't investigate Mr. James Day, whose name appeared in
Patricia's will, and who was a friend of hers. He hasn't shown her
will, either, although he has her proposed will
1212
that he showed us in pretrial
discovery.
There are numerous individuals that
he knows about, that he has either decided, because he had an
understanding with them that he wasn't going to pursue it, or
whatever his reasons were. And I think we have a right to ask him
about things like that.
Do we think someone else did it? I
don't see how the prosecutor can require us to alert everyone,
including himself, of that in advance.
MR. PANOSH: If he talks about a
gentleman named Sam who might have done it, that's conjecture,
speculation. There's no basis. None.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I didn't say he
might have done it.
THE COURT: I don't think he's going
to get into that. He simply wants to know who Sam is and whether or
not they -- what steps they took to --
MR. HATFIELD: Right. I'd like to know
who Sam was.
THE COURT: I think he's entitled to
do that.
MR. HATFIELD: Or maybe I'm the --
MR. PANOSH: The specific --
MR. HATFIELD: Maybe I'm the only one
thinks who Sam was. That would be interesting, too, from the
standpoint of, to what extent did Mr. Church investigate
1213
this case. Who was Jim? Mr. Church
told me, when he -during pretrials, when he was showing us the
tangible evidence that he had evaluated, a gentleman named Jim. Who
is Jim? And what did he find out when he evaluated him?
These are perfectly legitimate
matters. They turned up in the discovery materials that were turned
over to us. They are indicated by Patricia's papers. Your Honor,
they're not off the wall. Those are good things to find out a little
bit more about.
THE COURT: If they're hard, concrete
leads, I'll let you pursue it.
MR. HATFIELD: Thank you.
THE COURT: But if it's just
somebody's name surfaced, I'm not going to let you get very far with
that.
MR. PANOSH: As to the will, Your
Honor, there is no will. There is a document, which is one page,
which has handwriting in it. It is not identified by signature or by
reference or by anyone. And we would submit it is hearsay, totally
irrelevant, totally inadmissible. Your Honor, if the State tried to
put it in, it would take you about two seconds to rule on that. It
just means nothing. Now, that piece of paper has been in evidence
since the day of the fire, and no one has made any attempts to
corroborate --
THE COURT: Well, has it been probated
or offered for probate or --
1214
MR. HATFIELD: It's not that. It's
exactly what the $200 (sic) insurance policy is. It is to a real
will the way the attempt to get a $200,000 policy is to a real
$200,000 policy. Mr. Panosh is exactly right. Patricia sat down and
wrote who she wanted to give her property to, in the event of her
and Ted's joint death, and it talks about $200,000. Now, excuse me.
The only place I've heard $200,000 is from about eight or nine
different insurance specialists who came in here and said that Ted
tried to put a $200,000 insurance policy on Patricia's life. He
failed to do so. Patricia counted that $200,000 in her plan for a
will. Did she actually formulate a will? No.
THE COURT: Well, I haven't seen the
document. What's the date on it, and whose handwriting, and all that
stuff?
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, this is not
the document but it is a copy, and --
(Mr. Panosh handed a document to the
Court.)
MR. HATFIELD: I'd like to know where
the original is. I hope Mr. Church has it with him.
(Time was allowed for the Court.)
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, I've got the
original now, and I don't think there's any distinct differences
between the original and the copy, and it's just totally not
identified as a will.
1215
(Mr. Panosh handed a document to the
Court.)
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, it was
found -
MR. PANOSH: It's not dated. There's
no indication of who wrote it --
MR. HATFIELD: Patricia wrote it.
MR. PANOSH: -- or if more than one
person contributed to the writing.
MR. HATFIELD: It was found among her
personal papers in her home.
THE COURT: Well, you're going to have
to put that in as defense evidence. I'm not going to let that in.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I want to ask the
detective here to identify it, since he found it.
THE COURT: You may ask him to
identify what he found, but as to -- he can't testify to that being
her handwriting or anything like that. It's certainly not a will,
it's merely thoughts that --
MR. HATFIELD: Well, we don't have a
$200 insurance policy -- a $200,000 --
THE COURT: Sir?
MR. HATFIELD: We don't have a
$200,000 insurance policy either.
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, there is no
mention of $200,000.
THE COURT: I didn't see it either.
1216
MR. HATFIELD: Excuse me. Let me see
it. (The Court handed a document to Mr. Hatfield.)
MR. HATFIELD: Where's that other
page? Where's the page that goes with it?
MR. PANOSH: There is no page that
goes with it.
THE COURT: Now, let's don't get off
on that. I'm not going to let it in as a will.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, it is just
as much relevant to her case as to all of her speeches to her
friends about insurance.
THE COURT: He can identify that as to
when it was written and in her handwriting. He can identify it as
that, and only for that purpose, not as a will.
MR. HATFIELD: Where is the --
THE COURT: It's merely thoughts of a
person who might want to make a will at some point.
(Mr. Panosh handed documents to Mr.
Hatfield.)
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, the pages
--
THE COURT: It does not pass the legal
test for a will in North Carolina.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I didn't
say it was a will. I said it was a plan for a will.
THE COURT: I thought you were
referring to it as a will then. Just --
MR. HATFIELD: May I approach?
1217
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
(Mr. Hatfield reviewed a document at
the bench.)
MR. HATFIELD: I think it's pretty
interesting that she wrote $200,000 cash here. They keep claiming
she doesn't want a $200,000 insurance policy.
MR. PANOSH: Well, Your Honor, that is
a different piece of paper. It has nothing to do with --
THE COURT: It has absolutely nothing
to do with it.
MR. HATFIELD: Can I get it identified
by Mr. Church?
THE COURT: If he can identify it as
being in her handwriting, something like that, or where he found it.
But I'm not going to let you --
(The Court handed a document to Mr.
Hatfield, and Mr. Hatfield handed the document to Mr. Panosh.)
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, would you
ask the Court -- ask the DA to turn that over, so we can -- turn the
original over, so that we can have it marked for identification?
MR. PANOSH: The original is present
in court, and I've given them copies.
THE COURT: You may use a copy.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I want the
original.
MR. PANOSH: It's present. He may have
access to
1218
it.
THE COURT: You may look at it.
MR. HATFIELD: All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Take about a
10-minute break.
(A recess was taken at 3:17 p.m.)
(Court reconvened at 3:33 p.m. The
defendant was not present. The jury was not present.)
(The defendant entered the courtroom
at 3:34 p.m.)
THE COURT: Bring them back, Mark.
You may come back to the witness
stand, please. (The witness James D. Church returned to the witness
stand.) (The jury entered the courtroom at 3:34 p.m.)
THE COURT: You may continue.
MR. HATFIELD: Thank you, Judge.
CROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. HATFIELD:
Q Mr. Church, you were testifying just a few
minutes ago that Mr. Nicholes was interviewed some five times
between April 18th and May 29th; is that correct?
A I think that's right, yes.
Q And you -- a little while ago, you gave the
dates of the times that he was interviewed and the dates that
-correct me if I'm wrong, but the dates that I recall are April
18th, May 16th, May 17th, May 19th and May 29th, all in 1997; is
that correct?
1219
A April 18th, May 16th, May 19th and May 29th.
Q Wasn't there also
a May 17th?
A There's a May 16th. I don't see a May 17th.
Q Well, I don't wish
to belabor this, because it's late in the day, but are you sure you
didn't say a few minutes ago May 16 and May 17?
A Mr. Hatfield, I may have said that, but I have
four interviews here and they're the dates that I told you, sir.
Q All right. Did you
conduct all of those interviews, sir?
A Yes, I did.
Q All right. Now, you were -- I believe that you
were fully satisfied with Mr. Nicholes' account to you, after he had
talked to you on April 18th, weren't you?
A When someone gives me information such as this,
I'm never satisfied with one interview.
Q Is that why you interviewed him on the -- either
the 16th or the 17th of May, because you were not fully satisfied
with the April 18th interview?
A That amongst other things. I wanted to -- I
wanted to reassure the witness.
Q You wanted to reassure the witness?
A Reassure myself what the witness was -- what he
was telling me was truthful.
Q So could you not -- without telling us what the
witness
1220
told you, tell us what you told the witness.
A I told the witness to be truthful, and if he
wasn't going to tell me the truth, don't talk to me at all.
Q So you would have spoken to him for maybe five
to 10 seconds, and then that would have been all you had to say?
A No, sir, Mr. Hatfield. I don't remember word for
word what I said to Mr. Nicholes, but in conducting an interview, it
would go as I described.
Q Did you tell Mr. Nicholes -- and I'm not asking
you what Mr. Nicholes said to you -- did you tell Mr. Nicholes that
Ted Kimble had been uncooperative with you?
A I don't recall.
Q Did you show Mr. Nicholes a picture of the
burned and charred remains of Patricia?
A I don't recall doing that, either.
Q It's possible that you did, isn't it?
A I don't think so, no, sir.
Q But you had to look up and think about it,
before you could answer the jury --
MR. PANOSH: We object to arguing.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Isn't it a fact that you don't remember whether
you showed him a picture of the burned and charred remains of
Patricia or not?
A As I recall, I did not show Mr. Nicholes a
picture of
1221
Patricia Kimble's remains.
Q Well, now, there were two meetings in very close
proximity, May 17th and May 19th, or at least the -- or possibly May
16th and May 19th?
A Yes, sir.
Q What required a meeting either two or three days
after there had just been a meeting between you and Mr. Nicholes?
A Without reading the whole statement, a second
one was required because in one statement, he was describing the
stolen material and how they went about the thefts. I went ahead and
took that statement, but I informed Mr. Nicholes that that did not
involve me, because I was not in -- I didn't work that case,
Sergeant Davis was working that case. So subsequent to that, an
additional interview -- I conducted an additional interview the
19th.
Q All right. So you conducted an interview, in
which h told you about the stolen goods, because that's what he'd
been telling Sergeant Davis about, right?
A That was part of the interview on the 16th. He
told me other things.
Q He wanted to talk about stolen goods, and you
wanted to talk about the death of Patricia Kimble; isn't that right?
A Mr. Nicholes wanted to tell me everything that
he knew.
Q Well, wouldn't it have been a simple matter for
him to do what he did when he came into this courtroom and took the
1222
oath in front of the jury and just tell you one time
everything he knew?
A I'm not able to answer that.
Q In any event, you weren't satisfied with what he
said on the 16th or 17th, so you met with him on the 19th, and then
you weren't satisfied with what he told you on the 19th, and you met
with him on the 29th; isn't that right?
MR. PANOSH: We object. He's never said he wasn't
satisfied.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Isn't it a fact that you again met with him on
the 29th?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, is that because he hadn't told you
everything?
A Again, I don't recall specifically why I met
with him on the 29th.
Q Well, now, Mr. Nicholes contends that he
understood as early as April 1 that the best thing for him to do
would be, to contact the sheriff's department and tell everything,
didn't he?
A That's what he testified to, as I heard.
Q And yet, it was necessary for you to have either
four or five successive interviews with him, in order to find out
his involvement, wasn't it?
A No, sir.
1223
Q Well, then, which one of those interviews was
sufficient for you to find out his involvement?
A Involvement in what, sir? I don't --
Q Involvement --
A -- understand the question.
Q Involvement in crimes and
violations of the law in Guilford County.
A As I stated, I did not work
those theft cases. Sergeant Davis of the sheriff's department
worked them. And I can't testify to that.
Q Well, you were asked a little while ago to state
whether or not he had said anything under oath in this courtroom
that in any way was inconsistent with statements he'd made
previously to you, weren't you?
A Yes, I was asked that question.
Q And you said what?
A Not that I know of.
Q And yet, you had to ask
him -- you had to have all these different meetings --
MR. PANOSH: We object, please.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q -- to find out what his position was, didn't
you?
A No, sir.
Q Now, you said you didn't
show him a picture of the charred remains. Did you tell him that you
suspected Ted
1224
Kimble somehow of arranging the death of Patricia?
A I don't recall doing that, but I'm sure I did
tell him that.
Q And did you tell him what your investigation had
enabled you to know up to that point?
A I don't recall, but I may have done that, also.
Q All right. So you may have discussed the status
of your investigation of Ted Kimble up to that point, when you were
talking to Rob Nicholes; is that right?
A No, sir. I may have told Rob Nicholes what I
wanted him to know about the case.
Q Is it possible that you told him what you wanted
him to say?
A No, sir.
Q Did you make tape recordings of your various
meetings with Rob Nicholes, so that we could listen to them in
here-- today?
A No, sir.
Q Did you have any colleagues with you, to
corroborate what you say?
A On one occasion, I do recall.
Q Who was that, Sergeant Deberry?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, in the course of your investigation, you
relied upon and made yourself familiar with the investigative
1225
reports of other officers in the sheriff's
department, didn't you?
A Yes, I did.
Q Because you were the lead investigator in this
particular homicide, weren't you?
A You could say the case was assigned to me, yes.
Q Well, wouldn't that make you the lead
investigator?
A Yes, sir, you could say that.
Q Whereas, you worked directly under the command
of Mr. Deberry, in fact, Mr. Deberry had put you in charge of this
case; is that right?
A Sergeant Deberry assigned the case to me, yes.
Q And that's the reason you've been sitting over
there beside Mr. Panosh, because it's your case, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, did you also interview Patrick Pardee?
A Yes, I did.
Q And before you interviewed him, did you
familiarize yourself with earlier prior interviews that he'd given
to other officers in your department?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q Did you talk to Hershel Wagnor, about his
findings, when he first discovered that Patrick Pardee was involved
in stealing in Guilford County?
A I recall Hershel -- Detective Wagnor mentioning
that to
1226
me, yes, sir.
Q And were you aware, in your preparation of this
case, of a written report that Detective Wagnor wrote concerning
what he knew about Patrick Pardee?
A No, sir. I never read a report that I recall
that Detective Wagnor did. Detective Wagnor's investigation was
limited to the thefts, which I was not involved in.
Q Well, involved in them or not involved in them,
the fact is that they were given prosecution agreements for those
thefts in connection with this case, weren't they?
A That's what I understand, yes, sir.
Q Well, it's more than just understanding, you
absolutely know to a conclusive fact that Mr. Pardee and Mr.
Nicholes were given prosecution agreements, weren't they?
A Yes, sir.
Q And each of those agreements provide that those
young men will receive a probationary sentence, in appreciation for
their testimony here; isn't that right?
MR. PANOSH: We object. That's not the agreement.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Isn't it an agreement that it will be
recommended that they will receive probation?
A I learned that in this courtroom.
Q You didn't know that before?
A No, sir.
1227
Q Now, don't you know that Mr. Nicholes was
bringing merchandise of questionable origin, but not necessarily
stolen, to Ted Kimble, long before Patrick Pardee became involved in
any of this conspiracy between the three of them? Don't you know
that?
A No, sir, I don't know that.
Q And you didn't talk to
Detective Wagnor about his findings?
A No, sir, I don't recall
talking to Detective Wagnor about his investigation. I'm aware of
Detective Wagnor and Sergeant Davis' investigation, but I don't know
what they did, other than arrest the two people.
Q Can you tell me what identification number was
put on that drawing?
(The witness approached the diagram.)
A Looks like 119, sir.
Q Okay. Drawing your attention to State's Exhibit
119, will you explain to the jury what this dark line along here is,
please. (Indicated.)
A This line here? (Indicated.)
Q Yes, sir.
A This line indicates Interstate 40, Interstate 85,
and this being the split, Interstate 40 West to Winston-Salem, 85
going southbound. (Indicated.)
Q Yeah. Now, if you could stay here, I'll just
stand on
1228
the same side here. Now, I'm sure that everybody on
the jury knows this, but this is one of the major interstate
highways in this area, isn't it, the dark line?
A Yes, sir.
Q And will you show the jury where the area called
Death Valley is.
A Death Valley would be right in
here, to the best of my knowledge. (Indicated.) I haven't heard it
called that in years, though.
Q A little while ago, when you were testifying
before the break, you referred to 29 North?
A Yes.
Q But it's not on the map, is it?
A No, sir, it's not.
Q Will you point to the vicinity of 29 North, and
explain -- first point to the vicinity.
A 29 North will exit off of 1-40/85 approximately
right here, and will go back under the bridge and go north.
(Indicated.)
Q Okay. Now, also, Lyles Building Supply for some
reason is not on this drawing, is it?
A No, sir.
Q Why is Lyles not on this building -- why is
Lyles Building Supply not on this drawing?
A Paper's not large enough, sir.
1229
Q You couldn't have moved the drawing over to the
right a little bit?
A Yes, sir.
Q You could have done that?
A I could have attached to it, yes, sir.
Q You could have done it, if
you hadn't been so anxious to put Mr. Ronnie Kimble and Mr. and Ms.
Stump's house on this map, right?
A No. That wasn't the reason.
Q But in putting their house over here, you ran
out of paper, and you couldn't put Lyles Building Supply up here,
could you? (Indicated.).
A You could say that.
Q I could say that?
A Yeah.
Q Would you say it?
A Well, there's not enough room on there to put it
on.
Q Okay. Well, then, using either the wall
or the board or something, would you show the jury where Lyles
Building Supply is.
A Yes. As opposed to your question on Lyles
Building Material, that's only one spot, whereas I needed to show
several spots here. Okay? Lyles Building Material, to the best of my
knowledge, would be, if you go 29 North, and you exit off on Lee
Street, and you go west on Lee Street, West
1230
Lee Street, and west would be back in this direction
here. (Indicated.)
MR. HATFIELD: Mr. Sheriff, do you have a pointer?
THE BAILIFF: No, sir. I'm sorry.
MR. HATFIELD: All right.
Q Without making reference to 29 North that's not
on the map --
A Okay.
Q -- and without making reference to Lee Street
that's not on the map, would it be fair to say that Lyles is over
here somewhere? (Indicated.)
A Yes, it could be -- yeah, I think you're right
here, sir. It could be in this area right in here. (Indicated.)
Q Or it could be in this
area over here, couldn't it? (Indicated.)
A No, it couldn't be in that
area over there.
Q All right. Now --
A It's too far away.
Q This is --
A Could be in -- right in here is the area it
would be in, to the best of my knowledge. I can't answer it any
better.
Q Well, you have been a
sheriff's detective in this county for 25 years.
MR. PANOSH: We object.
1231
A I've been --
THE COURT: Overruled. Let's move along.
MR. HATFIELD: Sir?
THE COURT: Move along.
A No, I've just been a detective for 10 years.
Q How long have you worked in Guilford County?
A In Guilford County, about 15 years.
Q All right. Now, 1-40 is this spur right here,
isn't it, which I'm pointing at with my finger?
A Yes.
Q And 1-40 goes out this way, past Four Seasons
Mall and on to Winston-Salem, doesn't it?
A Yes.
Q Doesn't it?
A Yes.
Q All right. Have a seat.
(The witness returned to the witness stand.)
Q You had a piece of paper with you when you were
testifying before the break, that indicated various distances and
times that you had calculated. Do you still have that piece of
paper?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q Now, I believe you told the jury before the
break that you had ascertained that the distance between Lyles
Building Supply and Brandon Station Court was 12.1 miles; is that
1232
correct?
A Yes, sir, that is correct.
Q Now, and you also said that in driving that
distance at the speed limit, that it took you 18 minutes; is that
correct?
A Yes, sir, it took me 18 minutes.
Q All right.
A Observing the traffic signals, the stop signs
and that.
Q How many times did you drive that route?
A Two times.
Q And who was with you when you did so?
A As I recall, Investigator
Anne Mauney, a state investigator.
Q Insurance investigator?
A Yes.
Q Now, it would be impossible for you to stand up
and demonstrate that route to this jury, based upon the drawing over
there, wouldn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Because neither the location of Lyles Building
Supply, nor the route that you took is indicated on that drawing, is
it?
A Not all of it, no, sir. And Lyles Building
Material obviously is not on the map.
Q Now, would you stand up and examine your own
drawing
1233
for a moment and let me ask you a couple of questions
from where I'm situated. Would you just walk over there and look a
little closer at it.
(The witness approached the diagram.)
Q Can you show the jury where Patricia Kimble was
last seen in life on October 9th?
A Right here. (Indicated.)
Q Now, that was at the intersection of Randleman
Road and Creek Ridge, wasn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Patricia Kimble was headed north, wasn't
she?
A I guess you could say north, yes.
Q Well, you'd almost have to say north, since it
was north, wouldn't you?
A It was north.
Q All right. Now, as you pointed out in your
direct examination, that's within a very, very short distance of
1-85, isn't it?
A Yes, sir, it is.
Q Death Valley?
A (The witness nodded his head up and down.)
Q Now, if Patricia in fact was headed home on that
occasion, then she would have made the next right and gotten on
1-85, would she not?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
1234
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q You don't know where she
was -- sir, you stated in your own testimony that she was heading
north, wasn't she? A Yes.
Q Well, from her location, what would be the most
logical and efficient route to Brandon Station Court?
A I don't know which way she would have went.
Q Well, then, let me ask you this. If she made a
right on 1-85 and then a right on 421, will you show the jury what
those -- how those roads are indicated on the drawing.
A 1-85 is here, as I stated before. (Indicated.)
421 goes here. (Indicated.)
Q All right. So the other dark line, the dark line
that's heading directly south, is 421, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q Now, for the members of the jury who may not
have seen 421 lately, will you please describe it.
A The entire highway?
Q Well, it's a very well-improved --
A If you enter --
Q -- limited-access road, isn't it?
A Yes, sir. As you enter onto 421, it is in fact
Martin Luther King Boulevard. Martin Luther King Boulevard ends at
Patton Avenue. And where -- which is in fact 421, but in the city,
Martin Luther King Boulevard. 421 takes up there
1235
and goes south, approximately about right here.
(Indicated.)
Q All right. All right. Now, 421 continues, and
it's the heavy, dark line, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q Can you take one of the colored markers and mark
421?
MR. PANOSH: Well, we object.
MR. HATFIELD: Have to illustrate his testimony, Your
Honor.
MR. PANOSH: It's not his testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PANOSH: It's Mr. Hatfield's speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, is the Court ruling that he
can't mark the exhibit?
THE COURT: He can take and show which way it came. I
don't want him to mark it up, where you can't discern what's what.
Take your -- if he can mark it without
THE WITNESS: Can I -- would it be -- am I allowed
just to circle 421?
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I don't think you can circle a
road that runs from here to --
THE COURT: Just point out where 421 is on the map for
the jury, sir.
1236
A 421 runs from Interstate 85 here. (Indicated.)
Okay? This is south.
Q All right. Now, show the jury where Highway 22
is.
A Right here. (Indicated.)
Q So --
THE COURT: Put a blue thing there, if you'd like,
sir.
THE WITNESS: It's marked Highway 22, also.
THE COURT: All right.
Q All right. Now, if you follow Highway 22 down --
By the way, you do know that Highway 22 in that neighborhood is
called Alliance Church Road, isn't it?
A Yes, sir. I think I testified to that.
Q And it is a 55 mile per hour road, isn't it?
A I think. Some of it may be 45.
Q Could you go down and look tonight, so we can
clear that up tomorrow?
A If I'm ordered to, yes.
Q Do you have any reason to doubt that it's 55 the
whole way?
A No, sir, I sure don't.
Q All right. Now, will you show the jury, by
pointing, how Highway 22, Alliance Church Road, leads directly to
Brandon Station Court.
A Yes, sir. Highway 22 starts here and runs off of
U.S.
1237
421 South, at which -- the same as he said, Alliance
Church Road. And you exit off 421, continue on until it dead ends
into Appomattox.
Q Well, it doesn't dead end, it --
MR. PANOSH: We object to him arguing with the
witness, please.
MR. HATFIELD: Excuse me.
THE COURT: Don't argue, sir. Let him
testify.
A There's a stop sign here,
where Appomattox ends, Highway 22 continues on. And it's a short
distance down to Brandon Station Court, which is a --
Q Now, do you know,
Detective Church, of your own knowledge, what the distance is
between the intersection of Alliance Church Road and 421, that
intersection, and Patricia's residence at Brandon Station Court?
What is the intervening distance?
A I don't know.
Q Is it four miles?
A I don't know.
Q So you didn't measure the most efficient route,
from Greensboro, down to Brandon Station Court, which is 421, and
Highway 22, did you?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Well, if you did, why
don't you know the distance between 421 and Brandon Station Court?
1238
A I don't know, because I
don't remember it.
Q What is the overall
distance from the intersection of the top of the drawing, where 421
merges with 1-85, and Brandon Station Court?
A I don't know.
Q Is it 7.8 miles?
A I do not know.
Q Now, it is virtually a straight line south, from
the intersection of 1-85 and 421 up there in Greensboro, down to
Brandon Station Court, isn't it?
A Are you referring to --
Q Yes.
A -- from here to here? (Indicated.)
Q From there to there and on
down to Brandon Station Court. It's a straight line, isn't it?
A Except this is a secondary
road.
Q But it's a 55 mile per hour secondary road?
A To the best of my knowledge. I can't argue that,
yes.
Q All right. Now, do you have any reason to
believe that it would take any more than about eight minutes to
drive from Brandon Station Court up to the intersection of 1-85 and
421?
MR. PANOSH: We object, please.
A I do not know.
Q All right. You may have a seat.
1239
(The witness returned to the
witness stand.)
Q Now, the rest of my
questions about geography will not require the map, because they're
not on the map. Isn't it a fact that Lyles Building Supply is a very
short distance from the Greensboro Coliseum?
A Yes.
Q How far?
A An estimate, four-tenths, half a mile.
Q 200 yards?
A No. Further than that.
Q Before the cedar plant was
torn down, that would have been the only lot between. Lyles Building
Supply and the Chapman Street corner up there, wouldn't it?
A Yes, it would.
Q So the distance is the same as the old cedar
plant probably, isn't it?
A Yes. I don't know the --
Q About a half mile, isn't it?
A I don't know the distance.
Q But you --
A It could be two-tenths, it
could be four-tenths. I just don't know.
Q You've worked here 15
years.
MR. PANOSH: Is there a reason that he has to keep
insulting the witness?
1240
THE COURT: Just let him answer,
sir.
Q Have you worked here 15
years?
MR. PANOSH: Object to that.
A Yes.
Q All right. Now, when you turn left from Lee
Street at the Greensboro Coliseum and head south, do you know what
road you're on?
A Say that again, sir.
Q When you turn left from
Lee Street in front of the coliseum and head south, what road are
you on?
A High Point Road, I think,
takes up right in that area somewhere.
Q And then you make a left on Coliseum Boulevard,
don't you?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q Isn't it a fact, sir, that
there is a four-lane highway leading from Lee Street, about 200
yards from Lyles, past the coliseum, and straight south, and it's
called Coliseum Boulevard, isn't it?
A I know that road to be High Point Road.
Q High Point Road goes off past Stamey's and on
out to Four Seasons?
A That -- if we're talking about the same road, I
know that road to be High Point Road. Coliseum Boulevard, I
1241
don't know if --
Q You take a left at the coliseum.
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we'd object.
THE COURT: Well, let's move along now.
Q Isn't it a fact that there is a direct four-lane
road from within 200 yards of Lyles Building Supply, that goes past
the coliseum, merges with Freeman Mill Road, which is a four-lane
highway, and merges with 1-40? Isn't that a fact, Mr. Church?
A Freeman Mill Road is east,
approximately, in my estimation, a mile and a half from that exit of
that four-lane road you're talking about, which I refer to as High
Point Road.
Q If you leave the coliseum
area and take Coliseum Boulevard to Freeman Mill Road, it leads
right to 1-40, doesn't it? A If Coliseum Boulevard is High Point
Road, yes, it does.
Q And 1-40 -- even though Lyles is not on your
map, 1-40 is on your map, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q So, if I'm right that Freeman Mill Road is an
improved four-lane highway, and if I'm right that --
MR. PANOSH: We object, please.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, these --
THE COURT: Well, he's --
1242
MR. HATFIELD: -- I don't see why he objects to known
facts, unless he just doesn't want the jury to know.
THE COURT: You're trying to put words in his mouth.
Let him testify to what he knows, sir.
MR. HATFIELD: Well --
Q Don't you know that there's -- that Freeman Mill
Road merges with 1-40?
A Yes, it crosses 1-40.
Q And don't you know that Freeman Mill Road leads
both from Lee Street, at one intersection, or you can join it from
-- if you want to go direct from the coliseum area, by taking
Coliseum Boulevard? Don't you just know that, Mr. Church?
A No. I think Freeman Mill Road takes up off right
over here behind Washington Street and goes across the bridge and
goes on out over Florida Street. I don't know. Let's see. Lee Street
-- may run parallel to it.
Q You made no effort, when you were trying to
determine who killed Patricia Kimble, to figure out what the
fastest, most efficient route from Lyles Building Supply to
Patricia's house was, when you were originally
investigating this case, did you?
A Yes, I did.
Q Well, then, why did you not include the location
of Lyles on this map in this particular trial?
1243
MR. PANOSH: I believe he --
THE COURT: Well, we've been over
that, sir. He's answered that.
Q Is that because you had to
put the Kimble --
MR. PANOSH: Object.
Q -- and Stump families on
that map?
THE COURT: He's answered that, Mr. Hatfield. He's
answered that.
Q Now, you stated during your direct testimony a
few minutes ago that you, and I believe Detective Deberry was with
you, on October 19, 1995, that you and Detective Deberry had a
conversation with Ted Kimble; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, that would have been 10 calendar days after
Patricia died, wouldn't it?
A Excuse me. The 16th?
Q The 19th, isn't that --
A No --
Q -- what you said?
A -- I don't think Sergeant Deberry was with me on
the 19th. I thought you said the 16th. I'm sorry. He was with me on
the 16th. Let me see on the 19th.
(Time was allowed for the witness.)
A No, there's -- Sergeant Deberry did not sign the
19th.
Q There was a meeting between yourself and Mr.
Kimble, at
1244
which you asked Mr. Kimble why he hadn't told you
that Ronnie Kimble was in Guilford County on the night that Patricia
died; isn't that true?
A Yes, I asked him that question.
Q What day was it that you asked him that?
A The first entry that I made in this case that I
can testify to was on November the 1st. However, I did ask him that
question before, and I'm unable to tell you the date, because it was
on a telephone call.
Q But I'll ask you to recall your testimony in
this case before the break. Didn't you say that on October 19th, you
confronted Ted and asked him why had he not told you that his
brother, Ronnie, was in Guilford County on October 10th?
A It could have been October the 19th.
Q Now --
A I do know that I talked to him before this entry
on 11/1, and at that time, he told me he was scared to tell me
Ronnie was in town.
Q Now, you told a number of people that Ted Kimble
and others in his family tried to conceal from you the fact that
Ronnie Kimble was in Greensboro or Guilford County on October 9th,
didn't you?
A I don't think I used the word "conceal." I think
no one came forward with that information, as though they did not
want me to know Ronnie Kimble was in town.
1245
Q Well, didn't you tell attorney David Lloyd, when
you showed us the physical evidence in the case, that you had been
misled by Ted and others about whether Ronnie Kimble was in Guilford
County the night --
A Yes.
Q -- Patricia died?
A Yes, I did. And I was misled.
Q And you told the jury a little while ago that on
the 19th of October, you went out there and asked Ted about that,
didn't you?
A No, I didn't tell them that.
Q Now, the fact is, you knew that Ronnie Kimble
was in Greensboro from shortly after Patricia's funeral, didn't you?
A No, I did not.
Q Isn't it a fact that you caused a formal
discovery memorandum to be sent to Mr. Lloyd and me on August 7,
1998, stating --
MR. PANOSH: We object.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, it's -- I assume it's a
stipulation.
MR. PANOSH: We object.
THE COURT: Let me look at it.
(Mr. Hatfield handed a document to the Court.)
MR. PANOSH: May I approach?
1246
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
(The following proceedings were had
by the Court and all three counsel at the bench, out of the hearing
of the jury.) (Time was allowed for the Court.)
(The Court handed the document to Mr.
Panosh.)
THE COURT: You need to have it
identified and marked, whatever it is. What's the title of it?
MR. PANOSH: Discovery Memorandum
Number 9.
THE COURT: 9?
(Mr. Panosh nodded his head up and
down.)
THE COURT: All right. What's the
objection?
MR. PANOSH: This is not his
memorandum. He has nothing to do with it.
THE COURT: Where did it come from?
MR. PANOSH: From me.
THE COURT: I just -- it would be
hard, the conversation that Kimble had with Detective Church.
MR. PANOSH: Ronnie Kimble, not Ted.
THE COURT: Let's rephrase your
question.
MR. PANOSH: Wait a minute.
MR. HATFIELD: He's doing --
MR. PANOSH: He still has nothing to
do with it.
MR. HATFIELD: He's doing what he
always does. He's completely confusing the issue.
MR. PANOSH: I mean, it's -- all I did
was, took
1247
information that was in the reports
and condensed it and gave it to them.
MR. HATFIELD: Because he hadn't ever
given -
MR. PANOSH: That doesn't mean that -
MR. HATFIELD: -- it to us before.
MR. PANOSH: -- Detective Church has
ever seen it.
THE COURT: Well, he can testify as to
telephone conversations he had with Ronnie Kimble.
MR. PANOSH: All right.
MR. HATFIELD: He told the jury.
THE COURT: Just deal with what's in
there.
MR. HATFIELD: How can he object to a
disclosure that he makes in his own handwriting?
THE COURT: It's not --
MR. HATFIELD: How can he do that?
THE COURT: You can view it as -- you
can go ahead and ask the officer about the conversation. It's a
synopsis of the statement.
(Mr. Panosh handed a document to Mr. Hatfield.)
(Proceedings continued in open court.)
MR. HATFIELD: I'd like to show this to the witness
and see if it refreshes his memory.
Q I show you what's been marked for identification
Defendant's Exhibit 2, and ask you to read it, without reading it
out loud.
1248
(Time was allowed for the witness.)
(The witness handed the exhibit to Mr. Hatfield.)
Q Now that you've read Exhibit 2, do you recall
how early it was that you knew that Ronnie Kimble was in Guilford
County on the night Patricia died?
A Seven to 10 days, the best of my knowledge.
Q But doesn't this
memorandum state --
MR. PANOSH: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained as to what
it states.
Q Based on -- Did you tell Mr. Panosh last –
MR. PANOSH: We object, please.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: I'm going to ask him what he told Mr.
Panosh, not what Mr. Panosh told him.
MR. PANOSH: Still hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q Did you tell Mr. Panosh that directly after
Patricia's funeral, that you made a telephone call down to Ronnie
Kimble at Camp Lejeune? Did you tell him that?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you make a
telephone call down to Ronnie at Camp Lejeune?
A No, not at that time. At a later time, I did.
Q You didn't talk to Ronnie Kimble shortly after
he returned to Camp Lejeune, from the funeral?
1249
A Shortly? What are you
talking, two, three days?
Q I didn't write this.
MR. PANOSH: Well, we object, please.
THE COURT: Sustained.
A Mr. Hatfield, I didn't write it, either.
Q But it was written by the prosecutor.
THE COURT: Well, don't get into that. Just ask the
question.
Q When did you call Ronnie Kimble down at Camp
Lejeune and talk to him?
A To the best that I recall,
I called Ronnie Kimble at Camp Lejeune in November, when I found out
the telephone number down there.
Q Do you have any records of
the call?
A No, sir, other than what I recall. I talked to
Ronnie Kimble at his --
Q Did you read this memorandum that I showed you?
A Yes, sir, I read that memorandum.
Q Are you saying that you did not call Ronnie
Kimble shortly after Patricia's funeral, at his location in Camp
Lejeune, and talk to him on the telephone?
A The first call I made to Camp Lejeune Marine
Corps base in Jacksonville, North Carolina, was to the NCIS office
and talked to Agent Gregory Munroe. After that call is -- and
sometime after that call is when I talked to Ronnie Kimble.
1250
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I do not see how the State
--
THE COURT: Well, don't get into any argument, Mr.
Hatfield. Just ask the question, get his responses. You can put
whatever you want to put into evidence at the appropriate time.
Q Now, did you read this memorandum in its
entirety?
A Yes, sir, I read the memorandum.
Q When you talked to Ronnie Kimble on the
telephone at Camp Lejeune, you asked him what his activities were on
October 9, 1995, didn't you?
A I don't recall asking him that.
Q Did you talk about a person named Steve Swaney?
MR. PANOSH: We object, please.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, these are statements of the
defendant.
MR. HATFIELD: These are statements of Mr. Church, as
stipulated by Mr. Panosh, is what they are.
THE COURT: He may testify if that name came up during
the conversation.
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, normally statements of
defendants are not admissible until the defendant testifies. THE
COURT: Well --
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I'm not asking what
1251
Ronnie Kimble said.
THE COURT: He's not asking that. He's just asking if
somebody's name came up during a telephone conversation. That's
within his knowledge. He may testify to that.
Q Did you talk about Steve Swaney?
A The only thing I remember about the phone call
to Ronnie Kimble at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps base was, in an
attempt to try to get him to let me drive down there, or for him to
come to Guilford County for an interview. And that is what I recall
about all my conversations with Ronnie Kimble.
Q Do you have any idea why this memorandum states
--
MR. PANOSH: Object.
THE COURT: Well, sustained as to what it states now.
He's answered your question.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I'd ask you to let the jury
go out, so that we can find out why this was given to me--
THE COURT: That's --
MR. HATFIELD: -- and now they're denying it.
THE COURT: The officer has testified as to what he
knows about that particular document. It's been marked, and we'll
get to it later.
Q Do you remember writing a memorandum on June 6th
of
1252
1996, in which you talked about having Agent Munroe
interview Ronnie Kimble at Camp Lejeune, and then you wrote yourself
a memorandum --
MR. PANOSH: We object, please.
THE COURT: Overruled. He may
answer that.
Q -- wrote yourself a
memorandum, detailing questions that you would like to have
answered, that you weren't sure were answered by the first statement
that was taken from Ronnie Lee Kimble by Mr. Munroe? Do you remember
writing that memorandum?
A I don't remember writing it, and I don't
remember the date, but I do remember that I asked Agent Munroe to
perform that duty for me.
Q I'd like you to look at this and read it to
yourself, without reading it out loud.
(Mr. Hatfield handed a document to the witness, and
time was allowed for the witness.)
(The witness handed the document to Mr. Hatfield.)
Q Did you write a memorandum
to yourself on that day?
THE COURT: Have it marked, Mr. Hatfield, so we'll
know what we're talking about.
Q I showed you a document
marked Defendant's Exhibit 3.
A Let me see it --
Q Sure.
A -- one more time.
1253
(Mr. Hatfield handed the exhibit to the witness, and
time was allowed for the witness.) (The witness handed the exhibit
to Mr. Hatfield.)
Q Did you write that, sir?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you ask yourself some questions about what
you wanted to know?
A Could you repeat that.
Q Sir?
A I didn't understand you.
Q Did you ask yourself some
questions in the memorandum that you wanted to know the answers to?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did you ask yourself the question "Where did
Ronnie and Ted go --"
MR. PANOSH: We object, please.
Q "-- for two hours on the night of October 10th?"
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Yes.
Q Now, did you ever find out the answer to that
question?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ask yourself the question "Why would
Ronnie Kimble page his father, knowing his father was in Lynchburg?"
A Seemed like I recall saying that, yes.
1254
Q Did you ever find out the answer to that?
A Well, it would just be my opinion.
Q Well, didn't you ask
yourself in the memorandum to later find out the answer to that
question?
A Yes, sir, I think I did.
Q Did you ever --
A Yes, sir.
Q -- find out the answer to that question?
A I don't recall. If I did, it would be my opinion
as to what I remember.
Q Now, did you also ask yourself to try to find
out what Ronnie Lee Kimble did during the early hours of October 9,
1995, for four hours while he was obtaining underpinning for his
trailer?
MR. PANOSH: We object.
Q Did you --
MR. PANOSH: Questions to himself just are not
relevant, Your Honor.
Q Did you ask --
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q -- yourself that question,
sir?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever find out the answer?
A Partially.
Q He went and bought the underpinning, didn't he?
1255
A No --
Q Didn't he buy the underpinning on October 9th?
A During that four hours, that's one thing he did.
Q Well, you know that, because you have a receipt
from the place where it was bought, don't you?
A Yes, sir. I said that he did do -- that is one
of the things he did that morning, yes.
Q That is one of the things he did?
A Yeah.
Q And you also know that he drove back down to his
residence and delivered the materials there, too; don't you know
that?
A I know that's what I was told, sir.
Q You never saw the materials at his house?
A No, sir.
Q You have never in this life seen those materials
that were purchased on the morning of October 9, 1995 down at Ronnie
Kimble and his wife's mobile home?
A Approximately two weeks ago. First time I've
ever been to his residence.
Q So did you go there, in order to find out where
to put it on the map?
A No, sir.
Q So, let's see. Patricia died in 19-- in the
latter days of 1995, and it was in August of 1998 when you finally
1256
went down to Ronnie Lee Kimble's house to take a look
around?
A No, sir, not the way you put the question, no.
Q I ask you if after October 9, 1995, when you
know he bought the underpinning --
A Uh-huh.
Q -- did you ever go to his residence and verify
that he had taken it there?
A No, I did not.
Q But you did finally two weeks ago?
A I saw that his mobile home was underpinned, so
I'm to assume that that's what he took down there that day.
Q So you asked yourself the question in June of
'96, and you answered it in August of '98; is that right?
MR. PANOSH: Object, please.
A No, sir --
THE COURT: Sustained.
A -- it's not.
Q Isn't it a fact that Defendant's Exhibit 3
indicates that you wanted to know the answer to the underpinning
question in June of 1996? Isn't that a fact?
MR. PANOSH: Object, please.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q Didn't you want to know that, sir?
A I wanted to know what Ronnie Kimble done the
first four
1257
hours that morning.
Q And part -- no, didn't you ask
yourself "What did he do for four hours on the morning of October
9th, other than pick up the underpinning for his mobile home?" So
you knew he picked up the mobile home underpinning, didn't you?
A Yes. I verified that. I went and -- I verified
that.
Q And then you followed up on it two weeks ago?
A No, sir.
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PANOSH: He's never testified to that.
MR. HATFIELD: He just testified to it.
THE COURT: Well, he's testified.
The jury's heard his response. Move along.
Q Now, you asked yourself
the question "Exactly what time did he take the box truck back to
Ted's house?"
A Yes.
Q You know the answer to that question, don't you?
A No, sir. I know what I was told.
Q Well, you know what Agent Munroe told you,
didn't you?
A I know what Ronnie Kimble told Agent Munroe.
Q Right. And you know what Ronnie Lee Kimble later
told other people about that, including yourself, don't you?
A Yes.
Q And what did Ronnie Lee Kimble tell you?
1258
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: For corroboration only. He's going to
take the witness stand.
THE COURT: All right.
Members of the jury, this'll be offered for the
purpose of corroborating the testimony of Ronnie Kimble if he --
when he testifies later. It'll be for you to say and determine
whether it does in fact so corroborate his testimony. It's not being
offered for the truth or falsity of the statement, but whether the
statement was made on that occasion.
Q What time did he say he took it back there?
A As best I recall, I think he said 2:00 o'clock.
Q You don't recall precisely what this defendant
in this murder trial told you about when he took that truck back?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
A My recollection is --
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
A -- 2:00 o'clock.
THE COURT: He's answered it.
Q Do you know what address the truck was taken to?
A When?
Q On October 9, 1995.
A Are you talking about to deliver?
1259
Q After the mobile home underpinning had been
downloaded at Ronnie Kimble's house on Monnett Road, over there
where you've indicated on your map, where did the truck wind up
after that?
A Back at Lyles Building Material.
Q Well, but the fact is, that in the early morning
hours of October 10, 1995, when you went to the scene of the
horrible murder of Patricia Kimble, there was the box truck, wasn't
it?
A On that night?
Q Yes, sir.
A Yes, it was there.
Q And you saw it there, didn't you?
A I sure did.
Q Now, you have no
information that that box truck was at any time parked at Lyles for
more than just a minute or two, do you?
A At what time are you
talking about, sir?
Q Well, let's talk about the time you said, 2:00
o'clock p.m. Where was the box truck at 2:00 o'clock p.m.?
A I do not know where the box truck was at 2:00
o'clock.
Q Didn't Ronnie Lee Kimble tell you where it was?
A Yes. But other people told me it was somewhere
else.
Q People like Mr. Dziadaszek?
MR. PANOSH: We object, please.
1260
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Who told you that the box truck was somewhere
besides Patricia's yard at 2:00 p.m. on October 9, 1995?
A James Dziadaszek.
Q The guy that testified in here from the Marine
Corps?
A Yes, sir.
Q He told you that he was confused over what was
meant by Ted's, didn't he?
A Let me rephrase that. Mr. Dziadaszek didn't tell
me anything. I never interviewed him. Four other people did.
Q So, other than Mr. Dziadaszek, who you say was
confused about the location of the box truck --
THE COURT: Objection sustained. That's not what he
said.
Q Did anyone specifically tell you that the box
truck was located anywhere but Patricia's house at 2:00 p.m. on
October 9, 1995?
A That's referring to Dziadaszek? I mean --
Q Putting Dziadaszek aside.
A Okay. Anybody than Dziadaszek, I don't recall
anyone else telling me that.
Q So you do know that Ronnie Lee Kimble told you that
he put the box truck there approximately 2:00 o'clock p.m., or maybe
even before then, on October 9th, don't you?
A Yes, the best I recall, that's what Ronnie told
me.
1261
Q Right. And when you got to the scene, in the
waning hours of October 9th or the early hours of October 10th,
there it was, wasn't it?
A Yes, it was there.
Q And the next day, when you were back at the
crime scene and had Ted Kimble with you, Ted Kimble had the key to
that box truck, and he had to unlock it, in order to look inside,
didn't he?
A I remember Ted Kimble looking in the front of
the truck for something. He didn't tell me what it was. I don't
think he opened the door. I think he opened the rear door and looked
in there, as best I recall. He did look in the back of the truck.
Q He did look in the back of the truck?
A As best I recall.
Q And did he use his key to unlock the back of the
truck?
A I don't recall a key. I don't know what he was
looking for, either.
Q But in any event, you recall
examining the box truck in Ted Kimble's presence on October 11th in
the a.m. hours that day, don't you?
A After we came out of the house, he went to the
car first and then went to the box truck.
Q Now, do you recall the events of April 1, 1997,
in which you were involved in the -- related to this case?
1262
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you make a trip down to
Camp Lejeune, with the purpose of meeting and serving a warrant on
Ronnie Kimble?
A I went down there, I think,
the night before.
Q So you went down on March
31st, with Detective McBride and Agent Pendergrass -- Is Agent
Pendergrass here in the courtroom?
A Yes, sir.
Q -- and Agent Childrey, and the four of you drove
to Jacksonville; is that right?
A I drove with Detective McBride.
Q And the other two met you down there?
A They drove.
Q And you spent the night down there, for the purpose
of getting up early the next morning and placing Ronnie Kimble under
arrest; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, do you recall what
time Ronnie Kimble was taken into custody by Marine and naval
personnel?
A No, sir, I don't, not
without looking at the papers they furnished and -- It was sometime
that morning. (Mr. Hatfield showed a document to Mr. Panosh.)
Q Ask you to just quickly look at this, to see if
you can refresh your recollection.
(Mr. Hatfield handed a document to the witness, and
time was
1263
allowed for the witness.)
A Yes, sir.
(The witness handed the document to Mr. Hatfield.)
Q Thank you. In looking at the document, did it
refresh your recollection?
A Yes, sir.
Q What time did the security personnel at Lejeune
take custody of Ronnie Kimble?
A I was informed by Agent Sam Worth of the Naval
Criminal Investigation Ronnie Kimble was taken into custody at 0820
hours --
Q Is that --
A -- that morning.
Q -- 8:20 in the morning?
A Yes, April 1st.
Q All right. And then, you came along about an
hour and a half later, didn't you?
A Thereabouts. I don't remember the exact time.
Q Do you know whether Mr. Kimble was free to
leave, while he was waiting for your arrival, or had you told Mr.
Worth that you had warrants and that you wanted him held? A He --
no, he was not free to leave. He was under arrest.
Q He was already under arrest?
A Based on the warrant, outstanding warrant that I
had.
1264
Q And when you got to him, it was about 10:15,
wasn't it?
A I don't recall the exact time.
Q So --
A It was that morning, that same morning.
Q And what did you do, once you made sure that
Ronnie Kimble was in custody and you were in his presence? What did
you do then?
A What are you referring to? I did a lot of
things. I'm on a military installation. I have to go by their rules.
Q Well, after you got into a room with Ronnie, can
you remember, was it an office or was it some sort of secured area?
A It was a large office.
Q Whose office was it, if you remember?
A Agent Sam Worth.
Q Did you then commence to talk to Ronnie Kimble?
A Yes.
Q And how long did you talk to him?
A Probably 15, 20 minutes.
Q Isn't it more accurate to
say you talked to him for about a hour and a half?
A I don't recall it being an
hour and a half. It -- I'm not saying it wasn't, but I -- the best I
recall now, 15, 20 minutes. I wasn't the only one that talked to
him.
Q Didn't you say to him "I want you to listen, but
I
1265
don't want to ask you any questions"? Didn't you say
that to him?
A The best I recall, I did tell him that.
Q And what was his response?
A I don't recall what he said.
Q Did he ask you, did he have to listen?
A I don't recall. He could have said that.
Q And didn't you tell him
you thought he ought to, because he owed it to himself, and he –
A If he in fact asked me --
MR. PANOSH: Object to --
A -- that question --
MR. PANOSH: -- leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: I'm just asking what this officer said
to the defendant at that occasion.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
Q Did he tell you that if you had something to say
to him, you could say it to an attorney?
A I don't recall him saying that, no. (Mr.
Hatfield began to approach the witness.)
MR. PANOSH: May I see what you have?
MR. HATFIELD: You wrote it.
(Mr. Hatfield showed a document to Mr. Panosh.)
1266
Q I show you this and ask you to read it and see
if it refreshes your recollection.
(Time was allowed for the witness.)
A Okay.
(The witness handed the document to Mr. Hatfield.)
Q And I show you this, please. Look at that,
before I sit down. (Indicated.)
(Time was allowed for the witness.)
(The witness handed the document to Mr. Hatfield.)
THE COURT: Have it marked, Mr. Hatfield, so we'll
know what you're talking about, please.
Q I've showed you what's been marked for
identification Defendant's Exhibit 4, and you've looked at it. Does
it refresh your recollection?
A Yes, sir. That's -- that is my follow-up. I
wrote that.
Q You wrote it?
A I sure did.
Q Do you recall talking to Ronnie and his response
to you concerning an attorney?
A Yes.
Q What did he say?
A He said -- as best I recall, from what I just
read, "Do I have to talk to you?" And I told him "No, you don't, but
I think you should sit there and listen to me." And then
1267
something about an -- "Talk to my attorney." And I
informed Mr. Kimble that I -- Mr. Ronnie Kimble there that I didn't
want to talk to his attorney, I wanted him to just listen to me.
Q And then you talked to him --
A Didn't want to ask him no questions, I just
wanted him to listen to me.
Q All right. And then you talked to him for how
long?
A I think the record there will show that during
that hour and 20 or 30 minutes you're talking about, that there were
approximately 10 or more telephone calls in the same room that took
up a lot of time, that stopped the conversation. Mr. Kimble went to
the rest room two times, one time for 20 minutes, one time again
for, I think, 15 minutes. So you can probably cut that down by half
or two-thirds of what that time really is.
Q You wrote this report, didn't you?
A I sure did.
Q And did you write "Ronnie sit in a chair in
Agent Worth's office and listened to me for approximately one and a
half hours"?
A Yes, sir. And after that, if you'll read that,
also, it'll say what happened during that hour and a half, all those
interruptions. He was not talked to for an hour and a half.
1268
Q But he did sit in a chair and listen to you for
an hour and a half, because that's what you wrote?
A No, sir, he did not sit in the chair and listen
to me for an hour and a half. If you'll read everything that's wrote
there and ask me those questions, you'll see that he didn't sit
there for an hour and a half and listen to me.
Q Well, Mr. Church, I wasn't there.
A But I was.
MR. PANOSH: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
He's answered, sir.
Q You were there and you wrote --
THE COURT: He's answered --
Q -- this report?
THE COURT: -- Mr. Hatfield.
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q And you wrote an hour and
a half, didn't you?
THE COURT: It's written down, and he's explained it.
Move along.
Q Now, did Ronnie, as you
wrote in the report, interrupt you while you were talking to him,
and ask you "What do you want me to tell you?" Did he ask you that
question?
A I don't recall.
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, would it be permissible if I
hand him his report, so we don't have to be going back
1269
and forth?
THE COURT: Do what, sir?
MR. PANOSH: May he have his report?
THE COURT: Yes, you may hand the witness his report.
(Mr. Panosh handed a document to the witness.)
Q Can you look at the second
page, in the large second paragraph of the second page.
A What was your question?
Q Did Ronnie ask you "What do you want me to tell
you?"
A Yes, I wrote that.
Q And what was Ron-- what was your response to
Ronnie?
A I responded to him -- Do you want me to read it?
Q Well, can't you just remember?
MR. PANOSH: Object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Could you just tell the jury, from your own
current recollection, what you said to Ronnie Kimble last year when
you arrested him on April 1, 1997? It's not very long ago.
A I can, yes, sir, but I'd rather read it.
THE COURT: You may do that, sir, if it helps your
recollection.
A The paragraph Mr. Hatfield's referring to begins
with, "I also made it clear that I did not want to get into Bible
scripture or verses with him, but I only wanted him to know
1270
that everyone had to come to terms with themselves at
one point in their life, even if it was on their deathbed, and
taking their last breath. Ronnie interrupted me at one point and
asked me, 'What do you want me to tell you?' And again, I told him,
if he wanted to tell me anything, to tell me the truth about
Patricia's death. Ronnie also stated that he had spoken to Detective
Sergeant Deberry, NCIS Agent Munroe, and also to me, and that he had
nothing to add to what he had already said."
Q Now, what was the next thing you
said to him?
A "I also told Ronnie that if I did find out later
that anyone assisted him in suppressing information or details about
the murder of Patricia, that I would charge them, if I could."
Q Now, who were you referring to, when you said
that?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A I was referring to anybody.
Q Weren't you referring to his wife, Kim?
A Sir, I was referring to anybody --
Q Who did you think --
A -- that he conspired with --
Q -- had assisted him --
A -- to suppress information from me.
Q Well, who did you think had assisted Ronnie in
1271
suppressing information?
A At that time --
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
A -- it could have been anybody, a number of
people.
Q Well, you don't say things to people that you
have in custody just for the heck of it, do you?
MR. PANOSH: Object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Then what was your basis
for saying that, Mr. Church?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A The basis for me saying that, sir, is, I thought
that other people had knowledge of what Ronnie Kimble --
Q And who were those other people?
A Ronnie Kimble's friends.
Q That was a threat, wasn't it, Mr. Church?
A No, sir, it was not a threat.
Q You had him in custody, you'd lectured him for
an hour and a half --
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
Q -- and that was a threat?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Isn't it a fact that you were trying -- you had
him in custody, and now you were trying to terrify him about his
relatives, weren't you?
1272
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
A No, sir.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A No, sir.
Q Well, then, who did you
mean? You must have meant somebody. You've been a detective for 15
years.
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Who did you mean?
THE COURT: You may answer.
A I meant any associate of Ronnie Kimble, anybody
that he knew, anybody that he come in contact, that I thought had
knowledge of the murder of Patricia Kimble, and if I -- if
it was within my power to charge them, that I would.
Q Did you know of anyone who
had knowledge of the murder of Patricia Kimble?
MR. PANOSH: Object. He's answered
that.
THE COURT: He's answered that,
sir.
Q Did Mr. Kimble then ask
you if he could use a
telephone?
A Yes, he did.
Q And what did you tell him?
A Can I read that, also?
Q Do you not remember what you told him, when he
asked you if he could use the telephone?
1273
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I'd like to read.
THE COURT: Well, you may read, if it refreshes your
recollection.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I think that a witness
MR. PANOSH: He's answered.
MR. HATFIELD: -- should testify from his knowledge.
THE COURT: Well, he's got notes that he made at that
time. He's entitled to look at those notes.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, first he has to ascertain whether
he can remember of his own knowledge, before --
THE COURT: Well, he just said --
MR. HATFIELD: -- he relies on --
THE COURT: -- he needs to look at the notes, so he
could be -- feel more comfortable reading what he wrote.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I'd like to find out if he can
remember the answer without looking at his notes.
THE COURT: He's answered that. He can't.
Q Can you remember?
A Can I remember what, sir?
Q Can you remember when he asked you if he could
use the telephone?
A By looking at this right here, I read the first
line, and I do remember.
1274
Q So you just couldn't remember it until you
looked at the paper?
MR. PANOSH: We'd object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q What was the answer? What did you tell him?
A The answer is this: "Ronnie asked me to use the
telephone. And I told him that he could not use the phone at that
time, but that he could call anyone he wished when we got to
Guilford County."
Q And what time was it when you finally got to
Guilford County?
A That afternoon, the best I recall, 3:00 or 4:00
o'clock. Might have been -- might have been 4:30. Again, I'd have to
look at the records, to see what time we got back.
Q What does 1930 hours mean?
A 19-- 1930 hours?
Q Yes, sir.
A That's 7:30. But I didn't realize it was that
late. But if that's what the record shows, that's what time it was.
(Mr. Hatfield showed an exhibit to Mr. Panosh.)
A I think it is a three- or four-hour drive from
Jacksonville, so that's quite possible.
Q What is quite possible?
1275
A That that's the time it was. Mr. Kimble wanted
to stop and use the rest room.
Q So, because of Mr. Kimble's activities, it
turned out he received his rights at 7:30 p.m. that night, didn't
he? (Mr. Hatfield handed an exhibit to the witness.)
A Uh-huh.
Q Didn't he?
A That's -- Wait a minute. Let me answer the
question. That's not the time we got back to Guilford County. That's
the time he was read these Miranda rights.
Q So, 11 hours after you had the -- Mr. Worth and
the other security people at the Marine Corps take him into custody,
you finally told him that he had a right to an attorney, didn't you?
A I read him his Miranda rights at the time that's
on that form, sir. I asked him --
Q They're not just his rights, are they?
A They're everyone's rights. I asked Ronnie Kimble
no questions. The entire time, he was not asked any question, except
"If you need to go to the rest room, let me know. If you want
something to drink, let me know."
Q Would you look at the paragraph right above the
last paragraph on the second page of your report that you're holding
in your hand.
A Are you talking about next to the last
paragraph, sir?
1276
Q Yes, sir.
A Okay.
(Time was allowed for the witness.)
Q Do you remember putting
Ronnie in chains, restraints, on his hands and feet?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then he was placed in
your vehicle, wasn't he?
A He was placed in a Guilford County vehicle, yes,
sir.
Q And Officer McBride rode in
the back seat, didn't he?
A Yes, he did.
Q And what time did y'all leave Camp Lejeune?
A We left Camp Lejeune at 2:35 p.m.
Q All right. And it takes
four and one-half hours to drive from there to Guilford County,
doesn't it?
A I'm not sure it's -- that
sounds reasonable.
Q So it wouldn't have been possible for him to be
in the Guilford County sheriff's office earlier than 7:00 p.m. that
night, would it?
A I think it's three hours, Mr. Hatfield.
Q Well, didn't you just tell the jury four and a
half hours?
A No, sir. I think that was your comment.
Q So what did you do, between the time you arrived
in the Guilford County Jail, when you promised him he could make a
phone call, and 7:35 p.m., when you read him his rights?
1277
A I answered the question -- if I understand the
question, what did I do, between the time we arrived and between the
time I read him his Miranda rights?
Q What did you do?
A Ronnie Kimble was in custody at the sheriff's
department at the time. And during that time, I don't recall what I
did. I assume I did paperwork.
Q For 11 hours, between the time he was taken into
custody --
MR. PANOSH: We object.
Q -- by Mr. Worth, and the time you read him his
Miranda rights in Guilford County, you lectured him, you rode in the
car with him, you refused his request for a telephone, and you
refused his request for a lawyer, didn't you?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
A No, sir.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q Well, did you provide him
with a lawyer?
A No, sir. It's not -- that's not my obligation.
Q Did you provide him with a telephone call?
A When we got in Guilford County, he could use the
phone all he wanted to.
Q That was after he was read those rights?
A Exactly.
Q After 7:35 p.m.; isn't that right?
1278
MR. PANOSH: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: Object?
THE COURT: He's answered.
Q So am I right, and can you figure it out, 11
hours with no lawyer and no phone call, right, Mr. Church?
MR. PANOSH: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Now, Mr. Church, at any time during this 11
hours that you had Ronnie Kimble in your custody, did he at any time
admit to you that he had had anything to do with the murder of
Patricia Kimble?
A No, he did not.
Q But your purpose in keeping him away from a
lawyer and away from a phone was to see if you could get him to
confess to you; isn't that right?
A No, sir.
Q Isn't that the reason that you lectured him for
an hour and a half in the morning, after he had already sat in an
office waiting for you to come for an hour and a half?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, can I explain this to the
jury --
MR. HATFIELD: He hasn't answered --
THE WITNESS: -- of what he's asking me?
MR. HATFIELD: -- the question yet.
1279
THE COURT: Well --
MR. HATFIELD: All I want him to do is, answer the
question.
THE COURT: Well, it's not an hour and a half, Mr.
Hatfield. He's already testified that there was some breaks in that
period of time. Rephrase your question.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I'm only talking about what he
wrote. He wrote an hour and a half.
THE COURT: He's explained his answer.
Q He was in custody with Mr. Worth for over an
hour and a half before you got there, wasn't he?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, can I explain to the jury
what occurred there?
THE COURT: You may answer the question, and then you
may explain your answer, if it requires an explanation.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you.
A He was in custody by NCIS agents before I
arrived, yes, sir.
Q For how long?
A I think the call come from the agent that he was
in custody at 8:20, and I think we arrived an hour and -- an hour
and a half later. During that time, he had to do his departure with
the United States Marine Corps, which several people from the JAG
office came over, which took a lot of time that I was not even with
Ronnie Kimble. He also ate
1280
dinner during that time.
Q He had dinner in the morning?
A He ate dinner -- lunch, excuse me, at lunchtime,
sir. And I am the one that bought it, went to the Burger King. I
asked him if he wanted anything.
Also during that time, the separation from the
military installation we was in, the itemization, itemizing his
belongings, the turning over of his stuff to me, what he had on his
person. And also, the time that occurred during that hour and a half
with all those interruptions, that took time, also. And also, he was
in custody at the time. However, we were not allowed to leave Camp
Lejeune military installation without the Marine Corps' permission,
and this man separated to their specifications or however they
wanted it. And then when we were allowed to leave, and they got all
their paperwork done, and the attorneys for the United States Marine
Corps said, "You're good to go," and he had already ate lunch, we
got in the car and we drove back to Guilford County.
I never asked Ronnie Kimble the first question about
this homicide that whole entire day. We arrived -- we drove straight
up here. We made two stops, one for refreshment, the other for a
rest room stop. And we drove straight to the sheriff's department,
and he was taken upstairs. And at that time, briefly thereafter,
when we arrived, he was read
1281
his Miranda rights. And he refused --
Q What time?
A The time that's on there, I think you said 7:35,
1935 hours. At 1935 hours, he was read the rights that I read to
him.
There was no unnecessary time taken with Ronnie
Kimble, to try to attempt to pry or get him to tell me anything. I
never asked him the first question about this homicide.
He was read his Miranda rights. He refused. He
refused to sign same. At that point, he was put in jail.
Q Well, you did tell him that if he wanted to tell
you anything, to tell you the truth, didn't you?
A I sure did, as I tell about everybody I talk to,
"If you want to tell me something, tell me the truth, or don't tell
me nothing."
Q Now, after he was read his Miranda rights, which
you will have to agree was some 11 hours after he was taken into
custody -- won't you agree with that?
A Yes, sir, I will agree that it was 7:35 the
evening of April 1, 1997.
Q Thank you. Then he was questioned, wasn't he?
A No, sir.
Q Once he'd gotten his Miranda rights, he was
questioned, wasn't he?
A No, sir, he was not. I asked him no questions.
1282
(Mr. Hatfield showed an exhibit
to Mr. Panosh.)
Q I show you what's been
marked for identification Defendant's Exhibit 8. It's very brief.
Ask you to read it to yourself.
A Okay.
(Time was allowed for the witness.)
(The witness handed the exhibit to Mr. Hatfield.)
Q Does it refresh your recollection?
A Sure does.
Q Does it refresh your recollection that after
detective -- that after Ronnie Lee Kimble refused to answer
questions of Detective McBride -- is that what it says?
A Could I have that page out of my notes?
MR. PANOSH: May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
(Mr. Panosh handed a document to the witness.)
A No, sir, that's not what it says. That's not the
wording that's wrote here. And I -- again, I'd like to read this to
the jury.
Q If you'll read it in its entirety.
A I will read it all.
Q Every word?
A Yes, sir. I entered this report on the 3rd of
April, some two days after we got back. And the entire contents of
this report is, "After Ronnie refused to give you a
1283
statement, Detective --" "After Ronnie refused to
give a statement, Detective McBride and I were walking out of the
interview room. Ronnie stated to me that he --"
MR. PANOSH: We object.
A "-- that he was not --"
MR. PANOSH: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, it's offered purely for
corroboration. Ronnie'll back it up when he testifies.
THE COURT: All right.
Again, members of the jury, this is being offered for
purpose of corroborating the testimony of Ronnie Kimble. It'll be
for you to say and determine whether it does in fact so corroborate
his testimony. It's not being offered for the truth or falsity of
the statement, but whether or not in fact he made the statement on
that occasion.
Proceed.
A Again, "McBride and I were walking out of the
interview room. Ronnie stated to me that he was not upset at me and
held nothing against me, that he knew I was just doing my job. He
told Detective McBride the same thing and shook both our hands. I
told Ronnie that I had nothing against him, either, and I
appreciated the fact that he was not upset with me."
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, we just --
1284
A And I don't think -- Can I finish that? I don't
think this statement shows that I asked Ronnie Kimble anything.
Q But it does show that Ronnie Kimble refused to
give a statement?
A Yes, sir. The same as the
rights waiver that he was read, and he refused.
Q But this -- you wrote
this?
A And that's what this says.
Q You wrote this, didn't you?
A Yes, sir, I sure did.
Q You chose the words?
A I sure did.
MR. PANOSH: We object to argument.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Out of all --
THE COURT: Don't argue with him.
He's --
Q Out of all the words
available --
THE COURT: Wait a minute.
Q -- you chose the word "refuse," didn't you?
A That is the -- that is the correct word that we
use when someone refuses to sign the rights waiver. They refuse to
sign it. Therefore, we -- they are asked no questions.
Q So the point is, as I asked you a little
earlier, during this 11- or 12-hour period, you wanted Ronnie Kimble
to give you a statement, and he just didn't do it --
1285
MR. PANOSH: Object.
Q -- isn't that right?
THE COURT: Objection sustained. He's answered that
question, sir.
MR. HATFIELD: All right. This is a good place to
stop, if you don't mind, Your Honor.
MR. PANOSH: Well, we'd like to go on and finish with
this witness. We have people coming in from out of state tomorrow.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I'm going to cross-examine
this witness for two to three more hours or longer. (Laughter.)
THE COURT: We shall see.
You may step down.
(The witness left the witness stand.)
THE COURT: You may take your evening
recess. You'll need to be back in the morning at 9:30. Please report
to the jury room. Be very careful going home. Have a nice evening,
and I'll see you tomorrow. Remember your juror responsibility sheet.
(The jury left the courtroom at 5:00
o'clock p.m.)
MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, may we
approach on an administrative matter?
THE COURT: Yeah. Let's go ahead and
recess for the evening, and I'll talk to the attorneys about an
1286
administrative matter.
MR. PANOSH: Before we recess, I
wanted to lodge an objection as to the conduct of Mr. Hatfield.
THE COURT: Well, don't get into that.
MR. PANOSH: Well, Your Honor --
THE COURT: Don't get into that at
this point. Give me a chance to rein him in here.
MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You may excuse the public,
and I'll
see the attorneys at the bench on an
administrative matter. The defendant may be taken back into custody.
Declare a recess.
(A recess was taken at 5:02 p.m.,
until 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, August 19, 1998.)
1290
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1998
(Court convened at 9:39 a.m. The
defendant was present. The jury was not present.)
THE COURT: Any matters we need to
take care of before we bring the jury in?
MR. PANOSH: Very briefly, Your Honor.
In reviewing the exhibits -- May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PANOSH: The clerk
and I had different entries as to 104 and 105. These are the estate
papers. I show them to be admitted, and she showed them to be
admitted for the record only.
THE COURT: That's
right. She's right.
MR. PANOSH: But
my records show that 106 is the one that was admitted for the record
only. This has to do with the -- these are the items that they
objected to and I took out. Those were the estate papers that, my
recollection is, Your Honor said were
admissible.
(Mr. Panosh handed exhibits to the
Court, and time was allowed for the Court.)
THE COURT: 105 and 104 are -- I'll
allow its admission.
MR. PANOSH: Thank you.
THE COURT: Do you want
this back?
MR. PANOSH: I'll put
it on my table, Your Honor.
1291
(The Court handed exhibits to Mr.
Panosh.)
THE COURT: Any other matters?
MR. PANOSH: No.
(The jury entered the
courtroom at 9:41 a.m.)
THE COURT:
Pleased to have the jury panel back. I hope each of you had a nice
evening and feeling okay. Anyone on the panel experiencing any
problems today that I should know about, if you'll raise your hand,
I'll be glad to talk with you about that.
Okay. Officer Church, if you'll return to the witness
stand, please, sir.
(The witness James D. Church returned to the witness
stand.)
THE COURT: You're still under oath.
You may continue with cross-examination, Mr.
Hatfield.
MR. HATFIELD: Thank you, Your Honor.
JAMES D. CHURCH, having been previously duly sworn,
testified as follows during CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION by MR.
HATFIELD:
(Time was allowed for the witness.)
Q Are you ready to proceed?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Mr. Church, did you get a
chance last night to check out the route from Lyles, past the
Greensboro Coliseum, down Coliseum Boulevard, to Freeman Mill Road?
1292
A I did that this morning.
Q And is it a fact that once a
driver from Lyles proceeds a couple of hundred yards to the coliseum
intersection and makes a left onto Coliseum Boulevard, that that
driver can follow four-lane roads all the way to the intersection of
421 South and Alliance Church Road?
A My findings this morning was,
from Lyles Building Material to Coliseum Boulevard, which I always
refer to as Chapman Street -- and when you said Coliseum Boulevard,
if you'd have said Chapman Street, I would have knew exactly -is
two and a half tenths of a mile. If you turn left onto Coliseum
Boulevard, it dead ends into Freeman Mill Road. And I did do the
distance from Lyles Building Materials driveway to the driveway of
Brandon Station Court, the former residence of Patricia Kimble.
Q All right. Now, what you have
always thought of as Chapman at some point has been renamed Coliseum
Boulevard?
A Yes. I think at the time of her
death, it was Chapman Street. And I didn't even know it was Coliseum
Boulevard. I still refer to it as Chapman Street.
Q In any event, it is a four-lane
road, and it does -‑
A Yes, it is.
Q -- and it does merge with Freeman
Mill Road, doesn't it?
A Yes. Deads right into it. 35 mile
an hour speed
1293
limit.
Q And Freeman is
also a four-lane highway, isn't it? A Yes, it is.
Q And Freeman merges
with 1-40, doesn't it?
A It crosses 1-40.
Q But you can just
go to the right and get right on 1-40, can't you?
A You sure can.
Q And 1-40 is a six-lane highway,
isn't it?
A I think so. In that area, sure
is.
Q And then 1-40 has
an exit marked 421 and Sanford, North Carolina?
A It does, at Martin Luther King
Boulevard.
Q And Martin Luther King Boulevard
quickly turns into Hunt Boulevard, named after one of the famous
Hunts of Guilford County, doesn't it?
A I think there's a short strip
there named after someone in the state, yeah, goes -‑
Q And it's a -‑
A -- up to Pleasant Garden Road,
yeah.
Q And it's a
four-lane highway, isn't it?
A Yeah.
Q 45 miles an hour part of the way
and 55 the rest?
A It's 45 until you get to the
intersection of Pleasant Garden Road and 421. Then it goes to 55.
1294
Q And then it
proceeds for a couple more miles, till the exit at Highway 22 South,
which is also Alliance Church Road?
A Yes.
Q And Alliance
Church Road has a 55 mile per hour limit?
A Yes, it is, posted 55 miles an
hour.
Q And of course -- I'll show you
what's been -- would you look and see, is that marked for
identification as Defendant's Exhibit 7?
A Are you talking about the map?
(The witness approached the diagram.)
Q Yes, sir. I put a blue
Defendant's -‑
A Yes, it is. It's the same as
State's -‑
Q Is it Defendant's
7?
A Yes, it is.
Q All right. Thank you. Now, will
you just quickly show the jury again the line that represents 421
South merging with 22, which is Alliance Church, and going down to
Brandon Station Court.
A This is 421. (Indicated.) This is
the intersection of Highway 22, which is also Alliance Church Road.
(Indicated.) And it continues on down,
crosses Neeley Road. And there is a stop sign right here.
(Indicated.) You have to come to a stop, where Appomattox ends and
22 take a left, and 22 will carry you on down to Brandon Station
Court,
1295
which is on the right.
(Indicated.)
Q And actually, from the point at
Martin Luther King where you make that right onto 421 from 1-40 and
1-85, it's due south, isn't it?
A Well, I don't know a compass
reading, but I'd say it's south.
Q Okay. Now, Mr. Church, you said
you did that -- Go ahead and have a seat. Thank you.
(The witness returned to the witness
stand.)
Q You said you ran that route this
morning; is that correct?
A I sure did.
Q What was the overall mileage?
A The overall distance was 13 miles
even, by my speedometer on my county car.
Q Okay. And what was the elapsed
time?
A 16 minutes.
Q Okay. Now, did you try to run the
reverse, or was that enough? Did you go back the same route or
another similar route back to Lyles?
A No, sir. I went one way.
 Q
Now, how would you describe the traffic conditions which you
encountered this morning?
MR. PANOSH: Object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
1296
Q Well, you don't know what the traffic conditions
were on the afternoon of October 9, 1995, do you?
A No, I don't.
Q But you know what the humidity
was and you know what the air temperature was, but you don't know
what the traffic conditions were?
A Not in that particular route that
you're referring to, sir, no, I don't.
Q Now, do you recall an individual
named Nancy Young?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you tell the jury who Nancy
Young is.
A Nancy Young was an employee of
Cinnamon Ridge Apartments. She worked for Patricia Kimble, worked in
the same office.
Q And did Nancy Young testify
earlier in this trial?
A Yes.
Q Did you hear her testimony?
A Yes.
Q Did you on a number of occasions
interview Nancy Young?
A I think I interviewed her two
times.
Q Do you recall the information
that you obtained from your interviews of Nancy Young?
A Well, I recall some of it. I
don't recall all of it. I couldn't, without reading back through the
interviews.
Q As soon as you knew that it was
going to be your
1297
unhappy duty to investigate the death of Patricia
Kimble, you got in touch with Nancy Young, didn't you? She was one
of the first people -‑
A Well, not actually the way you refer to as
unhappy duty. It is the duty, and that's the reason I'm in the squad
that I'm in. Yes, I did get in touch with Ms. Young.
Q Was that on or about October 12th of the year
Patricia died?
A It was shortly after her death. I'd have to see
my report, to see exactly what date it was.
MR. PANOSH: May I approach with the report?
MR. HATFIELD: If Your Honor please, I believe that
I'm conducting this examination.
THE COURT: Well, he's entitled to provide the witness
with his own report.
(Mr. Panosh handed documents to the
witness.)
A Yes, Mr. Hatfield, it shows here
that I did talk to Ms. Young on October the 12th.
Q Now, I see that you have several
pages in your hand, but I'm only aware of a one-page report for
October 12th. What else have you got there?
A I talked to Nancy Young again on
the 15th of August, 1996.
Q Okay. So you also have -- you
have two investigative reports there, both written by you?
1298
A Yes.
Q And both indicate -- summarizing your interviews
of Nancy Young?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you look at the October 12th
interview. Did Ms. Young tell you that Patricia got to work at 9:40
a.m.?
A Yes, that is what she told me.
Q And did she tell you anything
about when Patricia had her lunch and where it might have taken
place?
A She stated that Patricia went to
lunch, as she recalled, around 11:45.
Q And what time did she come back?
A And returned at 1:15.
Q And where did she have lunch?
A Said she had went and had lunch
with her husband, Ted Kimble.
Q And of course, when you talked to
Ted Kimble, he said the same thing, didn't he?
A Yes, I think Ted told me he ate
lunch with Patricia, yes.
Q All right. Now, looking at your
report for the next day -- the next time you talked to Nancy Young,
which was August 15th of 1996, some eight months later -‑
A Yes, sir.
Q -- you went and talked to her
again, didn't you?
1299
A Yes, I did.
Q And on that occasion, did she
tell you that Patricia returned from lunch "before 1400 hours"?
A Yes, she did. She stated that on
the day Patricia died, that she returned from lunch before 1400
hours, before 2:00 o'clock.
Q All right. So would you tell the
members of the jury who didn't serve in the military what 1400 hours
is.
A Yes. 2:00 o'clock.
Q So it has been conclusively
established that Patricia was alive at 2:00 p.m. on October 9, 1995,
hasn't it?
A Yes.
Q And it has been conclusively
established that she was dead at 8:30 p.m. that night, hasn't it?
A Well, thereabouts. After the fire
department got there and found the body. I don't know exactly what
time that was.
Q But no one left the house after
Reuben, her brother, got there at 8:30 and alerted the authorities,
certainly no one left the house?
A Not that I -‑
Q And no one entered, either, did
they?
A Not until the fire department
entered.
Q I mean, you just know that she
had already died by 8:30 p.m. or even earlier, don't you?
1300
A I think that's pretty well obvious.
Q Now, did -- looking at the
October 12th report again, did -- down at the bottom, did Nancy
Young tell you that Ted called Patricia at a certain time that day?
A Yes, she did.
Q So it is clear from your report
that the call was originated by Ted and received by Patricia, isn't
it?
A Yes, it is.
Q And it was witnessed by Nancy
Young, wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q And then what was the next thing
that Nancy Young witnessed?
A She witnessed Patricia Kimble
leaving Cinnamon Ridge at 3:30.
Q All right. So the next thing that
Nancy witnessed was Patricia leaving at 3:30; is that right?
A Yes.
Q And the call that Nancy Young
witnessed occurred at 3:20 p.m., didn't it?
A As I have written here, the call
came from Ted around 3:20. And a few minutes, in her words,
approximately 10 minutes later.
Q Of course, Ted told you that he
called her at 3:30, didn't he?
A I don't recall what Ted did tell
me. It was right
1301
before she left from work, though, he told me that he
called her.
Q Now, when Ted called her at either 3:20 or
sometime between 3:20 and 3:30, do you know where Ted was?
A By his account, he was at
Lyles Building Material.
Q But do you know where he
was?
A I don't know where he was.
Q And you don't know any witness
who can tell you where he was at 3:20 p.m., do you?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q You have witnesses who -- have
they testified in this trial?
A No.
Q So you have witnesses unknown to
the jury who can tell you where Ted was at 3:20 p.m.?
A I have a witness -- well,
I'm -- witnesses told me that-Ted Kimble was at Lyles Building
Material.
Q But you didn't bring those witnesses in here to
testify?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Now, looking at the August 15th
report that you wrote, that was your final interview of Nancy Young,
wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q Did you -- just for the record,
did you have occasion
1302
to talk to Nancy Young at any time between August 15,
1996 and when she testified in this trial?
A No, sir. I don't recall ever
talking to Nancy Young, from the day I talked to her on August 15th,
until -- and I didn't talk to her when she came in here.
Q Okay. Now, looking at the very
middle of your August 15th report, where you are reporting what you
said to Nancy Young, you said, "I told her that none of the Kimble
family would cooperate with me in the case, and this didn't appear
to have any effect on her, and would not say a word about any of the
Kimbles"; is that your statement in your report?
A Along with other statements, yes.
Q Well, you wrote the report?
A I wrote that, yes, sir.
Q And you had -‑
A I said that.
Q You had complete control over how
it was written?
A Yes, sir. It's my report.
Q And everything that was said in it, you put in
it?
A I sure did.
Q Did you tell Nancy Young
that none of the Kimble family would cooperate with you in the case?
MR. PANOSH: Asked and answered,
please.
THE COURT: Well, he may answer it again. You may
answer the question.
1303
Q Did you tell her that?
A Yes, I did.
Q Okay. So you didn't just put it
in the report, you actually told her?
A If it's in this report, I told
her.
Q Now, when you told her that none
of the Kimble family would cooperate with you, had you simply
forgotten that at your request, Ronnie Kimble gave a full statement
to Officer Munroe of the Naval Investigative Services on October 30,
1995? Had you just forgotten that?
A No, sir -‑
MR. PANOSH: Object.
A -- I hadn't forgotten that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Had you -- had it slipped your
mind -‑
MR. PANOSH: Object.
THE COURT: Let him finish his
question.
MR. HATFIELD: He objects before a word
-‑
THE COURT: You may finish your
question, sir.
MR. HATFIELD: Sir?
THE COURT: Let him finish the question, Mr. Panosh.
You may finish your question.
Q Did it slip your mind when you
were talking with Nancy Young that you had telephoned Ronnie Kimble
a few days after
1304
Patricia's funeral and discussed with him his
activities on October 9, 1995?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q Had it slipped your mind?
A I don't recall. However, the
statement that I made is true. None of the Kimbles cooperated with
me in this investigation, as I tried to get them to come to my
office for interviews. I traveled -- one occasion, we went to Camp
Lejeune, to talk to Ronnie Kimble, and he flat said, "I'm not
talking to anybody, any of you folks." However, one time, the agents
and I went down there and he did grant an interview. But during that
time, he got up and walked out. So I really didn't get any
information.
Ted Kimble never came in for an
interview. The information that I got from any of the Kimbles was a
short telephone call, trying to impress them to talk to me. And on
one occasion, when I did approach Ted Kimble at Lyles Building
Material, I was told by him that he was trying to avoid people like
me, and that was shortly after Patricia's death, I think within a
month.
That's the nature of the cooperation
that I got. Yes, the Kimbles did talk to me, but as far as coming
down and me asking the husband and the brother-in-law, "Your wife
has been murdered. Please set down and help me with this
1305
interview," and asking him (Indicated) to cooperate
100 percent, I never got that.
Q Have you finished?
A Yes, sir. Does that answer your
question?
Q No.
A Okay.
Q Now, when you went and spoke to
Ted, and he said the thing you quoted a minute ago, he was joking
with you, wasn't he?
A No, sir, he wasn't joking.
Q And that was the day that you and
Deberry went over there and saw that he had a brand new motorcycle
that he was polishing up; isn't that right?
A I think that was the second day
that we went to Lyles, and Sergeant Deberry had spoke to him about
the forgery.
Q And the second thing that he said
to you was, "Have you-got any good news for me?" didn't he?
A Yeah, he said that.
Q And you said, "No"?
A No, I didn't say that. I didn't
answer him. Sergeant Deberry answered him.
Q All right. Now, let's get back to
the facts concerning Ronnie Kimble. You do understand that Ronnie
Kimble is on trial here?
MR. PANOSH: We object to these
comments.
1306
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q You do understand that Ted Kimble is not on
trial?
MR. PANOSH: We object to these comments.
THE COURT: Sustained. He understands that.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I'd like to know the
basis of -‑
THE COURT: Well, we -‑
MR. HATFIELD: -- your ruling.
THE COURT: -- all understand that. Move along.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I'd like to know if he
understands it.
THE COURT: He's the investigating officer. Do you
understand it, sir?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
Q So this is Ronnie's trial and not Ted's trial?
A Yes, sir.
Q Then let's talk about
Ronnie's cooperation.
MR. PANOSH: Object to the
comments of counsel.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Moving now to Ronnie's
cooperation. I'd like to know the basis of -‑
(Mr. Hatfield showed a document to Mr.
Panosh.)
Q I'd like to show
you four single-space typewritten pages and ask you if you can
simply refresh your memory as to what that may be.
1307
A Yes, sir. I know exactly what this is.
Q Can I have it back?
A Oh, yeah.
(The witness handed the document to
Mr. Hatfield.)
Q Thanks. Now that you've looked at
what I just showed you, you recall that at your request, Mr. Ronnie
Kimble gave a four-page, single-spaced statement to Agent Munroe? Do
you remember that?
A Yes, sir, I do remember that.
Q And that was on October 30th,
barely three weeks after poor Patricia had died; isn't that right?
A I don't remember the date,
but I think that's right. I'll agree that that's October the 30th.
Q What?
A Whatever the date on it is. I
didn't look at the date. (Mr. Hatfield handed the document to the
witness.)
A Yes, October 30, 1995.
(The witness handed the document to
Mr. Hatfield.)
Q That was three weeks to the day
after Patricia had died, wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q Ronnie Kimble answered every
question that he was asked, didn't he?
A So far as I know, he did.
Q And one of your close associates
was present for that
1308
interview, wasn't he?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Wasn't Mr. Deberry down there?
A No, sir.
Q Okay. Now, now that you've
refreshed your
recollection, you remember that on
October 30, '95, Ronnie Kimble made a detailed statement concerning
the facts of the case as he understood them to be?
A Yes, sir. I didn't have to
refresh my memory. I knew that.
Q All right. But even before that,
even before October 30, 1995, you had a telephone conversation with
Ronnie Kimble, didn't you?
A I do not recall if I had a
telephone conversation.
Q I show you what's been marked for
identification Defendant's Exhibit 2, it was sent to me by Mr.
Panosh, and ask you to read that and see if it refreshes your
recollection.
A I'm familiar with this.
MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we've
been over all this yesterday. We'd ask to move on.
THE COURT: I don't know -- Proceed at this point.
A There's one word in here that's
not my word. It says "shortly." And I think I testified seven to 10
days before
1309
I knew Ronnie Kimble was in Guilford County at the
time Patricia Kimble was murdered. "Shortly" there is to mean seven
to 10 days in my testimony.
(The witness handed the exhibit to Mr.
Hatfield.)
Q But the fact is, that the reason
that you asked Agent Munroe to take a full statement from Ronnie
Kimble was because you had already talked to Ronnie Kimble on the
telephone about his whereabouts on October 9th; isn't that right?
A No, sir, I don't recall talking
to Ronnie Kimble about his whereabouts for October the 9th. And I
don't recall seeing that there. I recall -- can -- if you can show
it to me again and show me that, I'll -‑
(Mr. Hatfield approached the witness.)
A Yes, sir. I do remember.
Q Do I have to show it to you?
A Yeah, you have to show it to me.
No, you don't have to, but I'd appreciate it.
(Mr. Hatfield handed the exhibit to
the witness.)
A I do remember that I found out
Ronnie Kimble was in Guilford County before October 30th -- I mean
-- yeah, before October 30th.
(Time was allowed for the witness.)
A Okay.
Q Thank you.
1310
(The witness handed the exhibit to Mr. Hatfield.)
Q And as soon as you found it out, you called him
up, didn't you?
A Apparently I did, yes.
Q And in your telephone
conversation with him, he freely admitted that he had been in
Greensboro on that weekend, didn't he?
A Yes.
Q He answered every question that
you asked him, didn't he?
A I don't recall.
Q Well, didn't you write -- I
assume you didn't, but I'll ask you why you did not write a
memorandum, in order to remember this momentous occasion, which was
your first contact with Ronnie Kimble, a person who was later
charged with murder.
A What's your question? I don't -‑
Q My question is, why didn't you
write a memo, confirmatory memorandum, so that we could all know --
A If there's no memo written, it's
because of the content of the telephone conversation was not as such
to write a memo, that I did not get the information, which in turn
is why I called the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and asked
an agent, federal agent, to interview him for me.
Q The reason that you did not write
a memorandum of your
1311
first conversation with Ronnie Kimble is, because
there was nothing about what you knew about him or anything that he
said that made you think he was a suspect; isn't that right?
A I don't recall. I can't testify to that. I can
testify to the fact that Ronnie Kimble and everyone else at that
point that hadn't been eliminated was a suspect. Not only Ronnie
Kimble, but anybody that had access to that area, Patricia Kimble,
and Brandon Station Court on that day was a suspect in this
homicide, and that included Ronnie Kimble.
Q Okay. Thank you. So you had a
conversation with Ronnie Kimble before October 30th, and on October
30th, Ronnie Kimble was interviewed by Mr. Munroe. Now, when did Mr.
Deberry interview Ronnie Kimble?
A I don't know the date, sir.
Q Well, he's your sergeant, isn't
he?
A Yes, he's my sergeant.
Q And he's sitting in the courtroom
right now, isn't he?
A I don't know if he's here or not.
Q You're the lead investigator of
the case.
MR. PANOSH: Well, we object to
him belittling this witness.
MR. HATFIELD: I'm not belittling him.
THE COURT: Well, it's cross-examination. You may
proceed
1312
Q Do you have knowledge of the case file in State
versus Ronnie Kimble?
A Yes.
Q Do you know whether or not your
supervisor, Sergeant Deberry, interviewed Ronnie Kimble?
A Yes.
Q He did, didn't he?
A Yes.
Q Well, then, why didn't you just
say "Yes"?
A That wasn't the question you
asked. If you asked me if he interviewed him, yes, but I don't know
what he interviewed him about.
Q You didn't ascertain what Mr.
Deberry had found out from his interview of Ronnie Kimble?
A You would -- you would need to
ask Sergeant Deberry that question, what he got in the interview
with Ronnie Kimble.
Q Now, on March 20, 1996, Agent
Munroe talked to Ronnie Kimble again; isn't that right?
A I know he talked to him again. I
don't recall the exact date.
Q And on that occasion -- let me
see if I can refresh your memory by just telling you what I think
happened -Ronnie told Mr. Munroe that his dad had told him that
he'd said enough about this case; isn't that right?
1313
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A I don't know what he told Agent Munroe, unless I
have Agent Munroe's interview to read.
Q But wouldn't it be part of the
case file in -‑
THE COURT: Well, he's answered the
question, Mr. Hatfield.
Q So you don't know without
reviewing your file?
A I can't remember -‑
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
A -- without reading it.
THE COURT: Well -‑
Q Have you finished?
A I can't remember, without -‑
THE COURT: Have you finished
your answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I finished.
Q On July 18, 1996, you, Jim Church, talked to
Ronnie Kimble on the telephone, didn't you?
A I don't remember the dates again, but I did talk
to Ronnie Kimble on the telephone at his -- at work, Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina.
Q All right. And then again, on
July 25, 1996, there was a four-hour interview of Ronnie at Camp
Lejeune, wasn't there?
A No, sir.
1314
Q Isn't it a fact that on July 25, 1996, you
participated in an interview of Ronnie Kimble at Camp Lejeune that
lasted some four hours?
A No, sir. It wasn't at Camp
Lejeune.
Q Where was it?
A It was in the State Bureau
of Investigation office in Jacksonville, North Carolina. And the
amount of time that was four hours, not with me.
Q It was probably -- it was four hours like those
11 hours on the day he was arrested, wasn't it?
A Yes. And on that concern, Ronnie
Kimble was not in my custody but five hours on that day that he was
arrested.
Q All right.
A And also on that note, he was
given his rights by a JAG officer, a Captain Elizabeth Ann Hardin
and -- which I have here, and he was afforded an attorney at that
time. I was not with Ronnie Kimble 11 hours the day he was arrested.
When -‑
Q Well, Ronnie Kimble was -‑
MR. PANOSH: May he finish,
please?
MR. HATFIELD: I believe he's finished.
THE WITNESS: No, I'm not finished.
A Ronnie Kimble was turned over to my custody
sometime after 2:00 o'clock. As soon as he was turned in to my
custody, I could not take him away from that military
1315
installation until he was departed, all the paperwork
was done, the attorneys with the Marine Corps and the Navy said,
"He's in your custody." At that time, he was placed in a Guilford
County vehicle, in restraints, as our policy, and he was transported
to Guilford County.
During that time to Guilford County, there was two
stops, one for refreshments, one for rest room. And also, I had
forgotten yesterday when I testified, there was a traffic accident
in the Raleigh/Durham area, that held us up nearly 45 minutes. Other
than that, Ronnie Kimble was not asked one question about this case
or anything about Patricia Kimble.
Q Have you finished?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you now remember that on July
25, 1996, you and other agents who are assigned to this case
interviewed Ronnie Kimble in the vicinity of Camp Lejeune in
Jacksonville?
A Yes, sir, I remember interviewing
him there. As to the date, again, I'm sure you're right. I'd just
have to look at the report.
Q And on that occasion, he was not
in custody, was he?
A No, sir.
Q And in fact, he voluntarily came
into the office, didn't he?
1316
A After some -- yes.
Q He voluntarily came into the
office -‑
A Yes, he did.
Q -- didn't he? He was not under
arrest or anything, was he?
A No, he was not under arrest.
Q And he talked to you and Sergeant
Deberry -‑
A No, sir.
Q -- and answered your questions?
A No, sir, he didn't.
Q Sergeant -‑
A Sergeant Deberry was not present.
Q Who was present on that occasion?
A Agent Pendergrass -‑
Q All right.
A -- with the SBI.
Q And can you tell us the
environment in which you and Mr. Pendergrass and Ronnie Kimble met?
A When we first met Ronnie, it was
in -- it was in the shopping center, as I recall, at the end of
Sears, I think it was on Western Boulevard, in Jacksonville. As I
had arranged on the telephone with him, "Would you please meet me. I
want to talk to you." And he agreed. We met. He followed us to the
SBI branch office in Jacksonville in his truck. And there was also
another investigator with us, as
1317
I recall, Agent Webster, who has testified in this
case. And the interview in the SBI office was in a conference room,
on a large, long table, and it's a real large room.
Q What time of day was it when
Ronnie got there?
A I don't recall, without looking
at the report that was written up.
Q And do you agree that he went to
that conference room voluntarily?
A Yes, sir, he did.
Q Before you asked him any
questions, did you read him his Miranda rights?
A No, sir, I didn't.
Q Is that because he was not a
suspect in this murder case at that time?
A No, sir. It was because he -- it
was a non-custodial interview, and I'm not required to read him his
Miranda rights. He was free to get up and walk out of the building
at any time he chose, in which he did choose to do that.
Q So how long did the interview go
on, before he chose to get up and walk out?
A With me?
Q Yes, sir.
A The interview with me consisted
of going over Agent Munroe's interview with him, and his denial of
telling Agent Munroe a lot of the things that was written.
1318
And Mr. Kimble, Ronnie Kimble, was allowed to tape
this interview. He brought his own tape recorder, and taped the
interview, so he should have a record of what was said.
Q So the first thing that you did in the interview
was, show him Agent Munroe's report that was based on Mr. Munroe's
interview of Ronnie Kimble on October 30, 1995?
A As I recall, that's -- you asked
me what I did. Yes.
Q And yesterday, you -- I asked you
about a memo you wrote, where you told yourself some questions that
you had
A Uh-huh.
Q -- after you had studied Mr.
Munroe's report, didn't I?
A Yes.
Q So on this meeting of July 25,
1996, with Ronnie Kimble, did you endeavor to have those questions
that were in your mind much earlier resolved?
A I don't recall asking the
questions. If I did ask the questions, I didn't get a satisfactory
answer, because I wrote no follow-up to it. The information that I
got from Ronnie Kimble was no value to this case at all, other than
-- it was no help to me. He just denied what he had already told a
federal agent.
Q Well, what did he specifically
deny that he had previously told the federal agent? Let's have some
examples.
1319
A If I can see a copy of the report, Agent
Munroe's report.
MR. PANOSH: May I approach?
THE COURT: You may.
(Mr. Panosh handed documents to the witness, and time
was allowed for the witness.)
A I think, as I recall, the first
thing Ronnie Kimble denied telling Agent Munroe was, Agent Munroe
entered -- he said it was about two weeks prior to her death, was
the last time that he saw her. And as I recall, Ronnie Kimble said
he didn't tell him that. And -‑
Q Well, excuse me. May I --
Remembering where you were, if you don't mind. You say that in
Ronnie's statement to Mr. Munroe, he said he'd seen Patricia a
couple of weeks before? Is that what he said to Mr. Munroe?
A "Kimble was asked when's the last
time he saw Patricia alive. He said it was about two weeks prior to
her death."
Q And then you say that when you
went over Mr. Munroe's statement with Ronnie on July 25, 1996, that
he said that he had not said that to Detective Munroe?
A As I recall, that is the first
thing he denied.
Q Well, what is the
significance of that?
MR. PANOSH: Well, we object, please.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q You -- Excuse me.
1320
(Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Lloyd conferred.)
Q You remember that after you
completed this July 25, 1996 interview, that you had your colleague,
Detective Pendergrass, write up a report to summarize what happened
-‑
MR. PANOSH: Object.
Q -- isn't that right?
MR. PANOSH: We'd object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A No, I didn't have Agent
Pendergrass to write the report. Agent Pendergrass wrote the report
as a part of his duties with his employment.
Q And he didn't put anything in
there about -‑
MR. PANOSH: We object.
Q Excuse me. Your familiarity with
Pendergrass' report allows you to answer this question. He didn't
say anything about that, did he?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A I don't recall what is in his
report. You'd need -‑
Q So -‑
A You'd need to ask Agent
Pendergrass that.
Q Well, thank you. Thank you. Now,
with regard to your testimony, what is the significance of Ronnie
saying that it's not accurate that he had seen Patricia some two
weeks before?
1321
MR. PANOSH: Object, please.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Did you draw any
conclusions that enabled you to judge whether or not Ronnie Kimble
was telling you the truth, when he said to you -- if he did say that
to you -- that he didn't agree with Mr. Munroe's statement that he'd
seen Patricia two weeks before?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A The opinion that I drew from that
interview was, the defendant, Ronnie Kimble, had given a federal
agent a statement, which I later confronted him with, and he denied
certain portions of that statement. He was asked, "Do you think this
agent made this stuff up and just typed it up and mailed it to me,
and you didn't say it?" And he still denied some of the statements
that's made in this report.
Q All right. You've given this
example. If you could move on to the next example.
MR. PANOSH: We object, please.
THE COURT: Overruled. (Time was
allowed for the witness.)
Q Are you ready to answer the
question?
A Yes, as best as I recall.
Q What's the answer?
A Ronnie Kimble, as best I recall,
when I talked to him,
1322
did not go along with the statements of the times,
and did not go along with what he told about Patricia, about the
gasoline, and about him buying gasoline, that's in here.
Those are the three things that I do remember, that I
recall, to the best of my knowledge, that he didn't agree with.
Q All right. Now, Mr. Church, you have now read
every word of Agent Munroe's October 30, 1995 report of his
interview with Ronnie Kimble, haven't you?
A Yes.
Q And I asked you to tell the jury
examples of things that you recognized were at variance or wrong in
that report, that you talked to Ronnie about on July 25, 1996, when
you met him at Jacksonville, North Carolina. Can you give the jury
an example of something that was inaccurate in Ronnie's statement to
Mr. Munroe, that you were able to question Ronnie about on July 25,
1996?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. He's
answered it.
MR. HATFIELD: He has not specifically answered it.
THE COURT: He gave you three examples,
sir.
Q You say that he was wrong on the
gasoline. What do you mean by that?
MR. PANOSH: We object.
1323
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Ask the question, please.
Q You say he was wrong on the
gasoline. What do you mean by that?
A As best I recall, Ronnie Kimble
was upset about the times on the gasoline, as him being a suspect in
Patricia Kimble's murder, and that he didn't tell Agent Munroe
exactly what was written here about the gasoline, as best I recall.
Q Well, just a minute. Are you
saying that Agent Munroe got it wrong, when he reported what Ronnie
Kimble said about purchasing gasoline that day?
A No -‑
Q So Agent Munroe -‑
A -- that's not what I'm saying.
Q -- didn't make any mistakes, did
he?
A That's not what I'm saying, sir.
Q Ronnie told Agent Munroe that
he'd bought some gasoline and put it in the truck, didn't he?
MR. PANOSH: We object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Isn't it a -‑
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I really
think that cross-examination is a little more important than just
having Mr. Panosh shutting down every time he feels like it.
1324
THE COURT: Well, you keep going back to the same
thing again.
MR. HATFIELD: I want to -‑
THE COURT: He's answered your question.
MR. HATFIELD: He won't answer the question, Your
Honor, because he wants to -‑
THE COURT: You phrased it different than the way you
did previously. He testified -‑
Tell him what you said, sir.
A As best I recall, the four
instances that I recall, I do recall Ronnie Kimble not agreeing with
Agent Munroe's statement. But at this point, the best I recall was
the four things that I mentioned, the times, the gasoline and the --
when he last saw Patricia alive. That's what I recall.
Q All right. Now, look at Page 2 of
Agent Munroe's report, please. And look about six lines down into
the second paragraph on that page, please. Now, can I ask you a
question about that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did Ronnie Kimble tell Mr. Munroe
that he went over to Ted Kimble's house the morning of October 9,
1995 and met with Ted?
A I think I'm on the wrong page.
You said Page 2?
Q Yes, sir.
1325
A Second paragraph?
Q Yeah. The sixth line down into
the second paragraph.
A No. We were talking about marital
problems on my second page.
Q Well, I'm sorry. The third page.
Six lines down into the third page. I apologize to you.
A Okay. What was your question, did
he -‑
Q Did he tell Agent Munroe that
he'd gone over and met with Ted early in the morning on October 9th?
MR. PANOSH: We object, please.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A He said he went to Ted Kimble's
house around 7:15 that morning.
Q And what did he say about whether
or not he saw Patricia?
A Said he didn't see her that
morning.
Q You have absolutely no evidence
from any conceivable source in this world that that statement's not
true, do you? MR. PANOSH: Object, please.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Do you have any evidence
whatsoever that Ronnie Kimble saw Patricia that morning?
MR. PANOSH: Object, please.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Isn't it a fact that Ron-- that
Patricia Kimble was
1326
seen alive that day as late as 3:30 p.m. by Nancy
Young?
A Yes, sir.
Q There was nothing
misleading whatsoever about what Ronnie Kimble told Agent Munroe,
was there?
MR. PANOSH: Object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: Does he just object to every question?
THE COURT: Well, he's got a right to, if it's legally
objectionable.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I think that since he's
reviewing the -‑
THE COURT: Objection sustained. Next question,
please. Move along.
Q Now, looking down that same page, did Corporal
Kimble talk about after unloading materials that he had purchased
earlier that day, and transporting them in a truck that his brother
owned that is commonly referred to as a box truck, did Corporal
Kimble tell Agent Munroe that he got to Ted's between 1300 and 1315
hours, according to Munroe's report?
A Yes, that's what's written here.
Q And did Ronnie Kimble tell Munroe
that he dropped off the truck and left?
A That's what's written, yes.
Q That's what Ronnie Kimble told
Munroe, isn't it?
1327
A That's what's written.
Q Now, at 1315 hours, you absolutely know to a
dead certainty that Patricia Kimble was still alive, don't you?
A Yes.
Q Now, returning to the
subject of Nancy Young and your conversation with her on August 15,
1996, and you will agree with me that August 15th was a few weeks
after July 25, wasn't it, a couple of weeks?
A Yes.
Q You told Nancy Young "None of the
Kimble family will cooperate with me in this case," didn't you?
A I did.
Q And yet, Agent Munroe gave you a
four-page, single-spaced report, you talked to Ronnie Kimble at
least twice on the telephone, you met with Ronnie Kimble in
Jacksonville with other agents and he talked to you, and you called
him up on the telephone and asked him for information, he said his
dad had told you not to -- him that he'd given enough information,
and yet, you told a family friend of Ronnie Kimble that he hadn't
cooperated at all, didn't you?
A I did tell them that, and he had
not cooperated.
Q And what was -- your idea of
cooperation was confessing guilt, wasn't it?
MR. PANOSH: Object. I believe we
went over this.
THE COURT: Sustained.
1328
Q I show you what's been marked for identification
Defendant's Exhibit 6, ask you to take a look at that. (Time was
allowed for the witness.)
Q Know what it is?
A Appears to be a copy of
AT&T billing invoice for telephone calls.
Q Does it look like Judy and James Stump's
telephone records?
A Well, it's got James R. Stump on
it.
Q Is he married to Judy Stump?
A Yes, I think he is, for about 35
years.
Q For about 35 years. Bringing your
attention to State's Exhibit 119 and Defendant's Exhibit 7, what's
indicated here at Number 1? (Indicated.)
A That's the Stump residence.
Q And Number 2, what is that?
A That is Ronnie Kimble's
residence.
Q All right. Now, do you know
whether or not this billing record is based upon the Stumps'
telephone number?
MR. PANOSH: We'll stipulate.
MR. HATFIELD: Thank you.
Q Is that the Stumps' phone record?
A So far as I know, it is.
Q All right. Do you see a call to
Lynchburg, Virginia? (Indicated.)
1329
A Yes, I do.
Q Is there any information relevant to this case
involving Lynchburg, Virginia?
A Yes, sir.
(The witness handed the exhibit to Mr. Hatfield.)
Q Lynchburg, Virginia was the residence at one
time of a guy named Mitch Whidden; isn't that right?
MR. PANOSH: We object to the terminology of "guy
named."
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Did Mitch Whidden live in Lynchburg, Virginia
for a while?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is it your information that Mitch Whidden was
living in Virginia, Lynchburg, Virginia on January 24, 1997?
MR. PANOSH: We'll stipulate to that.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I'm not asking Mr. Panosh
questions.
THE COURT: If he stipulates -‑
MR. HATFIELD: Well -‑
THE COURT: -- the jury may take that as an admitted
fact.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I'd rather have the witness
answer that.
THE COURT: He's already stipulated.
1330
Q Do you know whether Mitch Whidden was living in
Lynchburg, Virginia on January 24th?
A Yes.
Q You went up and visited him right
around that time, didn't you?
MR. PANOSH: He said yes. Why is
he arguing with him? It's not proper, Your Honor.
THE COURT: He's answered the question. The State
stipulated that he lived there on that date, sir, January the 24th,
Lynchburg, Virginia, Mr. Whidden lived there.
Q Did he live there?
THE COURT: He stipulated to it. Move on.
MR. HATFIELD: Okay. Fine. Thank you.
Q Did you go up and visit Lynchburg, Virginia
shortly after January 24, 1997?
A I think I went to Lynchburg in
February.
Q All right. Now, you're satisfied
from the stipulations that a telephone call was made from the Stump
residence to the Whidden residence at 5:35 p.m. on January 24th,
aren't you?
A As that record shows, yes.
Q Okay. Thank you very much. Now,
when Ronnie Kimble went to Lynchburg, Virginia around January 23,
1997, did you know that he was going there?
A No, sir.
1331
Q Can you explain to the members of the jury why
you telephoned Judy Stump on January 24, 1997?
A I called the Stumps more than
once. I'm sure it was in reference to the investigation on this
case. I don't remember what the telephone conversation was about,
other than, I probably wanted to talk to her or Ronnie Kimble's
wife, her daughter.
Q So you do not know deny at this
point in time that you called Judy and James Stump's residence
around the same time that this call was made, and talked to them in
connection with your investigation, do you?
A No, sir, I don't deny that. I
probably did. I think I called those folks several times.
Q Well, then, if you called them so
many times, why did you tell Nancy Young that you'd gotten no
cooperation from the Kimble family?
A They're not the Kimble
family. They are the James Stump family. And they -‑
Q So you -‑
A The James Stump family cooperated
with me every time I asked them to. Not a problem.
Q Did you know that Nancy Young was
a personal friend of the James Stump family?
MR. PANOSH: Object to relevance.
1332
THE COURT: Overruled.
A I knew at one time -‑
THE COURT: Overruled.
A I knew at one time Nancy
Young attended the same church.
Q So when you told Nancy
Young that you couldn't get any cooperation out of the Kimble
family, you weren't talking about Ronnie's wife and Ronnie's
in-laws, were you?
THE COURT: He's answered that.
Sustained.
Q You weren't
talking about the Stumps?
THE COURT: He's answered that,
sir. He just said they cooperated fully with him.
MR. HATFIELD: Okay. Thank you.
Q Now, do you recall writing an investigative
report on November 2, 1995, based upon your telephone communications
back and forth with Ted Kimble?
A Yes, I do.
Q And do you remember putting in
your investigative report something that you told Ted Kimble on
November 2, 1995 -‑
A What are you -‑
Q -- and that is -‑
A -- referring to, sir?
Q -- "I also told
Ted that at this point in the investigation, that Ronnie was the
last known person at his
1333
and his wife's residence before she was murdered"?
Did you tell him that?
A I certainly did tell him that.
Q And what did you base that
statement upon?
A Upon -- the statement is, at that
particular time, Ronnie Kimble was the last known person at Ted and
Patricia's house before her murder. And at that time, I had
information that he had took the truck back sometime after lunch,
and there was conflicting times as to when he actually took it back.
So -- that answers the question.
Q But you had already asked
Officer Munroe down in Jacksonville or Camp Lejeune to interview
Ronnie on that point, hadn't you?
MR. PANOSH: Asked and answered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Yes.
Q So you knew what you just told us
all that you knew, which is that Ronnie had told Officer Munroe that
he got to Ted's between 1300 and 1315, with the -- and dropped off
the truck and left; isn't that right? It's Page 3, in the middle of
the page, Officer Munroe's report, prepared at your request.
A I was trying to read the date
that he sent me this. Your question was, did I know about this -‑
Q Yeah.
1334
A -- at the time I made this statement to Ted?
Q Yeah.
A Yes.
Q You did? And you also had talked
to Ronnie on the telephone and asked him what his whereabouts were
that day, hadn't you?
A As I recall, yes.
Q So you knew that Ronnie had
returned that truck while Patricia was still living and breathing,
didn't you? You knew it?
A I knew when -- Yes. That's pretty
obvious.
Q Right.
A When he returned the truck,
she was still living and breathing.
Q So when you told Ted -- because you knew that
Ted had had lunch with her at 1:15, didn't you?
A I knew he had lunch with her.
Q And from talking to Nancy Young,
you knew that she had come back from lunch probably around 1:45,
didn't you?
A Yes. That was her statement.
Q So you knew, when you said to Ted
Kimble that "at this point in the investigation, Ronnie was the last
known person at his and his wife's residence before she was
murdered," you knew that had nothing to do with her death, didn't
you?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
1335
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Didn't you know that
Ronnie did not murder her when he returned that truck, because she
was still alive after he returned that truck? Didn't you know that,
sir?
A No, sir. At the time, I did not
know that.
Q But you had Mr. Munroe's report,
you had your telephone conversation with Ronnie?
A Yes, sir, I had.
Q And subsequently, you interviewed
a few people around Lyles Building Supply, didn't you?
A Are you referring to employees?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q And you knew that Ronnie
Kimble had been present at Lyles during the time that Patricia was
still alive in her office with Nancy Young, didn't you?
MR. PANOSH: Object, please.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q You knew that?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: Objecting to what? It's
just a question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: All right.
1336
Q So you were just telling Ted something that you
thought would provoke him into confessing to you; isn't that right?
MR. PANOSH: Object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q That's all you were doing, isn't
it?
A No, sir, that's not what I was
doing. I was making the statement to Ted Kimble, as to the fact that
his brother, Ronnie Kimble, was the last one that I knew in this
investigation was at Patricia Kimble's residence before she was
murdered.
Q But you knew that she had been
alive after he left?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q You don't contend even now in
this trial that when he returned that box truck to her residence,
that he killed
her, do you?
MR. PANOSH: Object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q You don't contend that, do
you, sir?
MR. PANOSH: Object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Do you have knowledge of this alleged conspiracy
between Ted Kimble and Ronnie Kimble?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you think that in
connection with that conspiracy,
1337
that Ronnie Kimble murdered Patricia around 1:00 or
1:15, when he returned that box truck?
A No, sir.
Q Thank you.
(Mr. Hatfield and Mr.
Panosh conferred.)
THE COURT: Come up
here, gentlemen, right now, all three of you.
(The Court conferred
with all three counsel at the bench, as the court reporter was
approaching the bench.)
(The following
proceedings were had by the Court and all three counsel at the
bench, out of the hearing of the jury.)
THE COURT: Let the
record show that the Court brought the attorneys to the bench,
admonished them not to make any more personal comments, to stick
strictly to the professionalism required of all attorneys that are
practicing before this Court. And I indicated I will cite them for
contempt, if they persist in that type of conduct.
MR. HATFIELD: I would
like to make this -- may I make a statement?
THE COURT: You may put
whatever you'd like in the record.
MR. HATFIELD: All
right. It is 10:45. I am cross-examining the witness. I have a piece
of paper in my hand, which are my personal notes and my work
product. I was approaching the evidence table, in order to find some
1338
pictures that I wanted to
cross-examine the witness about. Mr. Panosh asked me to show him the
piece of paper that I had in my hand. I saw nothing rude or
insulting about Mr. Panosh's request. I notified him that the piece
of paper was my personal notes. And I was then told to come to the
bench.
I under no circumstances concede that
I have at any time been rude in any way, shape or form, either to
the Court or to Mr. Panosh. And I am deeply offended that remarks
made were published in the newspaper, suggesting that in some way, I
have misbehaved in this trial, when I have not. And I am prepared to
put as many witnesses on the record as necessary, to show -‑
THE COURT: We're not
going -‑
MR. HATFIELD: -- that
my conduct -‑
THE COURT: -- to get
into that -‑
MR. HATFIELD: -- has
been -‑
THE COURT: -- what's
in the newspaper, anything you read in the paper.
Anything you want to
put in?
MR. PANOSH: No, sir.
THE COURT: All
right. Thank you, gentlemen. Do your job.
(Proceedings continued in open court.)
MR. HATFIELD: May I go to this table?
1339
THE COURT: As soon as the court reporter gets ready,
yes, you may go to the table. (Time was allowed for Mr. Hatfield.)
MR. HATFIELD: Approach the witness with exhibits?
THE COURT: You may do that.
Q I show you what's been marked as
State's Exhibit 9.
It's already in evidence. Do you see
that?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is that, please?
A This is the doorjamb to Patricia
Kimble's residence -‑
Q And I'll show you -‑
A -- from the -- in the garage.
Q Okay. And I'll show you State's
Exhibit 8, which is already received in evidence. What is that,
please?
A That is the door to the same entrance.
Q All right. So the two exhibits that you have
before you illustrate the side door leading kitchen (sic) and the
carport in the Kimble -- the Patricia Kimble residence on Brandon
Station Court, don't they?
A Yes.
Q And you got to the scene fairly
shortly after the crime was discovered, either in the late hours of
the 9th, and you were also back through the early hours of the 10th;
is that correct?
A Yes.
1340
Q Have you had a chance to look at the subject
matter of that picture?
A I did.
Q Are you satisfied from your
observation that the dead bolt was in the unlocked position, when
the firemen got to the house and went in to do their duty?
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q And are you satisfied, from
looking at the crime scene and from reviewing those photographs,
that in no way was the door forced with the dead bolt in the locked
position?
A No, sir, you're right, it was not
forced with the dead bolt engaged.
Q All right. On the other hand,
your observation also was that the striker plate on the ordinary
lock seemed to be missing?
A It was missing.
Q Okay. It just wasn't anywhere
around there at that time?
A I don't recall. As I -- I do recall that it was
found in the floor in the kitchen, after the washdown and cleanup
that the fire department did -‑
Q Okay.
A -- to establish the pour pattern
for the gasoline.
Q So the striker plate may have
been intact before the emergency developed, it's just not known now;
is that right?
1341
A What I -- what I know about the striker plate,
Ted Kimble told me that he had to keep tightening it up, that it
would come off.
Q So were your observations at the
scene consistent with what you found out from him and other sources
about the lock? About the door. Excuse me.
A When you say "him," who is "him"?
Q Strike the word
"lock." About that door, as it's illustrated in that picture.
A Who is "him"?
Q Ted Kimble and others. Are you
satisfied that the information given to you by Ted Kimble is
consistent with your own observations and what you found out from
other people about that lock?
A Yes.
Q Do you believe, based upon your
knowledge, that if there's any B&E damage visible, that it may have
been -- may have predated August (sic) 9, 1995?
A Yes. My investigation showed that
the breaking and entering, what appeared to be damage to this door,
occurred before October 9, 1995.
Q So, based upon your
experience as an investigator, you concluded that probably the --
that particular door had not been forced on October 9th?
A Well, I think it's been
established, Mr. Hatfield, that
1342
that door was easy to enter, if the dead bolt was not
engaged. And -‑
Q All right.
A -- it had previously been
entered by the victim's brother, I think, as he testified.
Q So you're satisfied that it wasn't forced open
that day, to the best of your memory?
A I'm satisfied no one broke into that house as a
burglary, to steal anything.
Q Now, on the other hand, because of a previous
experience that you'd had, you were aware of a prior breaking and
entry at that residence during the time that Patricia owned the
house, weren't you?
A Before she was married. I worked
that case.
Q And subsequent to your working
that case, and after she was married, there apparently was another
B&E at that residence, you didn't work that case?
A No, I didn't work that case.
Q But you know that there were two
B&E's prior to October 9, 1995?
A Yes. The individuals was arrested
in both cases.
Q All right. And based upon your
experience with Patricia in the earliest occasion that you talked
about, before she married Mr. Kimble, you said that she was very
apprehensive of a repeat of the experience that she'd had
1343
with the B&E; is that right?
A That's what she told me. She was
afraid to go to the house, if she'd have seen anything strange when
she would go home.
Q All right. So you're -- you would
assume, based upon everything you know, that when Patricia left the
house that morning, that she would have locked that dead bolt,
wouldn't she?
A No, I'm not to assume that.
Q Even though you knew of your own
knowledge that she was apprehensive of security at her residence,
you won't assume that she locked the dead bolt that day?
A I don't know what Patricia Kimble
done when she left that house that morning. She might have exited
that house through the front door. I don't know how she left the
house and what condition she left it in. I also don't know who had
keys to it, other than her and her husband. I don't know who she
gave keys to, don't know who he gave keys to. There's no indication
that she gave keys to anyone. I don't know about Ted Kimble.
Q So you don't know whether, when
Patricia left the house, after Ted and Ronnie had already gone to
Lyles, you don't know if she locked up or not, do you?
A No, sir, I don't know. Don't -‑
Q And therefore, you do not know
whether someone entered
1344
that house later in the day with a key, or whether
they were able to just push their way in the way the fireman was
when he got there, do you?
A No, I don't.
Q I show you what's been received
in evidence as Exhibit 60, and ask you to tell me a little bit about
that, please. What is it?
A Exhibit 60, State's Exhibit 60 is
a -- the Glock .45 pistol on the table over there. (Indicated.)
Q Now, you were not the first
person to locate the Glock .45 pistol on the night of the
investigation, were you?
A I didn't locate the gun at all.
Q Did you ever have any part in
retrieving it or determining what kind of evaluation it should be
subjected to?
A No, sir.
Q Had nothing to do with any of
that?
A That's done by the ID and
evidence section of the sheriff's department.
Q So would that be Mr.
Lindell?
A He is the supervisor of that
area, and they have -‑
Q So -‑
A -- protocol as to what they do
with this.
Q Is it your testimony then this
morning that you had nothing to do with sending the gun to the SBI
lab for
1345
scientific evaluation?
A I didn't -- no, sir, I didn't
have anything to do with that. I didn't request it.
Q You understand that when it was
sent, that you were listed as the investigating officer, don't you?
A That's the way it's done. It's
submitted by the evidence officers or the ID officers, and the
investigating officer's name and the case number is put on whatever
item is sent to the SBI lab, was the best of my knowledge.
MR. HATFIELD: I'd like to make a
private inquiry of counsel, please.
THE COURT: All right.
(Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Panosh
conferred.)
MR. HATFIELD: Thank you.
Q I show you what I've marked for identification
Defendant's Exhibit 9, and ask you to look at that. (Time was
allowed for the witness.)
Q Can you identify it from looking at it?
A Oh, yes, sir.
Q What is it?
A This is a request for examination
of physical evidence.
Q And does it have your name on it?
A I'm sure it does. Just -- where
is it?
(Mr. Hatfield indicated.)
A Yes.
1346
Q Okay. And what is this date, the date of the
offense? (Indicated.)
A The date of the offense, 10/9/95.
Q All right. Can you ascertain the
date of the document?
A It was stamped in at the SBI lab
October 12th, 11:30 -‑
Q All right.
A -- in the morning.
Q I'm sorry. I didn't mean to
interrupt you. But from looking at this document, you can tell that
the gun was very quickly forwarded to the SBI crime lab, wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q And can you tell us, from looking
at this, what request was made of the crime lab, by the -- by your
office, by the sheriff's office of Guilford County?
MR. PANOSH: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Examination of bullet comparison
from the projectile retrieved from the victim, as to bullets --
well, that's what it says.
Q All right. Now, looking again at
Exhibit 60, which is already admitted in evidence, is that a picture
of the gun?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know whether that picture
was taken before the gun was touched by law-enforcement personnel?
A I have no idea. I had nothing to
do with taking the
1347
pictures or recovering or -- the evidence off that
scene.
Q Now, can you tell from looking at
that picture whether the gun was covered with any kind of dirt or
extraneous material?
A Appears to be.
Q Sir?
A It appears to be.
Q Based upon your 15 years in this
type of work, and countless burglary investigations, as you've
already testified, do you know whether or not there are any crime
labs anywhere in the United States that could have determined
whether or not that Glock pistol bore fingerprints?
A I do not.
Q Can you explain why the obvious
murder weapon was not sent to some competent laboratory for
fingerprint analysis?
A No, I cannot explain that,
because I don't think that fingerprints, in my opinion, could be
gotten off of this -of this handgun in the condition it was in, as
not to destroy anything for the serology department -‑
Q But you know -‑
A -- in my opinion.
Q-- that -‑
A I don't -- I don't know -- if
you're asking the question about fingerprints, I by no means am an
authority
1348
on fingerprints at all. I don't take fingerprints. I
don't determine them. I don't work with them. The ID people do that.
AFIS people compare them. I don't have any -- I don't do that job.
Frankly don't know how to do that job.
Q Where did you obtain your
education after high school? A At a community college and a
university.
Q Did you attend Liberty University
in Lynchburg, Virginia?
A Yes, I did.
Q How long were you up there?
A I don't recall. I think it was
approximately two years. Most of that was an extension course, that
required -- didn't require full-time on campus.
Q You didn't receive a degree from
Liberty?
A Yes, I did.
Q You did? What degree did you
receive?
A Bachelor's degree.
Q Did you know Dr. Harold
Wilmington while you were there?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know Dr. Jerry Falwell
while you were there?
A Never met the man. I know him. I
know him very well.
Q What?
A I know him, know him very well,
but I've never met him.
Q Did Mitch Whidden go to Liberty
for a while?
1349
A Yes, he did.
Q Did you discuss the fact that you and Mitch had
both gone to the same school for a little while?
A I didn't discuss the fact. I
think I informed him that I also went there. However, I was -- Mitch
Whidden was in the Bible Institute. I didn't attend a Bible
Institute. Very aware of the Bible Institute and what it stands for.
But that was not what I went to school for up there.
Q Now, do you know whether or not
the weekend before Patricia died, that she and her husband had had a
luau at their house?
A That's what I was told.
Q Was that the -- of course, she
died on a Monday, didn't she?
A Yes, she did.
Q Was the weekend that the luau
took place the weekend of the 7th and 8th, or was it the previous
weekend?
A I don't recall, Mr.
Hatfield. I know that previous to her death, that they had had a --
people over there and had what they called a luau, had a Hawaiian
theme to it.
Q Okay.
A And that's about the extent of
what I know about it.
Q Do you know whether the grass had
already been mowed before they had this little social gathering for
their friends?
1350
A I don't know.
Q I show you what's been
marked for identification State's 55, and let you take a look at it.
What is that?
A This is a picture of the house after the fire.
Q Can you see the grass?
A I can see what's left of it,
after being tromped down with all the firefighters and
investigators.
Q So you say that it doesn't -- the
fact that it doesn't look like it needs to be mowed doesn't have to
do with the fact that it had already been mowed the week before?
A What are you asking me?
Q Does it look like it needs to be
mowed?
A This grass right here does not
appear that it needs mowing. You're only showing about a 12-foot
spot on the yard, which extends for 200 feet to the road or more. I
don't know the exact distance.
Q Well, with all due respect, I
wasn't out there taking pictures, was I?
A Neither was I, sir.
Q All right. Looking at that
photograph, you can't tell that the residence needs any lawn mowing
done, can you?
A No, sir, I can't tell.
Q And as a matter of fact, it
didn't need a lawn -- any part of it, not just the part in the
picture, but the rest, didn't need being mowed, did it?
1351
A Are you asking my opinion?
Q Yeah.
A Yes, it did.
Q Most of the lawn is under trees
and probably only needs to be mowed three or four times a year;
isn't that right?
A Again, my opinion, it needs to be
more -- mowed more than three or four times a year.
Q All right. Now, you examined the
riding mower, didn't you?
A I know the make of the riding
mower.
Q And you saw signs in your
examination of the riding mower that indicated it hadn't been
touched in a real long time; isn't that right?
A Well, I don't know what a real
long time is, the term you're using. I examined the lawn mower and
saw the spider webs was from the stern wheel to the two-by-four
studding the wall. And there was also dust on the seat. However, a
spider can build a web overnight. And dust, with a gravel driveway,
can get in there in one day. So I have no idea when that lawn mower
was used prior to October the 9th.
Q And you really have no
information that Patricia actually intended to mow the lawn, except
what Ted told you, do you?
A Yes, I have other information.
Q Can you tell us another witness
that's testified --
1352
A Nancy Young told me that.
Q Nancy Young told you, but -‑
A She said Patricia told her
she was going home to mow the grass.
Q But the fact is that we
just don't know where Patricia may have gone when she left her
workplace at 3:30 p.m., do we?
A No, sir.
Q And indeed, she was last seen at
approximately a quarter of 4:00, heading in a northerly direction,
wasn't she?
A Thereabouts.
Q And she could have made a right
and taken that route, that fast route, home, or not, couldn't she?
A She could -- she could -- she
could have went anywhere. I don't know where she went. I can assume,
in my opinion, she done a little errand and went straight home.
Q But you don't have any facts to
base that opinion on, do you?
A I don't have anything to say she
didn't do that, either.
Q So that's like a spider
could weave a web in one night?
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q It's not evidence, because
you don't know, do you, Mr. Church?
1353
MR. PANOSH: He answered it, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Objection
sustained. He's answered the question.
Q Now -‑
THE COURT: How much longer are
you going to be with the witness, Mr. Hatfield?
MR. HATFIELD: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I don't know.
THE COURT: Well, I need some idea,
because these jurors would like to have a break at some point. And I
wouldn't mind having one.
MR. HATFIELD: I would like to take a
break, too, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I want to know how
long you're going to be, so -- before I take a break.
MR. HATFIELD: Maybe 30 more minutes.
THE COURT: All right. We'll take a
break.
You may step down,
sir.
(The witness left the
witness stand.)
THE COURT: Take a
15-minute recess. Remember the Court's instructions.
(The jury left the
courtroom at 11:10 a.m.)
THE COURT: You may
declare a 15-minute recess.
(A recess was taken at
11:11 a.m.)
(Court reconvened at
11:27 a.m. The defendant was not
1354
present. The jury was not present.)
(The defendant entered
the courtroom at 11:28 a.m.)
(Time was allowed,
until two jurors entered the jury room at 11:31 a.m.)
THE COURT: All
of them?
THE BAILIFF: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Bring them
back.
(The jury entered the
courtroom at 11:31 a.m.)
THE COURT: Okay. Officer Church, if
you'll return to the witness stand, please, sir.
(The witness returned to the witness
stand.)
THE COURT: Mr. Hatfield, you may
continue with your cross-examination of the witness.
MR. HATFIELD: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. HATFIELD:
Q Mr. Church, I only have two or
three more topics that I would like to cover with you.
You were able to determine from your
investigation who the individuals were who were present at Lyles
Building Supply on West Lee Street on October 9, 1995, between the
hours of noon and 5:00 p.m., weren't you?
A I don't know everyone was there.
Who are you referring to?
Q Well, would you tell the jury
what people you are satisfied were physically present at one time or
another at
1355
that location between noon and 5:00 p.m.
A The owner, Ted Kimble. Two
employees. The defendant, Ronnie Kimble, was there after lunch.
There was people buying material. There was a Smith -- last guy
(sic) by the name of Smith there that we talked to. That's all I
remember.
Q Was Patricia there?
A Yes, Patricia was there, until
after lunch, until she went back to Cinnamon Ridge, yes, sir.
Q So Ted was there and Patricia was
there; is that right?
A Ted was there, until he closed
the place. Patricia was there for a short while, until she returned
to her job.
Q And then Ronnie was there at some
point?
A Yes.
Q And a customer named Billy Smith
was there?
A A what Smith?
Q Was there a customer named Billy
Smith there?
A I think that's his name.
Q Can you tell us the names of the
employees who were there?
A There's a James Ogburn and a
Swaney. I don't recall the Swaney guy's first name.
Q Did you talk to the Swaney guy?
A I did.
Q Was his name Steve Swaney?
1356
A I believe it was.
Q And do you recall your interview
of him?
A Yes, I do.
Q Based upon your interview, did
you conclude that he was too stupid to testify?
THE COURT: Objection sustained to
that.
A I don't think I'd use -‑
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q Did you write in your report that he had low
intelligence or was an LD person?
A Yes, I did.
Q Yeah. And so, did you decide that
he was an unreliable witness, due to his lacking in intelligence?
A Along with other things. To my
understanding, he was in a motorcycle accident, and in my opinion,
with the interview with Mr. Swaney, his answers to me were to his
knowledge right, but I knew that they were not at all the way he was
telling it.
Q All right. So Mr. Swaney was
present that day, but in your judgment, because of a variety of
factors, having to do with his personal situation, he's just not a
reliable person; is that right?
A Exactly, he is not a reliable
person.
Q But he did tell you that he
wasn't sure that Ted was there the whole day, didn't he?
1357
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Again, I'll have to see my
interview sheet, to remember exactly what he told me.
MR. HATFIELD: Approach for
purposes of just refreshing memory?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. HATFIELD: Thank you.
(Mr. Hatfield handed a document to the
witness, and time was allowed for the witness.)
A Do I need to read this whole
thing?
Q Does it refresh your memory as to
whether Mr. Swaney told you that he wasn't sure Ted was there the
whole day or not?
A He did say Ted could have left
and come back, but he didn't think he did.
(The witness handed the document to
Mr. Hatfield.)
A He also told me that Reverend
Kimble was there all day, too.
Q So he told you that Ted could
have left and come back?
A Yes, he did.
Q But he didn't think he could?
A He said -- I think the statement
reads that Ted could have left and come back, but he didn't think
that he did.
Q After he told you that, you
decided he was too
1358
unreliable to use, didn't you?
A After the interview, I absolutely
decided that he was unreliable. However, I did write the interview
up.
Q Now, I don't want to belabor
this, because we've all been at this a long time. Is there anybody
else who you know, based upon your investigation, was present at
Lyles between noon and 5:00 p.m. on October 9, 1995?
A I named the two employees, Ronnie
Kimble, Ted Kimble, Patricia Kimble, Mr. Smith. Some guy from
Guilford College bought some roofing. I never did know his name.
That's all I recall.
Q Now, Ted was the boss out there,
wasn't he?
A He was the owner, boss.
Q And he could come and go as he
pleased, couldn't he?
A As far as I know, he could.
Q He didn't have to ask Mr. Ogburn
if he could leave for a minute to get a soda, did he?
A I don't know -- I -- my
opinion is, no, he could do what he wanted to. He owned the place.
Q All right. And he certainly didn't have to ask
poor Mr. Swaney any permissions, did he?
A On -- no.
Q And he didn't have to ask his
customers, did he?
A No.
Q And you don't know if there were
any people who tried
1359
to be customers, but just got there and couldn't be
waited on, because there wasn't anybody around, did you? You never
found anybody like that, did you?
MR. PANOSH: Speculation, please.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Did you find any witnesses
who were at the scene who did not tell you that they saw Ted Kimble
there, while they were at the scene?
A I think you're asking me, has
anybody told me that they were at Lyles Building Material and did
not see Ted Kimble present?
Q Yes, sir. Thank you.
A I do not recall anybody telling
me that. However, I don't know everybody was there, because I'm sure
customers was out and in that evening. But I don't recall anybody
telling me that, no, sir, I don't.
Q Now, after the tragedy of
Patricia's death on October 9th, agents of the sheriff's department
set up a roadblock down on 22 near the scene, in order to locate
people who may have known something that had happened on the 9th;
isn't that right?
A Yes, they did.
Q Now, did you set up any kind of a
roadblock situation around Lyles, in order to determine if any of
their regular customers or any casual customers might have known
something
1360
that was relevant to the investigation?
A No, sir, we did not.
Q Did you not do that, because
Lyles is in the city limits, and you got a concurrent jurisdiction
with the police there, whereas, you're the sole law-enforcement
authority out in the county?
A My jurisdiction is the same in
the city as it is in the county. And no, we didn't set up a
roadblock there, in my opinion, because -- I didn't have the
roadblock set up.
That was -- my supervisors did that.
Obviously, we wouldn't set one up on Lee Street, with the volume of
traffic that goes through there. And, too, the purpose of setting it
up was to find out about Brandon Station Court, not Lyles Building
Material.
Q But within 24 hours of Patricia's
death, you were receiving Crime Stoppers tips indicating that Ted
was a suspect, weren't you?
A Oh, we -‑
MR. PANOSH: Object, please.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Yes.
Q So it wouldn't have been
difficult at all to set up some sort of control point near Lyles,
now that you knew that Ted was a suspect, and see what turned up;
isn't that right?
1361
A No, that's not right.
Q Now, there's a little side street
right beside Lyles that seems to be a public vehicular area, that
you could have set a control point up in, couldn't you?
MR. PANOSH: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Are you talking about me
personally?
Q Anybody in your office.
A Yes. As long as we have the
property owner's permission, and we deem it necessary to set up an
operation, yes, we can do that.
Q But if Ted Kimble wouldn't give
you the permission, as I just got through saying, there's a public
vehicular area adjacent to the front of his business, you could have
probably used that without Ted's permission for a control point,
couldn't you?
MR. PANOSH: Object. That is not in
evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, he knows it,
just as well as he knows Chapman Street. He knows there's a public
vehicular area there.
Q Don't you, sir?
A Are you -- are you speaking of
the parking lot in the front of Mayberry Ice Cream or Mayberry?
Q Yes. Isn't there a --
1362
A To the machine shop?
Q Yeah. A -‑
A I think that -‑
Q -- publicly maintained -‑
A I'm sure that's a public vehicle
area, part of it, and part of it's probably owned by whoever owns
the property there.
Q You could have set up a control
point there, couldn't you?
THE COURT: He's testified as to
why he didn't do that, Mr. Hatfield.
MR. HATFIELD: All right. Thank you.
Q Now, you did set up a control --
your people in your office did set up a control point down on 22,
very close to Brandon Station, didn't you?
A They did set up on 22, between
where Appomattox ends and Brandon Station Court.
Q All right. And as a result of
that, certain people indicated that they had seen things of some
worth investigating; isn't that right?
A There was some motorists
that came by that gave information, and we followed up on all of it.
Q And -‑
A To my knowledge, everything we
got in this case was followed up on.
1363
Q But sometime, you didn't follow up until seven
or eight months later, did you?
A Yes, on some information we got,
and the volume of information that we got, and the extent. And also,
this wasn't the only case that I was working. After time went on, I
became assigned to other cases to work. I couldn't devote every
working day to this. But to answer your question, yes, there was --
this investigation continued for two and half years.
Q Is that why it was more than
eight months before you talked to a woman named Tammy Patton?
MR. PANOSH: We object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PANOSH: Not a witness, Your Honor.
Hearsay, please.
MR. HATFIELD: She's on their witness
list.
THE COURT: He may answer that
question, whether or not he talked to a Tammy Patton.
A I talked to a Tammy Patton.
Q And as a result of talking to
Tammy Patton, you asked the people down at Camp Lejeune to prepare a
photo ID type of thing, including Ronnie's picture, didn't you?
A I did.
Q And -‑
MR. PANOSH: We object and like to be
heard.
1364
MR. HATFIELD: I haven't asked the question.
MR. PANOSH: We'd like to be heard.
MR. HATFIELD: I just said -‑
THE COURT: Well, approach the bench a
moment. (The following proceedings were had by the Court and all
three counsel at the bench, out of the hearing of the jury.)
THE COURT: All right. What's the
problem?
MR. PANOSH: We're not going to
call Ms. Patton. We don't believe that he should be allowed to get
into her hearsay statements, unless he announces that he intends to
call her.
THE COURT: Well, I don't know what Ms. Patton is
going to say. I haven't -‑
MR. PANOSH: Ms. Patton's going to say that at or
about 6:20 in the evening, she identified -- she saw Ted -- excuse
me, Ronnie Kimble turning into Brandon Station Court. And in June of
1996, about nine months after, she had picked him out of a photo
spread.
THE COURT: Well, why do you want to
put that in?
MR. HATFIELD: It's just -- stupid, I
guess.
THE COURT: Puts your man right where
he shouldn't
be. Is that the extent of it?
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I'm actually
questioning him concerning why, after
doing -- after interviewing this witness, he did other things. And I
don't
1365
really know why I'm up here explaining my tactics in
this cross-examination. I'm trying to wrap this thing up.
THE COURT: Well, do it.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor -‑
THE COURT: Move on with it.
MR. HATFIELD: -- I would really
appreciate it if the Court would not make the jury feel that I'm
somehow -‑
THE COURT: Well, you're doing it to
yourself. I mean, you're taking a long time here on stuff that's not
really relevant to the case. He's answered some of these questions.
You certainly may ask him if he talked
with this lady and what he did about it. She's on the State's
witness list. I don't see any reason why you can't ask him about
that. Proceed.
MR. HATFIELD: Thank you.
(Proceedings continued in open court.)
Q After you talked to this woman
named Tammy Patton, you asked the naval investigators to prepare a
series of pictures, including Ronnie Kimble's picture, to show to
her, didn't you?
A Yes, I did.
Q And after that, you notified
Ronnie Kimble and members of his family that a woman had seen him in
the vicinity of Patricia Kimble's house at 6:20 p.m. on October 9,
1995;
1366
didn't you do that?
MR. PANOSH: We object. Previously stated reasons.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A At that particular time in the investigation,
that is exactly what I did.
Q And afterwards, when -- in March
of 1997, when a number of companions and colleagues of Ronnie
Kimble's in Camp Lejeune were called out by naval investigators on
March 4th and March 5th of 1997, Mr. Dziadaszek related to
investigators that Ronnie Kimble had told him that you were accusing
him of being in the vicinity of Patricia Kimble's house at 6:20
p.m.; didn't he -- didn't Mr. Dziadaszek say that?
A Mr. Dziadaszek didn't say
anything to me. I didn't interview him. He -- now, I saw Mr.
Dziadaszek, but I didn't interview him. If you've got something to
refresh my memory, that's all I can go by.
Q I show you what's been marked for
identification Defendant's Exhibit 1, and ask you if you are
familiar with that.
MR. PANOSH: We'll stipulate that
be admitted.
MR. HATFIELD: I didn't ask to admit it.
A This is not my interview.
Q Excuse me.
1367
(Mr. Hatfield turned the exhibit to the second page.)
A As I said, this is not my
interview.
Q Does it say, "Reporting officer,
J.D. Church?"
A That's what it says, but it's not
my interview. That interview was entered into the computer system as
being Agent Munroe's interview. If you'll read that right there,
it'll tell you. (Indicated.)
Q Well, now, you talked to Mr.
Dziadaszek -- you signed this, though, didn't you?
A No, sir, I didn't sign it. The
computer automatically puts my name at the bottom of any report
that's done when I push "Enter," and when I'm signed onto the
computer. I have no control over that. And that's why my name's on
the bottom of that. I entered the interview that Agent Munroe did,
word for word, into this case file. And when -‑
Q And you know -‑
A -- I pushed "Enter," my case --
my name went to the bottom of it.
Q After you talked to Tammy Patton,
the information was widely circulated that Ronnie Kimble had been
sighted by a witness near Patricia's house at 6:20 p.m. on October
9, 1995; isn't that right?
A I made that statement.
Q And you were the gatherer of that
information and you were the releaser of that information, weren't
you?
1368
A At that particular time in the investigation, I
did get that information, and I did say that -‑
Q And--‑
A -- yes, I did.
Q And you communicated that
information, among other people, to Ronnie Kimble, didn't you?
MR. PANOSH: Asked and answered,
please.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer it for the record.
A No, sir, I didn't do that.
Q And isn't that one of the things
that you asked Ronnie Kimble about on July 25th --
A Yes, I did.
Q -- when you questioned him?
A I sure did.
Q So you made it known to him and
others that because of this woman and her, whatever it was she saw,
that you believed that he had been at Patricia's house at 6:25 p.m.,
right?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A At that particular time in the investigation,
the answer is yes.
Q And you also know, based upon the fact that
you're completely familiar with this report, that Mr. Dziadaszek
1369
reported to Mr. Munroe that one of the things that
Ronnie Kimble had told him while they were friends down in the
Marine Corps, was that police officers in Greensboro were claiming
that he'd been seen by a woman at 6:20 near Patricia's, right?
MR. PANOSH: We object. He said he's not going to
admit that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I didn't say I
wasn't going to admit it. I can't offer evidence when -‑
THE COURT: I know that.
MR. HATFIELD: -- it's the State's
case. As soon as the State rests, I'll offer evidence. I can't get
these documents in until it's my -‑
THE COURT: He answered that question,
sir.
MR. HATFIELD: I'm sorry. I'm not --
I'm not -‑
THE COURT: Rephrase -- ask the
question again.
Q You know that Mr. Dziadaszek reported to Mr.
Munroe that one of the things that Ronnie was concerned about was
that you were circulating the information that he'd been seen near
Patricia's house at 6:20 p.m.? Don't you know that?
A That's what's in the report.
Q Is it true?
A I don't recall it right now, but if that's in
the
1370
report, I'm sure at some time that I did have that
knowledge.
Q All right.
A But right now sitting here, I
don't remember that.
Q Thank you so much. My last topic,
Precision Fabrics.
A Uh-huh.
Q You wrote a report on November 9,
1995, concerning your investigation of Ted Kimble in connection with
his employment at Precision Fabrics. Are you -- do you remember that
report?
A I should have it right here, sir.
Q It's my last topic, Mr. Church.
A November -- what was the day?
Q It was written -- the time of the
report was November 9, 1995. And it begins with a narrative,
describing Rita Stewart's information that was given to you, and
goes on from there.
A Must have been one -‑
Q I'm going to -‑
A Yeah, if you would, please, yes,
sir.
MR. HATFIELD: Mr. Panosh, do you
-- would you like to look at this first?
MR. PANOSH: No, thank you.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, approaching the witness
with what's been marked for identification Defendant's
1371
Exhibit 10.
Q I'll ask you to take a look at that, please.
(Time was allowed for the witness.)
A This is -- this is my report. Do
you want me to read it?
Q Well, do you recall it?
A I recall talking to Rita Stewart,
a person who has testified in this case.
(The witness handed the exhibit to Mr.
Hatfield.)
Q Do you also recall investigating
whether or not Ted Kimble was employed at Precision Fabrics a few
days before October 9, 1995?
A I gained that information through
another investigator working -- helping me on the case.
Q But you did -- based upon this
report, you did form some conclusions on your own about that, didn't
you?
A Yes.
Q Now, his schedule, based upon the
information given to you by the personnel department there, was that
he had agreed to work a 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift; isn't that
right, sir?
A The best I recall, I think that's
right.
Q And before he started his regular
employment there, the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, he had gone
through a training session; isn't that right?
1372
A I think that was testified, an orientation week.
Q Yeah. And the orientation was in
the daytime; in other words, it wasn't that shift from 3:00 p.m. to
11:00 p.m., it was a -- like an 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift or
something like that, wasn't it, 7:00 to 3:00?
A That's what I recall, daytime.
Q Daytime shift; is that right?
A Yeah.
Q Now, you knew from Ms. Rita
Stewart, whose responsibility it was to get Patricia's blood before
any insurance policy could be issued by Life of Georgia, Ms. Stewart
was dealing with Mr. Kimble, in order to schedule that blood test,
wasn't she?
A Yes.
Q And she related to you that she
had called Mr. Kimble at Lyles, during times when he should have
been at his training session at Precision; isn't that right?
A At that time during the
investigation, I think when he took the job at Precision Fabrics, I
understood that the first week was orientation, but I understood
under testimony as I understand now, the -- it was not the first
week orientation. And I'm just really not clear when he was -when
he was over there working the daytime. To answer your question, yes,
that did come up.
Q And didn't you, if not conclude,
didn't at least set
1373
off a red light in your mind that it was possible
that he had received a call from Ms. Stewart at Lyles during a time
when he -- when Precision thought he was at their place?
MR. PANOSH: Object to the officer's
conclusions.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Well, that's what you wrote
in the report, isn't it?
MR. PANOSH: Object to the officer's conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained as to -‑
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: -- conclusions. He
may testify as to what he put in his report.
Q Now, didn't you write in your report that the
information that you got from Ms. Stewart, plus other information,
enabled you to write the following: "These times would indicate that
Ted was on the clock at Precision Fabric and had left and was at
Lyles at the time the calls came from Rita on 4 October '95 and 5
October '95"? Didn't you write that?
A Based on the investigation to that point and my
knowledge of the investigation, yes, I did write that.
Q So your conclusion, based upon what you wrote
here, was that Ted had deceived Precision and you about his actual
whereabouts then, hadn't he?
MR. PANOSH: Object to conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
1374
Q He said he was at Precision and Rita called him
up at Lyles; isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q And furthermore, you wrote, "This
would further indicate that Ted would be able to leave Precision
Fabric Company and no one know that he was gone"; didn't you write
that, sir?
MR. PANOSH: Object to his conclusion.
A Based on the investigation -‑
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q Did you write that?
A Based on the investigation at
that time, when that report was written, that's what I thought.
Q And that his supervisor or
someone in Precision Fabric knew -- or that his supervisor and
someone in Precision Fabric knew that he was gone and covered for
him; you wrote that, too, didn't you?
A If you're reading it, sir, I'm
sure -- I wrote it. That's my report.
(Mr. Hatfield handed an exhibit to the
witness.)
Q Just for clarity and to save
time, would you just read the last two pages of your report, or the
whole report, if you'd prefer.
A Are you talking about the last
two paragraphs?
Q Yes, sir.
1375
A "This time would indicate that Ted was on the
clock at Precision Fabric Company and had left --" "and had left and
was at Lyles at the time the calls came from Rita on the 4th of
October and the 5th of October of 1995. This would further indicate
that Ted would be able to leave Precision Fabric and no one know
that he was gone, and still be on the clock, or that he --" "that
his supervisor or someone at Precision Fabric Company ..."
(The witness handed the exhibit to Mr. Hatfield.)
Q Okay.
A And at the time of the
investigation, that was -- that is correct. However, that changed.
Q All right. Mr. Church, we
know that he was the sole boss of Lyles and could come and go as he
pleased, couldn't he?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. We've been over that.
Q And you know, based upon this
report, that he may or may not have been at Precision Fabric when he
said he was, because he could slip away, couldn't he?
A Based on that report, at that
particular time in the investigation.
Q Now, the only reason that Mr. Ted
Kimble would need an alibi, such as being at Precision Fabric
between 3:00 p.m. and, say, 11:00 p.m. on October 9, 1995, would be
if he had
1376
had someone else murder his wife; isn't that right?
MR. PANOSH: We object. All the evidence is, he got
there at 6:00.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q He was scheduled every other day to be there
between 3:00 and 11:00, wasn't he?
A His regular work time, I understand, was to be
that time, second-shift job. That's what they testified to.
Q And you found out later that Mr. Kimble had
arranged with one of his supervisors to come in at 6:00 p.m. or
thereabouts on the night of October 9th; isn't that right?
A Yeah. I think I heard testimony
to that, as I recall, yes.
Q But you don't know whether anyone
else on earth knew on October 9th that Ted had arranged to be late
at Precision Fabrics, except Ted and the supervisor that he told, do
you?
A Yes, I do.
Q Who else knew that Ted was
scheduled to be -- come in late at Precision Fabrics on October 9th?
A Ted Kimble's mother.
Q And you talked to her about that?
A No. Ted Kimble kept his mother's
dog that day. When he -- when he left Lyles Building Material
shortly after 5:30, he returned the dog to his mother, and then he
went to Precision Fabric.
1377
Q But you have no way of verifying that, do you?
A I can only go by what the Kimbles
said. And also, there was a person there that day that saw that dog
and knew it was there, one of the people that I've already named,
and that the dog was there, he was keeping the dog. Reverend Kimble
was in Lynchburg, Virginia that day.
Q You can only go by what the
Kimbles say; is that right?
MR. PANOSH: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PANOSH: He's answered the question.
THE COURT: He's answered the question, sir.
Q You stated a minute ago that you didn't talk to
Ted Kimble's mother about this dog business, did you?
A I talked very, very little
to Ted Kimble's mother. Never an interview -‑
Q You have no -‑
A -- just a comment here and there.
Q You do not have information,
based upon any interview or conversation you had with Ted Kimble's
mother, as to whether or not he met her at Biscuitville, went
through Mrs. Winner's chicken place with her, had her dog, or
anything else, do you?
A That information -‑
Q You can't verify that based on
anything Mrs. Kimble told you, because you didn't talk to her about
it, did you?
1378
A I don't recall talking to Ms. Kimble about that.
I sure don't.
Q And Mr. Kimble was in Lynchburg, Virginia on
this particular day, wasn't he?
A Yes, I think he was.
THE COURT: You asked that
question repetitively, Mr. Hatfield.
MR. HATFIELD: I don't believe I've ever asked him
before the --
THE COURT: He told you.
MR. HATFIELD: -- whereabouts of Ron Kimble, Sr.
THE COURT: He said that. That's what he just got
through saying.
Q So you don't have any evidence,
independent of what Ted Kimble told you, as to where he was prior to
his reporting to Precision Fabrics that day, do you?
A Yes, I do.
Q What do you have?
A His employee helped him close up
shortly after 5:30.
Q Is that Mr. Swaney?
A No, it's Mr. Ogburn. Mr. Ogburn
was there, saw Ted.
Q But Mr. Ogburn wasn't at the
premises the whole day, was he?
A He left for lunch.
Q That's right. And his car broke
down while he was at
1379
lunch and he was delayed, wasn't he?
A I think he said that, yes, he
did.
Q And furthermore, Mr. Ogburn
didn't tell you -
MR. PANOSH: We object.
Q -- whether there was a dog there or not, did he?
THE COURT: Overruled.
A I don't recall if Mr. Ogburn told
me that or not.
Q And he didn't tell you whether
Mr. Kimble had gone to Mrs. Winner's chicken, did he?
A No, he didn't tell me that. Ted
Kimble told me that.
Q And yet, you told Nancy Young
that the Kimbles had been completely uncooperative with you and
refused to furnish you with any information whatsoever, didn't you?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's been
over and answered. Move on.
Q You previously stated
that, and yet now, the only information that you can give this jury
as to Ted Kimble's whereabouts is stuff Ted Kimble told you; isn't
that right?
MR. PANOSH: Objection. He's
answered that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q And as for Precision Fabrics,
although you think that Ted Kimble reported there around 6:00 or
6:15, you really don't know whether he told anyone, other than his
supervisor at Precision Fabrics, that he'd planned on coming in late
1380
that day, do you?
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
THE COURT: Asked and answered.
Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: I'd like to know
what his answer is. And that'll be my last question.
THE COURT: Do you want to answer it again, sir?
THE WITNESS: I think I'm sort of mixed up on his
question, Judge.
MR. HATFIELD: Maybe the reporter could read the
question back.
THE COURT: Marsha, can you read the last question
back?
(The court reporter read back from
Page 1379, Line 22, to Page 1380, Line 1.)
THE COURT: Answer that question.
A No, I don't.
MR. HATFIELD: Thank you very much.
Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any
additional questions, Mr. Panosh?
MR. PANOSH: Yes,
please.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:
Q In the course of
your investigation, were you able to determine the time of death of
Patricia Kimble?
A Yes.
Q What time?
1381
A Shortly after 4:00 o'clock.
Q Shortly after
4:00 o'clock, where was Theodore Kimble?
A Lyles Building
Material.
Q How are you able
to verify that?
A By employees. And
the defendant, Ronnie Kimble, left
MR. HATFIELD:
Objection. It's not responsive to the question.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
Q Did you verify it
through employees?
A Yes, I did.
MR. PANOSH: May I
approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
Q Showing you now
-‑
MR. HATFIELD:
Objection to this, because Swaney's not testifying, as Mr. Panosh so
eloquently pointed out.
MR. PANOSH: Your
Honor, he was allowed to -‑
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PANOSH: -- read
excerpts.
THE COURT: Proceed.
Q Showing you now
127, what was the key reason that you disregarded the statements of
Mr. Swaney, based upon that interview?
A He told me that
Ted Kimble's father was also at Lyles Building Material that entire
day.
1382
Q And what did you know about
that?
A I knew for
a fact that Ted Kimble's father, Reverend Kimble, was not there that
day, he was in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Q Drawing
your attention to the lab report that you were shown, did you submit
that lab report?
A No, I did not.
Q Was that the only
lab report submitted?
A No. There
were many lab reports submitted, I'm sure.
MR. PANOSH: May
I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
Q You were asked questions about
the witness --
(Mr. Panosh showed exhibits to Mr.
Lloyd.)
Q -- the witness Nicholes. I'm
showing you now State's Exhibits 121 through 124.
A Yes, sir.
Q Are those the
prior statements of the witness Nicholes?
A Yes, they are.
Q Are they
signed by yourself and by the witness Nicholes?
MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your
Honor. We've been over this. Mr. Nicholes has testified in this
case. His testimony speaks for itself.
THE COURT: Well, he's entitled to ask
him that question, whether or not they were signed by both of them.
1383
Q Are they signed and dated?
A Yes, they are.
Q And are these the statements
that Mr. Hatfield asked you a lot of questions about?
MR. HATFIELD: Objection to whether I
asked a lot or a few.
MR. PANOSH: I'll rephrase that.
Q Did he ask you a number of
questions about that?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Are these the statements Mr.
Hatfield referred to in his cross-examination of you?
THE COURT: You may answer that.
A Yes, sir.
MR. PANOSH: Seek to introduce those
into evidence.
MR. LLOYD: Well, we'd object, Your
Honor, on the grounds previously stated. They're -- Mr. Nicholes has
testified at length -‑
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. LLOYD: -- in this case.
THE COURT: You may -- the Court'll
allow the introduction.
MR. PANOSH: May I approach the
witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q Showing you now State's Exhibits
125 and 126.
1384
MR. PANOSH: For the record, Madam
Clerk, that was 121 through 124.
THE CLERK: Yes.
Q What is 125
and 126?
MR. LLOYD: Judge, we object, and ask
to be heard at the bench on this.
THE COURT: Approach
the bench.
(The following
proceedings were had by the Court and all three counsel at the
bench, out of the hearing of the jury.)
THE COURT: What are
Exhibit Numbers 125 and 126?
MR. PANOSH: These are
the photo identifications that he was asked about on
cross-examination.
THE COURT: Taken at
Camp Lejeune?
MR. PANOSH: Yes.
MR. LLOYD: These are
from the witness Tammy Patton, who has not testified in this case.
THE COURT: Well, Mr.
-‑
MR. PANOSH: Which is
exactly -‑
THE COURT: --
Hatfield's already asked him about them.
MR. PANOSH: That's what I pointed out
at the bench.
MR. HATFIELD: I just asked him if he
prepared it.
MR. PANOSH: He asked him if he made
an -- if she made an identification. He said she did make an
1385
identification. He asked if he
communicated that identification to a number of witnesses. He asked
that at least three times, as I recall.
Before they got into
this, I came to the bench, I said this was not the way we should be
going. They've opened the door. The State is now entitled to show
that in fact there was an identification, and that it was a valid
identification. Otherwise, at closing argument, they're going to
argue, "Well, this was some --"
THE COURT: The Court
will allow you to introduce it.
MR. HATFIELD: Excuse
me. I'd like to be heard.
THE COURT: All right,
sir.
MR. HATFIELD: My
purpose of asking whether this lineup was prepared was to show that
as a result of its preparation, he did other things, which was to
communicate with other witnesses. I in no way suggested that this
lineup was either reliable or unreliable or had been utilized to
provide any testimony. Now, I would hate for this Court to allow a
photo lineup, when the witness who supposedly looked at the photo
lineup has not testified in the case. Therefore -‑
THE COURT: Well, you
can call her.
MR. HATFIELD: Well, I
don't have the burden of proof.
1386
THE
COURT: I know, but you've
opened the door for it to come in.
MR. HATFIELD: I did not open the door. I
asked him that, as a result of the roadblock that was set up down
there, did he meet a certain individual, and as a result of meeting
that certain individual, did he communicate things to other people.
THE COURT: The
Court will allow you to ask the witness whether or not the witness
(sic) was in fact identified.
MR. HATFIELD: Wait a minute. She has to
testify. Then it's relevant. Then it's admissible. If she doesn't
testify, then there can be said nothing about it.
MR. PANOSH:
Judge -‑
MR. HATFIELD: If she
testified -‑
THE COURT: Wait a
minute.
MR. PANOSH: Your
Honor, I would agree with his statement of the law, except for the
fact that before they got into this, I came to the bench and I said,
"We are not going to --"
MR. HATFIELD: We're tired of hearing "I,
I, I."
THE
COURT: Well, just don't mention
it in your argument. Keep it out.
MR. HATFIELD:
Thank you.
MR. PANOSH: And your
ruling is that they cannot
1387
refer to the -‑
THE COURT: They cannot refer to what
she may have identified any other person.
MR. PANOSH: Or to the credibility or
lack of credibility -‑
THE COURT: That's
correct.
MR. PANOSH: -- of the
identification?
THE COURT: That's
correct.
MR. LLOYD: Okay.
THE COURT: Leave it
out.
(Proceedings
continued in open court.)
MR. PANOSH: We'd seek to introduce
the diagram that this witness prepared and referred to on direct.
THE COURT: The Court'll allow the
introduction of the diagram.
MR. PANOSH: No
further. Thank you.
THE COURT:
Additional questions, Mr. Hatfield?
RECROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. HATFIELD:
Q With regard to Mr. Swaney, the fact is that you
stated in your report, "Steve appears to me to be of low
intelligence or an LD person," didn't you?
A Yes.
Q And then you stated just a minute ago that the
reason that you thought he was unreliable was also that he had said
that Ted Kimble's father was at Lyles that day and you knew
1388
he wasn't; isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q But now, you say that he is
reliable, because based on what he says, Ted either was there or
wasn't there; isn't that right?
A I think I was referring to
James Ogburn, the other employee. Mr. Swaney left before Ted Kimble
and James Ogburn left.
MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, then I move that this
Swaney business be withdrawn. It's obvious that everyone
misunderstood what he said.
THE COURT: Well, I think -- the
Court'll deny your request. I think the jury heard what they heard.
Q So, based on Swaney's --
whatever it was Swaney said to you, you have no idea whether Ted
stayed there all day or not, do you?
A Based on what Mr. Swaney said,
his information is not reliable. That's what I've already stated.
Q And you don't know whether Ted
stayed there all day or not, based on Swaney, do you?
A Not based on Swaney, I don't.
Q Where is Swaney?
A I have no idea.
Q Have you seen him lately?
A I've met Mr. Swaney one time, and
that's when that
1389
report was done.
MR. HATFIELD: Thank you very much.
No further questions.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:
Q Based upon what
Mr. Ogburn told you --
MR. HATFIELD: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q -- where was -‑
MR. HATFIELD:
Objection, Your Honor. Mr. Ogburn has not testified in this case.
THE COURT: Well, you asked him about
that, and he's testified as to how Mr. Ogburn fit into this.
You may ask the
question, sir.
Q Based upon what
Mr. Ogburn told you, where was Theodore Kimble from the 4:00
o'clock, until 5:30, when Lyles was closed?
MR. HATFIELD:
Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A He was at Lyles
Building Material.
MR. PANOSH: No
further.
FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
by MR. HATFIELD:
Q Is Mr. Ogburn going to
testify in this case?
THE COURT: He has no way of knowing
that.
A I don't know.
THE COURT: Don't answer, sir. You
don't have to
1390
answer.
Sustained. That's the State's responsibility, who
they want to call.
Q Mr. Ogburn participated in the conspiracy with
Pardee, Nicholes and Ted Kimble, to receive and cover the ownership
facts of stolen merchandise; isn't that right?
A Mr. Hatfield, I did not
work that stolen property case. To answer your question, I think Mr.
Ogburn had knowledge of what was going on and did, as an employee at
Lyles Building Material, follow his -- Ted's advice and handle some
of the property. There's no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Ogburn was
involved in any thefts, any conspiracy, or any unlawful act with Ted
Kimble.
Q You said that there's no evidence
whatsoever that Ogburn was involved in any conspiracy or unlawful
act with Ted Kimble?
A Not to me.
Q But -‑
A I did not work those cases.
Q But you know as a fact that Mr.
-‑
MR. PANOSH: Now he's arguing with the witness.
Q -- Mr. Ogburn -‑
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q -- sawed up stolen two-by-fours
and two-by-eights and other structural wood pieces, so that they
could not be
1391
recognized, either by the law-enforcement people or
by their owners; isn't that right?
A Yes, I know that.
Q And he removed bar graphs from
stolen merchandise, didn't he?
A Yes, I know that he did that.
Q And he sawed color codes off
stolen merchandise, didn't he?
A I'm not sure about that.
Q He -‑
A He did what?
Q -- intentionally and knowingly
obliterated the identification marks of numerous items of stolen
property, didn't he?
A I don't recall about that now.
Q And he has worked continuously at
Lyles Building Supply since the days when Gary Lyles owned that
business, hasn't he?
A No.
Q Didn't Mr. Ogburn work there when
Gary Lyles owned the business?
A Not to my knowledge. I thought,
to my understanding, Ted Kimble hired him in the late summer of
1995.
Q So Mr. Ogburn was there before
Patricia died; is that correct?
1392
A Yes.
Q And he's there today, isn't he?
A So far as I know, sir. I don't
know where he's at.
Q He has remained continuously
employed there throughout that period; isn't that right?
A To the best of my
knowledge, that -- he has been gainfully employed at a place called
Lyles Building Material.
Q And there are no felony charges pending against
Mr. Ogburn in consequence of his repeated knowing attempts to
obliterate the identification marks on stolen goods -‑
MR. PANOSH: Objection.
Q -- are there?
THE COURT: Sustained to the form of
the question.
Q Isn't it a fact that he has not
in any way been prosecuted for his crimes and misdeeds in
association with Patrick Pardee, Rob Nicholes and Ted Kimble?
MR. PANOSH: Assumes facts not in
evidence. Object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HATFIELD: They're all in evidence.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q He stole that stuff, and he
did it with Ted, Pardee --
THE COURT: Objection sustained. You may ask him if he
made any further indictments against Mr. Ogburn and he
1393
may answer that.
Q Has he been charged?
THE COURT: Has he been charged, sir?
THE WITNESS: Not that I know of.
THE COURT: He's answered it.
Q Has he not been charged because
you want to be sure he testifies the way you hope he'll testify?
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q Have you entered into some kind
of an understanding with Mr. Ogburn that he won't be charged if
he'll tow the line in this case?
A No, sir.
MR. HATFIELD: Thank you.
THE COURT:
Additional questions, Mr. Panosh?
MR. PANOSH: No further.
THE COURT: Step down,
sir.
(The witness left the
witness stand.)
|
