Next witness, please.

MR. PANOSH: Mr. Reilly, come up, please.

GARY REILLY, having been previously duly sworn, testified as follows during DIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Would you state your name, sir.

A    Gary Reilly.

Q    And Mr. Reilly, what is your occupation?

A    I'm an investigator for Zurich Insurance Company.

Q    And Zurich Insurance Company is owned by whom?

A    Well, Maryland Insurance Group is the company that I worked for at the time of this incident, and they are owned-by Zurich Insurance Company.

Q    In the course of your duties, in October of 1995, did you undertake to investigate a house fire which occurred at Brandon Station Court in the city of Greensboro?

A    That's correct.

Q    And in the course of your duties, on October the 16th of 1995, did there come a time when you interviewed Mr. Ted Kimble?

A    That's correct.

935

Q    And did you reduce that interview to writing?

A    Yes, sir, I did.

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, may we approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

(The following proceedings were had by the Court and all three counsel at the bench, out of the hearing of the jury.)

MR. LLOYD: Judge, Mr. Panosh has just shown me an exhibit which is an interview of Ted Kimble. He's given us this in discovery, so I don't have any objections on that part of it. But he's got it marked as an exhibit, and I fear that he's going to do like the last ones and offer it for its admission. He certainly -- I mean, we would object for the record to statements of Ted Kimble coming in on this trial. But assuming that the Court is going to rule consistent with what it has in the past, and we don't abandon that objection, then obviously he can ask -- based on the Court's prior ruling, he can ask this witness questions about what Ted Kimble said to him, and this witness can respond. But when we get into the whole interview, Your Honor, that's certainly not admissible.

The real problem with it is, Judge, then in closing argument, Mr. Panosh is allowed to stand up and read from the interview verbatim, and the jury knows that, Your Honor, and they're going to put much more weight in that than they did to the witness's actual testimony, which is

936

the real evidence in this case.

I mean, certainly we're at a disadvantage in this case, because we don't have any basis to cross-examine the declarant, Ted Kimble, as to whether or not he said those things or what he meant when he said those things. We're -­and we're even at a further disadvantage, Your Honor, we can't cross-examine the transcript. So I've -- without abandoning the initial objection to the statements of Ted Kimble coming in, even through the witness on oral testimony, we certainly --

THE COURT: I don't know what's in the transcript either, so I'm at a disadvantage, too.

What's the line of questioning?

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, it's a 40-page transcript, and it's taken seven days after the death of Patricia Kimble. And in that, Theodore Kimble goes through his day, and explains where he was, and never once mentions being with Ronnie Kimble. He never mentions that he had a brother, Ronnie Kimble. He goes through and identifies all the other members of his family, in-laws family, friends, associates, employees, but never once mentions Ronnie Kimble. The State's theory is that that's because he didn't want law-enforcement officers, this investigator included, from having their attention being drawn to Ronnie Kimble.

MR. LLOYD: The other thing I have a problem with,

937

Your Honor, if we're talking about the whole 40-page transcript coming in, it covers all sorts of things. I mean, it covers gratuitous comments between the witness and Ted Kimble about what you tell your wife and how you --

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor --

MR. LLOYD: -- can't please women.

MR. PANOSH: -- I could shortcut this. I'll do it question by question, if that's the way they prefer. But he can't be expected --

THE COURT: The Court'll sustain the objection to a question by question. The Court will -- I think what you've said is okay, if you don't go any further with it. (Proceedings continued in open court.)

Q    (By Mr. Panosh) Showing you then State's Exhibit Number 109, do you recognize 109?

A    That's correct.

Q    What is that, sir?

A    It's a recorded statement I took from Ted Kimble. It's a transcribed version of it.

Q    What day did you take this statement, sir?

A    October 16, 1995.

Q    Where did you take it?

A    At the -- at Ted -- at Ted Kimble's place of business, at the lumber yard. It was a small office, outside of his main office.

938

Q    And did you record that and later have it transcribed?

A    That's correct.

Q    Now, I take it you can't remember every detail of that statement, of your own independent recollection?

A    That's correct.

Q    Drawing your attention then to State's Number 109, would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how you introduced yourself to Mr. Ted Kimble.

A    Well, I told Mr. Kimble -- Let's see --

MR. LLOYD: Well, Your Honor, we'd object for the record as to statements of Ted Kimble coming out in this trial against his brother, Ronnie Kimble.

THE COURT: Again, remember, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that these statements by Ted Kimble would not be admissible against this defendant, unless you should find that there was a conspiracy between Ted Kimble and Ronnie Kimble, and that these statements were in furtherance of that conspiracy.

Proceed.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

A    On the statement, I have -- I introduced myself as a Gary Reilly from Maryland Casualty Insurance Company.

Q    And in the course of that first portion of the statement, were you able to identify who his wife was?

A    That's correct.

939

Q    Who was that?

A    It's a Patricia Anne (sic) Blakley or Kimble.

Q    Okay. And thereafter, were you able to determine who owned the address at 2104 Brandon Station Court, the subject of your investigation?

A    That's correct.

Q    Who owned it?

A    Patricia G. Kimble.

Q    And in the course of your interview, did you ask him how long they'd been married?

A    Yes, sir, I did.

Q    And what did he tell you?

A    Been married for two years.

Q    And did he tell you whether or not she owned the home prior to meeting -- to Ted Kimble meeting her?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And what was that response?

A    He advised that she had owned the house prior to him meeting her.

Q    On Page 3 of your statement there, did there come a time when you asked him to give you a synopsis of his activities of October the 19th -- October the 9th of 1995?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And what did he tell you?

A    He indicated that he arrived at work at 8:00 o'clock in

940

the morning and left work at 5:30, work being the lumber yard. And he went over to his mother's house, to drop the dog off, and then responded to another job that he had, in which he arrived there at 6:00 o'clock at night.

Q    Did he give you the name of that job?

A    Yes, sir, he did.

Q    And what was that name?

A    Precision Fabrics.

Q    And on Page 4, did he identify for you the lead man that could verify his arrival there?

A    That's correct. Mike.

Q    And on Page 4, did he -- did you ask him what the normal working hours were for Lyles Building Supply?

A    Yes, sir, I did.

Q    And what was the normal working business hours?

A    It says they opened at -- on weekdays 8:00 to 5:30, and then on Sundays, 8:00 to 1:00 -- I'm sorry, Saturdays, 8:00 to 1:00.

Q    And did he indicate what time he closed the business at Lyles, in order to go to his second job?

A    Yes, sir. He said at 5:30.

Q    On the top of Page 5, did you ask him who was present with him on that day?

A    Yes, sir, I did.

Q    And who did he identify?

941

A    Subject by the name of James. There was two employees. One by the name of James. I think the other one was Steve. If I can find it in here.

(Time was allowed for the witness.)

Q    Now, in the course of that interview, when he indicated to you who was present on October the 9th of 1995, did he ever indicate that his brother, Ronnie Kimble, was present?

A    No, sir.

Q    At the time that you were conducting this interview, were you aware that he had a brother?

A    I don't believe so.

Q    Now, in the course of your interview, on Page 5, did you ask him how he was notified of the fire?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    And what did he tell you?

A    He indicated that he tried to page his wife, she wasn't-returning his page, so he contacted his brother-in-law, and asked his brother-in-law to go by the house and see if everything was all right.

Q    And on Page 6, did he identify his brother-in-law?

A    Yes, sir, he did. It was --

Q    Did he give you his brother-in-law's name?

A    Reuben Blakley.

Q    Did he give you the address or neighborhood that Mr. Blakley lived in?

942

A    Yes, sir, he did.

Q    Did he indicate to you how far Mr. Reuben Blakley's home was from the home that burned?

A    Yes, sir. Approximately five miles.

Q    Did he indicate to you who he spoke with, in addition to Reuben Blakley?

A    Yes, sir. He indicated some people at work.

Q    And at the time that he was notified of the fire, did he indicate who he spoke to besides Reuben Blakley?

A    I'm sorry. One more time.

Q    Page 6, in the middle of the page, when you're referring to who paged him, did he indicate who paged him?

A    Yes, sir. He said his sister-in-law.

Q    Okay. And did he also indicate to you that he spoke to his sister-in-law's mother?

A    Yes, sir. Yes, sir. He said -- he said that he spoke to his sister-in-law's mother.

Q    On Page 7 of your interview, did he identify for you who his father was --

A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- and where his father was on that day?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And where did he indicate his father was on that day? A Liberty Uni-- I think it was Liberty University, at a meeting.

943

Q    Did you go on to ask him if he stored any flammables in the house, on Page 9?

A    Yes, sir, I did.

Q    And what did he tell you?

A    He said not that he is aware of.

Q    Did you then ask him if he had gasoline at the -- if he had gasoline at the house?

A    Yes, sir. He indicated he did not.

Q    And what did he say specifically?

A    He said there was an empty five-gallon gas can found in the kitchen, which at one time was kept in the garage.

Q    Did you ask him when he had last filled that particular gas can?

A    Yes, sir. He said last month.

Q    And on Page 10, did you again at the bottom of the page go into his working day?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And what did he tell you?

A    I asked him if he was working at the lumber yard until 5:30, and if he stayed there the whole time. He said yes, sir, he did. He indicated that he was there every minute, which was unusual, because normally he would be running around town picking up supplies, but on this particular day, because his father was out of town, he wanted -- he needed to stay near the shop. He had problems with people stealing

944

money from him, so he wanted to stay at the shop and keep an eye on things.

He also indicated that he usually goes to lunch with his wife, but could not do that on this particular day, because he had to stay at the shop. So he stayed there from 8:30 in the morning till 5:30.

Q    On Page 11, did you then ask him about his regular employees?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Who did you tell you were his regular employees?

A    He said he has one at that time, who was Tim.

Q    Did he indicate that he had another regular employee, on that same page?

A    That's correct. Steve.

Q    Did you ask him what his father's association was with the business?

A    Yes, sir, I did.

Q    And what did he tell you?

A    He indicated that he just works for Ted part-time.

Q    Did you ask him on Page 12 who he purchased the -- who the home was -- where Patricia lived was purchased from?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    And what did he tell you?

A    He said a Bob Owenburg (sic).

Q    On Page 13, did you make reference to his financial

945

condition?

A    Yes, sir, I did.

Q    And what did he tell you that was specifically owed on the house?

A    He says he thinks he owes like -- Wait. I'm sorry. (Time was allowed for the witness.)

A    58, 58,000.

Q    And did he also tell you about an equity line or other financial infringements on the house?

A    That's correct. He said he had a one-line equity established on the house.

Q    Did he go on to tell you that he had recently purchased a timeshare with that equity?

A    That's correct.

Q    And did he indicate where that was?

A    Where the timeshare was?

Q    Yes.

A    It was in Williamsburg.

Q    On Page 14, did he give you the name of his -- the manager of the bank where he works -- where he deals at NationsBank?

A    That's correct. Susan Kirkpatrick.

Q    Did he also give you her telephone number?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    On Page 16, did he ask -- did you ask him how much he

946

paid for the timeshare?

A    That's correct.

Q    And what did he tell you?

A    15,000.

Q    On Page 18, did he indicate to you -- excuse me, Page 17 and 18, did he indicate to you whether or not he had recently purchased a boat?

A    Yes, he did.

Q    And did he tell you what the price of the boat was, on Page 18? I'm sorry. Did he indicate to you that he purchased a Jeep on Page 18, to pull the boat, and did he indicate to you what the price of the Jeep was?

A    Yes, he did. He said $29,000.

Q    And that was the purchase price for the Jeep; is that correct?

A    That's correct.

Q    On Page 23, did he identify his former boss to you?

A    That's correct.

Q    And did he give you his name, address and telephone number?

A    Yes, sir, he did. He indicated Gary Lyles was his former boss.

Q    On Page 24, did he indicate to you who his accountant was?

A    That's correct.

947

Q    Who was that?

A    It's General Business Services. He referred me to a Joe Gessinger.

Q    On Page 28, did you make reference to and question him about a notice that his insurance through your company was about to be cancelled?

A    That's correct.

Q    And did he indicate who his agent was?

A    Yes, sir, he did.

Q    And what was the name he gave you?

A    Karen Hall.

Q    Did he give you her telephone number?

A    Yes, sir, he did.

Q    On Page 30, did he indicate to you who his State Farm insurance agent was?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And who was that?

A    Charlie -- it might have been all he gave me. (Time was allowed for the witness.)

Q    And on Page 31, did he indicate to you the series of events which caused him to meet and eventually marry Patricia Blakley?

A    That's correct.

Q    And he indicated -- did he indicate to you on Page 32 about the fact that they had two separate weddings?

948

A    That's correct.

Q    And on Page 32, did he identify for you his pastor?

A    That's correct.

Q    On Page 33, did he relate to you who Patricia's friends were?

A    Yes, sir, he did.

Q    And did he give you specific names?

A    Yes, sir, he did.

Q    And again, on Page 36, did he give you the name and address of Reuben Blakley, telephone number?

A    Yes, sir, he did.

Q    And on Page 37, did he give you the name and address for Patricia Blakley's father, Richard Blakley?

A    Yes, sir, he did.

Q    Now, at any time in that 40-page interview, did he mention to you the fact that he had a brother --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

Q    -- Ronnie Kimble?

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    There was a mention that he had a brother. It didn't mention the name.

Q    Where was the mention of his brother in that transcript?

(Time was allowed for the witness.)

A    Okay. It was on Page 7, three-quarters of the way

949

down, where I asked -- I asked Ted if -- who was with him at the fire scene, and also throughout the night. And he gave me -- he -- basically he started off by saying family members. And then I asked him to be more specific, and he indicated that -- he said his dad was out of town at a job at the university. His father'd gotten in about 4:00 in the morning, "but my mother, her brother, sister, my brother, my mother, and all them had all been arranged. They congregated there from," I guess at the house. From there, they went to the church to pray. And then he indicated there were about 100 people at the church that stayed with him until 4:00 in the morning. That was the only --

Q    After the reference to his brother, did he identify him in any way for you?

A    No, he did not.

Q    And when he was describing the course of his activities-on October the 9th of 1995, did he indicate to you that his brother was at his business --

A    No, he did not.

Q    -- on any or several occasions?

A    No, he did not.

Q    Now, what, if anything, did you find to be unusual about the course of this interview?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

MR. LLOYD: Objection, Your Honor.

950

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Drawing your attention to Page 16 and the middle of the page, when you are talking about the cost of the timeshare, what, if anything, did you note about the demeanor of Ron--of Ted Kimble when he was talking about that subject?

A    I'm not -- can you repeat that again.

Q    Page 16, about the middle of the page, when you were talking about the timeshare, what, if anything, did your report note about Ted Kimble's demeanor when he was answering that question? I believe the question was, "It's a double timeshare?"

A    We was -- he was pretty relaxed about the whole -­throughout the whole statement, he was pretty relaxed and pretty calm.

Q    Does the transcript indicate he was laughing?

A    Yes, it does. A couple times throughout the statement, as well.

Q    Drawing your attention to Page 18, at the top, when he was making reference to his Jeep, what do your notes of the transcript reflect as to his demeanor?

A    He -- it indicates that he laughed when we were talking about buying the Jeep to pull the boat.

Q    Drawing your attention to Page 24, when he was making reference to his General Business Services accountant, what does it indicate about his demeanor?

951

A    Again, he was laughing.

Q    Page 30, when he was referring to first meeting Patricia, what was his demeanor?

A    Laughing.

Q    And on Page 38, when he was making reference to not attending his dad's church, what was his demeanor?

A    Again, he was laughing.

Q    In the course of your investigation, did there come a time when it was requested that he submit to you a proof of loss statement -- or submit to your company, rather, a proof of loss?

A    That's correct.

Q    And what is a proof of loss?

A    It's a document that -- in which he's requested to document everything that he owned at the time the fire occurred and lost as a result of the fire.

THE COURT: Let me stop you right there, Mr.

Panosh. Is this a good stopping point for you?

MR. PANOSH: That's fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

You may step down, Mr. Reilly.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

(The witness left the witness stand.)

THE COURT: Members of the jury, we're going to take our lunch recess. You'll need to be back at 2:00

952

o'clock. Please remember the instructions on your jury responsibility sheet.

Have a nice lunch. I'll see you at 2:00.

Everyone remain seated, while the jury leaves first.

(The jury left the courtroom at 12:30 p.m.)

THE COURT: Declare a recess, sheriff.

(A recess was taken at 12:31 p.m.)

(Court reconvened at 2:01 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?

MR. PANOSH: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The jury entered the courtroom at 2:02 p.m.)

THE COURT: The witness will come back to the witness stand, please, Mr. Reilly. (The witness returned to the witness stand.)

THE COURT: Nice to have the panel back. I hope you had a nice lunch and feeling okay. Anyone experiencing any problems this afternoon, if you'll raise your hand, I'll_ be glad to talk with you about it.

You may continue your examination of the witness, Mr. Panosh.

MR. PANOSH: Thank you.

953

CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Mr. Reilly, before we broke, I asked you what a proof of loss was. Did you get a chance to tell the jury what a proof of loss is?

A    Yes, sir. A proof of loss is the -- a list of items that the insured had claimed that he lost as a result of the fire.

Q    And in the course of this investigation, was it required that Theodore Kimble file with your company a proof of loss?

A    That's correct.

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

Q    Showing you now what's been marked as State's Exhibit Number 110, do you recognize that, sir?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Is that the proof of loss filed by Theodore Kimble

or about January the -- what date was it in '96?

A    January 19, 1996. Yes, it is, sir.

Q    And does it consist of 84 pages, plus supporting documents?

A    Yes, sir, it does.

Q    And there's also a letter to Ms. Bartello of your company; is that correct?

A    Yes, sir, it is.

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

954

Number 110.

MR. LLOYD: We object, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The basis of the objection?

MR. LLOYD: Well, I'd ask to be heard outside the presence of the jury, Your Honor, either at the bench or whatever Your Honor prefers.

MR. PANOSH: Let me start over.

THE COURT: All right, sir.

Q    Are these records kept in the ordinary course of your business?

A    Yes, sir, it is.

Q    And as a part of this investigation, was a subpoena directed to your company to bring those documents here?

A    Yes, sir, it was.

Q    And were they brought here under that subpoena?

A    Yes, sir.

MR. PANOSH: We'd tender them as routine business records.

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, still request to be heard outside the presence of the jury.

(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. LLOYD: Judge, once again, the basis of my objection is, we don't have a chance to cross-examine Ted

955

Kimble or whoever else filled that out.

THE COURT: They've already testified to the amount of the claims. Just what's in this --

MR. LLOYD: Well, what's the relevance of it then?

THE COURT: I'll have to look at it.

(Mr. Panosh handed the exhibit to the Court.)

MR. LLOYD: As I recall, the insurance company executive -- or the insurance company person testified that they had paid out on the claim $53,000 or something like that. My recollection --

THE COURT: Is that related to any of the matters in here?

MR. PANOSH: Yes. The relevance is that if you look on about the third page, there's a summary, right here. (Indicated.) His residence is worth about 60 to 70 thousand dollars. The entire contents is probably 60 to 70 thousand dollars. And he files a claim of $247,000.

MR. HATFIELD: What did Ronnie have to do with this claim?

MR. PANOSH: This case is all about his attempts to obtain monies as a result of Patricia's death. And this just is more and more part of that overall conspiracy to defraud insurance companies as a result of her death.

THE COURT: All these are signed by Ted?

MR. PANOSH: Signed by Ted, yes, sir.

956

THE COURT: Overruled.

Proceed.

(Proceedings continued in open court.)

Q    Showing you then State's Exhibit Number 110 --

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we'd move that to be introduced.

THE COURT: The Court'll --

MR. LLOYD: Object, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The Court'll allow the introduction of State's Exhibit Number 110. I would instruct the jury that this piece of evidence that's coming in in regards to Ted Kimble, and you must not consider it against Ronnie Kimble, unless you find the State established beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy and that Ronnie and Ted Kimble were co-conspirators, and it would be relevant only for that purpose against Ronnie Kimble.

Q    Now, in the course of your duties, did you request from Theodore Kimble certain financial statements?

A    That's correct.

Q    And is one of them his tax returns?

A    That's correct.

Q    Showing you then State's Exhibit Number 111.

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, we'd anticipate that it would be moved for admission, and would object at this time.

THE COURT: Overruled.

957

Q    And is State's Exhibit Number 111 the 1995 tax returns of Theodore Kimble, as submitted to your company, at the request of your company's attorneys?

A    That's correct.

MR. PANOSH: We'd seek to introduce Number 111.

THE COURT: The Court'll --

MR. LLOYD: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- allow the introduction.

Q    Now, in the course of your investigation, did you prepare a report, sir?

A    Yes, sir, I did.

Q    And in the report, does it detail your meeting with him on October the 16th?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And as a result of your interview, does your report indicate what steps you took to follow up his -- the statements he made to you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Specifically, what did you do?

A    After I met with Mr. Kimble, I obtained a financial release from Mr. Kimble and went to the various banking institutions and spoke with the bank managers there. And I also spoke with some of the people that he had named in his statement, his brother-in-law and people of those nature.

Q    On the second page of your report, did you identify the

958

persons that he --

MR. LLOYD: Well, Your Honor, I must object to this constantly referring back to the report. He can ask the witness questions. He can testify to what he did. But this reference to the report is completely irrelevant. don't know what he put in the report.

THE COURT: Have you been furnished a copy of the report, sir?

MR. LLOYD: We may have it, Your Honor, this report. I don't know.

MR. PANOSH: I can get him another copy real quick, Your Honor.

MR. LLOYD: But, Your Honor, if he stated in the report that the moon is made of green cheese, would we allow that testimony into court here?

THE COURT: The Court --

MR. LLOYD: I mean, certainly Mr. Panosh is entitled to ask him questions. If he doesn't remember and he says he doesn't remember, he can refresh his recollection by referring to the report. But that's all that the report serves to do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PANOSH: Do you want my copy?

(Mr. Lloyd shook his head from side to side.)

Q    Did you detail the persons that Theodore Kimble

959

identified as the persons that would support his statement on October the 16th?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And who did you detail as persons that he indicated would support his statement?

A    James Ogburn, O-g-b-u-r-n, supposed to be a co-employee who worked with Ted; Ron Kimble, Ted's father; Reuben Blakley, Ted's brother-in-law; and Mike Chambers, Ted's supervisor at Precision Fabrics.

Q    As a result of the information that you received from Mr. Kimble, did you on October the 16th begin to interview the people that he made reference to?

A    That's correct.

Q    And who did you interview on October the 16th?

A    I interviewed Reuben Blakley, Ted's brother-in-law; Mike Chambers, Ted's supervisor at Precision Fabrics; James Ogburn, the co-employee. And I believe that's -- Let me see here.

(Time was allowed for the witness.)

A    I also interviewed many of the -- Susan Kirkpatrick, the branch manager from NationsBank; Marie Brown, the secretary at the South Elm Street Baptist Church; a Gail Stone.

Q    Is that one of the individuals that Theodore Kimble identified to you as being a friend of Patricia's?

960

A    That's correct. Supposedly, Patricia lived with Gail before Ted and Gail got together -- or Ted and Patricia got together.

I also interviewed a coworker of Patricia's at Cinnamon Ridge Apartments; and Bill Hawkins, who's the maintenance man for Cinnamon Ridge Apartments.

Q    And was that based upon information that Theodore Kimble gave you?

A    That's correct, based on in the statement, he had indicated that Patricia was supposed to leave work early, in order to cut the grass.

MR. PANOSH: No further. Thank you, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. HATFIELD:

Q    Mr. Reilly, you have a very large notebook up there. Is that your case file in the Theodore Kimble matter?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Mr. Reilly, you are a trained investigator in the insurance industry, aren't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And it was your assignment by your company to learn all the relevant details of the claim that was being made in the aftermath of Patricia's death and the fire, by Ted Kimble, weren't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Now, if you had determined that Mr. Kimble had

961

intentionally burned the dwelling, would that have had any bearing on whether Maryland Casualty would pay the claim?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    So, among other things, since there was a fire, it was your intention to determine if that fire had been intentionally set by the insured or someone acting at his direction; is that right?

A    That's correct.

Q    Now, ultimately, the claim was paid, wasn't it?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And that is in large part because you did not determine that Ted Kimble was responsible for burning his insured premises; isn't that right?

A    That's correct.

Q    But you certainly made a very thorough evaluation of the situation before that claim was paid, didn't you?

A    Yes, sir. Based on the information I had, yes, sir.

Q    Well, you had as much information as you cared to ask for; isn't that right?

A    That's correct.

Q    No one stopped you from asking questions, did they?

A    No, sir.

Q    And didn't everyone who you wanted to talk to eventually talk to you?

A    Yes, sir.

962

Q    Including Ted Kimble?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Now, after you completed your examination of Mr. Kimble on October 16, 1995, you had the transcript of that meeting typed up, didn't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Did that meeting take place at Lyles Building Supply out on West Lee Street in Greensboro?

A    Yes, sir, it did.

Q    And I believe you kept a tape running the entire meeting; is that correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And every time the tape changed, you so indicated with a new recitation of basically the rules of the game for the new tape, didn't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And Ted acknowledged on every tape that you made that he understood he was being taped and what the purpose of the interview was?

A    That's correct.

Q    But that interview was not under oath, was it?

A    No, sir, it was not.

Q    And you had not asked Ted Kimble to swear to tell the truth or to certify at the end of his statement that he had told the truth, had you?

963

A    If you don't mind, let me just check.

(Time was allowed for the witness.)

A    No, sir, I did not have him swear to tell me the truth or confirm that he had told me the truth at the end of the statement.

Q    So he did not at any time certify under pain of perjury or other civil sanctions that he in fact was telling the truth, did he?

A    No, he did not.

Q    On the other hand, part of your task was to judge his demeanor and to try to determine if he was being honest with you in the questions that you asked; isn't that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And you did make a judgment along those lines, didn't you?

A    I can't -- I don't want to say I made a judgment based on whether or not he was telling me the truth, because I can only go by whatever facts I determine from his statement, and then verify the facts that he gives me, before I can determine whether or not he's telling me the truth. So, you know, I hesitate to answer that I made judgment in reference to whether or not he was being truthful at the time I took the statement.

Q    All right. Now, would you tell the members of the jury, other than arson, which you've already mentioned, what

964

other factors might have contributed to Maryland Casualty not having been ultimately obligated to pay Mr. Kimble's claim. Could there have been another factor that would have deprived him of the right to collect proceeds?

A    If during the process of the claim, he committed insurance fraud in any way, it would void out his policy and limit our ability to pay, I guess. If he committed the arson, or if he co-conspirited (phon.) with somebody, in order to commit the arson, if he had anything to do with the arson itself, then we wouldn't be responsible.

Q    So, if after you investigated this claim, you determined that there was substantial evidence that he had committed arson, you would have recommended to your company not to pay the claim?

A    That's correct.

Q    And during the course of your investigation, if you thought there was substantial reason to believe that he was in some way misleading the company or otherwise attempting to defraud the company, you would also advise the company not to pay; is that right?

A    I only hesitate because it's -- because it is an arson investigation, with a high exposure, and because of the situations that involved it, there is -- there are circumstances that we would pay a portion, even though we felt like there might have been some type of fraud involved.

965

I'm -- obviously, if we felt -- if we proved that he burned his house down, we wouldn't have made a payment. On the other hand, if during the process of the claim, he submitted a document that may have been altered or may have been a fraudulent document, in some situations, we may deny the whole claim, based on that one document.

In this particular situation, things could have arose that we might have had a right to deny the claim, but we chose not to, based on the circumstances involved.

Q    All right. Now, when you finished doing this interview that you've been testifying to, who typed it up?

A    A company, a transcription company.

Q    So you had nothing to do with actually putting the words on the paper?

A    No, sir, I did not.

Q    So you're not the one who put "Laughs" in parentheses here and there through the -- this thing --

A    No --

Q    -- are you?

A    No, sir, I did not.

Q    And so, when Mr. Panosh asked you, did he laugh at a certain point in time, that would have been because the stenographer had put the word "Laughed" in parentheses; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

966

Q    Now, in fact, you would not characterize Mr. Kimble's attitude during this meeting as flip or nonchalant or anything like that, would you?

A    He wasn't flip. I guess nonchalant is relative. I'm

Q    Well, he didn't burst out laughing at inappropriate times, did he?

A    No.

Q    Wouldn't it be fair to say that the laughter that's recorded in the transcript is basically a sort of a laughter where nervous facts are concerned, such as wanting to go to a church where people were younger, rather than the old crowd that went to his father's church, those kinds of things?

A    I don't know if it would be nervous. I mean, that was the period of time that he laughed. I don't -- I have no way to know if it was out of nervousness or --

Q    Did you feel that he was showing disrespect toward anyone living or dead when he laughed?

A    I don't -- no.

Q    Now, you were asked about a proof of loss, and it was admitted into evidence, but whether that proof of loss was allowed by the company was not your decision, was it?

A    I'm sorry? I'm sorry?

Q    You have said that there's a proof of loss that's been

967

admitted into evidence that was kept in the usual course of business at Maryland Casualty, haven't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And it was admitted, after you identified it, into evidence, wasn't it?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    But it wasn't allowed because of any decision that you made, was it?

A    No.

Q    You didn't approve this claim and you didn't disapprove this claim, did you?

A    That's correct.

Q    What you did was, submit the information that you were able to gather to your superiors, and they made the call, as to whether to pay the claim?

A    Right. We had conferences, but you're right.

Q    Now, when you did make your report, you reported that there was no indication of arson, didn't you?

A    Pardon me?

Q    You reported that you couldn't demonstrate that arson -- that Ted was responsible for burning the property, didn't you?

A    You asked two questions. I didn't say anything about whether or not there was an arson or not an arson. I mean, I think it was understood that it was an arson that burned

968

the house down. I did report that I had no evidence that Ted burned the house down.

Q    Now, did you make any effort to actually determine Ted Kimble's whereabouts on October 9, 1995, other than just ask him?

A    Ted Kimble's, yes, sir.

Q    What else did you do, besides ask Ted Kimble?

A    Well, after I took the statement, I gave him an opportunity to tell me everybody that -- to list the people that he had spoke to during that day, that he was with during that period of time, so that I could confirm what he was telling me as being truthful.

Now---

A    And he did, he listed two employees that he was with, that worked for the lumber yard. And then he told me that he went to his mother's house to drop the dog off, and then he went over to his shop at the fabric warehouse. And he gave me the list of all the supervisors and the people he spoke to there.

Q    Did you --

A    I did follow up, by talking to the two employees that he worked with, because they're the ones that gave me the name for Lyles. And then I followed up by talking to the employees at the fabric shop, because they were the ones that he listed as being witnesses to where he was at after

969

6:00 o'clock at night.

Q    And after you talked to the people at the fabric company, did you decide that he had in fact been at the fabric company that day?

A    That's correct.

Q    Do you know what time he arrived?

A    I -- without looking at the statement, I believe it was 6:00 o'clock. It confirmed the information he had given me.

Q    And after talking to a couple of his coworkers, you were satisfied that he spent the day at his business premises; is that correct?

A    That's correct.

Q    And so, you did not feel that there was any cause to pursue the question of whether or not Mr. Kimble himself had had some hand in the arson that had been done at his wife's house?

A    Well, not necessarily some hand in it, but did he physically do it, at that point in time, I felt like he could not have physically done it himself, because I verified that he was at -- I verified his presence from 8:00 o'clock in the morning to at least 8:00 o'clock at night.

Q    Well, did you talk to Mr. Ogburn at his place of employment?

A    Was it James Ogburn?

Q    Yeah.

970

A    I have to look at my notes. I know I spoke to two of Ted's employees, but I'm not sure exactly which two it was.

Q    Did you talk to a middle-aged black gentleman –­

A    Yes, sir, I did.

Q    -- named Mr. Ogburn?

A    Okay. Yes, sir, I did.

Q    Did Mr. Ogburn tell you that during a substantial part of the day --

MR. PANOSH: We'd object, please.

MR. HATFIELD: Well, it's part of his report. It's kept in the routine course of business.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    After talking to Mr. Ogburn, you concluded that Ted Kimble had not been away from the business at any time; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Now, did you talk to Steve Swaney?

A    I'm not sure. Can I look at my report?

Q    It's up to you.

(Time was allowed for the witness.)

A    I'm not sure. It's not in my report. I'm not sure if I did or not.

Q    So the only person who was an employee at Lyles who you talked to was Mr. Ogburn?

A    Yes, sir.

971

Q    And as for -- and tell me again, you do not know whether Mr. Ogburn spent the whole day at Lyles or not –­

MR. PANOSH: Objection, please.

Q    -- based on your interview with him?

MR. PANOSH: Object, please.

THE COURT: Sustained to the form.

Q    Did you ascertain from Mr. Ogburn whether he had an opportunity to observe Ted Kimble throughout the period of time from the early morning hours through approximately 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. that night?

A    I remember that after talking -- Mr. Ogburn being the middle-aged black gentleman, I do remember speaking to him, and I do remember that after having a conversation with him, I was satisfied that Ted was at Lyles throughout the day.

Q    But after having the conversation with Mr. Ogburn, were you satisfied --

MR. PANOSH: We object, please.

MR. HATFIELD: object before I ask the question.

MR. PANOSH: Object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HATFIELD: May I ask the question?

THE COURT: Rephrase it.

Q    After you talked to Mr. Ogburn, were you satisfied that Mr. Ogburn had been continuously in a position to observe Ted Kimble throughout the entire day or not?

972

A    Yeah. Unfortunately, I don't have -- I can't find -- I can't find the part of my statement where -- in my report where I spoke to Mr. Ogburn. So I'm not sure.

I was satisfied when I got finished speaking to him that Mr. Kimble was at the location, because that when I -­when I left Lyles that particular day, I was satisfied that the information he had given me concerning the people who he had spoke to while at Lyles confirmed that he was at Lyles from 8:00 o'clock in the morning till 5:30 at night, so I knew -- because he had -- he had people to document his presence during that period of time, I didn't have any additional need to confirm any more information on his presence between 8:00 o'clock and 5:30.

Q    Well, who documented his presence?

A    Well, obviously the people who he -- whose name he gave me. I knew that James Ogburn was one of them.

Q    His dad was one of them, wasn't he? Mr. Ron Kimble, Sr. was one of them, wasn't he?

A    Well, he couldn't, because he wasn't there on the -- on the day it happened, according to Ted. He was at a convention up in Liberty University, I believe.

Q    Well --

A    And he confirmed that himself, when I spoke to him at a later date. So his dad was not one that would confirm that Ted was at Lyles the entire day.

973

Q    Well, you have a report up there that's about three inches thick. Somewhere in that report, do you have the information of who were able to verify to you, to your satisfaction, that Ted Kimble was there all day? (Time was allowed for the witness.)

A    No, I don't have it written down. I don't have it documented in my report.

Q    Now, during your interview of Ted Kimble on October 16, 1995, you asked the questions, didn't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And as you have already testified, on Page 7, you asked the question "Were you at your house?" And the answer was "Yes." And then you asked "Is there any particular family member," and there was a pause, and then you said, "I mean, your family or your wife's family, what, like your brother, your father?" And then Ted Kimble answered the question, didn't he?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Now, as a result of his answer to that question, did you understand that he had a brother?

A    I'm not sure. I mean, I would think so.

Q    Well, he said, "My brother, my mother and all of them had been arranged. They congregated there." You understood he had a brother, didn't you?

A    Well, I would think I would, sure. I mean, I didn't

974

follow up by asking questions about the brother or the sister or anything, but --

Q    Then you asked -- All right. Then after he –­

MR. PANOSH: May he finish, please?

THE COURT: Finish your answer, sir.

MR. HATFIELD: I believe he did finish.

THE COURT: Have you finished?

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Proceed.

Q    You then asked, was any of her family members there, as well, didn't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q So you were satisfied that you knew who the members -­direct members of Ted's family were, now you wanted to know if Patricia's family were represented, didn't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And you received a satisfactory answer to that question, didn't you?

A    Right.

Q    Now, going back to Page 37, you asked Ted Kimble to basically identify his father-in-law to you, and he identified Richard Blakley and told you he lives in Pleasant Garden, didn't he?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    So that was in -- his furnishing you with the

975

information Richard Blakley being his father-in-law was in response to your question, wasn't it?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And you -- on the previous page, Page 36, you asked him about her brother, and you got some feedback from him, didn't you?

A    Yes, sir, I did.

Q    And when you asked her -- asked about whether -- who some of Patricia's friends were, on Page 34, you got the name Gail Stine, or actually it probably was Stone; isn't that a fact?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And had you wanted to talk to Gail Stone, I believe it is, you could have done so, couldn't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And when you asked about another close friend of Patricia's, on Page 33, you were told the answer was Melissa, weren't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And when you wanted to know the status of Patricia's parents' marriage, you found out that they were divorced, on Page 32, didn't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And you found out the circumstances of their getting married more or less in secret up from Danville, Virginia,

976

didn't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And that was in response to your question?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And you found out that -- on Page 30 that she was a couple of years older than Ted, didn't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And you found out who Karen Hall, one of the insurance agents, was, didn't you?

A    Uh-huh. Yes, sir.

Q    And it was because you asked, wasn't it?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    You asked him about business records, and he told you that he had an accountant, he identified that accountant, didn't he?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Then you asked him about owning a timeshare, and he told you all about it, right?

A    Uh-huh. Yes, sir.

Q    As much as you wanted to know?

A    Uh-huh. Yes, sir.

Q    And in fact, he was very relaxed while he was telling you about that, wasn't he?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Said he was afraid he sounded like a salesman?

977

A    Correct.

Q    And on Page 11, when you asked him if he had any regular employees, he told you he had a person named Tim, didn't he?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    What did you do to ascertain Tim's last name?

A    I'm not sure.

Q    All right. And he told you about an employee named Steve, didn't he?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And if I tell you Steve's name was Swaney, that doesn't ring a bell, because you didn't do anything to find out who Steve was, did you?

A    I don't know what I did to find out who Steve was. Remember, this report's not a final report, either.

Q    So the fact is, with almost no exception that you can think of right this minute, he asked (sic) every single question that you asked him in 40 pages of transcript, didn't he?

A    He answered, yes, sir.

Q    Now, as a result of these 40 pages of transcript, on the 7th day of March, 1996, Ted Kimble gave a sworn statement to lawyers, didn't he?

A    That's correct.

Q    Now, do you have the deposition that he gave on that

978

date in your file there?

A    No, I don't.

Q But that deposition is also kept in the usual course of business for the purposes of this type of claims adjustment, isn't it?

A    It is. We didn't have it with our file.

Q    Now, are you familiar with the contents of that deposition?

A    No, I'm not.

Q    Do you know whether or not there are references in there --

MR. PANOSH: We object.

Q    -- to Ronnie Kimble?

MR. PANOSH: He's stated that he's not familiar.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    After submitting your report, and after a deposition of Ted Kimble was taken on the 7th day of March, 1996, at a law office in Greensboro, did you have occasion to read that deposition?

A    No, I did not.

Q    Did you have occasion to be told by anyone in the course of business at Maryland Casualty what some of the contents of that deposition were?

A    Yes.

Q    Who told you what the contents of that deposition were?

979

A    Marie Bartello would be the one that would have gave me.

Q    So, before the deposition was taken, Maryland Casualty was undecided as to whether to pay the claim; isn't that right?

A    There was some concerns that needed to be addressed, yes, sir.

Q    But those concerns didn't have to do with whether Ted Kimble was involved in arson, did they?

A    They obviously had something to do with whether or not he was involved in it. There was no direct question as to whether or not he did it, or conspired to do it, but there was questions as to whether or not he was involved in it.

Q    Isn't it a fact that Ms. Bartello's claims were more oriented to whether or not some of the property loss claims had been somewhat exaggerated?

A    That's correct.

Q    And really, the issue of arson was history at that point?

A    Well, it was never history, but it wasn't addressed.

Q Now, did Marie Bartello at any time tell you that as a result of her knowledge of the contents of that deposition, that Ron Kimble might --

MR. PANOSH: We object, please.

THE COURT: Sustained.

980

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, it's kept in the usual course of the business, and he relied upon it.

MR. PANOSH: Well, that's not the test.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    As a result of your discussions with Ms. Bartello, did you at any time go back to the Greensboro area and try to meet Ronnie Kimble?

A    No, I did not.

Q    Now, were you aware that one of the questions having to do--

MR. PANOSH: We object, please.

MR. HATFIELD: Like to ask the question.

THE COURT: Let him finish the question.

Q    Were you aware that one of the questions, when the matter was on Ms. Bartello's desk, had to do with appropriate reimbursement to Ted Kimble for basically loss of use or for a substitute dwelling place, while repairs were being made? Are you aware of that?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And do you recall that Mr. Kimble had proposed -­MR. PANOSH: We object, please.

Q    -- that he be --

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, it's in all these records they --

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, there are three Mr.

981

Kimbles.

Q    Are you aware that Mr. Kimble had proposed -‑
THE COURT: Which Kimble, sir?

MR. HATFIELD: Excuse me?

THE COURT: Which Kimble?

MR. HATFIELD: Ted Kimble.

THE COURT: All right, sir.

Q    -- that Ted Kimble had proposed to be given reimbursement along the lines of what it would take for him to rent and live in his parents' house?

A    That was -- that was one of the issues of concern, because when it was presented to us, it wasn't his parents' house. When it was presented to us, it was a place that he found, that he needed -- he wanted to rent, but he wanted to get authority from us to rent it, because of the amount of money. And he said he needed a place like that, because that's what he was used to living in before the fire occurred. He never said anything about it being his father's place or that he was already living in the place.

Q    And so, where did he -- once you looked into this, where did he tell you his parents were going to live, while he lived in their house?

A    I think it was his sister's trailer.

Q    His sister-in-law's trailer?

A    No, not his sister-in-law's trailer.

982

Q    Isn't it a fact that he suggested that he would live in Ronnie Kimble's trailer?

MR. PANOSH: Object, please.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HATFIELD: Well, it's cross-examination.

THE COURT: Well, which one are you referring to, Ted Kimble?

MR. HATFIELD: Well, excuse me. I didn't know it was unclear.

Q    Didn't Ted Kimble indicate that he wanted to live in his parents' house, and be paid an appropriate rent for a three-bedroom house with a carport, but that -- and when he was asked where his parents proposed to live, they were going to go live at Ronnie Kimble's trailer, while he was in the Marine Corps? Didn't Ted Kimble propose that?

A    When it was first presented to us, it wasn't that. When it was first presented to us, it was a place that he found, Ted found, and he wanted to get authority to rent it, as being an individual dwelling. It wasn't until we looked into it and found out that it was his father's place and he was already living there, that we took issue with it, because obviously he was concealing this information.

Once I took issue with it and I talked to Ted about it, both Ted and his father confirmed that his father was going to move out and Ted was going to move in. And his father

983

and I believe his mother was going to live at a trailer. Now, it was my understanding that it was his sister's trailer. But I never followed up on it, because his father was right there, supporting the fact that he was giving up his house so that Ted could move into it, and he was going to move to this trailer. So I never pursued that any further.

Q    So you didn't try to find out whose trailer it was?

A    It was pretty much a moot point. The fact was, he was renting it -- according to his father, he was going to move out and rent his -- rent that place to his father. Q    Have you read the deposition that Ms. Bartello took of Ted Kimble?

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, this has been asked and answered.

MR. HATFIELD: I'd like to ask him --

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HATFIELD: -- and see if it refreshes his recollection.

A    I did not read the -- no, sir.

Q    You did not read this? (Indicated.)

A    The examination under oath?

Q    Yeah.

A    Huh-uh.

Q    You didn't read it?

984

A    Huh-uh.

Q    Are you familiar with its contents?

A    No, I didn't read it, so I'm not familiar with its contents.

Q    Okay. Pretty thick thing, isn't it?

MR. PANOSH: We object to questions --

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PANOSH: -- when he said he's not read it.

THE COURT: Disregard that statement, members of the jury.

Q    This is a sworn statement of Ted Kimble, isn't it?

A    That's correct.

Q    With all of the indices of reliability --

MR. PANOSH: We object, please.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Now, when you questioned Ted Kimble about gas, gasoline-. on the premises, and he admitted to you that there had been a gasoline container in the carport, did he do that? Did he admit that to you?

A    He said the garage, I believe, yes, sir.

Q    In the garage?

A    (The witness nodded his head up and down.)

Q    You didn't feel that he had been misleading to you, when he said there wasn't any gasoline in the house, did you?

985

A    Again, I mean, when I take that statement, I don't -- I don't make a judgment based on what he tells me. I make a judgment based on what I can investigate and confirm.

Q    And along those lines, did you talk to any of the firefighters or their supervisors, concerning their conclusions about this fire in the aftermath, when you were checking it out?

A    I did, yes, sir.

Q    Do you remember who you talked to?

A    No.

Q    Did you know that the -- that there had been a gas can or gas container that had been found inside the house, with most of its contents poured out?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And did you know that the initial impression that the fire experts had was that gasoline had been used as an accelerant to cause the fire?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    So you were fully satisfied, based on just a very brief investigation, that this house had been set on fire unlawfully by some person; is that right?

A    That's correct.

Q    But once you talked to Ted Kimble up at his business, and heard his explanations for his whereabouts on October 10th, you basically just dropped the idea that he was in any

986

way accountable for the arson, didn't you?

MR. PANOSH: Object, please.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    You just -- you didn't pursue him as a likely cause of the arson, after you talked to him on the 16th, did you?

A    I investigated the statement he gave me. I checked his whereabouts and confirmed that he was at Lyles and that he was at Precision Fabrics, so that I felt, after that part of my investigation, that he didn't physically set the house on fire, yes, sir.

Q    Did you make any attempt to determine what the distance is between Lyles Building Supply and Brandon Station Court?

A    I remember I did, but I didn't write it down.

Q    Are you from this area?

A    No.

Q    Where is your home?

A    I'm up 30 miles north of Baltimore, Maryland.

Q    Had you ever been in Greensboro before?

A    Not before -- I have since, but not before this incident.

Q    When you were down here to take his statement on the 16th, how many days did you spend in this area to do that?

A It was two, I believe. I believe it was two, two days the first time. I was down here three times after that, or two or three times after that.

987

Q    And you were only down here one time where your task was to interview Ted Kimble?

A    Well, I came back again and interviewed him again, when the --

Q    And you interviewed him another time?

A    When the rental -- the rental issue came up.

Q    The rental issue over the house?

A    That's correct.

Q    Now, did you fly down here from the Baltimore area?

A    That's correct.

Q    And did you rent a car when you got here?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Did you have anybody with you that knew our streets and highways better than you did?

A    No.

Q    So you never made an effort to determine what the most efficient route over roads between Lyles and Brandon Station Court actually is, did you?

A    No.

Q    And you don't know how long it would take someone like Ted Kimble to drive home, torch his house and kill his wife, and drive back again, do you?

A    No.

Q    Would you rule out the possibility that it could take 35 minutes?

988

MR. PANOSH: Object. He just said he didn't know.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    So based on your investigation, you have absolutely no idea within what time frame the arsonist, if that arsonist left Lyles and went to Brandon Station Court, how long it would take, do you?

A    No.

Q    Now, based on what the fire marshals and other investigators told you, do you have any idea how long the perpetrator would have been inside Brandon Station Court, in order to do his misdeeds?

MR. PANOSH: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Well, you're an expert fire -- insurance investigator, aren't you?

A    Insurance, yes, sir.

Q    Well, one of the huge areas of casualty insurance is fire loss prevention, isn't it?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    You've investigated fire loss claims before, haven't you?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Based on what you know about how this fire was done, and the other crimes that were committed in Patricia Kimble's house, how long would it have taken the

989

perpetrator, from the time he entered the house, to the time he left the house, to do this?

A    No --

MR. PANOSH: Object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, why can't he answer? He's an expert.

THE COURT: He's not been qualified as an expert at this point.

Q    Do you have an opinion of that?

MR. PANOSH: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled, if he's got an opinion.

A    No. I'm not a fire investigator.

Q    Well, can you tell me how long it takes to shoot a woman, pour gasoline on her body, light it and leave?

A    No.

MR. PANOSH: We'd object, please.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HATFIELD: I don't have any further questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Panosh?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    At one point you were asked if you indeed made a recommendation to your company about settlement. Did you make a recommendation?

A    Yes, probably.

990

Q    And do you remember what that recommendation was?

A    Well, I told them that at this point, we didn't have anything to prove that Ted actually did anything, so we had to make some type of settlement.

Q    You were asked in reference to the notations on the transcript about laughter. Did you personally observe that conduct on the part of Ted Kimble?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And do you recall that?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And based upon your recollections of his demeanor, was that consistent with someone who had just lost his life -­his wife --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

Q    -- about seven days --

MR. HATFIELD: That doesn't ask him for an observation of demeanor. That asks him to make some sort of judgment.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Have you had an occasion to interview other people who have lost their loved ones through recent death?

A    Yes.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q    How many times?

991

A    I'm not sure.

Q    Many times or just a few?

A    Just a few.

Q    Based upon those observations, and your observations of Ted Kimble at the time he was telling you these things, what, if any, opinions did you form?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    He was much more relaxed than I was used to.

Q    You were asked about the rental agreement, and you said that when it was presented to you, it was presented in a different light. Would you give the details of the way it was -- that rental agreement was originally presented to you.

MR. HATFIELD: Object, unless he says who he -­who presented it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    Marie Bartello presented it to me. The claim rep presented it to me. And she indicated that --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. She hasn't testified.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    In the course of your investigation, did you determine the facts under which the original claim for rental was presented to your company?

A    Yes, sir.

992

Q    And did you do that through interviews?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And what were the original facts that were presented to your company?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection, unless he says who he interviewed.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    Originally, it was in -- it was presented to my company as being a place that Ted found, that he wanted to move into. I believe it was $1,200 a month. But he justified that by saying that he was -- it was the type of housing that he was used to, at Patricia's house, and he felt that he should be compensated, so that he could live the same lifestyle that he was living with at Patricia's house.

Q    And who was he renting from, in the original information?

A    In -- from the rental?

Q    Yes.

A    It was a company.

(Time was allowed for the witness.)

A    Okay. I'm sorry. It was called Ray Hunt's Tax and Account Services.

MR. HATFIELD: Object and move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HATFIELD: That has nothing to do with this

993

case.

THE COURT: Well, overruled at this point.

Q    Did you say Ronald Fields?

A    It was Ray Hunt's Tax --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    What was the name you said?

A    It was Ray Hunt's Tax and Account Services, Jennifer Hall.

Q    Okay. And in the course of your investigation, did you speak to Jennifer Hall?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    And was it her residence that was proposed to be rented to Ted Kimble?

A    No, it was not.

Q    Can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury your findings.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. That's the same thing as testify to what she said.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    She indicated that she had nothing to do with the dwelling --

MR. HATFIELD: Object. It's --

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed. Move on.

994

A    She indicated that she had nothing to do with the dwelling, that she was in the rental business, of renting houses and so forth. And Ted approached her and asked her to draw up a deed, or a rental agreement, to show that Ted was renting a property through her agency, and the amount of money per month that he would be paying would reflect, I think it was $1,200 a month, and that it was through her that he found this rental property, and he would be renting this house through her and her agency. And she indicated that she knew that it was the father's place, and she knew that it was a document that was not a valid document, it was not an accurate document.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PANOSH: No further questions. Thank you, sir.

MR. HATFIELD: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Step down, sir.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

(The witness left the witness stand.)