Unabomber Guilty Plea

Ron Arnold's Left Tracking Library
Unabomber Documents:
Theodore Kaczynski
Guilty Plea

Because the last two Unabomber killings by Theodore Kaczynski were perpetrated solely for environmental reasons, they are considered by the FBI as ecoterrorism "domestic terrorist" crimes. Because the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise was named on a hit-list found in Kaczynski's remote cabin near Lincoln, Montana, it directly affects the sponsor of the Left Tracking Library. Because it dispels public misunderstanding of the true environmental motive of two Unabomber murders, it is included as a historical document. No assertion is made or implied here that any environmental group aided or abetted Kaczynski's crimes. It is unequivocally asserted here that Kaczynski had solely environmental motives and solely relied on environmentalist publications as guides to the murders of Thomas Mosser and Gilbert Murray.

Theodore John Kaczynski:
Convicted Unabomber killer
Born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber or Unabom (University and Airline Bomber).

He engaged in a mail bombing spree that spanned nearly 20 years, killing three people and injuring 23 others.

This is a true, accurate, complete and unedited copy of the guilty plea of Theodore John Kaczynski in Federal District Court for Eastern California in Sacramento, Garland E. Burrell, Jr, Judge, on January 22, 1998. Any errors of spelling or grammar were contained in the federal original and have not been changed.

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 1998, 8:01 A.M.

-- oOo –

THE CLERK: Calling criminal case S-96-259,

United States vs. Theodore Kaczynski.

THE COURT: Please state your appearances for the

record.

MR. CLEARY: Robert Cleary, Steven Lapham and Stephen

Freccero for the Government.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. CLEARY: Thank you, Your Honor.

MS. CLARKE: Judy Clarke, Quin Denvir and Gary Sowards

for Mr. Kaczynski.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. CLYMO: I'm also still here, Your Honor. Kevin

Clymo.

THE COURT: Thank you. I received a written memorandum

of a plea agreement which the Court understands represents the

plea agreement of the parties; is that correct?

MS. CLARKE: That is correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And I want my deputy clerk to please

administer the oath to Mr. Kaczynski.

(Discussion off the record between Mr. Kaczynski and

Ms. Clarke.)

THE COURT: You don't have to stand. It's okay.

(The defendant was sworn.)

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you understand that,

having been sworn, your answers to my questions would be

subject to the penalties of perjury or of making a false

statement if you do not answer truthfully?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I understand that.

THE COURT: It is my understanding through a

communication I just had with counsel that you wish to change

previously entering pleas.

Before accepting your guilty pleas, there are a number

of questions I will ask you to assure that it is a valid

plea. If you do not understand any of the questions or at any

time wish to consult with counsel, please say so, since it is

essential to a valid plea that you understand each question

before you answer it.

Do you understand what I just said?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I understand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You need not seek my permission to speak to

your lawyers. If you desire to speak to your lawyers during

this process, you can simply communicate with your lawyers.

I'll recognize that you're speaking to your lawyers and I

won't expect to you respond to my question until you've

finished that communication. You understand the liberty you

have to speak to your lawyers at with will throughout this

proceeding?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I understand that.

THE COURT: I'm informed that you wish to change the

plea you have previously entered to a plea of guilty. Is that

correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is your plea being made pursuant to a plea

agreement of any kind?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Your case in the United States District

Court, District of New Jersey, cannot be handled in this court

unless you wish to plead guilty or nolo contendere. Do you

understand that if you allow that case to be handled in this

court, you are agreeing to plea guilty or nolo contendere,

waive proceedings in the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey in which the crimes were allegedly

committed, and you're allowing those crimes to be proceeded

against you in this court? Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. I understand that.

THE COURT: Do you understand that you have the right to

be tried in the district where the crimes are alleged to have

been committed?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And you understand that you cannot be

convicted or sentenced in this court unless you give your

consent freely, as to those crimes?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If you do not consent to be proceeded

against in this Court, you may be proceeded against in the

district in which the crimes were allegedly committed. Do you

understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Has a waiver form been filed or prepared?

MR. DENVIR: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Kaczynski has

executed a consent to transfer of case for plea and sentence

under Rule 20, and Ms. Clarke and I have both witnessed it and

signed it.

The Government now has it for approval.

(Pause in the proceeding.)

MR. DENVIR: It's been executed on behalf of the

United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey and for

the Eastern District of California.

(Pause in the proceeding.)

THE COURT: The document has been fully executed. I

will direct that it be filed.

Mr. Kaczynski, please state your full and true name for

the record.

THE DEFENDANT: Theodore John Kaczynski.

THE COURT: How old are you?

THE DEFENDANT: Fifty-five years old.

THE COURT: How far did you go in school?

THE DEFENDANT: I have a Ph.D in mathematics.

THE COURT: What is your occupation?

THE DEFENDANT: That's an open question right now. My

occupation, I suppose, now is jail inmate.

THE COURT: Okay. What past occupations have you held?

THE DEFENDANT: I was once an assistant professor of

mathematics. Since then I have spent much time living in the

woods in Montana and have held a variety of unskilled jobs.

THE COURT: Have you ever been treated for any mental

illness or addiction to drugs of any kind?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you presently under the influence of any

drug, medication or alcoholic beverage of any kind?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Have you consumed any drugs, alcohol or

medication in the last 24 hours?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Have you received a copy of the indictments

pending against you, that is, the written charges made against

you in this case and in the case filed in the United States

District Court, District of New Jersey; and have you fully

discussed those charges --

(Discussion off the record between the defendant and

Ms. Clarke).

THE COURT: -- and the case in general with Mr. Denvir

and Ms. Clarke as your counsel?

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I'm afraid I was occupied in

discussing --

THE COURT: Okay.

THE DEFENDANT: -- with my attorney --

THE COURT: No problem. I should have discontinued my

communication at the time that occurred.

MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, the question is, did

Mr. Kaczynski receive the indictment? We have received them.

We do not have them present in front of him.

THE COURT: They don't have to be present in front of

him. He has to have received them at some point in time and

reviewed them.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I did receive them at

a previous time.

THE COURT: Let's do that question again. Have -- oh,

I'm sorry.

(Discussion between the defendant and Mr. Denvir.)

THE COURT: Have you at any time received copies of the

indictments pending against you, that is, the written charges

made against you in this case and in the case filed in the

United States District Court, District of New Jersey; and have

you fully discussed those charges and the cases in general

with Mr. Denvir and Ms. Clarke as your counsel?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I have.

(Mr. Lapham gives document to Mr. Denvir.)

THE COURT: What did the Government just provide the

defense?

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, for the record, I just provided

them with a copy of the New Jersey indictment and the

Sacramento indictment.

THE COURT: Shall I pause while you review those, or is

that necessary?

THE DEFENDANT: I don't think it's necessary, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, are you fully satisfied with

the counsel, representation and advice given you in this case

by Mr. Denvir and Ms. Clarke as your attorneys?

(Discussion off the record between Ms. Clarke and

Mr. Kaczynski).

THE COURT: I am satisfied except as reflected otherwise

in the record.

THE COURT: You need to explain that, sir.

THE DEFENDANT: All right, Your Honor.

You know that I have had certain dissatisfactions in my

relationship with my counsel. And those dissatisfactions are

reflected in the record. Apart from those dissatisfactions

that are reflected in the court record, I have no other

dissatisfactions with my representation by counsel.

(Discussion off the record between Mr. Denvir and the

defendant.)

THE DEFENDANT: I am willing to proceed for sentencing

with present counsel.

THE COURT: My understanding of your dissatisfaction

with present counsel is that there was a disagreement as to

the assertion of the mental status defense and you had some

problems with present counsel concerning communications

surrounding the presentation of mental status-type evidence.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is that what you are referencing?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. That is what I am

referring to.

THE COURT: Are you referring to anything other than

that?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is it your understanding that your attorneys

had discussions with the attorneys for the Government in this

case concerning your change of plea?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Does your willingness to plead guilty result

from those discussions?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of guilty

voluntarily because it is what you want to do?

(Discussion off the record between Ms. Clarke and the

defendant.)

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm now going to have the Government to

explain the terms of your plea agreement with the Government.

I want you to listen to the explanation provided, because when

the Government completes it I will ask you the question, "Are

those the terms of your plea agreement with the Government as

understand them?" And I want you to be in the position to

respond to that question.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, the terms of the agreement are

as follows: the defendant agrees to plead guilty to all

outstanding charges in Sacramento and in New Jersey. There

will be a total of 13 counts. In return for a plea of

guilty -- that is an unconditional plea of guilty.

In return, the Government agrees to withdraw the notice

of intent to seek the death penalty. And the defendant

understands that under those circumstances, he would be

sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without

possibility of release.

There are also other conditions regarding payment of

restitution. The defendant understands that restitution is

required under the relevant statutes, as well as agreements as

to the disgorgement of future earnings, if any, that are

obtained by the defendant or on his behalf as a result of any

writings, interviews, or access to the defendant in the

future.

I think that states the essential terms of the plea

agreement.

Your Honor, if I may, at this point, it might also be

appropriate to ask the defendant if whatever dissatisfaction

he has historically had with counsel did not interfere with

his decision with respect to this plea agreement and that he

is satisfied with his counsel's representation with respect to

their advice on this plea agreement.

THE COURT: That was a long question. I'm not sure what

you want me to ask.

MR. LAPHAM: Well, I think he should be probed as to his

specific -- if he has any dissatisfaction with his counsel

with respect to entry of this plea agreement.

THE COURT: Okay. Any problems with that, counsel for

the defense, Mr. Denvir or Ms. Clarke?

(Discussion off the record between Mr. Denvir and

Ms. Clarke.

MR. DENVIR: I thought he had already answered that

question, Your Honor, that he is prepared to proceed on

sentencing with us, but if the Court has some questions about

that . . .

THE COURT: I thought he had responded to the question

too, but I will try to do what you have asked me to do, since

it shouldn't cause any harm.

Mr. Kaczynski, are you satisfied with the level of

representation of your counsel in assisting you during this

plea proceeding?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I am satisfied with

that.

THE COURT: And I thought we had already covered the

point of dissatisfaction you had with your counsel as far as

other proceedings were concerned, did we not?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Government's counsel just set forth the

terms of your plea agreement from the Government's

perspective. Are those the terms of your plea agreement with

the Government as you understand them?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Has anyone made any other or different

promise or assurance to you of any kind in an effort to induce

you to enter a plea of guilty in this case?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Has anyone attempted to any way to force or

threaten you to plead guilty in this case?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The offenses to which you are offering a

plea of guilty are felony offenses. If your plea is accepted,

you will be adjudged guilty of those offenses, and that

adjudication may deprive you of valuable civil rights, such as

the right to vote, the right to hold public office, the right

to serve on a jury, and the right to possess any kind of

firearm.

Are you aware of the valuable civil rights you may give

up if you go forward with your intention and plead guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you presently on probation or parole for

any other offense?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Please listen to the consequences of your

plea. The maximum possible penalty provided by law for a plea

of guilty to each and every count of both indictments is a

mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of

release and a fine of $3,250,000. You understand that, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If economic loss has been suffered by a

victim as a result of this criminal conduct, the Court, in

accordance with the Sentencing Reform Act, shall order you to

make restitution unless the Court finds that, under the

statute, restitution is not appropriate in this case. You

will be required to disgorge any monies paid in whole or in

part and regardless to whom the money is paid in return for

writings, interviews or other information disclosed by you,

including but not limited --

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, there seems to be a

discrepancy here between what you're saying and the plea

agreement as I have it here.

THE COURT: I've changed some of the words, but I

thought it was identical. I thought the message was the same.

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, on mine --

MR. CLEARY: We had sent an earlier draft to chambers

today. Some of that language has been changed.

THE COURT: Oh, I see. Well, my staff indicated to me

that I need not worry about the changes. I thought they got

that message from the parties.

Has this been taken out?

MR. DENVIR: The wording's been changed on the

disgorgement. It's just a little more precise.

THE COURT: What section is it?

MS. CLARKE: Page 4, Your Honor. Paragraph D.

MR. DENVIR: III-D. Roman numeral III-D.

THE COURT: (Accepts document.)

Show this to the Government to make sure that I'm using

the right document.

THE CLERK: (Complies.)

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, to avoid confusion, maybe I

should just give you the original signed version of the plea

agreement.

THE COURT: I have to end up with it anyway, so you

might as well give it to me now.

MR. LAPHAM: Very good. (Complies.)

THE COURT: Where is it located in the original?

MR. LAPHAM: The disgorgement language is located on

page 4, beginning at line 17.

(Pause in the proceeding.)

THE COURT: Because I had to stop to focus on

disgorgement, we need to go back to the restitution issue,

because I didn't put a closure on that issue. I advised you

of the consequence, but I didn't stop to determine if you

understood that precise consequence. I'm going to read that

again so that the record is clear.

If economic loss has been suffered by a victim as a

result of this criminal conduct, the Court, in accordance with

the Sentencing Reform Act, shall order you to make restitution

unless the Court finds that, under the statute, restitution is

not appropriate in this case.

You understand that is a consequence of your plea, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I understand that.

THE COURT: You understand that, as a consequence of

your plea, you have agreed that you shall disgorge any monies

paid in whole or in part to you or on your behalf in return

for writings, interviews or other information disclosed by

you, including but not limited to access to you, photographs

or drawings of or by you, or any other type of artifact or

memorabilia to the United States Probation Office for

restitution or other distribution to the victims of the Unabom

events?

THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. There will be a special assessment of

$650 imposed for your guilty plea pursuant to federal law.

Mr. Kaczynski, do you understand those possible

consequences of your plea?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the

United States Sentencing Commission has issued guidelines for

judges to follow in determining the sentence in a criminal

case. Have you and your attorneys talked about how the

Sentencing Commission guidelines might apply to your case?

(Discussion off the record between the defendant,

Ms. Clarke and Mr. Denvir.)

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand that the Court will not be

able to determine the guideline sentence for your case until

after the pre-sentence report has been completed and your

attorney and the Government have had an opportunity to object

to any of the findings in that report?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand that after it has been

determined what guideline applies to a case, the judge has the

authority in some circumstances to impose a sentence that is

more severe or less severe than the sentence called for by the

guidelines?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: How about the question of appeal? Has that

been waived?

MR. LAPHAM: Yes, Your Honor. It's contained at page 7,

beginning at line 16.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you understand that by entering

into the plea agreement you have entered with the Government,

you will have waived or given up your right to appeal all or

any part of your plea of guilty and anything else that occurs

during this conviction hearing and anything that occurs during

your sentencing hearing?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand that parole has been

abolished and that if you plead guilty, you will spend the

rest of your life in prison and you will never be released or

paroled?

THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand that if the sentence is

more severe than you expected, you will still be bound by your

plea and will have no right to withdraw it?

THE DEFENDANT: I understand it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand that if I do not accept

the sentencing recommendation in your plea agreement, you will

still be bound by your plea and will have no right to withdraw

it?

THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Lapham, you were going to tell me about

the "waiver of appeal" section of the plea agreement. Can you

direct my attention to that again? I want to see if I missed

something.

MR. LAPHAM: That was page 7, line 16.

(Pause in the proceeding.)

THE COURT: Do you further understand that if you plead

guilty, you will waive right to appeal any legal rulings made

by the district court?

THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand that you have a right to

plead not guilty to any offense charged against you and to

persist in that plea, that you would then have the right to a

trial by jury, during which you would also have the right to

the assistance of counsel for your defense, the right to

assist in the selection of that jury, the right to see and

hear all the witnesses and have them cross-examined in your

defense, the right on your own part to decline to testify

unless you voluntarily elected to do so in your own defense,

and the right to the issuance of subpoenas or compulsory

process to compel the attendance of witnesses to testify in

your defense, the right to require the Government to prove

your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to appeal this

conviction and your sentence and any rulings made by the

district court? Do you understand you have all those rights?

THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand that by entering a plea of

guilty, if that plea is accepted by the Court, there will be

no trial of any kind and you will have waived or given up your

right to a trial as well as those other rights which I've just

described?

THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm now going to have the Government to

state each of the essential elements of the offenses in the

indictment so that I can be assured that the defendant

understands the charges. After that is stated, Mr. Kaczynski,

I will ask you the precise question, "Do you understand those

charges?" The Government will now explain the elements, and

the elements constitute the charges.

MR. LAPHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, there

are three types of offenses in the two indictments.

There are several counts of transportation of an

explosive device with intent to kill or injure. With respect

to that charge, the Government would be required to prove,

number one, that transportation in interstate commerce; two,

of an explosive; three, with the knowledge or intent that it

would be used to kill, injure or intimidate any individual.

With respect to the crime of mailing explosive device

with intent to kill or injure, the Government would be

required to prove, one, that the defendant knowingly deposited

for mailing or knowingly caused to be delivered by mail a

device or composition that could ignite or explode; and, two,

that the defendant acted with the intent to kill or injure

another.

And with respect to the third type of offense charged in

the two indictments, using a destructive device in relation to

a crime of violence, the Government would be required to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used or carried a

bomb and that he did so during and in relation to a crime of

violence, that crime of violence being the use of that bomb.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you understand those

charges?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I understand them.

THE COURT: I'm now going to have the Government's

attorney to make a representation concerning the facts the

Government would be prepared to prove at trial. Again,

Mr. Kaczynski, I want you to listen to the factual

representation made by the Government's attorney, because

after it's made, I will ask you the question, "Do you agree

with the factual representation just made by the Government's

attorney?" And I want you to be in a position to respond to

the question.

(Discussion off the record between the defendant and

Mr. Denvir.)

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, what I propose to do is -- the

defendant has agreed to make full allocution as to all 16 of

the Unabom devices; that would include charged as well as

uncharged devices. The uncharged devices are relevant to

showing -- to the Government's proof of the charged devices.

What I propose to do is first run down the charged

devices, give a factual basis for each of those, and then go

back to each of the uncharged devices and go through those,

one by one. And what I would propose is, as I complete each,

the factual basis for each device, to have the defendant

queried as to his acceptance of the factual basis.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to Count number 1

in the Sacramento indictment, that charges a device which

killed Hugh Scrutton.

With respect to that, if this case were to proceed to

trial, the Government would show that during 1985 the

defendant constructed several bombs. During the fall of that

year the defendant transported one of those bombs to

Sacramento, California, where he placed that device behind a

computer rental store called Rentech, which is located on

Howe Avenue near Arden in Sacramento. That device was found

by the owner of Rentech, Hugh Scrutton, as he was leaving

through the rear entrance of that building. He, Mr. Scrutton,

picked up that device or attempted to move that device, which

was disguised as a scrap of wood with nails protruding from

it. As he moved that device, the device exploded, causing

pieces of shrapnel to enter Mr. Scrutton's heart and internal

organs and killing him within approximately a few minutes.

The Government would prove, if this case were to proceed

to trial, that during the search of the defendant's cabin the

Government found numerous entries in the defendant's journal

that were written in numeric code. The Government found the

key to that code among the defendant's effects and decrypted

the code, and one of those entries read as follows:

"Experiment 97, December 11, 1985" -- which was the date

that the Scrutton device was detonated -- "I planted a bomb

disguised to look like a scrap of lumber between Rentech

Computer store in Sacramento. According to the Sacramento

Bee, December 20th, the operator of the store was killed,

quote unquote, blown to bits, on December 12th. Excellent.

Humane way to eliminate somebody. He probably never felt a

thing. $25,000 reward offered. Rather flattering.

In that same cabin search, the Government located a

number of experiments, totaling up to 245 experiments. One of

those experiments, the one in the admission I just read,

Experiment 97, contained the following passage. It reflected

a bomb that was constructed during November of 1985, completed

on December 8th, 1985, and the passage concludes, "The device

was hidden inside a hollow piece of wood so that when the wood

were to be grabbed or picked up, the bolts in the trigger

would come out. The device was deployed on December 11th,

1985." December 27th is the next entry. "The device detonated

with good results. It detonated on December 12th."

Your Honor, that concludes the -- oh, and in addition to

that, the device contained an end plug, which is a component

of the device, which contained the initials FC, which is a

signature of the person who has been designated as the

Unabomber. Forensic evidence also determined that the Rentech

device was forensically similar to all other Unabom devices

and was a virtual twin to a bomb which was placed in February

1987 behind a computer store in Salt Lake City.

That would conclude the proffer as to the Scrutton

bomb.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government's attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, Counts 2 through 7 of the

Sacramento indictment charge a bomb that was mailed to

Drs. Charles Epstein and David Gelernter. And the factual

basis for those offenses is as follows.

During 1993 the defendant constructed two devices,

bombs, which he then transported to Sacramento, California.

On or about June 18, 1993, the defendant mailed those

devices. One was mailed to Dr. Charles Epstein in Tiburon,

California; the other was mailed to Dr. David Gelernter at

Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. At the same time

those bombs were mailed, a letter was mailed to the New York

Times essentially claiming responsibility for those two

devices.

The devices were opened by their recipients, causing

very severe injuries to the two doctors. The defendant's

cabin was searched, and the following -- let me say, first,

that those two devices were forensically similar to each other

as well as to other Unabom devices. And the letter that I

mentioned -- actually, a different letter -- in a letter to

the New York Times dated April 20th, 1995, the Unabomber

declared, quote, "After a long period of experimentation, we

developed a type of bomb that does not require a pipe but is

set off by a detonating cap that consists of a chlorate

explosive packed into a piece of small diameter copper

tubing. The detonating cap is a miniature pipe bomb. We used

bombs of this type to blow up the genetics engineer Charles

Epstein and the computer engineer David Gelernter."

Your Honor, during a search of the defendant's cabin a

carbon copy of this letter was found in the defendant's

personal effects. Moreover, the defendant's experiment

binders, which I've already made reference to, confirmed the

statements made in the Times letter in several respects. They

reflect a long period of experimentation which culminates in

the development of a bomb of the type described in the

New York Times letter.

Experiment 225 reflects the construction of these two

devices between January and June of 1993 and concludes,

quote, "I sent these devices during June 1993. They detonated

as they should have. The effect of both of them was adequate

but no more than adequate."

Your Honor, during the search of Mr. Kaczynski's cabin,

the Government also obtained numerous articles pertaining to

Drs. Epstein and Gelernter as well as articles referencing the

bombings of those two individuals. And those articles

referencing Drs. Epstein and Gelernter appeared in the papers

prior to the June 1993 bombing.

And that concludes the offer of proof as to those

counts.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski --

MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, I believe counsel misspoke

regarding the newspaper articles. There were -- Dr. Gelernter

-- there was an article about him, but not about Dr.

Epstein. I believe counsel misspoke; there were no news

articles regarding Dr. Epstein.

MR. LAPHAM: That's correct. Just Dr. Gelernter.

THE COURT: There is agreement on the correction made by

your counsel. So with that correction in mind and everything

else that the Government lawyer stated, do you agree with the

factual representation just made by the Government's attorney,

Mr. Kaczynski?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to Counts 8

through 10 of the Sacramento indictment, that charges a device

which was mailed to the California Forestry Association and

which was received on approximately April 20th, 1995 and

killed Gilbert Murray.

With respect to that device, the Government, if this

case were to proceed to trial, would prove that during 1995 --

1994 and 1995, the defendant constructed a bomb which he

transported to Sacramento -- which he transported to the Bay

Area and, from that location, mailed the device to the

California Forestry Association in Sacramento, California.

The package was addressed to William Dennison, the

former president of the California Forestry Association.

However, it was opened by Gilbert Murray, the current, at that

time, president of the Forestry Association.

In a letter to the New York Times dated June 24, 1995,

the Unabomber declared after the bomb had detonated killing

Mr. Murray: "We have no regret about the fact that our bomb

blew up the wrong man, Gilbert Murray, instead of William

Dennison, to whom it was addressed. Though Murray did not

have Dennison's inflammatory style, he was pursuing the same

goals, and he was probably pursuing them more effectively

because of the very fact that he was not inflammatory."

The letter went on to state,"it was reported that the

bomb that killed Gil Murray was a pipe bomb. It was not a

pipe bomb but was set off by a homemade detonating cap. The

F.B.I.'s so-called experts should have been able to determine

this quickly and easily, especially because we indicated in an

unpublished part of our letter -- last letter to the New York

Times that the majority of our bombs are no longer pipe

bombs. It was also reported that the address label on this

same bomb gave the name of the California Forestry Association

incorrectly. This is false. The name was given correctly."

Your Honor, during a search of the defendant's cabin the

Government obtained a carbon copy and a handwritten draft of

the foregoing letter. The Government also found letters which

were mailed by the Unabomber, at the same time as that letter,

to Professors Sharp and Roberts and Professor Gelernter, who

I've previously mentioned.

The cabin searchers also found a copy of a letter to a

radical environmental group known as Earth First!, and that

letter began: "This is a message from FC. The F.B.I. calls

us Unabom. We are the people who recently assassinated the

president of the California Forestry Association."

Your Honor, the cabin searchers also located in that

cabin a typewriter which was used to type the mailing labels

on all the -- the bomb 13 -- that would be the Epstein and

Gelernter bombing bombs, and also the Unabom correspondence

that I have referred to.

And, Your Honor, the cabin searchers also found

handwritten notes reflecting bus schedules for a trip from

Montana to the Bay Area in the March 1995 time period. The

cabin searchers also found among one of the defendant's

experiments, Experiment 245 -- that was a partial experiment

which chronicles the construction of the Murray device.

And that would conclude the proffer as to those counts.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government's attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, that concludes the proffer with

respect to the counts in the Sacramento indictment.

The New Jersey indictment contains three counts which

relate to a bomb that was sent to Thomas Mosser in December of

1994. The Government's proffer with respect to that would be

as follows.

THE COURT: All three counts, is that?

MR. LAPHAM: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. LAPHAM: Different charges, but all the same bomb.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LAPHAM: The Government would show that during 1994

the defendant constructed a bomb; that he transported that

bomb on or around December of 1994 to the Bay Area, where he

mailed the device to Thomas Mosser in New Jersey; that bomb

was received at the Mosser family residence, was received by

mail, was brought in by Mrs. Mosser, placed on the kitchen

counter, and was later opened by Thomas Mosser, who was an

executive with the national advertising firm of Burson-

Marsteller. Mr. Mosser opened that device, opened that

package, and it exploded, killing him almost instantly.

The Government's proffer with respect to that bomb is as

follows, or additional proffer. In Experiment 244 which was

found in the defendant's cabin, the defendant describes

constructing the Mosser bomb over a period of approximately

five months, completing the device on or about October 14th,

1994. The experiment concludes, quote, "The device in

Experiment 244 was used in December 1994, and it gave a

totally satisfactory result."

Your Honor, in a letter to the New York Times dated

April 20th, 1995, the Unabomber stated in part, "We blew up

Thomas Mosser last December because he was a Burston-

Marsteller [sic] executive. Among other misdeeds, Burston-

Marsteller [sic] helped Exxon clean up its public image after

the Exxon Valdez incident. But we attacked Burston-Marsteller

[sic] less for its specific misdeeds than on general

principles. Burston-Marsteller [sic] is about the biggest

organization in the public relations fields. This means that

its business is the development of techniques for manipulating

people's attitudes. It was for this more than for its actions

in specific cases that we sent a bomb to an executive of this

company." Your Honor, a carbon copy of that letter was found

in the defendant's cabin.

It is also worth pointing out, Your Honor, that that

letter contained a number of misstatements, one of which was

that Burson-Marsteller had anything to do with the Exxon

Valdez cleanup; it did not. Also, Burson-Marsteller was

misspelled. The first name, Burson, did not contain a "t."

The relevance of that is, during a search of the defendant's

cabin, searchers also found a copy of the Earth First! journal

dated June 21st, 1993, in which the statement was made that

Burson-Marsteller did have responsibility for the Exxon Valdez

incident, for the cleanup of the image over that incident.

Furthermore, in that Earth First! article, the name Burson-

Marsteller is misspelled in the same fashion it is misspelled

in the Unabomber letter.

Furthermore, during the search of the defendant's cabin,

the Government found a letter written to Earth First!ers. Its

title was "Suggestions for Earth First!ers from FC." That

letter stated in part, "As for the Mosser bombing" -- and I'm

quoting now -- "our attention was called to Burson-Marsteller

by an article that appeared in Earth First!, Litha," which is

the way of describing the edition of that journal, "June 21st,

1993, page 4." In that document, the letter to the Earth

First!, the defendant states with respect to the mistake about

Burson-Marsteller that "to us it makes little difference."

Your Honor, the cabin searchers also found handwritten

notes accurately setting forth bus schedules for a trip from

Montana to the Bay Area for the December 1994 time period and

a copy of the San Francisco Examiner which was dated

December 2nd, 1994, which was the day immediately prior to the

mailing of the Mosser bomb from the San Francisco Bay Area.

Your Honor, we also found the typewriter which was used

to type a mailing label for the Mosser device and for the

Unabom correspondence related to the Mosser device.

And that concludes the proffer with respect to the

Mosser device.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government's attorney?

(Discussion off the record between the defendant and

Ms. Clarke.)

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, I should also point out that

this is a partial proffer of the evidence that the Government

would produce at trial. There is also a wealth of forensic

evidence that the Government would present at trial relating

these bombs to all the other Unabom devices, as well as

forensic evidence which would relate these bombs to evidence

found in the cabin, materials analysis of various components

of the bombs, as well as bomb components which were found to

be forensically similar to the Unabom devices.

THE COURT: You need no affirmation from Mr. Kaczynski

as to what you just told me, though, right?

MR. LAPHAM: That's correct.

THE COURT: That you don't?

MR. LAPHAM: No.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with the permission of the

Court, I'll move on to the uncharged devices.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LAPHAM: Beginning with device number 1, that was a

device which was placed in a parking lot at the University of

Illinois Chicago Circle campus on or about May 5th, 1978.

The Government's proffer would be that that device, that

package, was found by a local resident living near the Chicago

Circle campus. The device was addressed to Professor E.J.

Smith, School of Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute, Troy, New York. The return address was Professor

Buckley Crist, Jr., Northwestern Technical Institute,

Evanston, Illinois, which is a suburb of Chicago.

After first attempting to mail the device,

Ms. Gutierrez, the person who found the package, found that it

wouldn't fit in a mailbox, took it home, contacted the return

addressee on the package, Professor Buckley Crist, and

ultimately returned the package to him. Professor Crist said

he knew nothing about the package but he would receive it. He

caused the package to be opened the following day, and it

exploded with somewhat harmless effect because it was not a

very well-constructed device.

During the search of the defendant's cabin the

Government found a document written by the defendant in which

he states in part as follows, quote, "August 21, 1978: I came

back to the Chicago area in May, mainly for one reason: so

that I could more safely attempt to murder a scientist,

businessman or the like. Before leaving Montana I made a bomb

in a kind of box, designed to explode when the box was

opened . . . I picked the name of the electrical engineering

professor out of the catalog of the Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute and addressed the bomb -- a package to him."

The document then goes on to describe how, after being

unable to fit in the mailbox, the defendant was forced to

leave it in the parking lot near the Science and Technology

Building at the University of Illinois Chicago Circle campus,

hoping that it would be found by some good Samaritan and that

it would be either mailed or opened by that person, causing

injuries to whatever individual would open it.

And, Your Honor, we can corroborate various statements

regarding that admission. There was no newspaper accounts of

that article that we could locate in any of the local Chicago

area, so there would be no information available to anyone but

the bomber himself. Professor E.J. Smith was a professor at

Rensselaer Polytechnic and his name did appear in the catalog

for the school for the relevant time period.

And that would conclude our proffer with respect to bomb

number 1.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by Government counsel?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb number 2,

that was a bomb which was placed in a graduate student area, a

shared area of many graduate student offices, on May 9th,

1979, at Northwestern University, and was in the shape of or

the form of a cigar box, which was constructed so that it

would detonate upon opening up the lid of the box.

The box was found by a graduate student, John Harris.

When Mr. Harris picked up the box and lifted the lid, it

exploded, causing several cuts and burns and momentary

blindness to Mr. Harris as a result of the flash of light.

During the search of the defendant's cabin, the

Government found a handwritten document in which the defendant

states in part, quote, "May 31, 1979: Earlier this month I

left a bomb in a room marked Graduate Student Research at the

Technological Institute at Northwestern University. The bomb

was in a cigar box and was arranged to go off when the box was

opened. I did it this way instead of mailing the bomb to

someone because an unexpected package in the mail might arouse

suspicion. . . . According to the newspaper, a graduate

researcher at Northwestern was hospitalized with cuts and

burns around the eyes as a result of my bomb," paren,

"(Tribune May 9)," close paren, close quote.

Your Honor, the Government did locate a May 19 Chicago

Tribune article -- actually, it was a May 10th Chicago Tribune

article. It couldn't have been May 9th, because that's the

date of the explosion. And that May 10th article set forth

the facts contained in that admission.

That would conclude the proffer on bomb number 2.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government's attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb number 3,

that was a device that was mailed in such a way that it would

be placed on board a flight from Chicago to the Washington,

D.C. area. It in fact was placed on American Airlines Flight

444, which left Chicago on November 15th, 1979 bound for

Washington, D.C.

Your Honor, the Government's proffer would be that when

that flight approached cruising altitude of about 30,000 feet,

the flight crew noticed a bump and a slight loss of -- or

overpressurization in the cabin. They didn't note anything in

addition at that time. Later on, about 20 minutes further

into the flight, smoke started appearing in the cabin and

cockpit section of the airplane. Several attempts were made

to locate the source of the smoke, and those attempts appeared

futile.

Later on, still further into the flight, smoke continued

to fill the cockpit and the cabin portions of the airplane to

such an extent that visibility became untenable or very

difficult outside the front of the window, causing the crew

great concern as to whether or not the plane would be able to

land. The crew declared an emergency situation, called

Washington Center and asked for priority landing at their

intended destination, National Airport. As they approached

Washington, D.C., they altered plans yet again to land at

Dulles International Airport, which was closer to their flight

path. They dropped oxygen masks in both the cockpit and the

cabin area, and they were able to effect a successful landing.

After the landing, a search of the plane discovered a

bomb in a mail pod underneath the passenger section of the

cabin. That bomb did not breach the hull of the airplane

because it was surrounded by densely packed mail in that mail

pod.

In a coded journal entry dated December 29, 1979, the

defendant states in part as follows -- and incidentally, Your

Honor, that was a bomb that was triggered by a barometric

device that was placed in the bomb. It also had a back-up

device so if the barometric switch didn't work, it would

detonate upon an individual opening the package.

And the quote is as follows: "In some of my notes I

mentioned a plan for revenge on society. Plan was to blow up

airliner in flight. Late summer and early autumn I

constructed device. Much expense because had to go to

Great Falls to buy materials, including barometer and many

boxes of cartridges for the powder. I put more than a quart

of smokeless powder in a can, rigged barometer so device would

explode at 2,000 feet or conceivably as high as 3,500 feet.

Due to variation of atmospheric pressure. Late October mailed

package from Chicago priority mail so it would go by air.

Unfortunately plane not destroyed. Bomb too weak . . . Bomb

did not accomplish much. Probably destroyed some mail.

Papers said it was with mail sacks and there was smoldering

fire. No damage to plane. At least it gave them a good

scare. Much thick smoke came into passenger space, plane

landed at airport other than its destination because of this."

Your Honor, the cabin searchers also discovered

handwritten notes by the defendant and calculations referring

to the cruising altitude of passenger airplanes and the cabin

pressure of most airplanes and a chart showing the atmospheric

pressure versus altitude.

Also, in a letter to the New York Times dated

April 20th, 1995, the Unabomber stated, quote, "In one case we

attempted unsuccessfully to blow up an airliner. The idea was

to kill a lot of business people who we assumed would

constitute the majority of passengers," unquote. Your Honor,

a carbon copy of that letter was found in the defendant's

cabin.

And that concludes the proffer for bomb number 3.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government's attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb number 4,

that was a bomb which was mailed on or about -- or received on

or about June 10th, 1980 by Percy Wood who was then the

president of United Airlines. Mr. Wood opened that package

and as he did so, the bomb detonated, causing Mr. Wood

injuries to various portions of his body.

Approximately a week before Mr. Wood received that

package, he had received a letter from an individual named

Enoch Fischer stating that he, Mr. Wood, would be receiving a

book entitled Ice Brothers which the author of the letter

recommended that Mr. Wood read. When Wood opened the package,

the bomb that he had received in the mail on June 10th, 1980,

it in fact contained a book called Ice Brothers. When he

opened the cover of the book, it exploded.

In a coded passage dated August 18, 1980 which was found

in the defendant's cabin, the defendant writes, "In June 1980

I sent a bomb to P.A. Wood, president of United Airlines." In

the remainder of that passage, the defendant notes that the

device failed to perform as desired and speculates as to what

the cause of the failure was.

In another partially coded entry dated September 15th,

1980, the defendant expresses his anger over jet noise in the

area around his cabin and states, quote, "After complicated

preparation I succeeded in injuring the president of

United Airlines. But he was only one of a vast army of people

who directly and indirectly are responsible for the jets."

Your Honor, searchers also found in the cabin a

handwritten document entitled, quote, "How to Hit an Exxon

Exec," which discussed sending a book-like package which

concealed a bomb to the target's home, preceded by a letter.

Your Honor, forensic examination of the bomb also

revealed, among other things, that the bomb contained a metal

tag stamped with the initials FC, and this was the first

appearance of those initials with respect to the individual

who ultimately became known as the Unabomber.

That concludes the proffer as to bomb 4.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb 5, that

was a device -- it was a firebomb which was placed outside a

classroom at the business classroom building of the University

of Utah on October 8th, 1981.

And the Government would proffer with respect to that

bomb as follows. That bomb was observed by two students

exiting a typing class in that building. One of the students

went over to the device, picked it up, held it at eye level

for several minutes and as he did so, he felt a stick drop out

the bottom of the device. He made several attempts to push

the stick back up into the device with -- but each time it

would fall out the bottom again. At that point, thinking that

the package might contain a bomb, the student notified campus

personnel, who in turn notified bomb squad authorities, who

arrived on the scene and disrupted the device without

incident, rendered it safe.

The device, after forensic analysis, was proven to

consist of a partially filled metal one-gallon gas can which

contained a pipe bomb suspended inside. The bomb was designed

to detonate when it was picked up. At that point, a drop

stick would drop out the bottom part of the way, making

contact with the electrical circuit and detonating the device.

In a coded journal entry dated February 22nd, 1982 which

was found in the defendant's cabin, the defendant states in

part, "Last fall I attempted a bombing and spent nearly three

hundred bucks just for travel expenses, motel, clothing for

disguise, etc. Aside from cost of materials for bomb. And

then the thing failed to explode. Damn. This was the

firebomb found in the University of Utah business school

outside door of room containing some computer stuff."

In his April 21, 1995 letter to the New York Times, the

Unabomber states in part, quote, "As for the bomb planted at

the business school of the University of Utah that was a

botched operation. We won't say how or why it was botched

because we don't want to give the F.B.I. any clues. No one

was hurt by that bomb." The carbon copy of this letter was

found in the defendant's cabin.

Your Honor, searchers also found a carbon copy of the

letter which the defendant sent to Penthouse publisher Bob

Guiccione together with a copy of the manifesto. In that

letter the Unabomber references another letter which contained

the initials FC, which stood for Freedom Club.

Your Honor, that letter, the Freedom Club letter to the

San Francisco Examiner, was also found in the cabin. Although

the Examiner had no record of receiving that letter, the

letter contained a handwritten notation in the handwriting of

the defendant which indicated that it was mailed in

December 1985. That letter states in part, "We are also

responsible for some earlier bombing attempts; among

others . . . the firebomb planted at the business school of

the University of Utah which never went off."

Your Honor, finally, one of the defendant's admissions

that I've already quoted reflects the defendant's use of

disguises. We found other entries in the defendant's writings

in the cabin which reflected liberal use of disguises in the

purchasing of bomb components as well as the placing of bombs.

And that would conclude the proffer with respect to

bomb 5.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government's attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb 6, that

was a bomb that was mailed to Professor Patrick Fischer.

Professor Fischer was formerly a professor at Penn State

University. The package was mailed to him at that address.

However, at the time it was mailed, he had moved on to

Vanderbilt University. That package was then forwarded to him

at Vanderbilt, and it was opened on May 5th, 1982 by his

secretary Janet Smith. That device exploded upon opening,

causing serious injuries to Ms. Smith.

Forensic examination of the bomb revealed, among other

things, a metal tag bearing the initials FC and a mailing

label which had been typed on the typewriter which I've

already referred to that was found in the cabin.

Furthermore, an undated coded entry from the defendant's

journal states, quote, "May about 1982 I sent a bomb to a

computer expert named Patrick Fischer. His secretary opened

it. One newspaper said she was in hospital? In good

condition? With arm and chest cuts. Other newspaper said

bomb drove fragments of wood into her flesh. But no

indication that she was permanently disabled. Frustrating

that I can't seem to make a lethal bomb. Used shotgun powder

in this last, hoping that it would do better than rifle

powder. Next I must try another gasoline bomb, different

design. Though gasoline bomb I tried last fall did not go

off. Revenge attempts have been gobbling much time, impeding

other work. But I must succeed, must get revenge."

Also, in a previously referenced letter to the

San Francisco Examiner, a copy of which was found in the

cabin, the defendant states, "We are also responsible for some

earlier bombing attempts; among others . . . the mail bomb

that injured the secretary of computer expert Patrick Fischer

of Vanderbilt University three and a half years ago."

Your Honor, the defendant -- the Unabomber also claims

credit for this bomb in a June 24th, 1995 letter to the

New York Times. That letter was found in the defendant's

cabin, a handwritten version of that letter, and one of the

defendant's experiments also claims credit for this device.

And that would conclude the proffer with respect to

bomb 6.

(Discussion off the record between the defendant and

Ms. Clarke. And Mr. Denvir.)

MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, could I have just one moment.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Discussion off the record between Ms. Clarke and

Mr. Lapham.)

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, it appears there is some

question whether the Patrick Fischer device was mentioned in

the defendant's experiments. For the purpose of this proffer,

I can withdraw that statement.

THE COURT: Okay.

Mr. Kaczynski, deeming that statement withdrawn, do you

agree with the factual representation just made by the

Government's attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb number 7,

that was a device that was placed in Room 411 of Cory Hall on

the campus of the University of California at Berkeley on or

about July 2nd, 1982. Professor Diogenes Angelakos located

that device, which was disguised to appear to be some type of

test equipment. The device was actually a gasoline firebomb

which was designed to detonate when the device was lifted by a

handle which sat on top of the device. That device contained

a note which stated, "Wu -- it works! I told you it would."

Signed -- "RV." The typing on that note was consistent with

the typewriter which was found in defendant's cabin.

We also found a journal entry, coded journal entry,

among the defendant's personal effects in his cabin which

claimed responsibility for that device in the following

terms: "Not long after foregoing" -- relating to the Fischer

device -- "I think in June or July I went to University

California Berkeley and placed in computer science building a

bomb consisting of a pipe bomb in a gallon can of gasoline.

According to newspaper, vice chairman of computer science

department picked it up. He was considered to be out of

danger of losing any fingers but would need surgery for bone

and tendon damage to hand. Apparently pipe bomb went off but

did not ignite gasoline. I don't understand it. Frustrated.

Traveling expenses for raids such as the foregoing are very

hard on my slender financial resources."

Your Honor, in the 1985 letter to the San Francisco

Examiner which I've already referred to, the defendant also

claimed responsibility for this device.

And that would conclude the proffer for bomb number 7.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government's attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb number 8,

that was a device which was also left in a room at Cory Hall

on the campus of University of California at Berkeley. This

device was left there on May 15th, 1985 and was made to appear

like a black vinyl three-ring binder, on top of which was a

plastic file box. The device was designed to detonate when

the binder was opened.

The forensic analysis of the bomb revealed, among other

things, that it contained a metal end plug, which is a

component of the bomb and which bore the initials FC.

Your Honor, in a lengthy coded journal entry dated

June 1st, 1985 which pertains to this bomb, the defendant

claims responsibility for that device in the following terms.

"Success at last after many failures reported in these

notes. Took me year and a half of intensive effort, largely

neglecting other work to develop effective type bomb . . .

May 8 I planted a small bomb in the computer science

department at Berkeley. This is apparatus number 2,

Experiment 83, in my notebooks. At same time I mailed a

larger bomb to Boeing Corporation, Auburn, Washington.

Outcome of Boeing bomb unknown. Berkeley bomb did well for

its size. It was sprung by Air Force pilot, 26 years old,

name Hauser, working on master's degree in electrical

engineering. He probably would have been killed if so

positioned relative to bomb as to take the fragments in his

body. As it were, mainly his right arm was hit. Witnesses

said, quote, 'Whole arm was exploded.' 'Blood all over the

place.' One newspaper said arm was 'mangled.' Another said

it was 'shattered' and that he would never recover full use of

arm and hand. Also there was damage to one eye. One paper

said that the small computer lab was 'destroyed.' This is

improbable."

Later on he states, "I was relieved to read what kind of

guy sprang the trap. I had worried about possibility that

some young kid, undergrad, not even computer science major

might get it. But this guy clearly typical member of the

technician class. Might even be one of the guys that has

flown those fucking jets over my home. This gives great

relief to my choking, frustrated anger and sense of impotence

against the system. At same time, must admit I feel badly

about having crippled this man's arm. It has been bothering

me a good deal. This is embarrassing because while my

feelings are partly from pity, I am sure they come largely

from the training, propaganda, brainwashing we all get,

conditioning us to be scared by the idea of doing certain

things. It is shameful to be under the sway of this

brainwashing. But do not get the idea that I regret what I

did. Relief of frustrated anger outweighs uncomfortable

conscience. I would do it all over again."

Later on, the defendant states, "Further search of

newspapers yielded . . . Hauser's arm was severed or nearly

severed. Tips of three fingers torn off. Use of arm and hand

will be permanently impaired. To what degree not known.

Hauser, father of two kids. He was working toward Ph.D,

contrary to other paper that said masters. He was afraid his

'dream,'" quote, unquote, "was ruined. Dream was to be an

astronaut. Imagine a grown man whose dream is to be an

astronaut. I am no longer bothered by this guy partly because

I just 'got over it' with time, partly because his aspiration

was so ignoble."

And, Your Honor, that statement refers to an

Experiment 83 which we found among the defendant's experiments

in the cabin. That describes assembling this bomb during the

March and April 1985 time period and concludes, quote, "This

device did detonate, producing good results." And elsewhere

in the experiments, the defendant sets forth an idea for

placing a bomb in Cory Hall at the University of Berkeley

which consists of a loose-leaf binder on top of a plastic

box.

And I didn't state it earlier, but the victim was John

Hauser, who was an Air Force captain at the time training to

be an astronaut. He received his acceptance into the

astronaut program one week after being injured by this

device.

And this device also contained an end plug bearing the

initials FC.

That would conclude the proffer on bomb 8.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government's attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor with respect to bomb 9, that was

a device that was constructed at the same time as the Hauser

device. And that's referred to also in the lengthy passage,

coded passage that I just read.

That device was received by Boeing Aircraft in Auburn,

Washington on or about May 16th, 1985. It was postmarked

May 8th, 1985 from Oakland, California. And that bomb -- it

was suspected of being a bomb. Several attempts were made to

open that package prior to any suspicion that it was a bomb.

That attempts proved unsuccessful, and during those attempts

fortunately the bomb did not detonate.

The bomb was rendered safe by bomb disposal personnel.

And in the lengthy quoted passage that I just described with

reference to the Hauser device, that passage reflects that the

bomb that was mailed to Boeing was constructed pursuant to

Experiment 82. The Experiment 82 was located among the

defendant's effects in the cabin, and the defendant indeed

describes assembling the Boeing bomb between February and

April 1985 but states, "Result unknown." In a later passage,

however, the defendant records, quote, "Now," parentheses,

"(1993), I know that this device was discovered and

disassembled before the triggers were released."

And that would conclude the proffer as to bomb 9.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government's attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, with respect to bomb 10, that

was a device which was received on November 15th, 1985 by

Dr. James McConnell, a professor at the University of

Michigan. Professor McConnell's assistant, Nick Suino, opened

that device and was injured when the bomb exploded.

Forensic analysis of the bomb revealed, among other

things, that the initials FC were stamped on one of the metal

end plugs and that the mailing label envelope were all typed

on the typewriter found in the defendant's cabin.

Your Honor, that device was preceded by a letter or it

was accompanied by a letter purportedly from an individual

named Ralph Kloppenburg. That letter explained that the

package contained a manuscript which Mr. Kloppenburg wished

Professor McConnell to review. When the package is opened up,

it appears to be a ream of paper which is hollowed out with

only the edges, the borders, remaining. Inside that ream of

paper was concealed a bomb. That is the bomb that exploded

when it was opened by Mr. Suino.

In a coded passage that was found in the defendant's

cabin, the defendant states, "Experiment 100. Mid-November

1985 I sent bomb in mail to James V. McConnell, behavior

modification researcher at University of Michigan. Only minor

injuries to McConnell's assistant. Deflagrated, did not

detonate. Must be either pipe was a little weak or loading

density of explosives a shade too high at failure."

Your Honor, during a search of the cabin, the Government

also found Experiment 100. In that experiment, the defendant

describes construction of the McDonnell device and concludes,

quote, "We placed enough postage on the package for zone 8 and

for 7 pounds. We sent the package on November 12, 1985."

The next entry is December 17. That states, "We have

learned that the package was received and opened, and that the

device ignited. But, apparently, that it did not detonate,

but rather deflagrated. A total failure."

And, Your Honor, a carbon copy of the Kloppenburg letter

was also found in the defendant's cabin. On that letter was a

Spanish notation which translates as follows: "Letter mailed

with the Experiment 100 package. The letter was in the

envelope taped to the package. The envelope was addressed but

had no postage. The package itself had enough postage for the

package and the letter." There were also references to

Professor McConnell found in the defendant's cabin.

And that would conclude the proffer as to bomb 10.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government's attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, finally, as to bomb 12, that

was a device that was placed behind CAAMS computer store in

Salt Lake City, Utah on February 20th, 1987. Your Honor, I

previously referred to that device as being a near twin to the

device that was placed behind the Rentech computer store in

Sacramento, California, which was one of the charged devices

in the Sacramento indictment.

That device also contained an end plug bearing the

initials FC. That device was placed in a parking lot in the

same manner or similar manner as with the Rentech device.

That device was found by one of the employees, one of the

co-owners of CAAMS computer store, Gary Wright. Mr. Wright

picked up that device or attempted to pick that device up, and

upon movement of that device, it exploded, causing some

injuries to Mr. Wright.

In Experiment 121 which was found until the defendant's

cabin, the defendant describes constructing a bomb in November

and December of 1986 and January of 1987. According to the

notes contained in that experiment, the bomb was completed on

February 8th, 1987. And then another passage concludes as

follows: "The device was placed February 20th and worked the

same day; it exploded and probably detonated but the

results -- as far as we could find out -- did not enough to

satisfy us."

Your Honor, furthermore, an article pertaining to that

device was found in the defendant's cabin and among his other

personal effects.

And that would conclude the proffer as to bomb 12.

THE COURT: Mr. Kaczynski, do you agree with the factual

representation just made by the Government's attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, may I have a moment?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Discussion off the record among Government counsel.)

MR. LAPHAM: Your Honor, that's all.

THE COURT: Is there anything further for me to cover

based on the matters in the plea agreement?

(Discussion off the record among Government counsel).

MR. LAPHAM: We can't think of anything, Your Honor.

Mr. Kaczynski, how do you now plead to the charges in

Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the indictment in

this case, and Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the indictment in the

District of New Jersey case: guilty or not guilty?

(Discussion off the record between defendant and

Mr. Denvir).

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is the finding of the Court in the case

of United States vs. Theodore John Kaczynski that the

defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an

informed plea and that his plea of guilty is a knowing and

voluntary plea supported by an independent basis in fact

containing each of the essential elements of the offenses.

His plea is therefore accepted, and he is now adjudged guilty

of those offenses.

Mr. Kaczynski, a written pre-sentence report will be

prepared by the United States Probation Office to assist the

Court in sentencing. You will be asked to give information

for the report, and your attorneys may be present if you

wish. I shall permit you and your counsel the opportunity to

read the pre-sentence report before the sentencing hearing.

You shall also be afforded the opportunity to speak on your

behalf at the sentencing hearing.

I'm going to obtain a judgment and sentencing date from

my deputy.

THE CLERK: May 15 at 1:30.

THE COURT: How about May 15 at 1:30 for judgment and

sentencing?

MS. CLARKE: That's fine, Your Honor.

MR. LAPHAM: Fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: A question before you leave. Is there any

reason why I shouldn't release the jury?

MR. CLEARY: None, Your Honor.

THE COURT: How about filing the blank copy of the jury

questionnaire?

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

MR. CLEARY: Fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DENVIR: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Time noted: 3:22 p.m.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-- oOo --

BEFORE THE HONORABLE GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR., JUDGE

-- oOo --

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. Cr. S-96-259 GEB

)

THEODORE JOHN KACZYNSKI, )

)

Defendant. )

______________________________)

-- oOo --

REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT

JURY TRIAL

DISCUSSION ON MOTIONS AND CHANGE OF PLEA

VOLUME 27, pp. 3757-3848

THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 1998

-- oOo --

Reported by: SUSAN VAUGHAN, CSR No. 9673

A P P E A R A N C E S

For Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY

650 Capitol Mall

Sacramento, CA 95814

BY: ROBERT J. CLEARY

STEPHEN P. FRECCERO

R. STEVEN LAPHAM

Special Attorneys to the

United States Attorney General

For the Defendant:

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDER

801 "K" Street, Suite 1024

Sacramento, CA 95814

By: QUIN A. DENVIR

Federal Defender, Eastern District of California

JUDY CLARKE

Executive Director, Federal Defenders of

Eastern Washington and Idaho

STERNBERG, SOWARDS & LAURENCE

604 Mission St., 9th floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

BY: GARY D. SOWARDS

Also Present: KEVIN CLYMO, Attorney at Law

TERRY TURCHIE, Assistant Special Agent,

F.B.I. Unabom Task Force

ROBERT ROLFSEN, JR., Special Agent, F.B.I.

-- oOo --

Ron Arnold's Book EcoTerror, written shortly after Kaczynski's capture but before his trial, contains astonishingly accurate predictions of what would be learned once the full story came out.
Buy his book here:

Read Ron Arnold's book
Freezing in the Dark: Money, Power, Politics and
The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

RETURN TO THE GUIDE
RETURN TO GREEN TRACKING LIBRARY HOME PAGE