Trial Transcripts

---

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 Tuesday, July 31, 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.  Any further evidence for the Government in this case?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Yes, sir, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  I believe you had a witness with whom you had not quite finished.

MR. BLACKBURN:  That is correct -- Mr. Medlin.

THE COURT:  All right; let him come back.

(Whereupon, HILYARD O. MEDLIN, the witness on the stand at the time of record, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:)


D I R E C T  E X A M I N A T I O N (resumed)  9:31 a.m.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Mr. Medlin, I believe when we broke yesterday afternoon, you had just finished testifying about dusting for prints on the telephone.  Do you recall that?
A  Yes, sir; I do.
Q  I believe you stated that the dusting which you did confirmed that there were no prints except a smudge on the ear in the master bedroom; is that correct?

THE COURT:  That is what he said.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Mr. Medlin, I believe you had also testified right at the conclusion yesterday that you had mentioned a jewelry box.  Do you recall that?
A  Yes, sir; I did.
Q  How do you dust for prints on something like a jewelry box?  Is there any difference between that and dusting for a prints [sic] on a wall or door jamb?
A  The contrasting powder which we used would not work in this particular case; and so we emptied the contents of the jewelry box into a container, marked the box, and returned it for chemical processing back at the laboratory.
Q  What results, if you know, sir, did you come to from the dusting that you did on the jewelry box?  What prints, if any, were you able to identify?
A  One fingerprint belonging to Captain MacDonald, and one palmprint was not identified.

THE COURT:  Catherine?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Captain MacDonald.

THE WITNESS:  Captain.

THE COURT:  I misunderstood.  Go ahead.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Mr. Medlin, did you ever have occasion to dust for prints on any of the weapons that were taken from the MacDonald house or outside the house?
A  There was one knife that was found underneath the bureau which I dusted for prints.  The two ice picks and the knife that was found outside the house I dusted for prints.  And there were only a few ridges -- just a couple of ridges -- on one of the knife handles, and that was all.
Q  Is it a fair statement, then, to say that with respect to the weapons which you dusted for prints you were not able to identify any prints?
A  There were no identifiable prints; no, sir.
Q  By "unidentifiable," you mean there were not sufficient characteristics to make any identification?  Is that what you are saying?
A  There were no impressions whatsoever to even indicate a print.  there were merely a couple of what appeared to be lines or diges, and that is all, on one of the knife handles.
Q  Now, you spoke yesterday afternoon about placing tape -- transparent tape -- over these prints.  Do you recall that?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  With respect to the back screen door, sir -- was any tape ever placed on that door?
A  After the photographer attempted to photograph it, or did photograph the prints with a Polaroid and it did not show any, I placed tape on the prints to protect it, because I could see that there were two latent prints.  But they were not identifiable at that particular time.  I could not make a direct comparison because of the paint chips and the way that the door was constructed.
Q  With respect to the living room, sir, besides what you have already testified to, what other items, if any, did you dust for prints on in the living room that were found in the living room?
A  there was a drinking glass that was located on the table directly at the head of the sofa which I dusted for fingerprints or prints, and developed one latent print on.  there was a pair of eyeglasses laying against the wall, which when I first noticed had what appeared to be a red speck or so on the lens.  I picked them up by the earpiece and offered them to the chemist for him to remove the specks in the event they were blood.
Q  What identification, if any, were you able to make on the drinking glass?
A  I did not identify the latent fingerprint on the drinking glass.
Q  Well, with respect to other items in the living room, were there any other items that you dusted for that you can recall, sir?
A  We dusted the ledges, the back of the coffee table -- the edge of it at that particular time, because it was laying on its side.  We dusted in the area where we felt that adults would grasp the door facing as they struggled down the hallway, and in that general vicinity.
Q  What about the kitchen, sir?
A  We dusted the different items in the drain -- the saucers we developed latent prints on identified as belonging to -- predominantly, but not all of them -- belonging to Captain MacDonald.  We dusted other items -- coffee cups -- returned these items to the laboratory for further analysis, and developed some fingerprints on them.
Q  When you say that you took these to the laboratory for futher analysis, how did you transport them from where you found them to the laboratory?
A  We secured boxes, and through means of the use of sticks and strings, we suspended these items so that they would not touch anything or each other, nor in any manner detract from the physical characteristics at that particular moment when I first picked them up.
     We picked them up using a pencil or stick through the handle -- this is the cups -- and we picked the saucers up by the use of the edges and suspended them in a manner in side of a box.  We would mark it "fragile" and we would hand carry it from one place to the other.
Q  Mr. Medlin, let me hand you what has been marked as Government Exhibit 139.  These are sort of together as one exhibit, sir.  Have yo uever seen that before?
A  Yes, sir; I have.
Q  When did you first see it?
A  It was on top --
Q  (Interposing) First of all, if you would tell us what it is?
A  I beg your pardon -- an Esquire magazine which was on top of, or a part of, a stack of magazines that was located under the edge of the coffee table.  There were two stacks of magazines or books in this fashion, and the coffee table was laying across them.
     This is one of the magazines from the stack that was situated underneath the edge of the coffee table.
Q  Did you ever have an occasion, sir, to dust any of the pages of that magazine for prints?
A  Yes, sir; I did.
Q  What, sir, did your testing show, and in respect to what pages, if you can recall, sir?
A  The question was, "Did I dust them?"  And I said, "Yes; I did."  The word "dust" infers using black powder or some other type of method of dusting for a latent print.
     In this particular instance, we returned this magazine to the laboratory where we processed it chemically, using ninhydrin spray.
Q  Well, after you used that spray, what, if anything, did it reveal to you with respect to fingerprints?
A  It developed certain latent fingerprints on the magazine.
Q  Were you able to identify these prints?
A  Yes, sir; we identified that there were eleven fingerprints developed.  Ten of them were identified and one is not identified.
Q  To whom, sir, if you recall, did these prints belong?
A  They belonged to Captain MacDonald, Mrs. Colette MacDonald and Lieutenant Harrison predominantly.
Q  Did you recall, sir, which pages of the magazine on which some of these prints were found?
A  My I refer to a note, sir?
Q  Yes, sir, if it will refresh your recollection.

(Pause.)

A  For the record, may I go from my notes, sir?
Q  Yes, sir.
A  In the Esquire magazine one fingerprint on the advertising page belonged to Captain Jeffrey MacDonald.
Q  If you would, sir, just tell us the page number without anything more.
A  Page 99, page 100, page 101, 102, 104, 109, 114.
Q  The prints on these pages belonged to whom?
A  Excuse me; I've got more pages, sir.
Q  I'm sorry.
A  Page 114, 116, a back cover is all the pages that we found latent prints on, sir.
Q  Now, on which of those pages which you have read out were there prints belonging to Jeffrey MacDonald?
A  The advertisement page -- page 99 -- page 101, page 100, 102, 104, 109.
Q  With respect to the master bedroom, sir, can you recall whether any of the unidentified prints were located in the master bedroom, sir?
A  Yes, sir; I do.
Q  Where were they?
A  Eight of them were on the venetian blinds in the master bedroom and were not full latent fingerprints but appeared to be partial and were partial -- latent prints that could have come from the side of a person's finger.
Q  With respect, sir, to the hall closet, did there ever come an occasion to dust for prints on the hall closet doors?
A  Yes, sir; we did.
Q  What was the result of your examination?
A  We developed certain latent prints that were identified as belonging either to Captain MacDonald or Mrs. Colette MacDonald.
Q  With respect to your last response, are you saying that the prints that you found on the hall closet door belonged to either Captain MacDonald or his wife or you found prints of each person?
A  Of each person, sir.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, at this time, I would mark for identification Government Exhibit 685.

(Government Exhibit No.  685 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Now, Mr. Medlin, let me hand you what has been marked as Government Exhibit 685 and ask you to take a look at it, sir, and tell us whether or not you have ever seen that.
A  Yes, sir; I have.
Q  What is it?
A  It is a record fingerprint card on a person named Helena -- no middle initial -- Foster.
Q  Are there any otehr names on that exhibit?
A  Helena Warling Stoeckley -- alias, Margie Worlie Raynor.
Q  In your investigation, sir, or in your analysis of the prints that were inside the MacDonald apartment, did you ever have occasion to examine those prints, sir, with the prints that you dusted for in the MacDonald apartment?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What was the result of that examination?
A  I could find no matching impressions, sir.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, at this time, we would move Government Exhibit 685 into evidence.

THE COURT:  All right.

(Government Exhibit No.  685 was received in evidence.)

MR. BLACKBURN:  Just one second.

(Pause.)

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Mr. Medlin, during the entire time that you were at the MacDonald apartment dusting for prints, did yo uever have an occasion to come across any prints that were bloody in nature -- fingerprints?
A  There was a print that was on the foot of the bed in the master bedroom which was in a red substance and which, according to Mr. Chamberlain, was blood.
Q  Now, how long after this first week, sir, when you were at the MacDonald apartment, did you involve yourself with checking for prints or matching the prints to the MacDonald apartment?  How long did you stay on the case in your capacity as fingerprint examiner?
A  It was the only case that was left open when I retired in 1971 that had my name on it.
Q  What do you mean by that -- by "left open"?
A  Every time that we received a fingerprint card that was part of the fingerprint case FT-82 which had become finaly known as the "damn MacDonald case," we stopped what we were doing, regardless of what we were involved in -- begging the Court's pardon -- regardless of 3what we were involved in and made a comparison of all the latent prints with the record prints that we had just received.
     There was an order from the command in Washington and that is exactly the way we treated it.  It was a priority case, and that is how we handled it.
Q  Mr. Medlin, with respect to the time that you finally left the Army, of the prints that you dusted or tested at the MacDonald apartment, if you would tell us, sir, how many fingerprints and palmprints you were able to identify as beloning to some named individual?
A  May I refer to my notes here?  And this time these are the correct notes, sir.
     Of the latent prints that we developed and processed in the apartment, we identified 26 fingerprints and 21 palmprints.  Not identified were 17 fingerprints and 14 palmprints.  Of the 17 prints and 14 prints not identified were those that were parital prints from the venetian blinds and other places in the apartment.
Q  How many prints that you tested for in the MacDonald apartment were deemed by you to be unidentifiable, as opposed to identified or not identified?
A  You mean insufficient?
Q  Insufficient, yes, sir?
A  Twenty-four fingerprints and seven palmprints were insufficient.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, that concludes our direct examination of Mr. Medlin.  The Defense may cross-examine.

THE COURT:  All right.


C R O S S  E X A M I N A T I O N  (9:52 a.m.)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Mr. Medlin, yesterday Mr. Blackburn asked yo uabout lost fingerprints.  Do you recall that qustion, sir?
A  Yes, sir, I do.
Q  And before you answered, you told him that there really wasn't such a ting as lost fingerprints because you defined "lost" as being something that you could no longer locate, put your hand on, is that right?
A  Yes, sir, I believe I said that.
Q  That wasn't the definition that you understood back in 1970, was it, when Colonel Rock, the investigating officer in the military proceeding, asked you about how many lost fingerprints there were in this case.  Do you remember that?
A  I remember that my commanding officer in a report used the word "lost," and from there on it bacome (sic) magnified.  It is quite possible that Colonel Rock used the word "lost" because I believe that Captain Leson was talking with him at the time.
Q  Well, let me direct your attention to the question of lost fingerprints on page 531 of the transcript of the Article 32 proceedings, at which you were thw tienss; and I want to read you a series of questions and answers and ask whether you either recall the questions and the answers or you accept the stenographer's transcript; all right, Mr. Medlin?
     Let's start at the bottom of the page, because that where the word is.
     "Question by Colonel Rock: How many fingerprints were lost in these new photographs?  Answer: The total that I referred to a few minutes ago, that were given to me on the telephone a few minutes ago, were nine fingerprints and three palmprints, sir."
     Does that sound familiar or do you accept the transcript?
A  I remember a conversation where a question was asked and without my notes before me I had to rely on the technician back at fort Gordon giving me some type of figures, but I don't remember the exact figures, no, sir.
Q  You have no reason to disagree with the stenographer's transcript, do you?
A  No, sir.
Q  You call it conversation; you were sitting on a witness stand under oath in a courtroom at that time, weren't you?
A  Not when I was on the telephone speaking to the technician, sir.
Q  Well, I know, Mr. Medlin.  I was saying, when Colonel rock asked you how many lost fingerprints were there, lost as a result of the photographs, you were sitting on the witness stand, is that right?
A  Yes, sir, I was.
Q  So you understood the word back in 1970 when they said "lost" to mean fingerprints that simply had been messed up somehow in the processing of the crime scene, is that correct?
A  No, sir.
Q  You didn't understand that as what Colonel Rock meant?
A  No, sir.
Q  Well, let me ask you this question: how many fingerprints di you dust and raise, and then thereafter try to lift with tape, and then when you lifted them, you damaged those prints so they were not really identifiable -- how many did you do that to?
A  Only my test prints, sir.
Q  they were the only prints that you damaged that way?
A  Those were the only ones that I attempted to lift, sir.
Q  There are no other prints that you say you put tape on and tried to lift and then had some damage, is that your testimony?
A  No, sir.  I believe I said that I covered them with tape.  I don't remember saying anything about trying to lift them, sir, because I had already determined that in lifting my test prints that I was not getting the complete print; and rather than take a chance and losing the print, all I did was protect it so if anyone wanted to go in there later they would find the prints exactly in the same place that I had dusted it and found it, sir.
Q  So you then ordered photographs taken of these prints that you said you had covered?
A  This is standard procedure to have the latent fingerprints photographed.
Q  Excuse me, Mr. Medlin.  The question was, did you order photographs taken of the prints?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  All right.  How many photographs of prints that you dusted and raised turned out to be so badly taken that they could not be used for comparison purposes, altogether, in the MacDonald house?
A  I believe that the photographer showed me seven prints that were not in focus.
Q  And he showed you those pictures when you were back at Fort Gordon, is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And somebody sent the photographer back to photograph the same prints again, didn't they?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And he was able to capture them perfectly the second time around for comparison purposes?
A  What is your definition of "perfectly," sir?
Q  He was able to get a picture that wasn't so blurry that you could make a comparison of them?
A  They were in focus at that time; however, some of them were still insufficient, sir.
Q  Insufficient because of what?
A  Lack of individual characteristics or detail, sir.
Q  You could have told that when they were on the wall, couldn't you, Mr. Medlin?
A  No, sir.
Q  You didn't make any adequate analysis of these prints on the wall to decide whether they were worthwhile photographing -- you just photographed everything?
A  When we dust prints at the crime scene, we have the photographer to take the pictures then.  When we dust an area and we look for certain characteristics, then we determine later if it is sufficient or insufficient.
     At the time that I was having him to photograph everything that we dusted and developed prints on -- these prints appeared to us to be sufficient ridges.  However, under closer examination they were determined to be insufficient in number.
Q  All right, now, Mr. Mrdlin, what I would like to know from you is, back in 1970, when you got done having photographs taken at the house, and then you had them photographed the second time, you still had some prints that you were not able to make a comparison of, isn't that right?
A  I believe I just answered, yes, sir.
Q  That is all I asked was "yes" or "no."  And in 1970, as a matter of fact, you found that there were 30 fingerprints in the MacDonald house that you were unable to identify as coming from the house?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  You found 18 palmprints in 1970, that you were unable to identify as coming from members of the house, is that right, Mr. Medlin?

(No response.)

Q  Well, you tell me how many you said?
A  Inasmuch as we did not have a full set of palmprints and fingerprints of Mrs. Colette MacDonald or Kimberly, the answer that I just gave to Mr. Segal (sic) concerning the 30 fingerprints that were not identifiable as coming from any member of the household must be qualified in that manner.
Q  In other words, you want to qualify your answer, but again I am asking you: is it not correct to say that, in 1970, when you finished your work, there were 30 fingerprints you couldn't identify in the house.  There were 18 palmprints you couldn't identify, and there were six latent impressions you couldn't identify, isn't that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  You did tell us a few minutes ago, in the last question Mr. Blackburn asked you, about the prints you identified on this Esquire magazine, right -- do you recall that?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  I heard you talk about finding fingerprints of Dr. MacDonald, is that right?
A  Yes.
Q  His wife and Lieutenant Harrison -- none of that seems very surprising, does it -- that their fingerprints would be on a magazine in their own house?
A  No, sir.
Q  Weren't you surprised when you found Mr. Ivory's fingerprints on the magazine?
A  No, sir.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT.

THE COURT:  I will SUSTAIN that.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Did you find the fingerprints of any of the investigators in this case also on the magazine?
A  May I explain your answer?
Q  Please answer yes or no, and then you may explain?
A  Did I find other prints other than the members of the MacDonald [sic] and Mr. Harrison?  Yes.
Q  First of all, did you find the prints of any investigators in this case?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  You did find them?
A  Yes.
Q  How many prints of investigators did you find?
A  To the best of my memory, three, sir.
Q  Was one or more of those the fingerprints of Mr. William Ivory?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Who else did you find a fingerprint of who was an investigator?
A  An FBI agent.
Q  Who was that agent?
A  I don't remember his name, sir.
Q  Were you able to identify who it was back at that time, though, based upon the cards you got from the FBI?
A  Yes, sir; we received cards.
Q  Would you look in your notes, please, and tell us who that FBI agent was who handled this magazine?
A  I don't find it immediately, sir, but I believe it was Mr. Gardner.
Q  I'm sorry?
A  A Mr. Gardner.
Q  Mr. Gardner?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  He was an FBI agent from what office, as far as you know?

(Witness gestures.)

Q  Does that mean you don't know where he is from, Mr. Medlin?
A  Mr. Segal, we had FBI agents from every place in North Carolina, I believe -- Fayetteville, Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Greensboro.
Q  How many of them were in the house at 544 Castle Drive?
A  Two that I know of.
Q  All right; I only want to know who those two were.
A  One of them was Mr. Gardner.
Q  And the other one?
A  I don't know.
Q  Mr. Murphy?
A  Mr. Murphy was the Director.
Q  I know who he is.  I want to know whether he was in the house or not?
A  He is not considered by me as an FBI agent, sir.
Q  You never did identify the third print as to which investigator it came from; is that right?
A  No, sir; there was one unidentified fingerprint.
Q  How do you know it came from an investigator?

(Witness gestures.)

Q  Did it come from anybody else?
A  I don't know.
Q  Now, there was on the cover of the Esquire magazine a bloody footprint -- a bloody fingerprint -- was there not?
A  By the "top," do you refer to the front edge, the top edge?
Q  Cover or edge; yes, please?
A  Yes, sir.  What appeared to be a fingerprint, reddish in color, was located in this position here on the magazine.
Q  That would be along what we would call the top edge of the magazine; is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, when you say that, you were interested in trying to identify that as to who it might belong to, were you not?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  But as a matter of fact, you were never able to make an identification because of the lab handling of that magazine; isn't that right?
A  No, sir.
Q  That is not so?
A  That is not true.
Q  All right; will you tell me why you know, if you know, that no identification was possible in that regard?
A  The magazine resting on top of the stack was in this position here, so that no one saw this edge.  And as different ones -- military policemen and different members of the investigative team or other persons -- would sit down, they would pick this magazine up and thumb through it.
     The print was noticed by Mr. Turbyfill to be on the top, once it was turned around in this position -- this is the sofa -- and he looked down and he said, "That looks interesting," or words to that effect.
     At that time, the magazine become [sic] evidence.  Before, it was just another magazine that was on a stack of magazines under the edge of the coffee table.
Q  Well, if it was just a magazine as part of a stack, can you tell us any reason why so many investigators were thumbing through it?  Did they have so little to do at the scene that they were looking at magazines for amusement?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

MR. ANDERSON:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  I will SUSTAIN that.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Do you know why the investigators were thumbing through the magazine if they didn't have any belief that it had evidential value until you saw the bloody print?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Why were they thumbing through it if they did not think it had evidential value?
A  I would have to draw the conclusion that they were just curious about the magazine, sir.
Q  But when Mr. Turbyfill, a student fingerprint examiner, took a look at it, he immediately noticed on that leading edge, that there was what appeared to be a print?
A  At that time, the magazine had been turned around, sir.  Before, an indivicual sitting down and seeing the magazine on a pile would merely see a group of magazines in this position here.
Q  Mr. Medlin, that would probably explain how someone would not notice what was on the magazine cover in a doctor's office, but how about criminal investigators at a crime scene?  Is that your explanation why they did not notice that there was a bloody print on the north or the far end of that magazine?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  If I understand you correctly, Mr. Medlin, you were unable to make any identification of that print on the edge of the Esquire magazine because of the fact that so many other persons opened the magazine, turned the pages, and thus destroyed evidential value?
A  When any latent print of any type, visible or invisible, is placed where there are loose leafs in this fashion here, the only thing that we can hope for is to be able to take a picture of it, using a one-to-one lens opening -- and I am not a photography expert -- using a fingerprint camera which is set.  And all you do is press the button and hope that the secretion from the fingers or palms or whatever has caused the impression has not been absorbed on into the other edges of the pages.
Q  Mr. Medlin, to your knowledge, how many investigators handled the magazine altogether before Mr. Turbyfill noticed that there was a bloody print on the end?
A  I cannot say, sir, because I was not at the magazine all the time.
Q  I appreciate that.  I am making, of your personal knowledge, though -- tell us who those persons were who handled the magazine?
A  One was Mr. Gardner.
Q  The FBI agent?
A  Sir?
Q  Mr. Gardner, the FBI agent?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  He picked up and thumbed through the magazine, right?
A  I saw him with the magazine.  That is all I can say, sir.  Now, whether he was reading it or what, I did not stay there and observe him.  Mr. Ivory picked it up and looked at it in my presence.  Mr. Turbyfill picked it up in my presence and looked at it.
Q  Did he look at it before noticing the bloodprint on the end?
A  No, sir; that is when he picked it up.
Q  You mean, when the student fingerprint examiner picked it up, he did not thumb through it?  He just took note of the bloody fingerprint and called it to your attention?
A  He picked it up in this fashion here, after he had noticed the print, and looked at it in this fashion (indicating).
Q  I thought I recalled you a few minutes ago saying that the MP's had picked it up.  Do you have any reason to believe that any military policemen, as opposed to CID agents, had touched the magazine?
A  I don't believe I said military policemen, sir.
Q  You don't have any knowledge of whether any of the MP's who were in the house had touched the magazine?
A  The military policeman inside the door was at the door sitting in a chair or standing at parade rest with his back against the wall whenever I saw him, because that was his post, and that is every place that he went to, to my knowledge.
Q  What I am asking you, Mr. Medlin, is didn't you receive any information from Mr. Ivory or Mr. Shaw that there had been MP's in the house before the CID arrived at the crime scene?
A  Yes, sir; in the briefing, they related to us that the military police had arrived, had called the CID duty agent, had called their desk sergeant, had called the hospital people.  There were military police in the house prior to the arrival of the investigators; yes, sir.  And I was told that.
Q  Did you receive any information that there had been any military policemen or medic that had been near the coffee table or near the sofa?
A  They did not make a point of saying that the military policeman was here or there or the other place.  They just said the military police had been there at the scene prior to our arrival, sir.
Q  Now, while you were in that living room, did you notice a white flower pot on the floor?
A  Yes; I did.
Q  Did any one of the investigators point that out to you as something that concerned them?  Did anyone point that pot out as something that conceerned them?
A  In the briefing, I wondered aloud how the flowers or whatever it was in the pot -- what appeared to be dirt with some greenery -- was in one position on its side and what appeared to me to be a flower pot sitting on the side at the edge of the coffee table.
Q  That was told to you in the briefing by Mr. Ivory?
A  That was observed by me during the briefing, sir.
Q  I see; you observed that.  Let me ask you whether this white plastic flower pot I'm holding in my hand resembled the size and shape of the flower pot that you saw on February 17th?
A  Mr. Segal, in all honesty and fairness, I cannot say exactly because, after nine and a half years -- I'm just not a pot man, sir.
Q  I dare not say anything, Mr. Medlin, after that.

THE COURT:  Most of the pot cases are tried in Wilmington.

MR. SEGAL:  I wil lleave you my card after you leave the stand; all right?

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  I want to ask you whether the pot that I am handing you in the general dimensions of it seem similar to the one that you saw in the house on February 17, 1970?
A  In general appearance -- white; yes, sir; it was.
Q  How about the height of that pot?  Was the one that you saw in the house about that height in size?
A  Here, again, sir, I could not honestly say.
Q  What about the surface texture of that pot?  Was the one in the house similar to the surface texture of the pot you have there?
A  No, sir; because this one is clean and also the sides appear to have serrations in it.
Q  The pot that I have shown you has some serrations on the side?
A  This one here.
Q  The pot you saw in the house was actually perfectly smooth.  It had no serrations at all embedded in it in the maufacturing process.
A  To the best of my memory, it was a smooth plastic pot.
Q  And how many fingerprints did you find on that plastic pot, Mr. Medlin?
A  None, sir.
Q  Had you dusted for fingerprints?
A  I attempted one area.
Q  When did you do that, Mr. Medlin?
A  After I was released to go into that area by the chemist, sir.
Q  That doessn't help me any -- the date, please, if you can tell us, and approximately what time, if you can tell us.
A  It was the same date that we went into the area because we processed the coffee table.  The flower pot kept bothering me because it was sitting at the edge.  It was sitting up instead of laying down with the floral arragement or whatever you want to call it -- with its contents laying on the side and the pot sitting straight up, it indicated to me that there was something just not right about it, sir.
Q  What area of the flower pot did you dust?  Can you hold it up and point out what area you dusted?
A  I don't remember exactly which area I did dust, sir.
Q  Did you not make any note of any sort in your own notebook or your workbook?
A  On any object, unless you mark the object off into areas one, two, four, five or whateer, it is not reasonable to me for me to remember exactly where I processed a round object.  It could have been on either side.
Q  Now, what did you find when you processed one part of that pot?
A  Smudges, sir.
Q  And that led you to the conclusion that you wouldn't find any good prints at all on the rest of the pot, Mr. Medlin; is that right?
A  No, sir.
Q  Did someone tell you or suggest to you that you shouldn't finish dusting the rest of that pot?
A  No, sir; they did not.
Q  Did you discuss the flower pot and the fact that you seemed concerned about it was standing upright with either Mr. Graebner [sic] or Mr. Ivory?
A  I asked Mr. Ivory, Mr. Shaw how the pot could have been sitting upright and the arrangement laying on its side.
Q  And after they gave you an answer, you were satisfied about that; is that right?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT to this line of questioning on the turning over or overturning of the flower pot.  That is not in direct examination.

MR. SEGAL:  If he discussed what he dusted in the living room, we have a right to ask why he didn't completely dust other matters.

THE COURT:  I will OVERRULE the objection.

THE WITNESS:  Would you repeat the question, sir?

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, Mr. Medlin.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  And after you discussed this matter of the flower pot with Ivory and Shaw, you decided there was no further reason to dust the rest of the pot?
A  When I had processed the portion of the pot and got nothing but finger smears -- by that, now, I want to differentiate and I want you to understand that when I say "finger smears," it is nothing more than just a darkened area that might have been made by the end of a finger, had no ridge characteristics, had nothing more than just the outline.  After only a few of these and already having processed the plastic telephone and other areas of the house, I determined or decided that it was not reasonable for me to continue using my time to process the entire pot, whereas one part of it showed nothing of value in fingerprints.
Q  So you picked up the pot, put it in a plastic bag and took it back to the laboratory at Fort Gordon where you had time and assistance and you processed the rest of that pot; isn't that what you did?
A  No, sir; I did not do that myself.
Q  Nobody ever did that?  Is that right, Mr. Medlin -- nobody ever bothered to examine the flower pot thereafter?
A  No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Q  Now, Mr. Medlin, you dusted some other areas in the living room.  I wish you would take the pointer.  I think it's still up there.  All right, you have a nice pointer there.  This is not sharp -- is it -- Mr. Medlin?  And if you would come around to the back, please.
     With the pointer, could you indicate the areas to us in the living room in which you dusted for latent fingerprints?
A  I dusted the back of the sofa, the wall in back of the sofa, the table, the lamp, the glass that was placed here at the head of the sofa which still had some residue of liquid in it, the glasses we found against the wall -- after a red species or specimen had been removed from it -- dusted those, dusted at the back of it, dusted the edge of the coffee table, dusted the legs of the coffee table, the flower pot.  This is not in relationship here, sir.
Q  You are now moving the coffee table as you recall seeing it; is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Indicating the coffee table is roughly parallel to the leading edge of the sofa; is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  That is how you recall seeing it when you were in the house?
A  With the stack of magazines under this side and under this side, sir.
Q  All right, would you please go on, Mr. Medlin, and tell us what else you dusted in the living room?
A  In the living room we dusted the stereo set, all of the desks, the cabinet, the ash trays.  To the best of my memory, sir, we dusted everything that didn't move except the MP and the charis -- the back of the chairs.
Q  First of all, I'd rather have you point out to us what you dusted rather than tell us that you dusted everything.  It will be easier to follow what you said.  Is there anything else that you dusted that you have not specifically enumerated, Mr. Medlin?
A  To my memory, I think I have covered it all, sir, to the best of my memory.
Q  All right, let me ask you to bear with me and stay there for a few minutes.  May I borrow your pointer, if you don't mind?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  I noted that you pointed to the top edge of the sofa when you were talking about dusting.  Is there something there that you dusted?
A  No, sir; these were pillows.  I dusted along the top of the wall -- the top edge along here is what I intended to say.
Q  To how high a height from the bolster in the back there -- how high a height up the wall did you dust?
A  Just a short distance, sir.
Q  Would you tell us, please, in inches if you can, Mr. Medlin?
A  It was related that there were three adult males, one adult female standing in this general area who attacked Captain MacDonald.  The pillows were still in the upright position when I arrived, and it was my conclusion and opinion that, if I were to remove myself from the sofa with three adults standing over me, I would grasp the pillow or in some method hit the walls to help lever myself up off the sofa.  Therefore, this is what I did.  I placed myself on the sofa.  I attempted to get up, and every time I did this, one pillow would come down.
     I then dusted the wall in this area for a print.  Possibly one of the attackers leaning over might have placed his hand against the wall in that fashion.  I did not develop any latent prints in that area.
Q  All right; let me ask you my question again, Mr. Medlin.  From the top of this bolster, which is the back of the sofa here, how many inches up above it did you dust?
A  To the best of my knowledge, about six inches.
Q  About six inches?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  All right; would you take your seat back, Mr. Medlin?  Now, dusting only to six inches, Mr. Medlin, of course there was no way of finding a handprint, if any, or fingerprit of any person who was standing near or at the end of the sofa who might have touched the wall; isn't that right?
A  That is right, sir.
Q  It never occurred to you that Dr. MacDonald's statement had all these persons standing up -- none of them lying on the sofa; isn't that right?
Q  I have never seen Captain MacDonald's statement.  Everything that I have been told was told to me by an investigator who received the statement from Captain MacDonald.  The story related to me was that there were three -- which I just said a few minutes ago.
Q  There were three adult males and an adult female; is that right?
A  That is what I was told, sir.
Q  And they attacked Dr. MacDonald while he was lying down on the sofa?
A  That is what I was told.
Q  And you went and dusted to see whether you would find his prints grabbing hold of a bolster; isn't that right?
A  No, sir.  My reason for dusting the area was to see if the wall would take fingerprint powder.  I reasoned that any person levering himself up would hit the wall with his hand, and that is the reason that I dusted that area.  If I had developed latent prints in that area, which I surmised he probably touched, or had a reason to touch, then maybe I could dust the latent prints in other areas of the wall of a person getting ready to strike him.
Q  The "he" you are referring to, Mr. Medlin, is Dr. MacDonald?
A  "He" is Dr. MacDonald I am referring to.
Q  I am asking you that you made no effort to dust at a standing height anywhere along the sofa, particularly the wall near the door to the hallway?

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

MR. SEGAL:  All right.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Let me ask you this: did anybody ever tell you that Dr. MacDonald claimed that the assailants were over by the desk near the front door to his living room?  Let me point to the desk so that we know what we are talking about -- the one over here at the west wall of the living room?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Did somebody tell you that the assailants were over there?
A  No, sir.
Q  Whose idea was that to dust in a place where Dr. MacDonald never suggested his attackers were?
A  Sometimes we can, by dusting intimate objects, acquire latent prints, if identified by known persons who have been in there.  It can be eliminated in use and coordination with other latent prints developed in the other areas of the house or apartment or scene.
Q  Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if somebody said, "Dr. MacDonald, who has been in your house the last month?  Give us their names and we will get their record prints," instewad of trying to go to a desk and develop prints.  Wouldn't that have been simpler, Mr. Medlin?
A  The house was lived in by a number of families --
Q  (Interposing) Excuse me, Mr. Medlin; my question was, "Would that not have been simpler?"
A  No, sir.
Q  It would not have been simpler to ask for an inventory of people that Dr. MacDonald said were in his house?
A  No, sir.
Q  Let me ask you this --

MR. BLACKBURN:  (Interposing) Your Honor, I think the witness was trying to explain.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Go ahead.  If you can give an explanation, we will wait for you.

THE COURT:  Do yo uwant to explain that answer?

THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

THE COURT:  Well, explain it.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Go ahead?
A  My reasoning to dust everything in the crime scene is, sometimes teh victims don't remember exactly what happened, where an individual might have been, or what occurred.  Another reason is, I just have to explain by use of one print from one area, we can eliminate other prints from other areas.
     The only people or persons who can tell me exactly who has been in that house are those persons who have been in the house.  Quartermaster has many families on that post.  I do not know how many families have lived in those quarters, how many visitors visited those families, or anything else.
     There are workers from the Post Engineers, from the plumbing shop, from Quartermaster -- any number of a group of people that have been in that house at one time or another.
Q  Tell me why you dusted the sterior records in the living room for fingerprints and how that was going to help your investigation?
A  There was one particular record that we dusted for fingerprints because it -- I don't know how to say this, other than that it was music that possibly my daughter, or a very young person, would like.  It wasn't rock and roll, but it was something like that.
Q  Whose idea was it to dust the stereo record for fingerprints?
A  I believe, to the best of my memory, Mr. Turbyfill's, to see if he could raise a print on it, sir.
Q  He was not doing it that [sic] as a student exercise, was he?
A  He was doing it as an exercise to see if he could develop a latent print on a record, sir, that was not of the usual type record.
Q  Somebody on the investigative team thought that might have some evidential value to dust the stereo record; is that right?

MR. ANDERSON:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  If you know?
A  I do not know.
Q  Do you know who gave the instruction to dust the stereo record?
A  Mr. Turbyfill is a fully qualified investigator on his own.  Being a studen fingerprint examiner was just another step in his processing for a higher rating in the military, and being a specialist.  Being a qualified criminal investigator himself, he considered this normal procedure for him to work on his own, unless I specifically told him to do something.  He was following his duties as a latent fingerprint examiner criminal investigator.
Q  When he went to dust the stereo record, did someone say to him, "That hasn't got anything to do with this case.  We've got a lot to do here.  Get on to something important"?  Did anybody say that to him?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

MR. ANDERSON:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Did you approve of Mr. Turbyfill dusting the stereo record for evidential value in this case?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  You did?
A  Yes, sir; I did.
Q  But you had no facts from the investigators -- Mr. Ivory or Mr. Shaw -- to lead you to think that the stereo record had anything to do with this case?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  The album -- if I were to suggest to you that the album that you can't describe was from the Broadway musical "Hair" -- do you recall that?  Do you recall that?
A  It was a different record than I would have in my collection, I would have to admit, sir.
Q  And you and the other investigators got really excited when you saw that album and decided that must have something to do with the crime?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

MR. ANDERSON:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Now, I would like to talk to you a bit, Mr. Medlin, if I may, about something you said yesterday to explain why these photographs of the latent prints did not come out, all right?  And I recall you saying that a number of those did not come out because of "camera error."  Do you remember that?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  How many of these photographs did not come out because of "camera error"?
A  To the best of my recollection, I believe there were seven that I know of personally.
Q  What kind of camera was it that made this error?
A  The regular issue type camera that was issued to the photography unit.  Speedographic, I believe it is called, sir.
Q  You believe it is called what, Mr. Medlin?
A  I said, 4" by 5" Speedographic, sir.
Q  Oh, I see.  Well, I don't suppose if I showed you this camera you could show me how the camera made an error, could you?
A  That is not the type camera that was used, sir.
Q  Right.  I would have to show you a 4" by 5" Speedographic in order for you to show me how the camera made a mistake?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT.

THE COURT:  I believe this witness has disclaimed any knowledge or expertise in the photographic field, is that correct?

THE WITNESS:  That's right, sir.

THE COURT:  I will let him answer the qustion: whether or not you can take a Speedographic and explain somebody else's error.  Do you think you could?

THE WITNESS:  Addressing the Court, sir, the Speedographic camera was mounted on a tripod, and --

THE COURT:  (Interposing) The question is whether or not -- he says that, apparently, you have testified that some error was made, and he wants to know if you can explain the error.  You can just say "yes" or "no."

THE WITNESS:  Yes.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  You can?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Would you please explain to me what you meant when you testified yesterday that this number of prints did not come out in terms of decent comparable photogreaphs because of camera error?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Go ahead, Mr. Medlin.
A  the camera was mounted on a tripod when taking the photographs.  Anyone walking down the hallway, which we realized later, would set up a vibration on the floor.  The tripod, to the best of my knowledge and memory, does not have a rubber foam absorbent cushion between its parts and the camera.
     The camera is screwed down on to the tripod and any movement of the tripod would cause the lens to jiggle or move, or be out of focus.  This is the way the photographer explained to me why the pictures were not clear -- was through the camera movement and error.
Q  Now, this house that were in was just a brick and concrete house, wasn't it, Mr. Medlin?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  It was built on a concrete foundation?
A  I don't know what the foundation was.
Q  Well, you walked around the outside of this house, Mr. Medlin, didn't you?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you saw the well in the back where wood is, and you can crawl under the house; you saw that, didn't you, Mr. Medlin?
A  I saw openings under the house.  I myself did not get down and examine it, no.
Q  All right, you saw the concrete footings on which this house was built?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  and the building itself, of course, was a brick structure you have testified to?
A  That's right.
Q  And as you can see from the photograph here, Mr. Medlin -- one has been marked 164(b) for identification -- you can see that house is set back about 20 feet from the curb, isn't it?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Is your testimony that that house and the floor in the hallway was so unstable that with anyone walking on it, it set up a vibration that caused a blurring of the photograph; is that right?
A  When you walk down the hallway of the house, yo ucan resound your footsteps.  According to the photographer, anyone walking down the hallway would cause the tripod to have been vibrated.  Behind the house, which is not shown, is Dempster Dumpsters.
     Trucks moving in to pick up Dempster Dumpsters areknown to be heavy equipment, and when they set the dumpsters, they do not do it lightly.  Here again, this might have done it.  I do not know myself.  I cannot say what caused it.  I am repeating the explanation given to me by the crime photographer, who is an expert with his camera.

THE COURT:  Is that the same explanation you gave yesterday?

THE WITNESS:  I believe so, sir.

THE COURT:  All right, I believe that's about enough on that subject.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  I do want to ask you to take a look at the rear photo of the house though, Government Exhibit 165(b), and point out where the driveway is that the Dempster Dumpsters are going to come on?
A  There is a Dempster Dumpster --
Q  (Interposing) Would you like to get a pointer?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Would you like to use the pointer you have there?
A  Yes, sir, except that is a ballpoint pen.  There are two dumpsters located just off the edge of this building here, in this location here.  There is a service road which runs between these two buildings, to the best of my memory, in this direction here.
     There are garbage collection points in this area here.  Heavy equipment involving deuce-and-a-half and four-ton trucks could possibly have been driving down this street at the time that we were in there.
Q  Mr. Medlin, did you ever suggest to the photographer that he wait for the trucks to go by to take the pictures of the fingerprints?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT.

THE COURT:  I will SUSTAIN the objection.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Could any of the vibrations that caused the blurring of this photograph be caused by the groups of high ranking officers you mentioned yesterday who were walking through the crime scene?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Did you tell us yesterday that there were groups of high ranking officers who came to see the crime scene and to get briefings?
A  I don't remember mentioning that yesterday, sir.  It is quite possible I did.
Q  I believe you told us yesterday about 4:57 p.m., that there was such a tour by high ranking officers of the crime scene.  Do you recall that?
A  It could have been when Mr. Murphy, and Colonel Kriwanek and other members come (sic) through, sir, for a briefing.
Q  Could you tell us what you meant when you said yesterday, "In a case like this, with high ranking people coming and going -- " What did you mean when you were telling about that?
A  We were -- Fort Bragg is an entity in itself.  Anyone familiar with the military establishment realized that Fort Bragg has quite a bit of brass, meaning general officers and their staff, because it has the Eighteenth Corps, Eighty-Second Airborne Division, post units, and so on.
     Each person must be responsible for his own area of responsibility.  By that I mean each commanding officer is responsible for his area of responsibility.  Therefore, each person must have some knowledge of what is occurring in his areaw.
     Therefore, to be kept abreast of what was happening; because one chief of staff -- and I do not remember who it was -- told me that he had received a call from the White House because of the nature of this matter, and they were interested -- very interested.
     When you have question marks around "very intersted" from the Presidency, you move.  Anyhow, the high ranking people, as I called them, were those individuals who were conducting their business of knowing what was going on in their area, and who required briefings either by Mr. Ivory and myself, or one or the other of us individually.
Q  Was the photographer in the hallway with his tripod as these high ranking individuals were walking down and setting up vibrations?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Were any of these visitors to the premises in a room or in a hallway at the same time the photographer was taking these pictures, as far as you can recall?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  I would like to ask you something about your preparations -- your own personal preparations -- to understand this task, Mr. Medlin.  I heard you say yesterday that you have a degree in sociology, is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  When did you receive that?
A  1978.
Q  When?
A  1978, sir.
Q  Well, that training, then, has nothing to do with your training at the time of this investigation in this case, is that right?
A  No, sir.
Q  Let's go back prior to February 17, 1970, what was your formal education beyond high school?
A  I was a senior with the University of Maryland, working on the Bachelor of Military Science degree.
Q  When did you attend the University of Maryland, from when to when?
A  1951, I entered the University of Maryland Extension in Vienna, Austria, where I was stationed.  I returned to the States and continued to receive courses from them.  I also attended courses in psychology on the American University, three semesters.
Q  When you say you continued to receive courses, you mean correspondence courses from the University of Maryland; no?
A  No, sir; these were formal college courses taught by a college professor.
Q  I see.  How many credits had you finished toward the degree -- was that called the degree of sociology at that time?
A  No, sir; that was the Bachelor of Military Science degree.
Q  Of Military Science -- what is a Bachelor of Military Science degree?
A  It's a degree -- a Bachelor of Science -- except that you are in the Army.
Q  I see, and how many credits had you finished by the time this investigation took place in 1970?
A  I was credited with 92 semester hours.
Q  And how much of that University of Maryland course work was devoted to fingerprint techniques and crime scene investigation?
A  Not any, sir.
Q  All right, now, you also attended a military police supervisor's course, I believe; is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And when was that, Mr. Medlin?
A  That was 1959.  It was eight weeks of a military police supervisor's -- course number one.
Q  And that would prepare you to supervise a platoon of military policemen with patrol duties and similar military policemen duties; is that right?
A  At the time I attended the course, I was working in the Director of Instruction's office as the senior non-commissoned officer to observe all the instructors and their methods of instructing pluse coordinate their lesson plans and approve them for the military police supervisor --
Q  (Interposing) But my question was, Mr. Medlin, wasn't that military police supervisor's course to prepare you to supervise a platoon of MP's?
A  Not to prepare me, sir, because I had been a platoon leader at one time.
Q  Okay, well, what was the purpose of your taking the military police supervisor's course?
A  In order to be able to offer constructive criticism and knoiw aht I was doing when I was controlling the other instructors, the Director of Instruction felt that I should myself attend the course to see how it worked.
Q  That was not a course in fingerprint identification and development of fingerprints and photographing of fingerprints; was it?
A  Part of the course was in securing the crime scene, assisting investigators in performing military police duties in relationship to homicides and accidents and other incidents.
Q  How many hours were devoted to those subjects, if you can recall?
A  I do not recall what each individual subject was, sir.
Q  It wouldn't be fair to say, Mr. Medlin, that that was part of your basic training course to become a fingerprint examiner and classifier; is that right?  It wasn't that type of course?
A  No, sir.
Q  Actually, your first formal training in fingerprint work came when you became a student of the International Academy -- what was it called?
A  Institute of Applied Science in 1955.
Q  That was the place where you learned about fingerprint technique; is that right?
A  I graduated in 1957, sir.
Q  No, I understand that.  My question was -- the Institute of Applied Science -- that was the place where you got your training, your first training in fingerprint work; is that right?
A  My first formal; yes, sir.
Q  And where did you attend classes at this Institute of Applied Science?
A  This was a correspondence course approved by the NIIC.  My work was, since I was attached to the military police detachment in Nashville, Tennessee -- I used the facilities of the Nashville City Police Department, the Davidson County Sheriff's Department, and the Georgia Highway Patrol office.
Q  Mr. Medlin, you became a mail-order fingerprint expert; isn't that right?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  You got your fingerprint training in a correspondence course; isn't that right, sir?
A  I received lesson plans through the mail.  The completion of these lesson plans would be under the direction of a qualified fingerprint examiner who was a civilian police lieutenant.
Q  You learned your basic fingerprint knowledge by a correspondence course; that means yes or no, sir.
A  No.
Q  All right.  We have heard from you the source of your basic knowledge of fingerprints.  It was not the Institute of Applied Science course.  We haev already heard from you -- have we not, Mr. Medlin -- the source of your basic knowledge of fingerprinting?
A  Yes, sir; the Institute of Applied Science.
Q  All right.  Now, let us get back to the crime scene that we are concerned about here.  Did you dust any other magazines besides the Esquire magazine?
A  We did not process them; no, sir.
Q  And whose decision was it not to process the other magazines?
A  Mine, sir.
Q  And how were you able to decide at that point that they were not worthy of an evidential investigation by you?
A  It was my opinion that the magazines had been placed in two separate stacks.  Nothing ws mentioned to me by Mr. Ivory or Mr. Shaw of any of the perpetrators taking the time to stack these two separate stacks of magazines.  Therefore, the only thing that we were interested in primarily was developing latent prints on the walls, door facings, and other items which we did.  The only reason that this magazine had become part of the evidence was because of it being first noticed -- the print or what appeared to be the print on the edge of it.  If we had noticed or if Mr. Turbyfill had not noticed that print, the only reason it would become part of the evidence would be because of someone else and not me.
Q  All right, now, is it fair to say that you are telling us that nobody thought that their theory of the case fitted an examination of any other magazine other than the Esquire; is that right?
A  That's right, sir.
Q  Sometime between 11:00 o'clock on February 17th and 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon you all had a theory that it was only worth checking out the Esquire magazine; is that right, Mr. Medlin?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

MR. ANDERSON:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Did Mr. Ivory tell you that as far as he could tell, the intruders into the MacDonald house came in through the back door at the utility room and apparently exited the same way?
A  Mr. Ivory told me that --
Q  (Interposing) Excuse me, Mr. Medlin.  I want an answer, if you don't mind, please, to my question.  Did Mr. Ivory tell you that it appeared that the intruders came in through the back door and exited the same way?
A  To the best of my memory, the answer would be yes, sir.
Q  Can you tell us whhy you didn't immediately proceed to that back door and fingerprint that as the most likely source of fingerprints of the intruders?
A  That was one of the areas that we processed, sir.
Q  My question is different, Mr. Medlin.  My question is can you tell us why you did not go immediately to that back door as the most obvious or likely source of fingerprints of the intruders?
A  Because we started at the front of the building with our briefing and thereafter we followed the chemist's suggestions of where we could operate.
Q  Is it fair to say, Mr. Medlin, because you always do it that way -- you start in the front and you work to the back and yo udon't pay attention to the facts of the crime scene?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

MR. ANDERSON:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Is that the standard operating procedure -- that you start at the front and work to the back?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  What is your answer?
A  The standard procedure is not that way, sir.
Q  Were you not concerned with the fact that since that was the back door that appeared to be a way that the intruders came in and went out and that that back door was subject to effect by the elements -- the weather -- that that perhaps should be processed first before it might be subject to some damage?
A  (Witness gestures.)
Q  What is your answer, sir?
A  The way the door was protected -- the way the inside of the house was protected from the elements -- in my opinion, the only partial or part of the house or door that can be damaged by he elements -- which the sun was shining at the time we were there -- was to move the procedure which I did.
Q  And, of course, when you dusted the back door, you found two latent prints.  That's a yes or no question, Mr. Medlin.
A  Yes.
Q  You did?
A  Yes; what appeared to be two latent prints.
Q  All right, and you thought they were good enough to try and preserve and to do further investigation with; is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Why did you -- and, of course, you had them photographed, I believe?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And that one of those photographs taken did not -- because of camera error -- come out; is that right?
A  No, sir.
Q  What happened to that photograph?
A  Because of the way that the wood and paint on the edge of the door screen, the camera will photograph the cracks in the paint, the locations of wood missing, plus an outline of a fingerprint or what appeared to be a fingerprint -- what I saw to be a fingerprint through my magnifying glass but which the camera could not pick up clearly.
Q  But with your eyes you actually saw points of identification and comparison?
A  With my magnifying glass and my eye I could pick up certain identifiable marks, yes, sir.
Q  Why did you not cut out that piece of door or take the entire door back to your laboratory at Fort Gordon to see if you could develop it properly and use it for identification in this case?
A  Any fingerprint impression is a feragile impression to begin with.  Dusting, the powder will adhere to that portion of the latent print which it will.  By sawing any part of the door out, it was my opinion that we would eliminate or quite possibly ruin theh print which I sought.
Q  Well, Mr. Medlin, you know that fingerprint powder is frequently made out of lamp black, isn't it?
A  Sometimes.  I don't know.
Q  Fingerprint powder gets all over the place when you are working, and it is hard to get off, isn't it?
A  Most of the time, yes, sir.
Q  You, in fact, wear gloves to keep yourself from getting all messed up with this fingerprint powder when you do a crime scene?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Because when you get it on your hands it is darn hard to get off?
A  All you do is wash them, sir.
Q  Sure, you rub them together with friction and soap until you get them off, right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  All I asked you is why didn't you take that door off the hinges, just knock out the two pins and take it back to Fort Gordon?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  Well, I will SUSTAIN it.  I don't know if he said the print that he found was on the door or on the door frame.  Where was it?

THE WITNESS:  It was on the edge of the door screen, sir, the -- may I illustrate, sir?

THE COURT:  Yes.

THE WITNESS:  It was on this part.

MR. SEGAL:  Why don't you turn it around, Mr. Medlin, so the members of the jury can enjoy this?

THE COURT:  Don't you have a picture of the back door?  All right, do it that way.

THE WITNESS:  The latent prints that I noticed were on the edge of the door itself, sir -- on this edge.  So that when the screen door was closed, in my opinion, it was protected from the elements.

THE COURT:  The question is, why didn't you take the door off and take it to Fort Gordon?

THE WITNESS:  Same reason, sir, becaue I thought it was too fragile and we might ruin it -- ruin the print, sir.

THE COURT:  All right.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Of course, you didn't think that fingerprints that were on cups were so fragile that you couldn't take those cups and suspend them inside of a bag and transport them carefully back to Fort Gordon.  You could do that but you couldn't take that door back, is that right?
A  No, sir.  I believe you asked me why I did not do it.
Q  Well, I want to ask you whether or not you had sufficient knowledge in 1970, to enable, to somehow manage to carry that door back to Fort Gordon without destroying fingerprints on it?
A  It is quite possible, sir.
Q  But you relied upon the photographer, is that right, to get a good picture of it?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, did you ever hear of a fingerprint camera, Mr. Medlin?
A  Several times, sir.
Q  And a fingerprint camera is a camera specially designed to guarantee, you know, perfect results every time when you take a fingerprint, because it has special design features.  Do you know what I am talking about, Mr. Medlin?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Can you describe to members of the jury what a fingerprint camera looks like so they can understand why you can't make a mistake if you use the right camera?  Can you tell us what it looks like?
A  I can describe the outside of the box, sir, which I have used.
Q  Please.  That would be helpful, Mr. Medlin.
A  This camera is a box, which is a sealed unit.  It is oblong.  It has a fixed focus lens.  It is of a one type of -- I believe they use cut film.  You put the film in it, press a button, and it takes a photograph of the latent print.
     It has a light inside which lights up the print.
Q  Yes, it also has inside this little box -- a light inside?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  This camera was designed, as a matter of fact, did you know, Mr. Medlin, so that any police investigator or any trainee could take a perfect photo every single time of a fingerprint because it's so simple to operate?
A  Describe your definition of the word "perfect," sir.
Q  Well, that it would be in focus, and would be properly illuminated so it could be used for comparison purposes, Mr. Medlin?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  All you have to be able to do, isn't it a fact, Mr. Medlin, is to be able to hold it, count to ten, and push the button?
A  Yes, sir, provided you have one, sir.
Q  Well, are you telling us that the CID laboratory, which you describe as being, you know, a good one, is not equipped with a fingerprint camera to process fingerprints at crime scenes?
A  It is at this time.
Q  And when did they acquire that?
A  After February, 1970.
Q  You mean because of all the criticism of the way the fingerprint photographs were taken in this case?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

MR. ANDERSON:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Do you know when it was acquired?
A  No, sir.
Q  Was it before you retired?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  So, sometime between February 17, and what's the date of your retirement?
A  June, 1971, sir.
Q  Now, you were aware, of course, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had some fingerprint cameras just exactly the type that we're talking about?
A  Yes.
Q  They had them in February, 1970 -- just the time when you were processing the crime scene?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you did know, you told us, Mr. Medlin, that these are very excellent cameras for doing just the kind of thing that you wanted to have done as far as these fingerprints were concerned?
A  The camera is an excellent piece of machinery for taking that which it sees, yes, sir.
Q  Is there any reason why you did not ask for the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as far as supplying you or lending you a fingerprint camera so you could get high quality photographs of fingerprints?
A  The member of the Bureau arrived at the scene.  He was a crime photographer, or a member of the photographer section of the Bureau.  He observed MR. Page at work and told Mr. Murphy that he was going to report back to his chief that the crime photographer on the scene from the crime lab appeared to know what he was doing.  He had confidence in him and his ability, and he was going to do anything that he could do to assist him, but primarily he was going out to interview people like the other agents were.
Q  Of course, that confidence was misplaced in the photographer, wasn't it?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

MR. ANDERSON:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, may we approach the bench?

THE COURT:  Well, approach.


B E N C H  C O N F E R E N C E

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, the Government is concerned.  We have been making these objections to what I think are improper comments of counsel.  The jury still hears, and we just want to express our concern, because I think counsel knows that they ought not to be made.

THE COURT:  Well, I think your last question, of course, is improper.  These are matters of argument and you ought not to argue with the witness about the thing.  If it's your purpose to show the ineptitude of the investigating authorities, I think you have a right to do that.
     But to put your own conclusions into your questions I think is improper.  That is the reason I sustained the objection.

MR. BLACKBURN:  That is all.

THE COURT:  All right.

(Bench conference terminated.)


BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  I would like to turn now to another subject, if I may.  That is the question of your testimony yesterday about the footprint that you identified and said was made by Dr. MacDonald stepping; all right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, you were asked in 1970 by the Government to state whether or not you could make an identification of that footprint, is that correct?
A  I would appreciate it if you would refresh my memory from the transcript, sir.
Q  Oh, no, not the transcript, Mr. Medlin.  You took all this evidence back to Fort Gordon that you could transport; right?
A  Are you referring to the report that was rendered, sir?
Q  I am going to get to that, yes.  You took the evidence that you could back to Fort Gordon; right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  You took the photographs that were unable [sic] also to examine at Fort Gordon?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  One of the questions that you were asked to make or give an opinion about was the footprint that was made in the blood in the MacDonald house; is that right?
A  By whom, sir?
Q  By the CID.  They asked you to see whether you could identify that print?
A  Before we returned, I believe I testified yesterday that I had made the print in the blood with the record print on Wednesday.  I believe that is the way I said it.
Q  I know, but the question I want to ask you, Mr. Medlin, is; you were asked by the CID detachment at Fort Bragg to give them information about these various fingerprints, palmprints, and footprints that you found in the house.  They asked you to identify them if you could; is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  That was the purpose of going back to your laboratory and finishing your evaluation and then telling them what you had found?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Then, finally, you did tell the CID back at Fort Bragg what your opinions were about the fingerprints, the palmprints, and the footprints; didn't you do that?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  You did that by way of a formal written report?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, that report -- do you have a copy up there, Mr. Medlin?  Do you not have a copy of your own report with you is what I am asking?
A  No, sir; not unless the U.S.  Attorney has a copy, sir.
Q  I thought I understood you to say that when anything comes up in this case, they bring you back to Fort Gordon to give them an opinion on these matters.  Did I understand that?
A  No, sir.
Q  Well, didn't you come back after 1971, when you retired for some additional matters in this MacDonald case?
A  No, sir.
Q  You did not?  All right.  You don't have a copy of your repoert is what you are telling us?
A  All of our reports were turned over to someone else.  When I retired, sir, I left everything there, sir.
Q  Let me mark a document and perhaps it will help you.

MR. SEGAL:  May the record reflect that we have had a two-page typed document marked as Defendant Exhibit 35 for identification.

(Defendant Exhibit 35 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  I ask you if you recognize this document, Mr. Medlin, and if you can tell the jury what it is?
A  This is a:
     "Unit Case Number Report Repeat Number Four which shows the Contributor as the Detachment Commander, Detachment B, 3d MP Group (CID), Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  Suspect: Unknown.  Victom: A list of the three MacDonalds deceased.  Offense: Murder."
Q  Excuse me, Mr. Medlin.  The question is: do you recognize what this report is?
A  Yes, sir; I do.
Q  Okay, this is your report --
A  (Interposing) Yes, sir; it is.
Q  -- on part of the evaluation of the fingerprints, palmprints, and footprints?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What is the date of the report, Mr. Medlin?
A  This is part of the report which -- or the statement that I made yesterday concerning the shape, outline, and size of the print on the floor compared to the record footprint of Jeffrey MacDonald.
Q  But what I am asking you is what is the date of that report, Mr. Medlin?
A  17 April, 1970.
Q  So, that was prior to the beginning of the Article 32 military proceedings; is that right?
A  I would think so; yes, sir.
Q  To whom did you address that report -- send that to?
A  To the Detachment Commander, Detachment B, 3d MP Group, sir.
Q  That would be Mr. Graebner [sic]; wouldn't it?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Will you, please -- well, I think we had better tell the jury that at that time, what was the identifying number that the bloody footprint was marked for your identification purposes back in 1970?
A  Exhibit D-215.
Q  And in paragraph 32 or section 32 or your report, did you state your opinion in regard to your ability to make an identification of that footprint?  Did you state your opinion in that paragraph?
A  Not my opinion alone, sir.
Q  Is it your opinion in that paragraph?
A  Not mine alone, sir.
Q  Other people may have concurred with you?
A  The Chief of the Fingerprint Division, Charles Hannah, also signed the report and it was his opinion, sir.
Q  Mr. Medlin, whose signature appears at the bottom of that report -- the first signature there?
A  My signature, sir.
Q  And then underneath that as approving your report, whose signature appears there?
A  The chief of the section --
Q  (Interposing) No, whose signature appears there, sir?
A  Charles Hannah.
Q  Let us read every single word at the bottom there so no one misunderstands what people were signing.  If I may follow with you, please, Mr. Medlin.
A  "The foot impressing appearing on Exhibit D-215 matches in general shape, outline, and size the record footprint of Captain J.  MacDonald; however, due to the absence of individucal ridge characteristics in the photograph taken of this exhibit, a positive identification could not be made by the examiner."
Q  And it is signed Hilyard O.  Medlin; is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And underneath that is Mr. Hannah's signature?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, you told us yesterday that the problem was that no other examiner ever saw the same things that you did; is that right?
A  That is right, sir.
Q  You thought you might have been able to show them what you saw if the photographs had turned out better; is that right?
A  They would have seen what I saw, sir.
Q  You were aware at the time that you were working on that footprint that it was going to be difficult to get a photograph; weren't you?
A  Most photographs are; yes, sir.
Q  Most photographs are what?
A  Most photographs taken udner those conditions are.
Q  You mean taken with the wrong equipment and the wrong lighting --

MR. BLACKBURN:  (Interposing) OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  All right, you did have some doubt about your ability to get a good photograph, though, didn't you, Mr. Medlin?
A  The doubts were in the photographer, sir.
Q  He told you about that; didn't he?
A  When he developed the film --
Q  (Interposing) Mr. Medlin --
A  (Interposing) Sir?
Q  Didn't he tell you about those doubts?
A  Not at that time; no, sir.
Q  Were you not present -- you told us yesterday when he took a Polaroid and he was having difficulty getting a decent lighting on the subject?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  You were perfectly aware at that time, weren't you, Mr. Medlin, that he was having difficulty getting a good, clear photo?
A  At that particular instant; yes, sir.
Q  Right.  With that information in mind, did you then write down in your notebook in detail all of the points of comarison -- ridges and other marks of identification that you saw on the floor?
A  Somehwere in my notes, I placed the three characteristics that I looked for first.
Q  Where is that?
A  What is that, sir?
Q  That note that you made.
A  I have no idea, sir.
Q  Did you show it back to the other examiners -- Mr. Hannah and the other examiners at Fort Gordon?
A  Yes, sir; I did.
Q  They told you that wasn't enough; didn't they?
A  They said, "Unless we see it ourselves, we cannot say that this is what we see."
Q  All right, let's try this then, Mr. Medlin.  When you were down there on the floor, why did you not pick up your pad and make an outline of what you saw and mark the swirls and marks so you could go back to Fort Gordon and show them something?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Why not?
A  Because I am the only one that saw it.  I can take a photograph and who you anything I want to, but unless you see it yourself, would you believe me?
Q  If you were my colleague, sir --

MR. ANDERSON:  (Interposing) OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  It is time for our morning recess.  We will come back today at 11:30.  Don't talk about the case.

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


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

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

THE COURT:  Any further questions of this witness?

(Whereupon, HILYARD O. MEDLIN, 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 (resumed)  11:31 a.m.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  We were talking just before the break, Mr. Medlin, about the problems encountered in photographing the bloody footprint; do you recall that, sir?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Why was the footprint photograph not made with the use of ortho-film which is a color blind type of film?
A  I am not a photographer, and I do not know, sir.
Q  Now, you have told us that you had been involved in work at crime scenes, having processed and having participated in the taking of photographs of fingerprints; have you not told us that?
A  I have worked with the crime photographer in processing crime scenes; yes, sir; I have.
Q  And it was your responsibility in all those matters including this case to go back to the laboratory and try and identify whose prints they were at the crime scene; was that not your responsibility?
A  The latent prints; yes, sir.
Q  Yes, and you are telling us that you have no knowledge that there is a specialized type of film that, when you look at blood, it converts it to black and white and makes all the definition of ridges and swirls very much clearer?

MR. ANDERSON:  OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS:  Inasmuch as I am not a crime photographer, this is not that much excitement to me as a latent print man because I defer all decisions concerning the use of lens, filters, film, cameras, equipment to the crime photographer assigned to the case.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Well, Mr. Medlin, you told us that you are familiar with some of the books and the literature in the field of fingerprinting; aren't you?  You told us yesterday --
A  (Interposing) I said that I had read them in my earlier training; yes, sir.
Q  That's right, and you are telling us that you never noticed underneath photographs of bloody impressions that it said "Photographed with ortho-film"?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  All right, you did take the board with the bloody footprint back to the laboratory; didn't you?
A  The chemist did; yes, sir.
Q  Was there any reason why the footprint wasn't promptly photographed back there in order to see whether anybody else could see the ridges and marks that you claim were present?
A  An attempt was made to photograph each individual plank, but the best that they cuold do was to come up with an impression.
Q  What do you mean -- "an attempt was made to photograph each individual plank"?
A  The plank is a tongue-and-groove and when they sawed the planks, they had become separated.
Q  Well, you put them back together later then for a photograph; didn't you?
A  No, sir; I did not.
Q  Did someone did [sic] that?
A  I would presume they might have, sir.
Q  Well, let me ask you if yuo have ever seen this photograph with your initials on it.  Let me show you a photograph marked D-24 for identification and ask you whether you have ever seen this photograph before, Mr. Medlin.
A  Yes, sir; I have.
Q  Where did you first see that photograph?
A  When Mr. Page, the crime photographer, gave it to me, sir.
Q  And when would that be?
A  I don't remember the exact time, sir.
Q  Would it have been in 1970?
A  Yes, sir; it was.
Q  And would that be prior to or during the Article 32 military proceeding in this case?
A  It was prior to.
Q  Prior to.  Now, would you tell us first -- let me hold the picture up if I may -- and then tell us what this picture illustrates or shows.
A  This photograph shows the print as I have given it from the standing position, looking down on the print, with a paper ruler next to it so that when the photographer printed the negative or made the print, he could make it one-to-one ratio.
Q  And this photograph was made in the laboratory at Fort Gordon; is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And it is of this footprint that you say you made a comparison with that kept in the MacDonald house with your magnifying glass?
A  The print that -- this is a photograph of the print that I made; yes, sir.
Q  So, it was possible when you took the board back to Fort Gordon, to put them together?
A  No, sir; that might have been a photograph developed by the film that was returned to Fort Gordon.  That, to my knowledge, might be an exact photograph taken at the crime scene.  I do not personally know.
Q  Were you present when the floor boards were sawed, Mr. Medlin?
A  I beg your pardon, sir.
Q  Were you present when the floor boards were sawed up?
A  No, sir; I was not physically present.
Q  Did you not leave any instructions with the people who sawed it as to be careful to perhaps nail down some kind of slats to hold these tongue-and-groove boards together; did you not give this instruction?
A  No, sir; I did not.
Q  Who was responsible for sawing up these boards -- that carried this evidence back to Fort Gordon?
A  The chemist and Mr. Ivory, to the best of my knowledge, agreed to remove the area to be reuturned to Fort Gordon.
Q  Let me ask you one last thing I want to discuss with you, Mr. Medlin.  You told us yesterday that one of the reasons you didn't press the issue of getting Kristen's fingerprints was that you thought that she was so short it wouldn't really affect the crime scene fingerprints; is that right?
A  The two-year-old baby; yes, sir.
Q  And you said, therefore, that you were taking fingerprints from a height of about 24 inches off the floor to about six feet tall; is that right?
A  About the height of my head.  I am 5' 8-1/4", sir.  In that general area.
Q  Not above that height?
A  Yes, sir; it could have been.
Q  Six feet?
A  Six feet.
Q  Were you aware that Kristen MacDonald was taller than 24 inches?
A  No, sir.
Q  Did you ask any of the CID agents that went to the autopsies, "What was the height of that child who was measured there?"
A  No, sir; I did not.
Q  If I were to tell you that the autopsy protocol says that she was 39 inches, would that indicate to you that she possibly would have been in the range to touch things?
A  Possibly, but she would have left too fine of ridges for me to compare with adult prints.
Q  You were also concerned as to whether she touched any doorknob; were you not?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  But you did not bother to have her prints attempted a second time?
A  Now, are we talking about Kimberly or Kristen?
Q  Kristen MacDonald.
A  Sir?
Q  Kristen MacDonald.
A  Kristen, the baby; right, sir.
Q  Now, I think you told us yesterday that the reason that an attempt wasn't made to get the prints after Mr. Turbyfill came back was this technical discussion about the effect of the embalming and the lifting of skin; is that right?
A  The formaldehyde -- the ink would not adhere to the fingers, palms, or footprints, because of the formaldehyde that coated the bodies; yes, sir.

MR. SEGAL:  Your Honor, one second, please.

(Pause.)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  The fact was that Mr. Turbyfill came back and told you that the reason he didn't want to try a second time was that the children looked like little angels lying there in the morgue.
A  Mr. Turbyfill called me from the mortuary and said that he was having difficulty getting rolled impressions or inked impressions from the bodies, and he asked me if we should follow normal procedure.  In order to follow normal procedure, would require legal authority.
     The normal procedure is to surgically remove either the fingers or the hands and the feet or the skin therefrom.  It was my decision, based on his remarks, knowing that he had small children, that I could not order him to do this -- remove the entire skin from the hands or the feet of the victims for two reasons: one, because of legal authority which I did not have -- actually three -- two, the surviving member of the family who could not give the authorization and was under sedation, according to what I was told -- meaning Captain MacDonald -- and three, I, myself, felt very much like the children had been mistreated enough.
Q  It was correct, then, wasn't it, Mr. Medlin, that Mr. Turbyfill was very touched by the scene when he made that remark about, "They look like little angels," wasn't he?
A  When he called me on the telephone, he said, "If you order me to do this, I will do it, but right now I'd rather not because they look like two angels laying (sic) there on the slab."
Q  Now, Mr. Medlin, you told us right before the break that this case had generated telephone calls from the White House, isn't that right?
A  I was told by a colonel that a member of the White House staff had called him wanting to know what was going on, what was happening, because of the international interest in the matter, yes, sir.
Q  After you received that information as to the extent of the interest in the Army and at the White House level, did you then bother to dust the rest of the white pot?  Did you then bother to dust the rest of the white pot, knowing the widespread interest now?

MR. ANDERSON:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  I will SUSTAIN the objection to the form of the question.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  All right, let me put it to you this way, Mr. Medlin.  Having become aware that there was interest in the case at the highest levels, did that pot cause you to rethink whether or not you should dust the entire white pot, or simply rest with the one little area that you dusted?
A  In my opinion, the white pot was not the most important part of the investigation.  In my very personal opinion, the white pot merely was incidental in the crime scene.
Q  Mr. Medlin, aren't you one of the people who suggested, seeing the white pot standing upright, that it looked like a staged crime scene because the plant was lying horizontally?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Did you not suggest that, sir?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Didn't you suggest that to the other investigators?
A  I asked how the pot could be sitting straight up, the flowers be on the side, the two stacks of magazines underneath the ege of the coffee table.  To me, it looked like someone had very carefully staged the scene.
Q  And you made that statement around what time, Mr. Medlin?
A  I don't remember, sir.
Q  It was some time between 11:00 and 3:00 or 4:00, on February 17, 1970?
A  It could have been during the briefing shortly after 11:00.
Q  Were you the first person to suggest that this must appear to be a staged crime scene, because the pot was standing upright and the plant was lying vertical (sic)?
A  I don't remember, sir.
Q  You don't recall anybody else suggesting it before you brought it up, though, right?
A  No, sir.
Q  Now, I think you told us yesterday in the afternoon around 3:30, somebody realized that the team had not eaten, is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  You said food was brought in [sic] the CID team?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you ate it some place in the MacDonald house, is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Did anybody wash their hands and clean up before they did that?
A  The small bathroom, which is a lavatory and commode, was -- which is off of the utility room -- had been previously cleared of any latent prints and was being utilized by the team as a latrine.  It included a wash basin.
     We washed our hands and ate our hamburgers and went back to work, sir.
Q  And that is also the bathroom that the members of the team used for toilet purposes, is that right?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And they flushed that toilet?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  From the time they came into the house, whenever they had to use the bathroom starting February 17?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir, unless someone wanted to go next door.  I have no idea, sir.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  You did see other members of the team using the toilet there, flushing it?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, you told us of various examinations that you have made about the floors or the walls of this house, is that right?  You told us in the last few days?
A  I might have, sir.
Q  You made one further examination of a strange substance in this case, did you not, other than walls and doors and floors?
A  Such as what, sir?
Q  Didn't you examine a pussycat in this case?
A  Yes, sir, I did.
Q  And didn't you write a report about the examination of the pussycat?

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, we would OBJECT.

THE COURT:  OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Did you make such a report, Mr. Medlin?
A  Not as a formal repoert; I don't believe, sir.  It might have been.
Q  Well, let me show yo ua three-page document and ask you whether this is your formal report?

MR. SEGAL:  May we have this marked, please?

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Mr. Medlin, let me show you what has been marked for identification as D-36, a three-page single-spaced typed document, and ask you first of all if you have ever seen this document before?
A  Yes, sir, I have.

(Defendant Exhibit No.  36 was marked for identification.)

Q  And this document -- is it not the notes prepared by you of the work you did from February 17 through February 22, 1970, at the MacDonald house?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  This is actually your day-to-day chronology of all the events that you were engaged in, in processing that crime scene, isn't it?
A  From time to time I would go back and sit down and make my notes.
Q  Things that you considered important or valuable to remember?
A  Things that I could remember at that time that I did, yes, sir.
Q  I didn't hear the rest of that answer, sir.
A  I said at times -- when I had time, I would sit down and write what I had done or what other people had done, as I remember it.
Q  But you didn't write trivial or nonsensical things in your report for your record, did you?
A  No, sir.
Q  These were things you considered important?
A  That's right, sir.
Q  Go ahead, do you want to say something?
A  Concerning the cat -- are you talking about the family cat?
Q  Let me read the section --

THE COURT:  (Interposing) He's working up to that.

THE WITNESS:  All right, sir.

THE COURT:  Tell us about the pussycat.

MR. SEGAL:  Yes, sir.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  I just wanted to ask if you recall making this memorandum here as follows, on February 17, 1970:
     "Briefed Mr. Murphy, Director of FBI, N.  C.  Division" -- North Carolina, I presume.  "Shaw briefed him from CID point.  While in kitchen noticed cat bringing -- trying to get in.  Dried contents in a dish next to water dish was noted.
     Looked in cabinet and found cat food.  Opened same and carried dishes outside.  Fed cat and gave it water.  Did not notice anything unusual about the cat.  No red stains on its fur."
     Is that your examination of the cat?
A  Yes, sir.  Yes, sir.
Q  Why were you examining the cat for red stains?
A  In the event the cat -- or animal -- cat -- had been inside the house when the murders were taking place, I thought that maybe the cat might have got some blood on its fur, not knowing too much about ats except that I get scratched every time I try to pick one up; and knowing it to be hungry, or at least thought it to be hungry, I fed the cat, and while it was eating, stroked its fur in a backward motion looking for any type of stain or discoloration that might be in the fur.
     Had I found a discoloration in the fur of that cat, Mr. Chamberlain would have been notified.
Q  To examine the cat?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Finally, Mr. Medlin, are you aware of any changes that the CID has made in its protocol or its procedures as a result of the way the crime scene in this case was processed by you and the other members of your team?

MR. BLACKBURN:  OBJECTION.

MR. ANDERSON:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.

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

MR. BLACKBURN:  We have some further questions.

THE COURT:  All right.


R E D I R E C T  E X A M I N A T I O N  11:50 a.m.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q  Mr. Medlin, let me hand you Defendant Exhibit 35 conerning the footprint.  Now, you testified on Cross-Examination that there were two signatures, sir, on the report; is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Why are there two signatures?
A  At one time, there were only two members of the Latent Fingerprint Section assigned to this crime lab.  In order for the cases to be carried out in the event one of the examiners was on leave or in another court trial, the other examiner had to have just as much knowledge about the same case so that should we be called, we could go to court and testify as to our findings.  Also, this is a procedure which is still carried forth.  One of the reasons and the main reason is that no one person looks at the report -- looks at the impressions alone and makes the report by themselves.  It is done and signed by more than one person.
Q  Now, Mr. Medlin, you have testified a gerat deal on both Direct and Cross-Examination about this footprint.  Once again, sir, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself based on your skill and experience and training as to whose footprint was found in Kristen's room that you had identified, sir?
A  The footprint which I examined and compared using the three record prints, I found belonged to Captain Jeffrey MacDonald's left foot.
Q  Mr. Medlin, just a moment ago on Cross-Examination, you were talking about Kristen's prints, and you said, I believe, in response to a question by Mr. Segal, that the ridges would be too fine on her hands; is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What do you mean by that?
A  When a person is born, the capillary ridges are fine.  As we grow older, they broaden.  They do not change their pattern.  They merely change in size.  Looking for adult latent prints or adult prints, I knew that I was not looking for a child's print of that age.
Q  Now, you testified on Direct and Cross-Examination with regard to the photography shots of the house.  When it was discovered that through camera error or whatever that some photographs did not show the prints to be totally identifiable, what, if anything, was done to rectify that situation at a subsequent time?
A  Mr. Page was returned to Fort Bragg, I believe, I testified, and re-shot the errors.
Q  With respect to the back screen door, in your opinion, sir, or do you have an opinion as to whether or not the use of a different camera or different camera equipment would have allowed you to obtain the prints in an identifiable manner from the back screen door?
A  In my opinion, even the fixed lens fingerprint camera would have photographed the latent print and the cracks, creases, and paint as it was to my knowledge.
Q  Which would have meant what?
A  It could have or it could not have photographed these latent prints any better than the camera which was used, sir.
Q  Now, when you went to Fort Bragg, did you ever have an occasion to go in and out the back screen door?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What, if anything, occurred as you did that?
A  The first time I went in the back door, the back door needed oiling.  The hinges needed oiling very badly.  I remarked to an individual about how bad the hinges squeaked and cried out for oil.  Turning around, I stepped in, being unfamiliar with that part of the house, I stepped on a vacuum cleaner which was immediately to the left of the door and almost fell flat on my -- almost fell down.  The second time was sometime later, and in conversations with Mr. Chamberlain, to the best of my memory, I Had forgotten that the vacuum cleaner had been replaced by me next to the washing machine because it was still the crime scene, and I did not want to disturb anything as much as I could.  I again stepped on it, but that time, I stepped on the side.  I caught a glimpse of it before I put my full weight down.  After that, I asked Mr. PAge if he had a photograph of that area and he said that he did.  I moved the vacuum cleaner away from the side of the door.

MR. BLACKBURN:  Your Honor, that completes our Redirect.

MR. SEGAL:  Just a couple of matters on Recross, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. SEGAL:  I would ask leave now to ask again my last question.  This witness, on Redirect, has testified about procedures still carried forth.  I now wish to ask him the same question I asked before, which is: is he aware of other procedures that the CID Lab has changed as a result of their experiences in the processing of the MacDonald house.  I think it would be appropriate to ask that now, sir, and hear the answer.

MR. BLACKBURN:  We would OBJECT.

THE COURT:  OVERRULED.


R E C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N  11:56 a.m.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q  Mr. Medlin, are you aware of the changes in protocl and procedures of the CID Laboratory in processing crime scenes that have been made as a result of the experience that you had with what they did have in the MacDonald house?
A  From my recommendations, they now have a kit -- I believe that have four of them -- that are made up with different powders and object to include a fingerprint camera.  This is what I have been told, sir, by the chief of section in answer to all of my requests that these things be done before a latent print examiner had to go to another crime scene; that a latent crime scene box or carrier be prepared for this purpose to alleviate any possibility of difficulty in the future.
Q  Are those the only changes that you are aware of that have been made in the CID protocols and procedures as a result of the experience of the MacDonald case crime scene?  Are there other changes in their procedures as a result of what they learned from this case?
A  It was my recommendation that a certain amount of money be kept in the headquarters to pay the agents so that they might eat; so that they could take care of their bills.  Also, that any case of any magnitude whatsoever -- any knowledge be given to the investigators or the latent print men or whoever from the Crime Lab so that they may take sufficient clothes with them and equipment.  We arrived at Fort Bragg with the clothes that we went to work in that morning which were civilian clothes.  After a day and a half, we looked like -- pretty bad, sir.
Q  I appreciate the personal situation you are talking about, but what I really had in mind was were there any procedural changes in the CID Lab as to how crime scenes should be preserved -- that is, instructions that were sent out as to whether people should be allowed to walk through for inspection tours or anything like that?

MR. MURTAGH:  OBJECTION.

THE COURT:  OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS:  I have no personal knowledge of these things.  Those are for higher command to decide, sir.

THE COURT:  All right.

MR. SEGAL:  Thank you.

THE COURT:  Call your next.

(Witness excused.)