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.)
|