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


The Murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald
 

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site

1979 JEFFREY MACDONALD CASE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT
August 7, 1979: Paul Stombaugh, Retired FBI Lab

 

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this point, we call Mr. Paul Stombaugh.

(Whereupon, PAUL M. STOMBAUGH 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 2:32 p.m.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Please state your name and tell us where you live, sir.
A Paul M. Stombaugh. I reside in Greenville, South Carolina.
Q If you don't mind, how about spelling your last name?
A S-t-o-m-b-a-u-g-h.
Q Now, how long have you lived in Greenville, South Carolina?
A I moved my family to Greenville in September of 1976.
Q Since that time to the present, what do you do for a living there, sir?
A At the present time, I am Director of the Police Service Bureau.
Q What do you do with the Police Service Bureau?
A As director, I have charge of the crime laboratory which I set up, the communications for local law enforcement, the consolidated records training, crime analysis, things of this nature.
Q What is your educational background, sir?
A I have a Bachelor of Science degree from Furman University also located in Greenville in the biological sciences.
Q Prior to going to Greenville, South Carolina, where did you live?
A I resided in College Park, Maryland.
Q Where did you work?
A I was a Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Q And how long had you been with the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A I retired after 25 years service in 1976.
Q What was the nature of your duties while you were a Special Agent in the FBI?
A The first nine years I spent in various field offices conducting investigations into various crimes against the government, and in the St. Louis office for a period of six years, I was on a special crime scene search team. In 1960, I was transferred to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C., to the Microscopic Analysis unit.
Q Now, while you were in Washington with the microscopic Analysis Unit, what did you do there?
A After a period of one year intensive training under the supervision and direction of the other qualified experts in the field, I was assigned cases in the area of hairs, fibers, fabric damage, things of this nature.
Q What about stains -- fabric stains?
A Fabric stains; yes, sir.
Q When you talk about fabric damage, what are you talking about?
A Most of these cases involved garments which had been worn by victims of attacks with knives, sometimes they would have been shot. They wanted to know what caused the damage.
Q What kind, if any, training did you receive in this particular field beyond the one year that you talked about?
A After a period of one year in all phases of this work, I was adjudged to be competent in my field and qualified as an expert in the field and assigned to cases.
Q Did you ever have an occasion to do any additional study during this time?
A In the laboratory this is an on-going thing. As a new technique is developed, why, it is brought to the attention of all examiners and we study the new technique and, if we feel it is of value, we adopt it.
Q Now, you state that you were considered to be an expert in this field, would you be specific? By "this field," what are you referring to?
A Hairs, fibers, and related items. This would include garment damage, garment impressions, fabric impressions, things of this nature.
Q And you say that you were considered to be an expert. By whom were you so considered?
A At that time, I was qualified by the other examiners under whom I had studied and I was thereafter recognized in various courts throughout the country.
Q I take it, then, that during this time in the Microscopic Analysis Unit you spent a good deal of your time conducting examinations; is that correct?
A Yes; my whole day was spent with the exception of the time I was necessarily away for court from the laboratory testifying in court.
Q Have you ever testified in court as an expert in the field of hairs, fibers, fabric damage, and stains, sir?
A Yes, sir; I have.
Q Where did you so testify?
A I testified in 48 of the 50 states. The types of courts would range from city court to county courts to state courts, U. S. District Court. I testified before the County Grand Juries, the U. S. District Grand Juries, testified for the military for U. S. military court martials, and I also testified before the Warren Commission in investigating the assassination of President Kennedy.
Q When you say that you testified before the Warren Commission, in what capacity -- as an expert?
A Yes, sir.
Q In other words, is it fair to say that you worked for the FBI doing examinations concerning the assassination of President Kennedy; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, in all these courts and states that you have testified, I take you to say that you have testified in the field of hair, fibers, fabric damage, and stains; is that correct?
A That is correct, sir.
Q Have you ever taught or lectured in regard to your work and, if so, where has that taken place?
A Yes, sir; I taught at George Washington University in the graduate program they offer there in this field. I taught at the University of Maryland when I was there living in College Park. Presently, I teach classes at Greenville Technical College in Greenville. I lectured at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington, and I've also lectured before the National Academy in the new agents classes at Quantico, Virginia.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this time, we would offer Mr. Stombaugh as an expert in the field of hairs, fibers, and related items, items with fabric damage and stains.

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, I have some questions I would like to ask the witness about his qualifications on these matters.

THE COURT: Very well. Proceed.


V O I R D I R E 2:40 p.m.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, by any chance do you have a biography or curriculum vitae of yourself with you?
A No, sir; I do not.
Q Did not the Government counsel ask you to put together a biography of things you had done in the past?
A They asked me to write out some qualifying questions which I provided.
Q Yes; do you have a copy that I might look at, please, as to your background?
A Mr. Blackburn has the only copy.
Q I see. These are merely the questions that were asked you, not the information about yourself; is that right?
A That is correct.
Q Well, let me, then, if I can, ask you a few questions. You say you have a Bachelor of Science Degree from Furman University?
A That is correct.
Q What year did you graduate, sir?
A 1949.
Q May I ask again what was your major and your minor subjects at Furman University?
A Well, the major subjects were in the field of biology.
Q Did you also have a minor in something?
A I had a minor in chemistry; yes, sir.
Q Did you achieve any honors in either of those fields, in either biology or chemistry, during your time at Furman University?
A No, sir.
Q Did any of your studies at Furman University involve actual examination and comparison identification of hairs of any sort?
A No, sir; it did not. They didn't offer any such courses.
Q Is there any training directly related to examination, identification and comparison of fibers at Furman University?
A No, sir.
Q Were there any courses or training directly related to fabric damage while you were at Furman University?
A No, sir.
Q Were there any courses directly related to analysis of stains in fabric?
A No, sir.
Q I also heard the Government ask you about something called fabric impressions. Is that part of fabric damage? Do you say that, or is that a separate subject?
A Fabric impression is a separate subject from fabric damage.

MR. SEGAL: All right. May I inquire whether the Government is offering this witness as an expert in that subject too?

MR. BLACKBURN: Yes. That was meant to be included in the term "fabric stains."

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Well, just to finish off, were there any courses you studied at Furman University in fabric impressions?
A No, sir.
Q Now, after you graduated from Furman University, what was your employment, sir?
A Immediately upon graduation -- going back a good many years, sir -- I believe I sold insurance, after which time I signed a contract and played professional football, after which time I returned to Greenville to Commercial Credit, after which time I went with the FBI. I was appointed a Special Agent then.
Q And what year was it that you went to the FBI, sir?
A 1951.
Q Now, I gather that you were a field agent during the first nine years that you were at the FBI?
A Yes, sir. Upon graduation from Special Agent School, I was assigned to various field offices.
Q Did you have any specialty in the nine years that you were a field agent?
A What would you term "specialty," sir?
Q Well, bank robbery detail, interstate shipments, theft detail, any of those sub-units that exist in many of the larger field offices?
A Well, the first field offices I went to as a new agent, I investigated mostly car cases and fugitives. When I arrived in St. Louis, I was there for about six years. I was assigned to bank robbery and kidnapping and extortion squad, the major case units, and also to the crime scene search team.
Q May I ask, first of all, how long you were involved in this crime scene search team? For approximately what year to what year on that assignment?
A Approximately from 1954 to 1960, when I was transferred to the laboratory.
Q What did the work of the crime scene search team involve?
A Well, take, for instance, a bank burglary -- the crime scene would be preserved and our team -- there were sometimes two of us, sometimes three of us. We had to do either photographing of the scene and collecting all the physical evidence for transmittal to the FBI Laboratory.
Q But then, that didn't involve you doing the analysis or evaluation of the evidence that was collected at the crime scene; did it?
A It involved our determining what we felt was of probative value. That is what we collected.
Q As I understand what you are saying, that as an investigator, you would look at the crime scene -- you and your colleagues -- and determine what you think might help lead to the solution of the crime, collect it and send it to the Laboratory?
A Well, the first thing we did was photograph the entire scene.
Q Yes. I understand.
A And then we got together and decided what we felt to be of probative value to help solve the crime.
Q All right. Now, during those nine years, you were not doing, were you, identification and comparison of hairs while you were a field agent?
A No, sir; I was not.
Q The same would apply to fibers? You weren't engaged in fiber identification and comparison while you were a field agent?
A No, sir, just the collection of it.
Q And the same would apply to fabric damage and stains and fabric impressions? You didn't do any of that while you were a field agent?
A No, sir.
Q Now, I gather that in 1960, was it, when you went to the FBI Headquarters in Washington?
A That is correct.
Q May I ask you what month you began your assignment there?
A I don't recall whether it was November. Yes, it was November of 1960.
Q Now, had you applied for that transfer to the Laboratory or had the Bureau sought you out and said, you know, "Come to Washington"?
A Sir, with the FBI you don't apply. You are assigned a duty. And I was transferred by the Bureau to Washington, D.C.
Q I understand you don't go over by yourself. But did you initiate or indicate in some way that you would want to be transferred to the Laboratory?
A Yes. I indicated to one of the examiners that I would like to be transferred to the Laboratory. Whether that had anything to do with my actual transfer or not, I have no idea.
Q Was there any examination that you had to take in order to see preliminarily before you could get considered for the job whether you were qualified or whether you were otherwise an appropriate person to go over to the Laboratory?
A No, sir. There is no examination. They train you for a year. And after a period of about three or four months it becomes apparent to them whether or not you are adapted to that type of work. And if not, you are transferred back to another field office.
Q All right. My question was: before you actually went to Washington, there was no examination, there was no oral interview, board of any sort, to select you for that training program?
A The selection of who comes in is made by the officials in Washington. They review all those who express an interest with a science degree.
Q Well, I am not clear on the interview. Did you have an interview with a board before you were transferred or did you just send your papers in?
A No, sir. They reviewed my personnel file.
Q In other words, the paper examination of your record?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, you were in training for one year I gather, from about approximately November of 1960, to what date?
A Oh, approximately November or December of 1961.
Q And could you tell us, please, was this an organized curriculum of study that you were engaged in that one year?
A It was working with the qualified experts in their own fields, working right along with them. Eventually I began doing examinations under their supervision. And periodically you would be given quizzes to see how you are coming along.
Q Well, I am sorry that I didn't make my question clear. But what I need to know was is this actually a formal curriculum that someone set out and said, "Each of these prospective laboratory people will spend two months working on hairs, two months on fiber comparison," a program like that? Was it a fixed definite period of time in a various number of forensic subjects?
A Yes. The bulk of the initial work was spent on fibers, after which time we advanced to hairs, both human and animal. And then the latter part we spent on the fabric portion of it.
Q But there were no actual classes, I gather you are saying? You actually just worked alongside of someone at the Bureau who had some experience in the particular area and he or she shared with you their background and their experiences; is that right?
A That is correct. I might point out that I was the only one in training at that time. So, they could not set up a class.
Q Now, could you tell us how much time you spent in whatever subjects you spent during the course of that year so we can ascertain what your training was?
A Mr. Segal, I just don't recall. It has been, well, it was back to 1960, 19 years ago.
Q I assume there would be probably a record in your personnel file to indicate something about the training work that you had done, wouldn't there?
A No, sir. The only thing in my personnel file would be that I had successfully completed the training and was designated as a qualified examiner.
Q There would be no interim reports every month or two. Say the instructor who would teach you hair, he wouldn't say "Pass," and the instructor of fibers would say you had passed, none of that existed; is that right?
A No, sir.
Q As far as you know, from having examined your own personnel file, it just shows at the end of one year the Bureau decided you were what, an expert; is that right?
A That is correct.
Q Well, to the best of your knowledge, the best you recall, and I do appreciate the fact that it is 1960 that we are talking about, but I would really find it helpful if you could tell us exactly how much time you now recall having spent in fiber analysis during that one year training program?
A As I mentioned before, Mr. Segal, I can't recall. There was a lot of reading, there was a lot of microscopic work done. I was spending 10 to 12 hours a day doing it.
Q Could you tell us what you read in the area of fiber analysis?
A The available literature at that time.
Q Well, could you be, perhaps, more specific in indicating one textbook you might have read on the subject matter?
A I read several textbooks on vegetable fibers and also on man-made fibers, synthetic fibers. The authors of them, I do not recall.
Q These were books solely, totally devoted to vegetable fibers and man-made fibers and their identification and comparison analysis?
A Not comparison analysis. There was a lot on the identification of them.
Q They contained a number of pictures of various fibers taken under microscopes so you could see what they looked like when there were known samples?
A Some of them had pictures but most of my training was done using known samples, mounted on microscope slides and studied through a microscope.
Q Then the actual looking at various samples was the more important part of your training in fibers; is that right?
A The microscopic analysis of it as well as the microchemical testing of it.
Q All right. Now, what about the area of hair analysis, identification and comparison. How much of this one year was spent doing that work?
A As I said before, sir, I couldn't give you any specific time.
A good bit of time was spent on hair analysis, because you have human hairs which is broken down into the races, body areas, an well as the animal hairs, which had to be identified also.
Q You say that one quarter of your year was spent in hair analysis?

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT at this point. Of course, counsel has the right to ask questions of this witness as to his expertise, but it does seem to me to be more directed to a point.

MR. SEGAL: I think his training, what he studied, Your Honor. He has been offered in four different fields here. We are entitled to find out his qualification of the subject matter. I can't imagine why it would not be probative.

THE COURT: Well, if there is an objection, I will OVERRULE it.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q I believe I just asked you, Mr. Stombaugh, whether you could estimate whether, say, one quarter or one half of your year was spent in hair analysis?

THE COURT: I might shorten that a little bit by just asking him, are you able, 19 years after the fact, to give us a reasonable estimate of how much time you spent in each one of these particular fields?

THE WITNESS: It's very difficult, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, do the best you can and then we will go on to something else.

THE WITNESS: In one week, I might be working on particular fibers, the next week I might be studying hairs. I might study hairs for two weeks, and then slip off into another field. It went on like this for a whole year.

THE COURT: Let's go to something else. BY MR. SEGAL.
Q One last question on hair. Did you do any reading in the area of hair comparison identification?
A At that time, there was very little literature on hair identification. Dr. Hausmann had written some things, but the bulk of the hair identification and hair work was done there in the laboratory with known samples and comparisons.
Q Did you read the work of the anthropologist, Dr. Lloyd Krogman while you were studying at the FBI laboratory?
A Yes, I've read Dr. Krogman's work. Dr. Krogman is mainly in the field of reconstruction of heads from skeletons.
Q All I want to know is whether you were or not familiar with Dr. Krogman's work on hair comparison and did you study that in 1960. I gather your answer is yes, you did?
A I could have read Dr. Krogman, and there again, I could not have.
Q Now, I am not clear about this field called fabric damage, which you say that you would be qualified as an expert in. What exactly is covered by the field?
A Many areas are covered -- tearing of fabric, when you want to know the direction of tear; knife wounds. They have had many, many cases where they will submit clothing of a victim with several weapons, wanting to know if one or any of the weapons could have made the cuts in the clothing.
Bullet holes -- sometimes we will receive a bullet that has passed through an individual's body. They want to know if there are any fibers on that bullet that could have come from the garment that the victim was wearing -- various fields of fabric damage.
Q Would it be correct to say, then, when you describe fabric damage, to mean examining holes that are made in various fabrics to see whether you can figure out how they were made: is that in essence what fabric damage is about?
A That is one of the areas of it, yes, sir.
Q Are there any other areas, then, that I haven't covered by that description?
A Yes; another area would be the putting together of a piece of cloth that they -- a shirt, for instance. Many, many times we would receive cases whereby a murder had occurred possibly, and during the struggle a sleeve might have been torn off a shirt, and the sleeve found in the defendant's car.
They would want to know was this sleeve torn from this particular shirt; buttons found at the scene of a crime, which have been torn off a shirt. They would want to know if we could fit the button back on to a particular shirt.
Q Is there anything else that is covered within this field of expertise you call fabric damage than what you described, sir?
A Yes, sir, I also receive some cases from some of the textile mills when they were having damage to the fabric on the looms and wanted to know what caused the holes; and in those particular cases we analyzed the fabric and found out that in one particular case that a certain insect spray they were using was dissolving the synthetic fiber.
Q Well, again, best as you can recall, do you know how much of the one year of your training period was spent in this particular area?
A Well, as I pointed out, Mr. Segal, why I can't give you a definite time is because one or two weeks might be spent on one subject, and then we would switch off on to another subject.

THE COURT: Yeah, I think he's answered that. Ask him something else.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did you read any literature in the field of fabric damage while you were in that one-year study program?
A I don't recall reading any literature on fabric damage per se.
Q Now, what about this field of fabric impression; can you describe to me what that is you -- as you say you are qualified as an expert in that area?
A Fabric impression is very similar to a shoe print impression. I think most people are familiar with a -- when a shoe steps in mud it leaves an impression behind of the shoe itself. Now, if that shoe has mud on the bottom of it and he would step on a piece of paper, it would leave the impression of the shoe -- sole of the shoe and the heel -- on the piece of paper.
The same thing happens with fabric. When a -- I think it can be best described with a little boy with a chocolate bar in his hand. He gets chocolate on his hand, it melts; and if he should push it on his shoulder he's going to leave his hand print behind in chocolate.
And it is the identification and comparison of, say, that little boy's hand with the impression left on the fabric to see if the little boy could have left that impression there.
Q Is it kind of a gross microscopic examination you make?
A On occasion -- I wouldn't call it gross. Sometimes it gets a little detailed. When you are looking for --
Q Essentially looking at it, right?
A That is, looking at it and examining it and comparing it.
Q Is it fair to say you spent the same amount of time in fabric impression in that course as with the other subject we have covered today?
A There again, sir, I can't give you a definite time as to -- devoted particularly to that type of examination.
Q Well, would it be the same as or more than or less than fibers and hair?
A I would say it would be less than, to the best of my knowledge, because we worked those cases as they came in and they were not as numerous as the hair and fiber cases.
Q Now, of the literatures was there any literature that you read while you were in training in the area of fabric impressions -- any articles or texts that you can tell us about?
A The articles that -- excuse me -- the articles that were read dealt with what were termed "interesting identifications" in the FBI, and these would be articles that appeared in the FBI bulletin. We initiated the writing of many of those articles.
Q Some other technician in the laboratory would have an interesting case and he would write it up and it would be circulated in the bulletin for other people to read about.
A That is correct.
Q But, to the best of your knowledge, there were no general texts or literature in general magazines of scientific or forensic interest on the subject of fabric impressions that you read in 1960 or '61.
A Not that I recall.
Q Now, I think you also have been asked if you were qualified in the area of stains. Now, tell us: did you spend the same amount of time in stains -- studying of stains -- as you did in fibers or hair or more than or less than fibers and hair?
A The area of stains falls into the same area of fabric impressions.
Q I see, so whatever time was spent on stains was part of the work of fabric impressions.
A That is correct.
Q And were there any texts or literature of general circulation -- that is, literature of the scientific community -- that you read on fabric stains during the period of your training?
A Well, the same answer would apply as to fabric impressions.
Q That is composed and published inside the FBI.
A That is correct.
Q Did you study any other subject in that year other than the ones you have enumerated here?
A No, sir; not that I recall.
Q You weren't trained in, say, doing any types of blood analysis.
A No, sir; the Serology Unit did the blood work in the FBI Laboratory.
Q You weren't trained in any kind of fingerprint identification.
A No, sir.
Q These are the only areas, as far as you can recall, that you studied during your year of training.
A That is correct.
Q Now, at the completion of your training, were you given an examination to determine the extent of your competency in each or all of these areas?
A You are given examinations throughout your one year of training. This has to be done to see what progress is being made and, if you are not progressing satisfactorily or not adapting to the work, then you are transferred back to the field as an agent.
Q These actually weren't formal examinations that you were given were they? Someone gave you a case to work on, then decided or evaluated how well or how poorly you had done on that case; isn't that right?
A That is correct.
Q There were no formal written examinations that year?
A Throughout your training, you are asked questions constantly. "What is this? How do you identify that?"
Q But, at the conclusion of your year, you were not asked to, say, sit down with a board of examiners of trained people in these areas and to be subjected to a series of questions about your work and have them evaluate it.
A The closest thing that would come to that, sir, would be on at least three occasions during your training you are given what they call a moot court. You are given a case to work on your own. You do all your work yourself. You write your own report, and then you are subjected to a moot court as to your findings.
Q There were three of those?
A At least three.
Q And on what you were examined in these moot courts -- what areas?
A One of the moot courts is given on hair identifications, and you are examined by the other qualified experts, and they ask you every question that they can think of. Another is given on fabric damage, for instance. Sometimes -- I recall one I had -- a combination of hairs, fibers, and fabric damage. And you are closely questioned in all these areas.
Q Now, at the end of this one year, I understood your answer or response to the Prosecutor's question that you adjudged to be an expert. Is that what they said -- that they would give you a title of expert or did they simply state that you were now competent to examine these areas?
A They -- after you passed all your examinations, the moot courts and things, then they get together and if they feel you have successfully completed your training, then they recommend to -- at that time -- Mr. Hoover, this man be qualified as a hair and fiber examiner and be assigned cases on his own to work. Thereafter you are given the simplest cases, and your work is still being checked.
Q So, in other words, you were appointed as an examiner in hair, fiber, and fabric damage; is that right?
A That is correct.
Q Now, from that time on -- 1961 -- to the time that you retired from the FBI, were you ever enrolled in any college or university-level course in, say, hair analysis, identification, and comparison?
A No, sir; I was not.
Q From that time to the time you retired, were you ever enrolled in any course in fiber examination and comparison and identification?
A Not enrolled in the class; I taught classes in that.
Q All right, I want to get to that but let me, if I can, I've got a system. Were you enrolled in any course from that time until you retired in this area called fabric damage and impressions?
A No, sir.
Q Did you take any college-level or university courses in any forensic science field at all from 1961 until the time that you retired from the FBI?
A No, sir; I did not.
Q Now, you told us that you testified in a large number of states in various cases on direct examination. In how many cases altogether would you say that you have been called upon to testify since you had become an examiner in the FBI Laboratory on laboratory examination matter? I'm not asking you about testimony as a field agent in different kind of work. How many cases altogether did you testify in your capacity as examiner?
A I lost track -- rather, I stopped keeping count at 300.
Q And that would be from 1961 until 1978?
A No, sir; until I retired in 1976.
Q In '76.
A Now, since 1976, I testified as to my findings in the crime lab in Greenville, South Carolina. I've been involved in 15 or 20 cases down there.
Q All right, but in that 16 year period that you were in the laboratory, you say about 300 cases. How many cases involved comparison, identification of hair?
A I would have no idea, Mr. Segal. Some of them involved just hairs; some of them involved hair and fibers; some of them involved hairs, fibers, and fabric damage.
Q Well, would any one of these four subjects constitute the bulk of the things that you testified about? You testified more, perhaps, about hairs than fibers, or vice versa.
A Most of the cases, if you would say, probably involved hair and fiber examinations.
Q And when you say "most," would it be fair to say more than 200 or more than 250 of those cases?
A Well, now you are getting into numbers, and I couldn't recall.
Q Well, what about the number of cases, then, that you testified as to fiber damages? What percentages or numbers of cases would you say did that involve?
A Here again --

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT. He has already said he couldn't recall.

THE COURT: Yes; I will SUSTAIN that.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can you recall how many cases, if any, that you were found qualified as an expert by a court somewhere on the matter of fabric impressions as distinguished from fabric damage?
A No, sir; I was qualified as an expert in many courts and in many cases throughout this country in that field.
Q What I asked was can you tell us how many cases were you qualified as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Here again, sir, you are asking for a number which I cannot give you. I don't keep records like that.
Q All right, could you tell me, please, the name of one case and what court that was that you were qualified, as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Sir, I couldn't even tell you the cases that I have just testified in Greenville recently. It's just something you don't remember. I don't.
Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A I'm finished.
Q Would I be correct in saying that you are unable to name any specific case or any specific court in which you were found to be a qualified expert in fabric impressions?
A That is correct, sir. I would have to go back to Washington, D.C., and go through all kinds of records just to try to find the cases I testified in.
Q On fabric impression. I am only asking you about one subject now.
A I know.
Q Well, how about -- you say you have been in Greenville since 1976, up to now. How many cases have you testified in Greenville as an expert on fabric impressions?
A I can't recall having one down there, sir. Most of these cases are in hairs and fibers.
Q Now, you told us as part of your direct examination that you have testified as a witness for the Warren Commission. In what subject did you testify or about what matter did you testify for the Warren Commission?
A In that case I testified to hairs, fibers, and if I recall correctly, there was a blanket involved in that one. which was used to cover the gun.
Q Would that be the matters you testified, then, about?
A To the best of my recollection; yes, sir.
Q I know I have used the word "testify" because I heard the Government attorney say that. Did you actually appear before the Commission and testify or did you just submit a written report which was given to the Commission?
A No, sir. I appeared before the Commission.
Q What year was that that you testified before the Warren Commission? 1965, would that be?
A It could be then, sir. I don't recall.
Q All right. Now, you have told us also that you taught a number of classes or courses between 1961, and the time you retired in 1976. Could you tell us, please, what were the courses you taught and give us an approximate year if you can, where it was and what subject?
A At George Washington University, I taught a course in hair and fiber examinations and identification in their graduate program toward their Master's Degree in Forensic Science.
Q I am sorry. Just to finish off that area, can you tell us approximately what year it was that you did that?
A It was two or three years before I retired in 1976. So, that would probably be about some time between 1974, and 1975, along in there.
Q And to whom was this course taught? Was it to other persons who were studying to be examiners in the FBI Laboratory?
A No, sir. It was taught to many of the special agents in the Laboratory attended this class. They had police officers with Bachelor Degrees that attended it. They had other college graduates that attended this course.
Q All right. How long did that course last that you taught on hairs and fibers?
A I believe I taught one or two evenings a week for a semester.
Q What other teaching experience did you have? If you could, again tell us where you taught it and what subject and approximately what year?
A I taught a similar course at the University of Maryland. It was not a graduate course. It was an adult education course.
Q You mean there in no university credit given for that course?
A I don't recall whether they gave credit for it or not.
Q And in what subject was that?
A That was hairs and fibers and also the collection and preservation of physical evidence.
Q Could you perhaps pinpoint for us when that was?
A That was shortly before my retirement, because they asked me to do it again the following year. And I was moving out of the area.
Q Was that at College Park or at one of the extension universities?
A No. It was at College Park in the Adult Education Building.
Q Any other courses you taught from 1961 to 1976, besides those two?
A Yes, sir. I lectured on hairs and fibers at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington, D.C.
Q And that was a lecture, what, to pathologists who were doing examinations in forensic pathology work that they were preparing themselves for?
A That is correct.
Q How long was that lecture that you gave there -- a week or a couple of days?
A No. They had what they called seminars which would last three to four days.
Q And you participated in such seminars in what years approximately?
A Approximately from about 1963, up until about 1974 or '75.
Q You did that what -- once or more a year?
A Once a year they put the program on.
Q I see. Were there any other courses you taught besides those three that you told us about?
A I presently teach classes in collection and preservation of evidence and homicide investigations at Greenville Tech in Greenville, South Carolina.
Q Is that a course that is open to the public, or is that specifically limited to police officers in the Greenville Police Department and in the South Carolina State Police?

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we OBJECT again on the basis that it should be more directly to the point on his qualifications.

THE COURT: Well, in the Court's view you have explored this man's qualifications quite sufficiently. Do you have any more questions?

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, indulge me for a second, please.

(Pause.)

MR. SEGAL: I have no further questions. But may Counsel see the Court, please?

THE COURT: Yes; come up.


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

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, we have no further objection that this witness be heard by the Court as a witness on hairs and fiber identification.
We think there is an inadequate basis to qualify him as an expert in the so-called area of fabric damage or fabric impressions. We can find nothing in the examination to support his claim of being a certified expert in those areas.
He can't name a single case where he has ever been accepted by any court as an expert in those areas. And absent such corroboration, it is generally vague and self-serving to call himself an expert in those matters. He has no academic training that he can point to. He says he read some FBI bulletin in that regard.
For those reasons, I would suggest most seriously that he should not be received in that area.
Secondly, I would say to Your Honor that his testimony indicates again the desirability of our being able to subpoena his personnel record in reference to that. Again, I would not in any way seek to embarrass this man in any kind of matters not related to his qualifications. I am not looking to do anything on that level.
But I do think when he is offered as a multi-faceted expert and where he is unable because of -- I suppose that the jury could decide that the poor man's memory just doesn't help him. We should be able to develop facts. Perhaps at a later time I would say we may go forward. But we could have the record down here very fast if the Court would agree that we are entitled and should be able in the interest of fairness to do this.
He represents, Your Honor, Dr. MacDonald's testimony to the grand jury. And his testimony represents the so-called new facts in this case. He is, as the Government has constantly told everyone, very important to their theory of this case. We must take the Government at face value. I think the Defendant in fairness ought to be able to find out something more about this man.
I will tell you that the other day, Your Honor, when Mr. Murtagh said that he went to the University of South Carolina and took his degree in chemistry, we discovered that he did not go to the University of South Carolina. We now know it is Furman.
We have been in no way able to get any information about his background and the extent of his expertise in these areas. And for that reason I would say, one, that we defer -- perhaps at least defer that, receiving testimony on fabric impressions; and two, permit us to renew our subpoena on his personnel record for the basis of checking his qualifications on that subject matter.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would oppose that. It is a delay and will do nothing more than totally interrupt the flow of this man's testimony -- all that is intertwined.
He testified on direct and cross that he has been an examiner in these areas since 1961. He has testified in excess of 300 cases throughout the United States in various courts and commissions. He has testified to torn and damaged -- the type of fabric stains that are in question.
Simply because he cannot tell you and name a particular case or a particular court does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that he has not so done that.
With respect to his personnel record, there has been nothing brought out on cross-examination or direct examination that indicates that would be helpful in any way.

THE COURT: I read this as what I consider any lawyer would want to do when you are pitting one expert against another; that is, to show if you can the inadequacy of this man's training and preparation so as to set up for contrast the man who will have more degrees than any thermometer you ever saw when you come along.
I read it all as that. My ruling is that this man will be qualified as an expert in hair fibers, fabric damage, stains and fabric impressions. The credibility and the probative force of his testimony will be for this jury to say.
If you come with a man who completely overshadows him and shows that what he said is worthy of no belief whatever, then congratulations to you. If you fail to do so, then too bad.
But as I see it, the man is qualified as an expert. I agree with you the fact that he couldn't name a case -- I can't tell you the names of the cases I tried last week in this Court. Some people don't remember those things.
But he says that he qualified in many courts in all of these areas. And I am going to hold that he is an expert, and the force and weight of his testimony, if any, will be for these people over here.

MR. SEGAL: What about my other request, Your Honor, for our subpoena, then, for his personnel file?

THE COURT: I won't interrupt this trial for that.

(Bench conference terminated.)


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

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this time we would renew our offer for this witness to be an expert in the field of hair, fibers, fabric impression, damage and stains.

THE COURT: Yes, the Court will so hold.


D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N (3:24 p.m.) (resumed)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, directing your attention to the month of June of 1971, did you have occasion to receive, sir, certain items of alleged physical evidence in the MacDonald case?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q From whom, if you recall, did you receive such items?
A The evidence was brought into the laboratory and delivered to me by Special Agent William Ivory for the Criminal Investigative Division of the U. S. Army.
Q Mr. Stombaugh, to the best of your memory, sir, approximately how many items did you receive at the FBI in June of 1971?
A If I might refer to my notes made at the time, I can tell you.
Q Yes, if that helps to refresh your recollection?
A Yes, sir. At that time, Special Agent Ivory brought 13 items in for examination.
Q What were they, if you would read them, sir?
A He brought two paring knives, an ice pick, child's clothing, a red and white pajama top, a red and white pajama bottom, a pair of child's panties, a child's undershirt. He also brought in the pajama bottoms and pajama top of an adult female, and a pair of child's panties, a child's nightgown, and a torn pajama top, and a pocket allegedly torn from the torn pajama top.
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me hand you Government Exhibit 312, and ask you, sir, if you have ever seen that particular item?
A Yes, sir, I have.
Q I'm sorry, that should be 311. Where did you first see it?
A This was brought in by Special Agent Ivory June 10, 1971.
Q Now, after you got it, what if any examination did you make with respect to it, and what were the results of that examination?
A I immediately marked it and examined it, made measurements of it, checked the sharpness of the blade.
Q Well, now, with respect to the sharpness of the blade, what did your examination reveal?
A The test cuts made with this knife revealed the blade to be rather dull, and the cuts in the test fabrics that I used were not sharp, clean cuts. They were more or less tearing cuts.
Q Speaking of test cuts, could you be more specific as to what you mean?
A Yes, sir; one of the examinations they had requested at the time was to determine whether any of these items ho brought in -- the two paring knives or the ice pick -- could have made the damage in the various items of clothing that he brought in.
In order to do this I had to make a microscopic examination of the various cuts and punctures in the items and compare them with known cuts and punctures I had made with the ice pick and the two paring knives.
Q Now, with respect to the measurements that you made of that knife, what did the measurements reveal as to the total length of the knife?
A This knife had a three-inch blade from the tip to the handle; was a half-inch thick in this area; and the handle itself in the longest portion of it was three and five-eighths inches in length.
Q Now, is this the Geneva Forge knife -- is that the one to which you are referring?
A Yes, sir.
Q Does the blade on it appear to be straight or a curved blade?
A When I received it the blade had a bend in it, such as it does now.
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me hand you Government Exhibit 313, ask you to take a look at it, and tell us whether or not you have ever seen it before?
A Yes, I have. My initials are on it.
Q And you saw it during this same time period, is that correct?
A Yes, this is another of the knives brought in by Special Agent Ivory.
Q What examinations if any did you conduct with respect to that particular knife, sir?
A I conducted the same type examination as I did on the Geneva Forge knife: made measurements of it, checked the blade for sharpness, and made test cuts with it.
Q Now, you say you checked the blade for sharpness. What did that check reveal?
A The sharpness of this blade was very sharp at the time. The cuts in the test fabrics I used were very clean and no tearing.
Q What were the measurements of that particular knife, if you recall, sir?
A This particular knife had a blade from the tip to the handle of three and three-sixteenths inches. And the handle itself was three and a half inches in length. The widest portion of the blade was five-eighths of an inch, and the blade has a heavy blade on it which measures one-sixteenth of an inch in thickness.
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me hand you Government Exhibit 312 and ask you to take a look at it, sir, and tell us whether or not you have ever seen it?
A Yes, sir; I have. This has my initials on it also.
Q You saw it during the same time, in that correct?
A This was brought in Special Agent Ivory, together with the knives and the other items I mentioned.
Q What examination, if any, did you conduct with respect to the ice pick?
A I made the standard measurements of it, and then I checked the blade point of it and made test cuts with it. I went a little further with this exhibit inasmuch as the blade varied in length and a microscopic examination was made of the pointed portion of the pick itself.
Q Did your examination reveal as to whether it was a round point on the end or what kind of a point it had?
A The examination revealed that approximately an inch to an inch and a half up from the point, the shaft is rather oval, rather than perfectly round. It varied from a very sharp point. A half inch in, it measured .080 inches; an inch in, .108 of an inch and it progressed and tapered up to near the hilt, where it measured one-eighth of an inch in diameter.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this time we would mark for identification Government Exhibit 263 and 264.

(Government Exhibit Nos. 263 and 264 were marked for identification.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me first hand you Government Exhibit 263 and ask if you can identify what that represents?
A Yes, sir. This in a photograph made of this ice pick.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, I would move this into evidence at this time.

(Government Exhibit No. 263 was received in evidence.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q If you would, sir, Mr. Stombaugh, you have talked about the oval shape of the ice pick. On that photograph, if you would, sir, point out the part to which you are referring.
A It would be approximately this area right in here (indicating).
Q Let me hand you Government Exhibit 264 and ask you if you can identify that photograph, sir?
A Yes, sir. This is a photograph of the other two paring knives I have identified.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, I would move this photograph into evidence as well.

THE COURT: Very well.

(Government Exhibit No. 264 was received in evidence.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q If you would, sir, using this photograph, I know that you have testified as to the difference in the two blades. Could you testify to that again using this photograph to illustrate what you are talking about for the jury?
A This knife has a blade that measures three inches from the tip down to this point. The handle of the knife measured from this point to here measured 3 5/8 inches. This measurement from here -- the width of this knife measured one half inch.
This knife has a blade 2 3/16 inches from here to here, the handle measuring 3 1/2 inches. This corner here down to here is 5/8ths of an inch. This blade is a much heavier blade than this blade; and this blade has a thickness of 1/16th of an inch.
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me hand you Government Exhibits 273 and 274, and ask you to take a look at them and tell us whether or not you have ever seen them before?
A Yes, sir, I have. They have my initials on both of them.
Q What is Government Exhibit 273, if you would hold whichever one that is up. Which one do you have in your hand?
A 274.
Q Okay, with respect to Government Exhibit 274, what is that, sir?
A These are the pajama bottoms of a child. They are the pajama bottoms that Special Agent Ivory brought into the laboratory on the 10th of June, 1971.
Q What did your examination reveal with respect to those, concerning cuts or holes?
A I found no cuts or puncture marks on this specimen.
Q With respect to Government Exhibit 273, what is that, sir?
A This is a child's pajama top which was brought in by Special Agent Ivory together with the bottoms on June 10, 1971.
Q What did your examination reveal with respect to the pajama top?
A After I examined the pajama top for cuts or punctures, on the front of the pajama top I found 18 cuts but no puncture holes and on the reverse side, I found 7 cuts, but no puncture holes.
Q So in other words, with respect to that particular exhibit, there were no puncture holes that you found in it at all; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now with respect to the 18 cuts which you found in the front, were you able to determine a range in the size of the cuts -- the cutting size?
A Yes, they varied in size, but I did determine they were made with a cutting instrument with a single cutting edge. The size varied -- the smallest was just a nick of a 1/8th inch up to and including 10/16th of an inch in length.
Q What did your examination reveal, if anything, with respect to the sharpness of the cuts, the cleanness of the cuts?
A The cuts were very clean, as if they had been made with a very sharp cutting blade.
Q Mr. Stombaugh, based upon your training and education and experience and your tests and examinations of the evidence thus far, and concerning those three weapons that you have examined -- you examined in 1971 -- do you have an opinion, sir, satisfactory to yourself as to whether or not any of those particular weapons could have caused the 18 cuts in the front of that particular pajama top?
A Yes, sir. This weapon here could have made these cuts.
Q Would you also pick up the weapon, which one you are referring to? Is that the Old Hickory knife or the Geneva Forge knife?
A This is the Old Hickory knife.
Q In your opinion, sir, could the Geneva Forge knife have made those cuts?
A In my opinion, I ruled out the Geneva Forge knife as having made these cuts because cuts made with this knife do not produce the clean edge cuts that were present in this garment when I examined it.
Q With respect to the seven cuts in the back of the pajama top of Kristen MacDonald, what was the range and size, sir, of those cuts?
A They ranged in size -- there was one nick 1/16 of an inch, and they went up to 1/2 inch.
Q Mr. Stombaugh, again, based on your training and experience and examination of the evidence, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to which, if any, of those three weapons could have caused the cuts -- the seven cuts on the back of that pajama top?
A Yes, sir, of the three weapons, the Old Hickory knife could have caused the damage to the back of this pajama top.
Q Would you point, sir, to the photograph as to which one you are referring to?
A It would be this knife here.
Q What about the Geneva Forge knife -- do you have an opinion as to whether or not that knife could have caused those cuts?
A In my opinion, it was very doubtful that that knife could have caused the cuts, due to the fact that the test cuts I made with it were not clean like the ones in the pajama top.
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me hand you Government Exhibit 275, ask you to take a look at it, and tell us whether or not you can tell us what it is?
A Yes, sir, this is a child's undershirt brought in by Special Agent Ivory along with the other items of evidence.
Q What examinations, if any, did you conduct with respect to that particular item?
A This particular item, they wanted to know if there were any cuts or punctures in the garment. I conducted that type of an examination.
Q What did your examination reveal with respect to the front of the undershirt?
A On the front of the undershirt I found seven punctures and three cuts. The cuts varied in length from 3/16 of an inch up to 1/2 inch.
Q What about with respect to the back of the tee-shirt?
A The back of the garment had four punctures and six cuts, ranging in length from 1/2 inch to 11/16 of an inch.
Q With respect to the front of the undershirt, do you have an opinion, sir, satisfactory to yourself as to what weapon of those three, if any, could have caused the punctures?
A Yes, sir; the puncture holes did not penetrate the full length of an ice pick. It was made by a very sharp pointed object; and of the three weapons that were brought in -- of the three, the ice pick could have made the puncture holes.
Q What about with respect to the puncture holes in the back?
A The same conclusion was reached.
Q With respect, sir, to the cuts in both the front and the back, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself, sir, as to which of the three weapons, if any, could have caused those cuts?
A Yes, sir, the Old Hickory paring knife could have caused these cuts. My conclusion was based on the sharpness of the cuts, the clean cuts made in the garment. In my opinion the Geneva Forge knife -- it's very doubtful if this made the cuts because of the dullness of the weapon itself.

THE COURT: Now, we will take our afternoon recess, and we will come back at 4:00 o'clock. Members of the jury, don't talk about the case.

(The proceeding was recessed at 3:45 p.m., to reconvene at 4:00 p.m., this same day.)


F U R T H E R P R O C E E D I N G S 4:00 p.m.

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

THE COURT: Any further questions of this witness?

MR. BLACKBURN: Yes, sir.

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


D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 4:01 p.m. (resumed)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, right before the break, I think you had just finished testifying to the puncture holes in the front and back of the undershirt that could have been made by one knife and not the other; is that correct?
A The cuts.
Q Cuts? I am sorry.
A Yes, sir.
Q And that was the Old Hickory knife; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, is it fair to say that after examining the two items: the undershirt and the pajama top, that the pajama top showed no punctures, but the undershirt did; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, I believe early on in your testimony you stated that you had also received a pair of pajama bottoms, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q That purportedly belonged to Colette MacDonald, by the number Q-8?
A Yes, sir.
Q What, if anything, did your examination of those pajama bottoms reveal, sir?
A I found no cuts or puncture marks on the pajama bottoms.
Q Did you observe anything else about the pajama bottoms in particular?
A Yes, sir. The elastic was torn loose in the waist area in the front. And they were heavily bloodstained from the knee area on down. There were numerous blood spatters in the upper area. And that was about the extent of my observation.
Q Was that on both legs?
A Both legs; yes, sir.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this time we would mark for identification Government Exhibit 597.

(Government Exhibit No. 597 was marked for identification.)

Your Honor, I would represent to the Court that the photographs on this chart have already been introduced into evidence.

THE COURT: Very well.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, I am going to hand you a red pen if I can, sir, and if you would, using your notes if you need to, fill in the appropriate blanks, the numbers -- the total numbers of punctures and cuts with respect to the items you have testified about: the pajama top and the T-shirt, using the columns on the left for the front and the columns on the right for the back.

(Witness complies.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, so the record would indicate, would you read again what you have written?
A On the front view of Exhibit 273, I have put zero punctures and 18 cuts. On the back view I have put zero punctures and seven cuts. On the front view of Exhibit 275 I have put seven punctures and three cuts, and on the back view of Exhibit 275, four punctures and six cuts.
Q If you would, sir, using that pen, would you draw a line with respect to the numbers and which weapon you testified they could have come from?

(Witness complies.)

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, I misspoke myself a moment ago. And I want to mark several photographs for identification at this time: Government Exhibit 591 through 595.

(Government Exhibits Nos. 591 thru 595 were marked for identification.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q First of all, sir, if you would, take a look at 591 through 594 and tell us whether or not you can identify those and what they are and what they represent?
A 591 is the same photograph as the front view of Exhibit 273. 592 is the same photograph as the back view of 273. 593 is the back view -- same photograph -- back view of Exhibit 275. And Exhibit 594 in the same photograph -- is a front view of Exhibit 275.
Q Let me hand you Exhibit 595 and ask you to take a look at it also and tell us whether or not you can identify it, sir?
A Yes, sir. This is a photograph of the adult pajama top delivered to me as allegedly being that of Colette MacDonald.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this point we would move Government Exhibits 597 and 591 through 595 into evidence.

THE COURT: Very well.

(Government Exhibits 597 and 591 through 595 were received in evidence.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me hand you Government Exhibit 270, ask you to take a look at it, sir, and tell us whether or not you can identify it.
A Yes, sir; this is the pajama top delivered to me by Bill Ivory as being the pajama top of Colette MacDonald.
Q What examination, if any, sir, did you conduct with respect to that pajama top?
A I examined the cuts and punctures in the pajama top and compared them with the weapons submitted.
Q Well, with respect to that pajama top, how many, if any, puncture holes did you determine were in the pajama top?
A You want a total or by section?
Q Well, why don't you do it first by section and then give us a total if you can?
A All right, sir. In the left front section, there were 19 punctures and 13 cuts.
Q Okay, with respect to other areas what did you determine?
A In the left sleeve area, there were two small cuts and eight punctures.
Q What about any other areas?
A In the right front area, there was one cut and in the right sleeve there were two cuts. In the back of this specimen I found no cuts, but three punctures.
Q With respect to the total number of punctures, in that pajama top that purportedly belonged to Colette MacDonald, how many did you find that could have been puncture holes?
A According to my calculation, a total of 30 punctures.
Q With respect to the cuts, how many did you find in total, sir?
A A total of 18.
Q Mr. Stombaugh, with respect to the puncture holes in the -- the 30 puncture holes -- based upon your examination of the weapons which you received, do you have an opinion, sir, satisfactory to yourself as to whether or not any of those three weapons could have made those puncture holes?
A Yes, sir; the puncture holes could have been made in Government's Exhibit C, the icepick --
Q (Interposing) That's Government Exhibit 312, I believe. Did your examination with respect to the puncture holes reveal anything as to the size of the hole?
A Yes; many of the holes appeared to have been rendered by the blade with the pick portion of the ice pick going all the way up to the hilt.
Q When you speak of the hilt, would you show us what you are talking about?
A It's this area up here (indicating).
Q In other words, it's your testimony that the puncture holes appeared to be made all the way by that entire length of the blade.
A The entire length of the blade; yes, sir.
Q With respect to the cuttings or the cuts on that pajama top, what, if anything, did your examination reveal an to whether or not they were sharp cuts or dull cuts or what?
A The cuts were made by a very sharp cutting instrument with a single cutting edge.
Q Well, based upon your examination and your analysis of the weapons, do you have an opinion, sir, satisfactory to yourself as to whether or not any of the three weapons which you received could have made those cuts in that pajama top?
A Yes, sir; in my opinion, comparing the test cuts made in the laboratory and examining the cuts in the pajama top, these cuts could have been made with the Old Hickory knife.
Q What is the basis for that opinion, sir?
A The cleanness of the cuts in the fabric itself.
Q Is that the same basis with respect to Kristen's clothing as well?
A That is correct.
Q What did your examination reveal with respect to the other weapon, the Geneva Forge knife?
A The other weapon -- the test cuts made produced dull cuts and, in my opinion, it would be extremely doubtful that the cuts could have been made with this weapon, the Geneva Forge knife.
Q Did your examination reveal anything with respect to the size of the cuts in the clothing?
A Yes, sir; these cuts ranged in size from an eighth of an inch up to an inch and a half.

MR. BLACKBURN: At this time, we would mark for identification Government Exhibit 598 which is a chart bearing the three photographs on the right side of that particular chart and a photograph which this witness has previously identified.

THE COURT: Very well.

(Government Exhibit No. 598 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, taking this black pen -- it may show up a little better -- would you fill in the total, sir, of the number of punctures and cuts that you found and after that, if you would, draw a line to the particular weapon to which you refer could have made those punctures and cuts?
A (Witness complies.)
Q For the record, sir, would you tell us what you have filled in the blanks with respect to punctures and cuts?
A I have filled in 30 punctures and 18 cuts.
Q And to where did you draw the line, sir?
A The 30 punctures I have drawn the line to Exhibit 312, the ice pick, and the cuts I have drawn the line to the Old Hickory knife, Exhibit 313.
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me hand you Government Exhibit 101 and ask you, sir, to take a look at it, and tell us whether or not you have ever seen it and can identify it.
A Yes, sir; this is the torn pajama top delivered to me with the other items in this case by Special Agent Ivory on June 10, 1971.
Q What examination in 1971, if any, did you conduct with respect to that blue pajama top? First, with respect to any holes that might appear in it.
A The request was to determine the number of holes and their locations, and they wanted the exhibit photographed, which I had photographed.
Q First with respect to the back of the pajama top, what, if anything, did your examination reveal with respect to the back, sir?
A The back of the pajama top I found a total of 17 puncture holes.
Q Okay, with respect to the back, do you have an opinion, sir, satisfactory to yourself as to what of the three weapons which you examined could have caused the 17 puncture holes in the back?
A Yes, sir; the puncture holes could have been caused by the ice pick.
Q With respect to the other portions of the blue pajama top, what did your examination reveal with respect to any other puncture holes?
A On the panel --
Q (Interposing) Which panel?
A I'm trying to interpret my notes on that, sir. It would be the right panel -- the right front panel -- found a total of 9 puncture holes. In the shoulder area of the right sleeve, I found a total of eight puncture holes, and in the opposite side of the right sleeve I found 13 additional puncture holes, and in the shoulder area of the left sleeve I found one puncture hole.
Q Where in the left sleeve area are you talking about, if you recall?
A It would be the upper area, near the shoulder.
Q When you were talking about the front panel, where on your body were you speaking of, sir?
A It would be easier if I found the holes.

MR. BLACKBURN: If we could have just a moment, sir.

(Pause)

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this time we would mark and move into evidence mannequin 1084.

(Government Exhibit No. 1084 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, using this tape, would you take just a moment to come down and put the pajama top on it and maybe you can better illustrate your testimony?

(Witness complies.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me ask you this question. During the time in 1971 that you examined that pajama top, at that time did you cause a numbering system to be given to any of the holes that you found in that?
A Yes, sir. Each puncture hole, I circled with a white marking pencil and gave it a number.
Q How many were the total number of puncture holes in that pajama top?
A I totaled 48.
Q With respect to the 48 puncture holes in that blue pajama top, do you have an opinion, sir, satisfactory to yourself, as to which of the three weapons, if any, could have caused these puncture holes?
A Yes, sir. The ice pick could have caused these puncture holes.
Q In the examination which you conducted, what, if anything, did you find out about the size of the holes?
A The holes varied slightly in size. The biggest holes measured at that time 1/8th of an inch across, which conforms to the width of this blade at the hilt.
Q In other words, it is your testimony that some of the holes could have been made by the ice pick going into the hilt; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now if you would, sir, come down, maybe using the pointer, turning the mannequin and this pajama top around, point out to the jury where the puncture holes are located on that pajama top. First, maybe, with respect to the back.
A On the back, this area here and here over in this area.
Q Okay, there were a total of 17 in the back; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q If you would, air, turn maybe the mannequin around so they can see where the other puncture holes were found.

MR. SEGAL: Could I make a suggestion? Perhaps put the mannequin up on the witness pedestal so we could all sit down and the jury could see it, and we could have a better view of it.

THE COURT: Can you lift it up there, Mr. Stombaugh?

(Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Is that better?

MR. SEGAL: Fine, thank you.

THE WITNESS: On the outside of the right sleeve area, there were eight puncture holes. Up in this area on the underside of the sleeve area, and up along the seam area right in around here, in this area in particular, there were 13 additional puncture holes.
There were no puncture holes in the front left panel. I believe I have covered the front right panel.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q With respect to the front right panel, what did your examination reveal with respect to either punctures or cuts there, sir?
A There was a 5/8th inch long tearing cut.
Q Where is that located?
A Right here.
Q For the record, would you say where "here" is?
A It would be --
Q (Interposing) About how far from the bottom of the pajama top?
A I would estimate approximately five inches, and approximately, maybe, eight to ten inches from the torn --
Q Other than that particular cut which you just described, what other punctures or cuts did you find on the right panel -- the front panel of the pajama top?
A I found nine punctures up in this area.
Q What about, sir, with respect to the area of the right breast -- that would be on the right panel of the pajama top -- what did you find, sir?
A In the area of the right breast?
Q Yes, sir.
A The only thing I found in this entire area up here, which would include the area of the right breast, would be puncture holes.
Q No cuts?
A No cuts.
Q Continue then, please.
A All right, as I mentioned, there were no punctures on the left front panel, and the only puncture in the left torn sleeve was located right here.
Q Where is "here," sir?
A Best as I can describe it, sir, it would be to the back of the arm right at the shoulder.
Q With respect to the left sleeve -- the whole left sleeve: what if anything did your examination reveal with respect to cuts or punctures, first with respect to punctures in the left sleeve, besides the one you just testified about?
A I found no holes or cuts in the left sleeve, with the exception of that hole, number 48, which I described as being up the shoulder and in the back.
Q Now, you have already testified to 48 puncture holes and one cut, I believe, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q What other cuts, if any, on the pajama top did your examination reveal?
A There was one small tearing cut in the upper left back shoulder area -- this area right here.
Q Were there any other cuts on the left sleeve besides the one you have already testified about?
A No, sir, I didn't find any.
Q Now, Mr. Stombaugh, based upon your examination of the cuts in the pajama top and your analysis of the weapons, do you have an opinion, sir, satisfactory to yourself as to which of the three weapons, if any, could have caused those cuts?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q What in that opinion?
A From the test cuts made in the laboratory, the two cuts on his pajama top could have been made by the Geneva Forge knife, the dull knife.
Q What about the Old Hickory, the sharp knife?
A Well, here again it could have, but it is doubtful because these cuts aren't clean; they are more or less tearing cuts.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this time I would mark for identification Government Exhibit Number 600.

THE COURT: Very well.

(Government Exhibit No. 600 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me hand you this first, and ask you if you can identify it?
A Yes. That is a photograph of the inside of the back panel of this pajama top.
Q If you would, sir, these circles -- what do they represent?
A These circles were the ones I made around the punctures. And each circle has a number whereby I numbered each puncture.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, let me mark for identification Government Exhibit 600(b).

THE COURT: Very well.

(Government Exhibit 600(b) was marked for identification.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me hand you this and ask if you can tell us what it is?
A Yes, sir. This in an enlargement of a certain area on that pajama top taken from the inside.
Q These are what -- puncture holes?
A These are puncture holes; yes, sir.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this time we would mark Government Exhibit 601(a).

(Government Exhibit 601(a) was marked for identification.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me hand you this Exhibit and ask you if you can tell us what it is?
A Yes, sir. That is a view of the right sleeve of the pajama top.
Q Now, what portion of this is this right here?
A That is up in the shoulder area.
Q And these represent what?
A They represent puncture holes.
Q On the right shoulder area of the pajama top, how many puncture holes did you find in total?
A A total of 21.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, I would mark for identification Government Exhibit 602(a).

(Government Exhibit 602(a) was marked for identification.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, let me hand you this and ask you if you can identify it, sir?
A Yes, sir. That is the inside portion of the panel of the pajama top.
Q Now, if you would, stand up and unbutton your coat and when you talk about that, what part are you talking about?
A Well, the garment was turned inside out, because I put my markings on the inside. So, if you take the coat off, you have to turn it inside out. So, the portion I am talking about is the right side of it.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would mark Government Exhibits 600 and 602.

(Government Exhibits 600 and 602 were marked for identification.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, I hand you these, and ask whether you can identify them?
A Yes, sir. These are photographs of the front right panel and the back panel of the pajama top.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, with respect to the photographs we have marked, we would move those into evidence.

THE COURT: Very well.

(Government Exhibits 600, 600(b), 601(a), 602 and 602(a) were received in evidence.)

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this time we would mark for identification Government Exhibit 966 which again is a similar chart. It has the three photographs of the weapons on the right-hand side, and two black and white photographs which the witness has just identified.

(Government Exhibit 966 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, if you would, sir, taking the black grease pen, fill in the appropriate blanks there, if you would, and draw lines after you have done so to the weapons that could have caused those cuts or punctures.
A Do you want the total of punctures, sir, or just the --
Q (Interposing) If you would, just put the total number of punctures and the total number of cuts.

(Witness complies.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q If you would, sir, for the record, please tell us what you have done.
A I have put a total of two cuts and drew an arrow to the Geneva Forge knife, Exhibit 311. I put 48 punctures and drew an arrow to the icepick, Exhibit 312.
Q Now, Mr. Stombaugh, when you received this pajama top in 1971, in what condition was it, sir? Was it all together or was it in a torn condition?
A It was in the torn condition as you see it now.
Q What examination, if any, did you do with respect to the pajama top to determine the manner in which it was torn or could have been torn?
A That was another of the questions that was posed, if we could determine how the pajama top could have been torn in this condition.
Q If you would, sir, if you would maybe put the mannequin back up before you start the rest of your answer and show us to illustrate your testimony what you are talking about?
A They wanted to know if we could determine the manner in which the pajama top suffered the torn damage; in other words, from what area the force originated.
Q Okay. And what did your examination reveal, sir?
A The nature of the tears indicated that the pajama top was grabbed here and pulled down.
Q (Interposing) Again, where is "where"?
A This would be the left portion of the yoke in the front and pulled down in a way that would tear down here, and also pull this seam and tear this seam.
Q (Interposing) Which seams are you referring to?
A I am talking about the left sleeve now. Tear the left shoulder and sleeve down.
Q Now, you say --
A (Interposing) Well, this is assuming that it is being worn. And this is also assuming that the garment is stationary and the force is exerted this way.
Now, if someone grasps this here and an individual wearing this garment spun to his right, you would get a similar tearing action.

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, I move to strike all this testimony. There is no evidence whatsoever of anything at all that this man has assumed to be a fact in this case.

THE COURT: I will OVERRULE that objection.

MR. SEGAL: May we have an appropriate instruction, Your Honor, that the assumptions that they are based upon -- I suppose some time the Government is going to provide some facts to support them. And he has made a calculation here, sir.

THE COURT: Don't argue your case. Do you want to be heard on this? If so, come up.

MR. SEGAL: Certainly, Your Honor.


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

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, we are getting to the point now where the motion that we have made, the memoranda that we have submitted are appropriate. This man is now testifying an to a hypothetical fact for which there is no basis in the record.
Now, every case that I know of, every rule of law that I know says that, you know, when an expert gives an opinion, if it is not based on facts in this case, there is no standing for it. Now, he said, "assume he was this way and assume he was that way" -- well, assuming I could fly around the room, so what. What has that got to do with this case?
There must be a factual foundation for his testimony, Your Honor. I don't understand how we can have him stand here --

THE COURT: The reason I let it stand is because I thought his answer was favorable to you.

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, I --

MR. BLACKBURN: There is already testimony in evidence that the Defendant was wearing a blue pajama top that night. There is evidence that he said it was ripped or torn in the living room. This witness has said -- this was in 1971, this examination. The reconstruction did not take place until four years later in 1974. We are not anywhere close to reconstruction --

THE COURT: Well, you just asked him how -- If he had an opinion as to how -- he says, well, it could have been either way.

MR. BLACKBURN: He said it could have been one or two ways.

THE COURT: I don't see how it hurts you at all.

MR. SEGAL: He makes the assumptions -- where did the assumptions come from?

MR. BLACKBURN: Where the pajama top was on.

THE COURT: I know; I hear what you say about assumptions, but how does it hurt you? That is what I don't see.

MR. SEGAL: My feeling is, Your Honor, that having read this witness' testimony, his assumptions lead him nowhere but into deep water, and I don't intend to join him in that deep water.

THE COURT: Yes, you will; if he ever gets in there, I guarantee you will hold his head under for three days.

MR. SEGAL: That's possible, Your Honor. Maybe we would be better off without his assumptions, Judge.

MR. BLACKBURN: He has been qualified as an expert.

THE COURT: Proceed with your questioning.

(Bench conference terminated.)


BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, if you would, move the sleeve; I can't see you. Have you completed your answer with respect to the tearing of the pajama top?

THE COURT: Now the jury can't see him.

MR. BLACKBURN: Why don't you put it back down on the table, if you don't mind.

THE COURT: He's got Ms. Barbour sewed up now.

MR. BLACKBURN: Maybe I have a solution.

THE COURT: Let it take a recess.

(Pause.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Mr. Stombaugh, had you completed your answer with respect to the tearing of the pajama top?
A Yes, sir, with the exception, if it was not being worn it could be torn like this (indicating) -- pulled apart.
Q Did your examination reveal anything with respect to whether it was torn in the back area?
A No, sir, it was just down the left side area, down the left side sleeve, and down the front from the yoke down.
Q Now, Mr. Stombaugh, in 1971, what analysis or examination did you conduct with respect to any of the stained areas on the pajama top? And for this you are going to have to put it back up.
Let me back up one question, Mr. Stombaugh, if we could. with respect to the puncture hole areas -- the 48 puncture hole areas to which you have testified -- what examination of those holes if any did you make with respect to whether or not they were stationary or non-stationary?
A In examining the puncture holes, we noted there was no tearing. The holes were clean, and it was my conclusion that the holes had been placed into this garment while the garment itself was in a stationary condition.

MR. SEGAL: Do we have any basis for the Witness' opinion, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Well. he just gave it.

MR. SEGAL: We just got his opinion. I wanted to hear if it would be appropriate at this time to hear the basis of that opinion.

THE COURT: Tell him the basis again. I thought I heard one, but tell him again.

THE WITNESS: Had the garment been in motion when a sharp instrument was stuck into it, the holes would not be perfectly symmetrical like they are. There would be tearing of the yarns in the area from the force of the garment being moved.
I found no such tearing and therefore concluded that the garment itself was stationary at the time the punctures were made.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q Now would you assume, sir, that the pajama top was around an individual's wrists, like that. The pajama top was folded around his wrists, and he was moving his wrists. Do you have an opinion, sir, satisfactory to yourself, an to whether any holes placed in the pajama top at that time would have been stationary or non-stationary?
A Well, if he was moving his wrists like this, there would be tearing in these holes. If he was holding it perfectly still like this, not moving anything and the thrusts were straight into it, then you would get a similar hole.
Q Now your opinion with respect to the stationary holes, is that with respect to one ice pick puncture hole or with respect to all 48?
A No, that is with respect to all 48. I found no tearing in any of the holes.
Q Okay. Now, if you would, sir, maybe place it back up on the stand a little bit higher so everyone can see. Now, what examination, if any, did you conduct with respect to the bloodstained areas on that pajama top?

THE COURT: Let me suggest, Mr. Stombaugh, if you can give your testimony from a standing position for these next six and a half minutes. You probably will be able to be seen better by the jury. Just stand there. Now everybody has a full view.

THE WITNESS: The next question the CID wanted answered was whether or not this pajama top was torn before or after bloodstains were placed on it. In examining the torn areas to determine this, you look for a stain that has been placed on an object and then torn through.
The contours of the edges would be the same. We found stained areas where such had occurred. In other words, there had been some blood on the stain on the pajama top prior to its being torn and then torn through. These areas were up here in the left shoulder and down the sleeve area down at the cuff, and the cuff area, and in the left seam.
These stains had been placed on there and then later on more blood added, but the stains were heavier and were easily visible at the time of examination.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q I wonder, sir, if in the remaining five minutes that we have if you could maybe move the little table over here in front of the jury and maybe take the pajama top off the mannequin, or leave it on, whichever is best, and point out the areas to which you are referring.

(Witness complies.)

MR. BLACKBURN: Maybe the jury could stand up.

THE WITNESS: I am going to have to locate them first, Mr. Blackburn.

(Pause.)

THE WITNESS: One of the stains is located right here. It in a continuation. There is a larger stain on this side. Here is a small stain that was on there before it was torn.

MR. SEGAL: Could we have some identification for the record about what we are talking about, please?

MR. BLACKBURN: Yes, Mr. Segal. Would you point out, Mr. Stombaugh, when you say "here," say where "here" is.

THE WITNESS: Here is in the cuff area of the left sleeve slightly up from the cuff area, I would say 2 to 3 inches. Up about 5 inches above that is another one, and then up in the shoulder area in this area here you can see a continuation of the stain from this portion which would be the left portion of the sleeve to the back portion where it was torn through. I found another area. This stain continues --

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q (Interposing) Before you start, for the record tell us.
A This is on the left side seam between the front left panel and the left side of the back panel.
Q Okay, if you would, point out to the jury where it is?
A The continuation of this stain here, the heavier stain, and it comes around to here. At the time I examined it, I put some white marks an it, and another stain is just below that near the base of the stain and is a continuation of this stain here.
Q So it is your testimony that the blood got on the pajama top in those areas prior to its being torn; is that correct?
A That is correct.

THE COURT: Is this a good stopping place?

MR. BLACKBURN: It is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, we will let the jury retire then to come back tomorrow morning at 9:30.
Have a good night, a safe trip home and back. We will see you at 9:3O and remember all the things that you can't do and don't do them. Have a good night.

(Jury exits at 4:58 p.m.)

MR. BLACKBURN: As we indicated at the conference before the court began, we have some pictures to give to you for your review, which we will do in about five or ten minutes. You remember?

THE COURT: I know what you are talking about. What about five or ten minutes?

MR. BLACKBURN: We are going to get them for you in about five minutes. I knew you left the building soon.

THE COURT: Well, fortunately I don't have another court engagement this afternoon so I will give you five minutes.

MR. BLACKBURN: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Bring them to the office; will you?

MR. BLACKBURN: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Take a recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.

(The proceeding was adjourned at 5:00 p.m., to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, August 8, 1979.)

 

 

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