PWC Consulting


                  

Ronnie Lee Kimble 

                                                  

 Home   v  Search

 Timeline  v  Case File  v  Trial Record  v  Media Coverage

 

 

 

 

Chad Sibert, Witness for the State


 

THE COURT: Do you have a short witness, Mr. Panosh?

MR. PANOSH: I would hope to have two between now and lunch.

Mr. Sibert.

THE COURT: Come around.

You may stand and stretch, if you'd like, members of the jury. Stand up and take a stretch.


1394

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

Q    State your name, sir.

A    Chad Sibert.

Q    And your occupation, sir?

A    I'm a detective with the Guilford County Sheriff's Department.

Q    How long have you been a detective there, sir?

A    Since October of 1991.

Q    And in the course of your duties, did you assist Detective Church in going to the Camp Lejeune area and conducting certain interviews in reference to the death of Patricia Kimble?

A    I did.

Q    And did you on March the 4th of 1997 interview Ms. Jackson, who was then Louise Cato?

A    Yes.

MR. PANOSH: May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

Q    Showing you now Number 104, do you recognize that?

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, I would object to this. Ms. Jackson has testified. The jury heard her testimony. I don't know what the purpose of this witness's testimony is.

THE COURT: Overruled at this point.

Q    Did you take her statement?


1395

A    I did.

Q    And is 104 her statement?

A    This is the SBI statement.

Q    All right. Do you have her statement from that day?

A    I do.

Q    Okay. So, you reduced it to writing, and the SBI did, also?

A    Correct.

Q    Let me change that then. 104 is now marking your report; is that correct?

A    Yes.

Q    Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what Ms. Jackson, who was then Louise Cato, told you.

MR. LLOYD: Well, object, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Members of the jury, this is being offered for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of a witness who's already testified. It'll be for you to say and determine whether it does in fact so corroborate her testimony. It's not being offered for the truth or falsity of the statement, but whether or not she in fact made the statement.

A    Ms. Jackson, at that time when I spoke to her, she was Ms. Cato, told me that she was aware of Patricia Kimble's death, that it was common knowledge in the office --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. She has --


1396

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HATFIELD: -- already fully --

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HATFIELD: -- testified, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Please continue.

A    While she said that Ronnie Kimble had never spoken to her directly about Patricia Kimble's death, she did have occasion to overhear Ronnie Kimble speaking with a Natalie Kelly. Ms. Cato was present in the same room at the time that conversation took place, and that she overheard Ronnie Kimble telling Ms. Kelly that he was the last person to have seen Patricia Kimble, that he had gone by the house, her house, Ms. Kimble's house, to either pick something up or drop something off, Ms. Cato couldn't recall which.

Q    In the course of your duties, did you also interview Mr. Dziadaszek on October the 5th of 1997?

MR. LLOYD: Well, object to this as well, Your Honor. He's testified as well.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    Yes, I did.

Q    Showing you Number --

MR. LLOYD: We would request the instruction on this.

THE COURT: Again, members of the jury, this is


1397

being offered for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of an earlier witness. It will be for you to say and determine whether or not 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 he in fact made that statement on that occasion.

Q    Showing you Number 105, is that the statement?

A    Yes, it is.

Q    And what did Mr. Dziadaszek tell you at that time?

A    Mr. Dziadaszek told us that he had had a conversation with Ronnie Kimble on the 4th, at which time he had told Ronnie Kimble that we had been there on the 4th and spoken with Mr. Dziadaszek. Mr. Dziadaszek told me that he'd advised Ronnie Kimble of the substance of our conversation on the 4th, specifically, that Dziadaszek had told me that Ronnie Kimble had told Dziadaszek that Kimble was at Ted's house at 4:00 o'clock on the day of the murder.

Q    And what did Ronnie reply?

A    Mr. Dziadaszek stated that Kimble raised his voice and said, "What are you trying to do, get me convicted?"

Dziadaszek also stated that Kimble then went on to tell him that in fact what Ronnie had told Dziadaszek was that he had dropped off Ted's truck at 4:00 o'clock at the business, not at the house, and that a lady had identified him as being near the business at 6:20. Dziadaszek said that his


1398

understanding of what Ronnie told him was that Ronnie had dropped the truck off at Ted's house and had been identified as being near the residence.

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we'd seek to introduce 104 and 105.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

MR. LLOYD: We'd object, Your Honor.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, Dziadaszek's testimony in particular is very unclear. He's threatened with perjury by these people --

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

MR. HATFIELD: -- and will he admit it, and which he'll testify to again. But his testimony is not corroborable by this, because that's not what he said. And he said that there was confusion over whether the references to Ted's meant the business or the home, and it's -- I don't-think that they can use a prior statement of his that he no longer says is accurate, when it doesn't corroborate the statement that he gave on the witness stand. They're just trying to put words in his mouth.

THE COURT: It'll be for the jury to determine. The Court's already ruled. It's for corroborative purposes only, members of the jury. The Court'll allow the introduction for that purpose only.

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, I've misnumbered.


1399

There's already a 104 and 105. Can I change that to 128 and 129?

Is that correct, Madam Clerk?

THE CLERK: Yes, sir.

MR. LLOYD: What is Mrs. Jackson's statement.

MR. PANOSH: 128 will be Louise Cato, now Jackson. 129 will be --

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, Mrs. Cato's statement contains inflammatory material that's not admissible under 403.

MR. PANOSH: We'll agree that it be redacted at the appropriate time.

MR. HATFIELD: Yes. Thank you.

THE COURT: Questions?

MR. LLOYD: Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. LLOYD:

Q    Now, Mr. Sibert, did you indicate on direct examination that you wrote up both of these interviews?

A    Yes.

Q    All right. Do you have your initial notes that you took on that?

A    I still have them. I do not have them with me.

Q    You do not have them with you?

A    No, sir.

Q    Are they where you could get them?


1400

A    They're at the sheriff's department.

Q    That's what you used to write up your report, is it not?

A    Correct.

Q    All right. So you wrote up the typewritten report that you've referred to, that Mr. Panosh has introduced into evidence in both these cases, based on your handwritten notes; is that right?

A    That's correct.

Q    Did you take these notes contemporaneously with what the witnesses were telling you --

A    Yes.

Q    -- or did you --

A    As they --

Q    -- take them later on?

A    No, as they were talking.

Q    All right. So, then, later, when you got back to the sheriff's department, you used those notes to write up your report; is that right?

A    That's correct.

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, in light of that, I would ask that the witness get his notes and we resume cross-examination after the lunch recess.

THE COURT: All right, sir.

You may step down, sir.


1401

(The witness left the witness stand.)

MR. PANOSH: Do you want me to do the other witness?

THE COURT: Pardon?

MR. PANOSH: Do you want me to do the other witness?

THE COURT: You told me this was going to be a short witness. It's taken 15 minutes.

MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: No. We're going to take the lunch break.

MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Recall him back after lunch.

Members of the jury, we'll take our lunch recess. You need to be back at 2:00 o'clock. Report to the jury room at that time. Again, remember your jury responsibility sheet. Have a good lunch, and I'll see you at that time. (The jury left the courtroom at 12:27 p.m.)

THE COURT: You may declare a recess until 2:00 p.m., sheriff.

(A recess was taken at 12:28 p.m.)

(Court reconvened at 2:05 p.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?


1402

MR. PANOSH: No, Your Honor.

(The jury entered the courtroom at 2:06 p.m.)

THE COURT: Well, I hope you had a nice lunch period and feeling okay. Anyone having any problems this afternoon, if you'll raise your hand, I'll talk to you about that.

Okay. The State call its next witness, please.

MR. PANOSH: I believe we were in the middle of cross-examination --

THE COURT: Oh, that's right.

MR. PANOSH: -- of Mr. Sibert.

THE COURT: You're right.

Come back, Mr. Sibert.

(The witness Chad Sibert returned to the witness stand.)

CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. LLOYD:

Q    Mr. Sibert, you've indicated that -- in your direct examination that you did an interview with Officer Jackson or Mrs. Jackson, who testified earlier in this case; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    All right. Now, Mrs. Jackson indicated to you that she overheard a conversation involving Ronnie Kimble and a woman she worked with, by the name of Natalie Kelly; is that right?

A    That's correct.


1403

Q    All right. And did she tell you, Detective Sibert, that that conversation took place in Mrs. Kelly's office?

A    Ms. Cato stated that she was in the office. She didn't specify whose office it was.

Q    Okay. But she did not specifically tell you it was Mrs. Kelly's office, but she just said "the office"; is that right?

A    She said the office where he was talking to Natalie Kelly.

Q    And she indicated to you in the course of what she told you she overheard this conversation?

A    Correct.

Q    All right. So that would imply to you that it certainly was not Mrs. Jackson's office; is that right?

A    I wouldn't assume that. She indicated that they knew she was present and continued.

Q    Okay. I understand that. Now, did you talk to Mrs. Kelly, after you talked to Mrs. Jackson?

A    No, I did not.

Q    So you were not able to verify from Mrs. Kelly whether this conversation took place and what was said, were you?

A    No. I was not able to --

Q    All right.

A    -- speak with Ms. Kelly.

Q    Now, this, I believe, was on March the 4th; is that


1404

right?

A    Yes.

Q    And you and other investigators were interviewing a number of witnesses down at the Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune; is that right?

A    I believe I interviewed four people --

Q    All right.

A    -- during that trip.

Q    But there were other law-enforcement people down there who were interviewing other potential witnesses, as well; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    All right. So there were a number of people at Camp Lejeune who were interviewed?

A    Yes.

Q    All right. Now, did Mrs. Jackson tell you when she allegedly overheard this statement?

A    She didn't mention the date or a time, no.

Q    Did you specifically ask her about that?

A    I don't recall asking her. It would have been on the course of an interview, to try to pin somebody down as to date and time. She may not have remembered. In my notes, just that she stated on one occasion, she overheard a conversation.

Q    Okay. But your normal procedure, of course, would be


1405

to ask a witness about dates and times --

A    Yes.

Q    -- is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    All right. So you probably did that on this occasion; is that what your testimony is?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    All right. But you got no response that you indicated?

A    I wouldn't say I got no response. She evidently did not remember --

Q    All right.

A    -- a date or a time.

Q    Okay. Now, did you talk to Mrs. Jackson or any of the other people that you interviewed about perjury or anything like that, detective?

A    No, sir.

Q    All right. Do you know if anyone else interviewed Mrs. Kelly?

A    I'm not aware of anybody interviewing Ms. Kelly, no.

Q    Now, you also indicated in your direct examination that you questioned Mr. James Dziadaszek; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    Did you question him specifically, detective, on what was meant by the term "Ted's," when he said in his statement that Ronnie had left the box truck at Ted's?


1406

A    He didn't say Ted's, he said Ted's house.

Q    Ted's house. And what your notes indicate -- Well, strike that. Now, you interviewed Mr. Dziadaszek on another occasion, as well as the first occasion; is that right?

A    I interviewed him on March 4th and on March 5th.

Q    All right. Do you know how many times James Dziadaszek was interviewed by law-enforcement officers?

A    No, I do not.

Q    All right. Was that the fourth or fifth interview that was done of Mr. Dziadaszek?

A    I believe this was the first time he had been spoken to

Q    All right.

A    -- by our office.

Q    Do you know if he was interviewed by naval intelligence investigators?

A    He may have been, but I'm not aware of the specific instance.

Q    Now, in Mr. Dziadaszek's statement, you indicated that Ronnie Kimble, to Mr. Dziadaszek, had never confirmed or denied guilt?

A    Dziadaszek told me that Ronnie Kim had never admitted to or denied being involved in the death, yes.

Q    All right. Now, did you specifically phrase a question to Mr. Dziadaszek along those lines?


1407

A    I don't believe that -- I don't remember the exact words I used, something along the lines "Did Mr. Kimble ever tell you anything about the case? Did he ever admit any involvement in it?"

Q    Okay. So your question to him was, did Mr. Ronnie Kimble ever admit any involvement in the case; is that right?

A    I don't recall my specific words, but I believe it was along those lines, yes.

Q    All right. And what you wrote in your notes, as far as James Dziadaszek's response, was that he indicated to you that Ronnie Kimble had never confirmed or denied guilt; is that right?

A    That's correct.

Q    Did you -- it was not your impression, from the answer that he gave you, detective, that he was telling you that Ronnie Kimble was in any way admitting any involvement in Patricia Kimble's death, was he?

A    I didn't form an impression either way. I was simply recording what he told us.

Q    All right. But he never told you that "Ronnie Kimble has told me that yes, I had something to do with Patricia Kimble's death"?

A    No.

Q    He never told you anything like "Ronnie Kimble had said


1408

yes, I had something to do with my sister-in-law's death"?

A    No.

Q    And Mr. Dziadaszek never gave you any reason to believe that, did he, that Ronnie Kimble had made any such statements as that to you?

A    Again, I don't believe I formed an impression either way.

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

MR. PANOSH: No further.

THE COURT: Step down, sir. (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.