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. ent 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 with over the

nine years. a lot of friendships developed outside of law enforcement than prosecution, defense, of lot of friends that way. but i felt it was my job to do what i could as the victim. just thought i would put that out there. [laughter] but if my role the was approached to go out and solve mysteries on america's most wanted. there is a certain amount of risk brethren that somebody comes back at you but that is the way things worked in metabolizes street troupers of that is how i grew up so i appreciated what it

offered me so when you are in the middle of that it is my job to get up to say you have a voice. >> i came away from the experience with a couple of thoughts. the think terry would agree that you have to constantly reexamine your assumptions. there were so many false leads in this case and instances we thought we had him on the line has to be the guy or with the acquisitions that cannot be explained away. his neighbor explained away. so i hold that with me with

investigations after that i would continue to reexamine the assumptions the other has to do more with the state. there for several instances in bangladesh instances that could result in the death of more individuals. the victim from bonn numbers 16 about five blocks from this building the package was delivered in a meal tub to the business and the bomb was on top. so all the employees were congregating to get their real. very wise called out to receive his package but there was addressed to the prior president it was very tightly wrapped with brown

paper. it was designed to elude detonate when the tension was released so releasing the tape was enough the fbi still don't know how that is possible but there are about eight people standing around the counter when marie tries to open the package is having difficulty so he asks for a pair of scissors. as this goes on people were filtering the way. another person gets a phone call, another calls a co-worker a side to the hallway other people get the mail to go back as the

reception his chances scissors and she gets a phone call and the caller wants to know the number of another person it is doggerel the tax -- rolodex. she was filling in was a caller on a whole to go to her office to retrieve the information and is 10 ceps -- steps and he is the only one killed because he is the only one left 30 seconds earlier maybe half a dozen. the same story repeats itself with number 15 that the wife and daughter come into the kitchen just as he starts to open the package but then the daughter needs a diaper change the wife

leaves in the bomb explodes and he is killed instantly. there are other examples but i hold onto the fought but for the grace of god we could have a lot more fatalities. >> i take away a great admiration for david. he and his mom or estranged content because of his illness but were very supportive of him. when they started to say could did be ted? and he was torn between this is my brotherhood will they

do to him that if fido will more people be killed? he went through that horrible back-and-forth but it would have been a while and david was given a record he dedicated to helping other victims. and they think they have become friends with gary and they have gone together to talk to victims' groups and he has continued in the death penalty and a fellow that was a defendant and as

the brothers turned him in the state executed him so to talk about a victim's and responsibilities. i think gary is wonderful and has been much more giving or whatever words than i ever would have been. >> this concludes the presentation we will invite all of you choose the reception in the kennedy learning center downstairs there will be refreshments and the panel will be available to answer any other questions you might have. there are exhibits of photographs of evidence that was used at the trial had it gone forward. thank you very much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]