Jeffrey MacDonald's Article 32 investigation hearing: 1970 - Volume 7
Master Sergeant Hilyard Medlin (CID Lab), Major George Gammel (MD)
and Captain William F. Hancock (MD)
CPT SOMERS: The government calls Sergeant Medlin.
(Master Sergeant Hilyard O. Medlin was called as a witness by the government, was sworn, and testified as follows.)
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Would you state your name, please, sir.
A Hilyard O. Medlin.
Q Your grade?
A Master Sergeant E-8.
Q Your organization?
A U. S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory.
Q Your station?
A Fort Gordon, Georgia.
Q Your armed force?
A U. S. Army.
Q What is your duty at the laboratory there?
A I am a fingerprint technician, sir.
Q What training have you had in your field?
A In 1957 I graduated from the Institute of Applied Science correspondence course. I attended the CI course at Fort Gordon in 1963, and was assigned to the laboratory for a two-year residency training as a fingerprint technician under a full qualified fingerprint examiner.
Q How long have you been working in this field?
A I have been in police work in one manner or another since 1947, sir.
Q How long specifically in this fingerprint work?
A Since being assigned to the laboratory as a trainee in 1965.
Q How many fingerprint technicians does that lab have?
A In 1963 when I was assigned there at the beginning of my training, there were only two authorized.
Q Have you ever written any articles in this field?
A In 1967 I had the pleasure of presenting a paper to the annual conference of the International Association for Identification of which I am an active member. This article was subsequently published in our monthly magazine. I've also had articles published in the Military Police Journal pertaining to identification work, and also the monthly magazine of the Institute of Applied Science.
Q What professional organizations are you a member of?
A Besides the International Association for Identification, I also belong to the Military Police Association.
CPT SOMERS: Does the defense care to examine?
MR. EISMAN: Yes, I have a couple of questions.
Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q Sergeant Medlin you testified you began specific training in fingerprints when?
A I was assigned to the laboratory in October of 1963. I attended the 8 week course in CI school. Upon graduation from there I was again--since I was already assigned to the laboratory, I began my training in '63 and completed it in '65, and was assigned there as a fingerprint examiner in the fingerprint division.
Q Is this a credit course you were given or just on-the-job type of training?
A This is an approved POI--excuse me--Program of Instruction, approved by CONARC.
MR. EISMAN: I have no further questions.
CPT SOMERS: At this time the government offers this witness as an expert in the field of fingerprint identification.
COL ROCK: He is accepted.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q At this time, Mr. Medlin, I like to ask you, have you worked on the case involving the MacDonald matter?
A Yes, sir, I have.
Q Do you have a supplemental fingerprint report from the laboratory with you?
A I have some copies here that we call Laboratory Repots, repeat Number 7, pertaining to those.
CPT SOMERS: Thank you very much. At this time the government offers this report as Government Exhibit--
COL ROCK: That is Government Exhibit 28. It is a supplemental lab report, U. S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory, Fort Gordon, Georgia, Number FA-P-C-FP-82-70-R-7.
Q At this time, Sergeant Medlin, I hand you Government Exhibit G-28, and Government Exhibits 7 and 8. Look if you will, at Government Exhibit 7 and 8. Did you participate in the preparations of those reports?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Sergeant Medlin, when did this matter first come to your attention?
A On Monday morning, I received instructions from the Chief of the Division to prepare to come to Fort Bragg to assist in the process of the crime scene. We were flown to Fort Bragg by the Chief of the Aviation Section from Busch Field, Fort Gordon, Georgia; arrived at the Military Terminal Airport here at Fort Bragg and was brought to or taken to the scene.
Q Excuse me, do you know the address of the scene?
A I believe it was 540 Corregidor Courts, where we were received and briefed by the investigators from the Fort Bragg investigation office.
Q Did you participate in the collection of evidence at that scene?
A Pertaining to fingerprints, yes, sir.
Q And were you working with someone else to do this?
A Yes, sir, a Specialist Seven Ralph Turbyfill accompanied me here.
Q And did any of the investigators here accompany you as you were gathering evidence?
A Mr. William Ivory and I worked as a team, along with Specialist Turbyfill who is a trainee at the fingerprint division at Fort Gordon.
Q Would you describe for us, sir, how you go about gathering this evidence of latent fingerprints?
A At the very beginning we limited ourselves to processing areas for latent prints that would not interfere with the processing of the area by the chemist. This involved processing certain pieces of evidence such as the door facings, the dressers, and the walls, where there no stains or markings or discolorations noted that might be of value to the chemist at a later time.
Q Now what process do you record evidence of latent fingerprints if they are found on the wall, for instance?
A We use contrasting powder, black on white surfaces and silver or gray on black surfaces. In this instance, using a camel hair brush, we processed an area, and in the event there are impressions that come from the processing of the area, then we have the photographer to photograph the area to place it on film.
Q Did you, during this process of collecting evidence in this fashion at the scene at 544 Castle Drive, have the occasion to dust the telephone in that residence for fingerprints?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q What did you find?
A In the master bedroom, described to us as having contained the body of a deceased woman named Mrs. MacDonald, I processed the telephone. There were smudges and a few markings on the receiver part of it.
Q Were these smudges and markings readable and matchable or identified?
A No, sir. They were only just smudges and smears.
Q What about the other telephone, did you dust it in the same manner?
A The telephone in the kitchen area was dusted, and I got no legible prints, sir.
MR. EISMAN: No what prints?
WITNESS: No legible prints, no prints.
MR. EISMAN: Thank you.
WITNESS: Nothing.
Q You say nothing?
A Normally when you process an instrument of this type, a stark white surface with black powder, there are some type of discolorations will come up when an individual has handled the object. In this instance I remarked to Mr. Ivory that it was rather odd that it was completely stark.
Q Did you process the walls in the hall for fingerprints?
A We processed the hall on both sides from the entrance way leading from the living room down to the doors of the children's bedroom.
Q And at what heights did you do this?
A Just about six inches higher than my head, sir. Around six feet high starting with 18 to 24 inches from the floor, and then working our way down to the floor in the hallway.
Q In what direction did you work down to the floor?
A Starting at about the six foot level and working our way on down.
Q Did you find any latent fingerprints in the hallway itself in the areas between the doors to the bedroom and the living room?
A At the edge of the wall, approximately 18 to 24 inches from the floor was what appeared to be ridges, a few ridges and that is all.
Q Were those identified?
A No, sir. They were not sufficient for identification.
Q Did you find anything else in the way of latent fingerprints in that area of the hall?
A No, sir.
COL ROCK: Would--may I interject--would you consider that also to be relatively unusual in your work?
WITNESS: I have found in the past events where at least there would be outlines on occasion of fingers and hands.
COL ROCK: And also from your experience, when there are small children in the family, do you tend to find children's fingerprints in the hall?
WITNESS: Sometimes we have on occasions found prints on the baseboards where a child possibly has crawled and placed their hands.
COL ROCK: Excuse me. When I say small, these would be not children of crawling age, but of walking age.
WITNESS: This will vary, sir. Sometimes they will have--leave an outline of an impression where they have foreign objects such as jam on their hands. The powder will adhere to this and will be a blob.
COL ROCK: Thank you. Proceed, please.
Q How many latent fingerprints did you find that were identifiable?
A We added a total of 44 latent fingerprints and 29 latent palm prints, and one latent--what we thought was a palm print at the beginning, turned out to be a latent footprint.
Q How many of the fingerprints have you identified?
A We have identified 21 of the latent fingerprints.
Q And of the palm prints?
A Six latent palm prints, and the latent footprint.
Q And to whom did the prints that you identified belong?
A Only to Mr., excuse me, Captain and Mrs. MacDonald.
Q Now among the unidentified prints, can you rule out Mrs. MacDonald as having made those prints?
A Unfortunately the record prints that we have of Mrs. MacDonald are incomplete in some areas, and I could not say whether they were made by her or not.
Q You cannot exclude them as having been hers?
A No, sir, I cannot.
Q Now if a person were to walk, for instance, in the hall of that house and you have been in the hallway?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where they walked down the hall, scraping a shoulder or some part of his anatomy against the hall, would this show up in your examination?
A Normally in halls of this type, with a surface such as it was, we have occasion to process crime scene that resulted in marking or discolorations that were readable as such, but they appeared that the powder adhered to some object on the wall.
Q Did you see any evidence in the hall that the walls had been treated carelessly or bumped into or marked up in this fashion?
A Not that we could find, sir. We were particularly interested in finding anything in that manner.
Q Have you used any particularly different lighting, or did you use any particularly different lighting in that house, in the hall, along the walls to locate evidence?
A To the best of my memory, Mr. Shaw and the chemist were using an IR, infrared or ultra violet, to look for specimens. We used a strong light, a 200-watt that was in a lamp to look for any contrast impressions or distinct areas, using a bleak lighting as we call it.
(Reporter's note: That may have been oblique lighting.)
Q What time was it on the 17th--or was it the 17th of February that you arrived?
A Yes, sir, we arrived at approximately 10:40 to 11:00 o'clock. Mr. Chamberlain was the person making notes on the arrival time. We were met at the airplane by Mr. Rossi who took us to the crime scene.
Q And do you have any idea what time of the morning you were notified to go?
A Approximately 0715 hours, that morning, I received a call from my chief of the division telling me that I would come to Fort Bragg to process a crime scene.
Q And you said that you were processing this crime scene for fingerprints with a man named Turbyfill?
A Yes, sir, Specialist Turbyfill.
Q And had he received any training in gathering of this evidence?
A Yes, Specialist Turbyfill has been an investigator, accredited; this is one of the prerequisites to be a trainee in the fingerprint division or belong to the laboratory; he is familiar with recognizing the different methods used by investigators to process crime scenes, and he has also received further training in the laboratory in processing of evidence on latent prints.
Q When you arrived at the scene and inspected it as you collected evidence from it, did you form any opinion as to the conditions of the scene in terms of preservation of the type of evidence that you were attempting to collect?
A According to the investigators who briefed us, the scene was such as it was when they arrived there, and they were very conscientious in protecting any object that might have evidentiary value to us.
MR. EISMAN: Now, I am going to object to the question unless it is clarified that these investigators--he didn't arrive until at least--at least from the government's witness, twelve MPs including one unidentified person in blue jeans and another unidentified number of medics had stomped through the scene. He's referring to the point in time when the investigators arrived.
COL ROCK: Objection overruled. I am well aware of this having listened to the evidence previously, and so far no information has been presented as to the exact time of arrival of the investigators. I think the questioning of the investigators in due time will reveal the specific fact of the time they arrived there. Continue please.
CPT SOMERS: Your witness.
Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q Do you recall giving an interview at Fort Gordon to a representative from our office, Captain Robert Payne? Do you recall that interview?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall being informed by Captain Payne that the interview was being recorded?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now when you arrived at the scene, do you recall how you described the scene to Captain Payne?
A No, sir, I don't.
Q Let me just refresh your recollection. Do you recall Captain Payne asking you this question and you giving this answer? “Would you generally describe the state of the room, the master bedroom, when you arrived at the master bedroom?” Answer: “It seemed to be in state of confusion. Of course the bodies had been removed and the towel or bathmat, whatever it was, was there. There was a large pool of blood just in front of the chair.” Now do you recall answering in that manner, that the master bedroom was in a state of confusion?
A The word “confusion” was intended to show that it was in disarray, and quite possibly was in its original condition when the investigator arrived, because this is the way that they described it to me.
Q How many people did you see in the master bedroom?
A When I arrived, the investigators and our team were the only ones there. There were military policemen stationed outside the house and one inside the door at the front door.
Q Now you've described finding 44 fingerprints and 29 palm prints. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you have copies of Captain MacDonald's fingerprints?
A They were submitted to us by the investigators, yes, sir.
Q Did you have copies of Mrs. MacDonald's fingerprints?
A Yes, sir, such as they were.
Q Now, fingerprints which you had of Mrs. MacDonald, I believe, had certain peculiar markings on them, or cuts or nicks. Is that correct?
A If I stated what I intended it to mean was that a woman has more cuts or scarred areas on the fingers from using knives or instruments in the kitchen, in preference over a male.
Q And did Mrs. MacDonald have such?
A In some of her fingers she had these things.
Q Did you have a full set of prints from Mrs. MacDonald?
A I had a full set that was recorded on the paper.
Q Now in that full set could you please describe the fingerprint pattern as far as whorls and
--do you have the records with you?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q You did not bring your records with you?
A We don't keep record fingerprints down in the CI laboratory, sir. They are returned to the investigating agents. The evidence belonged to the investigating agents which is the contributor, rather than a laboratory.
Q You were able to eliminate Colette MacDonald from any of these unidentified fingerprints, weren't you?
A Oh, yes, on some of them that were full latent prints.
Q Now where did you find fingerprints in the master bedroom?
A There were some prints--you are referring to latent prints, sir?
Q Yes.
A Or just singular fingerprints?
Q Latent, all latent prints, finger and palm prints.
A Well, on the door facing from the hallway into the bedroom, and on the door facing on the bedroom and the utility room, between those two rooms, on the Venetian blinds.
Q All right, now how many of these fingerprints were identifiable?
A I do not know the exact count, sir, because the report would have to show that. May I refer to it?
Q Yes.
A Exhibit U-3 is the master bedroom and the latent prints that are shown on the supplemental report R-4 is an expression of the examination conducted and comparisons made of the latent prints show as Exhibit U-3 on the original copy which shows 13 latent fingerprints and 11 latent palm prints found in that room.
Q Now when you say latent fingerprints, how many of those were identifiable?
A 13, sir.
Q 13 were identifiable. In other words, you had enough characteristics with which to compare them to your, your samples. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many were you able to identify as belonging to Colette MacDonald or Captain MacDonald or anyone else in the household?
A Eight belonged to Mrs. MacDonald, as the report shows, and 2 latent palm prints was also from Mrs. MacDonald, and one latent palm print was from Captain MacDonald.
Q Now let's go over that. You had 13 latent fingerprints. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many latent palm prints do you have?
A 11 latent palm prints.
(Reporter's note: Just prior to this CPT Douthat stated recording some figures on a black board in the hearing room, and continued to do so after the present witness's testimony.)
Q 13 fingerprints and 11 palm prints?
A Yes, sir.
Q And these were identifiable fingerprints, there were enough characteristics for which you could say that these belonged to one another?
A That we could make identification.
Q Now on those how many did you identify?
A Eight latent fingerprints identified and three palm prints identified.
Q And therefore how many unidentified fingerprints did you have in the master bedroom?
A Eight from thirteen is five, sir.
Q Five. How many palm prints?
A Three from eleven is eight, sir.
Q Now what was the next--did you in the master bedroom dust the phone?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did you find any fingerprints on that phone?
A Only fingerprint marks, sir.
Q Where at?
A On the ear piece.
Q Did you consider that strange or unusual?
A What do you mean, sir?
Q Is that out of the ordinary just to have smudges or should you have fingerprints on it?
A On occasion an object such as this, at least the handle part of it, should have more than what it had in my personal opinion.
Q How well did it take fingerprints?
A Very well, sir. I put one of my own prints for a test print, and after I determined that there were no latent prints coming up, and it received, the powder received very well in the latent print that I put there.
Q In what area did you find these smudge marks?
A On the ear piece itself, as though a person might have held it.
Q The ear piece?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now if someone had picked up the receiver in the center with the thumb and two fingers do you think he would have gotten fingerprints?
A We have gotten fingerprints in that area from telephones of this type, sir.
Q Did you have the fingerprints of a MP by the name of Specialist Tevere?
A This I don't know, sir, because I would have to refer back to the fingerprint cards that would have our markings on it for the identification of the individual.
Q Were you given fingerprints of all known people who were in the house on February 17th?
A I received different record fingerprints concerning individuals for elimination purposes; whether it was all the people or not, I don't--I can't say, because I don't know how many people were in there.
Q But if somebody had picked up the phone in this manner, is it your testimony that would put fingerprints on it?
A It would have left a discolored area.
Q And you didn't find any?
A No, sir.
Q So, if someone did touch the phone in that manner, they testified they picked up the phone in that manner, they would not be telling the truth?
CPT SOMERS: I object. I don't think that this witness can draw that conclusion.
MR. EISMAN: Well, I think the conclusion is for the investigating officer to draw.
CPT SOMERS: That's correct, so do I. I don't think it is for this witness to draw.
CPT BEALE: The objection is sustained.
Q All, right, Sergeant, you also found some palm prints on the door facing. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir, we did.
Q And were these originally identifiable--the palm prints?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what happened with these identifiable palm prints? That were found on the door facing.
A After they were photographed, sir, they were covered with a transparent tape, so that they might not be destroyed by a person brushing against them or putting their own hands on top of them, to preserve the evidence as nearly as possible in his original position.
Q And what happened with those fingerprints? Did the film come out?
A Some of the film unfortunately did not, sir.
Q What happened to the prints that were covered up with the plastic?
A They were re-photographed, sir.
Q At that time, could you tell--were they still identifiable?
A Some were not, sir.
Q But originally they were identifiable. Is that correct?
A Enough points of comparison had been noted that were, sir.
Q How many were identifiable before the covering up process took place?
A I don't remember the exact number, sir, but it was in my notes.
Q Well, how many were damaged?
A Here, again, I couldn't tell you an exact figure.
Q Do you have your notes there?
A No, sir. My notes were in the folder that was brought by the other team, sir.
Q Where are they now?
A I presume they are outside, sir, unless they removed my notes and left them back at the laboratory. When I went up to get my notes they had the entire folder, sir.
MR. EISMAN: May we have a brief recess so the witness can check whether his notes are here?
COL ROCK: Yes, the hearing will be recessed for five minutes, to search for notes.
(The hearing recessed at 1456 hours, 14 July 1970.)
(The hearing reopened at 1553 hours, 14 July 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect the persons who were present at the beginning of the recess are currently in the hearing room. Please proceed.
Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q Sergeant Medlin, in your original notes did you make a diagram of where each fingerprint was found?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q Do you have any record in your original notes of where each fingerprint was found?
A The number, the total number was recorded; according to the room they were located in, sir.
Q Did you make any record of where they found?
A The count that I have in my notes, originally started out, more than twenty were found on door facings and doorways, sir.
Q Did you say which doorways and where on the doorways they were found?
A No, sir.
Q Were photographs taken of each fingerprint?
A Yes, sir, it was.
Q Do you have those photographs in your possession, or in the possession of the Criminal Laboratory at Fort Gordon?
A They are in the possession of the laboratory, sir.
Q Could they be provided to the investigating officer if he so wished? I asked you a question. Would you answer the question?
A This would have to be determined by an authority other than myself, sir.
Q All right, now do these show where the fingerprints were found, the number of the fingerprints and such?
A They would show the number of the fingerprints, yes, sir.
Q And with that number they could be keyed into where they were found, the exact location?
A I could revisit the area and pinpoint each latent print that was developed on the doorways, door facings and what have you, sir.
Q But your notes with combination of your photographs would not tell the investigating officer exactly where these fingerprints were found?
A No, sir.
Q Now that you've a chance to refresh your recollection with regard to receiving certain notes from Fort Gordon, I want to again direct your attention to the phone in the master bedroom. In response to a question by the Chief of Military Justice at Fort Gordon, you were asked concerning other paraphernalia which you took fingerprints, and your answer--“One of the things that we could not do, although we made test marks on it and developed viewable prints, one of the things we could not develop latent prints on was the telephone.” Question--“Was there one telephone in the master bedroom?” “Yes, sir.” Question--“You found no fingerprints on that telephone?” Answer--“No.” Question--“Were there any smudges or any other things that weren't identifiable fingerprints in your opinion? Do you understand what I am talking about?” Answer--“Yes, sir. There was nothing that would take the powder. This is one of the things that appears strange to me. Of course, as to individuals handling the phone, or anything like that, possibly would argue the point. But we did make tests on the telephone in the master bedroom and with very good marks with the test marks.”
Now that I have refreshed your recollection by reading you the interview with the Chief Military Justice at Fort Gordon, do you still recall that the telephone, you were unable to get any smudges on was the telephone in the master bedroom, rather than the kitchen?
A We were discussing the developing of latent prints that contained ridges when this question was asked.
Q And you found no ridges whatsoever?
A And the answer I intended to give, if I did not give it, was that legible prints were absent from the phone, the instrument itself.
Q Well, was there anything that would take the powder?
A As previously stated there was some discoloration on one part of the telephone itself.
Q But you could not identify that as fingerprints?
A It could have been made by anything, sir.
Q Did you have a record print of Sergeant Tevere of the Military Police?
A Again, I answered that the only way I know was to look at the record finger print cards that have my mark on it, sir.
Q How many record fingerprints were supplied to you?
A We received originally three sets.
Q Who were they? Whose were the three sets?
A The three sets were Mrs. MacDonald, Captain MacDonald and a Lieutenant Harrison.
Q Now after--subsequent did you receive further copies or further sets?
A We received additional copies from the FBI investigator agents that had been there, some of them, some of the medic's prints or fingerprints that were identified to me as belonging to some other personnel that was in there in their official capacity, either medics or military police.
Q But you don't know whether or not you received all the prints of all the people who were in there?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q Did you request all those fingerprints so that you could make a true identification of these unidentified prints, in fact, belonged to either military policemen or a medic, or an FBI man?
Did you make such a request?
A Yes, sir, and I was informed that the investigating team from Fort Bragg would secure the record fingerprints to forward to our laboratory for comparison purposes over a period of time as they acquired them themselves.
Q Well, were they forwarded to you?
A I received only a certain number of prints, sir.
Q How many were they, approximately?
A To the best of my recollection, about twenty-four, sir.
Q And were you informed whether or not this was the total number of people who had been in the house?
A Mr. Shaw told me they were still gathering prints from different people; that they were tracking down, that might have been in there in one form or another.
Q All right. What time of the day were you in the house when you took your samples, or made your tests with regards to fingerprints?
A I was there for five days, sir.
Q Five days?
A Well, from Monday through Friday, sir.
Q You said there was more than twenty-four people in the house at the time you were in the house?
A Yes, sir.
Q After the master bedroom, where was the next location that you have a record of taking fingerprints in?
A To the best of my memory, sir, we moved into the utility room door. Specialist Turbyfill and I were moving around different places to avoid getting in the way of the chemist and possibly contaminating some of his evidence.
Now, may I refer back to this tape recording that you are referring to there? Captain Payne kept asking me, “And where did you go from there, and where did you go from there?” The answer that I gave him at that time was to the best of my memory. At this time it may be different only so far to a specific spot which I moved to.
Q I understand.
A From the master bedroom we processed around to the doorway that was the alleged entrance to the master bedroom through the utility room.
Q Now at that doorway, and I'm not going to hold you down to exactly where you went from where. I think that's no real problem, and I don't think you should be concerned with that, but at the door to the utility room, how many prints were found?
A Three latent fingerprints and three latent palm prints, sir.
Q Three latent fingerprints and three latent palm prints?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now were they identifiable?
A This is the reason that we stated this, sir, yes.
COL ROCK: Excuse me, can you relate that to any, any one of the exhibits?
WITNESS: U-4, sir.
COL ROCK: That's U-4?
WITNESS: Yes, sir. This may assist you, sir. Exhibit U-1--U-1 is from the living room.
COL ROCK: U-2?
WITNESS: U-2 is from the south bedroom. U-3 is from the east bedroom, master bedroom. U-4 is from the utility room. 5 is the bathroom.
COL ROCK: Which bathroom?
WITNESS: The main bathroom in the middle of the house.
COL ROCK: All right.
WITNESS: U-6 is the north bedroom, and 7 is the kitchen, sir.
COL ROCK: All right, thank you. Proceed.
Q Now of the latent fingerprints how many of those were identified?
A In Exhibit U-4, sir, it is reflected that two latent fingerprints were made by Mrs. MacDonald and one latent palm print by Captain MacDonald.
Q So two of the fingerprints were identified and one of the palm prints, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q So that would leave us one unidentified fingerprint and two unidentified palm prints in the utility room. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now in the utility room, were there any other fingerprints taken which for some reason or another in the processing they might have been destroyed other than these three?
A On the edge of the screen door, the outer screen door, I dusted the edge and it appeared that there were two finger marks which could be fingerprints. The photographer photographed them with the idea of using them for comparison purposes; using my eyepiece it appeared that they were, would be sufficient. However, before we determined that latent prints are sufficient for comparison purposes--they may look good viewing from a distance--but once they were photographed and we got them under our comparison microscope, binocular type comparison glasses, they do not meet the requirements for comparison purposes.
Q And on these prints, when you first viewed them, were they capable of comparison with your microscope?
A They appeared to possess several points or characteristics. It was not possible to count them because I did not want to touch the print to either destroy or distort it prior to it being photographed. However, these prints did not come out on the camera--did not come out on the film and were not photographable.
Q Well, was there any effort to take the portion of the doorway away so that you could bring to your laboratory?
A This was not done. The latent prints were in or on the paint. It was on the edge of the door facing, and it was my opinion that by cutting the door, it would be possible to jar the powder off. Once powder is placed on a latent print, it becomes very fragile, and can be--the powder itself can flake off it if it's not handled in such a manner as to keep it from doing this. By sawing the door portion out, I felt that this quite possibly may happen since the latent prints were faint to begin with.
Q So what was done with those two prints?
A They were covered over with transparent tape, sir, to show their location.
Q Was there any effort made later to identify them?
A Once the film was processed and printed, the resulting photographs were attempted to be utilized, yes, sir.
Q And were they utilized?
A They were not sufficient, sir.
Q So there were two additional prints that were not sufficient. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now in order of chronology, in the best you can recollect, did you make any attempt to make a second photograph or use any other method in which to raise these prints?
A It was with the same results, sir.
Q Isn't there any other method you could have used to get an identifiable print of those prints?
A Once a latent print is covered in transparent tape, at times the tape will adhere to the creases or cracks in the painted surface, and once this is done the adhesiveness of the tape itself will draw the powder into it.
Q Is that what occurred in this case? The tape, through the adhesive characteristics were drawn away and the print was destroyed. Is that what occurred?
A This I cannot say, sir, because I don't know the physical or chemical reactions that occurred in this.
Q Well, was the print in effect destroyed for your purposes by this process?
A It might have been insufficient to begin with, sir. It appeared as though it was comparable when I looked at it with my glass.
Q And after you were done taping it wasn't comparable. Is that correct?
A This, again, I can't say.
Q Did you look at it again?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was it comparable?
A It appeared as though the print was just like it was when I left it, except the tape was then adhering to the cracks and pieces of the paint itself.
Q Could you then in effect compare it with another print?
A No, sir.
Q All right, why?
A I though I just explained that, sir. There is certain characteristics, similarities and dissimilarities that we look for in a latent print prior to making a visible comparison with a latent print--or the record print. A dusted latent print impression may appear to be suitable for comparison to the eye looking at it through the eyepiece which I was wearing. However, once it is photographed and printed, then it is quite possible that there are insufficient characteristics for identification.
Q Could you go back and at least make a record of each of the characteristics which you observed at that point and put that substance in some central record place, or try to find a comparative print, and get that comparative print and put it next to the print that you saw?
Could you have done that?
A In all fairness, no, sir.
Q What other prints did you find in the utility room area?
A Well on the washing machine was a palm print that had been placed there by an individual who admitted placing this print there. However, I dusted it and it was a fresh print.
Q And who was that person?
A One of the investigators.
Q How many palm prints were found on the door jamb in between the utility room and the master bedroom?
A It shows--U-3, sir.
Q That would be the same three you were referring to?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now what palm prints did you refer to in the interview by the Chief of Military Justice that were distorted? Were they the same that you were referring to that were identifiable, or were they additional prints?
A There was one palm print, sir.
Q That was the only palm print?
A That was the photograph, sir.
Q Did you find palm prints on the door facing next to the master bedroom?
A Yes, sir, that's where they were.
Q Was it the three that you were referring to?
A Yes, sir. These are referred to as comparable prints.
Q Do you recall being asked this question and giving this answer? “Were you able to identify these, referring to the three palm prints?” “I am checking my notes right now. These are in the classification I mentioned previously that we had to go back and re-photograph. The Fair--the palm prints until they had to be covered with tape, and at that time the tape distorted them, and to my memory, we did not identify them.”
A These are the ones that were re-photographed.
Q Are these in addition to the three that we referred to here as identifiable ones?
A No, sir, these three shown on this report that starts off--comparable latent prints were found as follows--and these are comparable latent prints.
Q So in other words, the comparable latent prints which were also distorted in someone are included as comparable latent prints. Is that correct?
A No, sir, the report was written from the comparable latent prints that we had.
Q Well, are those the ones that you described that you were able to lift?
A We did not lift any, sir.
Q Or at least have them available to you to check with other prints?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now the three that were destroyed, or distorted by the tape, were they included in your records?
A Sir, I have only one here, I believe. Did I say three there?
Q Did you have your notes with you when you were interviewed by the Chief of Military Justice?
A No, sir, I had the case folder which had the photographs in it, and I was going by the photographs that I was looking at.
Q You were referring--
A On the outside of the photographs were certain notes such as one identified, six not identified. I was going by the photograph, based on the markings placed on them, 4X, 5X and so on like that.
Q And how many fingerprints and palm prints were destroyed by the method in which you used?
A According to the information that I have here, the number of prints that were re-photographed, were four fingerprints and one palm print in the utility room--excuse me--in the younger child's room, the south bedroom. U-2--U-3 there were ten fingerprints and three palm prints. U-4, thirteen fingerprints and one palm print. U-5, three fingerprints and one palm print. U-6, four fingerprints and one palm print.
Q When you say re-photographed, does that mean they were identifiable when they were raised with powder and that they were not able to be photographed and later unable to be identified by you? Is that what you are referring--
A These appeared to be comparable, sir, at the time they were processed.
Q And after they were processed, they were not comparable. Is that what you are saying?
A Once the photographs were printed, these are the ones that appeared to be blurred.
Q And that was the fault of the camera or the film?
A I'm not a photographer, sir, however, I would like to explain that in my experience that even the movement of a vehicle, a heavy truck, can on occasion set up a vibration of a building, so that the vibration is transmitted to the eye of the camera.
Q All right, after they were re-photographed, were they identifiable?
A Some of them were, and some of them were not, sir, and they were carried as being comparable.
Q What's the total of the photographs or the prints which you had re-photographed, fingerprints and palm prints?
A Forty-four fingerprints and ten palm prints, sir.
Q And these were what you thought to be identifiable when you originally processed them, the film became blurred or in some way was not developed properly, and when you went back to re-photograph them, they were not in condition for which you would say they were comparable. Is that correct?
A Some of them were, and some of them were not.
Q Do you have a record of how many were and how many were not?
A According to the photographs that were just read to me over the telephone, U-3, one palm print and two fingerprints, and U-4, seven fingerprints and one palm print. U-5, is questionable as to whether it was a fingerprint or palm print.
Q What is the total of the ones that you were able to identify after they were re-photographed?
A Subtracting the ones that he gave me, sir, thirty-five fingerprints and four palm prints.
Q Were unidentifiable after you processed them?
A Were identifiable.
Q Were identifiable.
A According to the reading of the photographs that he just gave me. He just gave me the marks that were placed on them.
COL ROCK: This hearing will take a five minute recess in place.
(The hearing recessed at 1615 hours, 14 July 1970.)
(The hearing reopened at 1618 hours, 14 July 1970.)
COL ROCK: The hearing is in session. Let the record reflect that all parties who were present at the closing are currently in the hearing room. Proceed with your--
Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q Do you recall being asked this question and giving this answer to the Chief of Military Justice at Fort Gordon? “How many palm prints did you take from the master bedroom?” Answer: “We had some unidentified prints on the door facing, which I am looking for at this particular moment. The identified palm prints that were noted on the door jamb and door facings before they had to be re-photographed due to the finding of the film and other mechanical difficulties, which had to be eliminated because after we placed the tape on it it caused them to be insufficient enough in order to identify anyone with it. However, I'll say prior to their--I'll say that the destruction or distortion by the tape we placed on it to protect--to protect it, they were identifiable or had been identifiable. However we had no cards at that time to make comparison with.” Do you recall giving that answer?
A I probably did, sir.
Q Now if you did have cards to make comparisons with, or did have some process by which you could or would have photographed these prints directly, you could have made--there would have been comparison prints wouldn't they?
A Until we examine it with the comparison glass, the only thing that we can go by is the appearance, looking at it with my viewing glass on top of my head. Once we look at it with the glass, even in place, it might have turned out that it was insufficient for positive identification.
Q But reference these photographs of these prints on the door jamb you do testify, or did state to the chief of Military Justice, that they were identifiable?
A Yes, sir, based on the explanation that I gave you, sir.
Q Also, the same thing occurred in the utility room, didn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now how many prints total were identifiable before you began your process of placing tape on them?
A According to the records, the total in the utility room were three latent palm prints, sir.
Q Now when you say latent palm prints are they final prints which you have back in your laboratory, or were the total of prints found in the utility room including the ones that were destroyed?
A They are the total prints that we have in photographs back at the laboratory, sir.
Q Now how many do you not have on photographs which were destroyed in this matter?
A According to his record, here, he had one, sir.
Q The next room, after the utility room, was what, according to your records?
A According to the records, it was the--it was the bedroom, north and south bedrooms.
Q All right, let's go into the north bedroom now. All right, how many fingerprints were found in the north bedroom?
A Twelve latent fingerprints.
Q Twelve identifiable latent fingerprints.
COL ROCK: My records show, if I am correct, Exhibit U-6 shows four latent fingerprints in the north bedroom.
WITNESS: You are absolutely right, you are right, sir. Six in the bedroom, five in the bathroom. Four latent fingerprints was found in the north bedroom and four latent palm prints were found.
Q Now how many of those prints were identified, identified as belonging to either Captain MacDonald, or Ron Harrison or any other person?
A One latent fingerprint was made by an investigator, sir.
Q Right, and were the other three identified?
A According to these records, no, sir.
Q So we have one identified fingerprint and three unidentified fingerprints. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about the palm print?
A Four latent palm prints, sir.
Q How many were identified?
A According to this, none, sir.
Q And therefore there would have been four unidentified palm prints. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where were--were there any palm prints destroyed in that room through your processing?
A It shows here that none were destroyed, sir.
Q What is the next room you have a record of?
A U-7 is the kitchen, sir.
Q How many –
COL ROCK: Excuse me. Is that where you want him to go now, counselor?
MR. EISMAN: I think it easier for him to go according to his records, rather than skipping around.
Q How many identifiable fingerprints were found in the kitchen?
A There was one, sir.
Q And palm prints?
A None.
Q And was such fingerprint identified?
A No, sir.
Q So there was one unidentified fingerprint? No palm prints were found in that room. What's the next room you went to?
A Let's start with the living room, sir. At the beginning of the list there was one latent print from there, sir.
Q Was that identified?
A Yes, sir, it was identified as a footprint of Mrs. MacDonald.
Q It was a footprint?
A Yes, sir.
Q It was identified?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about the next room?
A The south bedroom, sir.
Q How many prints were found there?
A Three latent fingerprints and three palm prints. That would be U-2, sir.
Q Yes. Three and three. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many of those were identified, Sergeant?
A One latent fingerprint was made by Mrs. MacDonald and one latent palm print was made by Captain MacDonald.
Q So each were identified. Is that correct? There were two each unidentified?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now on the--do you have a record of how many prints--when you refer to the rooms, do you include the door jambs in those, or are they in a separate classification?
A The door jamb is considered part of the room, sir, since it is in the entrance.
Q Do you have any record as to which of these prints were found on the door jamb of which room or how many were found on the door jambs?
A This is the easiest room to answer because the other latent prints that were developed were not comparable. The latent prints were on the door jamb or the door edge, itself.
Q Would that be probably the best surface upon which you could raise fingerprints as compared to the walls?
A It being a painted surface, sir, yes, sir.
Q And the walls, therefore, would be less capable of accepting fingerprints and holding them for your processing. Wouldn't that be correct?
A Compared to the surface, however, there would be an outline left.
Q Did you find many outlines of fingerprints on the walls?
A You mean in the children's room, sir?
Q Yes.
A Or where?
Q Hallways, children's rooms, master bedroom.
A In the hallway it was devoid of finger marks.
Q Do you think these were wiped off by someone, Sergeant?
A This I couldn't tell, sir, however, when a whipping action occurs, quite often there is set up a disturbance of the dust or pigment of the walls themselves and paint will--the powder will adhere to the streaks.
Q Did you have that reaction on those walls in the hallway?
A No, sir.
Q So it would appear to you that somebody had wiped the sides of the hallway, would it?
A The only thing I can state, sir, is what I saw physically.
Q What other rooms do you have in addition to the ones we have already covered?
A I believe that takes care of it sir.
Q Do we have a bathroom?
A That was U-5, sir.
Q I don't see it on my list.
A This is the one that I confused the Colonel on. U-5 is the bathroom and there were twelve latent fingerprints and seven latent palm prints.
Q All right, now how many of the fingerprints were identified in U-5?
A Seven latent fingerprints were made by Captain MacDonald and two latent fingerprints were made by Mrs. MacDonald.
Q So nine were identified?
A Right, sir, and one palm print was identified as belonging to Captain MacDonald.
Q So therefore, the corresponding totals would be three unidentified fingerprints in the bathroom and six palm prints. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do these totals total up to the same number you gave us previously, that being 44 fingerprints and 29 palm prints, or is there some area we haven't covered?
A To my memory, sir, there were 21 latent prints identified, 23 not identified; 6 latent palm prints identified and 23 palm prints not identified, total.
Q All right, now, when did you complete your testing of these fingerprints, Sergeant?
A Late Friday afternoon, to the best of my memory, sir, we began, sir, we began to pack up, clean up, so we could pack the evidence and move out Saturday morning, sir.
Q Now when you completed your reports which we have before us, when were they complete, sir?
A I would have to refer back--the exact date I cannot tell you without looking at the log book in our office, however--
Q What's the date on your report?
A 6 April of '70 was when they were mailed out, sir.
Q Now when you mailed the reports out on 6 April did you send copies of these prints to any--where did you send copies of the prints to?
A The latent prints, sir?
Q Yes, your photographs.
A We retained them in the laboratory, sir.
Q Did anyone request you, or did you make any request of anybody to submit these to any central bureau such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A No, sir, the FBI and other central bureaus will not accept single latent fingerprints for searching of their files, inasmuch as they have more than 200 million record prints on files.
Q Well, let me ask you this. According to your knowledge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in a case like this, had you submitted these fingerprints, do you think they might have at least gone and checked as to the--as far as the basic characteristics of these to see if they could come up with certain individuals?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q Did you make such a request?
A No, sir, I didn't.
Q Did anyone make such a request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A Based on our previous correspondence in connection with the FBI, the Director of the Identification Bureau has asked us not to.
Q Did you ask them to make any specific exceptions?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q Did anybody investigating this case make any other attempt to identify who these unidentified fingerprints belonged to?
A Only the members of the laboratory, sir, as we received the record prints from the investigators.
Q But it would only be the record prints that was sent to you by the investigators that they were comparing. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir, as we received them.
Q Were you aware that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been involved in this case?
A Yes, sir, I was. I met several of them.
Q And at any time did you mention to them that you had a total of 23 unidentified fingerprints and 26 unidentified palm prints which might be of significance in this case?
A I believe it was 23 and 23, sir.
Q Well let's use that figure just--I don't argue about that point, but did you mention to them, or did you write to them, or communicate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents on this case that you did have that total of unidentified fingerprints?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q Could you estimate how many prints that you put powder on, attempted to photograph and they did not come out for some reason? Having to do with mechanical difficulties with the film.
A I could only read you the same figures that were given to me on the telephone, sir--44 fingerprints and 7 palm prints.
Q How many of these fingerprints that you found compared with each other, which would indicate they came from the same person?
A We did not cross-reference any; however, there was a number of latent prints that were made by the same finger of the individual that were unidentified.
Q Did you attempt to submit the fingerprints of the--at least the individual who appeared to have had several of the same fingerprints in the house to the FBI?
CPT SOMERS: I object. He's answered this question repeatedly.
CPT BEALE: Sustained.
Q Do you have any record of how many overprints were found on the scene, of prints on palm prints?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q Did you fingerprint, or process for fingerprints the jewelry box in the master bedroom?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you find any fingerprints on that?
A This would be known as Exhibit J, sir.
Q I assume so.
A Exhibit J is shown as having comparable latent fingerprints, palm print, sir, partial palm print.
Q And whose were they?
A I don't know, sir.
Q Were they identifiable?
A They had sufficient characteristics, if we had the complete record prints of people.
Q Were they included in the bedroom or were they separate?
A Yes, they were shown as in the bedroom, sir.
Q And they are already on the board there as the total in the bedroom? Or would they be carried separately?
A They would be carried separately.
Q All right, now how many--how many fingerprints again was found on the jewelry box?
A One latent fingerprint and one latent palm print, sir.
Q And were they identified?
A In the report it shows that it was not, sir.
Q And they were identifiable?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were there any other special items which are not included as an item in the living room? Or in any of the rooms?
A Yes, sir.
Q What were they?
A Exhibit R-1 and R-2, which were found in the kitchen, and these are glasses, cups, plate, saucer, and things which are identified in the report, sir.
Q Were any latent fingerprints found on those?
A On Exhibit R-1 and R-2--R-1 had three latent fingerprints. R-2 had one.
Q And were you able to identify those finger prints?
A No, sir.
Q And other objects in the house which we have not yet discussed?
A Examination of Exhibits 1 and 2--S-1 and S-2. S-1 is a saucer and S-2 is also a saucer which was removed from the drain board in the kitchen.
Q Now were you able to identify those fingerprints?
A No, sir.
Q How many fingerprints total were there on those objects?
A One each, sir, one latent print.
Q One print on each. Any more?
A Exhibit T shows one latent fingerprint identifiable.
Q What is Exhibit T?
A A plate, sir.
Q And was that identifiable?
A Yes, sir.
Q And whose was that?
A It wasn't identified, sir.
Q It was not identified. Anything else?
A There was a magazine which has a number of latent prints developed on it, certain pages, sir; the comparison of these latent prints was not done.
Q Whose fingerprints did this magazine contain?
A I don't know, sir. There was a number of latent prints, and it was observed as being handled by a number of persons, sir.
Q Would that be including investigators and other law enforcement authorities?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is this, according to your knowledge, evidence in this case?
A It was thought not to be evidence until a reddish stain was discovered on the end of the magazine itself, at which time it became evidence.
MR. EISMAN: I have nothing further.
COL ROCK: May I ask at this time, counselor, the relevance of all the work that was being done up here (pointing to the blackboard) in the questioning of the witness relative to the--any information on the board?
MR. EISMAN: Yes, this shows, according to the records of this witness, 23 identifiable fingerprints found on the premises which were not identified by--not identified with either anyone in the house or any prints sent to the laboratory who were known to be in the house after the incident; and that there were 23 palm prints found of unknown origin which were in the house, which I think will become relevant as far as the defense in this case, that there were unidentified people in the house. We now have evidence of unidentified fingerprints.
We have evidence that the criminal investigators in this case sent to the laboratory the known fingerprints of Captain MacDonald, Mrs. MacDonald, Lieutenant Harrison, and presumably anyone else who was in the house; and so since our law enforcement personnel, since our military personnel were fingerprinted, and if they were doing their job, as they probably were, they provided all the fingerprints of the people known to be in the house, and these were not identified as being the prints which we have left over, and these are at this point the fingerprints which cannot be accounted for by the prosecution.
CPT SOMERS: I object to this. This is argument on the part of counsel. This is not in answer to the question as to the relevance of this diagram on the board.
COL ROCK: Well, I gather, it seems to me it is relevant in trying to determine why all this went on. I agree, it is probably a simple question as to how many there were of each type, it might have been cleared up earlier. But I am trying to determine how this fits in.
MR. EISMAN: Well, the reason we did it room to room, sir, was to show that there was unidentified fingerprints in every area of this house which would also be important as far as the defense of this case, and I think it's--it will become highly important in your determination as to what version of this case you will accept.
COL ROCK: Counsel for the government, do you have any further questions?
CPT SOMERS: Yes, sir, just a moment.
MR. EISMAN: In addition, there were reports when this case originally occurred that there were no unidentified fingerprints found in the house. That information was given at a press conference given by a former Provost Marshal of this base, and it was reported to the press as such.
CPT BEALE: Well, of course, counselor, that's not in evidence.
MR. EISMAN: Well, that's why it's going to be relevant later.
COL ROCK: That's a sufficient answer. Thank you.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Who took the photographs of these fingerprints, please?
COL ROCK: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.
Q Who took the photographs of these fingerprints?
A CW Harold Page, sir.
Q Where is he from?
A He's also from the crime laboratory, sir, at Fort Gordon.
Q Sergeant Medlin, with respect to the photographs--or to the fingerprints which seemed to have become unreadable as a result of photographic difficulty, can you tell us what this difficulty resulted in? I mean did it wind up with blurred photographs, or what?
A The photographs, when they were printed, sir, were blurred.
Q I see. Now you had more pictures taken. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q For those that were blurred by Mr. Page?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you did that, did some of the prints then become readable? In the new photographs?
A Yes, sir, to the point that we could compare them.
Q How many fingerprints were lost in these new photographs?
A The total that I referred to a few minutes ago that were given to me on the telephone a few minutes ago, were nine fingerprints and three palm prints, sir.
Q I see. Is it very common to have some photographs or some fingerprints in photographs which do not develop this way?
A We have had under laboratory conditions photographs that turned out out of focus due to slippage of a screw in the camera or someone coming in slamming the door at the time that the man flashed the picture.
Q Is it feasible at the scene like this to attempt to compare every latent fingerprint that you find on the spot with controls?
A No, sir, it is not feasible.
Q If you were to leave the dusted fingerprints with no protection whatsoever, would they decompose?
A This will be according to three primary factors. One is the condition of the surface which a latent print is left upon. One is the atmospheric conditions, and the other is the condition of the person who leaves the print there.
Q Well, now with reference specifically to prints, latent prints which have been dusted, if they are simply left open to the air, is there any assurance that they will not become unreadable in a short period of time?
A In my experience, we have left latent prints developed on surfaces uncovered and as the powder dries even more, then the least movement, or breeze or jar, could cause the powder to fall to one side or fall off of--
Q Is that why prints are covered?
A Yes, sir, for the protection of the print. Also to protect the exact location of the print.
Q Sergeant Medlin, would you define for us, please this term “identifiable” as it relates to fingerprints? It's been used a lot here and it's not been defined on the record.
A A print that is considered identifiable for comparison purposes possess all those points and individual characteristics which we look for in searching the record of prints for a mate or match. This may be in the form of ending ridges or ridge dots, the pattern itself, whether it is a whorl, a loop or arch, other similarities, or dissimilarities that we are looking for for comparison purposes.
CPT SOMERS: I have no further questions.
Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q Are these photographs in your laboratory at Fort Gordon?
A Yes, sir, they are.
Q Are the negatives to your knowledge, still at Fort Gordon?
A Yes, sir, to my knowledge, they are.
MR. EISMAN: Does the investigating officer have any questions, because at this time I have a request to make, unless the investigating officer--
COL ROCK: Yes, I have a number of questions. Are you finished, counselor?
MR. EISMAN: Yes.
COL ROCK: Initially, I believe, you said that you went to 544 Corregidor Courts. Do you mean 544 Castle Drive?
WITNESS: Yes, sir, there was a sign that I saw that said Corregidor Courts.
COL ROCK: When you refer to identification of a print, meaning a photograph of a print from the scene of the alleged crime, and you compare to that record prints, and you say that you identified it; does that mean 75% sure of identification, 90%, 100%, or how would you describe that?
WITNESS: It is either yes or no, sir, in fingerprint identification.
COL ROCK: Okay, thank you. I want to refer to Government Exhibit 8, in the paragraph you have that in front of you?
WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do.
COL ROCK: Now, the paragraph states “The remaining latent prints were not identified.” And then you go on to say “However, due to a lack of complete clarity in some areas of the record finger and palm prints of Captain and Mrs. MacDonald, a complete elimination/identification could not be made.” Would you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by complete elimination/identification could not be made?
WITNESS: Normally, sir, when there is a victim involved, and there are latent prints left at the crime scene, we consider this an elimination, because we eliminate the latent prints as having been made by an authorized person such as the deceased. The identification is merely an--a terminology that we use to identify prints or to eliminate them, sir.
COL ROCK: From what record can I, as the investigating officer, determine the exact location where identified fingerprints were obtained at the scene of the crime?
WITNESS: By comparing the photographs of the record of the latent prints that have the numbers in them with the actual tape-covered latent print in the house, sir.
COL ROCK: In other words, it would be necessary for me to obtain copies of those photographs and then visit the scene of the crime to determine the exact location.
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
COL ROCK: In your police work do you normally make a diagram of the locations from which you take fingerprints?
WITNESS: Not normally, sir.
COL ROCK: Do you have any way of knowing the composition of the footprint that you have described in the living room as being Mrs. MacDonald's. Was this a bloody footprint or--
WITNESS: No, sir, it was a latent footprint on the edge of the coffee table.
COL ROCK: Perhaps you'd better describe what you mean by latent print. Are there other types of prints besides latent prints?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
COL ROCK: Please describe what you mean by latent print.
WITNESS: A latent print is a print which is not visible or readily visible to the eye, and I use a certain process such as commercial powder, contrasting powder, you develop it up so that you can see it, sir. A plastic latent print is one which is left in, as an example, butter or cheese or a surface of that nature.
COL ROCK: Do you consider that you followed standard professional procedures in your work?
WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do.
COL ROCK: To your knowledge, is there a lab report reference the fingerprints on Exhibits P through T?
WITNESS: Only this one paragraph, sir, in Government Exhibit 8, shows no matching impressions.
COL ROCK: Is it then normal procedure not to list the fact on a lab report that there were certain good fingerprints, but that they could not be identified?
WITNESS: I believe it is shown, yes, sir.
COL ROCK: Now during the cross examination this was brought out, to my knowledge, for the first time by the counsel for the accused with reference to those exhibits, which, if I understand you correctly, were fingerprints, or clear--what I would as a layman call--clear fingerprints, but they were not identifiable with the records which you had. Is that correct?
WITNESS: Yes, sir. These are the ones on the dishes, the cups and saucers.
COL ROCK: Okay, now is there any report on that fact, other than--
WITNESS: Not other than the one entered in paragraph 30a of Exhibit 8, sir, no matching impressions.
COL ROCK: From your testimony, Sergeant, would you consider that blurred photographs are a normal hazard of the business?
WITNESS: Since in the past, sir, we have experienced on occasions this to happen, anything is considered a hazard when it comes to such a delicate instrument as the camera, sir.
COL ROCK: What I mean is, this is not--let me rephrase. Is this an unusual occurrence in your line of work, blurred photographs?
WITNESS: No, sir, however it is rather exceptional inasmuch as every photograph that they take or piece of evidence that is processed and photographed normally do not come out blurred. We have experienced it though.
COL ROCK: I have no further questions. Does either counsel?
MR. EISMAN: I have a request at this time of the investigating officer that since the photographs are available in the laboratory and since the negatives are available, that both the investigating officer and the counsel for the accused and counsel for the government be provided with a set of these photographs so that we may conduct an investigation regarding the identify of the people who these fingerprints belong to. I see no hardship to the government providing copies from the prints--from the negatives to the investigating officer so that he can conduct whatever investigation he wishes as far as the scene of the crime to determine where they were found; to the defense so that we may use them for our purposes also.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, these resources are not readily within my control, however, if--even should they be, the photographs at the laboratory are the laboratory's own for their use. The negatives in this case, particularly the one which any difficulty might have been had, I can represent are undergoing further treatment, and so they are not presently available. The prosecution objects to complying with that request.
COL ROCK: Captain Somers, by testimony of the witness himself, the only way that I can obtain any sort of diagram to assist me in determining where either identified fingerprints came from or other good fingerprints not identified was by obtaining the photographs and going to the scene of the crime itself, and then there apparently having to make a diagram myself. I want this information. I don't care whether it is in diagram form, or whether we have to do the work with the photographs themselves. I think it is a reasonable request. I realize it may take some time. If the process described by the Sergeant seems to be a simple process, for Sergeant Medlin to undertake himself rather than getting all the photographs and so forth up here, perhaps this is the appropriate means of getting them, but I do feel this is information that the investigating officer requires for his own use.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, I will make every effort to attempt to get you this information. I feel that we probably can get the information. The pictures themselves, I do not feel that we can acquire.
COL ROCK: Would you please make the necessary investigation from both sides, trying to obtain the photographs and/or the diagram and hopefully have the information by the time we reconvene.
Are there any other questions that counsel for the accused has?
MR. EISMAN: No, sir, not at this time.
COL ROCK: Any other questions by counsel for the government?
CPT SOMERS: No, sir, I have no further questions of this witness.
COL ROCK: I would like to announce at this time that Master Sergeant Medlin, as well as the two other expert witnesses are released, but subject to recall, not here at Fort Bragg. They may return, of course, to their duty station.
CPT SOMERS: Thank you, sir.
COL ROCK: Now, Sergeant Medlin, I wish to advise you that you will discuss your testimony with no person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused. Do you understand that?
WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do.
COL ROCK: You are excused subject to recall.
(The Witness saluted the IO and departed the hearing room.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will be recessed until 0830 hours, Thursday, the 16th of July.
( The hearing recessed at 1703 hours, 14 July 1970.)
(The hearing reconvened at 0847 hours, 16 July 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that counsel for the accused, and counsel for the government are present, with the exception of Captain Thompson, counsel for the government.
At this time I have two items, I'd like to mention. First, I hand you herewith the testimony of Specialist Four Kenneth C. Mica, the transcript copy, a copy to the government and a copy to the accused. At this time I would also like to inquire as to what information the government has been able to acquire reference the request for photographs of valid fingerprints, the issue that we were discussing at the time we closed.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, the government has acquired, through the use of Mr. Medlin's note at Fort Gordon, the necessary information and has a complete list of the location--by location I mean the measurement in feet and inches from observable marks or observable position in the house--of each of the fingerprints listed and will have this available for the investigating officer this afternoon.
COL ROCK: This will be in a diagrammatic form, I assume.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, this is in a form of a list with a description of the location of each fingerprint in feet and inches from –
COL ROCK: From this, can a simple diagram be made that would be of use? I believe it would be useful to all of us frankly.
CPT SOMERS: Yes, sir, I can have that done, but it will take a draftsman some time to do it. In the meantime I can provide the descriptions as I have them.
COL ROCK: All right, fine.
MR. EISMAN: I again renew my request to be provided with photographs of these fingerprints. There's no--they have the negatives. All it means is running an extra copy of the prints for the investigating officer and the defense counsel so that we may validate any diagram eventually made.
COL ROCK: At my ruling the other day, I decided upon either/or, with the diagram being preferable for purposes since we are not in the game of attempting to identify these particular photographs per se. Your current request is overruled. Proceed, counselor.
CPT SOMERS: The government calls Major Gammel.
(Major George E. Gammel was called as a witness by the government, was sworn, and testified as followed.)
Question by CPT SOMERS:
Q Would you state your name, please?
A George E. Gammel.
Q Your grade?
A Major.
Q Your organization?
A Womack Army Hospital.
Q Your station?
A Fort Bragg.
Q Your armed force?
A U. S. Army.
Q Would you state your professional training and background, please?
A My undergraduate education was taken at Doane College in Crete, Nebraska, a Congregationalist College. I received my BA degree from there. My medical training was taken at the University of Nebraska, at which time I got my MD degree. I did a clinical rotating internship at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska for one year, and I took my third year pathology residency at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri for four years. I have since taken my board examination and am certified in anatomical pathology and clinical pathology.
Q Would you tell us, please, doctor, where you are licensed to practice medicine?
A I am licensed to practice medicine in Nebraska, the state of Nebraska.
CPT SOMERS: Would the defense care to examine into the qualifications of the witness?
MR. EISMAN: I have no questions about the doctor's qualifications.
CPT SOMERS: The government tenders this man, sir as an expert in the field of medicine and pathology.
COL ROCK: That is accepted.
Q Doctor Gammel, did you conduct an autopsy on the body of Colette MacDonald on 17 February 1970?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you have autopsy photographs taken at that time under your supervision?
A Yes, I had both color and black and white taken under my supervision.
CPT SOMERS: At this time the government offers four photographs and request that they be marked as Government Exhibits 29 through 32.
COL ROCK: G-29 is a color photograph of the breast area. G-30 is a color photograph of Colette's upper chest and lower face. G-31 is a color photograph of Colette's face, front view. G-32 is a color photograph of Colette's left arm.
Q Doctor, I show you Government Exhibits G-29 thru G-32 and ask that you look at them. Were these photographs taken under your direction?
A Yes, they were.
(G-29 thru G-32 were shown to counsel for the defense.)
Q Doctor, when you had these photographs taken did you also have slides taken which corresponds to these photographs?
A Yes, the film is actually Ektochrome. The pictures were made from the slides.
CPT SOMERS: If I may at this time, sir, although the pictures G-29 thru G-32 are the exhibits which will be introduced into evidence, there are slides from which these pictures were made and to which these pictures directly correspond. The slides will be much easier for the doctor to refer to in his presentation than these pictures will be. We request permission to use the slides for that purpose, although I would state that there may be people who would like to clear the room before we do that.
MR. EISMAN: I would object to the use of any slides. We have the pictures. I don't see--I would ask for an offer of proof why slides would be necessary to show the wounds, and I think it would be only inflammatory and is not necessary whatsoever; unless the government at this time would like to make an offer of proof why this is necessary. We have the doctor's report and that will probably be offered in evidence, and I don't see why we should be subjected and our client should be subjected to see any of these slides if there is no overwhelming reason for it.
CPT SOMERS: It will be considerably easier for the doctor to explain what he is talking about so that all may be aware of what he's talking about if he may use the slides.
COL ROCK: Major Gammel, would you indicate to me whether personally you think it is necessary to use these slides to make your presentation clear to me?
WITNESS: Well, one of the--a few of them, the reproductions aren't as clear as the original slides, but I am sure I can make it fairly clear to you without--that would be my only comment, that the reproductions aren't as good as the original slides. I think I could make it--make you aware of what happened without the projection.
CPT SOMERS: Doctor, would it be easier and clearer with the slide projector?
WITNESS: I think it would be.
CPT BEALE: Let me ask you something. If you have those slides are you going to actually point out for the Colonel various and sundry significance of whatever the wounds are?
WITNESS: Yes.
CPT BEALE: And would that be easier to do than it would be to have just the picture and you continually turning it around and pointing to the exhibit? Is that the whole purpose of the slides?
WITNESS: Yes. I could come up to the front and point out in the pictures the same here and everybody could see it.
MR. EISMAN: Since the pictures are going to be the thing in evidence, I think it would be a lot easier for the investigating officer to have the doctor circle whatever he's talking about at that time, unless there is a particular item which cannot be made out on the picture. Otherwise I don't think it is necessary to subject my client to these slides. There's no actual purpose for it. If the doctor says he can't show a particular thing, then I have no objection to the slides being shown. If there is one particular thing which he has to show on the slides I will have no objection. But to have to do this with everything I don't think it is necessary.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, he said it would be easier to, clear to you if the slides were used to make his presentation. These slides cannot be anymore inflammatory than the pictures, since they are in fact only reproductions of the pictures, and we submit that the--for clarity's sake the slides should be used.
MR. EISMAN: The slides won't be in evidence. The only thing the investigating officer is going to have is the pictures. So if he marks the pictures at least the investigating officer will have a continuing record along with this case of what the doctor is talking about. He won't have the slides or he won't have that scene when he reviews the testimony. Therefore, the doctor will be using something the investigating officer couldn't refer back to. If he points it out on the picture, the investigating officer can see it immediately and have that permanently for his records.
COL ROCK: In the question now before the investigating officer, the slides will be used. However, if there are any significant points to be brought out--to the attention of the investigating officer, I will also request that this item be identified on the photograph so it can be marked for my future use.
CPT SOMERS: Very good, sir.
COL ROCK: Is this clear to you, Dr. Gammel?
WITNESS: Yes, it is.
COL ROCK: Proceed. Do you wish to have the lights turned out?
CPT SOMERS: Yes.
(The lights were dimmed.)
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor Gammel, would you describe, please, the injuries sustained by Mrs. MacDonald?
A I'd like to start out preliminarily with what was done. In the autopsy examination a rather extensive external examination was done in this case, and during that time the wounds were photographed, described and measured. We went from there to an internal examination of the body. The organs were examined first in place, and secondly, organ by organ to identify just the extent of injury that had occurred to the various organs. Now with this autopsy, I have divided the wounds in the two major categories, stab wounds and then blunt trauma.
COL ROCK: Blunt what?
WITNESS: Blunt trauma. The stab wounds are the first I'd like to describe and are exemplified by the first two slides, and I--if I can go from there with the slides, I think. The stab wounds are shown here. This is a high chest view. To be oriented, this would be the lower portion of the neck going right down to the breast.
COL ROCK: Doctor, may I ask you to stand on the other side so that the counsel for the accused can also see clearly.
CPT SOMERS: If I may, this is a reproduction of Government Exhibit G-29.
WITNESS: This is the first we have. On the chest there were seven, what we classify as incised wounds. These incised wounds would be that type made with a knife. Seven then incised knife wounds. They measured about 1 1/5 centimeters. They are all fairly regular. There were 21 puncture type stab wounds, such as we have here. Round, puncture type wounds are made by a long sharp object of some sort, a thin object. These puncture wounds were scattered throughout the entire chest and on to the left arm. I will go to the next slide.
COL ROCK: Excuse me; there is no one of these that is particularly significant?
WITNESS: Well, yes, the ones that clustered over the left portion of the chest would be the significant ones.
COL ROCK: From what standpoint?
WITNESS: These are the ones that hit vital organs.
COL ROCK: I see. All right.
WITNESS: The wounds we see here then did actually penetrate through the chest wall and cause damage to the underlying lung and arteries.
CPT SOMERS: Excuse me. We are now referring to the slide which is a reproduction of Government Exhibit G-30.
MR. EISMAN: If I may interpose an objection before the doctor does continues. Were all of these wounds penetrated into vital organs?
WITNESS: All seven of the sharp knife type wounds did penetrate the chest wall. The twenty-one puncture type wounds, only about five of those actually penetrated the chest wall. The rest were very superficial. All right, then also we had nine sharp incisional or knife type wounds in the neck. These were all, again measured about a centimeter and a half in length, were gaping, and again penetrated through the skin down into the structures of the neck; the trachea and the thyroid were actually penetrated by these wounds. There is then the wound that caused much internal bleeding as many vital organs were penetrated under-neath. I could go into that right now. I feel that the pulmonary artery had a hole in it as well as the lung had several lacerations and it was extensive enough to cause massive bleeding. The chest cavities were full of blood as well as the heart cavity and pericardium was full of blood, and this would be enough to cause exsanguination or bleeding to death. That was the extent of the sharp or incisional type of injuries.
The next major category, then, was the blunt trauma. The next slide, which is G-31, demonstrates the face on view and this slide, this reproduction is fairly dark. It shows you basically that there were three basic or three major blunt trauma wounds to the head, one to the left temple, one on the right temple, and the one right in the middle of the forehead right about the nose. The two blunt traumas to each temple were glancing blows, which caused a lot of laceration or the skin was torn down right to the skull. There was a lot of bruising of tissue around them, a lot of bleeding into the tissue. The one here in the center was directly over a skull fracture. The skull was small, it was depressed, it was a linear skull fracture, measured only about four centimeters in length. The underlying brain showed some contusions in the posterior aspect. The occipital region, which goes into the idea of trauma to the head sometimes, causes contusions on the opposite surface of the brain, because of the contra coup injury. The mechanism of it is not, in all the medical books, really isn't defined, but it is a well documented factor that this does happen. There was also a third laceration behind the right ear, again as I show it, with soft tissue trauma as a result of a blunt trauma.
And on the previous photograph there was two rather light bruises across the chin, so in all we have six blunt trauma contusions on the face. The next major part were the extremities. The arms showed multiple bruising, multiple lacerations, and both arms were broken. The left arm which we have here was broken at the distal part of the radius down toward the wrist, both bones were fractured.
CPT SOMERS: Excuse me, doctor. We are now referring to the slide which corresponds with Government Exhibit 32.
WITNESS: The right arm showed similar types of bruises and lacerations, and again the ulna was fractured twice, and overlying it were lacerations.
Q Would you tell us, please what the ulna is?
A The ulna is one of the major bones of the arm. If you have this arm up this way, it would be the bone that would be out, toward you.
COL ROCK: Do you have any statement to make as to how you think the bones were broken, that is by a blunt instrument or--
WITNESS: Yes, the evidence would show that there was a blunt instrument that presumably come down upon the arm in this fashion, to break the ulna and spare the radius on the right arm.
COL ROCK: Do you have any idea of how many blows by a blunt instrument were made on each of the arms?
WITNESS: That would be very difficult. There were so many bruises and so many lacerations, that I could give estimation perhaps, but that would be it. I really don't know.
COL ROCK: All right, thank you.
WITNESS: That's all.
(The lights were turned on again.)
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor can you give us some idea what the angle of the stab wounds in the chest was, sir?
A As far as following the path of the stab wounds into the chest, I feel that all of them were fairly perpendicular to the body. Most of the wounds of the internal organs were perpendicular, into the wounds on the skin, because I found direct evidence that it was without significant angulation.
Q Do you have any idea from which direction the blows to the head were struck?
A Yes, I have an opinion that it would be from the front, because of the bruising of the skin and the piling up of the skin, more to the posterior aspect of the body, of the head, so I'd say that it was from the front.
Q Have you any opinion as to whether the blows from the blunt instrument or the stab wounds were inflicted first?
A I have an opinion although I can't base that with any kind of facts.
MR. EISMAN: I'm going to object to any opinion that is not based on medical certainty. This witness is an expert and he can give opinions if they are based on medical certainty and not on conjecture or surmise on his behalf.
CPT SOMERS: The witness as an expert is entitled to have an opinion. If he can give us a basis for his opinion, I think perhaps the best thing to do would be to listen to the opinion and the basis therefore and then decide it.
COL ROCK: The objection is overruled. Please give us your expert opinion.
A It would be my opinion that the blunt trauma was received first.
Q Did you type Mrs. MacDonald's blood?
A Yes.
Q What type of blood did she have?
A A. That's ABO Group. The RH Group would be positive, A positive.
Q And what did you say caused death in this case, doctor?
A The immediate cause of death would be the exsanguination, or bleeding to death from the sharp wounds on the chest.
Q Did you take certain exhibits from Mrs. MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what was those?
A I took debris from the hands, fingernail scrapings, samples, and then of course I took various portions of the organs for toxicology work-up.
Q Did you take scrapings from the hands of the children, Kristen and Kimberly as well?
A Yes, I did.
Q Doctor, can you tell us when Mrs. MacDonald died?
A I can--again, I'd have to give my opinion on when she died as--in relation to investigative purposes I have an opinion, although I have to say it cannot, because of the nature of the thing, be based upon any actual facts. I have an opinion about a general area.
MR. EISMAN: Well, I'm going to object. This is not based on medical facts but based on something that somebody else told him. That would not be his opinion, so let's clarify this before we permit him to give an opinion not based on medical facts. He's only a medical expert.
CPT SOMERS: Doctor, is this opinion based on some hearsay?
A No, the opinion I have is based on the temperature, rigor mortis; again it is based on my medical facts.
CPT BEALE: The over--the objection is overruled, then.
Q What is that opinion, doctor?
A I believe that the time of death on Colette MacDonald was sometime after three a.m., in the morning. Again, I want to say, though, that variation is so extreme on this. There can be so many factors that I don't think that time of death as derived by this method has ever been used by anything other that investigative purposes. There is so much unknown, that this is only an opinion.
Q Would you tell us what the difficulties are in determining time of death?
A So many factors have to be assumed. We have to assume that the body temperature was normal at the time of death, which is completely false for instance if a person was exercising strenuously before death; the body surface, the radiation, surrounding temperature, all these are factors which just cannot be bound to a formula and come out with--even under the ideal mechanism of--the most ideal would be the actual taking of the temperature, still does not allow you to come with any closer than five or six hours at that, and even that is debatable.
Q In your opinion--your opinion is within those limits. Is that correct?
A Right. Within those limits my best opinion would be around--sometime after three a.m.
Q Did you see Doctor Hancock perform the autopsies on Kimberly and Kristen MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you supervise him in these activities?
A Yes, I supervised him.
Q Did Doctor Hancock use standard proper procedure in the autopsies discussed?
A Yes, he did. I have full confidence in him.
Q Have you discussed his conclusions and do you concur with them?
A Yes, we discussed them at length and we concur.
CPT SOMERS: Your witness.
Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q Doctor, do you have a copy of your autopsy report?
A Yes, I do.
Q I am going to show you a copy of a report and ask you to look through this and tell me if this is a complete and full report of the autopsy.
CPT BEALE: Mr. Eisman, hold up a second. Do you intend to offer into evidence the autopsy reports?
CPT SOMERS: I have no immediate intention of doing so.
MR. EISMAN: I will do so at this time, and that's why I am offering--asking the witness to read this to see if it is a full one, and I will offer it as an accused exhibit.
CPT BEALE: Is this on Colette only?
MR. EISMAN: Yes.
Q I want you to be particular as to whether there is anything left out of that report.
A It seems to be all here.
Q Do you know what this is?
A Yes, I do.
Q What is that?
A That is the--our report on this autopsy put out by the Armed Forces through the Pathology Forensic Branch up there.
Q Is that your report, or somebody's report on your report?
A That's somebody's report on my report.
Q So that is not your making?
A No, sir.
MR. EISMAN: At this time I would offer to the investigating officer the next accused exhibit, a copy of the doctor's complete pathology report or autopsy report.
COL ROCK: Accused Exhibit 25 is autopsy report by Major Gammel, Womack Army Hospital.
Proceed, please.
MR. EISMAN: Thank you.
Q Doctor Gammel, when you were estimating the time, you said it was very difficult to estimate, for certain reasons which we didn't fully get into. In this case, was the best medical procedure taken regarding the preservation of the bodies in order that you could determine time of death, or was there something done which prevented you from making a more accurate determination?
A The ideal way of doing it wasn't done, no.
Q What would the ideal way of doing it have been?
A The ideal would have been to leave the bodies in the place they were found and take a temperature over a two to three hour interval, half hour intervals, and then from that construct a curve. That would be the ideal.
Q That would be the best medical procedure for a pathologist to determine time of death--would be to take the body temperatures as they decrease and then construct a curve and through that method, you would come up with a--a--an analysis which would give you a good medical opinion as to the time of death. Is that correct?
A It would be a good medical opinion, yes.
Q And that good medical opinion would have been better than the medical opinion which you have offered today to the investigating officer, wouldn't it?
A Well, in my own mind, I--because of the varying factors--I'm not really sure. As far as I am concerned, they were both useful for investigative purposes.
Q Well, would it have been better had that been done, or would you have been able to give a better estimate--estimation of the time?
A The estimation would have perhaps been better, but yet there would be the extenuating circumstances. You'd still have many, many hours on both sides that you couldn't say for sure. But, yes, it would be better with that qualification.
Q What specifically was done in this case which prevented you from using that better method?
A The bodies were brought into Womack Army Hospital and placed in our morgue, and as in the protocol there, it was placed in the cooler of our morgue and by the time I knew they were down there, they were in there approximately an hour.
Q Which would mean that regarding body temperature?
A Well, again I--I'm just surmising from what I read. I know that a body takes about--for the core temperature it takes over an hour for any change to occur, so I'd say probably it didn't make that much difference at all, but yet that would be very loose and shaky, probably.
Q So it would have been better from a pathology standpoint not to have had the bodies placed in the morgue. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now you testified about the number of stab wounds that were--how many total stab wounds would you classify as incised?
A Nine in the neck and seven in the chest, sixteen.
Q And how many puncture wounds total?
A I said 21 in my protocol.
Q And that was in the chest. Were there any in the arms?
A Well, that was in the chest, and there were two or three very superficial wounds on the left anterior arm region.
Q Were they included in the 21?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the superficial wounds which you have described--would they have been inflicted, in your opinion, while the person was alive or after death, if you could estimate?
A I really can't estimate that. I can say that I feel the blood pressure was probably low, but as far as--you can have a low blood pressure and still be alive, so I am not sure of that. I'm saying this because there was not much ecchymosis, surrounding hemorrhage. A little bit, not much. I don't know.
Q Would that have been more resistance or more muscle tension if the person was alive, fighting, which might have caused the wound not to go as deep to a person who was lying still on the ground being stabbed with that type of instrument?
A I don't know the answer to that question. I really don't. I just don't know.
Q In relation to the blunt trauma, did you reach a medical conclusion as to when that occurred in relationship to the other wounds?
A No, I didn't, I didn't.
Q Are you able to?
A No.
Q Now how many fractures were there on the deceased?
A There was a skull fracture and one arm--sometimes I get these confused--but one arm had the ulna broken in two places, and the other arm had the radius and ulna broken.
Q Would you indicate for the investigating officer exactly where these two--
A One was fairly high and one was more down towards the elbow region. The two fractures were located on the other arm completely through on this side. I'm not saying right or left, because without referring to my notes, actually.
Q Now were any of these blunt instrument injuries fatal?
A I would say no, again it is my opinion. I didn't find anything that stressed it.
Q Were the arms, in your opinion, laying on the ground flat when they were broken or were they held in a different position?
A Well, I would say that they were being held up because of the ulna being broken. It would be difficult to do this in a flat position.
Q Would you say this would be in a protective type?
A Yes, definitely.
Q Can you tell where all of these injuries occurred? Where in location to the final resting place of the body, where all these injuries occurred?
A No.
Q Were they necessarily all in the same room, or could a person have received some of them and gone into another room, staggered?
A I have no idea as to the progression as to how much time interval, no, I don't.
Q Now in reference to the debris from the hands which you found, what specifically did you find in the hands of Colette MacDonald?
A I--there was some fragments of what appeared to be hair on one hand and also a fragment of what I felt was debris of some type skin, perhaps, then I took fingernail scrapings from her. I didn't see any specifics there.
Q Now in reference to the hair, was it clutched in the hand or was it just lying in the hand?
A It was entwined around, kinda stuck in dried blood.
Q In dried blood?
A Yes.
Q Is there any way for you to tell how or when that hair was placed there reference to the time of death? Could it have been placed there or gotten there after the victim was dead?
To your knowledge?
A Yes, I have no way of knowing.
Q How long was this hair, do you recall? Did you measure it?
A No, I didn't really. It was fairly long. I did not measure it.
Q If you can recall, indicate to the investigating officer where this hair was found, in which hand?
A I think I said left hand, entwined around the--
Q You are indicating your right hand.
A It was entwined around the fingers and stuck into the blood on these last couple of small
--I think it was the small finger.
Q Could you give us an approximate length of how long this hair was?
A Oh, it would be a guess--I say--I just--I don't really know for sure.
Q Was it more than an inch?
A Yes.
Q Was it two inches?
A Yes, possibly five or six inches.
Q Did you find any other hairs on the hands of Colette MacDonald?
A No.
Q Would this indicate to you, from your medical training, that this type of hair was a hair from a man or woman?
A I don't really have an opinion to that, really. Basically I thought it more as a--to give to the laboratory and I didn't really look at it myself, just collecting it.
Q Now from the wounds which you examined on the body, especially in the chest area, from inside the body, did you remove any debris from these wounds?
A No.
Q Were there any blue fibers or threads inside the wounds on the chest cavity?
A Not that I saw.
Q From your experience if somebody was stabbed through a garment or if a garment laying on top of them, multiple times, would it be possible or probable that some fibers or threads would be forced into the body, if the garment was of a nature to shed fibers easily?
A Well, from my experience, I'd have to say--I don't have that experience, and from what I've read. I looked for it and I didn't find it.
Q You didn't find it. Were there any, any narcotics found in the body of Colette MacDonald?
A No, not any narcotics.
Q Now were there any drugs of a nature which you know as a medical doctor are used in what parlance we call drug abuse, in any quantity that would indicate that drug abuse was present?
A No.
Q Now I believe there were certain drugs found in the present in the blood or organs of Colette MacDonald. Is that correct?
A That's true.
Q Now those, those medications or drugs would have been of a type that a pregnant woman might be taking for nausea and/or sleeping. Is that correct?
A You are referring to Benadryl?
Q Right.
A Yes, it could have been.
Q From your medical experience is this the type of drugs which is abused by people who are pregnant?
A No.
Q Is this the type of thing that normally would be prescribed by a doctor for a woman who needed it while she was pregnant?
A Yes, I probably would myself.
COL ROCK: Excuse me. Has the witness indicated that the Benadryl was found?
Q Let me ask this question. Was Benadryl found in the blood stream or organs of Colette MacDonald?
A Yes, it was found in the liver and urine, I believe.
Q Do you regard that as any improper finding or finding worthy of note for the investigating officer regarding Colette MacDonald?
A No.
Q Was any LSD found in the liver of Colette MacDonald?
A No.
Q Was there specific investigation or tests made for that?
A Yes, there was, however in talking with different individuals, this drug detoxifies very rapidly and nobody has enough experience to say it would have been there.
Q But no LSD, no narcotics or drugs other than what you would normally expect to find. Is this correct? In a pregnant lady.
A Well, there was one other drug, a small amount of ethanol.
Q What is ethanol?
A Alcohol. It's a beer, or –
Q Or wine?
A Absolutely.
Q She was not intoxicated or under the influence?
A No, absolutely not.
Q This would be something that might indicate to you she might have had a drink sometime a few hours before she died. Is that correct? And it had not yet been passed through her system.
A Right.
Q Were you instructed to look specifically for LSD and other dangerous drugs, or is this something you normally do with any normal autopsy?
A This would be a normal for a forensic type autopsy case, such as this was. For a medical autopsy that comes off the floor, I don't do it. For something like this I'd say it was normal procedure.
Q Were you specifically told by anyone to look for LSD?
A Well--
Q Or was this mentioned to you before you conducted the autopsy?
A It was mentioned, yes.
Q By whom?
A Well, my only contact was with Mr. Hawkins of the CID. I have it on my protocol again, and this is the only place I can--
Q Do you have anything written down about what he specifically told you?
A No, I don't.
Q What time was it that you spoke with Mr. Hawkins?
A Just before the autopsy, about 9:30. Again, I can't blame it on him, because I just don't remember. Somebody said--yes--that
Q Do you normally do that type of liver sectioning to look for LSD in all of these forensic type of examinations?
A No, actually the tissues are sent in and then the toxicology department has a screening test that they run for the various tests--for the various drugs.
Q Were you given any reason why to look for drugs, if you can recall?
A Not any specific reason other than it should be ruled out.
Q And it was indicated to you by Mr. Hawkins that this had some import in your autopsy, that you should look for this?
A Well, again I don't want to fix the blame on anybody.
Q Well, I'm not asking you to blame anyone. I'm just asking you whether or not this was suggested.
A It was suggested to me that we should do a complete toxicology work-up on these organs and tissues, yes. Either that or it came to my mind automatically somehow.
MR. EISMAN: I have nothing further of this witness. Thank you very much, doctor. I think the investigating officer might have some questions for you.
CPT SOMERS: I have a redirect first, please.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, you made some reference to core temperatures. Would you please tell us a little bit about what core temperature is and how it effects--or how long it takes to be effective?
A There are several ways of taking a temperature on a body. The most common is the rectal temperature. You put a thermometer into the rectum, six or eight centimeters and take a temperature. That's considered core temperature. Also, you make an incision in the liver.
That's another core temperature. Usually the core of the body will be the slowest to cool. So when I made reference to this, I said if the body was placed in the refrigerator--in our refrigerator and that this core temperature, according to the experimental work that I've read, takes a whole hour for it to change. It can change environments then and nothing to--nothing would happen to it within an hour or so.
Q And how long were the bodies in the cooler? Do you have any idea?
A Just a little bit over one hour. We have records that they were placed there at eight o'clock, and they were out at nine, nine--ten.
Q Doctor, did you give an opinion as to whether the blunt trauma occurred before the stab wounds?
A Yes, I did.
Q And that opinion was what?
A It is my opinion the blunt trauma occurred before.
Q When you took this hair from the hand of Mrs. MacDonald, what did you do with it?
A I recorded it and put it in a little plastic vial and then handed it directly over to the--Mr. Hawkins who was there and we signed our name to the chain of custody and that's the last I saw of it.
Q Now there's been some reference to a pregnant lady. Was Mrs. MacDonald pregnant?
A Yes, there was a normal inter-uterine pregnancy of four to five months gestation present.
Q There has also been some reference to a drug which I believe you said was Benadryl?
A Benadryl.
Q And some ethanol or alcohol.
A Right.
Q Can you give an opinion as to the likely levels of those drugs you found?
A As far as I am concerned, there was no effect. It was well within the realm of normal.
Q Doctor with reference to an estimated time of death, which you've given, you are telling us, I believe, that there is a tolerance of a number of hours. Is that correct?
A That's true.
Q And from the time you gave and this tolerance would be backward and forward in time?
A Yes, absolutely.
CPT SOMERS: Does the investigating officer care to examine?
COL ROCK: I have one or two questions. To your knowledge was a hair sample taken from the head of Mrs. MacDonald and given to the CID agent?
WITNESS: No.
COL ROCK: Why was that?
WITNESS: I guess it was an oversight.
COL ROCK: Your procedure doesn't call for it?
WITNESS: I wasn't instructed to do it, so it was not done.
COL ROCK: Do you think the hair was so bloody that it would not have been a true lab test, that this would have been perhaps the reason?
WITNESS: No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it can be washed off.
COL ROCK: From your experience, is blood readily dissolvable in water? That is, you mentioned being able to wash off? Can it be readily be washed off just in water?
WITNESS: Well, it depends on how long it's been there. If it's dried it is difficult to take a brush. Even on the pictures I took later on, there was still some specks here and there that were dried blood that I couldn't get off. But all of it can get off eventually.
COL ROCK: Now the photographs which were taken, were they taken before you began work on the body or at what time?
WITNESS: Both. I have multiple photographs, and the ones that you saw were after. I have photographs--I will qualify that again. The third one was before the blood had been washed off. The first two and last one was after, so I have multiple photographs on both sides.
COL ROCK: And was the washing done principally in order to clarify the location of the wounds?
WITNESS: Yes, to clarify their location and the nature.
COL ROCK: The blow to the head by the blunt instrument, could that cause shock or a blackout of the individual as far as their capability to function effectively?
WITNESS: Definitely the one that was associated with the fracture, it could well have caused unconsciousness, however there are many cases where severe trauma has occurred to the head without unconsciousness, so I couldn't say.
COL ROCK: So it could or could not?
WITNESS: Yes, that's right.
COL ROCK: I have no further questions.
MR. EISMAN: If I may, some of the questions of the investigating officer has raised a further question in my mind.
Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q When you say that it was blunt trauma to the head with the type of injury that you have, can you determine whether or not the specific injury to the head would cause unconsciousness, or would not cause unconsciousness by viewing it, or would that be dependent on how the individual took it? Is there any way to say medically that a certain length of cut or damage to the skull would definitely cause unconsciousness, or would not definitely cause unconsciousness?
A No, and again I am basing this on the fact there is many cases recorded where there has been severe trauma with much more of the head blown away and still consciousness would remain.
Q And are there also cases where there are small contusions of the skin where serious injuries have occurred?
A Absolutely, to be associated with inter-cranial bleeding, which didn't occur here, but it could happen.
Q Or the trauma itself could have rendered the person unconscious or into semi-consciousness. Is that correct?
A Absolutely, yes.
Q Now of the puncture wounds, are there any of those which you would determined to be self-inflicted?
A Well, no, I--no.
MR. EISMAN: No further questions.
CPT SOMERS: No redirect.
COL ROCK: Major Gammel, 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 that, sir?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
COL ROCK: You are excused subject to recall.
MR. EISMAN: Could we have a brief recess now?
COL ROCK: Yes, we will recess for ten minutes.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, if I may, I suggest fifteen.
(The hearing recessed at 0959 hours, 16 July 1970.)
(The hearing reopened at 1035 hours, 16 July 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that those persons who were present at the recess are currently in the hearing room.
(CPT William F. Hancock was called as a witness by the government, was sworn, and testified as follows.)
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q State your name, please, sir?
A William F. Hancock.
Q Your grade?
A Captain.
Q Your organization?
A Womack Army Hospital,
Q Your station?
A Fort Bragg.
Q Your armed force?
A Army.
Q Would you state for us, please, your professional training and background?
A I received a Bachelor of Arts degree in chemistry at the University of North Carolina, and MD from the University of North Carolina. I spent 12 months in pathology internship; three months in pathology residency; and I've been doing pathology in the Army since 10 October '69.
Q Where are you licensed to practice medicine?
A I have a license in the State of North Carolina.
CPT SOMERS: Does the defense care to examine the witness?
MR. EISMAN: I have no questions of the doctor's qualifications.
CPT SOMERS: I offer the doctor as an expert in the field of pathology.
COL ROCK: So noted.
Q Captain, did you have an occasion on the 17th of February to conduct an autopsy on the body of Kimberly MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
Q Doctor, during the conduct of this autopsy, did you have an occasion to supervise the taking of pictures?
A Yes.
CPT SOMERS: Request that the three photographs I am handing the investigating officer be marked as Government Exhibit 33 through 35, in order given.
COL ROCK: Government Exhibit 33 is a color photo of the right side of Kimberly's face. Is this of the chin area?
CPT SOMERS: Sir, that's a picture of the head. I think a more particular description would take a little bit of explanation by the doctor.
COL ROCK: Well, I want to try to identify this particular exhibit.
CPT SOMERS: It is a picture of the skull with the skin peeled back.
COL ROCK: I see. Government Exhibit 34 is a picture of Kimberly's skull showing the skin peeled. Government Exhibit 35 is a black and white photo of Kimberly from waist area to include the head.
(The exhibits were shown to the defense.)
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, I show you government exhibit 33 thru 35 and ask you are these photographs that you supervised at the autopsy--that is, that you supervised the taking of?
A Yes, these are the ones I supervised the taking of.
Q Doctor, do you have slides that correspond to these photographs?
MR. EISMAN: I'm going to raise an objection as to who took them--not the supervision--but who took them.
WITNESS: McCafferty took them. He is the photographer for the Department of Pathology.
CPT BEALE: Your objection is noted.
MR. EISMAN: It wasn't an objection to the statement. Just an objection so that we could clarify as to who took them. That's all I was –
COL ROCK: Proceed, counselor.
Q Using the slides which correspond to these pictures, doctor, would you describe for us, please, the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by Kimberly MacDonald?
(The lights were dimmed and the first slide was projected.)
A This first photograph shows the right side of Kimberly's face and it shows basically two types of lesions; the upper lesion is located in the region of the cheek and the right ear and shows multiple abrasions and bruises of the skin. This type lesion is most likely caused by a blunt object and appears to have been applied in at least two times to this area. The other major group of lesions is located on the right side of the neck and consists of multiple incisional stab wounds which penetrate into the neck and transected the windpipe. These were eight to ten in number. Some of them overlap so that a definite number cannot be ascribed to these.
CPT SOMERS: If I may, the slide which we have just had reference to corresponds to Government Exhibit 33. The slide which is now on the screen corresponds to Government Exhibit 34. Proceed, doctor.
A This next slide, as was indicate shows the scalp reflected back and shows the top and right side of the skull. What is intended to show is a severe fracture of the skull which extends throughout almost the entire length of the right side of the skull. This fracture corresponds with other fractures noted in the base of the skull which were multiple in number. This is just one of the many fractures of the skull. The third slide which shows the left side of Kimberly's face, a close up projection of the original black and white photograph that was shown originally, what is intended to show here--
MR. EISMAN: Well, I am going to object to this as being not the same as the exhibit. Doctor, could you just wait until we have a ruling on this. We are now being shown a slide which is not the same--does not portray the same thing as the exhibit. This is an enlarged view, I presume?
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. EISMAN: I show you Government Exhibit 35, doctor. Is it an enlargement of Government Exhibit 35? Of the head area?
WITNESS: Yes, it is.
COL ROCK: It is not the photograph which you are holding in your hand, is it? Is it, Captain Somers?
CPT SOMERS: It is not the entire photograph which makes up Government Exhibit 35. It is an enlargement of the left side of the face from Government Exhibit 35. I can make the slide available as part of the record as well as Government Exhibit 35.
MR. EISMAN: The photograph which has been marked in evidence would be the best evidence.
COL ROCK: I assume there is no photograph of this slide?
WITNESS: I don't have one, sir. Not of this slide. The original picture was made from a negative, and so was this slide made from a negative.
COL ROCK: From the same negative?
WITNESS: The same negative.
COL ROCK: Can you describe, without the use of this slide in using Government Exhibit the points you wish to make?
WITNESS: Yes.
COL ROCK: All right, then we'll--your objection is sustained. Let's remove that slide from the screen.
CPT SOMERS: I was not aware that this was the case with this particular photograph.
COL ROCK: We will have the counsel present at the investigating officer's table while we view Government Exhibit 35 at closer range, and could you please turn it around this way so I can see it.
WITNESS: This intends to show you what I feel is the third major type lesion sustained to the head. This is an unwashed photograph. That's the only one I have. The reason I am interested in this area, this black area which is represented by a sharp cut in this area, through which bone protruded.
CPT SOMERS: Doctor, if I may stop you. You are referring now, for the record, to the left cheek area. Is that correct?
WITNESS: Yes, that's correct.
CPT SOMERS: Go ahead, sir.
MR. EISMAN: It could be referred to as the occipital region?
WITNESS: Occipital would be posterior. This would be orbital. And this is represented inside the skull by multiple fractures in this area with bruising of the brain directly behind this. And this again was not removed, but upon palpation numerous fractures were detected from the bridge of the nose infraorbitally, and of this cheek bone.
CPT SOMERS: What does infraorbitally mean?
WITNESS: Below the eye.
COL ROCK: I think it would be appropriate to get a pen and circle that area and have the doctor sign and date this so we will know the specific area referred to. If you will please mark the area, the general area you area referring to. I also ask if you would please, in this space here, sign your name and the date.
(Witness complied.)
COL ROCK: Is there anything else that you wish to relate using this specific photograph?
WITNESS: No.
COL ROCK: All right.
(All parties returned to their tables.)
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Would you please tell us, doctor, the effects of these injuries upon Kimberly MacDonald?
A What I considered to be the major wound was the wound to the right side of the head which caused the fractures of the skull, caused extensive bruising of the brain in this area, and was of such severity to cause coma and possibly death shortly thereafter. The stab wounds to the neck were sustained before death, but were not thought to be a significant factor in her death, as opposed to the wounds to the right side of the head. The wound to the left cheek area was a major wound but in itself was not sufficient to have caused death.
Q Doctor, did you type Kimberly's blood?
A Yes, the lab technician typed it.
Q Was that under your direction?
A Under our direction, yes.
Q And what type of blood did Kimberly have?
A She was AB positive.
Q Doctor, did you give an opinion as to whether the trauma from--to the head or the stab wounds were inflicted first?
A It is my opinion that the trauma to the head, to the right side of the head, was sustained first. I cannot give an opinion as to the trauma to the left cheek area.
Q Did you find a great deal of bleeding from the wounds to the neck?
A Not excessively, no.
Q Doctor, did you also have an occasion on the 17th of February to conduct an autopsy on the body of Kristen MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did you, sir, supervise the taking of pictures in connection with that autopsy?
A Yes, I did.
CPT SOMERS: Now at this time--
MR. EISMAN: If I may raise a point out of order. At this point I think it would be easier for the investigating officer's continuity, instead of going on to another autopsy and then having questions back and forth between the two of them if I may be permitted to examine the witness as far as the first autopsy, and then have the government present the evidence as far as the second autopsy, so that we can have a--less confusion, I think, as far as--
COL ROCK: This seems more logical. Do you have any objection?
CPT SOMERS: I have no objection.
COL ROCK: Let us proceed in that fashion, please, counselor.
MR. EISMAN: Thank you, sir.
Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q Doctor, I don't believe that you've--I don't think you've gotten a complete picture as far as the other wounds, other than blunt trauma. We've discussed--how many other wounds were there of a stab nature?
A Other than the ones to the neck?
Q A total.
A The total stab wounds were eight to ten stab wounds to the right side of the neck.
Q I'm going to show you a copy of an autopsy report which has been furnished to us and ask you to read it or look through it at least. When you are done tell us whether or not you feel this is a complete autopsy report that you performed.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, I might state at this point that I do have in my possession copies of the autopsy protocols for each of the two individuals that this doctor was concerned with which I do intend to put in evidences as government exhibits, if that will facilitate procedures. I had intended to do it at the close of his testimony.
MR. EISMAN: Well, it's just that he's looking at this copy, and if it is the same as yours, then we'll have it as an accused exhibit, since you didn't do it before.
CPT SOMERS: You are examining this witness in the midst of my examination.
MR. EISMAN: Well, with regard to this one individual, you have completed your examination regarding her.
WITNESS: In a brief perusal of this autopsy protocol I agree with what's in it. I recognize what I think as an addition previous to the one that was sent out as a final copy. This copy was sent out and after consultation with advisors in Washington, the Pathology Branch in Washington, I think some of these were reworded slightly to fit more with the protocol that they like to establish at their institution. I would have to compare the two, but basically, they seem to agree.
MR. EISMAN: But these are your words, though, not the words which were reconstructed to fit Washington's request. Is that correct?
WITNESS: That is correct.
MR. EISMAN: All right I would ask that this report be marked the next--
COL ROCK: This report will be accepted as Accused Exhibit 26, Autopsy Report on--is it Kimberly, Doctor?
WITNESS: Kimberly, yes, sir.
Q Doctor, did you anywhere in your autopsy report make an opinion as to which of these wounds were inflicted first or last, which were prior to or subsequent to each other?
A Not –
Q Is that included anywhere in your autopsy report as you can recollect?
A I think I said the wounds to the right side of the head were sustained, first. I would need to read it to be more specific.
Q And that would be based upon what?
A The more extensive hemorrhaging or bleeding into this area, say as opposed to the left bleeding into the neck, and drainage back into the lungs.
Q Now as a practical matter in your experience, would an injury to the side of the face and nose in that area probably cause more bleeding than a similar injury on the neck where it occurred?
A It would depend on the extent of the injury.
Q Was this injury more extensive than the injury to the neck, in your opinion?
A You mean the right side as opposed--
Q Yes.
A Well, they were different type injuries and it would be a little difficult to compare them as regard to bleeding, in a sense.
Q You only found wounds of incise in nature. Is that correct? When I say incise, I mean as opposed to a puncture type wound.
A To the neck, yes.
Q Did you find any puncture wounds anywhere else on the body?
A Not that could be identified as puncture wounds.
Q Now when you say not that could be identified as puncture wounds, what did you find, if you can recall?
A There was a small somewhat circular but irregular lesion located in the lateral corner of the right eye, which was under discussion at one time, could have been a puncture wound, but the final consensus was that this was probably just caused from a--say a blunt instrument had hit it and pushed it against the underlying bone.
Q So that the only tools, other than the blunt trauma would be incised wounds. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And how many of those were there?
A There were eight to ten, two of them overlapping in the neck.
Q Can you determine whether or not they were--what time they were inflicted as opposed to the blunt trauma? In other words, from any type of reference or is there any way you could determine within how many minutes they were--
A Not in a matter of minutes.
Q Were they inflicted while there was still life in the body?
A It is my opinion that they were inflicted while blood pressure was still maintained.
Q Which would indicate that it was close to the time of the blunt trauma. Would that be correct, since the blunt trauma was attributed to cause of death?
A Well, not necessarily. In a matter of just blunt trauma causing death, there are no specific time intervals set up for this. You can't find a good reference to put this against. There have been experiments, I recall reading at one time, with animals and the magnitude of the blows and the time interval after the blows, whether or not the concussion or black out was immediate, or whether death was immediate was variable. So it could have been a variable amount of time when she was unconscious, completely unconscious. This could vary considerably.
Q Well, what would be, in your medical opinion, the outside limits for her to have remained alive?
A It would be very difficult. I'd have to say a few hours, at the maximum. That's the closest I can come to. It is difficult in this area, because theoretically you can't experiment with such things.
Q I don't want you to give a medical opinion if you can't. Just say you can't and we will understand. Do you have any way of knowing where these injuries were inflicted?
A The blunt injuries?
Q In what location in the house?
A No, I have no knowledge.
Q Was a hair sample taken by any investigator from Kimberly MacDonald?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Would you normally do that in your pathology examination that you conduct? There would be no need for you to do it unless it was requested?
A Not for me personally, no.
Q But it would be good standard medical practice not to do it unless it had been requested by someone? It's not required in your training or your education to do that?
A Not--depending on the type autopsy you do.
Q But you were not asked to do this by the investigators. Is that correct?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q And had you been asked to do it, you would have complied, wouldn't you have, doctor?
A We would have tried to.
CPT SOMERS: I object to that.
Q Well, has there been any objection--
CPT BEALE: Just a moment. What are your grounds for this?
CPT SOMERS: He's asking the doctor to draw a conclusion on facts that he cannot I submit, draw a conclusion.
MR. EISMAN: Well, I think my following question would answer his objection. I'm asking if he had been asked to do this, would there have been any medical objection or any personal objections, or any other objections which he would have made at that time for not doing it.
COL ROCK: How is that relevant, counsel? I mean, he said he didn't take any hair samples. What relevance is it to the investigation?
MR. EISMAN: Well at the time, obviously, if he was not asked to do this by anyone, it was not considered relevant to the investigation in this case and not important by the investigators.
CPT BEALE: The objection is sustained.
MR. EISMAN: Okay, fine.
Q Were any investigators present while you conducted your autopsy or did you receive any special instructions from any investigators regarding this autopsy?
A They were present initially--all three over a matter of a day's time, a working day, and they were present initially, and I did these autopsies in the afternoon, and was not present in the morgue all the time, so I can't say, you know, really.
Q Did you receive any special instructions with what the investigators might be looking for, that you were asked to look for in this autopsy regarding anything that you can recall?
A There was a discussion, but I can't recall specifically if there was requests made as to specific nature. We received no written--
Q No requests for things to look for, if you can recall?
A Not specifically. There was discussion, but as to its nature, I don't recall.
Q Now could you estimate the time of death for Kimberly MacDonald?
A Somewhere within the range of nine hours preceding the time she was--found there or known dead by the military police.
Q In pathology is there some way of determining time of death at least to a medical certainty? Is that part of your education as a pathologist?
A It's part of the education, yes.
Q Well, would that be the method of determining body temperature in relationship to the time of death and a curve of body temperatures so that you could at least pinpoint more closely than nine hours, normally?
A Well, this has brought up a lot of discussion in previous cases and in this case too, and it's my opinion that if the temperatures are taken, they are not more specific unless one is doing it under experimental conditions and given unknown antecedent facts as to what was going on, whether or not the person was ill or numerous factors. The temperature can vary, oh, upwards from three to five degrees, and this puts variability on it anywhere from five to six hours.
Q Was anything done in this case with regard to the body of Kimberly MacDonald which would have made it more difficult to estimate the time of death by body temperatures?
A Not in my opinion, no.
Q Was she placed in any storage area where the body temperature might have been lowered faster than normal?
A Yes.
Q Would that have caused her body temperature to have lowered faster than normal?
A Yes, it would.
Q How long, to your knowledge, was Kimberly MacDonald in that type of area before you saw her, the total time that you were made aware of?
A On the basis of hearsay, I don't know, this is documented, but they were put in within the range of an hour before we saw them.
Q And that would effect, in your judgment the body temperature range of this child? As far as cooling process.
A It has a bearing on it.
MR. EISMAN: I have nothing further. Thank you very much, doctor, in regard to this autopsy. The investigating officer might have some inquiries to make.
COL ROCK: Do you have any redirect, Captain Somers?
CPT SOMERS: Yes, sir.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Captain Hancock, I hand you a document and ask you to examine it and tell us if it is identical to the report which the defense gave you on Kimberly MacDonald?
COL ROCK: Would it help if he had the two to compare?
(A-26 was handed to the witness.)
WITNESS: By identical, do you mean word for word?
Q Is it the same report?
A In substance, but not word for word, it is not identical, no.
Q Is this a later or earlier report?
A This is the final edition. This is the earlier report.
Q You say the document you refer to as the earlier report is marked A-26. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
CPT SOMERS: At this time I offer the document referred to as the final report as a government exhibit.
MR. EISMAN: I will at this time issue an objection to that being offered into evidence. The doctor has testified that A-26 was his report, made in his words, that he subsequently changed the report to comply with the request from other people, but the actual final autopsy report was that A-26, while he changed the words he did not perform any further tests or make any further conclusions, and to, at this time, inject something which has been changed at the request of other people would not be entering the words of the doctor as he made the autopsy, but merely the words of someone else, and I don't think that that would be properly accepted by the investigating officer.
CPT SOMERS: Doctor, the document that I just showed you, is that your report?
WITNESS: Yes--would you repeat that?
CPT SOMERS: This document that I've just shown you, is this your report?
WITNESS: This is my report as it was reworded and in its final edition, yes. These are my words.
CPT SOMERS: Very good.
MR. EISMAN: Were they changed, however, when--from the wording at the request of someone else?
WITNESS: Some specific words such as lacerations or contusions, as to exactly how we worded it, were changed. I don't recall if the basic substance was changed. I'd have to examine it more closely.
MR. EISMAN: I think the best evidence rule would prevail here at least we have the words as they were given by the doctor before any outside considerations came into effect on A-26. I don't think that the changes which he was required to make, or asked to make subsequently would reflect his actual impressions as the autopsy took place. The final report is not a report including additional information, but merely the same report but which was changed to comport with someone else's request. I therefore believe that this will not be properly accepted as the doctor's real report.
CPT SOMERS: The witness has stated that this is his final official protocol.
CPT BEALE: Doctor, let me ask you something. Is it normal for you to submit a report and then have the wording of it changed in Washington?
WITNESS: This is standard procedure with all autopsies. They are done here and they are referred to the Third Army lab at Atlanta, Georgia, for their evaluation of what we did, and subsequently referred to the AFIP in Washington, D.C. And regularly we get back reports saying that the autopsy such and such was filed essentially in accordance with your findings. We occasionally do not get specific rewording back, but I have seen other reports in routine autopsies that they wished a different order or wished that they be expressed using a few different adjectives.
CPT BEALE: Well, in these particular autopsies, the changes that they made, were they merely grammatical or style changes as opposed to substance? Can the words they changed be construed by you one way and by another pathologist another way?
WITNESS: Not, not to my first impression, no. They are primary grammatical or--
COL ROCK: Style.
WITNESS: Style.
CPT SOMERS: This is, I would like to point out, the protocol.
COL ROCK: What were you saying, Captain Somers?
CPT SOMERS: Simply, that this is it, in fact, the final protocol over the signature of the doctor and acknowledged to be such by the doctor, and I think is properly admissible as an exhibit.
COL ROCK: But, Captain Somers, is there any real reason for this that will change the substance of the testimony of the doctor or present to me any new evidence that is not contained in this document?
CPT SOMERS: The only reason, sir, is so that the investigating officer may have the final official autopsy protocol, which was filed in this case.
COL ROCK: So then I would have two documents saying basically the same thing, though.
CPT SOMERS: You will, yes, sir.
COL ROCK: The objection of counsel for the accused is sustained. However, I would request that we use the final copy of the other one so that we can obviate that particular problem arising.
MR. EISMAN: At this time could we request a final copy of all of these autopsies if they are in the possession of Captain Somers. We've only been provided with what we thought was the final autopsy and now we've just discovered that it is not the final autopsy.
COL ROCK: Yes, I think that is a reasonable request.
MR. EISMAN: Thank you, sir. Sir, I just want to make one administrative change here. We just realized the covering letter on this report refers, when I read it a little closer, to Kristen MacDonald. There is a duplicate letter referring to Kimberly MacDonald. Actually we placed this one on here in error. If we could just remove this letter and put this letter on as A-26.
COL ROCK: Is there any objection to that?
CPT SOMERS: No, sir, it should be corrected.
COL ROCK: Now at the time the question arose, the counsel for the government, I believe was on the floor. Do you have any further facts to raise, counselor? You left these three pictures here. I didn't know whether you had further need of them.
CPT SOMERS: If I could just a moment, sir.
Q Captain Hancock, do you think that the placing of the body of Kimberly in the cooler for the period, whatever it was, had a great effect one way or the other on your estimation of time of death?
A Not in our present state of knowledge, sir, no.
Q And is your present state of knowledge in this area, to put it more precisely, the present state of knowledge of science in this area, exact?
A It's not exact. My knowledge here is correspondence, and correspondence particularly with Thomas K. Marshall in Ireland concerning this because he has written what I thought was one of the more definitive scientific papers on it. His reports give quite a considerable variation in temperatures and he repeatedly warns people not to use temperatures unless all the facts are known, use temperatures as a basis of determining time of death. So unless you are ideally set up to know all the factors, you are taking some sort of risk I would imagine to use temperature in predicting time of death.
Q And where you come upon a body which has been dead for some unspecified period of time in an environment not precisely controlled, do you really have variables which will affect your determination considerably?
A Yes.
MR. EISMAN: I have one further question regarding that.
Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q Did the placing of the body in the morgue have some effect on your ability to estimate the time of death?
A Well, my final answer, I guess, would be that had they not been placed there, I don't think for precise estimation as would be needed in this case, that I could have done it, had they not been placed there.
Q But would have affected your judgment--I'm not asking about precise--but did that affect in some way your ability to judge time?
CPT SOMERS: I think he has answered the question. I object.
MR. EISMAN: I am asking for a yes or no answer. Would that affect, a pathologist judgment, if the body was placed in a cooler?
CPT SOMERS: Well, the doctor has answered this question with respect to this case. I still object.
CPT BEALE: Your objection is sustained.
MR. EISMAN: I have no further questions.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, do you wish to conduct an examination on this issue?
COL ROCK: Yes. Did you have occasion, doctor, to take any debris from the hands of Kimberly's body?
WITNESS: There was quite a few samples taken. Doctor Gammel and I were there at the same time that he--I know in specific reference to fingernail scrapings he took them, and I labeled the slips and put them in the bottles and handed them. This was sort of cooperation.
COL ROCK: I see. Now was this done initially or early morning, or in the case of Kimberly, was this done at approximately 1530 hours, the time of the autopsy?
WITNESS: This, to my recollection, this was done earlier in the morning, and initial procedure on all three.
COL ROCK: You consider that the blows to the right head were the principal cause of death?
WITNESS: Yes.
COL ROCK: Did I understand you to say that the neck wounds were made subsequent to death?
WITNESS: No, they were made before death, but death occurred shortly after that.
COL ROCK: I have no further questions.
MR. EISMAN: I have nothing further.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, the next portion of the testimony of the witness, I'm sure, will take an hour or so, and it is 1130. Do you wish to break at this time?
COL ROCK: I suggest that will be appropriate. Captain Hancock, you advised that you will discuss your testimony with no person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused. Do you understand, sir?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
COL ROCK: The hearing will be recessed until 1330 this afternoon.
(The hearing recessed at 1127 hours, 16, July 1979.)
(The hearing reopened at 1333 hours, 16 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, including the witness, Doctor Hancock. I would like to remind the witness that you are under oath. I believe at this stage we are prepared to proceed with the doctor's expert testimony concerning the next deceased. Proceed, counsel.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, I believe I asked you before lunch whether you had an opportunity to conduct an autopsy on Kristen MacDonald, did I not?
A Yes, I did.
Q And in the conduct of this autopsy did you have occasion to supervise the taking of pictures?
A Yes.
CPT SOMERS: I ask that the three pictures which I now hand to the investigating officer be marked as government exhibits.
COL ROCK: G-36, black and white photo of a hand. G-37, a color photo of a child's body from navel to include face. G-38, color photo of a child's back from waist and showing head.
(G-36 through G-38 were shown to the defense.)
Q Doctor, I show you Government Exhibit Exhibits 36 thru 38 and ask you if these were among the photographs you supervised the taking of during the autopsy of Kristen MacDonald?
A Yes, there are.
Q And, doctor, in the course of your autopsy and subsequent report, did you have occasion to render a final autopsy protocol in the case of Kristen MacDonald?
A Yes, I did.
CPT SOMERS: I ask that this document be marked as a Government Exhibit.
COL ROCK: G-39 is final autopsy report on Kristen MacDonald.
(G-39 was shown to the defense.)
MR. EISMAN: At this time I would question the entrance of Exhibit G-39 on the same basis that I objected to the last offer. This is a report which is not the report we received from Womack Army Hospital, and it is obviously tendered under the same conditions that was to Washington--the doctor's original report was sent to Washington and changes were made at the request of someone else to change the wording of the doctor, as we have in the Accused Exhibits would be the best thing for the investigating officer to have since they all follow the same format, the same wording, and this might only tend to confuse the investigating officer. If the government, at this time, wants to introduce the other autopsy, the actual final autopsy report before the changes were made, I would have no objection to its entrance as his exhibit, but I don't think the exhibit which he is offering is of the same nature as the other two exhibits.
Q Captain, I show you--
MR. EISMAN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
CPT SOMERS: I don't think the investigating office can rule until he knows a little bit more about this.
CPT BEALE: Counsel, just a second. Mr. Eisman, I think that both you and Captain Somers realize the predicament this is putting Colonel Rock in, the fact that we've got one autopsy report which was Doctor Hancock's “final report” that he sent to DA and then with some administrative changes they sent it back, and he tenders the second “final report.” And I think to clarify things, probably that the best thing to do is just now to admit both of them and let the investigating officer go ahead and read both of them. He, himself, can read the differences.
MR. EISMAN: All right, can we have at least an order that we can provided with copies of each of these final reports?
CPT SOMERS: Certainly, counsel for the government will furnish to the defense a copy of both final reports that have not previously been furnished to them. The best thing to do would be go ahead and mark now the final report on Kimberly MacDonald and go ahead and have that brought in.
CPT SOMERS: I hand that report to the investigating officer.
COL ROCK: Government Exhibit 40, the final autopsy report on Kimberly MacDonald.
MR. EISMAN: And at this time we would offer as the next accused exhibit, what we consider the doctor's final report before it was sent to Washington.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, this can be done in its proper turn.
MR. EISMAN: Well, just as a practical matter so as not to delay.
COL ROCK: A-27 is the initial autopsy report on Kristen MacDonald.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, I show you Government Exhibits 39 and 40. Are those the--what are those?
A These are the final drafts on the autopsy of Kristen MacDonald. One is the final before consultation with AFIP and the other is some rewording after consultation with--
Q Now, Doctor, I believe if you will compare 39 against 40 you will see that they refer to different people.
A I'm sorry I was looking at the wrong--
Q I can't blame you for being confused, but can you tell me what those are?
A I need to compare these with my final copies to make sure that they are the final copies that I have.
CPT SOMERS: All right, sir.
A G-39 corresponds to my final report as corrected on Kristen MacDonald. G-40 is the final copy before corrections were made and some of the wording of the copy.
COL ROCK: On which individual?
WITNESS: This is on Kimberly.
CPT BEALE: Doctor, G-40--is that report there, is that the one you got back from Washington with the corrections? That's the final one you submitted with the corrections from Washington on Kimberly?
WITNESS: No, it's the one before submission.
COL ROCK: We will take a five minute recess.
(The hearing recessed at 1338 hours, 16 July 1970.)
(The hearing reopened at 1355 hours, 16 July 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that all parties that were present at the break are currently in the hearing room. Proceed, counselor.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, at this time the government requests to withdraw Government Exhibits 39 and 40.
COL ROCK: Permission granted.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Would you tell us please now the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by Kristen MacDonald, using the slides?
A Do you wish to start with the slides? I can do it either way.
MR. EISMAN: Well, if the slides are not absolutely necessary in this case I would ask that they not be shown. If the doctor believes he can explain it without the slides I don't think there is anything about this that is extraordinary.
CPT SOMERS: The government still contends that the slides add to clarity. Two out of three of these pictures correspond to the slides which we have.
COL ROCK: Well, I'd like to see the slides for clarification in my own mind. Therefore, if that was an objection, the objection is overruled.
CPT SOMERS: Start with the slides, please, doctor.
WITNESS: The first picture is an anterior view of Kristen MacDonald and I shall essentially describe three types of wounds. The first will be these incisional wounds which are four in number, one, two, three, four; two of these wounds penetrated deeply and penetrated the right heart. The second group of wounds consist of five circular penetrating wounds of which is one, two, three, four, five are shown in this area. These penetrated only superficially to the extent of the underlying muscle. The third group of wounds consist in a very superficial circular puncture wounds on the right side of the chest which consisted of twelve in total number, ten of which are in this pattern.
Q Indicating an S pattern?
A Simulating an S pattern, yes. Some other additional findings, there was--can barely be seen in this photograph--but there was one incisional stab wound to the anterior neck, which again transected the thyroid at one point. Also shown to some extent on this photograph are three, one, two, three superficial abrasions of the right lateral neck, which is just a scraping of the skin. Not shown on this photograph are two additional abrasions or peeling away of the superficial skin on top of the right shoulder.
Q Doctor, you have been referring to a slide corresponding with Government Exhibit 37?
A That's correct.
Q Proceed.
A The second photograph shows the posterior aspect of Kristen MacDonald. It shows twelve incisional wounds. These are the only type wounds noted on the posterior aspect.
These penetrated the left lung cavity, lacerating the lung, and in addition, penetrated the left heart in two instances. Those are all the slides I have. One black and white photograph--
Q Doctor, this most recent slide corresponds to Government G-38. Is that correct?
A That is correct.
(All counsel and witness approached the IO's desk.)
WITNESS: This is a picture of Kristen's right hand, and what is intended to show is multiple incisional wounds, this being one on the left--
MR. EISMAN: That's an incisional wound?
WITNESS: That's a very small incisional wound.
MR. EISMAN: Is that a circular incisional wound?
WITNESS: It is difficult to say from this. It is in the order of one to two millimeters. It does appear in a circular here.
MR. EISMAN: Does it appear to be in length?
WITNESS: It appears of this nature (pointing to another wound.) This is the major lesion which is an incisional. This penetrates through the skin and exits on the other side.
CPT SOMERS: You are referring now to a wound on the fourth finger?
A The ring finger on the right hand. These other multiple small wounds are--appear incision-al--are very superficial puncture wounds. Not shown in this photograph was an incisional wound on the palm aspect of the right index finger, and not shown here are also small incisional wounds on the right hand. I don't have a photograph of the right hand.
CPT SOMERS: This is the right hand.
A I mean the left hand, excuse me.
COL ROCK: Doctor, would you please circle the areas here that you described in this photograph with the pen? And then at the bottom please write your name and the date.
(Witness complied.)
(Counsel and the witness returned to their seats.)
Q Would you describe, doctor, the effects of those wounds, please?
A Both the wounds to the anterior and posterior chest as mentioned penetrated the heart. Either of these were sufficient to have caused death by exsanguination or bleeding from the heart. The wounds to the neck was again felt not contributing primarily to death.
Q Doctor, did you have Kristen's blood typed?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what type of blood did she have?
A She was O negative, DU negative.
CPT SOMERS: Your witness.
Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q Doctor, you've described a total of 17 circular wounds. Is that correct?
A I don't have the exact--as I recall it was 17.
Q There were five in the chest area, four of which was superficial. Is that correct? In the left chest area, five circular wounds, four of which were superficial in the left--
A All five were superficial.
Q All five were superficial? Then you described twelve additional circular wounds. Were they also superficial?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you said that they were in, what you described as an S pattern on the right chest?
A That's correct.
MR. EISMAN: I have no further questions.
CPT SOMERS: I think there is one thing we can clarify.
Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q Doctor, with respect to Accused Exhibit A-26 and 27, are they copies of the final autopsy protocols?
A They correspond with my final copies.
Q And do I understand that you contribute cause of death in Kristen's case to exsanguination?
A Yes.
CPT SOMERS: No further questions.
COL ROCK: Doctor, were there any broken bones of the extremities on Kristen's body?
WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.
COL ROCK: You would have known if there had been?
WITNESS: If they have been major, yes.
COL ROCK: What do you mean by the term, DU negative blood? That's the first time I've heard that.
WITNESS: There's a small percentage of people who are sometimes classified as positive which, when further tested or rather are classified as negative, but when further tested they are weakly positive so we routinely now do the second test to make sure or certain that is negative.
COL ROCK: So DU negative merely is confirmation that it was O negative, as first read?
WITNESS: That's correct.
COL ROCK: Can you, from your professional knowledge, make any estimate as to whether an ice pick was used in any of the penetrating wounds on Kristen's body?
WITNESS: The circular type wounds are compatible with this, with a circular pointed object.
COL ROCK: If I understood you correctly, you indicated that the penetrating wounds which could have been made by an ice pick only penetrated to the muscle tissue. Is that correct?
WITNESS: The five on the left side of the chest penetrated to the muscle and the ten and additional two on the right side of the chest did not penetrate to the muscle, but penetrated only to the fat. They were superficial.
COL ROCK: Have you had occasion to observe bodies previously that had penetrating wounds that you associated with an ice pick?
WITNESS: Not specifically. I have seen some in conjunction with autopsies being done where I was undergoing my training.
Q From your professional knowledge, is it unusual that an ice pick would not penetrate further that you have indicated in this case?
WITNESS: It would depend on the force and, I would imagine, the sharpness of the point.
Those two factors. A reasonable amount of force should cause penetration.
COL ROCK: Now with reference to the knife wounds, or what seemed to be knife wounds, would it be your impression that these were made with the knife blade pointed down or was it a slicing type action?
WITNESS: The direction of the blows appears--were slanted to have been straight into the body, which could have been at angles to the right or left, but as far as upward and downwards, they were straight.
COL ROCK: I have no further questions. Does either counsel have questions?
MR. EISMAN: No, sir.
CPT SOMERS: None by the government, sir.
COL ROCK: Captain Hancock, 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 this?
WITNESS: Yes.
COL ROCK: You are excused, sir, subject to recall.
(The witness saluted the IO and departed the hearing room.)
CPT SOMERS: I would suggest that we recess now. I need to see, first whether Doctor Jacobson is here, and secondly to give the defense their opportunity to speak to him.
COL ROCK: All right, we will recess for an appropriate period.
(The hearing recessed at 1412 hours, 16 July 1970.)
(The hearing reopened at 0844 hours, 17 July 1970.)
COL ROCK: This hearing will come to order. Let the record reflect that all parties who were present at the closing yesterday are currently in the hearing room, with the addition of Captain Thompson, assistant counsel for the government. Is the counsel for the government prepared with the next witness?
CPT SOMERS: Yes, sir, we do have one matter we'd like to depose of before we go ahead though, sir. At this time we would request to have marked this list of fingerprint locations.
COL ROCK: This will be government exhibit 39 titled list of fingerprints inside 544 Castle Drive.
CPT SOMERS: Sir, I have one or two comments on this.
COL ROCK: I believe you provided a copy for counsel for the accused?
MR. EISMAN: Yes, sir, we have a copy.
CPT SOMERS: I consulted with the military police draftsman on the issue of drawing charts from this list. The personnel and facilities to do this job are not currently available; they estimate the time it would take to do it would be between two to three weeks. What I am saying, sir, it is not currently feasible to do this. Now, with respect to the photographs of these fingerprints, they are taken from such a range that their location is not evident. The only way to locate them is from a key which is no more than a number on a photograph which then has to be matched against the numbers in the house, which was done with this list. I'm saying, sir, that the best evidence that I can provide of these fingerprints is the list which I have just provided.
COL ROCK: I will review this list to determine how understandable it is and I am sure that counsel for the accused will also do same, and after I've had a chance to review this, then I will determine what further action should be taken on this. However, your remarks are noted at this time.
CPT SOMERS: There is one other remark. On page 2, two fingerprints noted as not found. I have at least two agents in the process now of reviewing all the evidence to find those two and I am confident that I will be able to provide a location for them.
COL ROCK: Therefore, we can anticipate an addendum to this?
CPT SOMERS: Yes, sir, we may.
COL ROCK: Proceed.
CPT SOMERS: At this time the government calls Major Jacobson.
Previous volume
Next volume
|
