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

The Murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site

July 26, 1979: Robert Shaw, CID


F U R T H E R P R O C E E D I N G S 9:30 a.m.

THIS CAUSE came on for further trial before The Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., United States Chief District Judge, and a jury, on Thursday, July 26, 1979, at Raleigh, North Carolina.

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

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Ms. Barbour, have you read anything about the case?


THE COURT: How about you, Mr. Singletary?


THE COURT: Nobody has read anything about it?

(Jurors respond negatively.)

THE COURT: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Any questions of this witness on cross examination?

MR. SEGAL: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well; let him come back.

(Whereupon, ROBERT B. SHAW, the witness on the stand at the time of recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:)

C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N 9:31 a.m.

Q May I ask you, prior to taking the witness stand yesterday after luncheon break, had you spoken to anyone during the luncheon break about this case or about your testimony?
A Yes. I was interviewed by Government Counsel.
Q Was that between 1:00 and 2:30 yesterday afternoon?
A Yes, sir; I believe so.
Q Was that about your proposed testimony here in Court yesterday and today?
A Well, it was the fact that I would testify. We talked about that.
Q How long did you talk with Government Counsel at the lunch break yesterday?
A About this case?
Q Yes; about this case.
A Perhaps a minute.
Q The rest of the time you talked about some other subject with them?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you see Mr. Ivory yesterday before he left the building?
A Yes, sir; I did.
Q Did you talk to him at all during the lunch break yesterday?
A Yes; I did.
Q Did you talk to him about the case?
A Only the fact that he was done testifying.
Q All right, now; all the things that you told us yesterday, Mr. Shaw, on direct examination -- these are all things that pertain to work you did in 1970; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And everything you told us in direct examination is really essentially what you told a military proceedings in 1970 also; isn't that correct?
A The same subject; yes, sir.
Q I am sorry; I could not hear you.
A The same subject.
Q Now, you described participating in helping to collect the physical evidence in this case. Did you help collect fibers and threads?
A Yes, sir; I did.
Q And I believe you told us on direct examination that you found or you helped collect some in the master bedroom; is that right?
A Yes; that is correct.
Q And you also collected some fibers and threads in the bedroom of what -- one or both of the children?
A Only in the bedroom of Kimberly MacDonald.
Q But there was also, was there not, Mr. Shaw, a third place in the house where you collected fibers and threads?
A I saw some fibers in a third place. I am not certain now that I collected them or someone else did.
Q All right; let me see if I understand you. You did see, as a matter of fact, fibers and threads which you eventually came to believe came from the blue pajama top quite near to the entrance of the living room in the MacDonald house, didn't you?
A That is not quite correct, Counsel.
Q Well, let's put it this way: did you see fibers and threads near the entrance to the living room?
A I saw some threads there; yes.
Q No fibers?
A Or fibers; I am not certain which.
Q Well, perhaps if you would just first take a look at the model -- I think we have a pointer up there. Could you indicate to us where is this particular location that you saw fibers or threads? Let me just move this, Mr. Shaw, and if you would like to come around behind it so the members of the jury can see?
A At the end of the hallway. I testified yesterday that there were some pieces of clothing and a doll's head and some bobby pins, as I remember, and right here at the end of the hallway.
Q All right; that would be, if we could describe it, right in or about the doorway that connects the hallway into the living room; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q That would be on the south side of the doorway, as opposed to the north side?
A Correct.
Q How about the fibers and threads? Were there any in that vicinity?
A That is the third place that I saw fibers or threads.
Q You are telling us, I think, two different things: one, that you saw some clothing which -- although I know you did not describe it -- was it red and red-patterned clothing in or about that area?
A Yes.
Q All right, then. In addition to that, you saw fibers and threads in and about the same area?
A Correct.
Q Can you be any more precise?
A Here in this area (indicating).
Q All right; you are indicating --
A (Interposing) The south side of the hallway at the entrance to the living room.

MR. SEGAL: All right; would you go back, Mr. Shaw?

Q Now, did you personally collect those fibers and threads that were near the entrance to the living room?
A I don't think so, Mr. Segal. I don't remember.
Q I am sorry; I couldn't hear you.
A I don't remember.
Q Do you have any idea who else, if anyone, collected the fibers and threads that were located near the entrance to the living room?
A It could have been Mr. Ivory, or one of the members of the laboratory team.
Q And when you say "fibers," does that mean material that was at one time woven into some kind of garment?


THE COURT: I will let him say what he means by "fibers."

THE WITNESS: I use the terms "fibers" and "threads" synonymously -- or I did at that time. I have since learned the difference.

Q Probably all of our memories have been affected by the time, but let me ask you whether, if I read to you a question and answer, it may revive or refresh your memory about what you considered to be fibers and what you considered to be threads in 1970. May I do that? You recall, do you not, being interviewed on July 5th, 1970, under oath, by attorney for Dr. MacDonald?
A Yes; I recall that.
Q Now, I want to read to you a section from page 84 of that transcript and ask whether it either refreshes your memory, or if it doesn't, you accept the stenographer's transcript as being an accurate statement of what you said. Is that all right with you?
A Yes.
Q "Question: By "fibers" -- by that, you mean fuzz and stuff? Answer: By 'fibers,' I mean material that makes up the jacket itself manufactured by the person who weaves the cloth. By 'threads,' I mean the thread that sews the pieces of cloth together. That comes from the seams. I don't know which was which. Now I will go ahead and answer your question. I personally found fibers and/or threads in the west entrance to the hallway on the floor near the south wall, just a pile laying there." Does that question and answer sound familiar to you?
A Yes; it does.
Q Does the answer sound like your answer, or are you willing to accept the stenographer's transcript?
A By that time, I had learned the difference between fibers and threads.
Q All right; you are saying, between February 17, when you were engaged in assisting the collection of physical evidence at the crime scene, and by the time the Article 32 proceeding -- the military proceeding -- had started and was into it, you learned the difference between fibers and the difference between threads?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what you are telling us is that you had seen, but are not sure whether you personally collected the fibers and threads near the entrance to the hallway in the living room?
A I recall seeing them.
Q I understand that. You don't know who collected them, if anybody?
A I know that they were collected.
Q Well, did you actually see anyone collect them?
A I don't remember, Mr. Segal.
Q Would it be fair to say that what you do recall is that on one occasion you saw the fibers and threads there and then sometime later on that same day you realized that you saw the fibers were no longer there?
A I realized that they had been collected and I have since seen laboratory reports that refer to them.
Q Well, all I want to know is, since you didn't see the fibers collected, would it be correct to say that you assumed that someone else had collected them?
A I remember that I became aware that they were collected.
Q Because they were not there anymore. Right, Mr. Shaw?
A No, sir; because I was told or I saw someone collect them. I know --
Q (Interposing) I am asking you of your personal knowledge and one last time I will ask you, you have no personal knowledge because you did not see anyone collect the fibers near the entrance to the living room.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT. He has answered that question.

THE COURT: I will SUSTAIN it. I think you have explored that far enough.

MR. SEGAL: All right, Your Honor.

Q Now, you also saw fibers and threads in and about the body or where the body of Mrs. MacDonald had been. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the majority of those fibers and threads that you saw within the so-called body outline of Mrs. MacDonald -- where were they located?
A Well, of course, they were on the floor.
Q Understood. I am referring to within the drawing that was made on the floor by other CID agents. Where did the majority of the fibers and threads appear?
A It seemed to me that most of them that I could see were in the area of the outline -- that would be just below her buttocks.
Q Just below where?
A Her buttocks.
Q Without getting indelicate about the matter, isn't that an area that you described that the majority of the fibers were in and about where the crotch of Mrs. MacDonald's pajamas were?
A Yes.
Q And that is the place where you saw the largest amount of those fibers -- in that crotch area?
A The largest amount.
Q Now, who was in charge of this criminal investigation when you arrived at the house on February 17 in the morning?
A Mr. Ivory was.
Q He was, in fact, the lead investigator in this homicide case. Was he the lead investigator in this homicide case?
A During what period?
Q On February 17.
A At the crime scene he was. Mr. Grebner arrived sometime later -- I think at about 5:00 o'clock or 5:30 in that period -- and he was the senior man, and he took charge of the investigation.
Q He actually took responsibility for conducting the investigation of the MacDonald case once he arrived there?
A Overall responsibility; yes, sir.
Q Mr. Grebner was the chief of the CID unit at Fort Bragg at that time. Is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q He was in overall charge of every investigation that the CID investigated that investigators were conducting. Was he not?
A Yes; he was.
Q I mean as the head of the office he is ultimately responsible for all that is done there?
A Correct.
Q But as a practical matter, one investigator is generally assigned to be the lead investigator in each and every case that the office handles?
A That is correct.
Q And at that time on February 17, 1970, the lead investigator was William F. Ivory. Wasn't it?
A Well, this was an unusual case, Mr. Segal, in that it involved a triple homicide. Mr. Grebner took personal charge, keeping in mind that there was more to this case than just a crime scene.
Q All right, sir, in fact, not only was Mr. Grebner the nominal head of every investigation, but I gather from your testimony that in fact he was the actual directing and operational head of this investigation from the time he arrived on the scene and thereafter.
A Yes, sir.
Q What was Mr. Ivory's role after Mr. Grebner became the actual operating director of this investigation?
A Well, Mr. Ivory was still the lead investigator, to use your term, at the crime scene in that he was directing certain people to do certain things.
Q And did he ask you or direct you, if you will, to do certain things at the crime scene investigation?
A Yes; he did.
Q You were not a co-lead investigator, were you, with him in regard to the crime scene?
A I don't know how to characterize that, Mr. Segal. We worked together.
Q I appreciate the cooperative nature of the work. Where it came to responsibility, wasn't Mr. Ivory still in charge or were you now assuming an equal responsibility with him?
A Well, every investigator is responsible for what he does. We did work together. Mr. Ivory asked me to do certain things. I did them. That is about all I can say about that.
Q As a matter of fact, when you arrived at the crime scene, Mr. Ivory was the person who briefed you about the crime scene?
A Correct.
Q Now, you told us, I believe, yesterday that Mr. Grebner arrived -- well, tell us exactly at what time did he arrive at the crime scene?
A Shortly after 5:00 o'clock, I believe.
Q And from that point forward, in your view, he was not only the nominal chief of the investigation because of his position -- he was in fact actually taking charge of overall direction of this investigation.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT. He has answered that question.

THE COURT: I will let him answer just one more time. Then we will do something else.

THE WITNESS: In my opinion he was in overall charge of the investigation of the MacDonald murders.

Q And it was the same Mr. Grebner -- this overall chief director of the investigation -- who, you say, moved the items of red clothing at the end of the hallway from the hallway onto the sofa. Is that right?
A That is correct.
Q Did you see him, by any chance, when he moved those items -- put them into an evidence of bag of some sort?
A No; he didn't. He put them on the end of the couch.
Q Just put them on the couch, but he used perhaps a pair of tongs that are sometimes used for collecting evidence to pick up those items and carried it over to the couch?
A No; he didn't because the stretcher was being wheeled down the hallway, and he decided they needed to be moved before the stretcher rolled over them.
Q Nobody asked the stretcher people to stop and wait so that they could get tongs to move the physical evidence. Is that right?
A That is correct.
Q Because, in fact, what was coming down the hallway was what? Whose body was coming down the hallway?
A Mrs. MacDonald.
Q Mrs. MacDonald was, of course, dead at that point?
A Yes, sir.
Q There was no urgency about moving those items of clothing without using forceps or tongs. Isn't that also correct? There was no urgency -- was there, Mr. Shaw?
A I would not like to answer that yes or no.

THE COURT: That is a matter of argument. Ask another question.

Q Now, the bodies of Kristen and Kimberly MacDonald -- they had been moved prior to Mrs. MacDonald's body coming down the hall. Isn't that right?
A Not according to my memory.
Q Is it your memory that the body of Mrs. Colette MacDonald was taken out first and then followed by the removal of the children's bodies?
A Yes.
Q I only want to ask you to search your memory. Do you feel certain enough about that to say that is a fact today or are you somewhat uncertain as to the sequence of which bodies came out first?
A I feel certain.
Q And if I were to suggest to you that some other witness has testified to the opposite sequence, would that in any way cause you to rethink your memory in that regard?



Q Do you have any notes perhaps that might help us or help you to remember the sequence in which the bodies were removed?

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we OBJECT. He has already answered that question.


Q Did you make a memorandum of any sort in regard to the events you observed in the MacDonald house which would include reference to the moving of the bodies?
A I was making notes. Whether that particular event was noted or not, I don't know.
Q Well, did you not convert your notes into a memorandum in progress or a file memorandum for the CID file?
A Yes, I did.
Q Have you not looked at those memoranda or refreshed your recollection by using them recently?
A I read them recently, yes.
Q That was for the purpose of trying to give us your testimony as accurately as possible, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you like to look at those file memoranda again today to see whether it would help you on the subject of the sequence in which the bodies were moved?
A Mr. Segal, I don't have any problem with that. I remember the way it happened.
Q All right. Now, when you went to the MacDonald house, Mr. Shaw, you were driving first from your own home to the CID office, and then from the CID office to the Castle Drive address, is that the sequence?
A Yes.
Q Were you in your own private vehicle when you went to the MacDonald house?
A No, I wasn't.
Q Did you actually drive the car that was used to get you to the MacDonald house?
A Yes, I did.
Q And another agent was riding with you?
A Yes, Mr. Black.
Q Was it raining when you went to the MacDonald house?
A Yes, it was.
Q Had it been raining off and on most of that evening?
A Well, I think so, yes; because it was pretty wet outside and it was raining lightly as I drove to Castle Drive.
Q Would it be fair to say it was both somewhat damp and somewhat chilly outside that evening?
A It was cold, yes, sir.
Q When you went into the MacDonald house, you did note, however, that the house was heated and was warm?
A Yes.
Q As a matter of fact that in your judgment the temperature was about 75 degrees in the MacDonald house?
A It was in Kimberly's bedroom.
Q Are you suggesting perhaps that the temperature was markedly different in the rest of the house?
A No, sir, I am not.
Q At least in the one room that you have a specific recollection in, you had a feeling that it was about 75 degrees?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you note whether any of the windows inside the MacDonald house were open?
A To the best of my recollection, none of them were open.
Q The only opening -- the only places of egress and ingress that you saw were the front door and the back door of the utility, am I correct in that regard?
A Would you repeat that question?
Q Was anything else opened in the MacDonald house as far as a way of getting in or out, other than the front door or the back door?
A When I arrived?
Q Yes.
A Only the front door was open.
Q Did you have occasion to go look at the back door, the one that you can see through the utility room?
A Not until later in the day.
Q About what time was it when you were back in the utility room?
A It was probably as late As 11:00 o'clock.
Q At that time was the door open or closed to the utility room?
A I believe we opened it then. I believe that we opened it then.
Q Let me make sure I know what door we are referring to. Are you referring to the door that can be seen through the master bedroom at what is the north side of the house?
A I am referring to the exterior door, yes, that is located in the utility room.
Q And that is the solid wooden door there, is that correct?
A It has a window in it.
Q Well, it's not the screen door we're talking about?
A Not the screen door.
Q So, as I understand your testimony, at 11:00 o'clock or so when you saw that door, it was in a closed position and that either you or someone else opened it at that time?
A I remember clearly that when I got to the crime scene the door was closed. I could see that it was closed, and prior to the removal of the bodies it was still closed. It had not been opened. The laboratory team arrived about 11:00 o'clock, and I think it is at that time or shortly thereafter that I first saw the door open.
Q Do you know who it was, Mr. Shaw, who opened the door at that time?
A I am not certain whether it was Mr. Ivory or perhaps Mr. Medlin from the crime laboratory.
Q Were you aware that the first MPs on the scene found that the wooden door as opposed to the screen door -- the wooden door in an open position?
A I have been told that.
Q Did you ever learn that somewhere after the MPs and the CID arrived that that same wooden door was closed?
A It was closed when I got to the crime scene.
Q And then someone -- Ivory, Medlin -- opened it again, is that right?
A At about 11:00 o'clock or after.
Q You were asked that morning by Mr. Ivory to help conduct a search of the exterior of the MacDonald house, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you described yesterday and identified in evidence a number of weapons -- instruments that were used as weapons -- that either you found or participated in finding, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q First of all, were you actually in charge of the outside investigation, or were you merely assisting that operation?
A I was assisting it.
Q Who was actually in charge of the outside investigation?
A Well, it was done at two different aspects. One was the military police search that was going on further out from the quarters, the surrounding houses, the surrounding yard, and so forth; and as far as I know I was alone in going around the exterior walls of the quarters, so I guess I was in charge of that aspect of it.
Q At least by default you were; right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you described finding first of all -- and I won't necessarily go in sequence -- but I think the first thing you identified yesterday was a knife called a -- identified as a Geneva Forge knife?
A That is not correct. I think the first thing I identified yesterday was the wooden club.
Q All right, I'm talking first of all about cutting instruments, two knives and an ice pick; and I'm not holding it to order but I want to ask you about those matters?
A All right.
Q You did find a Geneva Forge knife, is that right?
A Yes, I did.
Q And that night was, in fact -- appeared to be a kitchen paring knife?
A Yes, that is the knife that was in the master bedroom.
Q Yes. In fact you pointed it out to Ivory and Connolly, and they said they had already seen it?
A That is correct.
Q You walked over and you circled it for them so that nothing would happen to it, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, that Geneva Forge knife was a unique item, wasn't it?
A In what respect?
Q Well, it means, you know, one of a kind, sort of. You know, this is a really unusual knife, something you didn't see much of?
A The only unusual aspect about it was that it had a bent blade, but other than that it seemed to be a common kitchen paring knife.
Q As a matter of fact, you knew that that particular knife -- the Geneva Forge knife -- could be bought at any post exchange at Fort Bragg, isn't that correct?
A No, I didn't know that.
Q Beg your pardon?
A I didn't know that.
Q All right, again, perhaps I can assist your memory, and go back to the sworn interview statement of July 5, 1970. I want to read to you from page 38, and ask you if you either remember the question and answer or you accept the stenographer's transcript. "Question: Do you know of anything of your personal knowledge regarding the Geneva Forge knife? Answer: My personal knowledge -- I do -- the PX." Now, does that indicate to you that that is where it could be bought?
A That would seem to indicate that.
Q What about the other paring knife that was found. The other, that had the name "Old Hickory" on it. Was that a unique, unusual item in any way?
A No, sir; I don't think so.
Q As a matter of fact, you knew in July of 1970, of your own personal knowledge, that that was sold both on Fort Bragg and off-post in Fayetteville and in the surrounding area?
A Well, you are talking about July of 1970, which is several months after this investigation.
Q Yes, sir?
A I may have had occasion to find out that you could buy those knives, or that knife, in different locations.
Q Well, at least in July of 1970, when the Article 32 Military Proceedings were started, you knew that, first of all, the Geneva Forge knife, you said of your own personal knowledge, was an item that was sold in the Post Exchange; is that right? The transcript indicates that and you accept that answer?
A Yes, I will accept that.
Q And again, as far as the second paring knife, the "Old Hickory" paring knife, based upon what the transcript shows, you knew in July of 1970, that that was sold not only on the Post Exchange, of your own personal knowledge, but you said it was sold off-post in the surrounding town; isn't that correct?
A If that is what the transcript indicates.
Q Yes. Now as far as the ice pick that was found, that also was not a unique item; isn't that correct?
A That is correct.
Q As a matter of fact, at that time you indicated that you had seen, you know, ice picks sold in the PX, in various shopping facilities on the Post, if not in the PX; is that not right?
A That is right.
Q You were asked the following question on page 39 and gave the following answer: "Question: In any shopping facilities on the Post have you ever observed whether the ice picks there resemble in size and shape and color or handle, the one we have here? Answer: Sir, to my knowledge, all ice picks resemble in size and color, not to be facetious, but that is just the case. An ice pick is just an ice pick." Does that sound familiar to you, or do you accept the transcript?
A I will accept that; yes, sir.
Q I notice that you're smiling. Does it sound familiar to you when you hear me read it back?
A Yes.
Q All right. There wasn't any doubt in your mind that that is what you knew to be so in July of 1970?
A There is no doubt in my mind.
Q All right. Did you participate in the search of the utility room next to the master bedroom for any matters of evidential value?
A Only superficially. I did not meticulously search the utility room or participate in that search.
Q Let me ask you a more general question, Mr. Shaw. Is it a matter of fact that you observed no blood spots whatsoever in that utility room?
A That is a fact.
Q And that's the door, which you know from your investigation was open when the first MPs arrived at the scene?
A I had been told that.
Q I understand. Now you also had occasion to look around in the kitchen of the MacDonald house on that morning, February 17, 1970?
A Yes, I did.
Q And while you were there, you noted -- you observed -- that there was in fact a paring knife in that kitchen?
A I did not inventory the items, but I opened the drawers and I think I remember seeing a paring knife. My recollection of that was not very sharp about that when you asked me in 1970 about the matter.
Q Well, let me again read you part of the transcript to see whether, again, that assists you in any way, and I am referring to, again, your sworn statement interview on July 5, 1970. I will start to put it in context, I think, on page 37, line 17. Question, by myself: "Question: Did you find any other knife or kitchen utensils in the MacDonald household which bore the brand name, 'Old Hickory'? Answer: I did not." Does that either sound familiar or are you willing to accept the transcript?
A I am willing to state that I did not.
Q "Question: Did anyone else, according to your knowledge of the investigation? Answer: According to my firsthand knowledge, there was another paring knife in the house with a brown handle." Does that either refresh your recollection or do you accept the stenographer's transcript?
A Well, I have to stand by what I said, Mr. Segal. I opened those drawers in the kitchen and I looked and I think I saw another paring knife. I will not accept the transcript on that.
Q When you say you will not accept it, you think that the stenographer may have gotten your words down wrong in some fashion?
A She may have.
Q Well, let me go over what your answer was and tell us what, if any part of it, you want to disagree with now. "According to my firsthand knowledge"; let's stop there. Do you disagree with the fact that you said you were talking from firsthand knowledge as opposed to repeating hearsay or what other people told you?
A I will accept the meaning of that; yes, sir.
Q "According to my firsthand knowledge, there was another paring knife in the house." Now, do you accept that or disagree with that part of the transcript?
A I have to go on what I just said, Mr. Segal. Whether I accept the transcript or not, I remember now that I think I saw a paring knife, which would seem to bear that out.
Q I'm sorry?
A Which would seem to bear that out.
Q Do you have any reason to disagree with the statement that the stenographer recorded that you said in 1970 in July that it had a brown handle?
A No.
Q Then you were asked at that time, "Question: What was the brand? Answer: I do not remember. I know it is still there. I don't think it was an Old Hickory." Do you either recall that or accept the transcript?
A Well, it was not an "Old Hickory."
Q So in a sense, you accept the transcript as to what it says in that regard?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Question: Was it marked 'Geneva Forge'? Answer: I do not remember." Do you accept that answer from the transcript?
A I will accept that.
Q Finally, in the same series of questions and answers, "Question: Do you think you would remember if it had been the same type of knife; do you think it would refresh your recollection? Answer; I think so." Do you accept that answer?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now there was a fourth item that you collected outside of the house and that you mentioned a few minutes ago, as being described as a club?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now you conducted a general search in the rear of the house, in and about the house, looking for whatever you could find of evidential value?
A Yes.
Q I want to show you some pictures and ask perhaps whether you saw what is depicted in these pictures.

MR. SEGAL: May I have these marked with the next consecutive numbers, please?

(Defendant Exhibit Nos. 28, 29, and 30, were marked for identification.)

Q Mr. Shaw, I would like to show you three photographs that have been marked D-28, D-29 and D-30 for identification, and ask you to examine them and tell us if you recognize what is depicted in those photographs?
A Yes; I do.
Q Excuse me; just tell us what photograph you are going to describe first with the number on the back, Mr. Shaw?
A All right.
Q If you would do D-28 first, that would be helpful.
A D-28 depicts a bricked-in access way and a small door that leads into the space underneath the house.
Q It is sort of -- if I may ask, is it sort of a well on the outside of the house -- a well area?
A Yes.
Q All right; we will go to the model in a second.
A Not a water well, of course.
Q Right; I did not mean to imply that. I think the black and white is next.
A D-29 is the black and white photograph. That is a view of -- I believe it is the same access way that depicts the well or the access way directly from above.
Q And would you look at the third and last in the series of photographs and tell us what it depicts?
A Number 30 is a color photograph that was taken from the outside with the door open, showing part of the space under the house.
Q Now, would you go back to the first of those photographs? In fact, if you will, let me hold that up. You may want to use the pointer. Now, is the photograph D-28 the condition of this, what I have called a little well here, the way you first observed it on February 17, 1970?
A Yes; I think it is.
Q As far as you can recall now, looking at it, it seems about the way it was when you first saw it?
A Yes.
Q About what time of the morning was it when you observed that well?
A Sometime between 6:30 and 7:00 o'clock.
Q Was it at that point daylight outside?
A Well, it was light in the sky but I was using a flashlight.
Q All right; would you use a pointer, please, Mr. Shaw, and point out to what is in the well that you can observe in this first picture?
A I can see a wood slat and some vegetation.
Q All right; what about the door which is in the well which allows access to the space under the house? Is that door open or shut in this photograph?
A It is open slightly.
Q Partially open; correct?
A Yes.
Q Let us look at the photograph marked D-29; and, as I understand, you told us that represents the same scene, but from directly overhead. How many pieces of wood are shown now from this particular angle as being in the well at the time you saw it?
A I see two pieces.
Q Use the pointer, if you don't mind?
A Excuse me; I see two pieces, and this piece may be attached; so there may be three pieces there.
Q Either three separate, or one of these has two parts to it; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, in the third and last of the series, D-30, this apparently requires someone to open that access door fully to take this photograph. Do you know who did that or when this was done?
A Mr. Page did that.
Q He was the CID photographer from Fort Gordon?
A That is right.
Q And when he opened it, what does the inside of this photograph depict as being in that space beneath the house?
A There are some boards and some wood chips.
Q Go ahead?
A Some boards and some wood chips and a board here, or piece of wood or something.
Q You say "wood chips." You mean splintered pieces of board and wood of various sorts?
A Yes.
Q All right, now; I would like your assistance, if we could, Mr. Shaw, to indicate on the model where that place was, and perhaps if we first close the front -- would you rotate it this way, please? I want to get a marker, Mr. Shaw, if you will indulge me. Let me ask you, if you would use a yellow marking pen and point out to us first where that area is, and then we will have you mark it.
A Mr. Segal, there is a photograph of the back of the house that shows exactly.
Q Well, if you would like to use the photograph to aid you to position it, I would be happy to have you do that.
A Do you have such a photograph?

MR. SEGAL: I do not recall it. Does the Government have a photograph, and may we see that?

MR. MURTAGH: We provided you with one.

(Counsel confer.)

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, indulge us. If we look at the enlargements, perhaps we can find the photograph.


Q Mr. Shaw, let me show you the enlargements offered by the Government that are identified as 165(b) and 166(b), which show the rear of the MacDonald house and the Kalin house, and ask whether -- after you examine those photographs -- that will assist you so we can mark the model? (Witness examines photographs.)
Q Mr. Shaw, does that help you to be able to ascertain where on the model we could mark the place that the well existed?
A Yes; it does.
Q All right; would you take the pointer, please, and show us; and then I think instead of marking it we will put a piece of tape down.
A That access way or well was below this window, just about center of it.
Q All right; that would be the north bedroom, and that was the bedroom of which child?
A That was Kristen MacDonald's bedroom.
Q May I offer you this piece of rectangular tape? I am not suggesting it is exactly to scale, but just for placement purposes.
A About there (indicating).
Q All right; may I ask you to use that red pen, and you may put those pictures down if you like, Mr. Shaw; and if you would, just mark the word "well" and initial it, please; and put 7/26/79 on it. (Witness complies.)
Q Mr. Shaw, on the scale that the Government says one inch equals one foot here, it looks like 18 feet from the doorway to the center of that window. Do you have any reason to disagree with that of this distance and location?
A Which doorway -- the kitchen door?
Q I beg your pardon. I measured the wrong way. Let's measure from this way. The same distance -- 18 feet.
A Approximately.
Q Now, there is no other obstruction in and around that well, was there, to prevent someone from reaching in and grabbing a board or stick from there?
A There are some bushes around it.
Q Well, let's look at the pictures and put them up. Does G-165 -- I'll allow you to use the pointer to point at where the well was?
A Here to the best of my recollection (indicating).
Q In other words, you are pointing literally to some cut bush. Is the well the slightly raised area on the ground level?
A Yes, sir.
Q That is in no way visually obstructed from anybody going past it. Is it? It is not visually obstructed if you walk right past it to see that the well is there?
A No.
Q Now, while you were outside the house, you also mentioned yesterday under direct examination that you tried an experiment. You stepped in a sandy area. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q There was a lot of sandy soil in and around that house. Wasn't there?
A Well, there was around the exterior walls.
Q The lawn was, as you can see in the pictures, was hardly a carpet of grass.
A It was a lawn.
Q It was not a very good lawn. Was it?
A It was a February lawn in North Carolina.
Q Okay, I think we all know what that is. You tried an experiment and you made an impression in that. Is that right?
A In the sand; yes, sir.
Q Did you take a photograph of what that impression looked like?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know that a military policeman had been around the front of the MacDonald house in the same type of a soil and had walked up to, the house and looked in the window? Did you know that?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ever check to see whether he left a foot impression of any sort in that soil?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you find one?
A No, sir.
Q All right, if I can now, I think we have covered the subjects about the outside. I want to take you back into the house mentally. Inside I want to ask you about a couple of things that took place there. Let's go back into the master bedroom. When you were in the master bedroom, you observed -- did you not -- there was a closet along the west wall of that bedroom which had sliding doors?
A Yes; there were two closets on the west wall.
Q And the door, as this model indicates, to the closet was certainly open partly?
A Yes, sir.
Q You noticed -- did you not -- that in that closet there was a pair of white shoes?
A Not at that time but later.
Q During February 17 sometime during the day?
A Or the next day perhaps.
Q And those white shoes -- they were perfectly clean. They had been polished recently?
A No, sir; the shoes were side-by-side and they had been sitting in the closet and there was some, what appeared to be blood stains on them.
Q Which one of the collectors of physical evidence -- Mr. Ivory, yourself, or anyone else -- took those shoes and put them in an evidence bag and sent them to the chemistry section of the CID to have them analyzed for those blood stains and blood types on those blood stains?
A I did not.
Q Would it be fair to say, to the best of your knowledge, no one ever did that -- had those shoes examined for the type of blood that was on them?
A Well, the shoes were put away. We knew that Dr. MacDonald was a doctor. They looked to be part of a doctor's uniform. It would not be fair to say that no one did because I don't know if anyone did. I did not.
Q You have no knowledge of anyone else having done anything about having those shoes taken out and examined as to blood types and blood stains or any other chemistry work done on them?
A No, sir.
Q Now, let's move to another bedroom. You described yesterday the process whereby two of the medics removed the body of was it Kristen MacDonald or Kimberly? Kimberly.
A What are you asking me, sir?
Q Do you recall describing that process -- how they did that?
A Yes.
Q That was Kimberly's body. Is that right?
A I think I described the process for both of them.
Q Okay, well, let's talk about Kimberly's body.
A All right, sir.
Q How many medics assisted or were required or participated in moving her body?
A Two.
Q And is that something that is rather clear in your mind?
A Yes, sir.
Q You actually, I think, demonstrated for us somewhat how they leaned over the bed to pick up her body. Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And how many medics moved the body of the other child?
A Also two; the same two.
Q They were the same two medics?
A Yes.
Q And, again, is that something you have a fairly clear image in your mind of seeing those two men at work doing that?
A Yes, sir.
Q And if someone else were to testify in this proceeding that only one medic moved each body, would that cause you -- now that I have said that -- cause you perhaps to reconsider your testimony and change it in some fashion?



Q Does that in any way jog your memory --



Q Do you have any doubt in your mind that there were two medics who moved each of the children?
A I have a pretty clear memory about that, sir.
Q Now, let's go out, if we can, into the hallway where there was a closet that you described with various family personal items and medication. Is that right?
A The hallway closet -- the small hallway closet.
Q Yes; the small hallway leading to the bathroom.
A (No response.)
Q Let me hand you the exhibit that you identified yesterday, Number 1068, which you described as being the handwritten list that was prepared as you and another CID agent inventoried the contents of that closet. All right, now 1068 shows two full pages of single lines of various medication and drugs and a couple of lines on the third page. Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many items approximately are on that list having been inventoried as being in the closet -- the items of medicine and medication?
A Shall I count them?
Q Please, if you don't mind.
A Approximately 70 items.
Q Approximately 70 items?
A Yes, sir.
Q On what date between February 17, 1970, and the military proceedings in the summer, or July of 1970 -- what day did you, or any other CID agent, show that list to Dr. MacDonald and ask him had any medicine, drug or medication been taken or was missing from that closet?


THE COURT: I will SUSTAIN it as to the form.

Q Did you ever have occasion, or to your knowledge, did any other CID agent have occasion to show that list to Dr. MacDonald to ask him whether any drugs, medicines or medications were missing from that closet?
A Dr. MacDonald was talked to about the medication in that closet. Whether he was shown the list or not, I don't know.
Q Well, let me ask you: did you show him that list?
A I don't remember showing him the list.
Q Do you know who it was you claim talked to MacDonald about that list?
A It could have been myself or Mr. Ivory or Mr. Grebner on the 6th of April.
Q All right; the 6th of April of 1970 -- something like seven weeks after the crimes. Was that not the first time, to your knowledge, that Dr. MacDonald was interviewed at length about the circumstances of the killings of his family and how he got his own injuries?
A What do you characterize as "at length"?
Q Go over the matter in detail.
A No; I don't think so. He was interviewed a number of times prior to that.
Q Oh, you mean Mr. Connolly's visit to the hospital when Dr. MacDonald was being treated? That is what you are talking about -- one of those times?
A That is one of the times.
Q Did you consider that to be a full and in-depth interview as to what happened in the house on February 17th, 1970?
A It was not sufficient.
Q How long was the interview on April 6th, 1970?
A I think we talked for an hour and a half or so in the morning, and perhaps the same period in the afternoon.
Q You would call that an in-depth interview about the matter, wouldn't you?
A Yes, sir.
Q And it was during that matter that one of the CID investigators -- either yourself or Mr. Ivory or Mr. Grebner -- accused Dr. MacDonald by saying "Nothing was stolen from your medicine chest"?


THE COURT: Well, I will SUSTAIN that, too. I will let you ask him what he did.

MR. SEGAL: All right, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Your statement was too broad -- your question.

Q Do you have a recollection of saying to Dr. MacDonald, "This must have been a staged crime, because we could not find any evidence that anybody stole medicine and drugs from you." Did you say that?



THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the quote?

Q Yes; did you say to him, "This must have been a staged crime, because there was no evidence that anyone stole any drugs or medication from you."
A Not to my memory, sir.
Q Let me at least ask you whether you recall the following question being asked by yourself --

MR. BLACKBURN: (Interposing) Before you ask the question, may we approach the Bench?

THE COURT: Yes; come up.


MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, Mr. Segal is apparently getting ready to cross-examine Mr. Shaw from the taped interview on April 6th. We recently, as I told Mr. Smith a few days ago, had the tape re-transcribed. We intend to offer the tape. I think Mr. Segal has certainly opened the door to that. There is a transcript available, as I told you, through Manie Currin or Mary Moore Ritchie, and I think that the transcript itself or the tape is the best evidence. I think your transcript has some omissions in it. That is why we had it re-transcribed; so I think in the interests of accuracy, we will make that transcript available. We have offered to make it available through the Court Reporter. But I think error will get into the record that will only confuse the matter if this transcript that Mr. Segal is using -- apparently he did not get one from Mary Moore Ritchie.

MR. SMITH: I don't remember; but I don't deny it.

MR. SEGAL: If I may respond, I don't know what Mr. Murtagh is talking about. The Government provided us with a copy of the transcript of that interview. This is the Government's transcription. All I want to do is ask him whether he made a certain statement. That is all I am asking him. It is like any other written document. They provided it. If they want to impeach their own document, they can do it in their own time -- their own place. I am allowed to ask him whether he agrees that it was an accurate statement. I will do it in my own fashion within the rules. I think it is within the rules for me to proceed this way, and I would like to get back to questioning.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, if I may, the transcript that Mr. Segal got, he did not get from these Government prosecutors. He got it in 1970; and what I am telling him, and as I told Mr. Smith, is that we recently had the tape re-transcribed by a court reporter. It is a better transcript, and we would offer that transcript to be marked in evidence at this time.

MR. SEGAL: It is like everything else, Your Honor. We find out about something from the Government that is available when the Government feel it suits their purposes. If they have it, why don't they give it to us without fooling around? I will use whatever is correct.

THE COURT: I thought you said you had given it to him.

MR. MURTAGH: No, Your Honor; the transcript that they got in 1970 they got from the Army.

THE COURT: I thought you said you had given him the most recent one.

MR. MURTAGH: No; what I told Mr. Smith was that we had it re-transcribed, and that transcript was available through Mary Moore Ritchie, the Court Reporter, as we got it. Do you recall that?

MR. SEGAL: I am going to use what we got in discovery, Your Honor. If they want to, they can impeach, correct it, and tear it up and burn it. We have their statement obtained in discovery in 1970, and we will ask this man about whether he made a statement, and that is all we are asking about.

THE COURT: Are you going to cross-examine him about it?

MR. SEGAL: Just ask him whether it refreshes his recollection.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, it is perhaps the Defendant's response that is inaccurate as well. What I am saying is --

MR. SEGAL: (Interposing) Forget it; I will withdraw the question and we will just get on with the case. All right?

THE COURT: It suits me fine. I always love it when they withdraw. I have not been reversed on that yet.

(Bench Conference terminated.)

Q Mr. Shaw, to your knowledge was Dr. MacDonald ever given a copy of that inventory of the drugs, medicines, and medications in the closet?
A During what period, sir?
Q From February 17 to the military proceedings of 1970?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Now, I want to ask you about still another area in the house, if I may, Mr. Shaw. You were shown a picture yesterday of the living room which depicted a stereo, I believe, if I can find that; and I want to direct your attention, if I may, Mr. Shaw, to Government Exhibit 146(a), which is an enlargement of what appears to be a portion of the MacDonald living room, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And with the pointer would you indicate where there is a feather on the floor next to the stereo speaker?
A There (indicating).
Q Between February 17, 1970, Mr. Shaw, and, say, the beginning of the military proceedings in, say, July, 1970 -- when they were underway -- did anyone ever question you about that feather, other than the attorney for Dr. MacDonald?
A I don't think so.
Q When I say "anyone," I, of course, include Mr. Grebner, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Ivory, Mr. Connolly, and any other investigator?
A Well, you said "question"; do you mean consultation, discussion, or questioning about?
Q Did anyone ever ask you any questions about that between February 17 and July, 1970, when the attorney for Dr. MacDonald questioned you about it?
A Mr. Ivory and I may have talked about it, but specific questioning, no, sir, only yourself.
Q Nobody ever questioned you about whether -- where that might have come from prior to my doing it in July, 1970?
A There wasn't any question about where it came from that I knew of.
Q No one raised it to you about what its source was, did they?
A There were other feathers in the house.
Q Did anybody say, "What is your opinion; do you think this feather came from here, there, or other where?"
A No, I don't think so.
Q Now, you described yesterday about the work of collecting evidence in and about this house, and one of the things you told us about was the team of men from the Post Engineers tearing up the plumbing and the lines outside, do you recall that?
A Yes, I think I said that they took out the sink traps and dug up the sewer lines, yes, sir.
Q Tore up the lawn, they followed it out to the street then?
A They dug it up.
Q All right. I don't mean to imply anything bad. That is what plumbers do, they tear up things. When was that done, when did they begin that work?
A Well, the outside work was begun on Saturday, the 21st I believe.
Q And how about the inside work of taking out the trap under the sink, that gooseneck joint, I think it has been referred to?
A That day or the day before, I believe.
Q Either Thursday or Friday of the week of these murders?
A No, Friday or Saturday, I think.
Q All right, Saturday. February 17 was Tuesday morning?
A I think so.
Q So this is about -- well, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday -- two to three days after the murders took place, is that right?
A That is correct.
Q When was that decision made -- when did anyone decide that might be a good investigative lead to follow?
A I think that was generally accepted from the first time we talked about it, the processing of the crime scene, that that would be a good idea.
Q Well, when the CID lab team from Fort Gordon was in the house, and other investigators were in the house, did they ever have occasion to use the running water in the sink?
A Not that I know of.
Q Beg your pardon?
A Not that I know of.
Q You don't know whether they did or did not?
A I can't account for all of their actions, but I -- not that I know of.
Q Did anyone have to use the toilet among those various men who were processing the house?
A It is possible that they had to go to the bathroom, yes, sir.
Q And it is fair to say that the people who used the toilet in the house flushed the toilet that day?
A No, sir, that's not fair.
Q Not fair to say -- they just let it accumulate -- the waste accumulate?
A No, they would use a bathroom in another house or go back to the CID office, or to the restaurant or something.
Q Is it your recollection that when one of the men had to urinate, they left the MacDonald house and went back to CID headquarters?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION, Your Honor, he answered that.

MR. SEGAL: I don't know if we had a clear answer, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will OVERRULE the objection.

Q Is it your recollection that when one of the CID lab men or the other investigators working and processing had to go to the bathroom for some reason that they left and went back to CID headquarters to use the toilet facilities?
A It is my recollection that they went someplace else, yes, sir. They could very well have gone next door, to the next door neighbors.
Q Well, you are assuming now aren't you, Mr. Shaw?
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q All right. Now, I'd like you to go back to the living room to focus on something a little different from what we talked about before. We talked about the speakers. I would like to talk about the magazine that you mentioned yesterday?
A The Esquire magazine.
Q Esquire magazine. I believe that in your direct testimony you said that Mr. Ivory picked up the magazine and looked through it. Am I correct in my recollection?
A No, sir, I think I said that Mr. Ivory collected it as evidence.
Q You don't recall saying, well, we'll put it aside. Did Mr. Ivory look through the Esquire magazine?
A I don't know if he did or not.
Q Were you not there when he handled the magazine?
A We may have looked through that magazine, and we may have looked through another copy of it that we obtained someplace else.
Q No, I mean, in the MacDonald house --
A (Interposing) He may have looked through it.
Q Beg your pardon?
A He may have looked through it.
Q Mr. Shaw, isn't it a matter of fact that Mr. Ivory's fingerprint was found on the Esquire magazine?


Q If you know?


THE WITNESS: I don't know.

Q You do not know whether his fingerprint was found on it?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ever look at the fingerprint reports in this case?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you there when Mr. Medlin or Mr. Turbyfill, the CID men, were dusting for fingerprints in the house?
A Yes, I was.
Q Did you see them dust the magazine?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know when or where if ever they dusted the magazine for prints?
A I think it was processed for fingerprints at the laboratory.
Q I see, and you don't have any recollection whether or not there is a report that said Mr. Ivory's fingerprints were on there?
A No, sir.
Q All right, sir. Now besides collecting evidence inside and outside the house -- well, that work would be finished as far as you were concerned around Friday or Saturday of the week of February 17, isn't it?
A The bulk of it was finished Saturday afternoon, the 21st.
Q Go ahead, I did not mean to cut you off, Mr. Shaw. I believe you said to us yesterday that the lab people started to wrap up the work on Friday or Saturday of that week?
A Saturday.
Q Saturday?
A Yes, sir.
Q You mean, if my recollection is, as you said yesterday, Friday or Saturday, that's not your recollection or that is not correct?
A They left Fort Bragg on Saturday, and some of the time Friday was spent inventorying, finishing collecting in some areas; so, yes, your recollection may be correct.
Q And you didn't stop working on the case at that point, did you?
A No, sir, I didn't.
Q As a matter of fact, you continued to assist Mr. Ivory all the way through to the time in the beginning of the military proceedings?
A Well, I was reassigned from Fort Bragg in July of that year.
Q The military proceedings had begun, of course, prior to that.
A When did they begin, Mr. Segal?
Q May 1, 1970, formal charges were filed; first testimony taken second week of June, 1970.
A Then my answer is, "yes."
Q You assisted Mr. Ivory in conducting interviews of witnesses in this case, did you not?
A I conducted a few interviews, very few.
Q As a matter of fact, you conducted exactly two interviews in number; is that right?
A No, that is not correct.
Q Are you saying you conducted more than two witness interviews?
A Well, that depends on what you call a witness interview. I talked to two military policemen at least, and I talked to Mr. and Mrs. Kassab -- interviewed them, if you will -- so that is three interviews.
Q All right, if we consider those separately they are four interviews; is that right?
A If we count them separate.
Q The two military policemen, who were they?
A At this date, I don't remember.
Q When did you interview those men?
A That would have been within the week or two weeks after the crime was committed.
Q Mr. and Mrs. Kassab, whom you interviewed, that was the mother and stepfather of Colette MacDonald; isn't that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you interviewed them in what month of 1970?
A I believe it was April or May.
Q That was prior to the beginning of the Article 32 proceedings?
A Yes, sir.
Q The two MPs that you interviewed, were those fairly brief interviews?
A A half hour, perhaps, fairly brief.
Q But you don't know who those men were that you interviewed?
A I don't remember.
Q Were you asked, at any time, to prepare a list of all of the military policemen and all of the medics who had been in and out of the MacDonald house prior to the first CID investigator arriving?
A I don't think so; no, sir.
Q You don't think so? Were you asked, Mr. Shaw, to prepare a list of all the MPs and medics and other personnel -- the chaplain, for instance -- who had been in the house between the time that the CID arrived on the scene and when, say, the lab team arrived?
A No, sir.
Q Isn't it correct, Mr. Shaw, that you told Lieutenant Paulk to prepare a list of all the MPs and all the medics who were at the crime scene prior to the arrival of Mr. Ivory, the first CID agent?
A I recall telling the MP Sergeant who was at the door to prepare a list of the people who were on guard outside. I am also aware that another investigator in our office, a Mr. Ellis, was involved in preparing such a list.
Q Mr. Ellis?
A Mr. Ellis. That would encompass the military policemen who were at the scene that morning.
Q Well, I guess my specific question still is, though, isn't it a matter of fact that you directed Lieutenant Paulk to prepare a list of all the MPs who were at the scene before any CID investigator arrived?
A I can't say that as a fact, but it sounds like something that Lieutenant Paulk would be asked to do.
Q And asked by yourself?
A I can't recall that as a fact.
Q Now you described right before going into the MacDonald house how you parked your car next to an ambulance -- that was part of your direct testimony yesterday; do you recall that?
A Yes, sir.
Q You also told us how you looked into the ambulance and you saw a white-jacketed medic; do you recall that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, looking over the testimony you gave on July 5 of 1970, I want to read to you the following questions and answers and ask you, perhaps, whether it clarifies your memory in any regard as to whether there was any medic outside in an ambulance or not. Now let me start on page 2 of that sworn statement, and I will read a couple of questions and answers and we will see whether that covers the topic. "Question: At approximately what time did you arrive? Answer: About 4:45, give or take five minutes." You said that answer?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Question: Who was present at the time you arrived? Answer: A Major Parsons, from the Provost Marshal's Office and an MP Sergeant, who was standing inside the door when we got there." Since this is a rather long answer, I'm going to stop and ask whether you can accept that part of the answer?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Mr. Ivory was there, Mr. Connolly was there, another criminal investigator." Do you accept that part of the answer?
A Yes, sir.
Q "And there were several persons outside, Military Police, and I think, one ambulance." Does that all sound like your answer, or will you accept the transcript?
A Yes, sir.
Q The continuation question was, "Question: Were its crew still there, or had they returned? Answer: I don't know." Does that sound familiar to you?
A I don't think I understand the question now -- was its crew still there or returned where?
Q Having it broken down in parts, maybe it was not helpful to do it that way, but I wanted to get your answer. I will read you the entire question and answer, and understand that the question that immediately follows it was the one that said, "Question: Were its crew still there or had they returned? Answer: I don't know."
A Yes, I understand now. I don't know if they had been there all along or whether they had been to the hospital and returned; I don't know. Isn't that what you meant at the time? That is what I understood you to mean.
Q I will read you the question and answer and you tell me whether that was the answer you gave that was responsive to what you were being asked. "Question: Who was present at the time you arrived? Answer: Major Parsons from the Provost Marshal's Office and an MP Sergeant was standing inside of the front door, when we got there. Mr. Ivory was there, Mr. Connolly was there, another criminal investigator, and there were several persons outside -- military police, and I think, one ambulance. Question: Were its crew still there or had they returned? Answer: I don't know." Is there any doubt in your mind that the answer was you didn't know whether the crew of the ambulance was there or not at that time?
A That is not what I meant and certainly is not what I understood you to say. The way I understand that question, "Was the crew still there...," from always having been there or had they been someplace else and returned. I don't know.
Q I see, but nowhere did you tell me at that time that you remembered seeing a white-jacketed medic sitting outside in the ambulance.


THE COURT: I believe I will SUSTAIN that one on relevancy grounds.

Q Back inside the house in the living room, again, I may say that part of the living room, or off of the living room there was the so-called dining area; do you recall that area?
A Yes, sir.
Q And on the chest in there, you saw a number of Valentine's Day cards; did you not?
A Yes, I did.
Q As a matter of fact, you saw a Valentine's Day card that said, "To My Loving Wife" signed by Jeffrey MacDonald?
A No, sir; I don't remember seeing that.
Q Well, how many Valentine's Day cards did you see?
A There were about ten cards there, I think -- seven to ten, perhaps.
Q You didn't pay any attention to whether or not the Defendant -- anytime between February 17 of 1970 and May 1 of 1970 when Dr. MacDonald was formally charged by the Army -- anytime in that period, did anybody go back and say, "Did this man, who is supposed to have slaughtered his wife in this fashion, express some love for her in a Valentine's Day card?"



Q Did any investigator, to your knowledge, bother to go back and see whether Jeffrey MacDonald had a Valentine's Day card to his wife there?
A I think it was done, yes.
Q Do you know offhand who that was, Mr. Shaw?
A No, sir. The only thing I remember about those cards --
Q (Interposing) Let me ask the questions.

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION. Let the witness say.

MR. SEGAL: There's no question before the witness -- you can ask all you want.

Q Let me ask you what you observed in the various bedrooms. I want to get out of the living room, and I want to talk about only blood now, if I may, Mr. Shaw. In the south bedroom -- which child's bedroom was that?
A Kimberly's bedroom.
Q You observed the condition of the blood in terms of degree of moistness, did you not?
A Yes; I did.
Q And you found the blood on that bed to be tacky when you were there?
A Beginning to coagulate; yes, sir.
Q Isn't "tacky" a word that you used?
A Yes; I would use that word.
Q What about the urine stain in Kimberly's bedroom? Did you observe the degree of moistness of a urine stain there?
A I did; it was wet.
Q Excuse me?
A It was wet.
Q It was wet. You also observed a footprint. Was it in that room or in the hallway outside the room?
A The bloody footprint?
Q Yes.
A I observed a bloody footprint in the north bedroom -- in Kristen's bedroom -- very close to the door, and what I took to be another partial bloody footprint a little further into the room, I believe.
Q All right; and the condition as to moistness -- I believe you described that on another occasion as being glistening?
A That is very possible; yes, sir.
Q You don't have any reason to disagree with that term, do you?
A No; I don't.
Q Now, the blood spots at the entrance to the master bedroom -- you observed those also, did you not?
A There were some blood spots there; yes, sir.
Q Would you describe the degree of moistness as to those blood spots?
A I believe it was wet.


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


Q Mr. Shaw, you worked on this investigation almost exclusively from February 17 to the beginning of the military proceedings in 1970; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q In the course of that work, did you ever find anyone who said that they had knowledge or had heard that Jeffrey MacDonald had ever beaten, struck or assaulted his wife, Colette MacDonald, at any time?
A No, sir.
Q During the course of that investigation period from February 17 and to the beginning of the military proceedings, did you ever find any witness who told you that Jeffrey MacDonald had ever struck or beaten either Kristen or Kimberly MacDonald?
A No, sir.

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

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. BLACKBURN: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right.

R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 11:06 a.m.

Q Mr. Shaw, when you spoke earlier this morning with respect to the fibers or threads that you found in the hallway near the living room --
A (Interposing) Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall approximately how many you saw?
A I remember seeing a tangled bunch or ball of threads or fibers.
Q What color were they?
A As I recall, they were a blue color.
Q Now, with respect, sir, to Government Exhibit 165(b) -- do you recall, sir, when you first walked around to that back area what time it was?
A Yes; it was about 6:30 in the morning, February 17th.
Q Was it daylight?
A There was light in the sky, but I had to use a flashlight to see any kind of details.
Q Now, you spoke of some interviews with Dr. MacDonald; is that correct? You are aware of the Paul Connolly interview at the hospital?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you aware of any other interviews that were conducted with respect to Dr. MacDonald prior to April the 6th?
A Yes, sir; I know that Mr. Hodges interviewed Dr. MacDonald, I believe, and Mr. Caverly from the FBI. How many times each of them might have interviewed him, I don't know; but I think that those three individuals did.
Q You interviewed him on April 6th; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why did you wait until April the 6th to interview Dr. MacDonald?
A Well, first of all, it was not my decision. As I recall Mr. Grebner made that decision and he would be your best witness as to why it was put off until then.
Q With respect to the Esquire magazine, do you know of your own personal knowledge whose fingerprints, if any, were found on that magazine?
A No, sir.
Q With respect to the bottom sheet on Kimberly's bed, I believe you testified that there was a large urine wet stain on that; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q How many urine stains were on that sheet, if you know?
A At that time I found one. I have since learned that there were two on the sheet. One was a dried stain that was at the bottom of the sheet.

THE COURT: Is there going to be some more?

MR. BLACKBURN: I can ask one additional question and be through.

THE COURT: All right.

Q With respect to the April 6th interview with Dr. MacDonald, do you know whether or not that interview was tape-recorded?
A Yes, sir; it was.

MR. BLACKBURN: No further questions.

THE COURT: All right; that brings us exactly to our morning recess hour, which we will take at this time. Members of the jury, we will come back today at 11:30. Don't talk about the case.

(The proceeding was recessed at 11:10 a.m., to reconvene at 11:30 a.m., this same day.)

F U R T H E R P R O C E E D I N G S 11:30 a.m.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Kantor, we have a report that your chair is not comfortable.

MR. KANTOR: I think it's okay now. I think it was too comfortable before. Every time I'd lean back, I'd go way back. I wanted a stiffer chair.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KANTOR: I just kept cranking it in the back until I got it pretty stiff now.

THE COURT: Let us know, any other members of the jury, if you are not comfortable, why, don't hesitate to let us know. We will try to do something about it. I thought you were through with this witness.


MR. SEGAL: Very brief re-cross, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

(Whereupon, ROBERT B. SHAW the witness on the stand at the time of recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:)

R E - C R O S S E X A M I N A T I O N 11:31 a.m.

Q Mr. Shaw, on the re-direct examination by Counsel for the Government, you mentioned that there were interviews done of Dr. MacDonald between February 17 and April 6, 1970. Do you recall that?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you mentioned Mr. Hodges and Mr. Caverly as persons who did such interviews?
A That was two of the people I mentioned.
Q Yes; any others that you remember?
A Mr. Connolly.
Q Mr. Connolly -- anything else?
A Those are the three people I remember.
Q Have you ever seen those typed interviews?
A The interviews were made a part of a reading file, I believe, but I don't know that any sworn statements were taken from Dr. MacDonald.
Q I know there is no sworn statement but what the interviewers said they heard and saw. They wrote it down and somebody typed it up for them. You are aware of that?
A Yes.
Q You are aware of -- aren't you -- that with the exception of one of them, all these interview statements are one page or less? Isn't that correct?
A No; I can't say how many pages there are, Mr. Segal.
Q You don't have any recollection of all these interviews being one page or less?
A No, sir; I don't.
Q One of them is almost three pages long. Are you aware of that one?
A I have no recollection about how many pages each one of these interviews consists of.
Q The interview that was taken on April 6, 1970, was, of course, many, many pages longer than that. Wasn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you aware that when the first interview was taken of Dr. MacDonald by Mr. Connolly whether he was under sedation or medication from the treatments at the hospital?



Q Were you aware that that was the condition he was in?
A I think that he was; yes, sir.
Q The last thing I want to ask you about this morning -- you are also aware that the April 6, 1970, interview started when Dr. MacDonald voluntarily came down to the CID to talk about matters on his mind. Is that not how it commenced?
A I think Mr. Grebner called his unit and asked him to come over.
Q Do you know whether he ever spoke to Dr. MacDonald to come down on April 6?
A I just gave you my best recollection.

MR. SEGAL: All right; I have nothing further, Mr. Shaw. Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Call your next witness.

Note from Christina Masewicz:
The Court Reporter's misspelling of Graebner was corrected to Grebner in this transcript.



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

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


Go to top