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


The Murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald
 

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site

1979 JEFFREY MACDONALD CASE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT
July 27, 1979: Paul A. Connolly, Former CID

 

THE COURT: Call your next.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would call Paul Connolly and if I may ask the Defense, may this witness be excused?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

(Witness excused.)

(Whereupon, PAUL A. CONNOLLY was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as follows:)


D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 9:23 a.m.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Please state your name.
A Paul A. Connolly.
Q Mr. Connolly, would you speak loudly enough so everyone can hear you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where do you currently reside, sir?
A I am at Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Q What do you do for a living?
A I am a security officer.
Q Where?
A K-Mart store.
Q How long have you been so employed?
A About a year and a half now, sir.
Q What did you do prior to that time?
A I was a criminal investigator for the Department of the Army.
Q CID?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long were you associated with the Criminal Intelligence Division?
A A little over ten years, sir.
Q Where were you stationed initially?
A Fort Bragg.
Q For how long?
A I have been at Fort Bragg since about 1967, sir.
Q Now, directing your attention to 1970, were you so employed as a Special Agent for CID then?
A Yes, sir; I was.
Q And in 1970, how long had you been a Special Agent for the CID?
A Approximately two years, sir.
Q What training, if any, did you receive as an agent for the CID, sir?
A I went to the CID school at Fort Gordon and I also attended two or three seminars.
Q Have you ever been in a group called Special Forces?
A Yes, sir; I was.
Q When was that?
A From 1957 to 1968.
Q Prior to February of 1970, had you ever had an occasion to investigate violent crime scenes?
A Yes, sir; on some occasions.
Q Now, directing your attention to the early morning of the 17th of February 1970, did you have an occasion to receive a telephone call from Bill Ivory?
A Yes, sir; I did.
Q What was the substance of that call, sir?
A Mr. Ivory was my senior partner, and he called me at approximately 4:00 o'clock in the morning, and said that there had been a murder at Fort Bragg and requested my assistance.
Q Where were you when you got the call?
A I was at home, sir.
Q As a result of receiving that call from Mr. Ivory, what did you do?
A I was working late the night before and I had a duty sedan at home so I went out, got into the duty sedan, and contacted the military police station. They gave me the directions to go to 544 Castle Drive.
Q How long did it take you to get to that address?
A Approximately ten or 15 minutes, sir.
Q What was the weather like?
A A heavy mist; it was not really raining, but we had to use the windshield wipers to get out there.
Q How many moving vehicles did you see en route?
A On the way out there?
Q Yes, sir; if you can recall.
A Approximately 15 to 20.
Q How many pedestrians, if any, did you see?
A Maybe three or four.
Q Now, upon arriving at Castle Drive, what did you do at first?
A When I first drove up, I walked to the front door. There was an MP standing either right at the door or on the steps. Major Parsons was there in the doorway. I went inside. Mr. Ivory was standing in the living room. I went over to him and I asked him what had happened. He stated that there had been a family murdered in the house and that the one man had just been taken to the hospital and that the other bodies were in the back of the house.
Q Now, approximately at what time did you arrive at Castle Drive?
A Between 4:20 and 4:30, sir.
Q After Mr. Ivory told you this, what did you do next?
A Well, I told him I was going to go back and walk through the house, and he said, "All right." I walked back down the hallway and I went to the room on the left and observed a young female body in the bed. She had multiple stab wounds on her chest.
Q How far into the room did you go?
A I walked over to the bed, sir.
Q What did you do after that?
A I observed that she appeared to be or was dead and just more or less looked around at the bed. There was blood on the floor. There were some footprints on the floor so I left there and walked across the hallway to the second bedroom where there was another young female laying in bed. She also appeared to be dead.
Q Where did you walk in the second bedroom?
A Walked over around the bed, on the left-hand side of the bed and observed the body.
Q Okay, what did you do after that?
A I left that room and I walked into the master bedroom.
Q How far inside the master bedroom did you go?
A I walked all the way in and around the body of the woman that was laying in there.
Q Now, who, if anyone, was accompanying you as you went through the crime scene?
A At this time, no one, sir.
Q What, if anything, did you touch at this time?
A Nothing, sir.
Q After you observed the body in the master bedroom, what did you do next?
A I walked back out and I asked Bill what he wanted me to do. He stated that the photographer was on his way and that he was going to take pictures. He just asked me to stay in the bedroom and just observe the crime scene out there.
Q Stay in the bedroom?
A No, sir; in the living room.
Q In the living room. How long did you remain in the living room at that point?
A I would say for approximately 15 minutes. The photographer in the meantime had come and Mr. Ivory was going through the crime scene with the photographer.
Q Now, when you were in the living room at this point, where were you standing?
A Well, I was walking not only in the living room. I walked in the dining room and observed the kitchen in that area, but basically just in the middle of the living room.
Q Who else besides yourself was present in the living room at this time?
A A medic came in. Major Parsons was there. There was one MP by the door. Shortly thereafter I believe Mr. Shaw arrived.
Q Okay, after you spent 15 or 20 minutes in the living room, what did you do next?
A The doctor came -- Dr. Neal from the hospital. Mr. Ivory was still in the back taking the photographs. I called him and said, "The doctor is here. Do you want to take him through?" He said, "No, wait. We're not through taking photographs yet." So we waited out in the living room.
Q Now, immediately prior to the doctor coming in, while you were standing in the living room, what were you doing at all during this time you were in the living room?
A Just observing different things in the living room. The table had been knocked over. In the kitchen, there was some blood on the floor, and I was just making general notes of what I could see in there.
Q What did you observe with respect to the dining room area?
A I really did not notice anything in the dining room area. I noticed that there was blood up in front of the sink in the kitchen area. There was a pair of glasses over by the window. In the living room, the coffee table was knocked over, there were magazines on the floor, and that was just about it.
Q Okay, after the doctor came, did you accompany the doctor as he went to the different bedrooms?
A Yes, sir.
Q Which bedroom did you go to first?
A We went to Kristen's, the youngest girl, the bedroom on the lefthand side.
Q Now, who went into that bedroom, sir, when Dr. Neal went in?
A I walked in with the doctor and I did not realize that Mr. Ivory was standing behind me, and the first time I noticed this was when the doctor walked up to the body. He reached down and checked it, then he picked it up. At this time, Mr. Ivory came forward. He said, "I told you not to touch the bodies, just to check them to see if they are dead and pronounce them dead."
Q What did Dr. Neal say?
A He said, "All right."
Q How long did you remain in Kristen's bedroom?
A It could not have been more than a minute or a minute and a half.
Q Okay, after you left that bedroom, where did you go next?
A We walked out, walked directly across the hall to the bedroom of the other girl.
Q And who went in that bedroom, sir?
A All three of us walked into that bedroom.
Q By the three of us, you mean?
A The doctor, myself, and Mr. Ivory.
Q Where was Mr. Shaw during this time?
A I don't know, sir.
Q When you went into Kimberly's bedroom, describe what happened, sir?
A I stood at the base of the bed. The doctor walked around the lefthand side of the bed. He reached over, he took the girl's pulse, and just lifted up the sheet a little bit. Again, Mr. Ivory told him, "Look, don't touch anything." At this time, he put it back down and pronounced her dead.
Q How much did he move Kimberly?
A He did not move the body at all, he just touched -- I believe he touched the forehand and he started to move the sheet. That is when Mr. Ivory told him not to touch anything.
Q After you left Kimberly's room, where did you go next?
A We went into the master bedroom.
Q Who went in that room?
A Also, the doctor, myself and Mr. Ivory.
Q Okay, now would you describe what happened in the master bedroom?
A Walked up, I stood down at the feet of the body. The doctor walked around the top, checked the pulse, and I also believe he chocked the throat portion, and I believe I remember him opening up one eye and then closing it. And that was all.
Q How much did he move the body of Colette?
A He did not move the body.
Q While Dr. Neal checked all three of these individuals, what medical instruments, if any, did you observe him use?
A None, sir.
Q After Dr. Neal checked the body of Colette, what happened next?
A He was ushered out to the living room, and then he left.
Q Who ushered him out?
A Mr. Ivory and myself, sir.
Q Okay, after Dr. Neal left the house, what did you do next?
A I then asked Mr. Ivory what he wanted me to do. He said that as soon as they were finished with the bodies in the crime scene, they were going to take them to the hospital. He asked me to accompany them, but prior to that, he asked if I would go into the youngest girl's bedroom and outline the body before it was moved.
Q As a result of that request, what did you do?
A Took a blue stencil marker, I believe it was blue, and went into the bedroom and outlined the body of the youngest girl.
Q How long did that take you, if you can recall?
A Maybe five, six, or seven minutes.
Q How much of her body did you touch while you were doing it?
A The body was not touched at all, just an outline drawn around the body.
Q After you outlined the body, what did you do next?
A Mr. Ivory was in the master bedroom. I went in there with him. He was beginning to outline the body in there, and I asked him if he wanted me to assist him. He said yes, and I started to outline the bottom section of the body.
Q Of Colette MacDonald?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was Mr. Ivory doing while you were outlining the bottom half?
A He was outlining the top part.
Q Now how much of Colette's body did you touch when you were outlining it?
A None.
Q Approximately how long did that take?
A That would take about another four or five minutes.
Q After you outlined the body of Colette, what did you do next?
A Mr. Shaw was there. I handed him the marker because there was a paring knife, or a knife over on the rug, and he went and outlined that. So, he outlined that. And then we all got up and went out of the bedroom and went back out into the living room.
Q After you got in the living room, what did you do?
A Bill asked me if I would go ahead and get some more shots of the living room, inside the living room. There was a photographer there, so he took some more shots of the living room.
Q Where were you while the photographer was taking these pictures?
A In the living room.
Q Were you assisting him in some way?
A Just observing him.
Q How long did this take?
A I would say another 15 or 20 minutes.
Q After that took place, what did you do next?
A I asked Bill -- I told him that the photography was done. He said, "All right. They are going to come and take the bodies to the hospital. I want you to accompany them to the hospital and also attempt to interview Mr. MacDonald."
Q Do you recall approximately what time the bodies were taken to the hospital?
A Yes, sir. I believe it was around five minutes to 8:00 or 8:00 o'clock.
Q As a result of Mr. Ivory's request, and you accompanied the bodies to the hospital, what did you do?
A When the medics came in, I observed. As I said, I stayed with them. As they went into the first bedroom on the left, they took the youngest girl out and they placed her on a stretcher. Then they went to the other bedroom and got the second oldest girl and put her on the stretcher.
Q The same stretcher?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, prior to that time, when you first went into the bedroom of Kristen, what, if anything, did you observe with respect to the position in which Kristen was laying?
A You mean the first time I walked in the room?
Q Yes, sir?
A She was laying back. She had an arm crooked up on one side; her other arm was over her body like she was almost getting ready to roll out of the bed.
Q Did you observe a milk bottle or anything on her?
A Yes, I did. There was a little milk bottle in the crook of her arm.
Q After the bodies were placed onto the one stretcher, what did you observe happen next?
A They took the bodies out and I followed them out to the ambulance, because I believe Miss Colette was already taken out and put in the ambulance.
Q How many ambulances were there?
A Two, sir.
Q Now were Colette and the children put in the same ambulance or separate ambulances?
A Separate ambulances.
Q After they were placed in the ambulances, what did you do?
A I followed the ambulance with the two girls' bodies in it, sir.
Q How did you go -- were you in a CID car?
A Yes.
Q Why did you not go in the ambulances?
A I don't know, sir. I did not see any reason to ride in the ambulance, and then I would have to have transportation in leaving the hospital.
Q After you got to the hospital, what did you do next?
A I went down to the morgue and they were bringing the bodies in. They took them off the stretchers and they put them on the tables in the mortuary. There were a couple of medics in there and they started to take the clothes off. I went over and I said, "Look. There is some evidence on the bodies that need to be taken off before you start taking the clothes off." These items were taken and put in glass vials.
Q Taken by whom?
A Well, there was a doctor that had come in in the meantime. I showed it to him also. before they took the clothes off, they were taken by a doctor and put in glass vials.
Q Now after the clothes were taken off, what did you do next?
A I was going to receipt for all the clothes and the vials. The pathologist requested that they remain there until after they performed the autopsy.
Q You spoke a moment ago that Mr. Ivory had asked you to go up and interview Mr. MacDonald; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q As a result of that, what did you do?
A Went up to the Intensive Care Ward at Womack Army Hospital and I talked to the nurse on duty out there. I requested permission to speak to Captain MacDonald. She said she would have to get permission from the doctor. She walked into the room and she came out a few minutes later and she said that I could go in and the doctor said I could talk to him.
Q Did you ever talk to the doctor?
A Yes, sir; there was a doctor standing by the bed.
Q When that took place, besides yourself and Dr. MacDonald, who else was in the room?
A As I said, I believe it was just the doctor and the nurse -- the doctor and myself. I don't remember anyone else being there.
Q Where were you standing or sitting during this time?
A I stood at the bottom of the bed, facing the Captain.
Q The entire time you were in the room?
A Yes, sir.
Q How much of Dr. MacDonald's body were you able to observe?
A When I first went in?
Q Yes, sir.
A I would say from three to five inches straight down the chest area, and that was all -- and the head and the hands.
Q What did you observe with respect to his head area?
A His head area had a reddening over the right eye. There did not appear to be any swelling or any black and blue -- just a reddening. There was a bandage in this section here of the stomach (indicating). That was the only injuries I could observe.
Q Can you more specifically describe the bandage to which you refer?
A Well, he had like a square bandage, and he had a tube running into the underside of the bandage.
Q What did you observe with respect to his hands?
A His hands -- there was no marks on his hands.
Q How long did you stay in the room with Dr. MacDonald?
A I would say about 30 minutes, sir.
Q During this entire time, who was present?
A The doctor, the nurse, Captain MacDonald and myself.
Q What did you first say to Dr. MacDonald, if you recall, sir?
A I told the Captain who I was. I asked him -- I told him the reason I was there was to try to identify and get better descriptions of the assailants that had allegedly come into the house that night. And I asked him if he would be willing to help us in giving us a better description of the people.
Q What did he say?
A He said he would.
Q What did you say next?
A I asked him, I said, "Well, would you tell me what happened?" And he proceeded to give me a statement as to what happened the night of the incident.
Q As best you can recall, sir, what did Dr. MacDonald say to you?
A After I asked him what happened, he stated that he was lying on the couch in the living room and he was awoke (sic) by a scream. He woke up and there was four people standing over him. He said the one man was a Negro about 5' 8", plus two other Caucasians with him; and there was a girl standing behind him. I asked him, "Well, what happened?" And he said when he heard the scream he woke up. As he started to get up, he said the black man hit him -- or the Negro hit him -- with a club --
Q (Interposing) Excuse me; where did he say he hit him with the club?
A He just said he hit him with the club. He was getting up and he hit him with a club. I said, "Well can you describe it?" And he said, "Well, I think it was a baseball bat." He said, "When I reached up to grab it, it was slippery like, you know, it had blood on it." And I asked him again, I said, "Well, are you sure it was a baseball bat?" He said, "Well, I am not sure." He said, "I thought it was a baseball bat." He said, "I wrestled with him, and as we started to get up," he said, "I hit the man." He said, "No; I really didn't hit him." He said, "I more or less grabbed him in the face." He said, "About this time, I felt a real sharp pain in my side," he said, "and I thought this was when I got hit; but that is when I must have gotten stabbed with the ice pick." He said, "We wrestled to the hallway." He said, "And that is the last thing I remember; I passed out."
Q What did he say with respect to any description of these four individuals?
A Later on in the interview, we went back to getting a better description of the people, and he said that the Negro was dressed in a fatigue jacket with F-6 stripes on it. He had a close military haircut. The two men behind him were approximately the same size, except that one had a mustache and one was wearing a red hooded jacket. He said the female was blonde and was approximately the same size as the assailants. But he said she could have been shorter, because she may have been standing on the first step leading up into the hallway.
Q What did he say with respect to their faces, if anything?
A He would never really give a real good description of the faces. He was very vague about the description of the faces.
Q What, if anything, did he say the girl was wearing?
A When I asked him about the girl -- or what she was wearing -- he said that when he was knocked down, he remembered looking over. And he saw that she had on -- he described them as black leather boots, but then he changed it. He said, "No; they weren't black leather boots. They were brown boots; but they were wet and they appeared to be black." He said, "You know, like she had just walked in out of rain and the water was coming down on them, and that they had turned black." He further said that he thought she had either a mini-dress or shorts on, because he could see a lot of leg between the top of the boot and the material of the dress.
Q What did the Defendant Dr. MacDonald say, if anything, with respect to what these people were saying?
A He stated that the girl in the back kept saying, "Acid and rain; acid is groovy; kill the pigs."
Q Okay; after the struggle took place, what, if anything, did Dr. MacDonald say happened next?
A He said that he woke up. He was laying in the hallway, and he looked down and he could see his wife laying in the bedroom; and she had a knife sticking out of her chest. He got up, and he also heard a gurgling sound, so he went to the master bedroom. He said he took the knife out of his wife's chest. And at this point I asked him, I said, "What did you do with the knife?" He said, "I don't know; I just threw it." He said he gave his wife mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, but he continued to hear this gurgling sound. He said he realized it was coming from the bedroom of the girl. He left the master bedroom and went to the bedroom of the youngest girl and there he found Kimberly, and she was -- he kept saying, "You know -- gurgling -- like she had blood in her lungs. You know the sound." And he said he tried to give her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. He said he had picked her up and tried to give her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
Q Are you speaking of the youngest child?
A Yes, sir.
Q After he stated he went to see the youngest child, what did he say he did next?
A He did not really want to talk about the youngest child. After he said he gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, he said he got up and left and went over to Kimberly, I believe is the eldest girl's bedroom. He went in there, and when he saw her, he said he knew she was dead.
Q After this happened, what, if anything, did Dr. MacDonald say he did next, if you can recall?
A He started talking about the telephone call. He said the called the operator and that the operator would not send anybody because he would not give his name and social security number. He said he told the operator that he was going to pass out. He was dying and needed assistance.
Q Now, you have testified this morning that when you first went into Kristen's bedroom, you observed footprints; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q What, if anything, did you say to Dr. MacDonald concerning those footprints?
A During the interview, I went back and asked him -- well, I didn't go back; I just went back as far as the interview went -- and asked him about what type of shoes or things the intruders were wearing. He said, "They were all wearing some type of footgear." And I said, "Well, there was a bloody footprint or bloody footprints leading out of one of the bedrooms." And he said, well, it was probably his -- that, you know, when he went in there to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to the little girl, he may have stepped in the blood.
Q Did it appear to you to be a footprint of a shoe or boot or a bare foot?
A It was a bare foot. You could see each one of the toe outlines.
Q What, if anything, did you observe concerning the emotional condition of Dr. MacDonald during this interview?
A During the interview, when he stated he woke up and he saw his wife, he really didn't show much emotion. The only time he really showed emotion was when he was talking about the youngest girl. He did not like to talk about her.
Q Now, after this interview with Dr. MacDonald took place and was finished, what did you do next?
A I went back to the house and checked on a couple of things at the house that Dr. MacDonald had told me that just didn't ring true.
Q Specifically what are you talking about?
A Well, he stated when he woke up and, again, when he was knocked an the floor that when he looked he could see the water was just dripping off these people; and when I went there I didn't remember noticing any mud or water or anything at the base of the couch, and I wanted to go back and make sure.
Q Did you do that?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you do when you got back to the house?
A I asked Mr. Ivory if he had -- if anybody had cleaned or if anything had been put there that would absorb water, and I told him what the captain had told me, and we both went over and checked the floor. We couldn't find any moisture.
Q Now, precisely what part of the house are you talking about?
A The step leading up into the hallway and I would say a circle of about three to four yards in front of the couch.
Q How about coming down in front of the model and pointing out to the jury the exact area you are talking about, sir; and if you would stand behind the model so they can see?
A According to him, when he come (sic) up he was knocked down here, and that the four people were --

MR. SEGAL: Could we have the witness stand behind the model, if you don't mind?

THE WITNESS: This is the couch here, and he stated that these four people were standing here, and that the girl could have been standing on the step here, and that there was water running off the people in this area right here. This is the area we went back and checked on.

MR. BLACKBURN: You may resume your seat.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q When you spoke just a moment ago of a couple of things not ringing true to you, what else, if anything, did Dr. MacDonald say that caused you to go back to the apartment?
A Well, when I observed the knife, for one thing, in the master bedroom, at the first -- when you first looked at it, you really couldn't tell there was any blood on it until you really got down and looked at it. That's what I did when I came back, checked to see if there was, you know, really any blood on the knife. He had said he had just taken it out of her body and thrown it down; and he also said that he had --
Q (Interposing) Before you go any further -- did you come back and look at the knife?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you observe with respect to the knife?
A There was just a slight browning on the tip of the knife, and that was all.
Q What else, sir?
A The baby bottle on the crook of the arm of the youngest girl. I didn't -- I couldn't see how you could pull the person forward without the bottle falling.
Q Did you come back to the house to look at that?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you came back to the house, how long did you remain there, sir?
A Maybe a half an hour.
Q And besides these observations which you made, what did you do next?
A I went downtown with the Sheriff's Department and we went on the road. We had been getting -- a lot of leads were starting to come in, a started checking out the leads.
Q Now, before you did that, besides these observations which you made in the house at this time, what else, if anything, did you do, sir, at the house, besides these observations?
A Best I can remember, that was it.
Q Now, after you left the house, approximately what time of day was it when you left the house?
A I would say about 10:00 or 10:30 in the morning.
Q Where did you go next?
A Went downtown, got up with John DeCarter from the Sheriff's Department.
Q And what did you do when you got up with him?
A Like I say, we bad received a lot of leads coming in -- different people and different areas -- different people were spotted; and we just started going around interviewing.
Q How long did you stay assigned to this case, sir?
A Well, I wasn't actually assigned to the case itself. We were just running down leads along with our other duties; but this -- I'd say running down the leads was over the next three or four months.
Q You participated in this?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you ever have an occasion to observe anyone who would fit the general description of the people that Dr. MacDonald gave to you?
A Yes, sir.

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, this is OBJECTED to.

THE COURT: All right, sir. Do you want to be heard on it?


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

MR. SEGAL: Let me ask Your Honor for an offer of proof first of all, so we don't argue about perhaps two different subjects.

MR. BLACKBURN: We are about through with this witness, but what I intend to do is ask him basically what he did and whom he talked to in the last two or three months he worked on the case. He has stated that he interviewed people. He has stated he took a description from Dr. MacDonald. I think the question as to whether or not he ever saw anybody or talked to anybody that generally fit the description --

MR. SEGAL: (Interposing) What is he going to testify on that subject?

MR. BLACKBURN: I think he is going to say that he did, in fact, see some people.

MR. SEGAL: What else is he going to say? I'm asking for an offer of proof. I'm entitled to know whether I have a basis for objection. Are you asking for the Long Island Four, is that what you are --

MR. BLACKBURN: No.

MR. SEGAL: Well, what else are you talking about?

MR. BLACKBURN: Just in general -- he is not going to be any more specific than that.

MR. MURTAGH: It pertains, Judge, to, was he ever given a description and subsequently see people who were blonde, black, white males.

MR. SEGAL: What is he going to say?

MR. MURTAGH: Well, he will testify, I believe, about observing a group that he picked up. He got through with them and the Sheriff's Department picked them up, and I believe the FBI picked them up. I mean he will fill in some of the off-post investigation. It is something that Mr. Segal has brought out in Cross Examination of Mr. Ivory, and I think we are entitled to show that this case was not investigated just at the crime scene.

MR. SEGAL: I see, all right. I don't object to that, Your Honor.


THE COURT: All right, let's go.

(Bench conference terminated.)


THE COURT: The objection is withdrawn, go ahead.


BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Connolly, if I could recall approximately what the question was -- or before I get to that question -- how long did you remain investigating different leads?
A We had three or four months.
Q Now, was this a full-time or part-time thing with you?
A Part-time, sir.
Q Approximately how many leads, if any, did you say that you ran down, or people that you interviewed?
A I would say leads were probably in the next months about 50 leads -- 50 or 60 leads.
Q Now, during this period of time did you ever have an occasion to observe any individuals that fit the general description that Dr. MacDonald gave to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q When was that?
A I don't remember the exact date. I know it was shortly after the incident, though, maybe two or three days.
Q Can you relate to us where this took place?
A Yes, sir, we received word that there was a group that were dealing in acid and things like this here. They lived in the Haymount Section, but they frequented Dunkin' Donuts. There was a black male, there was a blonde, and there was two white men, and they all used to run together. So, we went down and they were picked up by the Sheriff's Department and they were interviewed.
Q Did you participate in that interview?
A Yes, sir. I observed the interview, I didn't --
Q (Interposing) You did not participate?
A No, sir.
Q What happened as a result of that interview?
A They all had alibis as to where they were at that night.

MR. BLACKBURN: Just one moment, Your Honor. That would conclude our Direct Examination. The Defense may cross examine.


C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N (9:58 a.m.)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Connolly, the facts you told us about this morning -- that information was all available in 1970, at the time of the Article 32 military proceedings, isn't that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q There is nothing new that you have added this morning to the information that you knew at the time of the military proceedings, isn't that correct also?
A Yes, sir.
Q It happened that you weren't called to witness, though, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q But you were available at Fort Bragg the entire time of the Article 32 military proceedings?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the information that you have talked about, you made memoranda of that and provided it to your superiors in the CID, did you not?
A Yes, sir.
Q As a matter of fact, Mr. Ivory, the lead investigator -- he had access to all of your memoranda and reports?
A Well, all my reports were turned into Mr. Grebner, sir. I don't know where they went from there.
Q You don't know as a matter of CID practice when you turn in a report to the chief of the office whether he gives it to the lead investigator in a case?
A Normally he does, sir. I am telling you all my reports were turned in to Mr. Grebner.
Q I am asking you, as a matter of practice as a CID agent, were you not aware if you turned a report to the chief of the unit that he would give it to the lead investigator?
A Normally, yes, sir.
Q And you also know that all of your statements and information were available to the Government prosecutors in 1970, too, don't you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, I would like, if you would, please, to tell me when you first entered the Armed Forces, what year?
A 1956, sir.
Q And where did you enter the Army?
A Fort Dix, New Jersey.
Q Please keep your voice up a little louder. And how long were you at Fort Dix?
A For six months.
Q What was your assignment at Fort Dix?
A Basic training.
Q Your basic training was in what branch of the Army?
A Just regular infantry basic training.
Q Infantry basic training?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you go both through the basic and advanced infantryman's course?
A No, I went to advanced infantry at Fort Knox, Kentucky, sir.
Q Are you saying that the basic infantry course was six months long at Fort Dix at that time?
A I was including that and Fort Knox. I spent three months at Fort Dix.
Q Let's start again. Okay, you entered the Army at Fort Dix, right?
A Right.
Q You spent how long there?
A Two to three months.
Q Not six months?
A No.
Q Was that two to three months consumed entirely by the basic Infantryman's training course?
A Yes, sir.
Q Wasn't that course just eight weeks long?
A Well, you had your two or three weeks going down, and then induction and indoctrination -- things like that -- before you were actually assigned to the unit.
Q Then when you finished that course, you were reassigned, you say, to Fort Knox?
A Fort Knox, Kentucky.
Q How long were you there, and what program were you in there?
A That was advanced infantry.
Q That was an additional eight weeks, wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q How long did you remain at Fort Knox?
A About a month and a half.
Q Did that include the course, or after the course was over?
A Excuse me, sir?
Q Does a month and a half at Fort Knox mean that is the total time you were there, or that is how long you stayed after the advanced course was over?
A That was the time I was there, except when I went on leave.
Q Well, a month and a half. That means six weeks, doesn't it?
A Uh-huh.
Q Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Isn't the advanced Infantryman's course eight weeks?
A No, it's four weeks.
Q Six weeks?
A Four weeks.
Q Oh, four weeks, at that time; I see -- different war. After you finished that, what was your next assignment?
A Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Q To what unit were you assigned at Fort Bragg?
A Seventh Special Forces.
Q You went directly from an advanced Infantryman's course to the Special Forces?
A Yes, sir.
Q What unit were you assigned to at the Special Forces Center?
A FB-One 77th Special Forces.
Q How long did you stay as a member of that unit?
A I stayed with the Forces, the 77th, until it was redesignated Seventh Special Forces. I stayed with them until 1961, when I was assigned to 10 First Special Forces in Okinawa.
Q You dropped your voice. When you were assigned to which unit?
A First Special Forces group in Okinawa.
Q Okinawa. I see. What was your rank when you left Fort Bragg?
A E-4.
Q E-4. That is a Corporal equivalent?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were in Okinawa with these Special Forces for how long?
A I stayed there for three years, sir.
Q What was your assignment? What sort of work did you do there?
A I was a radio operator, and then I went to weapons field, and also rigging. I was in the weapons field, a radio operator, and a rigger.
A rigger?
A Yes, sir.
Q What does that involve?
A Packing parachutes.
Q How much of your time in Okinawa was spent as a parachute rigger?
A One year.
Q When did you leave Okinawa, Mr. Connolly?
A In 1964.
Q What was your next assignment?
A Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Q Was that with the Special Forces Center, the John F. Kennedy Center, there?
A Yes, sir.
Q To what unit did you go to at that time?
A Seventh Special Forces.
Q How long did you stay with these Seventh Special Forces and what did you do while you were with them?
A I was a weapons man for the Seventh Special Forces and I stayed with them until 1967 when I went back to Vietnam.
Q In what capacity did you go back to Vietnam?
A I went back to Vietnam with the Fifth Special Forces, assigned as a weapons man.
Q As a what?
A A weapons man.
Q What does that mean when you say you were a weapons man?
A You are in charge of all the weapons, all the light weapons on the team.
Q Care and maintenance; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q You make sure the weapons are functioning properly when needed by the men in the unit; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, when did you come back to Fort Bragg?
A The middle of 1968.
Q What was your assignment at that point?
A I was assigned to Weapons Committee Special Forces.
Q Again at the John F. Kennedy Center?
A Yes, sir.
Q When did you then join the CID?
A At the end of 1968.
Q Do you recall what month it was?
A No, sir. I was sent there TDY. I don't remember the exact date.
Q That means "temporary duty", is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was it November, December, 1968?
A I believe it was around March, sir.
Q Of 1968?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your duty or function with the CID when you were sent on this temporary duty?
A Actually, I was assigned to MPI, when I first went up there.
Q You mean as a Military Police investigator?
A Right.
Q That means you are a non-certified investigator?
A Right.
Q As opposed to somebody with the Department of Defense, and they have said is a certified qualified person as an investigator?
A Right.
Q Now prior to being sent to the CID detachment at Fort Bragg as a non-certified investigator, what formal training had you had, of any sort, in criminal investigation work?
A None.
Q Had you ever functioned as a Military Policeman in any of the time you were with the various Special Forces units?
A No.
Q Do you know how you came to be chosen for work with the CID in view of the fact that your background seems to be in a different area?
A I applied for it. I worked for a year -- or about six to eight months -- with the Military Police investigations. Then I applied for CID school.
Q When did you work with Military Police investigations and where was that?
A At Fort Bragg.
Q What year?
A 1968.
Q I see. Upon your return from Vietnam, you became involved in assisting in Military Police investigations; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is it of that experience that you decided you wanted to transfer or get involved with CID work?
A Yes, sir.
Q What sort of assistance did you give the Military Police investigations in those months before being assigned to the CID?
A I don't understand.
Q What sort of assistance did you give the Military Police investigations before you went to the CID?
A Did I give to the Military Police investigations?
Q Let me rephrase it, my fault. I thought you said that you had assisted in Military Police investigations in 1968, and that prompted you to apply for a transfer?
A No, no. I assisted the CID when I was working as a Military Police investigator. At that time, a Military Police investigator was assigned to a CID investigator on duty days.
Q What sort of assistance did you give that person?
A You went to the crime scene with him, took notes, and helped him in any way he needed help.
Q And you learned that taking notes at the crime scene was important, I assume, from whomever the investigator was you worked with at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, you knew that when you were transferred to the CID in 1968?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you remain as a Military Police investigator from about March of 1968 until February 17, 1970, when you were sent to the Castle Drive address at the MacDonald family?
A No, sir. In the meantime I went to CID school and was given accreditation.
Q Now when did you go to CID school?
A In 1969.
Q From when until when?
A I believe -- I don't know the exact month -- sometime around September.
Q Of 1969?
A Yes, sir.
Q And how many weeks was that course?
A That was an eight-week course.
Q That is the basic criminal investigator's course that was given at Fort Gordon, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what were the major subjects that were covered in the curricula at that eight-week course that you attended?
A Interviews, crime scene, arson, drugs, general investigations.
Q Does that represent the major topics that you covered at your course?
A Yes, sir.
Q In regard to your training in interviews, you were taught that it was important to get exactly correct information, as it was given to you, either by informants or suspects; isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q I think you have to say yes or no.
A Yes, sir.
Q One of the techniques that you were taught to get this detail correct was to make written notes at the time the person was speaking to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q You also learned there were other additional techniques besides taking written notes to get details down correctly; didn't you?
A Yes, sir.
Q What were some of the additional techniques you learned?
A Well, depending upon what type of interview you were running, sir.
Q Just tell us about any of the additional techniques you learned besides making handwritten notes, as a way of accurately preserving information?
A Memory.
Q Verbal information?
A Memory.
Q Just simply remember it? Okay. Anything else?
A Nothing that I can recall.
Q Did you learn that besides memory and besides writing it down, that you could tape record interviews under certain circumstances?
A Yes, sir.
Q You learned that you could have a second CID agent or military policeman available; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q You learned you could ask the informant or suspect to write it down himself or herself. Do you remember that?
A Are you just talking about oral interviews, now?
Q No, I am trying to find out the things that you were taught at the CID school about how to accurately preserve information that people were telling you. And I guess, during the course of these things, did you not learn that under certain circumstances, it is appropriate to ask the informant to write it down?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, of the five methods of interviewing that we just talked about that were taught to you at the CID school, memory or remembering things was clearly the weakest one; wasn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q That was the one that you were taught that you should try and avoid at all times -- just reliance upon memory?
A Right.
Q You also about matters pertaining to crime scene preservation at that basic course?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, what the principles that you were taught that you can now recall about the importance of crime scene preservation?
A This was the main thing that was taught -- is the preservation of the crime scene.
Q I'm sorry. Somebody's chair squeaked and I missed the beginning of your words.
A This was the main thing that was taught -- is the preservation of the crime scene.
Q You mean in that eight-week program -- you mean the most time was spent on it or the most stress was spent on it?
A No; the most stross was spent on it.
Q About how many hours roughly, do you think, was spent teaching about crime scene preservation?
A I have no idea, sir.
Q But in your mind, at least, it stood out as clearly a most important subject?
A Well, you can't actually put a time element on it because any time that you receive instruction about a crime scene, this is always brought out -- protect the crime scene.
Q Is it fair to say that your instructors, no matter what the general topic was, were stressing that the crime scene should be preserved intact; isn't that right, Mr. Connolly?
A Right.
Q Would I be correct in saying that the reason that they stressed that the crime scene should be preserved intact was that it would enable the investigators afterwards to try and reconstruct the crime in order to find physical evidence that would help solve the crime?
A Yes.
Q Those were the two basic principles?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q Now, after you finished this eight-week basic CID course, you went back, I gather, to Fort Gordon for further work with the detachment?
A Fort Bragg, sir.
Q Beg your pardon -- Fort Bragg. Am I correct in that regard?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were now a certified CID investigator?
A Now?
Q No; at that time, when you came back from the courses, is that when you were certified?
A Yes, sir.
Q What month was that?
A Well, you're not actually certified as soon as you get out of school. You have to work a certain count of time before you are given your credentials.
Q All right, sir, how long do you have to work to get certified?
A That is up to the detachment commander.
Q I see. Can you tell us what month it was returned to your unit, having completed the basic CID course?
A Around October or November.
Q Of 1968?
A 1969.
Q 1969?
A Uh-huh.
Q What were you assigned to do when you came back?
A General investigations.
Q Between the time you returned to your unit in late '69 and February 17th, 1970, had you been certified as a CID investigator?
A Yes, sir.
Q When did the certification take place?
A I don't remember.
Q But it was prior to February 17th?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many homicide or murder investigations had you worked on, Mr. Connolly, while you were a CID investigator, first, and then I will ask you about your prior experience?
A None.
Q Now, before you became a CID investigator, how many murder investigations had you worked on?
A Approximately three.
Q Three. And in none of those were you the lead investigator; were you?
A No, sir.
Q Would I be correct in saying that you assisted some other more experienced and senior CID investigators in some minor capacity?
A Yes, sir.
Q On February 17, 1970 -- let me back up. There is something I would like to ask you about your training. I didn't hear you when you were going through the subjects that you were taught at the basic CID course anything about report writing. Did you, in fact, have any training in that regard?
A Yes, sir.
Q As a matter of fact, it is fair to say a substantial amount of the time in the course was spent in teaching and talking about report writing?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the reason they stressed report writing was that, again, accurate records are necessary in criminal investigations to arrive at proper solutions; isn't that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were present for those classes in report writing and report preparation; were you not?
A Yes, sir.
Q And, Mr. Connolly, you were shown how to fill out various CID forms that were used for standard investigation reporting as part of that training?
A Yes, sir.
Q So that when you came back to Fort Gordon at the end of 1969, you had also, in addition to the other subjects, training in and awareness of the necessity of preparing official reports in a correct manner?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, I do want to get back to February 17, 1970. Tell us again what time it was that you first went to the crime scene.
A Approximately 4:20, sir.
Q You arrived at the crime scene at 4:20?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you came in, you said Major Parsons and an MP were near the entrance to the house but inside; is that correct?
A I said that the MP was standing in the hallway or on the step, and Major Parsons was standing right beside the front door.
Q One on the outside of the front door and one on the inside of the front door; is that correct?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q Now, Mr. Connolly, would you please speak up for the stenographer?
A Yes, sir.
Q You came in and you saw Mr. Ivory?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, didn't Mr. Ivory brief you as to all the information that he had at that point?
A No, sir.
Q He gave you no briefing at all about what was going on or what had been done?
A He gave me just a general briefing of what had happened.
Q Is there some difference between what I asked you when I said a briefing and your response, "a general briefing"?

MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What was the general briefing you are describing here?
A I asked him what happened. He just said that three people had been murdered in the house and there was another seriously injured that had been taken to the hospital and that the bodies of the mother and the two girls were in the back of the house.
Q This would be like around 4:20 and 4:25 in the morning; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he say anything else to you at that point about what he had learned?
A No, sir; at that time I walked to the back of the house.
Q Let me make sure I understand you. You did not just walk away from Mr. Ivory when he said that statement; did you? I mean he was not still talking?
A No; he was not still talking.
Q Mr. Ivory was a more senior investigator than yourself?
A Yes, sir.
Q To your knowledge, he was at that point the lead investigator in this case?
A Yes, sir.
Q So that whenever he said that and he stopped talking, both of you understood he had nothing more to tell you at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is it clear then, from what you are saying, that Mr. Ivory did not tell you anything about the number of persons that might be wanted in connection with this crime as possible suspects?
A Not that I recall.
Q You say not that you recall. Did Mr. Ivory tell you that an MP had reported that Dr. MacDonald had described three men and a woman as being involved in this assault?
A Not at that time, sir. No.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we OBJECT on the basis he already answered the question.

THE COURT: Well, he already answered the one to which you just most recently objected. Let's go.

MR. BLACKBURN: We withdraw the objection.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Ivory, I gather also -- Mr. Ivory did not tell you, Mr. Connolly, that an MP had said that he had seen a woman standing on the sidewalk five country blocks away on the way to respond to the call for help at the MacDonald house?
A Not at that time, sir.
Q If you had heard that such information that there had been at least a woman who had a broad floppy hat, would it have occurred to you that someone ought to go out and look for her at that point?
A Somebody should have; yes, sir.
Q If you had heard that, you would have asked -- wouldn't you -- has someone been dispatched to find her if they can?
A I don't know if I would have or not, sir.
Q All right, now, at that juncture you told us that you then went and did a walk-through of the house, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And where did you go -- through the living room?
A I was already standing in the living room.
Q Where were you standing at that point when this conversation with Mr. Ivory was taking place?
A I would say approximately almost between the entrance to the dining room and the living room.
Q This conversation that you are describing that took place with Mr. Ivory -- let me just ask you, please, Mr. Connolly, and, if you don't mind, just stand back here behind the model and point to us where it took place.
A I would say it was right about in here.
Q And you are indicating on this what purports to be a rug or linoleum of the model; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q That is directly west of the doorway leading to the hallway; is that correct?
A Well, it is almost in line with the door if you are standing right here.
Q Would you just let me measure that for a minute, Mr. Connolly?
A Sure.
Q Again, if you would put the marker down. You are indicating that you were standing about on the scale of one inch equaling a foot about five and a half feet west of the entrance to the hallway?
A Right, sir.
Q And it was just you and Mr. Ivory at that point?
A That is all I was paying attention to or talking to; yes, sir.
Q You may return to the stand. You are certain you weren't standing at the entrance to the house, were you, when you had that conversation?
A No, sir.
Q If anybody else testified that the conversation between you and Ivory took place at the door -- the front door -- of the MacDonald house, you would say that is not the same as your memory of the event?
A Yes, sir.

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Nothing that was told to you by Mr. Ivory at that point indicated anything had happened relevant to the crime in the living room; isn't that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Let me make sure -- when you say "yes," that means you agree with my statement that he had not told you about anything happening in the living room?
A Yes, sir.
Q You then walked up the steps down the hallway?
A Yes, sir.
Q You observed nothing of evidential value at that point as far as you knew or understood the crime?
A Well, I could see there was a small amount of blood at the end of the hallway, and you could look into the master bedroom and see the body of the female back there laying on the floor.
Q When you say "a small amount of blood at the entrance to the master -- at the hallway," you mean on what would look like the second step up to the living room?
A No, sir.
Q All right.
A What I said was, I saw blood at the end of the hallway, almost going into the master bedroom.
Q I am sorry; may I borrow the pointer, please, and if you can see the model, did you see any blood in and about this area (indicating)?
A No, sir.
Q Did you see anything at all in this area right here (indicating)?
A There were some clothes on the steps there, sir.
Q There were some clothes on the steps?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you know whether or not they had any evidential value in this investigation you were conducting at that point?
A No, sir.
Q Anything else that you observed in and about that area?
A No; not that I recall.
Q There was no reason, was there, to take any other note of the living room or the hallway at that point, because you had received no information that anything of significance had happened there?
A Right, sir.
Q All right; you went down the hall, and which room did you go into? Well, which of the three bedrooms did you go into?
A The first bedroom was the one on the right hand side, which was the youngest girl, Kristen.
Q And what did you do when you got to that bedroom?
A Just observed -- made notes of what I first observed.
Q Where was Mr. Ivory at that point?
A Mr. Ivory was in the living room.
Q You had --
A (Interposing) I had left him in the living room.
Q I see. How did you make these notes. Did you just look in?
A I went in, walked over to the bed, walked around, looked at the floor -- just observed the room in general.
Q You had your investigator's notebook with you at that time, did you not?
A Yes, sir.
Q You had it out and you made some notations of what you observed, didn't you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you continue to make notations on that notebook throughout the time that you were going around the house?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is it that you noted when you were in the first bedroom? What did you write down?
A I wrote down a description of the girl on the bed, the blood stains on the floor, the blood stains on the side of the bed, the condition of the body, footprints in the room.
Q When you say you noted the condition of the body, did you mean you noted the number of injuries on the body?
A There was no way of giving an accurate account. All you could give was a general description of the body.
Q I am sorry; your voice dropped?
A There was no way of actually stating what wounds there were to the body -- just a general description of the body -- numerous wounds about the chest and the hands.
Q You didn't note the number of wounds that saw?
A No way I could have counted them.
Q I don't know whether you could or couldn't; but you did write a report from those notes, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q All right; did you refresh your recollection before coming to court today from looking at your prior report?
A Yes.
Q When you looked at your prior report, you found that you had, in fact, counted the number of wounds on the body of that child, didn't you?
A No, sir.
Q You did not?
A No, sir.
Q Let's first of all take a look at your report. Do you have it with you?
A No, sir.
Q Did you bring it to court today?
A No, sir.
Q Any reason you did not bring your report with you?
A No.
Q I can't hear you, sir?
A No, sir.
Q You thought your memory was adequate without the report to testify to the details that you saw nine years ago?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me ask you whether or not you have not made the following report, on page one: "...I went down the hallway to the first bedroom on the left, and there I found a young girl." Now, by the way, did you go to the first bedroom? Did you tell us you went to the first bedroom on the left?
A Yes, sir.
Q "...And I found a young girl who was approximately two to three years old lying on the bed." That is in your report, and you don't disagree with that, do you?
A (Witness nods negatively.)
Q Continuing: "...Blood had run down from her onto the bed and down to the floor." That sounds like your report to you, doesn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q "...There were footprints leading out of the bedroom into the hallway." Is that your report also?
A Yes, sir.
Q "...These footprints were made, or appeared to have been made by someone who had stood in the pool of blood by the side of the bed, and then walked out into the hallway." Is that in your report also?
A Yes, sir.
Q "...The footprints were approximately three feet apart." Is that also in your report?
A Yes, sir.
A "...I checked the wounds of the little girl without moving her, and she seemed to have been stabbed approximately nine to ten times in the chest." Is that your report also?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, did you or did you not check the number of wounds in the chest of the child?
A As I said, there was no way to actually tell how many wounds, I said it seemed to appear, or there seemed to be, nine to ten wounds. There was no way of actually telling how many wounds there were.
Q Well, when you wrote down in your report that "...She seemed to have been stabbed approximately nine to ten times in the chest," you mean that was just a pure guess on your part?
A Yes.
Q A guess?
A Right.
Q This report that you prepared -- who was it being prepared for?
A For the CID.
Q For the CID, and to be given to the Government prosecutors in the case in 1970 also, wasn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q You also were asked to sign an affidavit at the end of that report, weren't you, Mr. Connolly?
A Yes, sir.
Q I am sure you know the affidavit by heart, but I will read it to you. It says: "I, Paul A. Connolly, have read or have had read to me this statement which begins on page one and ends on page four. I fully understand the contents of the entire statement made by me. The statement is true. I have initialed all corrections and have initialed the bottom of each page containing the statement. I have made this statement freely without any hope or benefit of reward, without threat or punishment, and without coercion, unlawful influence or unlawful inducement." And you signed "Paul A. Connolly" underneath that; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q So that when you signed that, you were representing to your superiors -- or you led them, at least, to believe -- that you had counted the wounds and you had nine to ten? Isn't that what you did?
A I don't know how I can answer that question.
Q Well, there are some other things in your report I want to ask you about, Mr. Connolly. You told us today -- I want to leave the crime scene for a minute, if I may. You said after you finished at the hospital, that then, you were then following up leads in this case; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many did you tell us this morning you followed up?
A I said about 50 to 60 leads.
Q Over how many days?
A I would say about three months -- three or four months.
Q Three months? Now, is that what you told your superiors and the Government prosecutors that you did in 1970?
A I don't recall.
Q All right; let me read to you again, if I may, from your statement, at page four. I will read to you all of the information that appears here about investigative work, other than the crime scene and other than going to the hospital: "...After this, we began getting a lot of leads from different people about various individuals who fitted the descriptions of the four individuals who supposedly had committed these murders." Does that sound like the report to you, sir?
A Yes, sir.
Q "...I went with Detective DeCarter from the Cumberland County Sheriff's Department approximately 1030 -- 1100 hours, 17 February 1970, and we stayed out on the road, interviewing, talking and following leads of different people, until approximately 0330 hours 18 February 1970." Does that sound like your report, sir?
A Yes.
Q In other words, you were describing what you did from 10:30 in the morning on the 17th until 3:30 in the morning on the 18th; is that right, sir?
A Yes.
Q "...We reported into the office and briefed Mr. Grebner on we had found out and what we had accomplished about 0800 hours, 18 February 1970." Does that sound like your report?
A Right.
Q In other words, you said that you checked back with the Chief of the CID at 8:00 o'clock on the morning of February 18th?
A Yes, sir.
Q "...we advised him that there were some other leads that had not been checked out, and that DeCarter and myself were going back on the road to check these leads out." Does that sound like your report also?
A Yes, sir.
Q Finally: "...For the next two days, DeCarter and myself checked out" -- beg your pardon -- "for the next two days, DeCarter and myself checked with approximately 500 to 600 different people that in some way or another felt that they had information of value to this investigation. All the information that we checked out met with negative results." Does that sound like your report?
A It should have been "two months," sir.
Q Two months? I am not sure I understand. In two months you did that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that what you say?
A Yes, sir.

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, indulge me for one moment, please.

(Pause.)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Connolly, did you not prepare a written report of what you did between February 17th and February 20th and 22nd and submit it to your superiors?
A I am not sure; we were submitting reports --
Q (Interposing) Beg your pardon?
A I said, I am not sure. We were submitting reports so many times daily, sometimes every two days.
Q Well, let's see if we can help him. You submitted a report on February 20th, 1970, on the same CID witness statement form I just referred to. Do you recall submitting a report -- that is three days after the murders?
A I don't remember. I honestly don't remember.
Q You mean, a four-page, single-spaced document which your signature appears at the end and your initials on every page, you have no recollection of?
A I don't remember what day it was on.
Q Well, let me show it to you.
A Okay.

MR. SEGAL: May we have this marked, please, for identification?

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q I am going to show you a document that is marked D-31 for identification only, four pages typed, and ask you if you recognize this document?

(Defendant Exhibit 31 was marked for identification.)

A Yes, sir.
Q What is that, Mr. Connolly?
A That is a statement I gave to Mr. Hawkins.
Q That is not exactly a statement you gave to Mr. Hawkins, is it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that not a statement that you prepared yourself, and then you swore to it in front of Bennie Hawkins?
A No, sir; Mr. Hawkins took the statement from me.
Q But look at it; what does it say on the fourth page about that statement? Doesn't it say that you have read the entire statement? "...The statement is true. I have initialed all corrections at the bottom of each page, and made this statement..." well, without inducement of any sort; right?
A Yes, sir.
Q In other words, when you put your signature at the bottom of that statement, you meant you read it and it was correct as of the time?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, that is February 20th, 1970 -- that particular statement?
A Yes, sir.
Q What does it say in this sworn statement made to your fellow CID agent Mr. Hawkins on the last page -- and if you will count up, please, say the last two sentences? Let me just point it out.
A "...For the next two days DeCarter and myself checked with approximately 500 to 600 different people that in some way or other felt that they had information of value to this investigation."
Q May I have it, please? So, according to the sworn statement you gave to a fellow CID investigator, you and Detective DeCarter had checked out in two days 300 to 600 leads in connection with this case; right?
A No, sir.
Q Well, "we had checked with approximately 500 to 600 people"; is that not what you said in the statement?
A Yes, sir.
Q I thought I checked on my calculator this morning that to do, say, 500 to 600 interviews --

MR. BLACKBURN: (Interposing) Your Honor.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q You worked 48 hours without --

THE COURT: (Interposing) I will SUSTAIN the objection.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Connolly, can you tell us how you did 500 or 600 interviews --

MR. MURTAGH: (Interposing) OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes; I will SUSTAIN the objection. The officer says he did not do it in two or three days, but over a period of two months.

MR. SEGAL: We have shown him his sworn statement, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right; you have shown a discrepancy, so go ahead.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Connolly, when you read the statement of February 20th of 1970, before you signed it, did you think that that was an error of some sort in the statement?
A I don't remember it being in there. I did not remember it as that many.
Q I am sorry; I can't hear you?
A I said, I don't remember there being that many.
Q I know, but when you signed this document on the bottom, you had read it?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you saw it said that you were claiming that you and Detective DeCarter did 500 to 600 interviews --

MR. MURTAGH: (Interposing) OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me ask you this: how many did you actually do between February the 17th of 1970 and February 20th of 1970?
A I would say approximately -- different groups -- maybe 35 different groups.
Q You did interview 35 different groups or 35 different people?
A Different groups.
Q How many people were in each group?
A It varied. It varied from, maybe two or three people -- sometimes it was ten or 15 people.
Q Can you tell us how you interviewed a group of ten or 15 people together at one time?
A On one occasion, we went to a house in the Haymount Section. We went into the house. There was a group of people in there. We knew them. We knew what they were dealing in, things like this here; and we just rapped with them.
Q You did what?
A We just talked with them.
Q You mean, you went to a house where people you suspected dealt in drugs lived; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many were there there?
A Like I said --
Q (Interposing) The Haymount house?
A That was seven people, I believe.
Q All together in one room; is that right?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q You said, "Who is here ready to confess to the MacDonald family murders?" Is that what you asked?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What did you ask these good people in the Haymount Section who dealt with drugs? What did you ask them?
A We asked them if they had seen anybody meeting the description that we put out -- if they heard any rumors.
Q If they heard any what?
A If they had heard any rumors.
Q Of course, these worthy citizens -- what did they tell you?
A They said they had not.
Q What is that?
A They said that they had not.
Q They shrugged their shoulders and said, "We don't know anything about it"; right? Is that what they said?
A Some of them.
Q Your basic responsible informer -- that is what you were looking at?
A In a way.
Q How long did it take to interview these people in the Haymount Street house?
A About 15 minutes.
Q Fifteen minutes? All right; what did you do next after you did that interview with that group?
A I don't remember where we went from there.
Q Well, what about your log of activity that you were doing? You know, that records keeping, that you would have learned about in the CID school?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will SUSTAIN it as to the form of the question. Just ask him questions, please.

MR. SEGAL: Yes, Your Honor.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did you keep a log of the various interviews you were doing in order that other investigators would not, perhaps, duplicate the efforts you were making?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was the log in writing?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did it indicate the names of the persons whom you had spoken to?
A It did not indicate the name; it indicated the area, and location.
Q This was a handwritten log?
A It was typed.
Q You mean it was typed on a form provided by the CID, wasn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you remember the Department of the Army number for that form?
A I don't know, sir.
Q And would that form show the names of the persons in the Haymount Street house, for example?
A It would not give all their names, no.
Q How would any subsequent investigator know not to duplicate your efforts and talk to the same people?
A I don't know.
Q Okay, what did you do with the log of the people you interviewed this way?
A These were turned in about every day or every two days to Mr. Grebner.
Q And as far as you know, they should be in the files of the Government today; is that right?
A Should be.
Q There is no reason to destroy those logs, is there?
A Not that I know of.
Q Now in that fashion, how many people do you say you interviewed between February 17th and February 20th?
A I honestly don't know. Like I said, we talked to groups. I did not keep count of them.
Q Did you talk to the local police officers for helping trying to track down people?
A They were all working.
Q Well you had a local Deputy Sheriff, Mr. DeCarter, with you; didn't you?
A Right.
Q In the course of this, did you learn about a lady by the name of Helena Stoeckley?
A The name does not ring a bell.
Q Did not. Did you ever receive a phone call from a Fayetteville detective about his suspicions that Helena Stoeckley might be a person you should talk to?
A I don't recall.
Q You don't recall. Did you made a record of each call from law enforcement officers as to people they were providing you information about?
A A log was kept; yes, sir.
Q A log was kept of what?
A Of whenever I received any phone calls.
Q Every piece of information you received from a responsible informer such as a police officer would be noted down; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Then what would happen to that?
A It would be turned over to Mr. Grebner.
Q You said in this report that you wrote on February 20th, 1970, that you signed, that, "All the information that we checked out met with negative results." Now what does that mean, "negative results"?
A That we couldn't come up with any beneficial information to the investigation.
Q You mean nobody confessed the crime to you?
A No.
Q And nobody said, "We know just who did it"?
A No.
Q And nobody said, "We saw any people that looked like that group around"?
A No.
Q Did you learn about, for instance, in those checkings around of the fact of a group of persons -- the woman with long blonde hair, two white males, one black male -- who were arrested on the night of February 18, 1970, in a serious drug matter in Fayetteville. Did you learn about that?
A Actually, there was one group that was picked up and taken in and fingerprinted, but I don't remember to call their names or anything.
Q Do you know a CID agent by the name of Limburger or Limburger?
A Yes, I do.
Q You had better correct me. I could be mispronouncing his name. Is it Limburger or Limburger?
A Limburger.
Q Did he ever report to you about participating in a raid in a trailer park, involving an arrest of people who resembled the group in terms of a woman with long blonde hair, two white men, and a black man, in serious drug charges?
A I don't recall.
Q Have you ever heard about it? (No response.)

THE COURT: Now we will take our Friday morning recess. We'll come back today at 11:00 o'clock. Members of the jury, don't talk about the case.

(The proceeding was recessed at 10:45 a.m., to resume at 11:00 a.m., this same day.)


F U R T H E R P R O C E E D I N G S 11:00 a.m.

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

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, before we begin, can we approach the bench just a second?

THE COURT: Yes; you are getting a little behind in that department. You had better come up.


B E N C H C 0 N F E R E N C E

MR. MURTAGH: Mr. Segal, before the recess, mentioned an interview about a man named Limburger. It is our information that Mr. Connolly was not present. I think, before he goes any further with the Limburger issue, he should first establish "Were you present with Mr. Limburger."

THE COURT: You don't mind doing that, do you?

MR. SEGAL: I would say, Your Honor, I would certainly do it. That seems to be proper re-direct, but I will do it in this instance.

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

(Bench conference terminated.)


(Whereupon, PAUL A. CONNOLLY, the witness on the stand at the time of recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Slightly out of order, but it has been requested that I clear something up. I mentioned to you or asked you about any knowledge that you had about a raid that was made on the evening of February 17th or the morning of February 18, 1970, in which I asked you about Agent Limburger. Do you recall that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you personally present at that raid?
A No, sir.
Q Did you learn about it through other official sources, though?
A I don't remember, sir.
Q You are not sure how you learned about it, you mean?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, we were talking about the statement that you made on February 20, 1970, Mr. Connolly.
A Yes, sir.
Q I understood you to say this morning that you arrived at the MacDonald household at about 4:20 a.m.
A I said approximately between 4:20 and 4:30, I believe.
Q Let me show you again your statement of February 20, 1970, and ask you to look at the first line. Well, let me read it to you, and ask you if it's all right. It says: "Sworn Statement: I, Paul A. Connolly, want to make the following statement under oath. Approximately 0445 hours, 17 February 1970, I arrived at the residence of Captain Jeffrey MacDonald." Does that sound like your statement?
A Yes, sir; it was.
Q That indicates when you made the statement that you thought you arrived at 4:45, not 4:20 or 4:30, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q That's a minor point in this matter; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q As a matter of fact, a good investigator would have noted in his notebook the time that he arrived at the crime scene.

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Had you, in fact, made a notation in that investigator's notebook of the actual time you arrived?
A Yes, sir; I did.
Q Did you make it at the time you arrived or afterwards later on when you were filling in details in the book?
A The morning I went down there, I took the notebook out. It was the time I arrived.
Q Now, you also reported in this statement of February 20, 1970, that you were briefed by Mr. Ivory at coming in the house. Do you recall it was Mr. Ivory who used the term that Dr. MacDonald had been attacked by four "hippies"?
A I don't remember.
Q Let me again review the report and ask you if it sounds like what you wrote down on that date: "I entered the house and Major Parsons was standing in the living room. I talked with Ivory who informed me that there had been three people killed in the house and a fourth seriously injured and taken to Womack Army Hospital (WAH -- the abbreviation), Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He stated that Captain MacDonald who resided at the house with his wife and two children had been attacked by four "hippies." Does that sound like your statement?
A Right.
Q So was it Mr. Ivory, if you recorded accurately, who used the term "hippies"; is that correct?
A That's right.
Q Now, on page two of this same statement of February 20, 1970, you discussed what it was that you did after being briefed and circulating through the house. Do you recall saying in that statement the following? "I again approached Ivory and asked him what he needed done and he asked if I would make a sketch of the living room and also direct the photographs that were to be taken by the photographer." Does that sound like your statement?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you went on to say, "I directed the photographs of the room, had close-ups taken of all the evidence lying on the floor and proceeded to sketch the living room." Is that what you stated?
A Yes, sir.
Q I gather from that that you say it was you and not Mr. Ivory in that report -- that it was you and not Mr. Ivory who directed the photographer to take the pictures.
A No; Mr. Ivory had already had photographs made of the complete house. I was again going over it with the photographer, taking just certain, different pictures.
Q You mean after Mr. Ivory had finished some of the photographing, you then went over some other areas with the photographer?
A I don't know if it was other areas but just different items in the living room and the dining room.
Q All right, I understand your explanation then. It is an inclarity in the report then?
A Right.
Q Let me ask you about the same page -- page two. You described what you did in the master bedroom and I want to ask you whether the following sounds familiar from your report: "I then went to the rear in the master bedroom and again outlined the body of the female lying on the floor." Do you recall that part of your statement?
A Yes, sir.
Q You are saying in the statement, "again outlined the body of the female lying on the floor." Was that the second outline of some sort?
A No, sir.
Q What are you referring to?
A I don't understand.
Q I will read it again. Maybe that will help. Let me back up a little bit. "I went back into the bedroom on the left which contained the body of a six-year old or approximately six-year-old female and with a magic marker outlined the position of the body as it lay on the bed." Does that sound like your report?
A Right.
Q Next sentence: "I then went to the rear in the master bedroom and again outlined the body of the female lying on the floor."
A No; what I meant was I again outlined a body. I did not outline the body twice; I just again outlined a body.
Q All right, I understand that. You are saying that was the second outlining job you did.
A Right.
Q And that you outlined the body of Colette MacDonald?
A With Mr. Ivory.
Q I see. In other words, you did not do it by yourself?
A No.
Q So, your report should have included "Mr. Ivory and I did the outlining of the body"?
A Right.
Q It says here, continuing the same sentence: "...and also" -- referring to what you outlined -- "and also the paring knife that was approximately three or four feet away from her."
A What I did was I handed the marker to --
Q (Interposing) Mr. Shaw?
A Mr. Shaw; and he actually drew the circle.
Q Let me read the whole sentence and see whether it actually conveys what you tell us happened: "I then went to the rear in the master bedroom and again outlined the body of a female lying on the floor and also the paring knife that was approximately three or four feet away from her."
A I did not actually do the drawing. Mr. Shaw did the drawing. What I did was I handed him the marker.
Q All right, now in the same report, the same page, you then described going to the hospital after these bodies of the family were removed. I want to read you this part of it and ask whether you recall this being in the report. "I requested that the pathologist remove hair samples and fingernail scrapings from all victims prior to leaving and going upstairs to talk to Captain MacDonald." Does that sound like your report?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that still your testimony today that you did, in fact, ask the two pathologists to take hair samples from the bodies?
A When I was there, I don't recall the two pathologists that were -- at the time I got there, there was just the one, the older man, pathologist was there, and he was the one I talked to.
Q Would it help that you have in your report that one is Dr. Gammel and he is tall and slender?
A I don't recall.
Q And the other was Dr. Hancock who was shorter and fuller with brownish hair.
A He was a shorter, dark-haired man, and he was an old-type man. I don't recall what his name was.
Q Oh, I see. Would that be Lieutenant Colonel Davis?
A It could have been -- I don't know.
Q Did he have silver oak leaves on his shoulder?
A I don't remember him having any insignias on him.
Q Did you understand that man -- whoever it was that you spoke to -- to be the pathologist in this case?
A Yes, sir.
Q This morning you were asked by the counsel for the Government some information about the number of puncture wounds -- ice pick wounds that you saw in Dr. MacDonald. Do you recall that answer?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is my memory correct that the testimony was you didn't see any puncture wounds?
A No, sir, I didn't.
Q Now, you testified, did you not, in 1974, at the grand jury proceedings in this case?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were asked, and I want to make reference to page 30 of your grand jury testimony. You were asked starting on page 30 the following question and you gave an answer. I will ask whether you either recall the question and giving the answer, or whether you accept the transcript. All right, Mr. Connolly? Question by counsel for the Government: "Now, Captain MacDonald has stated that he had various puncture wounds in the upper part of his chest and abdomen. Did you notice anything in the way of puncture wounds? Answer: The only marks I saw -- and I saw from both shoulders down -- the only marks I saw on his chest, other than the one taped area, was these marks, and I would estimate between 9, 10, 12, 13 -- from here down to here -- which were a perfectly straight line -- I mean, you know, as you would draw a line. They weren't zig-zag, it wasn't one here and one there, but it came down in a perfect line and they were very superficial. They were not deep wounds." Did you say that?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Now, how did you know they were superficial?

MR. BLACKBURN: May we approach the bench, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Come up.

MR. MURTAGH: Read the next question.

MR. ANDERSON: And the rest of the answer.

MR. SEGAL: The Government is afraid I am going to mislead you, Mr. Connolly.

MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: All right, you said you would ask the question: ask it.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q I will read the next question in a moment. How did you determine that these were superficial wounds?

MR. ANDERSON: If Your Honor, please, we ask that he read the balance of the answer. He only read a part of the answer.

MR. SEGAL: That's not true, Your Honor, that's the entire answer. The next question is --

THE COURT: If you've got an objection, make it. If you want to be heard, come up here.


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

MR. SEGAL: Let me tender the transcript, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't want to see it.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, it seems to me that the context of the questioning was, the witness was describing injuries. He is not describing -- the way I understand the transcript -- ice pick marks. He is talking about marks. It becomes clear if you read the next question and the next answer.

THE COURT: He said he was going to read the next --

MR. MURTAGH: I thought he was.

MR. SEGAL: Can I just get a general principle established here? This is cross-examination, and I have a right to read from a transcript in the order that I choose it. If the Government thinks I misled the witness, they can reveal me for the poor person I am by correcting me, but I am allowed to proceed this way, although I don't think I have misled anybody in that regard. But I would appreciate the Court telling me whether I am allowed to proceed or whether the Government should get out of my cross-examination.

THE COURT: I am not going to put it that way, but I am going to suggest that when counsel doesn't read but half of a thing, or omits something, I always considered it a more effective way to bring that out and to neutralize or destroy anything that he had done by simply showing on Redirect Examination the remainder of it. Now, of course, in fairness to the witness, I won't let a portion of it be used, or cut witnesses off halfway through without a right to explain, and so forth. Also, if the witness desires to see the transcript, I will let him see that. Five years or four years after a man says something under oath, he ought not to be required to remember every comma and exclamation mark and word, and so forth, without in fairness to him giving him an opportunity to see it.

MR. BLACKBURN: We will let Mr. Segal go on and ask his questions however he wants to ask them.

THE COURT: Does that satisfy everybody?

MR. MURTAGH: Yes, sir.

(Bench conference terminated.)


THE COURT: All right, we weathered that crisis. Let's go on to another one.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Well, let me start again, Mr. Connolly, and read again from the transcript, if that is all right. As a matter of fact, let me give you a copy. Will that help to follow it?

MR. SEGAL: May the record reflect I am giving Mr. Connolly a copy of his grand jury testimony of August 21, 1974, and I am on page 30, Mr. Connolly.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q If I may, may I read the question and you read the answer you gave, so that nobody will doubt either one of us, all right? At the bottom of page 30 I would like to read the following question, if you will read the answer as you gave it. "Question: Now, Captain MacDonald has stated that he has various puncture wounds in the upper part of his chest and the abdomen. Did you notice anything in the way of puncture wounds?"
A "Answer: The only marks I saw -- and I saw from both shoulders down -- the only marks I saw on his chest, other than the one taped area, were these marks that I would estimate between 9 and 10, 12, 13 -- from here -- from here down to here, which was a perfect straight line -- I mean, you know, as you would draw a line. They weren't zig-zag, it wasn't one here and one there, but it came down in a perfect line and they were superficial. They were not deep wounds."
Q All right, let's go to the next question and answer, and then we'll go back and talk about this. "Question: If he had any puncture wounds, such as wounds made by an ice pick, they were not bleeding. They were not covered by any bandages?"
A "Answer: No."
Q All right, now, let's go back if we can, Mr. Connolly. How did you ascertain that these were superficial wounds?
A Well, I have seen other wounds before that were deep wounds made by knives, and things like this here, and there was always a puckering of the skin around the outside, and a more of a zig-zag cut into the skin. Where these marks came down, the skin was actually missing and there was no -- you could see the skin underneath them, and there was no hole or anything there; and they all came down, and they came in a straight line. It appeared to me as if he had been scratched.
Q Well, let me ask you this, had you ever seen a wound that you knew for certain -- you know, that you weren't speculating -- you knew for certain was made by an ice pick, or any kind of sharp, pointed instrument?
A Yes, I have seen wounds like that.
Q Now, under what circumstances have you seen known ice pick wounds?
A Not ice pick wounds, but I have seen other wounds -- barbed-wire wounds, I've seen shrapnel wounds, things of this nature.
Q All right, I understand that, but my specific question is, did you ever see any made by, you know, a single-pointed instrument such as an ice pick?
A Not an ice pick per se.
Q All right, now, what was Dr. MacDonald wearing at the time you made this observation?
A A blue pajama top.
Q Would you stand up, please, if you don't mind, and just indicate on yourself what part of the skin --
A (Interposing) Well, at the time I was talking of then about the only portion you could see would be this like I have on my jacket here; but when we were talking and he mentioned the time that he said, "I got hit in the side, or that's where they must have stabbed me." He pointed and he opened his shirt like this. He kind of sat up and he pulled his shirt open like this here. In fact, he never mentioned these. All he did was point to the one stab, or actually the bandage. I never even saw that wound.
Q You never even saw what?
A I never even saw that wound. All I saw was the bandage.
Q The bandage. You are not doubting there was a wound underneath the bandage; are you?
A I am saying I never saw it. I am saying what he pointed to and what he said.
Q But when he pointed, what did you do? Did you look at what he pointed to?
A Right.
Q He went like this and pointed to something?
A No, he opened his shirt on both sides --
Q (Interposing) Oh, I see.
A -- and then he went like this here. He said, "That's when they must have stabbed me."
Q Holding the garment back with one hand, he pointed with his finger?
A Right.
Q All right, and were you looking at what he was pointing at?
A Yes.
Q You did not consider yourself at that point to be making the full and complete evaluation and listing of all his injuries, were you?
A Well, at that time he had only -- when he was talking to me earlier, he stated that he had been stabbed one time. I took that as the only place he was stabbed.
Q All right, but again, you did not consider this to be an attempt to make a full and complete determination by the CID of the injuries that Dr. MacDonald had?
A No.
Q All right, now, you were talking to Dr. MacDonald about 8:00 o'clock in the morning of February 17?
A No, I believe it was about 8:30.
Q 8:30 in the morning. And I believe you told you us the way you got to see Dr, MacDonald was through asking the nurse, who then went and asked the doctor, who then said it was all right?
A Yes.
Q The doctor and nurse remained in the room the entire time?
A The doctor did. I am not sure about the nurse. As I said, the nurse was behind me.
Q Do you recall, by the way, who that doctor was?
A No, sir.
Q You did not make a note that, "At the present time, my interview with Dr. MacDonald was with physician so-and-so attending and nurse so-and-so."
A I don't know whether I put the doctor's name down in my notes or not. I know I did not put the nurse's name down. I am not sure about the doctor.
Q Did the doctor or nurse say anything else to you other than what you described to us so far?
A No. Except when I asked the doctor, when I was getting ready to leave, if he would take fingernail scrapings of MacDonald.
Q You asked the attending physician in the room?
A Yes, sir.
Q He said he would do that?
A He said to me, and MacDonald at that time put his hands out, and he said, "Well, he's been all cleaned up and everything." At this time, MacDonald put his hands forward. I said, "It doesn't make any difference, it could be underneath the fingernails. They still have to be scraped."
Q The physician then agreed that he would do it?
A Right.
Q Is that all the discussion you had with the doctor before you started talking to Dr. MacDonald?
A As I mentioned, I asked the doctor if he was coherent, if he could answer questions, and the doctor said, "Yes."
Q I'm sorry. Which doctor did you ask about coherency? Dr. MacDonald?
A No, the doctor that was standing next to the bed.
Q Let's call him, since we don't know his name, the attending physician.
A Right.
Q You asked the attending physician whether Dr. MacDonald was coherent?
A Right.
Q Did you ask anything else?
A Not that I recall.
Q Is it fair to say that at that point you had no idea what drugs or medication that Dr. MacDonald had been given up to that juncture?
A No, sir.
Q And, of course, you know from your own experience that giving medication and giving drugs of various types, certainly has an effect on a person's ability to think and speak clearly, and even to move about?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you ever learn that prior to the time you did this interview with Dr. MacDonald, that he had received 200 milligrams of a drug known as Nebutol, and that he received that at 5:00 o'clock in the morning in an intravenous injection. You did not know that, did you?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know that he received 100 milligrams of a drug known as Vistaril, again by an intravenous injection at 6:00 o'clock in the morning?
A No, sir.
Q You also did not know, I gather, that at 7:30 in the morning, he had received 50 milligrams of a drug known as Demerol, also by intravenous -- that is, injection into the skin?
A No, sir.
Q Lastly, I assume, you did not know that around 8:23, that Dr. MacDonald had received another 50 milligrams of this Demerol, again intravenously.
A No, sir.
Q I would think, based upon your experience in combat areas, that you are aware of what Demerol is?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is it?
A It is a pain killer.
Q A pain killer. It tends to deaden the sensory system; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Nebutol is a sleep medicine, isn't it? Are you aware of that?
A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q So at the time you saw Dr. MacDonald, he had received four different intravenous injections of narcotic drugs to relieve pain, sleeping medication, and medication, all of which was intended to deaden the nervous system or responses; you now know that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is it your belief, that with that information, that it might affect your judgment of whether Dr. MacDonald was coherent or not at that time?
A Not as far as being coherent, sir, no.
Q Well, when you talked to him, was he coherent?
A Yes, sir; I believe he was.
Q Had no trouble getting a -- well, coherent means to be able to tell something in a fairly rational and connected way; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you observe about Dr. MacDonald's eyes?
A There was a slight, you know, a glassy look to his eyes, but that was about all.
Q What else were you looking for in his eyes?
A Well, I was not really looking for anything.
Q You didn't note whether the pupils were dilated, did you?
A No.
Q You know that dilation does occur from certain types of drugs like Demerol.
A Yes, sir.
Q But that was not what you were there for?
A Right.
Q You were not making any particular notation of his observable physical condition or his observable mental condition?
A Right.
Q You have told us, a minute ago, that coherent meant to be able to tell, kind of, consecutive, rationally organized statement of what happened; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, sir, isn't it a matter of fact that as you talked to Dr. MacDonald, he tended to wander off in his discussions and it was not a connected discussion?
A The only time he wandered off is basically when we started talking about the youngest girl. He did not want to talk about her. Then he would go to the telephone conversation with the operator.
Q Didn't you tell the grand jury, when you testified, that Dr. MacDonald would wander off when you were talking?
A Right, about a specific thing. But he would not wander off, I mean, just go off in left field. He would go off to the telephone call, or something like this here. It was still pertaining to what happened that morning.
Q Does that strike you that if he is starting to tell what happened in a fight and he wanders off to talk about what happened with Kristen, and he winds up talking about a telephone operator, that doesn't make it a coherent, connected statement, does it?
A It was still coherent. I just figured he didn't want to talk about that certain incident. In other words, it was disturbing him and he didn't want to talk about it.
Q It didn't seem unnatural that a man might be troubled having seen his youngest child in terribly, terribly bad condition, that it was painful to talk about it?
A This is what I mean. He did not want to talk about it. He wanted to talk about the telephone call.
Q Perhaps it was less painful to talk about the problems of trying to get help to the house, wasn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Mr. Connolly, it was obvious to you, at that time, that Dr. MacDonald was deeply pained about talking about the injuries to his family members.
A The only time he really showed emotion was, again, when he talked about the youngest girl.
Q All right, you did tell the grand jury -- let's take a look at your testimony at page 29, and I will read the question at line 16; it said, "Question: All right, in the course of the questioning of Dr. MacDonald, did you question him along the line of getting as close a physical description of the facial features of the assailant as possible"? Now would you read your answer, please?
A Yes, sir. "Yes, sir; but he couldn't -- wouldn't, actually. Every time you start talking about this here, he wandered off. He wanted to talk about something else -- the telephone operator wouldn't accept the calls, and things like this here. He never gave me a good description of any of the assailants."
Q You used both the word "couldn't" and "wouldn't." You used both of those words to the grand jury?
A Right.
Q You said, "Yes, sir, but he couldn't, wouldn't, actually," and then you started another sentence?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, that was what you told the grand jury. None of that surprises you now, does it, in view of the fact of what I have told you of the amount of medication he was given and the type of medication he was given, and, in fact, it was all given intravenously?
A It is hard for me to say because like I said before, when I talked to the man, he appeared coherent. He gave me a basic description of what happened when he first woke up and what he did -- or that he was woken up by the four assailants, he gave me an accurate description of what he did after he wake up from the hallway, and he appeared to know what he was talking about. He was not slurring his words.
Q Are you using coherency in the way that an officer sometimes describes coherency when you have stopped a person for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol -- that they were not slurring their words or things like that; is that the context you used the word "coherency" in?
A No. What I am saying is that he was not slurring his words. He was giving -- every time that I asked him a question, he would come out with an answer. It appeared to me that he knew what he was talking about. He was not slurring his words and raving or anything like this. He was talking in a normal voice.
Q Mr. Connolly, is that the first time that you have learned of the drugs that Dr. MacDonald received -- what I told you this morning?
A No. Later on in the investigation back then, I was informed that he was given drugs. I wasn't told how many or what kind or things like this.
Q But when, if any time, if you can pin it down, did you learn anything at all that he had been receiving medication and drugs at the time you interviewed him the first time?
A I was told that he had been given painkillers.
Q When was that?
A Right after I had talked to him two or three days later.
Q Let me show you another document. Do you know what a CID Case Progress File sheet is?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you describe what it is and what purpose it serves?
A It is a reading file that you make out as you go along in your investigation to help you make up your final report.
Q In other words, this is made daily rather than waiting some weeks later to write up the whole report?
A Not necessarily. It depends on if you are ever out on the road and things like this. A lot of times, you can't make it up daily. It may be a week before you get back into it.
Q But this statement, you would say, is probably made closest in time to an event rather than one of those full sworn statements like we have been talking about this morning?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, let me show you one now and ask you something about it. May I have it marked?

(Defendant Exhibit 32 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me show you a document marked D-32 for identification, and ask if you can identify what this is and whether you have ever seen it before, Mr. Connolly?
A I believe this is my reading file. Somebody wrote my name on there. It is not mine.
Q But looking at the whole document, do you have the impression that this is, in fact, your CID Case Progress File and one of the sheets from it?
A Right, sir.
Q Let me direct your attention, if I may, while I am standing here to an entry that says, "At 4:53 a.m. 17 February." Do you see that?
A Yes, sir.
Q In other words, about two minutes before 5:00 o'clock that day?
A Right.
Q It contains a number of statements and then you get down to here and you start talking about the hospital. Would you read from here on what you have put down? Well, read the whole item from that hour, okay?
A Okay. "At 458 hours, 17 February, '70, Captain William P. Neal, M.D. came to the house and officially pronounced the three people dead. At approximately 900 hours, went to Womack Army Hospital with the bodies and turned them over to the morgue and had the clothes recovered in the recovery room and talked to Captain MacDonald."
Q Would you go on to the next sentence, please? Just a little bit louder and slower.
A Okay. "Went up to the recovery room and talked to Captain MacDonald. He had been put under drugs by the doctor, but tried to give a description of people he had seen in the room when he woke up."
Q Thank you, sir. It would be correct to say, Mr. Connolly, that in the CID reading file or progress sheet, you did, in fact, know close to February 17, 1970, that you knew that Dr. MacDonald had received medication prior to the time that you had interviewed him; is that right?
A Yes, sir, but not to the amount that you have just said.
Q I understand that, Mr. Connolly. I think that is clear, but you did indicate here that you had been given some information that MacDonald had been given medication?
A Right, painkiller.
Q Painkillers, right. And that meant to you, did it not, probably a narcotic or narcotic-type drug?
A Yes, sir.
Q But when you prepared your full formal statement on the event about your interview with Dr. MacDonald, did you at any place in it make reference to the fact that you knew you were reporting on a statement given by a man who had received painkiller, narcotic-type drugs from the doctor?
A No, sir.
Q Did not? Did you not think it was important to let the prosecutors or CID superiors know about that fact or circumstance relating to what the man had said to you?
A I believe at the time that statement was made, MacDonald was a victim; therefore, I was not thinking about a prosecutor or anything else. All I was trying to do was get a fact out and get it back on the road.
Q I understand that, but would it not even make what a victim says somewhat less reliable because the person was under the influence of narcotics and drugs?
A At that time, that was the only thing that we had to go on.
Q You gave a second statement, did you not, Mr. Connolly, on the 25th of June, 1970?
A I may have.
Q All right, let me show you a document. Perhaps it might refresh your recollection. May I have this marked for identification, please?

(Defendant Exhibit 33 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Would you look, Mr. Connolly, at D-33, a four-page typewritten document and tell us if you recognize it?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is that document, Mr. Connolly?
A It is a statement that I made on the 25th of June.
Q Is that signed by you at the end?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, this statement that you are referring to now, the 25th of June statement, that was not made to some other CID agent; was it?
A No.
Q That was just simply you writing up the facts of the case as you knew it on that date?
A I believe so, yes, sir.
Q Now, I would like for you to compare that statement -- the one on the 25th of June to the one of 20 February, 1970, which has been marked D-31. While I apologize to you for the poor quality of the photocopy -- one that has been supplied by the Government -- I ask you to look at those two statements. Actually, this is clearer. May I borrow it?

MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Anderson is good enough to let me borrow it to show you because I think you will find it easier to read from. I think this may make the job a little simpler. Now, I would like you, if you could, Mr. Connolly, to take a minute and look at these two statements that you have given -- one being the 20th of February, 1970, and the other 25 June, 1970, and compare them at least generally to start with. If you have time to do it specifically, that is fine, also.

(Witness complies.)

Q Have you looked at them in general terms, Mr. Connolly? Again, I need to ask you, for the stenographer, to say "yes" or "no."
A Yes.
Q Would I be correct in stating that the 25th of June statement, 1970, is almost identical but not quite identical to the one written on 20 February, 1970?
A I don't know. I haven't read them completely. They appear to be about the same statement.
Q Have you, yourself, noted any differences yet? I know you have not had a chance to look at it very long, but are you aware of any differences?
A Where are the differences?
Q Let me, if I may, assist you; all right? Take a look at the first statement you wrote, 20 February, 1970, where you talk about on the first page about halfway down -- you talk in that statement about, "I checked the wounds of the little girl without moving her." Do you see that statement on page one?
A Is that about the youngest girl?
Q Yes.
A Okay.
Q Do you see your statement on the line in the statement of 20 February, 1970, where you said, "I checked the wounds of the little girl." Perhaps I can help you, Mr. Connolly.
A Okay, now, which --

MR. SEGAL: If I may, Your Honor.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q May I ask you, Mr. Connolly, if you will read first from the 20th of February statement what you said -- just that one sentence that I pointed out to you?
A "I checked the wounds of the little girl without moving her, and she appeared to have been stabbed in the chest. Lying on her arm was a small baby bottle."
Q All right, that is two sentences. Now, will you go over to the statement of 25 June and read the same sentence.
A "I checked the wounds of the little girl without moving her, and she had been stabbed approximately nine to ten times in the chest."
Q All right, sir, there is a change in the statement. You have put something different. You have added nine to ten times in the chest to it; is that right?
A Right.
Q All right, for the moment, just take my word -- and I will give you a chance at the break to look at it -- but take my word, there are a number of other changes made in these two statements which otherwise seem to be almost identical to each other. How was it that you came to make another complete statement on the 25th of June, 1970, when Dr. MacDonald's military proceedings had already been underway against him for some weeks? What were the circumstances of making a second statement?
A I don't remember.
Q Did someone ask you to make another statement?
A It may have been to type another statement for the case and put in the case file. I honestly don't know.
Q This, however, was a new document that you had to read and sign, did you not, Mr. Connolly?
A Yes, sir.
Q The one of 25 June, does that also have on the fourth page the same statement that you and Mr. DeCarter checked out 500 to 600 different people in two days?
A Yes, sir.
Q In other words, that part is just the same as the prior statement?
A Yes, sir.
Q But you have no recollection whatsoever of how you came to write a second statement almost identical to the first one but this one with some details changed when the MacDonald military proceedings had started. Did Mr. Grebner, the Chief of the CID, ask you to re-do your statement?
A I don't remember.
Q I would like to focus on another area, if I may, with you: the matter of taking the bodies from the MacDonald house to the hospital for the autopsy -- would you go back over in your mind again and tell us the sequence of which body went out first if you can remember?
A I believe the two girls were taken out first. I don't know for sure because I followed them out. When I was outside and they were getting into the ambulance, I noticed that Mrs. MacDonald was also being put in the ambulance. I believe she was taken out after. I don't know for sure. I can't say.
Q But there were two ambulances outside; were there not?
A Yes, sir.
Q Each ambulance had the capacity of holding two bodies or two stretchers; did they not?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were aware at that time that each of those military ambulances equipped with both a regular rolling stretcher and with a folding field stretcher?
A I am not sure what they carry in them, sir.
Q You have never had any experience to aid in an accident scene or some sort?
A Some, but, you know, they have got about five different types of ambulances they send out to the scenes, and I have not really stopped and counted beds or anything like this.
Q You saw both of the children's bodies in the same stretcher?
A Yes, sir.
Q Those bodies filled up that stretcher; didn't they?
A Yes, sir.
Q To the point where they actually came in contact with each other?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did Mr. Ivory or anyone else give you any directions to please make sure that the bodies did not come in contact with each other -- possibly, you know, blood, clothing touching each other?
A No, sir.
Q Did Mr. Ivory or anyone else suggest to you that perhaps you use plastic bags -- these evidence bags which were lying around in profusion -- to make a little separator between these two bodies -- just put them in between so they wouldn't touch?
A We did not have any plastic bags in profusion at that time.
Q Beg your pardon?
A I don't remember any plastic bags being lying around at that time .
Q Did you not see evidence collection bags in and about the house?
A I don't remember seeing them. They may have been there, you know. Somebody probably went and got them. I did not bring them with me.
Q You knew that it was in the CID investigator's kit -- if someone had brought them to the scene -- to have evidence collection bags?
A Yes, sir.
Q Since Ivory had been there sometime before you, you also, is it fair to conclude that you assumed he had some available?
A If they didn't, they would have been on their way.
Q Did anyone offer to you or suggest to you that you put plastic bags over the hands of either of these children to make sure that anything -- scrapings, hair, fibers -- that were on there would be preserved?
A No, sir.
Q You did not, of course, you told us, ride in the ambulance in which the two children's bodies were located?
A No, sir.
Q That was basically because you were concerned about how to get transportation back from the hospital to the CID headquarters or crime scene?
A Yes, sir.
Q That was the only reason why you did not ride with them?
A Well, I just did not think of it at the time.
Q Were there two medics with each of those ambulances?
A I am not sure.
Q Considering how the bodies were carried out with two men on each stretcher, is that a fair conclusion that there must have been two medics with each ambulance?
A Like I say, I honestly don't know.
Q Well, I apologize to you for having gone out of order, but I am permitted sometimes to do nothing more than that. I want to go back to your interview with Dr. MacDonald. You have told us that one of the things that bothered you about what he said to you in the hospital was -- well, he said there was water -- rain -- on the boots of the woman that he saw?
A Yes, sir.
Q And he described that he saw that leg in the boot as he was falling forward onto the floor; didn't he?
A Yes, sir.
Q So, you decided to go back to the MacDonald house and look at the floor area to determine whether you could find any water; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q What time was it when you got back to the MacDonald house?
A I believe it was about 9:30.
Q 9:30. Your interview with Dr. MacDonald started sometime shortly after 9:00 o'clock in the morning?
A About 9:00 -- five or ten minutes to nine -- right around 9:00 o'clock.
Q That is when you started?
A Right.
Q You were back at the MacDonald house at 9:30?
A 9:30 or quarter to 10:00.
Q Again, am I correct in assuming that you did not make a notation in your investigator's notebook of the time that the interview with MacDonald began and the time the interview ended?
A I don't believe I noted the time it ended, no.
Q It could have been as late as 9:45, then, that you were back at the MacDonald house?
A It could have been, yes, sir.
Q Now, you, at that point, were you aware that the crime had probably happened around 3:00 o'clock in the morning?
A It could have been, yes, sir.
Q So, it was something like six hours and 45 minutes after the crime that you were back there looking for some water spots on the floor?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you find any water spots at all on the floor near the entrance to the hallway leading to the master bedroom?
A No.
Q None at all?
A No.
Q Did you find any water spots, Mr. Connolly, in the hallway beyond the entrance to it?
A No, sir.
Q Did you, in fact, walk down that hallway just to look for that?
A I did not walk down the hallway. I walked just in that one area he said they were standing.
Q All right, but you could see down the hallway; could you not?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you see any water spots anywhere in the hallway?
A Not that I recall.
Q Now, did you ask Mr. Ivory where any people with shoes or boots had been walking up and down that hallway since the crime had taken place?
A No.
Q So, in fact, if six or eight medics and MPs or more had been up and down the hallway, and if they had walked outside while it was raining, they didn't leave any water either?
A Well, what I was going on was MacDonald's description. MPs would have got out of vehicles and come into the house; whereas, MacDonald said these people would come in the house. He said the boots were soaking wet, in fact, so wet that they had turned color.
Q They had turned color?
A He originally said that they were black boots and then he said, no, they were brown but they were so wet they looked black; and he also said that the water was running off of them, and this is different than walking down a hallway or something like this after getting out of a vehicle. If she had gotten out of a vehicle, she would have had to walk a half a mile to get her boots that -- in his description -- that wet; and like he said the water was running off of them. So, it would have been a consolidation of four people standing in one place.
Q You did not find any water there?
A That's what I'm saying, I didn't.
Q All right, not from combat boots, right?
A No.
Q Had you been told that the MPs had come in the back door, walked down the hall; had you been told that?
A Yes.
Q Had you been told that MPs, CID investigators, and medics had walked in the rain from their vehicles on the lawn, around the back, through the house, did you know that?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you didn't find a single wet print on the floor anywhere in that house?
A No.
Q Did that seem suspicious or strange to you?
A No.
Q Did you know how long that Sergeant Tevere had been outside before he came in, and how long he was outside again when he made a second trip in the house?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know the extent it was raining when he was outside?
A No, sir.
Q If you had learned all that, it might have influenced your thought as to whether it was unusual that you couldn't find any water on the floor.
A I didn't have the time at the time.
Q I understand, Mr. Connolly, and I am not quarreling with that. I'm only saying the deduction that you made now in hindsight doesn't seem to have been supported by the reality of how many people were in the house?
A Well, again, the other people were moving, and according to MacDonald's testimony -- is that these people were standing still, and the water was just pouring off of them.
Q Did you ever ask MacDonald how long the assault lasted?
A No.
Q You have no idea whether we are talking about an assault where stabbing and jabbing and clubbing was in 15, 20 seconds or five minutes, is that right?
A Well, when he said he woke up, the people were standing there -- standing over him. All right, then, as he started to get up, then they had the affray and they went to the hallway, at which time he passed out, which would have meant at least 30 or 40 seconds. I didn't know how long they had been standing there prior to him waking up.
Q And neither did he?
A True.
Q Mr. Connolly, I'm asking you if you would be good enough to look at the three statements that we have of yours in writing -- the CID reading file, then the 20 February 1970 statement, and the 25 June 1970 statement -- and show us where you put down that Dr. MacDonald said that the water was pouring off and it changed the color of the shoes -- anything resembling that. If you will read it to us we will be able to judge it. I am asking -- just the three statements made in 1970.
A This was on the 25th of June. "I asked him what he meant by 'wet.' This is what he said -- let me go back. He said, "She must have had on a minidress, because when I -- when they knocked me -- knocked him to the floor, he looked up and all he could see was brown leather boots, bare skin, and then some material. He further stated that the boots that the girl was wearing looked almost black because they were all wet. I asked him what he meant by 'wet,' and he said that they were dripping wet, that the water was running off them like they had just come in out of the rain."
Q Now, that's what you said the 25th of June in your report, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, go back to your first report, February 17. That, by the way, the 25th of June, is when the military proceedings had already started, right? Evidence was being taken?
A This one is on the -- that was the 25th of June, this is the 20th of February. "He said that the female had on a large brown floppy and he thought that she must have been -- must have had on a minidress because a -- when they knocked him to the floor, he looked down. All he could see was brown leather boots, bare legs and some material. He further stated that the boots that the girl was wearing looked almost black because they were all wet. I asked him what he meant by 'wet,' and he said that they were dripping wet -- that the water was running off of them like they had just come in out of the rain."
Q That is identical to the other statement, isn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q That is you giving your version twice in two reports, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, go back to the first statement, February 17, and read what it says there?
A Where is it at?
Q That is the one made closest to the time it happened. That is the one-page document.
A You are talking about the reading file?
Q Yes, the reading file, please?
A "He stated the girl that was in the room was Caucasian, about 5' 5", blonde hair, down to her shoulders, boots black or brown -- he wasn't sure because they were wet. She had a short dress or shorts on, for he could see legs between the top of the boots and the dress," and that's it.
Q Well, it says there it was brown or black, he couldn't tell because they were wet; isn't that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q That was the first statement that you put in writing that exists today?
A This is not a statement, sir.
Q Well, what is it?
A This is a -- just simple notes to help you recall later on when you are making your statement. If I was to put everything in a reading file as I would a statement, I would spend the whole day in the office. I would never get out.
Q I agree, but descriptions of assailants are not just ordinary events, are they, Mr, Connolly?
A This was -- you are not talking about the description of the assailant, you're talking about the description of what the floor was like or the water running off. That is not description of the assailant.
Q No, I was talking about description of the degree of wetness that you described in a later sworn statement. I'm asking you to contrast that with what you wrote in the very first document that we now have in existence today?
A I did not go into detail in the amount of water. All I said is that the boots were -- had turned black from the amount of water -- rain, or what appeared to be rain.
Q That isn't what it said. Please read it correctly.
A "She was Caucasian, about 5' 5", blonde hair down to her shoulders, black boots or brown -- he wasn't sure because they were wet."
Q We will call this three documents: first, there is a reading file, then there is a statement dated 20 February, there is a statement dated 25 June?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you wrote up the statement dated 20 February -- what date was it on, by the way?
A The 20th of February?
Q Yes.
A Would have been the 20th of February. That is the day I was sworn to it.
Q That is the day you swore to it, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q So you dictated it -- that's three days after you talked to MacDonald, right?
A Sir?
Q That's three days after you talked to MacDonald?
A Yes, sir.
Q It was also three days after you had interviewed 500 or 600 people, is that right?
A No, sir.
Q It is not three days after you finished that?
A I said I didn't -- I don't remember -- it is in the statement, but I don't believe I did that many people. It was different groups; it was hard to tell how many people were interviewed.
Q In other words, the statement may not be fully accurate about the number of people interviewed?
A Yes, sir.

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q The answer is, it may not be accurate on that score?
A Yes, sir.
Q What were you working from when you prepared the 20th February 1970 statement? Weren't you looking at your reading file statement?
A Also my reading file, also my notes.
Q Great. Let's see the notes and compare it to that?
A Fine. You will have to go to the U.S. Attorney. They -- or else the CID. All my notes were turned in with the case.

MR. SEGAL: If Your Honor please, we would request the Government make it available to the witness so he can finish his testimony.

THE COURT: If you have his notes, let him have them.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, all we have is the reading file and the statements that we have previously furnished to Counsel.

THE COURT: All right, he says he doesn't have them.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q You have no idea what might have happened to that, right, Mr. Connolly? You don't have any personal knowledge of what happened to them?
A No, sir, I don't.
Q Would I be correct in saying that that would have been turned over to the chief investigator of the case, along with any other material you had in the case?
A Not the chief investigator of the case. It would be turned over to the operations officer.
Q And who was that?
A Mr. Grebner.
Q What was that answer?
A Mr. Grebner.
Q Oh, I see. The chief investigator was Mr. Ivory?
A Yes.
Q You would have turned it over to Franz Joseph Grebner who was the head of the CID officer?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, in the statement that you took from Dr. MacDonald, this morning you testified that you remember Dr. MacDonald saying one of these men was wearing kind of a hooded shirt; do you recall that?
A A hooded jacket, sir.
Q A hooded jacket; and will you tell me one more time, please, what it is that you say Dr. MacDonald told you in that regard?
A He said it was a red jacket with a hood on the back, and I believe him saying something about what a football player or something like that would wear which you would pull up over your head.
Q I assume that a red jacket was really your way of describing what MacDonald was describing to you.
A No, sir; that is what he said.
Q You are sure he said a red jacket?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall being interviewed on August 18, 1970, by Lieutenant Michael Malley?
A No.
Q Do you recall that? Do you recall being interviewed by a uniformed officer who was assigned as assistant defense counsel in the MacDonald case in 1970?
A No; I don't.
Q You have no recollection at all?
A (Witness nods negatively.)
Q Well, if I were to suggest to you that there is both a typed statement and the original handwritten notes of such an interview, would you have any reason to believe it did not take place?
A I am not sure. Like I said, I don't recall the interview. It may have happened. I don't recall it.
Q Do you recall being interviewed by anybody in 1970 acting as counsel or assistant counsel for Dr. MacDonald -- anybody associated with his defense?
A I believe I was interviewed by somebody. I don't recall who he was or when it was.
Q If I were to suggest to you that the date was August 18, 1970, would you have any reason, based upon your memory, to disagree with that?
A Like I said, I don't recall it so I can't disagree with it.
Q You were stationed at Fort Bragg at that time; weren't you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Let me find something and read it to you, if I may, and ask whether it refreshes your recollection in any way. Oh, all right, forgive me. In this war of paper here, I lose track too. Let me read you a statement and ask whether it either refreshes your recollection or you are willing to accept this as a statement of what was said to Lieutenant Malley who purports to have interviewed you on 18 August 1970; all right, Mr. Connolly? Quoting you as describing what Dr. MacDonald said: "MacDonald said the jacket one of the assailants had on was reddish. It isn't clear whether it was MacDonald, or Connolly, or both but Connolly stated in the report that it was red simply as a way of grossly describing it. It might have been maroon, et cetera." Now, does that suggestion there that you said to Lieutenant Malley that red was the way of describing it in any way refresh your recollection as to whether Dr. MacDonald specifically said red?

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT and like to be heard on it.

THE COURT: Have you been furnished a copy of the statement?

MR. BLACKBURN: No, sir.

MR. SEGAL: I would be glad to give him one, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You will have to.

MR. SEGAL: And the original notes which it is based upon?

THE COURT: All right, let him see the statement before you examine the witness.

MR. SEGAL: I don't have a copy but you are welcome to look at it, and I will make copies for the Government at the recess, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is the statement signed?

MR. SEGAL: Beg your pardon?

THE COURT: Is the statement signed?

MR. SEGAL: No; but the maker is available here in Court.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, until we have had a chance to look at it, we question whether this is Mr. Connolly's statement or a combination of statements.

THE COURT: Well, I won't let you question this witness about a statement he has no recollection of having made.

MR. SEGAL: I only asked if this might refresh his recollection. If he said it doesn't, it doesn't, Your Honor.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q I gather you say that this does not refresh your recollection, Mr. Connolly?
A No, sir.
Q Now, you were present in the MacDonald house when Dr. Neal came through and examined the bodies of the various members of the family; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, I want to direct your attention specifically to what Dr. Neal did in the room that Kristen MacDonald was located in.
A Yes, sir.
Q What is it that you recall that he did?
A When he first walked in, he reached down and looked at her, reached over, took her pulse, took her hand, and then he reached down and lifted her up, and at that time I did not realize Mr. Ivory was standing behind us. Mr. Ivory said, "Don't touch the bodies. Put them back." He said something like, "I was trying to determine cause of death" or something like that. Mr. Ivory said to him, "All that you are here to do is to pronounce them dead. Don't touch the bodies." At which time he laid the little girl back down, and we went into the next room.
Q When you say he lifted the little girl, can you show us with your hand perhaps -- just raise your hand to the extent that you recall.
A The little girl was laying in the bed on the side. He was standing and bent over, checked her and then he reached over and he pulled her forward and he went and looked over on her back. Then he laid her back down. That was the first time that I knew she had stab wounds in her back.
Q Now, how about in the room of Kimberly MacDonald? You told us that you went in there and that for whatever investigative purposes necessary that you had to move something; do you recall that? On the bed?
A That I had to move something?
Q Yes.
A No, sir.
Q Did you not tell us while you were on direct examination that you had to move the sheet on Kimberly's bed?
A No, sir.
Q You don't recall that?
A No, sir.
Q In your testimony this morning?
A No, sir.

MR. BLACKBURN: We OBJECT to that. He said he doesn't recall it.

MR. SEGAL: Well, if the Government will let us have a copy of the transcript they are buying, we'll be glad to read it back.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor --

THE COURT: The answer is the witness said that he did not make any such statement.

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, I have no further questions of Mr. Connolly at this time.

THE COURT: Will there be some re-direct examination?

MR. BLACKBURN: Just briefly, Your Honor.


R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I 0 N 12:07 p.m.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Connolly, do you have a copy of the grand jury testimony?
A Yes, sir; I do.
Q Directing your attention, sir, to the bottom of page 30, in response to a question, you stated and I quote: "The only marks I saw, and I saw from both shoulders down, the only marks I saw on his chest, other than the one taped area, was these marks and I would estimate between nine, ten, 12, 13 -- from here down to here which were a perfectly straight line. I mean, you know, as you would draw a line. They weren't zig-zag. There wasn't one here and one here, but it came down in a perfect line, and they were very superficial. They were not deep wounds." Mr. Connolly, what area of his body are you talking about? That is not clear from the grand jury testimony.
A When I was interviewing Mr. MacDonald in the hospital and I asked him, he was talking about when he got hit with the ice pick. At this time is when he -- he was sitting in the bed like this here and his jacket was kind of closed. He opened his jacket up and he pointed to the one area where there was a bandage. There was marks coming down on his chest and there was one straight line; they were not straight up and down. They were straight from the shoulder in toward where the bandage was at. It appeared that he had been scratched.
Q Now, Mr. Connolly, if you would, sir, turn to the top of page 30 and I want to read most of that page down to line 21. I will ask you the questions and you supply what your answers were. "Question: Is it fair to say to a certain extent he was evasive in responding to your questions? Answer: As far as the description of the assailants; yes, sir. Question: And did you specifically ask him to describe the incident that occurred in his house in chronological order? Answer: Yes, sir. Question: And did he do it? Answer: Well, what I just told you is what he told me. He would start to and then he would get to a certain point and jump to something else."
That looks like that was a question, Mr. Connolly. "He would start to and then he would get to a certain point and skip to something else. Answer: Well, I am just telling you what he told me."
What is line 14? "Answer: Yes, sir. Question: And particularly, when he got to the point of Kristen and the gurgling. Answer: Right; he didn't want -- Question: -- and being in her room, that's when he would change the subject? Answer: That's right." Now, with respect to the military proceeding in 1970, do you know whether or not those proceedings were open or closed?
A Those were closed. You are talking about the 32?
Q Yes, sir.

MR. BLACKBURN: No further questions.


R E - C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N 12:11 p.m.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me ask you, Mr. Connolly, were you aware that the Government demanded that the public be excluded from the military proceedings. Do you know that, Mr. Connolly?

MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you know how the proceedings came to be closed?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, they raised the question of whether they were open or closed. We have the right to produce evidence as to whether or not someone was responsible for that.

MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION to the comments of Counsel, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I ruled on your objection.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you have any information, Mr. Connolly, as to how the proceedings came to be closed?

MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SEGAL: I have nothing further, Mr. Connolly, at this time, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.

MR. BLACKBURN: May the witness be excused, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I have no further need for him.

(Witness excused.)

 

 

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

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

 


Go to top