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

1979 JEFFREY MACDONALD CASE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT
August 2, 1979: Terry Lee Laber, Forensic Chemist for the Minnesota
 Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Laboratory

 

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, the Government calls Mr. Terry Laber.

(Whereupon, TERRY LEE LABER was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as follows:)


D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 11:06 a.m.

MR. MURTAGH:
Q Please state your name and spell it for the reporter?
A Terry Lee Laber, L-a-b-e-r.
Q Where do you reside, Mr. Laber?
A I reside in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Q And are you employed, sir?
A Yes; I am.
Q In what capacity?
A I am employed as a forensic chemist for the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Laboratory, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Q Is that the State Crime Laboratory?
A Yes; it is.
Q Okay; and what in particular do you do for them?
A For the Minnesota State Crime Laboratory, I perform examinations on blood stains, hairs, fibers, soils -- other trace material.
Q Okay; do you hold any particular position in the Laboratory?
A Yes; I do.
Q What is that, sir?
A I am supervisor of the Serology Section of the Laboratory.
Q Even though you are in a supervisory position, do you have occasion to testify in courts as an expert witness?
A Yes; I do.
Q Sometimes involving homicide cases?
A That is correct.
Q When was the last time you testified, if you recall, sir?
A The last time I testified was Monday.
Q This past Monday?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, Mr. Laber, directing your attention to June of 1969, did you have occasion to enter the United States Army?
A Yes; I did.
Q Were you drafted?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what were you doing prior to being drafted?
A I was drafted from graduate school.
Q What school were you in at the time?
A I was going to graduate school at the University of Iowa at Iowa City, Iowa.
Q Okay; and what course of study were you pursuing?
A The field of chemistry.
Q And approximately how far along were you when you were drafted?
A I had finished nine semester credits.
Q And I take it you had a Bachelor's Degree?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that in?
A I had a B. S. degree in chemistry.
Q From what institution, sir?
A From Eau Clair (sic) State University, Eau Clair, Wisconsin.
Q And in the course of your undergraduate and graduation education up until the time you were drafted, did you have a number of laboratory courses?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you have occasion to either practice or receive instruction in the use of various laboratory instruments?
A Yes, sir.
Q To perform chemical analyses?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, when you were drafted, did you take basic training?
A Yes; I did.
Q And where did you take basic?
A At Fort Knox.
Q After basic, where were you next assigned?
A I was assigned to the United States Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory at Fort Gordon, Georgia.
Q When was that, if you know, sir?
A I believe that was in September of 1969.
Q Now, what training did you receive at the laboratory upon arrival?
A I received on-the-job training at the laboratory, and I received training in the field of drug analysis and blood stain analysis.
Q Okay; and from whom did you receive your training in blood stain analysis?
A From Janice Glisson.
Q Okay; and approximately when did you start your blood training and when did you complete it?
A I started blood training approximately the 2nd of November, 1969, and completed the training approximately the 1st of January.
Q Now, Mr. Laber, I take it that after you got out of the Army, you continued in the field of forensic science; is that correct?
A Yes; that is correct.
Q Okay; and where were you next employed after the Army?
A The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Laboratory, St. Paul.

THE COURT: It is time for our morning recess, which we will take at this time. Members of the jury, we will come back at 11:30. Don't talk about the case.

(The proceeding was recessed at 11:12 a.m., to reconvene at 11:30 a.m., this same day.)


F U R T H E R P R O C E E D I N G S (11:30 a.m.)

(The following proceedings were held in the presence of the jury and alternates.)

MR. SEGAL: May we see Your Honor, please?

THE COURT: Yes, come up.


B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E

MR. SEGAL: Just a moment ago, Mr. Murtagh informed me that this witness -- the Government is going to have him attempt to fill in certain aspects of this chart that we disagree with. We think it is argument and not fact. That is, it is argument in terms of the way the chart is organized and arranged.
We would have to bring one of the charts up to show Your Honor, but what the Government is trying to show in these charts is Colette is Type A. He did certain tests, and it indicates it isn't Colette or it indicates it is Colette.
All he can say -- he can't say a thing about Colette or anybody else. All he can say is indicate it is or it isn't in this particular blood area. The Government's charts tend to be specific to the persons in this case -- their bodies; and there is nobody in the world, including this man, who can say that.
We are talking about four blood groupings which encompasses the entire world. Now, I don't object to his stating his conclusion that it indicates either A or whatever he wants to say. That's all right. It is the way they want to arrange it, you know, on an argument form on a board, trying to make it identify people as excluding or being put in, which I think is grossly deceptive.

THE COURT: Isn't there something that can be explained by his testimony that he does not, in fact, purport to say that it belongs to this person or other?

MR. BLACKBURN: The chart simply says the same group, as or inconsistent with the group.

MR. MURTAGH: In fact, I would welcome, Your Honor, an instruction from the Court to the jury that in regard to this testimony, it is for the jury to find -- you know, if they find this blood, if they find it is Type A, whatever -- that is the same group as. That is what he going to testify to.
He will not testify and none of our chemists will testify that this Type A is Colette's Type A. He can eliminate certain people as possible sources, but the chart is not argumentative. It merely marshalls -- well, it does -- so the jury can understand that, okay, we have proved this is the same type and we know what her type was.

THE COURT: Let's see if you can't incorporate your statement there in a question to the witness for verification purposes.

MR. MURTAGH: Sure.

MR. SEGAL: The Government has been allowed to keep this chart up here without objection because we think it's a fact, in front of the jury, which gives the types. To now say he's going to marshall this and again state that is allowing the Government to argue through the witness whether or not it isn't or is this type.
Why must we have it. Why must we do this?

THE COURT: I don't think that that is prejudicial to the Defendant. I think it is almost -- for things of this kind -- almost essential that the jury be able to see it in graphic form; and if the thing is in evidence then I'm going to let it stay in evidence.
I have another matter that has come unidentified from some juror which I now read to you for whatever it is worth. It has reference to Government Exhibit Number 104. The note reads:
"Mr. Flinn testified crust test showed anti B, but was not so indicated on chart."

MR. MURTAGH: "Crust test showed anti B..." I will check the chart.

THE COURT: I just pass that along to you.

MR. SMITH: It is a good indication that one juror is watching closer than I am; that's great.

THE COURT: That was exactly my reaction to it, that they are certainly paying attention.

MR. SMITH: They are going to make us dot our i's and cross our t's.

THE COURT: Anyway, I pass it on for whatever you want to do.

MR. BLACKBURN: I would like to go to something else since we are here. We -- and I know Steve has also been getting a tremendous amount of inquiries about the jury view tomorrow. Mr. Biddenwell, who is with the CID, is in charge of the thing down there.
He called and wanted some instruction as to what, if anything, he should do. The main thing was, I told him, to be there about 10:15 tomorrow to unlock the thing.
The other thing was he wanted to know what we wanted him to do with respect to blocking off, you know, any of the areas and keeping unauthorized people out, and that sort of thing.

THE COURT: Well, all of these things I was awaiting suggestions from counsel and I was going to wrap it all up at one time; but he will know in ample time. We are going to let him know today because we've got to tell the jury what to do.
My idea is just to block off a -- except for through traffic -- block off the parking in the area and keep reporters and curiosity seekers and so forth -- just keep them at a distance.

MR. MURTAGH: For the back of the house, too, Judge.

THE COURT: For the whole thing. I have in mind that this jury will not be exposed to anybody except the magistrate in whose charge they will be, plus counsel, the Defendant if he wants to. He has a right to be there; but other than that.
Steve, I don't recall whether you're going or not. Did you plan to go?

MR. COGGINS: I will leave that up to the Court.

THE COURT: You mentioned you were going to go some other place tomorrow night.

MR. COGGINS: That's tomorrow night. That is not a scheduling problem.

THE COURT: If you are going to be here I think you ought to accompany them down there, sort of my representative as a liaison with me.

MR. CRAWLEY: One of the members of the press had inquired as to whether they would be able to go through the place after the jury had seen it.

THE COURT: Just say absolutely not. I see no point in contaminating a place with a whole bevy of people going in and out. Tell them when the case is over they can see it if they want to.

MR. SEGAL: We will probably want to look at it afterwards for Defense purposes while it is opened up, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Another thing I mention to you, too: a visiting judge, a friend of mine from West Virginia, who is going to be holding court the week of the 13th in Fayetteville, I thought that while he was down there it would be a nice thing to run down there and take him to dinner some night or show some kind of appreciation for his helping us out.
I might just ask that the thing be made available to me and perhaps him, too, more to say that "I have seen it all," and that we would run out there; but I would not think that that would require the presence of Counsel or press or anybody else. In fact, it shouldn't even be advertised.

MR. SEGAL: Agreeable.

THE COURT: I don't know that I will do that but it is just a thought that occurred to me.

MR. SMITH: As the jurors are walking through the house, are they to be instructed not to touch or can they touch -- for example, I can imagine if I were on a jury, I would want to walk over to where the dishes were and touch the dishes -- you know, touch --

THE COURT: Well, these are details that I wanted counsel to express themselves on.

MR. SEGAL: We filed a Memorandum on it, Your Honor. I don't know whether you received it. We filed a Memorandum in this regard this morning.

THE COURT: I haven't seen it.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, in that regard, based on the Article 32 investigation, there was a view then; and there was a big hassle over the position of the coffee table and the couch to try to approximate it to how it appears in the crime scene photos. It can't be done; and I think if anything, the coffee table should be standing upright.

MR. SEGAL: It is in our Memorandum we filed this morning, Your Honor.

MR. MURTAGH: That way, we won't get into a hassle as to whether that is the way it was in the photographs. Let me just check this thing on the chart, Your Honor; I think I know what this is.

MR. SEGAL: Mr. Coggins has the Memorandum.

THE COURT: All right.

(Bench conference terminated.)


THE COURT: Members of the jury, just for your information, we have been discussing some details about the field trip for tomorrow, and as soon as they are all settled on, there will be an announcement about it.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I'd like to clarify a piece of testimony and perhaps explain with respect to how these charts are used. When there is a vial which is of the same cutting and it is subsequently examined by another chemist, the result is indicated for the vial so that, as I believe, take this example, Government 104, and a cutting from it, Government 108, are the same, and the result would be indicated on the vial because the next chemist examined the vial. It looks like an accounting sheet, if you will, sir. The chart is correct.

THE COURT: All right, sir.

(Whereupon, TERRY LEE LABER, the witness on the stand at the time of recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:)


D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 11:32 a.m. (resumed)

MR. MURTAGH:
Q Now, Mr. Laber, before our break and the bench conference, I believe you were testifying about your experience at the laboratory. Let me ask you, in addition to the training that you received at the CID Lab, did you ever have occasion to attend any other schools, if you would?
A During what time period? Can you specify?
Q Well, let's suppose before and after your service in the Army.

MR. SEGAL: I think it would be irrelevant after service in the Army, Your Honor.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: Well, while I was in the U. S. Army Crime Laboratory at Fort Gordon, I received or went through a portion of the CID Investigative School. Since that time, I've gone to several special schools in conjunction with my work at the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in St. Paul.
One school was the McCrone School located in Chicago, Illinois. This is a special school set up for the use of different types of microscopes. Mainly we worked with what is called a polarizing microscope, and we use this microscope in the laboratory for the identification of minerals, fibers, and we can also use this same microscope for looking at agglutination and blood testing.
Q Mr. Laber, with regard to that, who is Mr. McCrone, if you know, sir?
A Mr. McCrone was head of McCrone Associates which is a research laboratory located in Chicago, Illinois.
Q And do you know where he was employed prior to that?

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, that I believe is irrelevant. I would OBJECT.

THE COURT: Well, I don't see the relevance of that.

MR. MURTAGH:
Q Mr. Laber, with regard to blood typing and blood grouping, have you had an occasion to attend any schools?
A Yes; I have.
Q What schools?
A I attended the FBI Academy and I attended the two-week school of the FBI Academy which dealt with the typing of blood stains in the ABO system, as well as the typing of blood stains and enzymes and protein systems.
Q Now, other than typing blood stains, have you attended any schools in the interpretation of blood stains?
A Yes; I have.
Q And can you tell us about that, sir?
A Well, sir, I attended a school in Miami, Florida, and the school dealt with the interpretation of blood stain patterns, and this particular school dealt not with the typing of blood, as we have been discussing up to this point, but with the looking at blood stains, their patterns, determining how the blood stains could have originated from -- how they could originate, who they could have originated from; that is, the position of the suspect and the position of the victim at the time the blood was shed.
Q Have you authored any papers?
A I've presented papers.
Q And what papers have you presented?
A I've presented three papers at the Midwest Association of Forensic Science meetings. One paper was for the identification of seminal stains and it was for the typing of seminal stains as well as their identification. Another paper on the feasibility of enzyme typing in the crime laboratory. The third paper on the interpretation of blood stain patterns, and these papers were presented at the Midwest Association as well as AFTE meetings.
Q Now, approximately how many cases have you worked on that involved blood spatters?
A I would say at least a dozen cases.
Q And how many times have you testified in court as an expert witness on blood spatters?
A Seven or eight times.
Q Now, let me ask you one other question in regard to blood grouping. Do you have an opinion, sir, or can you tell us whether by typing a stain you are able to tell that that stain came from that particular person?
A At this point in time, I don't believe that that grouping has advanced far enough to say that a blood stain originated from a particular person.
Q So that, to take a hypothetical example, if someone had Type A blood, let's say the suspect in a case, and you found Type A blood at a crime scene, you would not be able to say that that was that person's type of A blood.
A That's correct.
Q Now, suppose in my example, the suspect had Type B blood and the blood found at the crime scene was Type A, would you be able to eliminate the suspect?
A Yes.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, at this time, based on Mr. Laber's training, experience, education in the field of serology and blood stain interpretation, we would offer him as an expert in the grouping of stains in the ABO System as well as the interpretation of blood stain patterns.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. MURTAGH:
Q Now, Mr. Laber, directing your attention to the period of February 17th, 1970, or approximately that time, where were you, sir?
A On February 17th?
Q Yes.
A I was in the vicinity of Augusta, Georgia.
Q You did not go to Fort Bragg, I take it?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you participate in the collection of evidence and the analysis of evidence when the Lab team returned from Fort Bragg?
A I participated in the analysis of evidence.
Q When I say "collection," did you have occasion to examine any objects for the presence of debris?
A Yes, I did.
Q Mr. Laber, at this time, let me show you Government Exhibit in evidence -- if I can find the number -- 1125, and ask you if you recognize that, sir?
A Yes, I do.
Q Did you have occasion to collect any debris from that object, sir?
A Yes, I did.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, at this time, the Government would mark and offer Government Exhibit 356, a vial bearing the legend "TLL Exhibit D-123" and ask that it be received.

THE COURT: Very well.

(Government Exhibit 356 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

MR. MURTAGH:
Q Mr. Laber, at this time, let me show you Government Exhibit 102.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, at this time, we would also mark Government Exhibit 613(a) and 614, two photographic enlargements.

(Government Exhibits 613(a) and 614 were marked for identification.)

MR. MURTAGH:
Q Mr. Laber, let me show you Government Exhibit 102, and ask you to remove that from the package, please.

(Witness complies.)

MR. MURTAGH:
Q Do you recognize that object, sir?
A Yes, I do.
Q Let me show you Government Exhibit marked for identification 613(a), and ask you if you recognize the object in front of the picture?
A It appears to be a photograph of Government Exhibit 102, which is the pocket.
Q Mr. Laber, there has been testimony that this object was found on the corner of this throw rug at the feet of Colette MacDonald. I am going to ask you whether you had occasion to perform any tests on these stains appearing on that object?
A Yes, I did.
Q What tests did you perform?
A I performed blood grouping tests, and I performed an interpretation of the stains on the pocket.
Q Now, first, with respect to the interpretation, if you will, sir --

MR. SEGAL: (Interposing) May we see Your Honor at the Bench, please?

THE COURT: Come up.


B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E

MR. SEGAL: The picture put up here has no relevance at this point to his testimony. He has this piece of garment placed upon some other garment. Now, until such time as he establishes that that has anything to do with his testimony, I OBJECT to it being there and ask that it be removed forthwith.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I showed the picture to counsel prior to putting it up there, and also, there has been testimony or it has been without OBJECTION that that is the pocket from Dr. MacDonald's pajama top. I heard no OBJECTION when one of the witnesses referred to it as that. I don't know that Dr. MacDonald has ever disputed it. In fact, in one of his statements, you might say, there is an admission. In fact, I would say that it is an admission that that is the pocket from his pajama top.

THE COURT: Any question about it being the pocket?

MR. SEGAL: That is not the issue, Your Honor. The issue is this display has nothing to do with what he is testifying, and I OBJECT to that being in front of the jury when it is not related. Your Honor, I think we are being mistaken in this case, and I want to make my position clear. I think that we have allowed the Government to try and proceed expeditiously. Every time that we make an accommodation to an expeditious trial, I have to hear from Mr. Murtagh that, therefore, there is some implied waiver and some implied concession to them. That is nothing except to make a trial feasible within the life time of this jury, myself, and Your Honor. This picture has nothing to do with what he has testified about, and it has no business to be up there. I OBJECT now and would OBJECT to any other such displays. It has nothing to do with the fact that I might objectively agree what it represents, but it does not belong at this time.

THE COURT: I have got your point. Why do you want it up there?

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, the man is going to testify not only as to the blood types, but as to the configuration of the stains and whether they are consistent with spatters, contacts --

THE COURT: Will he need this to illustrate his testimony?

MR. MURTAGH: I think he will, Your Honor.

MR. SEGAL: When he gets to that point, do it then.

MR. MURTAGH: He is doing it right now. He is right there.

THE COURT: I see your point, but just sitting here completely disinterested in the thing, it had no significance at all to me. I don't see why it would have any to the jury. Now, when he starts to talk about it if he is going to talk about it, it has got to be up there.

MR. SEGAL: I believe that is appropriate.

THE COURT: I will OVERRULE that OBJECTION at this time, but any time that you have something that you want to bring up, then don't hesitate to bring it up because a lot of times, I just miss the significance of it, but this thing here, I believe it is completely innocuous -- at least, it is from my standpoint, and I have been paying attention. Go ahead.

(Bench Conference terminated.)


MR. MURTAGH:
Q Mr. Laber, have you had occasion to examine the stains on the pajama pocket, Government 102?
A Yes, I have.
Q As a result of that examination, are you able to state an opinion and do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself, sir, as to the type, and I don't mean the blood type, of some of those stains? That is to say, do you have an opinion as to the manner in which some of those stains came to be on that pocket?
A Yes, I do.
Q Now, if you would use the pointer in back of you, sir, would you tell us and refer to the area by number -- first, with respect to area one -- if you would point to that, sir. What is your opinion with regard to that stain, sir?
A Stain number one, which I have designated number one, was just a small smear located on the side of the pocket on this edge of the pocket.
Q Let me ask you that, sir, when you say "smear," does that term have significance in the Laboratory context?
A When I am referring to a smear, it defines several different types of nomenclature which are used. A smear would be a thin, small amount of blood which one would possibly get from having a finger rubbed across and leaving a light smear of blood or other bloody object. You have a soaking stain which is a larger stain which requires more than a couple of drops of blood and it is soaked into the garment. We could also have spatters of blood. Spatters of blood are droplets smaller than a single drop. These are in the neighborhood of the size of a head of a pin which occur oftentimes when blows are struck or blood is being shed and small quantities come off and these are smaller than drop size. So, the nature of the stain on the pocket will be described in terms of this type of language.
Q Okay, Mr. Laber, what relationship, if any, is there to that nomenclature and whether the stain got there as the result of a contact as opposed to a spattering?
A Well, the spattering type effect, as I mentioned, would be pinhead-type droplets. They would be small droplets. A wiping or a contact would be more of a smear-type, as opposed to round, small spots.
Q Okay; with respect to area one, sir, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to whether the stain that you refer to as area one got there as the result of some stained object coming in contact with area one?
A It is my opinion that it was not of the spatter-type, but it was of the smearing-type of stain, and it was a light stain.
Q Okay; sir; now, with respect to area two, would you point that out on the chart, please?
A Area two is an area along this white -- what I am calling a rib of the pocket.
Q Would it be accurate to also refer to it as a beading?
A Yes; I believe so.
Q So area two, then, is what you see as darkened spots on the fringe areas of the bead of the pocket.
Q Now, sir, with respect to area two, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to the manner in which the stain got on area two?
A Area two has areas of sort of both characteristics. There are some relatively small spatter-type, and there are also some smear-type ones; and I could not say for sure, because there are not spatters on either side, that something rubbed across the bead, hitting the high part of the beading, leaving this particular smear-type pattern.
Q Now, with respect to area three, would you point that out, please, on the chart?
A Area three is this large stain, and this appears to be a continuous stain. And this would be more of a soaking variety that took more than a few drops of blood, or more than a drop of blood, to make this particular stain. And it has soaked into the garment itself. The soaking stain could not, however, penetrate through -- there is a double layer of cloth down at the edge of the pocket, where it was sewed on. It penetrated the outer layer, but in areas did not totally penetrate the inner double layer of cloth.
Q Now, sir, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to which direction, if any, that stain came from?
A Well, in the case of area three -- and also, I could include areas one and two -- the stains were made from the outside in, as opposed to having come from the inside of the pocket. The stains were made from the outside. We know that they were made from the outside, because the soaking did not penetrate the second layer underneath. Had it come from the inside, the inner layer would have been soaked as well as the outer side.
Q Okay, sir; now, what about area four?
A Okay; area four is another area of fairly heavy blood staining -- more than a drop of blood. And again, there is a soaking, but it does not penetrate this double layer on this edge, indicating also that this stain was made from the outside.
Q Okay, sir; how about area five?
A Area five, again, is a relatively heavy stain and again, of the soaking variety. This particular stain also, because this is double cloth on the upper part of the pocket, an area did not soak through the second layer of cloth, indicating also that this was made from the outside.
Q How about area six, sir?
A In area six there was a smallish stain near the bottom. This also was made from the outside.
Q Now, sir, did you have occasion to examine Government Exhibit 101, the blue pajama top found on the chest of Mrs. Colette MacDonald? Do you recognize that, sir?
A Yes; I do.
Q Did you examine any particular area of that garment?
A Yes; I did.
Q And could you describe that, sir, please, to the jury and the Court?
A Okay; I examined a portion of the shirt or pajama top which was directly underneath and around the pocket area.
Q Is that as depicted in that photograph?
A Yes; it is.
Q Which is Government 613(a)? Okay; now, at this time, Mr. Laber, let me show you Government 614, an additional enlargement, and ask you to tell us, please, what that is, sir?
Now, sir -- if you can tell us, please -- what relationship does that photograph have to the area of the pajama top, Government 101, that you examined?
A Okay; this appears to be a photograph of the area where the pocket outline you can see on the pajama top. This appears to be the shirt or the pajama top with the pocket no longer intact on the pajama top.
Q Okay, sir; now, in the approximate middle of the right-hand portion of that photograph -- and perhaps I ought to point it out to you -- if you know, sir, can you tell us what this object is here, and over here?
A I don't know what you are referring to.
Q Okay; you referred earlier to the outline. To what were you referring, sir?
A When I referred to the outline of the shirt, I was referring to an outline which we can see, I guess, by the nature of the holes in the pocket. This area up here would be the top area of the pocket.
Q Would it be accurate to refer to that area that you have just testified as stitching?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us, please, about your examination of that area of the pajama top?
A I noted that the pajama top was soaked with blood over the entire area where the pocket had been.
Q Now, sir -- if you can tell us -- do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to whether the areas on Government 102 which you have referred to as areas one through six were stained prior to the pocket being detached? Do you have such an opinion, sir?
A I have an opinion as to the staining of the shirt in relationship to the pocket.
Q Okay; would you tell us what that is, sir?
A The pocket -- due to lack of staining on the back of the pocket -- had to have been detached before the pajama top became soaked with blood.
Q Now, Mr. Laber, did you have occasion to test -- again, referring to the pocket of the pajama top, if we will replace that photograph -- did you have occasion to perform blood analyses on these areas?
A I had occasion to perform blood analyses on various areas of the pocket.
Q Mr. Laber, at this time, I am going to show you Government Exhibit 643 with an additional acetate sheet added to it. Now, sir, with respect to Government Exhibit 102, and specifically in regard to areas one, two, three, and five to which you previously testified, what tests, if any, did you perform, sir?
A I performed the precipitin test, the crust test for antibodies, absorption-elution test for antigens.
Q Okay, sir, and what were your results for all of your tests, sir, if you would?
A My tests revealed the presence of anti B antibody and A antigen.
Q Do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself based on those results as to what ABO blood group, if any, those stains are?
A Yes, I do.
Q What is that group, sir?
A The blood is of the International Blood Group Type A.
Q Can you tell whose Type A blood that is, sir?
A No, I cannot.
Q Now, sir, I would ask you to assume this hypothetical to be true that Colette MacDonald had Type A blood and ask you whether your results demonstrate that the blood that you found on the pocket was of the same group as Colette MacDonald?
A The blood which I found on the pocket was of the same type as Colette.
Q Now, sir, I further ask you to assume that the other members of the family have the blood groups as indicated on the chart -- that is, Kimberly AB, Jeffrey B, and Kristen O. Do you have an opinion, sir, satisfactory to yourself as to whether the blood stains on the pocket could have come from any of those individuals?
A Yes, I do.
Q What is that opinion, sir?
A It is my opinion that the blood on the pocket from the areas which I have tested could not have come from Kimberly, Jeffrey, or Kristen.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, at this time, we would offer Government Exhibit 643 as it pertains to Mr. Laber.

THE COURT: Very well.

(Government Exhibit 643 was received in evidence.)

MR. MURTAGH:
Q Mr. Laber, at this time, I am going to show you Government Exhibit 647. Now, sir, in addition to the pocket, did you have occasion to perform blood tests on Government Exhibit 332, 333, and 334 which have been identified as the various pieces of the hallway of the MacDonald quarters?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us, please, with respect to Government 332, which is also identified as D-145, and I believe there has been testimony that that was a stain coming from the area outside Kristen's bedroom. Could you tell us, sir, what you tested and what you found?
A I performed the benzidine test, the precipitin test, and I performed the crust test for the presence of antibodies. I had no reaction or did not find the presence of any antibodies. The absorption-elution -- that is the test for antigens -- I found both A antigen and B antigen.
Q Okay, now, let me ask you with respect to the crust test, when you say "no reaction," and directing your attention to the chart, I guess my question is: is the absence of antibodies significant or does that indicate that the test is inconclusive or incomplete?
A I guess I used a poor choice of words in saying "no reaction," and that I should have said no agglutination as we have been discussing it up to this point. When I did the crust test or the Lattes test, I did not observe any agglutination indicating that no antibodies were present.
Q Is it accurate to say that when performing the crust test and you get no reaction, that means that there are no antibodies present?
A This is what the test indicates, yes.
Q Now, sir, based on the results which you obtained, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to what ABO blood group, if any, that stain exiting or at the hallway opposite Kristen's bedroom was?
A Yes, I do.
Q Could you tell us, please, what that is, sir?
A It is my opinion that this blood stain is of the International Blood Group Type AB.
Q I ask you to assume hypothetically that Kimberly MacDonald had Type AB blood. Do you have an opinion, sir, as to whether the results demonstrated that blood was of the same group as Kimberly MacDonald?
A Yes, I do.
Q Okay, what is that, sir? What is your opinion?
A My opinion is that the blood on the floor in Exhibit 332 is of the same blood group type as Kimberly.
Q Okay, sir, can you point out the area to which we are referring on the photograph?
A I believe from the photograph, it will be the area marked 145 since this is laboratory number 145, but I have no way of knowing that.
Q You were not at the crime scene?
A That is correct.
Q Okay, thank you.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, may the record reflect that the area numbered 145 on the plexiglass covering the hall floorway which Dr. Chamberlain testified about is opposite the entrance to Kristen's or the north bedroom.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. MURTAGH:
Q Now, Mr. Laber, with respect to Government 333, a piece of wood marked D-156, from the floor near the entrance to the east or master bedroom, did you have occasion to test that?
A Yes, I did.
Q Okay, sir, and do you see the area identified as 156 on the lower photograph?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you point it out to the jury, please?
A Area 156 -- this area in the bottom, middle portion of the photo.
Q Now, sir, what tests did you perform and what results did you get?
A I performed a benzidine test, a precipitin test, and I performed the crust test for the presence of antibodies in which I found anti A. I performed the absorption-elution test for the presence of antigens. I found antigen B.
Q Now, sir, based on those results, what is your opinion as to the ABO blood group?
A It is my opinion that the blood on the floor and area which we designated as 156 is of the International Blood Group Type B.
Q I ask you to assume hypothetically that the Defendant, Dr. MacDonald, has Type B blood and ask you whether, based on those results, you have an opinion as to whether your results indicate the same group, the same type, as the Defendant?
A It is my opinion that the blood from area 156 was of International Blood Group Type B and therefore is the same blood group type as Jeffrey MacDonald.
Q And do you have an opinion, sir, as to which members of the family, if any, that stain could not have originated?
A Yes; I do.
Q And what is that opinion, sir?
A My opinion is this stain could not have come from Colette, Kimberly, or Kristen.
Q Now, with respect to Government 334, another piece of flooring, also identified as D-157, I believe, by Dr. Chamberlain, the flooring of the entrance of the east bedroom; do you see that on the photograph, sir?
A Yes; I do.
Q Would you point it out, please?
A The area I am designating 157 is the area showing which is to the right corner of the photograph.
Q Now, sir, what tests did you perform and what results did you get?
A On area 157, I performed the benzidine test, the precipitin test, performed the crust test and did not find the presence of any antibodies, performed the elution test for the presence of antigens, and I found A antigen and B antigen.
Q Based on those results, sir, in your opinion, what blood type, is that?
A Based on the tests, it is my opinion that the blood from area 157 was the International Blood Group Type AB.
Q So that would be the same type as which member, if any, of the family?
A This would be the same type as Kimberly.
Q And which members of the family, if any, could not have been the source of that stain?
A The members of the family which could not have been a source of the AB blood are Colette, Jeffrey, and Kristen.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, at this time, the Government would move into evidence 647, a chart and the result that is indicated thereon.

THE COURT: Very well.

(Government Exhibit No. 647 was received in evidence.)

MR. MURTAGH:
Q Mr. Laber, at this time, let me show you Government 650, yet another chart, and, for the record, this chart has two pieces of acetate -- one bearing the initials "LLF," and the top sheet bearing the initials "TLL."
Now, sir, with respect to Government 368, did you have occasion to examine the pink blanket identified as D-58NB which was removed from the bed in Kristen's room, the north bedroom?
A Yes; I did.
Q Okay, sir, and do you see that blanket depicted anywhere in the photograph at the lower end of the chart?
A I can see the portion of pink material near the top edge of the green bedspread. However, I cannot say from the photo whether or not this is the blanket.
Q You were not at the crime scene?
A That's correct.
Q Did you have occasion to test what has been marked as Government 368, the pink blanket, D-58NB?
A Yes; I did.
Q And with respect to areas 3, 5, and 7, what tests did you perform and what results did you get?
A Would you prefer I took each area separately?
Q Yes, sir; please.
A With respect to area 3 on the pink blanket which was an area near the top of the blanket, I did a benzidine test, a precipitin test, and I did the crust test for the presence of antibodies, and I found the presence of anti B, and then did the absorption-elution test for the presence of antigens, and I found the presence of antigen A.
Q Based on those results, sir, in your opinion, what ABO blood group was present?
A International Blood Group Type A was present.
Q And hypothetically that would be -- I ask you to assume hypothetically that Colette MacDonald had Type A blood and ask you whether that stain in area 3 was of the same group.
A The blood stain that I examined from area 3 was of the International Blood Group Type A and therefore of the same type as Colette.
Q Now, again with reference to the members of the family, which, if any, of them could not have been the source of the stain on area 3?
A The stain on area 3, which was blood group Type A could not have come from Kimberly, Jeffrey, or Kristen.
Q Or Kristen?
A Kristen.
Q Yes, sir; now, with respect to area 5 on that same exhibit 368, the pink blanket from Kristen's room, what tests did you perform and what results did you get?
A In area 5, I performed the benzidine test, the precipitin test. I performed the test for the presence of antibodies, and I found the presence of antibody A and antibody B, and then did tests for the presence of antigens and found the presence of H, and this combination of factors told me that this is of the International Blood Group Type O.
Q Okay, and that would be the same blood type as which member, sir?
A This would be the same blood group type as Kristen MacDonald.
Q Who, if anyone, can you eliminate, sir, as the source?
A This blood stain could not have originated from Colette, Kimberly, or Jeffrey.
Q Now, lastly, with regard to area seven on the pink blanket, what did you do, sir?
A In area seven of the blanket, again I performed the benzidine test, precipitin test, crust test for the presence of antibodies. I did not find any antibodies present.
I did the absorption-elution test to determine the presence of antigens. I found antigen A, antigen B. This result shows that the blood was of the International Blood Group Type AB, which is the same blood group type as Kimberly.
Q Okay, sir; and which members of the family can you eliminate as a possible source?
A From the blood grouping result, we can eliminate Colette, Jeffrey and Kristen.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I believe that concludes the direct examination. The Defense may cross-examine.

THE COURT: Very well; cross-examine.

MR. MURTAGH: We would offer the chart, Government 650.

(Government Exhibit 650 was received in evidence.)

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, indulge me for a moment.

(Counsel confer.)

MR. SEGAL: I have no questions for this witness, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No questions of this witness. Call your next witness.

(Witness excused.)

 

 

Home  -  Contact  -  Scholarship Fund  -  New Uploads  -  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  - 
Polygraphs
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