>> maam thank you for your question. i think the leadership has it big part to play. the difference here is president ghani and dr. mueller are committed to this. it's written in their constitution and so as they work with the taliban if there is reconciliation down the road one of the key parameters will be the constitution will hold and it talks about respect of women's rights. again i think with the first lady and president ghani that ambassador mckinley and his team at the embassy, with the 30, 40 plus ambassadors i interact with periodically they'll have this utmost in their mind. it comes up in different settings on that so it's sort of a drumbeat with the senior leadership and the other ministries continue to hear. they understand how important it is that they abide by the constitution where they want to

go. i think leadership will make a difference and they understand in my realm and the security round everything as conditions-based. we signed letters of commitment to provide finance, to provide fuel on and on and this is the same way we look forward in this area that could be conditioned space in everything we continue to do their ngos abide by the constitution and i think leadership can make that happen. >> i remember hearing we had where woman who is a leader of one of the ngos over there said the first indication over there that things are not going well will be the street. if you stop seeing women on the street so that does come back to the role of the afghan national police. are you confident that they are up to the task and if not how would we challenge them to do it better? >> the police have done much better on integrating women into their force. they are doing much better

understanding how they deal with communities and understanding community policing. we talked about the high-profile high-profile. one way of getting at that was having a police force that had policing on their mind and as we mentioned earlier one of the members of president ghani me to change on the district commanders inside of kabul. they made a change and they have talked about that for a while. they just did that and as i travel around the streets of kabul the streets are bustling. a lot of women are out and around so that indication continues to build. again i think this will be a challenge in the leadership in keeping a spotlight on us and having the international community make sure they understand how important it is. they don't continue to abide by this there's a conditionality where they can take away something whether it's financial

financial. they are dependent on donor nations right now so conditions have to go on this. they are working hard on this and dedicated toward that. but there will be challenges as they move forward. it's going to take time so with an army they have a goal, a very hard goal of getting 10% into their army. they are less than 1% today and they are trying to work toward that. i look at my own army at 15% so it's going to take time. it's harder based on the cultural differences they have but i think they are committed to working up is very hard. >> thank you general for your testimony. >> general i mentioned to you that i thought the questions would be better starting from the bottom or the more junior members and i think the questioning has been excellent today. i think we have touched on a lot of topics. you have had a number of questions about isis and isil. i realize that you are not here as a lawyer and you haven't read

or studied carefully the implications of what the president has proposed. i heard you say at this point isis is a nascent threat in afghanistan although when you are watching very carefully. but as we explore this aumf that the president has requested for isis thinking about how it would work for people like you whether we are talking about afghanistan, syria iraq or whatever one of the concerns is that it has more restrictions on isis than the current aumf has on al qaeda. some of these groups live side-by-side. so to me there is just a commonsense concern here that if you have got two different standards to go after two different terrorist groups how do you have the intelligence to know which is which and

operationally you have to have a lawyer by your side to make every single decision. if it comes to be that way and this is a big if and again i'm not trying to -- but operationally with that not be a matter of concern? >> sir thanks for the question. and the commander on the ground would tell you he wants as much flexibility as he can get so any policy that provides commanders on the ground the flexibility to make decisions in a timely manner is something we would be in favor of. you are right, the insurgents and i can only speak for afghanistan but the insurgents inside of afghanistan in many cases feed off of each other and they are interrelated in many different ways. you may have one that provides finance, food, lodging and one that may provide weapons and secure routes but some fight each other internally but also

it's very tough as we took a hard look at it to separate some of these organizations. what i do have right now is the authority to prosecute those who come after the coalition and that's how i look at it as they try to bend those. does not buy their status but by their conduct come after coalition forces. >> the reason we are in afghanistan to begin with is because that is the place from which it plot was launched that ultimately killed 3000 americans americans. what can you tell us about your assessment of al qaeda's core ability to reconstitute itself were it not to be under constant pressure on the front lines? >> thanks again for that question. i do think we have to make sure we understand the threat and how

the threat will continue to evolve. the continued pressure that we provide now with their very credible ct capability, the very best in the world i believe has prevented another attack on the homeland and i do believe if you don't have continued pressure on a few that blix will be a matter of time that they will regenerate that capability. >> under the current drawdown plan with your ability to gather intelligence for the ct mission be significantly downgraded in this calendar year? >> sir as i look at it i would much rather go into a classified session with you to discuss that piece. >> i sure don't want to get the

details. >> anytime you go from one number to another you have to make very tough decisions on where you balance that. as i talked before, force protection is utmost in my mind. isr and other pieces that provide continued force protection so i look at it very hard and i have to balance that. those numbers you have to make tough decisions on where you take that and if i don't feel comfortable with that i need to make sure to come forward to my senior leadership and provide them with what i believe the risk of force is in the wrist emission is. tonight i appreciate that and again i'm thinking from a commonsense measure. if you are in fewer places around the country you have fewer opportunities to gather intelligence including force protection and counterterrorism as well which is of concern to me.

just to clarify and i think you answered this earlier all of the high-value terrorist who were in our custody have now been turned over to afghan custody. >> not all afghan. they have been turned over to third countries as well but i do not have any detainees. i do not have detention authority after one january. >> so they have all gone somewhere but not all necessarily bear. >> that is correct sir. >> last thought, i am struck. we had as you know austin here yesterday and i am struck by the number of members on this committee on both sides of the aisle who have served in iraq and afghanistan and feel very strongly that they did not want the sacrifice that has been made in afghanistan -- though i hate

to say go to waste but there is tremendous frustration in what has happened in iraq. you got a sense of that today. i know from your service and from those who served under you you share that determination to make sure whether we are talking taxpayer dollars or american lives that the sacrifice is upheld and honored and that it is not wasted because of policy decisions. the only thing i would request from you is as you watch this situation in afghanistan probably closer than anybody else, if you believe that we are headed down the wrong path i.e. headed down a path that we went down in iraq? i now this committee expects and requests you do raise a flag to

us as well as your chain of command and say this is headed down the wrong path. this committee obviously shares what no doubt ensure commitment to make sure that all of that sacrifice these last 14 years results in a stable relatively peaceful afghanistan from which terrorists cannot launch attacks against us. so i appreciate that and you are welcome to say anything you want to. >> absolutely i'm committed to that. i will give you my best military advice and i'm committed to data and thank you for your leadership as well. >> thank you and i appreciate you answering all questions today and was at the hearing stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

on friday u.s. telecom.

in 1998 ted kaczynski known as the unibomber. >> a mutt and jeff combination are stickball set. washington was a large man. 6 feet very robust terrific natural athlete and madison is a skinny little guy.

this gives that i write most about is his ability to form remarkable partnerships with the great people of this arrow but it also alludes to his gift to the country, others talents and what he was able to do to help create the first self-sustaining constitutional republic. >> in 1998 ted kaczynski known as the unibomber pled guilty to killing three people and injuring 23 others with homemade bombs between 1978 and 1995. next to discussion of the case with the prosecutor, the lead defense defense attorney that headed the fbi's unibomber task force in one of the unibomber's

victims. from the u.s. district courthouse in sacramento california, this is about two hours. >> it was in may of 1978 a professor at the university of illinois in chicago found a mysterious package in the parking lot. when a campus policeman attempted to open the package exploded injuring the office. this was just the first of 16 bombs delivered over a span of the next 17 years to individuals in various locations across the united states. all but two of them caused serious injuries. three resulted in death. law enforcement shortly came to the conclusion that bombs were

all being sent by the same person whom they dubbed the unibomber. understandably the public was struck with fear not knowing when or where the unibomber would strike next. the investigation came to a head in 1995 when the unibomber sent a 35,000 word essay to "the new york times," the "new york post" post," penthouse magazine and other publications containing his so-called manifesto. and offering to cease his bombings if they would publish him. with the approval of law enforcement the times and the post published the manifesto. when david kaczynski read the contents of it he began to think the unthinkable that it was written by his brother, ted. working with the information

provided by david kaczynski law enforcement was able to obtain a search warrant for cabin occupied by ted kaczynski in an authorized area near lincoln montana. with what they found in that search law enforcement had enough to arrest ted kaczynski and the decision was made by the united states department of justice to bring the prosecution here in the eastern district of california. the decision was also made to ask for the death penalty. the defendant was indicted in april of 1996 and the trial began in the courtroom of united states district judge garland e. gorell junior in late 1997. after a lengthy jury selection process in january of 1998 the defendant suddenly agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of life in prison without parole. in our panel discussion here this evening we hope to discuss among other things how the fbi

managed the investigation of such serious crimes extending over such a lengthy period of time in such a vast geographical area. we will also discuss the effect of those crimes had on their victims, one in particular. we will talk about why and how the decision was made to allow the publication of the unibomber's manifesto. we also hope to discuss what was involved in seeking and obtaining a search warrant and how the decision was made to bring the prosecution here in the eastern district of california. we hope to learn about the prosecution strategy including the decision to seek the death penalty and also learned the defense strategy. finally how the agreement was ultimately reached for the defendant to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence. we have a distinguished panel with us this evening to discuss

the subject. their full resumes are found in your program. first to my immediate left terry turchie special agent agent for the fbi for 35 years. between 1994 in 1998 he was the assistant special agent in charge of the unibomber task force. he is co-author of four books. one of them is entitled hunting the american terrorist, the fbi's war on homegrown terror and the most recent one which has the most relevance to this discussion is entitled unibomber unibomber, how the fbi broke its own rules to capture the terrorist ted kaczynski. our next panelist to his left is gary wright who is a computer store operator in salt lake city who was a victim he prefers to say survivor, of the unibomber's

12th bomb attack in february of 1987. he has since developed a friendship with the defendant's brother david kaczynski. to his left judge robert stephen lapham a california superior court judge presently presiding over juvenile court proceedings and sand -- sacramento. he was the assistant attorney for the eastern district of california handling several high-profile cases in sacramento between 1984 and 2015 and he was a member of the prosecution team in the kaczynski case. finally to his left quin denvir serving as the public defender from 1977 to 1984 and at the time of the unibomber trial he was the federal defender for this district and lead counsel on ted kaczynski's defense team. i would be remiss if i did not

introduce one other individual whose presence on the panel a judge who presided over the kaczynski proceedings judge burrough junior. now to get off the discussion terry why do you tell us how you got involved in the unibomber investigation and how they came about. >> like most fbi agents he was a reluctant involvement. for myself on april 11994 at 12:35 p.m. and i can probably give you the seconds in a palo alto resident agency where i was happy working national security cases i received a call from our system special agent at the time of counterintelligence. he said terry i just got off the phone with jim freeman are special agent in charge of the time and here is what i would ask how would you like to come

to san francisco and take over the task force which had been established a year earlier after 1993 simultaneous bombings both of those mailed here from sacramento to different parts of the coast. i smiled to myself when i said that's a nice offer and i'm good here. i love palo alto and i love being around his stanford but thank you. there was a pause and he said it was a multiple-choice question. i would like you to consider coming up here as soon as you can. i said okay how about in a month? that will give me time to wrap everything up here and we can find a new acting supervisor and i will head to san francisco. he said how about in a couple of hours? most of us because of the link to this case and i will use the words almost sheer hopelessness and that is how we thought about it we try to avoid that corridor in the federal building in san francisco.

it housed the unibomber task force or that's how i got started. >> the investigation had been ongoing for a number of years. can you summarize what the fda learned before you got involved? >> the investigation had gone on since may of 1978. even though up to this time there were 14 bombings there would be two more bombings while we were supposed symbol that is the latest iteration of atf. we didn't know a lot that we knew certain factual details for we had questions that we had no answers. looking back particularly at the first three crimes they became important to us as we tried to look at a new way to put this case together. the first bombing that happened at may of 1978 the main question is this. there is a package found at the university of illinois chicago campus in their technology building parking lot. it had $10 uncanceled stamps and

somebody went to pick it up and eventually got it to the police. it exploded but we never got the answer to the question on why did we have a package with a return address of northwestern university in chicago and $10 canceled stamps. why wasn't this package mailed so that was one of the things we focused on. a year later in may of 1979 another bomb was found only this time it was found inside northwestern university. that struck this is interesting because the first bomb we had a return address of northwestern and now we had a bomb actually at northwestern. we thought a lot about that and we try to look at what possibly could be the connection between those two bombs. in the third bombing in november of 1979 which got everyone's attention the bomb was placed on american airlines height --

flight 444 heading for national. there was a bomb placed on the airplane that had been built with a barometer and fashioned as an ultimate or. it was to go off at a certain alt-a two. when it did go off there was cargo and luggage in the cargo room and started a fire rather than exploding as it was supposed to. by the time the plane did an emergency landing at dulles airport and the pilots were able to look at the damage when the fire was out they were prepared to say had this fire burned a couple more inches closer to the hydraulic line this would have crashed and they would have been nothing we could have done to stop it. at that point the fbi chris renee looked at this bomb and the parts and the strains we haven't seen any other bombs built by someone who did this.

he sent out a bulletin and alert and said we have a call from the atf. they reference the first to bombings in 1978 in 199, brought all this together and realized in november of 1979 we now have the serial bombing case. >> how did the name unibomber get coined? >> the first two bombings were at universities. northwestern university and rpi in new york. the first bomb with the address of northwestern and the second bomb in a graduate student room in may of 1979 at northwestern gave us universities as targets. by the time the bomb was placed on the american airlines flight we knew knew -- we now had universities and airlines so this became as you know the fbi likes to attach these fancy names to its cases it got public attention and certainly did. universities and airlines

unibomber. >> we have a chart behind us up all of the bombings. without getting into all of the details what was the sequence of events after the first three? >> after the first three bombings we would eventually have 13 more bombings as the judge mentioned. in 1980 the airline aspect of this got another boost. percy with the present of united airlines in his lake forest home in illinois received a package in the mail. a week before he received the package he received a letter in the letter was written to him by someone named signed a letter enoch fischer. in this letter he said you are going to be giving in the mail a package from the president. you don't know me but anybody like you present of united airlines makes decisions affecting the public welfare

needs to read the book that i'm sending you. the book turned out to be a novel that was written at the time. even the author sloan wilson said i don't really have any social significance to my book so i don't know what they're talking about. i just kind of came up with that one day. percy would receive at package that next week. when he went to open it the book had been carved out and there was a bomb built into the book. he suffered significant injuries when he opened his book and his house. that was the fourth event. all of those had a nexus to chicago. then no more nexus to chicago. we are done with chicago and by 1980 when we moved on to salt lake city. in 1981 the bomb was placed in the hallway at the university of utah business building. it exploded in the bathroom and somebody noticed it and the police to get in there and detonated it. ..

the owner of that stewart came out from the door into the back parking lot and came and saw what appeared to be a road hazard i'm sure in his mind. two by fours nailed together and unbeknownst to him inside these pieces of wood the bomber had carved in and build a bomb. when he went over to move this so that it would not cause problems for a a passerby, as soon as he reached over to break the contact between that device and the ground it exploded killing him almost instantly

>> the. >> the next bomb, i believe was in salt lake city involving our next panelist gary wright. >> really similar with the structure of the bomb. 1987 i am the computer company. my my family work there with me. i had been out on calls. pulled into the rear parking lot of our building. as i pulled in i looked down, and next to my secretary's car, i pulled the next to hers there was a peace of wood similar to what you said but different 22 different, 22 by fours put together with nail sticking out of it. i remember one was up on the

right-hand corner bench just a little bit. but they were the shiniest nails i had ever seen. but i went and got the same thing there's something in the road. when i went over and went to pick it up there was something really quite wrong an immediate feeling of pressure. the sound of like a jet fighter going over. instantly i moved a long way. i did not know how but i realized i was jumping up and down like i was on the pogo stick. i was hollering for my family. everyone worked for me. they came out the back. as i was jumping around the only way i can describe the next thing i saw was kind of like the matrix.

i can tell you, it is true. i was looking at the power and telephone lines i went to the building. they were moving very slowly i was watching pieces of things drift down around me. i'm thinking this is the weirdest thing i have ever seen. at that 2nd i really thought, i'm not going to make it. i thought someone had shot me with a shotgun. my family came out and, and i could see my dad was trying to say something to me. i was reading his lips because it was like being under water and swimming pool. so he had been a state trooper in salt lake and had seen lots of things. i could tell he was upset.

slowly he and my brothers sat me on the tailgate of one of the trucks. sat there for a few minutes. while. while i was sitting they're i look down and was dressed nicely had a dress shirt on had on a white dress shirt and there were things that i could not i could not figure out what they were threaded through my shirt like needles. i i kept trying to put my head down to look but i was running into trouble. trouble. when the bomb exploded it was inside of two by fours. it was all of the slivers. the dr. later told me you look like a porcupine. that is something where they say life changes in a minute but it is really a millisecond. you just never know. we walked into the building.

i lay i lay down and got really comment took everything off give it to my mom and laid there. i realized it was serious because the next thing i see maybe a police officer 25 police officers and an ambulance crew. i don't know how you fit five guys into an ambulance, but they were successful. i said this might be worse than i thought. the moral of the moral of the story is it is not really fun when they cut your close off and your mom is sitting there. probably the most humbling thing you will run into. this is not so good. ultimately they took me to the hospital. i i waited -- i got there about 1030 and they started

surgery at 6:00 p.m., no painkillers or anything. the body's natural morphine is a pretty amazing thing. that was a good thing for me i went through three surgeries. the 1st night they went in and found i had severed a nerve in my left arm. when when the bomb exploded it moved very rapidly. when that middle came apart it was liquefied. when it went into my arm it cauterized the artery, so i did not bleed. i was pretty lucky in that regard. that night they did a bunch of the face stuff, stuff, check out 200 pieces of shrapnel from my legs and things like that. that was a friday. i went on sunday and decided to recover a little bit.

two weeks two weeks later i went back to the hospital for another surgery to try and grab the nerve in my left arm back together. ultimately they had to take it out and move it to the top of my arm. i tell people now there are things that don't work but i'm probably the fastest nine fingered typist finger typist you will ever know. finally, a surgery later had to transfer tendons and things in my hand, and it was strange. most strange. most people have two tendons and their thumb. i had three. that is a morning the probably changes lives in ways you don't no. >> how much time passed between the bombing that killed two and the bombing

that gary just described? >> six years. >> between the time of the bombing before his and gary's six years? >> again. >> how much between the bombing that killed few and the one he just described. >> 1985 and 1987. >> how much between the one gary describe and the next one? >> there we had six years. >> did you have a theory as to why there was so much time? >> the topic of why we had this time was widely debated we finally have the right guy and found a number of the writing 79. he he was experimenting to

build smaller, more compact bombs. when we start talking about the modern, instead of boxes and packages you actually have something the size of a video cassette placed in the mail to the future victim. >> do you have any theory as to why gary was not killed? >> we have talked about that a lot of gratefulness that it worked out that way the some of it is the way that the approach that bomb. gary i no you took the full brunt of that explosion. he reached to the edge and moved it.

when you moved it slightly it exploded and the force went in a different direction. >> the final two bombs did result in deaths. >> they did. an advertising executive and caldwell new jersey. he got one in the mail a week or two before christmas little kids running around the kitchen getting ready to go get a christmas tree. the mom called at the last minute. they went to get their pajamas often it ready to go home and there was a lot of mail that had stacked up. the 1st thing he took was this package with the san francisco return address on it. his wife heard a terrible noise. by by the time she got down there was smoke everywhere.

the the bomb was so powerful in this video cassette type of container that it had shrapnel. when it went off they had those copper skillets above the stove, and it went through some of those skillets. that was the power of the blast. he was killed almost instantly. finally in april, april 24 of 1995 again right here in sacramento at the california forestry association a bomb had been sent in the mail addressed to the president of the csa but he had left and been replaced by mr. gilbert murray. he was he was going to take this package up to northern california. he went ahead to open it to

see what was in it and the same kind of bomb with all the power and destructive power and just had no chance. >> can you talk a little bit about what the unabomber was doing to avoid detection? >> at the time we realized we were after someone who knew a lot and was too smart to leave a trail for himself we had no idea how smart he was. it turns out he was a genius he went to a great deal of effort to make sure he did not leave a trail behind. all of these bombs were handmade. he mentioned seeing something shiny it probably was something that was fashioned from chrome in the

cabin of the kaczynski. he would build them from scratch. normally when we try to trace things back in this case we could not trace anything. so he took sandpaper and sanded these devices very carefully to make sure they did not have any of his fingerprints on them. he wore gloves. in one instance he went to the men's room at the bus station got down on the floor and gathered for -- gathered here from the floor of the bathroom took that back and put it in between layers of tape. he would later write that he did this because if the fbi found here at a crime scene they would think it came from the person who built

the bomb. when you go out to buy things like old pieces of pipe or anything you might use to create a bomb committee would disguise himself, and one instance go into a junk store in salt lake city and stuff his nose with cotton and turned his hair died at black and had on really weird glasses. he went in there and figured if anyone sees me they certainly will not recognize me. he did all of these things in an effort to make sure to conceal his identity and help him later. >> a famous composite picture of the unabomber was circulated that everyone was familiar with. how did that come about? >> well, there was a major turning..

on february 20 1987, you all saw him. the truly looking out the window 4 feet 4 feet from where he was kneeling on the ground to arm the bomb. noticed right away that something was wrong. and so she is watching all of this literally kaczynski set this bomb in motion. her attention is taken off of them and he leaves. almost immediately you happen to pull in. but she described him to where when this was the 1st time we could say for sure he is a male. the getting the question. and this becomes one of the

more embarrassing parts of this case. 1987 and she described this man perfectly. subsequently a composi. that was distributed between 1987 and the time of our task force. never happy with that composite. something dramatic happened. you are you are familiar with the case of richard arlen davis. if you have seen the picture of the actual photograph you see the similarity of the composite and the photograph we started thinking we were looking for different ideas why don't we go back and redo the composite. and so one of our case

agents and supervisors got on the plane and flew out. and he was going to go into painstaking detail putting together this composite that we ultimately distributed. making sure making sure people know you think the fbi doing something like this. they were in the other room doing the composite. max was trying to entertain the kids. but it turned out that composite we got that out in 1994 and put it out with a message. this time telling the public cannot think of slim devices. then think of the middle

between 1981 and 1982 in salt lake city and think of the nexus with the bay area and look at this composite. those are the things we were dealing with. we had one other small detail. the original composite you can't think of everything and please everybody all the time. the the original composite the artist mother got really mad. we got a number of calls that she was very upset and disappointed that we didn't that. you never know what you'll get. those are some of the things that happened along the way. >> a real break came when you receive the manifesto. >> one of the pieces that brings all this together finally the unabomber after

the murder of mr. murray keep in mind just days earlier he had had the bombing of the oklahoma federal building. they wanted to be published. and so the idea was that the new york times would publish possibly the "washington post" but if they did not that we had not seen yet we would end up seeing more bombings.

if we published it they would desist. september 1995 2 things happen. the san francisco chronicle gets a letter saying this is the terrorist group. i i put a bomb on an airliner out of lax. everyone's command post is lit up and trying to figure out how to deal with this. the next day the manifesto floods into these various places. it was coming with a short letter that said, just one last joke here is the manifesto. once we got it and started reading it and had our profile or dive into it it did two good things. it seems to be the please

get the -- that could bring it together. many people thought it might be a red herring. we had to decide how we would deal with it but we also had to decide something else. what kind what kind of recommendation will we make? essentially what we are doing if we decide to recommend you publish the manifesto the big thing was are we giving in to terrorism, basically involved in a transaction with a terrorist? that was the big issue that permeated our entire thinking between the time we got the manifesto in september and april in the time it was published. >> ultimately you decided it would be published. >> yes, we did.

>> we through this around and came to a conclusion. there were about six of us. and we through it around back and forth and went into another room and decided a recommendation should be that we don't recommend publication. we took off and all started looking at each other. tony was in there with us. we all look at each other. the wrong decision. we had to go back in. they said we have to change our minds. they have a discussion all over again.

for one primary reason we felt the publication was the way to go. it was so detailed so passionate and so specific that we felt that it represented the lifelong thinking of the person we were looking for and if we could take this piece and put it with the two other pieces that composite geographical sequencing read the manifesto, put it all together and call us if you know someone like this. that is what we decided to do. the manifesto was published september 19. between september 19 and april 3 actually the middle of february of 96 we received 55,000 phone calls on the tip line. wives wanted to turn in her husband's girlfriends wanting to turn in

boyfriends. yet none of those people were the unabomber intel that call in the middle of february. he was representing an unknown client command they wanted to talk to us about some information that the client had. >> steve, you and the us attorney's office at this time when did you become involved?

the attempts. the statute we had had 12 bombings up to this time, the statute had run on all of them with the exception of one. no statute on capital murder cases. that was the one case that was subject to the jurisdiction. it was the only case with the case.

it seemed an important enough case, some working theories about who you might be some of which have been developed by atf agents in chicago. i was not aware that there was such a thing as the unabomber task force. i dove in. >> did you get involved? >> yes. shortly after that i started attending task force meetings. he won fair at that. very shortly after that he mailed to bombs from sacramento.

so now we are off and running again. >> the decision was made to publish the manifesto. >> i don't recall. i'm the northern district strongly in favor. it was just a 35,000 word. >> we -- i think terry r max probably notified me that we

had been contacted by an attorney. if i'm not mistaken that occurred in the fall of 95. that is when we put agents in. >> it happened very fast. >> interesting how you compress time. i remembered it as occurring earlier than that. the bottom line is he said he was representing a client anonymously at that time who believed he knew who the unabomber was. this client had hired a private investigator to check it out. the private

investigator had come back with the conclusion that there was a 60 percent chance that he was the unabomber, and with that information is authorized to go to the department of justice, related information , and it came with a price. asking that in return for divulging who this individual was he wanted the department of justice to forgo seeking the death penalty. >> did they do that? >> no. the department of justice rejected that offer. >> but did use receive information from david kaczynski? >> yes. he came forward and give us the information. one of the reasons he did if you look at some of the diaries and journals he had been estranged for quite some time but he reached out uncharacteristically initially in 1994 asked for

a thousand dollars loan. david being a compassionate person, of course, agreed instantly sent him the money, thought he was probably in declining health later he is back asking for another loan this time $2,000. and when he started feeling that his brother might be the unabomber he started connecting the dots and came to believe that his loans to his brother had actually financed the last two murders. that actually turned out to be correct. and i think out of just that share knowledge he understood that he could not sit on this information and double-digit.

>> along with the other information he devils new line for he was living. >> yes. >> how was the decision made to get a search warrant? >> we have had had had a search warrant in various stages of preparation all on because it was a massive search warrant. there was a lot of information we could include before we even knew who he was. you have to put in information about each one of the 16 devices including the various components so that you know what you are searching for knew execute the basic facts that connect the devices. a lot of that was already done. >> who did that? >> various members of the team. steve took the lead on that. in the final preparation we

knew who it would be executed against. steve, max, terry and probably others and a couple of 24-inch pizzas spend an all nighter drafting the final version and faxed it off to the district of montana. >> the judge in the district of montana issued the warrant. >> correct. >> what did you learn when it was executed? >> your asking about the search? the search lasted over nine days command people wonder why it took nine days to search for ten by 12-foot. the working assumption was when we went into this place it would be a bomb factory. protocols were in protocols were in place to x-ray everything in place before moving it. in fact they number two of

the search we found a fully functional bomb under his bed. and everything stopped at that. >> a particular piece of equipment designed that was geared to uniform devices because they had multiple triggering devices. this this was ready and flown up from riverside california and deployed. >> everything comes to a screeching halt. agents are cleared out and the bomb is removed. the search continues and basically what we found a broad categories of evidence about 40,000 pages of his writings which included admissions to

almost all of his bonds, if not all. we found diary entries that explained his motivations for killing. we we found experiment binders containing 240 experiments that he had done over the years trying to perfect his bomb making techniques. we found physical items relating back to bombs. in particular there was a very specific signature peace which we call the flip switch, the mechanism that basically completes the electrical circuit and brings two pieces of metal together to complete the electrical circuit. very unusual design characteristic of univar devices. the switch itself was made of a peace of wood hickory

hickory, i think _-dash and probably out of an ax handle or hammer handle. we found in oakdale canister that contained i think, 17 of those switches. you you put them side by side and they are virtually identical to one's we found in the unabomber devices. one of the most important pieces of evidence we found that we all said if we want anything in the world this is what we want a typewriter. since 1992 he had used that typewriter at the fbi lab estimated at been manufactured in 1934 or 35.

we were looking for very specific objects. this is the typewriter he had used to not only take the manifesto but everything that accompanied his bonds some that preceded the work device. if we found that he is is to thank you on the last day of the search we found in an ammunition canister lc smith corona typewriter manufactured in 1935 with 2.5 for spacing.

that was the typewriter. >> with all the information you found you had no doubt you would be able to prove the case. >> we felt that you could parse out the evidence ten different ways and convict him ten different times. ten different times. it was not a case that we thought was lacking proof. >> the decision to prosecute is interesting. can you tell us why it came about? >> i indicated previously the statue limitations is five years. by the time we get to 1996 we had a valid statute of limitations on only five devices. three murders and the devices in 1993 that were mailed in sacramento and went to separate parts of the country. as of 1996 sacramento over

four of the five devices to because the bombs had gone off year and two because the bombs had been mailed here. the only one we did not have is the one that was sent from san francisco to new jersey which was separately indicted in new jersey. >> you made the decision to prosecute year. >> attorney general reno was the one who made the decision. part of that discussion from san francisco. we basically laid out the case the concerns for where the case should be prosecuted. >> was there any disagreement? >> there was not. it was an easy decision to

make for the reasons stated. we have a choice of prosecuting the case into locales or four with for being in one location. it's really from a lawyer standpoint and easy decision to make the normal operating protocol. that committee was composed of high-level department of justice officials. the prosecution is required to submit a package the

information you would expect, the basic facts of the case, aggregating and mitigating factors that would warrant seeking the death penalty penalty, of course the statutory basis for seeking the death penalty such as laying in wait for deliberation, planning, things like that. the defense is also invited to make there submission stating whatever mitigating factors they believe. in this particular case david kaczynski was invited to participate in the death review committee. >> what position did he take. >> surprisingly he was asking for his brother to be saved, spared the death penalty. his position, if i recall, was twofold. was twofold. he basically said, look, in his view these crimes have been motivated by his brothers mental illness and not by true criminal behavior and also made a

pitch that if the department of justice sought the death penalty the blood would be on his hands because david had come forward, provided the information necessary. and he felt a great deal of responsibility. >> were you the federal defendant for this district when he was arrested? >> i had not yet taken the office. >> outed new line he had been arrested? [inaudible] >> did you take any steps to be appointed? >> i contacted the federal offender. said i would like to be appointed.

even though he had not been brought to the district. and he approached the court. >> handle the case. i had been have been a county public defender, state public defender. i thought that they should do the hardest cases biggest cases. >> did you go back and interview ted kaczynski.

>> there was an early meeting when it was unclear where this case would be brought when the federal defender from san francisco new jersey, montana and myself, and myself on that together. >> did you participate in the proceeding to determine whether the governor was -- the government would seek the death penalty? >> we did. the question was not decided at the time of the arrest or when it was decided where it will be prosecuted. it was months beyond that. the department of justice allows the defense time to put together a case of mitigation and went back and presented that case to the capitol review community. david kaczynski made two other points.

he said if you execute my brother no one will ever bring anyone in again. the 1st approach the government about an agreement that was turned down. later he was told that it will be a good thing for there to be -- for ted to be arrested and brought in because he would not do other damage. worried. he was afraid that he had information about who was doing this and the person might continue to do it. and it would be better off

for him. he took that to mean there would be some consideration. all cases where the death penalty is possible goes to that committee with the recommendation one way or another. >> what steps did you take for a defense team? >> we put together to defense team. i felt that in the office i was the one that was the most qualified to be the lead counsel although i had not tried a capitol case.

i have been involved in various roles and wanted to get another attorney. i felt again that we should look within the federal defender system for a 2nd attorney. we had the resources. i had several months earlier been to a a death penalty conference in houston. one of the people was julie clark. the federal defender for eastern washington and idaho she had taken part of this. we later went out to the airport to my i had a couple of beers together, flew to denver together. i knew she was very well thought of both for trial work and her legal skill. she had recently paneled her

1st capitol case, had gone back on her own time taking a leave of absence from her job to cocounsel a case in south carolina, i believe the susan smith case, a woman who are driven a car into a lake and the children died. and so i knew she had that experience. i knew i knew she was a tireless worker, literally tireless. i am not tireless. i i approached her, and she said she did not want to do it. >> who else was on the team. >> well we wanted an attorney to take over the role of developing the mitigation themes. in the normal case a noncapital case you have a trial where the only question is did he do it and what did he do. then it goes to a judge to here evidence or something along those lines to make a decision as to the sentence.

in a capitol case you have a separate penalty phase with the same jury who decided guilt we will then decide the penalty. the penalty here was either going to be the death penalty or life without possibility of release which is actually the federal phrase, not parole. what had developed over time in the capitol defense community was the idea that the government is going to have the whole guilt phase focused on the offense and prove the offense and who did it and then shift over and the juries did not know all about that. then you shift to the penalty phase with the defense has to bring the focus on the offender, the person who has been convicted of the crime. every possible theme, fact prediction hope is a reason why they would say we let this person live and die in prison there are number of

people that will work in those areas. san francisco. there is also specialize investigators who have a lot of experience, a lot of death penalty cases. they become mitigation specialists. find the things that you can present to the jury. the one who started that whole craft is a woman by the name of charlotte holtman also from san francisco so we hired her. people to go out.

harvard, michigan, berkeley, everything. one of the scenes in these cases is no one is the worst thing they have done. there is there is always more to it true of every person on the jury everybody. there is always more to it command you want to show that here. we decided then to retain some law students who took time off and worked under charlotte being the people on the ground talking to everybody and writing reports. >> you also have a team. the head of the team the

1st assistant in new jersey. the speaker had been on the task force for quite some time at that time. he was from the northern district of california command i represented the eastern district. basically basically we had assistant us attorneys from the three involved districts we also had a very able prosecutor from montana. and an extremely able writer and assistant us attorney named douglas wilson who came on to basically be a brief writer because we knew this was a case that was going to involve a lot of briefing on a lot of different issues. >> would not be brief. >> speaking of briefing it sounds like it was a lot of evidence obtained as a result of that search. that you make any effort to

crush that? >> one of the jobs of the defense attorney is to look selected search warrants and see whether you think that they are lawful and if not whether the evidence pursuant to the warrant can be suppressed. we looked at that search warrant affidavit actually about a hundred pages i recall and the fbi was hustling to put that together with good reason because they were afraid they might be another crime. we felt in the end it was not sufficient. you you have to understand that basically until david kaczynski contacted the fbi nowhere in the government had ever heard of ted kaczynski. he was not on the radar. later on they found his name in the databank from people

who graduate of the university of michigan. when david came when david came in and said he thought his brother could be really concerned about this for reasons that both steve and i explained. gave information the government put a lot of information out. we felt that it did not show probable cause to believe -- the facts were not sufficient to show probable cause that ted kaczynski was the obama. we filed a motion to suppress. the government responded calmly replied. it went to the judge and he felt that there was sufficient cause. two things about that. i am convinced to this day that if they had gone into that cabin and found nothing about the unabomber but a pound of marijuana and charged him we would have

had the warrant thrown out. something just as a matter of reality i believe in the law and that the law has to go where it has got to go and where it will be driven. there is something counterintuitive to say that these facts do not show probable cause that he is the unabomber went inside the after the search there was endless evidence that he was. it would be very hard to make. >> did you just argue there was not probable cause or present evidence to the court to persuade the judge? >> just arguing. you no that. >> the nature of the crimes linked together. tried to show it did not have the significance that

they attributed to it. one of the big things that was done there was a substantial part of the affidavit devoted to the unabomber manifesto. a detailed analysis of it trying to show that words in their and concepts and their could be attributed to ted kaczynski. we went through and tried to show why that was not true. one of the most striking was the manifesto said you cannot have your cake and eat it -- >> eat your cake and have a cake. >> we always say -- the normal when we say it is you can't eat your cake and have it to. [laughter] >> no. ted kaczynski has you convinced. >> and trying to remember the phrase.

you can't eat your cake and have it too. you can have your cake and eat it, too. the interesting thing is -- and we hired a linguist to go through and look at everything. but the phrase you can't have your cake and eat it too is literally correct. you can't have your cake and eat it too. it also goes back to the bible the book of proverbs and has been used in literature and a number of different places. he did.out he had use that phrase. they made a a big.to the fact that the manifesto spelled installment with one now instead of two.

certain words were used. the linguist said that did not mean anything. the other way, for instance as as i recall, ted split is infinitives in the manifesto didn't. a lot of facts connected about his movements. a hundred pages of which. probable cause. we tried to take those across the board. >> given that court's ruling on the motion to suppress, what was your trial strategy? >> it was clear that if we did not when the motion to suppress and the evidence from the cabin came in that

there would be a guilty verdict. steve has given you a little bit of what that was. i mean,, ted had written thousands of pages of journals all the stuff that was talked about. ..

>> >> but we knew. >> we had amassed a lot of evidence with ted kaczynski desire to kill and when the was formed, lack of remorse

remorse, struggling with his conscience -- conscience if that was the appropriate to go but he was his own worst enemy. that we would display that for the jury. >> day d make an effort to get a mental examination? >> we did but that was june june 1997 said trial commenced a vendor ready seven but of june the defense filed the motion setting forth their intention with short of insanity so we could seek to have our experts to a psychiatric evaluation. but we did not ever get back

we were briefing that issue back and forth like how many psychiatrists of the government could do that what kind of questions can they ask? that continues throughout the summer and into the start of jury selection restore geared for 20 finally indicated to with mental examination so what is the consequence of that? in the government's position was there are sanctions i could be imposed to raise a mental defense were to bar the expert testimony. >> the notice that is referred to why do you give such a notice of intent?

denied first of all, i want to clarify that is the notice that you will present of mental the fence to expert witnesses. event the prosecution but the jury would hear everything throughout the telophase that would be quite prolonged to it was going all-out. then we recommend to get early since of mental

illness so we want to present that not within a whole bill would defeat the conviction but introduce those kinds of thoughts to the jury. >> did you call the experts? director originally we did. >> what changed their mind actually first of all, there was the point where ted became very upset about that idea. and we had some conferences in we finally agreed we would not present those witnesses but we kept open the fact we would present

the other witnesses in the eric till phase in other in the penalty phase. essentially that is where it was. >> how difficult was it to select a jury? >> we called in about 600 people in the jury pool for the reason there wasn't anybody that would not know about the case of the filled out a 100 page questionnaire and it was to call six jurors in the morning, six in the afternoon each side would be given approximately 15 minutes then it is half an hour times six in the three more hours in the morning and three in the afternoon.

the jury has to be examined whether they have been a serious objections and it was obviously a challenge to find people. >> was and is conducted at the state fair grounds? >> the initial jury pool was brought out to fill out the questionnaire. >> how long did it take to get a panel? >> to my surprise italy took 16 days but that went from november 12th when we started in a couple of days before christmas. >> after a jury was selected

did anything unusual happen? >> yes. [laughter] already referencing the fact to express dissatisfaction with a mental defense the trial was set to begin the fifth and that you brokered an ideal to keep the attorneys on its ever not present a mental defense. but judy clarke creamier her opening statement to ted kaczynski the night before a trial would commence and he was very upset allegedly about ever mentioning mental issues stemming establish

deal with the allegedly. [laughter] >> one of the things very interesting is the big question in for us how could they keep an open mind? we spent a lot of time asking those questions and early on we will have 15 minutes each then we would get a transcript that night of the for der -- voir dire but hurry leon and i was sitting there and you

believe somebody intentionally killed someone? okay. but the judges always make sure but if i told you the law requires you to consider both penalties would you consider it? they said yes. but they are closer the and we are right now. in they would ask the question not in a way that was meant to intimidate and this will not work.

and we want them to be honest. so i called to say can we approach to for a bench conference? he said i don't mean to intimidate or influence i said i a understand that but it has the same effect. he said but if i came down to a lectern where the lawyers stand by ask my questions? and that is what he did for the rest of the selection. i don't think that had been done before i die jury selection went very well and i was happy with the jury but given the approval it went well but it just changed the dynamics people felt easier to say what they

were thinking. what is the question? [laughter] >> after she went over her statement. >> you have to understand he is a borderline schizophrenic and has written for ever about the evils of mental health professionals and but they do with mind control. he is a genius and the core is his mind and his brain in his thinking. but it was an estimate. and also felt it would denigrate with the manifesto.

it is about 30 pages and it is quite good. it is an island. as a lot better now than 97 or 96 is also mind control. so when he has agreed to this arrangement when it came up was to makes the decision when a person is represented by counsel? our position was it is clear to decide for themselves also of to decide if there was an insanity plea. one reason that was not raised here and our position

was we thought the case lot was it is up to the attorneys to determine how to proceed in support of the not guilty pre--- please. but the judge so as long as we were the lawyers of how to do the things that the lawyers do so there is a broker deal of mental health to drop the experts. letter would have to drop from the penalty phase because he refused to see the government psychiatrist the sanction was we could not present our experts.

the reason is because he was afraid that the government psychiatrist would find him mentally ill. in any case but we were going to try to explain his mental illness through his life style, where he had gone, how he ended up to be the kid to skip two years in high school and harvard on a scholarship with a ph.d. from michigan and then ends up living in a cabin with a crazy life. we brought the cabin down from montana to we were going to have the jury go see it. calling it the cabin and sellers alike in a frame but it was like 10 pileate to

windows and a big pot stove no poillon or running water. it was more like a cell in for him to voluntarily go there would help them to understand his mental problems. if you sit there in the dark in february and montana with no electricity. but he did not want that. there was some back-and-forth with readings and attempts to see if there was a way we could fill the obligation to save his life he would be satisfied with there we is even talk of another attorney to come in the was a defense attorney to cave in to counsel him and give him advice independent of us and in the end he declared gore he

decided he wanted to represent himself that says you can represent yourself. should we stop there? >> but in context after the jury selection in the discussion with judy clarke when she plans to say in opening statements to make that triggers the first concern to address the judge there is further proceedings and then he seems to be okay with other changes then expresses concern than the third time he says i want to represent myself. at that point judy and i felt we had to declare a reasonable doubt about his

competency to make that decision. is usually of the lawyers declared that in there is the basis thin the judge ordered the evaluation and then we hold a competency hearing to decide if they are competent or not. >> what did the judge ruled? >> first, he agreed that ted has to be examined for competency. it was agreed after back-and-forth that they wanted to send a lot to a federal medical center but because of the jury problems we ask to have somebody evaluate him so they arranged for dr. johnson that is the chief of the federal medical complex in south carolina in hand have

told these competency cases psychically to look into the case to make a decision. columbus to take in four or five days in she'd heard from the government and thus she gave a report that said he was paranoid schizophrenic but she did not feel he was unable to assist his lawyers in his defense and therefore he was competent to make decisions to represent himself so then the question is if the judge would grant that version. he denied on two grounds that it was done timely because it should have been made before the jury in second it was made for purposes of delay.

so therefore said you cannot represent yourself you have to stay with the attorneys. >> what did the government think of the rules? >> this is incognito deal with issues that the government would fly in the blind with the hearings conducted in carroll as they should have been so we did not know exactly what was taking place. because if anything it would be the constitutional right.

and we were concerned about the findings for purposes of delay to bear in mind to first raised concerns the november 25th in a meticulously went back at the jury selection in proceedings in determined that ted kaczynski must have known that that early stage that there was a mental defense that was the basis for the conclusion the request to represent himself must have been six weeks later in what he was presently engaged in with the purposes of delay.

>> we felt on that ted kaczynski being a layperson that we gradually only came to understand. and brother are not the layperson would be expected to know how the signals are unfolding. but from our standpoint. >> keller does that from the desire to continue to seek the death penalty. >> we were fully prepared to sturt trial on january 5th then after words when the proceedings were finished we

were fully prepared to go forward with the trial and we have had discussions with the defense been made demands which we could not concede to. so of those discussions were cut off. >> what happened next? but to go back in december we went back with further mitigation evidence asking them to remove the death penalty from the case if they decline to do so. and we approached of local prosecutors to see if they would entertain an offer to

plead guilty to remove the death penalty with two conditions one is you waive your right to suppress the motion to have the right to suppress the appeal motion a and to agree that they cannot be sent to a mental institution in they declined to do that. >> that he was mentally ill but competent also denied the right to represent himself and his lawyers it knows of with evidence to

save his life and at that time right after the judge's ruling i approach the bench to say we want to plead guilty for all the crimes here for no death penalty. >> the government is accepted that? the right to have to consult with the attorney general? >> yes propitiate gave her approval. >> what were the considerations? >> click the solicitor general in the interim to talk about the denial of the request in the rulings that ted kaczynski discussing with the solicitor general in the knowledge there

wasn't much case law and dealing with cutting issues. the solicitor general indicated there was additional press and if we went through with the entire trial, it is possible it could be reversed in we communicated that fact to the attorney general then receive that information as well as others. she was already apprised of tea other negotiations regarding the offer to plead. which was to make sure wasn't prepared to receive that. >> comedy bombings did he plead guilty to? >> all five of the charged bombings including the one for new jersey. but we took a factual basis for all of them is.

>> the jet age usually asks the questions and when the judge asked the occupation and? >> he said i suppose i am in may to or something like that? >> correspondence did he receive? before consecutive life sentences. >> in the epilogue what happens to the latent the cabin was situated? >> a couple years after the criminal proceedings within two have the other positions pretty much you have shoes sold the land to somebody. so we did the investigation to decide freely and not

stand in the wave that person of the of parcel that is sad on. >> what about the cabin itself? to make it remains at the air force base for a number of years in recently it was transported to the museum in washington d.c. where it is now and then it was moved as part of an exhibit. >> what about the contents of the cabin? >> after a bunch of litigation that the contents should be sold in the proceeds should be given to the victims.

>> and with this whole experience? >> there is no whether it is a fbi we could ever come close to solve these types of crimes without help from the public. event when something comes together you don't realize where there were acts of terror that they prevented someone to do something about it and then people are arrested. it takes tremendous courage and conviction in decency to come forward to begin though work with us and when i look back price think of all the

qualities that david possessed or the victims that were constantly there for us to show great courage with everything that happened. attaches you deeply and realize what you get into law enforcement but a constant reminder we have to give them as much as we can't use their support and their help to reach a conclusion. >> but to squeeze that's a couple of things that i learn to nobody knows what they would do with this you learn a lot about yourself and people and the people sitting at this table and those i dealt