The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site is a compendium of information about the Jeffrey MacDonald case. MacDonald was convicted in 1979 of the murders of his pregnant wife and two small daughters. He is serving three life sentences for that brutal crime.

The Murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site

July 22, 1970: Specialist E-7 William Ivory (CID)


(The hearing reopened at 1022 hours, 22 July 1970.)

COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that those parties that were present at the recess are currently in the hearing room. Does counsel for the government have any announcements to make at this time?

CPT SOMERS: Yes, sir, with respect to the defense request to be given access to 544 Castle Drive, this request has been checked with the Provost Marshal at Fort Bragg, the Chief of the Criminal Investigation Detachment at Fort Bragg, and with the Third Army Chief of the Criminal Investigation Detachment. They have reached the conclusion jointly that the residence may be inspected by the defense at a time which is convenient to all parties in the presence of a Criminal Investigation Division agent, who is responsible for the custody thereof, and a government attorney; or as an alternative the Article 32 can be reconvened at that location for any specific points which the defense may care to bring up.

MR. SEGAL: Sir, we are not asking for this Article 32 hearing to be held at the house. We are asking that the defense be given an opportunity to continue its preparation of the handling of the case for the accused, and we think we have reached the juncture in this case where we cannot delay being able to examine these premises in a legitimate fashion but without the surveillance of the government. We were not permitted, nor invited, not advised at any time since Captain MacDonald has been charged where the government was going to use these premises. If these buildings have been in any way altered or changed, the government would know about it, because they have had the opportunity to do so. It seems to me that there is still -- no legitimate reason has been expressed here as to why we may not be inside these premises with the CID agent standing outside the door, and if he thinks it is necessary, he may search me and my colleague before and after we go in there. He may examine the premises while we are still there to inquire whether anything is done. But I cannot understand why we must conduct the defense investigation under the surveillance of the government while the government investigation goes on in secrecy and without access to the events. Now, I would suggest that an alternative in this matter, which is the legal advisor, to the investigating officer, be present as an impartial party to observe that nothing untoward is done to the scene. We would not consider this to be an intrusion by the prosecution, and since the investigating officer would not be present, we feel that we would be acting independently and free of surveillance. But there cannot be effective assistance of counsel in this case if counsel cannot look at the evidentiary scene without having someone looking over everything we do, to even comment about it, perhaps come into court to testify to what we did or did not do. This is not a proper defense preparation and that is not effective assistance of counsel, and I would not accept the suggestion that we go through there with a CID agent present in the room at the time the -- we view these various rooms.

CPT SOMERS: I can suggest to the defense counsel one very cogent reason why these procedures should be conducted this way. This is the United States Army. In the United States Army we follow our own regulations and the directions of our superiors. This is the way that this procedure has been suggested. It is the only way, as I understand the information and advice from the Third Army, that it can be conducted in view of the opinion of the people charged with the custody of that property, as to their regulations and it is the best I can offer.

COL ROCK: Mr. Segal, in matters of this nature, my hands are tied. The government has offered the conditions under which your request can be granted, and I would not see any use for further discussion on this point. Do you desire to accept these conditions or not?

MR. SEGAL: May I have a moment to confer here in place with co-counsel?

COL ROCK: Surely.

MR. SEGAL: Col Rock, we appreciate the position that the investigating officer considers himself to be in in this matter. However, at this time we would request the government to cite to us the regulations that they purport to say binds both the hands of the government and of the investigating officer. And, secondly, I am of the opinion, although I have not seen the regulation, that probably this regulation is one which is subject to amendment or waiver by the Provost Marshal General of the Army. If I am correct in that regard we would have -- seek to have the Provost Marshal General of the Army review this decision before going further. But we would request at this time to be advised of what regulations the government purports to take its position on, and which they have argued binds the investigating officer in this matter.

COL ROCK: Can counsel for the government provide that? I don't wish to interrupt the proceedings at this moment, but can you provide that?

CPT SOMERS: Sir, the basic regulation in this area is AR 190-22. There may be other sources, directives, policies, statements involved. I do not know whether there are or are not.

COL ROCK: I realize that you don't currently.

CPT SOMERS: Further, these directives must be interpreted by the people to whom they are aimed, and that in this case is the Military Police Corps, and particularly the Criminal Investigation Section of the Military Police Corps, which in this case is under the control of Colonel Troupe at Third Army. The rulings, as I understand them, or the conditions as they are set out, were arrived at by a combination of the regulations and the directives and interpretative decision of the Third Army as well as the Provost Marshal at Fort Bragg. Now this is my understanding of it because I was not present.

COL ROCK: Yes, I understand.

CPT SOMERS: I would suggest to the defense that any Army Regulation is an order of the Department of Army, and certainly the Department of Army or anything superior to it could be appealed to for exceptions. This is obvious on its face, however, as I can handle the situation and deal with it at my level, I have stated it.

MR. SEGAL: I am just requesting again, sir, that say perhaps in the early afternoon, after lunch, the government make available to us a copy of whatever regulation they believe is governing and so we may follow the procedure, the regulations and exhaust whatever administrative remedies are available to us within the Army before seeking or considering any other action. It may not be necessary, but I think we are entitled to have that presented to us, so that we may take appropriate action as provided within the framework of those regulations or any other documents which the government believes controls this matter. If it can be provided in the early afternoon, we can then proceed with the rest of this morning's testimony in the meantime.

CPT SOMERS: Sir, I would like to say that the Army Regulation has been cited, the only one I am aware of, and the Army Regulations are directly accessible to military counsel on the defense team.

CPT BEALE: Mr. Segal, now, Colonel Rock has done what he believes to be everything possible within his power, and apparently has succeeded in at least through the counsel for the government in allowing you to and/or members of your team to go into the house under certain conditions. Col. Rock, beyond that point, his hands are tied, and any further discussions reference this matter will have to be between yourself and counsel for the government, or someone that is a higher position than counsel for the government. Colonel Rock can no longer do anything reference this particular matter. He has, at least, succeeding partially in getting you permission to enter the house. So therefore, any other negotiation between yourself and whomever you might care to deal with will be solely without the intervening by Colonel Rock.

COL ROCK: Is counsel for the government ready to proceed?

CPT SOMERS: Yes, sir.

(Investigator William F. Ivory was called and reminded of his oath.)

COL ROCK: I believe at the last time you departed from this hearing you were being interviewed by counsel for the accused. Please proceed, Mr. Segal.

Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Ivory, you testified yesterday that you received the initial call in this case at 0350 hours. Would you indicate to us whether you made a record or notation of the exact time you received the call?
A I made no notation at the time.
Q How did you fix the time to such specificity as being 0350 hours?
A The radio in the CID office is located directly under a wall clock and I observed the time as I was approaching the radio and subsequent to that I learned that it was 0350 hours.
Q But you never made a notation of that?
A No, I did not.
Q Was there anything significant about the time you received the call that would cause it to stick in your memory with such certainty?
A I have had to refer this time from time to time again, and it has stuck in my mind.
Q Well, what was the message you received at 0350?
A I did not receive a message per se. I monitored a radio transmission between Military Police patrol and the Military Police base station. I then --
Q Excuse me. I thought you -- I understood you to say yesterday that you were in bed sleeping.
A That's correct.
Q And something on the radio caused you to -- attracted your attention. What is it that you heard at that time that attracted your attention and roused you from your sleep?
A At first I couldn't -- I didn't hear exactly what was being said but there was -- the transmission was louder than usual and it was a sense of urgency in the voices of the people transmitting, and it brought me out of my light sleep.
Q All right now once you were awakened from your light sleep, what did you hear that you now recall?
A I heard military policemen saying something to the effect that persons had been stabbed and they were requesting medical assistance.
Q Now what about that information caused you to note the time?
A Upon hearing this, a stabbing, be it fatal or not would come under my investigative purview, being an aggravated assault if it did not entail a fatal injury. I then got out of bed and approaching the radio, I observed the time, which is directly over the radio.
Q When is the first time thereafter that you had occasion to write down the time that you were awakened by these calls?
A It was later that morning.
Q Now when you went into 544 Castle Drive you say that -- you described making observations yesterday. Is that right?
A Correct.
Q And that you were looking at the room, I believed you testified, from a left to right fashion?
A Yes, sir, clockwise.
Q And is that part of your technique that you follow, always to look at a room in a certain fashion? Is that right?
A That's correct.
Q Then you described in great detail your movements within the house. Am I correct in my recollection?
A Yes, correct.
Q And is it fair to say that you were making notations at that time of the various things that you were doing?
A At that time I was making mental notes.
Q Mental notes? You mean that when you went into the MacDonald house and did the various things that you described in detail yesterday, you were not writing things down?
A That's correct.
Q When is the first time that you made any written notations of what your observations were on February 17th?
A Later that morning.
Q At about what time and where were you when you made those written notes?
A It was at the -- it was subsequent to the bodies being removed and before the lab team arrived, so it was between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m.
Q Sometime between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m.?
A Yes.
Q Can you give us any more precise time as to when you made those notations?
A It would probably be closer to 8 a.m.
Q And do you recall what you noted at that time that was significant to you or appeared significant to you about the MacDonald house?
A Would you repeat that? I'm not quite sure I understand it.
Q Can you tell us what you wrote down at that time about your significant observations inside the MacDonald house?
A Basically what I have testified to here.
Q Are you telling us you made notations at approximately 8 or 9 a.m. on the 17th of the placement of all the pieces of furniture, of the location of the blood spots and all those matters you testified to yesterday?
A Well, I won't say all notes were made at that time. There were subsequent notes. I am still making notes, not of that morning, but of things that have come to pass.
Q Well, all I am interested in at this particular point is can you tell us now what it is you thought was sufficiently noteworthy on the morning of February 17th to have written them down in your own memoranda that you prepared that morning?
A Such as my arrival, my initial observations --
Q Excuse. That's a little bit too general. What are the observations that you wrote down that struck you when you got to the house after you talked to persons there, that you thought you should make a notation of because they might be important at a later time?

CPT SOMERS: I object. This is irrelevant. If he wishes to examine into what the witness did in fact observe, I think it's relevant, but when he's going into what the witness wrote down about something, I think it's irrelevant.

MR. SEGAL: Sir, the witness has testified yesterday to a number of alleged observations. It is impossible for this inquiry to tell on what he is basing the observations. Were they things he observed contemporaneously with his entry? What were the things that struck him as important at that time, or are these hindsight observations made after subsequent review of the property? It's quite relevant, the specific things being found, where they were found and when they were noted. We've had a long discussion with all the MP's here about various things they observed. We are now trying to determine not what the investigator tells us from hindsight from the cumulative effect of having interviewed many people and looked at these photographs hundreds of times, but what is it he was seeing at the time that made a sufficient impact that he may have written it down, and it seems to me nothing can be more crucial than to try to separate what he noticed at the time that was important from what he knows now, the totality of five and a half months investigation.

CPT SOMERS: The witness has testified that he is testifying from his memory that has been reaffirmed by looking at his notes but it is from his memory. What he wrote down is irrelevant.

CPT BEALE: Mr. Ivory, let me ask you one question. Have you to date made an investigator statement concerning this case and reduced that to a typewritten form?

MR. IVORY: Yes, sir, I have.

CPT BEALE: Is that one of the documents that you have used to refresh your memory prior to testifying?

MR. IVORY: Sir, while writing it, it would necessarily refresh my memory, but not specifically for this response.

CPT BEALE: Then, Captain Somers, this witness, I believe, is no different from any of the other witnesses concerning sworn statements, and if you recall Colonel Rock's direction that we would appreciate that each time, prior to the witness testifying, that you let him identify it, put it before him and have it there.

CPT SOMERS: Well, now there are two or three things that should be said about this. One of them is I don't know in my own mind, but I suspect that what is being referred to is an investigator's statement. It is merely a narrative statement including conclusions and many other things which would be irrelevant here, and it is also not a sworn statement.

MR. IVORY: It is not a sworn statement, no, sir.

CPT SOMERS: And furthermore I was unaware of its existence anyway, which is why it hasn't been mentioned heretofore.
So you are dealing with a statement that is unsworn and contains conclusions and many other matters which are irrelevant. However, if you wish the conclusions of the investigator and similar material to be brought before this hearing I will attempt to get this statement.

CPT BEALE: Specifically directing your attention to -- was a statement from this particular witness reference what he observed and what he did on the morning of the statement -- or on the morning of the 17th?

CPT SOMERS: Well, Mr. Ivory, have you made a sworn statement of that nature?

MR. IVORY: I have not made a sworn statement, no, sir. I have -- in fact the statement to which I have referred has not even been final typed. It is in a draft form, and it is to be used not -- it had not been intended for use here, but for our case files. Therefore it is not in a final typing form.

CPT BEALE: Based on your answers then, your objection is overruled and Mr. Segal may proceed to question this witness concerning the matters that are presenting being discussed.

Q Can you tell us, Mr. Ivory, what it is that you noted on the morning of February 17th in writing that you considered to be unusual observations in the MacDonald house?
A I noted the time of my arrival. I noted my --

CPT SOMERS: I object to this. If this counsel wishes to ask specific questions about specific matters, that's fine. He's asking the witness now to draw conclusions as to what's unusual which he, himself objects to.

MR. SEGAL: I'll amend the question. That's all right, Captain Somers.

Q Be good enough, Mr. Ivory, to tell us what it is you wrote down on February 17th, pertaining to your investigating; and if you would, please, sir, it would be helpful if you would tell us what it is you wrote rather than describing to us the subject matter that you were writing down?
A I reduced to writing -- all right, say, I was -- I monitored the transmission at 0350 hours, the procedures I went through there at the office, notifying the photographer, gathering investigative tools to take to the scene; arriving at the scene approximately 0400; entering the quarters; being briefed by Lieutenant Paulk; making the observations in the living room.
Q Excuse me, if I may interrupt you. When you say making observations in the living, are you saying that in your memoranda you wrote down something after 0400, made observations of the living room, or are you saying that you wrote down saw chair, saw table turned over? I think you have to understand exactly what it is when you refer to --
A I was just about to get into that.
Q All right, go ahead.
A I made the observations in the living room as to the location and placement of furniture, things that were obviously out of place such as the coffee table being tipped over, the magazines being under it, a plant being on the floor, a flower pot being on the floor. I further described going through the hallway to the master bedroom, what I observed there, that is the body, and as to the surroundings in the bedroom as to the placement of furniture, things that seemed out of place such as the telephone being off the hook, blood being on the walls and other items of furniture, the writing on the headboard of the bed, placement of other furniture, furnishings and items within that room, the finding of that bundle of bed sheet and bedspread at the foot of the bed; and then my going to the side bedrooms, observing of how I went in the room. It was not illuminated; I lighted the room by means of a wall switch. My initial observations of the room as to placement of furniture, observing the body of a child in the bed, approaching the bed, observing the body of the child, leaving the room, going across the hall to the other room, observing the child in the bed there, also illuminating the room by means of a light switch, on the wall, my observations of the body, observation of placement of furniture within the room, going then from that room, accompanied I should add at all times by Lieutenant Paulk.
Q You noted that in your report?
A Yes, at the time he was describing to me what he found.
Q What I am asking you whether you noted in your report that Lieutenant Paulk was with you?
A Yes, that's what I am saying. I then went back to the living room, dining room, noting the placement of furniture, anything being out of place in the dining room area.
Q What did you say in your notes about what was out of place?
A The dining room appeared to be in good order, no apparent disturbance of furnishings, the table being set with four chairs, three of the chairs being placed directly to the table, one chair being placed at an angle to the table.
Q This is what you wrote down in your memoranda you made sometime between 0800 and 1100 hours on February 17th?
A Yes, and then going into the kitchen and my observation there of the blood on the floor, and my going to the next door apartment.
Q All right, let me interrupt you at this point. What kind of note book, or what kind of paper did you make these notations on?
A On a legal pad such as you have there.
Q And how many pages of these observations did it cover?

CPT SOMERS: I object. Now that's irrelevant.

CPT BEALE: Sustained.

MR. SEGAL: I just want to say this, sir, that one of the questions is always credibility. I am not suggesting the witness is not credible, but one of the questions is credibility. The witness purports to say these are the things he noted. One way of verifying that is to now ask the witness how long actually were his notes, because it's been my observation that the description appears to be more detail than in fact the writing was, and since we do not have the writing it seems to me that one way of verifying it is to be allowed to have the answer to that question.

CPT SOMERS: I only have one response to this, and that is that the ruling of the investigating officer has been made. The defense counsel has heard the ruling.

CPT BEALE: Mr. Segal, the objection is still sustained.

Q Now when you went to the master bedroom that was the first room where you found a body. Is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Did you tell us yesterday that you made some check of vital life signs?
A That's correct.
Q Would you tell us exactly what you did and how you did it?
A I approached the body, went down on one knee by the body, looked at the chest area, observing the wounds, looking for any sign of movement of the chest or indicated respiration, looked for any signs in the face that would indicate signs of respiration or life or breathing, the general appearance of the wounds, the wounds on top of the head. There appeared to be no active bleeding such as where there were -- which should have been, or in my opinion -- where it should have been actively bleeding, such as the wound in the neck area and the chest. I saw no signs of active bleeding which would indicate to me absence of life.
Q Is that all you did with regard to the female body you found in the master bedroom, to check the life signs?
A That's correct.
Q Well, do I gather what you said is that you got down on one knee and just looked at the body?
A That's correct.
Q You never took the pulse?
A No, I did not.
Q You never put your ear against the chest to hear a heart beat if one existed?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you do anything whatsoever with regard to checking the vital life signs of the body of the female in the master bedroom other than look at it when you were down on one knee?

CPT SOMERS: I object. He's answered this question.

CPT BEALE: Sustained.

Q Now after you make this observation of the body from down on one knee what did you do about checking any of the other bodies in the house?
A The same.
Q Well, where did you go after that?
A I went to the room of Kimberly MacDonald.
Q And tell us exactly what you did when you went into Kimberly's bedroom.
A I went into the room, approached the bed on the side near the window.
Q How far did you get from the bed?
A Right to the bed.
Q And you were actually up against, within a foot of the side of the mattress?
A No, I was right to the mattress.
Q And of what portion of the body were you standing along side when you were making these visual observations?
A The head and shoulder region.
Q What did you do at that time?
A I looked again for signs of respiration of the chest.
Q Well, let me cut it short. Did you just look at the body at that point?
A I did not touch any of the bodies.
Q Now let me ask you, in what direction was the body of this child facing, the head of this child facing?
A Generally, away from me.
Q And what could you see of the face of this child other than the head and the left side?
A As I looked over the bed I could see that left side and quite a bit of her face.
Q And did you lean over the child?
A That's right.
Q You didn't touch any part of the bed. Is that right?
A Oh, yes, I did.
Q What part of the bed did you touch?
A That part of the mattress behind the body.
Q Well, what part of your body came in contact with the mattress?
A The fingertips.
Q You put your fingertips on the mattress when you leaned over. Is that right?
A Correct.
Q And you leaned over and you looked at what portion of the child besides the head?
A The head and the upper chest.
Q And the rest of the child, what about that?
A It was covered with a blanket.
Q Did you make an effort to lift the blanket with a pen or some other device?
A No, I did not.
Q And you just looked at the child and you didn't see anything so you went away. Is that right?
A That's correct.
Q You didn't check for heart beat?

CPT SOMERS: I object. He's answered that question.

MR. SEGAL: We are entitled to the answers on the critical question of what he did in connection with checking for life signs. It's insufficient to say I checked the life signs and then give no details to show what he did. In my observations, sir, just to look at a body, no person in his right mind would make a conclusion of life or death when there is some possibility there might be life.

CPT SOMERS: I object to this.

CPT BEALE: Just a second, counsel. The defense is certainly entitled to ask specific questions. Now the witness has given generalization, that's true, or he has stated that he observed the bodies and did not touch. Now on cross-examination it is proper to ask whether or not certain vital signed were specifically checked.

CPT SOMERS: The defense counsel himself just asked if all the witness did was view the body visually and make his determination that way. That question was answered. Now he's asking whether he checked the pulse, whether he lifted the blanket. Those specific questions are answered by the question the defense counsel himself asked, and I would like to further state an objection that defense counsel, in responding to the government objection, has attempted now to either argue his final argument or testify as to what somebody in his right mind would do, and I interpose an objection to that as well, and ask that it be stricken from the record of these proceedings.

CPT BEALE: Mr. Segal, in reference to both you and Captain Somers' objection and the objection to the objection, Colonel Rock is satisfied that, and he believes that the import of this line of questioning he realizes, and is satisfied with the answers the witness has given, and so therefore in the interest of expeditious handling now we could go to another area, or another line of questioning. Now Colonel Rock does have one thing he wants to say.

COL ROCK: I have one observation to make gentlemen. I'd like for this hearing to continue to be conducted in a gentlemanly fashion, and I do not condone raising voices at this hearing. Proceed, please.

Q Now did you then go to the third bedroom after you made these visual observations?
A I did.
Q And how close did you come to that bed?
A I walked up close to the bed, if not right up to it. I did not physically touch that bed.
Q And what portion of the bed were you standing at?
A By the upper regions of the body.
Q Were you aware that there was blood on the floor along side the bed there?
A Yes, I was.
Q And did you come in contact with that blood?
A No, I did not.
Q And what did you do in regard to checking the vital signs in that bedroom?
A I again looked for signs of respiration in the chest, active bleeding.
Q You didn't touch the body, did you check the pulse?
A No, I was armed with the knowledge that prior to my arrival there had been medical personnel in the house, so I am sure if they had found life sign signs, the bodies of the children would have been removed from the house.
Q Were you under the impression then that someone else had already checked for vital life signs?
A Yes, I am.
Q And how did you get that impression?
A Because medical personnel had been in the house.
Q Did anybody specifically tell you there had been a check made for vital life signs?
A It was just something I assumed.
Q Well, what medical personnel had been in the house before you got there?
A The medical personnel from the Womack Army Hospital.
Q Well, do you know who they were or how many there were?
A By name and number I do not know, but they are the personnel who, I believe, removed the Captain from the house.
Q Well, you saw Captain MacDonald's body being removed, did you not?
A Yes, I did.
Q As a matter of fact they carried his body right past you in the living room?
A That's correct.
Q And how many persons were there with that stretcher?
A Three as I recall.
Q Did you see any other people in the house beside those three medical persons at that time?
A No.
Q So that you had no reason to believe there were anybody else other than the three men who were carrying out Captain MacDonald, who was from the Army Hospital?
A I really don't understand. Please state it again.
Q Did you have any reason to believe, or have any other medical personnel there other than three men carrying out Captain MacDonald?
A No.
Q And you hadn't seen any other medical personnel there before you arrived?
A Not at that time.
Q Had you seen those three men do anything other than bring Captain MacDonald's body down the hallway and carry him out the living room?
A No I did not.
Q Were you aware that none of the military policemen had checked for vital life signs?
A No I was not. In fact, I was under the impression they had.
Q Now how did you get that impression?
A Because of Lieutenant Paulk telling me that when he checked the rooms he saw the bodies in the rooms. I know at least one MP that went in each room, if the not the same MP.
Q Did Lieutenant Paulk tell you that the vital life signs had been checked by either himself or other MP's?
A Not by himself. He said some MP's had entered the rooms.
Q Which you concluded from that statement that they had been checked for vital life signs?
A That's correct.
Q Now when did you first become aware that Doctor Neal was in or about the MacDonald?
A Just prior to my taking him through the house.
Q Well, were you in the living room when he came to the door?
A No, I was not.
Q Where were you when Doctor Neal came to the house?
A In the master bedroom of the house, and I was told there is a doctor here from the hospital.
Q And when you received that information, what did you do?
A I went and met him.
Q And you immediately went back to the front door?
A That's correct.
Q And you brought him promptly to examine the bodies?
A That's correct.
Q Do you know who it was who told you that there was a doctor there?
A It was just a military policeman in uniform. I don't remember who told me.
Q As far as you know, was there any, any delay in bring Doctor Neal to do the examination of the bodies?
A There was no delay.
Q There was no delay? How do you conclude there was no delay?
A When I learned he was there, I went directly to the living room and asked him to accompany me to the rooms.
Q What was happening in regard to the investigation in the master bedroom when you were told that the doctor was here?
A We were making observations of the room.
Q Was anything else happening besides the fact you were looking over the scene there in the bedroom?
A Not to my personal knowledge.
Q Well, if I were to tell you that Doctor Neal testified that he was kept waiting ten minutes because photographs were being taken in the various rooms, would you agree or disagree with Doctor Neal's observations?
A I would disagree.
Q And what would cause you to disagree?
A To my own personal knowledge I would disagree.
Q I beg your pardon?
A To my own personal knowledge I did not keep him waiting ten minutes.
Q And to your personal knowledge there was no photographing going on at that time?
A There was photographs taken immediately prior to him approaching the bodies, yes, but it was not in a manner to delay him.
Q Well, I'm not sure I understand your answer. Are you telling us that at the time some military policeman told you that a doctor was in the building from the hospital, that you were not at that point watching the photographer take the pictures of the crime scene?
A That's correct. I'm going to have to go back and correct myself. We were making observations and also making photographs of the house.
Q But as soon as you were told that Doctor Neal was there, you went and got him and brought him to the master bedroom?
A That is correct.
Q Were you present, did you say, when Doctor Neal made the examination of Mrs. MacDonald's body?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall who he examined first?
A Yes, he examined first the younger child, Kris.
Q Which was in which bedroom?
A The rear bedroom.
Q You testified yesterday that Doctor Neal pulled the covers up to her waist. Is that correct?
A Correct.
Q From that can we conclude that she was not covered from her waist to say about her toes prior to Doctor Neal pulling those sheets up?
A Yes, she was.
Q She was or she was not?
A She was covered. He pulled the covers up just a bit higher.
Q Is that what you mean by your testimony yesterday when you said that he moved Kristen MacDonald's body and then he pulled the covers to her waist?
A Correct.
Q You were giving us this information that he pulled the covers about an inch or so perhaps?
A Yes, he did remove the covers and placed the arm underneath and replace the covers, and they were in the final position just a bit higher.
Q Now, at that time that Doctor Neal was examining the body of the child you had not already made a body outline of that particular child had you?
A No, I had not.
Q So that any movements of the body that he had caused to be made as part of his examination would have resulted -- could have resulted in a change in position to some extent of the child's body?
A To the extent of the arm, yes.
Q To the extent of the arm? You mean you are telling the investigating officer that the only portion of Kristen MacDonald's body that you saw moved by Doctor Neal was her arm?
A No, I'm not saying that. But the body was returned to approximately the same position with the exception of the arm he placed under the blanket.
Q Now you are saying approximately the same position?
A Correct.
Q No one could say that the body was placed in the same position that it had been before Doctor Neal commenced his examination?
A That's correct.
Q As a matter of fact, did you see what instruments Doctor Neal used?
A No.
Q He used no instruments at all?
A No.
Q And what did you see him do with the body of Kristen MacDonald?
A Kristen MacDonald? He looked at the body. He tried for a -- searched for a pulse. He examined the wounds. He examined both the chest and the back of the child.
Q Now if I were to tell you that Doctor Neal has testified that he applied a stethoscope and listened for a heart, would you agree of disagree with Doctor Neal's testimony?
A I'd have to disagree.
Q If I were to tell you that Doctor Neal said he raised up the body and looked at the back, would you agree or disagree with Doctor Neal's testimony?
A I would disagree to a point.
Q What extent do you agree, first of all, with Doctor Neal?
A He did roll the body on its side.
Q He did roll the child over on its side?
A The child was laying on her side.
Q He rolled it over further?
A He moved it to inspect the wounds on its back, and then putting it back.
Q Where was Doctor Neal standing at the time he was making the examination of the body of the first child?
A Right near the upper portion of the body.
Q And did you have any particular occasion to note whether Doctor Neal by any chance stepped on the blood that was on the rug there?
A The blood on the rug or on the floor?
Q On the floor.
A No, he did not.
Q How do you know?
A Because I was looking to see if he was going --
Q You were looking to see whether he stepped in the blood?
A Yes.
Q At the same time you were looking at what he was doing with the body?
A Correct.
Q When you were making both of these observations, can you tell us what made you so certain that he put the body back in the approximate position it had been in prior to the examination?
A I saw the body in the position it was in when I arrived.
Q It just kind of looked like the same position. Is that right?
A Correct.
Q You could hardly call that a very specific replacement of the body though, would you?
A Correct.

CPT SOMERS: I object. He's asking the witness to characterize and draw conclusions.

MR. SEGAL: We are unfortunately in a position where we have to ask that because he's making the observation it is approximately in the same position. I want to determine whether -- the degree to which he would think that the body was in the same position. It is quite relevant to this inquiry.

CPT BEALE: The objection is sustained.

Q Did you, at any time after Doctor Neal make the examination, make any adjustment of the body of the first child so that it would be more in the approximate position which you had first seen it?
A No, I did not.
Q You did not touch the body at all? It's fair to conclude, isn't it then, Mr. Ivory, that the body outline that is shown in the various photographs here of the first child is not the body position as first seen by you when you came into the MacDonald house and made the examination of the child?

CPT SOMERS: I object to that. If he wishes to ask questions with respect to pictures, let him show the specific picture he wishes to ask questions about.

MR. SEGAL: I think it has been made amply clear this witness has seen all the pictures repeatedly in this case. Unless he says he needs the photographs, I see no reason for me to offer him the photographs. The government can do that if wants to.

CPT BEALE: Colonel Rock would like to know which photograph it is that you are referring to. Show it to the witness and --

Q Let me ask you this, Mr. Ivory, was photographs taken of the bed on which Kristen MacDonald had been lying after she was removed showing that there was a body outline there?
A That is correct.
Q Have you seen the photograph of that?
A Yes, I have.
Q Do you have a copy with you, or readily available to you?
A I do not.
Q All right, now were you present when Doctor Neal examined the second child?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q Which child was that?
A Kimberly.
Q The older or the younger child?
A The older child.
Q And did you observe the procedure that Doctor Neal went through at that time?
A That's correct
Q And what did you see Doctor Neal do?
A He went to the approximate position that I had gone earlier in the morning, leaned over the body, looked down on the body, placed his hands on the cheek area of her body. It appeared to me his gaze was then into the wounds in the throat of the body. He then reached across the bed and put his hands to the wrist region to search for the pulse.
Q Did he lift the wrist?
A No, he did not.
Q Did you see Doctor Neal use any instrument on the body for examination purposes?
A No, he had no instruments with him.
Q Whether he had any when he came in or not, did you ever see him apply a stethoscope?
A No, he did not.
Q Did you see the doctor turn the body for the purpose of examining the back for injuries or wounds?
A He did not.
Q You say he did not turn the body of Kimberly MacDonald for the purpose of examining the back?
A That's correct.
Q Did he open the eyes of Kimberly MacDonald for examination purposes?
A No he didn't.
Q Did he move the body of Kimberly MacDonald at all during the examination?
A He did not.
Q The only thing you saw him do as far as touching the body was to lift the wrist for pulse, and touch in or about the throat area in his examination.
A He touched the wrist. He did not lift the wrist, to search for a pulse, and he touched the cheek area.
Q And that's the only physical contact you saw him have with Kimberly MacDonald?
A That is correct.
Q Were you present when he examined the body of Mrs. MacDonald?
A Yes, I was.
Q Now would you describe to me, please, the procedures followed by Doctor Neal as you observed them in the examination of her body?
A He crossed over the body, observing the wounds in her chest --
Q I'm sorry. You said he did what?
A He observed --
Q Prior to that -- he crossed over the body?
A Crouched over the body, crouched by the body. He looked in -- it appeared to me the gaze was going into the right eye of Mrs. MacDonald, which was open. He then lifted the eyelid of the left eye, and replaced it. Then he put his hand in the wrist region of her left arm, which was extended, but he did not lift the wrist. He placed his fingers in the wrist area in the search for pulse. He then went around and stood behind and over the head region and reached down and felt under the jaws of the body of Mrs. MacDonald.
Q And you did not see him apply a stethoscope to her body in any fashion?
A He did not.
Q Did you see him examine her back for back wounds?
A He did not.
Q If I was to tell you that Doctor Neal testified that he lifted up the body of Colette MacDonald for the purpose of examining the back for wounds, would you agree or disagree with Doctor Neal's testimony?
A I'd say he was mistaken.
Q When was the body outline made of Mrs. MacDonald's body in reference to the time that Doctor Neal was examining her? Was it before he examined her, or after he examined her?
A It was after.
Q After he examined her?
A As I recall, yes.
Q So at the time that Doctor Neal was examining Mrs. MacDonald's body on the floor there was no marking, marker pen, or any other kind of instrument showing where her body was located?
A Not to the best of my knowledge.
Q Now, did he examine Mrs. MacDonald's chest area at all?
A He did.
Q And of course at that time there was the blue pajama top lying across the chest, was it not?
A Correct.
Q And how much of it did he have to move for examination?
A None.
Q You mean to tell us that Doctor Neal did not in any way disturb or move the pajama top in the course of the examination?
A He did not.
Q Do you know how he determined whether there was any injuries underneath that pajama top?

CPT SOMERS: I object. He testified as to what the doctor did. He cannot testify as to what the doctor was concluding in his own mind.

CPT BEALE: Sustained.

Q Do you know whether the doctor conducted any other examinations for wounds in the body of Mrs. MacDonald?
A He did not.
Q Did Doctor Neal actually kneel down on the floor to examine Mrs. MacDonald?
A Kneel, no, he was in a crouch.
Q Do you know whether Doctor Neal got any blood on his clothing or on a portion of his body during the course of the examination of Mrs. MacDonald's body?
A I did not see any blood on his uniform.
Q Did you make any particular observation in that regard?
A No I did not.
Q Mr. Ivory, you were and still are, I assume, the principal investigator in the MacDonald case? You are the criminal investigator assigned to investigation of the MacDonald case, are you not?
A I would not say that.
Q What is your particular assignment with regard to the MacDonald investigation?
A To investigate the facts of the case along with other investigators.
Q It is not correct that Mr. Shaw's responsibility was the preservation of the crime scene and physical evidence found there?
A Both of us together and primarily he'd be the higher ranking investigator.
Q Now what was your specific assignment -- because you happened to be the Duty Investigator?
A Of course, I would respond to a call if I was the Duty Investigator.
Q Who is the person who has devoted the major portion of time among the CID agents here at Fort Bragg in the investigation in this case?

CPT SOMERS: I object.

MR. SEGAL: If he knows of his own personal knowledge --

CPT SOMERS: Unless he is told what counsel means by his terms. And I also object because it is irrelevant.

CPT BEALE: Just a second, Mr. Segal. Again I think that Colonel Rock has pointed out -- one other reason, of course, the recorder cannot possibly take both of you talking at one time. But do extend to one another the courtesy of allowing the other what he is saying; and also if there is an objection interposed, please break until such time as there is a ruling on it. Now, I believe that the counsel did state that he would rephrase his question, so let's let him rephrase it and then if you have another objection, Captain Somers, you can again interpose it.

Q As part of your assignment as an investigator to the MacDonald case, have you had occasion to review all of the known records to you regarding the investigation made by yourself and the other CID investigators?
A I have reviewed most of them, yes.
Q Do you have any facts to show that Captain MacDonald in any way abused his wife and children?

CPT SOMERS: I object to that. The witness is being asked to draw a conclusion from facts which are not specified.

MR. SEGAL: We will ask him the underlying facts if he has an opinion.

CPT BEALE: The objection as interposed is sustained. Colonel Rock does have something to ask.

COL ROCK: Counselor, how much longer do you think this questioning will continue? I think we are approaching a break at this time.

MR. SEGAL: Sir, I am of the opinion that we'd be a little bit longer -- that we could not conclude it before the break.

COL ROCK: Then we will be recessed until 1330.

(The hearing recessed at 1125 hours, 22 July 1970.)

(The hearing reopened at 1333 hours, 22 July 1970.)

COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that those parties who were present at the break are currently in the hearing room. I would like to, at this time, hand to opposing counsel the transcript of the hearing, V1, and I would like at this time to mention to both counsel that these -- this testimony is being presented to you as an aid as it is produced, and of course, this -- request that this be used only for your work and not to be released outside this hearing.
Is counsel for the accused ready to proceed?

MR. SEGAL: Ready, sir.

COL ROCK: Please proceed.

Q Mr. Ivory, how did you determine that nothing had been moved in the crime scene prior to your arrival at the Castle Drive household of the MacDonald house?

CPT SOMERS: I object. The witness did not testify that that was the case.

CPT BEALE: Very well. I don't remember whether he did or not. Ask him first of all whether or not --

Q Did you ever make any effort to determine whether the crime scene had any way been altered or changed prior to your arrival there?
A Yes, I did.
Q How did you do that?
A I asked Lieutenant Paulk -- I said to him, make sure nobody touches anything, and has anything been altered. That's not a quote, but words to that effect.
Q In other words, you are saying you asked Lieutenant Paulk if anything had been altered prior to your arrival. Is that correct?
A Correct.
Q And did you ask anyone else besides Lieutenant Paulk had anything been altered?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you ever question any of the MP's who were in the house before you got there as to what they may have done to the crime scene, if anything?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you ask any of the MP's who were there before you arrived at the crime scene as to whether they saw any other persons touch anything or alter the crime scene?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you ever learn at all in the course of your investigation that an unidentified person wearing a fatigue jacket and dungarees was in the living room prior to your arrival at the crime scene?
A I have since heard that an ambulance driver was there dressed in that manner.
Q Where did you hear that?
A I have heard that within my office. I did not hear it that day. I did not know it that day. I heard it subsequent to that.
Q What investigation if any, did you make to determine whether that person touched any part of the crime scene?
A I did not, personally.
Q Did you learn that Specialist Four Mica, a Military Policeman, observed an individual dressed as I have described touch certain items in the living room prior to your arrival?
A I have heard that or read accounts of it in the newspaper.
Q Having learned that information in the fashion you've described, what if anything did you do to check that out further?
A I personally did nothing.
Q Did anybody to your knowledge attached to the CID check that information out further?
A Yes, I believe Mr. Grebner did.
Q Do you know what, if anything, he did?

CPT SOMERS: Now, I object to that.

MR. SEGAL: He doesn't know?

CPT BEALE: Very well.

Q Mr. Ivory, did you at any time learn that the unidentified person that I have described to you touched the white plastic flower pot on the floor in the living room?
A No.
Q Did you ever ascertain or learn that the unidentified person I have described to you sat on the couch in the MacDonald living room next to the coffee table that was overturned?
A I have heard since the testimony has been given here, but I did not learn that in fact at the scene.
Q So aside from whatever Lieutenant Paulk may have told you, you have no idea as to what alterations, or changes, if any had taken place in the scene -- crime scene, between the time the first Military Policeman arrived there and when you arrived there?
A That's correct.
Q Did you ever learn that there was a wallet seen in the living room of the MacDonald house by military policemen?
A Yes.
Q Did you see the wallet in the living room of the MacDonald house when you arrived?
A Yes, I did.
Q You did see it there? Where was the wallet located?
A I saw a wallet on the desk, at the front door.
Q A wallet on the desk at the front door. Did you describe that for us yesterday when you were giving a description of the crime scene?
A No, I don't believe I did.
Q Any reason why you omitted that from your description of the crime scene?
A No particular reason, no.
Q Was it the fact that you didn't consider that to be a matter of any importance in the investigation?

CPT SOMERS: I object. He's said there was no particular reason for it.

CPT BEALE: The objection is overruled.

Q What was your answer?
A Would you ask the question again, please?
Q Yes. Was there any particular reason that you did not consider it important to mention the existence of that wallet on the desk in the living room?
A No particular reason.
Q Were you ever made aware that certain military policemen who had been on the crime scene prior to your arrival observed the wallet on the living room floor?
A No, this is the first I've heard of it.
Q The first you've heard of that. Did you ever interview Specialist Four Mica of the Military Police?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you ever read his interview taken by other CID investigators?
A Yes, I believe I did.
Q Did anyone ever ask whether you had observed the wallet on the floor in the living room? Or whether he had observed the wallet?
A Not that I recall.
Q Did you subsequently see the wallet that you say you observed on the desk in the living room at some other place?
A No, I did not.
Q Where was the wallet the last time you observed it at 544 Castle Drive?
A On the desk by the front door.
Q Now when photographs were taken of the living room, does the wallet appear in any photograph to your knowledge?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Are there photographs that show that portion of the room where you saw the wallet?
A There is a photograph, I believe, taken from the front door, takes in generally the desk and the TV set and the -- part of the stereo.
Q Did you do anything to determine on the morning of February 17th 1970 as to whether or not anything had been stolen from the MacDonald household?
A No, I did not.
Q Why not?
A It did not appear that the house had been searched or ransacked, and I had no idea of the medical condition of Captain MacDonald, and I know people were interviewing him and there was no way to get an inventory of the property in the house at the time.
Q Did you observe a drawer, one or more drawers in the six-drawer chest in the master bedroom that was pulled open?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you ever take an inventory of the property of the MacDonald house to determine if anything had been stolen from it?
A I personally have not.
Q Well, to your knowledge, has anyone connected with the investigation of the CID inventoried the property in the MacDonald house?
A We have an inventory of the furnishings in the house, I believe. Other than that, of my personal knowledge, I cannot say.
Q Do you know who made that inventory?
A It was a joint effort, by different investigators.
Q Did you participate in that inventory?
A Yes, I did.
Q And when was that made?
A Well, its been made from the time that we went into the house until -- until now.
Q Well, can you indicate to us, though, when you first started making the written list of the items that were found in the MacDonald house for the purpose of compiling it in a formal inventory of the contents of that premises?
A No, I cannot.
Q About how long after February 17th would you estimate you began to make -- your participation in that inventory?
A There is no formal listing or inventory, as such, of the contents of the house.
Q Well, what inventory were you referring to a moment ago, if you weren't referring to a formal inventory?
A I'm referring again to items that were seen in the house that various investigators have listed in their reading files.
Q But you wouldn't say that was an inventory of the contents of the house for the purpose of determining whether anything had been stolen from that property?
A That's correct.
Q Now have you learned at any time since February 17th, 1970, that two valuable rings were missing from the MacDonald household?
A No, I did not.
Q Were you ever requested by anyone to search the jewelry found in that house for one or more rings?
A Yes, I have.
Q When did that happen?
A The date I cannot recall at the present, but I was requested by Captain MacDonald that a diamond ring be furnished him, an expensive item. The jewelry box was searched and that ring and another ring that appeared to be valuable was found and was released to Captain MacDonald.
Q How many rings were released to Captain MacDonald?
A Two.
Q Do you know who released those to Captain MacDonald?
A Yes, Criminal Investigator John Hodges.
Q You, yourself didn't turn them over to Captain MacDonald?
A No, I didn't.
Q Did you, yourself, see the rings that were being requested?
A Yes, I did.
Q Were you aware of a ring -- an investigation made to locate a ring belonging to Helen Madison?
A Helen Madison. No, I've never heard that name before.
Q Were you aware of an investigation being made to find a star sapphire ring in the MacDonald house which has never been turned over to Captain MacDonald or any other person?
A No.
Q Were you aware of a diamond dinner ring that was sought from the MacDonald household but has never been located by CID investigators?
A No.
Q Did you subsequently see that wallet that was referred to a few minutes ago later at the CID headquarters?
A No, I did not.
Q Is it fair to say that you've never seen the wallet again since the time you noticed it on the desk in the living room?
A That's correct.
Q Now you testified, yesterday, Mr. Ivory, as to certain fibers that were found in the bedroom, the master bedroom of the MacDonald house. Did you ever attempt to determine if the fibers that you saw on the floor had been there prior to the time of the killing at the MacDonald house, or were placed there or came to be on the floor at the time or after the time of the killings?
A I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at, sir.
Q Well, did you ever find out whether the fibers were there before Mrs. MacDonald was killed on the floor or died on the floor in the master bedroom, or if they got there after she was killed?
A I can only offer you my opinion.
Q I ask, sir, whether you have any facts to indicate when the fibers came to be on the floor of the MacDonald master bedroom?
A The threads found on the floor of the master bedroom, underneath her body, in my opinion --
Q Now, I didn't ask your opinion. Do you have any facts to determine when those fibers got to be there? Not your opinion.
A Prior to her laying on her back on the floor.
Q How did you determine that to be a fact?
A Her body, to my knowledge, had never been moved.
Q All right, now do you know how long the fibers had been on the floor before Mrs. MacDonald's body came to be on the floor?
A No, I do not.
Q For all you know they could have been there one day or one week or one month?
A I doubt that they could have been there a week or a month.
Q I ask you again, for all that you know as fact, they could have been there one week or one month?
A No, I don't know this as a fact.
Q Well, I don't understand what you know.
A Well, I don't understand your question, sir.
Q Do you have any idea how long they had been on the floor prior to 0400 February 17, 1970?
A I have no idea.
Q You did ascertain, did you not, that Captain MacDonald was wearing some type of pajamas on the morning of February 17, 1970?
A That is correct.
Q And what kind of pajamas did you determine he was wearing?
A Light blue pajamas.
Q And how did you find that out?
A From medical personnel being interviewed by military policemen who arrived initially at the scene, and by talking to Captain MacDonald himself.
Q In other words, the medical personnel said they saw some kind of blue pajamas. Is that right?
A Right.
Q Did you ever determine what condition the blue pajamas that were referred to, or described to you, were in before this incident of February 17, 1970, in which Captain MacDonald was injured?
A No.
Q You do not know whether these pajamas were tattered or torn in any fashion prior to February 17th, 1970?
A No, I do not. They could have been in that condition. (Pointing to G-75.)
Q There has been marked into evidence what appears to be a rather battered and torn pajama top of blue fabric. Do you know what happened to the -- or if there are bottoms to those pajamas?
A There are or were bottoms to those pajamas.
Q Was Captain MacDonald observed by any medical personnel as you know, wearing blue pajama bottoms that seemed to resemble the top that is here in this courtroom?

CPT SOMERS: I object to that. He can't say what the conclusion of the medics are or personnel who might have seen these things, as to whether they did or did not resemble the top of -- or this particular top which is marked as an exhibit.

CPT BEALE: The objection is sustained.

Q Did you observe the type of pajamas Captain MacDonald was wearing when he was taken out of the house?
A No, I did not.
Q Is that because he or his body was covered by a blanket by the medical personnel?
A By a sheet.
Q Did you, yourself, see Captain MacDonald at the Womack Army Hospital that morning?
A No, I did not.
Q The various fibers that you recovered from the floor of the MacDonald bedroom and other places that you say are similar fibers, did you ever ascertain as to whether those fibers came from the pajama top that belonged to Captain MacDonald that is here in evidence, or the pajama bottom?

CPT SOMERS: This witness is not the witness who prepared the lab reports, and who gave those conclusions.

MR. SEGAL: We are not asking for the lab report. We are asking whether he has any facts of his own knowledge to indicate where they came from. He may have some admission by some authority; he may have some other personal knowledge and we may ask him what he knows.

CPT BEALE: The objection is overruled.

Q Do you know, Mr. Ivory, whether the fibers that were found came from the pajama bottom or the pajama top of Captain MacDonald?
A I can relate only what was told to me, sir.
Q And that was told to you by whom? Without saying what they told you.
A The examiner from the laboratory.
Q And which examiner was that?
A Mr. Dillard Browning.
Q Did you ever ask to have the fibers that were found on the floor in or about Mrs. MacDonald's body compared to the fibers in the blue rug, blue throw rug that appears at the foot of Mrs. MacDonald as shown in G-45?

(G-45 was shown to the IO and handed to Mr. Ivory.)

A Are you talking about the fibers of this rug?
Q Did you ever cause a comparison to be made between the fibers you found in and about Mrs. MacDonald's body and the fibers that might have been taken for sample purposes from this blue and green throw rug at Mrs. MacDonald's foot?
A Yes.
Q You did cause such a comparison to be made?
A That's correct.
Q Do you know where the report of that comparison is?
A I will say I requested it.
Q Let me ask you, did you ever receive a response to that request that you know of?
A As best I can recollect, yes.
Q Is that contained in a written memorandum of some sort?
A I do not know if it was written or if it was a verbal report I received on one of my trips to Fort Gordon.
Q Now did you ever cause for the fibers to be -- of the blue pajamas seen here by Mrs. MacDonald, and the fibers found on the floor in and about her to be compared with the blue fabric of the garment shown on the arm chair here in G-45?
A No, I did not.
Q Why not?
A I inspected that garment and it did not appear to be in any state of disrepair or --
Q You don't hold yourself out to be, however, an expert in regard to textiles, do you?
A I do not.
Q And are you telling the investigating officer that you made such a careful examination of that garment, that you could say it is positive that the fibers couldn't have conceivably come from that garment?
A I made an examination --

CPT SOMERS: I object to this question and to this line of questioning. The examinations in comparison of fibers have been explained at length by Mr. Browning who was present, and he explained what the examination consisted of, and what conclusions can legitimately be drawn from it.

MR. SEGAL: What we are concerned about here is any possible omission in the comparison and as to whether at least the initial investigator on the scene who was there at the time that the crime laboratory team came from Fort Gordon, as to whether he made a request to have certain other items of at least similar color found in the immediate vicinity to be examined, and if not, we are entitled to know at least the reason why not.

CPT BEALE: The objection is overruled, Captain Somers.

Q Mr. Ivory, what is your answer please?
A I'm sorry; there has been a long dissertation here.
Q Fair enough. Can you say with certainty, based upon the examination you made of this blue garment lying on the arm chair, that there is no conceivable possibility that any of the fibers found on the floor could have come from that garment?
A In my mind, that is correct.
Q What kind of examination did you make of that garment?
A A visual, close visual inspection.
Q That means of course, you picked it up off the arm chair, you opened it up?
A That's correct.
Q And then you turned it inside out and looked at it?
A That's correct.
Q What kind of garment is it?
A As I recall it is a jersey type pull over.
Q Pull over of what type?
A I can't tell you the material.
Q I don't mean the material. Is it a sweater or a --
A There was a pair of slacks, as I recall, and also, I believe a pullover type sweater, if I recall correctly.
Q Is that the item that appears underneath the white cloth, that is here on the arm chair?
A I'm sorry I can't see it from that distance.

(A photo was shown to Mr. Ivory.)

COL ROCK: May I see that, Lieutenant Malley, please?

(The same photo was shown to the IO.)

Q Do you know what that white item is there on top of the blue pullover?
A Yes, it is an item of women's underwear, a brassiere.
Q Under that is a darker item. Is that the item you described as jersey pullover?
A Yes.
Q Well, now what kind of an examination did you make of that item?
A I held it in my hands, went over it, looked at it, looked at the body of it, looked at the seams of it, not particularly looking for rips or tears or anything, looking for anything that might be on it, and I found it not to be ripped in great length.
Q Was it ripped al all?
A Not that I found.
Q Well, would you want to say with positiveness that there are no rips at all in that item?
A I would say I found no rips.
Q Are you willing to say that your examination of it was of sufficient care that you could say with reasonable certainty that there was no rips in it?

CPT SOMERS: I object. He's answered that question.

MR. SEGAL: He has not answered the specific question put to him. I think we are entitled to, in a matter of such detail, to know exactly what the witness is answering to.

CPT BEALE: The objection is overruled. Answer the question, if you can, Mr. Ivory.

A I beg your pardon, sir.

CPT BEALE: Answer the question, if you can.

A I said my examination showed, and I did not see any rips in it.
Q Did you turn the garment inside out?
A As I recall, I did.
Q Did it have any holes which has been stitched up?
A I do not recall at this time.
Q How were the edges of the garment bound?
A I do not remember.
Q Were they bound at all with any --
A I do not remember.
Q Would you indulge me for a moment, sir? We want to make reference to the transcript which was given to me at 1330 hours. Now in regard to the blue pajama top that was lying across the chest of Mrs. MacDonald, if I were to tell you that Captain Neal testified that that item had to moved in order to check the vital life signs of Mrs. MacDonald's heart, would you say that Captain was correct or incorrect in that regard?
A I would say he was mistaken.
Q Now if I were to tell you that Captain Neal said it was necessary to move the white towel that was placed across the mid-section of Mrs. MacDonald in order to make the examination of her, would you say he is correct or incorrect in that regard?
A I would say he was mistaken.
Q May I ask whether he was closer to the body of Mrs. MacDonald than you were at the time he examined her.
A He was.
Q Is it fair to say that he was within touching distance of both the white bath cloth on the stomach and the blue pajama on the chest?
A That is correct.
Q Would it fair to say that you, yourself, were not at that time within touching distance?
A That is correct.
Q Would it also be correct to say that he was in a better position than you were to determine whether he was forced or required to move any of those objects?
A That is not correct.
Q He was not in a better position to see?
A He was in a better position to have moved the items; however he did not move the items.
Q If I were to tell you that Captain Neal testified that as a result of his contacts with the body of Mrs. MacDonald, that it is quite possible that he caused fibers to be moved from where they were originally resting. Would you agree or disagree with his statement?
A If there were threads or fibers where he physically touched, he may have knocked them off. I did not see any.
Q Did you examine the personal clothing of Captain Neal to see whether any fibers attached or came in contact with him that had previously either been on the floor or on Mr. MacDonald?
A Did I examine Captain who?
Q Neal.
A No, I did not.
Q So you are not disagreeing with his statement that he believes that it is possible to cause fibers to be moved because of his contact with Mrs. MacDonald and the area around her?
A It would have been possible, but he did not.
Q Do you agree with or disagree with Captain Neal's testimony that he had to lift her, Mrs. MacDonald, off the floor in order to make an examination of her back for injuries or wounds there?
A He did not make an examination of her back.
Q Now I believe you testified earlier that you found eight pairs of sealed rubber gloves that you described as, I believe, surgical type gloves in the cabinet in the kitchen of the MacDonald household?
A That is correct.
Q Did you find -- strike that. Those eight pairs were in sealed envelopes of some sort?
A Yes, they were.
Q Did you find any odd or single surgical gloves or rubber in the MacDonald house? On February 17th.
A Only those sections.
Q You found, I believe you testified, two pieces of a rubber glove in the master bedroom?
A There were, in fact, three pieces found.
Q You found three pieces of a rubber glove in the master bedroom?
A I found two.
Q I beg your pardon?
A I found two.
Q But there were three there located, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever find the balance of that glove anywhere?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you ever find a single or odd unmatched rubber surgical glove in the MacDonald?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you ever search the trash cans in the back of the MacDonald house?
A Yes, I did.
Q When did you do that?
A It was after the bodies had been removed.
Q And what did you find, if anything, in the trash can?
A The trash can was empty.
Q And was that because the trash cans had been emptied by the trash removers during the period of time while there were military police in the MacDonald house that morning?
A I do not know.
Q Did you determine when the trash collection was made for 544 Castle Drive on or before February 17th, 1970?
A No, I did not.
Q If I were to tell you that the trash was collected between the hours of 0600 and 0800 on February 17th 1970 by the normal trash collectors, would you agree or disagree with that statement?

CPT SOMERS: I object. He said that he doesn't know when the trash was collected.

CPT BEALE: The objection is sustained. The witness has already answered the question, Mr. Segal.

Q I show you a photograph marked A-24, being a portion of the bedroom of the MacDonald household.

(A-24 was showed to the IO and counsel for the government.)

And I ask you to take particular note of a white hairbrush with black bristles lying in front of the arm in that room. Do you observe that?
A Yes, I do.
Q Did you ever ascertain who was the owner of that hairbrush?
A No, I did not.
Q Do you have any way of stating, as a matter of fact that that hairbrush belonged to any person known to live at the MacDonald house?
A I do not know offhand what the laboratory report said about the hair content.
Q Did you ever make any attempt to determine who the owner of that hairbrush was?
A I did not personally.
Q To your knowledge, did anyone from the CID attempt to determine whether that brush belonged to either Mrs. MacDonald or some stranger?
A That is the reason it was sent to the laboratory, to determine that.
Q But you do not know the results of that investigation?
A Off the top of my head I cannot reply.
Q I believe you indicated to us that the surgical gloves that were wrapped in some packages and found in the kitchen were manufactured by a certain company?
A Correct.
Q And you did name the company for us, didn't you?
A I believe it was Perry, P-e-r-r-y.
Q Did you cause any investigation to be made to determine whether the prices, the three pieces of surgical gloves and -- that was found in the master bedroom, were of the same manufacture as the eight gloves found under the kitchen sink?
A A package of like gloves, of the same manufacture, was submitted to the laboratory for comparison.
Q I'm not sure I understand your answer. One of the eight pairs of gloves?
A Yes, one of those was also sent, plus a like pair coming from Womack Army Hospital.
Q In other words, you obtained another sample out of Womack Hospital?
A Yes.
Q And those two gloves, the Perry gloves and the Womack Hospital sample, were sent to the laboratory with the three pieces found in the MacDonald bedroom. Is that right?
A That is right.
Q Do you have the results of that comparison?
A I cannot quote them.
Q Do you have them in writing?
A I'm sure they are in the laboratory report.
Q In the master bedroom you observed a telephone, did you not?
A I did.
Q And what condition was the receiver, or what position was the receiver of that telephone?
A By the receiver, do you mean the telephone apparatus or the hand piece?
Q The hand piece.
A The hand piece was hanging by its cord along the side of the dresser, resting on the floor.
Q Did you ever learn as to whether or not that phone was in the same position as when the first military policeman arrived at the scene there?
A I have learned that a military policeman did touch it.
Q How did you learn that?
A Through subsequent interviews with him, not interviews which I have conducted, which I have learned or heard of.
Q And did you learn that in fact a military policeman -- did you learn that the military policeman who was subsequently interviewed said that he placed the hand piece on top of the bureau, but not on the receiver of the phone itself?

CPT SOMERS: He's stated that he did not speak to this witness himself. Not only that, but in view of the remoteness of the information he's received, it is irrelevant.

MR. SEGAL: I suggest it is not offered for the truth or falsity of the answer, but -- that the person may have given to Mr. Ivory, but rather Mr. Ivory has been offered for the establishment that the photographs that have been marked in evidence through his testimony have some degree of authenticity with certain interferences or certain conclusions may be argued by the government at a later time, and we wish to establish through the line of questioning that there are a number of matters which do not appear to be consistent with the original crime scene as seen by the military policemen and the photographs the government would seek to argue from. Unless we can determine why these inconsistencies, if they exist, were not investigated or checked out, it doesn't seem to me that the court can ever consider some of these photographs without that knowledge.

CPT SOMERS: The information with respect to the telephone has already been put in evidence by other witnesses who have direct knowledge of it. The pictures are offered as being accurate depictions of the scene at a specific time which specified by this witness.

CPT BEALE: Captain Somers, your objection is overruled. You may continue, Mr. Segal.

Q Mr. Ivory, can you tell us whether in fact you subsequently learned that the military policeman who handled that phone placed the hand piece on the bureau but not on the receiver?
A The information that I obtained was that the -- he picked up the phone, placed it on the receiver, then took it off and put it down to where he originally found it.
Q And you never received or heard any contrary information as to what that particular military policeman did?
A No.
Q And you got that information by reading the interviews taken by other investigators in this case?
A No, I did not read the interviews. I heard it by word of mouth that this was what was incorporated in the interview.
Q You mean to say you've never read the interview of the military policemen who were on the crime scene prior to your arrival there?
A Some of them, I have.
Q But you have not read all of them, of the men who were there before you arrived?
A Correct.
Q That's part of the gap in your knowledge as to what happened to the crime scene between the time the first military policemen were there and your arrival there. Is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Is there any reason why you haven't read those reports from February 17th 1970?
A I know other members of my investigative team have read them.
Q But it doesn't help me understand, sir, as to why you have not read those since your particular concern in the helping to identify these photographs as to their alleged accuracy.

CPT SOMERS: I object to this. It is irrelevant. The time that these photographs were taken has been specified and their accuracy at that time. As to earlier times, other witnesses who could testify about earlier times, have been shown the pictures as to any inaccuracy which may exist. The witness is only testifying as to the accuracy of the photographs at the time they were taken.

CPT BEALE: Your objection is sustained, Captain Somers.

MR. SEGAL: Will you wait just one moment, sir?

COL ROCK: Certainly.

Q Mr. Ivory, did you or any other investigator of the CID ever find the remaining sections from those three pieces from the surgical; gloves or rubber glove as was found in the MacDonald bedroom?
A No, sir.
Q Did you search, in addition to the trash cans, the drains or drain pipes leading from the MacDonald house for the possibility of their remains being flushed out?
A Yes.
Q When was that search made?
A I believe it was made -- the exact date I don't remember -- but it was made subsequent to the laboratory team leaving the house, shortly thereafter. No, I don't recall the date.
Q The examination of the drain pipes was for the purpose, among other things, to learn whether the remainder of those surgical gloves could be found there?
A That is correct.
Q And were any portions or any piece of rubber ever found there that would relate to the pieces that were found in the master bedroom?
A No, the lines were clear.
Q I beg your pardon?
A No.
Q Was the water that was found standing in the drain pipe ever examined by anyone for -- to determine whether it had any blood in it?
A No.

MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further.

COL ROCK: Redirect?

Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Mr. Ivory did you, at the time you entered that house the first time, see an individual such as has been described to you that is wearing jeans and some kind of a fatigue jacket in the house?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q Where were you located, in that room, when Captain MacDonald was brought out of the residence?
A In the living room.
Q Could I ask the indulgence of the investigation officer?

COL ROCK: Surely.

Q Mr. Ivory, the defense counsel has taken you through the house in general in his cross-examination. Can you tell us, please -- I'm not sure whether he covered this or not -- but I would like to ask, can you describe the appearance of the floor in the hallway, particularly the entrance to the hallway?

MR. SEGAL: That's objected to as not having been covered or dealt with in any fashion on cross-examination.

CPT SOMERS: I suggest, sir, that the cross-examination did, in fact, go through a description of the house, and furthermore that this is indeed a technicality of legal procedure which need not be rigidly adhered to in this hearing.

MR. SEGAL: I withdraw the objection, sir. Let him ask the question.

CPT BEALE: Proceed, there has been a withdrawal made.

Q Do you remember the question?
A Yes, the condition of the hallway?
Q The floor of the hallway, particularly the entrance, and the first few feet into the hall.
A At the entrance to the hallway there were items of children's apparel. The floor covering itself appeared to me at that time to be relatively free of blood. The first blood, in fact, that I did notice was in front of the rear bedroom, and from the rear bedroom, from that doorway on back to the master bedroom, there were scatterings of blood, smears and drops.

CPT SOMERS: I have no further questions.

MR. SEGAL: I have just one brief matter.

Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Ivory, you did see the three medics which carried Captain MacDonald out through the living room, out the front door where you were at?
A I don't believe I said three medics -- I saw three persons.
Q Well, could you describe how those three persons were dressed?
A As I recall they were dressed in medic whites.
Q Were all three of them dressed in medic whites?
A One of them was a military policeman.
Q So there was two persons in medic whites and one military policeman?
A That's right.
Q And the persons in medic whites, I assume you are talking about some sort of starched white jacket and white trousers?
A Right.
Q Were both of them dressed in that fashion?
A That's correct.
Q Neither one of them had on dungarees, did they?
A No, not that I noticed.

MR. SEGAL: That's all.

CPT SOMERS: No further questions.

COL ROCK: Mr. Ivory, when you went to the kitchen, was the kitchen door open?

WITNESS: The outer door was not open, sir.

COL ROCK: You mean a screen door, perhaps?

WITNESS: No, sir.

COL ROCK: I am referring to the outside door.

WITNESS: No sir, the door was secured.

COL ROCK: By secured, do you mean locked?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

COL ROCK: Was the kitchen phone dangling when you first observed it?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

COL ROCK: How did you determine that the outside kitchen door was locked? How did you check that?

WITNESS: It was after we processed it for fingerprints that the door was checked and found to be locked. You could see between the crack that there was slid -- something slid across the door, but the door handle was not physically shook until after it had been processed.

COL ROCK: Perhaps I'd better rephrase my questions. The first time you went in the kitchen did you check the outside entrance door?

WITNESS: I checked to see that it was closed. I did not check at that time to physically shake the door knob.

COL ROCK: To your knowledge did anyone subsequently go into the kitchen before additional investigators came to check the prints?

WITNESS: No, sir, not to enter the kitchen.

COL ROCK: So to your knowledge, no one subsequently entered the kitchen after you had been in there until the prints were made?

WITNESS: I believe Mr. Shaw entered the kitchen. Anyone else we had just come to the door, as I believe Mr. Grebner just looked inside.

MR. SEGAL: That's objected to. He has absolutely no way to know, sir, as to what persons may have done, or how they examined it when he was not in the living room or kitchen area himself. It's quite apparent that he was in the bedroom for some portion of the time.

COL ROCK: Yes, I will take that into consideration, counsel.
When you first entered the living room, did you notice any wet footprints, debris or mud on the living room floor or rug?

WITNESS: Yes, sir I did.

COL ROCK: Where was that located?

WITNESS: It was located -- I won't say mud, sir -- there were pieces of wet grass that had been tracked from the door down the hallway.

COL ROCK: I am referring to the living room?

WITNESS: Yes, sir. From the hallway door, around in front of the stereo set, and to the front door.

COL ROCK: This was not on the rug through, is that correct?

WITNESS: Part of the rug, it was, yes, sir.

COL ROCK: Did you notice any wet footprints, debris or mud in the master bedroom on the floor or rug?

WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

COL ROCK: Would you describe what you observed?

WITNESS: I observed pieces of wet grass around the end of the room, or the end of the rug closest to the door. There was some pieces right by the door of the hallway and appeared to be tracked from the utility room, and in that general area.

COL ROCK: In the area adjacent to the west end of the hallway, where you stated originally you saw some clothing; did you observe a doll's head?

WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

COL ROCK: In your supervision of the taking of the photographs, would that doll's head be seen in those photographs?

WITNESS: I don't believe it is fully shown in the photographs.

COL ROCK: Would it refresh your memory if we showed you these photographs?

WITNESS: Yes, sir, quite a bit.

(Some photographs were handed to the witness.)

WITNESS: Are these all the photographs admitted, sir?

COL ROCK: A-14 may assist, or A-15.

WITNESS: Sir, in A-7, while it is not shown here, it would have been hidden by the clothing from this angle or view. What was that other exhibit, sir?

COL ROCK: A-14 and A-15.

WITNESS: No, sir, it cannot be seen.

COL ROCK: And why can it not be seen in any of these photographs, in your estimation, judging from your memory of the scene as you saw it and when the photographs had been taken?

WITNESS: It is -- in my judgment, sir; it is not seen because it is hidden by the clothing from that angle of the camera's view.

COL ROCK: As I recall, Mr. Segal asked you -- strike that. In answer to a question by Mr. Segal, it is my understanding that you stated that you asked Lieutenant Paulk if anything had been moved, meaning any of the objects within the house. Is that correct?

WITNESS: That's correct.

COL ROCK: I don't believe you were asked his answer. Do you recall whether or not there was any indication that anything had been moved?

WITNESS: Sir, at that time he said no.

COL ROCK: And what do you mean, at that time?

WITNESS: He subsequently stated, not to me, that the telephone in the master bedroom had been moved.

COL ROCK: I have nothing further to ask of this witness. Does either counsel desire --

MR. SEGAL: Yes, if I may, sir, with regard to the questions you have put.

Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Ivory, did you say that you did observe wet pieces of grass, grass in a couple of the locations? Is that right?
A That's correct.
Q Did you observe any wet spots on the rug?
A Wet spots?
Q Yes, an area of the rug which appeared to you to be wet with water?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you actually observe traces of dirt on the floor or rug, that is, not household dirt but soil from outside?
A I observed wet grass and the soil adhering to the wet grass. I did not see any clods of dirt.
Q I don't assume that you did, in fact, see any noticeable soil attached to these blades of grass, did you? It may have been there, but you didn't observe it?
A That's correct
Q Did any of those blades of grass that you say were there appear in any one of the photographs that you have before you? Which I think represent all of the photographs that have been produced in this case.

(Witness examined all the photographs.)

A Yes.
Q I beg your pardon, sir?
A Yes, sir.
Q Which photograph are you referring to now?
A I didn't sort them out. There's one, and there are other photographs.
Q Would you be good enough to define those photographs and put them aside for us, please?
Have you set aside certain photographs, Mr. Ivory?
A Yes, sir, I have.
Q Now you've set aside G-48, which is a picture of the knife found adjacent to the dresser in the MacDonald bedroom. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And I hold the photograph up. Would you point with your finger, please, to what you believe are the blades of grass?

MR. SEGAL: If necessary, sir, I can bring this forward.

COL ROCK: I think it would be more appropriate to have the witness circle in red as appropriate, those marks and then signing his name.

Q If you would take the red marker pen, please, and circle the items that you believe to be blades of grass.

(At this time all counsel and the witness are at the IO's desk.)

Q Now you have also set aside G-45. Will you mark on G-45 which is the view from the hallway of the body of Mrs. MacDonald lying in the master bedroom?
A These are the ones I can clearly see in the photographs.

COL ROCK: Also, would you, please, with the same red pen, sign your name and the date on each of the photographs?

(Witness complied.)

Q And you've also selected photograph G-65, a view of the overturned coffee table in the MacDonald living room. May I ask in regard to the item that you have circled in G-65, which appears about two inches to the right of the lower left hand corner, what color is the item as you observe it in this photograph?
A It appears to be a light brown.
Q The item you circled here is, in your judgment, light brown?
A Yes.
Q Does that indicate to you a leaf of grass?
A A bit of dried grass.
Q All right.
A Now by dried grass I don't mean dried grass from the rain, but dried from having been cut.
Q And I finally show you a photograph that you have selected which is marked G-54, which appears to be a view of the bedroom of one of the MacDonald children. Can you identify for us which bedroom that is, please?
A This is from the rear bedroom.
Q Now would you indicate with a red marking pencil the items that you believe to be grass on the floor?
Thank you, if you would return to the witness stand, please, Mr. Ivory.

(Witness did as requested and counsel returned to their tables.)

Q Mr. Ivory, did you collect in appropriate evidence bags the pieces of grass which you observed on portions of the MacDonald household?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q Was there any particular reason why you didn't collect them?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that?
A Upon seeing the pieces of wet grass on the floor and on the rug I asked Lieutenant Paulk where these things came from -- were they here when you came in. He said they were tracked in by the military policemen.
Q And with that explanation of Lieutenant Paulk, you did not make any further explanation or investigation as to the source of that grass or the nature of that grass, is that right?
A That is not right.
Q Well, what did you do about the -- determining the source and nature of that grass?
A I went out onto the lawn after it became light and saw it was the appropriate texture and color of the dried grass that had been walked in the house.
Q What kind of grass was it?
A I don't know. Bermuda grass or whatever it is, it was just normal lawn grass which appeared to have been cut and dried with loose pieces.
Q Are you aware that there is something in excess of 1200 varieties of relatively common lawn grasses in the United States?

CPT SOMERS: I object to that. This is irrelevant.

CPT BEALE: Overruled, counselor. Proceed.

Q Are you aware of that, Mr. Ivory?
A No, I am not aware of that.
Q You are aware, I assume, there are a substantial variety of lawn grasses?
A That is correct.
Q Did you consider that your visual examination of the lawn grass to be definitive in determining whether it was the same as the grass you saw inside the house?
A It appeared to me to be the same.
Q Well, how many leaves of grass did you have in your hands from inside the house when you were outside on the lawn making the check?
A None in my hands.
Q None at all. In other words, all you did was look at the grass on the floor in the house, then walked outside and looked at the grass outside?
A Correct.

MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further.

Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Mr. Ivory, did you see you find any standing puddles of water on the rug in the living room?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q Did you find any muddy footprints?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q You described two medics who took Captain MacDonald out of the house. Might there have been other medics or ambulance drivers present at that time?
A Yes.

CPT SOMERS: No further questions.

MR. SEGAL: Nothing further.

COL ROCK: Mr. Ivory, you are advised that you will discuss your testimony with no person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused. Do you understand?

WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do.

COL ROCK: You are excused, subject to recall.

CPT SOMERS: Sir, before Mr. Ivory departs the room, I request once again that Government Exhibits G-74, 75 and 73, be inspected by either the investigating officer or the defense, because Mr. Ivory shall be taking them with him, and we will arrange to have them photographed.

COL ROCK: I have no further use. Does counsel for the accused at this time?

MR. SEGAL: We have no desire at this particular time to examine these, sir, but we'd like to reserve if we may an appropriate time after arrangements are made to meet the convenience of the government and the defense. I would also like to preserve the thread which is dangling here from this item of blue cloth, and that it not be lost. You may not be aware of it, that's why I ask you, please make sure that it is preserved.

CPT BEALE: Captain Somers, there is something dangling.

CPT SOMERS: Yes, sir, I see it.

COL ROCK: Your request is granted and the witness is excused subject to recall.

(The witness saluted the IO and departed the hearing room.)

COL ROCK: Does the government have further witnesses to offer at this time.

CPT SOMERS: Sir, at this time the government would request that we adjourn until tomorrow morning for a number of reasons, one of them being that the government wishes two hours of working time on a working day to assemble the final drafts and charts which the investigating officer has asked that we provide for him; and another being that our next witness, Mr. Shaw, has been called away to function as an investigator on a case which came up on an emergency basis.

COL ROCK: Will he be able to be here in the morning?

CPT SOMERS: He will, sir.

MR. SEGAL: May we inquire, sir, as to how much more additional testimony the government now intends to present, so that we may plan our -- time?

COL ROCK: You may so inquire.

CPT SOMERS: That is another one of the reasons why the government wants some time to decide whether there may be witnesses other than those that have been listed to be called, whether there may be one or two witnesses listed who may not be called. The government can foresee at this time that its case should not last much longer than another three or four days, working days. It also, if possible, may attempt in the morning to start its testimony with that of Captain Chester, followed by Mr. Shaw, depending on our ability to arrange for that individual's appearance, who's had some difficulty getting here.

COL ROCK: This hearing will be recessed until 0830 tomorrow morning.

(The hearing recessed at 1448 hours, 22 July 1970.)



Home  -  Contact  -  Scholarship Fund  -  New Upload  -  Christina's Corner  -  Resource Page
Chronology  -  Claims vs. Facts  - 
Various Documents  -  CID Records  -  FBI Records
April 6, 1970 Interview  -  Article 32 Hearing  -  Psychiatric/Psychological Data  -  DNA Results
July 23-24, 1970: John Cummings' exclusive interview with MacDonald  - 
Affidavits  -  Grand Jury Transcripts  -  1979 Trial Transcripts  -  MD License Revoked
1987: MacDonald v. McGinniss  -  Mildred Kassab sues MacDonald  -  Court Records

 Parole Hearing  -  Kassab's Work  -  Bob Stevenson Answers Your Questions
Photograph Pages 


Go to top