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 10, 1979: Shirley Green, FBI Lab

 

F U R T H E R P R O C E E D I N G S 9:00 a.m.

THIS CAUSE came on for further trial before The Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., United States Chief District Judge, and a jury, on Friday, August 10, 1979, at Raleigh, North Carolina.

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

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. There was some matter, and the jury is not here, and I forgot what it was. Has it blown over?

MR. MURTAGH: No, sir.

MR. SEGAL: I believe where we left the matter yesterday, is I had asked the witness to use the probe in regard to certain marked locations on the pajama top. The Government objected.
By the way, for purposes of legal argument, I think it might be more appropriate -- so I can discuss what my intentions were in examination -- that we do it without the witness being present in the courtroom. I note Ms. Green is present.

THE COURT: All right; step outside, Ms. Green. We will get you in a minute.

MR. SEGAL: It is not personal, Ms. Green.

THE COURT: She is no longer an amateur witness. She has had her day in court for the first time ever.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, Mr. Segal's recollection is a little different from mine. The way I read the transcript, it was the ice pick that was going to be inserted through a hole. If we are talking about a probe that she has inserted on a previous occasion through a particular hole, we have no problem.

THE COURT: Is that what you meant?

MR. SEGAL: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We are settled -- the probe. Bring the TGIF Club in.

(Jury enters at 9:03 a.m.)


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

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen -- the meeting of the TGIF Club. Members of the jury, for your general information -- and I try to pass these things along -- because the trial has run somewhat longer than the Court expected it to -- but the matter, as you well recognize, is of considerable importance to all the parties, and the Court likes to give everybody a chance to have his or her say, as the case may be.
But I am informed -- I have some information -- that the Government will conclude its case today -- likely will conclude its case today. Whether there will be evidence for the Defendant -- and the extent of the Defense case, of course, remains to be seen -- but it is not anticipated, in any event, that it will be quite so time-consuming as the Government's case has been.
For those of you who have regular employment and so forth, you perhaps should be informed that under the most recent amendments to the Juror Act, you are fully protected in your employment and no sanctions whatever can be used against anyone for service on a jury, so that any such indication by an employer or anyone of any displeasure or unhappiness with your jury service must be immediately dismissed so that all jurors in the performance of this vital, essential service in the administration of justice -- that comes first under the Juror Act. Every juror is completely protected from any such sanction or other action.
All right; we have a witness, I believe, on the stand. Let her come back. You did have some additional questions, Mr. Segal, of this witness?

MR. SEGAL: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well. Come back to the stand, Ms. Green.

(Whereupon, SHIRLEY GREEN, the witness on the stand at the time of recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:)


C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N 9:07 a.m. (resumed)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Good morning, Ms. Green.
A Good morning.
Q When we adjourned yesterday, I had asked you to look at the blue pajama top in regard to certain holes. Do you recall that we were talking about number four yesterday?
A Yes.
Q By the way, just as a preliminary, I should ask you, have you spoken to anybody about your testimony yesterday between the time you left court and came back this morning?
A No, sir.
Q Now, that pajama top has a series of holes, all circled with some kind of white material, and also with numbers written next to them in white. Who did that? Do you know?
A Mr. Stombaugh.
Q And as far as you know, what are those circles supposed to represent?
A They are supposed to represent the puncture holes that were in the pajama top.
Q Were the knife or thrust holes also circled or marked by him? Do you know?
A I don't recall. They may have been.
Q If he had marked the thrust holes or knife holes, would they be marked the same way, with a circle and a number next to them?
A I don't remember specifically on the pajama top; but on one item, they were in rectangles, I believe, for the knife marks.
Q Well, suffice it to say that when you were trying to work at your little experiment, you were looking at the circled holes, and the ones that had the numbers next to them; is that right?
A Yes.
Q Those were the ones you felt confident in your mind that Mr. Stombaugh had identified as being puncture holes; is that right?
A That is right.
Q Again, we are looking at the outside of the back of this garment. Let me exhibit to the jury for the moment where there is a circle within the center of what appears to be a hole.
Now, have I correctly described the fact that this white circle has at the center of it a hole with a number 4 next to it?
A Yes, sir; but the other side is different.
Q Yes, we will come to that in a second.
I just want to borrow one of these little probes if I may, and I was asking you yesterday if you could put the probe through the hole that it is in the center of 4?
A No, sir, because this is the number 4 hole over here.
Q Well, but let's hold one second. First of all, the hole that appears in the center of number 4 you say now is not a hole through which you could put a probe?
A That is correct; it seems like this side is either -- is in error -- put on later than the other side.
Q Well, now, wait a minute; I am not sure I understand what you are saying. What is it that was put on in error on this garment at a later time?

MR. SEGAL: Mr. Murtagh, would you mind sitting down, please?

THE WITNESS: Well, the holes were marked originally by Mr. Stombaugh, the puncture holes.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Yes, ma'am?
A And I would say that the other side was probably put on later, trying to line them up on the opposite side, and probably put on thinking that was the right one, and realizing it wasn't.
It sort of goes around to the other one, too, I believe.
Q Well, that leaves me somewhat confused. First of all, I thought that you are the person -- you told us that you are not the person who made these little circles and numbered these holes?
A I didn't make the examinations of the holes or make the circles.
Q So that this is not your writing when it says number 4 next to any given hole, is that right?
A That's right.
Q And these are not your circles in white that are marked here on this garment, is that right?
As far as you know, you don't have any personal knowledge -- as far as you know, you assume that Mr. Stombaugh did that?
A Yes.
Q Now, all the explanation you are giving us now is nothing that you ever saw or learned personally yourself, isn't that right?
A Well, it was pointed out by Mr. Stombaugh that that one hole was the hole. I believe that before I left here I realized that there are a few tiny puncture holes in there due to thumbtacks that were put in there when some photographs were made.
Q Did you put a thumbtack in this garment and then circle it with a number 4 and say that is a puncture hole?
A No; I did not.
Q How many numbers -- how many circled number holes are there in this garment?
A 48.
Q That is circled as number 4, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Now, if you tell me that that is not a puncture wound, allegedly or suspiciously made by something like an ice pick, then you are telling us what: there are only 47 holes on the outside of this garment and not 48?
A No, sir; I -- the number, I believe -- well, on the other side were the ones that originally were put on. That one was -- in trying to locate the same holes on the other side, I think they were put on again. I don't know at what time.
Q Apparently it was put on, possibly, what appears to be the thumbtack hole?
A Well, it is right near the other one. He may have just circled the wrong one; I don't know.
Q Well, now, Ms. Green, when he was making the circle around number 4, he had that garment ostensibly laid out flat like this so he could see it and write, isn't that correct?

MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q As far as you know, were any of the numbers that appear on the outside of the garment written by Mr. Stombaugh while he was looking at the inside of the garment?
A I do not know.
Q How would you, based upon your 28 years of working on this kind of matter, assume or conclude how the outside numbers were written on it -- written on it with the garment down like this, or in some other kind of obscure fashion?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q How were the numbers put on as far as you know?

THE COURT: I believe she answered that. I believe she -- didn't you say you weren't present at the time they were made --

THE WITNESS: That's right; I don't know.

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, I move to strike all of her answer before as to what she assumed Mr. Stombaugh did. It was not responsive to my question; but if we are going to let it stand, then I wish to be permitted to follow up the same line.

THE COURT: Ask your next question.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Have you worked with other garments with Mr. Stombaugh that had any marks and numbers for the purpose of identification of holes, marks, bullet holes, thrust marks?
A I don't recall; I didn't work directly for Mr. Stombaugh -- except in this case.
Q I'm sorry; I didn't mean to cut you off.
A Only in a few cases, mainly this case.
Q Well, have you worked with other members of the same position in the FBI who had occasion to mark the garments for holes, indicate them so that they could then do some experiment and tests with them?
A Yes.
Q What is the procedure that you have experienced when being given garments that have been marked with holes; how is it done, please?
A By looking at the holes and marking them.
Q Right, something akin to laying it down, finding a hole, putting a marker on it and a number, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And where was the suspect or unknown hole put beside these circles -- was it put at the edge or was the hole put in the center and surrounded by the white circle?
A In the center.
Q Right; seems like a logical procedure, right?
A Yes.
Q Now, on this garment you have number 4 with a hole directly in the center of it. That is from looking at the outside of the garment, is that right?
A Yes, but I am sure he realized that that was the wrong one after he circled it and didn't erase it.
Q You say he must have realized it? Do you know whether in fact he realized it?
A Well, I know he has pointed out that hole -- not in the circle on the one side, but in the circle on the other side -- as being the puncture hole.
Q But let us talk about the outside. We will come to the inside for sure. Do you know any reason why either you or he did not put another circle around here and say 4.1 or give it another number or whatever happened?
A No, sir; I guess he just didn't think it was important at the time. He knew what it was.
Q How about yourself; didn't you think it was important at the time?
A I don't remember thinking about it.
Q Would it not be consistent with good FBI laboratory procedures that you were familiar with to circle a thrust cut, bullet hole or other mark in the garment you were examining, so that you could know what number you were referring to, what item you were referring to at a later time in court testimony or other proceedings?
A Well, we knew what it was and we had looked at it so many times we didn't -- probably didn't think about it. I don't know.
Q Well, I understand that is your answer. Now, I am asking you in reflection, would it have not been consistent with proper FBI laboratory procedures to have circled that independently with another circle around that, and say, "That is 4.1"?
A That might have been a good idea.
Q As a matter of fact, you have had occasion before where some other agent had marked the garment and you have discovered something more, and you have, in fact, with circles and indicating marks on those garments and fabrics; you have done that, haven't you, Ms. Green?
A Yes.
Q But you have no reason or explanation in this case as to why, although there is a hole in the center of number 4, that you did not mark this other cut, thrust, or other mark here that appears on the -- I guess on the periphery of number 4?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. It seems to the Court that the questions being directed to this witness might more properly be or have been directed to the person who allegedly did the marking. That is Mr. Stombaugh. I think you have explored this about far enough with this witness.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Now, Ms. Green, on the other side of this fabric, is it not correct that on the inside that each and every one of the holes has been marked similarly; that is, with a circle around it and with an identifying number?
A Yes.
Q Now, can you find a single other hole which does not match up on the inside with exactly the same cut, puncture, or thrust mark that is on the outside?
A I would have to look through all of them.
Q Yes, please take your time and do that.

(Pause.)

THE COURT: Is counsel willing to represent that she won't find one?

MR. SEGAL: My examination does not show me, Your Honor, but I don't hold myself out to be an expert.

THE COURT: You will accept that; won't you?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: He says that.

THE WITNESS: I am sure there won't be one.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q All right, now, on the inside of this particular garment where there should be a comparable circle and number 4 indicating this hole -- this round hole -- on the inside we find that the round hole is not marked but there is some other kind of cut that is marked; is that right? That's 4.
A Yes; we just never changed -- just never recircled it.
Q Now, will you please describe to us, if you can, the size and dimensions of this number 4 from the inside, and I'll be glad to lend you a glass if that will help at all.
A Well, it is elongated.
Q Will this help at all, Ms. Green? And let me offer you a ruler.

THE COURT: While you are doing that, can the witness tell us which one is the one that you were working with and which one is the one that you say was circled in error? Is it the inside one or the outside one?

THE WITNESS: The one that is marked on the inside.

THE COURT: That is the one that you worked with?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q The reason that you did not work with the one that is marked on the outside is because your steel probe did not fit through it; isn't that right, Ms. Green?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me offer you a steel ruler which is marked both in centimeters and inches and, if you would, please, be good enough.
A It appears to be about an eighth of an inch long.
Q An eighth of an inch long. Can you tell us anything else about the shape of it? You say an eighth of an inch long.
A I never made examinations of the holes themselves.
Q I understand that. If you could, I would appreciate it if you would give us a little bit further description of that hole.
A It's an elongated hole.
Q That would roughly be a vertical-type mark; is that right?
A Yes.
Q Now, do you know, based upon any scientific examination that you made, that that is not a thrust mark made with something like a knife, as opposed to have been made a puncture hole with something like an ice pick?
A I didn't make the examinations of the holes. I only did the alignment of the holes.
Q You have no way of knowing, then, whether number 4, as seen from the inside, is one eighth of an inch vertical mark. You don't know whether that is a puncture mark that is made by something like an ice pick or is a mark made by the point or thrust of a knife; is that your testimony?
A I would trust Mr. Stombaugh's opinion that it was a puncture hole that could have been made by the ice pick.
Q I'm sorry?
A It could have been made by the ice pick.
Q Just based upon your examination sitting there right now, is it perfectly clear that it could also have been made by the cutting front edge of a knife?
A No.
Q Do you find a single other puncture hole on this garment that is that length and has a vertical aspect to it like the one that I just pointed to you, number 4, from the inside?
A I don't recall seeing any others like that.
Q You mean you don't recall seeing another hole in that pajama top which bore the same characteristics as 4 from the inside there; is that right?
A That's right --
Q (Interposing) You have never --
A Not in shape.
Q Beg your pardon?
A Not in the exact shape.
Q Not in the exact shape. Of course, you didn't do any experiments with either an ice pick or a paring knife to decide whether or not, I mean, what the shape of the hole should be. And, of course, if that turns out, number 4 from the inside, to be, in fact, a rendering of the garment made with a knife as a puncture hole, then your demonstration that you have put 48 puncture holes into 28 [sic] puncture holes is not quite exactly correct; is that right?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q You would have then put probe holes through 47 puncture holes and one knife hole if that hole number 4 from the inside is not a puncture hole?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: I have no reason to doubt that it isn't a puncture hole.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q That's because you are relying on Mr. Stombaugh; is that right?
A That's right.
Q How many times did you say you worked with Mr. Stombaugh prior to this case?

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT.

MR. SEGAL: She volunteered before, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, you want to hear it again?

MR. SEGAL: No, I --

THE COURT: (Interposing) We do everything in duplicate, so tell us. That's two or three times; wasn't it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q I'm sorry, Ms. Green. I didn't hear your answer.
A Yes.
Q I wanted to know how many times that went on. That was not my question.
A Two or three times.
Q Two or three times?
A Directly with him on cases; yes.
Q When you say "directly with him," you mean those were only two or three cases where you had any contact with him on a professional level. You may have seen him in the building before.
A Several times with one phase or another on cases. Numerous times, I suppose. But I didn't work for him -- directly with him.
Q Did you ever seen any memorandum written by Mr. Stombaugh in which he said, "I have made a mistake on marking number 4 on the inside and number 4 on the outside; there's some difference there that should be corrected." Did you ever seen such a memorandum?
A No.

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What was your answer?
A No, sir.
Q Did you yourself ever make a written memorandum indicating there was some mistake between number 4 on the outside and number 4 on the inside?
A No, sir; we knew what the numbers were -- the right ones.
Q Now, you made no microscopic examination of any of those holes -- number 4 or any of the other holes; is that right?
A That's right.
Q You did not know at the time you were making your little experiment with the probes whether the holes that you were sticking the probe holes through were entry holes or exit holes; isn't that correct?
A That's correct. I believe Mr. Stombaugh made that examination. It was not possible to be sure whether they were or were not.
Q Well, just for the purpose of clarifying for the record, it is often possible to tell, when looking at a garment that has been penetrated with a bullet going through it, a knife, some kind of cutting instrument, it is often possible -- is it not -- by microscopic examination to tell which side, say, the bullet went in and which side the bullet came out?
A That's correct.
Q Is that because of the way the fibers lay after the impact of the knife or the bullet or whatever has gone through; isn't that right?
A That's correct.
Q And also because you can tell from the way the warp and the woof of the fibers has been cut -- which has been an entry and which has been an exit wound.
A From the fibers around the hole, you can tell.
Q Yes, the fibers around the hole and the way they have been cut and the way they sundered each other.
A That's right.
Q Now, did Mr. Stombaugh ever give you, so that you could work with it when you were preparing your demonstration, a report as to whether or not he actually did combine any entry or exit holes?
A I believe he concluded that he couldn't be sure; that some had the appearance of exit and some had the appearance of entrance -- but it had been a time since it was found at the scene to the time that he examined it to be positive in this.
Q Did Mr. Stombaugh give you that report in writing?
A I don't recall. I think that one of the reports mentioned that it could not be determined for sure whether they were exit or entrance holes. I don't remember the date of the report.
Q Well, have you looked at the reports that you were given or examined prior to testifying here in court today?
A Have I seen the report?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q Do you have one with you that you could look at to refresh your recollection as to whether or not he identified any holes as being possible exit holes or entry holes?
A No; I don't have a copy of the report.
Q Do you recall reading anything Mr. Stombaugh wrote that indicated there were possibly five exit holes, but he was not absolutely sure about it?
A It seems like he said there were possibly five exit and six entrance or vice-versa. I don't recall for sure.
Q But he also indicated that he was not certain that those were the holes; is that right -- exit and entry holes?
A Yes; he would not say that they were for sure. They just had that appearance.
Q They microscopically had that appearance?
A Yes.
Q Did you attempt in your experiment in putting these probes through to make sure that you arranged the holes in this various fashion, to see whether the six that he suspected might be entry and the five that he suspected might be exit holes lined up in a fashion that was consistent with exit and entry holes?
A Yes; I believe I did.
Q And which ones are they?
A I don't recall.
Q Where are your notes in that regard?
A I did not make any notes. I just had the information at the time when I first read it, and they seemed consistent.
Q Just tell us today, which numbered holes did you work with, believing they were entry holes?

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT. I think the witness testified she did not recall.

THE COURT: If the witness recalls, I will let her answer the question.

THE WITNESS: To my recollection, hole number six was an exit hole; and I believe hole number 14 -- that is going from the inside of the fabric to the outside of the fabric. Hole number six, hole number 14, hole number 20 -- but that is all that comes to my mind.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did you not write those down with the rest of the numbers that were supposedly or possibly entry and exit numbers?
A I think I may have written down those three.
Q What about the others?
A No.
Q You did not try to accommodate your experiment to the other holes either, did you?
A I did make a recollection at the time, but I did not make any notes.
Q So there is no way of us looking today to see how accurately or inaccurately that might have been done?
A Well, we were not positive that they were entry or exit -- exit or entry holes -- at the time.
Q Ms. Green, when you started these experiments did you start with any assumption as to what was happening to the pajama top at the time it received the puncture and stab holes that it has in it?
A What was happening to it?
Q Yes; did you start with any assumptions as to what was happening to the pajama top at the time? Let me put it to you this way: did you start with the assumption, when you did this examination, that the garment -- the pajama top -- was not moving when it received puncture holes and stab holes in it?
A Well, I would not think so; because if a garment is receiving puncture holes, there is bound to be movement every time it is punctured.
Q There was no way of telling, as a matter of fact, just from the information you had, whether the garment -- when it received puncture holes -- was moving or not moving?
A I would not say the garment was moving when it was punctured, but in puncturing a garment, it would move the garment when it was pulled out before it was punctured again, if that is what you mean.
Q That is my fault that the question is not clear, and I will try to clear it up with you now.

THE COURT: I think he was talking about whether it was moving this way -- not up and down, but moving laterally. Isn't that your question?

MR. SEGAL: That is part of it; yes, Your Honor. And I accept that.

THE WITNESS: I would not think it would be moving; no, sir. It was confirmed that they were made in a stationary -- while the garment was stationary -- so I had no reason to think otherwise.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Who confirmed that?
A Mr. Stombaugh.
Q And what tests had he made to confirm it, as far as you knew?
A I really don't know. I never even saw this case at the time he examined it originally.
Q You have no idea of how one would test to see whether a garment was moving -- let's assume for one moment -- laterally, when it received the puncture wound?
A I assume he would make tests in the fabric as to both conditions and compare them.
Q That seems reasonable. Is there any indication that any tests were made in that garment, other than to burn a hole in it?

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SEGAL: It says "Lab test" on it, Your Honor. That is one indication of a test.

THE COURT: Yes; but you are asking a witness who did not make these tests, and you are asking for something that was done by someone else when she was not even there, at a different year. My recollection is that you examined that particular witness at some length. I think that is the best evidence of that.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Ms. Green, you told us yesterday that on more than one occasion you did have photographs of Mrs. MacDonald's body with the blue pajama top on it before you started to work on your little demonstration with the probes and with this blue pajama top; is that right? You said you had photographs as well as the pajama top; is that right?
A Yes.
Q But I think you also told us yesterday that you really didn't make your demonstration or model look just like the way the pajama top was on the photograph of Mrs. MacDonald's body?
A I don't believe that is exactly what I said. I said it was folded in the same manner in which it was depicted in the photograph, and the 21 thrusts could be lined up when it is folded in that manner, to make the exact pattern of the puncture wounds in the victim.
Q When you say "folded in the same manner," I showed you a number of folds on those pictures yesterday -- I won't go through it again this morning -- and which I thought I understood you to say, "Well, that is not what really matters. It was that you could line up 48 in 21," and that you were not really trying to duplicate the way the pajama top looked in the crime scene photographs?
A Not to the extent that you seem to think it should be done. When you make several folds in a material, you end up with numerous folds and creases and so forth; and it would be impossible to put every little crease back exactly like it was in the photograph --
Q (Interposing) That is right. You could not tell, for instance --

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: She is not through.

MR. SEGAL: I am sorry -- your voice drops off, and I think you have stopped talking. I am not trying to cut you off.

THE WITNESS: I am sorry. But the same pattern, when you turn the sleeve inside out and you put the right shoulder over to one side, the end of the sleeve to the other side, and the front panel above -- in the same way that it was found in the photograph -- and go through it with 21 probes. In the first place, the 21 probes will wrinkle it, because when you found it at the scene, those ice pick holes would go through one at a time.
The photograph we had, we had 21 probes in it at the same time, so you are bound to have extra wrinkles just due to that. It would be impossible to make it look exactly the same under two different conditions, you might say.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Well, now, you had this photograph -- 1138 -- in front of you; is that right?
A Yes.
Q It shows the garment is folded and crushed together in some fashion; is that right?
A Yes.
Q Aside from the major folds across the top, you did not know from this photograph to what extent the pajama top was folded underneath of it -- which part of it was folded underneath of it?
A We had an idea exactly where it was folded.
Q Ms. Green, let's take the pajama top. If I lay the pajama top like this, and then I give you a photograph of that, can you tell me precisely what parts of the pajama are underneath the top? You can see the top portion here. Can you tell me in a photograph what portions of the garment are beneath it?
A No; but I can lay it out exactly like that from the folds and the seams, and I would know that it could be under this way or that way. And where it did line up, it could be put that way, as far as every little edge. The main part could be lined up, and those edges that didn't show, I don't believe even mattered.
Q Let me see here. I have -- one, two, three, four, five, six folds of garment over here? Now in a photograph like this, which is all that you were working from, you had no idea of how many folds of garment were underneath that top layer; isn't that correct?
A Well, that is correct in a way. But we knew what could be under there --
Q (Interposing) Wait a minute.

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

MR. SEGAL: I want an answer on the simple question of whether from the photograph it could be told. What this witness keeps insisting upon talking about is her deductive process. I will get to that; but I want to know what the photograph reveals in her opinion.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, may we come up?

THE COURT: No; I don't think this calls for a visit. Ask your question, please. Start over -- that simple question that you wanted answered.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Isn't it correct that from the photograph you cannot tell -- the photograph you worked with -- that you cannot tell and could not tell the number of layers of the garment or how they were beneath the surface that is revealed in the photograph?
A You can't tell every little fold, no, sir, that is not seen in the photograph.
Q I beg your pardon?
A You can't see every little fold that is not covered -- that is underneath in the photograph. But you can see the main alignment -- that the right sleeve -- the right shoulder seam is over to the right, and the seams between the left and right panel -- on the back panel -- on the front panel -- are at a certain area; and that it is folded under.
Q Okay, you have told us the things that you could clearly make out, Ms. Green, from this photograph where the sleeve and the several seams of the right and left panels, isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q Those are the key things that even this quality photograph reveals, correct?
A Yes.
Q Are you telling us that there is no other way in the world to rearrange a fabric underneath and still expose the seams as you see them here?
A Not in very great amount, just in minor details.
Q Well, you mean like perhaps a half inch one way or the other the fabric underneath could have moved?
A Well, something like that.
Q Yes, and of course if you move the fabric a half inch one way or the other, you just might miss one little hole, isn't that right, and push your probe through?
A No, I don't even know what condition this was when it was found on the body. It seems to have been moved to one side on the body to begin with when this photograph was made.
Q Well, since you brought that up, let me ask you this: is it true that the photograph -- except to give you an idea about the sleeve and two panels, and outside general impression -- that the photograph really wasn't the key thing in trying to decide whether you would do this experiment with putting 48 probes [sic] in 21 holes?
A You're saying that the photograph was not the key to arranging these?
Q Yes, that's right.
A I would say it was the key to arranging the pajama top.
Q It was the key? You stand by that the photograph was absolutely essential with trying to recreate this reconstruction?
A Yes, we had two different photographs, and we could tell the general alignment of the pajama top; and it can be arranged in that general manner, and 21 probes can be put through it when it is arranged in that manner to come up with that same pattern.
Q You mean it told you the general arrangement of the pajama top in those photographs -- that was your word, right?
A Yes. You can't be sure of each little extra side piece which doesn't come into the general area anyhow.
Q How about each little extra piece that goes right underneath the main areas of the folds? Your photograph didn't tell you what was under there, did it?
A Most of these can be seen in the photograph.
Q All right, let's take a look at the photograph and you show us -- by the way, you worked with little photographs, let's look at the little ones. You did not even have a blow-up of these photographs when you were working with them, isn't that right, Ms. Green?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q You did not have even a blow-up of this photograph when you worked with it?
A No, but we could magnify it.
Q Well, you could, but what did you do to magnify it?
A Use a magnifying glass.
Q Right. And you kept going what -- we were told that is not a scientific instrument some place in this case.

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

MR. SEGAL: See, they still don't think it is a scientific instrument.

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you think it is a scientific instrument?
A In certain cases.
Q All right, what did you use to examine this photograph as you were trying to make a little mock-up?
A Probably a magnifying glass. Magnifying glasses come in different magnifications. I don't recall exactly what magnification.
Q Did you ever request to have a blow-up of Mrs. MacDonald's pajama top made so that perhaps you could get to the details of how the fabric was folded and arranged clearly before you, so that as you worked and tried to fold it you could be looking right at the photograph in an enlargement form?
A I don't recall one.
Q You don't recall having one; but my question was, did you ever ask for it?
A No, I didn't. Mr. Stombaugh made that main examination. He studied that for some time; and we looked at it together and agreed that these were certain areas in this pajama top in these certain locations, and from that it could be folded.
Q You and he looked at it using a magnifying glass some of the time, I guess; but the question is, didn't you ever ask to have a blow-up made of the area so that you could see as much detail as possible -- to enhance the detail?
A Sometimes blow-ups of things give you less detail than the smaller photograph.
Q Well, how about ortho printing, where you take a color picture, you print it in black and white -- gives you high contrast of all the details. Did you ever use this technique to get the details in the photo?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did you ever use such a process to get details on the photo?
A No.
Q Are you familiar that such a process exists and the FBI does it on occasion?
A I am not sure just what they have; they have so many instruments in the photographic -- I couldn't tell you all of them.
Q Right; the one instrument used in this case was a magnifying glass, right?
A I was referring to photographic equipment.
Q Okay, photographs; all right. But that was the only thing that was used here, would be a magnifying glass to look at the photograph?
A Yes.
Q Now, if the CID had said to you that either there was no photograph because somehow the photographer didn't get it, would you have been able to make the reconstruction and say you could put 48 holes into 21 different probes [sic]?
A I'm sorry; I didn't understand your question.
Q If there had been no photograph, and the CID had asked -- it wasn't the CID, it was the Government lawyer -- had asked you to try and put 48 holes into 21, could you have done it?
A I don't know.
Q All right, would you reflect upon it for a minute? Was the picture necessary in order for you to make this little experiment, or could it have been done as in some crime scenes -- that they find the pajama top alongside someone and say, "Look, could you see whether 48 will go into 21 in the body"?
A I don't know; I didn't try to.
Q Do you know whether it could be done?
A No, I don't.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I would OBJECT.

THE COURT: All right, let me see all of you at the Bench -- not all of you, but at least one from each side.


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

THE COURT: I have an indication that this jury is beginning now to get a little impatient. I have done the best I can to keep them as happy as I can -- so that everybody can have the full say. I think, Mr. Segal, that you have beat this dead horse about as much as it needs to be beat, and I am seriously considering invoking rule 611(a) sort of to bring this phase of your cross-examination to a close.
I don't want to do anything in front of the jury that might embarrass you or anything, or prejudice your case; but I really think that what you have asked this witness has been asked enough times so that I see no possibility of your making any more hay on that particular point.

MR. SEGAL: If I may express my view on this, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SEGAL: I think a fair reading of the record shows that this witness has repeatedly not answered the specific question I have put to her, and I have therefore repeated my question on a number of questions.
I could, of course, appeal to the Court -- we would have to have the question read back and the answer read back and the Court would have to decide whether she answered or not. My view is that that is one style of trying a case.
I am not sure that it is absolutely necessary. I would just as soon be permitted without needless interruption to ask my question a second time, and say, "Now, answer the one that I have put to you."
I am willing to accept the fact that, you know, Government witnesses will give you answers to X when you ask him about A, but I don't see why that should limit the cross-examination until I get the answer to what I think is the question that I put originally. That is all that I --

THE COURT: (Interposing) My whole point was that in my view your question has been put and answered succinctly on four or five occasions on this subject. That's all I am going to say about that now. Go ahead.

(Bench conference terminated.)


THE COURT: Proceed.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Ms. Green, in regard to the experiment with the probes that you did, would it be correct to state as follows: that you cannot say that the 48 puncture holes could be made to fit into 21 puncture holes in the blue pajama top if you also had to put two knives in the blue pajama top?
A If I also had to put two knives in the pajama top --
Q (Interposing) In the blue pajama top, yes.
A -- That the holes could not be made; is that what you are saying?
Q I said you are not able to state -- are you -- that you could make the 48 holes fit into 21 holes if you also had to accommodate two knife thrusts through those pajama tops?
A I never said that. I wouldn't know whether it would or not.
Q And the answer is that you can't state that you could do this if you had to account for the two knife holes also.
A I don't see what the two knife holes have to do with it.
Q I realize that's your opinion. I'm only asking you a question here. You are unable to tell us whether you can repeat your experiment if you also had to accommodate two knife holes. Your answer was no; you can't say.
A I would think I could explain the holes with or without the knife holes.
Q My question is that if you had to try to maneuver this fabric and line up the holes and all, if you also had to put in the two knife holes -- put them in and hold them in place -- have you any way of telling us today, based upon any experiment or work you did, that you could in fact do that?
A I have no idea. I haven't done it.
Q That's all I wanted to ask you. The second thing, in the same regard now, is that you don't have any idea -- do you -- whether you could in fact put 48 probes through 21 holes in the pajama top if you also had to put Colette's pink pajama top underneath it and accommodate those holes?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor. I think counsel has misstated the numbers.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q I meant to say 48 and 21. If I didn't say that, that's what I intended. You have no way of telling us whether you could accommodate also 48 holes into a blue pajama top through a pink pajama top into the so-called 21 holes in the autopsy photo.
A No; we didn't do that because we didn't see what significance that would be. The problem was to see whether or not they could be put through the blue pajama top.
Q Again, the question is not whether --

THE COURT: (Interposing) One moment, please. Were you asked that same question yesterday?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And you gave the same answer?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right, that's enough on that one. Go ahead.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Next, Ms. Green, I want to ask you: can you state whether you would be able to put 48 probes through 21 holes in a pajama top [sic] if you also had to accommodate two knives and the pink pajama top of Mrs. MacDonald all at the same time?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can you tell us whether you could have done that in view of the fact that you conducted this experiment?
A I don't know. I would have to try it.
Q Don't know.
A And I don't know whether the knives were put in at the same time as the ice pick holes.
Q You don't know whether they weren't put in at the same time either.
A That's what I say. I don't know whether they were put in at the same time or whether that would be --
Q (Interposing) You have only the sketchiest knowledge of the facts in this case; isn't that right?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: Let her finish, please.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Now, have you ever had any training in scientific -- what the scientific method is, Ms. Green?
A What's your definition of "scientific method"?
Q Well, I guess we didn't ask you about your original college training. I don't know. Did you have university training in science subjects?
A I had a Bachelor's degree with a major in chemistry.
Q All right, did you learn anything about the so-called scientific method while you were a student in college and had courses in chemistry?
A We used scientific methods in the work, I would imagine.
Q Do you have any -- do you personally have any understanding as to what the term "scientific method" means? What does it mean to you?
A It means going about something in a scientific way.
Q All right, let me ask you this: as a person who has said that you had some training in the scientific method, I assume you believe the work you were doing in the FBI Laboratory was consistent with scientific method. Did you believe that?
A Yes.
Q Well, as a person with some training in the scientific method, would you agree that trying to conduct an experiment about a past event that the same conditions that existed in the past must also exist for the experiment? Would you agree with that?
A As much as possible. It's not always possible.
Q Certainly -- as much as possible. And to the extent that you don't duplicate -- would you agree also -- to the extent that you don't duplicate as much as possible the events of the past, it tends to negate the value of any experiment; would you agree with that?
A It would depend on the importance of the particular situation.
Q Is there anything more important than a triple homicide case in your mind?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What did you mean?
A I meant the importance of a particular examination -- whether or not it is necessary to do one thing or another.
Q Given the fact that when Mrs. Colette MacDonald died that she was wearing a pink pajama top, would you not agree that good scientific practice would require that any experiment attempted to recreate something about how she might have received her injuries would require that the experiment also have the pink pajama top in place?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SEGAL: I have no further questions of this witness.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. MURTAGH: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Proceed.


R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 9:57 a.m.

BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q Now, Ms. Green, let me ask you at the risk of belaboring the point: with respect to hole number 4, and I hand you now Government Exhibit 101 -- I will remove some of the tape on it -- and I want to direct your attention to the inside of the back panel.
Now, at this time, let me show you Government photo in evidence 600(b) and ask you -- let me put this up here, if I may. Now, with respect to hole number 4, which side of the garment are we looking at, if you know, in that photograph? And let me also show you --

MR. SEGAL: (Interposing) Let her look at one at a time, please.

MR. ANDERSON: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: Well --

THE WITNESS: We are looking at the inside of the back panel.

BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q Okay, and Ms. Green, if you know, is Government photo 600(b) an enlargement of the same negative from which Government photo 600 was taken? Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q Okay, and do you know?
A That's the inside of the back panel.
Q Okay, but is 600(b) an enlargement of 600? Come over and take a look.
A I would say so.
Q Now, do you know when this photograph was taken?
A I don't recall. I wasn't present when it was taken. I don't know whether it was '71 or later.
Q Now, with respect to hole number 4, which side of the garment did you insert the probe through? And let me find the probe, if I may. Could you tell us, please, with respect to which side, while I'm looking?
A Yes; through the inside of the panel.
Q And, I believe, on the -- let me ask you: do the holes 4, 5, and 6 from the photograph appear to be of generally the same size?
A They appear to be.
Q Now, did you tear the fabric on the inside when you inserted this probe? Let me hand you probe number 19 which has the numbers in descending order 4, 5, and 6 on a little white tag.
A It's possible. If so, I didn't intend to.
Q But why don't you take a look from the inside --
A (Interposing) It looks larger now than it was originally.
Q And why don't you insert that probe through the hole, and would you describe for the record which side you are pushing it through?
A From the inside to the outside.
Q Now, does there appear at approximately 1:00 o'clock from the inside a much -- another hole?
A Yes; a tiny, little puncture hole.

MR. SEGAL: I'm sorry. I could not hear the witness.

THE COURT: She said, "a tiny, little puncture hole."

BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q Now, if we turn the garment around and look at hole number 4 where it has been circled.
A Yes.
Q Which hole is in the center of the circle?
A The tiny, little puncture hole.
Q Did you insert the probe through the tiny puncture hole from the outside of the garment in?
A No.
Q All right, now, let me ask you with respect to hole number or probe number 19: what does the "19" stand for?
A "19" stands for the hole -- the number 19 hole in the chest of the victim.
Q And is that 19 as depicted in this photograph here?
A Yes.
Q Now, could you pick out hole number 19 on Government Exhibit 764?

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, I don't recall going through this on cross-examination. I did hear it in direct examination. I don't recall going into any of those photographs on cross. We heard it at least once from the Government.

THE COURT: This is redirect. I take it you are directing your questions to matters brought up on cross-examination?

MR. MURTAGH: Yes, Your Honor. I believe Counsel brought out on cross-examination the elongated nature of that hole.

THE COURT: Very well; ask your question. If there is an objection, I will rule on it.

BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q Pick out hole number 19 on that photograph?
A Okay; it would be this puncture hole right here.
Q And how would you describe the size of that as compared to the size of, say, this puncture hole here?
A Larger.
Q Now, let me show you Government photo 602(a) in evidence. Do you recognize this portion of the pajama top -- and I am referring to area numbered -- well, holes 20, 21 and 22 appear in the photograph?
A Yes; that is the right panel of the pajama top turned inside out.
Q Do you see this object I am pointing to here in the photograph?
A Yes.
Q What is it, please?
A Thumbtacks.
Q And this object here?
A Thumbtacks.
Q Now, with respect to hole number six, I believe on cross-examination you were asked -- with regard to Mr. Stombaugh's report -- which holes were exit and which were entry, if you recalled. Do you remember that?
A I am sorry; I did not understand.
Q On cross-examination, were you asked -- with respect to Mr. Stombaugh's 1971 report -- if you recalled which holes were exit and entry holes?
A Yes; I just recalled, I think, three.
Q What did you say, if you recall, with respect to hole number six?
A That it was an exit hole.
Q And when you say "exit hole," what do you mean?
A From the inside out -- going from the inside to the outside of the fabric.
Q Okay; what does that mean with respect to Government photo 600 -- well, let's assume that the garment is in that position as it appears in the photograph -- that is, laid out in a flat plane.
A Yes.
Q In which direction would hole number six have been made?

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, I OBJECT. This was not covered at all on cross-examination. It does not have any relevance to it at all.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: The probe, or ice pick, or whatever, would go through this hole and come back through this hole and back through this hole.

BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q Now, with respect to probe number 19 -- which I believe we had here a minute ago -- what is the significance, if any, of the order in which the numbers four, five and six appear on the probe?
A Four, five and six on 19?
Q Probe number 19.
A I can't seem to find it.
Q Well, let me strike that question, Ms. Green, and while you are looking for that probe, ask you another one. In your reconstruction of 1974, let me hand you the photograph and direct your attention to probe number 19. Would you read, please, the order in which numbers four, five and six appear?
A Four, five and six.
Q Okay; and what sequence, if you know, ma'am, did you insert the probe?
A The reverse of what I indicated just now. It started through four, from inside to out; back through five, from outside to inside; and back through six, from inside to outside.
Q In doing that, did you fold the garment?
A Yes.
Q Now, with respect to holes 14 and 20, do you see 14 in photograph number 600?
A Yes; right here.
Q If you recall, ma'am, what did you say on cross-examination with respect to whether that was an exit or an entry hole?
A That was an exit hole.
Q Now, with respect to hole number 20, let me show you another photograph -- 602(a); and I believe you testified that we are looking at the inside of the front right panel?
A Yes.
Q Okay; and with respect to hole number 20, you said what?
A That was also an exit hole.
Q With respect to your reconstruction and the photograph that you have in your hand, in which sequence, if any, did you align those numbers?
A Yes; I aligned hole number 20, 21 and 22 in that order to make hole number one in the victim, so that hole number 20 would go from inside to the outside. Assuming this is folded, it would go from inside to the outside, from the outside to the inside, and back through again. Folded, it would make one thrust.
Q Okay; now, let's assume that it is being worn in the same position -- or that it is being worn in a normal position -- that is, right side out. From which side would the hole have been made, based on that determination?

MR. SEGAL: That is OBJECTED to. There is no fact in this case for that, Your Honor.

MR. MURTAGH: I will withdraw the question, Your Honor. Thank you. Why don't you resume your seat?

BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q Let me hand you Government Exhibit 1138, which I believe you were shown on cross-examination. And I believe that is the photograph that Mr. Stombaugh marked various parts of the pajama top on. Do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q And I believe you were asked on cross-examination whether you were able to determine from that photograph what parts were folded under with respect to the portion on the body, is that correct?
A Yes. You can tell the areas of the pajama top and how they were folded.
Q Are you referring to the areas appearing at the top?
A Yes.
Q And directing your attention to the part of the pajama top that trails off there from the body, depicted on the floor -- by examination of that photograph are you able to determine what portions of the pajama top are not folded over?
A Yes.
Q And if you would tell us, please, what portion is not folded under?
A The left sleeve and the left front panel.
Q Okay. I believe also you were asked yesterday on cross-examination whether the 48 holes could have been realigned, I think, with 24 probes, do you recall that?
A I don't remember the number, but I know it was a different number.
Q Well, let me ask you this: if you were starting out, would it be correct that you could put 48 probes through 48 holes?
A Of course, yes.
Q Would that be the easiest thing to do?
A Yes.
Q Okay, and at what point, if you know, ma'am, is your range of motion limited by the insertion of successive probes?

MR. SEGAL: Into what material?

MR. MURTAGH: Into the pajama top.

BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q Do you understand my question?
A Well, it would depend on the -- what the pajama top was over, as to the range of movement --
Q (Interposing) Let me ask you this: let's say you have inserted 20 probes, and I will exclude from that probe number 21; you have not inserted that at this point, okay?
A Okay.
Q Now, with respect to the holes which you have aligned under probe 21 -- that is, holes 1, 2, and 3 -- is your range of motion -- that is, the amount of movement that you can make with the pajama top and still insert probe number 21 -- greater or lesser? Do you understand my question?
A I'm not sure exactly. I know that they wouldn't necessarily be lined up exactly. You might have to move them a fraction of an inch or something to line them up exactly with these other 21 probes in there.
Q Could you move them, say, four inches, and still align them?
A I doubt that very much.
Q Okay, with respect to the left front panel and left sleeve, could you align the 48 holes with 21 probes, if the left front panel and left sleeve were folded under? Do you understand my question?
A I wouldn't think so, if they were right under the probes.
Q What would you have to do in order to align them or to insert the probes?
A If the left seam was underneath these areas?
Q Well, let me rephrase my question: would you have to puncture the left sleeve and left front panel?
A Yes, they would be punctured; yes.
Q Now, Ms. Green, on cross-examination I think you were asked several times with regard to various crime scene photographs and the manner in which you folded the pajama top. Let me ask you, did you fold the pajama top -- that is, right sleeve inside-out -- as closely as you could to the manner in which it is depicted on the photographs?
A Yes.
Q Okay, my second question is: did you place the pajama top after it was so-folded in exactly the same position as it appears in the crime scene photographs?
A On a body?
Q On a body.
A No.
Q Now, with regard to Mrs. MacDonald's pajama top, I believe it was brought out on cross-examination that her pajama top had some 30 puncture wounds, do you recall that?
A I believe so, uh-huh (yes).
Q Now, there's been testimony from Dr. Gammel, the pathologist who performed the autopsy, that Mrs. MacDonald had 21 puncture-type wounds in her chest, and I believe three in her left arm. So my question is: if there were 30 puncture holes in her pajama top and the maximum number of puncture holes in her body is 24, would some of the punctures of necessity have had to have gone through holes in her garment?

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

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I believe that concludes redirect.

THE COURT: All right, call your next witness.

MR. SEGAL: Very brief on the recross.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I don't believe I brought out any new matters.

MR. SEGAL: I think you have -- in one matter, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I won't know until he asks his question.


R E C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N (10:17 a.m.)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q I got the impression from the question that Government counsel asked you that you thought perhaps hole number 4 as marked on the outside might have been a thumbtack hole, is that what you believe?
A Yes.
Q Do you know of a single other thumbtack hole on that pajama top that was circled and given a number?
A No, sir.

MR. SEGAL: That's all.

THE COURT: Everybody through?

MR. MURTAGH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: One moment.


E X A M I N A T I O N (10:18 a.m.)

THE COURT: Now, if I understand your testimony, you said there were 48 puncture holes with which you worked?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Then, somehow or other another hole, which may or may not have been made by a thumbtack, got in the act?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And that was labeled on one side -- or was labeled on both sides; but the thumbtack hole was labeled on the outside, whereas the real one with which you were working, with the same number, was on the inside, is that right?

THE WITNESS: That is right.

THE COURT: Now, if you add that thumbtack hole, then, to the 48 with which you were working, would there be 49 holes really?

THE WITNESS: In there now -- yes.

THE COURT: Very well. If that inspires further interrogation on that point alone, I will hear you.

(No response.)

THE COURT: You'd better go.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(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