For researchers of the Jeffrey MacDonald case: The murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald


August 9, 1979
Paul Stombaugh (FBI) at trial

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, August 9, 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. Were there further questions of this witness?

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  Let him come back, then.

(Whereupon, PAUL M. STOMBAUGH, 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. (resumed)

Q  Mr. Stombaugh, I believe when we adjourned yesterday afternoon, we were talking about the circumstances under which you obtained hair samples at a cemetery in 1974. Do you recall that?
A  Yes; I do.
Q  By the way, did you find it necessary to use a light of any sort in order to make or go through the procedure where you obtained the hair from the various bodies?
A  No, sir; I wore a pair of surgical gloves and pulled the hairs out with my hand and immediately placed them into a plastic bag and marked them.
Q  Did you need a light to see what you were doing is what I was asking you?
A  No, sir; it was during the daylight.
Q  What time of the day or night was this?
A  I don't recall the exact time, sir. I flew up there in the morning and immediately went to the cemetery, so I imagine it would be between 11:00 and 1:00 or 2:00 -- something along in there.
Q  In the morning or early noon? That would be 11:00 in the morning, or 1:00 in the early noon; is that right?
A  Yes, sir; around noon.
Q  I gather that the whole purpose of this exhumation was for you to get known samples of the hairs of these particular persons; is that right?
A  That is correct.
Q  Now, you do know, of course, that the CID had purported to make some hair comparisons in this same matter, don't you?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you do know that they thought they had known hair samples when they did that?
A  I did not know that they had known samples. That was why I had to go up and get the samples myself.
Q  Did you not make any inquiry to find out how the CID made a hair comparison involving Colette, Kristen and Kimberly MacDonald if they did not have any known samples?
A  To the best of my recollection, sir, they used hairs they had removed from the clothing and assumed they were known samples. I could not do that. I have to know where my samples come from.
Q  I see. I guess you were told the same thing we have been told, that they assumed that the hair on the clothing belonged only to certain persons in the family?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT to this line of questioning as irrelevant.

THE COURT:  Well, he has been into it. I had some question in my own mind about it, but I don't know where Counsel is going. I will OVERRULE your objection.

Q  Is it fair to say that in your professional judgment, that that was not a proper procedure to get known hairs -- that is, taking some from clothing that you assumed to be that of the person, and that you made the assumption further that the hair that is on that clothing was a known sample of that individual's hair?



Q  You were not willing to proceed using hairs that the CID had collected from what they thought were the MacDonald family clothing; is that correct?

THE COURT:  He said that. He said he was not.

Q  After you went through this whole procedure of exhuming the bodies and tearing the hair out, you then took these now known samples back to the laboratory; is that right?
A  That is correct.
Q  After you compared the known samples with the samples, or the unknowns, that had been provided you, did you come up with any different conclusions than the CID hair examiner had come up with?
A  I did not make a comparison of my results with the CID results, sir. I formed my own conclusion.
Q  Mr. Stombaugh, you did have the CID lab report available to you, didn't you?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT

THE COURT:  OVERRULED. You mean the laboratory report, I take it?

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, sir.

THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir. I had the CID report.

Q  And you had that before you went and got the samples from the graves; isn't that right?
A  No, sir; I believe I got that later on.
Q  Well, how did you know, then, that the CID did not have known samples taken directly from the bodies of Colette, Kristen and Kimberly MacDonald?
A  Because in discussing the request with Mr. Woerheide and Mr. Murtagh, they told me that they used this type of sampling for knowns. And I said, "That is not good enough for me. I have to have actual known hairs from them -- the actual body."
Q  When you say, "they used," you mean Mr. Murtagh and Mr. Woerheide had told you that the CID had used this process of taking the hairs from the clothing?
A  That is correct.
Q  After you had finished making your own hair comparison, did you at any time look at the CID report on hair examination?
A  I might have glanced through their hair exams, but I did not make a direct comparison between what I found and what they had found. I wasn't interested in that. I was only interested in my own findings.
Q  So you don't know to this very day whether there is any difference between what you found and what they found?
A  That is correct.
Q  All right, let's talk about another matter, then, Mr. Stombaugh. Yesterday you told us about a comparison you made about the pajama top. I believe you told us -- and it was actually on Tuesday, not yesterday -- that the CID wanted you to answer the following question: whether or not the pajama top -- the blue pajama top, in this case -- was torn before or after blood stains were placed on it. Do you recall that you testified when that question was put to you?
A  That was one of the requests when they brought the material in to be examined.
Q  Beg your pardon?
A  I said that was one of the requests they made when they brought the material in to be examined.
Q  Heaven knows, Mr. Stombaugh, I was not suggesting there weren't more. I just wanted to know whether you remember telling us that was one of the requests, that they asked you to find out whether the pajama top was torn before or after blood stains were placed on it. You recall saying it, don't you?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, would you tell us what scientific procedures and methods you used in trying to answer that question for the CID?
A  It was a matter of looking on the torn areas of the pajama top, finding a blood stain, the configuration of which was on both sides of the tear. In other words, when you put a stain on a piece of fabric and tear through that stain at a later time, then the edges will fit up when the fabric is put back together.
Q  Well, I am interested in the procedure, but I just want to make sure -- is that what you did in this case? You looked for stains that you thought had been torn through; is that right?
A  That is correct.
Q  Let me see -- if I were a student learning this process, would it be fair to say -- we use the letter "K" in the FBI for the known part of it, is that right? You use the letter "K" when you have a known?
A  When you have a known, you use the letter "K".
Q  And you use the "Q" when you have one that is not known?
A  Yes, sir, a questioned.
Q  Right. If I were a student, and let's assume that these three red lines I have made here are stains on fabric, all right; and if I may I will work behind you for a minute. If I have one-half of a garment and I have another piece of garment trying to match, I would sort of take it, wouldn't I, like this and look along here, and look here and here and then say, "Oh, look, it looks like I have a match."
     Wouldn't that be the process in the most elementary form?
A  In the very elementary form.
Q  Yes. All right, then after we had sort of looked at these two pieces of fabric and sort of found a match here, would I not in a good laboratory technique say on -- that's point one here that's comparison, and here's point one on the other side.
     I would indicate the point of comparison, where they met, wouldn't I?
A  You would put the marks right on the object?
Q  Or on the overlay on top of it, or on the photograph on top of it -- wouldn't you want to begin to point out where the points of match are so that somebody else could look at this and say, "Why, yes, I see that you are right, Segal; you have matched them together correctly"?
A  I believe that on the top, sir, in the areas that I found my white crayon -- and there are dots around the seams that are torn through. Also, I drew it in my notes, where those stains are located, for further recollection.
Q  Well, Mr. Stombaugh, I think we would like to get to that in a minute, but I want to ask you first of all: are we not illustrating here that a proper beginning would be after you found what you think is a match, then point out all the points where you think that these garments, you know, fit together just like you were doing a fingerprint match for instance.
     You point out the points of comparison and similarity? Would that not be fair to expect that a beginning examiner who was going to match a piece -- two pieces of fabric together, and then tell you that this is the match he made?
A  Well, in the first place, sir, we do not have a K-1 and a Q-1 in the pajama top. It was all torn, but it was all one piece. It was designated as one piece.
Q  That's a harder job, when you have one piece of fabric that's known, and the other is unknown, isn't that right? That's harder to do?
A  We wouldn't match it like that. We would match the broken ends of the yarns. We wouldn't use what you have just done; and in matching the broken ends of the yarns together you wouldn't be putting marks on the fabric itself.
Q  Well, I said, Mr. Stombaugh, first of all that I was suggesting to you only as an illustration that the process involved -- putting two pieces of fabric together and then you are going to want a photograph taken of it or a plastic overlay -- you would mark out the points of comparison so that my senior examiner, someone more experienced, could look at it see, "Yes, you've done a good job," or "No, you don't have a comparison." Isn't that the basic process that you have done here in looking at this pajama top? Now, we will get to the details of what you actually did. I want to know about the basic process. I think that is fair enough, Mr. Stombaugh, to ask you that?
A  Sir, when I make an identification I am satisfying my own mind. I put it in my notes to be refreshed later on in case they should go to trial.

THE COURT:  I seem to sense a lack of communication between counsel and the Witness. Mr. Stombaugh, if I understand his question, he wants to know if the method that he suggests is accepted methodology in this art or trade or profession or whatever it is in examining things like this; and you can just say "yes" or "no."
     Whether it is the one that you use or not is not the question that I understand counsel is asking, is that correct?

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, Your Honor, correct.

THE WITNESS:  Some laboratories might use that, but some of them don't. Some examiners use it, some of them don't.

THE COURT:  Now, let's go on to something else.

MR. SEGAL:  Certainly, Your Honor.

Q  Now, in this case you took the blue pajama top, and will you tell us again what was the procedure that you used in trying to determine whether or not it had been stained with blood before the garment had been ripped or torn?

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


Q  What is your answer, Mr. Stombaugh?
A  I took the torn edges of the pajama top. I put them together as you have put this together.
Q  Would it help to have the pajama top?
A  No, this is fine. I will use it if you don't mind.
Q  No, go right ahead, please, sir.
A  And after it was placed together I looked along the torn edges for a blood stain which I could say represented this, and saw that it -- a little on both sides. In other words, the stain had been placed on the garment prior to its being torn.
Q  And what finally -- did you do any other scientific procedure or method in doing it other than examining it?
A  No, sir, that was all I felt was necessary.
Q  And when we say "examine," we know that you mean "looked at"?
A  Examined it.
Q  But you then did have a picture taken of this item, didn't you, the matching part that you say existed?
A  Yes, sir. I attempted to reproduce it.
Q  That photo, I think, was introduced here as G-617(a). Mr. Murtagh, do you happen to know where it is?

MR. MURTAGH:  I think it is over there.

MR. SEGAL:  Indulge us a minute while we retrieve it here from our library of photos.


Q  Here we are at G-617(a). Now, would you show us, please, on this enlargement what the match is between two halves that persuaded you; that the stain was as we have sort of illustrated here together before torn. Show us where the match is?
A  There is a very small stain right in this area, sir. The best stain was on down toward the cuff area.
Q  Which picture is that?
A  We do not have that. When they blew this up they left the cuff area off of it. I can show you on the pajama top itself.
Q  Certainly. But as far as you know, what you just pointed out to us today -- the area that you pointed out on the G-617(a) -- that's the only large photograph that you have seen which purports to show how this fabric was torn after it had been stained by this tear that went right through this previous existing stain, is that right?
A  That is correct.
Q  I am going to ask you if you will to mark with the yellow highlighter because my eyesight doesn't seem to suffice.

MR. SEGAL:  Do you mind, Mr. Murtagh?

MR. MURTAGH:  No -- please.

Q  Will you circle the areas so that we can look at it ourselves afterwards. I think you have to press on it, Mr. Stombaugh.
     All right, now, we have kind of a little orangish circle on top of the red from before.
A  (Witness complies.)
Q  You did ask to be able to examine the blue pajama top to show us some additional what you call matches that were made before that was torn?
A  I'm sorry, I believe I said, sir, I could show you better on the pajama top itself. The stains are much more visible.

Q  When you have done with that, Mr. Stombaugh, I would appreciate it if you would display it over this blackboard so we can display it to the jury.
A  Sir, could I borrow the Scotch tape?
Q  Do you want me to tear off a piece for you?
A  No, sir; I have to put this back together first.


THE WITNESS:  Mr. Segal, do you want all the stains or just one or two?

MR. SEGAL:  Well, show us the best one you can find -- the best match.


THE WITNESS:  Do you want me to show the jury, sir?

MR. SEGAL:  Would you please be good enough to lay it over the easel that we have?

THE WITNESS:  I hope it doesn't fall apart.

(Witness complies.)

Q  All right, before we start talking about it, I think perhaps if we brought this up a little bit closer to the jury, Mr. Stombaugh, and I would ask you now to point out the areas where you have made this visual examination which the jury can now do for itself.
A  The stain travels here, around, and right down through here -- the darker stain -- and ends up here. That was one.
Q  Well, now let's do some measurements. It is a little too vague for me. Did you not in your notes make some precise measurements in centimeters from exactly the bottom edge of the garment to the top of the yoke as to where this was?
A  No, sir; I made drawings.
Q  On your drawings did you make some measurements?
A  You don't need to make measurements when it's a direct comparison. Here is one I have circled.
Q  Let's stay with the one you have done here, sir.

JUROR:  We can't see.

Q  I would like at least for the stenographer's record if you would tell us exactly by measuring with this ruler -- unfortunately, we don't have centimeters -- where you say it is on this garment -- the stain that you observed matches on the two sides like the paper demonstration that you did.
A  This stain is pointed out as a blood stain. Later on there was additional blood placed on this garment so the first blood stain is the darker one and it travels up through there; this one up here and down through there. Do you want it measured?
Q  Yes. Now, before you do that, one second; we've got a better ruler. And if you would just stand back one second, it would be helpful -- would it not -- if we have a photograph of those stains that you say match on two sides of the seam? Would it not be helpful to the jury?
A  I attempted to get a photograph made in 1971. Our photo facilities just did not bring it up.
Q  And when did you have them try and photograph it again?
A  That was the only time.
Q  1971 to 1979, there has been no attempt, as far as you know, to get a better photo?
A  As far as I know; no.
Q  Now, do you know whether they used high contrast black and white film to try to take a photograph of that negative or that pajama top?
A  I am not a photographer, sir.
Q  I understand you are not. I just wondered whether you knew whether they did such a thing such as using high contrast film?
A  I suppose they did. They used the best they had at the time.
Q  Well, you don't, in fact, really know whether they used high contrast film, do you?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT to that.


Q  Did they use infrared light photography on that in an attempt to bring up the understain and overstain that you said would be visible there?
A  I have no idea whether or not they tried it or not. I do not know if that technique would work.
Q  Do you know whether they used photography using special blue filters to try and bring up the stains?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT to this.


Q  Did you ever look at those stains with a light box underneath of it?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Did that help any?
A  It helped; yes.
Q  Do you own a light box in Washington, D.C.?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Did you bring one here today to court?
A  Of course not.
Q  I don't why you say "of course not." Do you have one in Greenville, South Carolina, where you work now?

MR. MURTAGH:  Your Honor, we have a light box. We would be glad to make it available to Counsel.

THE COURT:  That answers that question.

Q  Would you like to show these stains with a light box to the jury?
A  That is up to you, Mr. Segal.
Q  Yes; if the Government will make a light box available, we will do that too. All right; that takes care of the stain on the front. Let's talk about the other stain -- the one you say there is a tear through. Would you do that, and come down again, please, Mr. Stombaugh -- oh, I'm sorry. I wanted to mention that before you did that, if you would, please, use this ruler and measure from the bottom of the garment to the lower edge of the stain you say you found on both sides. Give us that measurement first, then I will tell you what other measurement I want.
A  I would estimate 25 centimeters.
Q  From the bottom of the garment to the beginning of the stain?
A  Correct, sir.
Q  Now would you measure down from the top where the "V" of the neck comes? We will use the piping which exists there, so again we will have a precise indication of where this is.
A  Roughly ten centimeters.
Q  From where the --
A  (Interposing) Piping.
Q  -- piping ends to the top of the stain. All right; let's take a look at the other stain. If you will show us, we can all look at it, and then we will measure that, too.
A  I believe I can hold it here, Mr. Segal.
Q  All right; now you are showing us -- let's describe this area, please?
A  This is the left. torn seam. It is the torn portion of the fabric in the left sleeve.
Q  Let me see if I can hold it. I think if we tape it, we would allow the jury to see it. Let's do that, please. There is no reason that any of the jury should not see it entirely.
A  You want me to tape it?
Q  Tell me, if you would, where it would help if I put the tape on it?
A  Right here (indicating).
Q  All right.
A  This area right here. It is a small stain, and it goes over to the other side and then comes back in.
Q  All right; let's measure that, please, if you would. All right; from the bottom of the cuff -- that would be fine. We are going to measure from the bottom of the cuff to the lower edge of this stain you say you found on both sides.
A  It runs about 20 1/2 centimeters to 23 centimeters.
Q  We are now doing here, right in front of the jury, essentially what you did in the laboratory -- matching it up, looking at it, and then seeing that that looks like it was on both sides of that tear mark?
A  In a more or less crude way. We had the pajama top put together and fastened down much better than this.
Q  Aside from the fact it was fastened down, are we otherwise doing it just the way you did?
A  Yes, sir; you search along the tears, looking for a blood stain that is visible on both sides that had been there before it was torn through.
Q  When I mentioned the light box -- this is the first time anybody ever mentioned that -- but at what stage did you use the light box?
A  In the latter stages, looking for additional stains.
Q  I see; you mean, then, a light box was not used to find these stains that you are telling us about so far; is that right?
A  No, sir; in 1971 these stains were much more visible than they are now.
Q  And in 1971, only one of those stains was photographed, and that is the picture we have up here this morning; is that right?
A  I believe the whole left sleeve was photographed, sir; but I can't be sure.
Q  Do you know where that photo is -- ever see that photo?
A  Of the whole left sleeve?
Q  Yes, sir.
A  I have not seen it in a long time; no, sir.
Q  Do you think it would aid us if we would go back to -- the biggest and the best of these stains is the one right here in the middle; isn't that right, Mr. Stombaugh? The one in the middle of the torn garment?
A  That is one stain. The ones on the left sleeve are good, and the ones in the left shoulder area are good.
Q  Would you select one, since it is a little awkward for us all to work with the light box? Would you pick the one that you think is the clearest showing of how the garment was torn after it was bloodstained?


THE WITNESS:  We are getting too much light here, Mr. Segal. It obliterates just about everything.

MR. SEGAL:  I'm sorry, Mr. Stombaugh. I'm not sure we are clear on that. You say that the light box is giving off so much light that you cannot see any of the stains through it?

THE WITNESS:  It obliterates all the stains, sir.

Q  That is no help to us now?
A  No help.
Q  All right, thank you, Mr. Stombaugh. You may go back to the stand. But you say it was a help in 1971?
A  The stains were much more vivid in 1971 and the light box had a rheostat on it to control the amount of light coming through.
Q  But you didn't actually need it, you say, in 1971 to find the four stains you are talking about today?
A  No, sir; I did not.
Q  Those were obvious and transparent?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  All right, let me talk to you in another area then. Let's talk about fibers, if we may, Mr. Stombaugh. You were talking a lot yesterday about black thread if I recall correctly that was given to you when you examined and you found all to be microscopically similar; is that right?
A  I believe, sir, I was talking about mostly purple sewing threads.
Q  You had no black thread?
A  I only recall talking about one single black sewing thread -- blue-black.
Q  All right, let's go to the purple then first. What was there unique in the manufacture of that thread you described as purple?
A  I wouldn't call it unique, sir. It was a simple two-ply Z-twist sewing thread composed of cotton.
Q  And, based upon your investigation, did you find that was a thread that was only used in the manufacture of pajama tops?
A  No, sir.
Q  As a result of your investigation, did you find it was used to manufacture anything else besides pajama tops?
A  That's --
Q  (Interposing) Beg your pardon?
A  A sewing thread, sir, is a sewing thread. It's used for many purposes.
Q  And the purplish-bluish sewing thread that you examined was just a plain sewing thread?
A  That is correct. It matched the sewing threads in the construction of the pajama top.
Q  Well, it matched it in what way? You microscopically looked at it and it looked like the other threads; right?
A  Well, they were both two-ply Z-twist. The sewing threads matched in color, the purplish color; the same diameter, the same construction, same composition.
Q  Well, now, let's take composition. Does "composition" mean to you that twists -- matters that you can see visually is what I'm asking you, Mr. Stombaugh?
A  No, the composition is what it is made of. It was made of cotton.
Q  All right.
A  The construction is the same. In other words, they were both two-ply and a Z-twist and the amount of twist was the same.
Q  Did you do any chemical tests to ascertain whether or not there were any synthetic fibers in that particular thread?
A  Made a microscope slide and examined it, and cotton is very easily identified microscopically.
Q  Well, the answer is no; you did not make any chemical tests?
A  No, sir; because it wasn't necessary to.
Q  In your judgment?
A  That is correct.
Q  It is possible, of course, to make certain chemical tests to determine whether any other materials mixed in with a thread or a fiber, other than just cotton.
A  You mean in the composition of it, sir?
Q  The fiber is made of any other thread or has in it any other material other than cotton. There are chemical tests you can make to ascertain that.
A  Yes, sir; but it is easier to take a section of a sewing thread, reduce it into its individual fibers on a glass microscope slide, and then examine it microscopically.
Q  It is easier to do that; right?
A  Well, if you then recognize additional fibers in there, then you have to identify them, and then you conduct micro-chemical tests. Now, in the composition of the yarns used in the construction of this pajama top, it is a combination of cotton and polyester. Polyester is a synthetic. It is therefore necessary to determine --
Q  (Interposing) Let's stick to the threads. We'll come back to that later on. Let's stick to the thread used for sewing purposes. Do you know whether that same thread was used to sew pajama bottoms by any chance?
A  It could have been.
Q  Do you know whether that same type of thread was used to sew men's shirts?
A  It could have been.
Q  Do you know whether it can be used to sew ladies' blouses or ladies' tops of any sort -- the same thread?
A  Here again, it could have been.
Q  So that, all you are talking about is you examined the purplish or bluish, whatever color you want to say, thread that is a standard cotton thread apparently used for the purpose of sewing of light material as opposed to heavy jackets or clothes like that: would it be fair to say that?
A  I examined a number of purplish cotton sewing threads, two-ply Z-twist and found them to be the same as the cotton sewing threads that were used to sew the pajama top.
Q  By the way, did you check to see what the dyes were that were used to make that color?
A  No, sir; I did not.
Q  Of course, dye sometimes is unique where perhaps cotton or cotton-mixed thread has not been used?
A  That is correct.
Q  So that we have no way of knowing as to whether or not, say, thread used in the top dyed with one batch of dye is different than thread on the bottom dyed with a different batch of dye. We have no way of telling that today; do we?
A  Would you repeat that, sir? I lost you.
Q  Certainly. You said that there are ways of identifying dyes that are used to color thread. You recognize there are such ways; aren't there?
A  Yes, sir; one of them, the thin-layered chromatography.
Q  And there are actually several other tests used to help identify what was the -- how the color came to be on a given thread.
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, you also agree that it is quite possible that the threads which you were examining could have come from pajama bottoms as well as pajama tops; right?
A  Could have; yes, sir.
Q  Now, just assume for a minute, that we are only talking about those two items. There weren't other clothing worn by other people around. Although they might have used the same color thread for the top and bottom, threads are not always dyed at the same time in the same batch. You know that in your experience; don't you?
A  Yes, sir; it is made by thousands and thousands of yards of thread -- are made at the same time.
Q  It would have been possible to determine that, if there is one purplish-bluish thread which had been dyed at one time in a slightly varying formula and another purplish-bluish thread dyed at another time in a slightly varying formula, that if you had run certain chemical tests, you could have told that there were different dyes that were used on the thread that externally looked the same or a similar color.
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And if you had done that when you examined the threads in this case, we might have been able to separate certain threads as not coming from a pajama top or perhaps coming from a pajama bottom.
A  It's possible.
Q  Do you know of any reason why it was not done?
A  No; in the first place, we had no pajama bottoms to compare it with.
Q  What about if you simply ran a dye test on all the fibers you had and discovered that some of the purplish-bluish ones had a dye of one formula and some of the others that you had had been from different formulas? Wouldn't that have suggested to you they were two different garments?
A  Could have, but I felt --
Q  (Interposing) Would it be fair to say --

MR. MURTAGH:  (Interposing) OBJECTION, Your Honor. He has not finished.

MR. SEGAL:  I'll let him finish. I'll stay here all day.

THE COURT:  He is the one who isn't finished.

MR. SEGAL:  I would agree, Your Honor. I will let him finish. Heaven forbid. Go ahead, Mr. Stombaugh.

THE WITNESS:  I was going to add, sir, that I didn't feel those additional tests in the Instrumental Analysis Unit were necessary inasmuch as microscopically the fibers, the cotton fibers, in color and shade, when observed under a comparison microscope matched. They were identical.

Q  I thought you told us, Mr. Stombaugh, however, that these colors looked like they had been affected by washings. Isn't that right?
A  That is one of the bases. We didn't have dyes run. The loose threads and the sewing threads used on the pajama top were all the same color.
Q  That is microscopically, because they had been dyed and looked similar, right?
A  They had been dyed and had been subjected to many washings which removed much of that dye. It changed the color. Originally, when this pajama top was brand new, those threads were undoubtedly a very dark blue. The subsequent washing and laundering of the garment altered the color of the threads from a blue to a purple.
Q  But, Mr. Stombaugh, you know from using a device such as the spectograph or other devices, things that only look the same to you and I, under the microscope may reveal different chemical compositions. Isn't that correct?
A  That is correct.
Q  Now, I assume that the information that you were proceeding under about these threads had come to you from the FBI. That is, where they had been found -- had come to you from -- the CID, I beg your pardon.
A  That is correct.
Q  And you had no independent information about the location of where these threads had been and what they had been subjected to before you examined them?
A  No, sir.
Q  You had to take it simply on the basis of whatever they told you. You had to start from that point and work on?
A  That is correct.
Q  And you don't have any notes, of course, of what they told you about where these threads were, how they were handled, what treatment they received?
A  No, sir.
Q  Do you know how many threads you received that you examined were from outside of what the CID had said was the body outline of Mrs. Colette MacDonald?
A  How many were?
Q  Yes, sir.
A  Let me understand your question, Mr. Segal. You want to know how many of these sewing threads were found that were not under the body?
Q  Did Mr. Ivory tell you how many of these threads you were receiving were not from within the body outline? You can't say "under the body" but within the body outline of Mrs. MacDonald.

MR. MURTAGH:  Your Honor, I OBJECT to the form of the question. I don't believe that is what the witness testified to yesterday.

THE COURT:  Well, I am not sure that the witness was on the same wavelength with Counsel on that particular question. I don't know if he was present at the time that some witness testified that he drew a mark on the floor or rug, around the body. I assume that that is what Counsel is referring to, within the confines of a mark which outlined the body, do you know? Now, the question is, how many threads did you examine that came from within that area? Is that your question?

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, Your Honor. I accept that, and I appreciate Your Honor's restating it for me.

THE WITNESS:  Within that circle, sir?

Q  I just asked you "without," but give us both figures. How many came from within the body outline, and how many came from without the body outline?

MR. MURTAGH:  Your Honor, could we come up on this one? I think we can expedite it.

B E N C H  C O N F E R E N C E

MR. MURTAGH:  Your Honor, the witness --

THE COURT:  Just a minute. (Pause.)

MR. MURTAGH:  Your Honor, I believe yesterday Mr. Stombaugh testified that in 1974 he received numerous articles from me. I brought them in to him at that time; when I was a Captain in the Army and what the witness can testify to is what is on the outside of the vial. The vials were marked for identification. We can speed it up considerably by drawing Counsel's attention to those vials which, by their designation --

MR. SEGAL:  Why do you want to draw my attention to it?

MR. MURTAGH:  This witness cannot testify to the crime scene.

THE COURT:  Well, if he can't testify, just let him say, "No." I would assume it was of no concern to him where the things came from. They were just labeled in bottles.

MR. MURTAGH:  That is correct.

THE COURT:  Well, let's go.

(Bench conference terminated.)

THE COURT:  Those of you in the audience, it has come to the attention of the Court that during the Bench Conferences which, incidentally, are held here rather than having the jury parading in and out while the case is in progress, that some of you are talking, presumably conversing about the case, in tones loud enough to be heard perhaps even by the jury.
     All of you who have been here before know that the jury is instructed not to allow a case to be discussed in their presence so, to the extent that any such conversation had taken place, the members of the audience are in violation of that rule, too.
     So I ask you to watch that. We want you to be comfortable, but if you have any whispering or any conversation among yourselves, make sure that they are not audible to anyone except the person to whom your comments are being addressed. Otherwise, I will have to take some other action which I would prefer not to have to do. Now, proceed.

Q  Mr. Stombaugh, would it be correct to say that you do not know at this time which, if any, of the threads you received, the fibers received, were supposedly from within the body outlines of Mrs. MacDonald and which if any of the threads or fiber that you received were outside of her body? You don't have any recollection or memory right now?
A  I have in my notes, sir, where each was allegedly or reportedly to have been picked up. I have no personal knowledge. I was not there when these items were actually picked up.
Q  I understand that. Can you tell us, then, from your notes, how many of the threads and fibers you examined you believe came from within the body outline of Mrs. MacDonald? Just the total, please?
A  According to my notes, sir, from within the circle, as you might put it, 18 sewing threads.
Q  What about fibers?
A  Are you referring to yarns, sir?
Q  Yes. Yarns?
A  Three warp yarns.
Q  Eighteen sewing threads found within the body circle, as you describe it, and three warp yarns; is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  How many sewing threads and then thereafter how many yarns were you given at that time that were told to you or represented to you as coming from outside the body circle?
A  Just in that one bedroom?
Q  Yes; in the master bedroom. I am only talking about that.
A  Forty-two sewing threads, sir.
Q  From outside the body circle?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And how many fibers -- yarns?
A  Sir, there were 16 yarns, but included in that 16 were two yarn fragments that were removed from the forearm of Colette MacDonald. I don't know whether you wanted to include those or not.
Q  All right; I suppose that really belongs in the circle of the body outline. So you had 42 sewing threads outside the circle of the body and -- not counting the two that are found on the arm -- there are 14 yarns and threads outside the body outline; is that right? That is the information you have?
A  Yes, sir; based on my addition.
Q  Were you ever told there were many more yarns and threads, similar in character to the ones that were brought to you, that were still or then existed in the master bedroom of the MacDonald household?
A  Yes, sir; I was told there were many there.
Q  Of the same similar color to the yarns and threads that we have been talking about here?
A  They said there were sewing threads and yarns that were still -- fragments of them -- in the room. That's what I was told.
Q  Did you not ask to have those collected also that at least resembled the ones that you thought might come from the pajama top and/or the pajama bottom?
A  No, sir.
Q  Was there any specific reason why you did not think you should examine those also?
A  At the time, they only wanted me to make a comparison of what was brought in -- what was collected, and I did that.
Q  If that is all that they came to you with, that is, "Tell us -- compare these things," how did you learn that there were many more in the bedroom at that time?
A  In discussing it with them.
Q  Did you not suggest to them, based upon your experience -- both as a field agent in crime scene matters and a laboratory man -- that it might be desirable to go back and collect the rest of those similar-looking fibers and threads?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION. He has answered that.


Q  What is your answer, Mr. Stombaugh?
A  Are you asking would it be more desirable, sir?
Q  Was there any reason why you did not suggest to them that they go back and collect those others in the master bedroom that looked like they were similar to the blue fibers and threads in this case?
A  No, sir; I had no reason.
Q  You figured you had enough work to do on this matter?
A  What do you mean by "enough work," sir?
Q  That was not the reason, then? There is no reason you know of why you did not ask to go back and get the rest of them?
A  No, sir.
Q  All right; I just want to, for one brief set of questions, go back to this blue bedsheet we had yesterday. Then I am going to go into the different subject with you, if I may.
     As I recall yesterday, you described an area marked "G," and I would like for you to look at your notes where you found something that you described as "pajama cuff mark of Colette MacDonald" you say, or resembled Colette MacDonald?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Let me ask you to display this to the jury, please? Just bear with me one second, please. I would ask you to come down, Mr. Stombaugh, please -- and ask you again to take note. Am I pointing now within this penciled outline marked "G" to the area which you indicate was a cuff line that you believe was consistent with or similar to that of Colette MacDonald; is that right?
A  That is correct.
Q  Let me show you something, Mr. Stombaugh, and ask you whether you do not see a different match, if I simply fold the garment? You see, I have folded your garment up where it touches -- if you could stand aside, please -- you notice I have folded the garment up so it touches another smear which was actually about three inches to the north of it? Do you see that?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, do you see some resemblance that this perhaps was a whole pattern at one time together?
A  It has that general appearance.
Q  Now, you recognize enough of fingerprints and palmprints to recognize swirls and ridges, do you not?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Would you please examine it with the glass here and tell me whether you don't see any markings that are consistent with palm prints and heel prints?
A  No, sir; I do not.
Q  You do not see any?
A  No, sir.

MR. SEGAL:  Your Honor, may I have permission to exhibit to the jury the fold as I have made it now?

THE COURT:  If they can't see it from where they are, they can get to where they can see it, of course.

MR. SEGAL:  I would like to exhibit to the jury in area -- we will have it photographed, if Your Honor pleases. We will make a photograph in an enlarged fashion. It may be seen later on.

Q  Although I realize we asked you to make this examination very cursorily right here on the spot, you say you did not see any ridges or lines or marks that are consistent with a heel or palm print?
A  No, sir, I did not.
Q  Do you think we might do better if we photograph that and place it under a microscope designed for fingerprint and palmprint identification?
A  I doubt it. Your best evidence, sir, is the sheet itself.
Q  All right, do you think that I should examine that -- how would you propose that I examine that to make sure whether or not there are any palmprints there or heel prints? Do you have any procedure you want to suggest on how I should do that?
A  I have no idea. You could examine it with a glass, which we did; but I didn't see any ridges.
Q  Have you ever compared the heel print on a sheet, as I have just indicated? See my hand -- probably a little larger than a woman's hand?



Q  Have you ever compared a heel print such as I have suggested, on a sheet? Have you ever done that?
A  I was trying to think, sir. When I recognize a heel print or a footprint and there is ridge detail, I personally do not do it. I send it to the experts over in the Identification Division.
Q  And you do recognize that a heel print or like that, when there are enough -- lots of ridges and lots of details, is that right?
A  No, sir, if I recognize ridge detail, I send it to the expert. It's up to them to decide whether the print is of value or not.
Q  I understand that, Mr. Stombaugh; I am saying that the basis of your saying you recognize something as being a possible heel print if you see a lot of ridges and a lot of detail. If you see that then you think the experts ought to look at it, is that right?
A  That is correct.
Q  But if you are not able to spot in close detailed examination ridge prints or other markings, you don't send it to the experts, right?
A  If I feel there is enough ridge detail there, if it is present, I would send it to them.
Q  Had you ever folded that sheet in the particular fashion I did?
A  I don't recall that. I have folded that sheet hundreds of various ways, sir.
Q  And it does not occur to you in any fashion that this is conceivably where I folded that, that there is some reasonable fabric impression comparison -- match here? You don't see a conceivable match where I have folded it right here?
A  Yes, sir; I can see what you are pointing out.
Q  What is it that you see then?
A  I see an additional stain.
Q  In which two halves of a stain, when you fold the fabric over like this, give you an impression of -- looks like, roughly, a half moon?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Have you ever conducted any experiments of taking a heel print in some viscose subject similar to blood and try to make smears with it on fabric?
A  No, sir, just the heel of a hand, not a foot.
Q  Heel of a hand; have you done that?
A  Yes, years ago. Same time we are doing -- working with the blood, you know, making blood prints with hands.
Q  Did you do any such experiments, in this case, so that you might have known imprints -- that is, have Ms. Green or someone to work with you to make a print, using a viscose subject on fabric, and put it next to that as I have just shown you there, to see whether that might not be a heel print of the human hand ?
A  No, sir.
Q  Now, let's talk about something else. You told us that you were also asked an interesting question by the CID about the pajama top and whether you could take the blue pajama top, which has a number of holes in it, and correlate that and match those holes up in some way with the number of holes in Mrs. MacDonald's body --
A  (Interposing). Yes, sir, that's -- generally that is the question that was posed.
Q  Now, I think you told us the number of holes that you were asked to match this way or refer to this way. You gave us the number -- it was 48 holes in the pajama top?
A  There were 48 puncture holes, sir.
Q  48 puncture holes in the pajama top?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  How many other holes were there in the pajama top?
A  Are you referring to the cuts, sir? There were two cuts.
Q  Yes. Actually there were more than two cuts in Mrs. MacDonald's pajama top, weren't there?
A  In Mrs. MacDonald's; yes, sir.
Q  But in the blue pajama top, you said you found two cuts and 48 puncture holes, is that right?
A  That is correct.
Q  And they asked you to match those up with how many holes in Mrs. MacDonald's body in the upper chest?
A  Twenty-one (21).
Q  Of course, Mrs. MacDonald also had some holes in her upper body which were not puncture holes, is that right?
A  That is correct.
Q  Well, what else did she have -- number of what we have reason to believe are stab wounds?
A  Stab wounds; yes, sir.
Q  How many of those?
A  I don't recall how many stab wounds.
Q  Did you make any effort to line up the stab wounds in Mrs. MacDonald's body with the stab holes in Dr. MacDonald's blue pajama top?
A  No, sir, they asked that I line up -- or count the number of cuts in her pajama top, which I did; and I gave them a total number of cuts that I found.
Q  Yes.
A  Total number of puncture marks that I found. They didn't ask me to count the number of stab wounds in her chest. And I would have no direct knowledge on that anyway, sir. I wasn't there when the autopsy was performed.
Q  Well, let me see if I understood the numbers here. You say that Dr. MacDonald's top -- 48 puncture-type holes?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  How many, what we will assume because after we have heard so much about -- how many knife holes and knife cuts?
A  In Dr. MacDonald's pajama top?
Q  Dr. MacDonald, right.
A  I found two.
Q  In Mrs. MacDonald's body you found 21 puncture holes?
A  It was reported to be 21 puncture holes and a photograph of the chest showed 21 puncture holes.
Q  And how about stab wounds in Mrs. MacDonald's body. What were you told, and what did the photograph show you?
A  Well, I didn't pay any attention to the stab holes.
Q  You mean all somebody asked you to do was line up puncture holes but ignore the fact that there are stab holes in Dr. MacDonald's pajama top, and there are also stab holes in Mrs. MacDonald's body?
A  That is correct.
Q  Now, did you also examine Mrs. MacDonald's pink pajama top itself for the number of holes in that?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And how many did you find there?
A  Eighteen (18), sir.
Q  Eighteen stab or 18 puncture wounds?
A  Cuts.
Q  Eighteen cuts?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  How many punctures did you find in her pink pajama top?
A  Thirty (30).
Q  So you have 48 in Dr. MacDonald's pajama top -- 48 puncture wounds and puncture holes and two stab holes -- stab cuts?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  In Mrs. MacDonald's pajama top, which she was wearing when her body was found, she has got 30 puncture holes and 18 cuts, is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  In her body you say you counted 21 puncture holes but you don't know how many cuts, is that right?
A  That is correct.
Q  Then someone says to you, "See if you can match up -- take 48 holes in Dr. MacDonald's pajama -- puncture holes in the pajama top, and match them to the holes in Mrs. MacDonald's body, but ignore the cuts as far as matching them"?
A  They didn't say ignore the cuts. They did not ask that we do it.
Q  Didn't you ask -- say, "I'm a scientist here in a forensic laboratory; I don't understand why you ask me to do -- just match up puncture holes and not match up the cuts which are all, you know, generally in the same part of the body?" Did you not ask them that kind of question as a scientist?
A  No, sir, I didn't ask that kind of question.
Q  You just accepted their request and did what they asked?
A  That is right.
Q  The persons who made this interesting request of you were whom?
A  Mr. Woerheide and Mr. Murtagh.
Q  Mr. Murtagh, then Captain Murtagh, you mean?
A  I don't recall whether he was a Captain then or with the Department of Justice, sir.
Q  Now, in order to do this piece of work that they asked you, to see whether you could do this -- what was it that you used as the base source of your information as to the blue pajama top and its position on Mrs. MacDonald?
A  The base source was the photographs taken of the body, showing the pajama top on the body.
Q  Yesterday a number of photos were marked here in evidence, but I want to ask, were you shown additional photographs of Mrs. MacDonald's body with the pajama top on it beyond the several that we saw in evidence here yesterday?
A  Not that I recall, sir. We might have had some from far off, but the three that were introduced yesterday were the three that we used in folding the pajama top back as the way it was then.

MR. SEGAL:  Excuse me one second, please.


Q  You took those particular three photographs as being the ones that were most helpful to you; is that right?
A  Yes, sir; we used additional ones, but those were the only ones I marked on.
Q  Are there or are there not other photographs which were used by you to try and ascertain how the pajama top was on Mrs. MacDonald so that you could try and make this little experiment of putting all 48 holes into 21 holes?
A  There may or there may not have been. As I said, it has been a good while since we did this, and I was involved in it; but as I said, the photographs that were introduced yesterday were the only ones that I marked on. The various areas of the pajama top were used in folding it.
Q  Would I be correct in saying that the three you marked on are the three that you principally relied upon?
A  Yes, sir; I think you can say that.
Q  Now, you told us yesterday, however, that you did not really do this little demonstration exactly with the pajama top exactly the way it was on Mrs. MacDonald's body. Isn't that what you told us yesterday?
A  No, sir; we folded it --
Q  (Interposing) Did you say that or did you not say it yesterday? Then you can explain as long as you want.

MR. MURTAGH:  OBJECT to comments of Counsel.

MR. SEGAL:  It is not a comment to tell a witness he can answer. Your Honor, I resent that. It is not a comment to say that I will give him all the chance to answer a question. It interrupts cross-examination needlessly.

THE COURT:  All right; now, if you have some objection to make, the customary way to do it is to come here. I will not take any lectures from Counsel from either side. If there is an objection and you want to be heard, we will hear it at the Bench.

MR. SEGAL:  My response, Your Honor, is I do not think I was making a comment when I said I would give the witness a chance to answer.

THE COURT:  There was an objection before the Court. I was prepared to rule on it, but we had another lecture superimposed on the objection.

MR. SEGAL:  I apologize.

THE COURT:  That is what I am calling to your attention.

MR. SEGAL:  I did not mean to do that. I thought it spoke for itself.

THE COURT:  Restate your question and we will let the witness answer. Restate your question.

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, Your Honor; just let me re-gather my thought on that question.

Q  Do I recall you correctly as having told us yesterday here in court that you did not fold the pajama top in the demonstration exactly the way it appeared in the photographs?
A  We folded the pajama top as close to it as it was, or appeared in the photographs.
Q  That is the most you are willing to say about the way you folded it for your demonstration?
A  And when we folded it that way, then we observed 21 holes in the top.
Q  Before we get to the holes, I just want to understand whether, when you finished folding it, you think you got a fairly good replica of the way the garment was folded or laid over Mrs. MacDonald's body?
A  Yes, sir; I feel we did the best we could.
Q  Well, doing the best you could, I am not sure -- is that the same as being a pretty good replica?
A  I would say so.
Q  Is that the strongest you are willing to state in support of the way the garment was folded, that that, you think, is the best you could do with it?
A  Working with what we had, we did the best we could, sir.
Q  Well, now, tell us some of the ways how your experiment in folding is really different from the photographs of which Mrs. MacDonald's body was used, or seen by you, and you used it as a model?
A  I hope I am answering your question, sir. We folded the pajama top as close to as it appeared in the photographs. Is that what you wanted, sir?
Q  Let me ask you if you remember saying the following yesterday and whether you wish to accept it or alter it in any way. Referring to page 4197, line 12, question by Mr. Blackburn: "...To reach the opinion which you reached, are you saying, sir, that the pajama top that you have there and that you saw in the photographs was in exactly the precise position on Colette's chest when these probes could have been made into her body? Answer: No, sir; I am not saying that." Do you recall that, or words to that effect?
A  Yes, sir; that is the position of the pajama top on the body, and at that time I said the pajama top did not conform to the wounds. It appeared to have been pushed down.
Q  I am going to read that next one and ask you if you recall saying immediately thereafter: "...Question: Could you explain it a little bit more fully? Answer: In the photographs the pajama top is lower down on the chest and it appears to have been moved. If it was in the exact location, then you would be a little more assured that this happened. The pajama top is not -- it appeared from the photographs to have been moved more down toward the abdomen." Is that what your explanation was as to the difference between your demonstration and the photographs you were working on?
A  I don't understand your difference, sir. I was explaining there that according to the photograph showing the damage in the chest, which was up here, and the pajama top down a little bit lower in the photographs, that even though we could -- and did -- line up those holes, we are not saying this is what happened. We are only saying this could have happened. And I hope I made that clear yesterday.
Q  Well, I want to make that clear for myself, Mr. Stombaugh. You are telling us today that in your demonstrations -- we have a photograph with the probes on it -- this demonstration 787(a); right?
A  That is correct.
Q  You are telling us now that that is not the way the pajama top looked in the photographs on Mrs. MacDonald's body that you were shown? Is that your answer?
A  No, sir.
Q  Are you telling us that your demonstration here, 787(a), is set up the same way in the same position as the photographs show of Mrs. MacDonald's body?
A  I am telling you, sir, we folded the pajama top the same way it appeared in the photographs. Then we lined those holes up to see if it could be done.
Q  The question was, sir: isn't it true that, in order to get this demonstration to work, you actually moved the pajama top in a higher position on Mrs. MacDonald's body than was seen in the photographs taken by the CID photographer?
A  We did not move the pajama top on Mrs. MacDonald's body, sir. We had the pajama top in the laboratory, and we used an ordinary piece of soft material --
Q  (Interposing) Forgive me. Let me correct myself.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor.

THE COURT:  Let him finish. Go ahead.

MR. SEGAL:  Let me correct myself. This pad here used in the laboratory for the replica -- are you telling us that this is or is not set up in the same way as you saw it in the photographs of Mrs. MacDonald's body?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT and ask that he be allowed to finish his last answer he was in the midst of giving.

THE COURT:  I will let him answer that one and put in the other too if he wants to.

THE WITNESS:  Mr. Segal, I have been answering your question -- the same one over and over -- the only way I can answer it. We folded the pajama top the way it appeared in the photographs. We found 21 holes on the surface. The question was: could these 21 holes on top be lined up with the 48 holes -- all of them lined up; could this be done; and we --

Q  (Interposing) Didn't you just simply tell them, Mr. Stombaugh, of course, you can take any 48 holes --

MR. MURTAGH:  (Interposing) OBJECTION.

Q  And put them in the 21 holes -- that that is not a scientific experiment; did you ever tell them that?

THE COURT:  Objection SUSTAINED. Go ahead and finish your answer.

Q  Go ahead, Mr. Stombaugh. If you have anything more to say about that, go ahead and tell us.
A  Go on, Mr. Segal.
Q  Mr. Stombaugh, how many combinations are there in which 48 holes can fit into 21 holes?

MR. MURTAGH:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT to the form of the question unless he is referring to that particular pajama top.

THE COURT:  Well, I will let the witness answer this question. Can 48 holes be fitted into 21 holes in any way other than the way you did it in this case?

THE WITNESS:  It is possible -- of course there are other combinations.

Q  And how many other combinations are there possible of fitting 48 holes into 21?
A  Sir, I have no idea. All I'm saying is that we used up all 48 holes with 21 thrusts, and we're just saying that it can be done. We are not saying this actually took place. We are saying this can be done. It could have taken place, and that's all this demonstration represents.
Q  You mean this is one way it could be done.
A  That is correct.
Q  And that you do agree that there are numerous other ways it could be done?
A  I have no idea how many other combinations.
Q  That's the second question. The first question is: you do agree that there are other ways it can be done?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you have never experimented or attempted to compute in any way the number of other possible combinations in which the same thing could be done?
A  No, sir.
Q  Now, Mr. Stombaugh, could you tell us which of the various injuries -- which of the various holes here -- were the ones that went up to the hilt of the ice pick?
A  Which holes?
Q  Yes, sir.
A  I made no mention in my notes, sir, of which hole I observed and have it mentioned in my notes that some of them appeared to have gone to the hilt.
Q  And you made that conclusion that some holes must have gone to the hilt and I gather you made the conclusion that this ice pick had gone up to the hilt on some holes because you measured the diameter of these holes and found that the diameter equaled the diameter of the ice pick at its widest point; is that not how you arrived at your conclusion?
A  Yes, sir; only I did not say that ice pick made those holes. I said that ice pick could have made those holes.
Q  That's the only ice pick you worked with in the laboratory; isn't that right?
A  That's right.
Q  You didn't try other ice picks.
A  That is why I said that ice pick could have made those holes.
Q  Now, can you tell us which holes in Mrs. MacDonald's body, based upon the autopsy report which you said you had and the information that you got from the Government lawyers, which holes in her body ever were made by an ice pick puncturing up to the hilt?



Q  What is your answer?
A  I have no idea.
Q  Were you aware of what the pathologist said as to whether or not any ice pick wound in Mrs. MacDonald's body ever went in up to the hilt?



Q  All right.
A  I recall reading in the autopsy "deep penetrating." I don't recall reading the length of the thrusts.
Q  Did you read, "Most of the ice pick-like wounds were superficial in Mrs. MacDonald's body" in the autopsy report?
A  No, sir.
Q  Did you ever read that any pathologist had ever measured the depth of any ice pick wounds in Mrs. MacDonald's body?
A  I don't recall it, sir.
Q  If I were to suggest to you that there is no evidence that any pathologist found any bruising --



Q  Tell us from your notes which of the holes you concluded by the numbers were ones that were made up to the hilt because you measured the diameter of the holes in the pajama top and found that to be equal to the diameter of the widest part of the ice pick.


THE COURT:  SUSTAINED. He answered that.

MR. SEGAL:  I'm sorry. I didn't get the numbers of any holes, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  I understood the witness to say that he did not know which ones went to what depth. Was that your answer?

THE WITNESS:  That was correct, sir.

Q  Didn't you make a chart or graph of every single one of these holes as part of the experiment that you conducted?
A  In 1971, sir, I drew in my notes a replica of the pajama top and the various panels, and I put in my notes a little dot with my pencil the approximate location of the holes. At that time, I also put beside the little dot the number I had assigned to that particular hole on the pajama top.
     In my general notes, I noted some of the holes were an eighth of an inch in diameter and they appeared to be very deep up to the hilt type holes. I did not point out which ones, and that's the extent of it.
Q  Did you measure all the holes; that is to say, all the puncture holes in the pajama top?
A  The large ones I measured.
Q  May have?
A  I said, "The large ones I measured."
Q  The large ones -- how many were there categorized by you as large ones?
A  I have no idea at this time. There were several.
Q  How about in your notes? Would that tell you how many large ones there were?
A  No, sir; that's what's in my notes. "The holes vary in diameter up to an eighth of an inch."

THE COURT:  Now we'll take our morning recess, members of the jury, and we'll come back 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:  Did you finish with this witness?

MR. SEGAL:  Not quite, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  All right, let him come back, then.

(Whereupon, PAUL M. STOMBAUGH, 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  (11:31 a.m.) (resumed)

Q  Mr. Stombaugh, before the break I was talking to you about the puncture wounds and this experiment of lining up the various holes; you recall that, don't you?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  I gather that you have said that you don't have a record or you never made a record of which holes by number were the larger ones and which holes were the smaller ones?
A  That is correct.
Q  Now, when you made this little demonstration here, did you or did you not account for the fact that you might have been pushing a steel rod through a hole which, in fact, was going to come in contact with a place on Mrs. MacDonald's body where the autopsy said she had a very tiny or superficial mark; did you account for that?
A  Sir, we were just trying to account for the -- all 48 holes.
Q  In view of that answer, I would be correct in stating you did not try to account for the fact that some holes are larger than other holes, but you didn't try to figure that out and try to put these various rods through the fabric and against what you thought were the holes in the body?
A  No, sir; we lined the -- we were only interested in a pattern -- accounting for all 48 holes -- and a pattern. We came up with a pattern of five holes, which would have been in the right chest, and 16 which would have been in the left chest.
Q  Now, if we had a situation -- and I will do this in rather magnified form so that we can all follow it. Let's assume that we had a situation where the hole in the pajama top was really made only by a weapon like this, but only up to about a half-inch. All right, that would make a relatively small hole, would you say, considering that the width?
A  Yes.
Q  If you had a hole like that in the pajama top, and at the same time on the body of Mrs. MacDonald we had a maximum-size hole, such as would be made by an ice pick down to the hilt, right?
     Now, in lining those things up to make this little demonstration that you have shown us here in this photograph, you made no attempt to account for the fact that a small hole in the surface could not have made a big hole in the body below, isn't that right?
A  Lining the holes up in underneath, sir, was done by Ms. Green.

THE COURT:  Is she going to testify in the case?

MR. MURTAGH:  Yes, sir.

THE COURT:  Maybe this question would be better directed to her.

MR. SEGAL:  I appreciate that. I will only very briefly touch on the matter.

Q  I gather that you told you us when you were first questioned about this matter that you were the supervisor of this work that Ms. Green did?
A  That is correct.
Q  And that you were up in some attic room in the FBI working on this, is that right?
A  That is correct.
Q  And you were there all or most of the time she was doing it?
A  That is correct -- once we got it folded and got the 21 holes located on the top. It is a very time-consuming job. We both worked on it for awhile, and then Ms. Green took over; and it took her a very long length of time to see if it could be done.
Q  To see if just holes could be lined up in various fashion so that 48 holes could be found to equate with 21 holes in some way?
A  That is correct.
Q  But my particular question is, as far you know, Ms.Green at no time attempted to resolve the problem of how if you have a small hole in the garment and a large hole in the body underneath as to how you would account for those holes being made in that fashion?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT.


Q  What is your answer, sir?
A  My answer, Mr. Segal, is that we were not trying to line up holes with particular damage to the body itself. We were just trying to determine if the 21 -- or the 48 holes could have been made by 21 thrusts, and if so what would the pattern be. And we did get a pattern of five holes and 16 holes, and accounted for all 48 holes.
     As I say, again, we are not saying this is actually what took place. We made this demonstration to see if it could have taken place.
Q  And that is the question I want to ask you, sir. Can you explain to the jury how this could have happened the way you suggest, if you in no way ever accounted for the fact that a small hole on the surface of the garment could not possibly have made a large full-to-the-hilt hole in the body underneath.
     How could you possibly be offering this as an explanation of the way it could have happened?


THE COURT:  (Interposing) OVERRULED.

Q  What is your answer, Mr. Stombaugh?
A  It is quite possible, sir, that all the holes on the top were large holes.
Q  I thought you told us -- excuse me, go ahead and finish your answer.
A  I didn't make notes as to whether the hole was a large hole, whether it was a small hole. All I accounted for were the number of holes -- punctures. I made notes -- a reference in my notes. Some of them appeared to have been jammed up to the hilt -- some of them.
     I didn't point out in my notes which ones. I don't have measurements by each one.
Q  But by your own statement you agree that some of the holes in the pajama top appear to be made by an instrument like this ice pick having gone all the way through to the hilt, because the diameter of the hole that you found comported with the maximum width of this ice pick, rather than the minimum width down at the point?
A  That is correct.
Q  So, I ask you one more time, then, sir: how can you say that your demonstration represents a way this could have happened, if you did not account for the fact that some of the holes on the surface were small through which you put rods, and you don't know whether you put them through large holes in the body. How can you say it could have happened that way?
A  Because I don't recall whether there were small holes on the top pointing down to a larger hole, sir. And here again I am saying -- I am not maintaining it did happen this way. I am only saying it could have happened.
Q  I realize, sir -- I know that you didn't say it did happen this way. I am only asking you to tell us, you know, how you can even arrive at the conclusion that you did -- when you don't know whether or not you accounted for the fact that when you make a small hole in the surface, you know, you could not have lined it up with a large hole in the body underneath?
A  I don't recall any testimony, sir, where I said we lined up a small hole in the top with a larger hole underneath.
Q  I understand that, sir. I asked you whether you had any records to show which holes were which diameter and whether you accounted for that, and I understood your testimony before to say that you had not bothered to take that into accounting. All you did was to find patterns, is that correct?
A  I answered that several times, sir: no, I did not keep a record of the diameter of the holes. I only mentioned in my notes that some -- and I didn't say which -- I said some had the general appearance of having been thrust up to the hilt.
Q  Did you take into account in putting the various rods through, the angle at which you were putting those rods through the fabric?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And how did you decide at what angle a rod should be be put through. It is like a pin-cushion effect if you will, here. How did you determine which rod should be at which angle?
A  The rods are in there, sir, perpendicular as much as we could put them into the mounting medium. Now, in putting that together, Ms. Green will have sufficient charts to show you exactly how it was done.
Q  Well, I need to know from you, sir, as the supervisor of this project -- the person with overall responsibility -- are you telling us that this photograph shows rods that are perpendicular to the body? Is that what you think it shows?
A  I said, "as perpendicular as we could make them." The only thing we are demonstrating here is the location of the holes. Had we had them all side by side, you would not be able to see the number of the hole. You would not be able to see the numbers of the holes the rod passes through.
Q  Mr. Stombaugh, I don't understand why you had to put the rods at some non-perpendicular angle to show numbers. Wouldn't it be simpler to show long rods in some places and short rods in some places, so that the little flags on them would not overlap -- and therefore, you could have maintained perpendicularity to this whole project?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT.


Q  Did you consider doing that -- putting the rods -- using longer and shorter rods so you could maintain these rods in a perpendicular relationship to -- what is this -- foam rubber pad underneath here?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Did you consider doing that?
A  No; we figured what we did was sufficient to show what could have happened.
Q  As a matter of fact, you used all perfectly evenly cut rods with exactly the same length for this little demonstration?
A  That is correct.
Q  Having done that, there was no way that you could possibly fit them all in at perpendicular angles; isn't that right?
A  We felt that the exhibit demonstrates what could have been done.
Q  Well, now, how did you know -- let me put it this way: what was this cushion that is supposed to represent Mrs. MacDonald's body made out of?
A  To the best of my knowledge it was foam rubber covered with a piece of fabric.
Q  It did not prevent you from putting the rods in at perpendicular angles, did it?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT to this.


Q  Did that create a problem in creating this demonstration, because it was foam rubber, in order to put your rods in at perpendicular angles?


THE COURT:  Yes; I think he said he did not do that. He said he did it as nearly as he could. I think you have explored that.

MR. SEGAL:  I merely want to inquire, Your Honor, as to whether the material they used created some resistance that made it difficult beyond any other explanation --

THE COURT:  (Interposing) I will let him answer that.

MR. SEGAL:  All right, sir; that is my point.

THE WITNESS:  What do you mean by "resistance," sir?

Q  Well, because of the subject used as the base -- this foam rubber -- did that make it impossible to put these metal rods in at right angles perpendicular to it?
A  No, sir; we used the substance underneath mainly to anchor those rods. The rods were placed in there as they were so that we could get a clear picture of the green flags which have the number of the holes in the body. And the white flags have the number of the hole that particular rod passes through.
Q  Now, yesterday, you were shown and identified photos marked 1137, and 1138 and 1139. Do you recall that, Mr. Stombaugh?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  These are the photos that I believe you told us were the principal ones that you and Ms. Green worked on in creating this object called 787(a)?
A  Yes, sir; that is correct.
Q  It is your testimony today, I gather, that 787(a) represents, as near as you say you can get it, the display of the pajama top with the holes lined up in the fashion we have talked about -- 48 into 21?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Are there no other pictures of this which perhaps more similarly reflect the way the pajama top was photographed -- that is, here in 1139 you have what is a photo that was probably taken with the photographer near or almost astride the midpart, or the legs, of Mrs. MacDonald. Do you see that photograph?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, is there any reason why we don't have a photograph of this demonstration, 787, from the same angle, so we could perhaps compare the pajama top the way it was on Mrs. MacDonald's body, and the way you have laid it out here?
A  There is no reason. We took this photograph, thought it was sufficient, and that is the reason.
Q  1137 and 1138 are the same photo, I believe, are they not? These two are the same photograph?
A  Yes, sir; one is --
Q  (Interposing) Slightly larger?
A  -- cropped.
Q  Cropped; all right. This, of course, was again to help you ascertain the position in which the pajama top was found on Mrs. MacDonald's body; is that correct?
A  That is correct.
Q  Is there any reason why no photograph was taken of model 787 -- as shown in 787 -- from the same angle, so the jury could compare and see how similar the work was that you did?
A  No reason, other than the fact that we took this photograph and thought it was sufficient.
Q  Were any other photographs taken that you know of, of this model at the same time that 787 was taken?
A  Not that I recall.
Q  You mean, a single photographer was brought in from the FBI and a single photograph was taken and that is it?
A  A single photographer in the FBI -- there is many of them in the Document Section -- it is a matter of just walking up a flight of steps. We did not pull him in for that.
Q  You took this display up to him somehow and said, "Take a photograph"; right?
A  To the best of my knowledge, I don't recall whether he came up there or whether we took it to the Document Section and carried it.
Q  Whatever was done, either this thing was carried -- I gather rather carefully, I am sure -- downstairs or he brought his camera upstairs, and you tell us one photograph was taken from this angle?
A  To the best of my knowledge; yes, sir.
Q  Who was it who directed the angle that the photograph should be taken from?
A  We left that up to the discretion of the photographer taking it.
Q  Did you tell him what you were trying to depict in this particular item -- that is, depict how it compared in some fashion with these photographs. Did you tell him, "These are the photographs that we are trying to show were done as a similar reconstruction." Did you show that to the photographer?
A  No, sir; we took that down, told him we wanted a picture taken of it.
Q  Just a little snapshot, right?
A  A little more than a snapshot.
Q  Well, I would like to show you some other photographs, if I may -- oh, I beg your pardon. Before I show you photographs, I want to show you something else. You wrote a report, did you not, Mr. Stombaugh, about this demonstration or experiment you were working on; is that right?
A  Yes; I wrote a report, and the results of this were reported at one time.
Q  Let me show you a copy of that report, which I would mark as a Defendant's Exhibit, if we may -- as D-55 for identification.

(Defendant Exhibit 55 was marked for identification.)

     I show you D-55, and ask you if you recognize what it is?
A  Yes, sir; this is my report, written October 17, 1974.
Q  I would like to show you one page, page four of that, which I have enlarged, marked D-52 for identification.

(Defendant Exhibit 52 was marked for identification.)

     I would ask you take a look -- in fact, I will hold it up. That is a poor way of doing it.

Q  If you would just read this whole three paragraphs. There is something I want to particularly ask you about. You may follow from that copy there, rather than this one.
A  Do you want the whole page read?
Q  If you would, start from "Result of Examination."
A  All right.
     "Result of Examination. It was previously reported in Laboratory Report P-C-F-72-79-JD dated July 2, 1971: Q12, blue pajama top contained a total of 48 puncture holes possessing characteristics indicating Q12 was stationary when holes were made.
     "Analysis of these holes relects 12 holes, numbered one through twelve, appear in the back left panel; five holes, numbered 13 through 17, were in the upper right back panel; thirty holes, numbered 18 through 47, were in the right shoulder area; and one hole numbered 48, located near the back shoulder seam of the left sleeve.
     "A study of photographs depicting Q12 laying on the body of Colette MacDonald revealed that the portion trailing off on the floor to the left of the body to be the left front panel and front left sleeve of Q12 with the left cuff and back portion of the left sleeve located on the floor adjacent to the body. It is to be noted that there were no puncture holes found in these portions of Q12.
     "The right shoulder area of Q12, inside out condition, was located on the left chest area of the victim with the right sleeve draped across the body. The right sleeve has also been turned inside out."
Q  In regard to the last paragraph, I would appreciate it if you would just read the first sentence at this time. If we need the rest later on, we will ask you. Just the first sentence.
A  "Through folding Q12 in this same manner as it is depicted in the photographs, it was found that the puncture holes present in Q12 fell into two general groups."
Q  In other words, you wrote in your report that you had folded Q12 in the same manner, is that right? Those were your words in your report? Is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Do you stand by those words, that you folded the pajama top in the same manner that they appeared in the picture?
A  As best we could, in the same manner. Yes, sir.
Q  Does it say there, "To the best I could," or do you say, "Folding Q12 in the same manner as depicted, it was found that the puncture holes presented fell into two groups"? Did you qualify that in your report?
A  Those are my reports, sir.
Q  Excuse me. Let me give you a date. October 17, 1974.
A  That is correct.
Q  You did not qualify it?
A  It was not necessary.
Q  You also testified before the grand jury, did you not, Mr. Stombaugh?
A  I did.
Q  And that was on January 15, 1975, just about two and a half months after you wrote that report. Is that correct?
A  That is correct.
Q  Now, in this regard, I would call to your attention your testimony on page 28 and ask you, if you would -- I am going to show an enlargement to the jury of what has been marked as Defendant Exhibit 53.

(Defendant Exhibit 53 was marked for identification.)

Q  In fact, let me have you start if you don't mind, by reading the last paragraph of page 27 to give us the context, and I will ask you to read to the end of line 15, if you would please, Mr. Stombaugh, starting here.
A  "Now, to start -- excuse me -- (witness drops photograph), now in studying the pictures of Colette, found on the floor, we see that she has this blue pajama top draped over her. And studying the thing a little bit further, it's easy to realize in trying to fold this back in the position that this portion trailing off onto the floor, all the way down, is the left sleeve -- the left torn sleeve of that pajama top as well as the left front panel.
     "These are the only portions of that pajama top that don't have puncture holes in them.
     "So, it led us to believe quite possibly that maybe she was stabbed through the pajama top. So, what we did, we refolded the pajama top exactly as it appears in these pictures, and in the picture here the right sleeve is turned inside out, and trails across the body in this fashion. And the bottom of it was pushed up."
Q  That is as far as you need to go. In line 13, you described how you refolded the pajama top, I believe, exactly as it appears in these pictures. Is that correct? Is that what you said at the grand jury?
A  That is what I said at the grand jury. Yes, sir.
Q  You don't withdraw that statement, do you?
A  Of course not.
Q  The pictures you were referring to that you made it exactly like were Government 1139 and 1138. Those are the pictures that, principally, you were referring to?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, if I may ask you to come down if you don't mind, Mr. Stombaugh, and if you could stand just on that side, let me indicate to you what I have already showed the Government that, over here in the photograph which is marked D50 for identification which is a portion of this photo, just minus the trailing sleeve. Do you recognize that as being the same photo?
A  Yes.

(Defendant Exhibit 50 was marked for identification.)

Q  Let me also show you on here, there is an exhibit marked D41 which is also Government Exhibit G44. It is also 1139 which is the one, the copy of the same photo you marked up. You recognize it, do you not?
A  I do.

(Defendant Exhibit 41 was marked for identification.)

Q  And then here, I show you Defendant Exhibit 42 which is also originally Government Exhibit 43, plus your marked-up versions are 1137 and 1138. You recognize those photos, do you not?
A  Yes, sir.

(Defendant Exhibit 42 was marked for identification.)

Q  And I have placed on top of these a grid with a one-inch scale to it which we have marked D43(a) for the vertical grids and then D44 for the horizontal grids.

(Defendant Exhibits 43, 43(a) and 44 were marked for identification.

Q  Mr. Medlin left this for me so we can use this. All right, I would like you to take a look at the material which is shown here in your photograph of your model at what I would call -- let's see -- B-C-D, go down to 9 and 10. Do you see here in the exhibit what appears to be the cuff opening of a pajama top? Do you see that?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, will you please show me either on 41, the picture of Mrs. MacDonald's body, or on 44, the side view of Mrs. MacDonald's body, where that is visible?
A  Here is the cuff, right here.
Q  In your view, the display that you have on your photograph is identical to, or exactly the same as it appears here in the picture of Mrs. MacDonald's body. These two are exactly the same in your view?
A  They are not exactly the same, sir.
Q  All right, let me just see now. I want to go back and ask, so when it says here in your grand jury testimony that, "We folded the pajama top exactly as it appears in these pictures," you think that is still a correct statement of what you did?
A  We folded the pajama top exactly as it appears in the pictures to make our examination. I did not say that this picture right here depicts folded exactly. The picture was only taken to show it could be done.
Q  Now, if you would take a look in your picture at the area of this garment which is found roughly between "G" and "H," and located in block number 10, you notice there is a flap. It looks like two edges of the pajama top. Do you see that? We are looking here at "G" and "H", and we're looking down at block 10. First, do you notice the letters that I have pointed out?
A  Yes; I notice it.
Q  Now, would you please show me where on the picture of Mrs. MacDonald's body -- you may use either one of these two photographs -- where the fabric is seen folded in any form, shape, or fashion like that?
A  In the first place, this drapes off the edge. On the body, that area is flat and that matches right in here.
Q  Well, were you able to somehow on the photograph lift the bath mat and see how it was laid out there?
A  How are you going to lift something off the photograph?
Q  I don't know, sir. I wish you would tell me how you were able to ascertain that this is the proper way that this particular -- as you show it here on your model -- how you ascertained that was the way it appeared on Mrs. MacDonald's body.
A  As I pointed out, sir, my testimony here and in the report is not regarding this particular photograph. We refolded this the best we could to duplicate how it appeared here and here to see if we could take care of 48 holes and account for all of them with 21 thrusts which we did.
     This photograph just shows that it could be done.
Q  Now, take a look if you will, Mr. Stombaugh, on your model photograph, and I'd like to direct your attention to the area which is located between "D," "E," and "F" on the grid coming down to 8, 9, and 10, and I ask you if you notice a sewed thread here which looks like the cuff sleeve. Move over so the members of the jury can see it after you have looked at it.
A  Yes; this is the inside seam of the sleeve.
Q  Now, would you please show me where, first of all, on the picture that shows Mrs. MacDonald's body where you find that in this fashion?
A  Right here is the inside seam.
Q  All right, now, let's put the grid back over it and just move this slightly, and you were saying that the seam as you see in the picture here is between "H" and "I" and it is just about between the seventeenth and eighteenth block; is that right? Is that the location we are talking about?
A  Yes; that's the location.
Q  And is it your position that this is now folded precisely as seen on Mrs. MacDonald's body; it is folded precisely that way on your demonstration model here?
A  As I pointed out, sir, this photograph is not the one I said was folded exactly in this manner. It is folded as close as we could get it on what we had. We did not have a dead body there to put it on. We used this mounting medium. You could move your A, B, C's and 1, 2, 3s, your grid all over the place here to conform to that if you wished.
Q  Mr. Stombaugh, you know, as a matter of fact, you had a dressmaker's dummy that you used for further models later on in this case; don't you?
A  Later on in this case, sir.
Q  But the FBI didn't happen to have one at the time you did this; right?
A  No, sir.
Q  I see. When was the dressmaker's dummy bought?
A  After I retired.
Q  Tell me, in all your experience in the FBI, you never used a dressmaker's dummy in any way for the reconstruction of models of any sort?
A  We had a --

MR. BLACKBURN:  (Interposing) Your Honor, we would OBJECT to this.


Q  Let me ask you, Mr. Stombaugh, if you will take a look at this exhibit at E-6 and at F-6, and I ask you if you notice that there is a seam -- I would suggest and you can tell me better -- whether that looks like an inside-out seam there.
A  Yes, sir; that is a continuation of the inside seam on the right sleeve.
Q  Now, would you please show me on either one of these photographs -- the one of Mrs. MacDonald's body, 141, and then on the other one, 142 -- where the seam appears in this fashion? Go ahead.
A  Here (indicating).
Q  You are indicating that you see the seam -- give us the grid coordinates, please.
A  I-16.
Q  And your opinion is that it is now displayed over here on your model the same way it appears at I-16; is that what you are saying?
A  Similar fashion.
Q  Similar fashion -- that's the best you can say.
A  Again, I have to point out that this photograph made the garment not to show exactly the same folding. I'm saying this for about the fifth time.
Q  Well, let's make it for the last time, Mr. Stombaugh -- maybe the next to the last time. Let's look at K-7, if you will. Do you observe here in K-7 a -- it looks like -- upside down U-shaped that appears to be an inside seam?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  All right, now, with that located, can you tell me where you can find that on, say, Defendant Exhibit 41 of Mrs. MacDonald's body?
A  I'm trying to figure out which seam it is. You also have to take into account, sir, the angle of these photographs is entirely different.
Q  I agree, sir. That's why I asked you why there isn't a photograph of your model here at the same angle of Mrs. MacDonald's body?
A  Because how would you know what angle Mrs. MacDonald's body was to begin with and, secondly, as I said before, this was not taken to depict the exact folding of this. It was taken to show the left sleeve and panel trailing off to show that, when folded in this manner, the probes were put through to account for the holes. I don't know what direction you are going here on your photographs and your pretty exhibit.
     But, as I have said before, this was not taken to show that it was folded exactly as it is in the pictures. We did that when we got the holes lined up. This is just to show that it can be done.
Q  Mr. Stombaugh, as part of the earlier part of your answer, you asked a question of me about how could one get the same angle that Mrs. MacDonald was photographed. I will ask you a question in response: did you ever ask Mr. William Ivory or Mr. Squires, the photographer, where they stood and how tall was Mr. Squires when he made this particular photograph that's marked D-41 so that you could perhaps duplicate that photograph when you took a picture of your model?
A  No, sir.
Q  It never occurred to you, as a matter of fact; is that right?
A  I did not feel it was necessary.
Q  Now, if you would, instead of looking at your model, take a look at D-41, the picture of Mrs. MacDonald's body here, and I ask you to take a look at the coordinates. Let's go down O-16 and running all the way over to the left of O-16 across, apparently winding up at G-17. Do you observe what appears to be a seam across there? You may lift the grid if you would like to, sir.
A  Which one -- this one?
Q  Well, let's do this one.
A  This one; yes, sir.
Q  You are talking about this seam which I am pointing across and giving the coordinates. Would you please show me where on your model you can show me that seam which runs, Mr. Stombaugh, from the left side of Mrs. MacDonald's body all the way to a little past the mid-section?
A  It is not visible from the angle of the photographer.
Q  But you are sure it is there?
A  I am sure it is there; yes.
Q  Now, putting aside all these coordinates for a minute, I ask you to take a look at your own model as depicted in D-50, do you see where -- would it be fairly correct that it has a sort of volcano's mouth impression -- that is, where the fabric is pulled up and around here looks like the top of a volcano if I could use a crude analogy. Do you see that?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Will you show me anywhere on the picture of Mrs. MacDonald's body here, 41 or here at 42, where you see that effect of where the fabric is gathered?
A  The fabric is not gathered, sir. There are 21 probes holding this fabric down flat. There are no 21 probes visible going through that would hold the fabric down in this way.
Q  Well, what I was trying to discern is whether I -- again, using my rough analogy of this being like the top of the mouth of a volcano, do you see anywhere here on the picture of her actual -- of her body -- anything, you know, that resembles this big, curving, circular surface that you have in your model?
A  To explain, sir, the fabric is being held down and pushed down, giving it the effect of your so-called volcano, with all these probes going through it.
Q  With the grid off -- would you show me, please, where any of your probes have anything to do with this volcano mouth effect here?
A  Sir, as I said before, the probe holds the fabric down. Had there been a probe through this right here, that would have been down.
Q  Did you ever write a supplemental report after you had looked at all these pictures, in which you corrected the statement you made to the grand jury --



Q  Have you ever written any supplementary reports describing your own evaluations of this model that we have here?
A  No, sir.

MR. SEGAL:  All right, you can go back to the stand now, Mr. Stombaugh.

(Counsel confer.)

Q  Finally, Mr. Stombaugh, did you have anything to do with a later re-make of this model that was prepared in connection with this case?
A  No, sir.

MR. SEGAL:  All right, thank you, Mr. Stombauqh. I have no further questions.

THE COURT:  Any redirect?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Yes, sir.

THE COURT:  Very well.

R E D I R E C T  E X A M I N A T I O N  (12:13 p.m.)

Q  Mr. Stombaugh, taking Defendant Exhibit 53, which is part of your FBI report of October 1974, you talk about -- reading from right here, sir: "What we did, we folded the pajama top exactly as it appears in these pictures."
A  That is the grand jury.

MR. SEGAL:  That is the grand jury.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Grand jury -- well, in the FBI report you also said, "through folding Q-12 in the same manner as it is depicted in the photographs."

Q  Mr. Stombaugh, when you talk about refolding it in the same manner, tell us again exactly what you are talking about. How did you refold it?
A  It was refolded in the same manner, best we could, as it is depicted in the photographs.
Q  Well, with respect to the right sleeve, what if anything did you do?
A  Identified the various portions of the pajama top through the use of the photographs which identified the left panel -- left front panel, rather -- the left torn sleeve, the right sleeve -- ascertained it was turned in an inside-out condition; identified other sleeves, or rather other seams; and through what we could identify on the photographs, we refolded the pajama top to conform to it as best we could.
Q  Taking Government Exhibit 787(a), what does this depict right here?
A  That's the torn left sleeve and front left panel.
Q  In your examination in 1971 of this pajama top, how many puncture holes did you find?
A  None.
Q  Well, this portion right over here?
A  That's the front -- the right sleeve, cuff area, turned inside out.
Q  How many puncture holes did you find in that area -- this picture right here?
A  Right there -- none.
Q  Is it fair, then, to say that you located in this pajama top have probes through them?
A  That is correct.
Q  Now, I believe you testified this morning concerning Colette's pajama top and the stab wounds in there and that sort of thing. How many cuts, if any, did you locate in the blue pajama top?
A  Two.
Q  And, again, sir, where were they located as best you can recall?
A  It would be easier if I used the pajama top, sir.
Q  Okay.
A  I can give you the exact location. One in the upper left back shoulder area, and the other in the lower front right panel.
Q  Now, I believe also this morning you testified concerning the blue bedsheet, area stain "G," do you recall that testimony?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  If you would, sir, come down here and look at that stain. Mr. Stombaugh, let's go over this whole area of stain "G" one more time, if you don't mind.
     What is this portion, and I am referring to, I suppose, the stain portion at the end of Area "G." In your opinion, sir, what caused that, or what could have caused that?
A  It is the back of the right cuff of Colette MacDonald's pajama top.
Q  Well, I recall this morning that counsel for the Defendant took this stain area right here, which is on the outside area of stain "G" and folded it over, pretty close like this. Do you have an opinion, sir, whether this stain inside Area "G" and this stain here were caused by the same item?
A  In my opinion they weren't. This is a straight line right here. This is circular. If this is a continuation of this stain, you would have a straight line here.
Q  Do you have any opinion, sir, as to what could have caused that particular stain?
A  I have no idea.
Q  If you will take Colette's pajama top and the sleeve to which you are referring and point out where you think it made this stain?
A  (Witness complies.)
Q  If you would, for the record, tell the jury what you are doing?
A  I am lining up the blood stains on the pajama top itself in length and width with the stain on the pajama top.
Q  Now, looking at the shoulder area or the area which you said could have been made by the shoulder area, is that stain "E"?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, I believe on cross-examination yesterday afternoon, you were asked as to whether or not you saw any hair outlines in this stain, is that correct?
A  That is correct.
Q  And do you recall what your testimony was?
A  I didn't find any hairs, no, sir.
Q  Do you have an opinion, sir, satisfactory to yourself as to whether or not hairs would have been or could have been discernible in that fabric sample?
A  I doubt very much that they would have been, unless they were big chest hairs.

MR. BLACKBURN:  You may return to your seat.

Q  Now, in your experience, Mr. Stombaugh, as a field agent and with the FBI, I think you testified that you have seen a lot of blood in your experience, is that correct?
A  That is correct.
Q  Do you have an opinion, sir, as to how long blood stays wet or moist?
A  The literature -- what the experts have told me in checking into it in various cases --

MR. SEGAL:  (Interposing) I would OBJECT. We'll wait to hear those experts, Your Honor.

Q  Do you know, sir?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What is your answer?

MR. SEGAL:  May I have the basis of his opinion before he answers, Your Honor?

THE COURT:  I think he has already given us that, too. I will OVERRULE the objection. If he knows how long blood stays wet, say so.

THE WITNESS:  In the first place it depends on the amount of blood. A large amount of blood -- it is going to -- it has to coagulate and dry over a lengthy period of time.
     A light stain, a drop of blood -- three to five minutes.

Q  Do you have anything as to a fabric stain such as that, how long that would stay moist or wet?
A  Well, the big heavy stain in the center contained a large amount of blood. That would have taken a little bit of time to dry, but the other stains -- the impressions -- they would dry very rapidly because they are thin.
Q  Are you able to be more specific in terms of hours?
A  On the thin ones -- three to five minutes.
Q  What about the heavier stains?
A  Heavier stain -- I don't know how much blood was on there, but just from looking at it, it was considerable. I would have no -- I wouldn't even venture to give you a time span on it.
Q  You are talking about the heavy stain right here?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What about stain Area "E"; do you have any opinion as to that?
A  That would dry very rapidly.
Q  Mr. Stombaugh, if you would come down here just one second. I believe area stain "D" and area stain "C" you testified were what, sir, yesterday?
A  They had the appearance of having been caused by bloody hands.
Q  And I believe you testified on cross-examination yesterday that in making this determination you did not conduct any different tests, is that correct?
     Well, let me rephrase it: how did you determine that these were, in fact, hand stains?
A  By recognizing the impression -- there is a finger impression here, and they fit.
Q  You are referring to which stain?
A  I am referring to stain "C," the same as this on stain "D."
Q  In your experience as an FBI agent, have you ever seen bloody stains before from a hand?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Are they consistent with what is on that sheet?
A  Yes, sir, they are.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, that would complete our redirect examination.

MR. SEGAL:  Very brief recross, Your Honor.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, I don't believe we brought out any new matter.

THE COURT:  He said it would be very brief.

MR. SEGAL:  I promise it will be, Your Honor.

R E C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N  (12:27 p.m.)

Q  In regard to that smear you say could be a shoulder impression, your testimony today was that you don't think you could see any hairs on that unless they were big chest hairs, is that your testimony?
A  Head hairs, chest hairs -- there are no chest hairs up in that area.
Q  Your testimony is, without ever having conducted an experiment with it, that you don't think that normal -- not big, long chest hairs -- would make any imprint if that were a shoulder smear?
A  If you had some long limb hairs growing up there, they might appear.
Q  Of course, we know you have never asked to see Dr. MacDonald's shoulders and back, have you?
A  No, sir.
Q  Now, about blood: Mr. Blackburn asked you about how fast or how long blood lasted. What affects the length of time in which blood remains moist and blood becomes dry? What are some of the factors that would affect that?
A  Well, the temperature, whether it is raining.
Q  Temperature of the room or the outside, is that right?
A  Correct.
Q  What else?
A  Humidity.
Q  Humidity, what else.
A  (No response.)
Q  Nothing else -- temperature and humidity?
A  Well, the addition to something else, such as water, things of this --
Q  (Interposing) Contamination, you mean?
A  Contamination, yes.
Q  Do you know what effect putting wet blood in a plastic bag and sealing it up has?



MR. SEGAL:  I have nothing further of this witness, Your Honor.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Nothing further.

THE COURT:  Well, I have one or two.

E X A M I N A T I O N  12:29 p.m.

THE COURT:  Mr. Stombaugh, I am not sure that I understood your answers or the import of your answers to some of Mr. Segal's questions earlier this morning. But you seemed to say that if you had a number of holes at random in one body, and you had another body with a different number of holes in it, that in order to bring those holes into -- that in order to bring them into coincidence so that the holes in the upper material would coincide with the holes below and they were randomly spaced -- did I understand you to say that you could take the upper ones and arrange it in more than one way so that the holes would coincide?

THE WITNESS:  I believe what I was trying to bring out, sir, is -- maybe I can explain it like this.

Q  Explain it for the jury, too. Let me interpose this.

THE COURT:  Members of the jury, when I listen to the witnesses' answers and questions of counsel and it is perfectly clear to me, then I don't ever ask any questions. But in some instances, when it is not clear to me, it occurs to me that it might not have been clear to you or some of you, and that is the purpose of asking these additional questions -- for clarification, not that the Court has any interest in what the question is or what the answer may be, but simply by way of assisting the jury if it happens to do so.

Q  Go ahead and explain that answer a little more if you will.
A  I hope I understand the question, Your Honor. Say you have a group of five holes here --
Q  (Interposing) Randomly-spaced?
A  Randomly-spaced; yes, sir. And we have a group of five randomly-spaced holes in this upper surface. If we put it down this way, the holes would not align, but by turning this and putting it as it should be, the holes then would align if they were randomly-spaced the same as the ones underneath.
Q  Yes; now my question is simply this: is there any way that you can turn it and put the holes in a different place and they will still line up or is there only one way if they are randomly-spaced? That is a simple question.
A  Oh, I see, sir. There would be only one way.
Q  Now, suppose you have a lesser number of holes in the under material and the greater number of holes is in the upper layer. In order to make the holes in the upper layer fit, obviously you've got to make more -- you've got to make two holes in the upper thing to coincide and make it constitute just one hole in order to hit the lower hole; is that right?
A  Yes, sir; in most cases of this type, one thrust could cause up to four or five holes in the fabric it would be passing through because of the folding nature of the material.
Q  Now, then, could the fabric then be folded if you had multiple holes below but an even greater number more than one way to achieve the same results so that all the holes below would be occupied by, say, a probe and all the holes in the upper layer would be occupied?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  It could be?
A  Yes, sir.

THE COURT:  Now, I understood that to be your answer and now I will let counsel for both sides re-explore that if they have anything.

MR. SEGAL:  I have nothing further.

MR. BLACKBURN:  No, sir.

THE COURT:  All right, any further evidence for the Government?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Yes, sir. We call Shirley Green.

(Witness excused.)