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.


Scanned Documents


Scholarship Fund

Rotating Ad Banner

Jeffrey MacDonald's Article 32 investigation hearing: 1970 - Volume 16
Staff Sergeant David Weiss (Senior Investigator PMI), Vernon Park, James Judson, Dr. Russell Fisher and CID investigator William Ivory (recalled)

(The hearing reconvened at 0905 hours, 8 September 1970.)

COL ROCK:  This hearing will come to order.  Let the record reflect that counsel for the government is present, and counsel for the accused, with the exception of Mr. Eisman, who is absent this morning.

    I would like to initially distribute to the opposing counsel the following records of testimony transcripts of the following people:

(1)  CID Investigator Robert B. Shaw, witness for the government.
(2)  CID Investigator Franz Grebner, witness for the government.
(3)  CID Investigator Bennie Hawkins, witness for the government.
(4)  MP Kenneth Mica, witness for the defense.
(5)  Mrs. Winnie Casper, witness for the defense.
(6)  Mrs. Bobbie Evans, witness for the defense.
(7)  Doctor Manson, witness for the defense.
(8)  Doctor McGann, witness for the defense.
(9) Captain Thoesen, witness for the defense.
(10) First Lieutenant Thoesen, witness for the defense.
(11) Mrs. Carol Butner, witness for the defense.
(12) Mrs. Jean Morrell, witness for the defense.
(13) Captain Frank Moore, witness for the defense.
(14) Doctor Herter, witness for the defense.
(15) Captain James Williams, witness for the defense.
(16) Master Sergeant Violetti, witness for the defense.
(17) Professor Wolfgang, witness for the defense.
(18) Elizabeth Ann Krystia, witness for the defense.
(19) Miss Marjorie, Murdock witness for the defense.
(20) Susan Chester, witness for the defense.
(21) John W. Chester, witness for the defense.
(22) Mrs. Jan Snyder, witness for the investigating officer.
(23) William Posey, witness for the defense.
(24) Mr. Robert Stern, witness for the defense.
(25) Mr. Alfred Kassab, witness for the defense.
(26) Mr. John Sutton, witness for the defense.
(27) Mrs. Barbara Daw, witness for the defense.
(28) Warrant Officer Roy Daw, witness for the defense.  
(29) Testimony of the accused, Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald.

    Next, I would like to inquire as to the services of Lieutenant Malley, one of the counsels for the accused.  It is my understanding that he has submitted a request to be excused from further services of the accused at this time.

LT MALLEY:  Yes, sir.  As you know, I have submitted such a request to General Flanagan, which has been approved.  I believe I furnished you also with a copy of that, and if appropriate, I ask you to include in the record as you see fit; with the consent of Captain MacDonald, Captain Douthat and Mr. Segal I have gotten orders, and I will give you a copy of my orders.

COL ROCK:  Accused Exhibit 44, Special orders Number 212, Headquarters, US Army John F. Kennedy Center for Military Assistance, dated 4 September 1970, releasing Lieutenant Malley from attachment.
    Captain MacDonald, I would like to ask you at this time, sir, does this meet with your approval?

CPT MacDONALD:  Yes, sir, it does.

COL ROCK:  Lieutenant Malley, you are herewith excused.

LT MALLEY: Thank you, sir.  Before I leave, may I take this opportunity to thank you and Captain Beale for the courtesies that you have shown me and my fellow counsel and Captain MacDonald, and I ask you if I may leave the room at this time?

COL ROCK:  You may, sir, and bon voyage.

(Lieutenant Malley departed the hearing room.)

COL ROCK:  Next, at this time I would like to read a statement concerning my visit to 544 Castle Drive.  Let the record reflect that during our recess, on 19 August 1970 between the hours of 2100 and 2200 Captain Beale and I were escorted by Mr. Grebner, Chief, CID Fort Bragg, to revisit 544 Castle Drive.  Captain Beale made all arrangements with Mr. Grebner.  I specifically instructed him to inform Mr. Grebner that at no time would I discuss the facts of the case with Mr. Grebner or ask any questions.  These instructions were obeyed completely during my visit and Mr. Grebner's sole function was to secure the premises.  During my visit I made certain observations as a result of entering all rooms.  I now wish to inform counsel for both sides of the relevant observations as follows:

(1)  In the utility room I generally noted the titles of the many pocket type books located therein.
(2)  I noted the presence of feathers in several rooms.
(3)  I read the messages on the several Valentine cards in the dining room.
(4)  I measured and noted that the height of the ceiling in the living room was the same as the height of the master bedroom ceiling.
(5)  I observed that were no nicks on either the living room ceiling or the ceiling in Kimberly's room.
(6)  I saw a few pair of rubber surgical gloves under the kitchen sink, apparently in their original packaging.
(7)  I simulated the lighting conditions as per the accused's testimony.  From a prone position on the couch, the length of which I noted, I was able to discern the facial features of Captain Beale at the end of the couch.  The visibility increased considerably when I substituted as my source of light the lamp on the small dining room buffet.
(8)  And finally, I kicked over the coffee table.  It struck the side of the rocking chair and came to rest on its edge.

    Upon my departure from the premises, they were again secured by Mr. Grebner.
    I would like to ask at this time, are there any further government exhibits to be entered at this time?

CPT SOMERS:  Yes, sir.  The government offers a follow-up laboratory report concerning hair, a copy of which has been given to the defense.

COL ROCK:  Do you have the original of this for entry into the record?

CPT SOMERS:  I do not, sir.  That is as close as I could come to the original.  All other copies are machine copies of that one.

COL ROCK:  And the original copy had no heading or anything on it?  That is, an official heading indicating the headquarters and so forth?

CPT SOMERS:  No, sir, this is all we have.

COL ROCK:  Who would have the original?

CPT SOMERS:  I'm not sure who has the original, sir.  Captain Thompson informs me, sir, that the original--or was as of Friday of last week--in the CID laboratory to be sent here.  However, this is a carbon copy of the original.

COL ROCK:  Does counsel for the accused have any objections to this being entered as an official document, although it is not the original and apparently is a carbon?

MR. SEGAL:  Sir, I have no objection to the use of the copy.  I do have some other comments that I will withhold until you are ready.

COL ROCK:  All right.  Government Exhibit 107, CID Lab Report on hair samples.  Government Exhibit 108, addendum to CID Lab Report on hair samples.  Does the government have anything further?

CPT SOMERS:  Yes, sir, the government has witnesses at this time.  Are you ready for those?

COL ROCK:  Yes, I am.  Proceed.

MR. SEGAL:  May I just say at this point in regard to the two exhibits that have been received this morning there are two points, if I may, sir.  First of all, I think that in view of the fact that the, certainly the second report makes reference to some intervening communication, that the instructions to the laboratory which must have been contained in a transmittal letter that lead up to the original report of 29 July should be made part of the record, as well as the intervening instruction which resulted in the addendum to the lab report.  It seems to me we have an incomplete record.  We do not have independently the questions or the statement of fact as to the information that was posited to the laboratory in this or these communications.
    I would point out, in fact, that the laboratory makes reference to--in paragraph 2b of its report of 2 September--to some effort to make certain positive findings and I think in the interest of the record and to all of us, those communications should be supplied to the investigating officer and marked as part of this record.  I have an additional comment but I would appreciate if we could resolve that first request, sir.

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, I think the addendum speaks for itself.  It explains just exactly what it's all about.

COL ROCK:  Does the government object to presenting any letters in conjunction with this?  Does the government feel that this will be helpful in any fashion to the investigating officer?

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, I can foresee no reason why it would be helpful, and had I thought that it would be I would have included it.  For that reason I object.

CPT BEALE:  Your request is denied, Mr. Segal.

MR. SEGAL:  Secondly, sir, I wish to state to the investigating officer my profoundest concern over the existence of the report dated 29 July.  During our proceedings commencing 7 August and for that entire week, there were repeated discussions on the record of this hearing in regard to the location, the whereabouts and the finality of the report of the laboratory regarding--with regard to this hair.  My recollection in this regard is that we were repeatedly advised that Fort Gordon apparently had not done this report yet, and had not completed the report, but it was on the way.  In my judgment, sir, there has been substantial error committed here, a substantial misleading at least of counsel for the accused, if not the investigating officer, as to the completion of the report.  It seems to me that whether the government re-quested an addendum or not, and they are certainly entitled to request whatever they want, that we were entitled to be told what resembles to be the truth, so if there was in fact a report under date of 29 July, which as far as I can ascertain had to have been here at Fort Bragg at the time this inquiry was proceeding in the week of August 7th, and the time that repeated request were made by myself.  At the time I recall the investigating officer making inquiries of the government's counsel as to when and where are these reports, and I think it is appropriate, sir, that we have some explanation as to why this, what I would call at least--information was given to us.  It seems to me this could have been provided considerably before now.  It would have been a matter which we should have had access to before now, and I might say, sir, that we never received a copy of this until, in fact, a telegram was sent by myself to the investigating officer which resulted in the prompt action in it being delivered to Lieutenant Malley.  I do think this matter should be clarified at this time.

CPT SOMERS:  Well, in the first place, the defense counsel's indulging in the thing that he has said before, that he abhors the attack on the principles, scruples and methods of the government's counsel.  However, passing that by, the government, as stated in these hearings, during the period that the defense makes reference to, did not know where that report was and repeating the information that it was not completed, and that's all we can say with respect to that.  I can say, however, that the defense received a copy of it not as the result of any telegram, but as soon as it was available to me; on the day, in fact, within the hour of the time that I received that report, I made it available to the defense.  This is the only reply I can make, sir.

COL ROCK:  Mr. Segal, the government was replying to your request.  I don't know if you heard it or not, sir.

MR. SEGAL:  I heard it, sir.  I accept Captain Somers' explanation that he did not have it, but I do say, sir, that the law of the United States, as well as military law, that when dealing with knowledge on one or the other, it is imputed to all parties the knowledge of other parties associated with them, and it seems to me, sir, that there is a grave matter here, that if a letter addressed to the Detachment Commander of the CID, who was working obviously in this matter at some direction of counsel for the government, was not made known to the detachment commander, this, I think, is a matter--it troubles me, sir, that it could happen in this kind of proceedings, that this could be held back, when the specific request was being made.  I have a recollection, sir, that inquiry had been made of the CID detachment about the status and that apparently no one over there had any knowledge of the report.  I do not think it should be allowed to pass, simply because, sir, it affects the efficacy of what goes on in here.  If the investigating office in this case, or in any other case, makes an inquiry of the government, he should be able to expect a candid answer.  I don't mean that Captain Somers has not been candid, but he, himself, has a right to insist that subordinate persons associat-ed with the investigation to tell him exactly the status of the report, and that is not done, sir.  It seems to me that we have no way of anticipating what is being manipulated outside of this hearing room, which has a direct effect on this hearing, and I say again, sir, that the existence of the addendum report, which shall be a subject of examination by me, because I intend to call these laboratory witnesses, as to how in the world they managed to come up with this addendum statement, and who was the responsible person for it, because it, in effect, indicates an attempt to adjust the results of the report independently of their own thinking, but as to adjust it with someone's idea of how the prosecution should be handled.
In view of the fact that we have been denied the giving of the letters this morning, I intend to call these people and find out why it was and what instructions were given.  I would say to you again, sir, for instance when such statement are contained in 2b--as an absurd statement about positively eliminating the subject as a possible source of this hair--I can say to you now, sir, as a person with some experience with regard to hair matters, that no lab witness would ever say you could make a positive identification of hair.  It is well known that hair does not have particular personal characteristics, such as fingerprints do.  Hair can be perhaps categorized in very broad general groupings, and for someone to come up with a report positively eliminating a suspect is contrary to scientific knowledge.  I am sure the laboratory people at Fort Gordon must be aware of it, and it seems to me that kind of adjustment in a report indicates a manipulation of evidence, and to use another report in place of a live witness either by a conference call or in person, again, is a matter which I think should be of some concern to this inquiry, and I renew my statement, sir, that we are entitled to perhaps not at this time, but sometime before this investigation is closed, a full report by the responsible persons as to why this report was apparently here at Fort Bragg by 30 July or 31 July 1970, and that no one here in this particular hearing room was aware of its existence.

CPT SOMERS:  Well, again, the government has stated its knowledge as to the whereabouts of this report, and we suggest that the issues that the defense are attempting to raise are irrelevant to this hearing, but in fact whatever happened to delay the report, whether it was delayed in the mail or what happened, is just not relevant.  It is not an issue which is of any concern in any way, shape or form to this hearing.  Now I do have copies of the request for clarification, and if it's going to become an issue, of the ethics of the government, I'll make them available to the investigating officer if he feels it is necessary for that purpose.  I don't think that they add anything to this lab report itself.

COL ROCK:  Well, I would like to state for the record that it seems to me that there was gross inefficiency if a report dated on the 29th of July could not have been in the hands of officials at Fort Bragg for the review of the counsel for the government certainly considerably prior to this time.  I accept your statement that you did not receive a copy until the latter part of last week or until whenever you received it.  I request that you determine what date the original report, dated 29 July, was received by the CID here at Fort Bragg, and why that report was not released to counsel for the government for his edification at that time.  I would like to informally look at these documents that you currently have before you.

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, I can show you a copy of the letter requesting the clarification.  I can also show you an envelope in which I received this laboratory material.  You can see it is stamped 2 September, sir, which is the date that it was supplied to the defense, that day or soon thereafter.  I'm sorry, sir.  That is the date it was mailed.  It was received on 4 September, I think, which is the date it was given to the defense.

COL ROCK:  Captain Somers, when did the report of 29 July first come to your attention?  Approximately?

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, the results of the report came to my attention, I believe it was the week following our hearing here, sometime in that period.  The report itself I did not have then, however, I did notify Captain Douthat of what I understood to be the results of the report in Washington.

COL ROCK:  The letter then of yours dated 25 August indicates that you did know what the results of the report were, but that apparently you were not clear on them.

CPT SOMERS:  I still did not have the report, sir, and at that time I then was in possession of what appeared to be conflicting information as to what was in the report.

COL ROCK:  What information did you give Captain Douthat at the time that you--

CPT SOMERS:  I told Captain Douthat that it was my understanding that the results on the hair was undetermined, that the laboratory could not say that the hair was from the source of the samples, i.e. Captain MacDonald, nor could say that it was not.

COL ROCK:  Did you use the word that is listed in the report itself, that is, the word “dissimilar?

CPT SOMERS:  No, sir, I did not, because I had not received word that that was the word in the report.

COL ROCK:  Well, now Captain Somers, your letter of 25 August quotes specifically from the letter of 29 July.  Without that report, how were you able to quote the report?

CPT SOMERS:  At that time, sir, I was read part of the report, and that's not what I understood the lab to have been saying prior to that.  I was still not in the possession of the report.  I then had over the phone some language from the report.

COL ROCK:  Which you assumed to be the report itself?

CPT SOMERS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  And when did you receive--or from whom did you receive the telephone information?  Do you recall?  Was that from the CID lab or from the CID headquarters here at Fort Bragg?

CPT SOMERS:  I did not personally receive it.  It was taken by Lieutenant Ossman.  The information at that time came from Mr. Grebner.

COL ROCK:  So it would be safe to assume that Mr. Grebner did, in fact, have this report or probably had it on the date of 25 August?

CPT SOMERS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  We'll take a recess in place.

(The hearing recessed at 0934 hours, 8 September 1970.)

(The hearing reopened at 0936 hours, 8 September 1970.)

COL ROCK:  This hearing will come to order.  Let the record reflect those parties who were present at the beginning of the recess are currently in the hearing room.
    With reference to the matter that was being discussed at the beginning of the recess, I have before me Government Exhibit 109, letter from Captain Somers to Chief Chemist, CID Lab, Fort Gordon, Georgia.  This particular letter will be, together with Government Exhibit 107 and 108, subject of inquiry from me to Mr. Grebner at the time that my witnesses are called this week, and I would like for counsel for the government to arrange to have Mr. Grebner present to testify on this matter.  I find this most disconcerting and would like to clarify it all at the same time.  I have inquired about these results on several occasions with response always that the results are not back yet.  I am far from being pleased with this situation and understand me, Captain Somers; I will get to the bottom of this.  I now return to the government this envelope.
    Are you ready and prepared with your first witness?

CPT SOMERS:  Yes, sir.  The government calls Mr. David Weiss.

(SSG David Weiss was called as a witness by the government, was sworn, and testified as follows.)

Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q  Would you give your full name, please?
A  David Leroy Weiss.
Q  Your grade?
A  Staff Sergeant E-6.
Q  Your organization?
A  125th Military Police Detachment, CID, Fort Bragg.
Q  And your armed force?
A  Army.
Q  What was your duty position on the 17th of February?
A  Senior investigator in charge of the Provost Marshal Investigation Section at Fort Bragg.
Q  Do you know a Specialist Fourth Class Kenneth Mica?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Did you have occasion to speak to him on the morning of the 17th of February?
A  Yes, sir, I did.
Q  How did that come about?
A  I was in the hallway of the Criminal Investigation Office at Fort Bragg, and Specialist Mica stopped me in the hallway and said he had some information he wanted to pass on to me.
Q  What was the information?
A  He explained to me, sir, that while he was en route to the initial call to the MacDonald's quarters on Castle Drive, that he observed a female on the corner of Honeycutt Road and Lucas, and she was dressed in a raincoat and had a rain bonnet on; five six in height; had either light brown or blonde hair, and I specifically asked him some questions about the girl since we did have a general description of the girl involved in the incident.  I asked about tall boots and he said, yes he thought so, and that she had good looking legs.  I asked specifically about a brown floppy hat, he said no, it was a rain bonnet.  Then I stopped right there.
It didn't match the description of what I had been given.  I had been past this intersection prior to that in the morning hours and there was no one standing there when I went by.
Q  At what time did you pass that intersection?
A  I went by a little after five that morning, and again about twenty or thirty minutes later.

CPT SOMERS:  Your witness.

Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q  Mr. Weiss, do you know what time the incident took place at the MacDonald house on the morning of February 17th?
A  I understand the MP call came in sometime after three or four in the morning.  I don't have the exact time, sir.
Q  Would you tell us what relevance it has to what you saw at five-thirty a.m. or five a.m. in the morning at Honeycutt and Lucas?

CPT SOMERS:  I object.  Obviously he cannot.  I asked that question, not him.

MR. SEGAL:  The government has chosen to show that somehow an observation made at that time by Mr. Weiss actually discounts Specialist Mica's observation and I would like to know from this trained chief investigator what is the relevance of an observation made at that time to a homicide that took place sometime between three and three-thirty in the morning.

CPT SOMERS:  Again, I say that question can be answered by me, not by the witness.

CPT BEALE:  The objection is sustained, Captain Somers.

Q  Were you aware, Mr. Weiss, or rather Sergeant Weiss, that there had been an apprehension made at the corner of Honeycutt and Lucas by military police prior to five a.m. in the morning?
A  No, I was not.
Q  You were not.  May I see the memorandum you made of your interview you had with Specialist Mica?
A  I made no memorandum about it.
Q  Oh, you made some notes of some sort?
A  No, I did not.  It was a hallway discussion.
Q  Hallway discussion.  The only hallway discussion you had in connection with the MacDonald case, I assume.
A  I have no way of knowing if this was the only discussion I had in the hallway.
Q  Well, what is it that makes the discussion with Specialist Mica so clear in your own memory that you can recall it--recall it with the--with great specificity?
A  Well, since I don't know what specificity means, I'll have to ask you to clarify that.  You mean why do I recall it vividly in my mind?
Q  You don't understand what I mean when I say specificity? 
A  No, sir, I don't.
Q  Well for the benefit let me rephrase it.  Was there anything unique about this conversation to cause it to stand out with some great clarity in your mind?
A  I think so.  First of all, it was one of the first persons I talked to when I came back from the house.  He came forth with what he thought was information he wanted to pass on to me about someone who might have met the description of the girl and wanted to give it to me, and I listened to what he had to say, and what he told me did not meet what I had been looking for and I just--I recall the incident clearly.
Q  And after you heard it, you found in your judgment at that time it had no relevance?
A  Correct.
Q  And naturally you kept the matter which you thought irrelevant in the forefront of your memory so that you could give it to us since about August 1970.
A  I wouldn't say the forefront of my memory, but I do recall it.
Q  You do recall.  Now do you know Specialist Mica at all, aside from the single contact that you made on February 17th?
A  Yes, I do.
Q  And how long had you known him prior to February 17th?
A  Several months before.  I'd seen him on patrol and seen him in the Provost Marshal's Office.
Q  And have you had occasion to see him since that time?
A  Yes, I have.
Q  Would if be fair to say that he is a competent military policeman?
A  I think he performs his job well.
Q  And is it fair to say that you have no reason to believe that he is a hysterical or imaginary type of a person as far as your own observations are concerned?
A  Not that I know of.
Q  Well, if I were to tell you that Specialist Mica has specifically recalled seeing a girl with a hat that he described as a floppy hat, and that he recalled repeating this information to Mr. Grebner, rather than to yourself, would you say that he is more likely to be accurate about what he said than you are?
A  No, I wouldn't, because he did tell me.
Q  Were you present at any time when he spoke to Mr. Grebner about the circumstances of his observations?
A  Would you repeat the question?
Q  Were you present at any time that Specialist Mica talked to Mr. Grebner about--
A  Not to my knowledge.  I don't recall my being present at any time when he talked to Mr. Grebner.
Q  Were you present any time when Specialist Mica spoke to Colonel Kriwanek?
A  No, I was not.
Q  Would you mind telling me what was going on in the hallway at the time when Specialist Mica had this conversation?
A  I had just brought--a gentleman had been picked up by the military police--down to the duty investigator's office, and as I was coming back up the hallway there was only two of us in the hallway at the time I was talking to him.
Q  And who was that gentleman that you were bringing with you?
A  It was a man--I didn't personally have him.  Two MPs had him.  Two men had picked him up.  I don't know his name.
Q  I thought you indicated a moment ago that you had been bringing this man in.
A  I was showing him where the office was.
Q  So that you do not know who this man was?
A  No, I'm sorry, I don't.
Q  Do you know now who he is?
A  No, I do not.
Q  Was that because he had no specific connection with anyone involved with the--
A  I have no idea.  Two uniformed policemen asked me to see the duty investigator and I brought him down the hallway to his office.
Q  Now besides those MPs and the person they had in custody, who else was in the hallway?
A  They weren't in the hallway.  They had already gone into the duty investigator's office.  I think I said Mica and myself were the only two present.
Q  Was there any activity going on in the hallway at the time you were having this conversation?
A  Not in the hallway, no, sir.  There was activity in other offices that morning, yes.
Q  Is it fair to say there was a considerable amount of activity that morning?
A  I would say so.
Q  A considerable amount of people going in and out offices, going about their duties in regards to this investigation?
A  I would say so, yes.
Q  Did you ever make a written memoranda or notation of what you believe to be the conversation that took place between you and Specialist Mica?
A  I did not.
Q  At any time at all have you ever been asked to write down the conversation that you purportedly had with Mr. Mica?
A  In writing for myself?
Q  For yourself or any other person at any time since February 17th up to and including today?
A  None other than when I spoke to counsel for the accused the other day.
Q  Aside from that conversation, which was, I assume, after you spoke to counsel for the government, have you ever made a written memoranda of the conversation?
A  No, I have not.
Q  Now you are testifying today from your recollection of that particular episode?
A  That is correct, sir.
Q  How many people would you say you talked to that day who was working on the MacDonald case?
A  Specifically about the case?  Well, all the FBI agents, Mr. Grebner, Mr. Hawkins.  I would say I'd be safe to say twenty or thirty people--we discussed facets of the investigation.
Q  And with some of those persons you discussed it on more than one occasion on the same day?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Could you name for us the various persons who gave you information on February 17th which you found to have no connection, in your judgment, with the MacDonald case?
A  I didn't particularly take any information on this case at all.  It was not my facet of the investigation.
Q  I didn't ask you what you particularly took down.  I asked you whether you can tell us now the names of any persons who gave you information which you found in your judgment not to be relevant to the MacDonald case.
A  I recall no others.
Q  No others?
A  No, sir.

MR. SEGAL:  I have nothing further of this witness.

CPT SOMERS:  I have no further questions.

Questions by COL ROCK:
Q  Would you please repeat again the description of the female as given to you by Specialist Mica?
A  Yes, sir, he described her as a young woman about five-six of a medium build, either light brown or blonde hair.  I asked specifically about boots, the tall boots and he said, yes he thought so, that she did have good looking legs, he recalled that.  I asked specifically about a floppy brown hat, which he said no, it was a rain bonnet.

COL ROCK:  I have no further questions.

MR. SEGAL:  May I have, in regards--


Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q  Do you know the circumstances under which Specialist Mica came to make this observation?
A  It is my understanding of what he told me that he was en route to the initial call at the MacDonald home.
Q  Did you question him about the boots any further as to why he thought she may have had them on?
A  No, sir.
Q  Why not?
A  I saw no reason to as he stated uncertainly as to if she did have boots on.
Q  Oh, I see, you just took it he was mistaken?
A  No, sir.  Just unclear as to what he saw. 
Q  Did you ask Specialist Mica to describe what he meant by a rain bonnet?
A  No, sir, I did not.  I asked specifically for the floppy brown; he said no, it was a rain bonnet.
Q  Do you know what he meant by a rain bonnet?
A  I think I know what I thought he meant by it.
Q  The question is, do you have any idea what he was describing in the shape and size of a hat?
A  Yes, sir.  Since he described the hair, I would assume that it was a clear plastic rain bonnet that was tied under the chin.
Q  You assumed that, sir?
A  Certainly it was not a floppy brown hat because I specifically asked for that.
Q  A floppy brown hat you asked him about?
A  Right, sir.
Q  And may I ask where you got the information you were looking for a brown hat?
A  This was disseminated to me through the radio operator.
Q  Have you ever asked Specialist Mica what he meant by a rain bonnet as the type of hat he described?
A  I have not gone back to question him.  No, I have not, sir.
Q  And to your way of thinking, the only possible hat that he could have been describing was a plastic hat to be tied kerchief style under the neck?
A  I didn't say anything about a hat, sir.  He said rain bonnet.
Q  A plastic type of cloth tied under the neck in kerchief style?
A  Right, sir.
Q  That was the assumption you made?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you asked for no further information in that regard?
A  No, sir.

MR. SEGAL:  That's all.

CPT SOMERS:  Nothing further.

COL ROCK:  Mr. Weiss, you are advised that you will discuss your testimony with no person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused.  Do you understand that?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  You are excused.

WITNESS:  Thank you.

(The witness departed the hearing room.)

CPT SOMERS:  The government calls Mr. Vernon Park.

COL ROCK:  Mr. Who?

CPT SOMERS:  Vernon Park.

(Mr. Vernon Park was called as witness, was sworn and testified as follows.)

Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q  Would you state your full name, please?
A  Vernon C. Park.
Q  What is your address, sir?
A  Pelham, North Carolina.
Q  What is your occupation?
A  I work for Dan River, Incorporated.
Q  And what was your occupation on the 17th of February 1970?
A  I was the Operations Sergeant for the Provost Marshal Investigative Section, Fort Bragg.
Q  And did you, on that occasion on the 17th, have occasion to interview several people in Corregidor Courts area?
A  Yes, sir, I did.
Q  And that was with respect to the MacDonald case?
A  Yes, sir, it was.
Q  Did you have an occasion to interview a Lieutenant and Mrs. Casper?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Would you tell us what happened, what was the result of that interview?
A  Yes, sir.  We introduced ourselves, showed our credentials, and talked to both the Lieutenant and his wife.  We asked them the same questions that we asked everyone.

MR. SEGAL:  That's objected to.

CPT BEALE:  That's right.  Mr. Park, just give the questions that you asked.

A  We asked them what time they went to bed; what time they got up; did they get up at any time during the night; did they hear anything during the night to wake them; and had they heard anything during the day; seen any strangers, any strange vehicles.
Q  And what was their response to those questions?
A  They told us they had both gone to bed about ten or ten-thirty.

MR. SEGAL:  Excuse me.  Might I object to say that I think we are entitled to have the answers of each individual?  There is no such thing as a group answer to this kind of situation, and we are entitled to have this witness distinguish what these persons said at that time.

Q  Would you identify what each, Lieutenant and Mrs. Casper, said to you?
A  Yes, sir.  We talked mainly to the Lieutenant.  He said he had gone to bed about ten-thirty.  He heard nothing.  He did not get up until he woke up at his regular waking hour, six or six-thirty the next morning.  He said that during the course of the evening, he had heard some running footsteps.  I asked him could he specifically give me the time.  He said something between seven and nine-thirty that evening, and that it belonged to some children in the neighborhood.  At that time we asked Mrs. Casper did she go to bed at the same time.  She said yes, she did.  She did not hear anything, nor did she get up at any time during the night.
Q  Did you identify yourself to the Caspers?
A  Yes, sir, I identified myself.  There was some local produced credentials which we carried at the time, and when we left I again stated my name and Sergeant Judson's name.  I told them if they could think of anything else to please let us know.  I gave them both of our phone numbers and told them if they could not remember the phone number they could contact either the military police desk sergeant or the criminal investigation division.
Q  Now what makes this incident stand out in your mind?  Is there anything that makes it stand out specifically?
A  Yes, sir, specifically, because two doors down Sergeant Judson introduced himself--
Q  Excuse me.  Who is Sergeant Judson?
A  He was my partner at the time of this--and at the time he was asking the question part of the time and I was doing the writing, and then we swapped off.  At this particular time I was asking questioning and writing down the responses on the work sheet.  So when we went to the next house I stood back.  He knocked on the door and when he produced his credentials, the guy grabbed his arm through the screen door and tried to pull him in through the door.  And that's why we remember--that's why I remember it because it stuck in our minds.  He acted a little scared.
Q  About how many people--

COL ROCK:  Excuse me.  You mean Lieutenant Casper did this?

WITNESS:  No, sir.  This was his neighbor, two doors down.

COL ROCK:  I'm sorry.  Go ahead.

Q  About how many people did you interview that day?
A  I would say during the course of that evening, we interviewed thirty-five or forty.
Q  And what area were you interviewing people in? 
A  Right, we had the area around the 334 North Dougherty down to Lucas.  When we started we went up the side of the road from Lucas, working back towards Mallonee Village, and we got everything on the even side of North Dougherty.  We had another team working on the odd side of the street.
Q  Were you aware of the description of the alleged assailants in the MacDonald case?
A  Yes, sir, I was aware of the same.  We asked people if they had specifically seen anyone who matched the description.  They said no, they had not seen anyone at all who matched any of the descriptions.

CPT SOMERS:  Your witness.

Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q  I understand, Mr. Park, that next door to the Caspers a man grabbed your partner's arm in the screen door.  Is that correct?
A  No, sir, it was two doors down from the Caspers.
Q  Two doors?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And he pulled it through the screen door?
A  Yes, sir, he did. 
Q  And that was a rather extraordinary incident, I assume.
A  Yes, sir, that's why it stuck in our memory.
Q  That incident stuck in your memory?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  You didn't have any more like that that particular day?
A  Not in that particular instance, but we had several similar.
Q  On that day?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  How many more did you have?
A  We had no one--when I say similar--we had no one who actually grabbed us in that way, but we were met with several weapons coming to the door.  People were generally in a state of panic.
Q  And that caused the conversation with Lieutenant and Mrs. Casper to stick in your mind with some great clarity because of the man two doors away who pulled your partner's arm?
A  Sir, let me explain.  At that time I was a policeman.  It was my job to remember things.  I am also a journalism major and I knew what he said because it was my job.  It stuck in my memory because I just happened to remember it.
Q  Well, now you said also, apparently stuck in your memory the questions you asked the people.  Is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And I believe that when counsel for the government questioned you, you said that you asked the same questions of all people?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now my recollection is as follows: that you told us that you introduced yourself.  Am I correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  That you asked the people what time they went to bed.
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What time they got up?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And whether they heard anything during the night?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And--I'm sorry--did they get up during the night and did they hear anything during the night?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Then later on you told us after you gave those as being the questions you put to people, said something about the description you gave people.  Is that right?
A  Sir--
Q  Now wait a minute.  Did you also add about five minutes later that you also told everyone that you wanted to know whether they saw anyone matching the description you had?
A  Right, sir, we asked them most of the time.  People knew why we were there.
Q  Wait--wait.  You asked most of the time what?
A  We asked the people did they know of anyone who met the description.  Had they seen anyone walking around that would fit the description of the assailants that we had at that time.
Q  But you did not ask everyone that question, did you?
A  Sir--
Q  Now wait.  That's acceptable, yes or no, then you may explain.  Did you ask everyone that question?
A  No, sir, the reason being--would you like to know the reason?
Q  Yes, you may explain now.
A  If people said no, I heard nothing; no, I did not get up; it was no use for us to ask.  If people might have gotten up for some reason then we would ask them if they had seen anyone.
Q  Now did you or did you not tell Mr. and Mrs. Casper the description of the people and ask whether they saw anyone who matched the description?
A  We told them because of the proximity of their house to the location of the scene.
Q  And who else did you tell in that particular block?
A  Everyone in that particular court.
Q  Everyone in that particular court.  I don't know how many buildings you are talking about.  How many homes, or how many homes or residences did you have occasion to give additional information to?
A  Sir, in that particular court, if I remember correctly, there are three main buildings.  In each building there are four apartments, and not all the buildings were occupied at that time, not everyone was home.  So in the twelve apartments, everyone who was home, we asked them.
Q  And how many were home?
A  I would think approximately eight of the twelve.
Q  Did anyone ever suggest to you that it might be relevant to this case to find out whether people had on other days, shortly before February 17th, seen individuals of that description that you had been given by Captain MacDonald?
A  Well, sir, as I said earlier, we asked had they seen any strangers, any strange vehicles in the area.  We did not confirm the time.  That left everyone open to say yes, I saw one two days ago, if they had.  We also told them to let us know if they remembered it.
Q  And did you also tell everyone to search their memories, whether they had seen anyone in recent days who fit the description?
A  Yes, sir, as we left we asked them if they did to please call us.
Q  And that was in that particular court?
A  That was everywhere.
Q  And you said to people if they recall anything to please call you.  Is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And was that because it occurred to you or to those who were instructing you as to what to do, that people might recollect subsequently what they heard or seen on February 17th?
A  Sir, not really.  The reason I said that is it left everyone open for the fact that is if they remembered something they could call us.  At that particular time most people could have something right in front of them and they could not remember it because of their particular state of mind.
Q  Because they were frightened?
A  Well, some were, but most were not.
Q  Most were not?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  But you still thought it important to tell other persons your name and where you could be called if anything subsequently came to them.  Is that right?
A  Yes, sir, I did that every time I--
Q  And that was for the purpose of should anyone recall at a later time some fact, that you wanted to have that information given to your headquarters?

CPT SOMERS:  I object.  He's answered this question.

CPT BEALE:  Sustained.

Q  Now what time did you commence making these interviews on February 17th?
A  Sir, I'm not sure of the exact time because I took off early and went home to eat, and it was after the normal Army working day, after four-thirty because we wanted to be sure as many people were home as possible.  So I would think we started about five o'clock.
Q  And when did you return to your headquarters?
A  We stopped about seven or seven-fifteen because it was getting dark.
Q  And may I ask what the fact it was getting dark had to do with this ceasing of the investigation?
A  Well, for one thing, sir, it was pretty cold standing in the front yards, and for another thing I personally did not want to be out in that area after dark.
Q  Did you have any specific instructions from your supervisors or superiors as to how long you were supposed to be working that particular evening?
A  No, sir.  At that time I was the one who was giving the directions.
Q  And who had given you your original instructions?
A  I would guess that they had come from the CID investigators; however, I was told to get my people together and get them out to talk to people, and that's what I did.
Q  Now who told you that?
A  My supervisor, Mr. Weiss, probably did.  He would have been the one.  I don't know exactly who told me.
Q  Now when you finished, to whom did you report back to that evening at that time?
A  I took all my interviews work sheets back.  I typed up the reading file describing everything we had done, and I took the reading file describing everything we had done, and I took the reading file and the interviews work sheets to the CID office and laid them on the administrative desk.
Q  Now you say that to the best of your recollection this--the actual field work, the leg work of going to each house took place between five or five-thirty p.m.?
A  That was only mine.  Now I was out those hours because I had all my people out all during the day.  I figured they needed a break.
Q  I understand that.  Now you were with a Sergeant Judson at that time.  Is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you and he went back together, I assume?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now in that period of time you interviewed how many people?
A  I would say between thirty-five and forty.
Q  So how long did you spend on an average with each interview?
A  Now not very long, five to ten minutes at the most.
Q  Which, a portion of that time in the interview you spent giving them information about where to contact you later on.  Is that right?
A  Sir--
Q  Did you give that information?
A  As we left, about thirty seconds.
Q  Now you told them who you were. Is that right?  Your name.
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And your organization or some way of locating you?
A  No, sir.  I only gave them at that particular time, since I had already introduced myself, was my name and the telephone number, and if they could not get me there to call the military police desk.
Q  And of course, if we were to say that you conducted as many as forty interviews in two hours--strike that.  Do you have--did you make up the written memorandum of the interview with the Caspers?
A  Sir, I did the writing on the work sheet.
Q  And do you have that with you, sir?
A  No, sir, I don't.

MR. SEGAL:  At this time I call upon the government, sir, to make available to us the interview which this witness has made reference to, and which he says he prepared and which he's testifying about.

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, I have only one copy of this and it has been marked on the back information which is irrelevant to it.  I will be happy to provide this to the defense to use at this time; however, I doubt that you would want this introduced.

COL ROCK:  All right, we can substitute it later on.  I'd like to see it too after--

MR. SEGAL:  Please show it to the investigating officer.

COL ROCK:  No, go ahead and show it to him.

(The document was handed to counsel for the accused.)

(The document was then examined by the investigating officer and returned to counsel for the accused.)

Q  Mr. Park, have you seen the interview work sheet that was written up in regard to Lieutenant E. G. Casper?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  When was the last time you saw that?
A  I saw it this morning.
Q  This morning?  Now would you say that I am correct in my mathematics when I tell you that if you did twenty interviews an hour, figuring you made two hours of work, and you did forty interviews at the maximum, that that would be three minutes per interview?  Do you agree with that mathematics?
A  That's close.
Q  And that you actually didn't consume three minutes on each interview because you had to go and travel from house to house.  Is that correct also?
A  Partially, yes, sir.
Q  Well, you did have to travel from apartment to apartment, from house to house?
A  Yes, sir, which is door to door.
Q  Door to door, except everybody wasn't home and every consecutive door, were they?
A  No, sir.
Q  And in all instances when you knocked and rang the bell, the doors did not open instantaneously, did they?
A  No, sir.
Q  There was the normal delay and sometimes longer and sometimes shorter.  Is that right?  A number of seconds were consumed on each house with the act of knocking on the door and waiting for that person to respond?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now does it appear any place on this interview work sheet that you prepared any reference to the fact that you interviewed Mrs. Casper?
A  Sir, when we filled out the interview work sheet--
Q  Excuse me, you may explain, but would you be good enough to tell me--
A  Let me--I know why it does not have any reference to her.
Q  But you haven't told us, Mr. Park, whether or not if any reference to Mrs. Casper is on there.  Does it?
A  No, sir, it does not.
Q  All right.
A  The reason--would you like to know why?
Q  If you'll let me ask the question I'll give you the chance.  Now, Mr. Park, is there some reason why Mrs. Casper's name does not appear?
A  Yes, sir, because when the husband was at home we used the husband's initials.  If the husband was TDY and not there we put the wife's full name.  That's so we could tell the difference.
Q  Isn't it a matter of fact that when you had a wife that was interviewed, you put down the military person's name, and where it said rank or title, you used--you put the word wife or Mrs.  Is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now in this case, it didn't make any reference to the fact there was even a Mrs. Casper who was there.  It just says Lieutenant.
A  Right, sir.  And if he had not been there then his wife's name would have been in there, and his initials and rank would have been in parenthesis.
Q  You would have had an indication of an interview with the wife rather than her husband.
Is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now does anything appear in this interview work sheet about the children next door being responsible for the noises heard?
A  Yes, sir, if you'll read down at the bottom in the remarks section, the first word I believe is “not up,” which means they did not get up during the night.  The second is “heard running steps” and the time says 7 to 9:30 and in parenthesis it says 1900 to 2130 hours.
Q  Now I ask you my question.  Is there anything at all in this interview work sheet to indicate that the noises heard, in the opinion of Lieutenant Casper, emanated from children that lived next door nearby?
A  No, sir, only that he told me and I put it in the reading file.
Q  But you didn't put it in the work sheet?
A  No, sir.
Q  Now what else did you put in the reading file that you did not put in the work sheet?
A  Everything that I did.  The work sheet was only a sketch for me to do my reading file.
Q  You mean you took information from people when you interviewed them at the door--is that right--and put it in the work sheet?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Then you went back to your office and wrote other things down on the reading file which does not appear on this work sheet?
A  Yes, sir, because that was only by reference.
Q  That's right.  In other words you were using this reference for the purpose of giving you facts which you would summarize in your reading file.  Is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  But what you did was the opposite.  You expanded the reading file with summarized--
A  Sir--
Q  Now wait a minute.  Listen to my question, and then you can answer it.  What you did in Lieutenant Casper's episode was expand what he told you instead or reduce or summarize what he told you.  Is that right?
A  Right, sir.
Q  Are you sure that you didn't confuse Lieutenant Casper with somebody else?
A  No, sir, because the children happened to be running up and down the walk right when I was talking to him, sir.
Q  And that was so unusual you remember that, right?
A  For that particular temperature, yes, sir, it was, and he happened to say those are the children.
Q  And for that particular area, it wasn't unusual to see children up and down the walk, was it?
A  No, sir.

CPT SOMERS:  I object.  I think he's answered the question in contest.

CPT BEALE:  Sustained.

MR. SEGAL:  If the investigating officer pleases, at this time we then ask for the full report of the interview with Lieutenant and Mrs. Casper that's been referred to by this witness which will be that portion of the reading file which purports to be the summary of the interview with Lieutenant and Mrs. Casper.

CPT SOMERS:  The government objects to that.

MR. SEGAL:  Sir, we cannot adequately cross-examine the witness in regard to an interview he took, if the full interview that is his full recollection made at the time is not available to us.
    The work sheet does not comport with all that he said here, but is explained by saying he put more down on this other sheet and we are entitled to explore that issue with this particular witness.  If not, we will never have any way of knowing what was recorded or reported to have been said by Mr. and Mrs. Casper, at least from the investigation standpoint.

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, he has the witness here, he can ask the witness anything he pleases.  He also has the sheet which the witness said he made reference to.  I object to the production of the reading file.

CPT BEALE:  Mr. Park, this morning before you came in to testify did you go back and read the reading file to refresh your memory?

WITNESS:  No, sir, because I would guess it has been destroyed.

CPT BEALE:  Is it the normal SOP that these reading files are destroyed?

WITNESS:  Well, sir, at the time I was usually the only one who kept an account of everything I did, and when I turned the stuff in, all we were interested in was interview work sheets.  Now I may have a copy of it somewhere at home, but it is not anything that we keep.

CPT BEALE:  Well, what were your instructions to your other investigators?  Were they to expand the form in the reading file statement, or were they to put everything down on their work sheets?

WITNESS:  Most of them read or wrote a reading file.  Usually the senior man in the team would write a reading file, which I would read and if anything needed to be brought forward I would take it to the CID.  But the only thing I usually turned in, or the only thing I turned in, was the interview work sheet which was what they wanted.

CPT BEALE:  They wanted the work sheets?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

CPT BEALE:  Then why did you not put down the information about the children on the work sheet, if you turned that into your superiors?

WITNESS:  Well, sir, when I put down as said on there “running footsteps from 7 to 9:30” I saw no reason to have to add it on because 7 to 9:30 at night was early in the evening.  We were interested in what had happened after midnight, so 7 to 9:30 really had no relevance.
When they said it was children running, then it was children running.

COL ROCK:  Why would you put the fact that children were running on the reading file report though if it wasn't of any significance?

WITNESS:  Well, sir, the defense has a little bit wrong idea about a reading file.  When I wrote a reading file it was almost like a diary.  I wrote every single thing I did only for my benefit, and that's why I added it in.  The reading file got no further than me most of the time.

COL ROCK:  Your recollection though of the events is accurate at this late date?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.  I've--if I may say so, when I was first contacted about this, I almost described the particular house they were talking about simply because the Lieutenant grabbing Judson's arm.  That's why I remembered it so vividly.  But also I believe--well, I know--that it was the only house who said they heard anything at all during the night, except one person said they heard a baby crying, and the next door neighbor said “Yes, my baby was crying about ten o'clock, until she was asleep at ten-thirty or eleven.”

COL ROCK:  So the fact that someone heard something that evening was unusual, and even though it was not relevant you remember it?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

CPT BEALE:  Mr. Segal, your request for this reading file is denied at this time, unless it is further shown that there is an additional relevance.

Q  Let me ask you this, Mr. Park.  How many other interviews did you expand on beside the one with Lieutenant Casper?
A  None, sir.
Q  None.
A  That's correct.
Q  That's the only one that you expanded on?
A  He was the only one who said he heard anything except the one with the baby crying and I did not put that in there.
Q  Why didn't you put that in since you knew that there were children in the killing at the MacDonald episode?
A  Well, the reason being the lady next door had said my baby was crying, and the particular area where this man was so far removed from the crime scene that he couldn't have heard if the baby had been crying.
Q  Mr. Park, you said you prepared this reading file in a diary fashion.  Is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And that was for your own benefit, you said?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  I don't quite understand what you mean that it was for your own benefit?
A  Sir, at the time I was Operations Sergeant.  I read everything that went through to the higher office.  Everything out of that office went through me.  As I said, I was a journalist before I came in the Army, and I just had a habit of writing down everything, so I wrote down everything for my own personal benefit, so I could go over it and see if there was something else I needed to look into later.
Q  That wasn't for the benefit of the investigation of the MacDonald case, was it?
A  No, sir, it was not, because I pointed out that particular incident to the chief investigator, and he said the time and I told him the time and he said we are only interested after midnight.
Q  No, no, what I am asking you is, if you knew that the interview work sheets were the documents that the people directly in charge of the investigation were using, why didn't you put down this information that it was children, and there was children next door, so they wouldn't go on a wild goose chase using your interview?
A  Sir, I explained it to them when I got back and they did not go on a wild goose chase, because I told them there were children who were running while I was there.  Had it not been, you may rest assured I would have put down that it was somebody they did not know.
Q  I beg your pardon?  You would have done--
A  If they had not identified the children as being the ones running up and down the street, then I would have so told the chief investigator because people do not always know the times when you are talking.
Q  And that's right.  People sometimes estimate much later when something actually occurred?
A  However--
Q  Wait a minute.  Isn't that true?
A  That's true sometimes, and sometimes much earlier.  But he was pretty sure of that because he knew he went to bed at ten-thirty.
Q  Now this is Lieutenant Casper you are talking about?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What did Mrs. Casper tell you she heard that night?
A  Mrs. Casper--at the time I just asked her if she had anything to add and she said no, she didn't hear anything.
Q  And that's your recollection of what she said?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now I gather from what you are saying that almost all the information that was contained at the Casper's residence came from Lieutenant Casper?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And the only thing else that happened as far as Mrs. Casper is she was asked whether or not she had anything further to add.  Is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And her answer was negative?
A  Her answer was no.
Q  That is negative, I assume?
A  Yes, sir, but she said specifically “no.”
Q  You are quoting her?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now if I were to tell you that Mrs. Casper gave testimony in this proceeding where she told about substantial detailed information about noises heard, and not in the early evening, but late between 3 or 3:30 in the morning, would you say she would be in a better position to recall what she heard on February 17th than you are to repeat what you think she said?

CPT SOMERS:  Objection.  I think it calls for a supposition, sir.

CPT BEALE:  Just a second.

CPT SOMERS:  I think that's an incomprehensible question to begin with.

MR. SEGAL:  Mr. Park understands.  He's a journalist and he--

CPT BEALE:  Rephrase your question.

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, sir.

Q  Do you think the recollection of a person who--the recollection of Mr. and Mrs. Casper as to what they heard or saw on the morning of February 17th is more likely to be better recalled by them than you are to recall their testimony through your notes?

CPT SOMERS:  I object to that question again.  I think it calls for a conclusion which he cannot make.

CPT BEALE:  Objection is sustained.

COL ROCK:  Please make your questions as simple and straightforward as possible.

Q  Mr. Park, let me ask you this.  Have you been compensated in any fashion for your appearance here in these proceedings by the government?
A  No, sir.
Q  Are your expenses being covered for your time and travel here?
A  They haven't been.
Q  Have you made arrangements with the government to pay your expenses for your time being here?
A  Not that I know of.

MR. SEGAL:  I have nothing further, sir.  I would ask to have the government substitute another copy of the interview with Lieutenant Casper and have it marked as an accused exhibit in this proceeding.  I return the copy made available to us by Captain Somers with that request.

CPT SOMERS:  I intend to introduce a copy as a government exhibit, when I have one that is--

COL ROCK:  Request and answer so noted.  Is there any redirect by the government?

CPT SOMERS:  None, sir.

Question by COL ROCK:
Q  Mr. Park, when you went to the Casper's house did you enter the house?
A  No, sir.
Q  You did not?  Who came to the door?
A  Sir, I'm not sure.  I think she came first, but Mr. and Mrs. Casper stood in the screen door with the door slightly open.
Q  I see.
A  I did not go into the house.
Q  Now you directed your questions basically to whom?
A  Basically we directed them to Lieutenant Casper.
Q  Lieutenant Casper.  During your questioning of Lieutenant Casper, did Mrs. Casper attempt to interject or introduce any statements of her own?
A  Sometimes, sir, if we asked a specific question, he would say--may I give an example?
Q  Please.
A  I asked him, “what time did you go to bed?”  He looked at her and said, “about ten-thirty?” and she shook her head and said, “yes, about ten-thirty.”  But she did not offer anything and we did not ask her anything until we got ready to leave.
Q  And what was your question to Mrs. Casper once more?
A  We asked her if she had anything to add to what he had said, and we also asked her directly did she have occasion to get up during the night or wake up.
Q  Okay, now the first question you asked--did she have anything to add--what was her reply as you remember it?
A  As I remember, she said, “no.”  Just one word, no.
Q  And what was your question to her?
A  Well, I asked her--I'm not sure if it was next or the same--I asked her, “did you wake up during the night” and then, “did you get up?”
Q  You asked her did she wake up.
A  Right, sir.
Q  What did she say?
A  She said, “no.”
Q  What was your next question?
A  “Did you get up?”
Q  What did she say?
A  She said, “no” again, and, sir, I realize that was an redundant question, but we asked it of everybody.

COL ROCK:  I have no further questions at the time.  Does either counsel?

MR. SEGAL:  I have nothing, sir.

CPT SOMERS:  No, sir.

COL ROCK:  Do you wish this witness permanently excused?

CPT SOMERS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  Mr. Park, you are requested not to discuss your testimony with any person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused.  Do you understand?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  You are excused, thank you.

(The witness departed the hearing room.)

CPT SOMERS:  At this time, the government, sir, would request a ten-minute recess.

COL ROCK:  The hearing will be recessed temporarily.

(The hearing recesses at 1028 hours, 8 September 1970.)

(The hearing reopened at 1052 hours, 8 September 1970.)

COL ROCK:  This hearing will come to order.  Let the record reflect that those parties who were present at the beginning of the recess are currently in the hearing room.  Does counsel for the government have another witness at this time?

CPT SOMERS:  Yes, sir, the government calls Mr. James Judson.

(Mr. James Judson was called as a witness, was sworn, and testified as follows.)

Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q  Would you state your full name, please?
A  James Gregg Judson.
Q  Your address is what, sir?
A  Post Office Box 5555, Spring Lake, North Carolina.
Q  What is your occupation?
A  I'm a Spring Lake policeman.
Q  What was your occupation on the 17th of February 1970?
A  I was a Provost Marshal Investigator at Fort Bragg.
Q  Did you have occasion on that day to interview people in the Corregidor Courts area?
A  Yes, sir, I did.
Q  In these interviews did you have occasion to interview Lieutenant and Mrs. Casper?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  Would you relate for us, please, the substances of that interview?
A  We had an interview with both Lieutenant and his wife at his residence, myself and Mr. Park, who was my partner that night.  We talked to them at the porch, asked them various questions that we asked throughout the night and early afternoon from people, door to door.
Q  And what were those questions?
A  What time they went to bed, if they heard any unusual noises or anything during the night.  We asked them if anything unusual took place or anything to wake them up if they were asleep, things of that nature.
Q  And what was Lieutenant Casper's response to these questions?
A  Lieutenant Casper said he retired for the evening at 10:30, but prior to retiring, approximately 7 to 9 o'clock he heard some noises outside, some kids running up and down.
Q  And were these questions also put to Mrs. Casper?
A  Yes, they were.
Q  What was her response?
A  She had nothing to add except for the children, as far as the night.  She also retired at the same time.
Q  Did you identify yourself to the Caspers?
A  Yes, we did.
Q  Now how did you do that?
A  As we knocked on the door, they came to the door.  We showed them our credentials that we carried, told them we were working for the Provost Marshal Investigation Section, identified both ourselves by name.
Q  Why is it--if you can answer this question--that you remember specifically this interview?
A  We took with us some interview work sheets, and each house that we went to we recorded what the party had to say at that residence on these interview work sheets.
Q  Have you had occasion to look at one of these interview work sheets recently?
A  Yes, I have.
Q  Was there any other reason why you remember this?  Specific reason?
A  Well, two doors down, I was conducting the interview, one of the Lieutenants tried to grab my credentials from me, and I had to take them back.  We are not allowed to release them to anybody.  He tried to pull me through the door to read the credentials very carefully.

CPT SOMERS:  Your witness.

Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q  Mr. Judson, you wrote up some of the interviews that were taken that evening, and Mr. Park wrote some of them.  Is that right?
A  Yes, sir, that's right.
Q  And was that done because it rather cold outside, a simpler procedure to have one man write and the other man talk and keep his hands in his pocket?
A  Right.  We only had one pair of gloves with us and it was rather cold out that night.
Q  And who did the questioning of the Caspers?
A  Mr. Park.
Q  And who did the notations?
A  Mr. Park.
Q  On that interview he did both jobs, both the questioning and the writing?
A  Yes.
Q  Can you describe for us what Lieutenant Casper looked like?
A  No, I couldn't.
Q  Can you describe for us what Mrs. Casper looked like?
A  No, I could not.
Q  Can you describe for us what the gentleman looked like who tried to pull your credentials from your hand?
A  No, I could not.

MR. SEGAL:  That's all.

Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q  You've testified here today to what you remember as accurately as you can, have you not?
A  Yes, I have.
Q  What is your intended profession?
A  I plan to go to State Highway Patrol School in January.

CPT SOMERS:  I have no further questions.

COL ROCK:  I have no questions of the witness.  Do you wish him to be excused?

CPT SOMERS:  Please, sir, yes.

COL ROCK:  Mr. Judson, you are requested not to discuss your testimony with any person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused.  Do you understand?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  You are excused, thank you.

(The witness departed the hearing room.)

COL ROCK:  Does the government at this time have any further witnesses to offer the hearing?

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, it does not.  The government will have one witness who will not be available until tomorrow morning.  The government will have some specific information on fingerprints requested by yourself.  The government will also have, probably have a written statement of another witness who is not available to testify here, and hopefully one more laboratory report, and that will be it.  As of right now we have no further witnesses.

COL ROCK:  What time will your witness be available, or what time do you wish to proceed tomorrow?

CPT SOMERS:  This witness is to arrive at the Raleigh-Durham airport at 7:30.  I doubt that we could proceed before 9:30.

COL ROCK:  This hearing will be recessed until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

(The hearing recessed at 1100 hours, 8 September 1970.)

(The hearing reopened at 1050 hours, 9 September 1970.)

COL ROCK:  The hearing will come to order.  Let the record reflect that those parties were present at the recess are currently in the hearing room.  At this time is the government ready to proceed?

CPT SOMERS:  It is, your honor.  The government calls Doctor Russell Fisher.

(Doctor Russell S. Fisher was called as a witness, was sworn and testified as follows.)

Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q  Would you state your full name, please?
A  Doctor Russell S. Fisher.
Q  And your address, please?
A  My office address is 111 Penn Street in Baltimore, Maryland.
Q  And what is your occupation, sir?
A  I am a physician, pathologist and full time specialist in so-called forensic pathology, the pathology of injury.  I am Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Maryland and have been for twenty-one years.  I am Professor of Forensic Pathology at the University of Maryland Medical School, and I'm appointed in both the Hopkins Medical School and the School of Hygiene at Hopkins in the capacity as lecturer, or whatever equivalent capacity they have for part-time people in the field.

MR. SEGAL:  Excuse me, sir.  I would agree that Doctor Fisher is a qualified pathologist. There is no reason to qualify him further.

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, the government would like to go on with the doctor's qualifications.

MR. SEGAL:  Go right ahead.

COL ROCK:  Proceed.

Q  Would you briefly, sir, state your professional training and background?
A  I started in chemical engineering at Georgia Tech in 1937, B.S. I studied medicine in 1942 at the Medical College of Virginia.  I spent two years at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit as an intern and assistant resident in medicine.  During the assistant residency in medicine I spent three months on the chest ward where they treated patients with chest diseases.  I was then in the Navy for a couple of years of activity duty, hardly training, beach party doctor on an APA.  I was then, after the war, at the Harvard Medical School from July of '46 until September of '49 as a trainee and research fellow in forensic pathology.  By forensic we mean the pathology of injury.  Subsequent to that I went to Maryland and took the job as Chief Medical Examiner.  I subsequently stood the pathology board examination so that I am a certified specialist in pathology, and in the subspecialty of forensic pathology which was created in 1959, I was already nine years in my present position and training before that so I was grandfathered in.  I am now on the American Board of Pathology, the board itself.  I am charged there with examining young people who have been trained in forensic pathology.  I think that's about the size of it.
Q  Are you licensed to practice medicine, sir?
A  In Virginia, Michigan, Massachusetts and Maryland.
Q  Do you, sir, have a list of your publications?
A  Yes, sir, I have published some total of 59 on this list and that is a list of them.

CPT SOMERS:  I ask that this list be marked as a government exhibit.

WITNESS:  I am consultant presently at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in pathology.

COL ROCK:  Government Exhibit 110, publications by R. S. Fisher, M. D.  Proceed, please.

Q  What professional societies are you a member of?
A  I'm a member of the Maryland Medical Society.  It's called Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland.  It's a medical society and I am the immediate past president of that society.
Q  Would you spell that word?
A  C-h-i-r-u-r-g-i-c-a-l.  I am a member of the AMA; in fact I am in the AMA House of Delegates.  I'm a member of the American Association Academy of Forensic Scientists.  I was president of it some ten years ago for one year.  And, I am a member of College of American Pathologists and American Society of Clinical Pathologists, and the American Society of Pathologists and Bacteriologists, International Academy of Pathology, and I suppose some more, but those are the major ones.

CPT SOMERS:  Thank you, sir.  Does the defense desire to cross-examine on qualifications of the witness?

MR. SEGAL:  As I indicated before, sir, we accept Doctor Fisher's qualifications in pathology.

COL ROCK:  It will be so noted.

Q  Sir, what are your duties as the Chief Medical Examiner?
A  Well, Maryland has a state-wide medical examiner system operated from the central office in Baltimore, and my job as Chief Medical Examiner is overall direction of this operations with deputy medical examiners, doctors, in each county who respond to headquarters for direction, assistance, and their reports are all made to us.  So that I'm in charge of the investigation of the sudden and violent unexpected, unexplained, unattended deaths throughout the state of Maryland, and in a state with four million population, this amounts to some 7,000 cases a year; so that in the last twenty-one years it has been my responsibility to oversee, and indeed, to participate activity in a very great many of some 135 to 145 thousand official investigations of deaths held to be in the public interest, and conducted as an official part of government business.
Q  Sir--excuse me, go ahead.
A  Now, we--in this aspect, in those cases that are within the ready driving distance of Baltimore City Headquarters and indeed, we attempt to, within the city limits, we go to the scene of death, wherever it appears that our services may be useful and the collection of medical evidence or in interpreting medical evidence at the scene for the detectives and police investigators.  We participate in these investigations pretty much from that point right on to--the detectives are continually with us at the autopsy to see and learn what we can tell them about how a given might have occurred.  The numbers of wounds, directions of fire, all that sort of business, and we in turn are expected on the one to help them evaluate possible theories in a given case, and not infrequently to suggest sequences of events, or other things based on our observations, that help to complete a theory as to a given violent death.
Q  Sir, would tell us just a little bit about what a forensic pathologist is and does?
A  Basically he must be a physician.  He must be trained in pathology, and if he is to be a certified specialist, eventually stands an examination or he might have been grandfathered in of the 50 or 60 of who were in the field when we became active.  Basically his responsibility is just that of handling the medical aspects of the investigation of death and nonfatal injuries in a fair number of cases, and interpreting the finding for the benefit of police investigators, the courts, wherever they may need information in facing a given issue, and generally the application of the scientific technique to the problems of medical evidence.
Q  Sir, have you had occasion to have conversation with persons at Fort Bragg with respect to the MacDonald murder case?
A  Yes, sir.

CPT SOMERS:  At this time I ask that this document be marked as a government exhibit.  Let the record reflect that it has already been shown to the defense who has a copy of it.

COL ROCK:  Government Exhibit 111, statement of Doctor Russell Fisher dated 15 July 1970.  I suggest that we have Doctor Fisher sign that after he identifies it.

CPT SOMERS:  Very good, sir.

COL ROCK:  For the purpose of authentication.

Q  Doctor Fisher, I show you Government Exhibit G-111 and ask if you can identify it.

MR. SEGAL:  Now this is objected to.  We have followed the procedure in this case that where witnesses have given written statements to the government that those statements have been marked in evidence, but the purpose of starting off a case where you have the witness here who may have some opinions or information to offer, by giving him his statement so that that becomes his testimony is improper.  We are entitled to have Doctor Fisher's statement given from his own lips.  If he needs to refer to that statement, which I doubt very much, that may be an appropriate issue.  But to start off by asking him to read his statement or to look at it as the basis for testimony is not the procedure we followed in this case and not the appropriate procedure for any legal proceedings.

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, I am perfectly happy to have the doctor testify to what's in that statement.  However, I did understand where there were sworn statements from any witness you wished them introduced and that's what I am attempting to do.

CPT BEALE:  Mr. Segal, I think that counsel for the government has got a good point.  The only thing that's missing is the fact that Doctor Fisher hasn't signed it.  That would appear that this is some type of statement he is giving to someone on an earlier date and that is just like our witness statements.

MR. SEGAL:  No, I didn't mean that it wasn't signed or something.  What I am suggesting is that we have given the witnesses their own statement so they might refresh their recollect about what was said previously, and I have no objection to that procedure.  But that's not what we are following.  I think if Doctor Fisher is to be questioned, if he wants to refer to his statement, well, fine.  It is not fair to start by having him identify it.  It is not what we have done and I don't think it's appropriate.

CPT BEALE:  What we want to have done is have Doctor Fisher just look at it, have him sign it, if in fact that's his statement, and then bring it back up here, and then you can let Doctor Fisher testify.

CPT SOMERS:  Well, I'll follow that procedure if that's what you are directing.  I thought it would save time on the record, for what he's going to testify to that's in that statement, simply to use it and he's available for cross-examination by the defense.

CPT BEALE:  What you are saying, you are just going to let this stand as his testimony concerning whatever happened with Doctor MacDonald.  Is that right?

CPT SOMERS:  No, no.  There are other things that beyond--well. If it causes a difficulty, I'll be happy to have him testify.

CPT BEALE:  Have him sign this and bring it up here.

Q  Sir, did you already state what that was?
A  Yes, sir, this is the written record of the statement that you took from me on July 15 and which I have read and indeed subscribe to.

CPT SOMERS:  Very good.  Would you sign on the bottom, please?

(Witness complied and G-111 was handed to the IO.)

Q  Doctor, I note that you have a document in front of you.  Could you tell us what that is?
A  Well, that's a copy of the document you had which is now in evidence.
Q  Doctor Fisher, did you speak to military doctors here at Fort Bragg with respect to Captain MacDonald?
A  Yes, sir, I did.
Q  To whom did you speak?
A  I spoke to Dr Straub, to a Doctor Jacobson, to a Doctor Gemma, to a Doctor Bronstein, and directed questions to them concerning injuries that Doctor MacDonald had.
Q  And what information did you obtain as a result of this conversation?
A  Well, that these four physicians had all seen and or treated Doctor MacDonald at the time of his admission to the Army hospital here on the base on the 17th of February of 1970; that essentially his injuries could be described in five groups--that one was a stab one, a puncture type wound in the right chest in the front and right side as distinguished from in the back; that this wound penetrated into the right pleural cavity around the lung and that it led to a partial collapse of the right lung; that in size it was between one and one-half centimeters in length, being an elongated thin wound.  The second area of injury involved some superficial puncture wounds of the left arm above the elbow, apparently two in nature, but of really no significance.  There were superficial, shallow, otherwise categorized; that there was also a superficial cut or incised wound in the left upper quadrant of the abdomen; that this was not sufficiently severe to require sutures to close it; that at one end of it did go through the skin and revealed the muscle structure immediately beneath the skin, but that was only at one end, and in the remainder it did not penetrate the full thickness of the skin and underlying subcutaneous tissue.  That was described by some as a scratch and by others as a superficial laceration, a cutting injury.  There was a fourth area of injury which involved four tiny puncture marks in the skin of the left upper chest near the shoulder but on the chest over the muscle area.  There were various and described as little pick marks or tiny perforations, not severe enough to require any specific treatment.  Finally, there was a bruise of the left forehead, swelling, mild discoloration, mildly abraded, according to one of the doctors, but all indicated that it was simply a bruise without significant laceration or destruction of the tis-sue, and that Doctor Bronstein indicated that on his examination that there was no evidence of neurological abnormalities associated with any injury to the head; specifically he saw nothing that indicated brain injury associated with this described bruise on the forehead.
Q  Were any other injuries described to you, sir?
A  No, sir.
Q  Can you tell me, sir, what the effect of such injuries would be on a relatively healthy male?
A  The effect of the--all of the injuries except the first, would be essentially nothing.  Granted, the bruise on the head or a cut in the skin needs perhaps some superficial bandaging or what have you, but they are of no real significance.  The stab wound in the chest which the hospital records show did produce a degree of pneumothorax is obviously a wound that would require treatment.  It, per se, is not a dangerous or critical wound because many people will sustain puncture wounds of the chest with relatively little collapse of the lung, or even with partial collapse.  Some may require nothing other than a bandage with some Vaseline on it to make a sort of valve effect so as one inhales he pushes any air that's trapped in the chest cage out.  That's when he exhales, and then when he inhales the Vaseline fills the hole so the air doesn't get back in and this may control a collapsing of the lung and the lung re-expands.  On the other hand, when a pneumothorax progresses beyond about 25% collapse of the lung, treatment is indicated to determine if pressure is developing in the space between the lining and the chest wall, and indeed if the collapsing phenomenon continues, then a tube is inserted to let the air out and let the lung re-expand.  This was the case with Doctor MacDonald, although at the time of the first examination, as I understand it, the lung showed only 20% collapse and one would hardly think that this would produce any clinical symptomatology.  His blood pressure was recorded repeatedly as entirely normal or what one would consider perfectly safe and indicative of any effects of the wound so to speak of.  His pulse rate, variously recorded in the 70's and 80's, is certainly normal pulse rate, and these recordings began around 5 o'clock in the morning.  His respiratory rate was once or twice mildly elevated, but even this was never elevated to the point that it would suggest to me that he had any respiratory embarrassment of significance.  So that despite the fact that this is potentially a wound of real significance, it did not become so in my judgment prior to the time that his treatment was instituted and thereafter it did not become so because of the effective treatment.
Q  Doctor, would you commonly expect injuries such as this one to produce any significant danger of fatality?
A  No, viewed as a single injury I would not feel any genuine concern about a fatal outcome in any patient who had it with a normal healthy individual.  It might be a different thing if we were--had tremendous emphysema or something, but taking the normal healthy individual, this is not a wound that would be associated with serious consequences in any recognizable percentage of cases, I would say.
Q  Did the information you received give you any indication of Doctor MacDonald's general health prior to the incident in question?
A  Well, I was aware that Doctor MacDonald was in the service and was active, and I believe I understood that he had been to jump school and all of this convinces me that he should be regarded as a physically healthy guy.  Certainly it is necessary to have excellent medical evaluation before these things are entered into, and so I was convinced that he was at that time physically able and a healthy man.
Q  Doctor, in your opinion, could these injuries have been self-inflicted?
A  Yes, sir.  Individually or collectively there is nothing about any one or all of them that makes me believe they could not or were not self-inflicted.
Q  Now in the area that this particular wound which caused a pneumothorax was inflicted, would you expect in the average individual that a shallow wound would penetrate any major organ outside the lung?
A  No, sir, not in this area.
Q  How about the diaphragm?
A  Well in the lateral part of the chest, from the anterior axillary line backwards, the diaphragm is at the level of the 9th rib and below, a couple of inches below where I understand this stab wound to have been.  Therefore, there's little to no danger of a shallow wound, even though it penetrates into the air space, penetrating the diaphragm.  The diaphragm is a couple of inches away from it.
Q  Is there any difficulty--well, let me withdraw that--is there any serious possibility that the heart would be penetrated in this area or encountered in this area?
A  No, one is safe in the presence of an upside-down heart, as they call it, which puts the heart on the right side of the chest.  One would not be in any danger of reaching the heart because in the normal individual, the heart comes only an inch beyond the edge of the breastplate and that's several inches from the axillary line where this wound appears to have been, as has been described to me to have been.
Q  Did Doctor Gemma give you any information which leads you to believe that the area of injury is where you described it?
A  Yes, sir.  Doctor Gemma described his insertion of the chest tube in the 7th intercostal space in the axilla, and he told me that it was right next to or near to the wound that Doctor MacDonald had when he came to the hospital.  I indeed had misunderstood, and thought the chest tube had been put in the stab wound.  I think one of the other doctors believed that at the time, but when we talked to Doctor Gemma, who put it in, he said, “no, I didn't put it through the stab wound.  I put it nearby in the 7th inter space.”  So that it was obvious to Doctor Gemma that this was a safe and proper place to put a chest tube in to treat a pneu-mothorax.
Q  Doctor, has a pneumothorax type of injury ever been used therapeutically?
A  Yes, sir, for many years in the treatment of tuberculosis.  In order to collapse cavities within the lung and rest that lung, we would put air in the chest, put a needle in--in the axilla--I've done it many times myself while on a chest ward as a resident--and simply anesthetize the skin, the pleura beneath it, and shove the needle on in, and let a measure or quantity of air go in.  We use to put in four to six hundred cc's of air, which means, 500 cc's is a quart, I'd say--four to six hundred cc's as much as three times a week, in order to keep that lung down, having to refill it because it would absorb over a period of two to three days spontaneously, and we maintained people on pneumothorax in this fashion for months at a time.  We did the same thing in the abdomen in some people, in order to help to restrict the expansion of the lung.  We would inject the nerve to the diaphragm so that it would be inactive, and then pump air into the belly cavity in the same way so as to push the diaphragm up.  Fortunately we don't have to do it anymore because we have drugs that tend to control the tubercle bacillus, so it has passed in vogue, but only because it is a better way to treat the disease.
Q  Doctor, when you were at Fort Bragg, did you have an occasion to visit 544 Castle Drive?
A  Yes, sir, I did.
Q  Have you had occasion to see the laboratory reports as the results of this case?
A  Yes, sir, I have.
Q  How much time have you spent working in considering this case?
A  I was thinking about this this morning, and I would say that by now I've spent 50 or more hours of actual time and study, observation and discussion on the case.  I'm not talking about travel time, but actual work time.
Q  Doctor, as a result of your expertise, and as a result of your investigation in this case, what is your opinion as to who probably committed this offense?

MR. SEGAL:  Oh, that is outrageous.  I object, sir.  I have never ever heard such an improper question put in a proceeding like this in my life.

CPT BEALE:  Sustained.

MR. SEGAL:  And I would suggest further, sir, what makes so insulting is that we were given a statement of Doctor Fisher, which Doctor Fisher was good enough to discuss, which deals with medical facts about Doctor MacDonald's condition.  Now we're asked--

COL ROCK:  Your objection has been sustained.

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, sir.

CPT SOMERS:  You don't wish to hear the reasoning behind the question?

CPT BEALE:  Captain Somers, that is a question which at this stage is for Colonel Rock to decide.  And secondly, if this case goes to trial, it's for a jury to decide.  This man is not qualified to determine whether or not this accused is guilty or innocent.  I don't believe anyone is qualified to give us--

CPT SOMERS:  If I may, sir, the only thing that I wish to do is explain the basis and except the rule.

CPT BEALE:  There is no reason to explain the basis.

CPT SOMERS:  Well, the defense, you see, has used an expert witness, a psychiatrist, to testify as to the likelihood, the probability, based on his expertise of the accused having committed this offense.  Now all we wish to do is use an expert who could not be better qualified medically or in terms of his criminal background, his investigatory background, to draw such a conclusion.

CPT BEALE:  Captain Somers, we believe that Doctor Sadoff's testimony was based psychiatrically.  Now, if Doctor Fisher cares to give an elevation psychiatrically, okay, but in this field of forensic pathology and trying to extend it to guilt or innocence of a particular accused is certainly--and I've never heard of it being used--and I don't know in court that would permit it, sir.  Now, maybe you've got something that I don't know about.

CPT SOMERS:  No, I do not contend that a court would permit it.  On the other hand I do not believe a court would permit the extent of the psychiatric testimony which has been introduced here either, and I feel that this is not a court, and since it's gone this far with other experts I felt justified in asking this question.  Now, basically, all I wish to do is show that I have a reason, what I consider to be a legitimate reason for asking this question.

COL ROCK:  The objection is sustained.  Proceed, counselor.

CPT SOMERS:  Very good, sir.  Your witness.

Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q  Doctor Fisher, who was it who gave you the facts about the incident that took place in the MacDonald house on February 17th?

CPT SOMERS:  I object to that.  The doctor was not permitted to testify as to the incident, only as to the medical part of his evaluation.

MR. SEGAL:  No one has asked the doctor to testify about the incident of February 17th.  The question directs itself as to what were the sources of information that Doctor Fisher proceeded from, and of course, would any of his opinions or conclusions be changed, if in fact the sources were inadvertently or otherwise incorrect.  It is a proper question.

CPT BEALE:  Mr. Segal, now you are referring specifically to the statement or testimony he's already given.  Is that correct?

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, sir, he discussed--Doctor Fisher discussed he was told a number of facts about the case which he had used ultimately in arriving at a medical conclusion, including he was told facts about the events that took place on February 17th.  I'm not interested in the doctor's opinion about the events.  I am interested, however, what were the sources of information that he had, which were used by him in arriving at his judgment on the medical issues, which is all that he's qualified to testify.

CPT BEALE:  First of all, I think it's best if you do establish through questioning, the fact the doctor did use sources of his information to arrive at his medical opinions.  If you can do that, then you can proceed on to the other point.  Okay?

MR. SEGAL:  Very good, sir.

Q  Doctor, what I am inquiring of you is, in arriving at the opinion that you have given here this morning about the medical situation involving Doctor MacDonald, did you rely upon any other information or have or use other information other than the statements given to you by the four doctors already mentioned this morning?
A  Well, there was the hospital record, which, of course, I relied upon.  I think it must be obvious to all that I had some general information concerning the events that had occurred at Castle Drive, which culminated in Doctor MacDonald being taken to the hospital where Doctor Jacobson saw him.  But I think in dealing with the material reported here, my source are the hospital records, the statements of the four physicians.
Q  Well, now--
A  This is not to say that I didn't talk to other physicians, but--and examined other evidence
--but what we are talking about is what is here, and I believe the answer is correct to state that my basic overall knowledge and fact is deaths had occurred at this base at that address, and that what is recorded in the hospital record about Doctor MacDonald's injuries is the substance upon which I reached the opinions that are recorded here.
Q  Doctor Fisher, you've also given us some opinion this morning as--about the head injury that Doctor MacDonald suffered.  Have you not?
A  In our discussion, you asked me about head injuries and we did discuss it.
Q  Also here in your testimony in court this morning, you made reference to it as one of the five areas of injury?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now did you not consider, in arriving at some opinion about the seriousness or non-seriousness of that injury, how the injury was inflicted on Captain MacDonald? 
A  That's a difficult thing to separate in reaching an opinion.  The fact that one has been told that he made a statement that he had been hit on the head with some kind of weapon--I would have to think that entered into my overall reason, sir.
Q  And in fact you were told more than that he was struck in the head.  Did you not also consider the fact that there was a specific weapon suggested to you, as the method by which the injury was inflicted on the head?
A  I am certain that I have heard or seen the contents of a statement that Doctor MacDonald had made which describes some type of blunt weapon.
Q  And who had shown you that statement?
A  I believe I got it from Mr. Shaw.
Q  And is it correct to say that Mr. Shaw and Mr. Ivory, investigators for the CID, gave you substantial briefing on the facts on the case as they saw it?
A  Oh, yes.
Q  And in regard to the head injury, you received information from both Mr. Ivory and Mrs. Shaw as to the location of the head injury as they saw it or they knew it to exist?
A  I cannot say affirmatively that that's true, other than I knew--that allegedly there was a blow to the left side of the head which I asked the doctors who had seen him specifically about.  The inference is that this was common knowledge within the investigating team and I went to the best source available, namely the doctors, to ask them about this.  I don't think I was influenced to any degree by what Mr. Shaw may have said about his head injury.
Q  In regard to the head injury, you have indicated that you gave consideration to the condition of the injury on the left forehead.  Is that right? 
A  Yes.
Q  Now is that the only head injury that you gave consideration to in arriving at your opinion about the seriousness or lack of seriousness of the head injury?
A  This was the only injury that I got a description of from the four doctors as being observed by them, and specifically at least one or two indicated that their examination did not reveal visible evidence to them of other injuries of any significance.
Q  Now, if I were to tell you that two other physicians whom you have never had the pleasure of talking with have testified in these proceedings as to the existence of another injury to the right hairline, temple area, and one in the left rear of the head, in addition to the forehead, would that give you reason to perhaps consider further your judgment of the seriousness of head injuries?
A  I would doubt very much that the presence of some evidence of a bruise or something in some other location would affect my reasoning, because basically we have described in the hospital record and by the doctors, a man who is brought into the hospital and is immediately described as being alert, indeed anxious, if--I don't think the word hysterical was used--but nearly excited; in other words, a man on whom the neurological examination is said to be negative for any evidence that he had sustained injury of his brain, and I would be forced, therefore, to assess the other evidence as being only evidence of inconsequential head injury in terms of the time that we know about, at five o'clock or shortly before that, in the morning.
Q  Well, do you consider unconsciousness to be an inconsequential symptom in regard to head injury?
A  I would hardly say it's consequential in terms of its immediate situation, but when one is knocked out and wakes up in a relatively short period of time, and if this isn't followed by things, such as headache and other evidence of neurological disturbance, then I think it's relatively insignificant in the overall picture.  But to be sure I'm not going to say that for somebody to knock another individual out is inconsequential.  At least to him at the time it's pretty real.
Q  Not only to him at the time, but wouldn't you say, Doctor Fisher, that that is a medically significant fact that the person who sustained the head injury was in fact rendered unconscious, as opposed to a head injury which did not produce unconsciousness?
A  Oh, indeed.  The fact that there was force sufficient to produce concussion, which is the state of unconsciousness, associated with cerebral commotion.  This means there was enough impact to knock him out--to drop the medical word and just talk in English--if you hit him hard enough to knock him out, it would be harder than if you hit him and don't knock him out, everything else being even.
Q  Doctor Fisher, wouldn't you say that the size of the contusion as it appears on the head is frequently a misleading indication as to the seriousness of the head injury that may have been sustained by the individual?
A  It is true that one can have serious head injury with relatively little bruising externally and conversely that one can have rather large bruising externally and not have any significant brain injury itself.
Q  Is it not correct to say that frequently a, as a pathologist when you have a body to examine, that you find what would appear to be relatively superficial or moderate head injury, but on internal examination to find the existence of a subdural hematoma, which is in fact the cause of death?
A  This is true.
Q  Is the injury to the temple area, if it's inflicted by an instrument such as a bat or a piece of lumber, more likely to be a serious one or have some serious consequences in term of affecting consciousness than the one to the forehead?
A  Consciousness alone, I don't know that I can say with any assurance that equal impact, in terms of consciousness--either one would be apt to be either more severe than the other--
Q  Well, let me put it this way.  A blow to the--delivered to the rear of the head--is that likely to produce a more serious impact on the skull and brain?  How would you rate that in regard to a blow to the front of the head?
A  Well, it's well established that blows to the back of the head, particularly in the neck, where the force is transmitted directly to the brain stem, are more apt to produce unconsciousness, immediate unconsciousness, than similar blows to the front of the head.  This is the whole story of the karate punch.  You hit a guy with force that's transmitted to the relatively short distance, the vital centers that have to do with consciousness.  If you hit him up here with the same blow it probably doesn't hurt him. 
Q  How about a blow to the temple?  Would you say that is also a blow that has more serious consequences, than perhaps a blow of equal force to the forehead?

CPT SOMERS:  I object.  He's answered that.

CPT BEALE:  Overruled.

A  I think with respect to consciousness, I've already indicated I don't think that I can separate this one from this one.  With respect to the possibility of other complications, it is of course true that the skull is generally thinner on the side, than in the front, and therefore with a blow of sufficient intensity to fracture the skull here (pointing to the temple), but one would not expect a fracture in the front.  Thus, there is a certain potential there of a fracture then being complicated by secondary hemorrhage in this area.  There is prone to be, if a fracture is sustained, some--hemorrhage, hemorrhage between the skull of--and the lining membrane so that this is the worst place to hit an individual (pointing to the temple) with a club if you take in all consequences than here (pointing to the forehead.)
Q  Does it make some difference as to how the injury to the head has been inflicted?
A  Yes, sir, it certainly does.
Q  If the head is stationary at the time that a blow with a bat or club is inflicted, is that a more serious situation than if the head is moving at the time the bat or club is struck against the head?
A  I'll have to answer you in two directions.  With a stationary head, as compared with a moving head, the impact from a moving object, if the head is moving away from the object that obviously lessens the impacting force.  This is why the prize fighter ducks.  If, unfortunately, he ducks into the fist, he may get a lot more effect because the two velocities collide rather than the subtractive one from the other, so that while we are talking about moving objects and moving body depends entirely on which way we are moving.  If we get to the falling head--let's say--
Q  Before we get to that, let me suggest to you that what I am asking you about is if the head is moving toward the club or the stick so that the blow is coming from the club or stick toward the head, the head is coming toward that stick--is that a more serious type of injury than if the head was stationary and the same blow is inflicts?
A  Yes, for the same swing of the club, you would have to add to it the same forward motion of the head, so that the resulting impact would be of more significance than if it were stationary with the impact.
Q  Were you ever told that Captain MacDonald received a head injury as he was rising from the sofa, getting up, and that the blow was one inflicted upon him, driving him back down, and that in fact his head went into the collision path with the stick?
A  I believe that this, in a general way, is recorded in the statement that I read, that he was attempting to get up when he was struck.
Q  Now did you indicate also that a blow that is inflicted on the head by say, the head striking the ground or the floor, that that was also a serious type way in which injury is inflicted to the head?
A  This is a situation in which the person is falling and suddenly strikes a hard object, the classical situation being the intoxicated individual who stumbles over backward and strikes his head on the pavement.  This, of course, has the potential for very serious injury because of the fact decelerated injuries in which the moving head is suddenly arrested by striking a solid object is accompanied by more cerebral, more rotation of the brain within this box, and it's this rotation that tends to tear small blood vessels and leads to secondary hemorrhage, largely subdural.  It's also true that it is concussive effect, the coma-producing effect or the knocking-out effect is related to the sudden deceleration of tissue with stresses within the tissue; build up of transmitted force, so that the individual who falls backward and strikes his head is quite prone to be knocked out.
Q  What I had in mind--
A  Whereas--let me finish--whereas the individual whose head is absolutely stationary can sustain a lot of trauma, a fixed head, without being knocked out.  I cite the individual who has extensive fracture of the skull when his head was indeed crushed between the rear end of a truck and a brick wall, and he had a major fracture but he didn't lose consciousness then.
Q  But he subsequently died after that?
A  He died a few days later as a result of it, but the point is the motion and the sudden acceleration of the head or the sudden deceleration of the head is so interwoven with the state of consciousness, rather than, for example, the skull fracture.  The concussion and coma are related to motion, and it's the suddenness of deceleration in the fall is much more apt to be significant or greater magnitude than the acceleration of an impact.
Q  Doctor Fisher, were you ever made aware of the fact that from the position of the sofa Captain MacDonald was rising and struck on the head that he subsequently came to lying on the floor chest down?
A  I'm aware that this statement was made, yes.
Q  And would that indicate to you that there was a possibility of the head having suffered one of these decelerating type blows, that is the head striking against the wooden floor of the house?
A  Based upon the statement that he awoke some time later on the floor in the hall, having gotten there in some unknown way, certainly the possibility exists that he fell and struck his head on the way down, when he went down.
Q  Where a patient has some evidence that he's been unconscious, that he showed external signs of a blow to the head, in your experience, is the proper procedure, neurological procedure, to have the head x-rayed so that the extent of the injuries can be proper ascertained?
A  Well, I think this becomes a matter of clinical judgment of the attending physician.  If he has any misgivings about it, then sure, he should have it x-rayed, but if the neurological is noted--the man is alert and he has no real complaints directed towards his head, and he's going to be able to observe him, then I don't think an x-ray is imperative.  It is much more important if you can't watch the guy for twenty-four hours, because what we classically do is we put him in the hospital and watch his pulse and respiration, these signs are watched and if anything goes out of line, then obviously we look for trouble and x-ray and what have you, but in the absence of any clinical symptomatology of anything wrong, particularly in the orientation, this bit.  No, I wouldn't say he should be x-rayed.  It is a waste of x-ray and further exposure to x-rays, which we try to avoid, if we can.
Q  I gather from that, that you would think if there is evidence of unconsciousness and visual evidence of a blow, of one or more blows to the head, that neurological status of the patient should be followed closely for at least the first twenty-four hours or more?
A  I think it's a good idea to put such a patient in the hospital and watch him for twenty-four hours.  It isn't done on a very broad scale in the civilian life simply because you can't stick apparently well people in the hospital and keep them twenty-four hours just because of a potential danger.
Q  I wasn't suggesting apparently well people, but I was suggesting in this particular case, in view of the history the physicians had of assault, chest wound, and a head wound; did it strike you as an appropriate procedure to be followed to put the patient on a neurological status for watching for twenty-four hours or more?

CPT SOMERS:  I object to this.  I think he has answered this line of questions.  Furthermore, it is not relevant.

MR. SEGAL:  This is cross-examination; we are entitled to go into the basis of the doctor's conclusions.  Doctor Fisher is quite willing to indicate--to explain the significance of the procedures that were followed.

CPT BEALE:  Your objection is overruled, Captain Somers.

COL ROCK:  However, I am wondering how much longer this line of inquiry will be followed, counselor?

MR. SEGAL:  On the head injuries?

COL ROCK:  Right.

MR. SEGAL:  I think that is about the end of it, sir.

COL ROCK:  Okay.

WITNESS:  Could I have the question again?

Q  Surely, Doctor Fisher.  What I was asking is, in a case such as this, where the physician observes a chest injury, head injury, and the patient is in the hospital, would it not seem appropriate to you that the proper procedure would be to have the neurological status of the patient watched closely for the first twenty-four hours or so in the hospital?
A  I think this is automatic.  This man has a tube in his chest and he's going to be confined right here in bed.  There are nurses, doctors, in attendance; they're going to look at him.  If he shows signs of neurological abnormality, it's gong to be attended, but I don't--it's just my assessment, mind you, that had--as he was admitted with the knowledge that he was going to be in the hospital and no evidence that his head injuries were of any significance at that time, and they didn't bother to write orders to follow his head injury.  I think it attests more to the insignificance that they attached to his head injuries since they didn't write orders for complete neurological routine, assuming that he would have the standard sort of thing, and Doctor Bronstein did do a neurological examination.  He wasn't much upset about it.  But I would say it didn't matter whether they write an order or not, they're going to watch the patient.
Q  Doctor Fisher, you aren't really suggesting to the investigating officer that because something wasn't done in the hospital, that means that it necessarily follow that that was the proper procedure to do things?
A  Well, I wouldn't want to go so far to say that totally, but my point was that one reads the record, at least I am not impressed with any gross failure in not ordering further neurological investigation upon the background that we have the patient, we are going to be seeing him from time to time.  It follows; we are going to be doing neurological checks as is necessary.
Q  Well, now is there any evidence at all in the medical records to show that ever a single reasonable thorough neurological work-up was ever done to satisfy the physician there was no serious head injury?

CPT SOMERS:  I object to that, unless the counselor wants to define his terms of “reasonable thorough neurological” investigation, the term used by a layman to an expert.

Q  Doctor Fisher, what does reasonable thorough--
A  Could we look at the record a minute?  I think there is something in the record about a neurological--
Q  Absolutely, I'd be very glad to.  Might we have it made available?  Mine is not the official--

(A-28 was handed to Doctor Fisher.)

A  In the original typed record, on page that is headed “Date of Admission, 17 February,” the Narrative Summary, there are some points that have to do with his neurological examination.  “Eyes--pupils round, regular and reactive to light and accommodation.”  “Extremities--full range of motion.”  This indicates to me there was definite attention paid to neurological status.  Again, in Doctor Jacobson's notes, “No sensory or motor complaints pertinent to left--” and I can't be sure whether that's “arm” or, but at any rate here “No sensory or motor complaints indicates some degree of neurological examination, and there is the statement, “Patient does not know if he was unconscious.”  Then again, that statement, “Excited coherent healthy young man concerned about family.”  Again, they are giving some picture of his neurological situation.
Q  Well, from those observations, Doctor Fisher, are you ready to conclude that anything more than emergency room procedure was followed in this case to just check the neurological symptoms?
A  Well, I did ask Doctor Bronstein specifically and he did tell me they did a neurological examination.  I haven't found his note in this record, but it is established that he did see the doctor and that he did some sort of examination and his statement was that he did a neurological and he found nothing wrong with it, no evidence of any consequences of his blows or whatever the terminology was.  So I believe he had a neurological examination adequate to the situation at hand.
Q  Did Doctor Bronstein make clear to you that the neurological check-up--check that he made was in fact part of the emergency room procedure, and that the basic attention was directed to the chest wound, rather than a thorough examination for neurological injury?
A  I would--I have the impression, as I recollect his statement, that obviously they were paying attention to his chest.  This was a more concrete thing to look at, but I also got very strongly the impression of having done a neurological assessment and he saw no problems.  I believe the rest of the record indicates that there was no neurological complication of his head injuries.
Q  That's a hindsight observation, of course?
A  This is true, but I think before I would be critical of a judgment to not do more examination or more procedures, I would perhaps have to have some hindsight evidence that they were wrong.

COL ROCK:  If I may interject here just a moment, Mr. Segal.  Doctor Fisher, would you say that normal medical procedures were followed as you understand them in the case of this patient being admitted to the hospital?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  Do we need to follow this any further, Mr. Segal?  I was under the impression that you were just about through

MR. SEGAL:  Very, very briefly, sir.

Q  What I want to clarify Doctor Fisher, is are you saying normal medical emergency room procedures were followed in this regards?
A  I think with respect to medical treatment, emergency room and subsequent surgical treatment.
Q  Let me make something clear.  I wasn't suggesting that the doctors at the hospital did not do subsequently what they thought was the proper and, in fact, was proper, but what I am suggesting is that they may not have had adequate basis for your own conclusion about the seriousness of the head injury.  In that regard, I want to put this question to you.  Have you not made a number of references here this morning to the so-called coherence or clarity of Doctor MacDonald at the time as one of the symptoms or signs that led you to conclude that he wouldn't have had very much wrong with his head injury?
A  I have indeed said that alertness, mental alertness, is a--one of the bits of evidence that goes into assessing an individual as not having a post-concussive picture which is generally that of depression of mental functions, or slowness in thinking, of poor reflex activity, et cetera.
Q  There is no indication that reflexes were ever checked?
A  Well, there's a statement “normal motor activity,” but by reflex I was thinking of cerebral reflex, the response to a question, this sort of stuff.  I wasn't talking about motor reflexes.
Q  All right, you are talking about responses to questions, the ability to relate things coherently.  Would that be a good sign to indicate there's not much seriously wrong by the head injury, if a person can do that?
A  To answer your questions coherently will indicate at that time he's not suffering from concussive effects, yes.
Q  And the ability to perhaps tell things in logical order.  Is that a sign of, you know, reasonably good orientation, and not suffering much effect from a head injury?
A  Well, one would have to say if one cannot relate things in a normal order, and is not excited, emotionally upset, et cetera, et cetera, then one would ascribe this to brain injury, but the absence of a strict recall and recounting of events in perfect order doesn't lead me necessarily to the conclusion that it was concussive.  You can consider the situation of the emotional involvement that must prevail in the instant case.  There's plenty of explanation for any failure to relate coherently events simply because of emotional impact.
Q  I gather from your testimony this morning that you didn't seem to think that there was much of that present in Doctor MacDonald's situation.
A  I'm saying what they observed medically doesn't indicate this.
Q  Now let me ask you this, Doctor Fisher.  Were you ever told by anybody, for instance, that FBI agents who interviewed Doctor MacDonald on the 17th, found him to be lacking coherence, to be unable to recite things in reasonable, chronological order, who found him to be somewhat confused and generally difficult to question and get the facts?  Have you ever been told that?
A  I don't ever--if I recall, the FBI agent, part of it, I was aware that his recounting the story of events was considerably clouded, and when he tried to recount it, it was difficult, as I recall.
Q  Did anyone ever tell you that any investigator on the 17th found, in his professional judgment, that Captain MacDonald was incoherent?
A  Certainly I was aware of the fact that in attempting to reconstruct the events of the night, that he had great difficulty in recalling and telling in a clear, orderly fashion what happened, if that's what you meant by incoherent.
Q  No, I divide that, Doctor Fisher, into different points.  That is, the ability to structure things in a reasonable order as one element.  The ability to tell things coherently as another element, and am asking you whether anybody ever told you that FBI agents or any FBI agent or investigative agent observed this phenomena about Doctor MacDonald, that he wasn't doing both of those very well on the 17th of February?
A  With respect to the events of the night before--
Q  Or earlier the same day.
A  Well, I'm certainly aware at some stage some such statement was made that he had difficulty in recollecting clearly what went on.
Q  And difficulty in relating it in a reasonable coherent fashion?
A  I'm not under the impression that that day he had incoherence as to the events that occurred.  Let's say at eleven o'clock he was incoherent about events that occurred at 10:45, but rather that he was having difficulty in recall and reconstruction, if you will, of events that occurred the previous early morning hours, at a time when he's obviously under, would normally be expected to be under extreme emotional tension, knowing of the misfortune that had befallen his family.

MR. SEGAL:  That's all that I have in this area, I think.  It probably would be an appropriate juncture, if you want to move on to other matters, after lunch.

COL ROCK:  This hearing will be recessed until 1330.

(The hearing recessed at 1204 hours, 9 September 1970.)

(The hearing reopened at 1309 hours, 9 September 1970.)

COL ROCK:  This hearing will come to order.  Let the record reflect that those parties who were present at the recess are currently in the hearing room.

COL ROCK:  Doctor Fisher, I again remind you, sir that you are under oath.  Proceed, counselor.

Continued questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q  Doctor Fisher, I want to clarify in my own mind something in regard to injury to the lung.  You did say, did you not, this morning, that you considered this to be potentially a wound of real significance?
A  Certainly, I could not--I don't believe I said exactly that--I could not deny that a wound of this sort, untreated, might not become a serious wound, but I would not think that a wound of this sort with any reasonable medical treatment would indeed constitute any significant threat to life.
Q  Do I gather that you don't think I have reiterated your words accurately when I say that my recollection was that you called it a wound potentially of real significance?
A  I would think that that's not what I said, or certainly not what I intended to convey, because immediately one assumes that one would have medical treatment of a wound, and with this situation at hand I don't think it was a serious wound.
Q  If not treated promptly, your judgment, I assume, would change?
A  With no treatment whatsoever I would concede that this might become a serious wound.
Q  And the greater the delay in getting the treatment the more serious the injury potentially has?
A  From what we know, without knowing the exact time the wound was sustained, it was evident that at five o'clock it had not proceeded to any condition of seriousness.  Indeed, it was quite some time later when they took the second x-ray and decided to insert the tube.
Q  What I'm asking now, generally injury to the lung produces the kind of collapse that we are talking about to the lung--the longer the wound goes unattended the more serious it is?
A  This is true with any wound whatsoever.  If you neglect it indefinitely it may become infected or otherwise complicated.
Q  Are you suggesting that that's true with the other three separate body wounds that Captain MacDonald suffered?
A  I suggest that that's true for any wound, when neglected, it may become infected.
Q  Now, but really to put things in the proper perspective, you are not considering the other three sets of wounds to the body, as having the same potential or danger to life unattended as the lung would if not attended properly?
A  I would not think that the others has as much potential as this, but I reiterate I don't think this had any serious potential, any danger of becoming a serious wound even if neglected for hours.
Q  Let me ask you this.  Did you ever examine Captain MacDonald?
A  No, sir.
Q  Did you ever ask to examine Captain MacDonald?
A  No, sir.
Q  On a number of occasions this morning I observed that you pointed on your own body to the place where the stab wound to the lung was inflicted, and if I am correct of my observation, I believe that you pointed repeatedly to the lower right-hand corner of your white shirt pocket.  Is that right?  Where you indicated the wound was?
A  Well, I can't answer for where I pointed, with these bifocals, but I understand that the wound was located in or posterior to the anterior axillary line in the 7th interspace.  I am told that is in the testimony.
Q  All right, would you indicate for us, with your finger, please, sir, on your own body, where that wound would be located, the area that you've just described?
A  I think I can count.  If I counted right, this is between the 7th and 8th ribs, so it's therefore in the 7th interspace, and I would say that this is about the anterior axillary line.
Q  Now where did you learn that the chest tube was inserted in Captain MacDonald?
A  Near that, but more to the mid-axillary.
Q  You say near, how close are you talking about?
A  Within a centimeter or two, within an inch.
Q  May I ask how you obtained the information as to where the wound that Captain MacDonald suffered to the lung was located?
A  Well, I asked Doctor Gemma where he put in the chest tube.  I think the record shows where the chest tube was put in.  And Doctor Gemma said that he put it in near, and indicated to me this proximity in general.
Q  Did you make any other inquiries as to where the exact location of the chest wound was?
A  I had inquired of other people and was given information which was not contradicted by Doctor Gemma, because there was an impression that another doctor had that it was more to the front, but he admitted that he didn't see where the wound--he stated that he didn't actually see the wound, but only the bandaging, and when we were seeking the best source of information, we went to the surgeon, and who indeed inserted the tube, and who obviously saw the wound, and this is what I obtained.
Q  Well, you wouldn't consider that to be the best source?  That would be second best to your own examination of the wounds on the body of Captain MacDonald?
A  Now we are debating on whether Doctor Gemma's examination and memory would be better that my direct examination.  I wouldn't deny that it's about as good a source as you can have to look at him yourself.
Q  Is there any notation in any of the medical records as to the specific location of the chest wound?
A  I do not believe it is adequately described in the record, sir.
Q  And the conclusion that you arrived at, that the wound to the lung didn't endanger the diaphragm or the liver, was based upon your conclusion that the wound was delivered to the anterior axillary 7th interspace.  Is that right?
A  It was the 7th interspace and it was in or behind the anterior axillary line, and the anterior axillary line is an imaginary line that runs from the arm pit straight down to the body--well, the axilla is this area in the arm pit from front to back in the armpit and that line drops down is the anterior axillary line.  It separates, in effect, in front from the side of the chest, if one can imagine a line separating it for instruction in the two areas.
Q  Now would you indicate on your own body, please, where is the mid-sternum line of the body?
A  Mid-sternum?  This is the mid-line of the body.
Q  In other words, just about the center of the chest.
A  Mid-sternum, yes.
Q  Now, if I were to tell you that the record in this case indicates that the wound to Doctor MacDonald's lung was six centimeters from the mid-sternum, would that have any influence at all on your judgment about what organs were endangered in the body?
A  The wound to the lung?
Q  Right, was six centimeters from the mid-sternum of Captain MacDonald.
A  I would have to find out how anybody knows where the injury to the lung was.
Q  I'm talking about the external manifestation of the injury to the lung.  That is where you see the position of where the hole in the body is, then you have some idea of what the organs are behind it.  One could reasonably conclude, could they not, that when you see a hole over the position where the lung is, that there was an injury to the lung there?
A  Well, I cannot conclude that you can even get in the 7th interspace if you are only six centimeters from the mid-sternum, which is the mid-line of the body, because at that point the air space is closed--so there has to be something wrong about this measurement.
Q  Something wrong about it.  Are you saying to us that it's impossible for the knife wound to have been inflicted to Captain MacDonald's chest at a position that is six centimeters from the mid-sternum?
A  Six centimeters is--five centimeters is two inches--so we are talking about two and a quarter inches.  Two and a quarter inches from the mid-line of the body would not, in my judgment, get into the 7th intercostal space.
Q  How many centimeters from the mid-sternum would be required before you could enter the 7th intercostal space?
A  Well, may I have Captain--
Q  With a man of Captain MacDonald's build?
A  Well, I think this is a little bit speculative, because I really don't know the internal structure of the chest--his chest--at all.

COL ROCK:  Counsel, could you indicate to me your line of questioning.  It seems that if we are going to get into this, the best thing to do is to see if Doctor MacDonald would be willing to expose himself.

MR. SEGAL:  That is exactly what I desire to do, sir.

COL ROCK:  Okay, fine.

Q  Before we get to that, if the wound to Captain MacDonald chest is 7 centimeters from the mid-sternum, would that change your judgment as to what organs internally were endangered by the wound, as opposed to your belief that it was located anterior--
A  Certainly different anatomy would be exposed if it's around the front of the chest, than it is in the side of the chest.
Q  Around the front of the chest, would the diaphragm be exposed to danger from such an injury?
A  Just offhand, I don't know how far we have to go lateral to the mid-line to get into the 7th intercostal space.  This is extremely variable.
Q  We are talking about six or seven centimeters now.
A  I'm saying that this varies greatly from person to person, and I don't even know if you'd get into the 7th intercostal space there.

MR. SEGAL:  At this junction, if you will permit us, Colonel Rock, to allow Doctor Fisher to examine the actual marks on the body of Captain MacDonald.

COL ROCK:  Since it may clarify it, I have no objection.  Does counsel for the government?

CPT SOMERS:  None, sir.

COL ROCK:  If you wish to, you can do it out of the courtroom, or whatever appears to be most appropriate.

MR. SEGAL:  I am agreeable to that, but I would request the presence of the investigating officer and the legal advisor.

COL ROCK:  We'll take a recess now.

(The hearing recessed at 1320 hours, 9 September 1970.)

(The hearing reopened at 1324 hours, 9 September 1970.)

COL ROCK:  This hearing will come to order.  Let the record reflect that all parties who were present at the beginning of the recess are currently in the hearing room.
    I again remind you, Doctor Fisher, that you are under oath.
    The purpose of the recess was to provide Doctor Fisher, the witness, an opportunity to physically examine Captain MacDonald's upper torso.
    Proceed, counselor.

Continued questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q  Doctor Fisher, you've had an opportunity, I believe, in this interim, to take some measurements, based upon your examination of the bared chest of Captain MacDonald.  Am I correct in that regard?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now would you indicate for us, what is the measurement from the mid-sternum, that is, the mid-chest line to the place where you found to be the healed scar of the chest wound?
A  The site indicated as the healed scar is three and one half inches from the mid-line.
Q  And the centimeters, as I unfortunately stated in that terminology before, would be what?
A  Almost nine, eight and three-quarters.
Q  And did you also find the location of what appeared to be the place where the chest tube had been inserted in Captain MacDonald's right chest?
A  Yes, sir, I did.
Q  And could you give us the location of that?
A  This is square in the mid-axillary line, eight inches, around the chest from the mid-line.
Q  Now is it fair to say that the place you found actually by examining Captain MacDonald, to be the locale of the chest tube insertion, is where you believe actually that the knife wound or ice pick wound has been made?
A  I had believed that it was near the--the stab wound was near the eight-inch wound for surgery, and such does not appear to be the case.
Q  In fact, in view of the actual correct location of the stab wound being three and a half inches from the mid-line, would you now indicate to the investigating officer, what organs are endangered by a stab wound to that area of the chest?
A  Well, that far around in front, I believe it entirely possible that the diaphragm could have been contacted, had this knife been inserted beyond the chest wall, and had it been say, inserted to a depth of--I would say--two inches or more, I think it might have contacted the liver.
Q  When you say two inches from the outer section of the body to the liver?
A  Yes, I think--you see, the liver is rounded in that area and it retreats somewhat from the chest wall, but if you enter a couple of inches you are going to get it in the diaphragm and into the liver, if you are within three and a half inches of the mid-line in front.
Q  So that your estimation, only a two-inch penetration by a stabbing instrument would be necessary to possibly touch the liver in Captain MacDonald's case?
A  That's correct, in view of what we now know of the location.
Q  Were you ever aware that there was more than one chest tube inserted in Captain MacDonald's body?
A  Yes, sir, the second tube was subsequently put in the second interspace.
Q  And when did you become aware of that?
A  On the day I was down here talking to Doctor Gemma.
Q  Now you characterized the chest wound that entered the lung as a shallow puncture wound.  Would you tell the investigating officer to what depth that wound was?
A  Well, all I intended to convey was that it would have, in order to penetrate the lung, it would need to penetrate only approximately half an inch, to skim the surface of the lung.  I cannot say how deep it, in fact, penetrated, but a relatively shallow wound in the location around here, is capable of going through the chest wall and therefore, the tip of the instrument would stick into the lung.  The chest wall is about half an inch in that area.
Q  You are talking about the anterior area.  Is that right?
A  Well, the chest wall is pretty uniform, except in the back wall, of course, where it's--
Q  Did any of the treating physicians tell you that they were able to measure the depth at which that stab wound was in the chest?
A  No, sir.
Q  If I were to tell you that the three surgeons and a fourth emergency room treating physician, who all dealt with Captain MacDonald the 17th of February, have testified or indicated that they considered the chest wound to be a life-threatening wound, would you disagree with their testimony, or their opinion?
A  Well, in this location that's been actually established, I've already indicated that Doctor Gemma's statement misled me, or I was misled by it because certainly I cannot say that this wound is nearby the chest wound, which is what he told us, I would indicate as a superficial wound still capable of producing pneumothorax.  It need not be a serious or fatal wound.  But I would also qualify this by saying that if someone were to insert a knife two to four inches in that area, then this would change the picture considerably, and I would be very concerned less the liver be damaged and surgery be required, and all those things, which then makes it a serious business.
Q  Well, I am not absolutely sure whether I understand you ultimately agree or disagree with what I am suggesting to you has been the testimony here that other persons who are surgeons with medical qualifications have testified and accept the language that they considered this to be a life-threatening wound, would you disagree?
A  I would disagree with it, if they postulated it on the basis of a wound a half or three-quarters of an inch deep, which is the only positive information we have.  We know there was a pneumothorax, hence we know it went in half an inch, and I wouldn't consider that any more serious in this location than I did around to the side.  If on the other hand, they postulate, they base their answer on a two or three inch deep wound, then I would agree with them.  It's simply that I think we now have to examine the situation upon which we reach a conclusion.  Shallow wound--still not very significant.  Deep wound--obviously a serious wound.
Q  Couldn't you develop a tension pneumothorax with a wound to any depth in that particular area?
A  One can develop a pneumothorax with a wound deep enough to penetrate the lung in any area, regardless of whether it is here or there.
Q  And wouldn't you consider a tension pneumothorax as a life-threatening type of injury?
A  No, I don't think a tension pneumothorax, with treatment, is of any great significance from a single stab wound.  It's a different thing if you've got multiple fractures in ribs and all this sort of business, but a single tension thorax is readily treatable and I don't consider it a dangerous situation as long as it's--it comes under treatment.
Q  Well, then I gather you are disagreeing with the testimony of the surgeons who had suggested to you, adopted the language that they consider it to be a life-threatening type injury?
A  I'm afraid that there's been no evidence put to me that there was a tension pneumothorax here at any stage of the game.  Hence, I come back to the fact that he didn't have a tension pneumothorax, since I don't see the potential.
Q  Let me perhaps clarify my question.  Assuming this as a pneumothorax, without the tension pneumothorax, and that being the only facts that the surgeons who have been here have know of, a pneumothorax, you do therefore disagree with them when they say this is a life-threatening injury?
A  Yes, sir, I don't think this is a life-threatening injury with any reasonable treatment at all.
Q  And the reasonable treatment, in your judgment, means prompt medical treatment, I assume, in a hospital?
A  Prompt, within a matter of hours, certainly.
Q  Could a physician who attempted to self-inflict an injury to the chest and lung, as in the case of Captain MacDonald, absolutely know the medical consequences of stabbing himself in the lung with a sharp instrument?
A  I'm afraid you are asking me to assume some things I don't know about Captain MacDonald, namely his knowledge of anatomy and so on and so forth.  I would think that I could pretty well foresee the consequences of stabbing myself in this situation.
Q  And when you say now, anticipate the consequences, maybe I don't fully comprehend.
What would you consider to be consequences that you could reasonably anticipate if you stabbed yourself in your own right lung in the place where Captain MacDonald was stabbed?
A  I would anticipate a pneumothorax, providing it was a reasonably shallow stab.  Now, if it's a two or four inch deep stab wound that is another set of consequences, and I would admittedly be very--of a different mind, with this deep stab wound that might damage the liver, than I would with a wound which doesn't damage the liver and produces only a pneumothorax, as was apparently the case here.
Q  If you were using a knife which had a three or three and a half inch blade, is there any way that a physician would be able to determine with reasonable certainty a medical consequence of stabbing himself in the lung with such a knife?
A  I can see how one, if he chose to do this, would simply not stab himself full hilt depth.
This is not the procedure to do it, if one is being reasonably careful.
Q  Well, is it possible to be reasonably careful in a stab wound inflicted to one's own lung in view of the breathing and the effect that that has on the movement of the liver and the diaphragm and other parts and other organs of the body in that area?
A  Well, mind you, I don't advise doing it, but I could foresee how it--again, I'm speculating about what someone else would do.
Q  Let me--

COL ROCK:  We recognize that, sir.

Q  If I were to tell you that approximately four physicians who have testified under oath in this case have stated that they could not--that in their judgment a physician could not absolutely know the medical consequences of stabbing himself in his own lung, would you agree or disagree with that statement by other physicians?
A  I think I have answered in a qualified way, saying if it is shallow one would or should be reasonably able to anticipate what's going to happen.  If it is four inches deep one should reasonably appreciate the danger of it, and I fail to understand why physicians, if they are well aware of the anatomy and so forth, wouldn't differentiate between these two situations, and have different opinions for the two situations.
Q  You made reference to the fact that you were taking into consideration in your judgment about Captain MacDonald, the fact that his life signs did not seem to be very much out of line, including--concluding his injuries wasn't terribly serious?
A  Yes, sir, that's correct.
Q  Were you aware at the time that there was information recorded in the health records that he had been previously given intravenous procedure, and he had previously been given medication?
A  I know that he had medication started, certainly after he got to the hospital and IV, but he had no treatment of his pneumothorax, which was the thing that we are looking to be procedure abnormalities.  So the facts are his pneumothorax is not advanced or was not of such degree such as to produce any evidence that he was in trouble from it.
Q  I thought you indicated, Doctor Fisher, that this kind of chest injury, all you would need was a gauze bandage with some Vaseline around it.  Now you are saying that you disagree with the treatment about the administration of medication to Doctor MacDonald?
A  I don't know that I said all one needs for it.  I said that the immediate treatment is to put the gauze--Vaseline gauze on it.  I don't at the moment understand why they started intravenous fluids in a patient who is in no way in shock, his blood pressure is classically normal, his pulse rate is classically normal.  Perhaps they thought that trouble might be coming, and therefore they put the intravenous in.  I also can't answer for the total reasoning of the physicians who prescribed medication for him, but it's clear that medication was prescribed as sedation, or this type of medication.
Q  Doesn't that affect the pulse rate and blood pressure when you--
A  It would return it to normal if it were abnormal from excitement.  It wouldn't return it to normal if it was abnormal from embarrassment of the circulation by pneumothorax.  But in this case it wasn't that far enough out of line to amount to anything anyway.

MR. SEGAL:  I have nothing further, Doctor Fisher.

Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q  If the FBI agent who was alluded to in the cross-examination as having used the word “incoherent were to have interviewed Doctor MacDonald while he was under sedation, would the sedation have something to do with the question of his coherence?
A  I would certainly believe it would have because one of the effects of sedation is to interfere with the thought process in the normal coherence of reasoning.
Q  Does the hospital records by treating doctors, insofar as you know, give you any evidence of damage to the liver or diaphragm in this case?
A  There was no evidence whatsoever recorded, nor was I able to elicit any evidence from anybody that they thought they had injury to the liver, and specifically there is a statement that there was no hemothorax, which means there was no bloodshed into this space down here along with the air that entered.  So one therefore could be relatively certain that he didn't stick his diaphragm and his liver because this would have bled and it would have accumulated right down here, nor did he go deeply into the lung because--although this is more difficult to tell about--the lung is resilient and may not bleed after significant penetration, but the liver bleeds, if it is penetrated--that's all--it bleeds.
Q  Doctor, in talking to the doctors that you've alluded to, did you have occasion to ask them specifically about signs of neurological disorder?
A  Yes, I recall asking one of the doctors--my impression at the moment is Doctor Bronstein, although this can be corroborated if necessary--specifically about neurological examination, and I was told that the neurological examination was negative, in addition to which, there was the general discussion about his neurological state, and I've indicated from the hospital records repeated references to alert, eye motions, the external eye muscles and so on and so forth being examined, and to the other gross signs of neurological normalcy, if you know what I mean.  Very early, when you have neurological difficulties, one gets eye motions and reflexes and these things.  Its movement, the ocular muscle, for example, the pupilary reaction is relatively sensitive, and these were recorded.  While one may not make an obvious and specific detailed neurological examination, he can't fail to assess the neurological state of his patient when he comes in and does these things.  If he sees abnormalities, then he obviously will follow with more detail in determining procedures, but I think whenever a doctor examines a patient, he does some degree of assessment of his neurological status by assessing his alertness, his eye motions, his reflexes, these sorts of things.
Q  Do you find any evidence in any of your sources that Captain MacDonald suffered serious damage from the blows to the head?
A  No, sir, I do not.

CPT SOMERS:  No further questions.

MR. SEGAL:  I have nothing further, sir.

Questions by COL ROCK:

COL ROCK:  Doctor Fisher, is it possible that the pneumothorax could have been higher than 20% prior to the time that Doctor MacDonald was first seen by the physician in the emergency room?

WITNESS:  No, sir, I do not believe so, because the lung, until a chest wound is closed, it only goes one way.  It goes down.  It doesn't return.  Once you close the wound then it may return normally, but if one assumes that this wound was in nowise treated from the moment of inception until somebody put a bandage on it in the accident room then I don't believe his pneumothorax was at any higher degree at any time than it was when they did an x-ray.

COL ROCK:  What would be your thought as to the result of a person with a 20% pneumothorax attempting to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to someone else?  What effects would that have on that individual?

WITNESS:  On the person with a 20%?

COL ROCK:  Right, affirmative.

WITNESS:  Oh, I would think, if anything, it might tend to decrease the rate of collapse of his lung because it would, in giving artificial resuscitation one raises some positive pressure, one blows.  Well, this very thing would--it could do both ways.  I must admit you could blow air out into the space by doing this, but if the chest wall is open then it should go on out, escape.  If the chest wound is closed, then one would not want to give--to be the one to do the resuscitation because this would tend to compress the lung.  But as long as the lung, the hole in the chest was open, I don't see where it would influence it significantly either way.

COL ROCK:  In your estimation, would a 20% pneumothorax of itself, cause someone to lose consciousness?

WITNESS:  No sir, I see no reason why it should.

COL ROCK:  I have no further questions.  Does either counsel?

MR. SEGAL:  I have nothing, sir.

CPT SOMERS:  Nothing by the government.

COL ROCK:  I assume you wish the doctor excused.
    Doctor Fisher, you are requested not to discuss your testimony with any person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused.  I thank you for testifying in terminology today.

CPT SOMERS:  At this time, sir, I think it would be appropriate to take a ten-minute recess.

COL ROCK:  We will recess.

(The hearing recessed at 1346 hours, 9 September 1970.)

(The hearing reopened at 1452 hours, 9 September 1970.)

COL ROCK:  This hearing will come to order.  Let the record reflect that those parties that were in attendance at the beginning of the recess are currently in the hearing room.
    At this time, does the government have further evidence to offer?

CPT SOMERS:  Yes, sir.  First, we would like to have marked this interview work sheet done by Judson and Park on the Caspers which I previously mentioned, and which I stated that we would offer as a government exhibit.

COL ROCK:  Is this the original or a copy?

CPT SOMERS:  That's the original, sir.

(The offered exhibit was examined by counsel for the accused.)

COL ROCK:  Government Exhibit 112, Interview Worksheet on E. G. Casper.

CPT SOMERS:  The next offers five laboratory reports, four of them from the criminal investigation division laboratory of the United States Army and one from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, copies of which have been previously provided to the defense.

MR. SEGAL:  Sir, might I suggest we take them seriatim, one at a time, and identify them by date so we can all share these clearly.

COL ROCK:  I plan to identify them separately, yes.

MR. SEGAL:  All right, sir.

COL ROCK:  Government Exhibit 113, FBI Fingerprint Report.  Government Exhibit 114, CID Lab Report, date returned 19 August 1970, reference hair samples.  G-115, CID Lab Report, date returned 22 August 1970, subject fingerprints.  G-116, CID Lab Report, date returned 1 September 1970, subject, fingerprints.  G-117, CID Lab Report, date 2 September 1970, subject fingerprint (Esquire).  Does the government have further exhibits to offer?

CPT SOMERS:  No further exhibits, sir.  We do have a witness.

COL ROCK:  Please--

MR. SEGAL:  Sir, excuse me.  Before we proceed with the witness, in my very rapid examination of the reports, I do not see any reference to a lab report that deals with the question of the wax that was found in the MacDonald house, and as to whether or not the apparently melted samples of wax were or were not of the same type as the candles that were found that belonged to the MacDonald family, and I want to inquire at this time as to whether we can anticipate such a report being available.

COL ROCK:  Does the government care to address that?

CPT SOMERS:  I do not currently have such a report.  I am told that the work has been done.  I intend to attempt within the deadline set by the investigating officer one more time to obtain that report.  You are correct; however, it is not in what you have now.

MR. SEGAL:  Sir, I would at this time inquire in regard to G-114, lab report of 19 August dealing with comparisons of hair of three individuals, Ivory, Orr and Rossi, with the samples of the hair found in Mrs. MacDonald's hands.  The response of the laboratory seems to be incomplete in that it says on the second page of the report that the sample hairs and hairs found in Mrs. MacDonald's hands apparently did not have a common source of origin, however, I call to the attention of the investigating officer the qualification that was previously put on a hair report submitted by the laboratory on 2 September in regard to the comparison with Captain MacDonald's hair, wherein which they had some nine samples of hair from different points of Captain MacDonald's body, and nevertheless concluded that perhaps they still could not make a final positive elimination of Captain MacDonald as the source of the hair in his wife's hand because they didn't have enough hair samples.  I would suggest that the laboratory be asked whether they wish to incorporate the same qualification or caveat that they placed in their prior report of 2 September in regard to the hair of Captain MacDonald, to this report dealing with Investigators Ivory, Orr and Rossi, and if not, I would like to know, sir, and perhaps I think the inquiry would like to know why such a qualification or caveat is not appended to the report that has been given us today.  Is there something unique about the hairs that make it unnecessary, is it an oversight or perhaps some other explanation, but I do think that the record does look rather strange in regard to the fact that on one of these hair reports there was this rather interesting qualification, wherein it has not been appended here, perhaps by oversight or some other inadvertence.  And I think that since we are waiting for one more report from the laboratory, it may be desirable to ask for their answer in that regard.

COL ROCK:  Does the government have any answer to this at this time?

CPT SOMERS:  The government has nothing to say with respect to--in answer to that, because the government does not know why the lab has responded as it has.  I can obviously state why the laboratory responded in the other lab report because it was asked.  Beyond that I do not know.

MR. SEGAL:  Well, sir, I think from that, if we are to be in a sense complete, I know no reason why we should not ask the same question with regard to this report.  I don't see any reason why there should be unique and special treatment appended to the examination made in Captain MacDonald's hairs which require the government to have some caveat added to the laboratory report, and at the same time the thing was not done in regard to the other hair samples.  It may be, in fact, may be overlooking some evidentiary source, or may be excluding something which should not necessarily be excluded.

CPT SOMERS:  I can expand a little bit on the comparison of hair, if it's going to help anything.  But you may want to go off record to do it.

COL ROCK:  Well, I think the question has been asked on the record.  Is there any reason why we should go off the record?

CPT SOMERS:  None other than the source, i.e. me, instead of the lab technician.

COL ROCK:  Well, I have asked you for any elaboration you can give.  Obviously you can't speak for the lab, so please proceed.

CPT SOMERS:  Well, hair has physical characteristics which are identifiable.  If some of them are clearly different, then elimination can be made immediately.  Sometimes, however, the differences are not clear and are there, and a complete elimination is not possible.  That may be one of the explanations for the differences here.  In fact, I think it is.  That's my opinion.  But at any rate the lab has responded as it saw that it should respond with respect to these reports and I have not personally talked to the laboratory technician about every exhibit, in the current report, because we have only recently acquired them.

COL ROCK:  I would assume, then, basically from what's been stated, that the lab was requested not to give the additional caveat as in the case with Captain MacDonald, simply because these three are not the accused.  Would that also be the reason?

CPT SOMERS:  Well, I would reverse the--the way of putting that and say that the lab would normally respond that way, and that it responded differently in the case of Captain MacDonald because we asked it to, since he is the accused.

COL ROCK:  It occurs to me, Mr. Segal, with my deadline of--I believe it was by 1330 tomorrow--all evidence would be in, that it would not give the lab sufficient time to answer and get the reports in in view of our past experience.  However, I would be willing to take into account that probably if the lab were, if an inquiry were made, they would probably answer in the same fashion that they have on this other one.  Would that be your impression, Captain Somers, that they would probably give the same?

CPT SOMERS:  They might very well, sir.  I can't say.

COL ROCK:  Because the answer to the government's inquiry didn't really add much, much to the investigation, if anything.

MR. SEGAL:  I'd except that clarification, sir.  I think that perhaps we might account that a different laboratory person wrote the report.  Mr. Browning did the one on 19 August and he chose to use the words different physically, and the other person said dissimilar.  It seems to me it is a minor difference that we can accept in view of your own clarification.

COL ROCK:  I have looked at it in that general light as well.

CPT SOMERS:  Well, I can get a reply to the question by telephone perhaps, if you are interested.

COL ROCK:  I think Mr. Segal is satisfied.

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, sir, I am.

COL ROCK:  Please bring in Mr. Ivory.

(Investigator William F. Ivory was called as a witness, was reminded of his prior oath, and testified as follows.)

Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q  You are the same Mr. Ivory who has previously testified in these proceedings?
A  Yes, sir, I am.
Q  Mr. Ivory, I hand you Government Exhibit 105 and ask you if you recognize it?
A  Yes, I do.
Q  Can you tell us who that photograph represents?
A  It is a photograph of Miss Helene--Helena Stoeckley.

MR. SEGAL:  I'm sorry; I could not hear that name.

A  Helena Stoeckley.
Q  And were you present when that photograph was taken?
A  Yes, sir, I was.
Q  Did you take it?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Is it an accurate representation of the person depicted?
A  Yes, sir, it is.
Q  Did you have an occasion to speak to Miss Stoeckley?
A  Yes, sir, I did.
Q  Mr. Ivory, are you familiar with a person named Mr. William Posey?
A  I am familiar with the name, sir.
Q  Are you aware of any connection between Mr. Posey and Miss Stoeckley with respect to this case?
A  Yes, sir, I am.
Q  Can you tell us what that is?

MR. SEGAL:  I object.  I haven't the slightest idea what the source of Mr. Ivory's awareness is.  We do tolerate some hearsay, but at least we ought to have some idea as to how Mr. Ivory purports to know whether there is any connection between Miss Stoeckley and Mr. Posey or anybody else before he is permitted to testify to anything.

CPT SOMERS:  I think he has testified that he spoke to Miss Stoeckley, and I'll tie that in specifically, if you like, as her being the source of the information.

COL ROCK:  Yes, try to clarify, please, counselor.

Q  What is the source of your information with respect to this connection?
A  Verbal statements made to me by Miss Stoeckley.
Q  And what is that connection?
A  She said that she resided in the building next to Mr. Posey on--the name of the street I don't recall offhand.  And that she was the female that he allegedly testified he saw coming out of the car that morning on 17 February.

MR. SEGAL:  That's objected to.  I haven't the slightest idea how Miss Stoeckley would say that Mr. Posey saw her getting out of the car.  There's no indication as to how she knows it, or any indication by Mr. Posey that he ever spoke to anybody that evening.  This is really getting remote.  There were a number of young ladies that lived at the address next door to Mr. Posey, including the apartment wherein Miss Stoeckley may have resided.  I believe there is trouble in allowing all this kind of testimony to come in through Mr. Ivory.

COL ROCK:  We'll take a temporary recess in place.

(The hearing recessed at 1515 hours, 9 September 1970.)

(The hearing reopened at 1521 hours, 9 September.)

COL ROCK:  This hearing will come to order.  Let the record reflect that those parties who were present at the recess are currently in the hearing room.  I again remind you, Mr. Ivory, you are under oath.

MR. SEGAL:  Sir, for the record, may I say in view of the discussion that was held in your absence, certain matters have been clarified.  There was an objection made by me and I am withdrawing it at this time in view of the clarification that we had.

COL ROCK:  Proceed, Captain Somers.

Q  Mr. Ivory, do you remember when this interview was that you had with Miss Stoeckley?
A  It was about two weeks ago, the date I don't remember.
Q  And where was it?
A  It may have been even further than that in time, but it was in the office of the Chief of Detectives in Fayetteville City Police.
Q  Now you say that Miss Stoeckley indicated that she was the girl that Mr. Posey was alluding to.  What information, specifically, did she convey that led to this conclusion?
A  She said that she had discussions with him, and also that she did arrive at her home at the time he alleges he saw her getting out of the car.  However, she said she was alone in the car.
Q  What kind of car was it?
A  A blue Mustang, a new model, or a late model in year and she did not remember that.
Q  Did she indicate, Mr. Ivory, how many people were with her?
A  She stated she was alone.  There were no persons with her at all.

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, I think I've pursued this as far as I want to.

COL ROCK:  Counsel for the accused?

Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q  Mr. Ivory, I'm not sure I understand what she gave you, when she said she was alone in this blue Mustang.  Did she indicate to you that she is the person who drove the Mustang up?
A  Yes, she did say that.
Q  I see.  And who did she tell you was the owner of that car?
A  She knew the owner only by first name.  She did not know the last name.  It was an acquaintance of hers.
Q  And what was the first name?
A  Bruce.
Q  Bruce?  Did you make notes of your interview with Miss Stoeckley?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Did you make a note in your file or anything that you interviewed her? 
A  There may be a note reflecting the date.
Q  Is there any reason why you didn't make any notes of your interview with this lady?
A  No particular reason, no.
Q  Isn't it standard operating procedure when you are conducting an interview that's related to an Article 32 inquiry that is in process of a triple homicide to make notes of interviews taken?

CPT SOMERS:  I object.  That's irrelevant.

MR. SEGAL:  No, sir, it's not irrelevant.  I suggest it's very relevant.  If we are going to be confined to this Stoeckley--you know--statement, it would be very helpful to know why an investigator would not write down all she has said so that he might even be able to refresh his own recollection, that he might be able to share with us all of her words as he was taking them down contemporaneously.  It seems to me to be so elementary in procedure in criminal investigation as to defy even arguing its relevance.  It seems to me we are entitled to know why a report was not made of this interview.  Was it simply that the investigator treated it so lightly as a matter of so little importance to him that he did not trouble to take notes or is there some other reason?  I think we are entitled to have that if we are going to bring out this testimony at all.

CPT BEALE:  Your objection is overruled, Captain Somers.  You made proceed, answer the question, if you can.

Q  Mr. Ivory, why were no notes taken of the interview with Miss Stoeckley?
A  I did have a notebook with me, and I started to take notes and she got very nervous and shied away, and I put my pen and notebook away.
Q  Did you make any notes at all in your notebook?
A  I just started--I believe I wrote her name down at the top of the page.
Q  And what did she do or say to indicate that she was objecting to your making notes of what she was saying?
A  She said something to the effect of what are you doing?  What are you writing?
Q  And what did you say?
A  I said, “nothing, I'm not writing anything,” and I just put it down.
Q  Did you ask her whether she objected to your making notes of the interview?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Why not?
A  I was concerned with getting over with the interview, rather than making her so nervous that she would not answer me at all.
Q  What was so terrible about making her nervous about asking her about her whereabouts on the morning of the 27th?
A  I don't know and that's why I put the notebook away so I could find out, so I could find out what she had to say.
Q  Did you find out where she was between the hours of 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. on February 17th 1970?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Did you ask her where she was?
A  I did.
Q  What, if anything, did she say?
A  She said she could not recall, she could not remember.
Q  Did she indicate any reason why she was unable to recall?
A  Yes, sir, she did.
Q  And what was the reason?
A  She said that she had been out on marijuana.
Q  On marijuana?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Are those her words, that she was on marijuana?
A  That's correct.
Q  Mr. Ivory, you--was she telling you that she couldn't remember where she was because she'd been using marijuana?
A  That's correct.
Q  Mr. Ivory, you've had occasion to investigate cases in which cannabis sativa has been used, haven't you?
A  Yes, I have.
Q  Do you know to your knowledge, is that a medically recognized result of smoking marijuana, to lose memory?
A  Not to my knowledge.
Q  Not to your knowledge.  Were you told by anyone that Mr. Posey had previously said that Miss Stoeckley said she had been taking, at one time she said LSD and another time she said mescaline?  No one ever told you that?
A  Would you go over that again, please?
Q  Had anyone ever told you that Miss Stoeckley was reported to have said on one occasion she was using mescaline that night and on another occasion she reported to have said LSD that night?
A  She told me in that interview she was taking marijuana.
Q  Well, I want to know, were you armed with the information--
A  No, I was not.
Q  Now did you ask Miss Stoeckley why she was not able to recall where she was since marijuana is not known to have the effect of impairing one's memory?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  And she said what?
A  She said she didn't know, she just couldn't remember.
Q  Now what color is Miss Stoeckley's hair?
A  Red.
Q  Would you say it was dark red?
A  Yes.
Q  Did you ask her about a blonde wig?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  And did she admit to having owned a blonde wig up until about February 17th?
A  I asked her specifically about the blonde wig, and she said that she had worn one occasionally, but that it was not hers, that it belonged to a girlfriend and she did not have it.
Q  And did she say when she returned or disposed of that blonde wig?
A  No, she did not.
Q  Did anyone ask her whether it had been shortly after February 17th, 1970?
A  It was subsequent to that date, but the exact date she couldn't recall.
Q  And did she give the name of the girl?
A  No, she did not.
Q  Did you ask for that name?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  Did she refuse to give you that name?
A  No, she said she just couldn't recall which of the girls it belonged to.
Q  Did she tell you where it was that she had effected the return of the wig, the street, or apartment, where the other girl lived?
A  No, she did not.
Q  Did you ask her where it was?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Did you ask her whether she had ever owned a large floppy hat?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  What, if anything, did she say about that?
A  She said yes she did.
Q  Did she indicate where that hat is now?
A  She indicated she gave it to someone, but she could not recall the name of the person she gave it to.
Q  And did she indicate where that episode in giving the hat away took place shortly after February 17th 1970?
A  She did not indicate the day, nor did I ask.
Q  Was there any reason why you didn't ask her when she stopped wearing or got rid of it?
A  No particular reason.
Q  Did you ask her whether she owned boots of any sort?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  And what did she say?
A  She said, yes, she did.
Q  And does she still own or wear leather boots?
A  Yes, she does.
Q  Did she have them on the day you saw her?
A  No, she did not.
Q  Did she describe to you what color they were?
A  She--the color she had around that period were black.
Q  What do you mean “around that period?”  Did she indicate that she owned more than one pair of boots?
A  Yes.
Q  Did she ever indicate to you she owned brown boots?
A  No.
Q  What colors did she indicate she owned?
A  Black.
Q  Just black?
A  Black.
Q  Were they--do you know anything about the type of boots they were?  Were they large boots, large openings at the top, or were they boots that had to be zipped up because they were tight to the leg?
A  I do not know what type.  She indicated they came to about this portion on her leg, which will be maybe two or so inches below the knee.
Q  Did she indicate to you that she had given away or disposed of any pair of boots about the middle of February 1970?
A  Yes, she did.
Q  What did she say in that regard?
A  She said she threw them away.
Q  And did she know where she threw them away?
A  Yes, she threw--she indicated that the heel was worn or broken from her boots, and since she had another pair of boots, she discarded them in a trash can.
Q  Now, did you ask Miss Stoeckley whether she would be willing to come here to this inquiry and tell us what she knew about her whereabouts of February 17th, 1970?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  And what, if anything, did she say?
A  She said no, she would not.
Q  Did you ask her why she would not come?
A  She indicated she didn't want to become involved.

COL ROCK:  I'm sorry.  She didn't want what?

WITNESS:  To become involved.

Q  May I ask how she came to be in the office of the Chief of Detectives of the Fayetteville Police.
A  I had asked the detectives to be on the lookout for her and if they got her to call me so I could talk to her.
Q  She was picked up by the Fayetteville Police?
A  Let's not say “picked up.”  She was asked to come in to talk to us.
Q  Well, is there any reason why you couldn't ask her the same way the Fayetteville Police did?
A  I did not know where she was living.
Q  Once she arrived at the police headquarters at a request, was there any reason why you couldn't make the same type request that she appear at these proceedings?
A  I asked her would she be willing to go to court, I did not specifically say Article 32 but court, and she said no, she would not.
Q  Did you talk to her about her interest in witchcraft?
A  No.  The subject came up, yes.
Q  In what fashion did it come up?
A  I asked her what type dress she usually wore.  She said sometimes purple, sometimes black.
Q  What color of clothing was she wearing when you saw her?
A  Purple.
Q  Was she wearing a skirt or dress?
A  She was wearing a pants suit.
Q  Pants?
A  Suit.
Q  Pants suit?
A  Yes.
Q  What kind of footgear did she have on?
A  Shoes.
Q  What?
A  Shoes.
Q  Where does she live today?
A  I have no idea where she is now.
Q  All right, may I ask the date that you saw her in the Fayetteville Police Department, what was her address on that date?
A  She gave an address on Arsenal Avenue.
Q  And what was that address, please?
A  909.
Q  909 Arsenal Avenue?  Have you ever verified that address as to whether in fact she resided there?
A  I have been to the house but I've never found her at the house.
Q  You mean subsequent to the day you talked to her in the police station, you've been there.  Is that right?
A  That's right.
Q  How long after that date did you go to her house to see whether she was there?
A  Oh, it was weeks, a few weeks.
Q  Well, you only talked to her about two weeks ago, I think.
A  Right, I believe I corrected myself later and said that I believe it might have been earlier, which is a few weeks.
Q  All right, let me ask you this.  Did the interview of Miss Stoeckley take place before or after the last time these Article 32 proceedings convened, which was the second week of August I believe?
A  It would have been subsequent to that.
Q  Subsequent.  Did you ascertain she lived at the address at Arsenal Street that she gave you?
A  No, I did not.  That is the address that she gives around town as being her address.
Q  Well, did you talk to anyone at that address?
A  I talked to a woman at that address.
Q  And did she say that Miss Stoeckley lived there?
A  She was being very cagey with me and would not answer.  She answered, but--
Q  What did the woman say when you said, “Is Helena Stoeckley living here?”
A  She said, “No, I don't know anyone by that name.”
Q  In other words, she denied knowing Helena Stoeckley?
A  Yes, at that time.
Q  Did you ask her whether she knew anybody by the name of Helena?
A  No.
Q  Did you show her the Polaroid photograph that you have here and say is that the lady that lives in the house perhaps by some other name?
A  I did not have in my possession the picture at that time.
Q  Have you ever gone back subsequently with the photograph and showed it to the lady to see whether Helena Stoeckley lives at 909 Arsenal Street?
A  No, I haven't.
Q  Do you know where the Fayetteville Police picked her up on the day that you interviewed her?
A  No, I do not.
Q  You have no idea how they found her?
A  No idea in the world.
Q  Do you know whether Helena Stoeckley has been fingerprinted by the Fayetteville Police?
A  By the Fayetteville Police, I'm sure she has.
Q  Well, why are you sure that she has been fingerprinted?
A  Because she was arrested.
Q  Do you know when she was arrested?
A  Yes, around the end of the month.
Q  The end of the month of--
A  Last month.
Q  July or August?  The end of August?
A  Correct.
Q  What was she charged with?
A  Trespassing.
Q  Is it normal to fingerprint people here in Fayetteville when they are charged with trespassing?
A  When anyone is put in jail, to my knowledge, sir, they are fingerprinted.
Q  Do you have specific knowledge of whether Fayetteville Police--
A  If they follow their usual procedures, yes.
Q  Do you know whether there is a set of prints of Helena Stoeckley in the Fayetteville Police files prior to August of 1970?
A  I do not know.
Q  Do you know whether she was arrested prior to August 1970 at any time?
A  I know she was arrested but I don't know whether she was put in jail or not.
Q  Well, where was she arrested prior to August 1970?
A  I don't know.  I don't know any of the details of that.
Q  Did you ask to see whether you could get a set of her fingerprints prior to August 1970?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Was there any reason why you didn't ask for fingerprints?
A  No reason, sir.  I had already obtained a set of fingerprints.
Q  When did you obtain a set of fingerprints?
A  They were obtained on 19 February by the Federal Bureau.
Q  A set of her fingerprints?
A  Yes, however under an alias.
Q  What was that alias?
A  I don't know.
Q  You say you do not know the alias under which she was previously arrested.  Can you find that out for us, sir?
A  She was using several aliases.
Q What aliases does she use?
A  Margie Raynor.
Q  Raynor?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What else, sir?
A  Margie Foster.
Q  Do you know any others?
A  Those are the only full names that I know.
Q  Do you know how old this young lady is?
A  I believe she is around eighteen years.
Q  Did you discuss with her whether she used LSD?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Did you address with her whether she regularly used any form of drugs?
A  Let me correct myself.  Yes, I did.
Q  What, if anything, did she say in regard to her use of drugs?
A  She said she had tried marijuana and I believe she had tried LSD.
Q  When you say tried; did she tell you that she used LSD on a hundred or more occasions?
A  No, she did not.
Q  Did she indicate to you on how may occasions she used LSD?
A  No, she did not.
Q  Did she give you the names of the other young ladies with whom she lived in the building next door to where Mr. Posey lived?
A  No, she did not.  She gave me--
Q  Excuse me.
A  She gave the first name Marie.
Q  As one of the girls with whom she lived?
A  Yes.
Q  And what about the second girl with whom she lived?  Did she give you any other names?
A  She said she did not remember the girl's name.
Q  Did you ask Miss Stoeckley what her relationship is with the person by the name of Paul Bowman?
A  Paul Bowman?  The name is familiar but I--I can't relate it to that conversation.
Q  I believe Paul Bowman would be known to the Fayetteville Police as a person who is suspected as dealing in narcotics.  Perhaps his name is known to you in that connection too.
Did you ask Miss Stoeckley anything about her--who her associates were, male associates?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  Were the answers as vague as all the other answers, by first names?
A  First names, yes, sir.
Q  Did she tell you what is the last thing she can remember doing prior to 4 a.m. on February 17th?
A  Yes, leaving the house she was living in alone, and driving in the car, just driving aimlessly, she said.
Q  Did she have any idea about what time it was she left the house?
A  Sometime--midnight or after.
Q  Did she indicate how she fixed the time when she left the house?
A  No, just knew in her mind that it was midnight or after.
Q  You mean she knew in her mind or that's all she chose to tell?
A  Well, that's what she told me.
Q  Did you ask for the description of the owner of that blue Mustang she was driving?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  And what, if anything, did she tell you in that regard?
A  He was a white male, former enlisted man in the Army, and she couldn't go into more specific details, other than the physical description.
Q  Did you ask her any questions about specific identification points?
A  I asked her to describe the man to me as best she could, and she said he was twenty or under and a white male, dark hair.
Q  Did you ask her any other questions in regard to the identification of that person, or the description of that person?
A  That's all she could furnish me, in any way of a description.
Q  But did you ask her any specific points of identification?
A  Yes, sir, I asked her to describe any facial features, et cetera.
Q  Is it fair to say that's the only type of question you put to her?
A  Yes, she just could give me a general description.
Q  When you say she could just give you, you mean she could or that's all she chose to give you?
A  I couldn't read her mind.  That's what she gave me.
Q  How about her manner of demeanor?  Did she strike you as being frank, candid and open?
A  Yes, she struck me as being frank.
Q  Candid and open.  Is that right?
A  Right.
Q  And you though a person who did not know the names of the persons she lived with as being frank, candid and open?
A  Yes.
Q  And you thought that her inability to tell you the last name of the owner of the automobile that she used for the evening was also frank, candid and open?
A  Yes.
Q  And you thought that her telling you that she could not remember where she was for approximately four hours, because she was smoking marijuana is a frank, candid and open answer?
A  That's the answer she gave me, and I couldn't get anything else.
Q  Well, I appreciate your difficulty in the interview, Mr. Ivory.  I don't underestimate that for a moment.  What I am asking you is did you honestly take that as a frank, candid and open answer that she said because of marijuana she was not able to remember her whereabouts?
A  I could not--I could only take it as face value as what she gave me.
Q  Well, the face value of that statement is a lie, since you know that marijuana doesn't have that effect on persons.
A  I've never tried it.  I do not know.
Q  Well, I didn't suggest that.  I said based upon your experience as an investigator, I am sure you've talked with physicians in regard to marijuana, the fact you are aware, I am sure, that marijuana does not--is not reported in any way to effect the memory processes.
A  As far as I know.
Q  So knowing that, at least, you still felt that she was being frank, candid and open when she told you that she couldn't remember her whereabouts when she was smoking marijuana?
A  What else could I say?
Q  You could say that she was a liar and ask her to be more specific about what she was doing and where she was.
A  I possibly could have.
Q  But you did not, sir?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Did you ask Miss Stoeckley about her relationship with Mr. Posey?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  And did she indicate that Mr. Posey had any grudge or malice against her that she knew of?
A  She couldn't understand why that he had--had--had--she couldn't understand really why he had any--she said that on occasion she had teased him about being square but that was the extent of her relationship with him.
Q  Did Miss Stoeckley admit or deny having a conversation with Mr. Posey on the street in August 1970, earlier last month, in the Haymount section of town?
A  No, I didn't query her about that.
Q  Were you aware that Mr. Posey had testified in these proceedings that he had seen Miss Stoeckley, if that's the right person that he talked to, on or about August the 12th of 1970?
A  No, I didn't know that.
Q  Were you told by anyone that Posey had said that he had seen Miss Stoeckley during the month of August?
A  No.
Q  As far as you know, when was the last time Mr. Posey is supposed to have been in the presence of Miss Stoeckley?
A  On dates she was--if not vague, she just didn't know dates.
Q  Well, did you ask her when was the last time she saw Posey?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Was there any reason why you didn't ask her that?
A  No, no particular reason.
Q  You have no more information that you can give as to when she believes was the last time she was in Mr. Posey's company?
A  No.
Q  Did she indicate when she moved from the apartment next door to where Mr. Posey lived?
A  No, she did not.
Q  Did you ask her when?
A  No.
Q  Were you aware that Mr. Posey has said that she moved within a short period, maybe a matter of days or weeks, after the MacDonald episode, on February 17th?
A  No, I was not aware of this.
Q  And you did not ask her whether, you know, when she moved to the address at Arsenal Street?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Would you tell me, what was the purpose of your interviewing Miss Stoeckley?
A  To find out if, in fact, she was involved, or if there was any implication of her being involved in anything at Fort Bragg.
Q  You mean--anything at Fort Bragg--I assume you are talking about the MacDonald killings?
A  Correct.
Q  So you went there for the purpose of interrogating her as a possible suspect.  Is that right?
A  Correct.
Q  How long did this interview take place?
A  Oh, we were there for about an hour, I'd say.
Q  And how did your interview end?
A  It ended with that photograph being taken.
Q  With that particular photograph being taken.
A  Correct.
Q  In other words, that photograph is marked with that identification?
A  G-105.
Q  So that's a photograph that was in existence at the time we had our last hearing here August 10 through 15th of 1970?
A  Not recalling the date, I don't know if they were in session or not.
Q  Well, I suggest to you that the record will show that that photograph was marked into evidence during the week of August 10th through 15 of 1970, and that therefore you must have seen her, except your description of how these things took place prior to Monday, August the 10th, 1970.  Is that right, sir?  Would that be approximately right?
A  It had to have been--it was--if I could recall the date, I could say yes or no.  I don't recall the date I talked to her, but evidently it was before the picture was put in evidence.
Q  Now you specifically asked the assistance of Fayetteville Police to find this young lady for the purpose of questioning.  Is that right?
A  That's correct.
Q  Now you told us the only reason you wanted to question her was to see what her connection was with the MacDonald case.  Is that right?
A  Correct.
Q  What made her a suspect in your mind as a connection with the MacDonald case?
A  It came to my attention that she was the one that Mr. Posey had testified about.
Q  Well, if this photograph was introduced here in evidence during the week of the 10th through the 15th, Mr. Posey didn't testify until about the 13th of August, how could you have known about her prior to the 13th of August?
A  I'll have to take your word for these dates, counselor, because I just don't know.
Q  I think we have the transcript of the case available.  You mean on the basis of Mr. Posey's testimony that made this young lady a suspect.  Is that right?  What is it that made her a suspect?  Mr. Posey's testimony?
A  Correct.
Q  Now what have you done to check out the various explanations of stories this young lady gave you?
A  Well, it was so vague it was really not much background to be done on it.
Q  Did you make any attempt to find the blue Mustang she talked about?
A  Taking again her testimony, she said the man is now out of the Army and left the area.
Q  That was just her word.
A  Well, there are many blue Mustangs in that area.
Q  But, now, you know, Mr. Ivory, I really find it very difficult to accept the idea that you listened to this lady's statements pointblank and said that's it, and wrote her off as a suspect in this case.  Is that what you did?

CPT SOMERS:  I object.  Now the counsel is admonishing the witness and verging on badgering the witness.  If he wishes to ask questions let him ask questions, but to lecture the witness, I object to that.

MR. SEGAL:  Let me say this, sir.  Captain Somers is perfectly right, except that it really--it really asks a great deal, and I would like to cut the red tape and if Mr. Ivory can just explain to me whether it is just standard to take a series of, you know, very vague explanations and say, oh, well, that's the end of it.  We won't be able to check this person out in a triple murder case, or whether there is some other reason.  It just begets all sensibility to think this is the way investigations are handled.  They are not handled this way.  In my career, sir, I have been involved in over 500 murder cases.  I've represented 7,000 defendants in 13 years and I have never heard of a true suspect being handled this way.  Now, there may be good reasons to disregard this young lady.  I think Mr. Ivory ought to be allowed to tell us now really why anything substantial hasn't been done to check out Helena Stoeckley and her explanations, which on their face, particularly this explanation about the marijuana is palpably unacceptable, and I think that the question is put for that purpose.  If it's really that offensive to everyone I will go about it in a different way.

CPT BEALE:  Mr. Segal, the form of your question was argumentative and I think it would be best if you would just stick to the normal procedure on cross-examination of asking the witness questions.

Q  Now you say this young lady was arrested for trespassing.  Is that right?
A  Correct.
Q  Do you have--did the Fayetteville Police take an official police photograph in connection with that arrest?
A  I don't know.
Q  Is it the standard practice to do that?
A  I--I imagine so.  Their ID bureau has both fingerprints and photos.
Q  Now where was it that she was trespassing?
A  At the Village Inn or Village Shoppe in the Haymount section of Fayetteville.
Q  Did you go back to the address next to Mr. Posey's house to make any inquiries?
A  I have never been there myself.
Q  Has anyone made any inquiries as to who are the persons who are on the lease in the apartment that this girl lived?
A  I'm sure they have, sir.
Q  Well, now why are you sure it has been done?
A  It seems like a rather elementary thing to do.
Q  I agree, sir, but what I ask you is--
A  I don't know, of my own personal knowledge.
Q  To your knowledge, you don't know whether anybody has attempted to find who is on the lease for the apartment in which this girl used to live.
A  Of my own personal knowledge, no, sir.
Q  And of course, if there was such a person, that person could be cross-checked against some of Miss Stoeckley's explanations, could it not?
A  Correct.
Q  And would that seem to be an elementary procedure to follow?
A  That is correct.
Q  Now did you talk to any of the other residents of that building where she formally lived or in the immediate adjoining buildings?  To see about who might know something about her whereabouts or her activities.
A  I conducted no background investigation in that area.
Q  Well, I don't mean a background investigation.  What I am saying is what did you do to cross-check her story by checking with neighbors or people who lived in the building or the adjoining building?
A  I have done nothing.
Q  Is there any reason why not?
A  Well, time, some other things
Q  Has anybody checked the electric bill, gas bill and telephone bill for the particular apartment which this lady lived?
A  Of my own personal knowledge, I do not know.
Q  Are those frequently used sources of investigation to try and track down people to find out their activities?
A  Correct.
Q  A telephone bill might reveal long distance or toll calls which would be some interest, to who the person is calling, would it not?
A  Correct.
Q  To your knowledge that has not been done in this particular case of Miss Stoeckley.  Is it fair to say that on the basis of what has been done up to now, it could not be considered that the investigation of Miss Stoeckley's whereabouts on February 17th is complete in any fashion?
A  It is not complete.
Q  It would require a considerable amount of additional work to check out a lot of her explanations and statements, would it not?
A  That's correct.
Q  And what effort is being made, if any, to your knowledge to check out her various statements and explanations?
A  Well, in one regard is trying to contact her again and talk to her, which has been unsuccessful.
Q  Well, what about any efforts being made to find the person she lived with, or to find neighbors and other persons who lived nearby to discuss her activities?
A  I have not personally done this.
Q  Do not the Fayetteville Police, when they make a file on a suspect or an accused person, also make notations of known associates and accomplices of an individual?
A  I do not know.
Q  Is that a frequently used police practice?
A  I do not know.
Q  To keep a record of associates and accomplices.  You are not familiar with that practice?
A  In major criminals, yes, but not in petty type criminals.
Q  Is drug dealing a major or minor offense to the Fayetteville police?
A  I don't know whether she is drug dealing or not.
Q  Did you ask her whether she dealt in drugs?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Is there any reason why not?
A  I correct myself.  I did.  I asked her if she was a dealer and she said no.
Q  Did you ask her if she ever sold drugs?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  And what did she say?
A  She said no, she did not deal in drugs.
Q  Did you tell her that Mr. Posey said that thirty or forty people a night was seen to come and stay a short period and leave her residence?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Were you told by anyone that Mr. Posey gave such information?
A  She, herself, told me that they had frequent visitors.
Q  Frequent.  Did you ask her whether she had any black individuals who visited her apartment or home?
A  On occasions, yes.
Q  I beg your pardon?
A  On occasion.
Q  Did you ask her that question?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And she said on occasions?
A  Yes.
Q  Did you ask her the names of those persons, Mr. Ivory?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  And what did she say about that?
A  She could not furnish me a name except for one first name.
Q  And what was that first name?
A  Eddie.
Q  And the other persons who were black persons, she couldn't give you any first names.  Is that right?
A  That's correct.
Q  And did you consider that answer to be frank, candid and open, sir?
A  Taking into consideration the type of people that hung around in that area, yes.
Q  What type of people are you talking about?
A  They don't go for anything but first names, nicknames.
Q  You mean they won't give outsiders that information?
A  Correct.
Q  You are an outsider?
A  Correct.
Q  So you really can't say to us that Miss Stoeckley was being frank, open and candid.  She was following her rules which are not to tell outsiders who her friends and associates were.
A  She said to me she only knew them by their first names.
Q  Of course the telephone company, gas company and electric company and landlords don't general function on the basis of just first names only, do they?
A  That's correct.
Q  That avenue of investigation might produce last names, might it not?
A  That's correct.
Q  Have you ever talked to Mr. Posey?
A  No, I have not.
Q  Is there any reason why you did not interview him about the facts that he possesses in regard to what Miss Stoeckley has told him?
A  I believe he was interviewed by some other person in my office whose name I cannot give you right now.  I do not know right now.  I did not personally interview him.
Q  Well, were you ever told about what the substance of Mr. Posey's interview was?
A  Yes.
Q  Who told you about it?
A  Mr. Grebner, I am sure.
Q  And that was before or after you talked to Miss Stoeckley?
A  It was before.
Q  Did Miss Stoeckley indicate to you why she had all of this unusual amount of traffic in and out of her house?
A  She said just people coming in, just a communal-type house, the way she described it, people would come and go, some she knew, some she did not.
Q  And what if anything did they do when they went to her house?
A  She did not say.
Q  Did you ask what they did?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  And what did she say?
A  She said they'd go in--well, to put it in English--she said they'd go in and talk.  She said they'd go in and rap.
Q  Well, I don't think I ever got an answer as to the question about her interest or involvement in witchcraft.  But you did question Miss Stoeckley in that area?
A  To an extent, yes.
Q  Well, what was she asked to explain or tell?
A  I asked her why she--well, when she was explaining the type of dress that she wore, sometimes black, sometimes purple, she said, “Yes, I dress like that because I--the people there consider me a benevolent witch.”
Q  Did you ask her what she meant by that?
A  Yes, she said the good witch as opposed to the witching practices of black magic.
Q  You mean she does affirmatively good things for her friends through her so-called powers?
A  She didn't say she had any powers.
Q  Did you ask her whether she thought she had any magical powers that she was practicing good things through witchcraft for her friends?
A  I asked her if she was serious about this and she said, “No, I'm really not a witch.  It's just what people say.”
Q  That's just what people say about her?
A  Yes.
Q  And she modestly declined to determine whether she was a witch or not?
A  Yes.
Q  Does that strike you as a rather unusual conversation you were having with her?
A  No.
Q  It was not?
A  No.
Q  Normal kind of a freaky conversation you have with hippies, right?
A  That's right.
Q  Hippies are particularly trustworthy, truthful people?
A  Some.  Some are not.
Q  I beg your pardon?
A  Some.  Some are not.
Q  Normally, do you consider that to be the characteristics of people you are dealing with?
A  Depending on the type of person.
Q  Did you ask Miss Stoeckley about why she sat on her porch on the day the MacDonald family was buried wearing black clothes and with a wreath on her front porch?
A  There was no mention made of a wreath.  She said she was dressed in black simply because she sometimes dressed in black.  She attached no significance or no relationship between the two.
Q  Well, how did she happen to remember that she was wearing black the day the MacDonald family was buried?
A  I believe she said she read a newspaper article about it.
Q  Well, how did that part of the conversation come up, Mr. Ivory?  In other words, did you ask her what she was doing on the day of the MacDonald family funeral?
A  I asked her if she had, in fact, been wearing black on that date, and she said it's very possible and probably yes, because she'd sometimes wears black and sometimes wears purple.
Q  Did you ask her why she knew the date of the MacDonald family funeral and why she should recall what she was wearing?
A  I believe she said she heard it on TV, radio, that it was widely publicized in this area.
Q  And she recalled that?
A  Yes, she recalled a lot, that's how she knew where she was that morning because of the news broadcast.
Q  Why did you go to look for her at Arsenal Street?
A  I beg your pardon?
Q  Why did you go looking for her recently at 909 Arsenal Street?
A  To cover the same line of questioning again.
Q  You mean you were going to repeat the whole discussion again with her?
A  That's correct.
Q  Without having done any independent investigation to perhaps confront her with inconsistency in her story?
A  That's correct.
Q  What did you hope to gain by asking her to repeat the story without having anything to confront her with?
A  To see if she would tell us the same story again.
Q  And then suppose she didn't tell the same story again.  Then what would you do?
A  Take that step when we came to it.
Q  Well, what would the step be?
A  To go further into it.
Q  To do what, sir?
A  To go further into her story.
Q  What would you do to go further into her story?

COL ROCK:  Counselor, I don't quite follow this line of questioning.  Now this is getting beyond what we are trying to get from this gentleman.  I want to know what you are attempting to gain here by this, if you pursue it further.

MR. SEGAL:  Well, sir, I am interested, and I think it is a matter of some importance, as to why no independent steps were taken to check out the story to confront the witness, which is the standard technique, because when he says, he's going to talk to her again, have the same story told possibly, and then check it out.  Why does he have to have it told twice is my question, sir, before you do an investigation on it.

COL ROCK:  Well, I think he's already answered that.  Let's go to another line of questioning.

MR. SEGAL:  I have nothing further at this time, sir.

Questions by CPT SOMERS:
Q  Mr. Ivory, are you the only investigator that has anything to do with the investigation of Miss Stoeckley?
A  No, I am not.
Q  Do you know, sir, whether Miss Stoeckley was cooperating with and working for the local police?
A  Yes, she was.
Q  And in what way was she cooperating and working for them?  I'm not asking you the specific details or anything else.  Can you tell us the nature?
A  Well, she was offering them information.
Q  Among the hippie element, or among the drug using element as you know it, is it common to use full names?
A  No, no, it's not common.
Q  Mr. Ivory, is it uncommon for people in this section, in this element, to move their residence?
A  Very frequently it is.

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, because of the disclosure of Mr. Ivory, with the respect to the cooperation of Miss Stoeckley with the local police, I would ask that an instruction be given to all personnel in the room that Miss Stoeckley's name be kept in as much confidence as possible for the same reason that this same request has been made by the defense with respect to other people.

COL ROCK:  Was any promise given to her, Mr. Ivory, at the time you were interviewing her that her name would be protected in any fashion or any promises given to her?

WITNESS:  Not her name, but if her position with the police were known, her life would be in jeopardy.

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, I'm not asking the investigating officer or this hearing become responsible for her.  Simply that we treat her name with utmost caution.

COL ROCK:  So much of the testimony as pertains to her activities as a police informer will not be provided outside of this room.  Are you finished with your questioning?

CPT SOMERS:  I have no further questions.

COL ROCK:  I have a couple of questions, please, Mr. Ivory.

Questions by COL ROCK:

COL ROCK:  How many times have you interviewed her?

WITNESS:  I have seen her on two occasions.

COL ROCK:  Now, the questions that have been answered here, do they pertain to one time that you interviewed her or two times?

WITNESS:  The first time I interviewed her.

COL ROCK:  The first time you interviewed her?  And that was sometime during the month of August?

WITNESS:  The best I can recall, yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  And you say that was the first time you interviewed her?  What we've been discussing here today?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  Approximately how much later was the second time you interviewed her?

WITNESS:  Some weeks, sir.  It was--it was after she was arrested for trespassing.

COL ROCK:  Now the first time that she was interviewed, as I understand it, by you, she was picked up at your request so that you could interview her.  Is that correct?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.  Well, picked up comes to my mind as being arrested.  She was asked to come into the police station and talk to me.

COL ROCK:  She was asked?

WITNESS:  Right.

COL ROCK:  And she came in willing?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  Did she appear to be under the influence of any drugs as far as you could tell?

WITNESS:  As far as I could tell, no, sir.

COL ROCK:  Did she appear at the appointed place at the appointed time that had been agreed upon previously?

WITNESS:  There was no appointed times.  They said when they could contact her they would call me.

COL ROCK:  To your knowledge she was not under arrest or any type of detention?

WITNESS:  No she was not.

COL ROCK:  And this interview lasted approximately how long?

WITNESS:  About an hour, sir.

COL ROCK:  And was the photograph taken at the end of that interview?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  Now the second time that you interviewed her was when she was under arrest for trespassing?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  Approximately how long did that interview last?

WITNESS:  Thirty minutes to an hour.

COL ROCK:  Did you ask her generally the same questions in the second interview as you asked her at the first interview?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  Was this designed to try to determine whether there was any variance in her story?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  Was there any significant variance?

WITNESS:  No, sir.  This was again to see if she would come here and testify.

COL ROCK:  Do you know of your own knowledge whether either the Fayetteville Police, the FBI or any agencies here at Fort Bragg interviewed her shortly after the MacDonald murders?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir, the FBI did.

COL ROCK:  Do you know whether or not she apparently established an alibi that satisfied the FBI at that time?

WITNESS:  I don't recall the story she told but apparently they were satisfied with whatever she said.

COL ROCK:  When you say, “apparently satisfied,” is that because no further evidence came out of that interview?

WITNESS:  That's right.

COL ROCK:  Have you had an opportunity to read that interview that the FBI had with her?

WITNESS:  No, sir, I have not.

COL ROCK:  Now I would like to at this time, gentlemen, to question Mr. Ivory in a very limited fashion on one specific aspect of prior testimony reference rubber gloves, and this query is limited to this one subject alone.

COL ROCK:  Mr. Ivory, do you have reason to know what type, if any, rubber gloves were located in the kitchen of the MacDonald house?

WITNESS:  Type?  The brand name?

COL ROCK:  No, composition.  That is, whether they were fur gloves or made out of leather, this type thing.

WITNESS:  Yes, sir, there were three type gloves found in there.

COL ROCK:  What types were they and where were they located?

WITNESS:  Behind the faucet of the kitchen sink, there were some household rubber gloves, dishwashing gloves.

COL ROCK:  Some?  How many?

WITNESS:  A pair.

COL ROCK:  A pair.

WITNESS:  On the--to the right of the sink there was a closet type affair, and hanging on the outside was some hot pad gloves, two.

COL ROCK:  Did you see any rubber surgical type gloves near that faucet in the kitchen sink?

WITNESS:  Near the faucet, no, sir.

COL ROCK:  Did you see any on the counter tops of that kitchen?

WITNESS:  No, sir.

COL ROCK:  And approximately what time did you make these observations?

WITNESS:  This was the initial observation and observations I was continually making.

COL ROCK:  This was early on the morning of the 17th after your arrival?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir, and up until and including the arrival of the laboratory people.

COL ROCK:  With reference to prior testimony about pieces of surgical gloves, do you know whether any piece of surgical glove was found on or adjacent to the body of Colette MacDonald?

WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

COL ROCK:  Where was that found?

WITNESS:  Close to the head, to the left of the body, near the left arm and head area.

COL ROCK:  And that was found by whom?

WITNESS:  Found by myself.

COL ROCK:  I have no further questions.  Does either counsel have questions?

CPT SOMERS:  I have none at this time, sir.

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, yes, I do, sir.

Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q  If I may treat first, Mr. Ivory, the last area of inquiry about the rubber gloves, we'll focus on that.  The pair of household gloves that was found behind the faucet on the sink, do you recall that they were yellow gloves?
A  Yes, I do.
Q  They were not the see-through type of gloves were they?  Is that right?
A  That's correct.
Q  The hot pad gloves you described.  Those are of a quilted type of material, are they not?  And they are not rubber in fashion?
A  Quilted, yes, sir.
Q  Now, did you observe a pair of surgical gloves in the utility room at any time?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Did you have occasion to be aware of the fact that there's a dryer or clothes dryer in the MacDonald house?
A  Yes.
Q  Do you know where that was located?
A  Yes, it was in the utility room.
Q  Did you observe any gloves of any type on top of the clothes dryer?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Did you observe surgical gloves on the drain board or the area of the table top in the kitchen adjoining the sink area--not the table top, the counter top rather?
A  The only surgical gloves found in the kitchen were in the cabinet underneath the sink.
Q  Now do any of the photographs that were taken by the photographers brought there by the CID show the location of that piece of glove that you described as being found by Mrs. MacDonald's body?
A  Yes.
Q  The picture should depict the portion of the glove.  Is that right?
A  Yes, it does.
Q  Now I want to go back, if we may, to talk briefly about Miss Stoeckley again.  Now I understand you saw her the first time in the Fayetteville Police headquarters.  Is that right?
A  Right.
Q  Now I believe you told Colonel Rock that--or you agreed with his characterization that she came willingly to the police headquarters.  Is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now will you tell Colonel Rock, please, the circumstances of how the Fayetteville Police picked her up?
A  I have no idea of the circumstances.
Q  As a matter of fact, would it be accurate to say that the Fayetteville Police, acting upon the request of yourself or the CID, when they located her and picked her up, told her they wanted to see her at headquarters and drove her down to the police headquarters?
A  I do not know.  I was told--I received a telephone call--that she was going to be at the, or she was at the police station, could I be there.
Q  Do you know whether she was told at the time the officers picked her up that she did not have to come if she didn't want to, but they were asking her to come in, if she would, please?

CPT SOMERS:  I object.  He's answered these questions repeatedly.  He says he doesn't know how she was picked up.

MR. SEGAL:  It is something very specific.  I'm asking whether she was--did he learn that she had certain statements made to her.

COL ROCK:  Mr. Segal, I am satisfied when the witness has said that he doesn't know how she arrived, whether she was under gunpoint or what.

MR. SEGAL:  Very well, sir.

Q  Mr. Ivory, do you know who the officers were who picked her up or detectives who picked her up?
A  The detectives who were there in the office when I got there were Detective Lieutenant Struder and Detective Beasley.
Q  To your knowledge, are they the officers who picked her up?
A  I have no idea.
Q  Those two officers that you just named, Lieutenant Beasley? 
A  Struder.
Q  And the other officer's name is?
A  Beasley.
Q  What particular unit of the Fayetteville Police are they associated with?
A  Detective Bureau.
Q  And do they handle narcotic cases on the whole?  Now did you ask Miss Stoeckley for the name of her boyfriend?
A  Her boyfriend?
Q  Yes.
A  No, I did not.
Q  Did you ask her whether she had a boyfriend, a regular fellow that she went with regularly or frequently?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Now you told us before that you asked her to describe the owner of the car and she gave you some general information.  Is that right?
A  That's correct.
Q  You didn't follow that up in any way, in any further questioning of her.  Am I correct in that regard?  You didn't follow up what she told in more specific questions about the description?
A  I tried, but she could give me no more specific information.
Q  And when you say you tried, do I understand that you asked her--is there anything else you can tell us about his face?  And she was negative in that response? 
A  Yes, and do you know what unit he was in at Fort Bragg?
Q  I gather from that, therefore, that you did not ask whether the boy who owned the Mustang had a mustache?
A  No, I did not.
Q  Were you aware that Mr. Posey had testified here, and possibly told the CID independently that the owner of the blue Mustang was certainly the person who drove the blue Mustang frequently was a young man who had a mustache?
A  No, I did not know that.
Q  You told us that she was apparently apprehensive at the time that you commenced to make some notes.  Is that right?
A  Correct.
Q  What was her attitude when you asked her to stand up and have her photograph taken?
A  There were no problems there.
Q  Did you ask for her permission to do so, or did you tell her you were going to take her picture?
A  I asked if we could have a picture.
Q  And what did she say?
A  Yeah, sure.
Q  Now you say that she is cooperating with the Fayetteville Police?  Is that right?
A  That's correct.
Q  With the two officers whom you named when you arrived to see her?
A  I beg your pardon?
Q  Was it with the two officers that you named--you named who was there when you saw her?
A  Among others, I believe, yes.
Q  Is it fair to say that the information that she may have given the Fayetteville Police dealt with narcotics?
A  I'd say so.
Q  Did you assume that?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  But as far as anything she told you, she said she had no knowledge about narcotics and didn't know about people dealing in narcotics?
A  I didn't say that.
Q  You didn't say that?
A  No, sir.
Q  Did she say she knew about people dealing in narcotics?  Did she?

CPT SOMERS:  I'd like to, at this point, object.  This information is--with respect to how she has cooperated with the police and what information she may have given them--is not relevant here, and for that reason I object to going into this field any further.

MR. SEGAL:  I want to make an offer of proof, if I may.

COL ROCK:  Proceed.

CPT BEALE:  Do you want to have the witness removed, or what?

MR. SEGAL:  I'd like Mr. Ivory to step out, please.

CPT BEALE:  Would you please step out, Mr. Ivory, and please don't discuss your testimony with anyone.

(The witness departed the hearing room.)

MR. SEGAL:  What I want to suggest, this line of questioning would develop is not the specific information she may have given.  I don't want to know who she's named or anything of that sort at all, but what I am suggesting is Lieutenant Struder and Sergeant Beasley are permanently assigned with the Fayetteville Police Department to narcotic work.  As a matter of fact, whatever information this young lady has given is most likely, in fact, it's related to narcotics.  It is my understand of at least what Mr. Ivory was willing to convey earlier, that this young lady seemed to be denying any activity on her own part, or very much knowledge about narcotics, other than she tried LSD and she has smoked marijuana, and I think we have a right to pursue that.  But it seems to me that's really not quite consistent with the general tone that was expressed to the investigator.  I think we are entitled to know further what was the motivation for her cooperation with the police.  Was it exchange for dropping of charges against her?  Was she a paid informer and thereby had a salary that came by her?  I think we are entitled to have that kind of background with regard to the police situation.  Finally, I want to know how the police contacted her since apparently--well, we want to find her--the CID is unable to locate her, but the police can for the purpose of getting information, have no difficulty in relating to her whenever they do, and how does she, we further want to know, how does she give the police information about people if apparently all that she ever knows is their first names?  I mean I consider that to be an answer that has some doubt to be accepted whether she has given all she knows to Mr. Ivory.  I think she gives all that she wants to, and we find out the police only gets the same information that supports the idea that she only knows first names, and the police have to beat the walls for Eddies, Bills and Bruces and that's why I think we can develop with Mr. Ivory in a rather short fashion.

CPT SOMERS:  Sir, the government strongly resists any delving into the question of the mechanics of the functioning of the narcotics section, whatever it may be composed of in the Fayetteville Police, and I can assure you that this information is not available from the Fayetteville Police directly, and will not ever thus be available to this hearing.  If the question is whether this--whether not this witness--but whether Miss Stoeckley knew people who used drugs or dealt in drugs, I think that question can be answered without delving into the mechanics of the Fayetteville narcotics arrangements.  However, I think that with respect to that issue, we have gone as far as we can and as far as we should and as far as there is any reason to go, and we strongly object to delving any further into it.

COL ROCK:  Mr. Segal, on that line of questioning I will ask Mr. Ivory one further question on this and then we go no further into the modus operandi of this particular young lady as to informing-type activities, if that's what it is.

COL ROCK:  Let the record reflect that Mr. Ivory is back in the hearing room.  Mr. Ivory, I again remind you, you are under oath.
    I want to ask one question and then this line of questioning will cease.
    Do you know of your own knowledge approximately when Helena became an informer?

WITNESS:  I have no idea.

COL ROCK:  All right, does counsel wish to follow another line of questioning?

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, sir.

Questions by MR. SEGAL:
Q  When was it that you talked to Helena Stoeckley the second time?
A  The date again escapes me.  It was when she was arrested for trespassing.
Q  How was it that you came to know that she was arrested?  To know that she was in custody?
A  I was informed that she had been arrested because I had put the word out that I was looking for her.
Q  In other words, after the first interview you had with her, you wanted to find her the second time.  Is that right?
A  That's correct.
Q  You were unable to find her at 909 Arsenal Street?
A  Correct.
Q  Do I gather then you then told the Fayetteville Police that you were looking for this gal again?
A  Among other people, yes.

COL ROCK:  I'm sorry; I didn't understand your answer.

A  Yes.
Q  And who did you tell in the Fayetteville Police you wanted to see this young lady again?

CPT SOMERS:  I object.  I don't think that who he told specifically is relevant here and I don't think it is necessary here.

CPT BEALE:  The objection is sustained.

Q  You then received a call that she was in custody.  Is that right?
A  That is correct.
Q  And where did you see and interview Miss Stoeckley?
A  In the Cumberland County Jail.
Q  And how long did you say that interview took?
A  Thirty minutes to an hour.
Q  Now what were the questions you asked the second time?
A  Generally the same as I asked her the first time.
Q  I know you answered that before, but I would like a little more specificity.  Did you say, “Where were you on the night of February 17th?”
A  That is correct.
Q  And what did she say?
A  She told me the same as she did before; she was out in a blue Mustang.  She went driving, did not know where she was and did not remember where she went.
Q  Did you ask her whether she had been using narcotics or drugs of any sort that evening?
A  That's correct.
Q  And what did she say the second time?
A  She said she was on marijuana again.
Q  Did you confront her that time with the fact that marijuana does not affect the memory?
A  No, I didn't.
Q  In other words, you ran the story more or less the same way?
A  That's correct.
Q  Have you ever requested Mr. Caverly or any FBI agent to make available to you or give you the substance of any previous interviews that the FBI had with this young lady?
A  No, sir, we do not know under what alias, we do not know for sure under what alias she was picked up.
Q  Well, how do you know that the FBI interviewed her?
A  By visual identification, and her, she had just told me that she was picked up by the FBI on the 19th.
Q  Well, who made a visual identification of her picture?
A  One of the agents there.  I don't know if it was Caverly or Howard Bergan.  I do not know.
Q  You were told by one of the agents that they remembered interviewing this girl?
A  That's correct.
Q  Well, what effort did anybody make to get various aliases together and ask the FBI to look for her prior story?
A  I just don't know under what alias she was picked up.
Q  Doesn't the identification bureau of North Carolina and Fayetteville police record the names of all accused persons by their own names and the various aliases they have given previous times?
A  She has--she can pick a name out of the air for an alias.
Q  Are you telling us there's no way of checking the alias under which she's been arrested before?
A  I gave you those names.
Q  Well, did you ask the FBI to check out the various names that you had for her prior statements?
A  Yes.
Q  You did ask?  Who'd you ask to do that?
A  I checked myself on the worksheets and so forth that they gave us.
Q  You mean the FBI gave you their files and you looked at them?
A  No, no, not a file.  A list of people that they picked up, and fingerprinted.
Q  The list of people they picked up and fingerprinted?
A  That's correct.
Q  And do you know whether on that--how many names were on that list?
A  I couldn't guess.  It would be just a guess.
Q  Was it one sheet of paper?
A  It was one sheet of paper with some names on it.
Q  About how many names?
A  The names on the list I believe were presented in here.
Q  Were they all females or were there some males?
A  Male and female.
Q  Did you ask them to pull the female interviews sheets that were listed on this list of names?
A  Except for looking for hers, no.
Q  I don't understand the answer.  What I want to know is if you had a single sheet of paper with names on it that the FBI interviewed and some of them were females did you ask them to pull all the female interviews to check them out to see if you couldn't pick out Helena Stoeckley's prior interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A  No.
Q  Why not?
A  Because I did not know under what name she was picked up.
Q  But, again, sir, I say--

CPT SOMERS:  I object to this.

Q  Would there be a better way of checking if you read this story?

CPT SOMERS:  I object here.  I think the answers to this line of questioning are clear.  I suggest that this ground has been covered, that this is just getting repetitive, and it's also getting to be argumentative, therefore I object to this line of questioning being pursued any further.

MR. SEGAL:  I do not see it to be repetitive when I try to ask--to ascertain why is it seemingly impossible to find from a single sheet of names those female names and then have those interviews pulled and read them and see whether you can't find Helena Stoeckley's interview.
It does not seem to me as an act that is so extraordinary that on its face doesn't need explanation.  I think we are entitled to it.  I think it is quite apparent that in making a serious effort to locate somebody's prior statement which is so necessary so that it will be a simpler procedure.  If I thought there were hundreds of names I think it would be impracticable, of course, but not unworthy of effort in a triple murder case.  But this is not, as I gather from Mr. Ivory, that we are talking about a great volume of names.  I'd just like to know why a request wasn't made to just simply extract the female interviews and check them out.  I think, by the way, sir, that Mr. Ivory's last answer, which may not have been recorded, was that none of the stories resembled the story that he was told, would be of great significance, because if she was interviewed under any name and told a story that resembled the story she told, that is of a great meaningful kind of contradiction.

CPT SOMERS:  Mr. Ivory has answered the question as to why he did not do what the defense is suggesting, and he's answered it, and he's answered it.  He can only give the answer that he has to that question.  He can't invent one for the defense.  Furthermore, Mr. Ivory is a member of the CID, not the FBI, and the FBI files are not open to the general public, nor are they even open to the CID.  I object again to this line of questioning into, and request that it not be permitted to be continued.

COL ROCK:  Mr. Ivory, did you have occasion at this time to pull any files and read them to determine if you could find the information?

WITNESS:  No, sir.

COL ROCK:  You did not read any FBI files?

WITNESS:  No, sir.

COL ROCK:  Mr. Ivory, did you state earlier that none of the stories matched up?  Were you referring to stories in the FBI files or what?

WITNESS:  Just in conversation with agents from the FBI as to what she said and nothing of that nature had been reported on the morning when they were doing their interviews.

COL ROCK:  Let's move on to another line of questioning.

Q  Did you ever arrive at the conclusion that possibly she was lying about being interviewed by the FBI?

CPT SOMERS:  I object to this.  This is the same line of questioning, sir.

CPT BEALE:  Sustained.

Q  Have you ever submitted a known set of fingerprints of Helena Stoeckley for comparison with the unidentified prints that were found in the MacDonald house?
A  With a name on the card of Helena Stoeckley, not--no, I have not.
Q  To your knowledge, therefore, has Helena Stoeckley's fingerprints ever been checked out against the unidentified prints in the MacDonald house?
A  I can only go on what was told to me, that this girl was fingerprinted under an alias.
Q  I don't think that answers the question.  As far as you know, the fingerprints of Helena Stoeckley have not been compared with the unidentified prints as yet?
A  So far as I know, yes, they were.
Q  Under what name were the prints submitted?
A  I do not know.
Q  I beg your pardon?
A  I do not know.
Q  Who told you that her fingerprints were submitted?
A  I believe I stated that I was told that she was one of the persons who was picked up and fingerprinted, although it was not under the name that we know her by, either her own name or an alias that we know her by.
Q  But you also told us, sir, that the FBI agent who conducted the various interviews of people and fingerprinted, didn't find any story that resembled the one that you heard from Helena Stoeckley.  Didn't you say that, sir?

CPT SOMERS:  Objection, same grounds.

MR. SEGAL:  Sir, this is absolutely critical.  We have to pin together these pieces of evidence.  On one hand, there is the suggestion she was interviewed.  On the other hand there is the suggestion no FBI agent remembers her story that matches what she has said.  Now what in the world would be objectionable about trying to pin down this?  Either she is mistaken about being interviewed, or she may have been talked to by agents other than FBI agents.  She may have been talked to by the FBI and maybe she told a different story, but we cannot pin these two things together because of some fatuous objection, which has nothing to do with the truth seeking to put these two facts together, and we might as well call it quits in finding out whether Helena Stoeckley has any possible connection with this case.

CPT SOMERS:  The agent has answered with what knowledge he has.  He cannot, no matter how many times the question is put to him, answer with respect to information he does not have.  The defense has information that the FBI was involved.  If the defense would like to check with the FBI, fine, and they may be sure that I will check with the FBI too; however, this witness has answered as best he can, and I again put forth what the defense labels this fatuous objection.

COL ROCK:  It appears to me that Mr. Ivory has answered some questions here to indicate that somewhere he seems to have some knowledge that fingerprints of this female, under some name, apparently were in fact sent for examination.
    From what source do you have that information, if my statement is true?

WITNESS:  The Federal Bureau, sir.

COL ROCK:  From the Federal Bureau.  Now, in your mind it is the same girl, though it may be under some other name, but you don't know what name?

WITNESS:  That's correct, sir.

COL ROCK:  How do you get that impression that it is the same girl?

WITNESS:  Just by their telling me, yes, she was picked up, we know her.

COL ROCK:  I see.  And the FBI did send her fingerprints to the CID Lab to be checked out?

WITNESS:  No, sir, they sent them to us, and we in turn sent them to the lab.

COL ROCK:  But unfortunately you don't know under what name?

WITNESS:  No, sir.

COL ROCK:  So that it would appear, Mr. Segal, that in fact her prints have been checked with the prints there in the house and--

MR. SEGAL:  I'm not so sure that's the only conclusion.  If I may, sir, with your indulgence, ask Mr. Ivory--you weren't given to believe by the FBI, were you, Mr. Ivory, that every person that they interviewed and talked with in connection with this case was fingerprinted?

A  Of a certain group, yes.
Q  Some of the people that they interviewed.  Is that right?
A  Yes.
Q  And the agents recall talking to Helena Stoeckley because you showed them her picture.  Is that right?
A  Yes.
Q  But nobody can swear positively that the FBI also took her fingerprints?
A  She was supposedly one of the group who were picked up in Fayetteville and they were all fingerprinted.
Q  What group are you talking about?
A  Shall we call them hippies?
Q  But, Mr. Ivory, I gather also that the same agent who gave you this information that she was one of the group of hippies in Fayetteville who were picked up and fingerprinted, those same agents who told you that they know of no story of any person they interviewed that compared with the one that you have heard from Miss Stoeckley.
A  That's correct.
Q  From that would you conclude that two different stories have been told to you by the same person whose name is Helena Stoeckley?

CPT SOMERS:  I object.  His conclusion as to that issue is irrelevant here.

CPT BEALE:  Sustained.

MR. SEGAL:  Well, it's not irrelevant, sir, in the sense that he needed to continue interviewing her to find conflicting stories, because apparently the logic of it is escapable--that there are conflicting stories.

COL ROCK:  This hearing will be recessed temporarily.

(The hearing recessed at 1650 hours, 9 September 1970.)

(The hearing reopened at 1706 hours, 9 September 1970.)

COL ROCK:  This hearing will come to order.  Let the record reflect that Mr. Ivory is again on the witness stand.  I remind you, sir that you are under oath.

COL ROCK:  An objection had been raised, I believe, concerning the method of questioning initially, and I believe this has been resolved.  Is counsel for the accused ready to continue?

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, sir.

Q  Mr. Ivory, did you ask Miss Stoeckley whether she was in the MacDonald house on February 17th 1970?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  And what did she say?
A  She said no.
Q  She did not know?
A  She said no.
Q  No.  Did you ask her how she knew she wasn't there if she could not account for her whereabouts between midnight and four a.m.?
A  She said she does not know where the house was, she does not know Captain MacDonald, she knew nothing about it, and she's sure if she had been there she would have known it.
Q  Could she explain to you why she was sure that she would remember being there since she couldn't remember where she was at all?
A  I imagine she though if she was involved in what happened there she would most assuredly remember it.
Q  She felt that she would remember.  Is that right?
A  That's what I said.
Q  That's what she said?
A  That's what I said she said.
Q  Right.  Did you ask her why that would have been something that she would have remembered as opposed to just her whereabouts for four hours on that morning?
A  I don't remember if I asked her that specific thing, no.

MR. SEGAL:  I have nothing further.

CPT SOMERS:  No further questions.

COL ROCK:  Mr. Ivory, you are advised that you will discuss your testimony with no person other than counsel for the government or counsel for the accused.  You are excused.

MR. IVORY:  Sir, may I make a statement in regard to my testimony about Helena Stoeckley?  I'd like to restate, most emphatically, that if it is publicized in the newspapers or in any other way that she is, or what I testified her relation with the hippie community and her relation with the police department, she is most assuredly a dead woman, and I just want to make that perfectly clear.

COL ROCK:  How can you assure this hearing that she is a dead woman?

MR. IVORY:  Just knowing the type of people, and the people in particular specifically that she deals with.

COL ROCK:  In view of the nature of this particular testimony, and the unusual source, I would request that both counsel take into account the statement of the witness and excise due caution in the release of any information.
    You are excused, thank you, sir.

MR. SEGAL:  I want to ask Mr. Ivory one matter.  If I might ask your indulgence, Mr. Ivory, with regard to the last statement that he made, sir, in regard to the hearing.

CPT SOMERS:  I think I would object to going into this too much further.  What is the nature of this question?

MR. SEGAL:  I want to ask--

COL ROCK:  You are excused.

(The witness departed the hearing room.)

MR. SEGAL:  In view of Mr. Ivory's last statement, which seem to indicate he has some knowledge of the persons with whom this young lady is an associate of or deals with, I want to ask whether he has the names of any individual whom he believes are capable of committing, you know, the act that he suggested to be committed against this young lady if her name is revealed as being involved with the police, because if he doesn't pursue it, I'll certainly pursue it as to at least obtaining the photographs to see if these people have a connection.  I do not consider that to be a common episode, to say I know people capable of murdering a young lady if we discuss her activities.  That's all I am concerned about.  He seemed to indicate he had that kind of knowledge about people she was dealing with.

CPT SOMERS:  I interpreted his remark as meaning the nature of those people.  I think you will find that if he's asked, that's what he'll say.

COL ROCK:  This is certainly my interpretation.  I think perhaps he is alarmed as a result of certain other crimes that have been committed by so-called hippies in the hippie community as reported in the paper and he is perhaps associating this individual with that same type.  This is certainly the conclusion that I drew.  However, I am not adverse to asking him the specific question if you wish to pursue it.

MR. SEGAL:  If I may, sir.

COL ROCK:  Do you have any objection to him asking this one question?

CPT SOMERS:  What is the question?

COL ROCK:  The one that he was just raising about does he know the names of anybody in connection with this testimony regarding the MacDonald case.

CPT SOMERS:  I think he's already testified that he doesn't know any names in connection with this girl.

COL ROCK:  Well, I think so too.  So therefore there's not going to be anything lost by asking him.  Ask him to step back in and let's ask him this one question.

(Mr. Ivory returned to the hearing room.)

COL ROCK:  Mr. Ivory, if you would please be seated.  I remind you again that you are under oath.  In view of the statement that you made, a rather serious one, a rather serious charge implied of a potential action, counsel for the accused has one logical question to ask you now.

Question by MR. SEGAL:  Mr. Ivory, do you know specifically individuals which whom Helena Stoeckley is associated with or has dealt with who are persons you believe might try and kill her if her involvement with the police were known?
A  Yes.
Q  You do?
A  Yes.
Q  Is that a number of persons that you know of in your professional judgment who are capable of such an act?
A  Yes, sir.

CPT SOMERS:  Now I object unless there's--this goes back into an area of the relationship, in the informal relationship, as being irrelevant to this particular proceeding.  Sir, I know that Mr. Ivory cannot give this information.  I know that he's going to have to refuse to give this information.

COL ROCK:  These names, Mr. Ivory, that you are aware of, is this in connection with threats for release of information on the MacDonald case, or is this with reference to threats for release of information having to do with drug traffic.

WITNESS:  The latter, sir.

COL ROCK:  The latter.  That will be all, Mr. Ivory.

WITNESS:  Thank you, sir.

(Witness saluted the investigating officer and departed the hearing room.)

COL ROCK:  This hearing will be released until 0830 in the morning.

(The hearing recessed at 1717 hours, 9 September 1970.)

Previous volume

Next volume


Transcripts    Scanned Documents    Contact    Scholarship Fund    Christina's Corner
New Uploads    Photo Pages    Bob Stevenson Answers Your  Questions
CID Records    FBI Records    Kassab's Work    April 6, 1970 Interview   
Article 32 Hearing
Psychiatric/Psychological Data    Grand Jury Transcripts    1979 Trial  Transcripts
   MD License Revoked    Parole Hearing    DNA Testing Results    Court Records

No copying or reproduction of any of the contents of this website without prior permission from the owner in writing.
 Design by Direct Design Solutions / Site contents researched and maintained by Christina Masewicz