Guilty Plea of Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski
Court document
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 1998, 8:01 A.M.
-- oOo --
THE CLERK: Calling criminal case S-96-259,
United States vs. Theodore Kaczynski.
THE COURT: Please state your appearances for the
record.
MR. CLEARY: Robert Cleary, Steven Lapham and Stephen
Freccero for the Government.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. CLEARY: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. CLARKE: Judy Clarke, Quin Denvir and Gary Sowards
for Mr. Kaczynski.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. CLYMO: I'm also still here, Your Honor. Kevin
Clymo.
THE COURT: Thank you. I received a written memorandum
of a plea agreement which the Court understands represents the
plea agreement of the parties; is that correct?
MS. CLARKE: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And I want my deputy clerk to please
administer the oath to Mr. Kaczynski.
(Discussion off the record between Mr. Kaczynski and
Ms. Clarke.)
THE COURT: You don't have to stand. It's okay.
(The defendant was sworn.)
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you understand that,
having been sworn, your answers to my questions would be
subject to the penalties of perjury or of making a false
statement if you do not answer truthfully?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I understand that.
THE COURT: It is my understanding through a
communication I just had with counsel that you wish to change
previously entering pleas.
Before accepting your guilty pleas, there are a number
of questions I will ask you to assure that it is a valid
plea. If you do not understand any of the questions or at any
time wish to consult with counsel, please say so, since it is
essential to a valid plea that you understand each question
before you answer it.
Do you understand what I just said?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I understand, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You need not seek my permission to speak to
your lawyers. If you desire to speak to your lawyers during
this process, you can simply communicate with your lawyers.
I'll recognize that you're speaking to your lawyers and I
won't expect to you respond to my question until you've
finished that communication. You understand the liberty you
have to speak to your lawyers at with will throughout this
proceeding?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I understand that.
THE COURT: I'm informed that you wish to change the
plea you have previously entered to a plea of guilty. Is that
correct?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is your plea being made pursuant to a plea
agreement of any kind?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Your case in the United States District
Court, District of New Jersey, cannot be handled in this court
unless you wish to plead guilty or nolo contendere. Do you
understand that if you allow that case to be handled in this
court, you are agreeing to plea guilty or nolo contendere,
waive proceedings in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey in which the crimes were allegedly
committed, and you're allowing those crimes to be proceeded
against you in this court? Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. I understand that.
THE COURT: Do you understand that you have the right to
be tried in the district where the crimes are alleged to have
been committed?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And you understand that you cannot be
convicted or sentenced in this court unless you give your
consent freely, as to those crimes?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If you do not consent to be proceeded
against in this Court, you may be proceeded against in the
district in which the crimes were allegedly committed. Do you
understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Has a waiver form been filed or prepared?
MR. DENVIR: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Kaczynski has
executed a consent to transfer of case for plea and sentence
under Rule 20, and Ms. Clarke and I have both witnessed it and
signed it.
The Government now has it for approval.
(Pause in the proceeding.)
MR. DENVIR: It's been executed on behalf of the
United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey and for
the Eastern District of California.
(Pause in the proceeding.)
THE COURT: The document has been fully executed. I
will direct that it be filed.
Mr. Kaczynski, please state your full and true name for
the record.
THE DEFENDANT: Theodore John Kaczynski.
THE COURT: How old are you?
THE DEFENDANT: Fifty-five years old.
THE COURT: How far did you go in school?
THE DEFENDANT: I have a Ph.D in mathematics.
THE COURT: What is your occupation?
THE DEFENDANT: That's an open question right now. My
occupation, I suppose, now is jail inmate.
THE COURT: Okay. What past occupations have you held?
THE DEFENDANT: I was once an assistant professor of
mathematics. Since then I have spent much time living in the
woods in Montana and have held a variety of unskilled jobs.
THE COURT: Have you ever been treated for any mental
illness or addiction to drugs of any kind?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you presently under the influence of any
drug, medication or alcoholic beverage of any kind?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you consumed any drugs, alcohol or
medication in the last 24 hours?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you received a copy of the indictments
pending against you, that is, the written charges made against
you in this case and in the case filed in the United States
District Court, District of New Jersey; and have you fully
discussed those charges --
(Discussion off the record between the defendant and
Ms. Clarke).
THE COURT: -- and the case in general with Mr. Denvir
and Ms. Clarke as your counsel?
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I'm afraid I was occupied in
discussing --
THE COURT: Okay.
THE DEFENDANT: -- with my attorney --
THE COURT: No problem. I should have discontinued my
communication at the time that occurred.
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, the question is, did
Mr. Kaczynski receive the indictment? We have received them.
We do not have them present in front of him.
THE COURT: They don't have to be present in front of
him. He has to have received them at some point in time and
reviewed them.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I did receive them at
a previous time.
THE COURT: Let's do that question again. Have -- oh,
I'm sorry.
(Discussion between the defendant and Mr. Denvir.)
THE COURT: Have you at any time received copies of the
indictments pending against you, that is, the written charges
made against you in this case and in the case filed in the
United States District Court, District of New Jersey; and have
you fully discussed those charges and the cases in general
with Mr. Denvir and Ms. Clarke as your counsel?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I have.
(Mr. Lapham gives document to Mr. Denvir.)
THE COURT: What did the Government just provide the
defense?
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, for the record, I just provided
them with a copy of the New Jersey indictment and the
Sacramento indictment.
THE COURT: Shall I pause while you review those, or is
that necessary?
THE DEFENDANT: I don't think it's necessary, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, are you fully satisfied with
the counsel, representation and advice given you in this case
by Mr. Denvir and Ms. Clarke as your attorneys?
(Discussion off the record between Ms. Clarke and
Mr. Kaczynski).
THE COURT: I am satisfied except as reflected otherwise
in the record.
THE COURT: You need to explain that, sir.
THE DEFENDANT: All right, Your Honor.
You know that I have had certain dissatisfactions in my
relationship with my counsel. And those dissatisfactions are
reflected in the record. Apart from those dissatisfactions
that are reflected in the court record, I have no other
dissatisfactions with my representation by counsel.
(Discussion off the record between Mr. Denvir and the
defendant.)
THE DEFENDANT: I am willing to proceed for sentencing
with present counsel.
THE COURT: My understanding of your dissatisfaction
with present counsel is that there was a disagreement as to
the assertion of the mental status defense and you had some
problems with present counsel concerning communications
surrounding the presentation of mental status-type evidence.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is that what you are referencing?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. That is what I am
referring to.
THE COURT: Are you referring to anything other than
that?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is it your understanding that your attorneys
had discussions with the attorneys for the Government in this
case concerning your change of plea?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Does your willingness to plead guilty result
from those discussions?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of guilty
voluntarily because it is what you want to do?
(Discussion off the record between Ms. Clarke and the
defendant.)
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm now going to have the Government to
explain the terms of your plea agreement with the Government.
I want you to listen to the explanation provided, because when
the Government completes it I will ask you the question, "Are
those the terms of your plea agreement with the Government as
understand them?" And I want you to be in the position to
respond to that question.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, the terms of the agreement are
as follows: the defendant agrees to plead guilty to all
outstanding charges in Sacramento and in New Jersey. There
will be a total of 13 counts. In return for a plea of
guilty -- that is an unconditional plea of guilty.
In return, the Government agrees to withdraw the notice
of intent to seek the death penalty. And the defendant
understands that under those circumstances, he would be
sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without
possibility of release.
There are also other conditions regarding payment of
restitution. The defendant understands that restitution is
required under the relevant statutes, as well as agreements as
to the disgorgement of future earnings, if any, that are
obtained by the defendant or on his behalf as a result of any
writings, interviews, or access to the defendant in the
future.
I think that states the essential terms of the plea
agreement.
Your Honor, if I may, at this point, it might also be
appropriate to ask the defendant if whatever dissatisfaction
he has historically had with counsel did not interfere with
his decision with respect to this plea agreement and that he
is satisfied with his counsel's representation with respect to
their advice on this plea agreement.
THE COURT: That was a long question. I'm not sure what
you want me to ask.
MR. LAPHAM: Well, I think he should be probed as to his
specific -- if he has any dissatisfaction with his counsel
with respect to entry of this plea agreement.
THE COURT: Okay. Any problems with that, counsel for
the defense, Mr. Denvir or Ms. Clarke?
(Discussion off the record between Mr. Denvir and
Ms. Clarke.
MR. DENVIR: I thought he had already answered that
question, Your Honor, that he is prepared to proceed on
sentencing with us, but if the Court has some questions about
that . . .
THE COURT: I thought he had responded to the question
too, but I will try to do what you have asked me to do, since
it shouldn't cause any harm.
Mr. Kaczynski, are you satisfied with the level of
representation of your counsel in assisting you during this
plea proceeding?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I am satisfied with
that.
THE COURT: And I thought we had already covered the
point of dissatisfaction you had with your counsel as far as
other proceedings were concerned, did we not?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Government's counsel just set forth the
terms of your plea agreement from the Government's
perspective. Are those the terms of your plea agreement with
the Government as you understand them?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Has anyone made any other or different
promise or assurance to you of any kind in an effort to induce
you to enter a plea of guilty in this case?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Has anyone attempted to any way to force or
threaten you to plead guilty in this case?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The offenses to which you are offering a
plea of guilty are felony offenses. If your plea is accepted,
you will be adjudged guilty of those offenses, and that
adjudication may deprive you of valuable civil rights, such as
the right to vote, the right to hold public office, the right
to serve on a jury, and the right to possess any kind of
firearm.
Are you aware of the valuable civil rights you may give
up if you go forward with your intention and plead guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you presently on probation or parole for
any other offense?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Please listen to the consequences of your
plea. The maximum possible penalty provided by law for a plea
of guilty to each and every count of both indictments is a
mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of
release and a fine of $3,250,000. You understand that, sir?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If economic loss has been suffered by a
victim as a result of this criminal conduct, the Court, in
accordance with the Sentencing Reform Act, shall order you to
make restitution unless the Court finds that, under the
statute, restitution is not appropriate in this case. You
will be required to disgorge any monies paid in whole or in
part and regardless to whom the money is paid in return for
writings, interviews or other information disclosed by you,
including but not limited --
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, there seems to be a
discrepancy here between what you're saying and the plea
agreement as I have it here.
THE COURT: I've changed some of the words, but I
thought it was identical. I thought the message was the same.
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, on mine --
MR. CLEARY: We had sent an earlier draft to chambers
today. Some of that language has been changed.
THE COURT: Oh, I see. Well, my staff indicated to me
that I need not worry about the changes. I thought they got
that message from the parties.
Has this been taken out?
MR. DENVIR: The wording's been changed on the
disgorgement. It's just a little more precise.
THE COURT: What section is it?
MS. CLARKE: Page 4, Your Honor. Paragraph D.
MR. DENVIR: III-D. Roman numeral III-D.
THE COURT: (Accepts document.)
Show this to the Government to make sure that I'm using
the right document.
THE CLERK: (Complies.)
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, to avoid confusion, maybe I
should just give you the original signed version of the plea
agreement.
THE COURT: I have to end up with it anyway, so you
might as well give it to me now.
MR. LAPHAM: Very good. (Complies.)
THE COURT: Where is it located in the original?
MR. LAPHAM: The disgorgement language is located on
page 4, beginning at line 17.
(Pause in the proceeding.)
THE COURT: Because I had to stop to focus on
disgorgement, we need to go back to the restitution issue,
because I didn't put a closure on that issue. I advised you
of the consequence, but I didn't stop to determine if you
understood that precise consequence. I'm going to read that
again so that the record is clear.
If economic loss has been suffered by a victim as a
result of this criminal conduct, the Court, in accordance with
the Sentencing Reform Act, shall order you to make restitution
unless the Court finds that, under the statute, restitution is
not appropriate in this case.
You understand that is a consequence of your plea, sir?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I understand that.
THE COURT: You understand that, as a consequence of
your plea, you have agreed that you shall disgorge any monies
paid in whole or in part to you or on your behalf in return
for writings, interviews or other information disclosed by
you, including but not limited to access to you, photographs
or drawings of or by you, or any other type of artifact or
memorabilia to the United States Probation Office for
restitution or other distribution to the victims of the Unabom
events?
THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. There will be a special assessment of
$650 imposed for your guilty plea pursuant to federal law.
Mr. Kaczynski, do you understand those possible
consequences of your plea?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the
United States Sentencing Commission has issued guidelines for
judges to follow in determining the sentence in a criminal
case. Have you and your attorneys talked about how the
Sentencing Commission guidelines might apply to your case?
(Discussion off the record between the defendant,
Ms. Clarke and Mr. Denvir.)
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand that the Court will not be
able to determine the guideline sentence for your case until
after the pre-sentence report has been completed and your
attorney and the Government have had an opportunity to object
to any of the findings in that report?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand that after it has been
determined what guideline applies to a case, the judge has the
authority in some circumstances to impose a sentence that is
more severe or less severe than the sentence called for by the
guidelines?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: How about the question of appeal? Has that
been waived?
MR. LAPHAM: Yes, Your Honor. It's contained at page 7,
beginning at line 16.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you understand that by entering
into the plea agreement you have entered with the Government,
you will have waived or given up your right to appeal all or
any part of your plea of guilty and anything else that occurs
during this conviction hearing and anything that occurs during
your sentencing hearing?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand that parole has been
abolished and that if you plead guilty, you will spend the
rest of your life in prison and you will never be released or
paroled?
THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand that if the sentence is
more severe than you expected, you will still be bound by your
plea and will have no right to withdraw it?
THE DEFENDANT: I understand it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand that if I do not accept
the sentencing recommendation in your plea agreement, you will
still be bound by your plea and will have no right to withdraw
it?
THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Lapham, you were going to tell me about
the "waiver of appeal" section of the plea agreement. Can you
direct my attention to that again? I want to see if I missed
something.
MR. LAPHAM: That was page 7, line 16.
(Pause in the proceeding.)
THE COURT: Do you further understand that if you plead
guilty, you will waive right to appeal any legal rulings made
by the district court?
THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand that you have a right to
plead not guilty to any offense charged against you and to
persist in that plea, that you would then have the right to a
trial by jury, during which you would also have the right to
the assistance of counsel for your defense, the right to
assist in the selection of that jury, the right to see and
hear all the witnesses and have them cross-examined in your
defense, the right on your own part to decline to testify
unless you voluntarily elected to do so in your own defense,
and the right to the issuance of subpoenas or compulsory
process to compel the attendance of witnesses to testify in
your defense, the right to require the Government to prove
your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to appeal this
conviction and your sentence and any rulings made by the
district court? Do you understand you have all those rights?
THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand that by entering a plea of
guilty, if that plea is accepted by the Court, there will be
no trial of any kind and you will have waived or given up your
right to a trial as well as those other rights which I've just
described?
THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm now going to have the Government to
state each of the essential elements of the offenses in the
indictment so that I can be assured that the defendant
understands the charges. After that is stated, Mr. Kaczynski,
I will ask you the precise question, "Do you understand those
charges?" The Government will now explain the elements, and
the elements constitute the charges.
MR. LAPHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, there
are three types of offenses in the two indictments.
There are several counts of transportation of an
explosive device with intent to kill or injure. With respect
to that charge, the Government would be required to prove,
number one, that transportation in interstate commerce; two,
of an explosive; three, with the knowledge or intent that it
would be used to kill, injure or intimidate any individual.
With respect to the crime of mailing explosive device
with intent to kill or injure, the Government would be
required to prove, one, that the defendant knowingly deposited
for mailing or knowingly caused to be delivered by mail a
device or composition that could ignite or explode; and, two,
that the defendant acted with the intent to kill or injure
another.
And with respect to the third type of offense charged in
the two indictments, using a destructive device in relation to
a crime of violence, the Government would be required to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used or carried a
bomb and that he did so during and in relation to a crime of
violence, that crime of violence being the use of that bomb.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you understand those
charges?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I understand them.
THE COURT: I'm now going to have the Government's
attorney to make a representation concerning the facts the
Government would be prepared to prove at trial. Again,
Mr. Kaczynski, I want you to listen to the factual
representation made by the Government's attorney, because
after it's made, I will ask you the question, "Do you agree
with the factual representation just made by the Government's
attorney?" And I want you to be in a position to respond to
the question.
(Discussion off the record between the defendant and
Mr. Denvir.)
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, what I propose to do is -- the
defendant has agreed to make full allocution as to all 16 of
the Unabom devices; that would include charged as well as
uncharged devices. The uncharged devices are relevant to
showing -- to the Government's proof of the charged devices.
What I propose to do is first run down the charged
devices, give a factual basis for each of those, and then go
back to each of the uncharged devices and go through those,
one by one. And what I would propose is, as I complete each,
the factual basis for each device, to have the defendant
queried as to his acceptance of the factual basis.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to Count number 1
in the Sacramento indictment, that charges a device which
killed Hugh Scrutton.
With respect to that, if this case were to proceed to
trial, the Government would show that during 1985 the
defendant constructed several bombs. During the fall of that
year the defendant transported one of those bombs to
Sacramento, California, where he placed that device behind a
computer rental store called Rentech, which is located on
Howe Avenue near Arden in Sacramento. That device was found
by the owner of Rentech, Hugh Scrutton, as he was leaving
through the rear entrance of that building. He, Mr. Scrutton,
picked up that device or attempted to move that device, which
was disguised as a scrap of wood with nails protruding from
it. As he moved that device, the device exploded, causing
pieces of shrapnel to enter Mr. Scrutton's heart and internal
organs and killing him within approximately a few minutes.
The Government would prove, if this case were to proceed
to trial, that during the search of the defendant's cabin the
Government found numerous entries in the defendant's journal
that were written in numeric code. The Government found the
key to that code among the defendant's effects and decrypted
the code, and one of those entries read as follows:
"Experiment 97, December 11, 1985" -- which was the date
that the Scrutton device was detonated -- "I planted a bomb
disguised to look like a scrap of lumber between Rentech
Computer store in Sacramento. According to the Sacramento
Bee, December 20th, the operator of the store was killed,
quote unquote, blown to bits, on December 12th. Excellent.
Humane way to eliminate somebody. He probably never felt a
thing. $25,000 reward offered. Rather flattering.
In that same cabin search, the Government located a
number of experiments, totaling up to 245 experiments. One of
those experiments, the one in the admission I just read,
Experiment 97, contained the following passage. It reflected
a bomb that was constructed during November of 1985, completed
on December 8th, 1985, and the passage concludes, "The device
was hidden inside a hollow piece of wood so that when the wood
were to be grabbed or picked up, the bolts in the trigger
would come out. The device was deployed on December 11th,
1985." December 27th is the next entry. "The device detonated
with good results. It detonated on December 12th."
Your Honor, that concludes the -- oh, and in addition to
that, the device contained an end plug, which is a component
of the device, which contained the initials FC, which is a
signature of the person who has been designated as the
Unabomber. Forensic evidence also determined that the Rentech
device was forensically similar to all other Unabom devices
and was a virtual twin to a bomb which was placed in February
1987 behind a computer store in Salt Lake City.
That would conclude the proffer as to the Scrutton
bomb.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government's attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, Counts 2 through 7 of the
Sacramento indictment charge a bomb that was mailed to
Drs. Charles Epstein and David Gelernter. And the factual
basis for those offenses is as follows.
During 1993 the defendant constructed two devices,
bombs, which he then transported to Sacramento, California.
On or about June 18, 1993, the defendant mailed those
devices. One was mailed to Dr. Charles Epstein in Tiburon,
California; the other was mailed to Dr. David Gelernter at
Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. At the same time
those bombs were mailed, a letter was mailed to the New York
Times essentially claiming responsibility for those two
devices.
The devices were opened by their recipients, causing
very severe injuries to the two doctors. The defendant's
cabin was searched, and the following -- let me say, first,
that those two devices were forensically similar to each other
as well as to other Unabom devices. And the letter that I
mentioned -- actually, a different letter -- in a letter to
the New York Times dated April 20th, 1995, the Unabomber
declared, quote, "After a long period of experimentation, we
developed a type of bomb that does not require a pipe but is
set off by a detonating cap that consists of a chlorate
explosive packed into a piece of small diameter copper
tubing. The detonating cap is a miniature pipe bomb. We used
bombs of this type to blow up the genetics engineer Charles
Epstein and the computer engineer David Gelernter."
Your Honor, during a search of the defendant's cabin a
carbon copy of this letter was found in the defendant's
personal effects. Moreover, the defendant's experiment
binders, which I've already made reference to, confirmed the
statements made in the Times letter in several respects. They
reflect a long period of experimentation which culminates in
the development of a bomb of the type described in the
New York Times letter.
Experiment 225 reflects the construction of these two
devices between January and June of 1993 and concludes,
quote, "I sent these devices during June 1993. They detonated
as they should have. The effect of both of them was adequate
but no more than adequate."
Your Honor, during the search of Mr. Kaczynski's cabin,
the Government also obtained numerous articles pertaining to
Drs. Epstein and Gelernter as well as articles referencing the
bombings of those two individuals. And those articles
referencing Drs. Epstein and Gelernter appeared in the papers
prior to the June 1993 bombing.
And that concludes the offer of proof as to those
counts.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski --
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, I believe counsel misspoke
regarding the newspaper articles. There were -- Dr. Gelernter
-- there was an article about him, but not about Dr.
Epstein. I believe counsel misspoke; there were no news
articles regarding Dr. Epstein.
MR. LAPHAM: That's correct. Just Dr. Gelernter.
THE COURT: There is agreement on the correction made by
your counsel. So with that correction in mind and everything
else that the Government lawyer stated, do you agree with the
factual representation just made by the Government's attorney,
Mr. Kaczynski?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to Counts 8
through 10 of the Sacramento indictment, that charges a device
which was mailed to the California Forestry Association and
which was received on approximately April 20th, 1995 and
killed Gilbert Murray.
With respect to that device, the Government, if this
case were to proceed to trial, would prove that during 1995 --
1994 and 1995, the defendant constructed a bomb which he
transported to Sacramento -- which he transported to the Bay
Area and, from that location, mailed the device to the
California Forestry Association in Sacramento, California.
The package was addressed to William Dennison, the
former president of the California Forestry Association.
However, it was opened by Gilbert Murray, the current, at that
time, president of the Forestry Association.
In a letter to the New York Times dated June 24, 1995,
the Unabomber declared after the bomb had detonated killing
Mr. Murray: "We have no regret about the fact that our bomb
blew up the wrong man, Gilbert Murray, instead of William
Dennison, to whom it was addressed. Though Murray did not
have Dennison's inflammatory style, he was pursuing the same
goals, and he was probably pursuing them more effectively
because of the very fact that he was not inflammatory."
The letter went on to state,"it was reported that the
bomb that killed Gil Murray was a pipe bomb. It was not a
pipe bomb but was set off by a homemade detonating cap. The
F.B.I.'s so-called experts should have been able to determine
this quickly and easily, especially because we indicated in an
unpublished part of our letter -- last letter to the New York
Times that the majority of our bombs are no longer pipe
bombs. It was also reported that the address label on this
same bomb gave the name of the California Forestry Association
incorrectly. This is false. The name was given correctly."
Your Honor, during a search of the defendant's cabin the
Government obtained a carbon copy and a handwritten draft of
the foregoing letter. The Government also found letters which
were mailed by the Unabomber, at the same time as that letter,
to Professors Sharp and Roberts and Professor Gelernter, who
I've previously mentioned.
The cabin searchers also found a copy of a letter to a
radical environmental group known as Earth First!, and that
letter began: "This is a message from FC. The F.B.I. calls
us Unabom. We are the people who recently assassinated the
president of the California Forestry Association."
Your Honor, the cabin searchers also located in that
cabin a typewriter which was used to type the mailing labels
on all the -- the bomb 13 -- that would be the Epstein and
Gelernter bombing bombs, and also the Unabom correspondence
that I have referred to.
And, Your Honor, the cabin searchers also found
handwritten notes reflecting bus schedules for a trip from
Montana to the Bay Area in the March 1995 time period. The
cabin searchers also found among one of the defendant's
experiments, Experiment 245 -- that was a partial experiment
which chronicles the construction of the Murray device.
And that would conclude the proffer as to those counts.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government's attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, that concludes the proffer with
respect to the counts in the Sacramento indictment.
The New Jersey indictment contains three counts which
relate to a bomb that was sent to Thomas Mosser in December of
1994. The Government's proffer with respect to that would be
as follows.
THE COURT: All three counts, is that?
MR. LAPHAM: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LAPHAM: Different charges, but all the same bomb.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LAPHAM: The Government would show that during 1994
the defendant constructed a bomb; that he transported that
bomb on or around December of 1994 to the Bay Area, where he
mailed the device to Thomas Mosser in New Jersey; that bomb
was received at the Mosser family residence, was received by
mail, was brought in by Mrs. Mosser, placed on the kitchen
counter, and was later opened by Thomas Mosser, who was an
executive with the national advertising firm of Burson-
Marsteller. Mr. Mosser opened that device, opened that
package, and it exploded, killing him almost instantly.
The Government's proffer with respect to that bomb is as
follows, or additional proffer. In Experiment 244 which was
found in the defendant's cabin, the defendant describes
constructing the Mosser bomb over a period of approximately
five months, completing the device on or about October 14th,
1994. The experiment concludes, quote, "The device in
Experiment 244 was used in December 1994, and it gave a
totally satisfactory result."
Your Honor, in a letter to the New York Times dated
April 20th, 1995, the Unabomber stated in part, "We blew up
Thomas Mosser last December because he was a Burston-
Marsteller [sic] executive. Among other misdeeds, Burston-
Marsteller [sic] helped Exxon clean up its public image after
the Exxon Valdez incident. But we attacked Burston-Marsteller
[sic] less for its specific misdeeds than on general
principles. Burston-Marsteller [sic] is about the biggest
organization in the public relations fields. This means that
its business is the development of techniques for manipulating
people's attitudes. It was for this more than for its actions
in specific cases that we sent a bomb to an executive of this
company." Your Honor, a carbon copy of that letter was found
in the defendant's cabin.
It is also worth pointing out, Your Honor, that that
letter contained a number of misstatements, one of which was
that Burson-Marsteller had anything to do with the Exxon
Valdez cleanup; it did not. Also, Burson-Marsteller was
misspelled. The first name, Burson, did not contain a "t."
The relevance of that is, during a search of the defendant's
cabin, searchers also found a copy of the Earth First! journal
dated June 21st, 1993, in which the statement was made that
Burson-Marsteller did have responsibility for the Exxon Valdez
incident, for the cleanup of the image over that incident.
Furthermore, in that Earth First! article, the name Burson-
Marsteller is misspelled in the same fashion it is misspelled
in the Unabomber letter.
Furthermore, during the search of the defendant's cabin,
the Government found a letter written to Earth First!ers. Its
title was "Suggestions for Earth First!ers from FC." That
letter stated in part, "As for the Mosser bombing" -- and I'm
quoting now -- "our attention was called to Burson-Marsteller
by an article that appeared in Earth First!, Litha," which is
the way of describing the edition of that journal, "June 21st,
1993, page 4." In that document, the letter to the Earth
First!, the defendant states with respect to the mistake about
Burson-Marsteller that "to us it makes little difference."
Your Honor, the cabin searchers also found handwritten
notes accurately setting forth bus schedules for a trip from
Montana to the Bay Area for the December 1994 time period and
a copy of the San Francisco Examiner which was dated
December 2nd, 1994, which was the day immediately prior to the
mailing of the Mosser bomb from the San Francisco Bay Area.
Your Honor, we also found the typewriter which was used
to type a mailing label for the Mosser device and for the
Unabom correspondence related to the Mosser device.
And that concludes the proffer with respect to the
Mosser device.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government's attorney?
(Discussion off the record between the defendant and
Ms. Clarke.)
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, I should also point out that
this is a partial proffer of the evidence that the Government
would produce at trial. There is also a wealth of forensic
evidence that the Government would present at trial relating
these bombs to all the other Unabom devices, as well as
forensic evidence which would relate these bombs to evidence
found in the cabin, materials analysis of various components
of the bombs, as well as bomb components which were found to
be forensically similar to the Unabom devices.
THE COURT: You need no affirmation from Mr. Kaczynski
as to what you just told me, though, right?
MR. LAPHAM: That's correct.
THE COURT: That you don't?
MR. LAPHAM: No.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with the permission of the
Court, I'll move on to the uncharged devices.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LAPHAM: Beginning with device number 1, that was a
device which was placed in a parking lot at the University of
Illinois Chicago Circle campus on or about May 5th, 1978.
The Government's proffer would be that that device, that
package, was found by a local resident living near the Chicago
Circle campus. The device was addressed to Professor E.J.
Smith, School of Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, Troy, New York. The return address was Professor
Buckley Crist, Jr., Northwestern Technical Institute,
Evanston, Illinois, which is a suburb of Chicago.
After first attempting to mail the device,
Ms. Gutierrez, the person who found the package, found that it
wouldn't fit in a mailbox, took it home, contacted the return
addressee on the package, Professor Buckley Crist, and
ultimately returned the package to him. Professor Crist said
he knew nothing about the package but he would receive it. He
caused the package to be opened the following day, and it
exploded with somewhat harmless effect because it was not a
very well-constructed device.
During the search of the defendant's cabin the
Government found a document written by the defendant in which
he states in part as follows, quote, "August 21, 1978: I came
back to the Chicago area in May, mainly for one reason: so
that I could more safely attempt to murder a scientist,
businessman or the like. Before leaving Montana I made a bomb
in a kind of box, designed to explode when the box was
opened . . . I picked the name of the electrical engineering
professor out of the catalog of the Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute and addressed the bomb -- a package to him."
The document then goes on to describe how, after being
unable to fit in the mailbox, the defendant was forced to
leave it in the parking lot near the Science and Technology
Building at the University of Illinois Chicago Circle campus,
hoping that it would be found by some good Samaritan and that
it would be either mailed or opened by that person, causing
injuries to whatever individual would open it.
And, Your Honor, we can corroborate various statements
regarding that admission. There was no newspaper accounts of
that article that we could locate in any of the local Chicago
area, so there would be no information available to anyone but
the bomber himself. Professor E.J. Smith was a professor at
Rensselaer Polytechnic and his name did appear in the catalog
for the school for the relevant time period.
And that would conclude our proffer with respect to bomb
number 1.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by Government counsel?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb number 2,
that was a bomb which was placed in a graduate student area, a
shared area of many graduate student offices, on May 9th,
1979, at Northwestern University, and was in the shape of or
the form of a cigar box, which was constructed so that it
would detonate upon opening up the lid of the box.
The box was found by a graduate student, John Harris.
When Mr. Harris picked up the box and lifted the lid, it
exploded, causing several cuts and burns and momentary
blindness to Mr. Harris as a result of the flash of light.
During the search of the defendant's cabin, the
Government found a handwritten document in which the defendant
states in part, quote, "May 31, 1979: Earlier this month I
left a bomb in a room marked Graduate Student Research at the
Technological Institute at Northwestern University. The bomb
was in a cigar box and was arranged to go off when the box was
opened. I did it this way instead of mailing the bomb to
someone because an unexpected package in the mail might arouse
suspicion. . . . According to the newspaper, a graduate
researcher at Northwestern was hospitalized with cuts and
burns around the eyes as a result of my bomb," paren,
"(Tribune May 9)," close paren, close quote.
Your Honor, the Government did locate a May 19 Chicago
Tribune article -- actually, it was a May 10th Chicago Tribune
article. It couldn't have been May 9th, because that's the
date of the explosion. And that May 10th article set forth
the facts contained in that admission.
That would conclude the proffer on bomb number 2.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government's attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb number 3,
that was a device that was mailed in such a way that it would
be placed on board a flight from Chicago to the Washington,
D.C. area. It in fact was placed on American Airlines Flight
444, which left Chicago on November 15th, 1979 bound for
Washington, D.C.
Your Honor, the Government's proffer would be that when
that flight approached cruising altitude of about 30,000 feet,
the flight crew noticed a bump and a slight loss of -- or
overpressurization in the cabin. They didn't note anything in
addition at that time. Later on, about 20 minutes further
into the flight, smoke started appearing in the cabin and
cockpit section of the airplane. Several attempts were made
to locate the source of the smoke, and those attempts appeared
futile.
Later on, still further into the flight, smoke continued
to fill the cockpit and the cabin portions of the airplane to
such an extent that visibility became untenable or very
difficult outside the front of the window, causing the crew
great concern as to whether or not the plane would be able to
land. The crew declared an emergency situation, called
Washington Center and asked for priority landing at their
intended destination, National Airport. As they approached
Washington, D.C., they altered plans yet again to land at
Dulles International Airport, which was closer to their flight
path. They dropped oxygen masks in both the cockpit and the
cabin area, and they were able to effect a successful landing.
After the landing, a search of the plane discovered a
bomb in a mail pod underneath the passenger section of the
cabin. That bomb did not breach the hull of the airplane
because it was surrounded by densely packed mail in that mail
pod.
In a coded journal entry dated December 29, 1979, the
defendant states in part as follows -- and incidentally, Your
Honor, that was a bomb that was triggered by a barometric
device that was placed in the bomb. It also had a back-up
device so if the barometric switch didn't work, it would
detonate upon an individual opening the package.
And the quote is as follows: "In some of my notes I
mentioned a plan for revenge on society. Plan was to blow up
airliner in flight. Late summer and early autumn I
constructed device. Much expense because had to go to
Great Falls to buy materials, including barometer and many
boxes of cartridges for the powder. I put more than a quart
of smokeless powder in a can, rigged barometer so device would
explode at 2,000 feet or conceivably as high as 3,500 feet.
Due to variation of atmospheric pressure. Late October mailed
package from Chicago priority mail so it would go by air.
Unfortunately plane not destroyed. Bomb too weak . . . Bomb
did not accomplish much. Probably destroyed some mail.
Papers said it was with mail sacks and there was smoldering
fire. No damage to plane. At least it gave them a good
scare. Much thick smoke came into passenger space, plane
landed at airport other than its destination because of this."
Your Honor, the cabin searchers also discovered
handwritten notes by the defendant and calculations referring
to the cruising altitude of passenger airplanes and the cabin
pressure of most airplanes and a chart showing the atmospheric
pressure versus altitude.
Also, in a letter to the New York Times dated
April 20th, 1995, the Unabomber stated, quote, "In one case we
attempted unsuccessfully to blow up an airliner. The idea was
to kill a lot of business people who we assumed would
constitute the majority of passengers," unquote. Your Honor,
a carbon copy of that letter was found in the defendant's
cabin.
And that concludes the proffer for bomb number 3.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government's attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb number 4,
that was a bomb which was mailed on or about -- or received on
or about June 10th, 1980 by Percy Wood who was then the
president of United Airlines. Mr. Wood opened that package
and as he did so, the bomb detonated, causing Mr. Wood
injuries to various portions of his body.
Approximately a week before Mr. Wood received that
package, he had received a letter from an individual named
Enoch Fischer stating that he, Mr. Wood, would be receiving a
book entitled Ice Brothers which the author of the letter
recommended that Mr. Wood read. When Wood opened the package,
the bomb that he had received in the mail on June 10th, 1980,
it in fact contained a book called Ice Brothers. When he
opened the cover of the book, it exploded.
In a coded passage dated August 18, 1980 which was found
in the defendant's cabin, the defendant writes, "In June 1980
I sent a bomb to P.A. Wood, president of United Airlines." In
the remainder of that passage, the defendant notes that the
device failed to perform as desired and speculates as to what
the cause of the failure was.
In another partially coded entry dated September 15th,
1980, the defendant expresses his anger over jet noise in the
area around his cabin and states, quote, "After complicated
preparation I succeeded in injuring the president of
United Airlines. But he was only one of a vast army of people
who directly and indirectly are responsible for the jets."
Your Honor, searchers also found in the cabin a
handwritten document entitled, quote, "How to Hit an Exxon
Exec," which discussed sending a book-like package which
concealed a bomb to the target's home, preceded by a letter.
Your Honor, forensic examination of the bomb also
revealed, among other things, that the bomb contained a metal
tag stamped with the initials FC, and this was the first
appearance of those initials with respect to the individual
who ultimately became known as the Unabomber.
That concludes the proffer as to bomb 4.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb 5, that
was a device -- it was a firebomb which was placed outside a
classroom at the business classroom building of the University
of Utah on October 8th, 1981.
And the Government would proffer with respect to that
bomb as follows. That bomb was observed by two students
exiting a typing class in that building. One of the students
went over to the device, picked it up, held it at eye level
for several minutes and as he did so, he felt a stick drop out
the bottom of the device. He made several attempts to push
the stick back up into the device with -- but each time it
would fall out the bottom again. At that point, thinking that
the package might contain a bomb, the student notified campus
personnel, who in turn notified bomb squad authorities, who
arrived on the scene and disrupted the device without
incident, rendered it safe.
The device, after forensic analysis, was proven to
consist of a partially filled metal one-gallon gas can which
contained a pipe bomb suspended inside. The bomb was designed
to detonate when it was picked up. At that point, a drop
stick would drop out the bottom part of the way, making
contact with the electrical circuit and detonating the device.
In a coded journal entry dated February 22nd, 1982 which
was found in the defendant's cabin, the defendant states in
part, "Last fall I attempted a bombing and spent nearly three
hundred bucks just for travel expenses, motel, clothing for
disguise, etc. Aside from cost of materials for bomb. And
then the thing failed to explode. Damn. This was the
firebomb found in the University of Utah business school
outside door of room containing some computer stuff."
In his April 21, 1995 letter to the New York Times, the
Unabomber states in part, quote, "As for the bomb planted at
the business school of the University of Utah that was a
botched operation. We won't say how or why it was botched
because we don't want to give the F.B.I. any clues. No one
was hurt by that bomb." The carbon copy of this letter was
found in the defendant's cabin.
Your Honor, searchers also found a carbon copy of the
letter which the defendant sent to Penthouse publisher Bob
Guiccione together with a copy of the manifesto. In that
letter the Unabomber references another letter which contained
the initials FC, which stood for Freedom Club.
Your Honor, that letter, the Freedom Club letter to the
San Francisco Examiner, was also found in the cabin. Although
the Examiner had no record of receiving that letter, the
letter contained a handwritten notation in the handwriting of
the defendant which indicated that it was mailed in
December 1985. That letter states in part, "We are also
responsible for some earlier bombing attempts; among
others . . . the firebomb planted at the business school of
the University of Utah which never went off."
Your Honor, finally, one of the defendant's admissions
that I've already quoted reflects the defendant's use of
disguises. We found other entries in the defendant's writings
in the cabin which reflected liberal use of disguises in the
purchasing of bomb components as well as the placing of bombs.
And that would conclude the proffer with respect to
bomb 5.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government's attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb 6, that
was a bomb that was mailed to Professor Patrick Fischer.
Professor Fischer was formerly a professor at Penn State
University. The package was mailed to him at that address.
However, at the time it was mailed, he had moved on to
Vanderbilt University. That package was then forwarded to him
at Vanderbilt, and it was opened on May 5th, 1982 by his
secretary Janet Smith. That device exploded upon opening,
causing serious injuries to Ms. Smith.
Forensic examination of the bomb revealed, among other
things, a metal tag bearing the initials FC and a mailing
label which had been typed on the typewriter which I've
already referred to that was found in the cabin.
Furthermore, an undated coded entry from the defendant's
journal states, quote, "May about 1982 I sent a bomb to a
computer expert named Patrick Fischer. His secretary opened
it. One newspaper said she was in hospital? In good
condition? With arm and chest cuts. Other newspaper said
bomb drove fragments of wood into her flesh. But no
indication that she was permanently disabled. Frustrating
that I can't seem to make a lethal bomb. Used shotgun powder
in this last, hoping that it would do better than rifle
powder. Next I must try another gasoline bomb, different
design. Though gasoline bomb I tried last fall did not go
off. Revenge attempts have been gobbling much time, impeding
other work. But I must succeed, must get revenge."
Also, in a previously referenced letter to the
San Francisco Examiner, a copy of which was found in the
cabin, the defendant states, "We are also responsible for some
earlier bombing attempts; among others . . . the mail bomb
that injured the secretary of computer expert Patrick Fischer
of Vanderbilt University three and a half years ago."
Your Honor, the defendant -- the Unabomber also claims
credit for this bomb in a June 24th, 1995 letter to the
New York Times. That letter was found in the defendant's
cabin, a handwritten version of that letter, and one of the
defendant's experiments also claims credit for this device.
And that would conclude the proffer with respect to
bomb 6.
(Discussion off the record between the defendant and
Ms. Clarke. And Mr. Denvir.)
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, could I have just one moment.
THE COURT: Yes.
(Discussion off the record between Ms. Clarke and
Mr. Lapham.)
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, it appears there is some
question whether the Patrick Fischer device was mentioned in
the defendant's experiments. For the purpose of this proffer,
I can withdraw that statement.
THE COURT: Okay.
Mr. Kaczynski, deeming that statement withdrawn, do you
agree with the factual representation just made by the
Government's attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb number 7,
that was a device that was placed in Room 411 of Cory Hall on
the campus of the University of California at Berkeley on or
about July 2nd, 1982. Professor Diogenes Angelakos located
that device, which was disguised to appear to be some type of
test equipment. The device was actually a gasoline firebomb
which was designed to detonate when the device was lifted by a
handle which sat on top of the device. That device contained
a note which stated, "Wu -- it works! I told you it would."
Signed -- "RV." The typing on that note was consistent with
the typewriter which was found in defendant's cabin.
We also found a journal entry, coded journal entry,
among the defendant's personal effects in his cabin which
claimed responsibility for that device in the following
terms: "Not long after foregoing" -- relating to the Fischer
device -- "I think in June or July I went to University
California Berkeley and placed in computer science building a
bomb consisting of a pipe bomb in a gallon can of gasoline.
According to newspaper, vice chairman of computer science
department picked it up. He was considered to be out of
danger of losing any fingers but would need surgery for bone
and tendon damage to hand. Apparently pipe bomb went off but
did not ignite gasoline. I don't understand it. Frustrated.
Traveling expenses for raids such as the foregoing are very
hard on my slender financial resources."
Your Honor, in the 1985 letter to the San Francisco
Examiner which I've already referred to, the defendant also
claimed responsibility for this device.
And that would conclude the proffer for bomb number 7.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government's attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb number 8,
that was a device which was also left in a room at Cory Hall
on the campus of University of California at Berkeley. This
device was left there on May 15th, 1985 and was made to appear
like a black vinyl three-ring binder, on top of which was a
plastic file box. The device was designed to detonate when
the binder was opened.
The forensic analysis of the bomb revealed, among other
things, that it contained a metal end plug, which is a
component of the bomb and which bore the initials FC.
Your Honor, in a lengthy coded journal entry dated
June 1st, 1985 which pertains to this bomb, the defendant
claims responsibility for that device in the following terms.
"Success at last after many failures reported in these
notes. Took me year and a half of intensive effort, largely
neglecting other work to develop effective type bomb . . .
May 8 I planted a small bomb in the computer science
department at Berkeley. This is apparatus number 2,
Experiment 83, in my notebooks. At same time I mailed a
larger bomb to Boeing Corporation, Auburn, Washington.
Outcome of Boeing bomb unknown. Berkeley bomb did well for
its size. It was sprung by Air Force pilot, 26 years old,
name Hauser, working on master's degree in electrical
engineering. He probably would have been killed if so
positioned relative to bomb as to take the fragments in his
body. As it were, mainly his right arm was hit. Witnesses
said, quote, 'Whole arm was exploded.' 'Blood all over the
place.' One newspaper said arm was 'mangled.' Another said
it was 'shattered' and that he would never recover full use of
arm and hand. Also there was damage to one eye. One paper
said that the small computer lab was 'destroyed.' This is
improbable."
Later on he states, "I was relieved to read what kind of
guy sprang the trap. I had worried about possibility that
some young kid, undergrad, not even computer science major
might get it. But this guy clearly typical member of the
technician class. Might even be one of the guys that has
flown those fucking jets over my home. This gives great
relief to my choking, frustrated anger and sense of impotence
against the system. At same time, must admit I feel badly
about having crippled this man's arm. It has been bothering
me a good deal. This is embarrassing because while my
feelings are partly from pity, I am sure they come largely
from the training, propaganda, brainwashing we all get,
conditioning us to be scared by the idea of doing certain
things. It is shameful to be under the sway of this
brainwashing. But do not get the idea that I regret what I
did. Relief of frustrated anger outweighs uncomfortable
conscience. I would do it all over again."
Later on, the defendant states, "Further search of
newspapers yielded . . . Hauser's arm was severed or nearly
severed. Tips of three fingers torn off. Use of arm and hand
will be permanently impaired. To what degree not known.
Hauser, father of two kids. He was working toward Ph.D,
contrary to other paper that said masters. He was afraid his
'dream,'" quote, unquote, "was ruined. Dream was to be an
astronaut. Imagine a grown man whose dream is to be an
astronaut. I am no longer bothered by this guy partly because
I just 'got over it' with time, partly because his aspiration
was so ignoble."
And, Your Honor, that statement refers to an
Experiment 83 which we found among the defendant's experiments
in the cabin. That describes assembling this bomb during the
March and April 1985 time period and concludes, quote, "This
device did detonate, producing good results." And elsewhere
in the experiments, the defendant sets forth an idea for
placing a bomb in Cory Hall at the University of Berkeley
which consists of a loose-leaf binder on top of a plastic
box.
And I didn't state it earlier, but the victim was John
Hauser, who was an Air Force captain at the time training to
be an astronaut. He received his acceptance into the
astronaut program one week after being injured by this
device.
And this device also contained an end plug bearing the
initials FC.
That would conclude the proffer on bomb 8.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government's attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor with respect to bomb 9, that was
a device that was constructed at the same time as the Hauser
device. And that's referred to also in the lengthy passage,
coded passage that I just read.
That device was received by Boeing Aircraft in Auburn,
Washington on or about May 16th, 1985. It was postmarked
May 8th, 1985 from Oakland, California. And that bomb -- it
was suspected of being a bomb. Several attempts were made to
open that package prior to any suspicion that it was a bomb.
That attempts proved unsuccessful, and during those attempts
fortunately the bomb did not detonate.
The bomb was rendered safe by bomb disposal personnel.
And in the lengthy quoted passage that I just described with
reference to the Hauser device, that passage reflects that the
bomb that was mailed to Boeing was constructed pursuant to
Experiment 82. The Experiment 82 was located among the
defendant's effects in the cabin, and the defendant indeed
describes assembling the Boeing bomb between February and
April 1985 but states, "Result unknown." In a later passage,
however, the defendant records, quote, "Now," parentheses,
"(1993), I know that this device was discovered and
disassembled before the triggers were released."
And that would conclude the proffer as to bomb 9.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government's attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb 10, that
was a device which was received on November 15th, 1985 by
Dr. James McConnell, a professor at the University of
Michigan. Professor McConnell's assistant, Nick Suino, opened
that device and was injured when the bomb exploded.
Forensic analysis of the bomb revealed, among other
things, that the initials FC were stamped on one of the metal
end plugs and that the mailing label envelope were all typed
on the typewriter found in the defendant's cabin.
Your Honor, that device was preceded by a letter or it
was accompanied by a letter purportedly from an individual
named Ralph Kloppenburg. That letter explained that the
package contained a manuscript which Mr. Kloppenburg wished
Professor McConnell to review. When the package is opened up,
it appears to be a ream of paper which is hollowed out with
only the edges, the borders, remaining. Inside that ream of
paper was concealed a bomb. That is the bomb that exploded
when it was opened by Mr. Suino.
In a coded passage that was found in the defendant's
cabin, the defendant states, "Experiment 100. Mid-November
1985 I sent bomb in mail to James V. McConnell, behavior
modification researcher at University of Michigan. Only minor
injuries to McConnell's assistant. Deflagrated, did not
detonate. Must be either pipe was a little weak or loading
density of explosives a shade too high at failure."
Your Honor, during a search of the cabin, the Government
also found Experiment 100. In that experiment, the defendant
describes construction of the McDonnell device and concludes,
quote, "We placed enough postage on the package for zone 8 and
for 7 pounds. We sent the package on November 12, 1985."
The next entry is December 17. That states, "We have
learned that the package was received and opened, and that the
device ignited. But, apparently, that it did not detonate,
but rather deflagrated. A total failure."
And, Your Honor, a carbon copy of the Kloppenburg letter
was also found in the defendant's cabin. On that letter was a
Spanish notation which translates as follows: "Letter mailed
with the Experiment 100 package. The letter was in the
envelope taped to the package. The envelope was addressed but
had no postage. The package itself had enough postage for the
package and the letter." There were also references to
Professor McConnell found in the defendant's cabin.
And that would conclude the proffer as to bomb 10.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government's attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, finally, as to bomb 12, that
was a device that was placed behind CAAMS computer store in
Salt Lake City, Utah on February 20th, 1987. Your Honor, I
previously referred to that device as being a near twin to the
device that was placed behind the Rentech computer store in
Sacramento, California, which was one of the charged devices
in the Sacramento indictment.
That device also contained an end plug bearing the
initials FC. That device was placed in a parking lot in the
same manner or similar manner as with the Rentech device.
That device was found by one of the employees, one of the
co-owners of CAAMS computer store, Gary Wright. Mr. Wright
picked up that device or attempted to pick that device up, and
upon movement of that device, it exploded, causing some
injuries to Mr. Wright.
In Experiment 121 which was found until the defendant's
cabin, the defendant describes constructing a bomb in November
and December of 1986 and January of 1987. According to the
notes contained in that experiment, the bomb was completed on
February 8th, 1987. And then another passage concludes as
follows: "The device was placed February 20th and worked the
same day; it exploded and probably detonated but the
results -- as far as we could find out -- did not enough to
satisfy us."
Your Honor, furthermore, an article pertaining to that
device was found in the defendant's cabin and among his other
personal effects.
And that would conclude the proffer as to bomb 12.
THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual
representation just made by the Government's attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, may I have a moment?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Discussion off the record among Government counsel.)
MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, that's all.
THE COURT: Is there anything further for me to cover
based on the matters in the plea agreement?
(Discussion off the record among Government counsel).
MR. LAPHAM: We can't think of anything, Your Honor.
Mr. Kaczynski, how do you now plead to the charges in
Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the indictment in
this case, and Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the indictment in the
District of New Jersey case: guilty or not guilty?
(Discussion off the record between defendant and
Mr. Denvir).
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It is the finding of the Court in the case
of United States vs. Theodore John Kaczynski that the
defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an
informed plea and that his plea of guilty is a knowing and
voluntary plea supported by an independent basis in fact
containing each of the essential elements of the offenses.
His plea is therefore accepted, and he is now adjudged guilty
of those offenses.
Mr. Kaczynski, a written pre-sentence report will be
prepared by the United States Probation Office to assist the
Court in sentencing. You will be asked to give information
for the report, and your attorneys may be present if you
wish. I shall permit you and your counsel the opportunity to
read the pre-sentence report before the sentencing hearing.
You shall also be afforded the opportunity to speak on your
behalf at the sentencing hearing.
I'm going to obtain a judgment and sentencing date from
my deputy.
THE CLERK: May 15 at 1:30.
THE COURT: How about May 15 at 1:30 for judgment and
sentencing?
MS. CLARKE: That's fine, Your Honor.
MR. LAPHAM: Fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: A question before you leave. Is there any
reason why I shouldn't release the jury?
MR. CLEARY: None, Your Honor.
THE COURT: How about filing the blank copy of the jury
questionnaire?
MR. DENVIR: That's fine, Your Honor.
MR. CLEARY: Fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DENVIR: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Time noted: 3:22 p.m.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
-- oOo --
BEFORE THE HONORABLE GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR., JUDGE
-- oOo --
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. Cr. S-96-259 GEB
)
THEODORE JOHN KACZYNSKI, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________)
-- oOo --
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JURY TRIAL
DISCUSSION ON MOTIONS AND CHANGE OF PLEA
VOLUME 27, pp. 3757-3848
THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 1998
-- oOo --
Reported by: SUSAN VAUGHAN, CSR No. 9673
A P P E A R A N C E S
For Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
650 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
BY: ROBERT J. CLEARY
STEPHEN P. FRECCERO
R. STEVEN LAPHAM
Special Attorneys to the
United States Attorney General
For the Defendant:
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDER
801 "K" Street, Suite 1024
Sacramento, CA 95814
By: QUIN A. DENVIR
Federal Defender, Eastern District of California
JUDY CLARKE
Executive Director, Federal Defenders of
Eastern Washington and Idaho
STERNBERG, SOWARDS & LAURENCE
604 Mission St., 9th floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
BY: GARY D. SOWARDS
Also Present: KEVIN CLYMO, Attorney at Law
TERRY TURCHIE, Assistant Special Agent,
F.B.I. Unabom Task Force
ROBERT ROLFSEN, JR., Special Agent, F.B.I.
-- oOo --