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.)
|