Unabom; Major Case 75; 00: San Francisco
Report of the Unabom Task Force

Front Matter

Title Page

This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Chronology of UNABOM Events (See Insert)

II. UNABOM Investigative Strategy

III. Event Reinvestigation

1. University of Illinois, Chicago; 5/26/78

2. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL; 5/9/79

3. American Airlines, Fit. 444, Chicago; 11/15/79

4. President United Airlines, Chicago; 6/10/80

5. University of Utah, Salt Lake City; 10/8/81

6. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN; 5/5/82

7. University of California, Berkeley; 7/2/82

8. Boeing Aircraft, Auburn, WA; 5/8/85

9. University of California, Berkeley; 5/15/85

10. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; 11/15/85

11. Rentech Company, Sacramento, CA; 12/11/85

12. CAAM's Inc., Salt Lake City, UT; 2/20/87

13. Physician/Researcher, Tiburon, CA; 6/22/93

14. Professor, Yale University, New Haven, CT; 6/24/93

15. Advertising Executive, North Caldwell, NJ; 12/10/9

*16. President California Forestry Association, Sacramento; 4/24/95

IV. UNABOM Correspondence & Receipt of the UNABOM Manuscript

V. Investigative Analysis

A. Known Facts Emerging from Event Reinvestigation

B. Forensic Review

C. Behavioral Assessment(s)

D. Conclusions

VI. Appendix

A. Analysis of Nathan R. projects

B. Location of Device 1

C. Montgomery Ward, Sears, and Ace near UICCC

D. Location of Device 2

E. Location of Device 3, showing Sears and Ace

F. Enoch Fischer letter to Percy Wood

G. Location of Device 4

H. Location of First Four Chicago Devices

I. Location of Device 5

J. Location of Device 6

K. Location of Device 7 and 9

L. Mailing of Device 8

M. Letter of Ralph C. Kloppenburg

N. Marketing Letter of James McConnell

O. Location of Device 11

P. Location of Device 12 and the Mailing Location of Device 10

Q. Mailing Location, Devices 13 and 14

R. Machine Shop Contacts - Analysis

S. Location of Mailing of Device 15

T. 4/20/95 Letter of UNABOM subject to the New York Times

U. 6/24/95 Letter to the New York Times

I. Chronology of UNABOM Events (See Insert)

II. UNABOM INVESTIGATIVE STRATEGY

The UNABOM Task Force (UTF) was established in June 1993, following the mailing of UNABOM Devices 13 and 14 to Professor Charles Epstein of Tiburon, California, and Dr. David Gelernter, of New Haven, Connecticut. The Epstein device was mailed from Sacramento, California, on 6/18/93 and detonated in Prof. Epstein's home on 6/22/93. The Gelernter device was mailed from Sacramento, California,.on 6/18/93 and detonated in Dr. Gelernter's office at Yale University on 6/24/93.

The New York Times (NYT) received a letter on 6/24/93 from the UNABOMER, mailed from Sacramento, California, on 6/21/93. In the letter, the UNABOMER claimed credit for the Epstein and Gelernter devices. The letter provided the NYT with a nine digit number (written like a Social Security Account Number), which was to be used by the NYT to authenticate future communications.

Since June 1993, the UTF has undertaken an extensive investigation to identify the UNABOMER to include the following:

(1) The development of a protocol and victimology interviews of UNABOM victims. The purpose of victimology was to identify/develop any commonalities among the victims that might assist in the identification of the UNABOMER. To date, no apparent commonalities among victims have been determined.

(2) The FBI Lab developed indented writing on the letter sent to the NYT. The indented writing read, "Call Nathan R, Wed 7 PM." An intensive effort was mounted to identify and interview Nathans with a middle or last name beginning with the letter R. Every FBI office nationwide was instructed to utilize DMV records to locate Nathan Rs and thereafter conduct interviews using a developed protocol. The general public was provided with the Nathan R information, prompting numerous call-ins to the UNABOM 1-800 number. The UTF effort located approximately 9,000 individuals with the first name of Nathan and a middle or last name beginning with R. Numerous businesses were also identified. To date, the UTF has been unable to further develop the possible significance of the indented writing to the UNABOM investigation. The results of the Nathan R effort continue to be assessed. (Appendix A provides a summary of the Nathan R. effort.)

(3) The UTF continues to conduct extensive and ongoing reinvestigation of all 16 UNABOM devices/events, as well as of the letters and manuscript mailed by the UNABOMER.

Reinvestigation has focused on:

(a) the location(s) of placed UNABOM devices and significant activities, interests and events which occurred in those environments at the time(s) of placement;

(b) any apparent overall commonalities related to the location(s) and environments of the placed devices;

(c) the approximate time(s) of placement of the device and/or the time of their discovery;

(d) possible witnesses to the placements;

(e) the construction of the devices, particularly with respect to the design of the device and its adapting into the environment where it is placed;

(f) any possible motive(s) relative to the device and the victim;

(g) the return address on mailed devices and letters and a determination of how, when, and where the addresses were selected and their accuracy, as indicative of the UNABOMER's familiarity with certain locations;

(h) the address of the intended victim and its accuracy, as reflecting the UNABOMER's familiarity with the home or office address of his victim;

(i) determining how the UNABOMER selected his victim;

(j) the locations from which mailed devices were placed into the mail and identification of U.S. Postal Service employees who might have handled the device.

(4) The FBI Lab was requested to undertake a thorough review of all available UNABOM evidence for placed and mailed devices, to include consultations with various experts outside the Bureau in an effort to achieve forensic breakthroughs which might be helpful in identifying the UNABOMER.

(5) Investigative files pertaining to UNABOM from other FBI field divisions, BATF, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service were colocated in the San Francisco Division and all data from the files was computerized into a full text retrieval system (Zylndex). Additionally, a Sunsparc stand-alone computer system was developed to house subpoenaed information regarding subpoenaed names with appropriate identifiers. The Sunsparc database has become the foundation for the UTF effort to compare lists of names and determine who has migrated from Illinois to Utah to California.

(6) A reward program was established and heavily publicized, offering $1 million for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the UNABOM subject. The reward was established with contributions from several federal law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation in addition to companies affiliated with or acting in support of the victims.

(7) A 1-800 line was established to complement the media activity regarding the UNABOM investigation. Since the establishment of the 1-800 hotline, in excess of 70,000 telephone calls have been made to the UTF. Since March 1995, in excess of 50,000 calls have been processed through the 1-800 number.

(8) The investigative support unit, Critical Incident Response Group, Quantico, Virginia, was requested and has provided an updated behavioral profile of the UNABOM subject. At the request of the San Francisco Division, a representative of ISU/CIRG has been temporarily assigned to the UTF in San Francisco to serve as the on-site advisor in the behavioral area.

(9) Complementing the CIRG onsite representative, the UTF has solicited the assistance of San Francisco SA Kathleen Puckett who is a member of the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) Behavioral Assessment Program (BAP). Together, the CIRG onsite representative and SA Puckett have made substantial contributions to the behavioral aspect of this investigation.

Event Chart #1

Event Chart #1 illustrates the locations, times, and details of placed UNABOM devices as obtained and confirmed through reinvestigation of events:

Device #	Date First Observed	Date of Detonation	Location	Times Observed
1	5/25/78	5/26/78	UICC - Chicago	2:00 p.m.
2	5/9/79	5/9/79	(NWU) - Evanston	8:35 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 3:28 p.m.
5	10/8/81	10/8/81	Business Classroom Building (U of U) Salt Lake City, UT	10:45 a.m.
7	7/2/82	7/2/82	Cory Hall, Rm 411 Univ, of Calif-Berkeley	7:45 a.m.
* 9	5/15/85	5/15/85	Cory Hall, Rm Univ, of Calif-Berkeley
11	12/11/85	12/11/85	Rentech 1537 Howe Ave. Sacramento, CA	10:35 a.m.
12	2/20/87	2/20/87	CAAMs, Inc. 270 E. 900 South Salt Lake City, UT	9:30 a.m.

* Some witnesses believe this device may have been in Room 264 up to several days prior to the detonation.

Event Chart #2

Event Chart #2 illustrates addresses and return addresses of mailed devices and locations and times, if known, of mailings.

Device #	Addressee	Mailed From	Date/Time Mailed	Return Address	Date of Detonation
#3 carried on AA, Fit #444 from Chicago	Unknown Airline Offices in NW section of Wash DC	North Suburban Post office Elgin, IL (Gromer's Supermarket Substation)	Between 6pm 11/13/79 & 6pm 11/14	Unknown	11/15/79
#4	Mr. Percy Addison Wood 887 Forest Hill Lake Forest, IL 60045	North Suburban Chicago P.O.	Unknown	Enoch W. Fischer 3414 N. Ravenswood Chicago, IL 60657	6/10/80
#6	Prof. Patrick C. Fischer Computer Science Dept. Pennsylvania State Univ. State College, PA	4 University Contract Station 240 Brewster Bldg. BYU, Provo, Utah	Prof. LeRoy L. Bearnson Electrical Engineering Brigham Young Univ. Provo, UT 84602
#9	The Boeing Co. Fabrication Div. 700 15th Ave. S.W. Auburn, Wash 980239	Oakland, CA 5/8/85	5/8/85	Weiburg Tool & Supply 16 Hegenberger Ct. Oakland, CA 94621	6/13/85
#10	James V. McConnell 2900 E. Delhi Road Ann Arbor, Ml 98103	Salt Lake City Utah	11/12/85 In P.M.	Ralph C. Kloppenburg Department of History University of Utah 84112	11/15/85
#13	Charles J. Epstein 19 Noche Vista Lane Belvedere Tiburon, CA 94920	Sacramento, CA	Unknown	James Hill Chemistry Department Calif. State University Sacramento, CA 95819	6/22/93
#14	Professor David Gelernter Computer Science 2158, Yale University New Haven, CT 06515	Sacramento CA	6/18/85 in P.M.	Mary Jane Lee Computer Science California State University Sacramento, CA 95819-601	6/24/93
#15	Thomas J. Mosser 15 Aspen Dr. N Caldwell, NJ 07006-9555	San Francisco Ca	12/3/94 in P.M.	H. C. Wickel Depart, of Economics San Francisco State University San Francisco	12/10/94
#16	Bill Dennison Timber Association of California 1311 I. Street Sacramento, CA 95814	Oakland, CA	After 6pm 4/19/95 and before 3pm 4/20/95	Closet Dimensions, Inc. Oakland, CA	4/24/95

Event Chart #3

Event Chart #3 identifies written correspondence from the UNABOMER t the media, illustrating dates of mailings, item mailed, and recipient of items and location from which the item was mailed, return addresses, if any, on the item.

Description of Item	Mailed To	Date Mailed	From	Return Address
Letter	Warren Hoge New York Times	6/21/93 (NYT)	Sacramento, CA	None
Letter	David Gelernter	4/20/95	Oakland, CA	9th St. & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W Washington, DC 2053
Letter	Richard J. Roberts 4/20/95	Oakland, CA	None
Letter	Philip A. Sharp	4/20/95	Oakland, CA	Manfred Morari 2735 Ardmore Road San Marino, CA 91108-1768
Letter	Warren Hoge	4/20/95	Oakland, CA	None
Letter	Jerry Roberts	6/24/95	San Francisco CA	Frederick Benjamin Isaac Wood 549 Wood Street Woodlake, CA 93286
Letter	Warren Hoge	6/24/95	San Francisco CA	Calgene, Inc. 1920 - 5th St. Davis, CA 95616
Letter	Michael Getler	6/24/95	San Francisco CA	Boon Long Hoe 3609 Reinoss Court San Jose, CA 95136
Letter	Bob Guccione	6/24/95	San Francisco CA	John David Woldrich 256 San Ramon Way Novato, CA 94947
Letter	Tom Tyler	6/24/95	San Francisco CA	John T. Minor Dept, of Electrical Engineering & Compu Science, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

The reinvestigation of UNABOM events analyzed in the context of forensic and behavioral information provides additional insight into the patterns, activities, and practices of the UNABOM subject, providing potential answers to significant questions - where does the subject live? where was his academic origin? what does he do? and how old is he now?

Through his letter of 4/20/95 announcing his intention to produce a 37,000 word manuscript, and the subsequent mailing of the manuscript on 6/24/95, the UNABOMER has enabled the UTF to validate current judgments regarding the subject, while enhancing our overall knowledge of him.

III. EVENT REINVESTIGATION

DEVICE #1 : UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO. ILLINOIS, 5/26/78

Description of Device

At approximately 2:00 p.m., on Thursday, May 25, 1978, Device #1 was found in Parking Lot 5, University of Illinois, Chicago Circle Campus (UICCC) by a passerby, Ms. Mary Gutierrez. The device was a wrapped parcel with ten one dollar Eugene O'Neill stamps affixed. The stamps had not been canceled, and the package did not have a postmark. The package had a blue and red mailing label with a white background. The words "First Class" were handprinted on the package. The address and return address were handprinted on the mailing label and read:

From: Prof. Buckley Crist, Jr.
Northwestern U. Tech. Inst.
Evanston, II 60301

To: Prof. E. J. Smith
School of Engineering
Rensselaer Polytechnic Invest.
Troy, NY 12181

Ms. Gutierrez returned the package to Prof. Crist. Prof. Crist summoned the Northwestern University Department of Public Safety (NWUDPS). The package was opened on 5/26/78 by a NWUDPS officer and exploded as it was being opened.

Forensics

Recovered from the post-blast scene were the following components of the device: remnants of one-inch pipe; a wooden box approximately 22 inches x 3 in. x 3 in.; screws; nails; rubber bands; epoxy; two types of smokeless powder; match heads; wooden plug; 3/4 in. black plastic tape; 1/2 in. filament tape; brown wrapping paper; 10 Eugene O'Neill one-dollar stamps; and a handprinted red, white, and blue mailing label. Wrapped In two layers of brown wrapping paper and sealed with filament-type plastic tape, the device was encased in a homemade wooden box. The main piece of wood was a solid piece of wood, 3" by 3" by 20" long. The device was fabricated by an individual who spent many hours on the intricate carving and assembly, and from the appearance of the device, was well versed in the art of carving and assembly. A deep groove, about an inch wide was carved the length of the top, with side slits carved at one end to fasten the ends of rubber bands. A square wooden cap was nailed on each end. A 3/4 inch galvanized pipe about half the length of the main piece had a wooden plug inserted in one end and was glued into one end of the groove with the open end toward the center. The pipe was filled almost full of smokeless powder for the main charge and the remainder of the space was filled with book-match heads to serve as the fuse, or detonator. A cut-off, 20 penny nail, sharpened on one end slid under a steel staple, served as a firing pin. The ends of heavy rubber bands were fastened by a staple in the slot carved outward from the groove on each side. A wire guide to retain and guide the rubber bands was fashioned from what appeared to be a retaining wire from a periodicals binder. The lid was in two parts, with one part half nailed down and the other half loose. The loose part had a wedge-shaped block nailed to the bottom, around which the rubber bands were held and served as the triggering mechanism. The lid was held on by black plastic electricians' tape and the word "Open" was printed on it in pencil. Upon opening the lid, the rubber bands slipped from the wedge, drove the nail into the match heads, and the match heads ignited explosively, splitting the wooden container into many pieces and strewing the pieces over the room.

On December 13, 1978, ATF stated that a forensic chemical examination of the explosive residue revealed that the device was composed of two types of smokeless powders (ball type and IMR type) along with wooden match heads. Latent fingerprint examination of the wrapping paper that enclosed the device revealed a number of latent finger and palm prints. All but one of these latent prints were identified as belonging to Professor CRIST, who partially opened the package.

Investigative Summary

On 3/6/95, KENNETH V. BURIC, Physical Plant Services, UICCC, was interviewed regarding Parking Lot 5, located at South Morgan and West Taylor Streets, Chicago.

The parking lots on Morgan Street, across from the Physical Plant Office (1140 South Morgan) were labeled in 1978 as Parking Lots 5A, 5B, and 5C. The gates at each lot were present as they are today, and the lots were utilized as follows: Lot 5A was used by students and faculty of the Science and Engineering Building; Lot 5B was utilized by Physical Plant and University Police employees; and Lot 5C was utilized as a pay lot for those without key cards. The Science and Engineering building at 840 West Taylor, was originally used as a teaching laboratory and was converted to research and has undergone extensive renovations over the years. Contractors assigned to work at the Science and Engineering building in 1978 would likely have parked in the loading dock area of that building. Contractors assigned to other sites would likely have parked at the construction site if feasible. Lot 5C may have been utilized when construction was ongoing at the nearby Cogeneration Facility, where electricity is produced for university use.

Another parking area, Lot 10, had an entrance on the north side at Taylor Street, 500 feet east of Morgan, and was utilized by instructors and professors in Science and Engineering. Selected administrative personnel may have also parked in Lot 10. No students or contract employees were to utilize Lot 10.

ROSA LEE, an employee of the University of Illinois Physical Plant in 1978, has advised the UTF that Lot 5 was controlled by key card access. In 1978, the UICCC police used the fenced-off area near the guard shack as an impound lot. The campus police department was located directly across the street from the guard shack. The guard shack was and is manned from the morning to the evening hours. Lot 5 accommodated approximately 1,300 cars. There were no assigned parking spaces; however, employees of the Physical Plant were usually the first to arrive at work and typically parked in the first row of spaces where the device was found.

A postal collection box was located on the southwest corner of West Taylor and South Morgan Streets, across the street from where the device was found. The Chicago Main Post Office (MP0) was located less than a mile away. The UTF constructed a mock-up of the device and attempted to place it into the postal collection box at West Taylor and South Morgan. While it was possible to fit the mock up into the collection box, it was a very tight fit and needed to be bent at the ends in order to be placed in the collection box. The actual device had been constructed from wood, and the UTF does not believe that the device constructed of wood could have been forced into the collection box.

FRED PLOSZAJ, Mailbox Maintenance Supervisor, Chicago Main Post Office, was contacted by the UTF and explained that the only type of mail collection boxes in use in 1978 were the same type and of the same physical dimensions as the collection boxes used today. While the collection box physically located at West Taylor and South Morgan today is a replacement for the box that was there in 1978, PLOSZAJ verified that these boxes had the same dimensions.

Investigation has resulted in the identification of 10 contractors and 36 former and current employees of the UICCC Physical Plant working in the vicinity of the Science and Engineering building in the 1978 time frame.

The return addressee on the device, Prof. Crist, was an Assistant Professor of Engineering at NWU. Prof. Crist was not listed in any edition of Who's Who in America from 1978 to 1993. In the NWU Graduate School Bulletin,

1977-1978 edition, Buckley Crist, Jr. was listed in the Engineering Section wtthln a subsection titled, "The Technological Institute", as an Assistant Professor in the Chemical Engineering Department. The Zip Code was given as 60201. In a section titled, "Where to Write" under the heading "Technological Institute", was:

"Office of Graduate Programs, The Technological Institute, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60201." Prof Crist's office was in Room 1026 of the Tl.

The intended victim, Prof. E. J. Smith was not listed in any edition of Who's Who In America from 1978-1993. In the RPI Graduate Bulletins for 1976- 1977 and 1977-1978, he was listed under the Faculty Section as "Smith E.J., Engineering Physiology, Biological Control Systems, Mathematical Modeling of Physical Sciences, Space Vehicle Control Systems." The address for RPI in the Graduate Bulletin was given as "Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12181."

The UTF has learned that in 1975 and 1976, Prof. E. J. Smith did a one-year sabbatical at the University of Utah (U of U), taking part in Post-Doctoral studies in connection with a research grant. The UTF has identified Prof. Smith's associates at U of U and his hobbies and interests. Prof. Smith's hobbies included flying radio-controlled model airplanes.

During their investigation of the device, ATF developed as a primary suspect, Gregory Kimball. Kimball attended RPI, had been a student of Prof. E. J. Smith, came from Evanston, Illinois; and returned from RPI to Evanston approximately two weeks prior to the discovery of the device. A BATF UNABOM Summary report dated 11/9/91 states, "Kimball had reportedly had a heated argument with Smith and/or Smith's teaching assistant, Fred Buck, approximately ten days before the bombing." (Subsequent investigation and interviews of Smith and Buck by the UTF has determined that no such argument took place.) Kimball's mother, Audrey, was employed as a secretary at NWU for Professor Carr, a colleague of Prof. Crist. The ensuing investigation of Kimball eventually encompassed a number of his associates during the 1978-1982 time frame. Kimball and some of his associates were involved in playing a game called, "Dungeons and Dragons" (D & D). The game was played in buildings associated with the NWU campus, including the NWU Technical Institute. The UTF has identified approximately 70 individuals playing D and D and Military Naval Battle games at NWU in the 1978-1980 period, in addition to the close associates of Kimball.

From 1978 to the present, Kimball and his associates have been subjected to investigation of varying intensity. Investigative techniques employed from 1978-1982 included interviews, use of the polygraph, trash covers, and in 1982, testimony before a Federal Grand Jury (FGJ) in Chicago. Kimball, and an associate, Jeffrey Ward were subpoenaed to testify before the FGJ and took the Fifth Amendment. Jeffrey Ward's attorney discussed with the assigned AUSA the topic of immunity from prosecution. Another associate, David White, took a polygraph examination administered by an independent examiner on 11/24/81. The examiner concluded that White was withholding information pertinent to the bombings. White's answers on the polygraph were deceptive on four questions, including, were you personally present during the construction of any of the bombs (White said, no) and are any members of the game group we discussed today involved in any fashion in the bombings. (White said, no). White took a second polygraph administered by the FBI on 11/27/81 and the examiner concluded that he was withholding information.

Between 8/28/80 and 6/1/81, Chicago FBI conducted a trash cover on the residence of Kimball's associates, Paul E. Montague and T. White, William Stromberg, and Raimundas Kunstamanas at 1316 Maple Avenue, Evanston, Illinois. Among the items obtained in the trash cover were: A Krochs and Brentano's (K-B) Bookstore bag, a K&B cash register receipt dated 4/30/80 from the K&B store at 1711 Sherman, and a clear plastic bag with a $15 K&B price sticker attached; numerous canceled checks for Paul E. Montague including six canceled checks for Krochs and Brentanos; two newspaper articles on terrorism; Numerous items of identification for a Barry T. Smith, including a SSAN card with the number 534-60-2342, Selective Service status card; University of Washington student ID, Washington drivers license, Library Card; Voters Registration Card; scraps of paper with writing on it, including the name Frank Crone and Enoch Fischer. (It should be noted that Device 4 consisted of a hollowed-out book, J_ce Brothers by Sloan Wilson, sent to the President of United Airlines, Percy Wood, preceded by a letter to Wood from an individual identifying himself as Enoch Fischer. Ice Brothers had been a military book-of-the-month club selection and was being featured at the K and B Bookstore at 1711 Sherman during the Spring of 1980 as a book of the month. Frank Krohn was a D and D player in the 1978- 1979 time frame.)

Appendix B shows the location of Device #1.

DEVICE #2: NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, EVANSTON. ILLINOIS, 5/9/79

Description of Device:

At approximately 3:28 p.m., on Wednesday, May 9, 1979, Device #2 was found on a table in Room 2424 of the Northwestern University (NWU) Technological Institute (Tl), 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, Illinois, by John Harris, a researcher at NWU, appointed through the Civil Engineering Department. The device was in a cigar box, Phillies Blunt variety and wrapped in brown wrapping paper with a red polka dot design. There was no writing on the box and three witnesses interviewed by the Evanston Township Police Department (ETPD) stated they first observed the box around 8:35 a.m. on 5/9/79.

The remnants of the device indicate that it was constructed using cardboard matches which were placed in a sack or container made of gauze or first aid type dressing material. The matches were cut with a sharp instrument, though none of the lab reports speculated what type of instrument might have been used. The bundle was then wrapped or covered in several layers of black plastic electrical tape. Inside the taped and gauzed area were two pieces of wood, similar to tree branches, which appeared to have been whittled into their size and shape. Two pieces of wire were seen protruding, and the ends seemed to be coated with a GEL type solution. All of the wires in the device were white and were similar to lamp wiring. Two size C batteries were used and it appears as if this is the first bomb that used batteries as part of the fusing mechanism. The device was constructed to explode when a piece of tape, which appeared to be a "tab", was pulled and opened the top of the box.

Forensics:

The initial laboratory work was done by the Bureau of Scientific Devices, Maywood, IL. They concluded there was a presence of sulfur, silicone, and phosphorous, as well as potassium chlorate in the device. All of these items are common components of match heads. The FBI Laboratory conducted an analysis of the evidence in Device #2 after the American Airlines Flight 444 bombing in November 1979. The FBI Lab identified four types of taping material, 1/2" filament tape, 3/4" black plastic tape, 3/4" black friction tape and 3/4" white filament tape, and concluded that the adhesive used to glue the explosive contents of the cigar box within the box was a polyvinylacetate adhesive. This was determined to be different from the American Airlines 444 bombing, as that bomb also had contained epoxy. The FBI Lab also found .28 fishing wire, which was intertwined with some of the tape within the device. An FBI Laboratory report dated 10/8/80, compared the devices sent to Percy Wood and E.J. Smith with the devices placed at Northwestern and aboard American Airlines Flight 444. The report concluded that the same individual or individuals constructed all 4 devices and that the Northwestern device was the only one to use 3/4" white reinforced tape. Recently, the FBI Laboratory has consulted various outside experts with respect to UNABOM evidence. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) in Blacksburg, Virginia, analyzed the wood pieces from the Northwestern device, determining that the small lacquered branches were similar to those found in rustic furniture such as rockers or porch chairs. The initiator plugs were branches or twigs with ash characteristics.

Investigative Summary

Room 2424, NWU Tech Institute was used primarily by graduate students, NWU faculty, and visiting scholars, and was normally occupied by two teaching assistants. Room 2424 was located in the southwest corner of the north wing of the Tech Building, which housed the Civil and Mechanical Engineering Departments. The Civil Engineering Department was located on the 2nd floor in and around room 2424. Three individuals interviewed by the ETPD at the time of the incident provided relevant information. John Demsey, a graduate student in Civil Engineering, observed an individual using the xerox machine in the room at around 8:35 a.m. He observed the cigar box, touched the box and noted that it seemed heavy. He left the box on the table. Another student, Pierre Burgers, asked Dempsey about the box, and wanted to know if anyone knew its origin. A third student, Bushan Karihaloo, saw the box at around 9am that morning. AH of the witnesses at the time of the explosion stated that they had all attended a lecture in the library from 2-3pm.

Chicago UTF recently located and interviewed victim, John Harris, who had never before been interviewed by any federal law enforcement agency. Chicago also identified and has located and caused to be interviewed several additional individuals present in Room 2424 of the Technological Institute when the device exploded. At least one of these interviews had suggested a possible motive for the placement of the device in Room 2424. This individual has suggested that due to a rash of thefts of items and personal belongings from Room 2424, an individual who had been a victim of a theft might have desire to seek vengeance on the thieves and left a device in the room.

FBI Chicago purchased a roll of brown paper with red polka dots similar to the paper that wrapped Device #2 from Montgomery Ward Store #5851 in Chicago on 7/3/81. The paper was manufactured by the Gibson Greeting Card Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. Device 3 utilized a barometer purchased at an Ace Hardware Store. Sears batteries were used in Device #2.)

The UTF has compiled a listing of all Sears, Montgomery Wards, and Ace Hardware stores in Chicago, Evanston, and Elgin, Illinois, in the 1979-1980 time frame. The Sears list identified 23 stores, the Ace list identified 97 stores, and the Montgomery Ward list identified five stores in Chicago and none in Evanston or Elgin, Illinois. (Appendix C shows the location of these stores in the vicinity of Circle Campus.)

ATF compiled a list of gun shops and ammunition dealers in the area where smokeless powder could be purchased. Most of these dealers were contacted by ATF agents. The shop owners and employees contacted noted that smokeless powder was readily available at almost any gun store. A store called Johnsons was contacted. A Johnsons employee, Jeff Thomas, reported that he believed that Jeffrey Ward could have frequented the store.

On 5/10/79, the parking lot near the Technical Building was checked and the license plates of 19 cars were recorded. The registered owners of those cars were established. On 1/25/95, Chicago provided the UTF with the list of registered owners and noted that one vehicle license, WIL 7534, was not on record. Another license, CRC 154, was registered to Carl R. Carlson, DOB 1/1/65. This would have made Carlson fourteen years old at the time of the bombing. Nine of the cars were on the Northwestern Student Parking Lot list. A check of all parking citations on the campus on the day of the bombing failed to develop any relevant information.

On 3/29/95, Robert Cheldberg, Chief Electrician at the Northwestern Physical Plant Services, was interviewed and stated that Northwestern maintenance personnel were not allowed access to the NWU where the bomb had been placed. The NWUTI operated as an isolated entity and employed a separate maintenance staff. The maintenance people working at the Tl building were of a different union than the other maintenance employees at Northwestern. The Tl had its own shipping and receiving unit which was not connected with Physical Plant Services. On 3/27/95, Charles W. Piehl, Foreman at Tl, identified a number of machine, wood, and electrical shops in the NTI building. These shops were accessible to students and faculty, and most are located on the ground floor. The keys to these shops are maintained by the Departments, shop employees, maintenance personnel, and Northwestern Campus Police. The Physics Shop was the largest and was used 7 days a week by faculty and students. Industrial grade equipment in the shop allowed for the construction and repair of metals, wood, plastics, and ceramics. The Chemical Engineering Shop was opened 7 days a week and had similar equipment to the Physics shop. The Material Science Shop was opened 7 days a week and had access to explosives.The Chemistry- Electronics Shop was utilized for computer related research. The Civil Engineering Shop was opened 7 days a week, and the Mechanical Engineering Shop had similar equipment as both the Physics and Chemical Engineering Shop.

During the past year, the UTF has learned of the existence of the NWU Transportation Center (TC), which was located from 1978 to 1979 on the first floor of the north wing of the Tl building, directly below Room 2424. The TC had sister programs at UC Berkeley and MIT. The TC dealt with transportation issues. United Airlines was heavily involved with the TC. In 1978, a retired American Airlines pilot, Frank Spencer, donated $100,000 to establish a Chair in the name of William Patterson, founder of United Airlines, and one of the founders of the TC. United Airlines donated $300,000 to this particular Chair.

The UTF has identified at Northwestern the F.C. Austin scholarship program. This is a scholarship program to train business leaders. The UTF has obtained a list of FC Austin scholarships dating back to 1985 and an Alumni Directory. However, the UTF has been unable to receive a complete list of FC Austin scholarship recipients dating back to 1978 or 1979.

As in the first UNABOM device, Gregory Kimball and several of his associates, emerged as the prime suspects in Device #2. This hypothesis was further heightened by the employment of Kimball's mother, Audrey, at NWU, in the Tl, and the location of Prof. Crist's office in Room 1026 of the Tl. A BATF report dated 11/7/91, stated, "ATF responded to the second bombing, but while the assigned agent wrote that he considered Kimball a likely suspect the case was not actively investigated."

During a 9/4/95 Chicago FBI interview of Kimball's associate, Jeffrey N. Ward, Ward observed:

At the close of Ward's senior year at Evanston Township High School

(ETHS), he first learned that Dungeons and Dragons war games were being played at NWU through Tony Quintanella. The war games were being held at Northwestern in the South Tech Building in Room 2381. On the door of Room 2381 is printed, "Chemical Engineering Department Conference Room". A group of NWU Engineering graduate students who call themselves the North Shore General Staff (NSGS) conducted war games in the Chemistry Department area in the Tech Building. The NSGS general was a graduate student in the Department of Chemistry named Rich Schwall, who had obtained permission for the NSGS to use Room 2381.

From 1975 to approximately 1977, the NSGS began splitting into two

different philosophical camps. Under the direction of Ward, his group played D&D with very few rules. Under the direction of Schwall, his group used the philosophy which involved the D&D master setting out strict guidelines. Ward's group did not have any connections with the Civil or Mechanical Engineering Department facilities in the north wing of the Tech Building. Ward is unaware of a graduate study/mail room in the southwest corner in the north wing of the Civil Engineering building. Ward has never been in the north wing of the Tech Building. Ward did attend a number of movies in the Tech Auditorium. The auditorium is located in the main building, first floor center. Ward attended approximately 20 to 30 movies in the Tech Building from 1975 to 1980.

As an indirect result of the split of the NSGS, the gaming sessions on

Saturday were moved to Swift Hall which is located in the center of the NWU campus. Swift Hall is approximately one block southeast of the Tech Building. The NSGS played on the first floor of Swift Hall in the north wing. Instead of playing D&D, the group engaged in large naval engagements, using the Fletcher Pratt Naval Battle Rules. Some of the NSGS made their own models. Most of the models used were purchased in local hobby shops. The miniatures were manufactured in rubber molds. The miniatures were made of epoxy. By using existing ships, one could create rubber molds. Epoxy was used to form the miniature bodies because it was and inexpensive material available on campus. By 1978-1979, the individuals still playing D&D were playing in Norris Student Center.

In 1978-1979, individuals who played D&D at Foster Walker Hall

switched to playing Strat-O-Matic Football. In late 1978 or 1979, a Northwestern graduate history student, Paul Montague, joined the Strat-O-Matic Football games. Montague lived at Frank C. Englehart Graduate Resident Hall, on Maple Avenue in Evanston, Illinois. Ward reiterated that from 1978 to 1979, those individuals playing D&D at Norris Student Center were graduate students in engineering. Ward remembers a blue collar non-NWU student who sometimes appeared at the gaming sessions at Norris Student Center. Ward could not remember this individual's name, however, recalled him as being very quiet. In 1978-1979, an individual named John Krohn began playing the game. John Krohn was the brother of Frank Krohn who would give his D&D characters German names. Ward characterized Krohn as not socializing well with women.

Chief William McHugh, ETPD, advised a local newspaper that the police had received a phone call warning of a bomb, prior to the 5/9/79 explosion of Device #2.

Appendix D shows the location of Device 2.

DEVICE #3: AMERICAN AIRLINES, FLIGHT 444, CHICAGO, II, 11/15/79

Description of Device:

On Thursday, November 15, 1979 Device #3 detonated aboard American Airlines flight 444, causing a fire in one of the U.S. Postal Service cargo pods. AA #444 had departed O'Hare Airport, Chicago, Illinois at 10:20 a.m., Central Standard Time, and was bound for National Airport in Washington, D.C. The bomb ignited the mail in the cargo pod, causing smoke to enter the passenger cabin, forcing the aircraft to make an emergency landing at Dulles International Airport, Virginia, at approximately 12:47 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Approximately 30 minutes after departure from Chicago, the crew and passengers of American Airlines Flight 444 heard a loud noise and felt a "jolt". A burning odor was noticed by the crew and aircraft instruments registered pressure fluctuations, however, the flight engineer inspected the aircraft cabin and could find nothing wrong. With approximately 20 minutes left in the flight, smoke began to enter the aircraft cabin through the floor and air conditioning vents. Upon landing at Dulles International Airport, the forward baggage compartment was open from the outside of the aircraft and smoke billowed out. Cargo pod number 7021, to the rear of the forward baggage compartment, was found to be on fire. Cargo pod number 7021 was in close proximity to the fuel crossover lines of the aircraft. Chicago investigation on June 3, 1980 determined that had the aircraft remained airborne for ten additional minutes, some of the passengers would likely have died from smoke inhalation.

Forensics

Much of the parcel's outside wrapping paper was burned in the fire caused by the detonation. From the available remnants of the device, it has been concluded that the package was addressed to one of the airline offices in Washington, D.C. Still visible on the package, in green ball point ink, were the stenciled letters: R LINES.

NW

The size of the lettering was 1/2" tall by 3/8" wide. Investigation has identified a number of airlines who had or have offices in the Northwest section of Washington, D.C. These included American, Continental, Delta, Eastern, Northwestern, Pan Am, Trans World, and United. On 11/11/94, the FBI Lab advised that twelve (12) more letters would fit into the space allocated for the address. This would account for American (8 letters), Continental (11), Delta (5), Eastern (7), Northwestern (12), Pan Am (5 plus space), Trans World (10 plus

space), United (6). The FBI Lab advised that depending on where the stencil lettering was actually placed, there might only be room for five extra letters. The mock up of the device shows the lettering to the left of the stamps, therefore, that would leave room for the five letters. If the lettering was to the left of the stamps, that is a more normal place for the return address, rather than for the addressee.

The device had $9.00 in postage, comprised of four different types of stamps. There were three $1.00 American Light Fueled by Truth and Reason stamps, two $1.00 Eugene O'Neill stamps, five half dollar Lucy Stone stamps, and six quarter dollar Frederick Douglas stamps. The stamps were placed on the upper right hand corner of the box, with the perforations matching the neighbor stamp.

The device consisted of a wooden box, made out of cottonwood, 10 1/2" deep, 9 5/8" wide, and 7 1/2" high. The top of the box was hinged at the rear. The front of the box was secured with three pieces of 1/2" filament tape. The box appeared altered. The FBI Lab stated that the bomb contained an atmospheric pressure sensitive electric fusing system and a low explosive main charge. An anti-opening fusing system was incorporated to insure against safely opening the box in a conventional manner. The loop switch was attached to the front of the box, and designed to function if the box was opened approximately two inches. It was fabricated from a single conductor multi-strand copper wire.

The barometer was an aneroid barometer, the type in which the action of atmospheric pressure in bending a metallic surface is made to move a pointer. This barometer was used as the fusing mechanism to initiate the device. The barometer was altered with the addition of multi-strand insulated copper wire as circuit contacts, and secured to a wood frame, with two wooden screws. The wires were fastened to the wooden frame with 3/4" black friction tape. The barometer had a maximum fluctuation of 3" of mercury on the face of the dial. A hole on the side of the wooden box allowed for the adjustment of the barometer after it had been secured into the box. It was calculated that allowing for a 1" change in barometric pressure for every one thousand feet of altitude, the device would have activated at somewhere around 3000 feet of ambient pressure above Chicago. The alteration to the barometer allowed for the electrical circuit to complete or close when exposed to decreasing ambient pressure which is increasing altitude. Based upon the type of barometer, it was calculated that the device would have exploded at approximately 3300 feet. The device actually exploded at 6800 feet, indicating the pointer of the barometer was insensitive to ambient pressure changes associated with altitudes of less than 3500 feet. As to whether this indicated a malfunctioning barometer, or the barometer was altered by the bomb maker, or if the barometer was designed for high altitude use, is unknown.

The batteries were four (4) Eveready "C" , 1.5 volt, wired together to produce of maximum of 6 volts of energy. The batteries were lined up with two side by side and the other two lined up behind the pair. The batteries were wired through both the barometer and the loop switch. One end of the tin can holding the main explosive charge had been separated from the can in order to Insert the initiators and the main charge. There was glue on the top of the can. The builder of the device attempted to confine the main charge by wrapping the tin can with numerous layers of tape and other materials, including .30 monofilament fishing line. Following a mild detonation, the tin can burst and the fire began. Brown insulated wire and white copper lamp cord wire were used to connect the elements of the circuit. This wire is usually twin lead but was separated into a single conductor state. The explosive main charge consisted of smokeless powder, similar to IMT4064, manufactured by Dupont. Inside the tin can there were traces of potassium chloride, barium sulfate, and small amounts of aluminum and magnesium. Potassium chloride is a known residue of potassium chlorate, or perchlorate, commonly found in protechnic mixtures (fireworks).

Barium sulfate is not a constituent of explosives or fireworks, but is a

common residue of combustion type fireworks containing barium nitrate and sulfur. Barium nitrate is used in fireworks to get a green colored flame. Barium nitrate is rarely encountered as an ingredient of a home made composition. The magnesium and aluminum could have a variety of sources including their addition as an elemental powder to the mixture.

The yellow colored cylindrical grain IMR powder was found in the

smokeless powder, the yellow powder appears to have originally been black, and the original graphite coating could have been burned off by the heat of the explosion. The FBI Lab report stated that some foreign and domestic manufactures use yellow base grain smokeless powder and apply a coating of graphite. IMR powder is found as a propellant in rifle cartridges. The FBI Lab pointed out that different kinds of smokeless powders are never mixed in one rifle cartridge. It is therefore probable that in this instance, these powders were obtained by removing the propellant from many different rifle cartridges. Grains of ball type powder were also found, and ball powder is normally associated with rifle cartridges and can additionally be obtained in bulk packages.

Excessive solder was found on all of the electrical connections,

Epoxy was used in this device as opposed to the glue used in the Northwestern device. Five types of tape were used including 3/4" filament, 1/2" filament, 1" masking, 3/4" black plastic, and 3/4" friction tape.

There were three kinds of nails used on the box. Holding the box

together were 118" long 3 penny common nails with diamond points. There were a few ringed-shank (sheetrock) nails, approximately 1 1/4" long. There were also 1/2" U-nails securing the wire inside of the box. The screws used to secure the inside panels of the box were 3/4" 7 gauge slotted flat head brass wood screws.

Tool marks were found on some of the screws and produced by the

same screwdriver. There were also marks on the nails and other screws which were not made by the same screwdriver.

Edward Pawlak, Chicago Suburban Pallet, Inc. was interviewed by FBI Chicago on 1/16/95. Pawlak stated that the boards used in the box were not consistent with boards used in pallet construction, but that the lid was s milar. Pawlak stated that he believed the hinge to be quite unique. The wood in the box appeared to be soft wood, which is typical of boxes where strength is not a requirement. Pawlak found the sides of the box to be similar to the construction of a beverage crate, based on the thickness of the boards. The wax like paper which was adhered to the inner surface of the box lid was probably placed there as protection for the item shipped. Pawlak believed the lack of hammer marks indicated either careful nailing or pneumatic nailing. He believed that the box was constructed and used repeatedly prior to its final use. Pawlak says that the construction of the box was consistent with boxes used to ship expensive, small parts such as tools and gauges. Notches noted on the inner frame of the box appear to be placed for a specific purpose, due to the relatively symmetrical placement on either side of the box. The notches are not placed in a manner that would be consistent with strapping slots or other slots in stabilizing a shipped product. A notch cut into the wood which framed the barometer appeared to be a recent modification to the wooden piece. These notches contained a double ridge within the notch. The wood pieces which formed the frame work upon which the barometer was attached, appeared to have been constructed of the same wood as the box itself. Pawlak observed that the wood may have been originally designed as a single continuous brace on the bottom of the box. This possibility could be further explored with comparisons of the dimensions of nail marks in the wood against the exposed nails in the interior of the box. Pawlak felt that the box may have been modified at the sides as evidenced by the placement of the wooden screws. It appeared as if all parts of the box had been manufactured at the same time. The box showed consistent nailing with smaller nails which may have been created at the time of the original construction. Pawlak said box manufacturers identify their products by burning or stamping their company name on an outside lower corner and that it would be unlikely that this symbol would be on the interior of a box.

On 1/16/95, Marshall White, Sardo Pallet and Container Research Laboratory was interviewed by FBI Chicago. White observed that while the box had consistent nailing patterns, there was enough variation to eliminate commercial machine manufacturing. He observed that there were no hammer marks on the box. He noted that circular saw marks on the lid are typical of a rip saw and may indicate that the lid was cut from a larger piece. He also noted that the wood had been cut after the box was assembled. White noted that the box used wooden screws and two different smooth nails. The copper wire hinge, bound by a black plastic sleeve, is unique. White noted that metal hinges are the common choice for box construction, while leather was previously used. The two nails present on the lid, immediately adjacent to the wire hinges on both sides of the lid, appeared to have been placed specifically to secure the hinge. The hinge nails had a similar appearance to those utilized on the rest of the box lid.

The edges of the lid, as well as the corners of the box were very worn and indicate multiple use of the box prior to its final use as a bomb receptacle. The lid was properly fitted which would support the theory that the box was completely assembled for another purpose at a much earlier date. The Iki does not appear to have been the bottom of the unit as there are no apparent nail marks to indicate prior attachment. The lid is constructed with short nails and shows no "clinching" or "bending" of the nails, where clinching might be utilized to enhance the strength of the nailing. The absence of rust on the nails indicates that the box was constructed using dry wood.

White said that nails used to be identified by the "grip mark" which was placed on the nail, just below the head. The mark resembles a bar code and would identify the manufacturer by the configuration of the indentations. While this system is no longer in use, White believed it may have been in use at the time of the construction of the box.

On 2/1/95, Robert Wojcik, and Thomas Redichs of Precision Pallet, Romeoville, Illinois, were interviewed and shown pictures of the box. Wojcik noted that the paper on the inside of the lid is a moisture block. The support boards on the lid are called "exterior cieating" and add strength to the lid boards. The frame work inside the box, which runs along the joints at the corners is called "interior cieating" and also adds strength and cohesiveness to the box. Redich advised that if the box had carried a machine part, there may be traces of cosmoline on the wood. Cosmoline is sprayed to prevent rust and would have likely left a residue on the wood. Redich also felt that the box was originally constructed with the exterior cieating portion as the lid.

Investigative Summary:

Chicago FBI, on 2/2/80, stated that the parcel was handled sometime between 5:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on 11/14/79 and could have been mailed sometime between 6:00 p.m. 11/13/79 (Tuesday) to 6:00 p.m. on 11/14/79 (Wednesday). The parcel was loaded in the cargo pod between 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on 11/15/79. Mail is randomly loaded aboard aircraft bound for a particular destination, making it unlikely the bomber could have been certain as to which airline would transport his package. The package contained numerous hand stamped cancellation stamps. The package was postmarked at the North Suburban Illinois Postal Facility (NSIPF) in River Grove, Illinois. This facility handles 2.3 million pieces of mail per day and services over 100 Postal offices and substations in an area generally north of the Chicago city limits and west of the Chicago city limits, north to the Wisconsin border.

On 11/21/79, postal employee Mary Ann Perham of the NSIPF recalled handling a package with numerous postmarks, similar to the bomb package. She believes she handled the package after her break at 4:30 p.m. and her shift ended at 9:30 p.m.

On 11/30/79, 12/6/79, and 12/31/79, Stewart E. Taylor, a postal carrier working out of the Elgin Post office provided a written statement asserting that he handled a similar package on 11/14/79. Taylor noticed the package because it was heavy and made of wood. Taylor estimated the package weighed five to ten pounds. He also recalled the light green lettering, brown paper, and heavy duty tape. Taylor threw the package into the back of his postal truck, continuing with the rest of his pick-ups. Taylor stated that he picked up the parcel at Gromer's Supermarket in Elgin, Illinois. Taylor stated that he saw the package on the floor of the postal contract station at Gromer's and moved the parcel with his foot.

Interviews were conducted with employees of Gromer's Supermarket and two individuals believe they saw the package on 11/14/79. Judy Whalen, a Gromer's clerk, recalls seeing the package but could not recall when the parcel was received. Dean Thornton recognized the mock-up parcel and recalled seeing it on the floor of the Postal Contract station located in Gromer's.

John Pullan, Manager of Customer Services, Elgin Post Office, advised that the Elgin Post Office attempts to make the last pick-up at Gromer's at approximately 5:15 p.m. in order to make the 6:00 p.m. truck to NSIPF. Pullan advised that if the collection came in late the parcels would have been dock transferred to the truck bound for the NSIPF. Under the circumstances, the parcel would not have been canceled at Elgin. Pullan reviewed Postal Service records which disclosed that on 11/14/79, Taylor terminated his employment at 6:05 p.m. Pullan advised that it appeared Taylor was late on the 5:15 p.m. run so the parcel probably was not canceled at Elgin, but was sent directly to NSIPF.

In August, 1994, the UTF conducted investigation in Elgin, Illinois and interviewed Richard Gromer. Prior to the interview on 8/4/94, Gromer did not know that the device might have been mailed at his store. Investigation at Gromer's in August, 1994 revealed that the Contract Postal Office is located within the Supermarket in the store's service center. This center sells money orders, cashes checks, and handles photo orders for processing and pick up. The center is located at the front of the store and consists of an enclosed booth measuring approximately 5' by 14'. To access the center one has to walk to the market's main doors, past the check out stands and the Manager on Duty desk. Mr. Gromer advised that unless specifically requested, mail was not canceled at Gromer's, but placed in a container for collection and transported to the NSIPF, where it would be canceled and processed.

Gromer's is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is located at 585 North McLean Boulevard in Elgin. Gromer advised that most of his customers are local people. On 8/4/94, UTF Agents noticed a large sign for Gromer's located in the parking lot. The sign lists all the stores located within the shopping area. There is a Post Office insignia located just under the Gromer's sign. There is also a gun shop, B&L Rod and Gun, located at the shopping center. UTF agents noted that Gromer's is on a direct route from the North Ravenswood area of Chicago to Elgin Community College.

On 11/15/79, the Chicago Tribune received a call from someone with an Iranian accent claiming that the "Iranian Student Organization" was responsible for the bombing. On 11/16/79, the Chicago Tribune received a call from an unknown caller who advised that the information attributing the bombing to an Iranian group was untrue. The caller then provided a non-existent return telephone number and hung up. On 8/4/94, the UTF contacted the Chicago Tribune and learned that calls are not recorded due to privacy laws. William Sluis, former Assistant Editor who still works at the Tribune was unsuccessful at identifying the person who took the call. There was no record that the Chicago Police Department was advised of the 11/16/79 call and there no longer exists any record of the number.

Efforts have been made to further trace the "Springfield Brand Barometer" utilized in the device. It bore the stamp markings: "Made in the USA - 337-10067-Patented 3805368

380561". The Northern Illinois representative for Springfield was contacted and advised that there were three major distributors of the barometer. These were Ace Hardware and two unnamed trophy manufacturers who used the instruments in their trophies.

Appendix E shows the location of Gromer's and neighboring Sears and Ace Hardware Stores.

DEVICE #4 - PRESIDENT, UNITED AIRLINES, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, 6/10/80.

Description of Device:

On June 10, 1980, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Percy Addison Wood, President of United Airlines, opened a parcel received by mail on 6/9/80, at his residence, 887 Forest Hill, Lake Forest, Illinois. The parcel had a return address of 3414 North Ravenswood. Wood had received a letter dated 6/3/80 several days prior to the parcel, stating that he would be receiving a book entitled, Ice Brothers, written by Sloan Wilson. The letter, signed in green ink by an "Enoch Fischer", characterized the book as having "great social significance....truly a book for our time, a book that should be read by all who make important decisions affecting the public welfare." The letter concluded with a recommendation that it would be "worth your while" to at least glance through the book, "since it is as entertaining as it is significant." (See Appendix F, Enoch Fischer letter.)

The parcel was wrapped in brown paper. Wood noticed the package label had his middle name "Addison", generally known only to his family and close friends. Wood used a knife to cut through the outer brown wrapping and filament package tape, removing the paper layer by layer. In between the layers were sections of the Chicago Sun Times dated June 3, 1980, which featured an advertisement for the hiring of new college graduates at Morton Th io koi, Inc., in Brigham City, Utah, along with what appeared to be the front and back panels of a Bugles snack food box. Additionally, there was a cutout of a political cartoon which featured an unemployed man sitting on a park bench feeding the pigeons. As Wood proceeded to open the package it revealed the novel, without the cover jacket. Wood tipped the book upright, placing one of his hands at the top of the book and upon opening, the parcel exploded, leaving Wood hospitalized with third- degree burns and lacerations on his left hand and left thigh.

Forensics

Recovered at the post blast scene were the following: remnants of 3/4" diameter galvanized pipe 8"long with threaded ends; remnants of the bookies Brothers (9 5/8" X 6 1/4" X 2 1/4"; wooden fragments of cotton wood; yellow epoxy formed into end plugs; white glue; three types of IMR smokeless powders; 1" masking tape; 3/4" black plastic tape; 3/4" black friction tape; 3/4" cellophane tape; 3/4" filament tape; 1/2" filament tape; two anti-open switches which were homemade; common nails (1 Od) used to secure epoxy end plugs; finishing nails with the heads removed; two D-Cell batteries (Eveready Energizer No. 95, NEDA 13A with date code); blue lined white paper wrapped around loop switches; brown craft wrapping paper; solder; white insulated duplex separated 16-strand copper wire, .0059" in diameter; black insulated duplex separated 41-strand copper wire, .0059"; tape tabs; red, white, and blue mailing label; one 25 cent Frederick Douglas stamp; one 15 cent Will Rogers stamp; one $1 America's Light Fueled by Truth and Reason stamp; a 5/8" metal tag bearing the stamped letters "FC"; cardboard from "Bugles Cereal" box; pages of 6/3/80 edition of the Chicago Sun Times; and a rubber-stamp impression "Book Rate" on the wrapper.

An analysis of the device components revealed that the device was constructed of a section of 3/4" diameter galvanized pipe sealed on each end by a combination of nails and yellow epoxy. The explosive mixture contained within the pipe was comprised of three types of IMR single-base smokeless powders. The device employed two loop switches. The explosive filler was identified as improvised military rifle (IMR) powder. The fusing system consisted of two D-cell batteries, wired in series, through two improvised loop switches to a hot-wire igniter inside the pipe. The wires were soldered directly to the batteries. The device was contained within the hollowed-out book, Ice Brothers, and was designed to detonate upon opening.

The FBI Laboratory advised that with the exception of one yellow colored, cylindrical grain IMR type powder, the powders were consistent with many of the commercial products available in the U.S. IMR type powders are used as propellants in rifle cartridges. Different kinds of smokeless powders are never mixed into one cartridge; therefore, it is highly probable that these powders were obtained by removing the propellant from many rifle cartridges. The yellow colored IMR type powder had also been used in UNABOM Device 3 and was subsequently used in UNABOM Device 6 and in the 7/2/82 Berkeley device.

The mailing label on the package was a combination of return and addressee type measuring 4" x 2 1/2". The mailing label consisted of blue and red colors with additional printed words contained on the lower edge of the label of: "Parcel Post, Contents Merchandise and Return Address". These words had been lined out with green ballpoint pen ink, and the words "Book Rate" were stamped above them. The words "Book Rate" were also stamped directly on the brown wrapping paper, just below the postage stamps. The label appeared to be the same type as used on UNABOM Device 1. The typewriter used to prepare the letter and the mailing label to Percy Wood was described as Ransmayer Elite having type 2.12 spacing. The bomb parcel was not postmarked but had a nonexistent return address of 3414 North Ravenswood, Chicago, IL 60657.

The return address of 3414 North Ravenswood was and still is a vacant lot located on the southeast corner of N. Ravenswood and West Newport Streets. A portion of 3414 North Ravenswood is occupied by a trestle support for the Chicago Transit Authority elevated train, Ravenswood line. The remaining portion is a paved parking lot servicing the condominium complex located south of the lot. The condominium complex is located on the northwest corner of North Ravenswood and West Roscoe streets. Prior to the condominium complex being built in the 1979-1980 time frame, the building behind 3414 North Ravenswood housed the Eberhardt-Faber Pencil factory, and the lot was used for employee parking. Regent Dye and Manufacturing Company, Inc. is at 3434 North Ravenswood, directly across West Newport Street. The property south of the location is a vacant lot. A neighborhood investigation in the vicinity of North Ravenswood Avenue by UTF members determined that in the 1980 time frame this geographical area was primarily inhabited by German immigrants and their descendants. The area has long been a residential and industrial part of the city. The UTF is contacting all of the foundries, machine shops, and businesses located in the North Ravenswood geographical area, which includes approximately 90 machine shops.

Hazel Flowers, a window postal clerk from "Station M", 7617 North Paulina Street, Chicago, Illinois, furnished a description of two men she believes provided the parcel to her for processing at approximately 4:50 p.m. on the day it was mailed. She described the men as: #1 - a white male; 20-25 years old; shoulder length brown curly hair with big loop curls; 275-300 pounds with a double chin; and #2 - a white male; 5'8"; dark hair and small build.

On 7/29/80. Flowers was hypnotized and a composite was prepared and distributed to local law enforcement agencies in the Chicago area, including the Chicago Police, Evanston Police, United Air Lines Security, Northwestern University Security, and the North Shore Law Enforcement Agencies. (It was subsequently determined that Flowers had been provided extensive information by investigators prior to the hypnosis; diminishing the value of the hypnosis.)

Percy Wood was very active at the Northwestern University Transportation Center, however, there are no records which reflect dates and times

of attendance or persons he was in contact with. Between December 1979 and December 1980, United Airlines (UA), which is based in Chicago, separated or furloughed 5,200 employees or approximately 10% of their work force. Wood, a former UAL machinist, was UAL CEO at the time. During this time frame, Western Airlines was in the process of hiring new personnel to work at an expanding location in Salt Lake City, Utah. Subsequently, Western Airlines was purchased by Delta Airlines. The UTF has examined several thousand records for Delta relating to Western Airlines employees onboard when Delta acquired Western in the 1981- 1982 time frame. The UTF has also obtained extensive personnel records and data sheets from UAL and is utilizing these records to identify potential suspects.

Appendix C shows the location of H. Ravenswood.

Appendix H shows pertinent locations of the first four Chicago devices.

DEVICE #5: UNIVERSITY OF UTAH. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 1Q/8/81

Description of Device:

Device #5 was found approximately 10:45a.m., Thursday, October 8, 1981, in the hallway outside of classroom 306 of the Business Classroom Building (BCB), University of Utah, by Virginia Smallwood and Robert Lockyer, two University of Utah students. Smallwood had arrived at approximately 10:00a m. for her 9:55a.m. class and did not recall noticing the device in the hallway. The class was dismissed at 10:45a.m. (it normally ended at 11:55a.m.) and she and a fellow student, Robert Lockyer, noticed the package as they exited the classroom. Lockyertold Smallwood that someone had gone to a lot of trouble to make the package look like a bomb. They reported the package to a graduate student, Paul Larson, who was on the fourth floor of the University of Utah building. The police responded and determined that the device was probably a bomb, and Army EOD Technicians X-rayed the package, subsequently using a 50 caliber disarmer on the package before manually disassembling it.

Forensics:

The device was sent to the ATF Regional Laboratory, Treasure Island, CA, for examination and analysis. Upon examination, ATF examiners concluded that this device was "designed as a hoax device and could not function as constructed" due to a "deliberate break in an otherwise complete electrical circuit." Subsequent examination by the Postal Service Laboratory (PSL) and by the FBI Laboratory determined that the device was a functioning explosive device and not a hoax.

The Postal Service Laboratory (PSL) provided the following evaluation of the device:

The device was constructed from a homemade wooden box which

measured approximately 9 3/8" x 6 1/4" x 2 1/4". The box contained two Duracell size "D" alkaline batteries wired in series, a G.E. brand receptacle light switch and an anti-disturbance triggering mechanism. Taped to the box was a one gallon gasoline can which contained an undetermined amount of gasoline. A pipe containing a propellant was suspended inside the gas can and primed for electrical initiation. The entire apparatus was covered with brown craft type wrapping paper which was held in place with 3/4" wide masking tape and multi-filament string.

External examination of the wooden box revealed the presence of two

circuit wires which exited the box at one corner and subsequently entered the top of the gasoline can. The wires passed through a wooden plug which was forced through a hole that had been cut out in the pour spout cap. The wooden plug was approximately 1 1/4" in diameter and was glued in place with epoxy. The two wires coming out of the box terminated inside the section of pipe suspended in the can.

The pipe was galvanized and measured approximately 8" long and 1

diameter. The pipe ends were not threaded and wooden plugs were used to close the openings. The plugs were epoxied in place and a hole was drilled through the pipe and plug at each end to allow a nail to be inserted.

A mixture of at least three types of smokeless powder was present in

the pipe. Also contained in the pipe was an improvised initiator from a wooden dowel approximately 7/8" long and 1/2" wide. Two circuit wires were passed through the wooden dowel and a bridge wire was attached between the wires as they protruded from the dowel. A small improvised paper sack approximately 1" long and 1/2" in diameter contained match head material and was glued in position over the hot wire bridge.

Examination of the wiring circuit revealed that the light switch was

used as an arming device. A hole was drilled through the switch flip lever and two sections of multi-filament string were tied onto the switch lever. The pieces of string terminated outside of the wrapper on opposite sides of the device and offered the bomber a means to externally turn the switch off or on.

The triggering mechanism consisted of a sliding stick which had a

metal bracket contact attached to the top end of the stick. This bracket served as an electrical contact and had a short piece of duplex transistor radio type speaker wire soldered to it. Another electrical contact was attached to the side of the box approximately 4” below the top of the stick. A hole was cut in one side of the box in such a way, that when the box was placed down on that side, the sliding stick would be held in a vertical position within the box. If the box were lifted off the floor, the stick would fall out through the hole in the box and the metal bracket on the stick would make electrical contact with the metal strip secured to the box frames. Because of the distance between the metal bracket, contact of the sliding stick and the metal strip contact mounted on the box, a vertical translation of at least 4 inches was necessary to complete the electrical circuit.

All wire connections in the circuitry were soldered.

Brown lamp cord (duplex wire) was utilized as hookup wire throughout the device with the exception of a short segment of white lamp cord and the section of wire which was soldered to the metal contact on the sliding stick. The original lamp cord was separated to form two individually insulated conductors prior to being used as hookup wire in the device.

In addition to the arming switch, a second arming safety was utilized in the device. A hole was drilled through the sliding stick and wall of the box to allow a safety wire to be emplaced to prevent the sliding stick from falling through the hole while the device was being transported. The safety wire could then be removed once the device was in place. The position of the safety wire hole corresponds to a hole which appears in the wrapper approximately 1 1/4" about the floor.

Various construction items used in the making of the device included several types of small wood screws and nails, 1/2" wide filament tape, 3/4" wide friction tape, 3/4" wide black plastic tape and 1" wide black plastic tape.

Also contained in the device was a thin piece of metal approximately 3/4" x 9/16" which bears the letters "FC." The letters were apparently struck into the into the metal making a series of punch marks with a small flat faced rod or punch having a diameter of approximately 1/6 inch. The metal tap served no functional purpose in the construction of the device.

What appear to be glove impressions were found on several of the submitted device components. The impressions are similar to those produced by the "Playtex" brand rubber kitchen type glove.

According to an FBI Laboratory report dated November 17, 1982, the builder of this improvised explosive device (IED) has employed considerable care in obliterating any potential toolmarks and/or toolmarkings on items produced during their manufacture. The bomb builder appears to posses an intimate knowledge concerning the forensic value of toolmarked evidence. Numerous reddish blond hairs of Caucasian origin were found in this device between layers of tape used to construct the device. The hairs were mounted on glass for future comparison purposes.

Robert Lockyer (supra) was shown a blueprint of the third floor of the Business Classroom Building (Building 074) at University of Utah. Lockyer indicated that the package was outside classroom number 306 (typing classroom), almost directly across the hall from Room 302A (Economics Department Computer

Terminal Lab - EDCTL). The package had been up against the south wall of the hallway, underneath a clock that was hanging on the wall.

In July, 1994, The UTF reviewed the University of Utah Police department records relating to this incident. A review of the records failed to reflect anyone in the EDCTL on the morning of October 8, 1981. The Economics Department Computer Terminal Lab (EDCTL) in accessible to all students attending the University of Utah Business School and to any professors teaching at the school. There were no logs which would show who had access or had reserved time on the EDCTL computers. The third floor of the Business Classroom Building (BCB) was opened to anyone who could walk into the building if the doors were not locked.

Except for regularly scheduled classes, there were no "special events" scheduled on or around October 8, 1981 on the third floor of the BCB.

The exact location of the device, based upon UTF investigation, appears to be the south side of the hallway, just west of the EDCTL in classroom 306. The EDCTL is located between classrooms 302 and 303. The device was closer to the EDCTL than room number 306. The UTF has identified classes held in other classrooms on the third floor during the time of the device.

The UTF has learned that during October 1981 there were numerous construction and renovation projects being conducted in the area of the Business Classroom Building on the University of Utah campus. Projects were ongoing which consisted of general construction and landscaping. Renovation related events included bidding for construction in the business office area, "lettering contractors" working on the outside'of the BCB and construction work being done on the lecture hall of the BCB.

Contractors working on construction projects in or around the BCB during October of 1981 included: 1) Salt Lake Stamp Company, which was putting letters on the outside of the building; 2) Shiloh Construction, which was landscaping around the area of the BCB; 3) and/or Carson Construction, which was working in the lecture halls of the BCB from September 1981 through March, 1982.

In July, 1994 the UTF obtained a list of all construction projects being done at the BCB between 1981 and 1884. The Salt Lake Stamp Company was preparing for work at the BCB during October, 1981. The work was done after October, 1981. Work project number 0754331 reflected that the company submitted a quote for the work on October 26, 1981. Shiloh Engineering and Construction Company submitted a bid for landscape work on the east side of the BCB, dated December 7, 1983, with the project completed on May 30, 1984. Carson Construction Company submitted a bid on February 4, 1982 for work to be done on the Student/Faculty lounge of the BCB. The work was completed on March 15, 1982.

The UTF has identified 44 members of the Business Classroom typing class which had been held in room 306 on 10/8/81 at the time of the device. The UTF is in the process of having all of these students located and interviewed.

On October 25, 1995, Anne Sager, the instructor for the typing class which had been held in room 306 on 10/8/81, was interviewed. She related the following:

SAGER recalled the events of that day and was able to draw a map of the third floor of the BOB and mark where the package was discovered. SAGER could not provide any additional information regarding the package but did mention an "unusual" event that occurred prior to October 8, 1981. SAGER could not recall the actual time frame of the event and said that it could have been anywhere from a few weeks to two months prior to the incident. She remembered finishing her last morning typing class and walking into her office when she heard a "clunk" on the floor of the classroom. She went back into the classroom and saw a white male holding a leather or vinyl envelope under his arm. She described the man as a white male, possibly in his early forties, six feet tall, approximately 200 pounds with brown, greased back hair. He was wearing dark polyester pants, a light blue, cotton, button down shirt, black lace-up shoes and a dark blue zippered jacket. SAGER described the man as a "blue-collar", not a student or instructor. When the man saw SAGER, she said he was "clearly shocked and tried to conceal the briefcase/envelope." He ran from the classroom, down the hall, and exited the BCB via the western stairwell. SAGER notified the campus police and then returned to the classroom. She discovered that all of the typing balls had been removed from between 23 and 25 of the 30 typewriters in the room.

SAGER also stated that at the time of the October 8, 1981, incident, U of U was "just getting into computers." When the package was discovered, there were two computers in the BCB. One was in the Economics Department on the fourth floor and the other was a word processor which was in the typing room to the east of their office.

The UTF has identified two contracts between Boeing Aircraft and the University of Utah in the 1981 time frame. The first contract involved a grant from Boeing to Professional Services for the Travel and Tourism Research Association, part of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The second grant was through the United States Air Force and was entitled "very high speed integrated circuits program" and was funded beginning September , 1980 and continued through 1981. The Boeing prime contract number was F33615-80-C- 1196 and the University purchase contract number was GB47341-9160. The primary investigator on the contact had originally been a University of Utah Professor, Dr. Suhis Patil, but on Patil's resignation from the University in 1981, Dr. Kent Smith, Department of Computer Science, was given the contract. The Boeing agent handling the contract was David Wulff. The grant from Boeing involved research on high speed motion detection computer hardware and

averaged about sixty thousand dollars per yeas Approximately 18 people worked on the contract.

DEVICE #6: VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE fiZSZBZ

Description of Device:

On May 5, 1982, at 4:03p m., Mrs. Janet Smith, Secretary to Professor Patrick C. Fischer, Vanderbilt University, opened a parcel that was addressed to Fischer from Professor LeRoy W. Bearnson, Brigham Young University. The parcel exploded when Smith opened it, causing serious injuries to her upper body and face.

The typed addressed label on the parcel bore the following address:

Prof. Patrick C. Fischer

Computer Science Department

Pennsylvania State Univ.

State College PA

The return address was Prof. LeRoy W. Bearnson, Electrical Engineering, Brigham Young Univ. Provo, UT 84602.

The last two lines of the address were lined through with a blue ball point pen and the zip code 16801 was added. A new address was written in blue ball point pen ink on the wrapper just below the address label. The change in address read:

To: Box 6026B

Vanderbilt Univ.

Nashville, TN 37225

The device was eventually delivered to Patrick Fischer's office at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, where it exploded while being opened by Fischer's secretary.

Close examination of the label on the package determined the following observations:

The address for Professor Fischer was an old address; he had not been at Penn State for over 2 1/2 years.

The typed address for Prof. Fischer had no zip code; 16801 appears to have been written in by someone else.

The address on the package was Pennsylvania State University State College, PA; Penn State's correct mailing address is University Park, PA 16802.

The preprinted label contained the words, "Parcel Post Contents Merchandise". These words were heavily inked out. However, the preprinted words "Return Request" were not inked out.

Prof. Bearnson's name and address on the return address are correct. Bearnson's given name is LeRoy, as typed on the label.

The correct zip code, 84602 is typed on the label following Provo, Utah.

Interviews of postal employees at the BYU contract station have determined that the package in question was probably placed in the mail drop at that facility. This mail drop is accessible from the hallway outside the Post Office Contract Station. The Contract Station is located on the first floor of the 240 Brewster Building (Student Union Building). Parcels deposited at the Contract Station were picked up 2-3 times each day by a postal employee from the Provo Post Office. This employee would, upon arrival at the Contract Station, collect the contents of the mail drop and then collect the parcels from inside the station. On the day in question, this postal worker's attention was drawn to the package in question, because he noted that the stamps on the package had been "lined out" with pen, apparently by the person placing the package in the mail drop. Postal Inspectors have advised that a common method used by postal employees to cancel stamps is to draw an ink line through the stamps.

The above observations might tend to suggest that this package was intended by the sender to be returned to Prof. Bearnson.

Prof. Bearnson advised during his interview on 5/10/82 that until 1982 he had served as the Graduate Coordinator for graduate students at BYU. In that position, Bearnson helped graduate students plan their study programs. He also rejected students applying for the graduate programs. Prof. Bearnson stated that letters of rejection would be sent out to students applying for graduate school over his signature.

Forensics:

Recovered from the blast scene were the following components: remnants of a homemade wooden box with dimensions 2 1/2" X 6 1/2" X 9 1/4"; remnants of a 1 1/2" metal sink trap; wooden end plug; thin metal disk attached to the end plug; brown craft paper; five types of smokeless powder; match heads; rubber bands; four Duracell MN 1300 "D" cell batteries; wooden dowels which functioned as part of the initiator assembly; homemade initiator assembly; homemade wood triggering device; brown insulted duplex separated 16-strand copper wire, which was .0100 inches diameter; white insulated duplex separated 16-strand copper wire, .0100 inches in diameter; 3/4" black plastic tape; 3/4” black friction tape; 3/4" filament tape; 3/4" masking tape; Epoxy; wood screws; multi-filament string; nails; pine wooden fragments; solder; anti-open switches; a metal tag bearing the stamped letters "FC"; three 11.00 Eugene O'Neill stamps; a red, white and blue typed mailing label; and a rubber stamp impression on the wrapper that said "Priority Mail".

The device was constructed from a homemade wooden box container measuring approximately 2 1/2" X 6 1/2" X 9 1/4". Adhesive and several types of small wooden screws and nails were used in the construction of the device. The device was wrapped in brown "craft type" wrapping paper and secured with 3/4" wide masking tape and 3/4" wide filament tape. A multi-filament string was also tied around the outside of the package. The mailing label on the package was a pre-printed combination "To and From" type that measured approximately 4" X 2 1/2", red, white and blue in color. Across the lower edge of the label were the words: "Parcel Post", "Contents Merchandise" and "Return Requested". The words "Parcel Post" and "Contents Merchandise" were crossed out with black ball point pen ink. However, the words "Return Requested" were not inked out. Below State College, PA, on the address label, "Priority Mail" was stamped. Three $1.00 Eugene O'Neill stamps were used for postage. The typewriter used to type this label was determined to be an L.C. Smith Corona Style Type space 2.54mm per character.

Investigative Strategy:

Patrick C. Fischer was born on December 3, 1935 in St. Louis, Missouri. He was married to Linda Loomis from 1956 to 1967 and is currently married to Charlotte Froese Fischer. They have two children. He resides at 221 Burlington Place, Nashville, Tennessee. Fischer has a BS degree in mathematics and an MBA in Actuarial Science which he earned from the University of Michigan in 1958 and 1959. He earned a PhD in 1962 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Fischer taught at Harvard University from 1962 to 1966; Cornell University in 1967; the University of British Columbia in 1967; the University of Waterloo in Canada from 1968 to 1976; and at Pennsylvania State University (PSU) from 1974 to December 1979, as a Professor in the Computer Science Department. In January, 1980 Fischer moved to Tennessee to accept a position as a Professor of Computer Science at Vanderbilt. During a series of interviews, Fischer has been unable to connect himself with any other UNABOM events. Fischer held a private pilot license which expired in 1980 when he moved to Tennessee.

LeRoy W. Bearnson has resided most of his life in Salt Lake City, Utah where he was born on October 29, 1934. He currently resides in Provo, Utah. He is married to Barbara Barker Bearnson, has four children and is a member of the Mormon Church. Bearnson earned a BS degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Utah in 1961; a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering from

Syracuse University in 1965; and a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Auburn University in 1970. He has held numerous teaching positions before becoming an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering at BYU in 1972. Bearnson has been employed at San Diego State College, and by General Dynamics Corporation, International Business Machines, and the National Cash Register Company. He has also served as a consultant to Sperry Univac in Salt Lake City, Utah and visited the Aerojet Corporation in Southern California in September, 1981, November, 1981, and January, 1982.

From 1972 to 1982 Bearnson was the Graduate Coordinator for graduate students at BYU, advising students on their programs of study and rejecting students from graduate school. Bearnson's hobbies include flying radio controlled model airplanes.

LeRoy Bearnson spells his first name LeRoy with a capital letter "R", even though it is commonly misspelled. People generally spell his name, Leroy, using a smaller "r". LeRoy Bearnson's first name was correctly spelled by the subject. Bearnson advised that the BYU Bulletin General Catalog for 1978-1979 was one of the only publications that spelled his name correctly with a capitol "R". He was listed as one of the Associate Professors in the Electrical Engineering Section, under faculty, as follows:

LeRoy Wood Bearnson, Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering 1972 BSEE, University of Utah, 1961; MSEE, Syracuse University, 1965; PHD, Auburn University, 1970. (* signifies graduate faculty.)

The 1980-1981 and 1981-1982 BYU Bulletin catalogs misspelled Bearnson's name, with a small "r". Bearnson is not listed in any additions of Who's Who in America between 1978 and 1993. Bearnson confirmed that the zip code of 84692 was exclusive to BYU.

Investigation has determined that the device was placed in the mail drop at the University Contract Station, BYU, on or about April 23, 1982. The mail drop is accessible from the hallway outside the Contract Station. The station is located on the first floor of 240 Brewster Building (Student Union Building). Parcels deposited at the contract station were picked up two to three times each day by a postal employee from the Provo Post Office.

Mrs. Beth B. Taylor, the mail clerk working at the University Contract Station on April 23, 1982 was interviewed on May 19, 1982 and hypnotized on May 27, 1982. She remembered the parcel because it was unusual to see a parcel with a line drawn through the postage stamps. She recalled the stamps as being purple in color, with a mans face on them. The parcel left the Provo, Utah Post Office and was transported to the Air Mail facility in Salt Lake City, where it was forwarded to Pennsylvania State University. The parcel arrived at PSU on April 28, 1982. An employee of PSU remembered seeing the parcel and another employee recalled the parcel because it was incorrectly addressed to State College,

Pennsylvania, which was unusual. The correct address is University Park, Pennsylvania. This employee re-addressed the parcel placing Fischer's address at Vanderbilt University on it and placed it in the outgoing mailbox in room 303 at approximately 4:15p.m. on April 28, 1982. The parcel remained in the outgoing box until approximately 8:30a.m. on April 29, 1982, at which time a clerk picked it up to take it back to the mail room. The parcel was then sent to Vanderbilt.

Appendix J shows the location of Device 6.

DEVICE #7: CORY HALL, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY 7/2/82

Description of Device:

At approximately 7:45am on Friday, July 2,1982, Diogenes Angelakos, Director of the Electronics Research Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, found Device #7 in Room 411 of Cory Hall. When Professor Angelakos lifted the device by its handle, it exploded.

Angelakos told investigators the appearance of the device led him to conclude it was a testing device or equipment belonging to a student or construction worker. He described it as a one gallon gasoline can with the metal handle removed. The metal handle had been replaced by a handle constructed of wood and wrapped in black plastic tape. Covering the top of the device was a piece of green painted wood. Angelakos added that on the morning of the bombing he went into room 411 to make himself a cup of coffee, his usual routine each morning, and that he was usually the only one who went into room 411 that early in the morning and made coffee. When he saw the device sitting on the floor he thought it was a piece of construction equipment resembling a "continuity tester" that was left behind by the construction crew working at Cory Hall. He said that he was going to move it so nobody else would take it by accident. Thinking back on the incident Angelakos said that "it was a piece of junk equipment, and I should have left it alone".

Forensics

An analysis of the components of the explosive device conducted by the FBI Laboratory revealed that it was constructed from an 8-1/2" length of 1/2" galvanized pipe sealed on either end with threaded caps. The explosive main charge contained within the pipe was comprised of at least four types of smokeless powders. The fuzing system consisted of four D-cell batteries arranged in two independent circuits. Each circuit was wired to include a loop switch attached to each upright shaft of a handle, which was attached to a wooden box and an improvised wood dowel initiator located inside the pipe. The device consisted of a homemade wooden box which sat on top of a gasoline can. The pipe was suspended in the gasoline can. This device was designed to detonate upon lifting the handle. Incorporated into this device was an ancillary component fashioned to resemble a piece of test or measurement equipment. This component was placed on top of the device and served no functional purpose in its operation. Affixed to this ancillary component was a note bearing the typed phrase ”Wu— It works! I told you it would. —RV". Although the can contained gasoline, the explosion failed to ignite it. This note was typed on the same typewriter used to type the mailing label on Device 6, an L.C. Smith Corona Style Type space 2.54mm per character.

Investigative Summary

The crime scene was investigated by the University of California Police Department and the San Francisco Office of the FBI. Evidence collected at the crime scene was forwarded to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C. On July 16, 1982, FBI Headquarters informed FBI San Francisco that the FBI Laboratory Explosives Unit had concluded Device #7 had been constructed by the same individual responsible for the previous Unabom devices in Chicago and Utah.

Prof. Angelakos, his associates, students, employees and other individuals were interviewed, but no substantive information leading to the identity of the UNABOM subject was developed.

Dorothy McDaniel, Laboratory Assistant, Electronics Research Laboratory, Cory Hall, University of California at Berkeley, provided a description to the University of California Police of a suspicious individual she saw in Cory Hall on June 30 or July 1. Using an "Identikit", the UC Police produced a likeness of the individual. On July 16, 1982, Ricky Timms, a custodian at Cory Hall, provided the UC Police Department with a description of an individual he observed in Cory Hall at approximately 6:10am on July 2, 1982. Officer Thomas Macris of the San Jose Police Department produced a composite drawing of the suspect. The composite has never been circulated.

The UTF is currently reviewing a list of the employees of UCB, Cory Hall, who were working on 7/2/82 to determine whether there are additional interviews to be conducted. UTF SAs have visited all of the machine shops located at Cory Hall and elsewhere at UCB to develop relevant information to this investigation. UCB has also provided to the UTF the locations on campus where certain chemicals are available and appropriate individuals have been contacted to ascertain the significance of these chemicals to UNABOM devices.

Robert Stephen Venable in Newport Beach, California, was located and interviewed during June 1995, for the purpose of assessing his viability as a suspect in this investigation. Venable was a UCB student circa 1982 and was of interest due to the use of "RV" on the note at the crime scene.

DEVICE #8: Boeing Aircraft, Auburn, WA; 5/8/85

Description of Device:

Device 8 was mailed to the:

Boeing Co. Fabrication Div. 700 15th Ave. SW Auburn, WA 98023

With a return address of:

Weiburg Tool and Supply

16 Hegenburger Court Oakland, CA 94621

This device was mailed on May 8, 1985, received at Boeing on May 16, 1985, and subsequently detonated on June 13, 1985. The return address was stamped onto a red, white, and blue mailing label. Using what appears to be the same stamp that the suspect has used to stamp "Book Rate", "Fourth Class", and "Priority" on other packages, The address information was typed onto the same label. The package bore $8.44 in postage stamps which were canceled and postmarked May 8, 1985, Oakland, California. The words, "Fourth Class", were blockstamped on the wrapping paper under the canceled stamps. The parcel was not addressed to any specific individual at Boeing and remained in the company interoffice mail until it was partially opened by mail room employees who discovered the device.

Forensics

Recovered from the post-blast scene of the device were the following

components: 1" steel pipe; end plugs (homemade aluminum/magnesium alloy, letters "^C" stamped into ends of both plugs, one end plug had a metal disc attached by a machine screw covering the "FC"); rectangular securing pins (through pipe and end plugs, two at each end; metal shim material; metal bands, 3/8" width (to secure batteries); eight D-cell batteries (Duracell); brown craft paper; picture-style cable; beige insulated separated duplex wire (16 AWG); green insulated 16-strand wire (.0105"); epoxy; Elmer's glue; machine screws; brass Flat and round head screws; nails; wooden box; wooden chocks; wooden switches; wooden wafer (insulator for initiator assembly); 2" transparent tape; 3/4" black plastic tape; 3/4" black friction tape; 1/2" filament tape; wooden stock; coil springs; solder; two "Of the People By the People For the People" $.22 stamps; "America's Light Fueled by Truth and Reason" $1 stamps (eight); mailing label (red/white/blue) typed address; rubber-stamp impressions on wrapper: "Fourth Class" and "Weiburg Tool and Supply, 16 Hegenberger Ct., Oakland, CA 94621".

By FBI Laboratory Report dated March 17, 1986, it was stated that

the single conductor pieces of beige insulated wire on the device were portions of parallel conductor zip cord of size number 16 American wire gauge. The two small aluminum cylindrical-shaped items were comprised of a 5000 series aluminum alloy, possibly 50/50 alloy. The wire cable was similar to that marketed as "picture cord" as well as other probable uses. An instrumental analysis of specimens in the device revealed the presence of potassium sulfate, a known combustion product in black powder. Aluminum powder was found on a metal fragment. Aluminum powder is found in numerous explosive mixtures both of improvised and commercial origin.

On March 31, 1986, a metallurgist for Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Center for Technology, Pleasanton, California, provided the results of his examination of an aluminum cylindrical shaped plug measuring approximately 1.4 inches in diameter and 1.4 inches in height. The aluminum plug had been recovered at the crime scene conducted at Boeing Corporation on June 13, 1985. The results of the examination were as follows: "This is a very poor casting, evidently made by remelting small pieces of scrap aluminum. The pieces did not fuse together well and the piece contains lots of dross inclusions and shrinkage holes. A more sophisticated operator would of melted scraps in one container, stirred and skimmed the melt, and poured into another mold to make the casting. The aluminum alloy appears to be 5/5 to alloy and aluminum magnesium alloy made in sheet form and use mostly for automotive trim where good strength is secondary to appearance. It is used on side trim strips, wheel covers and truck bumpers."

Investigative Summary

The UTF has conducted extensive investigation regarding the Boeing Company Fabrication Division and Weiburg Tool and Supply addresses. The return address, 16 Hegenburger Court, Oakland, California, is located in an area of light industrial business, approximately one mile from the Oakland International Airport. The zip code of 94621 was the correct zip code for Hegenburger Court. Weiburg Tool & Supply and the street address of 16 are fictitious. The 1985 Haines Crisscross Directory for Oakland listed eight addresses at Hegenburger Court. Five of the eight were occupied by businesses in the 1985 time frame. These included a business at 33 Hegenburger Court, Mechanics Tool and Supply, and 21 Hegenburger Court, Bayside Electrical.

The street address utilized on the package, 700 15th Ave. S.W., zip code 98023, was incorrect. Mail for the Boeing Corporation was typically sent to the main mailing address at Boeing Corporation, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124. This is the address utilized on Boeing employee business cards, regardless of where they are employed. The Fabrication Division Auburn address was not generally known and was only used in situations where immediate delivery to the Fabrication Division was required. The UTF checked Boeing directories for 1985. On Page 19, there was a section titled, "Company Mailing Addresses". The mailing address for the Fabrication Division was listed as Fabrication Division, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, WA 98124-2207. In emergency situations, packages could be sent directly to the Fabrication Division at Fabrication Division, 700 15th Street, SW, Auburn, WA 98002. On Page 23 of the 1985 Boeing directory was a map of the Boeing plant in Auburn, Washington. The top of the page was titled with the physical location of the plant: Auburn, 700 15th

Street, Southwest, Auburn, Washington 98002. The U.S. Postal Service 1985 National Five Digit Zip Code and Post Office Directory (Zip Code Directory) revealed that under Auburn, Washington, the following streets were listed with the respective zip codes:

15th Avenue SW 98023

15th Street SW 98001

On August 23, 1994, Roy Richstad, Postmaster, Auburn, Washington, was contacted. He explained that 98023 has always been the zip code for Federal Way, Washington, a station of the Auburn Main Post Office (MPO). Richstad explained the Federal Way station was located approximately three to four miles west of the Auburn MPO and about 12 miles south of the Seattle Airport. Over the years, there has been much confusion and misdirected mail due to the fact that 98023 had always been listed in the Zip Code directory as an Auburn, Washington Zip Code. It would not be unusual for a package addressed to 15th Avenue SW, Auburn, Washington, to have a Zip Code of 98023. Richstad noted that 15th Avenue SW does not have a 700 block.

In an interview on July 18, 1985, Richard B. Evans, Academic Research and University Relations, Manufacturing R & D, Boeing Commercial Company, Seattle, Washington, and Robert W. Allison, Technology Manager, Manufacturer R & D, corroborated that mail sent to Boeing is directed to the Boeing Corporation, P.O. Box 3707, MS-3113, Seattle, Washington 98124, and only parcels or packages immediately needed at the Fabrication Division would be sent to the 700-15th Street.

Independent of the lab analysis are comments and observations made by individuals who first dealt with the device sent to Boeing Aircraft. NORMAN HUFFMAN first saw the device on June 13, 1985. His observations were that it was fully wrapped in a brown, waterproof, oil resistant paper, with an oil cloth backing on it. The paper appeared to have tar on it. He described the paper as an unusual type of paper, which the public would not know about. It is used to prevent condensation and moisture from hurting machine parts. It is often used in protecting surplus military equipment.

Additional observations were also provided by ROWLAND LUNDBERG. LUNDBERG observed the cylinder of the device was wrapped with aircraft cable, which was neatly and tightly compressed together.

Recently, Seattle Division interviewed the two King County Police Officers who responded to the Boeing device. They observed that the pipe was completely wrapped in wire that the Boeing employee called aviation wire, but to them it looked more like stiff picture banging wire. This wire was wrapped tightly and was sequential in order so that there were no overlapping strands.

Both officers are amateur model makers of small planes, etc., and after viewing the device both were of the opinion that it bore a similarity to somebody who would make model airplanes or model boats. Both were of the opinion that the wire was wrapped so tightly and so neatly that there is a reasonable possibility that this was done with mechanical assistance such as a slow moving motor that the wire was attached to at one end so that it could be held taut enough to make this tight wrapping; a lathe run at low gear could possibly accomplish this feat. Both have spent a considerable amount of time looking at "older" military manuals and bomb making manuals, such as the Anarchist Cookbook. They have not observed a device quite like this one. The device was clearly more complicated than would have been required to accomplish the task of making a packaged bomb.

Investigation conducted by the U.S. Postal inspection Service in 1986 revealed that Professor I. Finnie, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, invited Mr. Gary Michaelson, Director, Operations and Technology, Boeing, Auburn, Washington 98002, to the Department of Mechanical Engineering Industrial Liaison Program at UC Berkeley (UCB) to be held March 13- 14, 1985. The letter stated that UCB was initiating a program focusing on the establishment of a new Mechanical Engineering Research Center. The center was to focus research in the areas of computerized design and manufacturing, including robotics, expert systems, and process control. A similar letter was written to Mr. Robert W. Allison, Technology Manager, Manufacturing R & D, Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 3709, MSSH-07, Seattle, Washington 98124, on February 22, 1985. Subsequently, Mr. Richard Evans (supra) represented Boeing at the UCB College of Engineering Conference March 13-14, 1985. Evans wrote a trip report (Attachment 3A) for Boeing dated 4/16/85, describing his attendance at the conference and recommending that, at a minimum, someone from manufacturing R & D should attend a seminar that was going to be held at WSU involving Professor David Dornfeld of UCB. Evans concluded that Boeing should give support to UCB's curriculum. Evans stated, "Because of our (Boeing) West Coast emphasis, I believe we should give much consideration to becoming more involved with UC Berkeley in terms of being active on their advisory board and possibly funding a graduate research project so that we can begin to develop a recruiting relationship with them."

Circa 1985, Robert Allison identified five universities that were interacting heavily with Boeing Fabrication Division as BYU, Provo, Utah; MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts; RPI, Troy, New York; University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; and Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Boeing Aerospace Corporation conducted job interviews at UC Berkeley between February 14, 1980, and February 28, 1985. During the May 1985 time frame, BAC offered jobs to and/or accepted job applications and resumes from a number of individuals at UCB.

Following Device 12 (CAAMs Computer Store) on February 20, 1987, ATF agents and Postal Inspectors contacted 33 companies in the Salt Lake City, Provo, and Ogden, Utah, areas who were suppliers to Boeing Aircraft. Thirty-one companies stated they were not in possession of the 700-15th Avenue SW, Auburn, Washington, address. One company provided no response. One of the 32 companies Auto Simulations, Inc. P.O. Box 307, 522 West 100 N., Bountiful, Utah 84010, said they had done business with Boeing at this specific Auburn address. Three other companies had different Auburn addresses. In January 1987, employees from Boeing Fabrication Division came to their office in Bountiful for one week.

The Boeing Corporation has provided to the UTF a list of approximately 2,300 sub-contractors in California in the pre-1985 time frame. This list has been analyzed by the UTF and narrowed to approximately 500 subcontractors located in the Northern California area, in eight separate regions to include San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, Marin County, the Peninsula, Sacramento, and the East Bay.

When the 500 sub-contractors were searched through Zyindex, it was determined that the UTF had received call-ins on the 800 line or conducted previous investigation with respect to the following companies. Reliance Electric Company, San Francisco, California; Sealed Air Corps., Hayward, California; Parko Electronics, Menlo Park; Raiken Corporation, Menlo Park, California; SRI International, Menlo Park, California; General Sea Corporation, Milpitas, California; Avantech, Inc., Milpitas, California; Sytek, Inc., Mountain View, California; Crystal Technology, Inc., Palo Alto, California; Fuller O'Brien Paints, South San Francisco; Aerojet General, Orangeville, California; Andpack, Inc., San Jose, California; Burk Industries, San Jose, California; Wyman Gordon Investment Castings, San Leandro, California; ICOR International, Inc., Sunnyvale, California; Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc., Sunnyvale, California; and the Advanced Group, Industrial Way, Belmont, California.

Zyindex also revealed that a number of these suppliers were also participants/members with Boeing in the March 1985 University of California, Berkeley Industrial Liaison Program (UCBILP). Thirty-one Boeing suppliers were UCB ILP members. The following companies attended a UCB Mechanical Engineering Department Conference in March 1985, where representatives of the Boeing Corporation Fabrication Division were present: Bechtel Group, Inc.; Chevron USA, Inc.; IBM Corp.; Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc.; Northrop Corp.; Pacific Gas & Electric; Ampex Corporation; Digital Equipment Corporation; General Electric Company; Huelett Packard Company; Rockwell International; TRW, Inc.; Techtronics, Inc.; Coen Company; and Memorex Corporation.

The following Boeing sub-contractors appearing on the 1985 list also appeared on the list of Rentech customers: Aerojet General, which had several

Rentech accounts; Pacific Bell, which had several Rentech accounts; Memorax Corporation; Avantech Inc.; Bechtel Corp.; Inmac; and Northrop Corporation.

Circa January 28, 1986, a review of documents of Rentech Computer

Rental indicated that a branch of the Boeing Company at Mather Air Force Base near Sacramento, California rented a unit from Rentech during early 1985. The branch was located along the Mather Air Force Base flight line and provided engines and other parts for the USAF T-43 (Boeing B-737) Navigational Trainers. Four United Airlines employees were also domiciled at the Boeing Building to provide training assistance to the USAF Navigation Program. The USAF owned the planes and provided maintenance, but Boeing and UAL were responsible for providing replacement parts and technical assistance. A review of shipping/receiving documents and accounts payable records indicated that parts in support of the Mather Air Force Base project were received from Auburn Fabrication Division, Auburn, Washington.

Boeing Corporation and BYU: Boeing company joined BYU's Manufacture Consortium in May, 1982. The goal was to develop training materials to use in education and industry. Dr. DELL K. ALLEN, BYU Professor of Technology, was co-director of this project and worked with Boeing on the educational modules, assisted by graduate students. ALLISON described the typical progression of a student involved with the engineering/computer related courses: Bachelor's Degree - 4 to 5 years of heavy course work; Master's Degree - 1 to 2 years; and Ph.D. - 2 to 5 years. ALLISON said it was very common for a student to take one year or more off after obtaining a Master's Agree because of burn out, wanting to earn money in return for a degree.

Dr. KENNETH W. CHASE was interviewed at BYU on August 19,

1985. He was employed as an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering. CHASE said that circa 1980, BYU had established a cooperative relationship with industry known as the Alliance With Industry and that Boeing had been a member of that program since its inception. Dr. CHASE said that in mid-1984 he was awarded a grant from Boeing Aircraft Fabrication Division, Auburn, Washington, and in October, 1984, received funding for his project. CHASE said his project was to develop a cooperative research association for the development of software to assist engineer designers in the specification of tolerances for manufactured products. CHASE identified eight graduate students assisting him on the project. CHASE identified seven sponsoring companies and corresponding contacts at those companies: Boeing Aircraft; Cummins Engine Company; F. M. C. Corporation; Garrett Corporation; Hewlett Packard; Hughes Aircraft; Sandia National Laboratory;

On September 19, 1985, Dr. CRAIG C. SMITH of BYU advised he

visited BA in Auburn, Washington, in the Spring of 1984, and received funding for a project in January, 1985. Dr. SMITH advised that his project consisted of conducting research to develop a model for machining processing. Dr. SMITH'S contact at BA was DAVE O'KEEFE, Supervisor of Metals Processing, Fabrication

Division, Auburn, Washington. Dr. SMITH concluded his project in April, 1985, and presented a final report to BA in June, 1985. A graduate student assisted him on the project.

Boeing Corporation and U of U; URSAL RIGGS, Research

Administration, 302 Park Building, U of U, was contacted on August 20, 1985. RIGGS provided two files which represented contracts between Boeing Aircraft and the U of U since 1981.

The first file involved a grant from Boeing to Professional Services for

the Travel and Tourism Research Association, part of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The representative handling the grant from Boeing was KIT NARODICK, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington. The recipient at the university was Ms. MARY LOU WOOD. This agreement involved Ms. WOOD and her associates conducting travel and tourism research in the intermountain area for use by Boeing.

The second grant was through the Air Force and was entitled, "Very

High Speed Integrated Circuits Program" and was funded beginning September, 1980 and continued through 1981. The primary investigator was originally Dr. SUHAS S. PATIL, but upon Dr. PATIL's resignation from the university in 1981 Dr. KENT MITH, Department of Computer Science, was given the contract. The Boeing agent handling the contract was DAVID WULFF, Seattle, Washington. Dr. PATIL left the University to begin his own company, Patil Systems, Inc., U of U Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah. The grant from Boeing involved research on high speed motion-detection computer hardware, and averaged about $60,000 per year.

The UTF identified a Wiberg Machine Erectors, Inc., 2651 South 9180

West, Magna, Utah 84044. Interviews determined that Wiberg Machine Erectors, Inc. provides heavy machinery moving services. They erect cranes, conveyors, and provide welding and "fabrication" services. Lynn D. Wiberg stated that the company, circa August 1985, secured a contract in the San Jose, California, area and in the past (1980-1981) overhauled the lunchroom conveyer on the University of Utah Campus. Wiberg stated that he often worked with engineers at the Salt Lake City Hercules Power and Aerospace Complex. Wiberg said he was not an engineer and did not hire engineers for his company. Wiberg's employees are millwrights and usually do not require college. Wiberg said that the San Jose contract was his first in the northern California area and that his company has had no college contracts since Utah. He has provided services for the Salt Lake City Airport but not directly to any airlines or airplane manufactures. Wiberg explained that his "fabrication" includes welding and building steel hand rails and decks adjacent to machines.

During April 1985, United Airlines, San Francisco International Airport,

advertised at UCB for professional employment at the San Francisco Maintenance Operations Division of United Airlines. United Airlines was interested in individuals who would be responsible for designing, repairing, and consulting about United Airlines Building Systems throughout the United Airlines Airport System. At around the same time frame, United Airlines posted flyers at UCB advertising Engineering careers existing at UAL's Maintenance Operation

Center in San Francisco for qualified individuals with degrees in aeronautical, chemical, electrical/electronic, mechanical or metallurgical engineering. United said that its maintenance center was the largest of its kind in the world and offered a wide range of entry level management engineering positions as well as strong growth potential for the future.

On February 5, 1986, Postal Inspectors interviewed KENNETH D. GILBERT, Corporate Security; STEVE MILLS, Plant Protection; and MOSES MILLER JR., Component Maintenance Manager, UAL-MOC. After viewing photos and diagrams of various UNABOM devices, the MOC individuals stated that it was not uncommon to solder batteries in the airline industry. Mr. MILLER observed that he had seen such techniques while serving in naval aviation 18 years earlier. UAL mechanics and maintenance employees commonly solder batteries into packs to operate their transistor radios. Mr. MILLER stated that all of the materials, including the crating wood utilized in the UNABOM devices would be available at the UAL-MOC facility. Aluminum powder was available since it was used as a "stop leak" for radiators used in the cooling system at the MOC. MILLER observed that 7,000 worked at the MOC, many of whom have advanced degrees in various academic disciplines, although they are production type employees.

DEVICE #9: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY; 5/15/85

Description of Device

John Edmond Hauser was a Graduate Student in Electrical Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. At approx 1:45 pm, May 15, 1995, he noticed a black vinyl three ring binder affixed to a plastic file box, 9x9x4 which was located on a table in Room 264 of Cory Hall. Room 264 houses several computer terminals which are frequently utilized in that department. Hauser thought the binder may have been work related to another student project and upon examining the binder he determined that the binder had a single rubber band securing it to the box. Hauser attempted to lift the binder cover to view the contents and upon doing so caused the device to detonate which caused serious injuries to Hauser's right hand and arm resulting in Hauser losing four fingers on his right hand and severe laceration on the upper right forearm resulting in serious damage to the motor nerve activity of his right arm.

Room 264 is a second floor classroom utilized by Graduate students in the Electrical Engineering program and is secured by a push button combination cipher lock when the room is not in use. Room 264 is an interior room with no windows and measures 17 feet by 11 feet.

Forensics:

Evidence gathered from the scene of the crime was submitted to the FBI Laboratory for forensic examination. Analysis of the remnants of the device indicated it was constructed by a length of 3/4" - diameter pipe sealed on either end by two plugs fabricated from metal bar stock and secured with metal pins and cable. The explosive mixture contained within the pipe was comprised of a mixture of aluminum powder and ammonium nitrate. The fusing system consisted of 6 D-Cell batteries arranged in series to include an improvised loop switch and a metal/wooden initiator with a hot-wire igniter located inside the pipe. The device was housed in a plastic file box and was designed to function upon opening the lid.

The pipe bomb consisted of a pipe nipple of a 3/4" pipe size and two end plugs fabricated from metal stock. Nail fragments and adhesive material are present on each of the end plugs of the pipe bomb and the explosive for the pipe bomb was determined to be a mixture of aluminum powder and ammonium nitrate. Two different sizes of wire cable were utilized to fix pins into the pipe nipple. Three different types of tape were utilized in construction of this device: 3/4" wide black friction tape, 3/4 inch black plastic tape, and 3/4 inch wide masking tape. The tapes had torn ends, some of which are suitable for comparison purposes. Numerous U nails or staples were used to secure the electrical wire to the explosive device and numerous specimens of brass screws of different sizes were utilized. Examination of the wood fragments indicated they are identifiable with Spruce, Birch, and Douglas Fir with the majority of the identified wood being Spruce.

Examination of the wire indicated it was both brown insulated and green insulated wire, as well as two different types of cable in the manufacturing of the device. The initials "FC" were found stamped into one of the end plugs of the pipe bomb.

A latent fingerprint lifted from a cardboard box at the crime scene was recently determined to be identical with an individual named Michael Robert Slattery, date of birth 3/23/51, who at the time was a Graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.

Investigative Summary

Initial investigation determined that the device utilized in this incident could have been placed in Room 264 as early as Friday, May 10, 1985. One witness positively stated that the device was seen by him at approximately 7:10 am on May 13 in Room 264. An exhaustive investigation was conducted and the background of the victim, as well as all users of Room 264 were obtained, and records were subpoenaed at the University of California for all student, faculty and staff who were rejected or denied affiliation from January 1980 until 1985. Subpoenas were issued to Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory for all engineering student, faculty and staff who were rejected or denied affiliation between January 1980 and 1985. Hypnotic interviews of witnesses or users of Room 264 who came in contact with the device were conducted. A review of all parking citations and field interrogation cards issued on the North Berkeley campus area and the surrounding city of Berkeley streets from May 10 to May 15, 1985 was conducted, as well as obtaining a list of all registered guests from hotels, motels and guest houses for the city of Berkeley and UC campus for the same time frame. All individuals visiting the victim and sending get well cards were identified. A list of all patients confined or released from local VA hospitals was obtained as well as a list from California Department of Motor Vehicles for all newly issued licenses in San Francisco Bay Area emphasizing those individuals having prior licenses in the states of Illinois and Utah. All contractors and subcontractors working on Cory Hall projects from 1982 through 1985 were identified. Information obtained from United Airlines, Chicago, Illinois regarding employees were compared via computer with a list of students, faculty and staff obtained from the University of Utah, University of California at Berkeley, Northwestern University and Vanderbilt University in an attempt to develop suspects in this incident as well as other Unabom incidents.

A list of 164 graduate students who had the cipher lock combination for Room 264, Cory Hall, University of California at Berkeley has been obtained and even though these individuals have been previously interviewed, it may be necessary to recontact them to determine if they furnished the combination or shared their combination with other individuals not included on the list. Additionally recontact may be necessary in order to obtain date of birth and social security number of these individuals for comparison of information already included in the data bases utilized by UTF.

Investigation is still continuing on the past activities of Michael Robert Slattery, whose fingerprint was identified as being one of the latents found on the cardboard box in Room 264 on the day of the incident. Slattery presently resides in France.

It has been determined that a "VAX" computer had been donated or funded by the United States Air Force and this computer terminal was located in a room in the near proximity of Room 264 where device number eight detonated. Investigation is being pursued at this time to determine if there may be any correlation between the Air Force funding or donation of that computer and whether Hauser was hoped by Unsub to be the victim of this device as he at the time was an Air Force Captain on active duty pursuing a graduate degree in Electrical Engineering.

Device 2 was placed on 5/9/79 at Northwestern University in a building which housed those graduate students who were taking courses at the Institute of Transportation Studies. Northwestern University and the University of California at Berkeley are two of the few universities in the nation that provide graduate work in Transportation Studies. The UTF is attempting to identify those twenty-five to fifty students who were getting graduate degrees in Transportation Studies at UCB between 1982 and 1985 to see if there was any correlation

between Device 2 and Device 9 which might help assist in identifying the Unabomer.

DEVICE #10: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBQR; 11/15/85

Description of Device:

On November 12, 1985, Device 10, postmarked Salt Lake City, Utah 84119, was mailed to Dr. James V. McConnell in Auburn, Michigan. Subsequent investigation has determined that this device is believed to have been placed in the Postal Mail System at a drop box in downtown Salt Lake City. The parcel containing the device measured about 11" x 8" x 3". It was wrapped with brown paper and secured with masking and filament tape. "Priority Mail" was stamped on the parcel. Postage in the amount of $8.88 was affixed in the form of eight $1.00 "American Light Fueled by Truth and Reason" stamps and four 22 cent large U.S. Flag "Of the People, By the People, For the People". An envelope was taped to the parcel. Underneath the envelope was a red, white, and blue label. The same To and From addresses were typed on the envelope and the mailing label affixed to the parcel read:

To: DR. JAMES V. MCCONNELL

2900 East Delhi Road

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103

From: RALPH C. KLOPPENBURG

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84112

McConnell and his teaching assistant, Nick Suino, opened the parcel at approximately 2:45 p.m., 11/15/85, with Suino sustaining burns to his left forearm and abdomen. McConnell was not injured.

Forensics

The following components were recovered at the blast site; remnants of 1" galvanized steel pipe (10 1/4" long); 3/4" diameter metal end plugs round steel stock (FC stamped on inside of both plugs); 5/16" and 5/32" diameter securing pins; tick marks present on securing pins; 15/16" diameter metal sleeve; metal disc attached to end plug; metal bands; four D-cell batteries (Duracell) (outer casing removed); six AAA-cell batteries (outer casings removed); solder; piece of silver used as contact point; remnants of Douglas fir wood; brown insulated duplex 26-strand copper wire (.010" diameter); red insulated 16-strand copper wire (.0107" diameter); single-strand steel wire; 1/2" filament tape; 3/4" black friction tape; 3/4" black plastic tape; 3/4" masking tape; epoxy; 0.060" sheet steel; brass and steel wood screws; nails; wire staples; spring; red paint; lead split shot (1/2- gram fishing sinkers); black plastic binder; brown paper; "Of the People By the

People For the People"; stamps (four); "America's Light Fueled by Truth and Reason"; stamps (eight); mailing label - red/white/blue, self adhesive typed address/return address; rubber-stamp impressions on wrapper: "Priority Mail"; typed letter, envelope, label were all typed utilizing a typewriter believed to be a L. C. Smith Corona, 2.5 spacing.

An analysis of the IED components revealed that the device was

constructed from a 10 1/4" length of 1" galvanized steel pipe. The pipe was sealed on either end by two plugs fabricated from steel bar stock, each being secured by two steel pins with epoxy glue and shim material. In addition to the end construction, the pipe was reinforced on each end with short metal sleeves fashioned from another piece of pipe. The explosive mixture contained within the pipe was comprised of aluminum powder and ammonium nitrate. The fusing system consisted of two D-cell and six AAA-cell batteries arranged in both series and parallel to create two separate circuits. Each circuit was wired to a spring- loaded triggering switch mechanism connected to a single improvised initiator with hot-wire igniter located inside of the pipe. The device was designed to detonate upon unwrapping of the parcel allowing a trap door to open. This allowed a spring- loaded wooden peg to pop up and complete the circuit. Laboratory personnel have stated "it was clearly the intention of the suspect to enhance the fragmentation of the device as noted by placing lead split-shot around the pipe".

Summary of Investigation

Investigative Summary focused on the victimology of Dr. McConnell;

return address bearing the name of Ralph C. Kloppenburg, anomalies regarding the address of the victim and the return address; and forensics.

James V. McConnell was born on 10/26/25, in Okmulgee, Oklahoma.

He received his B.A. Degree from Louisiana State University in 1947. From 1947 to 1951, he worked as an announcer, production supervisor, and program director for radio stations in the south and southwest. He was the chief writer for television station WLWT in Cincinnati. In 1950-1951, a series of radio scripts McConnell wrote and produced received national recognition from the National Association for Education By Radio. In 1954, he received a M.A. and in 1957, a Ph.D. from the University of Texas. In 1956, he joined the University of Michigan as an instructor, retiring as a Professor Emeritus of Psychology in 1988. The only interruption of his employment at University of Michigan was in the 1961-1962 time frame when he was the Associate Director of the Britannica Center in Palo Alto, California. McConnell was never married and died on 4/9/90 of causes unrelated to the bombing.

In 1959, McConnell founded the Worm Runner's Digest, composed of

scientific satire, humorous articles, and cartoons. In 1967, The Journal of Biological Psychology was added to the Digest. Both publications ceased in the fall of 1979. The Digest attracted input and article suggestions throughout the U.S., and McConnell received correspondence from Berkeley, Utah, and the Chicago area.

McConnell was known for his controversial research studies in learning and memory transfer with fresh water flatworms known as planarian. McConnell's experiments with flatworms showed that the worms could be "educated" to respond with a conditioned reflex after being exposed to light and electric shock. From 1963 to 1980, McConnell served as a research psychologist at the Mental Health Research Institute at UM. He also studied sensory phenomena in autistic children, subliminal stimulation and the psychology of persuasion. MCCONNELL was a prolific author. His most significant publication was a psychology textbook, UNDERSTANDING HUMAN BEHAVIOR, which became one of the top five best-selling textbooks. There were five editions of UNDERSTANDING HUMAN BEHAVIOR (UHB).

The first edition of UHB was used between 1975-1977 at the following locations in the Chicago, Illinois, area: Judson College, Lake Forest College; Oakton Community College; Loop College; Amundsen Mayfair Jr. College; and Northwestern University. Educational institutions located in Northern California which used the 1st edition of UHB in this time frame included: University of California, Davis; Chabot College; American River College; Solano Community College; Pacific Union College; and De Anza College. The first edition of UHB was used at Brigham Young University and University of Utah.

During 1979-1980, Coastline Community College in California produced an introductory telecourse in psychology for college level students based upon McConnell's 3rd edition of UHB. The course was offered to students within the district as well as to military students involved in the outreach program located at Norton Air Force Base, California, and Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Delaware. The telecourse production involved working with McConnell through the book's publisher, Holt, Reinhart & Winston, CBS Educational Publishing - a division of CBS Incorporated.

On October 11 & 15, 1985, McConnell mailed a marketing letter to approximately 168 professors across the country regarding the 5th edition of UHB. Prior to opening the parcel containing Device 10 on 11/15/85, McConnell opened the envelope attached to the outside of the parcel, and read the letter written by the UNABOMER and signed by Ralph C. Kloppenburg. McConnell's marketing letter and the UNABOM letter were similar in content.

The similar content and timing of the UNABOMER's letter led the UTF to identify and interview 168 professors who received the marketing letter. To date, 127 of these professors have been located and interviewed to determine whether they or any teaching assistants working for them in the 1985 time frame who might have knowledge of the UNABOM subject. (The UNABOM letter and McConnell marketing letter are Appendix M and N.)

During the week of July 18, 1994, UTF representatives reviewed the Archives of the History of American Psychology in Akron, Ohio, to analyze the papers of James V. McConnell. This analysis resulted in the duplication of 601 pages from the McConnell collection, many of which were examined by the FBI Lab for typewriting comparisons. Evaluation of McConnell's correspondence focused on the 1970-1980 time frame. McConnell received extensive correspondence from throughout the country, including Berkeley, California; the state of Utah; and the Chicago, Illinois, area.

Through his behavior modification beliefs, McConnell was well known in the area of criminal and prison reform. He was contacted by attorneys in Ogden and Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1969, to act as a consultant in the Revision of the Utah Code of Criminal Procedure. The attorneys were interested in McConnell's contributions in the area of controlling human behavior in society by methods which are humane, effective, and just. McConnell received correspondence from prison inmates requesting information on behavioral modification training techniques in an institutional setting.

During the 1970s and into 1985, McConnell traveled extensively in connection with his writings and other projects. In 1975, McConnell conducted a summer institute workshop at the University of San Francisco. A listing of the attendees shows that only one male attended the workshop. In October 1985, McConnell spoke to the Psychology Club at Duke University regarding Behavioral Medicine.

In 1983, McConnell moved into his residence at 2900 Dehli Road, Ann Arbor. This address began appearing on McConnell's correspondence in September, 1983. McConnell's name with this address appeared in Who's Who In America in 1985. McConnell received a letter from STEPHEN T. WAGNER, a Massachusetts High School History and Social Studies teacher who had attempted to phone MCCONNELL but eventually found his home address in the Who's Who reference book. WAGNER indicated to McConnell that he was currently attending Harvard and was writing a dissertation on the History of American Civilization.

The UTF has conducted extensive investigation into the return address on the device and the name Ralph C. Kloppenburg. Investigation has disclosed that the University of Utah does have a History Department and that the Zip Code utilized on the parcel was correct for this location in Utah. No student or professor identifiable to Kloppenburg and associated with the History Department at U of U was identified. Investigation has identified a Eugene and Vera Kloppenburg (husband and wife) residing in Sacramento, California. Eugene Kloppenburg worked for 37 years for the Pacific Bell Telephone Company, retiring in 1977. Following his retirement, he worked in Sacramento for the "Computer Hardware Corporation" from 1983 to 1984. Kloppenburg advised that the origin of his last name was German and that he had attended the University of Santa Clara in California, majoring in electrical engineering for 3 years. The Kloppenburgs have six children, TOM, ANNE, PETER, and JANE, RUTH KASCHAK and SUSAN PRICE, nee KLOPPENBURG. Susan married Ralph Price, and they reside in Salt Lake City, Utah, working at the University of Utah. Susan Price is an employee of the University of Utah Medical Center - Radiology Department. Her employment began as an Admitting Assistant in July, 1985, remaining throughout 1986. Her husband, Ralph, was employed from 1983 to 1986 in Salt Lake City as the Vice President of Symbion (formerly know as KOLFF MEDICAL) in charge of Product Development and Manufacturing. Symbion's president was DR. Robert Jarvik, inventor of the Jarvik Artificial Heart. Symbion was located in Research Park, an industrial area adjacent to the University of Utah. Susan Price, when interviewed, could not make any connection to the University of Berkeley (UCB), Northwestern University (NW), or any of the universities relevant to the UNABOM investigation.

The UTF has identified a Jack Ralph Kloppenburg, Jr., Professor of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. He also stated that his name was German in origin. Professor Kloppenburg's father, Jack Ralph Kloppenburg, Sr. was a well known architect in Wisconsin, as was his late grandfather, Ralph H. Kloppenburg, who died in 1989, and was listed in "Who's Who" as an architect with the firm bearing his name. He was familiar with a David Kloppenburg, a professor at Northeastern University in Boston who teaches the History of Knowledge, Thought and/or Science. He has never met David Kloppenburg but has seen him listed as a writer in "BOOKS IN PRINT". (The UTF has failed to locate Professor David Kloppenburg at any college in Boston or in the East Coast region).

Jack Ralph Kloppenburg attended Yale University in 1974 receiving a Bachelor of Arts in Archaeology with a minor in History of Art. He attended Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, from September 1975 to May 1976, at which time he received his Master of Arts Degree in Anthropology. From September 1976 to September 1979, he served in the Peace Corps in Africa. In 1985, he completed his dissertation at Cornell University. While at Northwestern, he was a resident dorm assistant at Kendall College. He stated that the majority of students at Kendall were rich kids from Chicago who had "screwed-up" or "poor" kids from the ghetto. He could not identify any students he had problems with at Kendall College, nor could he recall any who expressed philosophies as reflected in the UNABOM manuscript.

Kloppenburg's current specialty is social issues that affect agriculture. His research areas deal with rural sociology, environmental issues, and new technology. The topics include genetics, computers, corporate versus academic interests, patents, profiles, politics, ethics, and economics. His writings are found in college and university libraries. In 1983, articles written by him appeared in the journal entitled, "THE INSURGENT SOCIOLOGIST."

On July 24, 1986 and October 6, 1994, UCB retired Professor CHARLES SUSSKIND was interviewed regarding the MCCONNELL device. SUSSKIND was a Professor of Electrical Engineering at UCB. He also taught courses in the History of Science.

Dr. SUSSKIND has been interested in the History of Science since he was a student. His particular interest within the field is the development of medical knowledge and technology. Between 1982 and 1985, Dr. SUSSKIND taught courses in Electrical Engineering and was conducting student aided research in Cory Hall into applications of electronics to medicine. Dr. SUSSKIND was aware of the two bombing incidents which took place in Cory Hall at UCB, in 1982 and 1985. During that time, Cory Hall housed the Departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (the Department of Computer Science has since moved to another building), and was totally dedicated to those functions.

In 1983, Dr. SUSSKIND started teaching a course on the History of Technology. This course was eventually split into two separate courses, taught by him, called "Technology and Society and the History of American Technology." The above courses were very popular among non-science majors who, in fact, made up the majority of the students taking the courses. Students majoring in Literature and History particularly liked the courses, which counted toward satisfaction of certain UCB Letters and Science Degree requirements.

SUSSKIND's office since the 1970s was located in Cory Hall, room 269. He noted that the location of DEVICE #7 and DEVICE #9, (Rooms 411 & 264) and particularly the function of Cory Hall in those time periods - indicated to him that the only motivation or theory he could think of for the bombings would be of disaffection with the effects of electronics and computers. Dr. SUSSKIND could think of nothing significant about rooms 411 or 264 with regard to the bombings, adding that he never used either of those rooms; however, he posted his students' grades outside of his office, Room 269, located across from Room 264, the site of the 1985 incident. Dr. SUSSKIND advised that his students were Biochemistry students. Additionally, he stated that students would have to be familiar and comfortable in the corridor where the 1985 device was placed.

Between 1982 and 1985 the BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY (BAC) was actively recruiting potential employees in the UCB Campus. On March 13 & 14, 1985, representatives of Academic Research and University Relations, Manufacturing R & D, and BAC were in the UCB campus for the College of Engineering Conference sponsored by the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Additional information on the conference can be found in this report in the section pertaining to the Boeing device (#8).

DEVICE #11 - RENTECH

Description of Device:

Sometime between 10:35a.m. and 12 noon on Friday, December 11,

1985, Device #11, disguised as a road hazard, was placed by the Unabom subject directly outside the back door of the Rentech Computer Company, 1537 Howe Avenue, Sacramento, California. Hugh Scrutton, owner of Rentech, exited out of the back door at approximately 12:04p.m, encountered the device, bent over to remove it, and was killed upon its detonation.

Forensics:

Recovered from the post-blast scene were: remnants of 1" and 1

1/2" pipe; five 1/16" diameter metal plugs or pins (with tick marks on the ends); 1 "diameter plugs with the letters "FC" stamped into the end of one of the plugs; metal shim material; machine screws 1" and 1/8"; wood, brass and round head screws; hand made metal brackets approximately 3" to 4" in length; four Duracell brand model MN1300 "D" cell alkaline batteries; one Eveready alkaline 9 volt battery with casing removed; solder; fragments of Douglas Fir and Redwood; red colored 16 strand insulated copper wire; brown colored 26 - strand insulated/separated duplex wire originating in lamp cord; various types of wrapping tape including 1/2" filament, 3/4" black plastic, 3/4" black friction and 2" masking tape; Hobsco brand epoxy adhesive; nails with the heads removed; aluminum powder particles; ammonium nitrate residue; potassium Chloride residue and potassium sulfate residue.

The device was constructed from a three layer concentric assembly of

1" and a 1 1/4" steel pipes, approximately 10" in length, and separated by a single layer of thin steel shim material. The metal shim material was fitted between the pipes to fill in any remaining gap. The pipe assembly was sealed on each end by 1" in diameter steel plug, holes were drilled into the body of the pipe and into each end plug to accommodate two steel plugs. One of the end plugs had the letters "FC" stamped on it. The explosive mixture contained within the pipe was comprised of aluminum powder and ammonium nitrate. The fusing system consisted of four (4) Duracell "D" cell batteries and one 9 volt Eveready alkaline battery. The 9 volt battery casing had been removed. Each of the four Duracell "D" cell batteries had electrical wires soldered to the positive terminals.

The device is believed to of contained some form of spring loaded

lever or anti-movement triggering system, wired to the improvised initiator with a hot wire igniter located inside the inner pipe. The outside container holding the device was constructed of hollowed out Douglas Fir and Redwood with six nails protruding from the top. The outside wooden box was designed and constructed to look like a 'road hazard", and set to detonate upon movement of the outside container. The outside layer of wood on the device was varnished.

A small drop of red colored acrylic paint was found adhered to one of

the 2" wide pieces of masking tape. The paint contained an iodine compound, Amical, manufactured by Abbott Laboratories in Chicago, Illinois. Amical is added to paint as a biocide and anti-rust inhibitor. An infrared spectrum analysis of the paint drop by Rohm and Haas, Springhouse, Pennsylvania confirmed that the red dot was composed of a common acrylic paint containing a common acrylic binder similar to Rhoplex AC-64, manufactured by Rhom and Haas. This type of paint with this acrylic binder is manufactured by numerous paint companies and utilized in exterior coatings, with no special or unusual uses or applications.

The section of metal pipe utilized in this device and in Device #12

(CAAMS), on 2/20/87 were cut from the same contiguous pipe. The three layer concentric assembly separated by a thin steel shim is identical in design and construction to the CAAMS device. The length of 1" pipe and the thin steel shim material placed between the two heavy walled pipe lengths could have come from the same stock. Insulation of the wire specimens on the Rentech and CAAMS devices bare the same extrusion marks, and were made on the same machine.

The victim, Hugh Scrutton, was 38 years old, single, and had no prior arrests or military service. He had graduated from the University of California at Davis, and inherited a large sum of money from his parents when he was 21. He was a collector of reading material covering a broad range of topics and had an extensive home library. He had an interest in cooking and music. Scrutton spent time and exhibited knowledge and interest in auto mechanics, ceramics, and in the rebuilding of old German automobiles. Three of the four bedrooms in Scrutton's home had been converted into a library.

Rentech leased or rented various computer and computer related

equipment to a diverse variety of businesses, individuals and educational institutions. Rentech sold old and outdated computer equipment the company had previously leased. Rentech had approximately 1,190 individual customers.

Following the device, 165 of these customers were interviewed by the U.S. Postal Service. Approximately 90% of those interviewed had learned about Rentech through the yellow pages of the telephone book. Business customers of Rentech included the University of California Davis, Sacramento State University, University of California Berkeley, and Boeing Aerospace Company which rented a computer from Rentech for one month, during April 1985, in connection with a project at Mather Air Force Base, outside of Sacramento, California.

Rentech was located in the Century Plaza strip shopping mall, with

parking lots in the front, side and back of the stores. Registered owners of 76 vehicles parked in the main parking lot at 2:00p.m. on December 11 were identified and interviewed with no positive information developed. Two additional license plates were not on file at DMV in 1985, the third license plate had been mis-recorded. The registered owner of 29 vehicles parked in the rear parking lot of Century Plaza were located and interviewed. Sixteen of these vehicles belonged to employees of the businesses located within the shopping mall.

Daniel Phipps, a customer of the Headliners Hair Salon, located adjacent to Rentech, arrived at approximately 11:00a.m. to have his hair cut. He exited the salon at 11:50a.m. with a friend, Lee Counts, through the back door. As he was exiting, he looked at his left down the rear alley way and noticed a white male holding an article up to his chest with both hands, and looking down at the ground. His initial impression was that this individual was a transient because he was at the rear of the building and leaning up against the wall.

Phipps described the male as: Hispanic or possibly a white male; olive colored complexion with black straight hair combed straight back from the forehead; in his early 40's; 5'10" to 5'11" in height, 190 pounds, black colored mustache, with a green colored army jacket. Phipps described the item the man was holding as: a brown colored material type of container which appeared to be in the shape of a bag and contained red, white and possibly green dots on it. The size of the bag was approximately 16" X 18" in height. Under hypnosis Phipps provided a composite which was utilized internally during this investigation in 1985.

Approximately 26 motels in and around the Interstate 80 area were contacted for registered guests between 12/9/85 - 12/12/85. Approximately 3,194 individuals were identified and all of the names, addresses, vehicle license plates and companies pertaining to these individuals were obtained.

Appendix 0 shows the location of Rentech.

DEVICE #12: CAAM's INC., SALT LAKE QITY, UTAH 2/20/87

Description of Device:

At approximately 9:30 a.m., on Friday, February 20, 1987, Device 12 was placed near the left front tire of an automobile owned by Tammy Fluehe, the only non-family employee of Caams, Inc., 270 E. 900 South, Salt Lake City, Utah. Fluehe was working inside of Caams when she observed through the window a white male, approximately 25 to 30 years old, squatting down near her vehicle, and removing from a white laundry bag, which was on his lap, an object which appeared to be two 2 x 4's nailed together which were approximately 9" to 13" in length. Fluehe was approximately 4 feet away from the subject, looking down at him from her position in the office and described him as being clean and dressed casually in a gray hooded sweatshirt which was zippered up and wearing clean Levi's. He had strawberry blond colored hair, was 5'10" to 6' tall, 165 pounds, light strawberry blond moustache, a reddish flush, rough-looking complexion, and his hands were whiter than his face. The subject overheard Fluehe comment to her boss, Gaye Wright, about the device, and after looking back at her, calmly closed up the white laundry bag from which he produced the device and casually walked away from the area.

At approximately 10:25 a.m., Gaye Wright's son, Gary, entered the parking lot where Fluehe's vehicle was parked. As he entered the parking lot, he noticed the object on the ground. Wright believed the object may have fallen off a truck or may have been some type of construction debris, and he decided to pick it up and throw it into the adjacent dumpster. Wright looked at the device for about 30 seconds as he crouched down beside it. He described it as two 2x4's nailed together with the bottom 2x4 approximately 13" long and the top 2x4 approximately 9" long. The top 2x4 had "shiny silver" nails protruding approximately 1/2" from each corner of the 2x4. After visually examining the object, he touched it either with his right hand or foot, slightly moving it, causing the device to detonate.

Forensics:

Recovered from the scene of the blast were the following

components: Remnants of 1" and 1 1/4" pipe; remnants of shim material; five 16" diameter metal pins, (six of these pins were used to secure the end caps in the pipe); one inch diameter metal plugs with the letters "FC" stamped into the end of one plug; metal straps; tan insulated duplex multi-strand wire; red insulated single strand 18 gauge copper wire; uninsulated multi-strand copper wire; cable wire; clear epoxy; gray epoxy; 3/4" black electric tape; 3/4" black friction tape; 3/4" masking tape; 2" silver duct tape; 1", 3/4", 1/2", and 1/4" clear fiber reinforced tape; iron bridge wire initiator; 1" diameter wood disk used as insulator for bridge wire; wedge shaped pieces of lead; metal plate; nail; screws; four D cell Duracell- MM 3000 batteries; and wooden fragments. The wooden fragments and wood used to compose the device was Douglas Fir, Maple, Pine, and Yellow Poplar.

On 2/27/87, the ATF Forensics Science Lab made the following

observations regarding materials submitted which were gathered at the scene of incident:

The 1" stock plug was hacksawed by hand. Pins were driven through

the holes in the dowels while in place and then filed off. Nails from the wood were not driven into the wood; holes were drilled in the wood; nails were placed in the holes with adhesives. The flat stock metal was cut from a larger piece of stock, illustrative of machine shop quality work with a fine tooth band saw, and definitely not done by hand. The end plugs were definitely drilled with a drill press. The diamond-shaped punch was apparently hand made, with three uneven sides.

A Department of Treasury Laboratory Report dated 3/6/87 analyzed the metal fragments of the bomb as follows:

One item obtained at the scene was a pipe approximately 11 and 3/4

inches long by 1" inside diameter, by 1/8" thick. The ends of the pipe appeared to have been sawed by machine, and each end of the pipe has six 5/16" holes drilled into them. A 1" diameter end plug remained attached and was held in place by three 5/16" by 2 and 1/4" long metal rods. The end plug was sawed by hand, and the ends of the rods were rounded off by hand. The end plug had two 1/16" diameter holes drilled lengthwise through it, and through the two 1/8” by 1" diameter wooden disks that were glued to the inside. On the inside of the metal end plug, the letters "FC" were placed with a triangular shaped hand sharpened punch. Another section of metal was approximately 21 gauge, 11 3/4" long x 4- 3/8" wide with five 5/16" holes drilled in each end. These holes were consistent in location with the holes drilled in the pipe previously discussed. One section was a 5/16" metal rod approximately 1/4" long, with a portion of a hole drilled through its width remaining. The end of this rod was rounded off by hand. Recovered in the debris was a metal end plug approximately 1" in diameter and 1 1/4" long, with both ends sawed by hand.,*^The plug was wrapped in a light metal which was applied after the plug was cut to length. The plug also had two metal rods approximately 5/16" x 2 1/4" in length through it at right angles to each other. The outside end of the plug had a shallow groove filed across its diameter for a third rod to hold it in place. The inside end of the plug had the letters "FC" placed with hand sharpened triangular shaped punch. It also had two, approximately 1/16" holes drilled in it. Recovered at the scene was a pipe approximately 11 3/4" x 1 1/4" in diameter, and 1/8" thick. Each end has six 5/16" diameter holes drilled into it, consistent with the location of the holes referenced above. Some of these holes had been numbered by a series of round punch marks at one end and by triangular punch marks at the other end. Recovered at the scene was a metal rod approximately 5/16" diameter and 1 1/2" long, with a portion of a hole drilled through it at one end remaining. The end has been rounded off by hand.

Investigative Summary:

Employees of Caams, Inc., and other potential witnesses were interviewed following the incident. Witnesses at Caams, Inc., had claimed that an individual who resembled the subject had been at their business the previous evening, 2/19/87. They described this individual as wearing a Mickey Mouse sweatshirt and driving a 1980 BMW. Intensive investigation by the Salt Lake City Division identified a Raymond Galinsky who had visited Caams, Inc., on 2/19/87 and had been driving a 1980 BMW. Although Gaye Wright and Dan Wright continue to believe that Raymond Galinsky was not the individual they were trying to describe, the UTF has eliminated Galinsky as a suspect and believes he was the individual the Wrights did business with on 2/19/87.

Another witness, Robert Zamaro, owned a business near Caams and provided a description in the aftermath of the incident of an individual which was similar to the description of the subject furnished by Fluehe. Zamaro stated that he observed a 1976-1977 Spider Fiat parked near his business on 2/20/87. He described an individual who exited the Fiat as carrying an item wrapped in a pillow case under his arm and walking around the building in the direction of the rear of Caams, Inc. He provided this information after the incident to the Salt Lake City Police Department and the FBI. He has subsequently been interviewed by agents from the UNABOM Task Force and claims no recollection of information he furnished during the previous interviews. The UTF is pursuing the identification of all registered owners of 1976-77 Fiat Spiders, Model 124 Series, in the state of Utah. The same information is being sought for similar vehicles registered in the state of California during the 1985-86 time frame. There were approximately 10,000 registered owners of Fiats in California and 50 registered owners in Utah.

Caams, Inc., had contracts with the University of Utah. There currently exists several thousand documents from Caams, Inc., identifying all of their customers from 1981 until the business was subsequently sold. A portion of the records are illegible, and the UTF has requested the University of Utah to provide information from their purchase orders for all computer purchases made by the University of Utah from Caams, Inc. UTF Agents have conducted numerous interviews at the University of Utah with regard to purchasers of computers from Caams, Inc. The process of analyzing and evaluating this information and identifying potential suspects continues.

UTF has also conducted investigation at Hill Air Force Base (AFB) with regard to Caams' association with Hill and possibly to the Boeing Corporation. OSI, Hill AFB, has provided the UTF with a comprehensive written report regarding the relationship of CAAMs, Inc. and Rentech with the U.S. Government.

Appendix P is a map showing the location of CAAMS, Inc.

DEVICE #13: PHYSICIAN/RESEARCHER, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA, DATE OF MAILING 6/18/93

DESCRIPTION OF DEVICE:

At approximately 4:30 p.m., on June 22, 1993, Dr. Charles J. Epstein opened a padded mailing envelope received at his residence in Belvedere, California. Upon opening the package, the parcel detonated, causing serious injuries to Prof. Epstein. Dr. Epstein is a geneticist, employed at the University of California Medical Facility, San Francisco, Ca. The package was postmarked "Sacramento, Ca., " and is believed to have been mailed on 6/18/95. The parcel had a typewritten address as follows:

CHARLES J. EPSTEIN 19 Noche Vista Lane Belvedere, Tiburon, CA 94920 (PRIORITY MAIL was handstamped on the label)

The return address was typewritten as follows:

JAMES HILL

Chemistry Department

California State University Sacramento

Sacramento, CA 95819

Investigation has determined that Belvedere and Tiburon are two

distinct cities served by the same post office, called the Belvedere Tiburon Post Office. The cities have the same zip code. The National Five Digit Zip Code and Post Office Directory for 1992 shows Belvedere Tiburon, Marin C 94920. The C stands for County. Normally, either Belvedere or Tiburon are used as addresses; however, they are almost never used together. In the Pacific Bell Yellow Pages, which includes the White Pages for Marin County through May 1992, Epstein's address is listed as being in Tiburon. In the Campus Telephone Directory for the University of California, San Francisco, Epstein's address is listed as being in Tiburon. In the Harvard Class of 1955 Alumni Booklet, printed for the Class of 1980, Epstein's address is shown as Tiburon.

The California State University Sacramento Catalog for 1990-1992

shows under Faculty for 1989 to 1990, James Clifton Hill, as a professor of chemistry. In the section called Campuses for the California State University System, an address is shown as California State University, Sacramento, California 95819.

In the 1980-1981 and 1986-1987 editions of Who's Who in America,

Epstein's home address was shown as being in Tiburon, CA. However, the 1992- 1993 edition shows Epstein to have resided at 19 Noche Vista Ln, Belvedere,- Tiburon, CA 94920-1107.

Forensics

The device was contained in a brown mailing envelope measuring

approximately 12" x 8 1/2". The label on the package has been identified as a Gould Brand, Quikstik, No.044, self-adhesive label. The label in red and blue, measured 4 5/8" x 2 7/8" with the "To" and "From" sections separated along a perforation. The addressee and addresser were typed with an L.C. Smith Corona, 2.54 Spacing. The package contained ten 29 cent "U.S.A. Flag - Olympic Ring" stamps and a rubber stamp impression of "Priority Mail". The wooden box inside the envelope was made of redwood and measured 8" x 4" x 1 1/2", and was 1/4" thick. The device consisted of a 6" length of 3\8" copper tubing sealed on both ends by plugs comprised of metal pins. The fusing system consisted of four 9-Volt batteries, an improvised anti-open switch and an improvised initiator with a hotwire igniter.

In a report dated 8/19/93, the FBI Lab advised that as the package

was opened by EPSTEIN, the spring tension applied to the switching mechanism released, completing the electrical circuit. Battery power was supplied to the improvised hot wire initiator causing it to ignite the main charge explosive, which ruptured the pipe bomb. Present at the crime scene were numerous fragments from a brown padded mailing envelope approximately 8 1/2" x 12" long. A logo present on a fragment of the envelope indicates it was manufactured by the Jiffy Corporation under the brand name of "Styrolite". The Jiffy Corporation was purchased by the Sealed Air Corporation approximately six years ago, at which time the "Styrolite" brand envelope was discontinued. The envelope consisted of brown craft paper separated by styrofoam type beads for cushioning and was manufactured with a tear tape opener. The back seam was glued by the manufacturer and the top of the envelope was sealed with 1/2" wide staples. Affixed to the brown padded mailing envelope were the fragments from a red, white, and blue colored mailing label.

The copper tube constituting the bomb was approximately 3/8" diameter and 6" in length and was used as the container for the explosive main charge in the device. One end of the copper tube was sealed with a metal plug secured in place by a 1/8" diameter metal pin. The end plug was drilled and aligned with a hole in the copper tube to accommodate the metal pin. The metal pin and the metal plug were further secured in the end of the copper tube with adhesive. The opposite end of the copper tube was sealed with a wooden dowel secured in place with adhesive and a locking pin that had a diameter of approximately 1/8". The wooden dowel also served as the housing for the improvised hot wire initiator. One end of the copper tube has been cut and is suitable for comparison examinations with the parent portion of copper tube. The hot wire initiator consisted of a hollowed out wooden plug filled with adhesive, wire, and a bridge wire of undetermined material. The wooden plug also served as an end plug for the pipe bomb. This assembly contained two wires passing through its axis which formed the electrical connection for the hot wire initiator. An improvised switch constructed out of wood, metal, copper, wires, and nails was used. Fragments from an improvised bracket constructed out of aluminum, metal pins, and brass screws were obtained. The bracket was designed to accommodate the improvised switch. Present were fragments of monofilament tape that had been cut in strips ranging from approximately 1/8" to 1/2" in width. Tape fragments included 3/4" wide black plastic tape; 3/4" wide transparent tape; and 1/2" wide transparent tape.

Wire utilized in the device included a length of white insulated single conductor multi-strand copper wire; a length of black insulated, single conductor, multi-strand copper wire; black insulated, single conductor, single strand copper wire having a diameter of 23-gauge; white insulated, single conductor, multi-strand copper wire containing 8 strands of 34-gauge (copper wire; length of bare tinned copper wire having a diameter of 28-gauge; length of bare copper wire having a diameter of 14-gauge; and several strands of copper wire having a diameter of 30- gauge. Four 9 volt Duracell type batteries were used in the device. The outer metal cases from all the batteries had been removed, and the exposed battery cells were wrapped with strips of monofilament tape. Solder was present in all of the electrical connections in the circuit of the device. Chemical and physical analysis identified the presence of aluminum metal flakes and potassium chlorate. A mixture of potassium chlorate and aluminum can be found in some flash powder explosives. The addition of sulfur to some mixtures of potassium chlorate and aluminum can increase its sensitivity to heat.

The Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, concluded the box containing the device was primarily made from redwood, with the switch and dowels made out of hickory. Chicago Suburban Pallet and Sardo Pallet and Container Research Laboratory, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, provided the following regarding wood in the device:

"An end plug used to seal the pipe is constructed of hickory and has been drilled out for the placement of an unknown material. One end of the plug appears to be the original piece end. A material exhibiting characteristics of adhesive appears to join two different pieces of wood. The two woods display grains which are perpendicular to one another. Wood fragments appear to belong to the redwood family, Sequoia Genus. A piece of the wooden box exhibits a mitred edge and has a commercially prepared surface on one side only. This side may have gone through a planer and then a polisher, as is typical for exposed wood. The opposite plane reveals hand preparation such as a draw-knife approach or a saw cut followed by sanding parallel to the grain. This side was not prepared with a peripheral mill planer. The piece of wooden box is a redwood and appears to be from old-growth material, prevalent in the late 1960s and early 1970s."

The Oakridge National Laboratory, Oakridge, Tennessee, advised that the plugged copper tube appeared to be from commonly available products that can be purchased anywhere in hardware departments of many stores or available in many home, laboratory, university, hobby or machine shops. Washers used to form end plugs to the tube appeared to be wrought aluminum alloy which were melted and cast into the shape of a washer. This indicated that the person had the capacity to melt and cast aluminum. This can be achieved with ease with a torch, small furnaces, or even, for example, with hobby furnaces used for making jewelry or firing pottery.

DEVICE #14: PROFESSOR, YALE UNIVERSITY, NEW HAVEN, CT; 6/24/93

On Thursday, June 24, 1993, at 8:22a.m., David Gelernter, Computer Science Department, Yale University, New Haven Connecticut, opened a package in his office at Yale. The package detonated, causing severe injury including the loss of seven fingers. The package was similar in construction to the package received by Dr. Charles J. Epstein on June 22, 1993 (Device #13). The package was mailed from Sacramento, California on June 18, 1994. The package was a brown mailing envelope measuring approximately 12" X 8 1/2". Affixed to the brown padded mailing envelope was a red, white and blue colored mailing label. The label had the following typed lettering:

To: Professor David Gelernter

Computer Science

Box 2158

Yale University

New Haven, CT 06515

From: Mary Jane Lee

Computer Science

California State Univ.

Sacramento, CA 95819-6012

In 1981 and 1989, Dr. Gelernter had made presentations at the Boeing Aircraft Corporation (BAC) in Washington State. Gelernter had two (2) close associates at BAC, Dave Maze! and Dave Fadel. Gelernter business pursuits include Computer Science, Expert Systems; Robotics and Vision machines as they relate to artificial intelligence; Modeling; Neural Networking; Parallel Processing; Simulation;Virtual Reality and Electronics.

A story entitled "David Gelernter's Romance With Linda," appeared in the January 19, 1992 edition of the New York Times (NYT). The story was written by NYT reporter John Markoff. Markoff's reporting centered on Science and Technology issues, with a specialty on articles involving computer applications. In December, 1992, Gelernter wrote an article entitled, "Babes in Computerland," which was published in the New York Times. In the article, Gelernter was very critical of hyper-media. Gelernter has observed that a person involved in hyper-media would view his article as traitorous. The 12/22/92 article was sent over the wire services and published in the Sacramento Bee on 12/25/92.

Gelernter authored a book, Mirror Worlds. The book had a hard cover printing of ten thousand copies and a paperback printing of between five and ten thousand copies. Gelernter advised the UTF that a book store "out west" designated Mirror Worlds as a Book of the Month selection. Gelernter believed that his publisher, Oxford University Press, his editor, Jeff Robbins, or a female whose identity Gelernter does not recall, in New York City, might be able to identify the book store and provide additional information regarding the marketing of his book.

In September, 1989, Gelernter received a letter from the Information Systems Center at the Veterans Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah. The letter requested that Gelernter as a Decision Support Technology (DST) developer to complete a questionnaire regarding DSTs. The letter was signed by Gordon E. Moorehead, Director, Information Systems Center, Salt Lake City. Moorehead was interviewed and identified the letter as part of a mass mailing done with regard to the DST project of Dr. John Williamson, former director of the Veterans Administrations Health Service Research and Development Project and Homer Warner, Chairman of the University of Utah's Department of Medical Informatics. The letter had been accompanied by an article "A Decision Support Technology Clearinghouse" offered by Curtis L. Anderson, Henry Lundsgaard, John Williamson, Marie Abaunza and Homer Warner, all from the Medical Informatics Department University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Dr. John W. Williamson identified the mailings as part of a mass mailing sent to DST developers across the United States by the DST Clearinghouse

Project. The project had been initiated by the National Invitational Conference for Decision Support Technology held in Salt Lake City in September, 1985. Williamson was unfamiliar with Dr. Gelernter, but stated that letters and questionnaires were sent to all DST developers who could be identified by the project staff. A review of the participant list of the National Invitational Conference revealed that Dr. Gelernter was not a participant in the conference.

On 1/20/94, the DST database was queried regarding the questionnaire sent to Gelernter and any information in the database regarding Gelernter. Gelernter's name did not appear on the DST projects mailing list and there was no information in the DST database regarding Gelernter. On 1/24/94, UTF Agents examined the contents of ten file boxes of material assembled during the DST clearinghouse project. A file folder was found labeled "Gelernter, D and J expert says and diag. monitors in psychiatry". Contained in the file folder was a xerox copy of an article printed on medical informatics in 1986 entitled, "Expert Systems in Diagnostic Monitors in Psychiatry", authored by Dr. Gelernter and Joel Gelernter (victim's brother). The article was a re-print of an article from the proceedings of the 8th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, 11/4-7, 1984 in Washington, D.C. The article is about expert systems, decision support systems and psychiatric diagnosis.

No questionnaire was located in this file. An examination of other files reflect that each file contained the source document with regard to how each DST developer was identified. If a developer of a DST system returned the questionnaire, it was in his folder. In the case of Gelernter, there was no questionnaire in the folder. Dr. Williamson could not explain why the questionnaire was not in the folder. Dr. Williamson identified Danny Abaunza, currently with the Medica^ Informatics Department of the U of U as familiar with the identities of the knowledge engineers and staff who were working on the DST Clearinghouse Project.

Regarding the questionnaire, Gelernter stated it was not unusual for him to receive questionnaires regarding his projects and their status. He believed he may have discussed the questionnaire with Michael Factor and Scott Fertig, Yale Computer Science graduate students at the time. He stated he probably did not reply to the questionnaire since informatics is peripheral to the main thrust of his work. Gelernter speculated that his secretary, Christopher Hatched, may have kept a copy of the questionnaire if it had been completed and returned.

Following the 1985 conference, implementation of the DST Clearinghouse began. The Veterans Administration medical complex in Salt Lake City was the center of the clearinghouse development. Students from the U of U were hired to research, retrieve, read, filter, categorize and file DST articles. A graduate student from the Computer Science Department was hired to design and build the database. The project was under the direction of Dr. Williamson and Dr. Warner. The project became a full functional information retrieval system, expected to provide objective evaluations and a set of standards for clinically

testing DST in expert systems. From 1986 through 1990 letters were sent to approximately 600 to 1000 DST developers inquiring about DST systems and various stages of development. Eventually however the DST project died for lack of funding. Gelernter visited the University the Utah Campus in the later part of 1986 or the earlier part of 1987. He had done so at the invitation of John Van Rosendale. He spoke with a group of computer science graduate students. His speech concerned "Linda Parallel Program, symmetric L.I.S.P." After the speech he was approached by Gary Lindstrom, a U of U computer Science Professor and requested to submit a paper to the "International Journal of Parallel Programming." Lindstrom was the Editor of the journal. Gelernter succeeded Lindstrom as Editor.

Dr. Joel Gelernter, brother of victim, David Gelernter, works at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), West Haen, Connecticut. On June 24, 1993, at approximately 10:05a.m., EDT, the hospital mailroom received an anonymous telephone call in which a male voice repeatedly stated, "your next". This call occurred approximately two hours after victim David Gelernter was injured by a mail bomb. It is known that the news media had broadcast the story of the Gelernter explosion prior to 10:00a.m. EDT. A review of the telephone records at the VAMC determined that one long distance call was received by the VAMC at 10:02a.m. EDT. An originating telephone number search has determined that the number from which the call was made was (313) 936-1448. This number is listed to the University of Michigan, School of Education Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The number lists two persons who may have access to the phone having that number; Patty Martin, contact number (313) 936-9999, and Dave Boyer. It is unknown what these two persons do at the University of Michigan and if they control the access to the telephone having the number (313) 936-1448.

Appendix Q shows theJocation in Sacramento from where it is believed Devices 13 and 14 were mailed.

DEVICE #15: ADVERTISING EXECUTIVE, NORTH CALDWELL, NJ; 12/1Q/94

Description of Device:

On Saturday, December 10, 1994, at approximately 11:00 AM, Thomas J. Mosser, General Manager, Young and Rubicam, was opening mail in the kitchen of his home in North Caldwell, New Jersey. As Mosser prepared to open the package, the device detonated and killed Mr. Mosser. The package was mailed from San Francisco, postmarked "December 3, 1994". The package was constructed of white, corrugated cardboard. It bore four $1.00 Eugene 0'neill playwright stamps and three 25 cent Flag and Cloud postage stamps. A typed red, white, and blue address label was used for the mailing label. The label, affixed to the white cardboard box had the following type of lettering:

FROM: "H.C. Wickel

Department of Economics San Francisco State University

San Francisco, Ca 94132"

TO: "Thomas J. Mosser 15 Aspen Dr. N Caldwell, NJ 07006-4555"

Forensics

FBI Laboratory examinations of the remnants of the bomb debris for the device indicated the following:

Fragments of the aluminum pipe had striation marks in the pipe which indicated wire was wrapped around the pipe. Just prior to the pipe fragmenting, the pipe swelled, leaving this type of striation mark on the aluminum pipe. The wire added to the fragmentation effect of the device. An uninsulated, single strand, steel type wire measuring approximately 0.030 inches in diameter was wrapped around both ends of the pipe and held in place with set pins and clear adhesive. The exact function of this wire could not be determined due to the condition of the pipe, however, this is the type of wire that produced the striation marks in the pipe. Both ends of the aluminum pipe were sealed with metal plugs having an outside diameter of approximately 7/8 inches and length of 1 3/8 inches. Each of the metal plugs had 2 holes measuring approximately 1/4 inch in diameter drilled transversely that align with 2 holes drilled in the aluminum pipe. Metal locking pins extended completely through both the plug and the pipe wall securing the metal plugs in the pipe ends. The pins had a diameter of approximately 1/4 inch and a length of approximately 11/2 inches. A steel collar having a thickness of approximately 3/32 inch was placed over each end of the pipe containing the end plugs and secured in place with the existing locking pins holding the end plugs in place. One of the metal plugs used to seal the aluminum pipe had 2 holes measuring approximately 0.078 inches in diameter drilled through its long axis with 2 red insulated, single conductor, single strand copper wires having a diameter of 18 gauge wire inserted through the holes. These 2 wires formed the electrical connection for the hot wire initiator. The hot wire initiator (or bridge wire) could not be identified due to the condition of the components. The device utilized an improvised switch constructed out of wood, metal, cooper, wire and nails. The switch was housed in an improvised bracket constructed out of aluminum, metal pins and brass screws. The bracket was designed to accommodate the improvised wedge-shaped wooden switch allowing the switch to pivot. Present were the fragmented remains of a white corrugated paper box which contained the IED and was also used as a shipping container through the U.S. Mail. The white cardboard box measured approximately 7 1/4" wide by 2 1/4" high and 9 1/2 " in length. The manufactured red lettering "the Car" and a red line were identified on fragments of the white cardboard. The white cardboard box had additional sections of white cardboard glued to the inside of the box to form a double wall of thickness. Fragments and splinters of wood consisting of douglas-fir, redwood, hardwood dowels, hardwood, and particle board were examined. This wood formed the container for the IED and was placed inside the white cardboard box.

The exact relationship of the wood fragments to other bomb components could not be determined due to the mutilated condition of the specimens.

Present within the submitted specimens were fragments of a

wrapping type paper. Present were the following types of wire: Green, white and black insulated, multi-strand copper wires, of 30 gauge; white insulated, multistrand copper wire, of 34 gauge; red insulated, multi-strand copper wire, of 18 gauge; uninsulated, single strand copper wires having a diameter of 12 and 14 gauge; uninsulated, single strand steel type wire measuring approximately 0.030 inches in diameter; uninsulated, single strand steel type wire measuring approximately 0.012 inches in diameter; uninsulated, single strand steel type wire measuring approximately 0.008 inches in diameter.

Solder was present on all electrical connections in the circuit of the

device. Present were the remains of at least four 9-volt, Duracell batteries. The outer metal case from all the batteries had been removed. Present within the submitted specimens were numerous fragments of 3/4 inch wide filament tape and 3/4 inch wide black plastic and black friction tape. Present were the fragmented and intact remains of at least 100, 16 gauge, green paneling ringshank nails which were placed in close proximity to the IED and fragments from double edged razor blades bearing fragments of tape which were placed in close proximity to the IED. Uninsulated steel-type wire measuring approximately 0.030 inches in diameter was wrapped around the circumference of the aluminum pipe.

The results of a physical and instrumental examination of a powder

residue identified the presence of sodium chlorate and aluminum. A combination of sodium chlorate and aluminum can be considered flash type material. A blondish-red Caucasian head hair and a light brown Caucasian head hair was found in the debris. Textile fibers of different types and colors were found in debris submitted from the crime scene.

A "PRIORITY MAIL" and a "PRIORITY

stamped impressions were evident on the white cardboard packaging. Three .25 U.S. "Flag with Cloud" from a booklet and four $1.00, "Eugene O'neill" stamps from a coil were also affixed to the package as postage. Three postal cancellation stamp impressions with the information "SAN FRANCISCO, CA DEC 3 1994 PM", were also found on the package. The $1.00 "Eugene O'neill" stamps used on the Mosser device were from a coil, rather than the sheet stamps previously used. The sheet stamps have not been sold since 1979. The coil version was issued on 1/12/78. It was removed from philatelic sales on 1/31/91; although post offices were allowed to continue sales until their supply was exhausted. The .25 U.S. "Flag with Cloud" stamp was issued on 5/6/88. This stamp was issued when 1st Class postage was increased from .22 to .25 cents. It was subsequently replaced when 1st Class postage was increased from .25 to .29 in January, 1991. The stamp would have been available for a short period after that date. Three .25 U.S. "FLAG with Cloud" stamps were affixed to the package. They were turned on their left side with the flag pointing upward. From examination of lab photos it appears that a booklet version of this stamp was used. The booklet version was issued on 7/5/88. Green colored, paneling nails were used in the device as extra shrapnel.

On 12/14/94, TERRY L. TOWNSEND, Vice-President. Pacific Steel and Supply (PSS), San Leandro, CA was interviewed and provided some additional information about the green, paneling nails used in the device. TOWNSEND viewed photographs of the nails recovered in the explosion and identified them as being consistent with 1-inch, ring shank paneling nails. The closest color nails available through PSS were "avocado" which were manufactured for PSS by a company in Japan. TOWNSEND explained these nails were one of the worst selling nails PSS ever carried and could not locate any record of having shipped any of these nails to retailers in the past 10 years. PSS had an inventory of more than 1.8 million of these nails on-hand. (A sample of these nails was sent to the FBI Laboratory for comparison purposes.)

On 12/27/94, THOMAS PRATTI, Vice-President, PHILSTONE FASTENERS, 11 Cove Street, New Bedford, MA was contacted for information about the green paneling nails. Philstone is an importer and packager of nails and other fastener products. Philstone imported green (avocado) paneling nails until 1978 or 1979, but has not carried them since that time and would not have any in stock.

Investigative Summary:

The investigation of Device 15 focused on the victimology of Thomas J. Mosser; the return address bearing the last name of Wickel; anomalies regarding both the return address and the address as listed for Mr. Mosser; the actual mailing of the device; and forensics.

Thomas J. Mosser was born on February 9, 1944, in New Jersey. His father and mother are deceased. He has a sister, Mallory Butler, nee Mosser, a volunteer librarian who lives in Martha's Vineyard; a brother, David Mosser, a scientist and professor at Temple University; and a brother, James Kevin Mosser, a telephone repairman living in Florida. Mr. Mosser was the recipient of a BA degree in journalism from St. Bonaventure University, which he attended from 9/61 to 6/65. He served in the U.S. Navy for approximately four years, receiving an honorable discharge in December 1971. He was married to Sharon Brennan on 3/19/70 and had two children, Abigail Katherine, born 3/24/73, and currently a student at Ryder University, and Thomas Franklin, born 5/30/75, and currently a student at University of Maryland. In December 1977, Thomas and Sharon separated. On 11/10/80, Thomas Mosser married Susan Reilly. They had two young children, Kimberly Annette and Kelly Cecelia.

Mr. Mosser joined Burson-Marsteller (B-M) on 3/24/69. He was promoted to Vice President B-M in June 1973 and to Executive Vice President for Young & Rubicam on 12/13/93. On 12/2/94, he had been promoted to General Manager of Young & Rubicam. Approximately 18 months prior to the device,

Mosser was moved from B-M to Young & Rubicam. While he was with B-M, he was transferred to London, England, to be CEO of B-M Worldwide. He was brought back to the U.S. approximately 6 months later.

The most interesting aspect of the address used on the device centers around the misplacement of the letter "N". The "N" should have been placed before Caldwell to designate the city where MOSSER lived, North Caldwell, New Jersey. Instead, it appeared after "Aspen Drive." MOSSER purchased the North Caldwell residence in 1990. In 1993, as a result of his promotion and move to England, a friend, Jim Carr, stayed at the North Caldwell residence. In January 1994, Mosser returned to the United States and moved into the North Caldwell residence. MOSSER's address was listed in several of the Marquis Who's Who directories. Only the most recent editions listed his North Caldwell address.

Who's Who In America

Date Edition Published Address

1995	49th	11/94	N. Caldwell, NJ
1994	48th	11/93	N. Caldwell, NJ
1992-93	47th	9/92	(Mosser not listed)
1990-91	46th	10/90	Glen Ridge, NJ

Who's Who In Finance and Industry 1994-95 28th N. Caldwell, NJ

1992-93 27th Glen Ridge, NJ

Who's Who In Advertising 1990-91 1st Glen Ridge, NJ

Mosser's listing was:

Home: 15 Aspen Dr N Caldwell NJ 07006-4555 Office: Burson-Marsteller, 230 Park Ave S, New York NY 10003-1513

During the course of the investigation it was learned that Marquis Who's Who In America was also available through a computer On-Line Service. In the On-Line version, there is no ambiguity on where to place the "N". The On-Line version is incorrect because it places the "N" after the street address, as did the subject:

Mailing Address:

Office:

Burson-Marsteller 230 Park Ave S New York NY 1003-1513

Home:

15 Aspen Dr N

Caldwell NJ 07006-4555

The UTF has held numerous meetings with representatives of DIALOG, 2440 El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA, in an effort to determine if anyone utilized their Online Services to search for MOSSER's address. The results have been negative to date. Mosser's name was also located in other business directories, none of which listed his residence address.

The UTF has conducted extensive investigation to locate all of those individuals with the last name of Wickel in an effort to identify an H. C. Wickel. No specific information was developed as to any individuals with the initials of H. C. Wickel who might be relevant to this investigation. It was determined that Wickel is a German name and that in the German language Wickel means to wrap, as in a package.

Following Device 15, the UTF built a mock up of the device and attempted to determine where it might have been mailed from in the San Francisco Bay Area. Teams contacted all of the window clerks in San Francisco postal stations and contract postal units which have Saturday hours; all collection drivers who were working in San Francisco on 12/3/94; and all clerks on all 3 tours at the California Main Rack at the San Francisco Postal Distribution Center. As a result of this effort, the UTF identified a postal clerk, MELBA BIDDINGS, at the San Francisco Air Mail Center (AMC), who believes that on 12/3/94, sometime between 12:00 and 2:00, she removed the device from the Express Mail collection box at the AMC. A video surveillance tape was recovered from the AMC. While this tape did not cover the Express Mail collection box, it did film the customer lobby area immediately adjacent to it. A copy of the video cassette tape obtained from the AMC was reviewed and confirmed that MELBA BIDDINGS made collections from the collection box where the MOSSER device was thought to have been deposited into the mailstream. Ms. Biddings was observed at 12:25 p.m. and at 1:54 p.m. clearing the Express Mail collection box. Ms. Biddings provided the following recollection regarding her handling of the package:

BIDDINGS advised that her normal working hours are 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and on Fridays and Saturdays, she collects the mail from the mail collection boxes at the AMC. On Saturday, December 3, 1994, BIDDINGS made the collections at 8:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m. 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. The 2:00 p.m. collection was performed at approximately 2:15 p.m. While emptying the lobby collection boxes at 2:15 p.m., the Express Box contained a package laying flat in the plastic insert within the collection box. This package was "paper bag brown" in color and heavy enough to require two hands to remove it from the box.

When she looked at the package, she realized that it did not have enough postage to be express mail and it was marked "Priority Mail". After emptying the collection boxes at 2:15 p.m., she combined the Priority Mail from the collection boxes with the Priority Mail from the clerk's window. She proceeded to separate the Priority

Mail into four hampers, 1) Northern California, 2) 940-941 Zip Codes, 3) states, and 4) 900-930 Zip Codes. BIDDINGS advised that she very seldom makes the 12:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. collections on schedule, but she is 30 minutes late at the most. At 1:00 p.m. BIDDINGS picks up the Priority Mail from the clerks window combines it with the Priority Mail from her collections and separates it into the four hampers. She never finishes separating this mail before 2:00 p.m. and usually not before 2:10 p.m.

On December 3, 1994 she remembers being very busy. She believes she emptied the Express Mail Box in the lobby first. She opened the box, tipped the plastic insert toward her and saw the package laying flat inside the plastic insert or it may have had a manila envelope wrapped around it. She looked at the return address and noticed it was San Francisco State, where she attended. She noticed that the package was not Express Mail although it was put in the Express Box. She noticed the "Priority Mail" stamp on the package but it did not have a "Priority Mail" sticker. She put the package into the U-Cart and finished the collection. When BIDDINGS was separating the Priority Mail following the 2:00 p.m. collection on December 3, 1994, she once again picked up the package, was not sure about the postage because it was so heavy and thought the package had been put in the wrong box by mistake. She noticed the package was going to Caldwell, New Jersey and she has friends named FREDDIE and CHARLES CALDWELL. CHARLES recently died of cancer. She thought the return address contained the name "Hinkley", who she remembered tried to assassinate the President. She thought the address must be an extension of the University.

The UTF contacted various executives of Young & Rubicam (Y&R) and B-M in an attempt to find a connection between Mosser and other UNABOM targets Larry Erle Snoddon, CEO of B-M, was interviewed on 12/12/94, and related some of the B-M accounts which had arisen in other UNABOM targets: American Airlines, United Airlines, and Boeing Aircraft.

A search was conducted of Mosser's office at 285 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, to obtain any pertinent information. A preliminary search yielded Mosser's monthly calendar books, internal documents, and financial and expense statements along with other items. In 1991, British Colombia's major forestry companies realized they were losing the public relations battle with environmental groups and hired B-M to balance the debate. B-M prescribed a citizens advisory board to demonstrate industry's willingness to listen and created a non-profit society, The British Colombia Forestry Alliance (BCFA), to promote the positive aspects of forestry. The BCFA was largely financed by industry and characterized as an industry public relations effort. In 1991, forestry companies in California faced the same issues as those in British Colombia. The BCFA is similar to the California Forestry Association (CFA), which would become the target of UNABOM Device 16.

The Air Mail Center Postal Office is on San Bruno Avenue East, adjacent to the United Airlines Maintenance Operations Center (MOC). In view of the previous interest by the UTF in the possible connection between the UNABOMER and the MOC, additional efforts were expended to identify MOC employees on the 2pm shift on Saturday, 12/3/94, the date of the mailing of Device 15. A number of suspects were opened based upon this inquiry, utilizing criteria of MOC employees with an Illinois Social Security Account Number working on the 2 pm shift on 12/3/94.

After the Mosser device, the UTF prepared a protocol in preparation

for the contacting of machine shops and tool and supply shops in the San Francisco Bay Area in an effort to develop information regarding the workmanship and use of specific tools in UNABOM devices. After the detonation of Device 16 and the death of Gilbert Murray, President of the California Forestry Association, the UTF implemented the machine shop protocol and contacted several hundred machine shops in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Appendix R is an analysis of the results of that project. Efforts

continue to assess the results of the machine shop protocol and subsequent contacts and additional efforts will be expended in this area.

Appendix S is a map showing the location of the AMC, the site of the mailing of Device 15.

DEVICE #16: PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, (4/20/95 MAILING DATE)

Description of Device:

On Monday, April 24, 1995, Device #16 was delivered by the United

States Postal Service to the California Forestry Association (CFA), 1311 "I" Street, Sacramento, California, 95814 at approximately 1:50 p.m. The device was addressed as follows:

To: Bill Dennison

Timber Association of California 1311 I Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814

From: Closet Dimensions, Inc.

Oakland, CA

The package exploded at approximately 2:19p.m., when current CFA President Gilbert Brent Murray opened the package. Murray died immediately from multiple traumatic injuries secondary to the explosion.

Forensics:

Due to the force of the explosion, nothing remained of the address

label. Information regarding the return address is based upon the recollection of the CFA employees who handled the package prior to the detonation.

The device was housed in a neatly made wooden box wrapped in

brown paper and secured with filament tape. The package was approximately 10" X 8" X 6", or the size of a shoe box. Approximately $10.00 in postage stamps were placed in the upper right corner of the package. These included "Old Glory" and "Eugene O'NeiH" stamps. The $10.00 in stamps would allow up to a 14 pound package to be mailed "Priority mail" from Oakland to Sacramento. The package had the words "Priority Mail" rubber stamped twice, in black ink on its face. The address label was plain white with no border, type written and centered on the face of the package. The return address label was similar except it was located in the upper left side of the package.

The FBI lab determined that the fragmented remains of the device

indicated that it utilized a sealed length of lead pipe as the container for the low explosive main charge, consisting of a mixture of potassium chloride and aluminum powder with an electrical fusing system. The device was designed to function as an anti-personnel device. The device employed a passive-type (booby trap) electrical fusing system as the means of initiation and was designed to function upon the opening of the package. The components of the system included electrical wire, 9 volt batteries, adhesives, tape, solder, a spring, and improvised switch and an improvised electrical detonator. The exact nature of the switching mechanism and wiring schematic could not be determined due to the fragmented condition of the devices components.

Investigative Summary:

In June, 1988, the California Forest Practices Association and the

Western Timber Association merged to form the Timber Association of California. In April, 1991, The Timber Association of California changed its name to the California Forestry Association (CFA). The CFA is an advocacy group that lobbies on behalf of the forestry industry at the state and national levels. Its members are logging companies, large land owner, and forest product companies. Pro and environmental groups often oppose the efforts made by the CFA.

William N. Dennison became President of the Association when the

Timber Association of California was formed and remained President through the name change until his retirement on April 30, 1994. He currently works out of his home in Chester, California. He is the manager for the Sierra, Cascade logging conference. Dennison is not listed in any addition of "Who's Who In America."

Gilbert Brent Murray was employed by the California Forest Practices

Association in April, 1988 as Vice President. He continued in that capacity through the merger and name change to the CFA. When Dennison retired, in 1994, Murray was chosen by the Board of Directors to assume the Presidency.

Murray was known by other CFA employees as being more "laid back” than William Dennison in his approach to the CFA advocacy.

Investigation has determined that the device package was processed

by the U.S. Postal Service Processing and Distribution Center, 1675 7th Street, Oakland, California, indicating that the bomb was placed in the mail system somewhere in the Postal Service Oakland district. The package bomb most likely entered the mail system sometime between 6:00p.m. on Wednesday, April 19, 1995 and 3:00p.m. on Thursday, April 20, 1995. (It is noted that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995).

Investigation regarding the return address, Closet Dimensions, Inc.

developed that the company designs, builds and installs home and office storage systems. They are headquartered in Burlingame, California and serve the area between Carmel and Marin County. Closet Dimensions advertises regularly in local publications, including Designer's Illustrated, Gentry, Marin Magazine, Diablo Magazine, and the San Francisco Examiner. These advertisements provide a brief description of the services provided by Closet Dimensions. Closet Dimensions has two showrooms in the Bay Area located at 1480 Industrial Road, San Carlos, California, near the San Francisco International Airport and at 3168 Danville Boulevard, Alamo, California. Closet Dimensions, Inc. also advertises in the "Yellow Pages" of the San Francisco Bay Area telephone books. There was no address listing for Closet Dimensions in the white pages. Closet Dimensions, Inc is listed with a telephone number only in the white pages. The company does not provide the address in order to monitor the effectiveness of the advertising in different regions of the San Francisco Bay Area.

IV, UNABOM CORRESPONDENCE & RECEIPT OF THE UNABOM MANUSCRIPT

In 1980 and 1985, the UNABOM subject provided the first of his

writings, associated with the Percy Wood and James McConnell devices, respectively. These letters were stratagems, used by the subject to persuade the victims to open the devices.

On June 21, 1993, the subject sent his first communication to

Warren Hoge at the New York Times: a short letter from the "anarchist group FC," in which he claimed responsibility for the Gelernter and Epstein devices, and stated that he would provide information about his goals "at a later date." Both devices were postmarked June 18, 1995 at Sacramento, CA; the Times letter was also sent from Sacramento, with no return address.

This short letter to the Times in June, 1993 was the first

communication directly from the UNABOM subject, and it is significant that it was addressed to the media, and particularly, to the New York Times- The subject continued this pattern when he sent his next letters, the longest of which was again addressed to Warren Hoge at the Times.

On April 20, 1995, four letters were postmarked at Oakland, California which were later determined to have been sent by the UNABOM subject. One, which bore no return address, his offer to "desist from terrorism" should the paper publish an article of his, was sent to Hoge at the Times- Another was a one- page diatribe against his 1993 victim David Gelernter, the envelope of which bore the return address "9th St. & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington DC 20535."

The other two letters sent by the subject from Oakland on April 20, 1995 were addressed to two scientists who jointly won the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize for their work in Genetics. One, Dr. Richard Roberts, received his letter, with no return address indicated, at his business address, New England Biolabs, Beverly, MA. The other, Dr. Philip Sharp, received his letter at the Biology Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston, MA. The Sharp letter bore the return address "Manfred Morari, 2735 Ardmore Road, San Marino, Ca, 91108-1768."

Morari was identified as a chemical engineer, a peripheral recent professional associate of a past victim, John Hauser (Berkeley, 1985). He was out of the country, in Switzerland, when the April, 1995 UNABOM events occurred; his interview by Swiss authorities determined that he had no known connection with Dr. Sharp, and that his association with John Hauser a recent one, consisting of having attended an occasional conference together.

On June 24, 1995, the subject sent his manuscript, with cover letters which were tailored to the recipients, to three publications and one UC Berkeley professor. The New York Times letter and manuscript were sent to Warren Hoge; the return address was "Calgene, Inc., 1920 5th St., Davis, CA 95616." The Washington Post editor Michael Getler received a letter and manuscript, with a return address of "Boon Long Hoe, 3609 Reinoso Court, San Jose, CA 95136." Bob Guccione at Penthouse received a letter and manuscript, with a return address of "John David Woldrich, 256 San Ramon Way, Novato, CA 94947." The final manuscript accompanied by a letter was sent to Dr. Tom Tyler at the Department of Psychology at UC Berkeley; that return address was "John T. Minor, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Nevada, Las Vegas."

On the same date, the subject sent two letters unaccompanied by his manuscript to: Scientific American magazine (no envelope or return address retained by the recipient), and to Jerry Roberts at the San Francisco Chronicle, with a return address of "Frederick Benjamin Isaac Wood, 549 Wood St, Woodlake, CA 93286."

It is significant that all the return addressees for the 1995 devices were featured sometime during the first half of 1995 in the San Francisco Bay print media. Calgene, Inc. was the subject of several Sacramento Bee articles, and was featured in a March, 1995 issue of Scientific American, concerning development of the "Flavr Savr", a genetically-engineered tomato. Boon Long Hoe, an executive of a Silicon Valley electronics company, was featured in the business news sections of local papers, as was John David Woldrich, an executive with a software development company, whose recent promotion was also featured in the media.

The use of Manfred Morari as a return addressee on the Sharp letter from April would appear to relate to the subject's apparent use of Who'S Who, since he appeared in the same area of the 1995 edition as did the December, 1994 victim Thomas Mosser.

Finally, in confirmation of the UNABOM subject's location in Northern California and the use he makes of the local media in his letters. Dr. Tom Tyler appears to have been directly addressed by the subject due to his interest in responding to comments Tyler made in a May 2, 1995 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, after the events in April.

The UNABOM Subject references four books in his manuscript. The History of Violence in America by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr was published in June 1969 by Bantam Books. The subject referenced Chapter 12 - "Urbanization and Criminal Violence in the 19th Century: Massachusetts as a Test Case" by Roger Lane. This chapter was copyrighted in 1968 by the "Journal of Social History". This chapter is not included in the 1979 or 1989 editions of The History of Violence in America by the authors.

Chinese Political Thought in the 20th Century by Chester C. Tan was published in 1971 by Anchor Books. The subject referenced Pages 202 and 259 regarding the philosophy of Kuomintang leader Hu Han-min and Carsun Chang on individual rights.

The Ancient Engineers by L. Sprague deCamp was published in 1960 with the first Ballantine edition appearing in February 1974. The subject referenced the Ballantine edition of The Ancient Engineers in Note 18 of the manuscript, describing the daily lives of people working in the same occupational field in different geographic areas of the world.

The True Believer by Eric Hoffer was published in 1951. It is not possible to determine the specific edition the subject is using. In paragraph 222 of his manuscript, the subject describes "leftist psychological types" and how to harness their energies in a revolution.

Investigation by the UTF has determined that The Ancient Engineers by L. Sprague deCamp was used by Prof. Richard Hartenburg at Northwestern University, who taught a History of Engineering course in the Northwestern University Technological Institute on the third floor of the North Wing, one floor above where Device 2 was found in 1979. Hartenburg's class was designed for Undergraduate Technology students. Hartenburg utilized the Ballantine edition of The Ancient Engineers. The book was available for sale at the Student Book Exchange located on the Northwestern University campus.

On 7/14/95, Robert C. Michaelson, Head Librarian of the Science and Engineering Library at Northwestern University, was interviewed by the UTF and stated that NWU had three copies of Chinese Political Thought in the 20th Century by Chester C. Tan. The three copies were all hardbound and were numbered sequentially. Copy 1 was located in the NWU Downtown campus. Copies 2 and 3 were housed in the Main Library on the Evanston Campus. Copy 3 was recorded as stolen.

V. INVESTIGATIVE ANALYSIS

A. Known Facts Emerging from Event Reinvestiqation

The following known facts emerge from an evaluation of the sixteen UNABOM events and the distribution of the UNABOM manuscript. Evaluated from an individual perspective, the known facts emerging from each incident offer insight into the UNABOM subjects familiarity with certain geographical locations as opposed to others; knowledge of the uniqueness of his targets; and understanding of the personalities of some of his victims. Collectively, these facts illustrate the patterns and activities of the subject as he relates to his environment, his surroundings, and his interests. A thorough knowledge of these facts will enable the UTF to enhance the UNABOM composite, and answer questions about the subject that will hopefully lead to his identification.

1) The UNABOM subject is personally familiar with, and has been physically present in:

Chicago, Illinois;

Elgin, Illinois;

the north side of Chicago;

the downtown area of Chicago near the University of Chicago Circle Campus;

Salt Lake City, Utah;

Provo, Utah;

the University of Utah Campus in Salt Lake City;

downtown Salt Lake City;

peripheral locations to CAAMS Computer Store in downtown Salt Lake City

the Brigham Young University Campus in Provo, Utah;

Sacramento, California;

Oakland, California;

Berkeley, California;

University of California at Berkeley Campus including Cory Hall;

the Hegenberger Court area of Oakland, California, near the Oakland International Airport;

San Carlos Boulevard, in the vicinity of the San Francisco International Airport;

2) The subject was in parking lot #5 of the Science and Engineering building, University of Chicago Circle Campus, Chicago, Illinois on May 25, 1978. The parking lot is bounded by Jackson and Taylor Streets.

3) In addition to being found in the Science and Engineering parking lot at UICCC, Unabom Device 1 was addressed to Professor E.J. Smith, School of Engineering, RPI, Troy, New York with a return address of Professor Buckley Crist, Jr., Northwestern University Technical Institute, Evanston, Illinois, indicating the subject's awareness of Professors Smith and Crist. It should also be noted that the Technical Institute at NWU is the site of engineering programs at that school.

4) There were $10.00 in uncancelled stamps on Device #1. There was a mail box located across the street from where the device was found. The UTF attempted to mail a mock up of Device #1 in the Postal box across from UICCC. The UTF mock up fit into the box, only after the ends of the cardboard mock up were bent. The UTF believes that the actual device made of wood would not have bent and would not have fit into the postal box.

5) The subject was in Evanston, Illinois at the Northwestern University Technical Institute on May 19, 1979. Device #2 was observed between 8:35am and 9:00am on the morning of May 9, but it was not until mid-afternoon of the same day that a student interacted with the device. The device was located inside Room 2424, on a table near mail slots which were assigned to Graduate level students and faculty in the Mechanical or Civil Engineering Programs. The north wing of the NWU Technical Institute where the office was located, was devoted to the Mechanical and Civil Engineering programs.

6) Device #2 was wrapped in brown paper with red colored polka dots. Investigation by Chicago determined that the paper had most likely been manufactured by the Gipson Greeting Card Company and distributed to Montgomery Ward Stores in the Chicago area.

7) The subject was in Elgin, Illinois on November 14, 1979. Device #3 was mailed from a Postal Substation in Gromer's Supermarket, Elgin, Illinois.

8) Device #3 utilized an aneroid barometer, Springfield brand. Investigation has determined that this brand of barometer was distributed by ACE Hardware Stores in the Chicago, Illinois area, circa 1979.

9) The subject was in Chicago, Illinois on or about June 3, 1980, when he mailed Device #4 to Percy Addison Wood, President of United Airlines. The parcel did not have a postmark, but did contain a June 3, 1980 copy of the Chicago Sun Times as filler material. This particular section of the Times featured a John Fichetti cartoon about an unemployed "person feeding park pigeons". The package was preceded by a letter from an individual identifying himself as ENOCH FISCHER telling Wood that the book should be read by all who make important decisions affecting the public welfare. The section of Chicago Sun Times also featured an advertisement for the hiring of new college graduates at Morton Thiokol, Inc., in Brigham City, Utah.

10) Device #3 was built in a hollowed out book, Ice Brothers- During the April, 1979 time frame Ice Brothers was being heavily promoted at a Chicago bookstore, Kroch and Brentanos. The version of Ice Brothers used in the device was a commercially marketed version available in bookstores as opposed to the version available through the Military Book Club.

11) The subject utilized the correct home address for Mr. Wood, 887 Forest Hill, Lake Forest, Illinois, in addition to utilizing his middle name, Addison. Wood commented that only his closer friends and family generally knew his middle name.

12) The return address utilized on Device #3, 3414 North Ravenswood, was and still is a vacant lot. A portion of 3414 Ravenswood is occupied by a trestle support for the elevated Chicago transit authority Ravenswood line. The southbound area of North Ravenswood Street has numerous small businesses, generally relating to the metal fabrication industry. The entire area of northern Chicago appears to be populated by first and second generation German and/or Polish Immigrants.

13) The subject was in Salt Lake City, Utah, on the campus of the University of Utah, on October 8, 1981, when Device #5 was left in a hallway outside of room 306 in the Business Classroom Building. Inside of room 306 at the time was an ongoing typing class involving approximately 40 students.

14) The subject was in Provo, Utah, on or about April 23, 1982. The subject utilized the University Contract Postal Substation at Brigham Young University, located on the first floor of 240 Brewster building which housed the Student Union.

15) Device #6 utilized a sink trap. During 1982, in Salt Lake City, Utah, several sinks from old medical school laboratories had been removed and were outside of the respective buildings.

15) The subject knew of Patrick C. Fischer's Association at the Computer Science Department, Pennsylvania State University, State College Pennsylvania approximately 2 1/2 years prior to Fischer being the recipient of Device #6. Fischer had been at Vanderbilt University, for approximately 2 years. The subject did not appear knowledgeable regarding the current address for Professor Fischer, as he forwarded his package to State College Pennsylvania when, in fact it should have been addressed to University Park.

16) The subject used the correct return address for Professor LeRoy W. Bearnson, Electrical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 84602. The subject spelled LeRoy with a capital R rather than a small r. Utilizing a small r in LeRoy was a common mistake people made when addressing mall to Bearnson. The 1980-1981 and 1981-1982 BYU Bulletin catalogs misspelled Bearnson's name with a small r. However, The BYU Bulletin general catalog for 1978-1979 correctly spelled Bearnson's name with a capital R. This catalog identified Bearnson as being part of the Graduate faculty and, in fact from 1972- 1982 Bearnson was the Graduate Student Coordinator for Graduate Students at BYU.

17) The subject was in Oakland, California on May 8, 1985, when he mailed Device #7 to the Boeing Corporation, Auburn, Washington. On the device, the subject used an address of Boeing Fabrication Division, 700-15th Avenue, Southwest, Auburn, Washington 98023. This address was incorrect. The address should have been 700-15th Street, Southwest, Auburn, Washington 98002. The subject appears to have made this mistake through his misuse of the US Postal Service 1985 National Zip Code Directory which listed 15th Southwest with a zip code of 98023 and 15th Street Southwest with a zip code of 98001. This would seem to indicate subject's lack of familiarity with the address of the Fabrication Division in Boeing.

18) The misuse of this address is contrasted with the subjects knowledge of the Fabrication Division. Interviews of Boeing officials indicated that mail sent to Boeing Corporation was directed to the Boeing Corporation in Seattle, Washington and only parcels or packages immediately needed form suppliers are sent to the Fabrication Division address.

19) On the Boeing device, the subject utilized a return address of Weiburg Tool and Supply, 16 Hegenberger Court, Oakland, California 94621. The subject correctly utilized the zip code for Hegenberger Court in Oakland. However, Weiburg Tool and Supply is a fictitious company and there is no street address of 16 on Hegenberger Court. Mechanics Tool and Supply is located at 33 Hegenberger Court. This industrial section of Oakland, in proximity to the Oakland International Airport, is similar to the area in and around North Ravenswood, utilized as a return address in the 1980 device sent to Percy Wood.

20) In the 1985 time frame, the Boeing corporation dealt with approximately 500 sub-contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Boeing Corporation also participated in the March 13-14 University of California Berkeley Industrial Liaison Program. 31 additional companies were members of the Industrial Liaison Program.

21) The subject was in Room 411 of Cory Hall, University of California Berkeley, on Friday, July 2, 1982. This was a summer break holiday at UCB. Room 411 was a coffee room generally used by Graduate students at UCB.

22) Device #8 was designed to imitate a construction instrument, and appeared to take advantage of the fact that construction was occurring in the vicinity of Cory Hall and in Cory Hall on July 2, 1982. This would indicate the subject's familiarity with this environment prior to the placement of the device.

23) The subject returned to Cory Hall at the UCB on May 13, 1985. Device #9 was placed in Room 264 sometime on or prior to May 13, 1985. It was first seen several days prior to May 13, 1985. Room 264 had a cipher lock and was generally utilized by nine Graduate research students as well as the class of Professor Pollack.

24) Professor Pollack characterized Room 264, which was a small laboratory room, as a restricted access room, however, students often provided the cipher lock combination to their friends or other students. Professor Pollack exercised great care in closing the door to this room when he saw it open. Professor Pollack was out of the country at the time of the placement of the device.

25) Device #9 was fashioned from placing a 3-ring notebook on top of a plastic check container, which bore the actual explosive device. The check container was underneath the notebook and the two were held together by rubber bands. As in the first Cory Hall device, this device appeared to indicate the subject's familiarity with students and student customs, as well as the desire to create a device that would blend into its environment.

26) It is noted that the first Cory Hall device (number 8), was found in Room 411 by victim Diogenes Angelakas in 1982. By 1985, Professor Angelakas had moved his office to a room across from Room 264. Directly across from Room 264 was the office of Professor Charles Susskind, Room 269. In the 1982-1985 time frame, Susskind taught courses in Electrical Engineering and was teaching two courses regarding the History of Technology, "Technology in Society and the History of American Technology".

27) Between 1982 and 1985, Cory Hall at UCB housed the Departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. (Computer Science has since moved to another building). The laboratory, Room 264, where the second device was placed at Cory Hall, was located in a corridor which was off of the main corridor. An individual would have to be familiar and comfortable in this corridor in order to successfully accomplish his mission.

28) The subject was in Salt Lake City, Utah on Tuesday, November 12, 1985, the date of the post mark on Device #10 addressed to Dr. James V. McConnell, 2900 East Delhi Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103. McConnell had moved to this address in 1983 and his name with the address appeared in "Who's Who in America" in 1985.

29) Device #10 bore a return address of Ralph C. Kloppenberg, Department of History, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112. This is the appropriate address, including the zip code for the Department of History at the

University of Utah. However, there are no Kloppenberg's associated with the U of U History Department.

30) Professor McConnell had authored a best-selling introductory psychology textbook. Understanding Human Behavior (UHB) of which five editions were printed. The first edition of UHB was used between 1975 and 1977 In the Chicago, Illinois area at Judson College; Lake Forest College; Oakton Community College; Loop College; Amundsen Mayfair Junior College; and Northwestern University. In the same time frame it was used in Northern California at the University of California Davis; Chabot; American River; Solano, F’acific Union, and DeAnza Colleges. The first edition was also used at U of U and BYU.

31) Approximately one month prior to receiving Device #10, on October 11 and 15, 1985, McConnell sent a marketing letter to approximately 168 Professors across the country marketing his latest fifth edition of UHB.

32) The UTF has located a Eugene Kloppenberg residing in Sacramento, California, who attended the University of Santa Clara, California for three years, majoring in Electrical Engineering. Eugene Kloppenberg retired from Pacific Bell telephone company in 1977 after 37 years of work. His daughter Susan married a Ralph Price who works on the artificial heart at the University of Utah Medical Center. Susan Price is also an employee of the University of Utah Medical Center in the Radiology Department, where she and her husband have been working since July, 1985. The UTF has identified a Jack Ralph Kloppenberg, Jr., Professor of Rural Sociology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Jack Ralph Kloppenberg attended Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois from September, 1975 to May, 1976, when he received his Master of Arts Degree in Anthropology. While at Northwestern, Kloppenberg was a resident dorm assistant at Kendall College. In 1983, articles written by Kloppenberg appeared in the journal entitled, "The Insurgent Sociologist." Kloppenberg's current specialty is social issues that affect agriculture, including environmental issues and new technology. His writings are found in College and University libraries.

33) The subject was in Salt Lake City, Utah at 9:30am on Friday, February 20, 987. At that time, he placed a device in the rear parking lot of CAAMS, Inc., 270 East 900 South, Salt Lake City, Utah.

34) The subject was observed placing the CAAMS device and subsequently described by a witness as having strawberry blond colored hair, 5'10", 6' tall, 165 pounds, light strawberry blond colored mustache, with a reddish flush, rough looking complexion and hands whiter than his face. He was wearing a grey hooded sweatshirt, aviator sunglasses, and clean Levi's.

35) CAAMS, Inc., had business contracts with the University of Utah during the time frame of the device.

36) CAAMS, Inc., was located in an area surrounded by residential housing. When the subject was observed exiting the rear parking lot, he was observed walking in the direction of a residential street.

37) The subject was in Sacramento, California on June 18, 1983 at which time he mailed Devices 13 and 14 to Professor Charles J. Epstein, 19 Noche Vista Lane, Belvedere Tiburon, California and Dr. David Gelernter, New Haven, Connecticut. The postmarks on both parcels indicated that the UNABOM subject was in Sacramento, California on Friday 6/18/93.

38) Professor Epstein's name and address appeared to have been obtained in "Who's Who in America", which utilized the Belvedere-Tiburon terminology. This characterization of the area in which Professor Epstein lives is not normally utilized. Usually, an address contains only the location of Tiburon, California.

39) On Monday, June 21, 1993, the subject mailed his first letter to the New York Times from Sacramento, California, indicating he was in Sacramento on that date. In the letter, subject claimed credit for Devices 13 and 14.

40) The subject knew of Professor Epstein, 19 Noche Vista Lane, Belvedere-Tiburon, California 94920; David Gelernter, Computer Science Department, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut; James Hill, Chemistry Department CSU, Sacramento, California 95819; Mary Jane Lee, Computer Science, CSU, Sacramento, California 95819-601; and Warren Hoge, Assistant Managing Editor, New York Times, 229 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 07748. While Epstein and Gelernter were the victims, Hill and Lee were used as return addresses on the respective packages to Epstein and Gelernter.

41) The UNABOM subject was in San Francisco, California, on December 3, 1994. The UTF has confirmed that a Postal Collections clerk at the San Francisco Airport Mail Center (AMC) collected Device #15 from an Express Collection Box at the AMC shortly after 2:00 p.m. on December 3, 1994. The Postal Collections Clerk recalled certain aspects of the package which distinguished it in her mind, specifically the weight of the parcel; its marking with Priority Mail; the return address of San Francisco State; the name Caldwell on the address label of the package; and the fact that it was a priority mail item placed in an Express Mail Box. (It is noted that the AMC is located approximately three quarters of a mile on an access road leading from the United Airlines Maintenance Operations Center to the AMC).

42) The return address on Device #15 read, "H.C. Wickel, Department of Economics, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, Ca 94132." The UTF has been unable to locate any individual by the name of H.C. Wickel who has ever been affiliated with a university department in California or any other state. The Zip code utilized in the return address, 94132, is the current zip code for the area of San Francisco in which San Francisco State University is located.

43) Regarding the addressee on Device #15, the UTF has determined that Dialogue's On-Line computer listing for Mr. Mosser's address is exactly the same as the address used on the lED's mailing label, that is:

THOMAS J. MOSSER

15 Aspen Dr. N

Caldwell, NJ 07006-4555

44) On April 24, 1995, UNABOM Device #16 detonated in the office(s) of the California Forestry Association CFA), killing the CFA President Gilbert Murray. The device had been mailed to "William Dennison, Timber Association of California, 1311 I Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, California, 95914". The return address was, "Closet Dimensions, Inc., Oakland, California".

45) The Timber Association of California changed its name to the CFA in April, 1991. William Dennison retired as CFA President on April 30, 1994.

46) Closet Dimensions, Inc., is located at 1480 Industrial Road, San Carlos, California. The company manufactures closet/storage units for garage and home workshops. Its clientele is restricted to the San Francisco Bay Area, with an emphasis in the East Bay. It advertises in the following publications:

a) San Francisco Examiner Weekly Magazine, b) Diablo Magazine, 2520 Camino Diablo, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California 94596. c) Designers Illustrated (covers San Francisco Peninsula primarily) located in Redwood Shores (415-568-9500). d) Gentry Design (offices located in Menlo Park, California) (415-324-1818).

47) Investigation has determined that the subject mailed four letters on 4/20/95. The recipients were: David Gelernter, victim of IED #14; Warren Hoge, Assistant Managing Editor of The New York Times; Dr. Richard J. Roberts, a Nobel prize winning scientist employed at New England Biolabs in Beverly, Massachusetts; a second Nobel prize winner, Dr. Philip Sharp, at the Biology Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. All four letters bore the postmark, "Oakland, California, 20 APR 1995, PM", indicating the subject was in Oakland, California, on 4/20/95.

48) Copies of the UNABOM manuscript mailed to four individuals on 6/24/95 were mailed from San Francisco, California, indicating that the subject was in San Francisco, California, on 6/24/95.

49) The UNABOM subject sent a letter to Prof. Tom Tyler, University of California at Berkeley, after Tyler had appeared in an article in the 5/2/95 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle and rendered opinions on the UNABOM subject.

The UNABOM subject would have to have read this article, indicating he had access to the Tuesday 5/2/95 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle.

B. Forensic Evaluation

Forensic examination of UNABOM devices and correspondence has determined the following with respect to items of an evidentiary nature.

Fingerprints

There are 15 latent fingerprints available for comparisons from UNABOM devices and correspondence. The devices and prints are as follows:

University of Chicago - one impression of a fingerprint or palmprint, in photograph form submitted by BATF.

Device #7, University of California-Berkeley campus - one fingerprint and one palmprint are available from this crime scene.

Device #8 Boeing Corporation - A photograph of one fingerprint lift.

New York Times letter dated 6/24/93 - four fingerprints are available for comparison purposes.

Device #16, California Forestry Association - one fingerprint has been lifted from gray duct tape.

Documents sent to Prof. Tom Tyler, University of California-Berkeley - three fingerprints are available from these documents.

Utilization of Typewriter

The UNABOM subject has utilized a typewriter in the following devices:

Device #4 (Percy Wood);

Device #6 (Patrick Fischer, Vanderbilt University);

Device #7 (UC Berkeley, 7/2/82);

Device #8 (Boeing Fabrication Division);

Device #10 (James V. McConnell);

Device #13 (Charles Epstein);

Device #14 (David Gelernter);

Device #15 (Thomas Mosser);

Device #16 (Gilbert B. Murray).

In Device 4, the subject utilized a Ransmayer Elite 2.12 spacing. In the remaining devices, the subject has utilized a L. C. Smith Corona, 2.54 spacing.

The correspondence produced by the subject since 1993 has been typed, utilizing the L. C. Smith Corona, 2.54 spacing.

DNA

DNA samples of possible value have been obtained from Device 14 (David Gelernter) and Device 15 (Thomas Mosser).

"FC" Carved into the Device

Eight of the subject's devices have been engraved with the metal stamp letters "FC". The subject has referred to himself or his "anarchist group" as "FC". "FC" has appeared on the end plugs of the following devices:

Device 4 (Percy Wood)

Device 5 (University of Utah)

Device 6 (Patrick C. Fischer, Vanderbilt University)

Device 8 (Boeing Fabrication Division)

Device 9 (University of California-Berkeley, 5/15/85)

Device 10 (James McConnell)

Device 11 (Rentech)

Device 12 (Caams Computer Store)

Evaluation of Items for Comparison Purposes

The FBI Laboratory has advised that the following items are available for comparison purposes upon the identity of the subject, with respect to each UNABOM device:

Device #1 (UICCC): the handprinting on the brown wrapping paper of the first device will require known handprinting of the same text for comparison purposes.

Device #2 (Northwestern): Ends of some of the lengths of tape are suitable for comparison, as is solder present on the bridgewire assemblies.

Device #3 (AA Fit 444): Ends of some of the five kinds of tape used are suitable for comparison, as is epoxy or adhesive in the device; some of the brass wood screws; and solder on the bridgewire assemblies.

Device #4 (Percy Wood): The letter bearing the typewritten text and dated 6/3/80 has been retained for typewriting comparison. The smokeless powder (IMR) is also suitable for comparison purposes.

Device #5 (U of U): The smokeless (IMR) powder is suitable for comparison purposes. Reddish-blonde hairs found within the three layers of tape on the device are suitable for comparison purposes. The layers of tape were black electrical, masking, and nylon shipping. The cut or torn tape ends are also suitable for comparison from this device.

Device #6 (Fischer): The smokeless powder, some ends of the tape, a brown Caucasian head hair found within wooden fragments; a black animal hair on the wood, tape, screws, and metal plate; marks on wood, tape, screws, and metal plate; and the zip cord fragments torn down by their length are suitable for comparison in Device 6.

Device #7 (UCB 1982): Tool marks, wire, some ends of the tape, quantities of adhesive material, and a chalky material containing a putty like substance are available for comparison purposes.

Device #8 (Boeing): Photograph of the latent print developed on the battery of the device are available for comparison.

Device #9 (UCB 1985): The ends of the tape are torn and are suitable for comparison. Solder and specimens of epoxy and adhesive material are suitable for comparison purposes. The notebook utilized in Device 9 has been identified as being manufactured by the K&M Company, Torrance, CA, K 311-15. This identification was possible from notebook fragments inside or outside the cover of the notebook. These fragments were stamped with this information.

Device #10 (James McConnell): Lengths of brown insulated zip cord have been torn down their length and are suitable for comparison, as are torn ends of the tape. Solder, epoxy, and adhesive are also suitable for comparison.

Device #11 (Rentech): Tool marks, clear varnish on wood fragments, fragments of tape, solder on many of the electrical connections in the circuit of the device, and tape and paper bearing a small drop of red paint are suitable for comparison purposes.

Device #13 (Charles Epstein): The following items are suitable for comparison purposes:

Tape ends that have been torn or cut.

The outer metal casings from all the batteries have been removed but can be compared with fragments at the crime scene.

Clear epoxy like adhesive is present in the construction of the device. Within the fragments of wood, battery, metal, and debris, 2 lengths of 14 gauge copper wire fastened to a piece of wood display manufacturer's extrusion marks. The soldered wire end was cut with a tool employing a pinching type action, such as wire cutters.

Typewriter writing on the labels. Wood utilized in the box.

Fragments of the padded envelope.

One end of the copper tube has been cut and is suitable for comparison purposes with the parent copper tube.

Cut and/or torn tape ends.

Wires in the device are suitable for comparison purposes.

Solder is of limited comparative value.

Materials used to construct both the switch and the bracket are suitable for comparison purposes.

Adhesive found in the device in the fragments of wood, metal, and debris, and the fragments of wood and envelope in the Gelernter device are alike in texture and nature.

Device #14 (David Gelernter): The following items are suitable for comparison purposes:

All tape, cut or torn.

The outer metal casings of the batteries.

Epoxy adhesive.

Toolmarks found on a piece of wire. Portions of the wires which were sanded or ground, removing some of the manufacturer's extrusion marks. Distortion of the remaining extrusion marks due to blast damage and bending results in limited value.

Length of 12 gauge copper wire cut with a pinching type tool such as a wire cutter bears toolmarks of value.

Fragments of the label, stamps, and envelope have DNA suitable for comparison.

Redwood panelling and hardwood pegs and dowels.

Fragments of the padded envelope and the staples.

Wires, metal casings, and mailing labels.

Materials used to construct the switch and bracket.

An unidentifiable animal hair.

The lab states that metallurgical examinations will take weeks, "However, it is noted that if the results of the additional examinations are consistent with the preliminary examinations, the information derived most likely will be incriminating evidence rather than lead information."

Device #15 (Thomas Mosser): The following items are suitable for comparison purposes:

Material used to construct both the switch and bracket.

Wood fragments from the box.

Brown paper, outer metal casings, all tape ends, cut or torn, and textile fibers of different types of colors.

Solder is of limited value for comparison.

A blondish-red Caucasian head hair found in kitchen debris.

The end of one wire bearing toolmarks.

Device #16 (Gilbert Murray): The following items are suitable for comparison purposes:

One latent print on a piece of tape.

Lead in the pipe, calcium sulfate coating on pipe. Black rubber substance on the pipe, and the jute type cordage.

Copper tube, metal plugs, and metal pins in detonator.

Cast aluminum, mold utilized to manufacture the aluminum disk, green ringshank nails, and wire.

Wood from the box, brown paper wrapping, all the wires, battery casings, and cut and torn tape.

Blonde/brown, dyed human hairs, as well as dog and cat hairs.

Fibers from natural and manmade substances.

Materials Obtained from UNABOM Correspondence

The following items are suitable for comparison purposes:

DNA on the envelope to Jerry Roberts, postmarked 6/24/95.

DNA on the stamp and the flap of the envelope to Dr. Roberts, postmarked 4/20/95.

Textile fibers associated with the envelope to Dr. Roberts, postmarked 4/20/95.

Gray-blue cotton fibers from the envelope to Jerry Roberts postmarked 6/24/95.

Hair and fibers from the letter to Gelernter postmarked 4/20/95.

Blue print-dyed cotton and blue synthetic fiber from the envelope to Getler on 6/24/95.

Turquoise wool fibers and a red synthetic fiber from envelope to Hoge postmarked 6/24/95.

Blue-gray wool fiber from the letter to Hoge on 6/24/95.

Red wool, blue-gray wool, red cotton, and blue synthetic fibers from Guccione letter postmarked 6/24/95.

Textile fibers from the Tyler letter postmarked 4/20/95.

All ink, including typewriter and carbon.

Four latent prints from the letter to Tyler (supra).

Nine latent prints from the 1993 Hoge letter.

Independent Laboratory Analysis

The FBI Laboratory requested assistance from several independent laboratories in its examination of components utilized in the UNABOM devices.

Integrated Paper Services conducted an evaluation of the paper products as a result of this request. Device #5 (U of U), Device #9 (Cory Hall, UCB 1985), and Device #10 (James McConnell) contained paper materials which are alike in fiber composition. Most of the paper materials from Devices 2-7, 9, 10, and 13-15 appear to be from the same geographical regions as those from which the devices originated. Although Device #10 was mailed from Salt Lake City, the origin of paper materials from the device appears to be the West Coast. Paper items from Device #15 appear to have come from a west coast board manufacturer in the state of Washington.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories examined solder from Devices 4, 13, 14, and 15 and found it to be commonly available to the general population. The metallic alloys (aluminum and magnesium) from Devices 8, 9, and 13-16 likely came from the aerospace, automotive, or electric-power industries or from high quality salvage yards selling these items.

Oak Ridge Laboratory provided additional assessments of alloys as follows:

Plugged copper tube from device #14 made from commonly available products with many private or commercial sources.

The switch from device #14 is made of many different types of materials. Oak Ridge was puzzled as to why it was so complicated.

Washers from device #14 were made by melting and then casting aluminum alloy into the shape of a washer. The capacity to perform this function is available to anyone with a torch or small furnace, i.e. making jewelry or firing pottery.

A metallic tube from device #15 is aluminum and available in all types of stores.

Wire from device #15 is plain galvanized carbon steel and has many applications including binding products together and hanging items.

The end plugs from device #15 were crudely made from an aluminum alloy by melting and then casting in some sort of metallic tube.

Magnesium alloys were used in parts from devices 14 and 15. It is pointed out that the International Magnesium Association has a data base of suppliers and manufacturers of magnesium alloys.

Poor construction quality noted by Oak Ridge indicates the bomb maker is not meticulous as a watchmaker or toolmaker might be. It should not be ruled out that the bomber is deliberately making the pieces look the way they do.

Underwriters Laboratory, Inc., assessed wire in the devices.

Wire from device #2 came from electrical cord manufactured by Pacific Electricord, Gardena, CA..

Wire from device #3 came from Carol Cable in Pawtucket, R.I..

White wires from device #7 were manufactured by General Electric.

Other wire from device #7 is of Canadian origin.

Wire from devices 9, 10 and 12 came from Rhode Island Insulated

Wire.

The Virginia Polytech Institute advised that wood utilized in Devices 2- 15 is scrap type wood that may have been discarded by a business. Some pieces of wood may have originated from crating/box materials.

Consolidated Research, Inc., Adhesive Consultants, Inc., and PolySpec have been contacted in an effort to identify the manufacturer of adhesives associated with the UNABOM devices. Their efforts have met with negative results.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), in a report issued in June 1994 outlined construction characteristics of UNABOM devices that were illustrative of aviation industry tool preference and design philosophy, suggesting that the UNABOM subject is or has been employed in the sheet metal fabrication area of aviation or as an aviation mechanic. Specific indicators cited in the NTSB report included the use of soldered batteries; systems redundancy; the use of a metal fuel bladder; shimming; the use of Number 30 and Number 40 pilot drills; metal tags similar to those used in a machine shop to check out tools; and use of a belt sander. Devices 13 and 14 resembled ailerons in the aviation industry.

C. BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS REFLECTIVE OF SUBJECT'S EVOLUTION 1978 - 1985

The Investigative Support Unit (ISU) Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia, has prepared an updated behavioral profile of the subject, encompassing the most recent developments in this investigation. CIRG on-site representative to UNABOM, SSA Jim Fitzgerald, has incorporated previous profiles of the subject into the updated ISU profile, which is being fully utilized by the UTF in an effort to substantiate event and forensic information. The UTF has also received behavioral assessment from a San Francisco representative of the NFIP Behavioral Analysis Program (BAP), SA Kathleen Puckett, in view of the terrorist nature of the subject's activity and has requested from SA Puckett an assessment of the target selection, victimology, and motivation of the UNABOMER.

Taken together, the CIRG profile and SA Puckett's analysis provide significant insight into the subject and form the Behavioral Section of this report.

BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS RELATED TO EVENTS #1 - #4

EVENTS

1. University of Illinois at Chicago - 5/25/78.

2. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL - 5/9/79.

3. American Airlines, Fit. 444, Chicago, IL - 11/15/79.

4. President, United Airlines, Chicago, IL - 6/10/80.

The following assessment is based on the 7/8/80 airtel of SAs John Douglas and Russell E. Vorpagel of the Behavioral Sciences Unit (BSU).

1. VICTIMOLOGY

Information not available/not recorded.

IL OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS

A. Sex: Male

B. Age: 18-22 years of age.

C. Race: Not recorded.

D. Education: Some undergraduate college, physics/engineering.

E. Residence: Not recorded. However, environment is most likely upper middle or lower high class.

F. Employment/Occupation: College student.

G. Personality characteristics: Withdrawn, feelings of personal inadequacies, frustrated, little self-worth, overall lack of positive selfconcept. Could probably be diagnosed with an anti-social personality. He is a patient person.

H. Interpersonal/social relationships: He does not circulate a great deal with others. He may often times find heterosexual experiences difficult. He may appear somewhat gregarious and boisterous around members of the opposite sex, but this is only a mask covering his sexual immaturity and impotency. He is a loner.

I. Interests/Avocations: None recorded.

J. Criminal History: As a youngster, he may have involved himself in assaultive types of behavior. These first acts would have been directed at smaller forms of animal life, but as he grew older his victims would be adults. He may have been a suspect in arsons or other anti-social behavior acts. Voyeuristic activities would not be uncommon.

K. Physical description/appearance: No specific information recorded. It is believed that there is nothing outstanding or bizarre about him in a physical sense. However, abnormalities such as speech impediments, extremes in body size (small vs. very large), thinness vs. obesity, physical defect or ailment as a child, acne and body and facial asymmetry are all possibilities.

L. Motivation: These early devices could have been "practice" runs. These incidents typify him as an anger motivated bomber. An anger motivated by personal feelings of his own personal inadequacies. Like the arsonist, the offense itself has proven to be sexually gratifying to him. The thrill of hearing the explosion, making the intricate device, or simply reading about the incident in local newspapers or hearing about it on national television is a tremendous ego shot for him.

BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS SUBSEQUENT TO EVENTS #5 - #9

EVENTS

5. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT - 10/8/81.

6. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN - 5/5/82.

7. University of California-Berkeley, CA - 7/2/82.

8. Boeing Aircraft, Auburn, WA - 5/8/85

9. University of California-Berkeley, CA - 5/15/85.

The following behavioral analysis is based on the 7/12/85 airtel of SSA John Douglas and Dr. David J. Icove, both of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.

I, VICTIMOLOGY

Since the offender is anger motivated, the victims and targets of the devices are persons with whom he has a strong disagreement. However, the victim may not know the full extent of the offender's anger.

II, OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS

A. Sex: Male

B. Age: 28-35 years of age.

C. Race: White.

D. Education: At least high school with probably some college or technical school.

E. Residence: May work (or live) within hearing distance of the crime scenes.

F. Employment/Occupation: He is most likely employed as a technician or researcher, possibly at a university.

G. Personality characteristics: May have a history of substance abuse, and/or alcohol abuse. He is anger motivated with a poor self concept of himself.

H. Interpersonal/social relationships: He was probably raised in an unstable home environment where he may have had extreme pressures to achieve success from his parents. One of his parents may also have been frequently absent. Both sexually and socially, he is poorly adjusted and has problems interacting personally with both sexes, especially peer females. Due to poor social interaction, he has failed in many interpersonal relationships with women. If he dates, the females are probably younger than himself. He is not married and spends much time alone. Use of names Fischer (#4) and Weiburg (#9) shows a possible Jewish influence on him.

I. Interests/Avocations: If he has any hobbies, they would be loner type activities such as hunting and fishing. If he has a pet, it would be a cat or dog who has been with him for quite a while.

J. Criminal History: May include property crimes such as burglary, vandalism, and/or arson as a juvenile; he may have set fires in his own home or in the neighborhood.

K. Physical description/appearance: He may have physical defects Of abnormalities such as burns, scars, and/or acne skin condition, etc.

L. Motivation: Anger motivated, specially by personal feelings of inadequacies. The act itself may be viewed as a sexual substitute, where the offender receives excitement from making, setting, watching, and hearing the bombs.

BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS SUBSEQUENT TO EVENTS *10 & *11

EVENTS

10. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan - 11/15/85.

11. Rentech Company, Sacramento, California - 12/11/85.

The following assessment is based on the 9/16/86 airtel of SA David J. Icove of the NCAVC.

1. VICTIMOLOGY

Not recorded.

11. OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS

A. Sex: Male.

B. Age: Late 30's, early 40's.

C. Race: Not recorded.

D. Education: 2-4 years of undergraduate education, possibly attaining a B.S. Degree.

E. Residence: Not recorded, but may live in an apartment rather than a house.

F. Employment/Occupation: May change jobs periodically. A technical background.

G. Personality Characteristics: Unable to establish or maintain close intimate contacts with both sexes. He has a rich fantasy life. He has no pets and is excessively neat and clean.

H. Interpersonal/Social Relationships: See above.

I. Interests/Avocations: None recorded.

J. Criminal History: None recorded.

K. Physical Description/Appearance: None recorded.

L. Motivation: None recorded.

BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS SUBSEQUENT TO EVENTS #12-#14

EVENTS

12. CAAM's Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah - 2/20/87.

13. Physician/Researcher, Tiburon, California - 6/22/93.

14. Professor, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut - 6/24/93.

The following assessment is based on the 8/5/93 memo of Mr. William C. Megary of FBIHQ, which, in turn, reflects opinions of SA's William L. Tafoya and Mary Ellen O'Toole, of SFO.

1. VICTIMOLOGY

Not recorded.

11. OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS

A. Sex: Male.

B. Age: 43-53 years of age.

C. Race: White.

D. Education: Not recorded.

E. Residence: Not recorded.

F. Employment/Occupation: His employment record is varied, but will reflect research and/or teaching positions or occupations where interaction in such an environment is routine and regular.

G. Personality Characteristics: Highly intelligent, meticulous, deliberate, patient, imaginative, technically competent, high self-esteem, but low self-concept.

H. Interpersonal/Social Relationships: Socially, he lacks interpersonal interaction skills. He is a loner who is likely unmarried.

I. Interests/Avocations: He is an avid reader of current affairs and technical publications.

J. Criminal History: Not recorded.

K. Physical Description/Appearance: Not recorded.

L. Motivation: His motivation is revenge. He wants recognition and credit for his "work."

BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS SUBSEQUENT TO EVENTS #12-#14 (PART II)

EVENTS

12. CAAM's Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah - 2/20/87.

13. Physician/Researcher, Tiburon, California - 6/22/93.

14. Professor, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut - 6/24/93.

The following assessment is based on the 11/2/93 memo of SA Mary Ellen O'Toole of the SFO.

L VICTIMOLOGY

Not recorded.

IL OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS

A. Sex: Male.

B. Age: Not recorded.

C. Race: Not recorded.

D. Education: Not recorded.

E. Residence: Not recorded.

F. Employment/Occupation: Not recorded.

G. Personality Characteristics: He is seen by other people who either live or work with him as a fairly rigid and opinionated person. His outlook on life is pessimistic, and, at times, may appear moody or brooding. He possesses a sense of humor which tends to be macabre, at times even tasteless or inappropriate. Some may describe him as distrustful, even somewhat paranoid at times. He might also be seen as critical and defensive. However, this person is probably viewed as normal and definitely in touch with reality.

H. Interpersonal/Social Relationships: While there are people in his life that he may refer to as "friends," this offender is much more of a loner, preferring solitary activities and spending time alone. He is secretive about different aspects of his life which he discussed with few, if any, people. He has difficulty empathizing with others and feeling genuine compassion or concern. He may be seen as "cold" by some people. There is possibly a "significant other" in the Unabom suspect's life. This person, because of his/her relationship to the offender, knows, or strongly suspects, that this friend, family member, or co-worker is responsible for the series of crimes. The significant other would recognize many, if not most of the characteristics described previously. The significant other in this case is very likely aware of the suspect's preference to spend time alone, especially in areas of his residence or work environment, which he has declared "off-limits" to anyone else. He/she would also be aware of unexplained absences by the offender. He/she knows not to ask questions regarding these factors.

I. Interests/Avocations: He reads a great deal in a variety of areas, including science and technology, history, psychology, the social sciences, and law enforcement. His reading materials would include professional journals, newspapers, and books.

J. Criminal History: Not recorded.

K. Physical Description/Appearance: Not recorded.

L. Motivation: The motivation for these bombings has very likely evolved over the years. In other words, the reasons the bomber placed or mailed the first device may not be the same identical reasons he continues this activity. The offender is getting older and has "matured," and, therefore, it can be expected that the motivation behind this criminal activity has also evolved and changed, at least to some extent.

BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS SUBSEQUENT TO EVENTS #15-#16

EVENTS

15. Advertising Executive, N. Caldwell, New Jersey - 12/10/94.

16. President, California Forestry Associates, Sacramento, California - 4/24/95.

The following assessment is based on the May 1995, profile which updated an October 1991, Police Chief Magazine article. It was prepared by SSA Jim Wright of CIRG/ISU. Also included here is SSA Wright's May 1995 update of the 7/12/85 assessment of Douglas and Icove.

I. VICTIMOLOGY

Not recorded.

II. OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS

A. Sex: Male.

B. Age: 40-50 years of age.

C. Race: White.

D. Education: High school with some college, and he has a more than passing knowledge of the post graduate education process and requirements. He also probably attended a trade school.

E. Residence: He has either lived, worked, attended school, or made extensive visits to the Chicago, Illinois, area.

F. Employment/Occupation: It is likely that he would not seek work which would require public contact and communication. His jobs will not be menial, however. He has demonstrated enough technical knowledge and craftsmanship to enable him to hold a very skilled, job which would also negate the need to have contact with the public. It is still possible that he is a technician or a researcher who has also probably spent some time on a college campus.

G. Personality Characteristics: He is quiet, keeps to himself, does not have loud parties, etc. He has low self-esteem and a poor concept of self. However, this is overcompensated for by a sense of superiority. He spends time alone. He is definitely a loner but his solitary pastimes will not be hunting and fishing but rather reading "research" for his own purposes and bomb-making. There is no evidence of abuse of drugs and/or alcohol in his crimes. Nor is there evidence that there is a sexual gratification element to his crime.

H. Interpersonal/Social Relationships: He may be somewhat capable of being sociable, but elects not to try because of some feelings of inadequacy which he overcompensates for with an air of superiority. In his mind, others are not worthy of his attention. There is likely interaction with older females such as a mother, aunt, etc. It is unlikely that he is involved in a happy, longstanding, monogamous relationship with a female in his peer group. He may be married, but it will be to someone whom he can either totally dominate (younger, intellectually inferior, infirmed, etc.) or someone who totally dominates him. He may satisfy his need to be in control and exercise power through his Unabom activities because he is figuratively emasculated at home.

I. Interests/Avocations: He spends his time reading "research" for hi# own purposes and bomb-making.

J. Criminal History: Not recorded.

K. Physical Description/Appearance: Not recorded.

L. Motivation: He is motivated by anger and revenge. He harbors a grudge for lengthy periods during which he plans and schemes. The typical outward indicators of anger may be replaced with a calm as the plan begins to materialize. He does not feel remorse, nor does he fear detection. He has developed the attitude that he is good, too good to get caught.

BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS SUBSEQUENT TO EVENTS #16 AND THE LETTERS AND MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED IN APRIL AND JUNE, 1995

EVENT

16. President, California Forestry Associates, Sacramento, California - 4/29/95.

The following assessment is based on the 11/6/95, airtel of SSA Jim Wright of the CIRG/ISU. (Also, a CIRG/ISU airtel dated 8/24/95, is referred to in Section 1 and 2. L.)

I. VICTIMOLOGY

The Unabom subject's victims are likely so far removed from the offender that it is probable they did not know him. The victims are symbolic and representative. The offender's knowledge of the victim is remote rather than as a result of personal contact. There is no obvious common thread linking the offender to the victims. One of the most important points concerning the Unabom subject's targets is that they do not appear to be random choices. The ISU believes the targets selected by the offender are the result of a specific "victim selection process" designed by him, but also changed and modified between 1978 and today.

II. OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS

A. Sex: Male.

B. Age: 40-55 years of age.

C. Race: White.

D. Education: He has demonstrated a more than passing knowledge and comfort in environments of higher education and the post-graduate process. It is possible that he attempted, but failed, to achieve a post-graduate or even and undergraduate degree. He possibly attended a trade school.

E. Residence: He has either lived, worked, attended school, or made extensive visits to the Chicago area. He also has/had a familiarity with the Salt Lake City area.

F. Employment/Occupation: He is possibly in a trade or craft which utilizes a better than average knowledge of wood and metal work.

G. Personality Characteristics: The Unabom subject is vindictive by nature and his desire to "get back" or "get even" is not limited to the Unabom events. He is not one to confront anybody on a face-to-face basis, but is more likely to strike from a position of security and strength. When presenting his views to others, he is often very verbose, over-explaining his positions and rationale. He would blame any difficulty others might have in following his logic on their lower intelligence. The offender may be capable of being sociable, but elects not to try because of feelings of inadequacy which he overcompensates for with an air of superiority. In his mind, others are not worthy of his attention.

H. Interpersonal/Social Relationships: There is likely interaction with older females such as a mother, aunt, etc. It is unlikely that he is involved in a happy, longstanding, monogamous relationship with a female in his peer group. Any relationships he may have are based on dependence rather than healthy emotion. At his place of employment, difficulties there can be attributed to poor social skills and attitude rather than lack of ability to perform the job. His rigidity and inability to compromise or easily accept change would cause problems for him with other people, including co-workers. Academically, socially, and professionally, he can be described as an "underachiever."

I. Interests/Avocations: He spends a considerable amount of time engaged in solitary pastimes which would include reading and conducting "research."

J. Criminal History: There is no evidence of abuse of drugs or alcohol in these crimes. He would have attempted to be just as anonymous in his crimes as a juvenile as he is as an adult.

K. Physical Description/Appearance: Not recorded.

L. Motivation: The offender is motivated by anger and revenge. He harbors a grudge for lengthy periods during which he plana and schemes. His crimes are a manifestation of his anger. He does not feel remorse and may not fear detection. He has developed the attitude that he is good, too good to get caught.

The focus of the offender's anger is human targets. He needs these targets to displace his anger. To him, the computer is a tool, and he is "anti" those groups or classifications of people imposing technology on him and taking away his control. While the concepts of technology, computers, industry, etc., are a source of anger to him, it is individuals who have hurt him in the past.

SUMMARY REPORT OF ISU'S ASSESSMENT OF THE APRIL AND JUNE 1995 UNABOM LETTERS

LETTER TO DR. GELERNTER

This letter appears to be hurriedly constructed as evidenced by

strikeovers which do not appear in previous communications from the UNABOM subject. This may be an indication that he perceived a need for haste or was experiencing a sense of anger or a heightened excitement level. This letter is a departure from the UNABOM subject's behavior in that it is the first time he has communicated with a prior victim. This fact, in itself, combined with anger, may have contributed to his nervousness.

While there is no outright hostility expressed in the letter, the general

tone might best be described as "professionally confrontational." The salutation of "Dr. Gelernter" may indicate the UNABOM subject's intent to communicate on the same level. His use of the less formal and more personal "David Gelernter" on the envelope may have been to make the letter appear personal and, therefore, likely to have been opened more quickly by the doctor.

Possible reasons for communicating with Dr. Gelernter, to the exclusion

of other victims, might be Dr. Gelernter's highly advanced and theoretical work relating to computer science, which would significantly cause quantum leaps ins the field. This would possibly mark Dr. Gelernter as the prime or arch antagonist in the UNABOM subject's battle. Possibly coupled with his view of the doctor as the arch enemy is the theme of inevitability. In the book Mirror World by Dr. Gelernter, inevitability, in its controlling sense, is antithetical to the UNABOM subject and this direct contact with Dr. Gelernter is his way of shouting "No way." Dr. Gelernter was the most important target for communicating because he most clearly represents the essentials of what the UNABOM subject claims to detest and fear.

There is nothing in the text of this letter which suggests that the

UNABOM subject has had any previous direct or indirect contact with Dr.

Gelernter. This would tend to support our previous assertions that a majority (but no necessarily all) of the UNABOM subject's victims are most likely to be representative targets.

LETTER TO WARREN HOGE, NEW YORK TIMES (NYT)

Like the letter to Dr. Gelernter, the letter to Warren Hoge appears to have been written with the same haste, and possible emotion, as evidenced by the strikeovers not present in prior communications. This is noteworthy in that he provides such a sloppy sample of his work to a newspaper he hopes will publish his manifesto.

While the UNABOM subject's general goals and purpose of existing are set out, the specific goal and purpose for this letter is something else. The most important element of this letter is the UNABOM subject's desire to have his "article" published. This should be considered the gravamen of the letter because he punctuates it fore and aft with very strong motivators. If you do. I'll stop what I've been doing for 17 years! If you don't, more bomb(s) (with the implication of being bigger and more destructive).

The UNABOM subject is prepared to sacrifice a great deal, possibly even exposure, to gain notoriety for his cause and, possibly more importantly, recognition as THE master bomber. Perhaps his conditions for publication (serialization of a lengthy manifesto and the right to publish additional material for three more years) assists in identifying the true motivation for the UNABOM subject's recent activities; continued, periodic, long-term notoriety in the national and international press. He no doubt realizes that if he accomplishes his goal of periodic publication that, with every installment, there will be renewed interest in his case which will generate additional publicity. Adding to the gratifying effect of that publicity will be the likely public speculation about him and his cause. And, if he is good to his word and does no more bombing, there is a possibility that his image will change from that of a bomber and killer to a more positive one centering on his ability to elude detection (akin to lore about "D. B. Cooper").

The UNABOM subject's attacks on targets relating to computers, coupled with his letter to Dr. Gelernter imply that his real problem (no matter what its etiology) is fear of intrusion, the invasion of his person or space, directly or indirectly, by forces beyond his control. The archenemy appears to be the computer and the extension of this core anxiety to other potential target areas (genetics, environmental concerns, etc.) may not be so much an actual process of development of ideas as an expression of a developmental recognition of other sources of this same threat. The implication of this is, in an era when every aspect of our lives is affected by computers, any modern-day activity may be seen as a threat to the UNABOM subject.

A. LETTERS TO DR. ROBERTS AND DR. SHARP

There is little of analytic value in the content of these letters. However, there are some observations and opinions that can be offered when they are analyzed in the context of the other letters and mailing of the latest device.

Never before has the UNABOM subject provided prior warning to a potential victim and it is unlikely he has done so with these letters. His letters are a warning to all! Doctors Roberts and Sharp are undoubtedly representative of what upsets him and targeting of individuals similar to them is probable.

The intention of the letters to Doctors Roberts and Sharp may have bene to serve as further proof of the UNABOM subject's campaign against science and technology. It is possible others have received letters and are unaware of their significance.

It is interesting to note that in a letter comprised of three sentences, two of them are devoted to insuring that he gets due credit. And, by referring the recipient to Warren Hoge for authentication, he is guaranteeing that the letter will be brought to the attention of the media.

B. LAX BOMB THREAT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

In a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle mailed on 6/24/95, the UNABOM subject advised "FC" "is planning to blow up an airliner out of Los Angeles International Airport some time during the next six days..." As proof of his identity, he provides the first two digits of his identifying number. In his letter to the NYT, he retracts the threat calling it a prank to remind the public "who we _ If are.

As he wrote to the NYT,-the public does have a short memory. It is likely the UNABOM subject made his threat to set the stage for making his manuscript public. Such a threat was calculated to disrupt air travel and mail delivery, cause public concern, and generate considerable media attention, which it did. He chose to reveal the first two digits of his identifying number so that the threat would immediately be attributed to him. It can also be speculated that the threat was mailed to the Chronicle because he knew that, even though mailed on the same day, it would arrive before his manuscripts would arrive on the east coast. The effects the threat had on a vast number of people would guarantee major media coverage and give him at least twenty-four to forty-eight hours of advance publicity. It was a "publicity stunt."

The threat is consistent with what we see as an all-out campaign to publicize himself and his beliefs and get the manuscript published.

C. LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES

The UNABOM subject's June, 1995, letter to NYT consists of four

typewritten pages. The salutation is simple and direct, "New York Times: This is a message from FC: [ID #]."

The letter contains five basic themes-largely consecutive--which are: * Arrangement/Agreement for publication of the manuscript (article). * Justification of what "FC" is and what "FC" is not.

* A public apology for having claimed to be an environmental anarchist (now admitting that "FC" is not).

Criticism of the FBI and the course of the investigation.

* Philosophical discussion of morality.

The letter is most certainly a vehicle to transmit the article for

publication. The publication arrangements it cites correspond to those in the "bargain" offered to NYT by "FC" in his April, 1995, letter to this same newspaper. Both the language and protocol described by "FC" suggests that he has only a general but not specific idea of the process.

While the publishing arrangements are his first order of business, his second (physically separated from the initial two paragraphs by a series of dashes [" "]) is contained in one paragraph in which "FC" seems to need to

justify what he is and what he is not. He seeks to distance himself from the April, 1995, bombing in Oklahoma City stating that he "deplores" the "indiscriminate slaughter" that resulted. To further distance himself from this event, he repudiates any suggestion that the device he sent to the California Forestry Association was in any way "inspired" by the Oklahoma City event. The balance of this paragraph is clearly his justification that what might be described as his 'discriminate slaughter' is appropriate for what he is doing; i.e., even the wrong victim can become the right victim.

This need for justification is followed by an apology to a group with

which he previously identified--at least in a literary sense-radical environmentalists. In the April, 1995, letter to the NYT, "FC" was clearly portrayed as a terrorist group that championed the cause of radical environmentalists; however, based on a letter to the "editors of the NY Times" from an "anarchist" (who and when not specified), "FC" now (in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his June, 1995, letter) in effect admits that his previous assertion-a radical environmental cause-was not true and that "the terrorist group FC" "...felt we needed a label to apply to ourselves...". It is with an apparent clear sense of obligation that "FC" uses these two paragraphs (4 and 5) to distance the radical environmentalist movement from him and the consequences (probably as much the social as the legal) of his actions. The distinct importance of these paragraphs is threefold: (1) they provide an

appearance that "FC" has an eclectic sense of honor; (2) they seem to absolutely underscore the fact that "FC," no matter what its origins, has for a very long time been a one man operation searching for a current identity; and, (3) that he has no in-depth knowledge or allegiance to pure environmental issues.

His next theme (paragraphs 6, 7, and 8) is couched in criticism of the

FBI as an organization and the course of the investigation. His theme is apparent surprise and disillusionment that what he portrays as "the world's greatest law enforcement agency" is incompetent." Interestingly, in his statements and observations regarding this theme, there is no anger or hostility projected toward the agency, or individual investigators, and, other than his litany of inaccuracies or misinterpretations of facts relating to the case, he makes no attempt to pursue a line that would prove or justify any assertion that the FBI is in fact incompetent.

In presenting his final theme in the NYT letter, the morality of revolutionary violence, "FC" again separates this section from the aforegoing by the use of dashes [" "]. This theme is best portrayed as being rationalized

justification for what he believes and what he does. It may be safe to assume that no matter what he does he will find or attempt to posit a rationalized justification for it; but, this does not mean that he has no bounds by which he attempts to keep himself in check. Because, the theme also clearly sets forth that "FC" has both a concept and, most probably, an emotional sense of empathy-how functional or dormant is the question.

He unequivocally states his motive. ANGERI For him, the ultimate rationalization for it is the truth.

D. LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON POST

The UNABOM subject's letter to The Washington Post (WP) is the

shortest (only one page consisting of five paragraphs) and most direct of the letters known to have been sent by "FC" in the June, 1995, mailings. It is singular in its theme which says, in effect (only), 'Here is my manuscript and here are the qualifications for publishing it!'

"FC" references both the April and June, 1995, letters which he sent

to the NYT wherein he stated his bargain, "...to desist from terrorism if a manuscript we were preparing were published in accord with certain conditions..." While "FC" does not specify those conditions in the WP letter, he does state that he has enclosed a copy of "our" letter to the NYT and the presumption seems to be that all the conditions imposed on the NYT are extended to the WP. However, it should be noted that the June, 1995, letter to the NYT does not reference the requirement for publication of additional "FC" articles or commentaries over a three year period. Correspondingly, as the WP does not have "official" access to the April, 1995, letter, the publishers of the WP could argue that these "conditions" do not apply to their agreement to publish.

"FC" also informs the WP of his distribution of the manuscript—included as an enclosure with this letter-to NYT, Penthouse Magazine (PH), and "...a few other people," but does not identify these "few others." The ISU is aware of the NYT and PH copies, as well as one additional copy that "FC" mailed to Dr. Tom Tyler at the University of California at Berkeley, and as no further receipt of copies has been reported, it is probable that the term "few" was used to inflate (and thereby bolster) the perception of "FC's" circulation of the document. This assumption is supported by the fact that the total number of known copies is four and as all of these are reportedly carbon copies ("FC" apparently retaining the original) of a 35,000 word document, it is doubtful that "FC" retyped the manuscript to provide additional copies.

Perhaps the most interesting feature of this letter is a supplement which "FC" provides for his publishing schedule. Consistent with his prescription for the temporal order of publication reflected in the other letters, in the WP letter, "FC" is specific in citing his granting of the claim of publishing rights first to the NYT, second to the WP and lastly to PH. Each ceding the right to the next in line by declining to publish the manuscript, "...reasonably soon..." In his supplement, "FC" 'suggests' the possibility that "...if NY Times gives permission..." he would not object to "simultaneous publication" in both the NYT and the WP. In the opinion of the ISU, this constitutes a 'unilateral suggestion' from "FC," because, as previously noted in this communication, the letter to NYT does not even mention WP. In the opinion of the ISU, this strongly underscores the non-confrontational personality of the UNABOM subject-to-wit: he could not bring himself to tell NYT that he had 'cheated' on their agreement.

E. LETTER TO MR. GUCCIONE

The short and direct salutation, "Mr. Guccione:," sets the tone for this communication, namely respectful distance. This is not to suggest that "FC" is positing any genuinely felt respect or deference for either Guccione or PH magazine, rather it appears (from a full reading of the entire letter) that the UNABOM subject is taking no chances that any opportunity to get his work published will fall through.

"FC" recites the same prescription for publication that is included in both the NYT and WP letters and the Guccione letter reflects that a copy of the NYT letter was also included. However, "FC" also includes a codicil to the Guccione letter, namely, that should publication of the manuscript default to PH, the UNABOM subject, "...reserve(s) the right to plant one (and only one bomb, intended to kill, AFTER our manuscript has been published."

"FC's" purpose for this codicil, as set forth in the Guccione letter, is to place pressure on both the NYT and WP to print the manuscript as he ("FC") has no doubt that both newspapers would fully expect PH to publish. Correspondingly, "FC" unquestionably seeks to evoke a sense of dereliction of responsibility for both newspapers should they fail to publish; however, the addendum may also be a two edged sword. The UNABOM subject clearly disdains Guccione and moat certainty distrusts him also. Aware that PH is an "entertainment" magazine looking toward sensationalism for profit, "FC" should fully expect that PH might "jump the gun" and publish the manuscript well in advance of the prescribed schedule. Therefore, the potential lethal provisions attached to PH publication should also be seen as having a retardant effect on such journalistic prematurity.

Heightening this inference is the "carrot on the stick" effect of an "exclusive to Penthouse" (referenced below) which was provided only to Guccione. The "exclusive" itself may well be the most important single element in any communication yet provided by the UNABOM subject. This appendix to the Guccione letter is divided into two sections: (1) A claim that, in December, 1985, "FC" sent a letter to the San Francisco Examiner which was suppressed by the FBI; and, (2) excerpts from the putative letter.

While not explicitly stated in the "exclusive" it is implicitly expressed that the reputed 1985 letter was sponsored by the (successful) fatal bombing at Rentech. Correspondingly, it should be assumed that the UNABOM subject would be looking for some kind of recognition brought about by this success. However, in both the text and the excerpts, the UNABOM subject makes little, if any, reference to the December, 1985, incident-in fact, he totally excludes it from a litany of events that he takes credit for at the beginning of the excerpts. Curiosity relating to this matter is heightened when the second paragraph of the "excerpts" states, "We have waited until now to announce ourselves because our earlier bombs were embarrassingly ineffectual. The injuries they inflicted relatively minor."

The reference to the Freedom Club is as likely to be genuine as it is to be a red herring. The aims expressed in the purported "excerpts" are consistent with known, if arcane, Freedom Club tracts or publications contained in FBI files that were reviewed by the ISU. Additionally, the statement in paragraph six of the contemporary text of the "exclusive" which cites that "...this name, which we adopted early, is rather inane..." may well be a reference to the fact that the Freedom Club reportedly ceased to exist in the early or mid-1970's. That it is now "inane" may well be responsive to the fact that, while it forms the "we" persona of "FC," it no longer exists outside the UNABOM subject himself.

In summary, it is the opinion of the ISU that, based on the foregoing, it is likely that no letter was sent to the $an Francisco Examiner in 1985. While it is possible that the UNABOM subject may have written, or thought about writing, such a letter, he most certainly did not send it, and the version which is provided as "excerpts" has been constructed to correspond with contemporary (1995) needs. The reason for this stratagem may well be reflected in the first paragraph of the "Exclusive to Penthouse" section, to-wit: that, "...the FBI led the public to believe that 'the unabomer' had never explained his motives or claimed credit for any bombings...(and)...that the significance of the letters 'FC' is unknown." Correspondingly, as the UNABOM subject is apparently seeking justification for his beliefs and the bombings he has employed to advance them, it would be unlikely that he would want to be perceived as having so disregarded their value and importance as his true motivator that he would have kept them from public awareness for seventeen years.

LETTER TO PROFESSOR TOM TYLER

The letter to Dr. Tyler is seemingly enigmatic. The UNABOM subject uses this letter to transmit a copy of his manuscript to Dr. Tyler, as well as to pose to him a series of nine questions, he implies that he has selected Tyler based on a newspaper article ("Bombings Linked to Social Malaise," reported in the San Francisco Chronicle. May 2, 1995). This article identifies Tyler as "Tom Tyler, head of the social psychology group at the University of California at Berkeley," and that is how the envelope containing the manuscript and letter was addressed.

The theme of the letter's main paragraph (paragraph number two) appears to distill to a consistent and cardinal theme of the UNABOM subject, being perceived as being rational. To this end, he appears to engage Tyler in a unilateral, academic dialogue couched in the nine questions. The UNABOM subject does not specify how or if the questions are to be answered. While it should be considered probable that he would enjoy a response, it is possible that the questions were primarily rhetorical.

The enigmatic quality of this letter arises from his selection of Tyler as the recipient. The referenced newspaper article quotes four additional academics. One of these others, social psychologist John Dovidio of Colgate University, appears from the quoted material to be more compatible in social philosophy with the UNABOM subject. Tyler, on the other hand, may have touched on the UNABOM subject's fears, "a technological elite...(an)...all powerful group that's controlling people's lives." How much of the selection process involved Tyler's currently being affiliated with Berkeley (the site of two UNABOM devices) and formerly a faculty member at Northwestern University (also the site of two UNABOM devices)?

The most important factor, however, is that the UNABOM subject did select Tyler and proposed, if indirectly, the possibility of a further dialogue encounter.

LETTER TQ SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

This letter is the most dissimilar of the four mailed by the UNABOM subject in June, 1995. Different in style, it has no salutation and no spaces between indented paragraphs. Different in text, it does not concentrate on publication of the manuscript, does not elaborate on or seek to justify the bombing incidents, and only at the end-seemingly as an afterthought-is the identify of "FC," "a terrorist group" introduced.

What this letter does comport are three themes: (1) That negative physical consequences of scientific advances often are completely unforeseeable; (2) that negative social consequences of technological progress are far more difficult to foresee; and, (3) that ever major technical advance is also a social experiment.

According to "FC's" own statement, the letter was written in reference to an August, 1993, article in Scientific American (SA) by Russell Ruthen, entitled, "Strange Matters: Can Advanced Accelerators Initiate Runaway Reactions?" Additionally, the letter's only other literature reference is to a July, 1993, SA article, "Risk Analysis and Management," by M. Granger Morgan.

The text of the letter appears to muse on the probable connection between the physical risks, per se, posed to mankind by scientific experimentation and the social consequences of technological progress. While UNABOM appears to equivocate on the actual risks to the physical world that are presented by physical experimentation-probably dangerous but maybe not always--he leaves no question relating to negative social consequences of technological progress. He also appears to offer a muted warning, i.e., those "...who initiated...(technical progress)...can be forgiven for not anticipating its negative consequences...(but)...to continue to promote it is grossly irresponsible."

These themes are not disparate from those reflected in most of his recent communications, including the manuscript; however, the text of the SA letter appears to be more focused (cleaner and more crisp) than other exemplars which tend toward being discursive. The stylistic difference, as well as the concentration on 1993 material, may be indicative of this material having been prepared-at least in part-sometime (perhaps even months or years) before the others.

While there is no way to presently assess when "FC" obtained or read the referenced 1993 articles, should it have been at or near their date of publication, they would offer an insight into the UNABOM subject's areas of concern just after the 1993 bombings.

"SUMMARY REPORT" OF ISU'S ASSESSMENT OF THE UNABOM MANUSCRIPT

ISU's analysis of the UNABOM manuscript is based on three basic opinions:

* UNABOM's manuscript is a true reflection of his beliefs.

* The manuscript appears to have been assembled recently, as evidenced by reference to dated events, the format of the document, the continuity and unity of content.

* Much of what UNABOM attributes to society, in general, and certain types of individuals and groups is autobiographical in nature.

(The following excerpts were extracted from the "Conclusion" section of the original 7/14/95 analysis.)

* The UNABOM subject is not "crazy," nor is he out of touch with reality. However, it is the opinion of the ISU that with all of his references to "psychological conflict," depression, feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, etc., this person has experienced mental health problems throughout his life. These problems have likely become so debilitating at times that he has had to seek help through psychotropic medication, as well as other "intervention" techniques, possibly including electroshock treatment.

* While the UNABOM subject has been able to "function" in society, his writings indicate that he has not been very successful. His problems with depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, etc., have very likely interfered significantly with his goals for a distinguished career, higher education, and personal relationships, as well as other family relationships. This suspect could be described as an "underachiever" in all areas of his life.

* It can be seen in his writings that the suspect is very cognizant of his "failures" and his inability to achieve his goals. Throughout the article, he attempts to explain how these failures occurred. The disparity between what he actually achieved and his goals would have produced anger, frustration, anxiety, and depression in him which would have evidenced itself to those who knew him or worked with him over the years. As clearly seen in his writings, he blames everything but himself for his failures.

* The UNABOM subject is extremely sensitive about being perceived as irrational or crazy. It is likely that his sensitivity to this issue is long standing, and a result of his being ridiculed, humiliated, and embarrassed by others because of it.

* Along with his bouts of depression, it is quite likely the UNABOM subject is sexually dysfunctional and has suffered with this problem for much of his life. His sexual dysfunctioning would include not only the inability to engage in normal sexual relations with a woman, but would also include his compulsions to engage in various paraphilic behaviors. This subject is very sensitive about his sexual problems, intellectually cognizant of their inappropriateness. However, despite his feelings of guilt generated by his sexual practices, he suggests in his writings that he is unable to refrain from engaging in them. (It is important to note that paraphilic behaviors tend to be extremely compulsive in nature.)

* Characteristics of the UNABOM subject's lifestyle are also evidenced in his writings. Material wealth is not important to this man. He sees the accumulation of wealth as a surrogate activity. It is likely that this is a reflection of the subject's own personal beliefs about material wealth. Therefore, his own lifestyle, habits, personal needs, etc., will be simple and sparse. He will "make-do” with what he has, or do without resources which most of us would consider essential.

* The UNABOM subject's knowledge of and experience with "assembling" household items as has been seen in his bombs, may represent what he does at home to live. In Paragraph 209, page 51, the UNABOM subject writes, "Without factory-made parts of the facilities of a post-industrial machine shop it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. (Generators require large amounts of copper wire)..." UNABOM writes this statement with the confidence of someone, who from personal experience, knows what he is talking about.

* In addition, the use of the word "craftsmen" in this paragraph should not be overlooked. Webster's 9th Edition New Collegiate Dictionary defines craftsman as "one who creates or performs with skill or dexterity especially in the manual arts. Use of this term is very flattering and could be self-serving if the suspect used it to refer to himself.

* It is obvious that this individual spends a large part of his free time reading and writing. However, because of his financial situation and/or because of his tendency toward being a spendthrift, he will be dependent primarily on other sources for his reading material, rather than personal subscriptions to papers and magazines.

* If and when he was employed, it would be at a job below his abilities. When his mental problems begin to interfere with his everyday living, he will experience problems at work, which could have resulted at times in his being transferred, demoted, even terminated. Periods of unemployment are likely in this man's background. The UNABOM subject is very sensitive to this as he writes in Paragraph 175, "There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system...Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of their opportunity for power."

* This document is not the ramblings of a lunatic. It is a fairly well-written, logical, grammatically correct document, with no overt evidence of disjointed thinking, delusions, flight of thought, word salad, or other indications of severe mental illness. It's autobiographical component, which is seen throughout, personalizes many of the references and examples which are used by the author. These autobiographical references should be considered for lead value.

* The ideology expressed in this article represents the belief system of the UNABOM subject. It appears to have evolved over time, and has been refined to meet the needs of the suspect, i.e., an explanation for his life and his life problems.

* The most important aspect of this article for the UNABOM subject is that it be printed in a "legitimate" source in order to educate us that he is a rational, intelligent person who resorted to violence only as a means "to get (his) message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression..."

TARGET SELECTION AND "VICTIMOLOGY IN THE UNABOM CASE

Sa Kathleen M. Puckett, UNABOM Task Force November 13, 1995

Safety , Security and Secrecy

The first known UNABOM device was contained in a wooden box which has been described as "made by a person who apparently spent many hours on the intricate carving and assembly and was well-versed in the art" (memo of SA John Conway, 9/26/95). Although somewhat ingenious in design, its explosive components were rudimentary (i.e., match heads as the initiator), and did not indicate a familiarity with, or competency concerning, explosives as much as a mechanical orientation and a considerable degree of patience.

The $10.00 of uncancelled postage on the parcel seems proof that it was intended to be mailed, probably by use of the collection box near the location where the parcel was found. It is reasonable to conclude that it was abandoned by the subject when it proved too large for that collection box, and it is important to note that it was left, presumably by the subject himself, between two parked cars, behind a hedge, in the adjacent parking lot. It is logical to extrapolate from this that the subject was concerned both for his own safety, since the device was "active," and especially for his security from detection.

Thus there are several early indicators that even in 1978 the subject was extremely cautious, and strove to insure his own safety, security and secrecy even above the ostensible objective of sending the addressee, Professor E. J. Smith, a bomb. This self-protectiveness mitigates strongly against the idea that the subject had any direct connection with either Smith or Buckley Crist, Jr. that they or others around them could have recalled, since by sending a device to (or "from") a person with whom he had such a connection the subject would have risked exposure.

It is clear that the subject knew of Smith and Crist, both professors of Engineering, at Northwestern University near Chicago and Rennsalaer Polytechnical Institute in New York State, respectively. When he hand-lettered their names on the address label of the bomb package, however, it seems likely that he could assure himself that he would not fall under suspicion for the bombing. His knowledge of these first two UNABOM "victims" must therefore have been acquired in what the subject considered a safely incidental or tangential manner.

Representational Targeting

It seems most likely that the subject affixed the names of Smith and Crist to his first device because of what they represented to him. Since they were both professors at two technical institutes in different states, it is reasonable to deduce that what they represented to the subject had to do with their academic success and/or prestige in technical fields, in particular, Engineering. Victimology interviews of both these men disclosed no discernable direct relationship which would bear upon a third party, such as the subject. In fact, Victimology analysis concerning all individuals who have interacted with UNABOM devices from 1978 to 1995 has shown no such demonstrable commonality at all.

Until April of 1995, the UNABOM subject provided no information regarding any purported "reasons" for targeting the individuals and institutions victimized by his bombs. In a letter to the New York Times in April, he outlined a rationale which emphasized his opposition to the evils of two particular technical fields: computers and genetics. He named a third field, a variant of "applied psychology" known ss behavior modification, as blameworthy due to what he called its shaping of public opinion to accept technological development as beneficial for the public good.

What, however, does the abstract nature of the philosophy the subject claims to have long held have to do with his first four devices, beginning with the long and "intricately carved" box intended for Smith, "from" Crist?

Evolution in Thought and Behavior

Motivation in human behavior is rarely clearcut, and even more rarely wholly consistent over time. In the 17 years of the UNABOM subject's "career," an evolution of his internal reasoning and rationalization for his behavior has paralleled the technical and physical evolution of his explosive devices. It has been reasonably speculated many times that the UNABOM subject's earliest activities were likely to be less planned and, thus, more vulnerable to detection than his latest activities.

If that is the case, it seems important to set aside for the moment the UNABOM subject's own, self-proclaimed rationale as depicted in his 1995 letters and manuscript, as well as the persons and organizations he has targeted from 1993 to the present. It is clear that his stated rationale and his later victims appear to relate to each other. It is also clear that he intends that to appear so, and he would much prefer that his "true" motivation be represented primarily by his 1995 letters and manuscript, coupled with the targeting of his later (1993 - 1995) victims.

In the June, 1995 letter to the New York Times, the subject says that "...when we were young and comparatively reckless we were much more careless in selecting targets than we are now." He apologizes for injuring a secretary (in 1982), for endangering the lives of "innocent people" on American Airlines flight (in 1979), and says that he would "undo some of the things we did in earlier days." In his April, 1995 letter to the Times, he says that the "failure of our early bombs discouraged us from making any public statements at that time. We were very young then and our thinking was crude." He notes that his ideas have developed along with the efficacy of his bombs, and he now has "something serious to say."

The purpose of these assertions seems clear, and that is to obscure what the subject's motivations actually were in his earlier years. Along with a apparent need to rationalize and justify his actions to the Times and others, he needs to disassociate himself from his earlier victims. For one thing, it is impossible for him to categorize these earlier victims as representing his newly stated "philosophy." What, after all, do American Airlines, UAL President Percy Wood and students at the University of Utah Business School have to do with promulgating the evils of technology? Even more importantly, it seems likely that he is worried that an emphasis on his earlier self, when he was younger and less knowledgeable, will also disclose a lesser degree of sophistication in his ability to disguise whatever link or association he had with the devices and his targets at that time.

We have already noted, however, that his earliest device showed that he was cautious. In addition, it is certainly true that neither Crist nor Smith have been able to identify an associate or student who may have been responsible for the device. What, then, is the subject worried about?

"Environmental Fit": 1978 - 1987

It seems appropriate at this point to interject a general observation about the devices mailed or placed by the UNABOM subject during the years 1978 - 1987. With two notable exceptions, all of them seem to have been carefully designed by the subject to fit fairly innocuously into the environments where they were found or mailed. Most were provided with inducements to open the package, such as respectful letters preceding or accompanying them (1980, 1985), colorful wrapping paper (1979); the first device even included the printed word "OPEN" in pencil. The two devices left deliberately in parking lots were disguised as road hazards (1985, 1987). The three devices placed in student areas of Northwestern and UC Berkeley Engineering Department buildings (1979, 1982, 1985) were not threatening or flamboyant in appearance, but seemed calculated to arouse curiosity and/or interest in opening them.

Exceptions to the "Fit":

Chicago, 1978 and Salt Lake City, 1981

The exceptions to this "environmental fit” appear to be the 1978 package destined for mailing to E.J. Smith which was found with uncancelled postage in the parking lot of U of Illinois Circle Campus, and the 1981 device placed in a hallway of the Business School at the University of Utah. Besides the fact that the Business School is quite apart from the technical/engineering focus of most all of the other devices, the location of the device in the hallway is quite inconsistent with the other devices placed in student areas noted above. The area was quite open to any passerby, rather than frequented by a specific group (i.e., engineering students). In short, it does not appear tailored to the environment in the same way the other early devices are. The subject knows this, and mentions this device, the only specific mention of any of his bombings prior to 1993, in his April, 1995 letter to the Times, as "a botched operation." He avoids discussing why the operation was botched, to avoid giving the FBI "any clues," but then writes very deliberately that "No one was hurt by that bomb."

It seems likely that the subject did not deliver the U of Utah device to its intended location/victim(s). He may have been on his way to do so, when he was forced either by circumstance or worry to abandon the device in a location he did not originally intend for it. This 1981 event seems to echo his apparent abandonment of the package intended for mailing to E.J. Smith in the parking lot of Circle Campus in Chicago three years earlier. Neither of these devices reached the environments they were designed for. The intended addressee of the first Chicago device was clearly identified; the question then is, for what location was the U of Utah device designed? Was its being left in the Business School as much of a reason for its being called "botched" by the subject as the fact that the device itself did not detonate satisfactorily? It appears so, when he emphasizes that "no one was hurt by that bomb." Expression of such a sentiment would have been unnecessary if the subject's only regret was that the device proved "embarrassingly ineffectual."

It seems, therefore, that prior to 1993, the subject must have had a direct relationship with the environments for which he designed his bombs. This also seems true with reference to the return addresses on his mailed devices; the North Ravenswood return address on the 1980 Percy Wood device is in a manufacturing area strikingly similar to the Hegenberger Court return address in Oakland on the 1985 Boeing Fabrication device. His familiarity with the engineering departments of universities and their personnel must have resulted from his being at least a peripheral part of those environments. It is also likely that his familiarity with manufacturing areas made Ravenswood and Hegenberger Court comfortable environments for him. As noted above, he was certainly cautious enough even at the outset of his activity in Chicago in 1978 to avoid targeting individuals or locations from whom a direct connection could be made to him, but it seems certain that during the period 1978 - 1987, the environments involved with his devices also included him. The fact that two of these devices, the Circle Campus bomb in Chicago and the Business School bomb at the University of Utah, had problems with their "environmental fit" may be highly significant in this sense. It is interesting that U of Illinois Chicago Circle Campus never again figures into the subject's bombing schemata, whereas the University of Utah appears again, in 1985, with the History Department there as the return address on the McConnell letter. It is possible that the subject thus rectified the mistake he made in leaving the 1981 U of Utah bomb in the Business School building. It is also possible that the Chicago Circle Campus of the University of Illinois was far too close to the specifics of his own daily environment to ever risk mentioning again.

Creation of a New "Environment"

By 1993, the subject appeared to have removed himself from discoverable personal involvement in the environments to which he sends his bombs. After a hiatus of six years and four months, likely at least in part to have occurred as a result of his being observed in 1987 in Salt Lake City, he resumed his activity by sending small packages to two scientists who represented his rationalized philosophy concerning the harmful effects of technology on society. He now seems unconcerned about the need to induce the recipients of his devices to open the packages containing them. He knows by this point that they will be opened.

From 1993 to the present, his targets appear to be purely representational, and are designed to reinforce his own self-image and (rationalized) philosophy, as well as to support his strategy to communicate to the public and to law enforcement that his behavior is rationally derived. To support the persona of the UNABOM subject as a rational revolutionary, he selects his targets from a distance to represent the "industrial-technological" system he opposes. In this persona, he now addresses the public and, in particular, a leading institution of the press, the New York Times, to obtain the attention he seeks. This attention-seeking, by the way, is actually central to his motivation, although he presents his demand for it as being on behalf of mobilizing the public to destroy "industrial society." The attention he seeks is, of course, for himself (see section on "Motivation" by the writer).

Environmental Fit": 1993 - 1995

An interesting artifact of the subject's attention to "environmental fit" for his earlier devices remains in his newest method for obtaining the attention he craves: his writings. In a very real sense, he now uses writings as devices; the June missive to the San Francisco Chronicle which warned of a bomb targeting an LAX airliner was in fact a figurative bomb, which was probably the most effective, in terms of nationwide attention, of all his "devices" to date. (The April, 1995 letters appear to have been produced hurriedly in a post -Oklahoma City agitated and stimulated state, and will be further examined in the section on "Personality Characteristics and Motivation.")

It is in the June letters which accompanied the manuscript, as well as those which were sent to the SF Chronicle and Scientific American, that the clearest evidence of the subject's tailoring efforts for these, his "written devices", appears. The letter to the Times is consistent with earlier letters he wrote to William Hoge at that paper, and is written in a pseudo-journalistic style which affects a stylistic and comradely identification with that paper. Tom Tyler, a Social Psychology professor, receives a series of questions posed as if they came at the end of a chapter in a Sociology textbook. Scientific American receives a letter fashioned in the style of an article in a popular science magazine, whereas the SF Chronicle is sent a pseudo-terrorist missive designed to be quickly communicated to law enforcement as well as highly publicized in California and elsewhere.

In perhaps the most unusual of the June, 1995 letters, the subject addresses Bob Guccione of Penthouse magazine. He confirms his discomfort with "sex magazines" ("...many people do consider sex magazines to be disreputable or worse"), but he is tempted by the offer Guccione makes to publish him and gain him attention. It has been speculated that the subject may be somewhat prudish; and his disapproval of obscenity was confirmed when he promised the Times in his April letter that his manuscript would contain no obscene material. The letter to Guccione in June expresses the subject's conflicted attitude toward sex and the magazine both directly ("...it will obviously be to our advantage if we can get our stuff published in a 'respectable' periodical rather than in Penthouse...we don't like the idea of playing footsy with that [entertainment] industry"), and indirectly, in his penalization of Guccione for publishing the manuscript with his condition of killing with another bomb. He emphasizes that he would rather have his manuscript published in a "respectable magazine." Skittishly, he then includes an excerpt he says came from a letter he supposedly sent the SF Examiner in 1985 after he killed Hugh Scrutton in Sacramento, as well as an account of that mailing "EXCLUSIVE TO PENTHOUSE."

This alternate fawning over and scolding of Guccione is accomplished in a curious, pseudo "hip" tone in the subject's writing style in this particular letter; he says he is "very pleased that you've offered to publish our stuff." The term "stuff" is used several times in the letter, and seems to be part of the subject's attempt to "fit into" some similacrum of the Penthouse style, which he clearly finds uncomfortable. Nevertheless, he tries to accommodate it, since his need for attention and admiration is so great. It seemed initially doubtful, given the subject's distaste for overt interaction with Penthouse, that he would write to Guccione and acknowledge his publication offer at all. In fact, the subject could not resist the interaction. In all probability, this is due both to his inability to resist the attention, notwithstanding his "respectable" and even prudish self-image, as well as an attraction he probably feels to stimulation provided by a "sex magazine" even in spite of that image.

Finally, it must be recognized that the "environmental fit" lately sought by the subject in his writings is related to an apparently intense need for approval and acceptance, as well as for acknowledgment of his power. It is vitally important to him, particularly since April, 1995, to be viewed as a rational social scientist who has been forced to commit terrorist acts in the service of the greater good. Only in that persona can he aspire to be treated by the New York Times and other publications as a sort of peer. It is not the acceptance of his ideas which primarily obsess the subject, however. He has always been centrally concerned with recognition and "just rewards" he believes have been denied him during his lifetime, beginning most tellingly in childhood. What precipitated his change of methodology in obtaining attention for himself, and in his efforts to also change the kind of attention he is now seeking, is addressed in the section on "Personality Characteristics and Motivation."

SUMMARY

The methodology behind the target selection in the UNABOM case is of singular significance, since it appears to have been designed by the subject from his earliest days to obscure rather than to illuminate his own connection to the reasons for his actions. In his earlier "career," (1978 - 1987), he expended apparently considerable effort to camouflage his devices to fit the environments for which he had destined them, and with which he appears to have been quite familiar, probably as a result of his own inclusion in them. After a long hiatus, he resumed his bombing in 1993 by sending identical devices to scientists on opposite coasts, whose fields were representative of the primary opponents in his rationalized philosophy concerning the evils of technology. At the same time, he provided his first, direct written communique, in terrorist guise, to the arbiter of public opinion he thought would achieve for him the highest degree of attention and recognition, the New York Times. The environment he now seems to want to inhabit is that of America's premier (rational) bomber. He expresses confidence that his choice of later victims reflects the rationality of his beliefs, as well as his actions. It is important to realize that his discomfort with the environments which surrounded his earlier victims, when "We were very young...and our thinking was crude," is apparently due to his feeling that he may be identified as being a part of those environments.

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND MOTIVATION IN THE UNABOM SUBJECT

SA Kathleen M. Puckett, UNABOM Task Force November 13, 1995

It has been a consistent observation in behavioral analyses in this case since 1980 that the UNABOM subject appears to have an essentially obsessive- compulsive personality. In general, these opinions have drawn from forensic descriptions of his devices as showing evidence that he is meticulous in their construction, and that he has a preoccupation with and pride in their details. With the receipt of his letters and manuscript in 1995, this opinion is strengthened: rather than providing an enraged, psychotic diatribe, he carefully fashioned his writings to portray himself as a rational and philosophical revolutionary. His obsessive examination in his manuscript of the issues he cites as justification for his 17-year bombing career is designed to convince himself, as well as the New York Times and the rest of his "public" (including law enforcement), that the destructive chaos caused by his bombs had a righteous purpose, and was not the reflection of his own, chaotic nature. In fact, most of the subject's activities are in service of defending against his own chaos, against "losing it."

The Obsessive-Compulsive Personality

What are the characteristics of an "obsessive-compulsive" personality? Observably, such an individual is very organized, a perfectionist, and is preoccupied with details. He is usually overly conscientious, and insistent to an unreasonable degree that others adhere to his views or demands. He is notably inflexible, and will find it difficult to "go with the flow." His ideology is equally rigid; once he adopts an idea, he is loathe to reconsider it, even in the fact of new evidence which contradicts it. His activities are carefully planned. His home is invariably neat; his own appearance is well-groomed. He is most comfortable when he controls his environment at home and at work as much as possible. He is fastidious; if male, his compulsive neatness and concern for the safety of his person may make him appear effeminate in the view of others. He is not likely to risk injuring himself in athletics. He may appear vain, but is unlikely to be flashy in appearance, just as his home and possessions are unlikely to be flamboyant in any way. He is polite, but is not outwardly emotional, and may appear cold. Control is his watchword.

Control is all-important to him because, internally, an obsessive-compulsive personality is quite different from what his outward appearance might indicate. The rigidity and overtly calm control he exhibits is a strategy he uses to prevent his deep anger and anxiety from spilling into his daily life and ruining him. This strategy is called a "defense mechanism" in psychology, and the obsessive-

compulsive has perhaps the most variable array of defenses of all the personality "types." To illustrate the "internal landscape" of the obsessive-compulsive, the following brief excerpts from a work by Dr. Theodore Millon, a leading theorist on aspects of personality, are provided:

"Appearing deliberate and well-poised on the surface, the compulsive sits atop an internal powder keg. These personalities are beset by deep ambivalence and conflict, an inner turmoil which threatens to upset the balance they have so carefully wrought throughout life...They must take no risks...avoiding external disruptions is difficult enough, but their greatest task is that of controlling their own emotions." (Disorders of Personality, John Wiley & Sons, p. 227)

What gives rise to this "deep ambivalence and conflict" is, in this personality type, most often due to parents who were demanding, perfectionistic and condemnatory. "Overcontrol" is a major concept in understanding how these personalities are trained to become what they are. Overcontrolling parents may also be "caring," but they display their concern by "keeping the child in line." The obsessive-compulsive's main fear then is of disapproval, and concern that his actions will be frowned upon and punished. The damage to a central sense of self, and self-esteem, is considerable. Any urges toward defiance and self-assertion are denied and repressed, and obsessive are extraordinarily careful to pay proper (outward) respect to those in authority. (They often, by the way, act just the opposite to subordinates, reprimanding and condemning them, since they can vent their hostile feelings on subordinates without sanction.)

Is It possible, however, for obsessive-compulsive personalities to give their "superiors" (parents, teachers, bosses) their "due"? If it were possible to find an outlet for the feelings of anger and humiliation such persons have repressed, what form might that outlet take? Millon notes:

"If compulsives can find a "punitive" model of authority to emulate, they can "justify" venting their hostile impulses toward others and perhaps receive commendation as well." (p. 227)

The "Internal Landscape" of the UNABOM Subject

It seems likely that the UNABOM subject's early experience included the type of perfectionistic and condemnatory parents who classically "make" an obsessive- compulsive personality. Many other nuggets from the obsessive-compulsive matrix may also have been part of his experience; it is likely we will know that story only when he tells it to us. Most obsessive-compulsives, however, do not send explosive devices to those they feel have offended them.

In the UNABOM case, it appears that the thoughts of revenge which are often part of an obsessive-compulsive personality's secret fantasies were made reality by the subject in 1978. In 1995, he has apparently found a "punitive model of authority" to emulate, while he makes a bid for commendation as well. In his vesting of a counterculture authority as his model, he may unwittingly also show evidence of a "baby boomer" age placement.

Beginning with the 1993 note to the Times, the subject takes the first step in publicly assuming a persona as an "anarchist group." He seems to be trying on the garb of the "righteous terrorist"; he says he will "give information about our goals at some future time." He acknowledges the bombs sent around that date to Gelernter and Epstein ("a newsworthy event that will happen about the time you receive this letter, if nothing goes wrong"). Obsessed with his need for order and the conflicting vagaries of chance -- would the bombs reach their destinations and go off? -- he must add the qualifying "if nothing goes wrong."

By early 1995, however, he has still not given "information about our goals." He has sent another, fatal device, in December, 1994 to Thomas Mosser. Suddenly, in April, 1995, he sends the Times his "goals," in the form of a letter offering to "desist from terrorism" if they publish his "article." On the same date, he sends another, fatal bomb to Sacramento. Since these last two devices were sent in the midst of the subject's assumption of his newly-rationalized philosophical persona, it was certainly not in the best interests of that newly "rational" UNABOMER that they were sent. The April device in Sacramento, in particular, was unnecessary and even counterproductive to his making his newly "rational" point. What caused him to do it?

»

External Stimuli

Whatever the internal makeup of an individual, and whatever the defense mechanisms he employs, external events have an impact on his actions which may not be under his conscious control. In a personality driven by the need for strong control, the influence of certain external events may be even greater, have a more profound effect in either a negative or a positive way, than on a less controlled individual. When an obsessive-compulsive "loses it," in other words, he is likely to really lose it, at least in his own judgement. Since that is what he primarily defends against, the loss can be life-changing at best, severely debilitating at worst.

It has long been speculated that the 1987 sighting of the UNABOM subject in Salt Lake City drove him underground due to his demonstrably careful and cautious nature. The obvious question in 1993 was, what caused him to surface?

1993: World Trade Center Bombing

The terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1996 . stunned the country and received extensive and dramatic television and other news coverage which went on for days. Approximately two months later, Drs Gelernter and Epstein received their bomb packages, and the New York Times its first missive from the "anarchist group" calling itself "FC."

It seems significant that the designation "FC" was first used by the UNABOM subject when he sent Percy Wood his book bomb in Chicago in June, 1980. Approximately seven months earlier, a call to the Chicago press by a purported Arab terrorist group claiming responsibility for the bomb which forced American Airlines Flight 444 down was countered by an anonymous caller who simply said the Arab group's claim was "not true." If the caller was the UNABOM subject, it seems probable that his concern for "proper" attribution of his bombings was first seen in this sequence of events in Chicago in 1979 - 1980.

The intense press coverage given the World Trade Center bombing in February, 1993 seems likely to have been a significant stimulus for the UNABOM subject. He directly solicited media attention and recognition of his importance, a "bomber to be reckoned with," for the first time four months later, specifically from the New York Times.

It is probable that the direct media contact he undertook in 1993 related to his need for proper attention to be paid to him, an American patriot (it is a curious affectation of his that he is patriotic, which probably relates to his upbringing), rather than to the Arab perpetrators of Trade Center bombing. The crude nature of the ANFO bomb in comparison to his carefully crafted devices would have been disparaged by him, but the evidence in the media coverage of its sheer destructive power was no doubt a potent stimulant for him.

1994: Playboy Magazine

With the establishment of the UNABOM Task Force in 1993, extensive publicity was given the case in order to solicit public assistance in identifying the subject. One avenue of publicity was an article published in the November, 1994 issue of Playboy magazine entitled "The Scariest Criminal in America." The facts and opinions contained in that article were also published elsewhere. Analysis of the writings he later provided in 1995, via letter and his manuscript, indicate he appears to have a marked aversion to obscenity, and a distaste for "sex magazines" (expressed in his letter to Bob Guccione, the editor of Penthouse who offered to publish him and received an acceptance at the cost of "one more life" for his efforts). The subject later claimed that he sent the December, 1994 bomb which killed Thomas Mosser because Mosser's advertising firm, Burson Marsteller, was responsible for manipulating public attitudes about Exxon in the wake of the

Exxon Valdez disaster. It is worth considering, however, that the Mosser device contained shrapnel consisting of nails and razor blades, which in a psychological sense would appear to indicate a higher level of anger and insurance of a more savage attack on the victim. Given the subject's aversion to "sex magazines,” and his probable discomfort with the association of his UNABOM persona with that genre, it is possible that his December, 1994 bombing was stimulated at least in part by the Playboy article.

Media Attention and Recognition

The publicity concerning the UNABOM Case which ensued in the national media subsequent to the 1994 device was considerable, and reiterated dramatic details of the elusive bomber's career which included what would have been gratifying commentary for him about his elusiveness and ability to elude law enforcement over a 17-year period. For an individual whose emotional development and personal history lacked what he considered proper attention and recognition to his "true" (secret) abilities, this was heady stuff. His taste for publicity was growing by this point, and probably competed with his innate caution for gratification of that taste.

It seems probable due to the four-month lag between TRADEBOM and the UNABOM devices in 1993 that the subject did not have his bombs ready to immediately respond when stimulated by the events in New York. By April, 1995, however, his apparently growing desire for attention and recognition (gratification long denied him, in his view), enabled him to be ready when the next stimulus, a powerful one, compelled him to act.

1995: Oklahoma City Bombing

The events of April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City were reported in a white-hot frenzy of media attention. Hour after hour, television coverage depicted scenes of the carnage at the Federal Building site, and one type of victim figured most prominently in that coverage: the victim children from the Day Care center in the building. The bloody, burned toddlers who emerged, dazed, unconscious or worse, carried by adult victims and rescue workers, were featured repeatedly during the day and into the night. For most Americans, these images were among the most disturbing aspects of the coverage of the disaster. It might be argued that the other primary impact on the public was the awesome sight of the destruction, which was structurally far greater than that sustained by the World Trade Center in 1993.

The effects of the media coverage of the Oklahoma City bombing on the UNABOM subject appear to have been dramatic. He reacted immediately, and with a considerable amount of emotion, in composing and sending within 24 hours of the bombing a letter to the New York Times declaring his views, a letter to his former victim, David Gelernter, declaring Gelernter was targeted for good reason, and two brief sentences to a pair of Nobel Prize winner geneticists informing them of his own importance. He also sent a bomb.

The Laboratory has noted that the typewriter keys which produced the letter to the Times postmarked April 20, 1995 were struck with unusual force. That fact, coupled with the unusual immediacy of the subject's actions on April 20th, seems strong indication that he was emotionally stimulated to some degree. The fact that there was a duality in the stimulus present in the Oklahoma City bombing for the subject is likely to have produced emotions both of anger and exhilaration.

The first of the dual stimuli had to do with arousal of anger by the victimization of children. Anger can be inferred by the pounding of the typewriter keys, as well as the subject's attempt in the Times letter to disassociate himself from an event which killed and maimed so many innocent, young children. In his manuscript, received two months after the Oklahoma event, the topic most often mentioned beyond the main subject of technology was children. The schooling, training and manipulation of children is discussed repeatedly in the manuscript, and is all the more intriguing because the subject appears to be unaware at how this may reveal his own concerns and experiences as a child (in Chicago).

It seems certain that the denied and over-controlled child we posit the UNABOM subject to have been must have identified with the helpless children in Oklahoma City, and needed to conclusively communicate that he, the UNABOM subject, was not such an irrational monster as to cause pain and death to innocents. The result of the arousal of his anger is the elicitation for the first time of a public pronouncement of his "rational" goals for society, and his assurance to the public (and the Times), that the maturity he has attained since he was "young and his thinking was crude" would now never permit such stunts as blowing up "an airliner...some of the passengers likely would have been innocent people - maybe kids [writer's emphasis], or some working stiff going to see his sick grandmother...glad now that that attempt failed."

On the other hand, the second part of the dual stimulus in this event for the subject was the excitement he must have experienced at repeatedly viewing the awesome destruction caused by the power of the bomb used in Oklahoma City. In the April 20th letter to the Times, he discusses the growth of his expertise in bombmaking, and makes several statements about "power" which anticipate his discussion of the "power process" in his manuscript, as well as his appreciation of the power contained within bombs:

"Since we no longer have to confine the explosive in a pipe, we are now free of limitations on the size and shape

of our bombs. We are pretty sure we know how to increase the power of our explosives and reduce the number of batteries to set them off...So we expect to be able to pack deadly bombs into ever smaller, lighter and more harmless looking packages. On the other hand, we believe we will be able to make bombs much bigger than any we've made before. With a briefcase-full or a suitcase-full of explosives we should be able to blow out the walls of substantial buildings [writer's emphasis]."

It was probably due to this aspect of the dual stimulus afforded the subject by the Oklahoma City bombing that he felt compelled to send the bomb, which he obviously had ready for a suitable occasion to deploy it, to Sacramento. Although he would be unlikely to easily admit it, it is probably true that the elemental power of an explosive device is a powerful attraction for him, which is identified in his mind as part of his own personal power.

Publication of the Manuscript

The stated purpose of the subject's April, 1993 letter to the New York Times was to achieve the publication of his manuscript in exchange for his offer to "desist from terrorism." When he shifted in 1995 to a new method of obtaining gratification, from reading in the press about his bombs to reading about his ideas, he exposed himself to a whole new realm of opportunities for both positive and negative stimulation, from the press and the public. This new stimulus is ongoing at this writing, but it is important to state here that in his manuscript, the subject attempted at numerous points to defend himself in advance against any criticism of his ideas, and qualified his opinions throughout. He extended this evidence of sensitivity to criticism by insisting on the right to provide 3,000 word rebuttals for three consecutive years after the appearance of the manuscript in print.

It is characteristic of an obsessive-compulsive personality to anticipate and defend heavily against criticism, since his early childhood experience is so heavily shaped by it. It is interesting that the only individual recipient of the manuscript, apart from the Times, Washington Post and Penthouse, was Dr. Tom Tyler, a Social Psychology professor at UC Berkeley whose quote in the SF Chronicle about the subject's April letter to the Times, also received a letter from the subject which defended his views as "rational and reasonable."

D. CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of results of event reinvestigation, available forensic evidence, and behavioral information has allowed the UTF to render key judgments concerning the UNABOM subject which will allow for the continued focus of this matter in certain critical areas. Those key judgments are:

1) The UNABOM subject has expressed his greatest, and most consistent familiarity with the San Francisco Peninsula, Berkeley, and Oakland, California, areas, returning to these locations several times since 1982.

It is highly probable that the UNABOM subject resides in the Northern California area, with the most likely region(s) encompassing the greater San Francisco Bay Area, north to Sacramento, California, and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Between 1982-1995, the subject has placed a total of four devices, with three of the four placed in Berkeley or Sacramento. He has mailed a total of six devices, with five of the six devices mailed from Sacramento, Oakland, or San Francisco. Since June 1993, he has mailed two letters to the New York Times, letters to the San Francisco Chronicle and a letter to Professor Tom Tyler, a UCB faculty member. Four copies of his manuscript, with appropriate accompanying letters, were mailed to the New York Times, Washington Post, Penthouse, and Professor Tyler. All of his correspondence since June 1993 has been mailed from the Northern California area, on different days throughout the week, and at different locations throughout the area.

In his letter to Prof. Tyler, he responded to a San Francisco Chronicle article which appeared in the Tuesday, May 2, 1995, edition of the paper and featured Prof. Tyler's opinions. Of particular interest is the April 20, 1995 letter he sent to the New York Times, offering the manuscript as a substitute for committing terrorist acts. The letter has the postmark, "Oakland, California; 20 APR 1995, PM". The Postal Investigative Service (PIS) investigation disclosed that this and three other letters were processed through the Oakland, California, Main Post Office between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on April 20th and were most likely mailed in front of that facility earlier in the afternoon. The letter to the NY Times sought to distinguish between the UNABOM subject and those responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19th and was likely written between the mid morning hours of April 19th and the time of mailing on April 20th.

With respect to the two devices placed at Cory Hall, in 1982 and 1985, the subject displayed keen familiarity with his environment, indicative of exposure to it. Whenever the subject chose to select a return address and zip code for his mailed devices, the zip code correctly matched the area indicated by the return address. In choosing a return address of Closet Dimensions, Oakland, California, for Device 16, the subject selected a business that is confined to the San Francisco Bay Area. The subject's correct use of zip codes for locations in the San Francisco Bay Area contrasts with his incorrect use of addresses or use of dated information for three of the five mailings (Boeing, Mosser, and Murray).

The subject's likely migration from the Illinois area west to Salt Lake City, continuing to the San Francisco Bay Area, is corroborated by available forensic data. In the Illinois devices, the subject used wood indigenous to species of trees in the Mid West. When devices were fabricated and placed and/or mailed from Utah, in the 1981-1982 time frame, he used wooden components made from trees indigenous to the Utah area. Since approximately 1982, the subject has utilized Douglas Fir, Redwood, and other species of wood indigenous to the Northern California area.

2) It is highly probable that the UNABOM subject's academic origin was in the Chicago, Illinois area in the 1976-1980 time frame.

Between 1978-1980, the subject prepared one device for mailing from the Chicago area, placed one device, and mailed two additional devices. He expressed familiarity with the University of Illinois, Chicago Circle Campus and Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. Of particular interest, the UNABOM subject placed Device #2 in the Graduate Student Room of the NWU Technological Institute. His appearance in that room indicates familiarity with that environment. In the first four devices, the UNABOM subject utilized batteries from Sears; a Springfield brand barometer that was most likely purchased at an ACE Hardware Store and wrapping paper that may have been purchased at a Montgomery Ward.An examination of this grouping of events is the only time during the only UNABOM series when parts utilized by the UNABOM subject were purchased at local stores rather than fabricated by the subject himself.

In the use of a return address on Device #4, 3414 North Ravenswood, Chicago, Illinois, the UNABOM subject showed a familiarity with a particular part of town. The North Ravenswood address was actually a vacant lot, with an elevated train line running above it. The address was in an area of town where foundries, machine shops, and light industry were the prevalent businesses. The UNABOM subject built Device #4 in a hollowed out version of the book, ICE BROTHERS. This book was promoted in a Chicago area bookstore, Krochs and Brentanos as early as April, 1980, approximately a month prior to the device.

In his 4/20/95 letter to the NYT, the UNABOM subject uses the word "Sierras" to describe the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This terminology is indigenous to California. In a sociolinguistic analysis of the 4/20/95 letter, Roger W. Shuy, Professor of Linguistics, Georgetown University, described "sierra" as a term that has a known western distribution. Shuy characterized "sierra" as quite "diagnostic", in that it is not used by people outside the physical scope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The fact that the writer uses it as a common noun, indicating a type of place rather than a specific place, adds credence to the hypothesis that he is, at least at the time of the writing, western and quite possibly in Northern California.

Of interest is the reference in the UNABOM manuscript to four books, Ancient Engineers, by L. Sprague DeCamp; Violence in America, with a preface by Ted

Gurr; True Believer by Eric Hoffer; and Chinese Political Thought in the Twi U b Century by Chester Tan. All of these books were utilized in the Chicago, Illinois area in the 1978-1980 time frame. The book by L. Sprague Decamp, Ancient Engineers was used in a History of Engineering course, taught by Richard Hartenberg, in the NWU Technological Institute, one floor above the location of the placement of Device #2 in 1979. Device #10 was sent to Professor James McConnell, who authored the best selling text book Understanding Human Behavior. The first edition of this textbook was utilized at Northwestern University from 1975-1977. The letter to Professor McConnell which served as a ploy to engage him in the device, was signed by a Ralph C. Kloppenberg. The UTF has identified a Jack Ralph Kloppenberg who was a student at Northwestern University in the 1976-1977 time frame, where he also worked as a dorm assistant at Kendall College, located near NWU.

Forensic information regarding the first UNABOM devices characterizes those devices as normally made by someone in his teenage years. This information was deduced from the use of rubber bands, match heads, and smokeless powder in the early devices. In his letter of April 20, 1995 to the New York Times, the UNABOM subject says, "our early bombs were too ineffectual to attract much public attention. We found by experience that gun powder bombs were too feeble to do much damage".

3) The subject is most likely working in a technical or mechanical capacity.

From 1978-1985, the subject can be seen in an academic environment at UICCC, NWU, U of U, BYU and UCB. During this time frame all of the subject's locations, intended victims and return addresses are associated with engineering, with th« exception of the University of Utah device and the Percy Wood device.

The subject's mailing of a device to the Boeing Fabrication Division in Auburn, Washington, indicates his familiarity with the existence of that division. The Fabrication Division dealt with a variety of sub-contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area in the mid 1985 time frame and had sent representatives to an Industrial Liaison Program at UCB in March, 1985, approximately two months prior to the first UNABOM device of 1985 sent to the Boeing Corporation. That device was sent from a return address which was non-existent on Hegenberger Court in Oakland, California. This is an industrial part of town, similar to the North Ravenswood return address used on Device #4. The subject mailed Device #15 (Mosser) form Airmail Center, adjacent to San Francisco International Airport, which is in a light industrial area of the San Francisco Bay Area. He utilized a return address of Closet Dimensions on Device #16, which is on Industrial Way in San Carlos. This is also an area associated with a light industrial part of town. The subject's skill in building his devices and his talents in these areas are corroborated by information contained in a report of the FBI laboratory dated 7/21/93, which states....the characteristics exhibited suggest that the individual(s) making the components and/or bomb may have education and/or experience in the metal working, scientific, and/or forensic fields.

In his sociolinguistic analysis of the UNABOMER, Roger Shuy (supra) states that the strongest clue to the UNABOMER's occupation is a sentence in the New York Times letter of 6/24/95. In a long paragraph about the Wood names used in his return addresses, the UNABOMER explains why he uses wood in packaging rather than other materials: "But why use metal where wood can be used? Wood is much lighter and much easier to work." Shuy explains that the use of the verb "to work" is not characteristic of most english speakers but is more common among those whose occupations call on them to start with a pre-existing form, such as wood or metal, and shape it by hand or machine, "to work it". The verb is used in this way in cabinetmakers' manuals and in wood classification manuals, as in "Redwood works better than white oak" or "works well along the grain but not across". Shuy believes that if the writer is not a wood or metal worker, he became familiar with this in-group term in some way.

The subject's manuscript reflects a "introductory level of knowledge of a number of college disciplines, including , but not limiting to Anthropology, History, Archeology, Psychology, and Sociology. In the subjects own words, he refers to sending bombs to scientific and technical types but declares that he is not interested in harming people who are engaged in "harmless stuff" such as some of the above studies.

4) The UTF believes that the most likely target age for the UNABOM subject at this time is between 40 and 46 years old-

From approximately 4 feet away, on 2/20/87, Tammy Fluehe, CAAMS Computers, Salt Lake City, Utah, observed the UNABOM subject when he knelt over to place a device near her car. Fluehe provided a detailed description of the subjecfto law enforcement authorities at that time, also taking and maintaining notes as to her observations. She specifically described the subject, from 4 feet away, as in his late 20s, possible 25-30 years old. If the subject was 25-30 years old in 1987, he would have been between 16-21 years old in the 1978 time frame. In fact, his affinity to obtain information from Graduate Student Bulletins for early victims and his placement of a device in 1979 in the graduate student area at NWU Tl, would be strong corroborating evidence that he was closer to 20 years old in that time frame.

Based upon the above, specific investigative steps necessary to identify the subject will vary from one division to the next, depending upon the relevance of each location to the UNABOMER's life at a particular stage of development. The UTF will maximize its opportunity to identify the UNABOM subject by focusing on the following areas:

In the Chicago area, priority must be given to interviews of professors at University of Illinois Circle Campus and Northwestern University in the 1977 to 1980 time frame. All of those professors who were involved in teaching engineering-related courses, Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, and History should be interviewed to determine the books they utilized in their courses and the type of discussions that ensued regarding technology issues. This information should be utilized by the UNABOM Task Force as it attempts to focus on suspects prioritized by their previous attendance at RPI, Circle Campus or Northwestern University in Illinois. Chicago will also be requested to undertake specific investigative steps with respect to the Dungeon and Dragon groups.

Salt Lake City Division must aggressively emphasize the relationship between University of Utah and CAAMS in the 1981-1987 time frame, while fully identifying and interviewing all of those students in the Business Classroom Building, U of U, Room 306, on 10/8/81.

Seattle Division must continue prioritizing its efforts directed at forensic information of potential lead value emanating from the Boeing device. San Francisco and Seattle must focus investigative efforts on the relationships that existed in 1985 between Boeing, UCB, and San Francisco Bay companies doing business with Boeing in that time frame.

Sacramento must focus its efforts on Rentech customers in 1985 and relationships with other companies in the Bay Area that were also dealing with Boeing.

VI. Appendix

A. Analysis of Nathan R. projects

(03/31/95)

Federal BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIon

Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 09/18/1995

To: San Francisco

From: San Francisco Squad 21 Contact: SA Robert J. Conradt

Approved By: Noel Donald Max

Drafted By: Conradt Robert J

File Number(s): 149A-SF-106204 (Pending)

149A-SF-106204 SUB W

149A-SF-106204 SUB W4

Title: UNABOM

Major Case 75 00: San Francisco

Synopsis: NATHAN R PROJECT ANALYSIS

Reference: ASAC Turchie memo 9/11/95

Details: The following are the results of the NATHAN R PROJECT as gleaned from sunsparc, zyindex and file review of Sub W files:

Total number of NATHAN Rs identified ..................................................................... 8589

Total number of NATHAN Rs contacted/interviewed ................................................. 3363

Number of (fully identified on attached list) NATHAN Rs residing in:

1) Illinois ................................ 134

2) California ........................... 261

3) Utah ..................................... 12

4) Washington ...................... 151*

♦Washington has not submitted their list of 150 NATHAN Rs located in their region

APPENDIX A

To: San Francisco From: San Francisco

Re: 149A-SF-106204, 09/18/1995

List of NATHAN Rs affiliated with RPI, NWU, United Airlines, U of

U, BYU, UCB, Boeing Corporation, Rentech, CAAMS, UCSF, Yale or CSU-Sacramento as gleaned from SunSparc searches:

NWU

NATHANIEL J. RASKIN, SSAN: 289-12-8598 & DOB: 3/6/21

NATHAN RICHARDSON, aka Nathaniel H. Richards, SSAN: 346-44-1733 &

DOB: 7/9/43

NATHANIEL RUFF, SSAN: 312-44-1026 & DOB: 4/2/42

R. NATHAN RANDALL, aka Richard Nathaniel Randall, DOB: 5/5/58

UNITED AIRLINES

NATHAN REED, SSAN: 579-72-1651 & DOB: 8/19/54

NATHANIEL RIDLEY, SSAN: 420-03-6912 & DOB: 12/7/18

NATHAN M. ROCHETTE, SSAN: 046-62-7411 & DOB: 6/28/71

NATHAN RODRIQUEZ, SSAN: 355-70-2316 & DOB: 5/8/66

U OF U

NATHAN B. RICH, SSAN: 529-78-8530 & DOB: 7/7/63

BYU

NATHAN J. RICHARDS, SSAN: 518-56-3776

NATHAN WADE RICHARDS, SSAN: 526-69-5587 & DOB: 4/17/59

NATHAN E. RICHARDSON, SSAN: 569-77-9992 & 9/28/68

NATHAN EDWIN RICHINS, SSAN: 529-37-6642 & DOB: 4/14/65

NATHAN WEBSTER RICKS, SSAN: 529-11-0894 & DOB: 4/30/60

NATHAN PAUL ROBINSON, SSAN: 529-70-1824 & DOB: 8/18/48

UC BERKELEY

NATHAN REICHNER, SSAN: 567-33-5517 & DOB: 9/25/64

NATHAN ARNOLD RICHARDSON, SSAN: 553-94-3243 & DOB: 12/29/54

NATHAN STEWART ROSENSTEIN, SSAN: 561-84-8286 & DOB: 3/31/51

NATE ROYALTY, SSAN: 566-37-0915

BOEING CORPORATION

NATHAN W. RANDALL, SSAN: 000-06-6173

NATHAN H. RANDALL, SSAN: 522-90-2916

NATHAN E. REMMICK, SSAN: 501-88-6417

NATHAN R. RIETH, SSAN: 000-07-9418

YALE

NATHAN D. REILLY, SSAN: 206-52-3467 & DOB: 4/29/74

NATHANIEL RESNIKOFF, SSAN: 219-92-4606 & DOB: 11/23/65

NATHANIEL SOLOMON RUBIN, SSAN: 070-50-6018 & DOB: 9/13/67

To: San Francisco From: San Francisco

Re: 149A-SF-106204, 09/18/1995

NATHAN Rs employed with the airlines residing in

California, Utah, or Illinois .......................................................................................................... 4

NATHAN FINLEY RABB, JR. - FAA Mechanic 7033 Madden Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90043

NATHANIEL H. RANDALL, JR. - Boeing Airlines SSAN: 522-90-2916 3129 Temple Drive Springfield, IL 62704

NATHANIEL ROBERTSON - McDonnell Douglas DOB: 11/6/60 SSAN: 328-52-4098 636 E. 97TH Street #8 Inglewood, CA

NATHAN RUBIN - Delta Airlines

Total number of NATHAN Rs employed with universities ......................................................... 2

NATHANIEL KENT ROSEN - Professor, Univeristy of IL 1837 North Arroyo Blvd., Pasadena, CA

NATHAN ROSENBERG - Stanford University SSAN: 943-05-6072

Total number of NATHAN Rs employed in the machining industry...0

The following NATHAN Rs provided information of investigative interest:

NATHAN WEBSTER RICKS, DOB: 4/30/60, is a NUSKIN INTERNATIONAL (Provo, Utah) promoter. Ricks conducts his own NUSKIN promotions via satellite from the Fort Union Center in Midval, Utah, every Wednesday evening from 6:00 - 7:00 and 8:00 - 9:00. At the end of each broadcast, Ricks takes live telephone calls answering questions regarding NUSKIN products and policies. Ricks has been interviewed and has stated that he is probably the NATHAN R but could not recall any telephone conversations pertinent to the Unabom case.

To: San Francisco From: San Francisco

Re: 149A-SF-106204, 09/18/1995

NATHAN W. RICKS, DOB: 6/2/50, who resides in Smithfield, Utah, has stated that a STEVEN W. FLETCHER posesses characteristics similar to the behavioral profile of the Unabomer. STEVEN WILLIAM FLETCHER, 6'4" & 185 lbs., was interviewed by Salt Lake City Division on 10/18/93. Fletcher did not fit the physical characteristics of the Unabomer.

NATHANIEL FREDERICK ROBERTS, DOB: 12/30/52, San Francisco, (protect) stated that upon reflection he thought an old acquaintance by the name of JOHN WEAKS may be of interest to the Unabom task force. JOHN HOBSON WEEKS, Seattle, Washington, was determined to be the Weaks referred to by Roberts. Weeks is from Evanston, Illinois and may have attended Northwestern University. Weeks was arrested by Chicago PD on 4/24/93 for assault and battery. Weeks formerly worked at Boeing, Seattle, Washington.

NATHAN RAFAEL RICE, DOB: 1/24/61, Susanville, California, identified ALAN COLLINGWOOD, presently residing in the Seattle area, as a possible suspect. Collingwood owns weapons, had canisters of gunpowder and loads his own cartridges. Collingwood's father, FRANK COLLINGWOOD (FC?) died of cancer a few years ago devastating Alan Collingwood. Collingwood was subsequently interviewed and appeared cooperative but made conflicting statements to Rice's statements.

NATHAN PAUL RHODEN, Old Hickory, Tennessee, had prior addresses in proper time frame - 2140 Los Angeles Avenue, Berkeley, CA and 5 Linn Street, Boubonnais, IL.

Attached to this communication are the following charts:

1. NATHAN Rs identified as residing in Illinois, California, Utah and/or Washington

2. NATHAN R leads outstanding of which there are 37 broken down by Divisions

3. NATHAN Rs to be interviewed in the Northern California area - San Francisco Division

4. NATHAN Rs to be interviewed in the Northern California area - Sacramento Division

B. Location of Device 1

LEGEND n Geo Feature < Park

Interstate. Turnpike Population Center Street, Road Hwy Ramp

—____ Major Street/Road

Street. Road

Interstate Highway

Railroad

River

Scale 1:7.812 (at center)

500 Feet

200 Meters

Appendix B

Mag 16.00

Tue Nov 14 20:58:21 1995

LEGEND

Stale Route

□ Geo Feature

Major City

“—^; Interstate. Turnpike

Airfield

Population Center

— Major StreeVRoad

Interstate Highway

< ■ State Route

« - > US Highway

---------- River

---------- Airfield

Open Water

Scale 1.62.500 (at center)

I Miles

2 KM

Appendix C

Mag 13.00

TucNov 14 21:42:47 1995

LEGEND

State Route

<> Town. Smail City

Interstate. Turnpike

------ US Highway

Population Center

______ Major Street/Road

Interstate Highway

. '• ■ State Route

< > US Highway

Land Mass

Open Water

Scale 1 125.000 (at center)

2 Miles

2 KM

Appendix D

Mag 12.00

Tue Nov 14 21:34:31 1995

LEGEND

'~ State Route

■*—**

□ Geo Feature

<> Town. Small City

+ Hospital

A Park

~ Interstate, Turnpike

— US Highway

_ County Boundary

Population Center

Street, Road

Hwy Ramp

______ Major Streel/Road

Interstate Highway

< > State Route

> US Highway

;_ Railroad

______ River

Land Mass

Open Water

Appendix E

Mag 14.00

Tue Nov 14 21:53:34 1995

Scale 1:31250 (at center)

2000 Feet

1000 Meters

C. Montgomery Ward, Sears, and Ace near UICCC

D. Location of Device 2

E. Location of Device 3, showing Sears and Ace

F. Enoch Fischer letter to Percy Wood

%11i iMrenswood Chioago^lL 60657 Jan* 3, 1980

Mr. Percy Addison Wod 887 fbrwst Hill Lak* Wrest, XL 600115

Dear Mr. Wedi

I aa taking th* liberty of sending you, under separate sever, a book which X believe to haw* great social significance. I aa aendlng copies of thia took, "lee Brothers," by SI*an Vilsen, b* a miaber of prenlnont people In th* Chicago area because I believe this to bo truly a book for our tin*, a book that should bo read by all who sake important decisions affecting th* public welfare.

/

I realise that a wan in your polities does not have tin* t* road every book that ia reoomended t* hia, so that I aay have wasted tine and no noy In Bonding you a copy of Mr. Viloon** work. But I foal our* that it will be worth your while te at least glance through the book. Since it is as entertaining as it is significant, perhap* you will than decide to read the entire work.

Sincerely, Enoch V. Fischer

APPENDIX F

G. Location of Device 4

H. Location of First Four Chicago Devices

I. Location of Device 5

J. Location of Device 6

K. Location of Device 7 and 9

L. Mailing of Device 8

LEGEND

n Geo Feature

+ Hospital

A Park

Population Center

---------- Street. Road

Hwv Ramp

- Mapr Street/Road

Interstate 1 lighwav

-4------- Railroad

---------- River

Open Water

Scale I 15,625 (at center)

1000 Feet

500 .Meters

Appendix G

Mag 15.00

TucNov 14 21:07:53 1995

Stale Route

□ Geo Feature

C' MqorCitv

<> Town. Small Citv

<> Large City

~— Interstate. Turnpike

------ US Highway

Airfield

Countv Boundary

Population Center

Major Strcet/Road

Interstate Highway

■ > State Route

■ US Highway

______ River

.Airfield

^— Land Mass

Open Water

Appendix H

Mag 10 50

Tue Nov 14 22:25.40 1995

Scale 1:500,000 (at center)

“10 Miles

10 KM

LEGEND

State Route

Geo Feature

< Town, Small City

A Park

Airfield

Population Center Street, Road

Hwy Ramp . —> State Route

_____ River lllllll Contours

Scale 1:15,625 (at center)

¹ 1000 Feet ¹

¹ 500 Meters ¹

Appendix 1-

Mag 15.00

Wed Nov 15 12:51:53 1995

LEGEND

State Route

□ Geo Feature

<> Town. Small City

Large City

_A Hill

——r Interstate. Turnpike

------ US Highway

Population Center Street Road Hwv Ramp Major Street/Road

Street. Road

Interstate Highway t । State Route

, . US Highway

__ ,_ i— Railroad

______ River

..... II Contours

Appendix J Mag 14 00

TueNov 14 19:56:58 1995

Scale 1:31 250 (at center)

~ 7000 Feet '

1000 Meters

148

LEGEND

State Route

□ Geo Feature

4 Park

-—~ Interstate. Turnpike Airfield

Population Center

Street, Road

Hwy Ramp

______ Major Street/Road

Interstate Highway

. —State Route

Railroad

______ River

Open Water

Scale 1:31 _250 (al center)

2000 Feet

1000 Meters

Appendix L

Mag 14.00

TueNov 14 20:38:00 1995

M. Letter of Ralph C. Kloppenburg

Department •Inflatory University sf Utah Balt Lake City, Utah 84112 Wovwmbor 12, 1985

Dr* James McConnell 2900 Z. Delhi Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 4610?

. Dear Dr* McConnellj

—* I

I an a doctoral candidate in History <t tho University of Utah* My field of intereat la the hiatory of science, and X aa writing ay dissertation on tho development.of tho behavioral scl- / oncea during the twentieth century*

Thia dissertation aspire a to bo wore than a aero collection of ¹ facta. In it I an attempting to analyse tho factors in society at largo that tend to promote vigorous development in a given area of science, and especially I an attempting too shod light on the way in which progress in a particular field of research influences public attitudes toward that flold in such a wanner as to further accelerate its development, as through research grants, increased interest on tho part of students, and so forth. I have selected tho behavioral sciences for study because I believe that they illustrate particularly well ny hypotheses concerning the interaction of science and society.

I have now prepared an initial version of tho dissertation, but oxpect to revise it heavily before putting it into final form. Before completing the revisions, I am asking several distinguished researchers in the behavioral sciences for their comments on the paper. It is for this purpose that I am send* ing you herewith a copy of ny dissertation in its preliminary form..

Since this dissertation is very long and detailed, I realise that you nay not have time to road it in its entirety, but I would appreciate it very much if you could at least look over Chapters 11 and 12, tho chapters most closely related to your own field of research, and glvo mo your comments and any corrections you may have. Particularly I would like to know your reaction to tho Idoa outlined in tho Dost three paragraphs of Obaptor 12. Of course, any comments that you might care to nako on any other part of tho dissertation would also be most welcome•

I thank you in advance for your kind aaaletanae-

Very truly yours,

Ralph C. Kloppenburg

N. Marketing Letter of James McConnell

james v McConnell, Ph-D. a

PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

OFFICE

P 0 BOX 7590

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48107

(313) 662-0778

14 October, 1985

HOME

2900 E DELHI ROAD ANN ARBOR MICHIGAN 48103 (313) 662-05=2

Professor Daniel Cohen Department of Psychology William Rainey Harper College Algonquin and Roselle Roads Palatine, Illinois 60067

Dear Professor Cohen:

As Steve Johnson (the sales representative for Holt. Rinehart and Winston wr.o works closely with you) may have told you, the 5th edition of my text, Understanding Human Behavior, will be out within a few days, and I will be sending you a copy of it for your personal inspection. But I have a rather large favor to ask of you concerning tiie new edition. I have made the most extensive revisions ever this time round, and I really need conuents free people such as yourself in order to determine if I've met your needs. I've completely rewritten the first chapter, and have added a chapter (#9) on cogn-tioc trat is almost entirely new. In addition, I've redone the developmental chapters .-17 and *18) to give a much greater emphasis on cognition, including language development. I gave all the new material to my own students to read ir manuscript form, and used the students' criticises as a guide when preparing tne final version. Steve Jonnson tells me tnat one reason you like UHB is my writing style, and the simple canner in which I present difficult material, it- o*r. students tell me tnat the 5th edition is as easy to read as tne 4tr. TYat's good news, however, I've not gotten any real feedback, yet frat act-al "users" of the text, such as yourself. Might I impose on you by asking tnat, if you have the time, you look over chapters 1, 9, 17 and 18 in the 5th edition arc send tne your comments, particularly those regarding readability? Indeec I'd greatly appreciate receiving any suggestions or criticisns you might be willing to offerer, any aspect of the new edition tnat either pleases or displeases you.

Steve Jonnson assures me-that he will.be liappy to see tnat yo^. get copies c; ar... of tne ancillaries that you might wish to inspect. Please do give hie a ca_l he can help in any way. And, of course, let me know if I can be oi any assistance, too. I'll be glad to help.

In closing, let me thank you for using UHB in the past. More than tms, I nope that you find the 5th edition a significant improvement over prior editions.

CO: Steve Johnson

O. Location of Device 11

P. Location of Device 12 and the Mailing Location of Device 10

Q. Mailing Location, Devices 13 and 14

LEGEND

State Route	____ Street. Road	Utility Towerime)
□ Geo Feature	____ Hwy Ramp	Open Water
<>Town. Smail City	____ Major Street/Road

X Hospital Interstate Highway

> Park ■ —■ State Route

— Interstate. Turnpike	—- Railroad
Population Center	___ River

Appendix O

Mag 14.00

TueNov 14 20.12:45 1995

Scale 1:31250 (at center)

2000 Feet

¹ 1 OCX) Meters

LEGEND

( ' । State Route

□ Geo Feature

.> Town. Small City

_A Hill

A Park

-—⁼ Interstate, Turnpike

US Highway

' Airfield

Population Center

Street, Road

Hwy Ramp

Major Street/Road

Street. Road

Interstate Highway

. ■ State Route

< US Highway

, . . Railroad

______ River

Hl mi Contours

Appendix P

Mag 14 00

Tue Nov 14 19:01:59 1995

Scale 131.250 (at center I

2000 Feet

1000 Meters

R. Machine Shop Contacts - Analysis

(03/31/95)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Precedence: PRIORITY Date: 09/14/1995

To: San Francisco

From: San Francisco

Machine Shop Project

Contact: IRS Richard Torres and IRS Trenia Dublin

Approved By: Turchie Terry D

Drafted By: Torres Richard:rt

File Nnmber(s): 149A-SF-106204 S HH (Pending)

Title: UNABOM;

Major Case #75;

00:San Francisco

Synopsis: Analyze the results of the interviews conducted at the machine shops and universities in and around the San Francisco Bay area.

Details: This project entailed analyzing the results of the interviews conducted at the machine shops and universities. Two spreadsheets were created to be used as a quick reference, summarizing all interviews conducted.

This project has been coordinated with ADIC Davis through weekly squad meetings.

Enclosed are copies of two spreadsheets created to synopsize the machine shop and university interviews. These spreadsheets can be sorted by date of interview, company, and person interviewed.

MACHINE SHOP INTERVIEWS

Many of the machine shops provided a listing of former and current employees. The analysts searched these listings against the SunSparc database and it was determined that these individuals are not in the system. It is recommended that a database be created in SunSparc to capture former and current employees at each machine shop.

General analysis from the machine shop interviews have determined that these facilities lack proper security. Many of the employees are allowed to either take tools home, or work on personal projects on the job after working hours. Sometimes these employees are supervised but many times they are not.

The equipment utilized at many of the machine shops include drills, presses, lathes, and welding machinery, this equipment common at all locations. Some of these shops also utilize lubricants, epoxies, wire, tape and paints.

Through the interviews conducted at the San Francisco bay area machine shops it has been determined that many of these shops at one time have been hired by the University of California at Berkeley (UCB), the UCB Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, United Airlines, and Hewlett Packard.

The following companies have had contracts with UCB and those denoted by an asterisk (*) have also done work for United Airlines.

A & K Machine Shop 4916 McBryde Ave. Richmond, CA.

Anderson Manufacturing 750 107th Avenue

Oakland, CA.

Bay City Iron Works Inc. 2897 Chapman Street Oakland, CA.

Caral Manufacturing 578 Cleveland Ave.

Albany, CA.

*Kodiak West Precision Machining

444 South 1st Street Richmond, CA.

Cast Aluminum & Brass Corp. 667 Whitney Street San Leandro, CA.

E.D.M. Exotics 1984 National Ave. Hayward, CA.

♦Garner Heat Treat 10001 Denny Street Oakland, CA.

* General Grinding Inc. 801 51st Avenue Oakland, CA.

Kern-Mill Company 3468 Diable Ave. Haywood, CA.

(Work done specifically for Prof. Tim Edberg in the Physics Dept.)

Excell Machinery 908 Washington St. San Carlos, CA.

* Continental Machine Works Inc. 1104 57th Avenue Oakland, CA.

* Diamond Tool & Die Inc. 508 29th Avenue Oakland, CA.

* Dufrane Machine & Engine Works Inc. 1525 Peralta Ave.

Oakland, CA.

MaCaulay Foundry Inc. 811 Carleton Street Berkeley, CA.

(Also does work for the airline/aerospace industry).

S & L Machine Shop Inc. 1312 South 50th Street Richmond, CA.

Smith Sc Company- 1455 64th Street Emeryville, CA.

T & P Machine 760 98th Ave. Oakland, CA. (99% of work comes from tha airline industry).

Michael Bondi Metal Design

2801 Giant Road Richmond, CA.

* Oakland Machine Works 561 4th Street Oakland, CA.

Shamp-Eckman Industries Inc.

1333 South 51st Street Richmond, CA.

Art Works Foundry

& Gallery 729 Hinez Ave. Berkeley, CA.

Diamond Manufacturing Corp. 1763 Timothy Dr. San Leandro, CA.

Mcneill Manufacturing 3014 Chapman St. Oakland, CA.

Numeric Machine 4439 Enterprise Fremont, CA.

*Mission Tool & Manufacturing Inc. 3440 Arden Rd.

Hayward, CA.

Western Tool & Supply 4541 Oakland St.

Oakland, CA.

Pyro Minerals Inc. 2510 Wood St.

Oakland, CA.

Florence Metal Products

Company 8608 G St. Oakland, CA.

The following companies have had contracts with United Airlines:

BCH Manufacturing Company Inc. 10012 Denny Street

Oakland, CA.

Brandt Machine Works Inc. 1946 Republic Avenue San Leandro, CA.

Custom Gear & Machine 2422 Teagarden Street San Leandro, CA.

Holt Tool & Die Company of California

2909 Middlefield Road Redwood, CA.

Olin Tool & Machine 1933 Williams Street San Leandro, CA

Precision Cast Product Inc.

1549 32nd Street Oakland, CA.

Pro-West Machine Shop 9850 Kitty Lane Oakland, CA.

Tydeman Machine Works Inc.

900 Broadway

Redwood City, CA.

Menches Tool & Die Inc. 1067 East San Carlso Ave. San Carlos, CA.

Dimensional Control Corp. 1403 Industrial Rd.

San Carlos, CA.

The following companies have had contracts with Hewlett Packard:

A & B Dye Casting Company/ Bender Tool Company 1417 4th Street Berkeley, CA.

Farsys Corp.

915 Washington St.

San Carlos, CA.

Kern Mill Company 3468 Diable Ave. Haywood, CA.

Tydeman Machine Works Inc.

900 Broadway Redwood City, CA.

UNIVERSITY INTERVIEWS

Many of the universities provided a listing of former and current employees. The analysts searched these listings against the SunSparc database and it was determined that these individuals are not in the system. It is recommended that a database be created in SunSparc to capture former and current employees from each university.

General analysis from the university interviews have determined that security is almost non-existent. Most laboratories (labs) are open all day with full access to anyone on campus. In the evenings and at night, some students, faculty, security guards and maintenance personnel have keys.

It was also observed that numerous labs have machine shops present, actually in the lab or in the same building. These machine shops utilize lubricants, epoxies, wire, tape, paints and some use hand tools.

Many of the labs have one or both of the chemicals available. Within these labs there are no control logs maintained to track the usage of these chemicals by whom or the amount of each chemical used.

The following universities use either one or both of the following chemicals (potassium chlorate and sodium chlorate). Those universities denoted with an asterisk (*) have machine shops accessible for students, faculty, security and maintenance personnel.

* California State University
25800 Carlos Bee Blvd.
Hayward, CA.

Menlo College
1000 El Camino Real
Atherton, CA.

Skyline College
3300 College Dr.
San Bruno, CA.

* Stanford University
Palo Alto, CA.

Marin Community College
120 Kent Avenue
Kentfield, CA.

Canada College
4200 Farm Hill Blvd.
Redwood City, CA.

* City College of San Francisco
1400 Evans Ave.
San Francisco, CA.

* San Francisco State College
1600 Holloway Ave.
San Francisco, CA.

* Sonoma State University
1801 East Cotate Ave.
Rohnert Park, CA.

* Deanza College
21250 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino, CA.

* University Of Santa Clara
Santa Clara, CA.

Dominican College
50 Acacia Ave.
San Rafael, CA.

* Pacific Union College
Angwin, CA.

* San Jose State University
San Jose, CA.

POSSIBLE LEADS

The information contained in this section is derived from possible suspect recognition of the Unabomer sketch. The below information may predicate that additional suspect interviews be conducted.

Alan L. Lee, DBA, Aircraft Service International advised that the sketch resembles JACK BONARIUS, not further identified, (NFI), because of the similarities in angular facial features. A search in the SunSparc database was negative.

Donald Holt, DBA, Diamond Tool & Die Inc. advised that the sketch resembles former employee JAMES JERALT HALTERMAN, DOB 9/24/52, SSAN 483-07-6055, who is originally from Idaho and Texas. A search in the SunSparc database was negative.

Charles A. Pilgrim (protect identity), DBA, Electronics, Etc., advised that the sketch resembles STEVE HENDRICKS. HENDRICKS is described as an unorthodox character who runs the "Radio Free Berkeley" radio station out of a van. Hendricks is known to the Berkeley Police as well as the Federal Communications Commission because he operates illegally and defies all efforts to shut him down. A search in the SunSparc database indicates a possible hit on STEVE HENDRICKS with DOB 3/20/56. No further data provided. The source indicator is from the UDL.

John Gregory, DBA, Fab-Mach Inc., advised that the sketch resembles former employee WALTER KENT FOSBERG who abruptly quit Fab-Mach Inc. Gregory believed that FOSBERG quit pursuant to a contract his company had with the Federal Government. A search in the SunSparc database indicates a possible hit for WALTER KENT FOSBERG with DOB 12/3/47, HT 6"1', WT 165 lbs., HAIR-BROWN, EYES-BLUE, CDL # N7058838, with expiration 4/9/96. Mc.iling address is 3732 39th AVE A, Oakland, CA. The source indicator is from CADMVA. Also a possible hit in the UAA source indicator with just the name of FOSBERG, with a possible SSAN 545-42-3263 .

Virginia Smith, DBA, Holt Tool & Die Company Inc., advised that one of her employees (unidentified) may fit the Unabomber sketch. Not enough information to do search in the SunSparc database.

Donald E. Stubberfield and Glen Homen, DBA, Homen Machining, advised that the sketch resembles customer DAVID SULLINGER or DAVE SULLENBERGER (exact name unknown), DBA, Pacific Coast Machine, 36530 Alder Court, Freemont, CA. SULLINGER/SULLENBERGER is described as a W/M, 5'10", 160 lbs, sandy colored hair, mustache, glasses, and approximately 35 years old. Stubberfield also advised that SULLINGER/SULLENBERGER only pays for his purchases in cash. A search in the SunSparc database indicates a hit for DAVID ALAN SULLINGER with DOB 12/9/53, HT 5"10', WT 165 lbs., HAIR-BLOND, EYES-BLUE, with the same address that was provided by Stubberfield. The CDL # N2084531 with expiration 12/9/97. The source indicator is from CADMVA.

Ralph Waldo Staats-Trueblood, DBA, Made in Japan Inc., advised that the sketch resembles former employee ROBERT M. YODER who was born in Chicago, II. YODER supposedly has a PH.D. in psychobiology from a college in Colorado, and has tried without success to obtain a professorship at various colleges. YODER is described as a W/M, SSAN 270-28-7209, 5'8", about 54-55 years old with glasses. YODER usually dyes his hair a light brown or dirty blond and has a mustache. YODER now resides at 855 Peralta Avenue, Berkeley, CA. A search in the SunSparc database indicates a hit for ROBERT MCAYEAL YODER, with DOB 5/3/38, HT 5"6', WT 140 lbs., HAIR-BLOND, EYES-BROWN, with the same address that was provided by Staats-Trueblood. The CDL # A0233685 with expiration of 4/9/96. The source indicator is from CADMVA.

Note: Staats-Trueblood also advised that his brother (NFI) knew the latest bombing victim in Sacramento.

Brian Gomes, DBA, Niles Machine Works, advised that current employee ROBERT DAVID SMITH, DOB 10/7/43, SSAN 546-64- 7335, 5'9", 225 lbs was previously employed at Boeing Aircraft. A search in the SunSparc database indicates 14 possible hits for ROBERT DAVID SMITH, but none match with the above DOB or SSAN.

Barrie Frost, DBA, Oakland Machine Works, writers noted that employee JIM ANDERSON (NFI) fits the unabomber sketch. A search in the SunSparc database indicates 20 possible hits. We do not have enough information to acertain if any of these possible hits are the above mentioned individual.

Oscar Metz, DBA, Olin Tool & Machine, advised that his former son-in-law BILL BENNETT fits the unabomber sketch.

BENNETT worked for United Airlines about 15 years ago. BENNETT is described as a W/M, DOB 2/27/56, SSAN 567-96-1661, 6'0", 170 lbs. A search in the SunSparc database indicates a hit for BILL BENNETT with DOB 2/27/56, HT 5"10', WT 1601bs., HAIR-BROWN, EYES-HAZEL, CDL # N2099603 With expiration 4-9-96, and address being 14235 Orchid DR., San Leandro, CA. The source indicator is CADMVA.

Jim Cassidy, DBA, Precision Metal Spinning, advised that the sketch resembles former employee JAMES RICHARD HAMMER, 45 Oak Avenue, Number 105, Redwood City, CA. HAMMER is described as a W/M, SSAN 552-06-3120, about 40 years old, 6'0", 160 lbs, with reddish-blond hair. A search in the SunSparc database indicates 2 JAMES RICHARD HAMMER. Can not match SSAN. One HAMMER has DOB 10/28/55, which would make him approximately 40 years old. The other HAMMER would be approximately 72 years old. The source indicator is CADMVA.

Shirley Hocking, DBA, Shirley Hocking Enterprises, advised that SCOTT BERGLIN, (who may fit the sketch) DBA, Berglin Machine, Oakland, CA., is described as a W/M, 5'10", 180 lbs, about 40-50 years old with brown hair. A search in the SunSparc database was negative.

Adam Therkelsen, DBA, T & P Machine, advised that he sells his metal scraps to (FNU) MILLER, 9825 Pearman Street, Oakland, CA. Not enough information provided to do a search in the SunSparc database.

Amalia Borja, SFSU Campus Police, advised that a person who appears similar to the sketch is GLENN ALAN CHESNUT, AKA GLENN ALLEN CHESNUT and GLENN ALLEN CHESTNUT, W/M, 6'2", DOB 2/11/48, 180 LBS, blond hair, blue eyes, corrective lenses, CDL # N06227300, known address 2601 Hyde St., San Francisco, CA. 94109 (on 1989 driver's license), 816 Taraval St., San Francisco, CA. (on 1986 driver's license) and 18 Spring Rd., Orinda, CA. 94563 (on 1985 driver's license). Possibly works at a university in Sacramento, CA. California's drivers license surrendered in Florida. NCIC was negative. May have been fingerprinted for application purposes in state of California (CII # M90395660). A search in the SunSparc database indicates a hit for GLENN ALAN CHESNUT with DOB 2/11/48, HT 6"2', WT 180 lbs., HAIR-BLOND, EYES- BLUE. CDL # N0627300, with expiration 4-9-96, and same address as provided by Borja. The source indicator is CADMVA.

Jan Tepper, UCSC Campus Chief Of Police, advised that Dale EdWARD KINNAMON, California address as of 1 July, 1988 of 121 Archer St., Santa Cruz, CA., 95060, DOB 6/27/47, 5'10", 165 LBS, red hair, hazel eyes, CII # M04172237. Employed as night custodian at UCSC from 6 September, 1981 until 9 August, 1988. Last known address, as of January 1989, 123 North Loomis, Ft. Collins, CO., 80521. Expired CDL # N3289544, with photo of KINNAMON, was obtained. Photo appears to share some discriptive similarities to the unabom sketch/witness discription. A search in the SunSparc database was negative.

* Evan J. Christensen, SFSU Facilities Operations Manager, advised that PATRICK NELSON, W/M, age approximately 55, 6'2", 190 LBS, blonde hair and mustache. Photo was provided to interviewing agent, taken in December, 1981, and NELSON'S facial features do somewhat resemble composite drawing of unabom suspect. He is a former employee, loner, unhappy, divorced, drove an old Ford van. Allegedly former paratrooper in the military. Requested to resign in 1985. A search in the SunSparc database indicates 27 possible hits. We do not have enough information to acertain if any of these 27 possible hits are the above mentioned individual.

S. Location of Mailing of Device 15

LEGEND □ Geo Feature

4 Town, Small City Interstate, Turnpike Airfield

Population Center

Street, Road

Hwy Ramp

Major Street/Road

Interstate Highway

State Route

Railroad

_____ River

Open Water

Scale 1:31250 (at center)

2000 Feet

1000 Meters

Appendix S

Mag 14.00

Wed Nov 15 16:13:58 1995

T. 4/20/95 Letter of UNABOM subject to the New York Times

This is a message from the terrorist group FC. To prove its [sic.] authentic we give our identifying number (to be kept secret): 553-25-4394.

We blew up Thomas Mosser last December because he was a Burston-Marsteller executive. Among other misdeeds, Burston-Marsteller [sic.] helped Exxon clean up its public image after the Exxon Valdes incident. But we attacked Burston-Marsteller less for its specific misdeed than on general principles. Burston-Marsteller is about the biggest organization in the public relations field. 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.

Some news reports have made the misleading statement that we have been attacking universities or scholars. We have nothing against universities or scholars as such. All the university people whom we have attacked have been specialists in technical fields. (We consider certain areas of applied psychology, such as behavior modification, to be technical fields.) We would not want anyone to think that we have any desire to hurt professors who study archaeology, history, literature or harmless stuff like that. The people we are out to get are the scientists and engineers, especially in critical fields like computers and genetics. As for the bomb planted in the [crossed out] Business School at the U. 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 FBI any clues. No one was hurt by that bomb.

In our previous letter to you we called ourselves anarchists. Since “anarchist” is a vague word that has been applied to a variety of attitudes, further explanation is needed. We call ourselves anarchists because we would like, ideally, to break down all society into very small, completely autonomous units. Regrettably, we don’t see any clear road to this goal, so we leave it to the indefinite future. Our more immediate goal, which we think may be attainable at some time during the next several decades, is the destruction of the worldwide industrial system. Through our bombings we hope to promote social instability in industrial society, propagate anti-industrial ideas and give encouragement to those who hate the industrial system.

The FBI has tried to portray these bombings as the work of an isolated nut. We won’t waste our time arguing about whether we are nuts, but we certainly are not isolated. For security reasons we won’t reveal the number of members of our group, but anyone who will read the anarchist and radical environmentalist journals will see that opposition to the industrial-technological system is widespread and growing.

Why do we announce our [crossed out] goals only now, through we made our first bomb some seventeen years ago? Our early bombs were too ineffectual to attract much public attention or give encouragement to those who hate the system. We found by experience that gunpowder bombs, if small enough to be carried inconspicuously, were too feeble to do much damage, so we took a couple of years off to do some experimenting. We learned how to make pipe bombs that were powerful enough, and we used these in a couple of successful bombings as well as in some unsuccessful ones. Unfortunately we discovered that these bombs would not detonate consistently when made with three-quarter inch steel water pipe. They did seem to detonate consistently when made with massively reinforced one inch steel water pipe, but a bomb of this type made a long, heavy package, too conspicuous and suspicious looking for our liking.

So we went back to work, and 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 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 genetic engineer Charles Epstein and the computer specialist David Gelernter. We did use a chlorate pipe bomb to blow up Thomas Mosser because we happened to have a piece of light-weight aluminum pipe that was just right for the job. The Gelernter and Epstein bombings were not fatal, but the Mosser bombing was fatal even though a smaller amount of explosive was used. We think this was because the type of fragmentation material that we used in the Mosser bombing is more effective [crossed out] than what we’ve used previously.

Since we no longer have to confine the explosive in a pipe, we are now free of limitations on the size and shape of our bombs. We are pretty sure we know how to increase the power of our explosives and reduce the number of batteries needed to set them off. And, as we’ve just indicated, we think we now have more effective fragmentation material. So we expect to be able to pack deadly bombs into ever smaller, lighter and more harmless looking packages. On the other hand, we believe we will be able to make bombs much bigger than any we’ve made before. With a briefcase-full or a suitcase-full of explosives we should be able to blow out the walls of substantial buildings.

Clearly we are in a position to do a great deal of damage. And it doesn’t appear that the FBI is going to catch us any time soon. The FBI is a joke.

The people who are pushing all this growth and progress garbage deserve to be severely punished. But our goal is less to punish them than to propagate ideas. Anyhow we are getting tired of making bombs. It’s no fun having to spend all your evenings and weekends preparing dangerous mixtures, filing trigger mechanisms out of scraps of metal or searching the sierras for a place isolated enough to test a bomb. So we offer a bargain.

We have a long article, between 29,000 and 37,000 words, that we want to have published. If you can get it published according to our requirements we will permanently desist from terrorist activities. It must be published in the New York Times, Time or Newsweek, or in some other widely read, nationally distributed periodical. Because of its length we suppose it will have to be serialized. Alternatively, it can be published as a small book, but the book must be well publicized and made available at a moderate price in bookstores nationwide and in at least some places abroad. Whoever agrees to publish the material will have exclusive rights to reproduce it for a period of six months and will be welcome to any profits they may make from it. After six months from the first appearance of the article or book it must become public property, so that anyone can reproduce or publish it. (If material is serialized, first instalment becomes public property six months after appearance of first instalment, second instalment, etc.) We must have the right to publish in the New York Times, Time or Newsweek, each year for three years after the appearance of our article or book, three thousand words expanding or clarifying our material or rebutting criticisms of it.

The article will [crossed out] not explicitly advocate violence. There will be an unavoidable implication that we favor violence to the extent that it may be necessary, since we advocate eliminating industrial society and we ourselves have been using violence to that end. But the article will not advocate violence explicitly, nor will it propose the overthrow of the United States Government, nor will it contain obscenity or anything else that you would be likely to regard as unacceptable for publication.

How do you know that we will keep our promise to desist from terrorism if our conditions are met? It will be to our [crossed out] advantage to keep our promise. We want to win acceptance for certain ideas. If we break our promise people will lose respect for us and so will be less likely to accept the ideas.

Our offer to desist from terrorism is subject to three qualifications. First: Our promise to desist will not take effect until all parts of our article or book have appeared in print. Second: If the authorities should succeed in tracking us down and an attempt is made to arrest any of us, or even to question us in connection with the bombings, we reserve the right to use violence. Third: We distinguish between terrorism and sabotage. By terrorism we mean actions motivated by a desire to influence the development of a society and intended to cause injury or death to human beings. By sabotage we mean similarly motivated actions intended to destroy property without injuring human beings. The promise we offer is to desist from terrorism. We reserve the right to engage in sabotage.

It may be just as well that failure of our early bombs discouraged us from making any public statements at that time. We were very young then and our thinking was crude. Over the years we have given as much attention to the development of our ideas as to the development of bombs, and we now have something serious to say. And we feel that just now the time is ripe for the presentation of anti-industrial ideas.

Please see to it that the answer to our offer is well publicized in the media so that we won’t miss it. Be sure to tell us where and how our material will be published and how long it will take to appear in print once we have sent in the manuscript. If the answer is satisfactory, we will finish typing the manuscript and send it to you. If the answer is unsatisfactory, we will start building our next bomb.

We encourage you to print this letter.

FC

P.S. Mr. Hoge, at this time we are sending letters to David Gelernter, Richard J. Roberts and Phillip A. Sharp, the last two being recent Nobel Prize winners. We are not putting our identifying number on these letters, because we want to keep it secret. Instead, we are advising Gelernter, Roberts and Sharp to contact you for confirmation that the letters do come from FC.

U. 6/24/95 Letter to the New York Times

New York Times:

This is a message from FC,

If the enclosed manuscript is published reasonably soon and receives wide public exposure, we will permanently desist from terrorism in accord with the agreement that we proposed in our last letter to you.

In that letter we stated that whoever agreed to publish the manuscript was to have exclusive rights to it for six months, after which the material was to become public property. We are willing to be flexible about the six month limit. The reason we offered exclusive rights (temporarily) was to provide an incentive for publication of the manuscript. Presumably, whoever published it would hope to profit by doing so. We assume that the six month limit should be ample if the material is published in a periodical, but if it is published in book form we don’t know how long the publisher would need exclusive rights in order to have a reasonable expectation of making a profit. So if the NY Times arranges for publication in book from, we leave the period of exclusive rights to your discretion. But it should be no longer than necessary and in any case must not exceed one year, unless you publish in the Times good and convincing reasons for making it longer than that. We don’t want our material to remain locked up by a copyright, especially if it is published in the form of a book and the book doesn’t sell.

----------

Contrary to what the FBI has suggested, our bombing at the California Forestry Association was in no way inspired by the Oklahoma City bombing. We strongly deplore the ind of indiscriminate slaughter that occurred in the Oklahoma City event. We have no regret about the fact that our bomb blew up the “wrong” man, Gilbert Murray, instead of William N. 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.

A letter from an anarchist to the editors of the NY Times made us realize that we owe an apology to the radical environmentalist and non-violent anarchist movements. Statements we made in our letters to the NY Times would tend to associate us with anarchism and radical environmentalism and therefore might make the public think of anarchists and radical environmentalists as terrorists. So we want to make it clear that there is a NONVIOLENT anarchist movement that probably includes most people in America today who would describe themesleves as anarchists. It’s a safe bet that practically all of them strongly disapprove of our bombings. Many radical environmentalists do engage in sabotage, but the overwhelming majority of them are opposed to violence against human beings. We know of no case in which a radical environmentalist has intentionally injured a human being. (There was one injury due to a tree spiking incident, but the spiking was probably intended only to damage equipment, not injure people.)

We decided to call ourselves anarchists not in order to associate ourselves with any particular anarchist group or movement but only because we felt we needed some label to apply to ourselves and “anarchist” was the only one that seemed to fit. The term “anarchist” has been applied to a wide variety of attitudes and about the only thing these attitudes have in common is opposition to the power of governments and other large organizations. That certainly fits us.

For an organization that pretends to be the world’s greatest law-enforcement agency, the FBI seems surprisingly incompetent. They can’t even keep elementary facts straight. Many news reports based on information provided by the FBI are incorrect and even contradict each other. Maybe some of these errors and contradictions are the result of journalists mistakes, but it appears that most are the fault of the FBI.

Examples: It was reported that the bomb that killed Gilbert Murray was a pipe bomb. It was not a pipe bomb but was set off by a home made detonating cap. (The FBI’s so-called experts should have been able to determine this quickly and easily, especially since we indicated in an unpublished part of our last letter to the NY 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.

The FBI’s theory that we have some kind of a fascination with wood is about as silly as it can get. They apparently base this theory mainly on the fact that we’ve used a lot of wood in the construction of bomb packages, and several of our targets have lived on streets that are named after trees or have names that include words like “wood,” etc. As for our use of wood in construction, what other material is so light, so easy to work and so readily available in large chunks (such as a 2x4) from which suitable pieces can be cut? One FBI agent mentioned in support of the wood theory that we had used wood to make parts that could have been made out of metal. But why use metal where wood can be used? Wood is much lighter and easier to work. One of the reasons why we use wooden rather than cardboard boxes for mail bombs is that cardboard boxes crush easily and rough handling in the mail could cause damage to trigger mechanisms, possibly resulting in premature detonation. As for our use of “exotic” woods, we’ve used hickory from old tool handles, and we recognized redwood from its color, but apart from that we usually don’t even known what kind of wood we are working with since we just use pieces of scrap lumber that we pick up here and there. As for the “polished” wood, it was only sanded. We sanded the outside of wooden boxes to remove saw marks so that packages would have a smooth, factory-made appearance, less likely to arouse suspicion. Some inside parts were sanded to remove possible fingerprints. Since wood is porous, sweat from the fingers probably penetrated the surface a short distance, so we assume that merely wiping wood does not reliably remove fingerprints. Some metal parts also were scrubbed with sandpaper or emery paper for a similar reason. It is well known that old fingerporints on metal can sometimes be brought out by treating with acid, so presumably the sweat affects the surface of the metal chemically and merely wiping is probably not a reliable method of removing prints. As for the streets named after trees, wood, etc., that’s only chance. Just check a street map of any suburban area and see how many of the street names include as a component either the name of some species of tree or a word such as “wood,” “forest,” “arbor,” “grove” etc. The FBI must really be getting desperate if they resort to theories as ridiculous as this one about the supposed fascination with wood.

-----------

What about the morality of revolutionary violence? To the extent that the word “morality” refers to a code of behavior laid down by society, it is senseless to apply moral criteria to the actions of revolutionaries. Each society prescribes a system of morality that is designated to preserve the existence and facilitate the functioning of that society. Since revolutionaries work to overthrow the society in which they live, they have no reason to abide by its moral code. Of course, those who want to preserve the society always regard the revolutionaries as immoral.

But the word “morality” might also refer to consideration for others as motivated by sympathy or compassion (which exist independently of any socially prescribed code). In this sense one can ask about the morality of revolutionairy violence. Do the revolutionairies goals outweigh the harm they cause to others? Do the people they hurt “deserve” it?

Such questions can be answered only on a subjective basis, and we don’t think it necessary for us to do any public soul-searching in this letter. But we will say that we are not insensitive to the pain caused by our bombings.

A bomb package that we mailed to computer scientist Patrick Fischer injured his secretary when she opened it. We certainly regret that. And when we were young and comparatively reckless we were much less careful in selecting targets than we are now. For instance, 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 a majority of the passengers. But of course some of the passengers would have been innocent people-maybe kids, or some working stiff going to see his sick grandmother. We're glad now that the attempt failed.

But even though we would undo some of the things we did in earlier days, or do them differently, we are convinced that our enterprise is basically right. The industrial-technological system has got to be eliminated, and to us almost any means that may be necessary for that purpose are justified, even if they involve risk to innocent people. As for the people who willfully and knowingly promote economic growth and technical progress, in our eyes they are criminals, and if they get blown up they deserve it.

Of course, people don’t kill others and risk their own lives just from a detached conviction that a certain change should be made in society. They have to be motivated by some strong emotional force. What is the motivating force in our case? The answer is simple: Anger. You’ll as why we are so angry. You would would do better to ask why there is so much anger and frustration in modern society generally. We think that our manuscript gives the answer to that question, or at least an important part of the answer.

We encourage you to print this letter, but we don’t require it as part of the condition for our promise to desist from terrorism.

P.S. We want to add a qualification to our (temporary) grant of exclusive rights to whoever publishes our manuscript. We are sending copies of the manuscript to several other parties besides the NY Times. We want everyone to whom we have sent a copy to have the right to make a small number (say 5) of copies of their copy, for personal use or for private circulation.

Note. Since the public has a short memory, we decided to play one last prank to remind them who we are. But, no, we haven’t tried to plant a bomb on an airline (recently).