PWC Consulting


                  

Ronnie Lee Kimble 

                                                  

 Home   v  Search

 Timeline  v  Case File  v  Trial Record  v  Media Coverage

 

 

 

 

Louise Jackson, Witness for the State


 

857

MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1998

(Court convened at 10:03 a.m. The defendant was present. The jury was not present.)

MR. HATFIELD: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. LLOYD: Good morning.

THE COURT: Any matters we need to take care of before we bring the jury in?

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, two of our witnesses are delayed because of a plane problem, and we're trying to regroup.

THE COURT: Are you ready to proceed with witnesses?

MR. PANOSH: We're ready to proceed at this time, and hopefully they'll be coming in shortly.

THE COURT: All right.

(The jury entered the courtroom at 10:04 a.m.)

THE COURT: I'm very pleased to have the jury panel back. I hope each of you had a nice weekend and feeling okay. Anyone on the jury 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. The State ready to proceed?

MR. PANOSH: Yes.

THE COURT: Call your next witness, please.


858

MR. PANOSH: Ms. Jackson, please. Ms. Jackson, please, come up.

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

Q    Would you state your name, please.

A    Louise Jackson.

Q    And Ms. Jackson, where are you employed?

A    United States Navy, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

Q    And specifically, what portion of the Navy are you assigned to? What is your duty station or assignment, please?

A    HS Battalion, Second FSSG, the group chaplain's office.

Q    And in your duties in the group chaplain's office, do you service Navy and Marine personnel?

A    Yes.

Q    And that's at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina?

A    Yes.

Q    In the course of your duties there at the group chaplain's office, did there come a time when you met or became familiar with the defendant, Ronnie Kimble?

A    Yes.

Q    Would you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how you came to know him.

A    When I was assigned to Marine Corps base chaplain's office, at the time Lance Corporal Kimble was in the Marine


859

Corps, he came as a chaplain's assistant, to work at the base chaplain's office.

Q    And in the course of those duties, how long did you know him? How many months?

A    I guess it was maybe a year or a little over.

Q    Did there come a time when you were aware of the fact that his sister-in-law had been killed?

A    Yes.

Q    And did there come a time when you heard him discussing that fact?

A    Yes.

Q    And what, if anything, do you recall the defendant saying in reference to the death of his sister-in-law?

A    I had gone into another lady's office that I work with, and he was in there with her, and what I recall is that he had gone by to pick something up or drop something off, and that he was the last one to actually have seen her.

Q    He was the last person to actually see who?

A    His sister-in-law on that day.

Q    Do you remember the details of that conversation? Do you remember any other details of that conversation?

A    That he -- the -- where the sister-in-law had been in the room, and that there was a tool chest of something that was in the same area, and that perhaps somebody had came to rob the house, but something scared them off and they ran


860

out.

Q    Do you remember when you heard him saying these things in relationship to her death?

A    No, I do not recall that, when it was.

Q    Was it -- could you give an estimate, whether it was weeks or months after the death?

A    It had been months.

MR. PANOSH: May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Mr. Panosh showed an exhibit to Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Panosh and Mr. Lloyd conferred.)

Q    Did there come a time when you were interviewed by officers of the Guilford County Sheriff's Department and the State Bureau of Investigation?

A    Yes.

Q    And showing you now State's Number 104, did you give a statement to those officers?

A    Yes.

Q    Have you had a chance to review that statement, prior to your testimony?

A    Yes.

Q    And is that accurate?

A    Yes.

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we'd seek to introduce State's 104.


861

MR. LLOYD: Well, we'd object strenuously, Your Honor. Her testimony speaks for herself. If Mr. Panosh wants to refresh her recollection of the statement, he's entitled to do that. But it's raw hearsay, and it -- it doesn't have anything to do what she's told this jury on the witness stand. Now, if there's anything in the statement that Mr. Panosh wants to bring out, if he wants to --

THE COURT: Let me see the statement, sir. Do you have a copy of the statement?

(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: Objection sustained.

MR. PANOSH: No further questions of this witness. Thank you.

THE COURT: You may cross-examine the witness.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. LLOYD:

Q    Now, Ms. Jackson, you indicated on direct examination that you came into another lady's office, where you heard some sort of conversation between Ronnie Kimble and the other lady; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    So you were basically not a party to this conversation, were you?


862

A    No.

Q    All right. So you were just sort of on the periphery overhearing the conversation; is that right?

A    I was in the office, in the same office.

Q    All right. And who was this individual that Ronnie Kimble was talking to?

A    Ms. Kelly.

Q    All right. And what is her first name?

A    Natalie.

Q    And of course, this conversation was not a big part of your day that day, was it?

A    No.

Q    All right. So you just sort of heard it in passing, and didn't even think it was very important at the time that you heard it, did you?

A    Not that I didn't think it was important. It was just -- it piqued my curiosity.

Q    All right. And you didn't -- it wasn't like you went straight back to your office and started writing up a description of the conversation or anything like that?

A    No, I did not.

Q    You just went about your duties as you always did that day, and did your job, didn't you?

A    Yes.

Q    Didn't even give the conversation much of a thought

 


863

after that?

A    No.

Q    Now, Ms. Kelly, you've said that -- I mean, excuse me, Ms. Jackson, you've said that this was some months after the death of Patricia Kimble, Ronnie Kimble's sister-in-law; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    How long was it after you heard this conversation between Ms. Kelly and Ronnie Kimble that the officers came and interviewed you?

A    Maybe a month or two.

Q    All right. So it was somewhere around a month or two since the time you first heard the conversation?

A    Yes.

Q    And you never had written anything down about the conversation, had you?

A    No.

Q    Basically, you didn't really give it much thought, until the detectives or whoever it was that interviewed you talked to you about it; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    All right.

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, may I approach and just look at the exhibit that Mr. Panosh --

THE COURT: Yes, you may.


864

(Mr. Lloyd picked up the exhibit from the witness stand. Time was allowed for Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd placed the exhibit on the witness stand.)

Q    Ms. Jackson, I ask you if you remember that the statement that you gave to the detectives was done on -- in early March of 1997?

MR. PANOSH: We object. We don't object to the

statement coming in, but not piecemeal.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LLOYD: I'm just asking about the time, Your

Honor. I'm not asking about anything

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LLOYD: -- in the statement.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer that.

Q    You can answer that, Ms. Jackson.

A    Could you repeat it.

Q    Did you give the statement to the detectives in early March of 1997?

A    According to the paperwork that I've seen, it was dated March. Now, I don't recall the actual date that I was in there.

Q    So if Patricia Kimble was murdered on October the 9th of 1995, that would have been more than a year after she had been murdered; is that right?


865

A    That is correct.

Q    All right. And as far as your recollection goes, when did you hear this conversation between Ronnie Kimble and Mrs. Kelly?

A    I don't recall the date of when I actually heard that particular conversation.

Q    You've indicated it was about a matter of months. Starting with the date of October 9, 1995, when Patricia Kimble was murdered, do you think that this conversation you overheard between Ronnie Kimble and Mrs. Kelly was by early 1996?

A    No, I don't. Not '96. As I said, it was months after the death that I heard the conversation --

Q    All right.

A    -- with him and Mrs. Kelly. It was some months.

Q    All right. And Mrs. Jackson, this individual that you've spoken of, this Natalie Kelly, does she work in the chaplain's office?

A    Yes.

Q    What is her job there?

A    She's the fiscal clerk.

Q    And what does that mean?

A    She deals with the money for the chaplain's office.

Q    Okay. So is she -- now, would she be in charge of payroll, for example?


866

A    No, she is not in charge of payroll. The payroll for things that are dealing with the command religious program.

Q    Okay. And if you know, Ms. Jackson, how long has Mrs. Kelly been there?

A    I would say over 10 years.

Q    All right. And is she a Marine or a Navy enlisted person, or is she a civilian employee?

A    She's a civilian

All right.

A    -- employee.

MR. LLOYD: That's all I have, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Ma'am, do you recall if you were interviewed on one or more occasions?

A    One.

Q    And was that -- drawing your attention to the statements that you heard, that Mr. Kimble made, do you remember anything else about those statements? Let me just do something.

MR. PANOSH: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, this is beyond the scope of cross-examination.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q    You said you do recall this statement?


867

A    Yes.

Q    Okay. Drawing your attention to the last paragraph of Page 1 and the first sentence of Page 2, would you review that, please.

(Mr. Panosh handed an exhibit to the witness, and time was allowed for the witness.)

A    Okay.

Q    Having reviewed that, do you recall anything else that Mr. Kimble said in reference to this incident?

A    Well, it was a question that I had asked, due to the fact that he said that him and his brother had been asked questions by the police department pertaining to the murder, and that they didn't have anything to do with it. So I asked, you know, why would they be harassing them, and was there some large sum of insurance involved, and he stated no.

Q    So you participated in the conversation and you actually asked questions and spoke to Mr. Kimble?

A    I did.

Q    And he stated there was no large amount of insurance?

A    Yes.

MR. PANOSH: No further questions.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. LLOYD:

Q    And Ms. Jackson, was Ms. Kelly present when this statement was supposedly made?


868

A    Yes, she was.

Q    So she would have heard that statement, if it had been made; is that correct?

A    Yes.

Q    And Ms. Jackson, you've indicated that you were the one who asked the question of Ronnie Kimble, was there a large sum of insurance --

A    Yes.

Q    -- is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    And this was something that just came to you in the course of this conversation; is that correct?

A    With him saying that, you know, they had been asked questions by the police department, and, you know, they had nothing to do with it, so --

Q    And so -- I didn't mean to cut you off. Do you have anything else to say?

A    That was one of the questions that was raised in my mind, you know, as far as them being harassed by the police department and asking them questions, and they didn't have anything to do with it.

Q    And so, you automatically assumed that the motive in this case was insurance; is that correct?

A    Well, with harassment, being harassed by the police department, or whoever it was asking the questions.


869

Q    And that immediately brought into your mind the motive of insurance money?

A    Yes.

Q    All right.

MR. LLOYD: That's all I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Step down, ma'am.

Next witness, please.

You may step down, Ms. Jackson.

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, may she be excused?

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. LLOYD: No objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may be excused, Ms. Jackson. (The witness left the witness stand.)

 

 

 

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

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